la70119

For what it's worth, lamah sabachthani does not appear to be aramaic. It appears to be misunderstood Hebrew.

לָמָ֣ה עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי is pronounced lā·māh ‘ă·zaḇ·tā·nî in Hebrew. (Strong's H4100 & H5800)

But a sign of going insane on the cross? I don't buy it.

aa5874

What!!! What source of antiquity made such claims.

Do you know that in the Gospels that Jesus told his disciples NOT to tell anyone he was the Messiah?

Do you know that in the Gospels that Pilate found NO fault with Jesus?

What you IMAGINE is NOT history. It never even happened in gMark.

It is virtually impossible for you to assert "Jesus misquoted Psalm 22.1" when you have NO way of confirming that Jesus of gMark did actually live.

We have the words written by the author that is all.

In gMark Jesus NEVER did feed 9000 men with a few bread and fish, nor did he curse a fig tree so that it died nor changed the weather by his commands.

It is just most remarkable that you can claim to know what Jesus said in gMark when the story appears to be a Myth Fable of a Phantom.

Why should your imagination be trusted and especially when you have NO corroboration at all for your claims?

Doug Shaver

Why?

la70119

None, but Josephus and Tacitus come close.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1

Of course, this seems to be what Origen quoted, although he read additional material in it as well, and if it's authentic, then what he [Josephus] wrote in Antiquities 18.3.3, if anything, was doctored by additions or subtractions or both to get Josephus "on board" with the Imperial Christian Message.

Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Tacitus, unless a Christian forger put words into his mouth, says the person who started the cult was "afflicted with THE penalty" = crucified by Pontius Pilate. *That Pilate was called a procurator in the latin makes this sentence about one Christus very suspect because he wrote elsewhere that Claudius was the first to appoint procurators to govern provinces and Josephus' Antiquities reflect this.

lmbarre

It is interesting that death drove him to insanity and then released him from that agony.

lmbarre

Because as far as my understanding goes, it best explains the strange case
of Jesus of Nazareth and would be a likely outcome of his violent condemnation of the temple activities and his dangerous differenciation of Caesar and God in his answer to the question of payig taxes. It is also coherent with the episode of the triumphal entry where Jesus for the first time is making public messianic claims by a sign act. The proposal also takes into account of both John and Jesus thinking that the Messsianic Age was imminent or "at hand." I also think that there is good support that Jesus actually said his alleged last words as they satisfy the criteria of dissimilairty, embarassment and orality. It also provides a credible explanation of where gMark got his idea for his tragic portrayal of Jesus. Finally, Messianic pretenders were also part of Jesus' socio-political environment.

Doug Shaver

That argument might work, if we must assume that there is at least some history in the gospels. But I don't see why we need to assume that.

aa5874

Annals 15.44 MUST be a forgery because even the very gMark did NOT ever state that Jesus started a new religion under the name of Christ and, in the same book, Jesus told his disciples NOT to tell any one he was Christ.

In fact, in gMark, on the day Jesus was crucified, his OWN disciples already had either Betrayed, Abandoned or Denied Jesus.

And to further show that Tacitus Annals MUST be a forgery, the very author of the Earliest Jesus story in gMark claimed Jesus wanted the Jews to REMAIN in SIN.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 is not only a forgery, it is a Massive lie or mis-representation of the Earliest Jesus story in gMark.

The earliest gMark DESTROYS the forgery and lie in Tacitus Annals 15.44.

And one more thing, up to the 5th century, Not even one single apologetic source used Tacitus Annals 15.44 to even corroborate the TF in Antiquities of the Jews.

lmbarre

I conclude, not assume, that there was a historical Jesus from a couple of arguments based upon Galations. First, in Gal 1:19, Paul describes James as the "brother of the Lord." I am interpreting adolphos to mean a literal sibling. (A figurative interpretation of the phrase does not yield any good sense.) Second, that John, James and Cephas were regarded as "pillars" (Gal 2:9) of the church seems likely based on the fact that all three knew Jesus personally.

la70119

What do you think I was hinting at, when I commented about the word, "procurator?" Sheesh. :rooleyes:

OTOH, one could argue that it's not a forgery because because the passage says it was "checked for the moment" in that it DIED OUT COMPLETELY. But I'm not going to press that line because "for the moment" sounds just too-brief, like someone was reading Acts.

But not the whole thing has to be a forgery! The all important word, "Christianos," which sets up the next sentence that probably WAS forged, was originally spelled "Chrestianos."



Now does Chrestiani necessarily mean "Christians?" No it doesn't. In fact, it predated any historical reference to Christianity, as this inscription from Rome (CIL VI 24944) shows:



From History Hunters International:

I will have to say this again: this PREDATES any recognition of Christianity in Rome.

In this inscription Chrestiani are clearly NOT Christians! An alternative explanation was once forwarded by Francesco Carotta that the Latin chrestiani was probably derived from the Greek xrhstai which means "bankers, userers, duns" but he took to mean "speculators." Well, modern history has shown that if bankers aren't kept on a short leash, they inevitably will become speculators!

Annals 15:44 is not necessarily a complete forgery. But it was certainly tarted up like Josephus' Antiquities Bk 18, ch. 3.