The Historical Jesus III

[The Big Dog]

Whoa there were two guys who suffered the extreme penalty and created a cult of Christians that was flourishing in Rome while Tacitus was alive?

I'll be damned. I guess that is one of the tenets of the antitheist dogma you just have to take on belief.

 

[dejudge]

It should be obvious that if ChrEstians and ChrIstians had the very same meaning that there would be no reason to manipulate Tacitus' Annals 15.44.

The Greek word for ChrEstian has a different meaning and it is NOT derived from the word Christos [anointed][messiah]

ChrEstian is derived from the Greek word 'chrEstos' meaning Good.

The LORD GOD Creator is known as ChrEstos BEFORE and AFTER the Jesus myth/fiction fables were invented.

Up to this very day, 29th July 2015, it can be seen in the Greek version of Psalms that the Lord God Creator is ChrEstos [χρηϲτοϲ][Good].

Psalms 106 ---τω κω οτι χρηϲτοϲ

ChrEstianos [ χρηϲτιανουϲ] were FOLLOWERS of the Lord God Creator--NOT obscure HJ--the criminal/rebel/preacher/IDIOT/LIAR/False Prophet/Crazyman/Wizard/Blasphemer.

Now the Greek word ChrIstos [χριστου] means anointed or messiah

Jewish Kings and High Priests were PHYSICALLY Anointed and were called [χριστου].

King Saul of the Jews was ANOINTED as King and is called [χριστου] in the books of Samuel.

1 Samuel 26.16 ---τον χριστον κυριου...

There was no such thing as Jewish Christians [Jewish followers of ChrIstos] because the Jewish ChrIstos has NOT yet come.

In fact, it is claimed in writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius that the Jews expected THEIR ChrIstos [Messianic ruler] c 70 CE or around the time of the War of the Jews against the Romans.

The Jewish ChrIstos was NEVER revealed [up to this very day] and the Jewish Temple was destroyed.

Jesus of Nazareth is a most blatant myth/fiction character who was NEVER EVER "Good [χρηϲτοϲ]and Anointed [χριστον]

Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, the Son of God and the Son of man without a human father.

Jesus of Nazareth was the absolute Trinity of mythology.

 

[The Big Dog]

It should be obvious that if ChrEstians and ChrIstians had the very same meaning that there would be no reason to manipulate Tacitus' Annals 15.44.

You ever note that one someone claims something is going to be obvious it ain't?

Now if one were to accept your premise it turns out that the "LORD GOD Creator" also suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus and was followed by a "cult" that was flourishing in Rome, while coincidentally another cult was following this Jesus Character who they called "Christ" who also suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus and was followed by a "cult" that was flourishing in Rome!

Or, ya know, maybe just a typo or something?

 

[Craig B]

"written by a non-Christian" b/c it said Chrestian/os ??

You do realise the first bible Codex Sinaiticus also had Chrestian/os at every instance ??

There are three occurrences of the word in the Bible.
The CS is the "first bible"?
The spelling was "corrected", like many other things in the CS, as we are informed. Let us discuss the significance of that. But first:

As to the ancient manuscripts, they all have the word in all three places and their testimony is identical – with one critical exception. The best and earliest codex of all, Sinaiticus (aka Aleph, א, the ms. is now on-line; see the link: Sinaiticus), has instead of Christianoi (Xristianoi/), Chrestianoi (Xrhstianoi/) – and it has this reading in all three places where the word occurs. Therefore it is impossible, in spite of the Nestle-Aland tentative suggestion for Acts 26:28, for it to be an itacism (i.e., a popular misspelling based on third/fourth century shifts in pronunciation, something of which this manuscript is, it is true, replete). For one thing, I find no parallel for changing a long "i" (iota) to a longe [sic] "e" (eta) in this manuscript (and the unusual spelling would not have happened three times by mistake). Equally interesting is the fact that in all three cases, the right vertical stroke and the horizontal stroke of the ETA have been erased to produce an IOTA (yielding the traditional spelling). This is very unusual. Sinaiticus was corrected many times, and each generation of correctors had their own discernible "tics". But simple erasure without further comment seems to be unprecedented.

Thus, later editors were much concerned both to obliterate the original eta and to cover the traces of their having done that.

So, although I concede that Chrestianos might have been written by an early Christian, it would not have been written by a late mediaeval interpolator of Tacitus. Nor can we speculate that such an interpolator was imitating the CS, because that volume was unknown to Western scholarship at that time, and in any case the spelling had by then been altered by "correctors".

And if an interpolator wrote "Chrestianos" why did he write "Christus" and not "Chrestus" in the same allegedly fabricated Tacitean passage?

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat

Such inconsistency is possible in an authentic text of Tacitus, but extremely unlikely in a fabrication inserted for ideological purposes by a later Christian forger.

 

[Stone]

There are three occurrences of the word in the Bible.
The CS is the "first bible"?
The spelling was "corrected", like many other things in the CS, as we are informed. Let us discuss the significance of that. But first: Thus, later editors were much concerned both to obliterate the original eta and to cover the traces of their having done that.

So, although I concede that Chrestianos might have been written by an early Christian, it would not have been written by a late mediaeval interpolator of Tacitus. Nor can we speculate that such an interpolator was imitating the CS, because that volume was unknown to Western scholarship at that time, and in any case the spelling had by then been altered by "correctors".

And if an interpolator wrote "Chrestianos" why did he write "Christus" and not "Chrestus" in the same allegedly fabricated Tacitean passage?

Such inconsistency is possible in an authentic text of Tacitus, but extremely unlikely in a fabrication inserted for ideological purposes by a later Christian forger.

Home run, Craig B.! Thank you.

Stone

 

[maximara]

lol. Appealing to Tacitus Annals 15.44. [snipped for space

Another issue with Tacitus often over looked is what the Christians themselves say not too long after Tacitus supposedly wrote his passage.

In the apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) the Christians state that Nero starting burning Christians to death around the death of Paul (i.e., 67 CE) because Nero has seen some guy named Patroclus who had supposedly died and was told that Christ Jesus would "overthrow all kingdoms" and this man was now a solder in Jesus' army (so the Christians themselves have Nero reacting to a possible attempt at overthrowing his government).

Then you have "The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE) which claims Nero considered to "destroy all those brethren who had been made disciples by Peter" but had a dream after Peter's death (either 64 or 67 CE) which said 'you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ.' and a frightened Nero 'kept away from the disciples . . . and thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord . . .'.

So the Christians themselves in the mid to late 2nd century have NO knowledge of Nero using them as scapegoats for the burning of Rome. Never mind neither Pliny the Elder or Josephus noticed the Christians in Rome.

So not only do non-Christians (Pliny the Elder and Joephsus) who were in Rome at the time not notice Nero's persecution of Christians for the burning of Rome, but the Christians themselves appear to be unaware of it as well and instead give two wildly contradictory accounts — either Nero killed Christians with Paul some three years after the fire because he was told this cult would "overthrow all kingdoms" by one of their members, or he had a dream resulting in him leaving them alone which could have been as early as 64...the year of the fire.

Why would the Christians themselves themselves be ignorant of Nero going after them in a bid to shift blame for the Fire of Rome? It not like even in the mid to late 2nd century Nero was regarded as a good emperor beloved by all his subjects.

More over why would Tacitus be aware of events even the Christians themselves didn't know of and NONE of his contemporaries or people actual in Rome c64 knew of?

Now to be fair Josephus does say he "was in the twenty-sixth year of my age, it happened that I took a voyage to Rome". This means his voyage started in either 63 CE (the year before the Great Fire) or 64 CE (the year of the Great Fire). More over his trip to Rome was "through a great number of hazards by sea; for as our ship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea, we that were in it, being about six hundred in number, swam for our lives all the night; when, upon the first appearance of the day, and upon our sight of a ship of Cyrene, I and some others, eighty in all, by God's providence, prevented the rest, and were taken up into the other ship."

Josephus also notes when he returned home he "perceived innovations were already begun, and that there were a great many very much elevated in hopes of a revolt from the Romans." Now this revolt actually started in 66 CE so we have a reasonable time window for Josephus being in Rome: 63 to 64 CE

The issue is could Josephus been in Rome July 64 CE and omitted the Fire because it didn't relate to him personally or did he leave Rome before the Fire broke out? His main comment on Nero is

"But I omit any further discourse about these affairs; for there have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero; some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favor, as having received benefits from him; while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bare him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies, that they justly deserve to be condemned." - Antiquities 20.8.3

and doesn't really settle the issue.

But to accept Tacitus passage as real we have to have Pliny the Elder not know of Nero going after Christians for the burning of Rome, Josephus not know of it or regard it word repeating as there were far better sources on the matter of Nero's reign, and the Christians themselves having no knowledge of this major event until Sulpicius Severus in the early part of the 5th century writes about and yet one lone Roman in the 2nd century knew about it....forget bridges in New York I have a great deal on perpetual motion machines.

 

[The Big Dog]

Another issue with Tacitus often over looked is what the Christians themselves say not too long after Tacitus supposedly wrote his passage.

In the apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) the Christians state that Nero starting burning Christians to death around the death of Paul (i.e., 67 CE) because Nero has seen some guy named Patroclus who had supposedly died and was told that Christ Jesus would "overthrow all kingdoms" and this man was now a solder in Jesus' army (so the Christians themselves have Nero reacting to a possible attempt at overthrowing his government).

Then you have "The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE) which claims Nero considered to "destroy all those brethren who had been made disciples by Peter" but had a dream after Peter's death (either 64 or 67 CE) which said 'you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ.' and a frightened Nero 'kept away from the disciples . . . and thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord . . .'.

So the Christians themselves in the mid to late 2nd century have NO knowledge of Nero using them as scapegoats for the burning of Rome.

So not only do non-Christians (Pliny the Elder and Joephsus) who were in Rome at the time not notice Nero's persecution of Christians for the burning of Rome, but the Christians themselves appear to be unaware of it as well and instead give two wildly contradictory accounts — either Nero killed Christians with Paul some three years after the fire because he was told this cult would "overthrow all kingdoms" by one of their members, or he had a dream resulting in him leaving them alone which could have been as early as 64...the year of the fire.

Why would the Christians themselves themselves be ignorant of Nero going after them in a bid to shift blame for the Fire of Rome? It not like even in the mid to late 2nd century Nero was regarded as a good emperor beloved by all his subjects.

More over why would Tacitus be aware of events even the Christians themselves didn't know of and NONE of his contemporaries or people actual in Rome c64 knew of?

It seems you are missing the point, the question is not "why did Nero persecute Christians" it is "who were Christians in Rome and what did they believ" and therefore offers third party confirmation of the Historical Jesus.

 

[maximara]

It seems you are missing the point, the question is not "why did Nero persecute Christians" it is "who were Christians in Rome and what did they believ" and therefore offers third party confirmation of the Historical Jesus.

No it does NOT.

The existence of Luddites does NOT shows that Ned Ludd really existed.

The existence of the John Frum cult does NOT mean John Frum really existed.

The many news reports of Spring Heeled Jack does NOT mean there really was a being that could jump over a 9 foot walls with ease, had red glowing eyes, and breathed fire running around loose in London in the early 19th century.


As for what the Christians believed has NO relevance on the "confirmation" of a Historical Jesus because as Irenaeus showed in Against Heresies different sects of Christianity believed different things.
Supposedly some Jewish Christians were putting Jesus about a hundred years earlier so what about their belief?
How about the Euhemerism belief of the time where ALL the deities be it Zeus, Osiris, or whoever had once been a actual living person?
How is Irenaeus' belief that "For Herod the king of the Jews [Herod Agrippa I] and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." working out...oh it isn't historical. But he was a Christian and believed it so it MUST be true by the loopy logic you are presenting.


There is plenty to argue against the Tacitus passage being genuine:

1) people actually in Rome c64 do NOT record any such event.
2) No one (not even CHRISTIANS) come up with anything matching Tacitus report until the early 5th century.
3) The only other contemporary to Tacitus that talks about Nero the Christians bothered to preserve (Suetonius) only states "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." and that is in passage about a general house cleaning of Rome.
4) Marcus Cluvius Rufus' History of Rome which the Christians did NOT preserve is stated as being "one of the primary sources for Tacitus' Annals and Histories" so the one work that would tell us about the validity of Tacitus is not around any more. Wonderful.


Even if it is real we have NO idea where Tacitus got the information.

 

[Craig B]

There is plenty to argue against the passage being genuine:

1) people actually in Rome c64 do NOT record any such event.
2) No one (not even CHRISTIANS) come up with anything matching Tacitus report until the early 5th century.
3) The only other contemporary to Tacitus that talks about Nero the Christians bothered to preserve (Suetonius) only states "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." and that is in passage about a general house cleaning of Rome.
4) Marcus Cluvius Rufus' History of Rome which the Chrsitians did NOT preserve is stated as being "one of the primary sources for Tacitus' Annals and Histories" so the one work that would tell us about the validity of Tacitus is not around any more.

These are not arguments against the passage being genuine. They are arguments against Tacitus being an independent witness of the events that he relates. In all probability such information as he possessed was obtained from Christian informants.

I have made these points in a previous post.

 

[maximara]

Home run, Craig B.! Thank you.

Stone

I made a baseball reference back in post 1735 of the "What counts as a historical Jesus?" thread:

This brings us to the "When Herod had John the Baptist beheaded, it must have been a terrible blow to Jesus, who would have viewed John as a prophet of God, and likely had no great love for Herod in the first place."

This is only true if John the Baptist was executed before Jesus' crucifixion. The problem is this both of these are a range: 28 – 36 CE for John's beheading and 30–36 for Jesus' crucifixion.

Luke 3:1-4 says John the Baptist "came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (ie 29 CE)

So if we go with the 28 CE death date for John the Baptist we have Jesus being baptized by a reanimated corpse. Uh, oops.

If we go with the Wikipedia's dates (funny how they changed after I pointed out that gaff but the sources being referenced didn't) you have the earliest date for John's beheading (31 CE) being AFTER the one for Jesus' crucifixion (30 CE) double oops.

Never mind there are clues in in Josephus that John the Baptist was executed no earlier than the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius or 34 CE but you have people saying Jesus was crucified 30-33 ie BEFORE John's beheading. Triple opps.

Throw in the range for Paul's conversion (31–36 CE) along with the claim that he had persecuted Christians ie followers of the crucified and risen Jesus long enough to become infamous in THREE provinces (ie for years) and you have very good odds that Paul converted BEFORE Jesus was crucified perhaps even before John the Baptist was executed! It's a Grand Slam of Opps.

It's going, going, it is gone. The logical ball is out of the park! The Christ Mythers win the Pennant! The Christ Mythers win the Pennant!

 

[dejudge]

And if an interpolator wrote "Chrestianos" why did he write "Christus" and not "Chrestus" in the same allegedly fabricated Tacitean passage?

You cannot answer your own questions!!!

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 has been conclusively proven to have been corrupted.

Unless you can find the ORIGINAL manuscript of Tacitus' Annals then you are simply wasting time with speculation and questions.

Tacitus' Annals in its corrupted state is useless to argue for an obscure HJ.

Tacitus' Annals does not identify any person called Jesus of Nazareth and does not specify how or when Christos was killed.

In the NT, Jesus of Nazareth was CRUCIFIED by the Jews and Pilate found NO fault with him.

In the Synoptics, Jesus was NOT known as Christos by the populace and demanded that NO-ONE was told he was Christos.

In addition, there was another person using the name CHRISTOS in the NT.

Obscure HJ was NOT Christos.

Tacitus' Annals with Christos [Anointed] is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

Tacitus was NOT a contemporary of Pilate and Christians admitted THEIR Christos was the Son of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

 

[Leumas]

I made a baseball reference back in post 1735 of the "What counts as a historical Jesus?" thread:

This brings us to the "When Herod had John the Baptist beheaded, it must have been a terrible blow to Jesus, who would have viewed John as a prophet of God, and likely had no great love for Herod in the first place."

This is only true if John the Baptist was executed before Jesus' crucifixion. The problem is this both of these are a range: 28 – 36 CE for John's beheading and 30–36 for Jesus' crucifixion.

Luke 3:1-4 says John the Baptist "came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (ie 29 CE)

So if we go with the 28 CE death date for John the Baptist we have Jesus being baptized by a reanimated corpse. Uh, oops.

If we go with the Wikipedia's dates (funny how they changed after I pointed out that gaff but the sources being referenced didn't) you have the earliest date for John's beheading (31 CE) being AFTER the one for Jesus' crucifixion (30 CE) double oops.

Never mind there are clues in in Josephus that John the Baptist was executed no earlier than the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius or 34 CE but you have people saying Jesus was crucified 30-33 ie BEFORE John's beheading. Triple opps.

Throw in the range for Paul's conversion (31–36 CE) along with the claim that he had persecuted Christians ie followers of the crucified and risen Jesus long enough to become infamous in THREE provinces (ie for years) and you have very good odds that Paul converted BEFORE Jesus was crucified perhaps even before John the Baptist was executed! It's a Grand Slam of Opps.

It's going, going, it is gone. The logical ball is out of the park! The Christ Mythers win the Pennant! The Christ Mythers win the Pennant!

GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL!




Ok...ok.. I do like football more.
That is soccer for the ones who play the American version of rugby.

 

[dejudge]

These are not arguments against the passage being genuine. They are arguments against Tacitus being an independent witness of the events that he relates. In all probability such information as he possessed was obtained from Christian informants.

I have made these points in a previous post.

Authenticity is not related to veracity or historicity.

An 11th century manipulated copy of a manuscript is NOT an independent source and cannot be shown to be genuine.

How can it ever be proven an admitted copy is genuine without the original and with conclusive proof of manipulation??

Your claims are void of basic logic.


You appear to be involved in some kind of time wasting tactics.

We have been through these things a "million" times.

Again, it does NOT logically follow that because it is assumed a passage is authentic that it is automatically historical.

Please, Craig B!!! If Moses actually wrote the book of Genesis that would NOT make the Creation story an historical account.

For hundreds of years Christian writers of antiquity had ZERO knowledge of the word Christos in Tacitus' Annals.

Tacitus' Annals with Christos must have or most likely was interpolated hundreds of years later.

Obscure HJ--the criminal/rebel/false prophet/liar/IDIOT/rabbi/crazy man is an undocumented modern fiction character derived from FALSE ASSERTIONS in the NT.

The HJ argument is just a farce.

 

[Craig B]

This brings us to the "When Herod had John the Baptist beheaded, it must have been a terrible blow to Jesus, who would have viewed John as a prophet of God, and likely had no great love for Herod in the first place."

From what source are you quoting these words?

 

[Mcreal]

There are three occurrences of the word in the Bible.
The CS is the "first bible"?

So far, yes. Warts n all.

The spelling was "corrected", like many other things in the CS, as we are informed. Let us discuss the significance of that. But first: Thus, later editors were much concerned both to obliterate the original eta and to cover the traces of their having done that.

So, although I concede that Chrestianos might have been written by an early Christian,

It doesn't need your concession; Chrestianos was written in the CS and in the extant version of Annals found in the 14 the century.

it would not have been written by a late mediaeval interpolator of Tacitus.

That's a moot pint! The issue is a late mediaeval interpolator was trying to adulterate an original text!

Nor can we speculate that such an interpolator was imitating the CS, because that volume was unknown to Western scholarship at that time, and in any case the spelling had by then been altered by "correctors".

Huh? What does "western scholarship" have to do with this?

The fact it was corrected is *beside the point*!

The point is that Chrestianos was in common usage and may have applied to groups other than Jesus-the-Christ followers!!

And if an interpolator wrote "Chrestianos" why did he write "Christus" and not "Chrestus" in the same allegedly fabricated Tacitean passage?

Who knows.

Perhaps Ahmed Osman's theory is strengthened by all these discrepancies ....

Such inconsistency is possible in an authentic text of Tacitus, but extremely unlikely in a fabrication inserted for ideological purposes by a later Christian forger.

The single extant copy of the Annals manuscript -

"... is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55AD). It derives from an ancestor written in Rustic Capitals, as it contains errors of transcription natural to that bookhand. There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an "original" in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier⁸, but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand⁹."

8. EA LOWE, The Unique Manuscript of Tacitus' Histories, Casinensia, Monte Cassino, 1929, vol. I pp. 257-272.

9. CW MENDELL and SA IVES, 'Rycks's Manuscript of Tacitus', American Journal of Philology 72 (1951), pp.337-345.

(and Revilo P OLIVER, "The First Medicean MS of Tacitus and the Titulature of Ancient Books", Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 82 (1951), pp.232-261.)

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

 

[Leumas]

Dear fellow laymen watching all this purported "scholarly" squabble

Lest you be like me utterly , please ignore all this wrangling about an E instead of an I and vice versa.

It is ironical that atheists in the 21st century are quibbling about a letter MUCH LIKE Christians were in the 3rd century (see this post quoted below).

Fortunately they are not killing each other (although some would love to perform lobotomies on some) in droves like the Christians did back then and continued to do for centuries after until one sect managed to get enough BRIGANDS and KILLERS and ROYAL PROSTITUTES to support their version of the ONE LETTER DIFFERENCE in their fairy tales.

Dear fellow laymen... please read the following posts if you wish to have some clarity and at least try to watch the videos in this post and if you can read one of the books listed there.

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10790397#post10790397
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10791912#post10791912
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10790718#post10790718
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10766193#post10766193
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10791626#post10791626
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10791783#post10791783

You're not kidding and the book below illustrates the history most excellently.

By the way all this wrangling going on in this thread about Chrestos or Christos reminds me of the WARS and BATTLES and many killings that Christians did to each other in the 4th century when they quarreled about ONE LETTER too and IRONICALLY it was an i too just like the code to create the irony meter below.

Christians killed each other fighting about whether Jesus and god were Homoousios or Homoiousios​

Yes... wars and killings and hatreds and politicking just because of an i.

And today 1700 years later we have ATHEISTS fighting amongst each other just as venomously and irrationally over whether Jesus was Chrestos or Christos.

• Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years

​

 

[Craig B]

Dear fellow laymen watching all this purported "scholarly" squabble

Lest you be like me utterly , please ignore all this wrangling about an E instead of an I and vice versa.

It is ironical that atheists in the 21st century are quibbling about a letter MUCH LIKE Christians

Dear fellow laymen... please read the following posts if you wish to have some clarity and at least try to watch the videos ...

No thinking. no quibbling. No wrangling. Scholarship is nonsense. Watch the videos.

Aye, right.

 

[The Big Dog]

No thinking. no quibbling. No wrangling. Scholarship is nonsense. Watch the videos.

Aye, right.

I notice that our correspondent is now referring to Tacitus's writings as "fairy tales" as it appears that they fall outside the Orthodoxy.

 

[Craig B]

Nor can we speculate that such an interpolator [of Tacitus' Annals] was imitating the CS, because that volume was unknown to Western scholarship at that time, and in any case the spelling had by then been altered by "correctors".

Huh? What does "western scholarship" have to do with this?

Eh, well, um ...

The oldest manuscript of "Annals 1-6" is in the historic library of Lorenzo Medici ("The Magnificent"), and hence is known as the Codex Mediceus. It has been dated from 850AD, and stylistic cues point to the German abbey of Fulda. The source manuscript for all extant copies of "Annals 11-16," also from the same collection (Mediceus II) was written between 1038 and 1055 at the mountaintop monastery of Monte Cassino (destroyed in WWII). How it came to leave the mountain is unclear. We know it was still at Monte Cassino in the early 14th century. It then passed through the hands of Boccaccio (somehow) before ending in the hands of collector Niccolo Niccolini, who seems to have regarded it as a guilty secret.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=31122

 

[Mcreal]

Eh, well, um ... http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=31122

Thanks for that passage (about the extant Annals manuscript) - it concurs with what I posted further up: #1575

But my point, in asking "What does "western scholarship" have to do with this?", in response to you saying

"Nor can we speculate that such an interpolator [of Tacitus' Annals] was imitating the CS, because that volume was unknown to Western scholarship at that time"​

was really a more elaborate one - What is the significance that "volume was unknown to 'Western scholarship' at that time"??

I think the extant Annals 15.44 shows

1. 'Chrestians' was accepted terminology through to the 8th century or later;
2. someone tried to alter the extant text.​

The focus on this document - of dubious history and dubious relevance - by proponents for a 'historical-Jesus', shows how tenuous the 'evidence' for a 'historical-Jesus' is.
.