Ben C Smith

Lots of things should have been when it comes to spelling.

The Latin base of connection/connexion is surely conecto, conectere, conexui, conexum. The Latin base of the fix part of crucifixion is surely figo, figere, fixi, fixum.

I can see the variants connection and connexion based on the different Latin base forms, but I do not see where the ct would come from in crucifiction. (Similarly, the British do not take axion, do they? They take action, right? The Latin base is ago, agere, egi, actum, very similar in the principle parts to figo.)

Ben.

No Robots

Christians were obsessive cataloguers of heresies (Irenaeus, Epiphanius). Yet nary a word on Jesus being a mythological character.

MaximusDementis

Romans little noted nor long remembered Jesus at the time of his life. There is no mention of him in any comtemporary histories or documents. Roman suppression of Christianity was sporadic, localized and seldom lasted very long. The first suppression occurred under Nero when he needed a scapegoat for his burning down of Rome. Christians could worship whomever they pleased as long as they acknowldged the state gods, some did in order to avoid execution others refused and were martryed. Roman empirerors generally had other fish to fry than to worry about a religious sect. Things like barbarian invasions, rivals for the throne, and keeping the empire humming along. One emperor would be soft of Christianity and the very next one might try to suppress it, most ignored it as long as it didn't interfere with their agendas. There was no systematic, empire-wide attempt to stamp out Christians at any time during its rise from obscurity to becoming the state religion. There was no such thing as a Christian holocaust. It just didn't happen at any time.

Solitary Man

Words are not static, Ben. Even in Shakespearean English, if you read the originals, the spelling is sometimes wildly variant. The -x in Latin was one of two things, either gs or cs, depending on the word (lex, for example, comes from legere; dux from ducere). In medieval pronunciation, the t in ti- softened to an esh (ʃ), where, coupled with c, could produce cʃ or a variant of x. Based on analogy (you are familiar with this concept formally in historical linguistics, right?) with action, connexion (act/connect action/connection, since we replaced the word connex with connect) became slowly connection. The -x though still retained the cʃ sound, and similarly, by analogy, now crucifixion is slowly becoming crucifiction based on an analogy with fiction. If it survived, I would have had you read de Analogia by C. Iulius Caesar.

Roger Pearse

Which extant 'contemporary histories' record the events of 30-40AD?

Diocletian?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I see what you are saying now. Thanks for explaining. (And yes, I am familiar with analogy as it is used in etymology.)

Ben.

MaximusDementis

Even Diocletian's rather nasty repression was rather localized. To quote Wikipedia: "According to many estimates, a total of 3,000–3,500 Christians were killed in the persecution,[16] while many others suffered torture or imprisonment.[17]" Another quote: "This wave of persecution was enforced most strictly in the Empire's eastern provinces, where it lasted in some areas until 313.[15]"

Hardly a holocaust, and mostly localized in the east.

Malachi151

Not really, Glycon did exist, and also Glycon wasn't a person he was a snake. There was a real snake, which Lucan points out. Lucan simply dismisses the real snake as nothing more than a snake.

Indeed the large number of real hucksters would very likely have made the story of Jesus all the more easy to assume as being based on a real huckster.

Based on Josephus, Lucan, Celsus, Tacitus, etc., we know that there were a lot of very real people around whom miracle working stories cropped up. Indeed there seem to have been hundreds of known cases of "false prophets" and religious hucksters.

Thus, one more story about another seeming religious huckster wouldn't have stood out to such critics. They would simply have assumed that this Jesus fellow were just another Alexander of Abuteichnos type character.

storytime

Yes, as a matter of fact, I haphazzardly critique the bible in order to challenge perceived conclusions believed by Christians. As to Mk. 12:1-13, by what authority are the Chief Priests and Scribes alluding to? Supposedly they know already and are merely testing Jesus. They've figured out that Jesus is a threat to their position and place at Jerusalem. Jesus then begins to speak in parables. What does he imply that the Chief Priests and Scribes recognize as having the possibility of bringing about their downfall?

The Jesus sect was against the existing governing body at Jerusalem. Why did Jesus believe himself "heir" to the throne of God - Jerusalem?

"The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner; this was the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes?" In other words, why were the Chief Priests and Scribes surprised? It was predistined from the beginning of Israel as a nation.

What has this to do with Gentiles? Absolutely nothing. This is a story of Jews and their infighting about who's who in Israel.

:wave:

Solitary Man

Which commentaries?