ju'iblex

i have a program on my computer, i cant for the life of me remember where i got it from. depending on the size <its only text>, i'll see if i can send it to you if you like.

Toto

From <a href="http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words?piletas" target="_blank">an on line Latin - English dictionary</a>

spin

Alexis Comnenus:
-----------------
By the way, Pilate is attested by a contempory inscription from Caesaria and mentioned by Josephus so Ignatius is not the first time he is mentioned. Finally Tacitus mentions Pilate as crucifying Jesus before your dating of Ignatius so it was clearly well known enough to reach the ear of a Roman senator.
-----------------

I really love it when modern people quote this bit of Tacitus when none of the ancients did. Tertullian for example knew Tacitus. Don't you find that it is exceptionally strange that he doesn't cite the specific reference??

ju'iblex

thanks for that Toto, thats what i was looking for.

spin

Haran:
-------
I don't know Kuhn, but Kuhn doesn't know the languages...
-------

I would not be so hasty, Haran, to make such statements.

Haran:
-------
Hebrew
------
Mary = Miriam = Rebellion
Herod = Heroic
-------

If Herod means "Heroic" then it doesn't come from Hebrew, does it? but from `hrws. (I don't endorse the alternative proposed here.)

Mary, as written in Greek, may indeed come from the Hebrew. However, this wasn't the basic problem, but how in ancient times phonological similarities were taken to have other intrinsic similarities. There are many Indo-European languages which use(d) some form of mare to mean sea, Slavs, Celts, early Germanic tribes, and Italic languages. If Ignatius knew more than one I-E language he could have made the connection. (Again I don't endorse it.)


Haran:
-------
Latin (Cassell's)
-----
Pontius = Roman Name
Pilatus = "spear/javelin carrier"
-------

pons in Latin means "bridge", but could also mean "way". To the ancient Greeks that way was the sea, hence the name pontos.

iason:
------
pontos piletas (dense sea (of matter))
------

Haran:
-------
I don't think Pontius derives from pontus.
-------

It definitely doesn't, but that was not really the claim, I don't think. What was of interest are the connections that Ignatius made. And the Greek word is pontos! (That's the language Ignatius was writing in.)

----------

Haran, I think you've been naughty. Your definitions seem to have come from your bible software and you accuse Kuhn of not knowing the languages. Naughty indeed.


&lt;Edited because the text box editor doesn't allow indentations, so Haran's more complex stuff ends up in bold.&gt;

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

spin

OFF TOPIC SLAGGING

cx after his rude posts to me complained about my not treating him with the respect I gather he thinks he deserves.

Now we have a series of posts from him which are downright rude to someone else.

"This is absurd."
"And to make something of it is senseless."
"This is even sillier."

Ultimately, cx might be correct in the substantive parts of is postings, but his rhetoric renders his posts simply insulting.

Finally cx writes:

"Now can we please dispense with this ridiculous discussion?"

One gets the impression that cx feels forced to read the discussion. Remember Nancy Reagan? When you go to click on a thread which might do you harm, "just say 'no'."

---

Incidentally, here is one of cx's dicta:

"Lastly there is no word PILETOS in Koine Greek."

He may be right, but what does he use as his authority for Koine Greek? The collection of words in the NT?? There are not enough words in that collection to be able to draw such a conclusion, so what is his authority for what is and is not Koine Greek? -- Your bet is as good as mine.

ju'iblex

where on earth did you get "pons" from?

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: juiblex ]</p>

Alexis Comnenus

Hello Spin,

No I don't find it remotely strange. Tacitus calls Christianity a 'pernicious superstitition' and an 'evil' like other 'hideous and shameful' things. Christians themselves are 'hated for their perversions'. If Christian apologists had used this to put their case - now that would be strange.

Also, I'm no Tacitus expect, but neither of the editions I have, nor my professor when we had it in Latin reading class ever expressed any doubt about the authenticity of this passage. In fact, it seems the only people who do are the usual suspects of fringe pseudo historians trying to argue Jesus never existed. If you have some solid textual evidence about the passage then tell us. Otherwise you are just engaging in innuendo like Toto did on Eusebius.

Regards

Alex

CX

Let's dispense with the invective shall we?

Are you truly ignorant of the history of Koine Greek? It is not attested to solely in the Xian New Testament. Koine was establish by Alexander the Great around 300 BCE as a universal Greek for the common people (Koine means common). Koine enjoyed widespread popularity from roughly 300BCE to 300CE and is found in not only the New Testament, but also the histories of Polybius and the discourses of Epictetus. Not only that, but some of the best lexical evidence for Koine comes not from literary sources, but from notes and household letters and records from the excavations at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. There were literally found thousands of papyri and fragments covering all manner of subjects from lists of weights and measures to financial documents etc. Where on earth did you get the notion that Koine is only found in the NT?

spin

An attestation, Alex, is an attestation, and this one is pretty good. For a religion that had (has) so little to support it historically, anything which gave some historical back-up was worth citing. After all, Annals XV.44.2-8 is a relatively complete witness in a classical text, with "Christus" who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus". There is nothing like it elsewhere in classical literature. Its lack of use by early Christians is a guarantee that it was a late addition.

Pseudo-historians trying to intimate that Jesus existed without doing the necessary work is simply bad scholarship, isn't it?

Being agnostic, I'm quite prepared to explore the possibility that Jesus didn't exist. I already know from the ancient sources that there is no evidence that such a person existed.

All fundamental positions need to be able to face scrutiny. Try analysing the material you consider provides a historical basis for Jesus, from an agnostic (in this case, not working from any presuppositions) point of view, using good historical methodology.