avi

Do the two different colors, blue and purple, reflect the idea that there were two different interpolations, added at different time periods? Is the handwriting sufficiently unique to permit such a determination:
You suggest that Michael wrote in the 12th century, is that also the date of the extant manuscript?

This is an excellent chart, which, in my opinion, would be improved, by adding, perhaps as a footnote, so as not to clutter the chart itself, the date of the oldest extant manuscript for each of the four versions.

avi

spin

Propitiations start immediately after the crisis.

This "given" isn't based on any facts. You seem to think that Nero would let the issue linger for many months which is to me preposterous.

We've seen Tacitus placing later events before the narrative about the failure of propitiations, things including the building of the Domus Aurea, the rebuilding of the city, failed attempts to provide water for emergencies. These are all long term projects. He has done so to end his fire discourse with Nero's failure to wiggle out of the blame, ie to leave the lingering suspicion that it was by his order.

Had Tacitus intended to include the christian martyrs crackling into the night, he would have placed them, as he did with the other later events, before his concluding remarks about the failure of his efforts. As it is the conclusion has been swamped and the fire narrative has been lost.


spin

aa5874

This is most amazing. The account of the Jewish War by Justus Tiberias has not survived yet you know that it was the only authentic account.

And it was primarily Josephus who mentioned most of what is known of Justus.

aa5874

No. You were claiming or attempting to assert that the Jesus Christ in the Pauline writings was not before the Sanhedrin simply because "PAUL" did not make mention of the trial when Jesus Christ is mentioned OVER 150 times and described similarly as the Gospels.

Yet you make ASSUMPTIONS about Tacitus when the the word JESUS is NOT even in Annals ONE SINGLE time and there is no mention that "Christus" was crucified..

The word JESUS is NOT in Annals and based on Sacred Histories 2 by Sulpitius Severus, Annals 15.44 with "Christus" is a forgery.

But, once Jesus was an actual known human being who lived for about 30 years in Galilee then there would have been no theological ADVANTAGE in claiming a mere man was a God in Judea.

There would have been NO theological ADVANTAGE, no MORAL advantage, for the Jesus cult when people, Jews and Romans, who hated the Jesus cult Christians KNEW that Jesus was a mere man and knew his earthly father.

Von Bek

People KNEW Hale-Bopp was just a comet, that had no bearing on what the Heaven's Gate cult thought.

A possible theological advantage is that it puts your god on earth, associating with humans. This means, theologically, you could argue that the god you worship intimately understands the problems and frailties of being human.

jgreen44

I do not claim to know the whereabouts (or non-whereabouts) of one Jesus of Nazareth at any point in history. I was just pointing out that the Sanhedrin is not mentioned by writers X, Y or Z. As I said, I want your arguments to make sense. I am not arguing against you and, if I appear to be, it is only to gain clarification.I think the only assumption I have made about Tacitus has been to assume that you said Tertullian should have referred to, had it existed at the time, the mention of Christus in Annals. I believe you said Tertullian should have done this in order to bolster his case against the Marcionites. Again, you are saying this is what Tertullian should have done had the Christus passage existed in Annals when Tertullian was writing.I fully understand that. I still do not understand why exactly Tertullian should have quoted Annals to strengthen his argument against the Marcionites.I don't know. It seems to have worked out pretty well for the Catholic Church.

aa5874

Well, why are you claiming that Tacitus mentioned Jesus when he did not? Tacitus did not even claim "Christus" was from Nazareth.

You ASSUMED that Tacitus mentioned Jesus when he did not. There is ZERO about Jesus of Nazareth who was CRUCIFIED in Tacitus.

Have you read "On the FLESH of Christ"?

Have YOU read the QUESTIONS?

"On THE FLESH OF CHRIST" When are you going to read "On the FLESH of Christ"?

You MUST FIRST read the written sources of antiquity or else you are just going to repeat the same mistakes.

"Tertullian" MUST PROVE that JESUS HAD FLESH, MUST PROVE JESUS WAS BORN of HUMAN FLESH.

"Tertullian" DID NOT USE Josephus or Tacitus to show that JESUS HAD FLESH and was CRUCIFIED, DIED and BURIED.

MARCION'S SON OF GOD was claime to be a PHANTOM, NOT BORN at all of human parets, WAS NOT CRUCIFIED, DID NOT DIE and was NOT RESURRECTED.

Roman and Jewish records that Jesus was a man who was PUBLICLY crucified after a PUBLIC trial would have helped "Tertullian" PROVE Jesus had FLESH since MARCION'S SON OF GOD could have ONLY been an ILLUSION which could NOT be seen by the ENEMIES, OPPONENTS and SKEPTICS of Jesus.

In effect, PILATE, the SANHEDRIN, the ROMAN soldiers, the Jews and one of two thieves, who wanted Jesus DEAD could NOT have HALLUCINATED that Jesus was crucified.

And also MARCION COULD USE ROMAN and JEWISH records to PROVE that the JESUS cult worshiped a Man as a God.

Once Jesus did exist he could have ONLY been a man and it is MOST unlikely that the Roman and Jewish records of Jesus, if not forgeries, were the history of an ILLUSION or the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost.

aa5874

Hale-Bopp was not a MAN who was born in Judea or any part of EARTH and the Heaven's Gate cult is a very good example of what is expected when people make FALSE claims about their own resurrection.

The Heaven's Gate cult virtually destroyed itself and if Jesus was a Jew living in Judea who was crucified for blasphemy then it would be expected that the Jesus cult would have been wiped out for preaching the very same blasphemy in Judea, especially "Paul".

angelo

Of course it does. Josephus was writing what was already hearsay. What was already tradition when he wrote his TF. Then, a couple of centuries later all this work was re-copied/ re-interpreted by christians, which is what was handed down to us in the 21st century. Fat chance anything concrete can be gained from such a source.

Juststeve

Angelo:

I take the TF to be evidence that Josephus, writing in the first century of the common era, had heard of the man Jesus, nothing more. I agree that he is not writing from personal knowledge. I agree that little can be gleaned about Jesus from Josephus, except for the fact that he probably existed.

Steve