Flying Squid@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 6 months agoMTG Cites Antisemitic Fable Jews ‘Handed Over’ Jesus To Be Killedtalkingpointsmemo.comexternal-linkmessage-square78fedilinkarrow-up138arrow-down16file-text
arrow-up132arrow-down1external-linkMTG Cites Antisemitic Fable Jews ‘Handed Over’ Jesus To Be Killedtalkingpointsmemo.comFlying Squid@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 6 months agomessage-square78fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarefunkless_eck@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up0·6 months agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
minus-squareAniki 🌱🌿@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·edit-26 months ago However, Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. There are several hypotheses as to what sources he may have used.
minus-squarefunkless_eck@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up0arrow-down1·6 months agobuddy, if scholars past and present piled opprobrium on Voltaire for doubting it’s authenticity, what hope do you have? Not only does this link and the other link youve been given provide many historical sources and discussions, but they also then lead to other sources. The burden of proof lies with you invalidating hundreds of sources over thousands of years. Don’t act like I’m the one with a crackpot theory. Let’s compare like for like - what link with a reasonable amount of scholastic cachet can you provide to back up your theory?
minus-squareprettybunnys@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1·6 months agoIt’s not a crackpot theory it’s just one that doesn’t hold up to the smell test. A man mentions tangentially three things and history decides that’s enough corroboration. He wasn’t alive at the time, he doesn’t mention what his source is and he is writing about something else.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
buddy, if scholars past and present piled opprobrium on Voltaire for doubting it’s authenticity, what hope do you have?
Not only does this link and the other link youve been given provide many historical sources and discussions, but they also then lead to other sources.
The burden of proof lies with you invalidating hundreds of sources over thousands of years. Don’t act like I’m the one with a crackpot theory.
Let’s compare like for like - what link with a reasonable amount of scholastic cachet can you provide to back up your theory?
It’s not a crackpot theory it’s just one that doesn’t hold up to the smell test.
A man mentions tangentially three things and history decides that’s enough corroboration.
He wasn’t alive at the time, he doesn’t mention what his source is and he is writing about something else.