quote:
Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[56] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[57] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[23] Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."[58]
Seems there is disagreement amoung scholars about it's relevance.
Uh. ... no.. THere weren't 6 eye witnesses who wrote the Gospels. The Oldest of the Gospels, Mark, according to tradition, was written by a disciple of Peter after Peter died (In around 64 c.e.) Matthew and Luke copied him. John is of a different tradition all together, and later written.
Matthew and Luke wouldn't have had to copy Mark if they were eye witnesses.
THere might have been. However, the evidence external to the bible is very suspect. There has been a lot of manipulatin, and lies about it, and most of it comes from the second century or later.. with Josephus being very corrupted by modification, and therefore unreliable.
They are?? Wow.. That must mean you believe in dead people walking around, and all that sort of stuff.
As for Luke, he admits he is writing down stories from people who came before. There is some evidence that he used Antiquities for a historical source, so that means he was probably written in the early part of the 2nd century.. not very reliable , now is that?