Non-Christian sources are meagre and contribute nothing to the history of Jesus that is not already known from the Christian tradition.
The problem with this is that the article Solon linked to asserts, and seems to back up, that the few references from non-Christian sources were inserted when copies were made. It does make sense that since copying at the time and during the Dark Ages was manual, and done principally in monasteries or similar religious retreats, that the copies may have differed slightly from the originals...
For example, the EB refers to Tacitus, and says
Tacitus writes in explanation: "The name is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius."
But from my link...
In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. ... It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.
The EB refers to Josephus - and indicates similar doubts, as again does the Gauvin article, with more detail and corroboration:
For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ.
This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."
...
For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."
On the Suetonious passage, since 'Christ' was NOT a title specific to a single person, is it any surprise at one's appearance in Rome causing trouble? Again, from my link:
The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."
The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.
Lastly, the conclusion of that article is somewhat naive...
if not actually misleading:
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus...
Firstly, as seen, they can no longer be considered as independent.
Furthermore, in ancient (Christian) times people tended to believe what they were told by the Church, especially when there was minimal lore or scholarly research other through the church, when so much authority was either from or vested via the Church... and most of all, you were under threat of eternal damnation for believing otherwise (never mind saying so!).
But, my thanks for the response - have you anything against the specific criticisms and citations at infidels.org ? |
