Frank

First, why are you "text shouting" (I can read your posts just as easily when you don't use caps and red font)

Secondly, right, the word Jesus is not in the Annals (who said it was)?

With which we all agree (including scholars).

Same as 2, and yes, the ultra violet examination (which I posted previously) clearly confirms what was already probably obvious (the "e" was changed to "i").

No, maybe from Chrestus, or (your youtube buddies assertion) Chastus.

I guess it depends on what you call "late" (but it was a manipulation of the text nonetheless).

Maybe some did, but of course without proof this is a bare assertion.

If this is true, I'm not sure how you think this fact helps your case? It would suggest that Tacitus was indeed referring to Christians (if that's how they commonly referred to them), and his spelling of Christ simply reflected common Roman parlance.

You would need to add more facts to make this a significant detail. For instance, were church writers in the habit of citing Tacitus?

What book (I'd like to see)?

Specifically which Latin experts knew this for over 400 years? What is informing your opinion that this was a 4 century old cover up?

Not disputing your claims, but I simply note they're bare assertions until proven.

Frank

What proof is there that there was a French scribe involved? The term Chrestus is a Greek term (not Latin or French). Otherwise I largely agree with these contentions. We do not know where in the chain this mistake was made, whether it was a mistake at all, etc. The best scholars can do is compare it to Tacitus' writing style, his vernacular, and so forth. Beyond that it becomes educated guesswork.

Some experts say a Christian scribe would not have made such a mistake (I assume they glean this opinion from a good understanding of Christian writings and writing style). I wonder if they've considered whether it could have been a non-Italian writer, or whether that should even matter? Again, the term is Greek, not Italian, Latin, or French (and of course French, as Italian, is a Latin based language, and both are different than Greek in similar ways).

I don't know if any of this matters, but there's so many different factors to consider, that a PhD in this area really does help (ergo, I tend to value expert opinions above nonexpert opinions, at least unless a bias can be shown, or a bias is otherwise obvious from the facts)

spin

I need no proof whatsoever. It is sufficient to show that there is fair reason for it to be a "modern" change. The onus is on those who wish to claim that chrestianos came from antiquity, as it cannot be assumed.

We are not talking about "chrestus": the text plainly has "christus". The issue is whether chrestianos is ancient, which must be doubted because of the presence of christus. It's coherent to talk about chrestians and chrestus, but less so when you have chrestians and christus.

The word chrestus was functional for names in Latin.



(The image was taken at an open-air museum attached to the Mausoleum of Caecilia in Rome.)

Of course you wouldn't know, especially as you are not prepared to look into the issue. If you want to shoot your mouth off about something, that's fine, but if you want to say something that makes sense, you have to do foundational work. I really don't know why you've said so much in this thread, when you've already indicated that you've disqualified yourself from uttering any attempts at meaningful comment. Somebody at the other end of the internet may or may not know what they are talking about, but you'd never know unless you learn something about the subject.

Frank

You sure are pretty pretentious for someone who has exactly zero credentials, armed with a couple pictures, and a pile of contrived of bullshit.

Seriously, what does that rock show anyway? It suggests the Romans did refer to these people as the text implies. What's this theory of your French mystery monk based on? Duhhh, I invented it, and unless anyone can disprove it, then it's credible

spin

Clone response.

Yup. The Romans had no problem with the name "Chrestus". That means one has to justify the presence of chrestianos in the text ostensibly derived from christus according to the present text, for it doesn't make too much sense as it is.

It is no less credible than the rubbish you've subscribed to. I can provide a simple explanation as to why there is a difference between vowels in christus and chrestianos, which wouldn't have made sense in the original. It is obvious that chrestianos does not come from christus. Perhaps you'd like to posit some contorted explanation for both forms that has nothing to support it.

(I always have the vague hope of hearing some intelligent response from someone who is so far out on a limb, but I'm thus far disappointed.)

hjalti

Right. As I said earlier, if Tacitus wrote this then surely it originally had i-i or e-e, right? But the manuscript originally had e-i.

spin's suggestion would explain this, a scribal mistake (by a french scribe perhaps).

What are the other explanation? That it was originally e-e and someone corrected the e in Christ but not the e in Christians?

aa5874

I may have to make them FAR LARGER than I previously thought because of people like you. I may even have to make LARGER CAPS and FONTS on your own post since you either cannot remember or see what you post.

For example, you are NOW asking "Who said Jesus was in Annals"?

Well look at the VERY FIRST POST of the THREAD.

Tacitus Annals is REAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD and a COVER-UP of the NON-EXISTENCE of JESUS.

You NEED a good memory.

aa5874

Based on what you have SHOWN it is not very likely that a scribe would have made an error with the LATIN "RI" combination since the LATIN "RE" does NOT have any close resemblance at all to the LATIN "RI".

The very first LATIN word on the page displayed appears to have a LATIN "RI" letter.

The second line show the letters "p-R-I-n-c-i-p-i-s which show that the copyist is FAMILIAR with the LATIN "RI".

Again on the fourth line there are the letters "r-u-m-o-R-I which show that the copyist is Familiar with the LATIN "RI".

So before the word "CHRESTIANOS" was copied from the original the copyist would have already done at LEAST THREE LATIN "RI" combination.

If the WORD was ALREADY "CHRISTIANOS" in the original then a CHRISTIAN scribe is hardly likely to make an ERROR and write CHRESTIANOS.

But, Another major problem now is the fact that the MANIPULATED CHRESTIANOS is now not really a LATIN WORD.

CHRISTIANOS in LATIN does NOT look anyway close to the word translated as CHRISTIANS.

The word translated as CHRISTIANS in the MEDICEAN manuscript is NOT really a Latin word or a whole Latin word.

spin

Working with the notion of an early French monk or at least user of Merovingian Latin (the sound change "i" -> "e" happened there, so Latin mittere became Fr. mettre, It. mettere; "mass", Latin missa became Fr. messe, It. messa), it would be an interference error. The scribe remembers the next phrase he has to write, but instead of recalling christianus the more familiar chrestianus comes to mind. This also explains how the examples of Cephas in Galatians were changed in numerous versions, ie seeing "Cephas", the mind recollects "Peter".

avi

Perhaps this notion of a disjunction between mind versus visual image, can also account for the much later, but equally bizarre, Papist translation of 1 Corinthians 15:5---

Eleven = twelve - Peter, aka Cephas

avi