But when writing of Caesar's feats in Gaul, they based it on what Caesar claimed.
Further, while nobody argues the existance of Caesar or claims that Commentaries is not valuable history, the Bible is far, far more authenticated. We have thousands of fragments from New Testament dating to early 2nd Century, 50 years after it was written. The oldest copy of Commentaries comes from 900 AD, a thousand years after it was written.
1) "I drove to work today."
2) "I teleported to work today."
Both could be wrong. One could easily be right. Why assume equal validity?
That's the point, you don't. You assume he drove, until you have dozens of witnesses come forth to say he said he was going to teleport to work today, and we were watching him eat his breakfast at 8:59 and then bing, he was gone and his car's still in the driveway. Then dozens of other witnesses come forth and say we were wondering why he hadn't checked in then bing we saw him at his desk at 9 a.m.
It should make you go hmmmm.
> The oldest copy of Commentaries comes from 900 AD, a thousand years after it was written.
I suspect that few people ever thought of the Commentaries as a Holy Relic/Text. Thus, if a copy got too ratty, preserving it would nto be a sacred duty. As well, there was little prosylotizing for J. Caesar, so fewer copies to begin with. Further, his culture/religion *lost.*
On the other hand, statues and coins bearing Caesars image made in life survive in considerable abundance.
>> 1) "I drove to work today."
>> 2) "I teleported to work today."
>> Both could be wrong. One could easily be right. Why assume equal validity?
> That's the point, you don't. You assume he drove, until you have dozens of witnesses come forth to say he said he was going to teleport to work today, and we were watching him eat his breakfast at 8:59 and then bing, he was gone and his car's still in the driveway. Then dozens of other witnesses come forth and say we were wondering why he hadn't checked in then bing we saw him at his desk at 9 a.m.
Exactly so. And since there are no "dozens" of witnesses, certainly no reliable ones to *any* reported miracles, then reports of miracles can be safely and reasonably set aside until such point as those claiming miracles can prove them. There are, after all, contemporary accounts of Muhammad pulling off mircales (splitting the moon in two, frex), and I think most hereabouts would discount such reports... and they'd be right to do so.