Why One But Not The Other?

From Alt.Bible.Errancy discussion list, 6-2-98:

TILL

Bill, I'd like to see your reaction to this. On my Errancy list, 

I have tried to get biblicists to explain why they don't accept 

such miraculous claims as those that the Roman historians 

Tacitus and Suetonius made but do accept very similar claims 

that are made in the NT. Some are trying to defend that old 

inerrantist legend that Sir William Ramsay was a biblical 

skeptic until he studied the writings of Luke and found him 

to be a first-rate historian. Their argument is that if Luke 

was accurate in reporting ordinary information like the 

names of people and places known to have existed, 

topographical information, social customs, etc., then that 

is sufficient to believe that he was also accurate in reporting 

extraordinary events, even though none of them has ever 

been independently corroborated. I have cited the examples 

of Tacitus and Suetonius, who both claimed that the emperor 

Vespasian healed a blind man by putting saliva on his eyes 

and a man with a crippled arm by just touching him, both 

of which fabulous claims are very similar to miracles that 

the NT attributed to Jesus. Since Tacitus and Suetonius 

were obviously accurate in much of the ordinary information 

they reported, such as the names of Roman leaders, battles 

that were fought, and such like, why would not the same 

logic that biblicists apply to Luke also apply to Tacitus 

and Suetonius? They both claimed that the miracles 

that Vespasian performed were witnessed by many 

people, and Tacitus said that the men had been sent 

to Vespasian by the god Serapis. I have asked biblicists 

to address this matter, and the only one who has is 

tiptoeing through the tulips but not really explaining 

why he is willing to trust Luke but not Tacitus and 

Suetonius. Maybe Bill S won't mind addressing this 

problem.

Farrell Till