|
The historicity of Jesus concerns whether Jesus of Nazareth, born c 7–2 BC, existed as a historical figure, whether the episodes portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life. One of the chief problems confronting scholars interested in the historicity of Jesus is that there are no contemporary records of his life or existence. Like many other historic figures of antiquity, all records of his historicity come from one or more generations after his death, the earliest source being that found in the Epistles of Paul dated to CE 59, who reported on his crucifixion. Other sources such as that of Josephus or Tacitus date even later. Historians interested in the historicity of Jesus are confronted by discussing the nature of these historic records and the intention and points of view of their authors〔RJ Miller, (!991), "Historicity of Jesus' Temple Demonstration: A Test Case in Methodology" (Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers. …, 1991)〕〔GR Habermas (1984), "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus" (Thomas Nelson Publishers)〕 Nevertheless there is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.〔〔 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.〔 Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.〔(Davies' article ''Does Jesus Exist?'' at bibleinterp.com )〕 The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts. Historicity, by contrast as a subject of study different from history proper is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and secondly what was the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances〔Hare Rom and Moghadda Fathali "Historicity, Social Psychology and Change" in Rochmore, Tom and Margolis, Tom (2008) "History, Historicity and Science" (Ashgate)〕 Since the 18th century, scholars have attempted to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, developing historical-critical methods for analysing the available texts. The only sources are documentary; in conjunction with Biblical texts such as the Pauline epistles and the synoptic Gospels, three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic. ==Sources== The main accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus are second party narratives written years after his death. The Christian Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity and there also exists many apocryphal text showing a wide variety of Jesus related writings in the first centuries. The authenticity and reliability of these sources have been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.〔 Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. The sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, and are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.〔''The Cambridge Companion to Jesus'' by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 ISBN 0521796784 pp. 121–125〕 There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.〔''Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey'' by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pp. 431–436〕 Jesus is mentioned twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus.〔〔Van Voorst (2000) pp. 39–53〕 Josephus' ''Antiquities of the Jews'', written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.〔''The new complete works of Josephus'' by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN 0-8254-2924-2 pp. 662–663〕〔''Josephus XX'' by Louis H. Feldman 1965, ISBN 0674995023 p. 496〕〔Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' ISBN 0-8028-4368-9. p. 83〕〔Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). ''Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war'' ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6 pp. 284–285〕 There are two references to the name Jesus in Ch 20: "Jesus, son of Damaliel" and "Jesus, son of Damneus". Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his ''Annals'' (written ''ca.'' AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.〔P.E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), ''The Cambridge History of Latin Literature'', p. 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996). ISBN 0-521-21043-7〕 The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe.〔Robert E. Van Voorst, ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'', Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000. p 39- 53〕 The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,〔Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). ''The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition'' Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 p. 127〕 although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.〔〔F.F. Bruce,''Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament'', (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) p. 23〕〔The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900–1950, By Walter P. Weaver, pg 53, pg 57, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=1CZbuFBdAMUC&pg=PA45&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false〕〔Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=jCaopp3R5B0C&pg=PA100&dq=interpolations+in+tacitus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CRf-U9-VGZCe7AbxrIDQCA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=interpolations%20in%20tacitus&f=false〕〔''Jesus'', University Books, New York, 1956, p.13〕 Classical historian Michael Grant wrote that: 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Historicity of Jesus」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|