Quote:
Originally Posted by leewong
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
"You seem not to grasp the fact that josephuscare two of the most highly regarded historians."
Josephus is HIGHLY debated. He wasnt accurate and in some cases he even contradicts himself. Historians read him with a huge grain of salt.
Tacitus's book The Annals, where he talks about Jesus, are based in part on secondary sources which is why the accuracy is debated/questioned.
"Shall we expunge the wars of the Jews from the history books because they occurred before Josephus' birth?"
Speaking of Jews. Why isnt there a single shred of evidence that they were in Egypt ever?
"Tacitus wrote about the history of Augustus. Childish drivel, not to be trusted?"
No one is calling it childish drivel in the historical community. What they do question are some of his secondary sources. Also, need I remind you that Tacitus was a politician. He was a great historian but he was also a politician.
"Historians of such high caliber would not risk their reputation on giving false testing of someone they had no concern for."
A politician would. Also, secondary sources and Joseph wasnt accurate or considered high caliber.
"That's why I believe Neil Degrass Tyson or Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawkings when they talk about how the cosmos was created, because they were there you know."
Anyone can conduct the experiments and uncover the laws of physics...loosely speaking. You can verify their claims like the universe is expanding or cosmic background radiation. That is a the difference.
|
Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore proof-read) his work.
Josephus is seen as a writer of his time period should be. He used the literary style of his time that was acceptable in the historiagraphic field.
This included conjectures and omissions. And a non linear but thematic timeline, which can lead to the conclusion that he is being inaccurate within the timeline. However this is an acceptable style in the vien oh Thucydides.
Standing on his own merit it may be hard to accept Josephus claim about Christ as historic, but as it is in harmony with Tacitus an esteemed historian then it is an acceptable piece of historical evidence.
Yes I have no problem with scientific experiments, in fact I find them fascinating.
But the aforementioned scientists also offer much speculation and conjecture themselves.
Yet they are not doubted as being authentic.