You did just that.
No early manuscripts of the Barnabas Epistle have been found.
You did just that.
I find this to be a good point. Some do not realize that these three men all knew each other and were contemporizes. Both Pliny and Tacitus were governors in Asia minor during the early second century, Tacitus in Asia and Pliny in Bithynia and Pontis. All three were part of the Emperor households.hakeem wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:07 pmIt must also be noted that Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do not mention anyone called Jesus. As clearly stated, in the NT, many persons would be called Christ so it cannot be assumed that the name Christ could only refer to NT Jesus. In fact, in the Gospels it is claimed there was another person who was using the name of Christ in the time of Pilate.
The significance of the term Chrestianos in Tacitus is probably medieval.
The problem is that ChrEstos and ChrIstos are not normally used as names of Jews. ChrEstos [the good] and ChrIstos [the anointed] are found in the Greek SeptuagintJax wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:54 pmI find this to be a good point. Some do not realize that these three men all knew each other and were contemporizes. Both Pliny and Tacitus were governors in Asia minor during the early second century, Tacitus in Asia and Pliny in Bithynia and Pontis. All three were part of the Emperor households.hakeem wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:07 pmIt must also be noted that Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do not mention anyone called Jesus. As clearly stated, in the NT, many persons would be called Christ so it cannot be assumed that the name Christ could only refer to NT Jesus. In fact, in the Gospels it is claimed there was another person who was using the name of Christ in the time of Pilate.
It would seem reasonable, as they stayed in contact with each other, to suppose that they would all be writing about the same thing using the same terminology. Now, none of these men were Christian and as it looks like any reference to a Christ in writing by Christians was in the form of the nomina sacra, either they had access to written material that used Christ written out in full instead of the NS, or their source of information was verbal from actual Christians, perhaps the ones reported by Pliny. If memory serves, Suetonius and Tacitus both use the term Chrestus. Is this consistent with Pliny?
Are the three reporting on a Chrestus that has no name of Jesus but just Chrestus?
Shame that spin doesn't post here anymore, his posts could be very informative.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:06 pmThe significance of the term Chrestianos in Tacitus is probably medieval.
Pliny has Christo quasi deo and Tacitus has auctor nominis eius Christus.
ETA: Even today Christ is still Christ in French, whereas Christian is Chrétien.
I could see the early Christians in the main referring to themselves as "Chrestianos in Christus". If anything the wordplay would appeal to them, like with for instance IXThYC. They seem to be for the most part a literary cult, wordplay is the frosting center for folks like this.hakeem wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:39 pmThe problem is that ChrEstos and ChrIstos are not normally used as names of Jews. ChrEstos [the good] and ChrIstos [the anointed] are found in the Greek SeptuagintJax wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:54 pmI find this to be a good point. Some do not realize that these three men all knew each other and were contemporizes. Both Pliny and Tacitus were governors in Asia minor during the early second century, Tacitus in Asia and Pliny in Bithynia and Pontis. All three were part of the Emperor households.hakeem wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:07 pmIt must also be noted that Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do not mention anyone called Jesus. As clearly stated, in the NT, many persons would be called Christ so it cannot be assumed that the name Christ could only refer to NT Jesus. In fact, in the Gospels it is claimed there was another person who was using the name of Christ in the time of Pilate.
It would seem reasonable, as they stayed in contact with each other, to suppose that they would all be writing about the same thing using the same terminology. Now, none of these men were Christian and as it looks like any reference to a Christ in writing by Christians was in the form of the nomina sacra, either they had access to written material that used Christ written out in full instead of the NS, or their source of information was verbal from actual Christians, perhaps the ones reported by Pliny. If memory serves, Suetonius and Tacitus both use the term Chrestus. Is this consistent with Pliny?
Are the three reporting on a Chrestus that has no name of Jesus but just Chrestus?
In the Septuagint, 2 Samuel, King Saul is the Lord's anointed [ChrIstos] and the in the Psalms105 the Lord is good [ChrEstos].
What is most strange is that up to the 4th century, in the Codex Sinaiticus, it is claimed that people who believed in ChrIstos were called ChrEstianos.
Yes, Suetonius has Chrestus. Could be a different figure altogether. Not sure, though. There is that weird matchup between Suetonius seemingly implying that Chrestus instigated trouble at Rome and Revelation 11.8 saying that the Lord was crucified in the Great City, whereas the Great City in the rest of Revelation seems to be Rome. I am of the opinion that the Great City in verse 8 is the same as the Holy City in verse 2, which houses the Temple of verse 1, and is therefore Jerusalem in chapter 11, but I could be wrong. (I also think that Revelation is a composite or layered book, and I could be wrong about that, too.)
But the same goes for all other early Christian writings.No early manuscripts of the Barnabas Epistle have been found.
Obviously, you did not read: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#barnabasThe dates of writings at the site you provided are just opinion
Arggggg! "now where did I put that noose?"Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:08 amYes, Suetonius has Chrestus. Could be a different figure altogether. Not sure, though. There is that weird matchup between Suetonius seemingly implying that Chrestus instigated trouble at Rome and Revelation 11.8 saying that the Lord was crucified in the Great City, whereas the Great City in the rest of Revelation seems to be Rome. I am of the opinion that the Great City in verse 8 is the same as the Holy City in verse 2, which houses the Temple of verse 1, and is therefore Jerusalem in chapter 11, but I could be wrong. (I also think that Revelation is a composite or layered book, and I could be wrong about that, too.)