Frank

I have no idea where this 2 to 6 comes from, or whether the "6" number being floated is actually 6 experts in this area, or just 1 or 2 experts, and 4 or 5 writers for secular web sites? Exactly zero of the "modern" experts I've seen comment on this hold this position (in light of the most recent 2008 examination of the text).

BTW these are people who are not only intimately familiar with Tacitus (and have all the academic training and years of experience necessary to offer insightful commentary on this issue), but they're often experts concerning a wide range of ancient texts. When highly esteemed and credentialed experts say things like no Christian scribe would have made such an error, I assume they base it on a very good familiarity with ancient Christian documents (as well as secular documents); and they're not just some yahoo armed only with an agenda and hunch, or a poorly patched together theory they gleaned from some dubious internet source.

If there are modern experts, who after reviewing the most current research, believe this report is entirely spurious, then by all means .... do share? And yes, being an expert matters, and expert opinion is more credible than nonexpert opinion. And no, nonexperts who jump to conclusions based on a cursory reading of an english translation, doesn't tell me shit. Such a person cannot offer a truly informed, must less authoritative, opinion.

spin

Clearly accusative plural with the gentilic infix -ian-. Certainly not Chrestus. (Big image here.)

These are in fact reading problems. Note that the font used for marginal notation is very different from the main text. (See the difference between the letter "a", "e", "r" and "t". Compare, for example, the 2nd & 3rd letters of Nero.) "quaesitissimus" for example is not important, just hard to read in the text. And the big plus seems to indicate a mess in the text, where letters and abbreviations all run into each other.

There is no way to justify the chronology here. There is no way to relate the change to chrestianos to the marginalia (ie here Christiani) with regard to which came first. If for example it was a copyist error it may have been changed immediately by a supervising scribe--an error in the copying of this word would have been noticed. This would have given the appearance of making two words, given the gap between "chri" and "stianos" still in their strange letters, perhaps leading to the marginal notation Christiani to aid with the reading.

Beside this particular instance, where are there orthographic corrections? There are errors in the text, but I can see a lot of conventions including superlinear word endings, such as a sign like a "7" indicating "m" and a "2" for "ur" in crederetur, igitur and fatebantur. Then various "p" for per, pro and prae. There are what seem to be further indications of significance, such as a reference to Nero above iussum, so that the reader would make the connection, but I can't read many of those because of the quality of the photo.

This is not a fact. It may have been the work of the last scribe, whose native tongue used the "e", and whose slip may have been corrected immediately.

aa5874

Well, if YOU are NOT an expert then why are you posting here?

And you KNOW that EXPERTS can disagree about any matter, in fact, EXPERTS can use the very same data and have OPPOSING opinions which is quite prevalent in court trials.

What we NEED to see is the actual evidence.

So far there is the 2008 FINDING where ULTRAVIOLET light has EXPOSED the letter "E" and it has been shown that the word "CHRISTUS" IS not at all in the earliest manuscripts of Annals.

Authenticity is not confirmed so HJ IS A DISASTER.

spin

Uh, the ultraviolet examination concerned chri/estianos not christus.



Shakes head in amazement....

Frank

Are you an expert?

aa5874

Do you need to be an expert to provide evidence? Do you think ONLY experts have or know what is evidence from antiquity?


Do you KNOW that EXPERTS can have DIRECT OPPOSITE opinions based on the very same data?

All I need is the CREDIBLE EVIDENCE from antiquity to show that TACITUS ANNALS with "Christianos" and "Christus" is authentic.

The evidence provided by the MEDICEAN manuscripts at the LAurentian Library has revealed that "Chrestianos" was originally copied and that the word ChRStus is original and not Christus.

Regardless of opinions, expert or non-expert, we can NOW see under ULTRAVIOLET light that Tacitus Annals was MANIPULATED.

The HJ argument has NO credible basis.

But, do you even understand Greek? Do you even understand that some EXPERTS can jump to conclusions?

Now, are your opinions about Jesus based on ENGLISH translations?

I can see that your rationality has been LOST.

aa5874

Go look in the MEDICEAN manuscripts and see if you can find the word "CHRISTUS.

There is NO VOWEL in the word. There is NO "A", "E", "I", "O" or "U"

The MEDICEAN manuscripts are in the LAURENTIAN Library.

spin

It's plainly visible. It's just that you haven't got a damned clue what you're dealing with. To start with you need to be able to recognize the letters in their various forms, something you still cannot do. The shape of the "i" depends on the context. Look at the sixth line from the bottom of the image I linked to earlier. The middle word is [I]ludibria[/I See the "ri" combination: exactly the same as that in christus. Two lines further up and on the right, in crimine. Plus other examples....

Be good and be quiet until you know what you are trying to talk about.

avi

I just barely comprehend that the discussion is focused on a Latin manuscript attributed to Tacitus.

What I completely fail to understand, in your reprimand of aa5874, is whether or not you, spin, are claiming that aa5874 was WRONG when he asserted that there had been a change, an interpolation, of the original text, as revealed by ultraviolet scrutiny of the original manuscript, supposedly demonstrating, according to aa5874, that someone changed the original text from "e" to "i".

1. Has aa5874 erred in his assertion?

2. If he has erred, then, do you intend to claim that the original manuscript contained an "i"? Alternatively, do you seek to claim error on the part of aa5874, because the nature of the modification is banal, even trivial, hence, claims that aa5874 is "making a mountain out of a molehill"?

3. If, contrarily, aa5874 did not err, (and in my opinion, he did not err), i.e. if the UV investigation did in fact reveal evidence of tampering with the "original" text, then, what is the point of your comment?

In my opinion, aa5874 was correct, in pointing to this forged document, supposedly authored by Tacitus, as clearly inadmissable into Chaucer's and JustSteve's cauldron (brew?) of documents supporting an ostensibly historical Jesus....

avi

Juststeve

Avi:

Evidence need not be impeccable to be considered. When we are talking about 2000 year old evidence it seldom is.

Steve