The Bible Fraud

[Ouroboros]

Han, do you think the man behind jesus was a single person, or a combination of many similar characters?

One and many. I think one of the cults were the little starting point, and the then other stories from other "miracle" workers (maybe even with the same name, since Jesus was a very common name), and lastly mythologized.

 

We know there were lots of would be messiah's walking around at the time. Since the books of the NT start to appear shortly before and then immediately after the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E., I've always viewed the early church fathers as adopting an off shoot cult of Judaism (the Essenes, for example) as a way to explain why they can not have temple sacrifice anymore, because the ultimate sacrifice was made. Even with Suetonius in the above post, it seems like information on jesus does not exist until very close to the destruction of the temple.

Right. I think perhaps the Essene cult (or maybe some other) were the soil where the cult first started. Who knows, maybe the leader were given the epithet "Christ?" So every leader they've had the last 100 years, all of them had been "Christ," until some magician called Jesus took control over the group.

[Antlerman]

Objections?

Yes. I have not assumed those miracle stories are based on eyewitness accounts. This is simply your assumption about me, and false one.

So you didn't mean these words?

I said Jesus performed

deeds that were viewed as miracles

.

 

You utterly missed the point of my post. I know you claim the miracle stories are [NOT] based on eyewitness accounts. But you did say, which I have now thrice called you on, that there were some actions, some deeds - using your words above, that served as the basis for the embellished miracle myths. I understand what you meant. You however do not understand what I said.

 

Again if you go back to the lengthy post I offered you, my argument is that there are NO "deeds" that the miracle accounts are embellishments of. That they are myths created to elevate Jesus' status as a great leader, just like Moses and Elijah. They are not based ANY deeds at all, because it is not the intent of the myth. They are about creating a legend. Not talking about something reported by anyone having seen anything. That is me taking a contrary position to what you have explicitly stated above.

 

Now with that hopefully clarified for you..... your response?

[Badger]

I know you claim the miracle stories are based on eyewitness accounts.

I know you're wrong. How come? Since I haven't claimed nor assumed such.

[Antlerman]

I know you claim the miracle stories are based on eyewitness accounts.

I know you're wrong. How come? Since I haven't claimed nor assumed such.

Actually believe it or not, that was a typo. It should have said, "I know you claim the miracle stories are NOT based on eyewitness accounts". My mistake. That's what I meant to say.

 

Now with that said... please address my post with that understanding. I will edit and correct the original where I left that critical word "not" out.

[Badger]

Antlerman. That's OK. Well, I don't know what I should say. I'm sorry but I just didn't grasp your points. :-S

[Antlerman]

Antlerman. That's OK. Well, I don't know what I should say. I'm sorry but I just didn't grasp your points. :-S

You were originally trying to make the point of the historicity of Jesus by saying that the miracle stories are independent "witnesses". You seemed to be saying that they were stories developed around the actual deeds of an actual person, that even though the "miracles" themselves may NOT have been historical event, something happened that spawned them. That something would have been, as you put it, "deeds that were viewed as miracles." Your argument is that something, "deeds" must have happened to spawn the stories, and therefore this acts as a "witness" to Jesus actually existing.

 

Does that capture the gist of your argument? I thought it does, and based on your wording it seems so. It's not an uncommon viewpoint, and not necessary a bad one.

 

I just take a different tact on it. I think Jesus was a historical person, somewhere buried deep behind and beneath all the layers of myth. But that the miracle stories are not based on any "deeds" that Jesus may have done, any sort of "deeds that were viewed as miracles". My original post explained how that the miracle stories were the products of creative imaginations, seeking to elevate a founding figure for their "kingdom" movement by casting him in tales like Moses or Elijah. They had a target audience in mind, and themselves viewing themselves in a certain light in response to their criticisms of the novelty of their movement. Ancient traditions validated these groups, or associations, and novelty was easily cited to dismiss them as unworthy. This "miracle story" community thus imagined Jesus as being on par with Moses and Elijah, validating him as a powerful reformer sent from God!

 

That's what I mean by saying the stories are really evidence of the communities, and not Jesus as a person. By this time, whoever or whatever Jesus really was was being brushed over with a new image being created. This same sort of thing was happening all over the place as the various movements spread, each casting the founding-figure of the movement into a new mythological role, until you get the narrative Gospel of Mark pulling a number of the various traditions together into some sort of story arc of this mythical being called the Christ by one of these communities. And from their Matthew and Luke do similar things, using Mark and Q and various other lore of their communities to cast a new story, etc. Here's a link to my original post where I went into more detail, if anyone's interested in it: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=455533

 

My point is that the miracle stories don't really point to the historicity of Jesus as some sort of "independent" source as you seemed to say. I would argue the historicity can be found at earlier levels, such as in a few of the sayings in Q1. Those are probably authentic words. Other words take on the flavor of an emerging community engaged in the acts of "attribution", assigned words to Jesus' teachings that would be deemed appropriate to the character of their teacher (a common practice in the various schools of philosophy then). It's that early Q1 material, both in the teachings and the attributions of sayings that showed the emergence of a community in formation. That was centered around a teacher's teachings, but NOT his person.

 

They were not worshipers of some later messiah figure. They were not witnesses of stupendous "deeds that were viewed as miracles". They were not experiencing Jesus disembodied presence as a Cosmic Christ figure in mystery religion style religious experience. None of that was there. That these earlier, pre-Christ, pre-Messiah, pre-sacrifice, pre-savior groups went down the path of making this Jesus into their founding teacher, making him into their symbolic figurehead to validate themselves by, is what I see shows a memory of a person. Not in deeds, but in a philosophy within various simple teachings. Something did happen, but it was a social movement gathered around a sort of cynic-style teacher, which gathered itself into communities building self-identity around a founding figure, whom they shaped into a much later Jesus the Christ. The real Jesus would have been a disappointment to them.

[mwc]

That was an interesting read. I have one question though, and I have to admit I forget if it is Han or mwc that is the expert on this (maybe it's both of you ).

 

Documents indicate that within a few years of Jesus’ death, Romans were aware that someone named Chrestus (a slight misspelling of Christus) had been responsible for disturbances in the Jewish community in Rome (Suetonius, The Life of the Deified Claudius 25.4). Twenty years later, according to Tacitus, Christians in Rome were prominent enough to be persecuted by Nero, and it was known that they were devoted to Christus, whom Pilate had executed (Annals 15.44). This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus. Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus’s original remarks cannot be discerned.

 

That first sentence; which documents indicate that it was within a few years? The next sentence says Tactius writes 20 years later, but is how do we know the Romans were aware of xtians a few years after jesus' death? I mean, we don't even know when jesus died, so what kind of a statement is that?

I haven't been following this thread but I read this and decided to join in. I've highlighted the key sentence in that paragraph for you. The author is saying the others probably got their info from early xians and so their info is only confirmation of what early xians knew. Nothing more.

 

However, here is the Suetonius quote (it begins a section and so I left the preceding and next sentence for a bit a context):

He exonerated for ever the people of Ilium from the payment of taxes, as being the founders of the Roman race; reciting upon the occasion a letter in Greek, from the senate and people of Rome to king Seleucus, on which they promised him their friendship and alliance, provided that he would grant their kinsmen the Iliensians immunity from all burdens.

 

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.

He allowed the ambassadors of the Germans to sit at the public spectacles in the seats assigned to the senators, being induced to grant them favours by their

frank and honourable conduct.

One thing to remember is that "Chrestus" was, in and of itself, a proper name at this time. It did NOT have to be a mis-spelling of "Christus" in any way. It simply is a mis-spelling of "Christus" because there are Jews involved and the statement in Tacitus and Acts (but, hey, maybe "Christus" is equally a mis-spelling of "Chrestus" for all we know):

18:2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla,

because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.

He came to them,

Now, Dio says this on the matter:

6 As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.

He also disbanded the clubs, which had been reintroduced by Gaius. 7 Moreover, seeing that there was no use in forbidding the populace to do certain things unless their daily life should be reformed, he abolished the taverns where they were wont to gather and drink, and commanded that no boiled meat or hot water3 should be sold; and he punished some who disobeyed in this matter.

Now as for Tacitus on Nero this is what he says:

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.

 

Meanwhile Italy was thoroughly exhausted by contributions of money, the provinces were ruined, as also the allied nations and the free states, as they were called. Even the gods fell victims to the plunder; for the temples in Rome were despoiled and the gold carried off, which, for a triumph or a vow, the Roman people in every age had consecrated in their prosperity or their alarm. Throughout Asia and Achaia not only votive gifts, but the images of deities were seized, Acratus and Secundus Carinas having been sent into those provinces.

No one else mentions any of this. The fire. Yes. The strange torture thing? No. Let's look at Suetonius again:

Public suppers were limited to the Sportulae; and victualling-houses restrained from selling any dressed victuals, except pulse and herbs, whereas before they sold all kinds of meat.

He likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition.

 

He forbad the revels of the charioteers, who had long assumed a licence to stroll about, and established for themselves a kind of prescriptive right to cheat and thieve, making a jest of it. The partisans of the rival theatrical performers were banished, as well as the actors themselves.

There seems to be a conflation of the charioteer and the xians punishment. It seems that there may be more than one thing conflated in the previous account since it's less likely that someone separated those items out. So were there xians? Sure. Why not? Did freaky things happen to them? Probably not (well, not in Roman terms). As for the reference to the money this was about the fire. Nero was supposedly going to rebuild at his own expense but then tapped all the empire for the cash taking from every place he could. Obviously this did not make people happy.

 

But lets now skip way ahead to Sulpicius Severus, Chronicles II, 29:

In the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. 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. In this way, cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians. Afterwards, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which were enacted; and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to be a Christian.

At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to death, the former being beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion. And while these things went on at Rome, the Jews, not able to endure the injuries they suffered under the rule of Festus Florus, began to rebel. Vespasian, being sent by Nero against them, with proconsular power, defeated them in numerous important battles, and compelled them to flee within the walls of Jerusalem. In the meanwhile Nero, now hateful even to himself from a consciousness of his crimes, disappears from among men, leaving it uncertain whether or not he had laid violent hands upon himself: certainly his body was never found. It was accordingly believed that, even if he did put an end to himself with a sword, his wound was cured, and his life preserved, according to that which was written regarding him,—“And his mortal wound was healed,”—to be sent forth again near the end of the world, in order that he may practice the mystery of iniquity.

This is basically just what Tacitus seems to report. He doesn't go on about the strange charioteer stuff but that's okay. It's also missing the stuff where people seemed to be getting compassionate towards them as a result as well. I guess that was short lived? I mean they go ahead and put the Peter, the Bishop of Rome and Paul, the super evangelist to death (I guess no one made strong prayers for them like they did back in Judea?).

 

There's also the document (I don't have the link handy) that shows that there were actual Chrestians (followers of "Chrestus") and that this was "corrected" to "Christians" in at least one document (not a simple one letter alteration in Latin either). So there could have been parallel cults or any number of things going on back then that we don't have easy explanations for at the moment. Another thing is that a reference to a "christ" does not automatically mean a reference to "jesus." And even then the Acts makes it clear that there were multiple "jesus'" being taught along side their "real" version which further muddies the waters.

 

mwc

[Badger]

You were originally trying to make the point of the historicity of Jesus by saying that the miracle stories are independent "witnesses". You seemed to be saying that they were stories developed around the actual deeds of an actual person, that even though the "miracles" themselves may NOT have been historical event, something happened that spawned them. That something would have been, as you put it, "deeds that were viewed as miracles." Your argument is that something, "deeds" must have happened to spawn the stories, and therefore this acts as a "witness" to Jesus actually existing.

 

Does that capture the gist of your argument? I thought it does, and based on your wording it seems so. It's not an uncommon viewpoint, and not necessary a bad one.

Actually I wasn't trying to prove the existence of historical Jesus per se, but demonstrating how scholars works when they determine authentic Jesus (e.g. multiple attestation).

[Badger]

There's also the document (I don't have the link handy) that shows that there were actual Chrestians (followers of "Chrestus") and that this was "corrected" to "Christians" in at least one document (not a simple one letter alteration in Latin either).

It's the passage of Tacitus. He says there was Christus, the founder of the movement called Chrestians or Christians.

[mwc]

It's the passage of Tacitus. He says there was Christus, the founder of the movement called Chrestians or Christians.

I do believe you're right. You think I'd have remembered that as many times as I used the name in that post.

 

The only thing that could make this better is if you had the link handy as well.

 

mwc

[Badger]

The only thing that could make this better is if you had the link handy as well.

Perhaps Wikipedia Tacitus on Christ and then comments in post 117.

 

But here is a passage from The Cambridge Companion to Jesus concerning Tacitus

The Roman historian Tacitus has one passing reference to Jesus. In his Annals 15.44 he records that the great fire of Rome was blamed by Nero on the 'Christians' in Rome. Tacitus notes that the name 'Christian' derives from 'Christus', a man who had 'suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate'. Tacitus' reference to Jesus is extremely brief, but it shows no evidence of later Christian influence and hence is widely accepted as genuine. It does then provide independent, non-Christian evidence at least for Jesus' existence and his execution under Pilate. (Bockmuehl [editor], 2001: 123)

[ghostchild]

The only thing that could make this better is if you had the link handy as well.

Perhaps Wikipedia Tacitus on Christ and then comments in post 117.

 

But here is a passage from The Cambridge Companion to Jesus concerning Tacitus

The Roman historian Tacitus has one passing reference to Jesus. In his Annals 15.44 he records that the great fire of Rome was blamed by Nero on the 'Christians' in Rome. Tacitus notes that the name 'Christian' derives from 'Christus', a man who had 'suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate'. Tacitus' reference to Jesus is extremely brief, but it shows no evidence of later Christian influence and hence is widely accepted as genuine. It does then provide independent, non-Christian evidence at least for Jesus' existence and his execution under Pilate. (Bockmuehl [editor], 2001: 123)

 

 

I honestly fail to see how a line in tacitus, which is about christains, what they did, and what they specifically believe in, who only knew of Jesus by reputation and after the fact, can be construed as evidence for the genuine existence of Jesus. It seems merely to be a summary of what christians were claiming. I do not accept this as an independant source verifying jesus's existence, though I will admit it is by far the closest thing we've seen in this discussion, or others. Tacitus is a secondary source, and not only that, he's obviously referring to secondary sources as well, as the time gap is large. He's only talking about the christian movement here, and mentions jesus in ridicule, to indicate not the reality of their leader, but that they worship a person who most non christian romans would automatically scorn on account of the fact he was crucified. There is no indication that he even cares whether jesus is real or not.

 

Most roman christians would never have even met anybody who met anybody who met jesus's apostles anyway. Travel wasn't that easy back then. By the time the belief got to rome, any real information could easily have been lost in a largely word-of-mouth movement. It'd be incredibly easy for the whole thing to be simply made up.

 

Oh, and I actually would like to think there was a person name jesus... I just can't agree with any expert that this quote supports the existence of jesus without some bloody good reasons.

 

 

just sticking my oar in

[Guest]

:ditto:

 

Not to mention that the text quoted in post #164 from the Cambridge Companion to Jesus concerning Tacitus misspells the word "chrestus" and "chrestians" by using the modern spellings in order to make it appear it is describing jesus of the NT.

 

BTW, thanks mwc, that was a great post!

[Badger]

Not to mention that the text quoted in post #164 from the Cambridge Companion to Jesus concerning Tacitus misspells the word "chrestus" and "chrestians" by using the modern spellings in order to make it appear it is describing jesus of the NT.

Let's read Annals 15.44 from Loeb Classical Library

Therefore to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices,

whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus

, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.

Accorind to Van Voorst, the reading chrestianoi "is adobted by the tree current critical editions" (Jesus outside the New Testament, 43). But it's not accepted by all critical editions like Loeb or Penguin Classics. Second, Tacitus doesn't even use name Chrestus in his passage. He writes, "auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat."

[Ouroboros]

The "Chrestianos" vs "Christianos" explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Ch...r_Chrestians.3F (With image of the debated text) Basically, it was an "e" there, but at the same time, it seems like it's just an alternate spelling of the same word, i.e. they have the same meaning. (Like color vs colour)

 

 

There's a space after "i", and it's curved, look like the left side of an "e".

[Guest]

Not to mention that the text quoted in post #164 from the Cambridge Companion to Jesus concerning Tacitus misspells the word "chrestus" and "chrestians" by using the modern spellings in order to make it appear it is describing jesus of the NT.

Let's read Annals 15.44 from Loeb Classical Library

Therefore to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices,

whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus

, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.

Accorind to Van Voorst, the reading chrestianoi "is adobted by the tree current critical editions" (Jesus outside the New Testament, 43). But it's not accepted by all critical editions like Loeb or Penguin Classics. Second, Tacitus doesn't even use name Chrestus in his passage. He writes, "auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat."

 

Oh, really? Then why do I find this...?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

 

The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principle manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[19].

In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.[20] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'. "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[21] The word Christian/s is in Codex Sinaiticus (in which Christ is abbreviated - see nomina sacra) spelled Chrestian/s in the three places the word is used. Also in Minuscule 81 this spelling is used in Acts of the Apostles 11:26.[22]

 

I guess I should also mention (again) that Pilot was not procurator at the time in question. From post #112:

 

2. The passage also apparently mistakenly calls Pontius Pilate a procurator instead of a prefect, an apparent mistake also made in translations of a passage by Josephus.[8][citation needed](However, Josephus wrote in Greek and never used the term.) It should be noted that after Herod Agrippa's death in AD 44, when Judea reverted to direct Roman rule, Claudius gave procurators control over Judea.[9][10] This was made possible when he augmented the role of procurators so that they had magisterial power.[11][12] Tacitus, who rose through the magisterial ranks[13][14] to become consul and then proconsul had a precise knowledge of significance of the terms involved and knew when Judea began to be administered by procurators. It is therefore problematical that he would use "procurator" instead of "prefect" to describe the governor of Judea prior to the changes that he tells us Claudius brought in.

[Ouroboros]

But Marty, you also have to think about this part:

"I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[21] The word Christian/s is in Codex Sinaiticus (in which Christ is abbreviated - see nomina sacra) spelled Chrestian/s in the three places the word is used. Also in Minuscule 81 this spelling is used in Acts of the Apostles 11:26.[22]

 

It's even used as an alternate spelling for the "Chrestian" Apostles in Acts, in Minuscule 81 manuscript (link). They're close phonetically, same word, different spelling, different dialect.

 

So I'm not sure if it really matters. Sorry. Except it shows the dishonesty by the scribes by altering the text.

[Guest]

OK, but the original spelling is with an "E", and badger quoted a text in post #167 supposedly from the original Tactius, that uses the modern spelling. The changed spelling makes it seem more likely that it is referring to xtians, and is not how the original text was spelled. That was my point. The original was changed to make it appear to be modern xtian spelling, so if you are going to quote from that work, either use the original spelling or make sure you tell the reader the modern spelling is not found in the original.

 

I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I'm told that there is tons of evidence for jesus, and the best they can come up with is this text. It's the best they have, and in no way is it clear just who is being talked about, as Chrestus was not jesus name. Sure, the Romans could have gotten confused with all this, but why wouldn't god make sure someone at the time got some of the facts right? This is an important issue, as it has prevented many people from accepting jesus and being sent to hell because of it.

 

Not to mention that xtians change facts they don't agree with. They do it today with evolution or the history of America, so why should I think they were any more honest 2,000 years ago? The fact is that both of the "most reliable" evidence for the existence of jesus shows obvious evidence of tampering. If they were to fudge one letter or insert a sentence or two, why should I give any benefit of the doubt as to the rest of the text? If it is corrupted by xtians in even the slightest way in favor of xtians, then in my mind the whole thing is very likely corrupted and should not be trusted. That is what xtians do, and history is full of examples.

[Ouroboros]

I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I'm told that there is tons of evidence for jesus, and the best they can come up with is this text.

What I think it really points to is that it cast doubt on the scribes who copied the text. If they modified the text to fit their needs... then what else did they do? If you can find dishonesty in one place, isn't it likely they are dishonest about other things?

 

Like Ken Hovind (the Creationist) and the Way of the Master guys always say: once a liar, always a liar.

 

So by their own words, they are judged. The scribes were dishonest and lied by modifying the text, hence we can't trust them to be honest about anything. They can be right, they can be wrong, but we can't know for sure which one it is. And that also means, like you say, that this can't be enough to believe in a divine Jesus.

[Badger]

So I'm not sure if it really matters. Sorry. Except it shows the dishonesty by the scribes by altering the text.

There doesn't necessarily need to be any alteration; it may be simply copyist error. I recall Van Vroost point from Post #117, "Due to the paucity of manuscripts, we cannot be sure about the reading Chrestianoi; but on the whole, it is much more likely than Christianoi."

[Badger]

It's the best they have, and in no way is it clear just who is being talked about, as Chrestus was not jesus name

Tacitus correctly use name Christus, as I said.

 

The fact is that both of the "most reliable" evidence for the existence of jesus shows obvious evidence of tampering.

Only the passage from Josephus does. There is no any "obvious evidence of tampering" in the case of Tacitus. It's simply unsupportable conspiracy claim by Jesus Mythist.

[Guest]

I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I'm told that there is tons of evidence for jesus, and the best they can come up with is this text.

What I think it really points to is that it cast doubt on the scribes who copied the text. If they modified the text to fit their needs... then what else did they do? If you can find dishonesty in one place, isn't it likely they are dishonest about other things?

 

Like Ken Hovind (the Creationist) and the Way of the Master guys always say: once a liar, always a liar.

 

So by their own words, they are judged. The scribes were dishonest and lied by modifying the text, hence we can't trust them to be honest about anything. They can be right, they can be wrong, but we can't know for sure which one it is. And that also means, like you say, that this can't be enough to believe in a divine Jesus.

 

LOL, mwc, {OOPS, I meant Hans, idk why I get you 2 confused!}you must have posted that when I was adding the same idea to my last post!

[Ouroboros]

So I'm not sure if it really matters. Sorry. Except it shows the dishonesty by the scribes by altering the text.

There doesn't necessarily need to be any alteration; it may be simply copyist error. I recall Van Vroost point from Post #117, "Due to the paucity of manuscripts, we cannot be sure about the reading Chrestianoi; but on the whole, it is much more likely than Christianoi."

Read again:

 

"In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one."

 

And look at the picture taken of the manuscript.

 

(Damn it, you don't even look or read the good parts. You just skip them and attack the same thing over and over again, without looking at the valid references and the real evidence given to you. Are you intentionally blinding yourself? Snap out of it!)

 

It's the battle of the PhD's! Either it's Dr Giovanna (and more) or Dr Van Voorst (and more).

 

I just look at the image, see the reference to the manuscript of Acts with the same "e" spelling, and it is very obvious to understand this.

[Guest]

It's the best they have, and in no way is it clear just who is being talked about, as Chrestus was not jesus name

Tacitus correctly use name Christus, as I said.

 

Christus wasn't jesus' name either. Christ is a title, not a name, which means, 'the anointed'. I'm pretty sure the diciples wouldn't have called jesus anything close to christ either, because that is the Greek rendering of Messiah.

 

The fact is that both of the "most reliable" evidence for the existence of jesus shows obvious evidence of tampering.

Only the passage from Josephus does. There is no any "obvious evidence of tampering" in the case of Tacitus. It's simply unsupportable conspiracy claim by Jesus Mythist.

 

Did you read the section in red from my earlier post today?

 

The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principle manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[19].

 

In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.[20] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'. "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[21] The word Christian/s is in Codex Sinaiticus (in which Christ is abbreviated - see nomina sacra) spelled Chrestian/s in the three places the word is used. Also in Minuscule 81 this spelling is used in Acts of the Apostles 11:26.[22]

[Ouroboros]

Let me quote that again Marty, just so Badger can see it twice (or actually it's more like the fifth time):

 

Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'. "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one"

 

So maybe the Chrestians forged it, and then the Christians forged it back?