yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Upvote
0
Are there any extrabiblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus?
- Thread starter fishmansf
- Start date
Quid est Veritas?
In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Roman records were usually held in provincial capitals, with only Imperial rescripts or summaries held in Rome. This is clearly suggested by Tacitus' Annals based on the records in Rome and accounts of governors being brought to trial, or from when Asia rose in revolt with Mithradates VI and they burnt the archive.
Roman Judaea's capital was Caesarea Maritima. Any records there were likely destroyed in the 69 AD revolt, as they were usually a prime target of rebels - holding taxation, census and debt data. Even if they weren't, governments don't hold administrative records for centuries - they usually destroy or dispose of old records after a few decades (as we still do). This can be seen from Roman administration documents found periodically in Egyptian rubbish tips of the period. I doubt any administration record of Pilate's would have survived to the 300s.
Roman Judaea's capital was Caesarea Maritima. Any records there were likely destroyed in the 69 AD revolt, as they were usually a prime target of rebels - holding taxation, census and debt data. Even if they weren't, governments don't hold administrative records for centuries - they usually destroy or dispose of old records after a few decades (as we still do). This can be seen from Roman administration documents found periodically in Egyptian rubbish tips of the period. I doubt any administration record of Pilate's would have survived to the 300s.
Upvote
0
Quid est Veritas?
In Memoriam to CS Lewis
You should remember we have very few documents from those days. Papyrus doesn't last that long in most cases, and vellum can be erased (and frequently was). Many of our writings are on slim margins: Thucydides is based on 8 copies, Plato's Timaeus on 7, Tacitus on 20, the Iliad and Aeniad in a couple hundred each. Most of these were copies made in the high mediaeval period, but based on the references in other writers and inscriptions, and the similarities between various transcibed copying lineages or translations, probably represent the originals fairly well.
The Bible is different in that we do have copies going back to the 300s (or partially much earlier). The amount is also much more, being a few thousand copies of similar age to our earliest Homer or Virgil, and the textual synchrony much higher than in secular works.
To expect voluminous writings to have survived the cataclysm of the fall of Rome, the endless march of decay of their materials, and the selective copying decisions of mediaeval monks, is a bit far-fetched. A Scriptorium only has so much paper and so much ink, and copying a work is labour intensive: hence most prefered copying Bibles or Church Fathers or more contemporary writings. That we have what we have is remarkable enough, and though Qumran or Egyptian rubbish tips or Mummies sometimes bring ancient scrolls to light, they are the exception to the rule. To survive they needed to be copied, or written on imperishable material (like clay tablets), and for papyrus or parchment using cultures, that necessitates a partial record.
The Bible is different in that we do have copies going back to the 300s (or partially much earlier). The amount is also much more, being a few thousand copies of similar age to our earliest Homer or Virgil, and the textual synchrony much higher than in secular works.
To expect voluminous writings to have survived the cataclysm of the fall of Rome, the endless march of decay of their materials, and the selective copying decisions of mediaeval monks, is a bit far-fetched. A Scriptorium only has so much paper and so much ink, and copying a work is labour intensive: hence most prefered copying Bibles or Church Fathers or more contemporary writings. That we have what we have is remarkable enough, and though Qumran or Egyptian rubbish tips or Mummies sometimes bring ancient scrolls to light, they are the exception to the rule. To survive they needed to be copied, or written on imperishable material (like clay tablets), and for papyrus or parchment using cultures, that necessitates a partial record.
Upvote
0
Quid est Veritas?
In Memoriam to CS Lewis
The Testimonium Flavianum probably represents a real extra-biblical source, though corrupted. As Josephus mentions James, brother of Jesus, it is likely he mentions Jesus too. Early Christians like Origen mention this, without the laudatory style, so a legitimate but more neutral or negative mention is likely.
There is an Arabic translation of Josephus that perhaps preserves the gist of the original reference, and interestingly enough, maintains a claim to Jesus' being said to have been resurrected. Regardless, scholarly consensus agrees there to have been a real non-Christian record of Jesus here - like that of Tacitus, Suetonius, or Pliny the Younger; or less securely, Mara ben Sarapion and Yeshu on the Tree from the Talmud.
Upvote
0
- Mar 11, 2003
- 11,683
- 8,019
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Agreed. When I quoted it, I was in a rush and didn’t review it closely to see which version it was. My mistake. I’ll try to change it sometime soon - I need to find the version translated from the Arabic.
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
footnote question: How long before that did the Scriptures Jesus and the Apostles all knew and read and listened to and preached from 'exist' ?
i.e. TORAH, TANAKH, PROPHETS, and PSALMS
Upvote
0
Quid est Veritas?
In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Well, our oldest complete OT manuscripts in Hebrew are from the 9th-10th centuries AD, so pretty much equivalent (St. Petersburg/Leningrad and Aleppo codeces). Qumran fragments of most OT books and the complete Isaiah push texts back to the 1st century AD. There are small fragments in Egypt pushing some of it back to the 2nd century BC.
The date before that is debatable, depending on peoples' ideas of textual criticism and so forth. Probably complete at least from the time of Ezra, but with significant portions far older. The Peshitta, Septuagint and Samaritan Torah show there were subtle variants though, based on their translations and where they agree with Qumran or the Masoretes or differ. The Masoretes probably only established the formal text from the 3rd century AD, but the differences between versions are mostly inconsequential (except for Samaritan sectarian changes, like worshipping on Gerizim).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
