What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

originally posted by: windword
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.

You don't find it suspicious that when Rome fell soft and engaged in the Church's hind parts, these possibly deleted and erased original passages surfaced, which Rome had made sure would be silenced? Now why would a passage be inserted into the codexes when the Church gained access to Roman imperial archives when Rome was Christened, and why was it hushed down, perhaps this is where the promiscuity of the Church comes to play, for it was widely accepted and endorsed in it's time even in secular circles, and in many cases we KNOW these passages were in the originals since they are quoted and paraphrased in everything from correspondence to major works. In the case, with Josephus, we have Tacitus (this thread), who paraphrase Josephus mimicing his general style merging it into his special "eliptic" documentation process or whatever he called it (not a success btw). And mind you, Josefus' writing style is not easily forged. Tacitus clearly writes using Josephus as his source.

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.

No thankyou, I already own a vacuum cleaner. Tired that's all. In the last two days I have gathered a bunch of flags and stars and the thinking in this thread has been quite intense at times. I need to put myself in the charger and get some rest. I don't mean to be disingenuous, whatever. Been putting up defences, new day tomorrow

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

, we have Tacitus (this thread), who paraphrase Josephus mimicing his general style merging it into his special "eliptic" documentation process or whatever he called it (not a success btw). And mind you, Josefus' writing style is not easily forged. Tacitus clearly writes using Josephus as his source.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing that at all.

Josephus was not a follower of Jesus Christ. He never mentions Jesus ben Joseph, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, nor does he document the Christian movement in any form.

Even though at the time of Josephus' writings the followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes, not Christians. An obscure and questionable quote of Josephus lauding Jesus as being more that human and "The Christ" is out of character with his writings and what we know of Josephus.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I, along with others, reject the entire passages.

And where do you fall within those ranges?

I concede that there are Christian interpolations. It's quite obvious that Josephus wouldn't have referred to Jesus as the messiah, or lavished praise on him.

link

This site, while being a Christian apologetics site, has the arabic translation, which does not contain the obvious Christian interpolations:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

That seems far more likely to me (and matches the greek manuscripts as well). Also, there were other writers in the 7th and 8th centuries that quote this text, which indicate it had been in circulation much earlier than the version with obvious Christian interpolations from the 12th century.

So yes, I concede that this particular passage was altered. However, most scholars agree that only parts of it were altered, and that the original reference to Jesus being executed by pilate was likely in the original document. Further, the second passage from Josephus which mentions Jesus has never been called into question:

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[25]

and again, neither was Josephus reference to John the Baptist considered dubious:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.

Earlier, you asked why the mention of John the Baptist has any significance. It is significant for a number of reasons:

1- It validates the reliability of the gospel account of John the Baptist

2- It validates the reliability of the gospel accounts of Herod

3- It thus adds credibility to the historical value of the gospel accounts in conjunction with Josephus mention of Jesus, and further, Pilate.

Again, I've said this to you elsewhere: The case for a historical Christ does not rest solely on the writings of Josephus. It is built on multiple sources, including Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, the new testament itself, Pauls earliest letters, The Talmud's mention of Jesus, Celsus writings and accusations about him, archaeological finds which have corroborated certain details shared by tacitus, josephus, and the NT (Mainly, pilates existence as prefect of Judea), and the historical record itself concerning early Christianity.

These elements as a whole, combine to form historical credibility as far as the majority of academics are concerned. Certainly, there is a wide range of opinions amongst secular academics as to whether or not Jesus performed miracles, but the vast majority concur that he was a real person, whom the NT was based on.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I have never said that Josephus' mention of John the Baptist is dubious. In fact, I have used it to defend my theory that the biblical Jesus Christ is a deliberate aberration in order to distract people from the Essenes, and specifically the Nazoreans of Mount Carmel, and their influence on Christianity. There's a huge conspiracy there, with the Catholic church denying, chasing and killing Essene, Mandeans, Ebonites, Cathars, etc. etc., for generations.

It's possible, in my opinion, that Jesus the Nazorean (Nazarene) existed. But, if so, he wasn't born under supernatural auspice or resurrected or any kind of ceremonial human sacrifice for sin. I think it's more likely that Jesus Christ is a composite figure of both real and mythical persons, including the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, who lived somewhere around a century earlier and was expected to return at the end of the age. Could be Jesus the Nazarene was real and was the return of the Teacher of Righteousness, I don't discount it.

originally posted by: okyouwin
What, Jesus couldn't find a pen? Only the spoken word, the most delicate, fragile, and generally the most misunderstood method of communication possible.

The fact that He wrote it without a pen makes it all the more miraculous.

The planet you are now sitting on was created with a spoken word.

“I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I AM!” ~ John 8:58

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" ~ John 1:1

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Does it really prove anything? Tacitus was a 2nd century writer.

Tacitus obviously based his work on other sources than his own memory. Are you saying that a historian writing about things before he was born is automatically a fraud? That would discredit most historians ever having lived on this planet. Please, help me here.

So why would Tacitus not mention the sources he heard the story? Unless he was claiming the story as his own it would be plagiarism, another gospel of gossip to fuel the fury. Any historian worth his/her clout would at least source the material they are basing facts off of unless it is common knowledge. If they are talking about discoveries they personally made or witnessed, the details would be much more in depth and it would be acknowledged within text that this is a new finding.
There are not many historians today that write biographies about George Washington and still talk about him chopping down a cherry tree. Why do you suppose that? Because it was not true. But how would a historian born in the 20th century know this to be fact. It is in writing that he did and didn't. Whom is to be believed and whom discredited. Discredit goes to the one that proclaimed George chopped the tree without supplying any creditable source, just hearsay to promote a man above men, General, Scholar, President, Philosopher, Father, Nobleman, etc. building a character as believable as Paul Bunyan to ensure a legacy and following remains during some distant future that may hold interest.
Thus, anyone can call themself a historian if they research a subject deeply that means a lot to them and rewrite HIS-STORY. They can also choose to reject info and emphasize info. There would not be hundreds of thousands of pages written of George Washington nor Jesus if this were not true. A fact is only a fact to a person who believes it to be fact. Just as why one fact that disproves another fact usually is not adopted out of preconceived knowledge of what is true, or fact. Example being, 1+1=2. Some ass wipe math dude says it = 3. Why should I believe him? He could be right. He has a formula to even prove it. I don't have a formula for why 1+1=2 but I can show it on my fingers, and yet Three could be the same as Two and we were both right.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

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.

Atra-Hasis is Akkadian not Sumerian. The surviving copies of the tale were written in Babylonian. Your inability to distinguish these cultures properly does not lend credibility to any of your other questionable assertions.

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.

Said no scholar ever.

Utnapishtim is the Akkadian name of the Sumerian Ziusudra, whose name appears on the Sumerian's Kings List and is the hero of the Eridu Genesis. The name "Noah" is not based on Utnapishtim nor Ziusudra, these are names from different languages than Hebrew. In Akkadian Utnapishtim is "To Find," and in Hebrew Noah is "Rest." It's like you're making this stuff up. The much later Hebrew tale of Noah is clearly based on Utnapishtim but the name is not derived from him. The Hebrews would never have accepted the tale with clearly non-Hebrew names.

Although I can not definitely debunk it, I can use the same reasoning that I have in the past.

He was born some 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. The Annals was written about 60-80 years after the death of Jesus. Tacitus' "Annals" came about soon before, soon after, or in parallel with the earliest writings of the New Testament.

Tacitus, like the others who supposedly wrote of Jesus, appears to have been heavily [or entirely] reliant on purely oral sources. Worship and story telling that was passed down for decades by word of mouth alone [so far as we know]. Even the new testament came decades after the death of Jesus. When there are gaps that great, with no writings found within that gap, you have to apply a certain amount of uncertainty to the integrity of the sources. Whats more is that the reference to Jesus in the Annals is a passing one. Was the life and death of Jesus exactly notorious enough to warrant a couple sentences half a century after his death? Why was it not more noteworthy, or less noteworthy?

There is so much uncertainty around the life and death of Jesus that almost nothing can be said about it. There is, in my opinion, no definite evidence that Jesus did or did not exist. It can't be ruled out that Jesus was a Roman plot to manipulate the Jews. And it can't be ruled out that Jesus was a real man. Either way, it sure as hell is interesting to look into.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

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.

Atra-Hasis is Akkadian not Sumerian […] The name "Noah" is not based on Utnapishtim

Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, it's all the same, different politics and language, same stories. Same crap new wrapping. I was referring to the place and the Flood stories, I mix them up, Mesopotamia better?

And yes, Noah is probably a pervasion of Utnapishtim. Remove the language specific prefix and suffix, use Hebrew spellings and naming constructs let it live from mouth to mouth for a couple of generations, and you end up with a name like Noah. I am not making this up. Besides, talking of spelling or spelling difference, there is an even better link between Noah and Utnapishtim. Or rather the way they spelled it in Old Babylonian without the /p/ phoneme or syllable: Utna-ishtim. Now the below quote is the first verse of the parashat Noach and reads (top right to bottom left):


In English: These are the generations of Noah. Noah was in his generations a man righteous and whole-hearted; Noah walked with God. [ESV] Genesis 6:9

The letters I have marked off in red spell out Ut-nah-ish-tim (yes, and it also works with the niqquds/diacritics I didn't bother to include them). Of the 21 first letters, almost half of them, and all being the first syllable of seperate words-- spell out Utnaishtim as it was said in Old Babylonian. Coincidence? Think not.

And please, for the future, be civil. I don't like being bitched. I bite. And thanx to parsha.blogspot.no... for the heads up

As an aside, "Nazareth" did not exist as a place when the person known as Jesus supposedly existed (there is no contemporary historical evidence that he did by the way. everything referenced in this thread would be from 70-100 years after he would have died, if he in fact lived, which again there is no evidence of lol). If Jesus did in fact live he would have been Jesus the nassorene which is a Hellenised word for a Jewish sect that existed at the time. Or yehoshua Ben Joseph the nassorene. John the Baptist was a member. It feels like I've argued the "did Jesus exist" thing on ats a thousand times though so I'll bow out now.

originally posted by: LeviWardrobe
Although I can not definitely debunk it, I can use the same reasoning that I have in the past.

He was born some 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. The Annals was written about 60-80 years after the death of Jesus. Tacitus' "Annals" came about soon before, soon after, or in parallel with the earliest writings of the New Testament.

Tacitus, like the others who supposedly wrote of Jesus, appears to have been heavily [or entirely] reliant on purely oral sources. Worship and story telling that was passed down for decades by word of mouth alone [so far as we know]. Even the new testament came decades after the death of Jesus.

Yes, and like you point out, Christianity was growing and the first versions of our current gospels started circulating around the same time Tacitus wrote, but he was among the few who dared to write about it and seems to have managed to keep his silver clean somehow, still everything he might have written about Jesus 3 years ministry is conveniently lost.

Saying he only relied on word of mouth is sort of unfair, he used much the same methods still in use today. He had even developed his own system for securing accuracy with other works, he called it "elliptic style" or something, it didn't catch on. But yeah he must have noticed the fuss around growing Christian movement and the books that started circulating.

When there are gaps that great, with no writings found within that gap, you have to apply a certain amount of uncertainty to the integrity of the sources. Whats more is that the reference to Jesus in the Annals is a passing one. Was the life and death of Jesus exactly notorious enough to warrant a couple sentences half a century after his death? Why was it not more noteworthy, or less noteworthy?

These guys may not have adhered to our day's demands for crediting authors, things were different back then. But studies have shown that they were often quite methodical and used systems for verifying claims and so on. I believe a modern historian and Tacitus would understand each other quite well given they handed over their dictionaries.

There is so much uncertainty around the life and death of Jesus that almost nothing can be said about it. There is, in my opinion, no definite evidence that Jesus did or did not exist. It can't be ruled out that Jesus was a Roman plot to manipulate the Jews. And it can't be ruled out that Jesus was a real man. Either way, it sure as hell is interesting to look into.

What if Joseph (the first, rock old one, not Joseph the father of Jesus' siblings, they have even two separate genealogies) .... what if Joseph was Caesarion.... Could explain quite a bit I suppose. "...a branch from his roots will bear fruit..." Roman nobility were related to the house of Jesse often through king Solomon of the House of David who had more lovers than gold. If Jesus was Caesarion's son, that would explain a whole damn lot.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


But there is really no proof that Tacitus is paraphrasing Josephus.

What he is demonstrating is information that was a know established historical fact among the Romans.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim



What if Joseph (the first, rock old one, not Joseph the father of Jesus' siblings, they have even two separate genealogies) .... what if Joseph was Caesarion.... Could explain quite a bit I suppose. "...a branch from his roots will bear fruit..." Roman nobility were related to the house of Jesse often through king Solomon of the House of David who had more lovers than gold. If Jesus was Caesarion's son, that would explain a whole damn lot.

Egad! What a bunch of slinging!

However to one of your points......maybe they didn't call themselves....Julian.....for nothing.

originally posted by: Malynn
As an aside, "Nazareth" did not exist

True. And there's more, Jesus claimed to be a Nazarean only since he was from Nazareth, this part is actually the first time in history that the lovely tradition of Jewish stand-up is recorded: "Me, Nazarean? Oh, that's right, I am from Nazareth?" [laughter]. He was quite funny sometimes.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim



What if Joseph (the first, rock old one, not Joseph the father of Jesus' siblings, they have even two separate genealogies) .... what if Joseph was Caesarion.... Could explain quite a bit I suppose. "...a branch from his roots will bear fruit..." Roman nobility were related to the house of Jesse often through king Solomon of the House of David who had more lovers than gold. If Jesus was Caesarion's son, that would explain a whole damn lot.

Egad! What a bunch of slinging!

However to one of your points......maybe they didn't call themselves....Julian.....for nothing.

Please continue. Julian? Where?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, it's all the same, different politics and language, same stories. Same crap new wrapping. I was referring to the place and the Flood stories, I mix them up, Mesopotamia better?

Those are very distinct cultures. I find it laughable you claim any degree of knowledge in the origin of these tales when you can hardly distinguish the cultures that produced them. If it's the "same crap new wrapping," as you say, then why don't you apply that logic to the Biblical tales as they too are copies from those Mesopotamian stories?

Ziudsura - Sumerian, only one fragmentary copy of this tale exists, considered part of the "Eridu Genesis," circa

Atra-Hasis - Old Babylonian, 18th C. BCE, several versions of this tale exist.

Utnapishtim - Akkadian, 7th C. BCE, from the "Epic of Gilgamesh," several versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh exist, and had been altered over the course of two millennia. Gilgamesh was supposed to have lived/reigned around 2700 BCE but the earliest mention of a 'flood hero,' Utnapishtim did not occur until 2100 BCE (that's a 600 year difference). The common version of this tale was not standardized (as we know it) in Akkadian until the 13th C. BCE.

There are tables that compare the similarities between Atra-Hasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, where there are clear and direct similarities as well and obvious omissions made in the later Epic of Gilgamesh, which as stated earlier has several versions of the tale.

The Biblical Genesis is another of those "Mesopotamian Tales," it doesn't take after the Sumerian epic as much as it does after the Akkadian versions and Old Babylon versions. In fact the Biblical flood tale bears the closest resemblance to Atra-Hasis and not Utnapishtim.

The term PanBabylonism is the study of the direct influence Mesopotamian mythology had on the Hebrew Biblical tales and Judaism. Abraham was after all a "man of Nippur," Ni-ib-ru or "ib-ru," Hebrew.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


But there is really no proof that Tacitus is paraphrasing Josephus.

What he is demonstrating is information that was a know established historical fact among the Romans.

True. And not only that also what Rome would sign their names on. I made a post about this earlier in the thread I don't know how much of it you have read. The Roman Curia or certain senators could issue a "Damnatio memoriae" ("erase from history") bill on let say a certain renegade Jewish rabbi claimed to be the Messiah who had been arrested a while ago after a drunken brawl including donkey robbery and breaking in and entering a house, stealing and eating up their food and wine, and this added to all the blasphemy claims from the Jewish population who demanded he should be executed, ending in crucifixion, lead to the birth of a certain religious movement that a few centuries later would steal Rome from the aristocracy and be the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire. Arch enemy of Rome during the Jewish war and later. Madness. Pitchforks and torches stuff. Daily mass-executions all over the empire. Quite the eh, hangover he must have had hanging there eh high and dry. The Jewish elite with politicians and the priests, also felt threatened by Jesus and Christianity, and they certainly didn't see him as the promised messiah, they treated him like a mamzer and his aristocratic wife a whore. I won't even think of what they'd say about his mother.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, it's all the same, different politics and language, same stories. Same crap new wrapping. I was referring to the place and the Flood stories, I mix them up, Mesopotamia better?

Those are very distinct cultures. I find it laughable you claim any degree of knowledge in the origin of these tales when you can hardly distinguish the cultures that produced them. If it's the "same crap new wrapping," as you say, then why don't you apply that logic to the Biblical tales as they too are copies from those Mesopotamian stories?

I am talking of the stories, not the cultures. These stories are cross-cultural, and I honestly don't care much about these cultures, and certainly not in a thread about things that happened 2000 years later. Get over it. It's irrelevant. Arbitrary, sidetracking on a detail in a post, shush away, go play with the other trolls somewhere else. Shush.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


But there is really no proof that Tacitus is paraphrasing Josephus.

What he is demonstrating is information that was a know established historical fact among the Romans.

Ok, fair enough, but utterly cheap. How can you prove anything is paraphrased? Besides my claims are referenced, so if you mean it is in err (though reflecting the current paradigm and quite precedent) -- take it up with the Library of Congress who issues these texts for study and the publisher of my particular publication, Thomas Nelson Publishers. If they are forgeries like you claim, they are probably interested in hearing your story.

a reply to: Murgatroid
Oh, that clears it all up for me thanks.