Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 08-04-2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi pinkvoy,

Tacitus used the term "Chrestus" that is completely different than Christ.

Imagine a group called the Saviorians because their founder was named Joshua Savior.
Now imagine a writer saying the Goodians, followers of Mr. Good were accused of setting fire to Rome and punished.

It would be ridiculous to say that the Goodians must be the same as the Saviorians.

We now know that the text of Tacitus was forged by Christians to change the original name.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

the passage in question

The key part of the passage reads as follows:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

leaves no rational doubt this is Christ. It also represents an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament

Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 42
^ Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 2001 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 343
^ Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004 ISBN 0-521-61620-4 page xi

Jesus myth = denialists.

Philo also alludes to some disturbances in Rome leading Cladius to take action against certain jews in Rome. .

Quote:

. . But he never removed them from Rome, nor did he ever deprive them of their rights as Roman citizens, because he had a regard for Judaea, nor did he ever meditate any new steps of innovation or rigour with respect to their synagogues, nor did he forbid their assembling for the interpretation of the Law, nor did he make any opposition to their offerings of first fruits.

pinkvoy · 08-04-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

the passage in question

The key part of the passage reads as follows:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

leaves no rational doubt this is Christ. It also represents an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament

Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 42
^ Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 2001 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 343
^ Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004 ISBN 0-521-61620-4 page xi

Jesus myth = denialists.

Philo also alludes to some disturbances in Rome leading Cladius to take action against certain jews in Rome. .

Quote:

. . But he never removed them from Rome, nor did he ever deprive them of their rights as Roman citizens, because he had a regard for Judaea, nor did he ever meditate any new steps of innovation or rigour with respect to their synagogues, nor did he forbid their assembling for the interpretation of the Law, nor did he make any opposition to their offerings of first fruits.

good for Philo

GakuseiDon · 08-04-2012, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi pinkvoy,

Tacitus used the term "Chrestus" that is completely different than Christ.

Imagine a group called the Saviorians because their founder was named Joshua Savior.
Now imagine a writer saying the Goodians, followers of Mr. Good were accused of setting fire to Rome and punished.

It would be ridiculous to say that the Goodians must be the same as the Saviorians.

We now know that the text of Tacitus was forged by Christians to change the original name.

Actually, it seems that the Romans may have called Christ both "Christus" and "Chrestus". From Tertullian's "Apology":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian01.html

But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you "Chrestianus" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity. You hate, therefore, in the guiltless, even a guiltless name. But the special ground of dislike to the sect is, that it bears the name of its Founder...

Before, therefore, taking up a dislike to the name, it behoved you to consider the sect in the author, or the author in the sect. But now, without any sifting and knowledge of either, the mere name is made matter of accusation, the mere name is assailed, and a sound alone brings condemnation on a sect and its author both, while of both you are ignorant, because they have such and such a designation, not because they are convicted of anything wrong.

Toto · 08-04-2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

...

the passage in question

The key part of the passage reads as follows:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

leaves no rational doubt this is Christ. It also represents an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament

Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 42
^ Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 2001 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 343
^ Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004 ISBN 0-521-61620-4 page xi

This passage is not so simple as your dogmatic assertion makes it out to be. If it really left "no rational doubt" of the historicity of Jesus, it would make things much simpler. And the idea that this second or third hand report of a Christ who was crucified by Pilate in a document of unverifiable authenticity could prove the reliability of the New Testament - that's just a breathtaking leap into irrationality.

The whole subject of of Tacitus was discussed in this thread, which is still open. If you think you can solve the problem, feel free to add to it.

But be sure to read these course notes from the late Darrel Doughty explaining what is wrong about the passage.

aa5874 · 08-04-2012, 05:47 PM

We know that Tacitus Annals with Christus Magically Fell from the Sky because:

1. No writer of antiquity mentioned it for Hundreds of years.

2. Sulpitius Severus mentioned a passage similar to Tacitus Annals 15.44 and "Christus" is missing.

Examine Sacred History 2.29

Quote:

....He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a blatant forgery that was inserted sometime After the start of the 5th century.

PhilosopherJay · 08-04-2012, 06:33 PM

Hi pinkvoy,

The discovery that the word was CHRESTIANOS and not CHRISTIANOS in the earliest known manuscript was made in 2011. The books you cite are now out of date and should not be relied upon in this matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi pinkvoy,

Tacitus used the term "Chrestus" that is completely different than Christ.

Imagine a group called the Saviorians because their founder was named Joshua Savior.
Now imagine a writer saying the Goodians, followers of Mr. Good were accused of setting fire to Rome and punished.

It would be ridiculous to say that the Goodians must be the same as the Saviorians.

We now know that the text of Tacitus was forged by Christians to change the original name.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

the passage in question

The key part of the passage reads as follows:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

leaves no rational doubt this is Christ. It also represents an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament

Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 42
^ Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 2001 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 343
^ Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004 ISBN 0-521-61620-4 page xi

Jesus myth = denialists.

pinkvoy · 08-04-2012, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

...

the passage in question

The key part of the passage reads as follows:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

leaves no rational doubt this is Christ. It also represents an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament

Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 42
^ Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 2001 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 343
^ Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004 ISBN 0-521-61620-4 page xi

This passage is not so simple as your dogmatic assertion makes it out to be. If it really left "no rational doubt" of the historicity of Jesus, it would make things much simpler. And the idea that this second or third hand report of a Christ who was crucified by Pilate in a document of unverifiable authenticity could prove the reliability of the New Testament - that's just a breathtaking leap into irrationality.

The whole subject of of Tacitus was discussed in this thread, which is still open. If you think you can solve the problem, feel free to add to it.

But be sure to read these course notes from the late Darrel Doughty explaining what is wrong about the passage.

http://web.archive.org/web/200905242...s/tacitus.html

Quote:

When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes! Then, with regard to this particular source, I note that the earliest manuscript we have for the Annales dates from the 11th century, and must therefore have been copied and recopied many times, by generations of Christian scribes (and Christian apologists). So there were certainly many opporunities to modify what Tacitus originally wrote.

So Josepheus TF is a Christian forgery based on it being too pious which I agree.

Considering Tacitus calls Christians a superstition and he blames Pilate rather than the Jews for the crucifixion, is pretty hostile yet it is also a "forgery" b/c it resembles matry accounts of the second century. Pure speculation and this important passage to Jesus historicity is simply dismissed. Sounds more like polemics than serious scholarship.

pinkvoy · 08-04-2012, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi pinkvoy,

The discovery that the word was CHRESTIANOS and not CHRISTIANOS in the earliest known manuscript was made in 2011. The books you cite are now out of date and should not be relied upon in this matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

the passage in question

The key part of the passage reads as follows:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

leaves no rational doubt this is Christ. It also represents an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament

Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 42
^ Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 2001 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 343
^ Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004 ISBN 0-521-61620-4 page xi

Jesus myth = denialists.

This author
http://www.textexcavation.com/docume...hrestianos.pdf

points out that it could be a scribal error, notes there is a dot above the "e" which suggests attempt by the writer/scribe to correct his spelling mistake and points out that in that manuscript, does not have the name Chrestus but Christus with no attempt to correct that spelling (i.e to Chrestus)

Occam's razor.

aa5874 · 08-04-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

This author
http://www.textexcavation.com/docume...hrestianos.pdf

points out that it could be a scribal error, notes there is a dot above the "e" which suggests attempt by the writer/scribe to correct his spelling mistake and points out that in that manuscript, does not have the name Chrestus but Christus with no attempt to correct that spelling (i.e to Chrestus)

Occam's razor.

What?? Please, you really don't know what you are talking about.

You MUST understand that when "Christus" was INSERTED that the Fraudster had to change the word Latin word for "ChrEstians" to "ChrIstians".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MII.png

But, you must realize that the Fraudster made a massive blunder, the "RI" combination in the Interpolated word is NOT the "RI" combination used in ALL other Latin words with "RI" combination in Tacitus Annals.

In other words, the RI combinatination in the manipulated word for "Christians" is UNKNOWN in Tacitus Annals.

Examine the "RI" combination for Ch--RI--stus and Tibe--RI--us.

The forgery is BLATANT.

PhilosopherJay · 08-05-2012, 06:37 AM

Hi Pinkvoy,

What you are saying that is that the Christian scribe who copied this passage got the spelling of the word "Christian" wrong. You are saying that In the only known instance of the spelling of the word "Christian" in the only known manuscipt of the only known text that you wish to use to prove the existence of Christians in 64 CE, the Christian scribe spelled the word "Christian" wrong.

"Christian" and "Christ" would be the precise words that a Christian scribe would be most familiar with. The fact that in the whole book of tens of thousands of words, it is the only mention of Christians would certainly make the Scribe sit up and take notice and be most careful copying this word.

We can say because of its rarity in the manuscript this was the word that the scribe was most likely to get right and was least likely to make an error on, and yet he got it wrong while getting the other words in the passage, at least, all right. We have one unbelievable fantastic coincidence here.

Second, we know from Tertullian and other writers that apparently, some Roman writers did speak of someone named Chrestus who had followers.

Thus you would have it that not only did the scribe make a spelling mistake, he made it so that it matched an actual name that we know about from Suetonius. This would not be the case if he got any of the other letters wrong. He could have miswritten any of the eleven letters in the word Christianos wrong. and come up with a word meaning nothing. He could have seen the iota as an Alpha or Beta or Gamma or any one of the 20 other letters of the Greek alphabet. Thus the chances of this error as opposed to any other single spelling error was 23 X 11 or 1 in 246.

Thus we have two fantastic and unbelievable accidents

1. The scribe somehow managed to get the one word he was most familiar with and most should have gotten right to be wrong.

2. He somehow managed to make the mistake and just the mistake in such a way that it matched a known name from Suetonius.

By Occam's razor or any other logic, we have to conclude that the scribe got the original word right and the "correction" was the change away from the original.

One could say that this being simply a scribal error is almost as likely as Jesus curing a blind man with his spit around the same time as the Emperor Tiberius did the trick.

If there were other manuscripts that did not have the change we could dismiss it, but because there is not, there is simply no way that this can be seriously taken as proof of the existence of one single Christian existing in 64 C.E.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi pinkvoy,

The discovery that the word was CHRESTIANOS and not CHRISTIANOS in the earliest known manuscript was made in 2011. The books you cite are now out of date and should not be relied upon in this matter.

This author
http://www.textexcavation.com/docume...hrestianos.pdf

points out that it could be a scribal error, notes there is a dot above the "e" which suggests attempt by the writer/scribe to correct his spelling mistake and points out that in that manuscript, does not have the name Chrestus but Christus with no attempt to correct that spelling (i.e to Chrestus)

Occam's razor.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.