RE: Tacitus
August 19, 2014 at 10:53 pm
(This post was last modified: August 19, 2014 at 11:11 pm by Minimalist.)
Now that the shithead is gone, here is a discussion of Tacitus:
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm
The author, Carrington, writing in 1998 could not know that ten years later the manuscript would be photographed under ultraviolet light and show that even in the 11th century ( when the copy was made ) the original word was "chrestianos" not "christianos."
The copy which served as the basis for the current extant manuscript used a word which meant "followers of Chrestus" rather than "followers of Christus." Some helpful monk was trying to correct what he thought was a spelling error of Tacitus'. Except, Chrestianos matches what Suetonius wrote when he referred to Chrestus in the Life of Claudius.
Now, I fully understand that such nuances are totally lost on fuckheads like the dear departed revivin. I post this for the atheist wing of the party!
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm
Quote:The two partial manuscripts were found in the Medici library dating from 1313 to 1375. It is only after this time, much after, that the story became almost an Article of Faith about the early Church.
The author, Carrington, writing in 1998 could not know that ten years later the manuscript would be photographed under ultraviolet light and show that even in the 11th century ( when the copy was made ) the original word was "chrestianos" not "christianos."
The copy which served as the basis for the current extant manuscript used a word which meant "followers of Chrestus" rather than "followers of Christus." Some helpful monk was trying to correct what he thought was a spelling error of Tacitus'. Except, Chrestianos matches what Suetonius wrote when he referred to Chrestus in the Life of Claudius.
Now, I fully understand that such nuances are totally lost on fuckheads like the dear departed revivin. I post this for the atheist wing of the party!