There is no evidence it was an add-on.
And by the way, I was speaking of several Roman historians from the first centuries AD.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law
- Thread starter rosends
- Start date
And by the way, I was speaking of several Roman historians from the first centuries AD.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
As far as I know, Josephus is the only CONTEMPORARY non-Christian mention of Jesus. It is obvious that this text has been altered by later Christians, because it claims that people saw him alive after his death. No one but a Christian would ever say such a thing, and Josephus was not a Christian.
No, that's not true, because Suetonius and Tacitus clearly speak of Jesus; the first speaks of Jews provoking turmoil after Christ's issues in Rome, under Emperor Claudius (it dealt with Jews believing in Jesus, of course); and the second clearly said that Jesus was crucified under Emperor Tiberius. These are pagan writers speaking against Christians. So they were impartial sources.
The Watchtower is the most unreliable source ever when it comes to history and science. They believe in a literal Genesis and basically reject any other academic history and the science of evolution and cosmology.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Tacitus is NOT a contemporary source. He didn't mention Jesus until 116 CE. Same with Suetonius -- 122 CE.
But Roman historians basically recopy the Annales of other historians who lived a century before.
So it's basically the same thing.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
More like, these two second century historians simply reported the story they had heard from Chrisitans.
Absolutely not. Because they speak against Christians, because they are both Roman Pagans.
Suetonius even calls them Iudaeos, because back then Pagan Romans couldn't understand the difference between Jews and Christians,
Last edited:
One major problem with Roman history books is that they were preserved by Christians. The reason that Christians preserved them was because some of them did mention Christians and the Church thought it relevant to preserve books that make mention of the early history of Christianity. While on the one hand that's a good thing because that's how some of these books found their way to the modern world, on the other hand, a cloud of skepticism hangs over them. The question remains: Did Christian copyists copy the text word for word or did they change the text to fit their beliefs?
For this reason many doubt the legitimacy of the mentions of Jesus by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius, three early authors (in terms of the development of Christianity) who seem unlikely to have known anything of the origins of Christians (each for his own reason).
This same question exists regarding Cassius Dio, whose work was summarized by the Christian copyist Xiphilinus. Short-Dio has a paragraph regarding the Bar Kokhba Revolt but it's unknown whether this is a good summary or mixed in with some of Xiphilinus's personal views.
Just one question. If the accounts by Tacitus or Suetonius were fake, that is written by Christians, do you think that Christians would have insulted themselves? Do you think that Christians would have called themselves Iudaeos, that is Jews?
Because that's what Roman Pagans would do: they would insult Christians and Christianity.
Read the accounts, please.
Tacito, Annales, XV, 44, 4
Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat (...)
Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque
So therefore, in order to eliminate the rumor, Nero decided to blame and to inflict the most atrocious penalties to those who were called Christians, who were hated by the people because of their misdeeds. They were named after Christ, killed by Procurator Pontius Pilate's order, under Tiberius. That execrable superstition, repressed for short time, was being revived, not only in Judaea, country of origin of that evil, but also in Rome, where all atrocities and shameful things flow into from all over the world and are celebrated.
Suetonius, lives of the Ceasars
Iudaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit: Rome expelled Jews who were assiduously provoking unrest, because they had been instigated by Christ's (death)
There is an overwhelming difference between Pagan historians and Christian historians.
Ancient Romans were pagans. They used to believe in Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Minerva.
Not in God.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Sorry, but I don't make this connection.
Can't you understand the difference between Roman Pagans and Roman Christians?
Or are they same thing, in your eyes?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Christianity is sort of an odd bird. They claim to worship the God of Abraham, but at the same time they worship an idol of flesh, the man, Jesus, which is a pagan thing.Can't you understand the difference between Roman Pagans and Roman Christians?
Or are they same thing, in your eyes?
So are they the same thing?
But Pagan emperors persecuted Christians. So they were not the same thing.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Please reread what I wrote.
Those are matters of faith.
Christians believe that Jesus is God.
Last edited:
I didn't say the accounts were fake. I simply pointed out the fair possibility that Christian scribes might have inserted later additions into the works they were copying.
Tacitus, for example, may very well have referred to Christians, but did he necessarily explain that their name came from "Christ"? Maybe, maybe not. There are plausible arguments on both sides.
As for Suetonius, there is in fact a problem with understanding his words as referring to Jews incited by Christ: The plain meaning of his statement is that the Jews of Rome were incited by a person they knew, living among them. There are debates to what expulsion Suetonius is referring to, but in any case, per Christian belief and Christian sources, Jesus never set foot in Rome. Was Jesus still alive at the time of this event and living in Rome?
Another plausible possibility is that Suetonius did not misspell the word Christos and really meant someone named Chrestus, a name we have some evidence for.
So, in short, it's not a simple issue.
What does this have to do with Dio's paragraph on Bar Kokhba?