Name:hbic3 •
Title: Has any one noticed? •
Date posted: 03/10/07 16:53
Q: If you read the articles, like the one on the second burial, there are no sources cited. How is anyone to accept the credibility of these articles if no sources are cited. These guys are journalists and archeologist, they have to KNOW that sources are essential to having your work accepted and validated.
Am I the only who has notice that?
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/10/07 18:22
A: The info on second burial isn't a big issue there, since that fact would be considered "general knowledge," at least with those who know the era. However, there are several issues (such as why they took Mara as a reference to the master rather than as a contraction of Martha) that is disturbing.
Name:hbic3 •
Date: 03/10/07 18:41
A: I'm not so sure that second burial is general knowledge. It might be for Jewish people and/or Jewish historians, but that leaves a lot of other people out that general knowledge loop.
I'm a skeptic, I need to know where some one got their information from and where they got their information from, and where they got their information from, and where they...so on and so forth... I love to see primary sources. As hard as they are to find when it comes to Biblical research, I love it when someone can cite one. I know the Bible is technically a primary source, but for me, I like to see corroborating sources too.
Since I am not a Biblical historian by profession, I want to know what you know that I don't, and I want to know how you know it.
Without identified sources, I can't verify what someone has written for myself, therefore, I can't be sure if they just made it up or not.
I think most of the people who are the most interested in this aren't Biblical historians and aren't familiar with the era, so all the more reason for them to support their findings with sources. That they don't, makes me very suspicious.
On your point about Mara... How would "Mary the Martha" make sense though. That is probably why they decided it meant master.
