aa5874

Please show that the ACTUAL WORDS from which those LATIN letters were DERIVED.

Don't SHOW me the letters ISOLATED.

Please SHOW the two words. I want to SEE them.

When I looked at the supposed "RI" in CHRISTUS and the "RI" in TIBERIUS there is a differrence.


You seem to be attempting to shrug off the serious problem of the EXPOSED fraud.

Examine the MANIPULATED "ANNALS" 15 . Once the word was originally "CHRESTIANS" and NOT "CHRISTIANS" then "CHRISTUS" was NOT the name from which "CHRESTIANS" was DERIVED.

"CHRESTIANS" did NOT get their name from "CHRISTUS" but from a WORD meaning GOOD (CHRESTUS)

"CHRISTUS" was ADDED after the MANIPULATION of CHRESTIANS to appear like CHRISTIANS.

Any SCHOLAR who knew ancient LATIN writing should have IMMEDIATELY recognized the ANNALS was MANIPULATED and that the passage with CHRISTUS was a late INTERPOLATION over 400 years ago.

There was NO NEED for any ULTRA VIOLET light examination.

Why did it have to take 400 years to do an ULTRA VIOLET light test when the NAKED EYE can detect the FRAUD by anyone competent in ancient LATIN writing?

It is now CLEAR that we have a Massive Fraud and a COVER-UP with respect to Tacitus Annals and the MEDICEAN manuscripts.

hjalti

Here you go.

Frank

The video that's been presented here is total baloney (I just had the displeasure of wasting several minutes watching the thing). First, the narrator states there's no proof that Tacitus wrote this piece at all (presumably he's referring to the entire document, not just the controversial portion). Of course scholars have researched this document extensively, and matched it to other Tactean writings, and confirm that this is indeed a work originally authored by Tacitus. His next implication concerns the "e" "i" controversy (which is already a settled issue, it was an "e" ... not an "i" as believed by many).

However, one contention this narrator makes (who as far as I can tell is not a qualified scholar in this area), is that the name of Christ should actually read Chastus. Even if that's true, I wonder if he considered the implications of this claim? The term Chastus in Latin is analogous to chastity in english, and it denotes "purity" (an idea that can be very clearly associated with Christian legends concerning Jesus).

Again, even presuming this guy is right about the two words in question, we have a guy, who's the namesake of a religion that was being practiced in Rome during the time of Nero, who was executed under Pilate in Judea, who's referred to using words that relate to goodness and purity. If we presume that Tacitus only knew approximate details about this cult, it's very easy to explain these grammatical mistakes (in fact given the meaning of the terms allegedly used by Tacitus, it makes very good sense). Again, there is no good case that this passage is entirely spurious, or was not referring to Christians.

The guy did make one valid point, it is unlikely that Tacitus derived this information from an official record (which in itself completely eviscerates the evidentiary value of this in the context of the supposed historicity of Jesus).

aa5874

There is some slight difference in the "RI" of the word translated as CHRISTUS and the "RI" of the word translated as TIBERIUS as found in the passage.

But, What we have is a MASSIVE fraud and COVER up.

It should have been KNOWN and CIRCULATED over 400 years ago that the MEDICEAN manuscript was MANIPULATED by those who were FAMILIAR with ancient LATIN.

aa5874

How in the world can the video be baloney? That is EXACTLY what is NOT baloney.

FROM the video, one can see the ACTUAL shapes of the letters whether or NOT you agree with the narrator.

Originally you were making claims of the authenticity of Tacitus Annals but it is NOW exposed that we have a MASSIVE FRAUD and COVER up on hands.

It must have been known for HUNDREDS of years that the MEDICEAN manuscript was MANIPULATED by simply looking with the NAKED EYE at the "RI" combination of CHRISTUS and TIBERIUS which is directly below CHRISTIANUS of the same page.

Frank

I explained why, if you care to address the points I made, feel free.

Right (although the idea of Chastus is certainly quite a leap, I did address the question even under the assumption this person is correct in his pretty unconventional claim).

You and the peculiar fellow in that video haven't exposed shit

If you think some anonymous guy on youtube, who's posting pictures of the text that are already widely available, is "scholarship" .... then I'll just let that speak for itself.

So what? How is this a relevant fact in a "secular" (and academic) examination of the text?

aa5874

But, you have CONTRADICTED yourself now that it has been SHOWN that the MEDICEAN Manuscript has been manipulated and you CANNOT ever pretend NOT to know that the words CHRISTIANS and CHRISTUS are part of a fraud and cover-up.

Look at excerpts of your own words at the START of the thread.

What a joke! You won't be able give that joke again about "REAL" evidence of the existence of Jesus".

The MEDICEAN manuscript is REAL evidence of FRAUD and a cover-up. And you SAW it .

Frank

What the historians (who's opinions I've posted) believe, is that the alteration of the single letter in the manuscript we have, bears little relevance to the authenticity question. The "i"/"e" controversy isn't new, and the evidence that it was originally an "e" is conclusive. However, in the opinion of scholars who have examined this, Tacitus likely wrote it (originally) with an "e" ... he was referring to Christians, he did not glean any of the information pertaining to Jesus from any Roman record, and the "e" was likely a mistake (the same mistake made by some Greek writers when referencing Jesus). They also do not believe the passage was spurious, and they do not believe a Christian scribe (with the requisite level of skill) would have made such a mistake.

aa5874

Why are promoting erroneous information?

1. The word "JESUS" is NOT in Annals.

2. The MEDICEAN manuscript has been shown to be MANIPULATED with the NAKED EYE.

3. The MEDICEAN manuscript has been shown to be manipulated with ULTRA VIOLET light.

4. CHRESTIANS did not get their name from CHRISTUS.

5. CHRISTUS was a LATE interpolation after CHRESTIANS was manipulated to be DELIBERATELY mis-translated by LATIN EXPERTS since there is really no "RI" combination in the word called CH(RI)STIANS.

6. EXPERTS or HISTORIANS provided BOGUS information to the public when they translated a KNOWN manipulated word as CH(RI)STIANS.

7. Tertullian did claim that the Romans called Christians by the name of Chrestians.

8. Sulpitius Severus did not make any reference to Christus when he mentioned a passage similar to Annals.

9. No church writer claimed Tacitus mentioned Jesus.

10. Tacitus wrote that Jews expected Messianic figures at around 70 CE not at the time of Pilate.

We have a MASSIVE FRAUD and cover up.

LATIN EXPERTS knew for over 400 years that a MEDICEAN MANUSCRIPT was manipulated.

spin

As people are for some reason going to go on about the letters of this page, here is the relevant section with transcription and indications. The following image is stored on FRDB so it has size limitations.



I've marked some of the conventions used by the scribe, but there are others.

The only people who didn't know that "christianos" had been changed were those not wanting to see. The "ri" combination is a dead give away. The gap between "i" and "s" doesn't reflect the scribe. There are sufficient examples to show how he wrote that combination. The "s" lacks a large blob on its left: see for example "p[o]enis" above or "inuisos".

The form of "christus" seems to be a standard reflection of the scribe's work.

Here are some specific examples of the letter combinations "is" and "es" plus a reconstruction with an "e":



The text does not allow us to decide if the removed "e" in "chrestianos" was original to the text or a scribal error during transmission. The scribal process usually involved a reader of the new text who looked for copying errors. A number of errors remain in the text, such as the dropped "o" in poenis above christianos. The ones that remain would suggest that they were already in the text. A change from christianos to chrestianos may have been an error by the last copyist, if that scribe were French. A text correction suggests a difference between the new and old texts.