Sheshbazzar

Thanks Toto. and a good job of it.

Vorkosigan

Alas, the 'son of god' tail is iffy in the textual evidence. Hence it is rejected by roughly half of scholars.

Vorkosigan

sotto voce

Not that it makes a difference. One cannot read much further without seeing that.

tanya

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 1 Mark 1

Byzantine: (majority text)
αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

Westcott & Hort (presumably, Codex Vaticanus)
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησου Χριστοῦ.

Codex Sinaiticus:

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιυ χυ (with superscript, macra, over ιυ and χυ)

Whether half or all “scholars” accept or reject an ancient document is irrelevant, in my opinion. What is relevant is the fact that we possess no universally acknowledged version of this important first verse.

Is the subject, J.C.? Or Jesus Christ? Or Jesus Christ, son of god?

Anyone can stand on any street corner, proclaiming the divinity of Jesus, and who can argue against such a person, for it says so, in Mark 1:1. Or does it?

Why does an omnipotent deity, able to create the entire universe in the smallest unit of time, require a son?

Shepherds need sons, to watch over the sheep and goats.
Kings need sons to become warriors.
Fishermen need sons to help catch and market the fish.
Farmers need sons to help planting and harvesting crops.

But why does an omnipotent, omniscient deity require assistance?

Why would only half the scholars reject the Byzantine version? Which version was authored (not copied) first? Since our two oldest extant manuscripts, Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both omit υιου του θεου, why wouldn't everyone accept the premise that this phrase represents a late addition to the text? Is there some Patristic evidence that supports the Byzantine version: υιου του θεου ? Is the papyrus document representing that Patristic source, older than the aforementioned two codices--(fourth century CE) ?

Gary Olson

Sorry to interrupt, but I'm new here and have been trying to find a thread establishing how atheists refute Tacitus history, as follows:

The Annals (Tacitus)/Book 15
44
Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. 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 Judaea, 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

This was pulled from a Wiki reference to the Acta Senatus. If I am mistaken, please let me know, but isn't this confirmation that Jesus was an historical figure? Please advise the reasoning for dismissing this.

Toto

First of all, there is no mention of Jesus, only "Christus." This is one indication that Tacitus, if he in fact wrote this, relied only on second hand hearsay reports by Christians, and had no independent sources for the existence of Jesus.

Secondly, there is a credible case that this passage was a later Christian interpolation.

If you are interested in this issue, use the search function in this forum, and search for threads with Tacitus in the title. There are numerous threads, such as this.

Meatros

I'm not a Jesus Myther, but this isn't a very strong evidence. All this would show is that around 100AD, there were some Christians and that there religion centered around a figure called "Christus". In other words, this could be used, possibly, to support the belief in a central figure, but Tacitus isn't speaking of his own eye witness experience.

Gary Olson

Thanks, this saves a lot of hunting. Now that I know about the Search function, I'll try not to rehash already exhausted topics. Probably should have done more research on navigation here.

sotto voce

In the whole biblical context, it makes no difference which text is read. The person on the street corner is not saying directly that Jesus is divine. That person is saying that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world. The one promised to do this was the Messiah or Christ. Now atonement, in the biblical perspective, could not achieved by one less than perfect. In the biblical perspective, only one person is perfect, the deity. So, in the biblical perspective, the Christ must be divine, or there is no atonement.

Not a son; but, in the biblical perspective, deity must be made manifest— Immanuel— in order to make atonement known to humanity. The phrase 'son of God', usually written 'Son of God' does not, in the biblical perspective, mean 'offspring of God', but 'manifestation of God'.

aa5874

The Short-Ending gMark EXPOSES Tacitus Annals 15.44 as a most blatant forgery.

1. In gMark, Jesus did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ.

2. In gMark, Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be CONVERTED.

3. In gMark, Jesus did NOT want any one, except the disciples, to know he was CHRIST.

4. In gMark, there were NO cult called Christians up to the day Jesus was crucified.

5. In gMark, the disciples had either Betrayed, Abandoned or Denied Jesus up to the day he was crucified.

6. No apologetic source used Tacitus Annals 15.44 AT ALL up to and beyond the 5th century-- at least 300 years after Annals was supposedly written.


Tacitus Annals does NOT at all reflect the Jesus story of gMark and does NOT mention the name Jesus at all.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 MUST be a forgery or NOT about the Jesus of gMark.