@StephenGoranson:
While I am waiting for your explanatory response to Arnaldo Momigliano's plain and simple comparison between classical scholars as "the outsiders" and biblical scholars as "the insiders" you continue to make false statements such as the following:
Will you concede that there is a significant difference between a physical, factual, artefactual source and a hypothetical source? Will you concede that this approach to the historical sources is neither a priori nor is it via selective rejection or affirmation ----- but rather via methodological considerations?
While I am waiting for your explanatory response to Arnaldo Momigliano's plain and simple comparison between classical scholars as "the outsiders" and biblical scholars as "the insiders" you continue to make false statements such as the following:
This is completely false. I have on many occasions outlined a consistent methodology such as the following and to which you do not reply or respond.This resembles mountainman, among others, selectively rejecting or affirming sources to "confirm" an a priori aim.
In direct contrast what we do not have is this same type of factual / physical evidence from the 4th century for the literature of the Fathers and Christian history. We don't have physical/artefactual manuscripts for this. The earliest manuscripts are many centuries removed from the 4th century. Thus, with respect to whatever went down in the 4th century these narratives / manuscripts from the fathers are plainly hypothetical sources in contrast to factual / physical sources (of the canonical and apocryphal codices and such fragments from the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus)My "announced methodology" is to separately identify and separately examine that which is the factual evidence from the 4th century in contrast to that evidence which is, for one reason or another, hypothetical. I have pointed out we have factual (primary) evidence from the 4th century of the NT canonical literature (if their dating is correct by mainstream theory) in the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. We also have a ton now of (comparatively recent) 4th century factual evidence for the NT apocryphal literature (such as the NHL, Tchacos, et al).
Will you concede that there is a significant difference between a physical, factual, artefactual source and a hypothetical source? Will you concede that this approach to the historical sources is neither a priori nor is it via selective rejection or affirmation ----- but rather via methodological considerations?
Statistics: Posted by Leucius Charinus — Wed Jun 12, 2024 9:27 pm