What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Even if a historical person named Jesus existed, the Christian religion definitely seems to have appropriated a series of pagan myths such as from Mythra and Apollonius of Tyana and superimposed them over the name and life of Jesus, such as miracles, 12 disciples, etc.

Even the Bible has stories from old civilizations like the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both flood stories are basically identical except for a few things, like one was polytheistic and the other monotheistic. Looking at history it's obvious to me that the Bible used stories from other civilizations. I see the Bible the same way I see the Greek Mythology.

Just to clear up any misunderstandings; the Flood reference in the Epic of Gilgamesh is superficial at best. The Genesis Flood account is clearly based on Athrahasis (Noah), another Sumerian epos. What is special with Gilgamesh in relation with Genesis, is that he meets Utnapishtim (Noah) which reads "ut-Noah-pishtim" and is most likely the etymological origin of the Hebrew name Noah. The story as told in Genesis about the Great Deluge as such is based on Athrahasis who upon being warned by the sea-god Enki about the terrible plans of Ellil (earth-god or land-god) and Anu (sky-god or mountain-god) and the coming Flood, builds a giant ship and brings his family friends and a bunch of animals inside and survive the Deluge.

See my thread called "The Kašūšu Weapon" at www.abovetopsecret.com... for more background. In that thread, the user Wandering Scribe contributed with a great synopsis of the Athrahasis story a few posts below the OP (sixth from the top).

Now we are getting to the heart of things. Anyone who reads these older stories surely sees the connection to the bible. Getting folks to actually read them is another feat all together. a reply to: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
I expect to see atheists lying themselves to damnation to feed their choice-supportive bias and people calling themselves scientists showing clear signs of the same indoctrination you normally see with the religious people.

With a presuposition like that, I can't take your request seriously that you want people to try and disprove it.

I think you have generalized atheists to a fault--obviously the cult of Jesus had to start somewhere, at some time, and possibly (if not probably) based on a real individual in history.

The thing about atheists is that many of us don't deny that these things exist--we deny that the supernatural nature of religious dogma is a load of crap. Jesus may have very well been a real person, and there very well may have been a cult following of the guy, but that in no way means that your presupposition of atheists' responses to your query is based on anything more concrete than a belief in god(s).

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Interesting, although both Gilgamesh and Atrahasis are very similar, the story of Atrahasis is older.

The Genesis of Eridu seems to be the oldest story to mention the flood.

While reading a bit more about Gilgamesh I found it interesting when a snake stole immortality from Gilgamesh when it ate the plant that would make Gilgamesh young again.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
I expect to see atheists lying themselves to damnation to feed their choice-supportive bias and people calling themselves scientists showing clear signs of the same indoctrination you normally see with the religious people.

I'm an atheist, and I don't worry about the previous existence of Jesus. If he did, it's obvious to me as a logical person that he has become folklore.

I think the important point of the Jesus story is how people react to it. There are people, like myself, who see it as comic book fun. I'd love to have the lead in JC Superstar. Then, there are people who avoid reality with their imaginary friend who will take them away from this painful existence to an eternal paradise. Who wouldn't want a friend like that?

a reply to: SlapMonkey + gentledissident

I know, it was meant like a joke, I was being cocky, playing on stereotypes and was generalising, sorry, it didn't turn out well.

See www.abovetopsecret.com... (first post on the second page here) for more.

Atheists don't hate Christians or doubt the historicity of Jesus. My bad!

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Interesting, although both Gilgamesh and Atrahasis are very similar, the story of Atrahasis is older.

The Genesis of Eridu seems to be the oldest story to mention the flood.

Something like that yes. Still Gilgamesh barely mentions the Flood. The hero Gilgamesh travels across the Sea of Death (Black Sea) to meet Utnapishtim (Noah) who directs him to the Plant of Immortality. The Flood is hardly mentioned as a subject. Gilgamesh is not a Flood story as such, it has more in common with the Greek eposes like the Odyssey.

While reading a bit more about Gilgamesh I found it interesting when a snake stole immortality from Gilgamesh when it ate the plant that would make Gilgamesh young again.

Yes, if you search around a bit you'll find several translations of the stories. Fun read, and they are only a few pages each, and actually quite complete, though there are some missing bits and pieces here and there. I recommend a book I have called Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford World's Classics) translated by Stephanie Dalley. A great place to start.

a reply to: Woodcarver

In the same breath, you could say that anyone who reads and studies the pre-Jewish religion based on the Old Testament should surely see the connections to previous religions borrowed to create a new one. To expand further, you could also read stories about other dieties in these religions and realize that the supernatural aspects attributed to Jesus are borrowed and conglomerated into one person to further the new religion

You know, if we wanted to get to the heart of things

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Of course Josephus's testimony was a pious forgery! It's simply pathetic desperation to keep pushing those passages as proof for the man/god's existence.

I don't know that the Tacitus passage is a forgery, but I do know that the mention of "Christus" doesn't necessarily mean anything, as there were hundreds of "Christus" characters and cults about in those days, and even the Bible has Jesus warning people about them.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Of course Josephus's testimony was a pious forgery!

OK? Then show me your proof

It's simply pathetic desperation to keep pushing those passages as proof for the man/god's existence.

You read too much biased ATS "facts" about the authenticity of aforementioned historians. Though there are different manuscripts around as with most such texts and they differ here and there, this is not more than you could expect. On the contrary, there has been done quite a bit of research into the opposite, and the consensus wants it these texts are genuine, no matter what Bart Ehrman or others may claim in certain often populistic commentaries presented in mass market paperbacks and typically create storms scholar wise, which are intriguing and worth the read, but of little substance scholar-wise, most of it is pure speculation. I am not trying to establish Jesus as anything but a historical figure in this thread, hey, I'm not even Christian.

I don't know that the Tacitus passage is a forgery, but I do know that the mention of "Christus" doesn't necessarily mean anything, as there were hundreds of "Christus" characters and cults about in those days, and even the Bible has Jesus warning people about them.

Just as much as Tacitus paraphrases (almost directly quotes) Josephus' Antiquities in matters Christ and Christian, Josephus contains these phrases. However, like I have demonstrated earlier on in this thread, Rome went to great lengths in erasing the memories of certain people, people like Jesus. When dealing with Roman forgeries, you typically look for things that has been removed, NOT things added, unless it could be done by stroke of pen. Adding whole verses and passages was not only extremely expensive, producing a book back then cost the equivalent of several million dollars in today's money and it took years finishing one. Much easier for Rome and others to rip out a few pages and torch them, than gathering all copies, destroying them, and then write new ones. They didn't have printing presses or Xerox copiers back then, and a monk would typically spend his whole life writing one single copy of some manuscript.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Of course Josephus's testimony was a pious forgery!

OK? Then show me your proof

I think in these discussions we can all pretty well just throw around wild claims and allow them to either be believed, or not.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

Out of 52 biblical scholars, only 4 accept the Josephus passages as authentic!

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

They didn't have printing presses or Xerox copiers back then, and a monk would typically spend his whole life writing one single copy of some manuscript.

Yes, and the monks would get a sense of power over correcting perplexing or confusing passages to reflect the politically correct interpretion of the day.

A good example of this is the letters from Jerome where he laments the criticism of Origin and conspires to "correct" the text so that he wouldn't be excommunicated and his works cited as heresy.

a reply to: Logarock

Obviously I am not a scholar, and I'm not even sure if what I am saying is true, but I don't believe there is one document that is understood to be signed or authored but this fellow named Jesus. Now one would assume, he being a an erudite man having studied as a member of the Essene, that he would have engaged in, at the time a most popular means of communication, the art of writing. Seems odd.

And should these documents have existed, I would think they would have been closely guarded and preserved by his followers. And yet nada, zip. Only accounts, generally secondhand. Look at Nostradamus , Buddha, Mohammed, plenty of essays, heck even the unibomber wrote a manifesto. What, Jesus couldn't find a pen?

Certainly a mysterious figure. Spend his entire life spreading the most important message ever given to mankind but only verbally at select events, usually with some show of omnipotence. Only the spoken word, the most delicate, fragile, and generally the most misunderstood method of communication possible.

The most, according to some, important human figure to ever grace the planet, and absolutely no paper trail. Part of the master plan? A genius ploy? God"s plan? Or maybe ghosts can't write.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

Out of 52 biblical scholars, only 4 accept the Josephus passages as authentic!

52 scholars out of what? According to answers.com there were a total of 406,411 Catholic priests alone in 2005. In addition you have 90,000 Catholic monks and nearly a million nuns of the same denomination, then we have other Christians who could be called scholars in this field. Now all of these aren't scholars in it's true sense, but I am sure you catch my drift. There are plenty more than 52, what? one for each week? -- historians and religious scientists, theologians anyone with a voice and a masters degree from some faculty can publish papers and say whatever he or she likes. And besides, I understand this research was done on one single manuscript? That's what 1 out of let's say a few more mostly quite identical copies.

Besides, you are talking about interpolation. That's a typographic term, and it means to rearrange mostly spaces between types to add or subtract types or correct errors that come up during typesetting. As you understand, this is also how you correct errors like typos (sounds familiar) and such, even omitted passages, doesn't have to be forgery, it belongs to the craft of typography and movable type printing. Editing is perhaps the most important part of printing a document with movable type-setting. You are aware that the printing press was invented in the 15th century, right? Josephus documents can often be a few years older than that.

On a side note. Open the window there's a world out there. And it's huge. Do a search on the net for the 'Buggre Alle Bible' and check it out, it's quite revigorating Or perhaps revegetating, can't remember

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

It's unrealistic and unnecessary to interview every catholic priest about their opinions of identified pious forgeries, which this is. In this case, interpolation is an insertion of text that wasn't in the original, and is still considered forgery. Scholars agree that it was inserted during the 4th century, most probably by Eusebius, well before the printing press.

My source speaks for itself, and I find your objections disingenuous. The essay clearly gives all sides equal opportunity. The conclusions are based on fair scholarly evidence and the consensus, at best, disqualifies Josephus' testimony as null and void as far as proving an historic Jesus. Worst case, it belies the lack of evidence that triggered a need to lie and manufacture evidence.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

They didn't have printing presses or Xerox copiers back then, and a monk would typically spend his whole life writing one single copy of some manuscript.

Yes, and the monks would get a sense of power over correcting perplexing or confusing passages to reflect the politically correct interpretion of the day.

Fair enough, they also saw their honour in getting it exactly right. A monestary is like school, if you are a copyist, you would be under total scrutiny from an array of crooked men with argus eyes. You can say much about the Church, but their copying tradition is quite remarkable. Now out of all the 10,000+ biblical documents behind each bible version, no two texts are identical, but the deviations are well within what you could expect, in fact compared with other traditions other places in the world, the Church is supreme in accuracy when it comes to copies.

However, these books were written once. There were originals. Or what we could consider original source material, like with Athrahasis and Noah and so on. And talking about the Bible? No Original document, or even fragment of anything within the Bible exists. And for all we know there never did. I and I'm certainly not alone, believe most of these stories developed into what we see today and beyond and there grew up needs for moderation and orthodoxy movements grew forth, and there were Gnosticism, Arianism, Hermeticism, Platonism, Coptic, and plenty of different Christian Jewish sects, they were all growing rapidly in size and influence and so did the stories. It was like media and politics today. Then came one pogrom after the other, and they killed and excomunicated, destroyed books and relics, also within the Church walls, between different Church factions, it was a friggin mess, intrigues out of this world and way much louder than today.

A good example of this is the letters from Jerome where he laments the criticism of Origin and conspires to "correct" the text so that he wouldn't be excommunicated and his works cited as heresy.

Are you saying we should normally excommunicate biblical scholars if they start snooping around the archives looking for missing material and may God forbid write down and publish their preposterously heretic findings? And perhaps even revealing forgeries that had involved for instance removing everything between years 29 - 32 AD in Tacitus to wipe out any historical signature for Jesus? I don't know Origen too well, I just know he was controversial.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Are you saying we should normally excommunicate biblical scholars if they start snooping around the archives looking for missing material and may God forbid write down and publish their preposterously heretic findings?

No, not at all.

Jerome, the son of Eusebius, was a HUGE fan of Origen and was said to have owned, IDK something like, 6000 copies of his original writings. Origen's writing became controversial by the Catholic powers that be and were on the proverbial heretical chopping block. This broke Jerome's heart, and he wrote letters to monks instructing them to edit certain portions of the texts, giving various excuses due to misunderstandings and of scribe's evil agendas, in an attempt to save Origen's writings and his legacy from the fire.

Origen's method of interpreting Scripture tremendously influenced the Middle Ages. He interpreted Scripture with three levels of meaning: the literal, the moral and the allegorical. Origen especially used his allegorical interpretation of Scripture to reveal Christ in the Old Testament.

Condemned and Excommunicated, Origen paradoxically has been called the father of orthodoxy and the father of heresy. He labored at a time when the church was still seeking to interpret and define its basic doctrines.
www.christianity.com...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

Out of 52 biblical scholars, only 4 accept the Josephus passages as authentic!

hahaha wow! Did you even read what you pasted?

It should actually be more like this:

"Out of 52 scholars, only 13 regard the passage as a complete forgery!"

Because thats what it actually says. You keep avoiding this point all together, and completely ignoring me when I bring it up: THE ENTIRE PASSAGE IS NOT THOUGHT TO BE A FORGERY. PARTS of it are thought to have been added, but the original mention of Jesus being executed by pilate is thought to be authentic.

But hey, keep telling everyone on ATS the whole thing is a fake, even though that simply isn't true.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I, along with others, reject the entire passages.

And where do you fall within those ranges?