Ero sivun ”Jeesuksen historiallisuus” versioiden välillä

ApoWikistä
(Avauskappale kuntoon)
p (lähdeviite Tieteen kuvalehden sitaattiin)
Rivi 1: Rivi 1:
Jeesus Nasaretilaisen olemassaolon kieltäminen on yleinen ja muodikas tapa leimata kristinusko naurettavaksi. Jeesuksen historiallisuuden kyseenalaistajat eivät kuitenkaan ole yleensä olleet historiantutkijoita.<ref name="uro&lehtipuu-19">{{Kirjaviite | Tekijä = Uro, Risto; Lehtipuu, Outi | Nimeke = Nasaretilaisen historia | Julkaisija = Kirjapaja | Vuosi = 1997 | Kappale = | Sivu = 19-20 | Selite = | Tunniste = 951-625-457-8 }}</ref> Nykyaikainen Jeesus-tutkimus ei oleta ensimmäisten kristittyjen pyrkineen puolueettomaan historiankirjoitukseen, mutta pitää silti Jeesuksen historiallisuuden kieltämistä täysin perusteettomana.<ref>{{Kirjaviite | Tekijä = Uro, Risto; Lehtipuu, Outi | Nimeke = Nasaretilaisen historia | Julkaisija = Kirjapaja | Vuosi = 1997 | Kappale = | Sivu = 250 | Selite = | Tunniste = 951-625-457-8 }} (''Teoriat myyttiin perustuvasta, täysin epähistoriallisesta Jeesuksesta ovat vailla tieteellistä arvoa, vaikka onkin selvää, etteivät ensimmäiset kristityt kirjoittajat pyrkineet puolueettomaan historiankirjoitukseen.'')</ref> [[wp:Tieteen kuvalehti|Tieteen kuvalehti]] tiivistää tiedeyhteisön yleisen mielipiteen seuraavasti:
Jeesus Nasaretilaisen olemassaolon kieltäminen on yleinen ja muodikas tapa leimata kristinusko naurettavaksi. Jeesuksen historiallisuuden kyseenalaistajat eivät kuitenkaan ole yleensä olleet historiantutkijoita.<ref name="uro&lehtipuu-19">{{Kirjaviite | Tekijä = Uro, Risto; Lehtipuu, Outi | Nimeke = Nasaretilaisen historia | Julkaisija = Kirjapaja | Vuosi = 1997 | Kappale = | Sivu = 19-20 | Selite = | Tunniste = 951-625-457-8 }}</ref> Nykyaikainen Jeesus-tutkimus ei oleta ensimmäisten kristittyjen pyrkineen puolueettomaan historiankirjoitukseen, mutta pitää silti Jeesuksen historiallisuuden kieltämistä täysin perusteettomana.<ref>{{Kirjaviite | Tekijä = Uro, Risto; Lehtipuu, Outi | Nimeke = Nasaretilaisen historia | Julkaisija = Kirjapaja | Vuosi = 1997 | Kappale = | Sivu = 250 | Selite = | Tunniste = 951-625-457-8 }} (''Teoriat myyttiin perustuvasta, täysin epähistoriallisesta Jeesuksesta ovat vailla tieteellistä arvoa, vaikka onkin selvää, etteivät ensimmäiset kristityt kirjoittajat pyrkineet puolueettomaan historiankirjoitukseen.'')</ref> [[wp:Tieteen kuvalehti|Tieteen kuvalehti]] tiivistää tiedeyhteisön yleisen mielipiteen seuraavasti:
{{lainaus|Tuskin kukaan vakavasti otettava tutkija tohtii väittää Jeesusta sepitetyksi hahmoksi. Historiallisten lähteiden valossa näyttää selvältä, että noin 2000 vuotta sitten eli Jeesus-niminen ihminen. Käsitystä tukevia mainintoja on useissa teksteissä. Niiden laatijat tunnetaan, eivätkä kaikki kirjoitukset liity Raamattuun.}}
{{lainaus|Tuskin kukaan vakavasti otettava tutkija tohtii väittää Jeesusta sepitetyksi hahmoksi. Historiallisten lähteiden valossa näyttää selvältä, että noin 2000 vuotta sitten eli Jeesus-niminen ihminen. Käsitystä tukevia mainintoja on useissa teksteissä. Niiden laatijat tunnetaan, eivätkä kaikki kirjoitukset liity Raamattuun.<ref>Tieteen kuvalehti 3/2008, s. 12</ref>}}
Kuitenkin häviävän pieni tutkijoiden vähemmistö<ref>"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. - - Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.<br />"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34</ref> kieltää Jeesuksen koskaan olleen olemassa ja väittävät hänen olleen epä-aabrahamilaisten uskontojen jumalista ja sankareista ominaisuuksia yhdistelemällä luotu myyttinen tai symbolinen hahmo.<ref>Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson</ref>  
Kuitenkin häviävän pieni tutkijoiden vähemmistö<ref>"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. - - Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.<br />"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34</ref> kieltää Jeesuksen koskaan olleen olemassa ja väittävät hänen olleen epä-aabrahamilaisten uskontojen jumalista ja sankareista ominaisuuksia yhdistelemällä luotu myyttinen tai symbolinen hahmo.<ref>Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson</ref>  
Vuonna 1994 tehdyn tutkimuksen mukaan suomalaisista 67&nbsp;% oli sitä mieltä, että Jeesus oli todellinen henkilö. Vakuuttuneimpia tästä olivat korkeakoulututkinnon suorittaneet ja ylemmät toimihenkilöt (80&nbsp;%). 10 % ei pitänyt Jeesusta todellisena henkilönä. 66&nbsp;% uskoi että Jeesus on Jumalan poika, ja 12&nbsp;% oli toista mieltä.<ref name="Heino">{{kirjaviite| Tekijä=Heino, Harri | Nimeke=Mihin Suomi tänään uskoo | Julkaisupaikka=Helsinki | Julkaisija=WSOY | Vuosi=2002 | Tunniste=ISBN 951-0-27265-5}}</ref>
Vuonna 1994 tehdyn tutkimuksen mukaan suomalaisista 67&nbsp;% oli sitä mieltä, että Jeesus oli todellinen henkilö. Vakuuttuneimpia tästä olivat korkeakoulututkinnon suorittaneet ja ylemmät toimihenkilöt (80&nbsp;%). 10 % ei pitänyt Jeesusta todellisena henkilönä. 66&nbsp;% uskoi että Jeesus on Jumalan poika, ja 12&nbsp;% oli toista mieltä.<ref name="Heino">{{kirjaviite| Tekijä=Heino, Harri | Nimeke=Mihin Suomi tänään uskoo | Julkaisupaikka=Helsinki | Julkaisija=WSOY | Vuosi=2002 | Tunniste=ISBN 951-0-27265-5}}</ref>

Versio 28. joulukuuta 2009 kello 12.28

Jeesus Nasaretilaisen olemassaolon kieltäminen on yleinen ja muodikas tapa leimata kristinusko naurettavaksi. Jeesuksen historiallisuuden kyseenalaistajat eivät kuitenkaan ole yleensä olleet historiantutkijoita.1 Nykyaikainen Jeesus-tutkimus ei oleta ensimmäisten kristittyjen pyrkineen puolueettomaan historiankirjoitukseen, mutta pitää silti Jeesuksen historiallisuuden kieltämistä täysin perusteettomana.2 Tieteen kuvalehti tiivistää tiedeyhteisön yleisen mielipiteen seuraavasti:

Tuskin kukaan vakavasti otettava tutkija tohtii väittää Jeesusta sepitetyksi hahmoksi. Historiallisten lähteiden valossa näyttää selvältä, että noin 2000 vuotta sitten eli Jeesus-niminen ihminen. Käsitystä tukevia mainintoja on useissa teksteissä. Niiden laatijat tunnetaan, eivätkä kaikki kirjoitukset liity Raamattuun.3

Kuitenkin häviävän pieni tutkijoiden vähemmistö4 kieltää Jeesuksen koskaan olleen olemassa ja väittävät hänen olleen epä-aabrahamilaisten uskontojen jumalista ja sankareista ominaisuuksia yhdistelemällä luotu myyttinen tai symbolinen hahmo.5 Vuonna 1994 tehdyn tutkimuksen mukaan suomalaisista 67 % oli sitä mieltä, että Jeesus oli todellinen henkilö. Vakuuttuneimpia tästä olivat korkeakoulututkinnon suorittaneet ja ylemmät toimihenkilöt (80 %). 10 % ei pitänyt Jeesusta todellisena henkilönä. 66 % uskoi että Jeesus on Jumalan poika, ja 12 % oli toista mieltä.6

Yleisesti

Jeesuksen elämästä ei tunneta hänen elinaikanaan kirjoitettuja asiakirjoja. Varhaisimmat hänen elämästään todistavat kirjoitukset, Uuden testamentin kirjeet ja evankeliumit, on kirjoitettu joitakin kymmeniä vuosia hänen sanotun kuolemansa jälkeen. Monet tutkijat katsovat Raamatun kertomusten Jeesuksesta olevan osittain teologisoituja tai mytologisoituja kuvauksia historiallisen henkilön elämästä. Heidän mukaansa niiden tarkoituksena on ollut ennemmin uusien käännynnäisten voittaminen kuin puolueettoman historiallisen totuuden esittäminen. Yksi raamatuntutkimuksen suurimpia kysymyksiä on sen erottaminen, mikä osa Jeesuksen elämän kuvauksista on historiallista aineistoa ja mikä ei. Jopa tarkat kuvaukset Jeesuksen elämästä ovat saattaneet muuttua suullisessa perimätiedossa ja mahdollisen Raamatun kirjojen toimitustyön aikana. Toisia on saatettu liioitella tarkoituksella, ja joitakin seikkoja on saatettu keksiä kokonaan mahdollisesti vanhempien tekstien (kuten Vanhan testamentin kirjoitusten) tai legendojen perusteella.

Jeesus-myyttiin uskova koulukunta näkee Jeesuksen olleen uusi versio vanhempien mysteeriuskontojen kuolevasta ja ylösnousevasta jumalihmisestä. Tällainen oli muun muassa Osiris-Dionysos. Toiset taas katsovat, että gnostilaisuuden ja kristinuskon yhtämäkohdat perustuvat historialliseen henkilöön, joka toimi keskeisenä henkilönä juutalaisen perinteen ja mysteeriuskontojen yhteensulauttamisessa. Tämän teorian mukaan tämä synkretistinen uskonto osoittautui lopulta suositummaksi pakanoiden kuin juutalaisten parissa, ja kehittyi myöhemmin kristinuskoksi.?

Historiallisten todisteiden ristiriitaisuus ja puuttellisuus eivät tarkoita, etteikö itse kertomus olisi tosi. Esimerkiksi Aleksanteri Suuren kaksi kokonaista elämäkertaa, kirjoittajina Arrianos ja Plutarkhos, laadittiin yli neljäsataa vuotta Aleksanterin kuoleman jälkeen ja kuitenkin näitä kirjoituksia pidetään luotettavina. Toisaalta kukaan ei olekkaan kyseenalaistanut Aleksanterin olemassaoloa sillä hänestä jäi jälkeen fyysisiä todisteita kuten kolikkoja. Samaten Hannibalin Alppien ylityksestä on kaksi täysin erilaista versiota, mutta silti kukaan ei ole kyseenalaistanut itse tapahtuman historiallisuutta.7

Jeesuksen historiallisuuteen liittyvä aineisto

Tutkijoiden yleinen mielipide ei tietenkään todista Jeesuksen historiallisuutta. Seuraavaksi artikkelissa käsitellään pintapuolisesti aineistoa, jonka perusteella useimmat tutkijat muodostavat näkemyksensä.

Varhaisimmat tunnetut kirjoitukset

Kaanoniin sisältyvät kirjoitukset

Jeesus on useiden Uuden testamentin kirjojen ja muiden varhaiskristillisten kirjoitusten keskeisin hahmo. Pääpiirteittäin luotettavina lähteinä pidetään yleisesti kanonisia evankeliumeja,8 jotka sisältävät huomattavasti narratiivista aineistoa Jeesuksen julkisesta toiminnasta. Kanoniset evankeliumit keskittyvät hänen julistukseensa, tekoihinsa, kuolemaansa ja ylösnousemukseensa. Jotkut katsovat, että myös Uuden testamentin kirjeet, erityisesti apostoli Paavalin ensimmäisen vuosisadan puolen välin jälkeen kirjoittamat kirjeet, tarjoavat tietoja historiallisesta Jeesuksesta.

Jeesus on keskeinen henkilö myös Uuden testamentin apokryfikirjoissa, joita ei ole koskaan laajassa mittakaavassa luettu Raamatun kirjojen kaanoniin. Näistä yksityiskohtaisimmat kuvaukset Jeesuksen elämästä ovat jälleen apokryfisissä evankeliumeissa, mutta myös muiden kirjojen sisältöä on ehdotettu todistusaineistoksi.


Ancient Creeds

Malline:Main

The authors whose works are contained in the New Testament sometimes quote from creeds, or confessions of faith, that obviously predate their writings. Scholars suppose that some of these creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death, and were developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem.9 Though embedded within the texts of the New Testament, these creeds are a distinct source for Early Christianity.

1 Corinthians 15:3-410 reads: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." This contains a Christian creed of pre-Pauline origin.11121314151617 The antiquity of the creed has been located by many Biblical scholars to less than a decade after Jesus' death, originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.18 Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"19 whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."20

Other relevant creeds which predate the texts wherein they are foundMalline:Fact that have been identified are 1 John 4:2:21 "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God",2223 "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, this is my Gospel",24 Romans|1:3-4:25 "regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.",26 and 1 Timothy 3:16:27 "He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory," an early creedal hymn.28

New Testament apocrypha

Jesus is a large factor in New Testament apocrypha, works excluded from the canon as it developed because they were judged not to be inspired. These texts are almost entirely dated to the mid second century or later, though a few texts, such as the Didache, may be first century in origin. Some of these works are discussed below:

Gnostic texts

Certain Gnostic texts mention Jesus in the context of his earthly existence, and some scholars have argued that Gnostic texts could contain plausible traditions.293031 Examples of such texts include the Gospel of Truth, Treatise on Resurrection, and the Apocryphon of John, the latter of which opens with the following:

It happened one day when John, the brother of James — who are sons of Zebedee — went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him: "Where is your master whom you followed?" And he said to them: "He has gone to the place from which he came." The Pharisee said to him: "This Nazarene deceived you all with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers."32

Of all the Gnostic texts, however, the Gospel of Thomas had drawn the most attention. It contains a list of sayings attributed to Jesus. It lacks a narrative of Jesus treating his deeds in a historical sense. The majority of scholars date it to the early-mid second century,33 while a minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical Q document among other reasons.3435

Early Church fathers

Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also mention Jesus and details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of Rome (c. 96),36 Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107-110),37 and Justin Martyr.38

Perhaps the most significant Patristic sources are the early references of Papias and Quadratus (d. 124), mostly reported by Eusebius in the fourth century, which both mention eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry and healings who were still alive in their own time (the late first century). Papias, in giving his sources for the information contained in his (largely lost) commentaries, stated (according to Eusebius):

…if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders — that is, what according to the elders Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying.39

Thus, while Papias was collecting his information (c. 90), Aristion and the elder John (who were Jesus’ disciples) were still alive and teaching in Asia minor, and Papias gathered information from people who had known them.40 Another Father, Quadratus, who wrote an apology to the emperor Hadrian, was reported by Eusebius to have stated:

The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times.41

By “our Savior” Quadratus means Jesus, and by “our times” it has been argued that he may refer to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117-124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.42

Greco-Roman sources

There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Of the four, Josephus' writings, which document John the Baptist, James the Just, and possibly also Jesus, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus (see below). Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions popular opinion about Christus, without historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (circa AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".43 [1] Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome." (Acts of the Apostles 18:1-2) has been conjectured4445 to refer to the expulsion at the times of these "persistent disturbances". Malline:Fact

Josephus

Malline:Main

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.46

Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part."47 Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt.48 However, there has been no consensus on which portions have been altered, or to what degree.

In the second, very brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."49 The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,50 although a minority has raised doubts.51

In antiquity, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ,52 as it seems to suggest in the quote above. Dr. L. Michael White argued against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the third century, who quoted from Josephus's Antiquities, do not mention this passage.53 However, Alice Whealey has shown that it is far from clear that any third century Christians other than Origen quoted from or even directly knew Antiquities.54 While very few scholars believe the whole Testimonium is genuine,55 most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,56 since some portions are written in his style.57

The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James. Arguably the main reason to accept that Josephus also wrote a version of the Testimonium Flavianum is the fact that Jerome and Michael the Syrian quote literal translations of the text in a form reading, more skeptically than the textus receptus, that "he was thought to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." The identical wording of Jerome and Michael the Syrian proves the existence of an originally Greek Testimonium reading this, since Latin Christian scholars and Syriac scholars did not read each others' works, but both commonly translated Greek Christian works.

Shlomo Pines and a few other scholars have argued that the version of the Testimonium written by the 10th century Arab historian named Agapius of Manbij is closer to what one would expect Josephus to have written, and the similarities between the two passages imply a Christian author later removed Josephus' conservative tone and added interpolations.58 Pines cites Josephus as having written:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And 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. And those who had become his disciples did not desert 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.59

However, it has been argued that Agapius' text is almost surely a paraphrase of the Testimonium from the Syriac translation of Eusebius of Caesarea's Historia Ecclesiastica, and that it is Michael the Syrian's Syriac Testimonium, which also derives from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica,along with the Latin translation of Jerome that are the most important witnesses to Josephus' original passage on Jesus.60

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.61

Charles Guignebert, who does not doubt that Jesus of the Gospels lived in Gallilee in the first century, nevertheless dismisses this letter as acceptable historical evidence: "Only the most robust credulity could reckon this assertion as admissible evidence for the historicity of Jesus"62

Malline:Disputed

Tacitus

Malline:Main

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.63

There have been suggestions that this was a Christian interpolation but the vast majority of scholars conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus.64 For example, R. E. Van Voorst noted the improbability that later Christians would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".65

There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.66 Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign." 67

Tacitus may have used official sources from a Roman archive. Tacitus drew on many earlier historical works now lost to us in the Annals. The description of the suppression of Christianity, calling it a superstition for instance, is not based on any statements Christians may have made to Tacitus. However if Tacitus was copying from an official source some would expect him to not incorrectly label Pilate a procurator, as he was a prefect.68

Historian Richard Carrier speculates:

"it is inconceivable that there were any records of Jesus for Tacitus to consult in Rome (for many reasons, not the least of which being that Rome's capitol had burned to the ground more than once in the interim), and even less conceivable that he would have dug through them even if they existed … It would simply be too easy to just ask a Christian—or a colleague who had done so … there can be no doubt that what Pliny discovered from Christians he had interrogated was passed on to Tacitus."69

Charles Guignebert argued "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless". 70

R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians. 7172

Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear. Christus was a Jew and a criminal who Pontius Pilate had executed. He authored a new religious movement that began in Judea and was called Christianity which was widespread around the city of Rome during Nero's reign.73

Suetonius

Mara bar Sarapion

Mara was a Syrian Stoic.74 While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted. CCEL

Some scholars believe this describes the fall of Jerusalem as the gods' punishment for the Jews having killed Jesus because they infer that Jesus must be "the wise king" referred to by Mara.74

Others

Thallus, of whom very little is known, wrote a history from the Trojan War to, according to Eusebius, 109 BC. No work of Thallus survives. There is one reference to Thallus having written about events beyond 109 BC. Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, while writing about the crucifixion of Jesus, mentioned Thallus. Thus:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.75

Lucian, a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.76

Celsus wrote, about 180, a book against the Christians, which is now only known through Origen's refutation of it. Celsus apparently accused Jesus of being a child and a sorcerer77 and is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man".78

The Acts of Pilate is purportedly an official document from Pilate reporting events in Judea to the Emperor Tiberius (thus, it would have been among the commentaii principis). It was mentioned by Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (c. 150) to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus. He said that his claims concerning Jesus' crucifixion, and some miracles, could be verified by referencing the official record, the "Acts of Pontius Pilate".79 With the exception of Tertullian, no other writer is known to have mentioned the work, and Tertullian's reference says that Tiberius debated the details of Jesus' life before the Roman Senate, an event that is almost universally considered absurd.80 There is a later apocryphal text, undoubtedly fanciful, by the same name, and though it is generally thought to have been inspired by Justin's reference (and thus to post-date his Apology), it is possible that Justin actually mentioned this text, though that would give the work an unusually early date and therefore is not a straightforward identification.81

Jewish records

Malline:Main

The Babylonian Talmud in a few rare instances likely or possibly refers to Jesus using the terms "Yeshu," "Yeshu ha-Notzri," "ben Satda," and "ben Pandera." These references probably date back to the Tannaitic period period (70 to 200).74 One important reference relates the trial and execution of Jesus and his disciples.74 It includes this text:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."

Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.82

These early possible references to Jesus have little historical information independent from the gospels, but they do seem to reflect the historical Jesus as one who had disciples and was crucified during Passover.74 They reflect hostility toward Jesus among the rabbis.74 The story of Jesus' trial asserts that Jesus was guilty of a capital crime, and defends the court against the early Christian criticism that Jesus' trial had been hasty.74 Another aspect of this record is that it varies dramatically from the records in the gospels. Instead of twelve disciples, there are only five, and only one name, that of Matai, even resembles those of the disciples in the gospels. Other differences include hanging instead of crucifixion, a call for witnesses to his defence and the disciples all being sentenced to death after their own trials.

It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.

They brought Matai [before the judges]. He said to them: Will Matai be killed? It is written (Psalm 42:2) "When [=Matai] shall (I) come and appear before G-d." They said to him: Yes, Matai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 41:5) "When [=Matai] shall (he) die and his name perish."

They brought Nekai. He said to them: Will Nekai be killed? It is written (Exodus 23:7) "The innocent [=Naki] and the righteous you shall not slay." They said to him: Yes, Nekai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 10:8) "In secret places he slay the innocent [=Naki]."

They brought Netzer. He said to them: Will Netzer be killed? It is written (Isaiah 11:1) "A branch [=Netzer] shall spring up from his roots." They said to him: Yes, Netzer will be killed as it is written (Isaiah 14:19) "You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable branch [=Netzer]."

They brought Buni. He said to them: Will Buni be killed? It is written (Exodus 4:22) "My son [=Beni], my firstborn, Israel." They said to him: Yes, Buni will be killed as it is written (Exodus 4:23) "Behold, I slay your son [=Bincha] your firstborn."

They brought Todah. He said to them: Will Todah be killed? It is written (Psalm 100:1) "A Psalm for thanksgiving [=Todah]."

They said to him: Yes, Todah will be killed as it is written (Psalm 50:23) "Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving [=Todah] honors me." 83

Charles Guignebert (Professor of the History Of Christianity at the Sorbonne) similarly stated "all the pagan and Jewish testimonies, so-called, afford us no information of any value about the life of Jesus, nor even any assurance that he ever lived,84 however, Guignebert rejected the Jesus Myth theory and felt that the Epistles of Paul were sufficient to prove his historical existence.85

Scholars who promote the conclusion that Jesus is a myth sometimes use this early rabbinic literature to argue that the Jesus stories of the gospels derive from a Jewish teacher in the first or second century BCE86.

Arkeologiset todisteet

Pilatus-kaiverrus

Samoin kuin Jeesuksen historiallisuudesta on ollut keskustelua, samoin jotkut ovat kyseenalaistaneet monien Jeesukseen liittyvien henkilöiden, kuten Jeesuksen äidin Marian, hänen opetuslastensa ja monien muiden Uudessa testamentissa mainittujen henkilöiden historiallisuuden. Vuosisatoja on keskusteltu muun muassa Jeesuksen ristiinnaulitsemisen määränneen Pontius Pilatuksen historiallisuudesta. Häntä ei mainita aikakauden virallisissa roomalaisissa asiakirjoissa. Jotkut ovat päätelleet tästä, että hänen olemassaolonsa on pelkkä legenda tai jopa väärennetty yksityiskohta. Samoin on keskusteltu väitetyn Pilatuksen arvonimestä: oliko hän prefekti (maaherra) vai prokuraattori?

Vuonna 1961 tilanne muuttui, kun Caesarea Palaestinassa, Juudean pääkaupungissa, sijainneen roomalaisen teatterin raunioista löytyi kalkkikivilohkare, jossa oli Pilatuksen omistuskirjoitus Tiberieumista. Kirjoituksen mukaan hän oli prefectus (yleensä kirjoitettu muodossa praefectus) eli Juudean maaherra. Sana Tiberieum on tuntematon. Jotkut tutkijat ovat arvelleet, että kyseessä on ollut rakennus, mahdollisesti temppeli, joka oli omistettu keisari Tiberiukselle. Kirjoitus on nykyään sijoitettu Jerusalemin Israel-museoon numerolla AE 1963 no. 104. Se tunnetaan nimellä Pilatus-kaiverrus. Monet Jeesuksen historiallisuuden puolestapuhujat viittaavat tähän kirjoitukseen yhtenä osana sitä historiallista todistusaineistoa, joka tukee Uuden testamentin kuvausta historiallisesta Jeesuksesta.

Jaakobin luuarkku

Pääartikkeli: Jaakobin luuarkku

Jaakobin luuarkku on kuolleen henkilön luiden hautaamiseen käytetty arkku, joka löytyi Israelista vuonna 2002. Sen väitettiin olevan Jeesuksen veljen Jaakobin arkku, ja jotkut katsoivat sen todistavan, että ajanlaskun alun tienoilla eli merkittävä Jeesus, jonka isä oli Joosef ja veli Jaakob. Arkun aitous on kuitenkin nykyään hyvin voimakkaasti kyseenalaistettu ja sitä pidetään nykyaikana tehtynä väärennöksenä.

Talpiotin hauta

Talpiotin hauta on Talpiotista, Jerusalemin läheltä Israelista vuonna 1980 löydetty hauta. Hauta sisälsi löytöhetkellä kymmenen luuarkkua, joista yksi on myöhemmin kadonnut. Hauta tuli laajempaan julkisuuteen helmikuussa 2007, kun James Cameronin ja Simcha Jacobovicin tuottama dokumenttiohjelma The Lost Tomb of Jesus ja Jacobovicin kirjoittama kirja The Jesus Family Tomb esittivät teorian, jonka mukaan hauta olisi ollut Jeesuksen ja eräiden toisten häneen liittyvien Uudessa testamentissa mainittujen henkilöiden hautapaikka.

Jeesus myyttinä

Jotkut tutkijat ovat kyseenalaistaneet Jeesuksen historiallisuuden. Heidän mukaansa Jeesusta ei ole koskaan ollut olemassa todellisena historiallisena henkilönä, vaan kyseessä on jonkinlainen myytti. Esimerkiksi Timothy Freke ja Peter Gandy ovat lainanneet todisteena Toista Johanneksen kirjettä, jossa sanotaan: "Maailmassa on nyt liikkeellä monia eksyttäjiä, niitä jotka eivät tunnusta Jeesusta Kristusta ihmiseksi, lihaan tulleeksi" (2. Joh. 1:7 [2]). Heidän mukaansa tämä viittaa siihen, että jo hyvin varhaisessa vaiheessa oli epäilyksiä Jeesuksen historiallisuudesta. Valtavirran tutkijat katsovat, että kyseinen kohta viittaa doketismiin, joka ei liity kysymykseen Jeesuksen olemassaolosta.

Jeesuksen historiallisuuden kieltävät tutkijat vetoavat yleensä seuraavanlaisiin seikkoihin:

  • varhaisimpina pidettyjen kristillisten lähteiden (mm. Paavalin ym. kirjeet) lähes täydellinen vaikeneminen Jeesuksen maallisen elämän yksityiskohdista ja harvojen mainintojenkin tulkinnanvaraisuus
  • silminnäkijätodistusten, aikalaistodistusten ja lähes aikalaistodistusten puute;
  • niiden aikalaisten ja lähes aikalaisten suuri määrä, joiden olisi pitänyt mainita tai jotka olisivat voineet mainita Jeesuksen, mutta eivät maininneet;
  • Jeesuksen elämän yksityiskohtaisten kuvausten puute myös ei-kristillisissä lähteissä;
  • fyysisen todistusaineiston puute, ja
  • varhaiskristillisten kirjoitusten ja aikakauden yleisten myyttien samankaltaisuus.

Kenties tuotteliain Jeesuksen historiallisuuden kieltävä raamatuntutkija on George Albert Wells. Myöhemmin näkemystä ovat edustaneet muiden muassa Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price ja American Atheists -järjestöä johtanut Ellen Johnson. Myös Bertrand Russell kyseenalaisti Jeesuksen historiallisuuden.87 Harva historioitsija kuitenkaan voi ajalta säilyneiden dokumenttien valossa täysin kiistää Jeesuksen historiallisuutta.88

Luigi Cascioli meni Italiassa niin pitkälle, että yritti haastaa katolisen kirkon oikeuteen Jeesuksen keksimisestä ja laajamittaisesta ihmisten pettämisestä.

  1. ^ Uro, Risto; Lehtipuu, Outi: Nasaretilaisen historia, s. 19-20. Kirjapaja, 1997. 951-625-457-8.
  2. ^ Uro, Risto; Lehtipuu, Outi: Nasaretilaisen historia, s. 250. Kirjapaja, 1997. 951-625-457-8. (Teoriat myyttiin perustuvasta, täysin epähistoriallisesta Jeesuksesta ovat vailla tieteellistä arvoa, vaikka onkin selvää, etteivät ensimmäiset kristityt kirjoittajat pyrkineet puolueettomaan historiankirjoitukseen.)
  3. ^ Tieteen kuvalehti 3/2008, s. 12
  4. ^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. - - Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
    "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34
  5. ^ Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson
  6. ^ Heino, Harri: Mihin Suomi tänään uskoo. Helsinki: WSOY, 2002. ISBN 951-0-27265-5.
  7. ^ Lee Strobel: Tapaus Kristus, s. 43,304. Jyväskylä: Aikamedia, 1998,2005. ISBN 951-606-723-9.
  8. ^ On John, see S. Byrskog, "Story as History - History as Story", in Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 123 (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000; reprinted Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 149; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006) p. 385.
  9. ^ A basic text is that of Oscar Cullmann, available in English in a translation by J. K. S. Reid titled, The Earliest Christian Confessions (London: Lutterworth, 1949)
  10. ^ Malline:Bibleverse
  11. ^ Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) p. 47
  12. ^ Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 10
  13. ^ Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90
  14. ^ Oscar Cullmann, The Earlychurch: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 64
  15. ^ Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, translated James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress 1969) p. 251
  16. ^ Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol. 1 pp. 45, 80-82, 293
  17. ^ R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81, 92
  18. ^ see Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968)p. 90; Oscar Cullmann, The Early church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 66-66; R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81; Thomas Sheehan, First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986 pp. 110, 118; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection translated A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977) p. 2; Hans Grass, Ostergeschen und Osterberichte, Second Edition (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962) p96; Grass favors the origin in Damascus.
  19. ^ Hans von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb," in Tradition and Life in the Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) p. 44
  20. ^ Archibald Hunter, Works and Words of Jesus (1973) p. 100
  21. ^ Malline:Bibleverse
  22. ^ Cullmann, Confessions p. 32
  23. ^ Malline:Bibleverse
  24. ^ Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol 1, pp. 49, 81; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus translated Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, 1966) p. 102
  25. ^ Malline:Bibleverse
  26. ^ Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) pp. 118, 283, 367; Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) pp. 7, 50; C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) p. 14
  27. ^ Malline:Bibleverse
  28. ^ Reginald Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scriner's, 1965) pp. 214, 216, 227, 239; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus translated Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, 1966) p. 102; Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) pp. 7, 9, 128
  29. ^ James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977) and especially his essay in Hedrick and Hodgson, Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986)
  30. ^ Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979)
  31. ^ R. E. Brown, "The Christians Who Lost Out" in The New York Times Book Review, 20 January 1980 p. 3; Koester in Robinson, Nag Hammadi in English, vol. 2 pp. 4, 47, 68, 150-154, 180. It is important to stress that all these scholars, with perhaps the exception of Pagels (whom the rest were critical of on this point) distanced themselves from using the texts as historical sources for the most part, and only proceeded to consider information therein with great caution.
  32. ^ Apocryphon of John 1:5-17
  33. ^ Ehrman, Bart (2003). Lost Christianities. New York: Oxford University Press, xi-xii. 
  34. ^ Malline:Citation
  35. ^ Miller 6; it also is not quoted in any contemporary writings, and suffers from a paucity of manuscripts, see these articles at answers.org and ntcanon.org
  36. ^ Clement, Corinthians 42
  37. ^ Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians 9, Letter to the Smyrneans 1, 3
  38. ^ Justin First Apology 30, 32, 34-35, 47-48, 50; Dialogue with Trypho 12, 77, 97, 107-108, &c.
  39. ^ translation by Richard Bauckham in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-16.
  40. ^ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-21.
  41. ^ Quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.3.2, translation by Richard Bauckham in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 53.
  42. ^ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 53l.
  43. ^ G. R. S. Mead : Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? pp. 50-51
  44. ^ []
  45. ^ origin of the name "christian"
  46. ^ Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3
  47. ^ Feldman (1989), p. 430
  48. ^ Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus (New York, 2003) p.194.
  49. ^ Josephus Antiquities 20:9.1
  50. ^ Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990–91
  51. ^ "Testimonium Flavianum" . EarlyChristanWritings.com. Viitattu 2006-10-07. 
  52. ^ Origin Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Against Celsus 1.47
  53. ^ L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollinsPublishers, 2004. P. 97–98
  54. ^ Josephus on Jesus,p. 8, p. 11.
  55. ^ i.e. Daniel-Rops, Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries p. 21 and G. R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus p. 193
  56. ^ John Drane Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986) p. 138; John P. Meier. A Marginal Jew (Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1991) v.1; also, James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988) p. 96
  57. ^ Henri Daniel-Rops, Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries p. 21; J.N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969)p. 20; F.F. Bruce, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1967) p. 108
  58. ^ F.E Peters, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol.1 p. 149
  59. ^ Agapius Kitab al-'Unwan, 239-240
  60. ^ Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic" New Testament Studies 54.4 (2008).
  61. ^ Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96–97
  62. ^ Jesus, by Ch. Gugnebert, Professor of History of Christianity in the Sorbonne, Translated from the French by S. H. Hooke, Samuel Davidson Professor of Old Testament Studies in the University of London, University Book, New York, 1956, p. 14
  63. ^ Tacitus, Annals 15.44 (Latin, English and also here [3])
  64. ^ Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 42-43 as quoted at earlychristianwritings.com
  65. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 43.  See also the criterion of embarrassment.
  66. ^ F.F. Bruce,Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) p. 23
  67. ^ Ehrman p 212
  68. ^ Theissen and Merz p.83
  69. ^ Did Jesus exist? Earl Doherty and the argument to ahistoricity, by Richard Carrier. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html
  70. ^ Jesus, University Books, New York, 1956, p.13
  71. ^ France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing, 19–20. ISBN 0340381728. 
  72. ^ For example R. T. France, writes "The brief notice in Tacitus Annals xv.44 mentions only his title, Christus, and his execution in Judea by order of Pontius Pilatus. Nor is there any reason to believe that Tacitus bases this on independent information-it is what Christians would be saying in Rome in the early second century ... No other clear pagan references to Jesus can be dated before AD 150, by which time the source of any information is more likely to be Christian propaganda than an independent record." The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder Of Christianity, Truth Journal [4]
  73. ^ Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 83. ISBN 9780800631222. 
  74. > 74,0 74,1 74,2 74,3 74,4 74,5 74,6 Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
  75. ^ Julius Africanus, Extant Writings XVIII in Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) vol. VI, p. 130
  76. ^ Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, translated by H. W. Fowler (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949) vol. 4
  77. ^ Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) pp. 78–79.
  78. ^ Celsus the First Nietzsche
  79. ^ Justin Martyr, First Apology 48
  80. ^ see Tertullian, Apology V
  81. ^ for a discussion, see Daniel-Rops, Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries, p. 14
  82. ^ Sanhedrin 43a.
  83. ^ Sanhedrin 43a.
  84. ^ Jesus by Ch. Guignebert (Translated from the French by S. H. Hooke, Samuel Davidson Professor of Old Testament Studies, University of London), University Books, New Yory, 1956, p22.
  85. ^ Malline:Citation
  86. ^ Doherty, Earl (2005), "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus" (Age of Reason Publications)
  87. ^ Who is the real Jesus?
  88. ^ Scholars' Verdict
Noudettu kohteesta ”https://apowiki.fi/index.php?title=Jeesuksen_historiallisuus&oldid=5685”