Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-30-2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria L

.....There is no dispute that Christians were in Rome at the time Annals was written.....

There is a dispute.

The word "Chrestianos" has been MANIPULATED to read "Christianos"

Under ultraviolet light, the Earliest manuscript of Tacitus' Annals, the MEDICEAN Manuscripts at the Laurentian Library, shows that the letter "E" has been manipulated.

Quote:

....The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin.

It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s.

Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[8].

In 1950, at Harald Fuchs' request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript, she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.

[9] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one.

Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'.[10]...

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

We NOW have PROOF that Annals was MANIPULATED.

Frank · 03-30-2011, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Maria:

The least Tacitus shows, if authentic, is that there were, at the time he wrote The Annals people who believed in an historic Jesus who was crucifid under Pilate. That is just one of several data points that needs to be accounted for by a myther. The myther must offer a better explanation for how people came to believe that than the HJ person has. As Chaucer has said the case is cumulative. Those of us who lean to the side of a HJ know there is no extant first hand testimony about Jesus from the time he was alive. We also know there is very little first hand eyewitness testimony about the vast majority of the people who lived in that time and place.

Steve

Indeed, if we don't say it was an interpolation (or redaction), we have to say (regardless of Tacitus' source) it's some evidence. It's obviously far from conclusive, but ....

Roger Pearse · 03-30-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria L

But even if this Tacitus passage is genuine, so what? He was born in 56CE... roughly 25 years after the alleged crucifixion of the alleged Jesus Christ. Tacitus was 60 years old when he wrote Annals. 85 years is a long time for us; for people back then - whose life expectancy was so much less than ours - it was an eternity. 85 years ago it was 1926; the year of the General Strike in the UK, the birth of the queen and the death of Rudolph Valentino. Hitler was a little known minor crackpot in Bavaria.

There is, of course, something in this, although in a literate society less than might be imagined, particular from a man living in the highest society in the centre of the world, passing its archives every day, and connected by birth or other close connection with everyone and everything of importance that had occurred in the last century of history.

But I happened to be reading the journals of Auberon Waugh this evening and came across this article (Way of the world: the forgotten years: 1995-6 p.57):

Quote:

Wednesday, November 15, 1995.

People often complain that there is little of interest in the Sunday newspapers, but a fascinating correspondence has been running for several weeks in the Sunday Telegraph on the subject of aged parents.

Mr. R. J. Buckstone of Emmer Green, near Reading , reveals that his paternal grandfather was born in 1802, and wonders if any other reader can claim a grandparent born in the 18th century. William Court's father, who fought in the second Afghan war, was born in 1848.

G. C. Williams, who lives in Winchester, had a grandfather who met a man who saw Bonny Prince Charlie's army cross the border in 1745.
...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Kapyong · 03-30-2011, 02:21 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It might be apparent to you that doctors need to wash their hands, but it wasn't before

Ignaz Semmelweis's crusading.

Yah - poor Semmelweis - way ahead of his time.

He solved the problem of infection in 1847 simply by having the doctors wash their hands. What a genius breakthrough !

But - tragically, no-one believed him, and his increasing attempts to convince others lead him to being seen a crackpot. Then he died of INFECTION ! Pasteur got fame, Semmelweis was forgotten.

Nowadays we know how right he was.

Semmelweis was the Doherty of hand-washing.
Doherty is the Semmelweis of Jesus Mythicism.
:-)

Kapyong

Pardon slight derail, forgot which thread I was on.

spin · 03-30-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You've given no evidence that you ... <bluster>

And there we have it. A steely determination to do wrong,

Determination is one of Roger's few virtues. To do wrong, definitely. He misrepresents, he insults, he plays innocent and righteous while trying to screw anyone who he construes as imputing his religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

...a steady refusal to do any research,...

Again Roger is talking about things he knows nothing about. I wish he would learn from his mistakes rather than repeat them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

combined with a brass face in so doing and an impudent determination to demand others prove things to him -- so long as those things are inconvenient, of course.

My cards are on the table in the second post of this thread. Roger has said nothing meaningful about my arguments. Don't ever expect him to say anything of substance about anybody's efforts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Moral:

Do we expect something wise to come after what precedes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

We mustn't spend too much of your time on negatives, friends, whatever they are against. Any of us can lose our humanity and degenerate into a dog barking mindlessly at what we don't like, if we spend our days telling ourselves what a fool everyone else is. It rots the mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Let's stick this poor fool on ignore and go back to the question: what scholarly literature can we find which discusses the question of the authenticity of the passage?

:wave:

Talking about fools and dogs barking mindlessly are merely you knowingly flouting the forum rules. Come back, Roger, when you grow some integrity.

aa5874 · 03-30-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Indeed, if we don't say it was an interpolation (or redaction), we have to say (regardless of Tacitus' source) it's some evidence. It's obviously far from conclusive, but ....

But, look at what you wrote three days earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

....There is only one piece of evidence that I find persuasive, the reference by the Roman historian Tacitus (and before you try and attack Tacitus, you should understand that he's held in high esteem among historians, and he was not a Christian, and didn't have many good things to say about Christians).....

Incredibly, it can be PROVEN that Tacitus' Annals have been MANIPULATED by ultraviolet LIGHT.

It can be shown the Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are FORGERIES BASED on the writings of Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" x.17 and "Against Celsus" 1.47 and 2.13.

HJ the OBSCURE preacher man has EVAPORATED .

spin · 03-30-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Semmelweis... tragically, no-one believed him, and his increasing attempts to convince others lead him to being seen a crackpot. Then he died of INFECTION ! Pasteur got fame, Semmelweis was forgotten.

Nowadays we know how right he was.

Semmelweis was the Doherty of hand-washing.
Doherty is the Semmelweis of Jesus Mythicism.

Yeah, I wish those Jesus mythers would wash their hands.

Kapyong · 03-30-2011, 02:50 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Maria:

The least Tacitus shows, if authentic, is that there were, at the time he wrote The Annals people who believed in an historic Jesus who was crucifid under Pilate. That is just one of several data points that needs to be accounted for by a myther. The myther must offer a better explanation for how people came to believe that than the HJ person has.

Yup.
Doherty has done just that. Were you asleep for the last 10 years?

So -
How do YOU explain why Scientologists believe in Xenu?

How do YOU explain why Mormons believe in the angel Moroni and the Golen Plates?

How do YOU explain why Jediists believe in the force?

How do YOU explain how cargo cultists believe in John Frum?

How do YOU explain how people believe in Don Juan (from Carlos Castaneda.)

People have, and do, believe in all sorts of things and beings that did not happen. Is that news to you?

Kapyong

Kapyong · 03-30-2011, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Yeah, I wish those Jesus mythers would wash their hands.

Haha :-)

avi · 03-30-2011, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria L

Does anyone believe that he took the trouble of travelling all the way to Judea to check out the life and death of this, for him, minor character?

Thank you Maria, for this question.

I think it is very significant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

The least Tacitus shows, if authentic, is that there were, at the time he wrote The Annals people who believed in an historic Jesus who was crucifid under Pilate. That is just one of several data points that needs to be accounted for by a myther. The myther must offer a better explanation for how people came to believe that than the HJ person has. As Chaucer has said the case is cumulative. Those of us who lean to the side of a HJ know there is no extant first hand testimony about Jesus from the time he was alive. We also know there is very little first hand eyewitness testimony about the vast majority of the people who lived in that time and place.

This is another very important point.

To my provincial way of thinking, a man capable of performing miracles, not just magic acts, like Houdini, but bringing back to life dead folks, restoring vision to blind people, eliminating, with words, epilepsy in a young girl, walking on water, feeding thousands with a handful of loaves of bread, is someone who would have been the focus of attention of every living person at that time.

Such a person's fame would have spread like wildfire. Such a person, no less, a Jewish Rabbi, would have CERTAINLY found a reference, a mention, or, at the very least, a footnote, in the most important contemporary Jewish historian of that era, Philo, who resided in the second most important Jewish capital of that era, Alexandria.

How can anyone explain that Philo does not mention Jesus?

a. Jesus, a real, genuine, living human, was not yet alive, let alone, dead, at the time of Philo;, or,

b. Philo did write about Jesus, but his text was censored, redacted, or mutilated beyond recognition in our only extant copies of his work;, or,

c. Jesus was not known to Philo, because Jesus had not yet been created--Jesus is a myth. Did Thomas Jefferson write about the angel Moroni?

or,
d. Philo did write about Jesus, I simply haven't yet read that passage, in his many texts....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Indeed, if we don't say it was an interpolation (or redaction), we have to say (regardless of Tacitus' source) it's some evidence. It's obviously far from conclusive, but ....

No, in fact, the contrary is true. We must NOT accept the validity of the reports in several newspaper articles about the accomplishments of Paul Bunyan, simply based on the quantity of reports.

It is NOT evidence, simply because someone asserts the datum to be true, and conversely, it is not false, simply because I, or anyone else, identifies the data as fraudulent.

One requires careful analysis of the manuscript evidence. The starting point is the evidence. It is the data which drives the conclusion, not the number of so called experts voicing their notions of how to explain the data....

The evidence for Tacitus lies somewhere between unsustainable, and forged. It is at very best, inconclusive. The most reasonable approach to such corrupted evidence, is to discount it. I am reminded of the fuzzy video pictures of extraterrestrial objects seen in New Mexico. Hundreds of people, all kinds of people, attest to the validity of these observations. Does that quantity of eye witness evidence impress you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Roger has said nothing meaningful about my arguments.

:hysterical:

avi

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.