Nomad,

Polycarp listed 9 sources he claimed contained "specific references" to Jesus. The mid and late second-century sources are too late, the Jesus train had already left the gate by then.

Tacitus is an arguable reference. You will note that I took no position on the passage's implications for the various apologist positions. My position is that same as in other threads where we have already discussed this a thousand times; there is no evidence telling us from where Tacitus got his information. If he got it from Christians, then it is not an independent reference. I do not base my argument on its contents, only on its existence. It would be much more convincing if it gave us additional details that were part of the Christian legend, but of course it does not.

Serapion and Suetonius are not specific references to Jesus as Polycarp claimed; a simple glance at the passages will affirm that.

As for "poisoning the well" as far as ancient sources are concerned, the Christians have done that themselves with a long string of forgeries, destruction of pagan and holy sites, assimilation of local legends into Christianity, and so forth. They needed no help from me.

Michael

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm: Please, there is no specific reference to Jesus in Mara Bar Serapion. None. Zero. Nil. If there was, you would simply cite it and shut me up instantly, instead of complaining about what the "majority of historians" (you have polled them?) say. Since you don't, and cannot.....and since you have read Serapion and know perfectly well it contains no reference to Jesus, just to a "teacher of righteousness" who may or may not be Jesus, you are either unable to read, or lying. What choice should I make?

The Mara Bar Serapion reference is most likely to Jesus. It refers to a Jew. It refers to someone known as a king. It also connects the death of the king with the end of Israel as a nation which is exactly how the first and second century Christians viewed Jesus. The king also “laid down new laws” which allowed the legacy of the king to live on. This is exactly how Jesus was viewed. All of these pieces of information fit Jesus better than anyone else. You haven’t provided a single person with whom these pieces fit better than Jesus.


If you’d go up the list in this thread and read my post dated April 19th, 3:31PM and then kindly answer my simple question that would be appreciated. The previous time in which you did not respond to me was in reference to the thread on Paul’s persecution of Christians. Oh.. and the other (third) time was when you complimented me on my reasonableness when you thought I was posting at another board but it wasn't actually me. I'm feeling so rejected by you...

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You are damn right I am not going to be "civil." What you did was just plain dishonest. I know you apologists get accused of lying all the time. Can you see why? When you post claims that you KNOW are untrue -- at best you can summon a "majority of scholars" which would include committed Christian scholars making up its bulk -- you are going to get accused of lying, Polycarp. Each of those "specific references" is an unclear, disputed reference which has been dissected time and again on this list. Pliny got his information from Christians he tortured. Suetonius DOES NOT refer to Jesus, he refers to "Chrestus" who spurs the Jews to make trouble in Rome. Chrestus is a common Roman name, and thus there is again NO reference to Jesus here (there's a shock). I am not going to get bogged down in debate about Josephus. But 1st and 2nd century non-Christian sources on Jesus are thin indeed.

I haven’t lied. When someone says “Christ” or “Christians” or refers to them in another manner it counts as a reference. I never claimed that the writers didn’t get their information from Christians. You’re attacking a straw man in that regard. If you’d studied the topic of “Chrestus” at all, then you’d know that “Chrestus” was commonly mistaken for “Christus”. Christians even made the mistake. While Chrestus was a common Greek name there is no record of Jews ever having the name. Of the hundreds of Jewish names found in the catacombs of Rome there is no reference to a “Chrestus”. Again, if you’d ever read the other side of the debate you’d know this stuff. It refers to internal fighting among Jews in Rome due to “Chrestus”. We know Christians were in Rome at the time and we know some were expelled based on the information in Acts. We certainly don’t know all of the details surrounding the expulsion, but the fact remains that the person to whom Suetonius refers is most likely Jesus.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Hmmm...you mean the government records from the Tang and Song referring to artificial gold in the Imperial treasury? You mean the Daoist writers from 350 on who claimed to have made gold, especially in works from their hands printed after the 9th century? You're now swimming in waters whose depth you have no idea of. Before you get engaged in this debate, I recommend you review Needham's work, the references are in the article. You should read books 2,3,4, and 5 on alchemy, as well as book 1 on printing, of Volume 5. The Web is not going to be enough here, because there is very little out there. You should also try and locate a copy of Nathan Sivin's book Chinese alchemy: Preliminary Studies. Go right ahead. Do you honestly think I covered all the sources in one small paper?

Well, I would have expected you to reference the best sources in your paper. If you have better sources, then why didn’t you mention them in your paper?

Good job sidestepping this one… The fact remains that most of your sources were 400-1000 years old and you accepted them uncritically. You practice a double standard. The earliest texts of most of your sources were the same age. Don’t you realize how much tampering could have occurred in that span? The water may be deep here but you’re the one who doesn’t know how to swim. I’ll read your books on Chinese history as soon as you demonstrate more than a beginner’s knowledge of Christian history. After all, I thought we were at a discussion board called “Biblical Criticism and Archaeology”. If I ever show up at a board called “Chinese history”, then you can claim to know what you’re talking about. Until then, you continue to demonstrate ignorance on a lot of issues related to early Christianity.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Yes, but we're not discussing the reliability of the sources, we're discussing the reliability of YOUR INTERPRETATION of plain-language writing. Suetonius is a generally reliable source. When he writes "Chrestus" he is being reliable. However, when you see "Christ" in a common Roman name, you are making impermissable interpretations. When Serapion says "Teacher of Righteousness" his reliability is not in doubt. When you say this is a specific reference to Jesus, your reliability is instantly in doubt. When you quote Marcus Aurelius, who died in 180, as a reference to Jesus, long after Christianity got rolling, you're going to get in trouble.

First, I never claimed the references were only to Jesus. If you’ll go back up and read my post dated April 21st, 10:49PM you’ll see that I clearly differentiated between references to Jesus and those to Christians. I said:

“These are the ones I came up with off the top of my head, but I could probably come up with more if you'd like:
Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, Talmud, Marcus Aurelius.
That's 9 sources. All of them except Marcus Aurelius specifically refer to Jesus. Your claim that only one of them does is simply false.”

I’ve addressed your objections to Serapion and Suetonius a little earlier in this post. Please reply to my objections and tell me why you don’t think they refer to Jesus. Don’t just throw links at me. Try thinking and arguing for yourself.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You're not in a position to talk about historical honesty in writing, Polycarp. You blew it with this post. What you should have said was that many of the references you posted were hotly disputed and then stated your beliefs. No one could have argued. But you didn't bother to, did you?

Thank you for such sage advice. I suppose since some people believe we never landed on the moon I should probably also say “Since the moon landing is hotly disputed I won’t claim it actually occurred, but here’s what I think happened.” Come on, Michael. You can find people who believe anything. These references (Suetonius and Mara bar Serapion) are only disputed by a very small segment of the scholarly community. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe Mara bar Serapion and Suetonius refer to Jesus. I haven’t just read one or two articles on this topic. I’ve read at least 10 articles and/or books discussing each of these citations, and they haven’t all been from the “pro” side.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether or not Serapion or Suetonius referred to Jesus. What does it really matter? This is why I asked you a few days ago whether you still believe that Jesus probably existed. I thought you told me that you did. If so, then we're both wasting our time with this discussion.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> That's why I am so peeved at you! I had always perceived you as an honest and fair-minded person. And then you post Serapion et al as if there were no dispute about them.

I’m truly am sorry to have disappointed you, Michael (and I’m not being sarcastic). The fact remains that Serapion most likely referred to Jesus. You haven’t presented any evidence for a more likely candidate. The fact also remains that Suetonius most likely referred to Jesus. Again, you haven’t presented a more plausible scenario. The fact also remains that you treat Chinese sources in a completely different fashion than you treat Christian ones. I don’t know how you can be blind to this.

Peace,

Polycarp






[This message has been edited by Polycarp (edited April 23, 2001).]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DougI: Well that about sums up your evidence for the existence of Nazareth. Thanks for playing but since you didn't place any chips on the table looks like your hand is finished. No need for me to waste my time listenin to your complaints and absolute failure to present any evidence. Guess you'll need to look for a god that actually exists.

Doug,

You have my vote for "Worst Debater at the Sec Web". Congratulations on your accomplishment. You've managed to completely avoid addressing your opponent's arguments while simultaneously leaving yours undefended.

How do you get all the sand out of your ears after having your head buried in the sand for so long? You've proven to have more faith than the most stringent fundies.

Somebody give Doug a clue or at least lend him one for the day...

Peace,

Polycarp

Originally posted by Polycarp:
[b] I’m truly am sorry to have disappointed you, Michael (and I’m not being sarcastic). The fact remains that Serapion most likely referred to Jesus. You haven’t presented any evidence for a more likely candidate. The fact also remains that Suetonius most likely referred to Jesus. Again, you haven’t presented a more plausible scenario.

I don't need to present a more plausible scenario. All your claims about the 'wise king' being Jesus are based on your particular interpretation of that passage. There is no "specific reference' there. We both know that. You are the one making the claims. You have to present evidence. See below....

• Serapion was written after AD 73.
• we do not know if the events the writer is referring to actually occurred; we know he miscontrues other history. The implication is that he has no idea what he is talking about, just relating myths and legends.
• Jesus was never a king.
• we do not know whether he is citing a fact he knows, or a legend he has heard.

In short, we know nothing. Where is the specific reference to Jesus? It isn't there. But there's more:

It refers to someone known as a king. It also connects the death of the king with the end of Israel as a nation which is exactly how the first and second century Christians viewed Jesus. The king also “laid down new
laws” which allowed the legacy of the king to live on. This is exactly how Jesus was viewed.

I cannot find a complete text of SERAPION on the web anywhere. Do you know of one? The excerpt that is generally quoted is the one in the article I referenced above:

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague
came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given (quoted by F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Eerdmans Publishing Co., Fifth Revised Edition, p. 114).

As you can see, it contains no reference to the wise king "laying down new laws." So that cannot be used to argue your case. Since I do not have the whole text in front of me, I reserve judgement on whether the "laying down new laws" is actually in the letter. But the most commonly-used excerpt definitely does not have it.

Suetonius, writing in 120, I have already discussed. It is not a "fact" that "Chrestus=Christ," it was a correct Roman form of an actual Greek name (if you can show that Suetonius routinely screwed up Greek names....). The grammar seems to indicate the Chrestus was physically present in Rome (my understanding). I do not know why you label this as a "fact," for it clearly is not. It is certainly not "most likely." Your own double standard shows: for you argue that the passage is reliable, Suetonius is reliable, but he made a mistake in the name. In other words, his reliability is flexible in whatever direction you need it to be.

The fact also remains that you treat Chinese sources in a completely different fashion than you treat Christian ones. I don’t know how you can be blind to this.

Peace,

Polycarp

On this we will have to disagree.

BTW, the Lucian of Samosata remark, which merely describes Christian beliefs, dates from 170. It is evidence about Christians and their beliefs, or rather perceptions of their beliefs, but its usefulness as a reference to Jesus earthly existence is laughable.

This is the passage I have found on several websites:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

As you can see, it is worthless as a reference to Jesus, though it seems to contain a pretty good pocket description of Christianity in the period. I have not read the whole document in which it appears, so I cannot say if there is another reference in there, but it is obvious that it occurs far too late to be a reliable indicator of Jesus' earthly existence. Ditto with Celsus, and Marcus Aurelius. Pliny also simply refers to Christians and asks the Emperor what to do about them; he says he got his info from interrogating and torturing them (for the "excessive superstition" of eating a common meal and swearing to be good!!). He is a good source for what early Christians believed but cannot be used as a reference for Jesus. He is writing about 112.

The whole letter is here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html

As for Josephus, the discussion in the historicity of Jesus fact seems OK to me. The FAQ is here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/hojfaq.html

So what is left, Polycarp? Out of the sources you posted, which are worth anything as "specific references" to Jesus?

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 23, 2001).]

Why is this important? I'm going to restart the thread on Julius Caesar's assassination I think, just to help make this point more clearly, but why, specifically, is a 100 year old reference unacceptable when making an historical inquiry about an event in a person's life?

Could you please just answer my questions? We already know that Tacitus had access to the Imperial Library and archives. This is where he got his material for much of his history on other subjects.

So, if Jesus really was condemned by Pilate, how exactly would Tacitus be able to tell us this without sceptics calling it a Christian invention?

Finally, since the text is extremely clear that Tacitus really didn't have a clue about Christian practices and beliefs, why should we believe that he got his information from Christians? I do think it is important to look at the quotation itself and try to decifer how Christians might have tampered with it.

Your casual dismissal of "Chrestus" is unwarrented, and once again begs the question. But on these points I will let Polycarp defend himself.

Making a study of Christ and Christianity impossible in your view I suppose. How convenient.

Since I have no ability to change your mind on this subject, and you are clearly very determined to reject our sources, then all I can say is thank you for the discussion. It has been enlightening in telling me how you think.

Be well,

Nomad

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm: I don't need to present a more plausible scenario. All your claims about the 'wise king' being Jesus are based on your particular interpretation of that passage. There is no "specific reference' there. We both know that. You are the one making the claims. You have to present evidence.

I did present evidence. You chose to ignore it and then refused to present a more plausible candidate. Do you seriously think this somehow makes you correct by default? If you don’t think the person is Jesus than you do “need to present a more plausible scenario”. Christians did refer to Jesus as a king. If Mara bar Serapion even had a cursory knowledge of Christianity, he would know that Jesus was referred to in this manner. I’ll present the same evidence I did in my last post. Here’s what I said:

“The Mara Bar Serapion reference is most likely to Jesus. It refers to a Jew. It refers to someone known as a king. It also connects the death of the king with the end of Israel as a nation which is exactly how the first and second century Christians viewed Jesus. The king also “laid down new laws” which allowed the legacy of the king to live on. This is exactly how Jesus was viewed. All of these pieces of information fit Jesus better than anyone else. You haven’t provided a single person with whom these pieces fit better than Jesus.”

These pieces of information fit Jesus better than any other candidate. If you have a better candidate, then say so. Otherwise we’re left to think that you are solely relying on “special pleading” to make your case. Is it POSSIBLE this refers to someone other than Jesus? Of course it is… But the best candidate is Jesus. My point remains valid until you (or someone else) presents a more plausible candidate.

Michael, you know dang well that debates aren't won by solely by casting doubts on your opponent's arguments. You have to present a more plausible argument than your opponent. You have not done so in either the case of Suetonius or Mara Bar Serapion. If you want to impugn my integrity, then at least have the decency to fight fair and give a more convincing candidate (Jesus) than I've proposed for these two references.

Peace,

Polycarp

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Polycarp:

“The Mara Bar Serapion reference is most likely to Jesus. It refers to a Jew. It refers to someone known as a king. It also connects the death of the king with the end of Israel as a nation which is exactly how the first and second century Christians viewed Jesus. The king also “laid down new laws” which allowed the legacy of the king to live on. This is exactly how Jesus was viewed. All of these pieces of information fit Jesus better than anyone else. You haven’t provided a single person with whom these pieces fit better than Jesus.”

Actually, you responded while I was editing above. I think you had better re-read and then respond again. We just cross-posted.

These pieces of information fit Jesus better than any other candidate. If you have a better candidate, then say so. Otherwise we’re left to think that you are solely relying on “special pleading” to make your case. Is it POSSIBLE this refers to someone other than Jesus? Of course it is… But the best candidate is Jesus. My point remains valid until you (or someone else) presents a more plausible candidate.

As we just saw, your "evidence" just fell to pieces. I have no candidate who fits that <shrug>. I don't need one. I am not making positive claims here. And neither do you have a candidate (one may not even exist, outside of Serapion's obviously deluded historical imagination).

Michael, you know dang well that debates aren't won by solely by casting doubts on your opponent's arguments. You have to present a more plausible argument than your opponent. You have not done so in either the case of Suetonius or Mara Bar Serapion. If you want to impugn my integrity, then at least have the decency to fight fair and give a more convincing candidate (Jesus) than I've proposed for these two references.

Polycarp, you know darn well that the only way you can make "Chrestus" into "Christ" is to claim Suetonius miswrote. Do you have any evidence that he garbled up the name? No. Is there a credible alternative? Yes, he wrote a correct name! Somebody named Chrestus was causing trouble among the Jews in Rome. If there were no Christians today, nobody would be claiming that Suetonius had garbled up the name. The only reason to garble up the name is to shoehorn it onto Jesus.

Imagine if we could play that game with any ancient historian, at any time. Whenever we needed a name to support a theory, we can claim on no evidence that he simply garbled it up!

Unless you can present some kind of evidence that shows Suetonius garbled up the name...but you can't, can you?

Michael

Why is this important? I'm going to restart the thread on Julius Caesar's assassination I think, just to help make this point more clearly, but why, specifically, is a 100 year old reference unacceptable when making an historical inquiry about an event in a person's life?

Must be that remedial reading thing we've noticed from so many other threads you participate in. As I clearly stated, the issue is not the passage of time. The issue is not the reliability of the author. The issue is the RELIABILITY OF THE INTERPRETATION of these passages Christian apologists present. Don't deliberately confuse the issue with non-points.

You will note that I have posted the passage from Lucian of Samosata. Please explain how it has any historical value other than as testimony to the fact of the existence of Christians and their beliefs in the second century AD, about AD 170 or so (which nobody argues with). Polycarp presented it as a "specific reference" to Jesus. Ditto for Pliny. Ditto for Marcus Aurelius. Ditto for Celsus. Ditto for Tacitus. I have not questioned the reliability of these writers. I have questioned the reliability of apologists' claims based on these passages.

So, if Jesus really was condemned by Pilate, how exactly would Tacitus be able to tell us this without sceptics calling it a Christian invention?

In lots of ways. Suppose Tacitus had added a wealth of detail found nowhere else, or a personal note, or hadn't screwed up Pilate's title. In any case, there is no evidence that Tacitus pulled this from any archive; he probably got it from Christians he had talked to.

Finally, since the text is extremely clear that Tacitus really didn't have a clue about Christian practices and beliefs, why should we believe that he got his information from Christians? I do think it is important to look at the quotation itself and try to decifer how Christians might have tampered with it.

Why shouldn't we believe he got it from Christians? He gave jesus a religious title. Do you think that a Roman archive somewhere noted "We executed two robbers and Jesus Christ today?" How else could Tacitus have known that Jesus had the religious title of "Christ," if somebody hadn't told him what the Christians said.

Your casual dismissal of "Chrestus" is unwarrented, and once again begs the question. But on these points I will let Polycarp defend himself.

I did not dismiss Chrestus, as my posts made clear. I just asked for evidence -- any evidence -- that Suetonius garbled up "Christ" and just by accident nailed a common greek name, and just by accident implied he was present in Rome. Like I said, if there were no Christians, would anybody assume that Suetonius had erred here? No.

Making a study of Christ and Christianity impossible in your view I suppose. How convenient.

Who said study of Christ and Christianity was impossible? You accused me of poisoning the well, I responded by saying that the fault is not mine, but that of early Christians who suppressed sources, altered documents, forged them and generally muddled things up. If you think this makes study of Christ impossible, it is sort of odd for you to be here arguing, isn't it?

Michael

Let's look at what you said about sources that are 100 years old:

Originally posted by turtonm:

The mid and late second-century sources are too late, the Jesus train had already left the gate by then.

Your point is that these sources are too late to be considered. You are very clear on the issue.

You're criteria makes historical inquiry (especially ancient historical inquiry) impossible. More on that when we get to the assassination of Caesar thread.

Calm yourself Michael. This interpretation is not a Christian apologist interpretation. Any serious historian looks at the work the same way, and they have drawn the same conclusions. Tacitus is a considered to be a reliable source on this matter.

Don't take the fact that you can dig up a scholar somewhere and find that he disagrees with the vast majority of his peers. I've heard that there are actual scientists that claim evolution is a fraud too. Yet we can readily agree that these guys don't really know what they are talking about.

I have not been arguing for this source, and this is why I am letting Polycarp carry the ball on this one. Quite frankly, I do not see the point in trying to educate you about ancient Roman history any longer. I particpate on these threads largely to demonstrate that your reductionist and deconstructionist arguments are patently absurd.

Polycarp specifically told you that these historians referred either to Jesus OR to Christians, not just Jesus. He even told you this again as you appear to have missed this point. Please try to read what we write before responding.

Here again is his quote:

Originally posted by Polycarp April 21, 2001 at 10:49PM:

First, your claim that there are 5 secular sources that obviously refer to followers of Christ is utterly ridiculous. You want to taint the evidence by saying that only the word "Christians" or "Christ" counts. There are many sources which undoubtedly refer to Jesus or his followers. These are the ones I came up with off the top of my head, but I could probably come up with more if you'd like:

Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus,

Now, pay attention Michael, and maybe, just maybe, you will learn something. In the meantime, at least those reading this thread (assuming anyone still is mind you), is almost certainly learning a great deal about you at least.

Enough with the red herrings too please. Historians of antiquity treat these sources seriously. You are, in effect, defending the equivilent of young earth creationism here Michael, and to be honest, I do not think that you are sufficiently familiar with the subject to even realize that.

Let's look at the passage in question on more time, as you appear to be serious confused about the one I am talking about:

There was a group, loathed for its vices, that the people called Christians. Responsible for the name was Christ; he had been put to death by Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor. This checked the horrid superstition, but not for long; it burst out again, not only in Judaea where it had started, but in Rome, too, a sink into which everything vile and shameful flows and finds its vogue.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Pilate's title is not listed. Now, since Tacitus makes a simple statement, namely that Jesus was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (all true BTW), why reject it? Because he did not give more details than this? On what basis did you decide that he needed to do this?

Read the passage again. Outside of your saying that he probably got this from a Christian, what is your evidence to support this belief?

Please tell me that you are not being serious here Michael. Nero persecuted the Christians in 64AD, and Tacitus is writing about it. He also knows that they are a religion, and they were called Christians (you did know that it was the Romans that first called Christians, Christians right?).

Language lesson time.

In Greek, "Christ" means "Annointed". The Romans began calling Jesus' first followers "Christians" as an insult, somewhat akin to calling them Annointonians or some such. (Christians first referred to themselves as "The Way" but quickly accepted the derisive title of Christian as an honourable name). So Tacitus calling these people Christians is not a surprise at all, and yes, this would almost certainly have been in the archives, probably from Nero's days when he persecuted them.

Secular historians accept that "Chrestus" and "Christus" could very easily be referring to the same person, as the sound virtually identical in Greek. This is hardly any different than offering different spellings of the name John (i.e. Jon) or Earl (i.e. Earle) and claiming that you "botched" it.

Of course I cannot argue with you about this, but I do point out for those reading these posts what you are doing. You do not deny that you have poisoned the well, and that you reject sources merely because they are late, and they potentially could be interpolated by Christians at a later date. Your desire to disregard all evidence that contradicts your position is understandable, but betrays your ignorance, and your agenda in this matter.

Once again, thank you for your thoughts.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 23, 2001).]

Turtonm, "Chrestus" being a corruption of "Christ" is quite likely according to many scholars:

John P. Meier also comments on "Chrestus" in A Marginal Jew:

"Chrestus" seems to me to be a corruption of "Christus" in more than one source for the above reasons. And both seem to refer to the Jesus of the NT, in my well-backed opinion.

Thanks,
Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 23, 2001).]