Intrepid wrote:The one fact about Jesus that no serious historians have any question about is that he was crucified around AD30. And if he died, it's a pretty safe bet that he lived
A early reference to Jesus comes from the great Roman historian, Tacitus. Writing around the year 110, he recalled the events following the Fire of Rome in 64: "To stop the rumour, [that he had started the fire himself] Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments the people called Christians, who were notorious for their abominations. Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate."
If other written records of past events are to be believed, why shouldn't we believe the events that are recorded in the Bible. Having said that, I do realize that the Bible has gone through several translations and even speculations over the years. I believe that the basics are still there.
Those arguin' for the historicity of Jesus point frequently to Tacitus:
Annals 15:44, which translates, " ... "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the Procurator Pontius Pilate". More on Tacitus' reference in a bit, but first, there are a few other nearly contemporary references from other writers cited as historical proof, as well. Apologists for the Historicity of Jesus make much of the little on which they have to draw.
Fequently mentioned in similar vein to the Tacitus "proof" is Josephus'
Testimonium Flavianum, from
Antiquities of the Jews 18:63-64, which translates, " ... 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 as 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." Frequent mention also is made of Josephus,
Antiquities 20:9.1, which translates " ... so he
('he' in the passage referrin' to one Ananus, son of High Priest Ananus ... timber) assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned."
Of the two Josephus references, the second, often termed the "Jamesian Passage" is accorded by historians somewhat more provenence than the first, or
Testimonium Flavianum passage, which is generally accepted to be if not a whole later addition, at the very least a later-edited expansion by a 3rd Century transcriber of Christian agenda. However, neither passage is universally accepted as original, at least as currently known, to Josephus'
Antiquities. There are questions arisin' both from contextual positioning, word useage, and apparent internal contradictions arisin' from considerin' the passages with the overall
Antiquities. It is known that Origen, a renknowned 3rd Century Christian scholar and a key figure in the early evolution of Christianity, referenced the
Testimonium Flavianum. It is known too that the style and word useage of the
Testimonium Flavianum, while not particularly characteristic of Josephus' practice, is wholly consistent with Origen's style and useage.
Highlighted here in blue are the phrases which give scholars difficulty: " ... 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 as 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." Particularly of note is the "Messiah" reference; numerous times throughout
Antiquities and his other writin's, Josephus specifically and unambiguously bestows the title "Messiah" on his own patron, the Emperor Trajan. Perplexin' as well is that Josephus wrote much more expansively of John The Baptist and of other zealots and cult figures among the Jews ... writin's all devoid of any Jesus, Christ, or Christian reference. A last eyebrow raiser lies in the reverent tone with whcih Christ is described - not at all fittin' either with Josephus' style or general contemporary sentiment.
None of that is damnin' evidence, but neither is there unambiguous provenence. While it is entirely plausible Josephus wrote of Jesus, it cannot be proven that he did, and there is plentiful credible argument he did not.
Turnin' to Tacitus, the sole relevant passage in
Annals does nothin' more than confirm that at the time Tacitus was writin', there was a cult styled as "Christians", the members of which professed a belief that their Christ had died a martyr at the hands of Pilate, Procurator of Judea durin' the reign of Tiberius. The Tacitus text suffers from none of the provenence difficulties afflictin' the Josephus examples, but ib no way is it independent evidence of anything other than that a cult known as Christians had a tradition involvin' the death of their putative namesake. A key point of difficulty with the Tacitus passage is that he terms Pilate Procurator, whereas the actual office held by Pilate was Prefect - a terminology distinction error very unlike, in fact otherwise unevidenced in, anything else ever written by Tacitus. It is, however, an error echoed in the Gosples, though nowhere else. Too, he refers to Jesus by the Christian religious title "Christos", an honorific, as opposed to the almost universally observed contemporary Roman practice of referin' to personages other than nobility or signal military accomplishment (which itself generally conveyed nobility) by given names further delineated by patronymics or regional identifiers; Abraham son of Judah, for instance, or Simon of Gaza. One must strongly consider the possibility Tacitus was workin' not from Roman records in this instance, but rather recountin' what he had been told by or heard of Christians.
Other 1st Century writers, Suetonius, Thalus, and Pliny the Younger, also are thought by some to offer independent historical evidence of Jesus.
A passage from Suetonius'
Lives of the Caesars, specifically
Claudius 5.25.4, translates, ""Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus
(the contextual reference is to action taken in 49 CE by Claudius, then Emperor ... timber) expelled them from Rome." Several things stand out here. First, and perhaps least troublin', is that "Chrestus" actually is a common latinization of a known Greek proper name wholly unrelated to the messianic religious title "Christ", or "Christos". Second, there is no reference to "Christians", but rather those bein' discussed are given the appelation "Jews", and finally, the events described took place in 49 AD, disturbances instigated in Rome by one Chrestus, an individual apparently present both temporally and locationally regardin' the disturbances - nearly 2 decades after the accepted date of Jesus' death. The only connection to Jesus or to Christians is the similarity of spellin' between the name "Chrestus" and the title or honorific "Christos". Most interstin' is that Pliny the Elder, writin' much closer to the times in which the incidents reportedly took place, nentions them not at all.
With Thalus, we delve even deeper into ambiguity; no first person text survives, and the earliest reference to Thalus describin' the crucifiction as havin' been accompanied by "earthquake and darkness", echoin' Gosple accounts, is to be found in the 3rd Century writin's of Julius Africanus, a Christian writer and leader. No contemporary record of any such occurance in or near Judea/Palestine durin the 1st Century exists ... a surprisin' circumstance had there been in fact unexplained mid-day darkness coincident with earthquake. That sorta thing tends to get noticed, and written about, big time. That it might have been left unremarked by any other than the Gosplers and possibly Thalus beggars the imagination.
Turnin' to Pliny the Younger, his voluminous correspondences with the Emporer Trajan bear frequent mention of Christians in Asia Minor, their beliefs and their practices in context of dissent against and resistance to Roman authority, and amount to discussions of how best to deal with the bother and disturbance fostered by the Christian cult. There is no mention whatsoever of Jesus, and the only reference to Christ is to be found in the term "Christians".
In short, the 1st Century non-Christian writers tell us nothin' about the historicity of Jesus beyond that there was an offshoot cult of Judaism known as Christians, they had traditions, beliefs and practices, and that Roman authority thought none too highly of them. There are no answers here, just more layers of question; neither supporters nor skeptics can claim clear victory by the evidence available.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace