aspects of Tacitus's Annals 15.44

[Leucius Charinus]

Tacitus doesn't fall into this category of texts with ecclesiastic/pious/religious motivations, so its chances of being an authentic manuscript are improved, compared against such religious texts.

Could one say the same about the manuscripts of the histories of Josephus ?

Any manuscripts transmitted by the church organisation (Jesus Industry) are IMO suspect.



LC

[Peter Kirby]

Tacitus doesn't fall into this category of texts with ecclesiastic/pious/religious motivations, so its chances of being an authentic manuscript are improved, compared against such religious texts.

Could one say the same about the manuscripts of the histories of Josephus ?

Any manuscripts transmitted by the church organisation (Jesus Industry) are IMO suspect.



LC

You don't show that you even understand what I said....

Do you really want to have a conversation with me on this topic? Because I don't want to have one with you.... it's a predictable waste of time.

[MrMacSon]

Does the manuscript attest to "Christus" or "Chrstus"?

A claim is made here (starting at the 01:45 mark) for the latter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UgO8fAJVVM

LC

Yes, that's interesting (that they point out it is not specific as written).

[Peter Kirby]

Does the manuscript attest to "Christus" or "Chrstus"?

A claim is made here (starting at the 01:45 mark) for the latter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UgO8fAJVVM

I have not seen this claim before.
Does anyone have any further info?

From the archives .... http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 60&page=21

The shape of the "i" depends on the context. Look at the sixth line from the bottom of the image I linked to earlier. The middle word is ludibria See the "ri" combination: exactly the same as that in christus. Two lines further up and on the right, in crimine.

I guess that's the answer ....




LC

Does the manuscript attest to "Christus" or "Chrstus"?

A claim is made here (starting at the 01:45 mark) for the latter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UgO8fAJVVM

LC

Yes, that's interesting (that they point out it is not specific as written).

The shape of the "i" depends on the context. Look at the sixth line from the bottom of the image I linked to earlier. The middle word is ludibria See the "ri" combination: exactly the same as that in christus. Two lines further up and on the right, in crimine.

principis



rumori



in crimine



Christus Tiberio imperitante

[Leucius Charinus]

Tacitus doesn't fall into this category of texts with ecclesiastic/pious/religious motivations, so its chances of being an authentic manuscript are improved, compared against such religious texts.

Could one say the same about the manuscripts of the histories of Josephus ?

Any manuscripts transmitted by the church organisation (Jesus Industry) are IMO suspect.



LC

You don't show that you even understand what I said....

Looking back at your comments they are probably to do with the possibility that the entire Annals of Tacitus is a forgery (as argued by Ross, Hochart, etc). This is one aspect of the OP. The other aspect is that Annals 15.44 has been interpolated (as argued by Carrier etc).

My comments were related to the second aspect - interpolation - which I should probably have made clear.



LC

[Stephan Huller]

... he's constant as the Northern Star

[Leucius Charinus]

•You must remain like the mariner's compass.

•You are your own friend and your own enemy.

[MrMacSon]

The shape of the "i" depends on the context. Look at the sixth line from the bottom of the image I linked to earlier. The middle word is ludibria See the "ri" combination: exactly the same as that in christus. Two lines further up and on the right, in crimine.

principis ... rumori ... in crimine



Christus Tiberio imperitante

i, i; Cap'n

[MrMacSon]

Raphael Lataster makes further points -

Also of interest is that this supposed reference to the death of Jesus is made in Book 15
(covering CE 62-65) rather than in Book 5 (covering CE 29-31). Though Tacitus supposedly claims the death of Christ
happened during the reign of Tiberius, he makes no mention of Jesus in the book covering the reign of Tiberius;
he only makes this one comment among the books covering the later reign of Nero.

Furthermore, most information from Book 5 and the beginning of Book 6 (covering CE 32-37) is
lost.82 The Annals is suspiciously missing information from around 29 CE to 32 CE, a highly relevant
timeframe for those that believe (historically or religiously) in Jesus. It is equally suspicious that the only
section missing in the space dedicated to Tiberius’ rule happens to coincide with what many Christians
would consider to be the most historically noteworthy event(s) to occur during Tiberius’ reign.83 Robert
Drews theorizes that the only plausible explanation for this gap is “pious fraud;” that the embarrassment
of Tacitus making no mention of Jesus’ crucifixion (or associated events such as the darkness covering
the world or the appearances of resurrected saints) led to Christian scribes destroying this portion of
the text, and perhaps later fabricating the Book 15 reference.84 Richard Carrier further argues that
Tacitus’ later discussion on Christianity (in his coverage of 64 CE) gives historians confidence that this
gap cannot be merely explained by the removal of embarrassing claims made about Jesus (with the
silence potentially being the most embarrassing point of all), and points to missing (relevant) books by
Philo and another suspicious gap in Cassius Dio’s Roman History.85

pp 85-6. http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles ... ources.pdf