Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Junior
Perhaps they are 'parroting' it because it is the factual information........have you thought of that?

I have information in textbooks, and not on websites that I am researching.

Have you checked out a reference in Josephus' Antiquities, Tacitus' Annals, or Thallus' Histories, with references to the historic crucifixion and resurrection? Or Tolidoth Jesu's assertion that the disciples stole and hid Jesus' body?

Since for some reason you assume that Christians are not reliable sources, you should be interested in these four non-Christian historic sources.

564 posted on 01/27/2005 6:56:35 PM PST by ohioWfan (Have you PRAYED for your President today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies ]


To: Junior

Here you go, Junior. Start at 564.....


584 posted on 02/15/2005 1:15:09 PM PST by ohioWfan (George W. Bush........AVENGER of the BONES!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies ]

To: ohioWfan
Have you checked out a reference in Josephus' Antiquities, Tacitus' Annals, or Thallus' Histories, with references to the historic crucifixion and resurrection?

Josephus apparently doesn't even get Scripture right in Antiquities:

The Jewish Antiquities, (written c. 94 in Greek) is a history of the Jews from the Creation to the outbreak of the war in the late 60s. There is an autobiographical appendix defending Josephus' own conduct at the end of the war when he cooperated with the Roman forces of Vespasian and Titus Flavius. His account, while parallel to the Old Testament, is not identical to it. There has been speculation that the differences are due to Josephus' access to ancient texts (perhaps going back to Nehemiah) which survived the destruction of the Temple. Since Josephus was close to the Roman leaders, he may have received permission to recover and retain some or all of those texts, as he indicates. On the other hand, credible arguments have been made that the Dead Sea scrolls are partially or entirely sacred scrolls from the Temple of Jerusalem hidden in various sites around the Dead Sea to protect them against possible destruction by the Romans. The two possibilities are not completely mutually exclusive, so both may be (partially) true.

And, as he was born after the death of Christ (~37) so anything he wrote on the matter would be considered second hand.

As for Tacitus:

Tacitus is considered the most reliable scholar of his time. He had access to Roman archives, and his only mistakes arose from occasional reliance on secondary sources. In this case he could have been using either Christian sources or Roman archives. It is argued that if he had been using Roman archives, he should have identified Pontius Pilate as a "prefect" rather than a "procurator," but that is disputable. The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than "Christus." Although Tacitus was Roman rather than Jewish and might have believed that was part of the name, it is extremely unlikely he would have selected it alone from the archives. In addition, Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no Roman documents related to a historical Jesus.

Regarding the reliability of Tacitus, the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions "the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of the Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv)." [1] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm)

We have a bit more of a problem with Thallus.  He may have been dead for quite some time (read: two centuries) before Christ, and his single reference to the darkening of the sky at the crucifixion may have been added after the fact:


585 posted on 02/15/2005 1:36:25 PM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson