===============================================================================
Date: 09-02-95 Time: 02:50a Number: 1525
From: Andreas Heldal-Lund@ALP Refer: 1386
To: Bjørn Stærk Board ID: ROLVSOY Reply:
Subject: UTFORDRING! 1 74: TEAM/Religio Status: Private
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hei Bjørn!
BS>Hei, dette høres interessant ut. Er det mulig å sende en
>kopi til meg?
Selvfølgelig! :) Her komm'ern:
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
This file made available by Scott Oser and the Internet Infidels
for The Freethought Web.
Historicity Of Jesus FAQ
by Scott Oser
Disclaimer
This "FAQ", often referred to as the "Historicity of Jesus" FAQ,
is neither exhaustive, nor does it attempt to answer the question
of whether Jesus of Nazareth really lived or not. In fact, in
writing it I have purposely tried not to take sides on this issue.
In order to do this, one should consider not only these texts, but
also the canonical and non-canonical Christian texts, Jewish
texts, and archeological evidence. In fact, one can be a
completely orthodox Christian, perhaps even a fundamentalist, and
agree with virtually everything in this document. The purpose of
this document is to partially answer the question, "To what extent
are the events described in the New Testament corroborated by
contemporary non-Christian texts?" I argue that the answer to this
question is "not much"--at the very best, some of the texts I
consider support the proposition that Jesus existed and perhaps
was executed by the Romans. They do not prove that he performed
any miracles, rose from the dead, or did anything else ascribed to
him in the New Testament. At worst, ancient texts tell us nothing
new, and provide no independent support for the New Testament
accounts. The question of whether the Christian sources even need
independent confirmation is beyond the purview of this document--I
do not argue for or against the accuracy of the New Testament
accounts here.
References to Jesus of Nazareth in Ancient Non-Christian Literature
Some Christian apologists commonly claim that the events described
in the New Testament are independently attested to in writings by
non-Christians, thereby supporting the accuracy of the New
Testament. This FAQ contains a summary of alleged references to
Jesus and to early Christianity, with special emphasis on the
writings of Josephus and on pagan writers. I have omitted
discussion of references to Jesus in the Talmud and other Jewish
religious writings, as well as the gnostic Christian texts. While
these writings are themselves important, they tend to contradict
New Testament accounts, and so are seldom cited by Christian
apologists.
Several problems confront a study such as this. For one, it is
known that some texts have been corrupted over time, or have been
changed by unscrupulous copyists.
Thus, it is not always possible to separate later interpolations
from the original writings. (See the section on Josephus for an
example of this.) Second of all, some texts have been lost, and
are only known through quotations in secondary sources. In
addition, not only have some alleged references to Jesus been
lost as primary sources, but some early criticisms of
Christianity were suppressed by the early Church and no longer
survive. Furthermore, of the surviving texts, both pro-Christian
and otherwise, many texts cannot be dated with precision, or
survive in more than one form. Thus, caution is warranted in
interpreting material.
A reader of the ancient texts is struck by how little the
literature has to say about events in the New Testament. For
example, Herod's infamous murder of the Innocents (in which he
ordered the slaughter of hundreds of children), while playing a
major role in the New Testament, is not mentioned by any other
source, including the various accounts of Herod's reign. Likewise,
Josephus' account of first century Palestine devotes much more
attention to John the Baptist than to Jesus.
Finally, some comment must be made on the issue of "independent
confirmation". Even if a reference to Jesus in a text is
authentic, and not a later Christian insertion, that text may not
provide any new information. For instance, if a writer is merely
repeating what he was told by Christians, who in turn derive
their information from the New Testament, then the text in
question does not provide independent confirmation of the New
Testament, as the claims involved are ultimately derived from
the NT. An example of what might constitute independent
confirmation would be an eyewitness account by a non-Christian
author, or an entry in a Roman legal document. These sources
would presumably not be mere repetitions of what Christians
believed to have happened, but instead might offer actual
independent confirmation.
I am indebted to Michael Martin's "The Case Against Christianity"
for much of the information presented here. While I disagree with
some of Martin's conclusions, his work presents a starting point
for consideration of the sources. I am particularly thankful to
the following alt.atheism readers, who contributed both
information and criticism of this work: Geoff Arnold, Ray Ingles,
Jeff Lowder, James Lippard, Jim Perry, mathew@mantis.co.uk,
worley@cs.ucf.edu, joonasms@evitech.fi, and kbraatz@delphi.com.
Any errors in this text are mine, not theirs.
Scott Oser
oser@hep.uchicago.edu
8/15/1994
Josephus and Jesus
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the
second half of the first century CE, produced two major works:
History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two
apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works.
The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of
Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard
accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in
the Loeb Classical Library):
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed
one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought
surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as
accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many
of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon
hearing him accused by men of the highest standing
amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who
had in the first place come to love him did not give up their
affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them
restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied
these and countless other marvellous things about him. And
the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still
to this day not disappeared.
This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes
cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus'
existence and resurrection.
However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage
was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either
inserted or amended by later Christians:
1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did
NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction
to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the
Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase
at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was,
however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius.
Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah"
by "He was believed to be the Christ.")
Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this
passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to
do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was
tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back
to Josephus.
2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine
that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory
passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed,
the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a
Christian, which was certainly not the case.
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a
later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's
work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists
later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These
scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man"
as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a
first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever
Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much
trouble imitating his style.
Philip Burns (pib@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the
following material on the following alternate versions or
reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum,
suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably
Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one
ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed
surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure
received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also
many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate
condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the
first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from)
the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared
to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets
of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things
about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named
from him, is not (yet?) extinct.
In Charlesworth's version, references to Jesus' resurrection,
Messiahship, and possible divinity ("if indeed one ought to call
him a man") are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable
(Continued to next message)
* 1st 2.00 #1404 * Qui vivra, verra
===============================================================================