|
|
| Josephus |
| The Talmud |
| Tacitus |
| Suetonius |
| Thallus |
| Pliny the Younger |
| Summary |
Although this subject is covered in page 2, the following material from different sources on the internet will add to this. As they are from different sources, there is obviously some overlap and repetition and difference of opinion on certain issues.
(a)Life, his autobiography; (b)Contra Apion, a defense of Judaism; (c)The Jewish War, an eyewitness account of the revolt against Rome (66-74 CE); (d)Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades; (e)The Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews from Adam to his generation.
There are two references to Jesus in The Jewish Antiquities.
The first reference speaks of a James as the brother of Jesus: Josephus described how the high priest Ananus took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus in 62 CE to organize a mob to stone James.
"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought it before the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."While Origen refers to this passage in his Commentary on Matthew 10.17, this remains inconclusive. The fact that the passage was referenced by Origen in the third century CE is hardly evidence for the authenticity as it still leaves well over a century when the passage could have been interpolated.
Wells objects that 'the Greek does not have 'so-called' but 'him called Christ,' and this is the exact wording of Mt. 1:16.' (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1982, p.211). Furthermore, in Wells' later books, he presents additional objections to the authenticity of the passage. (See G.A. Wells, Who Was Jesus? A Critique of the New Testament Record (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1989), p.22, and The Jesus Legend (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1996), pp.52-53, 225 n.19).
The second passage is:-
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."Unlike Josephus' shorter reference to Jesus, this passage is naturally controversial. Most scholars suspect there has been tampering with the text: opinion can be divided into three camps: those who accept the entire passage as authentic; those who reject the entire passage as a Christian interpolation into the text (perhaps authored by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius); and those who believe that the original text contained an authentic reference to Jesus but was later embellished or 'Christianized' by Christian copyists.
NB. It should be noted that the extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquities all date to the tenth century or later.
The reasons why it should be rejected as authentic are:-
(i)it is (obviously) impossible that Josephus a Jew would have called Jesus the Messiah.
(ii)the passage is never quoted by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen, despite its enormous apologetic value.
(iii)the passage interrupts the narrative flow of the surrounding text, i.e., the passage comes in the middle of a collection of stories about calamities which have befallen the Jews, and if the passage is excised, the argument runs on in proper sequence.
(iv)if it is accepted there was a reference to Jesus, but it has been altered to reflect a favourable view of him, the fact that there has been any tampering with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect; a heavy burden of proof falls upon anyone who defends partial authenticity.
The Talmud (literally, 'learning' or 'instruction') contains inconclusive evidence of Jesus. The Talmud is a massive compilation divided into two parts, the Mishna and the Gemara. The Mishna was codified by Rabbi Jehudah ha-Nasi ca. 200 CE but was not actually committed to writing until the fifth century; it discusses numerous subjects, including festivals, sacred things, etc. The Gemara was completed in the fifth century and is really a commentary on the Mishna.
The Talmud is often cited for evidence of the historical Jesus:
(i)The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) refers to Jesus being hanged on the eve of Passover. However this passage cannot be fixed at a definite date within the Tannaitic time-area and the value of this passage as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus is therefore uncertain.
(ii)The Talmud makes references to Jesus as 'Ben Pandera (or 'Ben Pantere')' and 'Jeshu ben Pandera'. However, as Herford observes, this passage 'cannot be earlier than the beginning of the fourth century, and is moreover a report of what was said in Babylonia, not Palestine'. (Charles Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903, New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1975), p.41).
(iii)The Baraitha describes the hanging of Yeshu on the eve of Passover.
"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going forth to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defence come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defence and hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a).Firstly, the passage cannot even be shown to be referring to the Jesus described in the New Testament ("Jesus" was a common name at the time). Secondly, even if the passage does refer to that Jesus, it is of no help one way or the other in the question of the historicity of Jesus.
(iv)Following this Baraitha, there are remarks by the Amora 'Ulla, a disciple of R. Yochanan and who lived in Palestine at the end of the third century.
"Ulla said: And do you suppose that for [Yeshu of Nazareth] there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him. It is otherwise with Yeshu, for he was near to the civil authority."In view of the ignorance of both the date of these passages as well as the author's sources, these offer no support for Jesus' historicity.
(v)Sanhedrin 43a also makes references to the disciples of Jesus who are named as Mattai, Naqai, Netser, Buni and Todah. But these names cannot be identified with the New Testament list of disciples, so it is either fictional or is referring to disciples of the second generation, in which case it is simply a list of names of Christians, not a list of contemporaries of Jesus.
(vi)The reference to such-an-one as a bastard of an adulteress in the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 4.49a:
"R. Shimeon ben Azzai said: 'I found a geneaological roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress'."While some choose to interpret this as a reference to Jesus, there are good reasons to doubt that this passage represents an independent tradition about Jesus. First, the passage comes from the Babylonian Talmud, which dates to around the sixth century. Second, the gospel of Matthew begins with the words, 'The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ'. This 'genealogical roll' or 'Book of Pedigrees' may have been influenced by the gospels. Third, this passage fits the pattern of Rabbinical polemic: consequently, this reference may not be based upon an independent source. Of course, it is also possible that this passage was based on independent sources. The available evidence does not favor one view over the other; thus, the passage is without value as an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
The Talmud can only provide independent confirmation of Jesus' existence if it relied on independent sources. Given the ignorance of the sources for the Talmud as well as its late date, it simply cannot be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
In the Annals of Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE), the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of 'Christus' as being the founder of a party called Christians - a body of people 'who were abhorred for their crimes.'
He 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)These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the Annals in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century, six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The 'Annals' were published between 115 and 117 CE, nearly a century after Jesus' time: so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus' historicity.
In his 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. 'Chrestus' is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of 'Christus', meaning Christ. The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus. Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus, and there is no doubt Christians existed in Rome during the first century CE: this of course does not indicate that Jesus actually lived during the first half of that century. Thus, Suetonius also fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus.
Julius Africanus writing in the third century stated that the pagan writer Thallus had reportedly claimed that Jesus' death was accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the original text is in fact lost, and it is not possible to confirm either 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.
Pliny Secundus (Pliny the Younger), writing in the first decade(s) of the 1st century CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.
The 'evidence' quoted is also of dubious value for determining whether Jesus was historical. The work (written in about 112 CE) states that Christians were singing a 'hymn to Christ as to a god...'. This may well have occurred, but it provides no proof whatsoever for the historicity of Jesus. The letter merely confirms that believers were singing hymns to Christ as if he was a god. It tells us nothing about whether Jesus ever lived on earth.
In sum, the evidence for the historical evidence for Jesus is non-existent:
1)There are no proven, legitimate references to the existence of Jesus in any contemporary source outside of the New Testament.
2)The New Testament accounts do not provide a real 'biography' for Jesus. The early writings imply only that he was a divine figure and consistently fail to locate Jesus in any chronological setting; they also fail to cite those sayings attributed to him in the (later) Gospels, even when they are wholly applicable.
3)The existence of Jesus is not necessary to explain the origin or growth of Christianity.
|