Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 14th, 2010 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default Tacitus and the Jews

Tacitus and the Jews

Part I


Publius Cornelius Tacitus is one of the most famous of all Roman historians (and certainly one of the most read) and indeed possibly one of the greatest historians in the classical world. Tacitus however in addition to his work on the history of Imperial Rome; which forms the basis for his ‘Histories’ and ‘Annals’, gives us an interesting and indeed brutally honest portrait of the jews as a people.

Tacitus’ remarks on this score have long been cited by educated anti-Semites (1) as they make for excellent confirmation that the charges of anti-Semitism; often supposed to be lacking a factual basis, have largely stayed constant throughout the ages and that jewish behaviour has consequently stayed the same throughout this time period. (2) Thus directly suggesting a link between jewish behaviour and outbreaks of anti-Semitic feeling/violence that cannot be reasonably dismissed out-of-hand by even the most dedicated philo-Semite.

Tacitus’ comments on the jews have come in for considerable academic discussion and are usually dismissed as being repetition of unfounded anti-jewish myths; of generally Greek origin, that one can also see repeated in Josephus’ ‘Against Apion’. What has not been pointed out in modern literature is that Tacitus’ description and analysis of the jews is actually; like most of his work, rather more correct than it has been conceded by the generally philo-Semitic academic establishment.

What we shall do in this essay is to bring to the fore Tacitus’ comments on the jews (regardless of their origin in either experience or the literature of the time); which form a short segment of fifth book of his ‘Histories’, and examine them to see how reasonable they are and whether they can dismissed as easily as various philo-Semitic and jewish scholars have claimed. We shall also; where appropriate, comment on how Tacitus’ description of the jews should be understood in the light of modern anti-Semitic research.

Tacitus begins his account of the jews by informing us of the arguments; without explicitly endorsing any one theory in particular, surrounding the origin of the jews at the time that he wrote. (3) He tells us that one theory is based on the notion that the jews come from Crete which is adduced from the similarity of the names: ‘Idaei’ (the inhabitants of Mount Ida in Crete) and ‘Judaei’ (the inhabitants of Judea or the jews). He then proceeds to inform us that the jews were said to have emigrated to Libya and that an; implied, rival tradition disputes this and claims that the jews are in fact superfluous population from Egypt who were lead out of Egypt by two men called ‘Hierosolymus’ and ‘Juda’. Tacitus also informs us that another tradition has the jews originating from Ethiopia to the south of Egypt. Another theory has it that the jews are Assyrian refugees and occupied a piece of Egyptian territory turning it into their own state. While another; more fanciful, theory claims that the jews were the descendents of the Solymi; from south-west Turkey, who were then famous due to Homer’s positive mention of them in the Iliad. (4)

These theories; in spite of claims that Tacitus and/or the Greek accounts of the jews are almost wholly inaccurate, are actually; in all but two instances (those of the Cretan and Solymian origin of the jews), reconcilable with the account of the jewish origins given in the Torah/Pentateuch. We can note that the references to Libya and Egypt closely follow the Biblical narrative with the jews having come from the Egyptian empire (5) and the reference to Ethiopia can also be argued to simply based on the assumption that the jews originate from Egypt and therefore that the jews originate from Punt (Ethiopia) as the Egyptian mythology claimed they; the Egyptians, did. The reference to Assyria is also; we may reasonably suggest, a direct result of the assertion by B'reshiyth/Genesis that Abraham was held captive in Syria only to return to Canaan later, which Tacitus would have reasonably regarded as Assyrian and Egyptian territory at that point in time. (6)

The reference to ‘Hierosolymus’ probably refers to Moses/Moshe as ‘Juda’ seems to me to probably be either a corruption of ‘Juba’ (7) or ‘Judea’. (8) Where-as with ‘Hierosolymus’ it would be normal for Greek sources; especially if they believed the Hellenizing jews who tried to make jewish tradition fit Greek mythology and legend, to assign Moses/Moshe a Greek name (as opposed to the barbarian original): much as they assigned the Greek gods to other pagan peoples; emphasizing a particular god or goddess depending on their knowledge of the religious customs or general culture of the people in question. Tacitus himself implicitly endorses this interpretation when he asserts that ‘most authorities agree’ that the jews were lead out of Egypt by a man named Moses/Moshe, which indirectly implies that Tacitus believed one (or both) of the identifications of ‘Hierosolymus’ or ‘Juda’ as the man who led the jews out Egypt to be Moses/Moshe and that he had correctly identified possibly the most important figure in jewish history. (9)

We could also potentially argue that the claim that the jews were the descendents of the Solymi possibly derives from the assertion that ‘Hierosolymus’ lead them out of Egypt in the Exodus and that a Greek or Roman author (or perhaps more maliciously a Hellenizing jew in the vein of Philo Judaeus); who would almost certainly been familiar with Homer, had taken it upon themselves to rationalise the existence of the jews within Homeric epic by associating them with a people described by Homer (i.e. to link them to the Greeks if one were to look at this as a malicious act on the part of a Hellenizing jew). We can see this association in Tacitus’ recounting of the theory that the jews originate from Crete based on the like sounds of the given names of the two peoples.

We should however note that this is only intellectual speculation on my part in that I am not a classical philologist and nor do I make any claim to be one. That said I felt it necessary to call to my reader’s attention that potentiality it seems possible; even probable, that the origins of the jews that Tacitus relates are in fact not only reconcilable but fairly reasonable for the time period as they; as we have seen, do actually derive from the jewish tradition and unless one regards jewish claims as to their origin in the Torah/Pentateuch uncritically then one has to pay attention to the theories propounded by the unknown authors who Tacitus is citing.

References


(1) For example see Theodor Fritsch, 1933, ‘Handbuch der Judenfrage’, 35th Edition, Hammer Verlag: Leipzig, pp. 418-419
(2) This thesis; as applied to the Roman Empire, is best exemplified by Franz Altheim’s, 1939, ‘Die Soldatenkaiser’, 1st Edition, Das Ahnenerbe: Berlin, which uses Tacitus; although not directly, as one of the key evidential bases to argue that there was an internal power struggle between the Aryan and Semitic races within the Roman Empire. Altheim's thesis is controversial; especially in the present age, but it still represents one of the more complete theories regarding the Roman Empire, which takes into account biology as opposed to the presumption that social, economic and religious differences lie at the heart of the understanding of history (which is in effect a denial of the application and the value of biological science).
(3) Tac. Hist. 5. 2
(4) Hom. Il. 6. 184
(5) On this point see the book of Sh’moth/Exodus in particular.
(6) Gen. 12
(7) The name of a number of rulers of nearby Numidia. It is notable that Juba II was associated; via his second marriage to Glaphyra, to the Kings of Judea as her first husband was Prince Alexander of Judea (a son of the infamous King Herod of Judea) and her lover and third husband was another son of King Herod of Judea: King Herod Archelaus. This further suggests that ‘Juda’ may well be a corruption of ‘Juba’ given this close historical association, which would probably have been known to Tacitus in some form as Juba II had been an advisor to Gaius Caesar during his tour of the Eastern Provinces between 2 BC and 2 AD given his description of Gaius Caesar in the ‘Annals’.
(8) The southern jewish kingdom which has historically been more closely associated with the jews of today than the northern jewish kingdom of Samaria.
(9) Tac. Hist. 5. 3. One could also combine the names ‘Hierosolymus’ and ‘Juda’ to form one individual, which if the reference was to one individual might suggest that Moses/Moshe was indeed the individual referred to by Tacitus and the authors whose opinions/theories he cites.

------------------------


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ws-part-i.html
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; September 14th, 2010 at 04:52 PM.
 
Old September 14th, 2010 #2
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Tacitus Actual Text

While Karl did a fine job of introduction, here is what Tacitus actually said about G-d's Pets.
========
http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antisemi...emitism-t.html

Article by Tacitus : translation by Kenneth Wellesley
Tacitus on the Jews

Tacitus, Histories, 5.2-5

[2] The Jews are said to have been refugees from the island of Crete who settled in the remotest corner of Libya in the days when, according to the story, Saturn was driven from his throne by the aggression of Jupiter [1]. This is a deduction from the name Judaei by which they became known: the word is to be regarded as a barbarous lengthening of Idaei, the name of the people dwelling around the famous Mount Ida in Crete. A few authorities hold that in the reign of Isis the surplus population of Egypt was evacuated to neighboring lands under the leadership of Hierosolymus and Judas [2]. Many assure us that the Jews are descended from those Ethiopians who were driven by fear and hatred to emigrate from their home country when Cepheus was king [3]. There are some who say that a motley collection of landless Assyrians [4] occupied a part of Egypt, and then built cities of their own, inhabiting the lands of the Hebrews and the nearer parts of Syria. Others again find a famous ancestry for the Jews in the Solymi who are mentioned with respect in the epics of Homer [5]: this tribe is supposed have founded Jerusalem and named it after themselves.
[3] Most authorities, however, agree on the following account. The whole of Egypt was once plagued by a wasting disease which caused bodily disfigurement. So pharaoh Bocchoris [6] went to the oracle of Hammon [7] to ask for a cure, and was told to purify his kingdom by expelling the victims to other lands, as they lay under a divine curse. Thus a multitude of sufferers was rounded up, herded together, and abandoned in the wilderness. Here the exiles tearfully resigned themselves to their fate. But one of them, who was called Moses, urged his companions not to wait passively for help from god or man, for both had deserted them: they should trust to their own initiative and to whatever guidance first helped them to extricate themselves from their present plight. They agreed, and started off at random into the unknown. But exhaustion set in, chiefly through lack of water, and the level plain was already strewn with the bodies of those who had collapsed and were at their last gasp when a herd of wild asses left their pasture and made for the spade of a wooded crag. Moses followed them and was able to bring to light a number of abundant channels of water whose presence he had deduced from a grassy patch of ground. This relieved their thirst. They traveled on for six days without a break, and on the seventh they expelled the previous inhabitants of Canaan, took over their lands and in them built a holy city and temple.

[4] In order to secure the allegiance of his people in the future, Moses prescribed for them a novel religion quite different from those of the rest of mankind. Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral. In the innermost part of the Temple, they consecrated an image of the animal which had delivered them from their wandering and thirst, choosing a ram as beast of sacrifice to demonstrate, so it seems, their contempt for Hammon [8]. The bull is also offered up, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis [9]. They avoid eating pork in memory of their tribulations, as they themselves were once infected with the disease to which this creature is subject [10]. They still fast frequently as an admission of the hunger they once endured so long, and to symbolize their hurried meal the bread eaten by the Jews is unleavened. We are told that the seventh day was set aside for rest because this marked the end of their toils. In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well. Others say that this is a mark of respect to Saturn, either because they owe the basic principles of their religion to the Idaei, who, we are told, were expelled in the company of Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or because, among the seven stars that rule mankind, the one that describes the highest orbit and exerts the greatest influence is Saturn. A further argument is that most of the heavenly bodies complete their path and revolutions in multiples of seven.

[5] Whatever their origin, these observances are sanctioned by their antiquity. The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have entrenched themselves by their very wickedness. Wretches of the most abandoned kind who had no use for the religion of their fathers took to contributing dues and free-will offerings to swell the Jewish exchequer; and other reasons for their increasing wealth way be found in their stubborn loyalty and ready benevolence towards brother Jews. But the rest of the world they confront with the hatred reserved for enemies. They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. Though a most lascivious people, the Jews avoid sexual intercourse with women of alien race. Among themselves nothing is barred. They have introduced the practice of circumcision to show that they are different from others. Proselytes to Jewry adopt the same practices, and the very first lesson they learn is to despise the gods, shed all feelings of patriotism, and consider parents, children and brothers as readily expendable. However, the Jews see to it that their numbers increase. It is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child [11], and they think that eternal life is granted to those who die in battle or execution - hence their eagerness to have children, and their contempt for death. Rather than cremate their dead, they prefer to bury them in imitation of the Egyptian fashion, and they have the same concern and beliefs about the world below. But their conception of heavenly things is quite different. The Egyptians worship a variety of animals and half-human, half-bestial forms, whereas the Jewish religion is a purely spiritual monotheism. They hold it to be impious to make idols of perishable materials in the likeness of man: for them, the Most High and Eternal cannot be portrayed by human hands and will never pass away. For this reason they erect no images in their cities, still less in their temples. Their kings are not so flattered, the Roman emperors not so honored. However, their priests used to perform their chants to the flute and drums, crowned with ivy, and a golden vine was discovered in the Temple; and this has led some to imagine that the god thus worshipped was Prince Liber [12], the conqueror of the East. But the two cults are diametrically opposed. Liber founded a festive and happy cult: the Jewish belief is paradoxical and degraded.

[translation by Kenneth Wellesley]

Notes

1
According to Greek-Roman legend, Jupiter (Greek: Zeus) was born on Crete and overthrew his father Saturn (Kronos). Tacitus rationalizes this myth and seems to believe that Zeus and Kronos were kings.
2
'Hierosolymus' and 'Judas' are the Greek renderings of the Hebrew words for Jerusalem and Jew.

3
According to Greek legend, Cepheus was king of Ethiopia, i.e., the country of the 'burnt face people'. His daughter Andromeda was married to the hero Perseus.

4
This theory is plausible. In Greek and Latin, the word 'Assyrian' can indicate everyone living in modern Iraq or Syria. Aramaeans, a tribe to which the Hebrews seem to have been related, also fit within the definition of an Assyrian.

5
The Solymi are mentioned by Homer in the Iliad 6.184 and 204 and in the Odyssey 5.283. They were brave warriors from Lycia. The word Jerusalem was read as 'Hiero-Solyma' or 'holy place of the Solymi'.

6
Pharaoh Uahkare Bocchoris ruled 718-712. The date is too late.



Ammon (Musei Capitolini, Roma)

7
The oracle was in the western desert, at the Siwa oasis. Its most famous visitor was Alexander the Great.
8
The Egyptians represented Ammon with a ram's head.

9
The Apis bull was one of the manifestations of the Egyptian god Ptah. Its cult was famous in antiquity since it was described by the Greek researcher Herodotus.

10
Leprosy.

11
Infanticide was a common practice among the Greeks and Romans.

12
A common title for Dionysus, the god of wine, intoxication and ecstasy.
 
Old September 18th, 2010 #3
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Part II


When Tacitus has finished his description of the various theses that had developed in the Roman and Greek literature regarding the origin of the jews: he proceeds to display his; probably second hand, knowledge of the Torah and the traditions of the jews by pointing out that ‘most authorities agree’ that Moses/Moshe was central to the founding of the jews as a nation. (10)

Tacitus indeed relates an interesting counter-tradition to the famous exodus of the jews from Egypt described in the Torah in so far he asserts that a great plague of leprosy had occurred in Egypt and that Pharaoh had been tasked by the God Ammon to rid the country of the pestilence and to perform this pious act. The Pharaoh rounded up and expelled all those ‘wretches’; as Tacitus calls them, who had contracted the disease. We should note in passing that in the ancient, classical and medieval worlds leprosy was viewed as an unclean disease and was often attributed to immorality. (11) These individuals were then removed from the country and abandoned out in the desert; which is presumably a reference to Sinai.

Tacitus’ assertion; probably made on the basis of ancient Greek works on jews and Judaism, that the jews had their origin among Egyptian lepers can be said to be direct reference to Sh’moth/Exodus. As we find that the ten plagues that were supposedly cast down on the Egyptians by Hashem/Yahweh are similar to Tacitus’ account in their fundamental assumptions in regard to the events. Tacitus tells us that the lepers/jews were driven out into the (Sinai) desert, because a great plague had come upon Egypt and Sh’moth/Exodus claims that the jews desired to leave but Pharaoh had to be forced to let them leave by ten great plagues. (12)

What is particularly interesting to us is that the reference to a plague is probably not literal i.e. it might suggest that the jews residing in Egypt had been the cause of much destruction and harm to the Egyptians and hence were viewed as a great plague hence the reference to them in Tacitus’ writing as lepers (i.e. a veiled reference to their spreading a horrific disease by their dissolute habits wherever they go). We find evidence for this interpretation in Sh’moth/Exodus when Hashem/Yahweh supposedly demanded that the jews ask Pharaoh for ‘jewellery of silver and gold’ (13) and in Pharaoh’s decision to chase the jews with his army. (14)

This decision on the part of Pharaoh makes little sense unless we view it as an allegory for something that the jews had collectively done to anger Pharaoh. So rather than the jews being ‘granted’ the ‘jewellery of silver and gold’ of Pharaoh by him: we can reasonably suggest that the jews simply stole or cheated Pharaoh out of his riches and fled en masse with them to Sinai. This is also suggested by the implicit claim made by Sh’moth/Exodus that Hashem/Yahweh had decreed that it should be so thus legitimizing this particularly jewish piece of thievery. (15)

We can also see this in an earlier account of the jews in Egypt from B'reshiyth/Genesis, which also implicitly informs us of the jewish financial manipulation of the Egyptian grain market enacted by Joseph. (16) We are then told that after Joseph’s success his whole tribe immigrated to Egypt (17) and thereafter attained significant financial, social and political success as a result of Joseph’s opening up of the Egyptian markets and power structure to them. (18) We also find reference to the fact that the jews at this point had begun to control Egyptian internal policy and were using it for their personal and collective benefit so as to effectively place themselves in control of the Egyptian citizenry and grain market under the guise of ‘helping Pharaoh’. (19) We can see this when a famine occurred it resulted in the people having to pay homage to the jews to procure enough to eat. (20) The jewish rapaciousness (21) didn’t even stop at the powerful Egyptian priestly class and they used their financial might and power over Pharaoh to try to undermine the power of the priestly class and procure for themselves the position as the only power behind the throne. (22)

This informs us that when Tacitus speaks of the jews as ‘lepers’ he does not mean that the jews were literally infected with leprosy, but rather that they were like lepers in that they had angered the Gods; specifically Ammon, by their actions in Egypt, which lead to Ammon commanding Pharaoh to be rid of these usurious usurpers, which lead to Pharaoh’s somewhat successful attempt to break the back of the jewish power behind the throne. We should note in passing that when Tacitus speaks of the God Ammon he is probably referring to; however wittingly or unwittingly, the priestly class’ struggle against the jewish power behind the throne referred to in B'reshiyth/Genesis 47:22-26.

This is implied in the following lines:

‘A foul and disfiguring disease once broke out in Egypt, and that King Bocchoris, on approaching the oracle of Ammon and inquiring for a remedy, was told to purge his kingdom and to transport all the victims into another country.’ (23)

The ‘foul and disfiguring disease’ that broke out in Egypt is likely; as we have seen, an analogy for the jewish seizure of power and of their control of the all important Egyptian grain market, which brought with it the twin evils of domination by a foreign power and mass starvation. The ‘victims’ of the disease were of course the jews as they had been infected by this mental leprosy. (24) The priestly class fought back against the jewish subversion of Egypt and when the jews had caused one too many a famine among the Egyptian people and revolt was in the air. The jews fled; i.e. ‘were purged and transported’, into Sinai with the ‘jewellery of silver and gold’ of Pharaoh (i.e. the wealth of the Egyptian kingdom) and the Egyptians predictably assembled their army and marched after Hashem’s holy thieves.

Thus Tacitus is actually describing jewish rapaciousness and its results in Egypt and does not literally mean; as has been argued, that his ‘account of Jewish origins is appalling garbled’, (25) but rather that Tacitus’ words have to be taken as an analogical representation of jewish origins as opposed to the literalism that is conventionally used to try and discredit Tacitus as a notable source on the ancient jews.

References


(10) Tac. Hist. 5. 3
(11) This is shown in Tacitus’ remark that the lepers; as the originators of the jews, had ‘earned the disfavour of Heaven’.
(12) Exod. 7-12
(13) Exod. 11:2
(14) Exod. 14:5
(15) Exod. 11:2
(16) Gen. 41:46; 47:13-26
(17) Gen. 48; 47:10-12
(18) Gen. 47:27
(19) Gen. 47:20
(20) Gen. 47:10-15
(21) According to Gen. 47:21 the jews had by this point made slaves of the Egyptian people.
(22) Gen. 47:22-26
(23) Tac. Hist. 5. 3
(24) One could argue that this mental leprosy is simply an analogy of the jewish mind, which doesn’t understand that which it does not conceive to be beneficial to itself.
(25) Tacitus, W. H. Fyfe (Trans.), D. S. Levene (Ed.), 1997, ‘The Histories’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, p. xvii

------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...s-part-ii.html
__________________
 
Old October 6th, 2010 #4
Nick Collings
Junior Member
 
Nick Collings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Way Up North
Posts: 199
Default

Tacitus schriebt ueber die juden:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacitus
Sie halten mit Zaehigkeit zusammen, hegen hingegen feindseligen Hass gegen alle andere...Der juedische Brauch ist widersinnig und armselig.
(Historien V, 3-8)

Zitieren von Der Stuermer, Nummer 47, 12. Jahr 1934
 
Old October 7th, 2010 #5
banjo_billy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Part II








When Tacitus has finished his description of the various theses that had developed in the Roman and Greek literature regarding the origin of the jews: he proceeds to display his; probably second hand, knowledge of the Torah and the traditions of the jews by pointing out that ‘most authorities agree’ that Moses/Moshe was central to the founding of the jews as a nation. (10)
Karl,

Donald E. Pauly, quoting Tacitus directly, tends to show that your analysis is uselessly wordy. After all, Tacitus tells us in his own words what he means.

Tacitus admits in his Histories that he uses a variety of sources for his book. First hand observation, second-hand reports from witnesses that he assumes to be reliable. Tacitus gives the various theories of the origin of the Jews that were common in his time and in addition gives his personal observations of them. You don't seem to be able to separate the two parts of his report.

Your analysis tends to give the Jews more credit and shine than they deserve, depending as you do upon the alleged veracity of the Jewish myths in the Old Testament.

I read Tacitus while I was researching my own book, The Sumerian Swindle. I suppose you haven't read my book, so you are actually a bit behind the times and the latest research when it comes to understanding Jewish history and the fraud that is Judaism.

But it's okay, I can't expect a smart man like you, who can confuse and garble the simple and direct statements of Tacitus with your pseudo-intellectual babble, to understand the writings of a poor boy like Banjo_Billy. But try, anyway, okay?

Download and read The Sumerian Swindle and bring your knowledge of the Jews up to a higher level.

Download here:
http://www.bamboo-delight.com/downlo...Swindle_v1.pdf

or here:
http://gnosticliberationfront.com/ho...ed_mankind.htm

or here:
http://www.4shared.com/document/6cEq...windle_v1.html

Last edited by banjo_billy; October 7th, 2010 at 10:11 AM.
 
Old October 7th, 2010 #6
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Thumbs down

STFU, Banjo. You're out of your league. You couldn't make it as a pimple on Karl's ass. (Krazy Krister Koot.)
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old October 7th, 2010 #7
banjo_billy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
STFU, Banjo. You're out of your league. You couldn't make it as a pimple on Karl's ass. (Krazy Krister Koot.)
The proof is in the pudding. Karl doesn't prove anything and, in fact, just garbles what Tacitus wrote. As for you, just because I keep kicking your ass in debate doesn't mean that you should be bitter about it.

Look on the bright side: I will still let you call me "Mein Fuhrer".

However, I require my followers to also read books so they don't fall to the mental level of niggers. Better watch out, your level is getting mighty low since all you can do is sputter.

Last edited by banjo_billy; October 7th, 2010 at 10:08 AM.
 
Old October 7th, 2010 #8
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banjo_billy View Post
Karl,

Donald E. Pauly, quoting Tacitus directly, tends to show that your analysis is uselessly wordy. After all, Tacitus tells us in his own words what he means.
Lol note the 'Part I', 'Part II' etc Banjo deary: I haven't finished my analysis of the 'Histories' yet. I actually analyze I don't just quote and make up a meaning like you tend to do. 'Uselessly wordy': what part of what I wrote is unnecessary from an analytical standpoint then? Or is this another Incogman-esque made-up charge a-la 'wordism'?

Or do you just mean that you don't like the fact I rationally analyze as oppose to simply believe? I am also directly answering criticisms of Tacitus that have been advanced by mainstream scholarship and hence you are in a little over your head as we have found in our debates before.

Quote:
[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]Tacitus admits in his Histories that he uses a variety of sources for his book.
Which is precisely what I said and pointed out that these are generally conceded to be Greek sources (or at least in the Greek tradition). I merely answered the particular claim that Tacitus' conception of jewish origins is 'horribly garbled' which was levelled at him by D. S. Levene in the OUP edition (which I cited if you noticed).

We have no evidence; and considered Tacitus' comments it is unlikely, that he had any first hand knowledge of jews as he doesn't cite the Torah directly or indirectly other than through his secondary sources which then use standard old Egyptian and Greek arguments that one can find echoed in Josephus' 'Against Apion' (which Josephus is ostensibly answering).

Quote:
First hand observation, second-hand reports from witnesses that he assumes to be reliable.
Where is Tacitus' 'first-hand observation'? All he quotes from in the Histories and his somewhat more contoversial indirect comments in 'Annals' are literary opinions and his own thoughts on these opinions.

Don't confuse Tacitus' opinion with primary sourcing: its like saying because Suetonius advances opinions in his 'The Twelve Caesars' that he must have seen all the events he describes.

Quote:
Tacitus gives the various theories of the origin of the Jews that were common in his time and in addition gives his personal observations of them. You don't seem to be able to separate the two parts of his report.
There is no proof; of which I am aware, that Tacitus had direct dealings with jews and we cannot assume as much. If you believe for some reason there is evidence that he did then post it with a reasonable argument.

He quoted the theories of people who may have done (as he himself says when he points out that 'most authorities agree') but he did not do so himself as his work on jews and Germans; in particular, has often; reasonably, been argued to be pointing out moralistic and political priniciples as it was common practice in the age to do. To take Tacitus at his literal word is rather vapid considering what we know of the method of writing history then used by both Romans and Greeks.

Quote:
Your analysis tends to give the Jews more credit and shine than they deserve, depending as you do upon the alleged veracity of the Jewish myths in the Old Testament.
Hmm: no. If you actually read (as opposed to selectively skim) what I wrote Banjo you will have noticed that what I did was reasonably assume that the Greek opinions on the jews that Tacitus cites and gives his personal opinion of were based on the legends of the Torah that was then current at the time. We know; from the Cairo Geniza and Qumran finds, that these were largely then as we have them today with a few alterations but nothing substantial to Tacitus' time so we can reasonably assume that the two generally match (and most of the issues affect the Tanakh as opposed to the Torah anywho). Therefore my point; was both obvious and simple, in that if we are to understand Tacitus' value as a source we must analyze what he said in the context of what his sources were likely using as their source material i.e the Torah.

You seem to think that is 'giving the jews credit'. It isn't: it merely takes the jews at their word and uses their own claims against them. It is fairly standard in academia and intellectual debate you know.

Considering your apparent pretensions to be an 'intellectual' I would have thought you'd know that Banjo.

Quote:
[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]I read Tacitus while I was researching my own book, The Sumerian Swindle.
I suspect you skimmed not read. Reading requires careful analysis: skimming is what most people do with books they are seeking to use. There is a considerable difference between the two.

Quote:
I suppose you haven't read my book,
I have actually: I did think about publishing a critique of it, but it is rather difficult to do when you don't provide your footnotes in the online edition (mind you what was it 300-400 footnotes which for the amount you wrote is quite reference light) and you obsessively quote the Bible.

I did point that out in that plug thread you created a while back you know.

Quote:
so you are actually a bit behind the times
Hardly, but to state what you've just done you must necessarily assume that you are 'at the cutting edge'. Now considering I have never seen you display a decent knowledge of jewish history or Judaism I find that laughable at best.

Quote:
and the latest research when it comes to understanding Jewish history
Alright then Banjo so how is anything you have written 'the latest research' (as that's your implication)?

Quote:
and the fraud that is Judaism.
Read the Mishnah, both Talmuds, Rashi, Rambam and Caro yet Banjo?

I only ask because I doubt you have (as that totals up to a few hundred thick volumes) and I find it hard to believe that between when we last had a debate on Judaism (on here) and now you have read those basic works. I'm not even going to mention the numerous other commentaries, the academic literature and things to do with Kabbalah etc.

Quote:
But it's okay, I can't expect a smart man like you, who can confuse and garble the simple and direct statements of Tacitus with your pseudo-intellectual babble, to understand the writings of a poor boy like Banjo_Billy. But try, anyway, okay?
Do you even know the difference between primary and secondary sourcing or the issues concerned with analyzing ancient and classical sources?

I ask because you accuse me of 'garbling' things, but the reader will notice that Banjo does not specifically say why I am wrong or 'garbling' things but rather makes a series of general undefined accusations that (as usual) lack substance.

Quote:
Download and read The Sumerian Swindle and bring your knowledge of the Jews up to a higher level.
Lol: you are still trying to claim you have a mystical 'higher knowledge' of the jew?

Get over yourself Banjo.

Oh no on second thought: don't. It is far more amusing when you are like this.
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; October 7th, 2010 at 02:41 PM.
 
Old October 7th, 2010 #9
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

You know what?

I seriously can't be bothered arguing with a moronic cretin like you Banjo. I have a lot to do and little time for amusing diversions like putting you in your place for the nth time.

Few take you seriously as is evidenced by the fact you couldn't even find a decent publisher for your 'book' (oh and before you start warbling I have been published several times now and actually have my own publishing house [and no I didn't self-publish] among other things as several members here well know as they are doing paid work for me) and the fact you feel the need to constantly plug it like you were; and indirectly claim that you are, a learned authority.

After all who takes someone seriously who believes '666' is the 'devil's' number and is somehow 'dangerous'?
__________________
 
Old October 7th, 2010 #10
banjo_billy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,032
Default

Your head is so far up the rabbi's ass that you don't know which way is out. As usual, you use a hundred words when ten will suffice. So, I will just touch on a couple points that are too glaring to let pass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
We have no evidence; and considered Tacitus' comments it is unlikely, that he had any first hand knowledge of jews as he doesn't cite the Torah directly or indirectly.
A man who describes a creature that he saw with his own eyes which stands nine feet high at the shoulder, is grey in color with hairless thick hide, has four thick legs, a long prehensile trunk with which it carries food and water to its mouth, with two ivory tusks on each side of its long nose and a massive head which is flanked by huge ears, is most likely describing an elephant.

By your argumentation, such a man is not qualified to describe the creature that he saw with his own eyes unless he gets his information out of an encyclopedia.

From your defiinition, no one can describe a thieving, perverted Jew from first hand observations but must read the lies that they wrote about themselves in the Torah in order to describe them.

You say that "there is no evidence that Tacitus had first hand knowledge of Jews" even though he describes those swindling perverts exactly. How can you be so abstruse as to believe that direct observation is not as valid as reading some lies in a Jewish book?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Where is Tacitus' 'first-hand observation'? All he quotes from in the Histories and his somewhat more contoversial indirect comments in 'Annals' are literary opinions and his own thoughts on these opinions.
There were Jews swarming all over the Roman Empire by Tacitus's time. Anywhere there were slaves, gold, silver and luxury goods, there were Jews there selling those items and making loans at interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
There is no proof; of which I am aware, that Tacitus had direct dealings with jews and we cannot assume as much. If you believe for some reason there is evidence that he did then post it with a reasonable argument.
His own descriptions of Jews proves that he was very familiar with them and their ways. If you describe your next door neighbor to somebody across town, does that townsman ask you for a reference book to prove that your description of your next door neighbor is accurate? Or does he merely accept that you know how to use your eyes and describe what you see with your mouth? Like most academics, you need to get outside and get some fresh air and meet people. Books are limited in what they can teach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
To take Tacitus at his literal word is rather vapid considering what we know of the method of writing history then used by both Romans and Greeks.
Maybe reading his comments with an eye for what rings true and what is a bit shaky, might help you understand the ancient writers better. They were men writing what they knew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
You seem to think that is 'giving the jews credit'. It isn't: it merely takes the jews at their word and uses their own claims against them. It is fairly standard in academia and intellectual debate you know..
You give the Jews too much credit for telling the truth when they are, in fact, liars. Thus, even when you think you have "used their own claims against them" you have actually accepted their lies as a basis for you alleged "proofs". Thus, your very "proofs" are tainted with Jew-stink. You cannot take pig shit and rub it on Roman vellum to prove that the vellum is impure. In the same way, you can't take the writings of the Jews and rub them on the Classics to prove that the Classics are wrong. You use tainted sources and assume that that is scholarship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Considering your apparent pretensions to be an 'intellectual' I would have thought you'd know that Banjo..
I don't claim to be an intellectual. I just claim to be smarter than you are, that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
I suspect you skimmed not read. Reading requires careful analysis: skimming is what most people do with books they are seeking to use. There is a considerable difference between the two...
I read every word, and your analysis is fluff at best and at worst, it gives credit to the perfidious Jews who deserve nothing but scorn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
I have actually: I did think about publishing a critique of it, but it is rather difficult to do when you don't provide your footnotes in the online edition (mind you what was it 300-400 footnotes which for the amount you wrote is quite reference light) and you obsessively quote the Bible....
Well, I don't obsessively quote the Bible. And if you were as well versed in the ancient Near East as you seem to assume that you are, you would recognize that all of my facts are correct. If you want the footnotes, then you can get them when you buy Volume III when it is published.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Hardly, but to state what you've just done you must necessarily assume that you are 'at the cutting edge'. Now considering I have never seen you display a decent knowledge of jewish history or Judaism I find that laughable at best.....
I guess I'm the one who is laughing, laughing at a stuffed shirt who is just as deluded about Jewish History as most other historians of the subject. Jewish history cannot be found by "taking the Jews at their word" or basing your data on the plagiarisms and forgeries of the Old Testament. You need to access the archeological record and read the original cunieform documents and papyrus books for that. Then you can fully understand the lying kikes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Alright then Banjo so how is anything you have written 'the latest research' (as that's your implication)?.
No one else has discovered what I have discovered about the Jews. You can't get more cutting edge than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
I ask because you accuse me of 'garbling' things, but the reader will notice that Banjo does not specifically say why I am wrong or 'garbling' things but rather makes a series of general undefined accusations that (as usual) lack substance.
I was critiquing your entire piece as well as its theme. It is wrong in general and misleading in intent. You have taken Tacitus' words and mixed them up with your own ideas of what he should have said. That isn't honest acedemic inquiry, it's just misguided BS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Lol: you are still trying to claim you have a mystical 'higher knowledge' of the jew?.
That is a fact, not a claim.

I will soon be publishing some video proofs so that even smart guys like you can understand the simplest things. I was going to try to revive the Ku Klux Klan but I can't get Rounder to cooperate, so now I will just start something new and improved under my own label.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Get over yourself Banjo. Oh no on second thought: don't. It is far more amusing when you are like this.
Thanks, I am glad you are amused. I have fun rattling your cage. But I don't do it for fun, I do it in the hopes that you will take your head out of the rabbi's ass and use your intellect in useful ways instead of heading down the path that you are presently going.

Last edited by banjo_billy; October 7th, 2010 at 03:55 PM.
 
Old October 7th, 2010 #11
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

". . .Tacitus is one of the most famous of all Roman historians (and certainly one of the most read) and indeed possibly one of the greatest historians. . ."

"Most" and "greatest" are superlative- there can be only one.
Most should be more, greatest should be greater. More and greater are comparative. "Possibly the greatest historian" would be correct.

". . .Tacitus is one of the more famous of all Roman historians (and certainly one of the more read) and indeed possibly one of the greater historians. . ."


http://www.eflnet.com/tutorials/adjcompsup.php
 
Reply

Tags
ancient greece, ancient rome, jews, judaism, tacitus

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM.
Page generated in 0.50110 seconds.