Okay, thanks for showing me that you aren't just bringing up verses all willy-nilly. But you have to understand this: until an explicit event did not happen, or only this thing happened, a claim is shown. What we have here is validation in details, not a contradiction of events. Here's why I say that, a contradiction requires two claims that both can not be true in the same respect and at the same time like "Judas died by hanging only" verses "Judas actually didn't hang himself" not simply one source adding details that the other leaves out. Here’s why: a contradiction requires two claims that cannot both be true in the same respect at the same time. Like "Judas hanging himself" versus "Judas didn't actually hang himself", not simply one source adding details that the other leaves out. In historical reporting especially ancient narritive, authors routinely compress events, select details, and emphasize different aspects without exhausting every single last detail. So differences in inclusion are expected rather than disqualifying . Can you show me where one of those two texts explicitly contradicts the claim of the other text?
In historical reporting, especially ancient narrative, authors routinely compress events, select details, and emphasize different aspects without intending exhaustiveness, so differences in inclusion are expected rather than disqualifying. Unless one text directly negates the other’s claim, the most parsimonious reading is complementary testimony rather than mutual exclusion.
02:00 PM