Extra-Christian ancient sources on Jesus of Nazareth

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extra-Christian ancient sources on Jesus of Nazareth can be found in the 1st and 2nd centuries. You mention Jesus and / or his followers casually and with various attitudes that range from sympathy and neutral distance to rejection and contempt.

The historical Jesus research draws on them to intra- and extra-biblical sources of early Christianity to consider critical. Their relevance is controversial: some were often viewed as extra-Christian evidence of the existence of Jesus. With others it is uncertain whether they refer to Jesus of Nazareth, whether they come from the stated authors, whether they carried out their own research or reacted to early Christian tradition. At least these mentions provide information about the perception of the early Christian tradition in the non-Christian historiography of that time.

Jewish sources

Missing mention

There are scholars who believe that Jewish historiography at the time of Jesus was already well developed. Philo of Alexandria described the various Jewish groups in 1st century Palestine ; Justus of Tiberias from Galilee was a chronicler of the Jewish royal history up to Herod Agrippa II. His work is only known from a note from the 9th century. Neither these scriptures nor Philos make any mention of Jesus. The main work of the historian Flavius ​​Josephus Bellum Judaicum , written in Rome around 75-79 , which was supposed to relieve Judaism , which was defeated in the Jewish uprising at the expense of the Zealots , does not mention Jesus.

Other scientists point to missing sources. So it seems that the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea , who worked in Palestine and had access to extensive source material, only had one source available which dealt with the time of Jesus Christ, namely that of Flavius ​​Josephus. Only one visit to Jerusalem is known of Philo of Alexandria, which he only briefly described in his work De providentia (2.64). Nor did he write little about the history of Jerusalem. Although he mentioned Pontius Pilate in his autobiography Legatio ad Gaium , it does not give the impression that he had extensive knowledge of the situation in Jerusalem. Philo was in Rome as a member of a delegation from the Jewish community of Alexandria and mentioned Pontius Pilate to draw attention to the injustices of the Romans against Jews in general. But Flavius ​​Josephus also seems to have little material on the time of Jesus' death. He mentions just four episodes about Pontius Pilate in his work Jewish antiquities . The report by Flavius ​​Josephus does not even reveal whether the aqueduct was actually built, for which Pilate is said to have withdrawn money from the temple treasury. This finding is explained in different ways:

  • The lost original work of Justus of Tiberias could have mentioned oppositional Jewish groups in Palestine, including the Jesus Movement, not mentioned in Josephus.
  • Justus hadn't heard anything from Jesus and his followers, so that the lack of mention was also very astonishing to Photios I , the Christian narrator of his work.
  • For Jewish historians of the time, Jesus and his followers were still too insignificant until around 90 AD. The finding does not have to mean ignorance of his person, since they also did not mention some other, unquestionably historical persons of their time.
  • They would have rejected the Jesus movement as a heretical minority in Judaism and therefore deliberately ignored Jesus.

Testimonium Flavianum

The Testimonium Flavianum is the section in book 18, verses 63-64 from the Antiquitates Judaicae by Flavius ​​Josephus , written in AD 93 :

“It was around this time that Jesus lived, a wise man, if he can even be called a human being. For he did unbelievable deeds and was the teacher of all people who received the truth with pleasure. So he attracted many Jews and also many Gentiles. This was the Christ. And although Pilate condemned him to death on the cross at the instigation of the most distinguished of our people, his earlier followers were not unfaithful to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, just as God-sent prophets had foretold this and a thousand other wonderful things about him. And the people of Christians who call themselves after him continue to this day. "

Early church fathers such as Justin , Tertullian and Cyprian did not quote this text, although they otherwise used Josephus to confirm their interpretation of the Old Testament (OT). Origen (around 185-254) even wrote expressly in Contra Celsum that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. He cannot have found the statement in the above form yet. The oldest known evidence for the cited text version comes from the 4th century and is a quote from Eusebius of Caesarea (260–339) in his church history .

For a long time in the history of Christianity, this section of text was undisputed as evidence of Josephus 'knowledge of Jesus' existence and messianism. However, representatives of the Reformation in the 16th century suspected for the first time that it could be a Christian forgery. Lucas Osiander the Elder objected: The sentence “This was the Christ” could not come from Josephus, since otherwise he would have become a Christian. The sentence can only be understood as a Christian creed , as it occurs in Lk 23:35, Acts 9:22 and other passages in the New Testament (NT).

The Josephus text has been examined and discussed since the beginning of historical Jesus research. In the 19th century it was often judged as an interpolation by Christian copyists, which was made at some point between Origines and Eusebius. The arguments for this were: The dubious relative clause “if one can even call him a human being” can only be understood as a dogmatic correction that presupposes Jesus' divinity. The statements about Jesus, "He appeared to them alive again on the third day ...", was a "teacher of all people", had done "incredible deeds", the truth of which was "received with pleasure" by everyone and also "attracted" pagans should only be understood as a witness from Christians. The passage breaks the context in which Josephus presented the term of office of Pontius Pilate before and after as a result of uprisings. It works as an insert because this topic and keyword are missing here (according to Eduard Norden ). According to this position, Josephus did not write the text passage, i.e. he did not mention Jesus in connection with the term of office of Pilate.

In contrast, other historians do not judge the text as a complete falsification, but assume that Josephus wrote a core of the text section in which he actually mentioned Jesus. Christians would have supplemented or revised this text later. These authors try in various ways to reconstruct a core text that is considered to be authentic. John P. Meier simply removed the three sentences allegedly supplemented by Christians on the messianship of Jesus, the questioning of his human existence and appearance after his death. Walther Bienert , Samuel G. Brandon and others suspected that Josephus originally reported on an attempted insurrection by Jesus using a slightly different choice of words, as in the context. He originally portrayed Jesus as an “eloquent troublemaker” who performed “strange” deeds and drew many “on his side”, analogous to the “robbers”, “magicians” and “seducers” of the Jewish resistance movement. Christians would have turned these negative evaluative expressions into neutral or positive ones with just a few interventions.

The New Testament scholar Frederick Fyvie Bruce also took this view since 1943 and argued that later versions of the text would have contained small omissions rather than deliberate insertions, provided that these changes were plausible for copyists. They may have mixed up individual expressions such as “alethe” (truth) and “aethe” (strange things). Accordingly, Josephus could have originally written (insertions in italics):

“It was around this time that Jesus lived, a wise man, if he can even be called a human being. He did incredible things and was the teacher of all people who took in strange things with pleasure . So he attracted many Jews and also many Gentiles. This was the so-called Christ. And although Pilate condemned him to death on the cross at the instigation of the most distinguished of our people, his earlier followers were not unfaithful to him. For, as they claimed , he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as prophets sent by God had foretold this and a thousand other wonderful things about him. And the people of Christians who call themselves after him continue to this day. "

This text said nothing contrary to the Jewish faith, and the text changes are plausible as the work of Christian copyists.

The Jewish historians Joseph Klausner , Paul Winter , Geza Vermes and others, on the other hand, accepted an original text with a positive tendency: Josephus had Jesus' crucifixion as in the context (Ant 18,65: "At that time, another misfortune aroused the Jews ...") portrayed as a misfortune. Christian statements were originally introduced as a discipleship about Jesus: "They said he was the Christ."

In 1971 Shlomo Pines published a previously neglected Arabic version that Bishop Agapios of Hierapolis had quoted in his Christian Universal History in the 10th century without mentioning Josephus. It reads in German:

“At that time there was a wise man called Jesus. And he had a good way of life and was known to be virtuous and had many people from among the Jews and other peoples as his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to death; but those who had become his disciples did not give up his disciples and said that he appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and was alive, and that he was perhaps the Messiah about whom the prophets said wonderful things. "

Alice Whealey referred to a Syrian version of the testimony in the World Chronicle , which Michael the Syrian wrote in the 12th century using much older sources. Whealey traced this version as well as the Arabic Agapios version back to a Syrian translation of the church history of Eusebius. The version of the world chronicle is linguistically closer to the standard version ( textus receptus ) handed down by Eusebius and thus more authentic. Since both versions identified Jesus only indirectly with the Messiah, they supported the assumption of an original that cited Christian statements of faith only as a consideration of the disciples of Jesus that was not shared by the author.

James note

Flavius ​​Josephus ( Ant. 20,200) mentions the execution of James (62) under the Sadducean high priest Annas II:

"He therefore gathered the high council for judgment and put before them the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ, by the name of James, as well as some others whom he accused of breaking the law and had them stoned ."

Earl Doherty (1999) said that Josephus was not referring to Jesus of Nazareth, but to Jesus bar Damneus mentioned earlier in his work . Because this fell victim to power struggles for the office of high priest, which Josephus recalled in the context of this passage. The subordinate clause "... who is called Christ" is a Christian addition.

Most historians consider this passage to be authentic. The New Testament scholar Gerd Theißen (2001) does not see the part of the sentence “brother of Jesus, who is called Christ” as an insertion, since it should not primarily define Jesus, but only his brother James. Even the title of Christ appears only to distinguish Jesus from many other Jews of this name mentioned in the same work. The title has not become a proper name here and therefore shows Jewish, not Christian usage. There is no substantive justification for this: It seems as if Jesus had already been reported in more detail and here is only reminded of it. Other authors also argue that the prefix of the object “the brother of Jesus” cannot be explained as an insert and makes the following subordinate clause plausible as a more precise definition of this brother. "Who [...] is called" (Greek legomenos ) or "the so-called [...]" is also a linguistic phrase in the mouth of non-Christians in the NT itself and expresses their doubts about Jesus' messianship in connection with the Christ title. Therefore it is far more likely that this subordinate clause to James comes from Josephus himself and relates to Jesus of Nazareth.

Talmud

Around 95, the Sanhedrin of Jamnia decided to exclude " heresies " from Judaism of that time, which may also include early Christianity. At 135 the canonization of the Tanach was completed. From then on, the oral biblical interpretations of the various rabbi schools ( Mishnah ) were increasingly collected and, since the 3rd century, have been put into writing in the Babylonian and Palestinian versions of the Talmud . There tractate Sanhedrin 43a mentions Jesus:

“ Yeshu was hung on the eve of Passover . Forty days earlier the Herald had exclaimed: He will be brought out to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and made apostate; if you have something to say in your defense, come and say it. But since nothing was put forward in his defense, he was hung on the eve of the Passover. "

The age and authenticity of this note are disputed. Joseph Klausner thought it was original and dated it to around 200. Johann Maier, on the other hand, assumed that it could not have been made before 220. The name " Yeshu " was only added later to refer to another legal process that was already in place on Jesus.

Like Jn 19:31, the passage names the eve of the Passover (14 Nisan = 7 April in the year 30) as the date of death. However, some of their statements contradict the Passion Reports of the NT: unlike in Talmudic legal proceedings, a crier had been looking for witnesses for exoneration for 40 days before Jesus' trial. The Sanhedrin alone passed and carried out the death sentence. There is no mention of Romans. Jesus was accused of "sorcery" (extraordinary acts that impress the people, can only be explained by special forces), was legitimately condemned as a seducer of the people to false gods, stoned and (again, unusual) only then "hung". His special powers are not denied, but attributed to training in magic in Egypt. He is accused of misusing these powers in order to be able to pretend to be "God". Jesus turns out to be a swindler. The treatise thus justifies the death sentence of the Sanhedrin.

Jesus was accused of being a magician because of his healing acts, which were told by witnesses during his lifetime (Mk 3:22). In the NT reports of the Sanhedrin trial against Jesus, however, this accusation is missing. According to Mk 14.58, Jesus was reproached for his announcement that the temple would be torn down and a new one built in three days (cf. Joh 2.19). August Strobel assumed that the Sanhedrin interpreted this announcement as false prophecy and tried to corroborate it. Because according to Deut 13: 2-3, false prophets were seen as seducers of the people to fall away from God, who used anti-divine “signs and wonders” for this purpose. According to Deut 13: 10-11, they should be killed by stoning . On this legal basis, the Sanhedrin accused Jesus as a false prophet and sentenced him to death. Since the Sanhedrin could not have a death sentence carried out under Roman rule, he handed Jesus over to the Roman governor Pilate for crucifixion . That the Sanhedrin Stephen after the deposition of Pilate accordance with Deuteronomy 13 due to its commitment to the Son of Man stony let (Acts 7.56 to 58), corroborating that Jesus had been sentenced according to the Torah as a false prophet.

According to the counter-narration of the Talmud, the Sanhedrin had Jesus stoned as a seducer of the people, not crucified. This is ahistorical since, according to reliable Roman sources, the Sanhedrin was unable to carry out any death sentences under Pilate. The unusual emphasis that Jesus was hung up after he was stoned also points to a knowledge of his actual manner of death: the Roman crucifixion, like hanging, was regarded by Jews as a curse of God and final exclusion from the people of God (Deut 21:23). Most historians therefore assume that the Talmudic passage reacted apologetically to Christian blanket accusations against the Jews and is not an independent source of the religious process of Jesus. Rather, it reflects the authors' attitude towards Christianity as it is today.

Roman notes

Roman chroniclers report about Christians for the first time at the beginning of the 2nd century. Suetonius , Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were about the same age and knew each other. You mention Jesus and Christianity in marginal notes on events in Rome and in the provinces that at times endangered the state order there. These texts have little meaning for the historical Jesus, since they only seem to know his name and his execution under Pontius Pilate and this knowledge may come from Christians. They cannot therefore be used as extra-biblical evidence of Jesus' existence. But they show how the Roman upper class perceived Christianity at the time. They describe its influence predominantly as pernicious and thus justify the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire at the time .

Suetone

Suetonius , a Roman respected at the imperial court, mentions in his emperor biographies ( De vita Caesarum , 120 AD) an edict of the emperor Claudius in the year 49, which expelled the Jews from Rome (chap. 25,4):

"The Jews, who were incited by a certain Chrestus and constantly caused unrest, he drove out of Rome."

Suetonius apparently assumed that the instigator of the "unrest" occurred in Rome. “Chrestos” ( ancient Greek “the useful”) was a common Greek name and was widely used in Rome as a slave name . Suetonius could therefore have viewed the bearer of the name as the leader of a local Jewish uprising. Nothing else is known about this for this year. "Chrestos" was also used as the Roman pronunciation for the Greek Messia title and can be found in some old NT manuscripts. The New Testament scholar Hans Conzelmann therefore also assumed that Suetonius had heard of actual unrest about this person in Rome, but not that he was the "instigator" of the Christian faith. With “Chrestos” he did not mean Jesus Christ and did not yet distinguish Christians from Jews.

Therefore the Sueton note is often seen as a reference to a Christian community in Rome that already existed at that time. There are three reasons for this:

  • As early as 42 in connection with unrest in Alexandria ( Egypt ), Claudius threatened the Jews with general persecution in the event that they spread their disbelief in Rome's state gods like an "epidemic". Therefore, Jewish communities in the Roman diaspora , especially the capital of the empire, behaved rather inconspicuously in order not to endanger their privilege as religio licita (permitted religion). Jewish uprisings of this time are only known after Claudius' death and only from Palestine in connection with the Roman disregard of the Jerusalem temple cult .
  • The Romans first perceived the Christians as a separate group around 45 in Antioch , where the first large Gentile Christian community had been founded. They called them "Christian" or "Chrestian" (Acts 11:26). In the rest of the empire, however, they barely distinguished between Jews and Christians before the Jewish War (66–70). Because most of the Christians were also Jews up to that point and like them did missionary work in the synagogues among the “godly” Roman citizens. In Rome, the Christians were only regarded as a separate group under Nero and were persecuted in the fire of Rome . Suetonius himself confirms this with a succinct note in a chapter on Nero's imperial period (16.2):

"The Christians (christiani), a sect that had surrendered to a new, dangerous superstition , were used with the death penalty ."

"And met a Jew named Aquila , born Pontus, who had recently arrived from Italy with his wife Priscilla because Emperor Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome."

This information is considered to be the key point for dating the Christian community in Rome, to which Paul addressed his letter to the Romans from Corinth . Because he himself met the couple in Corinth and sends their regards (1 Cor 16:19), but did not count them among the Jews whom he baptized there (1 Cor 1:14ff; 1 Cor 16:15). In Romans he greets them too (Rom 16: 3, 5). Therefore Conzelmann assumed that Paul met them in Corinth as already baptized members of the Roman community. This community would then have been affected by the Edict of Claudius. From the Letter to the Romans it emerges that there were conflicts between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians : This could be the reference to the “unrest” caused by “Chrestos” that Suetonius mentioned.

Tacitus

Tacitus was already known not only as a successful politician but also as a Roman historian during his lifetime. He wrote 116–117 his annals , some of which were quite critical of the emperor , whose books 13–16 describe the reign of Nero: The quiet early years (A. 13) were followed by tyranny with the fire of Rome in 64 (A. 14-16). Nero tried in vain to appease the suspicion that he himself had ordered the arson with all possible efforts. In this context, Tacitus mentioned the Christians:

“To get rid of the rumor, he put the blame on others and imposed the most exquisite punishments on those hated for their crimes, whom the people called 'Chrestians'. The originator of this name is Christ, who was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius . For the moment the pernicious superstition had been suppressed, but later reappeared and spread not only in Judea , where the evil had arisen, but also in Rome , where all the atrocities and abominations of the whole world converge and are celebrated. "

Tacitus' attitude was ambivalent: on the one hand, he disapproved of the cruel persecution of Nero's Christians as an obvious distraction from his own failure; on the other hand, he saw Christians as criminals who deserved this punishment and adopted the popular prejudices against them.

Where his knowledge of their beliefs came from is uncertain: it can be assumed that Tacitus, like Pliny the Younger (see below), was confronted with the spread of Christianity during his time as proconsul of Asia (112-113) and made his own research. In addition, his annals processed older, not preserved sources; Pliny the Elder could already have recorded the fire in Rome and the persecution of Christians in Nero. The remark about the temporary suppression of "superstition" shows knowledge of official measures and does not appear as if they came from Christians. However, Tacitus made a mistake: According to Philo and an archaeologically found inscription, Pilate did not bear the title of procurator, like the later governors in Judea, but prefect (governor).

The wording of the note gives no indication of independent research by Tacitus into its veracity. Apparently he saw no reason to doubt:

  • "Christ" is a Jew who was executed as a criminal by Pilate,
  • he was the originator of the religious movement from Judea, known and hated in Rome as "Chrestians".

The style of the note is that of Tacitus, so that so far few scholars have questioned the authenticity of the section.

Pliny the Younger

As governor in Bithynia (today İzmit , Turkey ), Pliny had been responsible for reports from the population against Christians living there since about 111 . In an exchange of letters with Emperor Trajan , which he later included in his ten-volume collection of letters ( Pliny letters ), he obtained legal confirmation for his proceedings with them. In epistula X / 96 he described his methods of interrogation, the Christian customs he had become aware of and his impression of their faith:

“I spoke the formula to those who denied being or had been Christians and had them invoke the gods and pray to your statue [...] with donations of incense and wine and also blaspheme Christ. As a result, I believe they could be released. Because true Christians should not allow themselves to be forced into any of this. [...]
They assured us that all of their guilt or error consisted in the fact that they regularly gathered on a certain day before dawn to offer a song to Christ as God and to commit themselves by oath - not to a crime, but to Refrain from theft, robbery, adultery, betrayal, embezzlement of entrusted property.
So I thought it was all the more necessary to use torture to research the truth from two so-called 'servants' . I found nothing but absurd, immoderate superstitions. [...] Because the epidemic of this superstition has spread not only through the cities, but also through the villages. But it seems possible to contain and eradicate them. "

These figures show that Christianity found popularity in rural provinces and became a problem for the Roman authorities because the Christians did not participate in the imperial cult . This is why Pliny had Christians who professed their faith condemned directly. He had those who denied their Christianity make sacrifices to statues of gods and the statue of the emperor and blaspheme Christ ( male dicere ). Because he knew from rumors and official knowledge that Christians refused the imperial sacrifice because they worshiped Christ “like a God” or “as God” ( quasi deo dicere ).

Statements by former Christians confirmed to him that their customs (singing and eating together, creed, early morning Sunday services , observance of the Ten Commandments ) are not hostile to the state and conspiratorial. To test this, he also tortured Christian domestic workers. For him, their statements contained "nothing but inferior superstitions", the content of which he did not disclose. He subsequently obtained imperial justification for his proceedings:

"Is the Christian name [the Christian creed] in itself a punishable offense, even if there is no crime involved, or is it just the crimes associated with the name?"

In the statements of Pliny about Christ it becomes clear that he saw him as a person worshiped as a god against the emperor, so he presumed his humanity. He gained this impression of the Christian faith through rumors and official knowledge, not his own research. Historical details about this person did not interest him. For this reason, Pliny’s letter is hardly used as a historical note on Jesus of Nazareth, but it is evaluated on the faith of Christians and Roman dealings with them.

Other notes

Thallus

Around 55 this profane historian wrote a three-volume history in Greek of the world he knew from the fall of Troy to around the year 50. His work and his Roman name are only known from fragments and quotations from other authors. The author could be identical to a Samaritan named by Josephus with the Greek name [Th] allos , who was released as a slave by Emperor Tiberius .

The Christian chronicler Sextus Julius Africanus (around 170–240) commented on the darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus ( Mk 15.33  EU ) in his world history (around 220): “In the third book of histories Thallus calls this darkness a solar eclipse . It seems to me, against reasonable insight. ”Because Jesus was crucified on the feast of Passover , that is at the first full moon in spring. No solar eclipse is possible. Accordingly, the darkness on the day of Jesus' death could not have been a solar eclipse, but only a darkness caused by God. Africanus wanted to show this darkness to be a miracle that could not be explained naturally.

Its information cannot be verified because the work of the thallus has been lost. Maybe he only mentioned a solar eclipse and not Jesus' crucifixion. Because Phlegon von Tralles (early 2nd century), who relied on information from Thallus, dated a solar eclipse in the 202nd Olympiad, i.e. in the 15th year of Tiberius, i.e. according to today's calculations in the year 29.

Africanus, however, otherwise reliably cited verifiable information from other authors and did not apologetically claim the correctness of the NT Passion reports from Thallus, but rather rejected the thallus' false, anti-Christian intentions from his point of view. Therefore, various historians assume that Thallus actually related his dated solar eclipse to the crucifixion of Jesus and thus indirectly confirmed its historicity. In this case, the thallus note would be the earliest non-Christian note on Jesus.

Mara Bar Serapion

A copy of a letter in Syrian from the 7th century from the alleged stoic Mara Bar Serapion has survived . It is sometimes classified as a pseudepigraphy by a Christian author or a fictional rhetoric exercise, but in current research it is mostly considered authentic.

The otherwise unknown author wrote according to his statements as a prisoner of the Romans. He gave his son life advice in case he was sentenced to death. He advised him to seek only wisdom ; despite all the persecution of the wise, it is eternal. He gave examples of this:

“… What use did the Athenians have from killing Socrates , which was rewarded with famine and plague? or the Sami from the burning of Pythagoras , since their whole country was buried in the sand in an instant? or the Jews from the execution of their wise king, since the kingdom was taken from them from that time on? For God justly took vengeance for those three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were covered by the sea, the Jews were killed and driven out of their realm, they live everywhere in the dispersion.
Socrates is not dead: because of Plato , nor Pythagoras: because of the statue of Hera , nor the wise king: because of the new laws that he has given. "

The second example relates to the expulsion of anti-Roman citizens from Samosata after the deposition of their king in 73, which Josephus also reported. The third example, the mentioned expulsion of the Jews, can refer to the Jewish War (66–70 AD) or the Bar Kochba uprising (132–135). That is why the original letter is usually dated to the first or second century.

Unlike in his other examples, the author does not name the "wise king" of the Jews, although he equates him with two prominent Greek philosophers at the time. The expression is mostly related to Jesus of Nazareth, because the Passion Reports of the Gospels call Jesus the “King of the Jews”, cite this title as the reason for his crucifixion by the Romans ( Mk 15.26  EU par.) And the early Christian literature call it destruction Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews as God's punishment. The Gospels also occasionally call Jesus' interpretation of the Torah "new law" and emphasize its importance for his followers. No other ancient person has this correspondence with the information in Serapion's letter. The fact that he does not mention the name Jesus, the title of Christ and the resurrection is explained in different ways: The author did not know this tradition or kept it secret due to his Roman imprisonment in order not to provoke Romans, or not considered it relevant because he was interested in lasting wisdom was.

According to his usage, the author could have known the Gospel of Matthew . He classified Jesus among wise philosophers of antiquity, who lived on for him forever through their “praise and their gifts”, and approved the Christians to live according to his laws: This shows the external view of a non-Christian who loves Jesus because of his teaching and his Positive towards followers because of their way of life.

Lucian of Samosata

The Greek satirist Lukian of Samosata (120 to approx. 180 AD) wrote about the end of the life of Peregrinus around 170 AD (De morte Peregrini, 11):

“By the way, these people worshiped the well-known Magus who was crucified in Palestine for introducing these new mysteries into the world ... For these poor people have got it into their heads that they will become immortal in body and soul , and in everyone Would live forever: Hence it is that they despise death and many of them even voluntarily run into it. Moreover, their first lawgiver taught them that once they had taken the great step of denying the Greek gods and bowing their knees before that crucified Sophist they would all become brothers to one another , and live by his laws. "

This passage shows the view of an educated Greek who perceived Jesus from the perspective of other mystery cults of the time . He attributed the willingness of some Christians to martyrdom in the persecutions of Christians of his time to their belief in a physical resurrection. So he knew this Jewish apocalyptic doctrine, but with a clearly derogatory intention connected it with sophism from the history of Greek philosophy. Because both this rational skepticism and the belief in the only, radically transcendent Creator God agreed to question the existence of the Greek gods as a human-all-too-human projection.

Historical classification

The relevance of the early extra-Christian Notes on Jesus is assessed differently. Proponents of the Jesus myth theory, which emerged around 1790, judge them all as ahistorical or find no evidence of Jesus' historicity in them.

Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1972) considered the existence of Jesus to be well documented by several independent sources, including the Testimonium Flavianum, by ancient standards. Martin Hengel (2004) shared this judgment. Gerhard Ebeling ruled in 1979: "The dispute over the historicity of Jesus has historically proven to be untenable."

Leonhard Goppel (1978), on the other hand, emphasized that non-Christian sources do not from the outset evaluate early Christianity more impartially than Christian ones. The Roman notes were based on Christian statements; the interrogation reports of Pliny are a "sum of misunderstandings". The Josephus Notes have been revised or completely inserted in a Christian way. Josephus had largely remained silent about Christianity, perhaps so that the Romans could not blame Judaism for this suspicious trend. Talmudic passages are encrypted, distorting and not even their reference to Jesus is certain. Only the Synoptics remained as the main historical source for Jesus . For Hans Conzelmann (1989), the extra-Christian notes were only a secondary source for the history of early Christianity, not for the history of Jesus. He highlighted the James note by Josephus and the passage by Tacitus as credible.

For Martin Karrer (1998) the James note in Josephus is the oldest non-Christian evidence of Jesus' existence; he is skeptical of the testimony. The Roman notes noted "Christ alone because of the existence of Christians". The passage from Mara bar Sapion is dependent on Mt 21.43  EU (“God's kingdom is taken from you ...”). All of the notes ignored the resurrection of Jesus and documented "little more than his death."

Gerd Theißen and Annette Merz document in their textbook The Historical Jesus (4th edition 2011) all known ancient Jesus notes and their historical research. They emphasize that some statements in it confirm certain information known from the NT: Jesus had a brother named James, who played a leading role in the early church in Jerusalem ; the early Christians came there between 60 and 70 in conflict with the Sanhedrin (Josephus). One told of Jesus miracles (Josephus, Talmud), he was considered a teacher and "wise man" (Josephus) or "wise king" (Mara bar Serapion). He received the title "Christ" (possibly Josephus); in the Roman notes this title has already become a proper name. Josephus, Mara bar Serapion and Tacitus mentioned the violent death of Jesus. This execution according to Roman law was a serious obstacle to the preaching of Jesus Christ in the Roman Empire, as 1 Cor 1:23  EU expresses it. Theißen and Merz rate this finding as follows:

  • The notes were made independently of one another in very different contexts and on different occasions. Opponents, skeptics and sympathizers of Christianity assumed the existence of Jesus and saw no reason to doubt it.
  • The fact that they just mentioned Jesus' execution, each with their own account, speaks for their factuality, regardless of whether this knowledge came from Christians or from other sources. Josephus probably blamed a collaboration between the Jewish upper class and the Roman governor, Mara bar Serapion the Jewish people, and Tacitus Pilate responsible for Jesus' death.
  • Despite all the necessary source criticism and skepticism, this is a clear sign that inexplicable facts have been passed down here. It is inconceivable that fallible people would have received and passed on these correspondences with one another and with Christian tradition or invented them together. After all that historical science, which always remains hypothetical, can achieve certainty, we can assume:

"The randomness of the historical sources makes us certain that we are making contact with a historical figure and not just with the imagination of earlier times."

Most of today's historians and New Testament scholars consider the existence of Jesus to be secure, mainly because they judge larger parts of the early Christian Gospels to be historically reliable, regardless of the evaluation of non-Christian mentions of Jesus.

Additional information

See also

literature

  • Gerd Theißen , Annette Merz : The sources and their evaluation. In The Historical Jesus. A textbook. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th edition, Göttingen 2011, ISBN 3-525-52198-7 , pp. 35–124.
  • Hermann Detering : False witnesses. Extra-Christian Jesus testimonies to the test. Alibri, Aschaffenburg 2011, ISBN 978-3-86569-070-8 .
  • Frederick Fyvie Bruce , Eberhard Güting (Ed.): Extra-biblical testimonies about Jesus and early Christianity. (1974) Brunnen Verlag, 5th edition, Giessen 2007, ISBN 3-7655-9366-4 .
  • Paul R. Eddy, Greg A. Boyd: Jesus and Ancient non-Christian Writers. In: The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, 2007, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 , pp. 121-136.
  • Richard T. France: The Evidence for Jesus. Regent College, 2006.
  • Robert E. Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. William B. Eerdman Co, 2000, ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 .
  • Craig A. Evans: Jesus in non-Christian Sources. In: Craig A. Evans, Bruce Chilton (Eds.): Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Brill Academic Publications, Leiden 1998, ISBN 90-04-11142-5 , pp. 443-478.
  • Gordon J. Wenham (Ed.): Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels. Continuum International Publishing Group, Sheffield 1987, ISBN 1-85075-007-6 .
  • David Flusser : Discoveries in the New Testament, Volume 1: Words of Jesus and their Tradition. Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1987, ISBN 3-7887-0793-3 , pp. 216-225.

Web links

Single receipts

  1. ↑ Theißen / Merz (2011), pp. 98f.
  2. ↑ Martin Hengel, Anna Maria Schwemer: Jesus and Judaism. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 2007, ISBN 3-16-149359-1 , p. 39
  3. ↑ Michael E. Hardwick: Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius
  4. ↑ Marian Hillar: From logos to trinity The evolution of religious beliefs from Pythagoras to Tertullias , p. 39.
  5. ↑ Christfried Böttrich, Jens Herzer, Torsten Reiprich: Josephus and the New Testament: Mutual Perceptions , Mohr Siebeck 2006, p. 127.
  6. ↑ Christfried Böttrich, Jens Herzer, Torsten Reiprich: Josephus and the New Testament: Mutual Perceptions, Mohr Siebeck 2006, p. 437.
  7. ↑ Martin Hengel: The Zealots: Studies on the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I to 70 AD (new edition) Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, ISBN 3-16-150776-2 , p. 19
  8. ↑ Thorsten Scherer: A picture of the world: search for faith between physics and metaphysics. 2009, ISBN 3-8370-8217-2 , p. 289
  9. ↑ Don Havis: Not Resigned: Selected Works (1950-2010). Xlibris, 2010, ISBN 1-4500-4753-X , p. 101
  10. ↑ Theißen / Merz (2011), p. 99
  11. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. 2000, p. 130
  12. ^ Translation from Theißen / Merz (2001 4 ), p. 75
  13. ↑ Origen: Against Celsus ( Contra Celsum ), First Book, Section 47. Library of the Church Fathers, German
  14. ↑ John P. Meier: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One: The Roots of the Problem and the Person , New Haven 1991, ISBN 0-300-14018-5 (English)
  15. ↑ Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: the testimonium Flavianum controversy from late antiquity to modern times. New York / Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 0-8204-5241-6
  16. ↑ Frederick Fyvie Bruce: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2003, ISBN 0-8028-2219-3 , Chapter 9
  17. ^ Shlomo Pines: An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem 1971
  18. ^ German translation of the Agapios version, quoted from Theißen / Merz, 2011, p. 81
  19. ↑ Alice Whealey: The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic. New Testament Studies 54 (2008), pp. 573-590
  20. ↑ quoted from Theißen / Merz (2011), p. 411
  21. ^ Earl Doherty: The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? (1999) 4th Edition, Age of Reason Publications, 2005, ISBN 0-9689259-1-X , p. 216
  22. ↑ Gunther Wenz : Christ - Jesus and the beginnings of Christology . In: Study Systematic Theology . tape 5 . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co.KG, Göttingen 2011, ISBN 978-3-525-56708-1 , 6. Sources and basic facts of the history of Jesus - Extra-Christian sources, p. 130 : “On the one hand, he reports the execution of James in AD 62, whom he describes as 'brother of Jesus, who is called Christ' (Ant 20.200). Most researchers assume the authenticity of this point. "
  23. ↑ Theißen / Merz (2011), p. 74f.
  24. ^ Paul R. Eddy, Gregory A. Boyd: The Jesus legend: a case for the historical reliability of the synoptic Jesus tradition. Baker Academic, 2007, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 , p. 188
  25. ↑ James Patrick Holding: Shattering the Christ Myth. Xulon Press, 2008, ISBN 1-60647-271-2 , p. 48
  26. ↑ Joseph Klausner: Jesus of Nazareth. His time, his life and his teaching. The Jewish Publishing House, Jerusalem 1952 3
  27. ↑ Johann Maier : Jesus of Nazareth in the Talmudic tradition. (1978) EdF 82; Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1992 2 , ISBN 3-534-04901-2
  28. ↑ Peter Schäfer : Jesus in the Talmud. Tübingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-16-149462-8
  29. ↑ August Strobel: The moment of truth. Investigations into the criminal case against Jesus. WUNT 21, Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1980, ISBN 3-16-143041-7 , pp. 81-86
  30. ↑ Theißen / Merz, 2011, p. 84
  31. ↑ C. Suetonius Tranquillus: Divus Claudius (claud 25) . Text of the Alexander Thomson edition in the Perseus Project, accessed on June 17, 2017 (English).
  32. ↑ Hildebrecht Hommel: Sebasmata. Studies on ancient religious history and early Christianity. Mohr Siebeck, 1984, ISBN 978-3-16-144723-5 , p. 179; Martin Karrer: The anointed: the basics of the Christ title. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1991, ISBN 978-3-525-53833-3 , pp. 70f. The following is also fundamental: Helga Botermann : The Jewish edict of Emperor Claudius . Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 1996.
  33. ↑ Hans Conzelmann: Geschichte des Urchristentums , Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1978, ISBN 3-525-51354-2 , p. 96f
  34. ↑ A. 15,44, quoted from Theißen / Merz (2011), p. 89
  35. ↑ AE 1963, 00104
  36. ↑ Will Durant : Empires of Faith . In: Cultural History of Mankind . tape 5 . Südwest Verlag GmbH, Munich 1977, ISBN 3-517-00559-2 , The early days of Christianity - Jesus - I. The sources, p. 122 : “Five years later Tacitus gave a description of the persecutions which the Chrestiani had to endure under Nero; According to his account, at this time (64 AD) they were already to be found throughout the empire. The relevant section is so typically Taciteisch in style, compactness and prejudice ability that of all Bible critics only Drews doubts its authenticity. "
  37. ↑ quoted from Hans Conzelmann: Geschichte des Urchristentums , p. 151
  38. ↑ Quoted from Hans Conzelmann: Geschichte des Urchristentums , p. 151
  39. ↑ Theißen / Merz (2011), p. 87 ; Robert E. Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence , 2000, pp. 27ff.
  40. ↑ The theta as the first letter is added as a conjecture, since the indication of Josephus otherwise makes no sense: Robert E. Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. 2000, p. 21
  41. ↑ Quoted from Theißen / Merz, p. 91 ; Original Greek text quoted from Felix Jacoby (ed.): The fragments of the Greek historians , Part 2B, Berlin 1929, p. 1157.
  42. ↑ Theißen / Merz (2011), p. 91, note 67
  43. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. 2000, pp. 20f. and note 2, ibid.
  44. ^ Kathleen McVey: A fresh Look at the Letter of Mara bar Sarapion to his son. In: Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236 (1990), pp. 257-272.
  45. ↑ Catherine M. Chin: Rhetorical Practice in the Chreia Elaboration of Mara bar Serapion. , Hugoye 9/2 (2006) ( Memento from September 23, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 1.9 MB)
  46. ^ Utrecht University: The Mara bar Sarapion Project (2009)
  47. ^ Translation from Theißen / Merz (2011), p. 84
  48. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. 2000, p. 54ff.
  49. ↑ Martin Hengel: Jesus and the Gospels: Kleine Schriften Volume V. Tübingen 2007, p. 716
  50. ↑ Theißen / Merz (2011), p. 86
  51. ↑ quoted from Swiss Evangelical Alliance: Extra-Biblical Sources on Jesus Christ
  52. ↑ Frederick F. Bruce: The New Testament, Trustworthy, True, Reliable. (1972) Verlag der Liebenzeller Mission, 4th edition, Bad Liebenzell 1997, ISBN 3-88002-642-4
  53. ↑ Martin Hengel: Jesus testimonies outside the Gospels. In: Jan Roskovec, Jiri Mrazek (Ed.): Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu. Studies in Honor of Petr Pokorn. Continuum, 2004, ISBN 0-567-08298-9 , p. 150
  54. ↑ Gerhard Ebeling, Albrecht Beutel: Dogmatics of Christian Faith Volume I: Faith in God the Creator of the World. Volume II: Faith in God the Reconciler of the World. Volume III: Belief in God the Perfector of the World. Mohr / Siebeck, 4th edition, Tübingen 2012, ISBN 3-16-151028-3 , p. 383
  55. ↑ Leonard Goppel: Theology of the New Testament. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3rd edition, Göttingen 1978, p. 70
  56. ↑ Hans Conzelmann: Outlines of the New Testament, Volume 5: History of early Christianity. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th edition, Göttingen 1989, ISBN 3-525-51354-2 , p. 17
  57. ↑ Martin Karrer: Theology of the New Testament. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1998, ISBN 3-525-51380-1 , p. 23f.
  58. ↑ Theißen / Merz (2011), p. 121
  59. ↑ Jens Schroeter: On the Historicity of the Gospels. In: Jens Schroeter, Ralph Brucker (ed.): The historical Jesus. Trends and Perspectives in Current Research. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2002, ISBN 3-11-017511-8 , p. 163f.
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on January 5, 2006 .