OK I can accept that. Let's find some common ground here by discussing the difference between factual sources and hypothetical sources. This issue is depicted in a schematic at the front of my recent essay. At p.6 I write this:LC:
"In contrast the biblical historical methodology (which you talk about) approaches the definition of "primary sources" differently due to the authority attributed to certain texts, such as the biblical scriptures and particularly the autographs."
Actually, I don't think I talk that way.
Archaeological (“Factual”) Data vs Hypothetical Data
One of the core principles of source criticism for determining reliability is that:
The earliest extant manuscript is a physical relic. It is more credible than a hypothetical earlier copy or original. On the opening page there is a schematic contrasting the value of factual data and hypothetical data. The factual or archaeological data related to any given text or manuscript is represented in the earliest extant manuscript of that text. The hypothetical data related to the existence of earlier copies and/or originals is separate. Earlier manuscripts may or may not have existed. They have a hypothetical existence not a factual existence.
One of the core principles of source criticism for determining reliability is that:
- “Relics are more credible sources than narratives.”
The earliest extant manuscript is a physical relic. It is more credible than a hypothetical earlier copy or original. On the opening page there is a schematic contrasting the value of factual data and hypothetical data. The factual or archaeological data related to any given text or manuscript is represented in the earliest extant manuscript of that text. The hypothetical data related to the existence of earlier copies and/or originals is separate. Earlier manuscripts may or may not have existed. They have a hypothetical existence not a factual existence.
Hopefully you can agree with this position as a starting place.
Statistics: Posted by Leucius Charinus — Fri Jun 07, 2024 9:22 pm