Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fta · 03-15-2012, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Lives of the Caesars. Claudius, 25,4. Claudius (41-54)

Quote:

…Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit. …

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, uses the correct form, Christus, and states that he was executed in the reign of Tiberius (not Claudius).

Suetonius lived between c. 70 CE and c. 130 CE (date of death unknown).

Arthur Drews in his Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) says that some manuscripts of Suetonius have "Cherestus" instead of "Chrestus" at this point in the text. Is this correct? I've found no other references to support this statement.

Duvduv · 03-15-2012, 05:35 AM

The dating process of fragments is fraught with difficulties. You take a scrap and figure out the handwriting which means very little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So why are you arguing with me when your position is that Nothing can be proven?

You are contradicting yourself. Period.

Whatever you say about the Pauline writings cannot be proven at all based on your position.

Of course, I do differ. My position is that it is perfectly reasonable to establish the theory that Acts of the Apostles was written Before the Pauline letters based on the Extant evidence.

I don't give up that easily.

Guess what i found!!!

In a CNN clip about ancient biblical texts hitting the road is one fragment from Romans ch. 9 & 10, dated to about 150 CE. Acts can't beat that!!! (It was written to Theophilus, no?)

CNN: Hobby Lobby Chief Shows off his Bibles

Huon · 03-15-2012, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fta

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Lives of the Caesars. Claudius, 25,4. Claudius (41-54)

Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, uses the correct form, Christus, and states that he was executed in the reign of Tiberius (not Claudius).

Suetonius lived between c. 70 CE and c. 130 CE (date of death unknown).

Arthur Drews in his Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) says that some manuscripts of Suetonius have "Cherestus" instead of "Chrestus" at this point in the text. Is this correct? I've found no other references to support this statement.

The ninth-century Codex Memmianus is the oldest known extant version of Suetonius' work. The exact writing of the name "Christians" in a ninth-century codex is not important.

fta · 03-15-2012, 06:44 AM

But Drews' point was that Suetonius may not have been referring to Christians at all (let alone Jesus).

Quote:

The name in the text is not “Christus,” but “Chrestus” (and in some manuscripts Cherestus), which is by no means the usual designation of Jesus, while it is a common name, especially among Roman freedmen. Hence the whole passage in Suetonius may have nothing whatever to do with the question of Christianity. It may just as well refer to any disturbances whatever caused among the Jews by a man named Chrestus...

andrewcriddle · 03-15-2012, 01:59 PM

FWIW Cherestus is not listed as a variant in the Teubner edition of suetonius

Andrew Criddle

dimbulb · 03-15-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

What is the evidence for or against a Roman crucifixion of Jesus?

The crucifixion of Jesus is found in almost every early historical source that mentions Jesus, both Christian and non-Christian (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and so on), so it is multiply attested. It is a claim that is plausible, because Roman governors often crucified threats to the Roman state. And it is an ideologically awkward thing to claim about the Jewish messiah, who was expected to be a conquering military hero, which means it is an unlikely product of myth if the myth was not driven by a known reality. So I would say that the most certain thing about the historical Jesus is that he was Jewish, and the second-most certain thing is that he was crucified.

I'm a time traveler.. yeah, yeah it's hard to believe that I actually am but have a little faith.

Any whooo - I'd just like to thank everyone here for mentioning Jesus and his crucifiction 2000+ years after the fact. This adds massive credence to the Jesus claims. Tacitus, Josephus and FRDB! I'm convinced and will return to 2923 write a fucking book.

fta · 03-16-2012, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW Cherestus is not listed as a variant in the Teubner edition of suetonius

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for the tip. Drews also seems to have originated the factoid that in the 16th century Vossius possessed a manuscript of Josephus that was lacking the TF.

outhouse · 03-16-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montgomery Scott

I would think that this would take a while for the person to die

That's precisely why they did it. The whole point of crucifixion was to cause death very slowly and painfully.

false

the point was to make a example out of someone

living on the cross would have always been a short affair, and it was designed to take life, not support it.

outhouse · 03-16-2012, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have been thinking about this for a while now. A couple of observations on the popular tradition of what happened at the Passion:

1. the penalty of crucifixion seems way over blown for the crime of 'offending the Jews'
2. the speed at which the crucified one ended up dying seems also very strange. Especially considering point 3
3. the idea that Jesus was made to drag the whole damn cross through the streets of Jerusalem is unusual
4. the whole scenario where Pilate becomes an ancient game show host where he brings forward two 'contestants' and allow justice to be determined by who claps the loudest is utterly bizarre.

#1 that wasnt his crime according to Luke

he was put on a cross for tax evasion/sedition , preaching against taxation and preaching to tax collectors to quit raping the people.

#2 normal

#3 fiction

#4 possible fiction. we dont know he ever met pilate. Really there was no reason for some jew peasant to ever meet Caiaphas or Pilate. They were to busy making sure the big show ran smoothly to ensure their big payday

la70119 · 03-16-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That's precisely why they did it. The whole point of crucifixion was to cause death very slowly and painfully.

false

the point was to make a example out of someone

living on the cross would have always been a short affair, and it was designed to take life, not support it.

No, Doug Shafer is right. The cross was designed to take life slowly, painfully and most shamefully.

See my posts in the xylon versus stauros for tree thread, particularly #25, #38, #53, #74, #113, #124.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2012, 01:59 PM	#185
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	FWIW Cherestus is not listed as a variant in the Teubner edition of suetonius Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.