Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Susan2 · 07-20-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

Perhaps it is that the women were the guards, in that the word used means to see, observe, and as Joseph W so correctly points out, it was the women seeing and observing.

I'd like to see a thread about women's place in the ancient world, but not this one

Your post that I responded to was kind of all over the place, I wasn't trying to deal with all the points you raised, just the idea that the Bible was a tool of conspirators before the Christian era.

Yes, I would like to see a thread in regards to the women of the ancient world, as effected by religion particularly. I have noticed that it is an issue that is not addressed on this sub-forum specifically ( Biblical Criticism & History), and is rather unfortunately left to be addressed rather ambigiously, and prejudicially in the GRD forum.

Certainly, I am no historian nor scholar so I am not confident that I am the one to address the issue, though I sure have the fire when I have a mind to it. Sadly, there appears to be no female scholars on this site, with the interest to create such a topic, if there are any female scholars at all posting.

Having said that, I am doing my research. If a thread of this issue is welcomed, understanding my limitations, I'll have a go at it. I would be grateful if other women on these forums participated.

My postition is: If you do not know what to teach your son's and your daughters, someone else teaches them. Ask me, I know.

I'll work up a thread, giving it my best shot, with no promises.

It's that or start one yourself, and I'll participate.

aa5874 · 07-20-2009, 03:11 PM

The burial story as presented in gMatthew is fatally flawed. Jesus, if he was a Jew, would not have been buried on the Sabbath day.

Matthew 27:57-60 -

Quote:

57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: 58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. 59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

The Jewish Sabbath begins on the evening, and based on gMatthew, the "even" was come, the Sabbath had come.

Jews do not bury their dead on the Sabbath.

It should also be noted that Joseph started his quest for the body of Jesus on the Sabbath, and he would have to get permission from Pilate, get control of the body and then transport the body to his tomb.

The Sabbath may have been over by then or well into the night of the Sabbath.

And there is something that has been overlooked.

What really happened between the 6th and 9th hour. It was dark as night. The disciples TOOK Jesus off the CROSS?

sschlichter · 07-21-2009, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Are you saying that you do not belevie there were more Christian in the 3rd century than there were in the 1st century? You need numbers for that?

No. I need numbers to believe your assertion that the number of converts grew exponentially during the second and third centuries.

I'll get to the rest of your post a little later.

I am a little confused by this. Let me take a wild guess that Christians were 40% of the population in the east and 10% in the west by the 4th century.

Assuming Christians were 0% of the population in the 1st century, then it stands to reason that the number of people grew from the 1st to 4th centuries unless you can make a reasonable argument that the number did not grow and they suddenly appeared in the 4th. History seems to indacte otherwise. if my 4th century SWAG is close at all, then it trends in that direction and that is all that needs to be true to validate my statement.

sschlichter · 07-21-2009, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I think you are suggesting here that the identity of the risne Christ in gal, col, eph, phil might be someone different from the one from the gospels.

Yes. That is what I meant to suggest.

You will have to explain why that statement makes it hard to believe that Paul was not referring to a Galilean preacher who had lived just a few years earlier in Palestine and had been executed by Pontius Pilate.

That would help us a great deal in figuring out what Paul believed, if we had some reliable information about what the apostles who were contemporary with him believed. But we don't have that information.

That is correct.

How does that imply anything about who he thought that person was?

According to Tacitus, Nero blamed them for starting a fire, nothing else.

Tacitus says that the sect thus accused by Nero got its name from someone he called "Christus," who "suffered the extreme penalty" at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Tacitus does not say that this "Christus" was worshipped by anyone and he says nothing else to imply, suggest, or otherwise hint that anybody thought he had returned to life after dying.

Considering the context, you have an odd notion of "early." Lucian wrote that satire in the late second century.

And his next sentence is: "I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent." This implies that he does not know even so much as what they had been accused of.

He assumed that Trajan would know. An assumption is not semantically equivalent to an awareness.

Here it is in context: "Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years."

Let me repeat my request: Tell us what Pliny says about what Christians believed. That doesn't say anything about what they believed.

OK. They worshipped him. They worshipped him in a way that was like the way people worshipped gods. And so we can infer that, probably, they believed he was either a god or something like a god.

And what else can we infer, from what Pliny tells us, about what Christians believed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

common sense states from Justin Martyr's dialogue (real or not) that it was commonly held understanding that Christians think Jesus rose from the dead.

That depends on what you mean by "commonly held." The understanding did not have to be widespread. If some Christians during Justin's time believed that the gospel stories were historically factual, then just about everybody who knew those Christians would have been aware that they believed those stories were historically factual. And some of those people would have been Jews, and some of those Jews would have accused those Christians of believing a bunch of nonsense. That would have been all the excuse Justin needed to write his dialogue.

Doug,

It seems to me evident that the Christians interrogated by Pliny and described by Tacitus worshipped a person that was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Resurrection is implied when you are worshipped post crucifixion. the number of christians grew and this belief in resurrection appears to be consistent. Paul clearly describes the same Jesus who was killed in public in Romans. I feel you are ignoring not a trial of bread crumbs but a pile of loaves of bread and I am sure you feel I am imagining them, perhaps we should just leave it there. No new documentation is going to pop up in this conversation. If what is there is not compelling to you, then it is not.

~Steve

Doug Shaver · 07-21-2009, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I need numbers to believe your assertion that the number of converts grew exponentially during the second and third centuries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I am a little confused by this.

Do you even know what exponential growth is?

Doug Shaver · 07-21-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It seems to me evident that the Christians interrogated by Pliny and described by Tacitus worshipped a person that was put to death by Pontius Pilate.

Of course it's evident to you. You are presupposing that everything you've heard from your Christian mentors about how your religion got started is the gospel truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Paul clearly describes the same Jesus who was killed in public in Romans.

You're assuming your conclusion again. Nothing that Paul actually wrote even suggests that, let alone "clearly" says so.

aa5874 · 07-21-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It seems to me evident that the Christians interrogated by Pliny and described by Tacitus worshipped a person that was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Resurrection is implied when you are worshipped post crucifixion. the number of christians grew and this belief in resurrection appears to be consistent.

It is not true at all that Tacitus claimed christians worshipped a person that was put to death by Pontius Pilate. There is no such thing in Annals 15.44. And further It is not even compulsory to worship a sect leader as a god. Based on Philo and Josephus, there is no indication that Jews would have worshipped a sect leader as a god.

And it is equally false that Pliny mentioned that a person was put to death during the time of Pilate. There is no such thing. Now, based on Tertullian, Christ is not a name but added to a name. It is not known who was called Christ in the Pliny letters.

In effect, there can be no assumption of resurrection in the Pliny letters or Tacitus Annals

jakejonesiv · 07-21-2009, 10:30 AM

I have a question for every one. What is the first external attestation to the text of Annals 15.44 in Tacitus?

It is astounding when you think of it. Here we are discussing one of the major proof texts put forward for the existence of Jesus from pagan sources, oblivious to the fact it unknown before the 15th century! When Niccolo Niccoli died in 1437, a manuscript passed into the hands of the Medici (in the Laurentian library in Florence, where it is number 68.2) and all extant copies of the text in question--Annals 15.44--come from that one text.

Where had it been, allegedly, for over thirteen centuries? We have a solitary manuscript from the eleventh century, the Second Medicean manuscript (M. II), presumably written at Monte Cassino. It is important to keep in mind this is a separate manuscript from Annals, 1-6, the "first Medicean" manuscript.

It is likely that M.II was copied from a lost older manuscript, but even if that were true, there is no evidence that the text we read now in Annals 15.44 was in the older manuscript.

If manuscripts containing the current text of Tacitus Annals 15:44 were in constant possesion of the Church from the earliest times to the present, then it is remarkable that it was never quoted and attributed to the famous Roman historian before the 15th century. Why didn't all these Proto-Popes and Archbishops that were supposed to have it in their possession never notice a word of it?

Here is an "over the top" illustration:
"Archbishop, Your Excellency! You know that guy Christ we are always praying to? Well, this document by Tacitus who was so important that we have spent the last 1,000 years copying his text, well he writes about HIM!! What? Don't tell a soul??? Why? In that case maybe I should just leave it out of my copy... Ouch! OK, I'll copy and keep my mouth shut (kisses ring)".

So the suggestion here is that the current text of Annals 15.44 was inserted into the text of M. II when it was copied at Monte Cassino in the eleventh century. The redactor, being a devout Christian, would have paraphrased the text based on Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus. The Abbot of Monte Cassino from 1058-1086, Desiderius, along with his friend Archbishop Alfano, oversaw the transcriptions of ancient documents at Monte Cristo became Pope (Blessed) Victor III in 1086. If the passage were authentic, why did he not mention it? No one could have overruled him. On the other hand, he or his successor was in the perfect position to have it inserted. How then, would the scholars detect the interpolation?

But what inspired this redaction? The evidence is that the text of M.II originally read "Chrestianos" and then the scribe went back and corrected it to "Christianos." There was no "Chrestus" or "Christus" in Tacitus' original, just a mention of "Chrestians." The 11th century interpolator added the material about Christus, and then went back and changed the original "Chrestianos" (copied unchanged from the source document) to "Christianos" for consistency.

Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle · 07-21-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

So the suggestion here is that the current text of Annals 15.44 was inserted into the text of M. II when it was copied at Monte Cassino in the eleventh century. The redactor, being a devout Christian, would have paraphrased the text based on Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus. The Abbot of Monte Cassino from 1058-1086, Desiderius, along with his friend Archbishop Alfano, oversaw the transcriptions of ancient documents at Monte Cristo became Pope (Blessed) Victor III in 1086. If the passage were authentic, why did he not mention it? No one could have overruled him. On the other hand, he or his successor was in the perfect position to have it inserted. How then, would the scholars detect the interpolation?

But what inspired this redaction? The evidence is that the text of M.II originally read "Chrestianos" and then the scribe went back and corrected it to "Christianos." There was no "Chrestus" or "Christus" in Tacitus' original, just a mention of "Chrestians." The 11th century interpolator added the material about Christus, and then went back and changed the original "Chrestianos" (copied unchanged from the source document) to "Christianos" for consistency.

Jake Jones IV

I'm a little confused here, what did the original text of Tacitus say about "Chrestians" ?

Andrew Criddle

sschlichter · 07-22-2009, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I need numbers to believe your assertion that the number of converts grew exponentially during the second and third centuries.

Do you even know what exponential growth is?

You, me, and anyone reading this thread knows exactly what the point is.

In case what appears to be obfuscation on your part is not intentional, here is the defintion I am using from dictionary.com

--------------------------------------------
exponential growth [(ek-spuh-nen-shuhl)]

Growth of a system in which the amount being added to the system is proportional to the amount already present: the bigger the system is, the greater the increase. (See geometric progression.)

Note: In everyday speech, exponential growth means runaway expansion, such as in population growth.
---------------------------------------------

Now that you realize the graph paper will not be necessary, perhaps you could just explain where the 'resurrection' Christians came from if not from the previous 'resurrection' Christians.

07-21-2009, 10:30 AM	#228
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	The forgery of Tacitus Annals 15.44 I have a question for every one. What is the first external attestation to the text of Annals 15.44 in Tacitus? It is astounding when you think of it. Here we are discussing one of the major proof texts put forward for the existence of Jesus from pagan sources, oblivious to the fact it unknown before the 15th century! When Niccolo Niccoli died in 1437, a manuscript passed into the hands of the Medici (in the Laurentian library in Florence, where it is number 68.2) and all extant copies of the text in question--Annals 15.44--come from that one text. Where had it been, allegedly, for over thirteen centuries? We have a solitary manuscript from the eleventh century, the Second Medicean manuscript (M. II), presumably written at Monte Cassino. It is important to keep in mind this is a separate manuscript from Annals, 1-6, the "first Medicean" manuscript. It is likely that M.II was copied from a lost older manuscript, but even if that were true, there is no evidence that the text we read now in Annals 15.44 was in the older manuscript. If manuscripts containing the current text of Tacitus Annals 15:44 were in constant possesion of the Church from the earliest times to the present, then it is remarkable that it was never quoted and attributed to the famous Roman historian before the 15th century. Why didn't all these Proto-Popes and Archbishops that were supposed to have it in their possession never notice a word of it? Here is an "over the top" illustration: "Archbishop, Your Excellency! You know that guy Christ we are always praying to? Well, this document by Tacitus who was so important that we have spent the last 1,000 years copying his text, well he writes about HIM!! What? Don't tell a soul??? Why? In that case maybe I should just leave it out of my copy... Ouch! OK, I'll copy and keep my mouth shut (kisses ring)". So the suggestion here is that the current text of Annals 15.44 was inserted into the text of M. II when it was copied at Monte Cassino in the eleventh century. The redactor, being a devout Christian, would have paraphrased the text based on Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus. The Abbot of Monte Cassino from 1058-1086, Desiderius, along with his friend Archbishop Alfano, oversaw the transcriptions of ancient documents at Monte Cristo became Pope (Blessed) Victor III in 1086. If the passage were authentic, why did he not mention it? No one could have overruled him. On the other hand, he or his successor was in the perfect position to have it inserted. How then, would the scholars detect the interpolation? But what inspired this redaction? The evidence is that the text of M.II originally read "Chrestianos" and then the scribe went back and corrected it to "Christianos." There was no "Chrestus" or "Christus" in Tacitus' original, just a mention of "Chrestians." The 11th century interpolator added the material about Christus, and then went back and changed the original "Chrestianos" (copied unchanged from the source document) to "Christianos" for consistency. Jake Jones IV

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.