> 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.
Maybe. But whatever the reason, the Bible is better authenticated.
And since there are no "dozens" of witnesses,
Sure there are according to the Gospels. And again, unlike Commentaries, the New Testament is compiled from a variety of sources.
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.
How would you prove a miracle? We have a group of quasi-literate, working class types revolutionizing the world despite active opposition by every earthly power in the world, and without scintilla of expectation of earthly gain, in fact with the expectation of torment and persecution. And most amazingly they were successful. Would you call that a miracle? No.
How about in 1917, 75,000 people gathered to witness a miracle. They witnessed a miracle. Here's the newspaper report Still, people can and do reason it away.
There are, after all, contemporary accounts of Muhammad pulling off mircales
Again a claim of a miracle does not mean a miracle. Muhammad was never the subject of skeptical inquiry. Those who did were killed. Christianity was the subject of skepticism from the get-go. Mocking Christ on the road to Golgatha, putting guards on the tomb etc.