===============================================================================
Date: 09-02-95 Time: 02:50a Number: 1526
From: Andreas Heldal-Lund@ALP Refer: 1386
To: Bjørn Stærk Board ID: ROLVSOY Reply:
Subject: UTFORDRING! 2 74: TEAM/Religio Status: Private
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Continued from previous message)
coming from a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact
Josephus's original text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly
much closer to this version than to the highly pro-Christian one
which has survived. One possible problem with Charlesworth's
reconstruction is the use of the term "Christians"--it is not clear
from the reconstructed text why "Christians" would be named after
Jesus, unless Josephus had previously referred to him as "Christ".
It seems inconsistent to delete the reference to Jesus being
"Christ", but to keep the suggestion that this is how Christians
got their name.
A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by
having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:
"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble
in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a
teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away
many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called
Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the
chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had
attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause
trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this
name from him, is not extinct even today.
Bruce's version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a
"wise man" while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as
someone who "led away many Jews". A further problem concerns the
reference to Jesus's ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A
Historian's Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus
in fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian
Gentile ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right,
then Josephus is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions
of the early Christian church.
A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from
Agapius's Book of the Title, a history of the world from its
beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian
Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation
is by S. Pines:
"Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises
that he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: "At
this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His
conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many
people from among the Jews and the other nations became his
disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.
But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his
discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them
three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive;
accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the
prophets have recounted wonders."
While some have argued that this passage may be close to the
original, one should note especially that this version is from a
much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility
that Jesus was the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts
make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the
passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in
Agapius's time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the
original text.
The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:
1. The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is
not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are
later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a
later insertion.
2. In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus
was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he
only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by
Pilate.
Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the
"Antiquities", where we find this passage:
"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the
sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of
Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some
others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an
accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned."
(Antiquities 20.9.1)
Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it
is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may
be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the
passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the
issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's
non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing
John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does
discussing Jesus.
However, while there is some reason to believe that this second
passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to
definitely conclude this.
On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some
references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the
Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain,
and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While
Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is
not saying much.
More detailed information and references to other discussions on
Josephus may be found in:
1.Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New
Testament. Eerdmans, 1974.
2.Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday
(Anchor Books) 1988.
3.France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity
Press, 1986.
Tacitus and Jesus
In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that
Christians
"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the
reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the
procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)
Two questions arise concerning this passage:
1. Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian
interpolation?
2. Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story,
or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?
Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation
into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike
Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual
tampering exists.
The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may
just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so,
then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in
Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus
during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent
confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus
found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had
access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There
are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records
here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title
(Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to
Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not
have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his
given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus
is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can
tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.
Suetonius and Jesus
In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE,
states:
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation
of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from
Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)
Occasionally this passage is cited as evidence for Jesus's
historicity. However, there are serious problems with this
interpretation:
1. "Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name,
and is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ.
2. The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone
named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to
Jesus.
3. Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only
confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus.
There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the
first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus
actually lived during the first half of this century.
Thus, Suetonius fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus.
Thallus and Jesus
In a lost work referred to by Julius Africanus in the third century,
the pagan writer Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus's death was
accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the original text
is in fact lost, and we can confirm neither the contents of the text
or its date. It is possible that Thallus was merely repeating what was
told to him by Christians, or that the passage which Africanus cites
is a later interpolation. Outside of the New Testament, no other
references to earthquakes or unusual darkness occur in the
contemporary literature. This is very surprising, given the effect
these sorts of events would presumably have had on the populace.
(Continued to next message)
* 1st 2.00 #1404 * Qui vivra, verra
===============================================================================