dog-on

What do you think of the possibility of the Annals passage being the result of an expanded gloss based on the passage in Lives, replacing Claudius with Nero, Jews with Christians and Chrestus with Christus?

aa5874

No Christian writer used "Annals" to prove Jesus Christ did exist. And if Jesus was Publicly known as an ORDINARY man then then the Entire NT would have been KNOWN as a Pack of LIES.

Not even the DEIFIED Emperors of Rome could FORGIVE the Sins of Mankind.

Not even Vespasian who was declared the prophesied Messiah by Josephus had the ability to forgive Sin.

The Defied Emperors of Rome SACRIFICED to myth Gods.

Simon BarCocheba regarded as the Messiah was NOT documented to have been worshiped as a God or had the ability to forgive the Sins of Mankind.

A Messiah had the ability and MANDATE to KILL for the Jews not to forgive Sins.

"Annals" is just a very late forgery added sometime AFTER the end of the 4th century.

dog-on

Perhaps, but I was asking about the possibility of the Tacitus reference being a gloss based on the Suetonius reference.

aa5874

I am trying to show that such a possibility is hardly likely.

Once it was established for HUNDREDS of years that Tacitus "Annals" did NOT have any reference to Christ then the SUDDEN appearance of a PASSAGE with the word Christ is most likely a DELIBERATE insertion or interpolation.

dog-on

I am not sure I follow your argument. It seems possible that the passage, in it's current form, is not original to Annals. What I am asking is if the "interpolator" used the Suetonian passage as the source.

aa5874

You have NOT even put forward any argument for your own question.

It must also be possible that the "interpolator" did NOT use the Suetonian passage.

All you are doing is just saying that your position is possible. Well what is NOT possible?

Without any credible historical sources then all positions may be possible.

dog-on

My argument has to do with the similarity between the two passages.

aa5874

The passages are NOT similar.

1. Nero is the Emperor in Tacitus and Claudius was the Emperor in Suetonius.

2. Christus is the name in Tacitus and Chrestus is the name in Suetonius.

3. Christus was EXECUTED under the reign of Tiberius in Tacitus and Chrestus was ALIVE during the reign of Cladius.


Your argument is rather weak.

dog-on

Perhaps, but you did frame it quite nicely, except for the executed part, which I acknowledge may have been an expansion within the gloss.

aa5874

There is virtually NO similarity in the passages in question by Tacitus and Suetonius.

You merely asked a question have just ASSUMED you know the answer.

This is a question not an argument.