Posted: Feb 27, 2010 10:11 am
by TimONeill
Monkey's Nephew wrote:
TimONeill wrote:Sorry, but if historians were so insanely hyper-sceptical that they instantly doubted any reference to anyone in any historical source on no rational basis whatsoever, the whole field of history would have to pack up, go home and all historians would now be flipping burgers.

Well, that's nice, but I'm pretty sure nobody suggested that.

Sorry, but you seemed to be suggesting precisely that. Or were you saying that this level of unwarranted level of hyperscepticism should only be applied to Jesus for some weird, biased reason?

The idea that we have to reject any reference to anyone , without any reason to do so, simply because it can be called "hearsay" is absurd.

That's also nice, but again, that wasn't suggested.

Yes, actually, it was. By you. Please explain.

Sorry, but 99.99% of pre-modern history is based on what you call "hearsay". So unless you have good evidence that it can't be accepted, it is.

... provisionally.

Quite. And that's enough unless we have reason to believe it can't be accepted. Do you have that for the First Century preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants I mentioned or don't you?