(Original post by .eXe)
So you feel every single massacre or killing that has occurred in history has to be recorded in multiple books, or it's not real.
Is that the gist of your argument?
R. T. France argues for plausibility on the grounds, inter alia, that “the murder of a few infants in a small village [is] not on a scale to match the more spectacular assassinations recorded by Josephus”
;Schnackenburg follows this line also, and Gordon Franz points to Josephus' failure to mention other pivotal events in the first century AD, such as "the episode of the golden Roman shields in Jerusalem which was the cause of the bad blood between Herod Antipas and Pontus (sic) Pilate".
In similar vein Barclay follows Carr in finding Josephus' silence not relevant, drawing a parallel with the diarist John Evelyn's failure to mention the masscre at Glencoe.
So you see, not everything is duly recorded. It's a weakness of historical texts but not everything has to be corroborated by multiple sources to be true.