Archeological Evidence for Jesus

There are many misconceptions about Jesus, his life, mission and status. It is my goal not to contribute to these. Instead, I intend to point out a wealth of facts and evidence that strengthen Jesus, his existence, mission and status. 

The Jesus Gospel was fragmented in many manuscripts and was followed by many from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries AD. This despite the fact that belief in Jesus was banned and forbidden in Jerusalem and Rome until Emperor Constantine and his Milanoedict allowed Christianity in 313 AD. Before that, Christians lived as persecuted and could be executed in the open street if they were caught reciting Jesus, wearing cross symbols or acknowledging Jesus as the son of God.

Emperor Constantine.

The conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great (272–337 AD) to Christianity is a central event in Western history. Christianity went from being a persecuted minority to becoming the dominant religion of the Roman Empire.

However, Constantine's relationship to traditional Roman religion was pragmatic. He allowed the cult of the sun god Sol Invictus to continue and initially tolerated other religions. Despite his strong support for the church, he did not get baptized until his deathbed in 337. This balancing act between the old and the new was probably crucial to his political success.

In the early 4th century AD, the Roman Empire was in deep crisis. The Tetrarchy—a system of four emperors created to stabilize government—had collapsed, and civil war raged between rival claimants to the throne. Into this chaos, Constantine, son of Emperor Constantius Chlorus, rose to power. After his father's death in 306, he was proclaimed emperor of the West by his troops.

In 312, Constantine faced his main rival for power, Maxentius, at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. According to several sources, before the battle, he saw a cross in the sky, accompanied by the words "In this sign you will conquer," or dreamed of an angel who showed him the symbol Chi-Rho—the first letters of the Greek word for Christ. He had the symbol painted on his soldiers' shields and won a decisive victory. Maxentius drowned in the Tiber, and Constantine marched into Rome as ruler of the West.

The following year, 313, Constantine, together with Emperor Licinius, issued the so-called Edict of Milan, which guaranteed religious freedom throughout the empire and ended the systematic persecution of Christians. Although he himself was not yet baptized, he began to actively favor the church: he donated land, provided financial support, and began the construction of churches such as the Lateran Basilica and the first St. Peter's Basilica.

At this time, Christianity was still a minority religion, but it was growing rapidly. Its focus on the salvation of the soul, the value of the individual, and eternal life appealed to many in a society marked by unrest and crisis. Its well-organized congregations contributed to a strong infrastructure, which soon became an important tool for the state as well.

Despite the pacifist origins of Christianity, Constantine chose to link it to his military and political power. By acting as God's chosen emperor—a union of spiritual and temporal authority—he created a new way of ruling.

(((The rapid growth of Christianity was used by Constantine for political and power conservation and expansion, but the question always hangs out in the open. Why convert to Christianity if Jesus was just a fabrication of the Catholic Church ? Why not continue with the multi pagan worship that was the foundation of Rome ? It had served the elite emperors just fine historically.  Constantine may have had no other choise than to adapt to the vast amount of growing Christian belivers among the population. Read the winds, turn the cape to keep the Roman empire floating for a short while further.

One of the greatest arguments from critics of Jesus existence was that his name and persona was a fabrication of the Catholic Church in order to consolidate and revitilize political and ecclesiastical power in a weakened Roman Empire. The Archeological evidence presented below will point to the fact that Jesus was never a fabrication at all - by anyone.)))

In 325, Constantine convened the first ecumenical council at Nicaea, where he himself served as mediator. The purpose was to resolve the Arian controversy—a theological conflict over the nature of Christ. The council resulted in the Nicene Creed, which declared that Christ was "of the same essence as the Father." Although the fighting continued for decades, it marked an important step in the dogmatic development of Christianity—and in the emperor's new role as the church's protector and shaper.

After defeating Licinius in 324, Constantine became sole ruler of the entire empire. He then began building a new capital on the site of the old Byzantium—Constantinople. The new city, strategically located on the Bosphorus, was characterized by Christian buildings and symbolism, and was to become the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire for over a millennium.

(((The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD was not a neutral gathering. It was convened by Emperor Constantine only a year after he became sole emperor of the Roman Empire. The Christianity that emerged from that council was a version compatible with emperial power. Texts that supported a centralized institutional church survived. Texts that suggested that ordinary people could receive devine truth directly without any institutional mediation were markt as problematic. Texts that contained prophecies about corruption arising within the church itself were considered actively dangerous. According to the the conservative Ethiopian Bible tradition and its scholars, that is the cathegory were the book of Enoch, the book of Jubilées, the book of the covenant, the book of didascalia and several other books fell into. Some of those books were before this council meeting considered just as canonic as any other now remaining canonic books accepted in the Catholic and/or protestant Bible. The council of Laodicea 363-364 AD strengthened the separation and by the time of the council of Hippo confirmed the western canon in 393 AD and the council of Carthage ratified it in 397 AD, those texts had been pushed outside. In 2 centuries they had been removed from western christianity almost entirely. By the time of the reformation in the early 1500:s (Martin Luther 95 theses 1517 AD), most european christians did not know they had ever existed. Ethiopia kept them and saved them from the destruction of the Roman Empire.))) 

Christianity quickly adapted to its new role as a favored religion. By the time of Constantine's death in 337, up to half of the empire's population may have been Christian. By the time of Emperor Theodosius I at the end of the century, the figure was probably around 90%. This rapid transformation raises questions about why Christianity was so effective. Despite its pacifist message, it also found acceptance within the army, and among the people, the church organization functioned as an important social and moral force.

The Archeological Evidence.

E1. The James Ossuary.

In the 1st century, specifically between the years 20 AD to 70 AD, Jews living in Jerusalem followed a very specific burial custom. They did not leave bodies buried permanently, taking up space. After roughly one year, once only the bones remained, the family would collect them and place them into a limestone box. This practice existed for only a short window in history and that is precisely what allows for such accurate dating. The James ossuary box belongs to that exact period. What makes this particular box so valuable is not the stone itself, it is what is written on it. On the side is an inscription in Aramaic, the language spoken in Judea at the time. The phrase is as follows. "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." 

At first glance it may seem like nothing more than a list of common names and pure coincidence in relation to the famous family. But there is a detail that changes everything. Archeologists have uncovered thousands of ossuaries. The cultural standard formula was simple - the name of the deceased and the name of the father. Mentioning a brother in an inscription was extremely rare. Statistically that only happened when that brother was an exceptionally important figure. Someone who defined the family`´s identity in the eyes of society. What are the chances that in the first century, there was a man named James with a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus, and that this brother was so well known that he needed to be mentioned on the box. Calculating the probability that this is mere coincidence is statistically minuscule.   

When this discovery became public, the academic world erupted. There was intence scepticism. Was it a forgery ? Was "brother of Jesus" added later just to inflate the value of the artifact ? 

The ossuary underwent one of the most rigorous examinations in the history of archeology. It was even taken to court in Jerusalem. Seven years of analysis followed. Geologists examined the patina, the thin layer of natural aging that forms on stone over centuries. The verdict was technical and decisive, the patina was found inside the carved letters. This meant that the phrase "brother of Jesus" was engraved at the same time as the rest, nearly 2000 years ago. This aligns with historical records. 

Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, recorded that James, the brother of Jesus, was executed in Jerusalem around the year 62 or 63 AD. The dates match, the names match and the social context matches. What we most likely have is the burial of the man who led the church in Jerusalem and grew up in the same household as Christ. This is archeology confirming the biblical record. 

E2. The Catacombs of Rome.

Above ground, in the Colosseum and the Forum Romanum, Romans celebrated their Emperors, marble gods and pagan idols. But below the surface a silent revolution was taking place. The catacombs of Rome in 200 AD was a vast network of hand carved tunnels cut into volcanic rocks stretching for hundreds of miles. It was damp, dark and narrow. Yet between the 2nd and 4th centuries during the worst periods of persecution, this became the refuge of Christian faith. Unlike the Romans who cremated their dead, Christians buried their bodies because they believed in the physical resurrection brought by Jesus. It is on the walls of the catacombs under Rome that we find the evidence. If you illuminate these walls with a torch you do not ses fear of death. You see an explosion of art and hope centered on a single person. 

Archeologists have uncovered thousands of inscriptions. They are simple, often written quickly or by people with little formal education. The message is consistent, "Jesus is the Christ", "Christ is life", "live in God through Christ". The most fascinating is not the words, it is the codes. Because being a Christian was a crime, they developed a secret visual language. You see the drawing of a fish. To a Roman soldier it was just decoration, to a Christian it was a password. In Greek, the word for fish formed the initials of the phrase; "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." You se an anchor, it looks like a sailor´s symbol. But for a Christian the anchor contains a hidden cross. It was a a way to depict the crucifixion without being arrested. You see the image of the good shepherd, a young man carrying a sheep on his shoulders. While Roman art glorified brute strength and war, the art of the catacombs glorified a Jesus who cared, who protected, who descended into darkness to seek the one who was lost.

What does the catacombs of Rome prove ? They prove that Christian identity was already fully formed and unshakable long before the church held any political power. No one descends into darkness sorrounded by corpses to worship a legend or a philosophical metafor. They were there because they believed Jesus was real and that he had conquered the death that sorrounded them. Above ground, Rome tried to erase the name of Jesus. Below ground, his name was the only light that existed.       (5:36)

E3. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840.

This papyrus was literaly found in the ancient trash in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Archeologists began excavating a site called Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. It was the ancient city's garbage dump. For centuries people threw away receipts, documents, personal letters, tax records and old books they no longer wanted. Fortunately, the dry desert climate preserved these documents amid mountains of ancient refuse. Researchers discovered a tiny fragment of papyrus that was given the technical designation oxyrhynchus papyrus 840. The dating of this small piece of paper is remarkable, it was written sometime between 150 to 200 A.D. This document was circulating very shortly after the apostolic era, barely a century after the crucifixion. 

What does it contain ? A recipe, a debt record ? No, it is a dialogue and the central figure of that dialogue is Jesus of Nazareth. The text, which does not appear in the Bible, describes an episode in which Jesus enters the Temple in Jerusalem with his disciples. Inside he is confronted by a Pharisee high priest. This religious leader accuses Jesus of entering a sacret space without performing the proper water purification ritual. Jesus response in the papyrus is sharp and direct. He asks the priest whether he is pure. The priest answeres "Yes", explaining that he had bathed in a specific pool. Jesus then responds saying that such water is merely physical. The same water into which dogs and pigs are thrown, and that true purity is internal spiritual. 

Why is this ancient scrap of text a historical treasure ? Because it carries the same, style, voice and authority that we see Jesus using in the four Gospels of the New Testament. If you were to read this text without knowing its origin, you would swear it came stright from the Gospel of Matthew or Luke. This proves that the stories of Jesus teachings, his confrontations with religious authorities and his commanding personality were not inventions that appeared centuries later. This papyrus shows that accounts of what Jesus sais and how he acted were already circulating widely and early. It is an independent witness that the portrait of Jesus that we have today is the same portrait people held shortly after he walked the earth.    (8:00)

E4. The Megiddo Mosaic.

In 2005, inmates at Megiddo prison in Israel were assisting with an expansion project when their tools struck something hard and colorful. They had uncovered the floor of the oldest Christian church ever discovered. The Megiddo mosaic dates to around 230 AD. To understand it´s significance we must consider the context. The Roman Empire was still persecuting Christians. Christianity was illegal. It would be nearly another hundred years before Emperor Constantine legalized the faith and convened the Council of Nicaea. This is where the discovery shatters one of the most popular modern theories. The idea that early Christians saw Jesus as merely a human prophet and that he was only declared divine by political decree. 

Centuries later, the floor at Megiddo proves that claim false. At the center of the mosaic is a perfectly preserved Greek inscription. It states that a woman named Akeptous donated a communion table in memory of God Jesus Christ. That statement is carved in stone a full century before the man made institutional church held political power. These early Christians, meeting in secret under threat of death, were already worshiping Jesus as God himself. This was not a late invention, it was the essence of the faith from the beginning. But the mosaic tells us even more. It shows us who these believers were in addition to a kept house, a female benefactor which was in itself revolutionary for the time. Another name appears - Gaius Gallus - the inscription identifies him as a Roman centurion, an officer in the imperial army. We have an officer of the Rome, the very Empire executing Christians, using his own money to help finance a banned church. It shows how the message of Jesus was penetrating every level of society, even inside the military charged with suppressing it.

There is one final visual detail to notice. There are no crosses or crucifixes in the mosaic. At that time the cross was still a recent and deeply traumatic instrument of execution. Instead the symbol used is two fish. In the center of the room was not a raised altar for sacrifices as in more common pagan temples, but an open space for a table. Their worship was a meal. It was communion. The Megiddo stone church is a time capsule, a snapshot of Christianity before palaces, cathedrals and man made organized political religion. These early origins represents in many aspects a contradiction to what came later, women leading, soldiers converting and Jesus being worshiped as God.    (10:43) 

E5. The Alexamenos Graffito in Rome. 

This piece of evidence was found on the Palatine hill in Rome in a building that likely served as a school for imperial servants or possibly as military barracks. Centuries ago someone took a sharp object and scratched an image into a stone wall as a cruel joke aimed at a colleague. The drawing is crude, almost childish. It depicts a man being crucified but with a grotesque detail. The man on the cross has the head of a donkey. Beside the cross there is a young man with his hand raised, an ancient gesture of worship. Below the image is a poorly written Greek instruction "Alexamenos worships his God." This is known as the Alexamenos graffito. Many historians consider it the earliest surviving visual representation of Jesus on the cross and it is a mockery. Why is this a powerful historical evidence ? First: It shows us how the Roman world viewed Christianity in it´s earliest days. To Romans, the idea of worshiping a man who had ben executed as a criminal was absurd. The cross was a symbol of shame and defeat reserved for slaves and bandits. 

To claim that the savior of the world died nailed to a cross sounded like foolishness. That is likely why the donkeys head appears. It was a Roman way of calling Christians stupid. The person who carved the image intended to humiliate a young man, but without realizing it, he left behind one of the major pieces of evidence in all of history.

The Graffito confirms 3 critical facts that sceptics tried to deny for years. It confirms that real Christians were living in Rome in the 2nd century. It confirms that the center of their faith was the crucifixion of Jesus. It confirms that Jesus was worshiped as God.

In addition to this archeologists found other inscriptions in a nearby room, most likely written by the very young man who had been the target of the mockery. His respons was short, restrained and dignified, "Alexamenos is faithful." A young man standing alone surrounded by the ridicule of the greatest power on earth, preserving his faith by carving it into a wall.  (12:53)

E6. Christian Tombs in Syria.

On the frontiers of the Roman Empire, to Syria near the Euphrates river. Ancient cities, Daraa, Dura Europos, and Palmyra. Centers of trade and cultural exchange, but also places where life was harsh and death was close. It was in the cemeteries of these cities dating to the 3rd century, that archeology uncovered some of the most human evidence for both the existence and the divinity of Jesus. Walking through these ancient graves you do not find grand monuments of polished marble. You find simple stones marking where parents buried children, where husbands buried wives. What is written on these stones are not long speeches. They are cries of hope. Inscriptions read things like - "Victory in Jesus Christ." - "He who rested in Christ." - "Jesus have mercy.". 

Why are these epitaphs, these grave inscriptions, such valuable historical evidence ? People do not lie on the tombstones of someone they love. When you bury someone dear to you, you write your deepest truth. What gives you hope that you will se that person again ? These inscriptions also reveal a quiet courage. The Roman Empire demanded absolute loyalty to their pagan gods and to the Emperor. By carving Jesus Christ into stone these families were declaring that our eternal destiny does not belong to Rome, it belongs to Jesus. 

They defined their dead, not by profession or city, but by being in Christ.       (13:04)

E7. The Jewish Talmud.

Up to this point we have looked at stones, bones and walls - Archeology. Now we turn to other historical investigations. When opening the books of those who historically had the strongest motive to erase the memory of Jesus. The Jewish Talmud. The Talmud is a vast collection of rabbinic writings compiled between the 3rd and 5th centuries AD. It contains Jewish laws, traditions, religious debates and Jewish exceptionalism.  

The authors of these texts were not admirers of Christianity. On the contrary, they saw the Christian movement as a dangerous heresy leading Israel astray. Ancient rabbis could have chosen the easiest path. They could have claimed Jesus never existed. They could have said he was a myth, a legend invented by delusional fishermen. That would have crushed Christianity at its root. But they did not do that, they could not, because the existence of Jesus was far to public and widespread to be denied. Instead the Talmud mentions Yesu - Jesus multiple times and what it says is fascinating. 

First: It confirms his death. A famous passage in Sanhedrin 43A states that Yesu was executed on the eve of Passover. That aligns perfect with the gospel chronology. 

Second: And more striking, it attempts to explain why Jesus attracted so many followers. The text claims, he was condemned because he practiced sorcery and led Israel astray. We can note the weight of that statement. The Bible says that Jesus performed miracles by the power of God. The Talmud states that Jesus performed sorcery. Notice what his enemies do not say They do not say that he pretended to work miracles. They do not deny the supernatural. They admit that unexplained events were happening around him. For historians this is crucial. It means that even those who oppose Jesus were forced to admit that he worked wonders, and that he was executed exactly as the Bible describes.   (16:17)  

E8. The Greek Magical Papyri.

These are a collection of texts with detailed instructions for rituals, spells, mystical cures and spirit invocations. These documents were written between the 1st and 4th centuries AD. They were used by pagan magicians, people who believed in many gods and idols with no connection to Christianity. In the middle of spells to cast out demons and heal diseases, among invocations to Egyptian and Greek gods , a name appears that should not be there, the name Jesus. 

The texts use the name of Jesus as a word of power. One formula says "I adjure you by the God of the hebrews Jesus. Why is this such powerful historical evidence ? The mindset of an ancient magician. He was not interested in theology, salvation, or loving his neighbor. He was practical, he wanted results. If he needed to expel an evil spirit, he used the names that were known to work. The fact that pagan magicians use the name of Jesus proves that even outside the church, even among enemies of the faith or people completely detached  from it, the reputation of Jesus as someone with authority over the spiritual world was undeniable. They recognized the power without following the person. This confirms a story found in the Bible in the book of Acts 19, which describes Jewish exorcists attempting to cast out demons using the name of Jesus, saying; "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out."

Archeology found that exact behavior written on papyrus. These documents prove that the name of Jesus did not remain confined to a small group of believers in Galilee. It spread culturally to the point that it was even borrowed by pagan ritual practices. They did not believe in him as the messiah, but they knew his name carried a lot of weight.   

E9. Lucian of Samosata.

Lucian of Samosata was not a religious leader, He was not a violent persecutor. He was an intellectual, a critic. Picture him as a sharp tongued comedian or a cynical social commentator of antiquity. Lucian lived in the 2nd century and made his living writing satire texts designed to mock society, beliefs and cultural habits. In one of his works he dicided to ridicule Christians. He viewed them as naive, poor fools who believed they would live forever and who shared everything they owned. 

But in the process of mocking them, Lucian had to explain to his readers who the central figure was behind all this madness, and that is where he gives us the evidence. Lucian states firmly that Christians worshiped a man who was crucified in Palestine. He says that this man introduced a new cult into the world and was executed for it. 

Lucian had no reason to invent this. He had no respect for Jesus. He calls Jesus a crucified sophist, a term implying a deceiver or smooth talker. But it is noted what he does not  do. He never questions whether Jesus existed. For a well informed Roman intellectual of the second century, the existence and execution of Jesus were public facts as real as the existence of the Emperor. Lucian unintentionally confirms the historical foundation of Christianity and Jesus. Jesus was a real physical person and this confirmation comes from the mouth of someone who openly mocked the faith.

There are often loud claims that Jesus was copied from ancient myths or invented by the Catholic Church centuries later. But archeology and history does not allow that conclusion. The stones cry out the opposite. There is evidence that Jesus family existed. There is visual evidence that long before any council or Emperor accepted Christianity, ordinary people, soldiers, slaves and women were already worshiping Jesus as God and were willing to die for it. There is no lack in the historical evidence. We may doubt the miracles if we choose, we may debate theology, but history has left its marks. 

The truth about Jesus does not depend on faith alone, it is engraved in the reality of our world.  

- Following Christ, E1-E9, (2026) -

E10. Contemporary ancient hostile testimonies of Jesus.

There are abundant written historical documents and books that have not only been excavated archaeologically, but also preserved that depict multiple and varied ancient contemporary testimonies of hostile and opportunistic perceptions of Jesus. These antagonists also confirm Jesus as a person and even in part his character at the historical time frame of Jesus' life. None of these many antagonistic and secular sources had any intention of preserving records of Jesus in their history, but this is precisely what they have done by their serial references to him in their writings. Some of these examples can be listed below;

https://youtu.be/y_TaTABJSpg?si=mCJ9OPu-MMEdexdY

Phlegon.

Phlegon of Tralles (Ancient Greek: Φλέγων ὁ Τραλλιανός, romanized: Phlégōn ho Trallianós) was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD.

Works

His chief work was the Olympiads, an historical compendium in sixteen books, from the 1st down to the 229th Olympiad (776 BC to AD 137), of which several chapters are preserved in Eusebius' Chronicle, Photius, and George Syncellus.[citation needed]

Two short works by him are extant. On Marvels consists of "anecdotes culled from sources as diverse as the Greek poet Hesiod and the Roman natural historian Pliny the Elder. Each... recounts a fantastical or paranormal event."[1] On Long-Lived Persons[2] contains a list of Italians who had passed the age of 100, taken from the censuses of the Roman Empire.

Other works ascribed to Phlegon in the Suda are a description of Sicily, a work on the Roman festivals in three books, and a topography of Rome:

"Phlegon of Tralles, freedman of Augustus Caesar, but some say of Hadrian: historian. He wrote Olympiads in 16 books. Up to the 229th Olympiad they contain what was done everywhere. And these in 8 books: Description of Sicily; On long-lived and marvelous persons, On the feasts of the Romans 3 books, On the places in Rome and by what names they are called, Epitome of Olympic victors in 2 books, and other things."Of this Phlegon, as Philostorgius says, to relate fully in detail what befell with the Jews, while Phlegon and Dio mentioned [these events] briefly and made them an appendix to their own narrative. Since this man does not exhibit at all prudently those who would lead to piety and other virtues, as those others do not either. Josephus, on the contrary, is like one who fears and takes care not to offend the [sc.pagan] Greeks."[clarification needed][citation needed]

Reference to Jesus

Origen of Alexandria (182-254 AD), in Against Celsus (Book II, Chap. XIV), wrote that Phlegon, in his Chronicles, mentions Jesus: "Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions." He referred to a description by Phlegon of an eclipse accompanied by earthquakes during the reign of Tiberius: that there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun" and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i. e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea."[3]

Julius Africanus writes "Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth..."[4]

Eusebius, in book 2 of Chronicle (Chronicon, quoted by Jerome), refers to Phlegon's 13th book for confirmation of an eclipse and earthquakes in Bythinia and Nicaea.[5]

"In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was a great eclipse of the Sun, greater than had ever been known before, for at the sixth hour the day was changed into night, and the stars were seen in the heavens. An earthquake occurred in Bythinia and overthrew a great part of the city of Nicæa."[6]

References

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Phlegon". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 21 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 447.

1. Emma Southon: "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". History Today, June 2018, p. 15.
2. Phlegon (1877). "περί Μακρόβιων". In Otto Keller (ed.). Rerum naturalium scriptores graeci minores. p. 85.
3. Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and Arthur Cleveland Coxe (1896). The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume IV, "Contra Celsum", Book II, chapter 14,33,59 p. 441.
4. Africanus, Julius. "Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus".
5. Jerome, Jerome (2005). "Jerome, Chronicle". tertullian.org.
6. "Jerome, Chronicle (2005) pp.188-332".

Mara Bar - Serapion.

Mara bar Serapion (Classical Syriac: ܡܪܐ ܒܪ ܣܪܦܝܘܢ), or "Mara son of Serapion", was a Syriac Stoic philosopher in the Roman province of Syria. He is only known from a letter he wrote in Aramaic to his son, who was named Serapion,[1][2] in which he refers to the execution of "the wise king of the Jews", a phrase some scholars interpret as an early non-Christian reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

The letter indicates that Mara's homeland was Samosata, i.e. modern-day Samsat, Turkey (on the west bank of the Euphrates), but his captivity appears to have been in Seleucia, in modern-day Iraq (on the west bank of the Tigris River).[3]

Mara's captivity took place after the AD 72 annexation of Samosata by the Romans, but before the third century.[4] Most scholars date it to shortly after AD 73 during the first century.[5]

The letter to his son

See also: Mara bar Serapion on Jesus

Mara's letter to his son begins with: "Mara, son of Serapion, to Serapion, my son: peace." The letter was composed sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century.[5] There were three cases when captives were taken from Samosata, in 72 AD by the Romans, in 161/162 by Parthians and in 256 by Sasanians and various scholars have presented arguments for each date.[3] Robert Van Voorst (who himself thinks the letter was composed in the second century) states that most scholars date the letter to shortly after AD 73 during the first century.[5]

The letter is preserved in a 6th- or 7th-century manuscript (BL Add. 14658) held by the British Library.[1] Nineteenth-century records state that the manuscript containing this text was one of several manuscripts obtained by Henry Tattam from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt and acquired by the Library in 1843.[6]

Mara's religion

A number of scholars such as Sebastian Brock,[7] Fergus Millar,[8] Ute Possekel,[2] and Craig A. Evans, among others, state that Mara was a pagan.[9] Gerd Theissen states that Mara's reference to "our gods" indicates that he was neither a Jew nor a Christian, the letter stating:[10][11]

Thou hast heard, moreover, concerning our companions, that, when they were leaving Samosata, they were distressed about it, and, as if complaining of the time in which their lot was cast, said thus: "We are now far removed from our home, and we cannot return again to our city, or behold our people, or offer to our gods the greeting of praise."

Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough state that Mara was unlikely to have been a Christian.[12] Robert E. Van Voorst notes that the phrase "our gods" appears only once in a quotation of Mara's fellow captives, leaving open the possibility that Mara himself may have been a monotheist.[5] Van Voorst adds two factors that indicate Mara was not a Christian, the first being his failure to mention the terms Jesus or Christ.[5] The second factor (also supported by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans) is that Mara's statement that Jesus lives on based on the wisdom of his teachings, in contrast to the Christian concept that Jesus continues to live through his resurrection, indicates that he was not a Christian.[5][13]

Chilton and Evans also state that Mara's use of the term "wise king" to refer to Jesus, rather than a religious designation, indicates that his understanding of the events was formed through non-Christian sources.[13] They state that the term "king of the Jews" has never been seen in the Christian literature of antiquity as a title for Jesus.[13]

Mara's philosophical stance

The letter draws on Greek learning.[14]

The last paragraph of Mara's letter states:

One of his friends asked Mara, son of Serapion, when in bonds at his side: "Nay, by thy life, Mara, tell me what cause of laughter thou hast seen, that thou laughest." "I am laughing," said Mara, "at Time: inasmuch as, although he has not borrowed any evil from me, he is paying me back."

Ilaria Ramelli, who holds that Mara lived towards the end of the first century, states that his letter has strong stoic elements.[15]

See also

• Stoicism

References

1. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0805443653 p. 110
2. Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian by Ute Possekel 1999 ISBN 9042907592 pp. 29–30
3. The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, Andrew Louth ISBN 0521460832 p. 168
4. The Middle East under Rome by Maurice Sartre, Catherine Porter and Elizabeth Rawlings (2005) ISBN 0674016831 p. 293
5. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0802843689 pp. 53–56
6. Wright, W. (1872). Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838, Volume III. Longmans & Company (printed by order of the Trustees of the British Museum). pp. xiii, 1159. "The manuscripts arrived at the British Museum on the first of March 1843, and this portion of the collection is now numbered Add. 14,425–14,739." BL Add. 14,658 is included among these manuscripts.
7. Sebastian Brock in The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 13 edited by Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (1998) ISBN 0521302005 p. 709
8. The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337 by Fergus Millar ISBN 0674778863 p. 507
9. Craig A. Evans "Pagan sources" in Jesus and Philosophy: New Essays edited by Paul K. Moser (2008) ISBN 0521873363 Cambridge Univ Press pp. 51–52
10. Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz (1998) ISBN 0800631226 p. 78
11. Christianity and the Roman Empire: background texts by Ralph Martin Novak 2001 ISBN 1563383470 p. 38
12. Readings from the First-Century World by Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough (1998) ISBN 080102157X
13. Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research edited by Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans 1998 ISBN 9004111425 pp. 455–457
14. Roman Syria and the Near East by Kevin Butcher (2004) ISBN 0892367156 p. 286
15. Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Excerpts by Ilaria Ramelli (2009) ISBN 1589834186 pp. xx–xxii

Tacitus.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus,[note 1] known simply as Tacitus (/ˈtæsɪtəs/ TAS-it-əs,[2][3] Latin: [ˈtakɪtʊs]; c. AD 56 – c. 120), was a Roman historian and politician. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.[4][5]

His two major historical works, Annals (Latin: Annales) and the Histories (Latin: Historiae), originally formed a continuous narrative of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus (14 AD) to the end of Domitian's reign (96 AD). The surviving portions of the Annals focus on the reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, and those who reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors (69 AD).[6]

His other writings discuss oratory (in dialogue format, see Dialogus de oratoribus), Germania (in De origine et situ Germanorum), and the life of his father-in-law, Agricola (the general responsible for much of the Roman conquest of Britain), mainly focusing on his campaign in Britannia (De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae).

Life

Details about the personal life of Tacitus are scarce. What little is known comes from scattered hints throughout his work, the letters of his friend and admirer Pliny the Younger,[7] and an inscription found at Mylasa in Caria in what is now Turkey.[8]

He was born in 56 or 57 to an equestrian family.[9] The place and date of his birth, as well as his praenomen (first name) are not known. In the letters of Sidonius Apollinaris his name is Gaius, but in the major surviving manuscript of his work his name is given as Publius.[10] One scholar's suggestion of the name Sextus has been largely rejected.[11]

Family and early life

Most of the older aristocratic families failed to survive the proscriptions which took place at the end of the Republic, and Tacitus makes it clear that he owed his rank to the Flavian emperors (Hist. 1.1). The claim that he was descended from a freedman is derived from a speech in his writings which asserts that many senators and knights were descended from freedmen (Ann. 13.27), but this is generally disputed.[12]

In his article on Tacitus in Pauly-Wissowa, I. Borzsak conjectured that the historian was related to Thrasea Paetus and the Etruscan family of the Caecinii, about whom he spoke very highly. Furthermore, some later Caecinii bore the cognomen Tacitus, which also could indicate some sort of relationship. It has been suggested that the historian's mother was a daughter of Aulus Caecina Paetus, suffect consul of 37, and sister of Arria, wife of Thrasea.[13][14]

His father may have been the Cornelius Tacitus who served as procurator of Belgica and Germania; Pliny the Elder mentions that Cornelius had a son who aged rapidly (NH 7.76), which implies an early death. There is no mention of Tacitus's suffering from such a condition, but it is possible that this refers to a brother—if Cornelius was indeed his father.[15]

The friendship between the younger Pliny and Tacitus leads some scholars to conclude that they were both the offspring of wealthy provincial families.[16]

The province of his birth remains unknown, though various conjectures suggest Gallia Belgica, Gallia Narbonensis, or Northern Italy.[17] His marriage to the daughter of the Narbonensian senator Gnaeus Julius Agricola implies that he came from Gallia Narbonensis. Tacitus's dedication to Lucius Fabius Justus in the Dialogus may indicate a connection with Spain, and his friendship with Pliny suggests origins in northern Italy.[18]

No evidence exists, however, that Pliny's friends from northern Italy knew Tacitus, nor do Pliny's letters hint that the two men had a common background.[19] Pliny Book 9, Letter 23, reports that when asked whether he was Italian or provincial, he gave an unclear answer and so was asked whether he was Tacitus or Pliny. Since Pliny was from Italy, some infer that Tacitus was from the provinces, probably Gallia Narbonensis.[20]

His ancestry, his skill in oratory, and his sympathetic depiction of barbarians who resisted Roman rule (e.g., Ann. 2.9) have led some to suggest that he was a Celt. This belief stems from the fact that the Celts who had occupied Gaul prior to the Roman invasion were famous for their skill in oratory and had been subjugated by Rome.[21]

Public life, marriage, and literary career

As a young man, Tacitus studied rhetoric in Rome to prepare for a career in law and politics; like Pliny, he may have studied under Quintilian[22] (c. 35 AD – c. 100). In 77 or 78, he married Julia Agricola, daughter of the famous general Agricola.[23]

Little is known of their domestic life, save that Tacitus loved hunting and the outdoors.[24] He started his career (probably the latus clavus, mark of the senator)[25] under Vespasian[26] (r. 69–79), but entered political life as a quaestor in 81 or 82 under Titus.[27]

He advanced steadily through the cursus honorum, becoming praetor in 88 and a quindecimvir, a member of the priestly college in charge of the Sibylline Books and the Secular Games.[28] He gained acclaim as a lawyer and as an orator; his skill in public speaking ironically counterpoints his cognomen, Tacitus ("silent").[citation needed]

He served in the provinces from c. 89 to c. 93, either in command of a legion or in a civilian post.[29] He and his property survived Domitian's reign of terror (81–96), but the experience left him jaded and perhaps ashamed at his own complicity, instilling in him the hatred of tyranny evident in his works.[30] The Agricola, chs. 44–45, is illustrative:

Agricola was spared those later years during which Domitian, leaving now no interval or breathing space of time, but, as it were, with one continuous blow, drained the life-blood of the Commonwealth... It was not long before our hands dragged Helvidius to prison, before we gazed on the dying looks of Mauricus and Rusticus, before we were steeped in Senecio's innocent blood. Even Nero turned his eyes away, and did not gaze upon the atrocities which he ordered; with Domitian it was the chief part of our miseries to see and to be seen, to know that our sighs were being recorded...

From his seat in the Senate, he became suffect consul in 97 during the reign of Nerva, being the first of his family to do so. During his tenure, he reached the height of his fame as an orator when he delivered the funeral oration for the famous veteran soldier Lucius Verginius Rufus.[31]

In the following year, he wrote and published the Agricola and Germania, foreshadowing the literary endeavors that would occupy him until his death.[32]

Afterward, he absented himself from public life, but returned during Trajan's reign (98–117). In 100, he and his friend Pliny the Younger prosecuted Marius Priscus [la] (proconsul of Africa) for corruption. Priscus was found guilty and sent into exile; Pliny wrote a few days later that Tacitus had spoken "with all the majesty which characterizes his usual style of oratory".[33]

A lengthy absence from politics and law followed while he wrote the Histories and the Annals. In 112 to 113, he held the highest civilian governorship, that of the Roman province of Asia in western Anatolia,[34] recorded in the inscription found at Mylasa mentioned above. A passage in the Annals fixes 116 as the terminus post quem of his death, which may have been as late as 125 or even 130. It seems that he survived both Pliny (died c. 113) and Trajan (died 117).[35]

It remains unknown whether Tacitus had any children. The Augustan History reports that Emperor Marcus Claudius Tacitus (r. 275–276) claimed him for an ancestor and provided for the preservation of his works, but this story may be fraudulent, like much of the Augustan History.[36]

Works

See also: List of people mentioned in the works of TacitusThe title page of Justus Lipsius's 1598 edition of the complete works of Tacitus, bearing the stamps of the Bibliotheca Comunale in Empoli, Italy

Five works ascribed to Tacitus have survived (albeit with gaps), the most substantial of which are the Annals and the Histories. This canon (with approximate dates) consists of:

• (98) De vita Iulii Agricolae (The Life of Agricola)
• (98) De origine et situ Germanorum (Germania)
• (102) Dialogus de oratoribus (Dialogue on Oratory)
• (105) Historiae (Histories)
• (117) Ab excessu divi Augusti (Annals)

History of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus

The Annals and the Histories, published separately, were meant to form a single edition of thirty books.[37] Although Tacitus wrote the Histories before the Annals, the events in the Annals precede the Histories; together they form a continuous narrative from the death of Augustus (14) to the death of Domitian (96). Though most has been lost, what remains is an invaluable record of the era. The first half of the Annals survived in a single manuscript from Corvey Abbey in Germany, and the second half in a single manuscript from Monte Cassino in Italy; it is remarkable that they survived at all.

The Histories

In an early chapter of the Agricola, Tacitus asserts that he wishes to speak about the years of Domitian, Nerva and Trajan. In the Histories the scope has changed; Tacitus says that he will deal with the age of Nerva and Trajan at a later time. Instead, he will cover the period from the civil wars of the Year of the Four Emperors and end with the despotism of the Flavians. Only the first four books and twenty-six chapters of the fifth book survive, covering the year 69 and the first part of 70. The work is believed to have continued up to the death of Domitian on September 18, 96. The fifth book contains—as a prelude to the account of Titus's suppression of the First Jewish–Roman War—a short ethnographic survey of the ancient Jews, and it is an invaluable record of Roman attitudes towards them.

The Annals

The Annals, Tacitus's final work, covers the period from the death of Augustus in AD 14. He wrote at least sixteen books, but books 7–10 and parts of books 5, 6, 11, and 16 are missing. Book 6 ends with the death of Tiberius, and books 7–12 presumably covered the reigns of Caligula and Claudius. The remaining books cover the reign of Nero, perhaps until his death in June 68 or until the end of that year to connect with the Histories. The second half of book 16 is missing, ending with the events of 66. It is not known whether Tacitus completed the work; he died before he could complete his planned histories of Nerva and Trajan, and no record survives of the work on Augustus and the beginnings of the Roman Empire, with which he had planned to finish his work. The Annals is one of the earliest secular historical writings to mention Jesus of Nazareth, which Tacitus does in connection with Nero's persecution of the Christians.

Monographs

Tacitus wrote three works with a more limited scope: Agricola, a biography of his father-in-law, Gnaeus Julius Agricola; the Germania, a monograph on the lands and tribes of barbarian Germania; and the Dialogus, a dialogue on the art of rhetoric.

The Germania (Latin title: De Origine et situ Germanorum) is an ethnographic work on the Germanic tribes outside the Roman Empire. The Germania fits within a classical ethnographic tradition which includes authors such as Herodotus and Julius Caesar. The book begins (chapters 1–27) with a description of the lands, laws, and customs of the various tribes. Later chapters focus on descriptions of particular tribes, beginning with those who lived closest to the Roman empire, and ending with a description of those who lived on the shores of the Baltic Sea, such as the Fenni.[38] Tacitus had written a similar, albeit shorter, piece in his Agricola (chapters 10–13).

The Agricola (written c. 98) recounts the life of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, an eminent Roman general and Tacitus's father-in-law; it also covers, briefly, the geography and ethnography of ancient Britain. As in the Germania, Tacitus favorably contrasts the liberty of the native Britons with the tyranny and corruption of the Empire; the book also contains eloquent polemics against the greed of Rome, one of which, that Tacitus claims is from a speech by Calgacus, ends by asserting, Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. ("To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."—Oxford Revised Translation).

There is uncertainty about when Tacitus wrote Dialogus de oratoribus. Many characteristics set it apart from the other works of Tacitus, so that its authenticity has at various times been questioned. It is likely to be early work, indebted to the author's rhetorical training, since its style imitates that of the foremost Roman orator Cicero. It lacks (for example) the incongruities that are typical of his mature historical works. The Dialogus is dedicated to Fabius Iustus, a consul in 102 AD.

Literary style

Tacitus's writings are known for their dense prose that seldom glosses the facts, in contrast to the style of some of his contemporaries, such as Plutarch. When he writes about a near defeat of the Roman army in Annals I,63, he does so with brevity of description rather than embellishment.

In most of his writings, he keeps to a chronological narrative order, only seldom outlining the bigger picture, leaving the readers to construct that picture for themselves. Nonetheless, where he does use broad strokes, for example, in the opening paragraphs of the Annals, he uses a few condensed phrases which take the reader to the heart of the story.

Approach to history

Tacitus's historical style owes some debt to Sallust. His historiography offers penetrating—often pessimistic—insights into the psychology of power politics, blending straightforward descriptions of events, moral lessons, and tightly focused dramatic accounts. Tacitus's own declaration regarding his approach to history (Annals I,1) is well known:

inde consilium mihi ... tradere ... sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo.

my purpose is ... to relate ... without either anger or zeal, motives from which I am far removed.

There has been much scholarly discussion about Tacitus's "neutrality". Throughout his writing, he is preoccupied with the balance of power between the Senate and the emperors, and the increasing corruption of the governing classes of Rome as they adjusted to the ever-growing wealth and power of the empire. In Tacitus's view, senators squandered their cultural inheritance—that of free speech—to placate their (rarely benign) emperor.

Tacitus noted the increasing dependence of the emperor on the goodwill of his armies. The Julio-Claudians eventually gave way to generals, who followed Julius Caesar (and Sulla and Pompey) in recognizing that military might could secure them the political power in Rome. (Hist. 1.4)

Welcome as the death of Nero had been in the first burst of joy, yet it had not only roused various emotions in Rome, among the Senators, the people, or the soldiery of the capital, it had also excited all the legions and their generals; for now had been divulged that secret of the empire, that emperors could be made elsewhere than at Rome.

Tacitus's political career was largely lived out under the emperor Domitian. His experience of the tyranny, corruption, and decadence of that era (81–96) may explain the bitterness and irony of his political analysis. He draws our attention to the dangers of power without accountability, love of power untempered by principle, and the apathy and corruption engendered by the concentration of wealth generated through trade and conquest by the empire.

Nonetheless, the image he builds of Tiberius throughout the first six books of the Annals is neither exclusively bleak nor approving: most scholars view the image of Tiberius as predominantly positive in the first books, and predominantly negative after the intrigues of Sejanus. The entrance of Tiberius in the first chapters of the first book is dominated by the hypocrisy of the new emperor and his courtiers. In the later books, some respect is evident for the cleverness of the old emperor in securing his position.

In general, Tacitus does not fear to praise and to criticize the same person, often noting what he takes to be their more admirable and less admirable properties. One of Tacitus's hallmarks is refraining from conclusively taking sides for or against persons he describes, which has led some to interpret his works as both supporting and rejecting the imperial system (see Tacitean studies, Black vs. Red Tacitists).

Prose

His Latin style is highly praised.[39] His style, although it has a grandeur and eloquence (thanks to Tacitus's education in rhetoric), is extremely concise, even epigrammatic—the sentences are rarely flowing or beautiful, but their point is always clear. The style has been both derided as "harsh, unpleasant, and thorny" and praised as "grave, concise, and pithily eloquent".

A passage of Annals 1.1, where Tacitus laments the state of the historiography regarding the last four emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, illustrates his style: "The histories of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred",[40] or in a word-for-word translation:

Latin Translation

Tiberiī Gāīque et Claudiī ac Nerōnis rēs
flōrentibus ipsīs—ob metum—falsae,
postquam occiderant—recentibus ōdiīs—compositae
sunt.

Tiberius's, Gaius's and Claudius's as well as Nero's acts
while flourishing themselves—out of fear—counterfeited,
after they came to fall—resulting from new-found hate—related
are.

Interpunction and line breaks added for clarity.

Compared to the Ciceronian period, where sentences were usually the length of a paragraph and artfully constructed with nested pairs of carefully matched sonorous phrases, this is short and to the point. But it is also very individual. Note the three different ways of saying and in the first line (-que, et, ac), and especially the matched second and third lines. They are parallel in sense but not in sound; the pairs of words ending "-entibus … -is" are crossed over in a way that deliberately breaks the Ciceronian conventions—which one would, however, need to be acquainted with to see the novelty of Tacitus's style. Some readers, then and now, find this teasing of their expectations merely irritating. Others find the deliberate discord, playing against the evident parallelism of the two lines, stimulating and intriguing.[41]

His historical works focus on the motives of the characters, often with penetrating insight—though it is questionable how much of his insight is correct, and how much is convincing only because of his rhetorical skill.[42] He is at his best when exposing hypocrisy and dissimulation; for example, he follows a narrative recounting Tiberius's refusal of the title pater patriae by recalling the institution of a law forbidding any "treasonous" speech or writings—and the frivolous prosecutions which resulted (Annals, 1.72). Elsewhere (Annals 4.64–66) he compares Tiberius's public distribution of fire relief to his failure to stop the perversions and abuses of justice which he had begun. Although this kind of insight has earned him praise, he has also been criticized for ignoring the larger context.

Tacitus owes most, both in language and in method, to Sallust, and Ammianus Marcellinus is the later historian whose work most closely approaches him in style.

Sources

Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the Acta Senatus (the minutes of the sessions of the Senate) and the Acta Diurna (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as those of Tiberius and Claudius.

Tacitus cites some of his sources directly, among them Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder, who had written Bella Germaniae and a historical work which was the continuation of that of Aufidius Bassus. Tacitus also uses collections of letters (epistolarium). He also took information from exitus illustrium virorum. These were a collection of books by those who were antithetical to the emperors. They tell of sacrifices by martyrs to freedom, especially the men who committed suicide. While he places no value on the Stoic theory of suicide and views suicides as ostentatious and politically useless, Tacitus often gives prominence to speeches made by those about to commit suicide, for example Cremutius Cordus' speech in Ann. IV, 34–35.

Influence

Tacitus's Histories offers insights into Roman attitudes towards Jews, descriptions of Jewish customs, and context for the First Jewish–Roman War. His Annals are of interest for providing an early account of the persecution of Christians and one of the earliest extra-Biblical references to the crucifixion of Jesus.[43]

Edward Gibbon considered Tacitus the very model of the philosophic historian.[44]

Editions

Teubner

In 1934–36 a Teubner edition of complete works by Tacitus (P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt) edited by Erich Koestermann [de] was published. Koestermann prepared then a second edition published in 1960–70. It is now outdated. A completely new Teubner edition (with the same title) was published in 1978–83. The most part of it (Annals, Histories and Dialogue) was edited by Heinz Heubner [de], with Germania edited by Alf Önnerfors [de] and Agricola by Josef Delz [de]. Yet another Teubner edition was prepared by István Borzsák and Kenneth Wellesley in 1986–92: Borzsák edited books I–VI of the Annals, and Wellesley books XI–XVI and the Histories. This edition remains unfinished, as the last volume containing the three minor opuscles was never issued.

Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries

• Goodyear, F. R. D. (1972) The Annals of Tacitus, Books 1–6. Vol. I: Annals I.1—54. Cambridge University Press.
• Goodyear, F. R. D. (1981) The Annals of Tacitus, Books 1–6. Vol. II: Annals I.55—81 and Annals II. Cambridge University Press.
• Woodman, A. J. and Martin, Ronald H. (2004) The Annals of Tacitus, Book 3. Cambridge University Press.
• Woodman, A. J. (2018) The Annals of Tacitus, Book 4. Cambridge University Press.
• Woodman, A. J. (2016) The Annals of Tacitus, Books 5–6. Cambridge University Press.
• Malloch, S. J. V. (2013) The Annals of Tacitus, Book 11. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries. Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics

• Martin, R. H. and Woodman, A. J. (1989) Tacitus: Annals, Book IV. Cambridge University Press.
• Ash, Rhiannon (2018) Tacitus: Annals, Book XV. Cambridge University Press.
• Damon, Cynthia (2003) Tacitus: Histories Book I. Cambridge University Press.
• Ash, Rhiannon (2007) Tacitus: Histories Book II. Cambridge University Press.
• Woodman, A. J., with Kraus, C. S. (2014) Tacitus: Agricola. Cambridge University Press.
• Mayer, Roland (2001) Tacitus: Dialogus de oratoribus. Cambridge University Press.

See also

• Claude Fauchet: the first person to translate all of Tacitus's works into French
• Justus Lipsius: produced an extremely influential early modern edition of Tacitus (1574)

References

Notes

1. His full nomenclature may have been "Publius Cornelius Tacitus Caecina Paetus".[1]

Citations

1. Birley 2000, p. 232.
2. "Tacitus". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. OCLC 1032680871.
3. Longman, J.C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3 ed.). Pearson Education ESL. ISBN 978-1405881173.
4. Van Voorst, Robert; Evans, Craig A.; Chilton, Bruce (2000). "Tacitus: The Executed Christ". In Evans, Craig A.; Chilton, Bruce (eds.). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Studying the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 39. ISBN 9780802843685. Retrieved 7 June 2020. Cornelius Tacitus is generally considered the greatest Roman historian [...].
5. Compare: Ferguson, Everett (1987). "Literature and language". Backgrounds of Early Christianity (3 ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing (published 2003). p. 116. ISBN 9780802822215. Retrieved 7 June 2020. The Silver Age produced two outstanding historians. Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120), through his Histories and the Annals, is the major source for the history of the empire in the first century.
6. Brodribb, William Jackson; Godley, Alfred Denis (1911). "Tacitus, Cornelius" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 345–46.
7. Adler, Mortimer J. (1993). Greak Books of the Western World: 14: Tacitus. Chicago, IL, USA: Encyclopædia Britannica. p. v. ISBN 0-85229-531-6.
8. OGIS 487, first brought to light in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 1890, pp. 621–623
9. Since he was appointed to the quaestorship during Titus's short rule (see note below) and twenty-five was the minimum age for the position, the date of his birth can be fixed with some accuracy.
10. See Oliver, 1951, for an analysis of the manuscript from which the name Publius is taken; see also Oliver, 1977, which examines the evidence for each suggested praenomen (the well-known Gaius and Publius, the lesser-known suggestions of Sextus and Quintus) before settling on Publius as the most likely.
11. Oliver, 1977, cites an article by Harold Mattingly in Rivista storica dell'Antichità, 2 (1972) 169–85
12. Syme, 1958, pp. 612–13; Gordon, 1936, pp. 145–46
13. Birley 2000, p. 231–232.
14. Caecina. Strachan stemma.
15. Syme, 1958, pp. 60, 613; Gordon, 1936, pg. 149; Martin, 1981, pg. 26
16. Syme, 1958, pg. 63
17. Michael Grant in Introduction to Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, p. xvii; Herbert W. Benario in Introduction to Tacitus, Germany, pg. 1.
18. Syme, 1958, pp. 614–16
19. Syme, 1958, pp. 616–19
20. Syme, 1958, pg. 619; Gordon, 1936, pg. 145
21. Gordon, 1936, pp. 150–51; Syme, 1958, pp. 621–24
22. The fact that he studied rhetoric and law is known from the Dialogus, ch. 2; see also Martin, 1981, p. 26; Syme, 1958, pp. 114–115
23. Agricola, 9
24. Pliny, Letters 1.6, 9.10; Benario, 1975, pp. 15, 17; Syme, 1958, pp. 541–42
25. Syme, 1958, pg. 63; Martin, 1981, pp. 26–27
26. (1.1)
27. He states his debt to Titus in his Histories (1.1); since Titus ruled only briefly, these are the only years possible.
28. In the Annals (11.11), he mentions that, as praetor, he assisted in the Secular Games held by Domitian, which can be precisely dated to 88. See Syme, 1958, pg. 65; Martin, 1981, pg. 27; Benario in his Introduction to Tacitus, Germany, p. 1.
29. The Agricola (45.5) indicates that Tacitus and his wife were absent at the time of Julius Agricola's death in 93. For his occupation during this time see Syme, 1958, p. 68; Benario, 1975, p. 13; Dudley, 1968, pp. 15–16; Martin, 1981, p. 28; Mellor, 1993, p. 8
30. For the effects on Tacitus of this experience see Dudley, 1968, pg. 14; Mellor, 1993, pp. 8–9
31. Pliny, Letters, 2.1 (English); Benario in his Introduction to Tacitus, Germany, pp. 1–2.
32. In the Agricola (3), he announces what was probably his first major project: the Histories. See Dudley, 1968, pg. 16
33. Pliny, Letters 2.11
34. Hazel, J. (2002). Who's who in the Roman World. Routledge who's who series. Routledge. p. 297. ISBN 978-0-415-29162-0. Retrieved 28 August 2018. Seniority brought him the governorship of the province of Asia as proconsul in 112–113.
35. Grant in his Introduction to Tacitus, Annals, pg. xvii; Benario in his Introduction to Tacitus, Germania, pg. 2. Annals, 2.61, says that the Roman Empire "now extends to the Red Sea". If by mare rubrum he means the Persian Gulf, the passage must have been written after Trajan's eastern conquests in 116, but before Hadrian abandoned the new territories in 117. But this may only indicate the date of publication for the first books of the Annals; Tacitus could have lived well into Hadrian's reign, and there is no reason to suppose that he did not. See Dudley, 1968, pg. 17; Mellor, 1993, pg. 9; Mendell, 1957, pg. 7; Syme, 1958, pg. 473; against this traditional interpretation, e.g., Goodyear, 1981, pp. 387–93.
36. Augustan History, Tacitus X. Scholarly opinion on this story is that it is either "a confused and worthless rumor" (Mendell, 1957, pg. 4) or "pure fiction" (Syme, 1958, p. 796). Sidonius Apollinaris reports (Letters, 4.14; cited in Syme, 1958, pg. 796) that Polemius, a 5th-century Gallo-Roman aristocrat, is descended from Tacitus — but this claim, says Syme (ibid.), is of little value.
37. Jerome's commentary on the Book of Zechariah (14.1, 2; quoted in Mendell, 1957, p. 228) says that Tacitus's history was extant triginta voluminibus, "in thirty volumes".
38. Thunberg, Carl L. (2012). Att tolka Svitjod [To interpret Svitjod]. University of Gothenburg. p. 44. ISBN 978-91-981859-4-2.
39. Donald R. Dudley. Introduction to: The Annals of Tacitus. NY: Mentor Book, 1966. p. xiv: "No other writer of Latin prose—not even Cicero—deploys so effectively the full resources of the language."
40. The Annals (Tacitus)/Book 1#1 Translation based on Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (1876). Wikisource, 15 April 2012.
41. Ostler 2007, pp. 98–99 where the quoted example is used; Further quotes from the book: "…some writers—notably the perverse genius Tacitus—delighted in disappointing the expectations raised by periodic theory." – "this monkeying with hard-won stylistic norms…only makes sense if readers knew the rules that Tacitus was breaking."
42. John Taylor. Tacitus and the Boudican Revolt. Dublin: Camvlos, 1998. p. 1 ff
43. Ann., xv 44
44. J Burrow, A History of Histories (Penguin 2009) p. 128

Thallus.

Thallus (Greek: Θαλλός, Thallos), perhaps a Samaritan,[1] was an early historian who wrote in Koine Greek. He wrote a three-volume history of the Mediterranean world from before the Trojan War to the 167th Olympiad, 112–108 BC, or perhaps to the 217th Olympiad (AD 89-93) or 207th Olympiad (AD 49-52). Most of his work, like the vast majority of ancient literature, has been lost, although some of his writings were quoted by the Christian author Sextus Julius Africanus in his History of the World.[2][3][4] It is not known when he lived and wrote, but his work is quoted by Theophilus of Antioch, who died around AD 185, and most scholars date Thallus' writings to around 50 AD.[2]

The works are considered important by some Christians as confirming the historicity of Jesus and providing non-Christian validation of the Gospel accounts.[2] According to Sextus Julius Africanus, Thallus apparently refers, in the third book of his histories, to the darkness at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and explained it away as a solar eclipse; there is a range of interpretations on the matter.[5][6][7][8]

The fragments of Thallus

1. There are fragments from the 3 books of Thallus, in which he made a summary in abbreviated fashion from the sack of Troy to the 167th Olympiad [i.e. 109 BC] (Eusebius, Chronicle, I. K125.2)
2. Castor and Thallus [recorded] Syrian events. (Sextus Julius Africanus, in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, X.10)
3. The archives of the most ancient races—the Egyptians, Chaldaeans, and Phoenicians—need to be opened, and their citizens must be called upon, through whom knowledge must be provided—a certain Manetho the Egyptian and Berossus the Chaldaean, but also Jerome the Phoenician king of Tyre; and their followers, too: Ptolemy the Mendesian and Menander the Ephesian and Demetrius the Phalerean and king Juba and Apion and Thallus and the one who either proves or refutes these men, Josephus the Jew. (Tertullian, Apologeticum 19)
4. Sextus Julius Africanus writes, concerning the passion of Christ, "Concerning each of his deeds and his cures, both of bodies and souls, and the secrets of his knowledge, and his Resurrection from the dead, this has been explained with complete adequacy by his disciples and the apostles before us. A most terrible darkness fell over all the world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake, and many places both in Judaea and the rest of the world were thrown down. In the third book of his Histories, Thallos dismisses this darkness as a solar eclipse. In my opinion, this is nonsense. ..." (Africanus, in George Syncellus, Cronography)
5. For Thallus also remembers Belus the ruler of Assyria and Cronos the Titan, asserting that Belus waged war along with the Titans against Zeus and the select gods who were with him, stating at this point: 'and defeated, Ogygus fled to Tartessus. While at that time that region was famous as Akte, now it is called Attica, which Ogygus then took over.' (Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 3.29)
6. For according to the history of Thallus, we find that Belus was born 322 years prior to the Trojan War. (Lactantius, Divine Institutions I.23)
7. And so ... neither Diodorus the Greek nor Thallus, neither Cassius Severus nor Cornelius Nepos, nor any commentator on such ancient matters, prints that Saturn was anything but a man. (Tertullian, Apologeticus 10).
8. Therefore, not only all poets, but even all historians and all writers on ancient matters, who have published for posterity his deeds done in Italy, agree he was a man: in Greek, Diodorus and Thallus, and in Latin, Nepos and Cassius and Varro. (Lactantius, Divine Institutions. I.13).
9. All writers of Greek and Roman antiquities tell us that Saturn, the first of his kind, was a man: Nepos knows this, and Cassius in history, as well as Thallus and Diodorus, say this. (Marcus Minucius Felix, Octavius, 21)
10. Regarding the events before the Olympiads, consider how the Attic chronologers reckon: from the time of Ogygus, during whose tenure the first great flood occurred in Attica, while Phoroneus was ruling the Argives, as Acusilaus records, up to the time of the first year of the first Olympiad, the point after which the Greeks consider time to be reckoned more accurately, 1020 years passed, which agrees with those mentioned earlier and with those who were listed in order. For the writers on Athenian history, Hellanicus and Philochorus (who wrote Atthis) and writers on Syrian affairs, Castor and Thallus, and writers on world affairs, Diodorus (who wrote the Library) and Alexander Polyhistor, and some of our contemporaries record these events even more accurately than all the Attic historians. (Africanus, in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, X.10)
11. So know this: of all those among us [the Jews] happen to be more ancient than many: [for instance] ... Moses ... as is clear to us in the histories of the Greeks. ... For in the times of Ogygus and Inachus ... they record Moses ... so does Polemon in his first book of history of the Greeks, and Apion ... and Ptolemaeus the Mendesian, who wrote a history of Egypt, all these men agree. And the writers on Athenian history, Hellanicus and Philochorus (who wrote Atthis), Castor and Thallus and Alexander Polyhistor, and also those most wise of men, Philo and Josephus ... [all these men] mention Moses, as they do the very old and ancient origin of the Jews. (Pseudo-Justin, Cohortatio ad Graecos, 9)
12. 41 Assyrian kings ruled the kingdom of the Arabs, who also ruled from the [?] year of the world to the [?] year of the world, enduring all of [?] years from the first of them, Belus, until the 41st king, Macoscolerus, the son of Sardanapallus, as most noted historians agree, including Polybius, Diodorus, Cephalion, Castor, Thallus and others. (Syncellus, Chronography)
13. After the 70th year of the captivity, Cyrus was king of the Persians in the first year of the 55th Olympiad, as we find in the Library of Diodorus and the Histories of Thallus and Castor, and also in the works of Polybius and Phlegon, but also in those of others who concern themselves with Olympiads: they are all in agreement about the date. (Africanus, in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, X.10)
14. Those most wise men, Thallus, Castor [259 F 11], and Polybius [254 F 4]...and among others, Herodotus...and the wise Theophilus, all recorded the chronology of the reign of Croesus. (John Malalas, Chronografia, VI).

According to Robert E. Van Voorst, Thallus was "the first ancient writer known to us to express literary opposition to Christianity. Moreover, Thallos is also the only non-Christian to write about a Jesus tradition before that tradition was written in the canonical Gospels (see Redactiongeschichte).[2]

Time and subjects of work

Thallus is first mentioned around AD 180 by Theophilus Bishop of Antioch in his Ad Autolycum ('To Autolycus'), which at 3.29 states:

Thallus makes mention of Belus, the King of the Assyrians, and Cronus the Titan; and says that Belus, with the Titans, made war against Zeus and his compeers, who are called gods. He says, moreover, that Gygus was smitten, and fled to Tartessus. At that time Gygus ruled over that country, which was then called Acte, but is now named Attica. And whence the other countries and cities derived their names, we think it unnecessary to recount, especially to you who are acquainted with history.

Eusebius of Caesarea in a list of sources mentions his work:[9]

From the three books of Thallus, in which he collects (events) briefly from the fall of Ilion [Troy] to the 167th Olympiad.[10]

However the text is preserved in an Armenian translation where many of the numerals are corrupt. The fall of Troy is 1184 BC, but the editors, Petermann and Karst, highlight that the end-date of the 167th Olympiad (109 BC) is contradicted by George Syncellus, who quotes Sextus Julius Africanus, and suggest that the end-date should read "217th Olympiad" (AD 89–93), a change of one character in Armenian.[10][11] Others suggest "207th Olympiad" (AD 49-52).[2]

Thallus and Josephus

Josephus may have referred to Thallus in Antiquities of the Jews 18.6.4:[12][2]

Now there was another Samaritan, a freed-man of Caesar, of whom he borrowed a million of drachmae, and thence repaid Antonia the debt he owed her; and by sending the overplus in paying his court to Caius, became a person of great authority with him.

The identification depends on two assumptions. All the manuscripts have "another Samaritan" (ἄλλος Σαμαρεὺς γένος) in the section, but since Josephus does not refer to a previous Samaritan in this context, all modern editors except one consider it to be a corruption in the text where the Samaritan's name is missing a Θ, and was "Thallos". The second assumption is that the Thallos being named is the same one Eusebius and Africanus were referring to considering that such a name was likely rare at the time.[2]

Others believe that the name Thallos was common at the time so the reference is not clear.[7] A minority have disagreed with the mainstream view above and have suggested that the text is not corrupted and may have read "Now there was another, namely a Samaritan by race (birth), a freedman of Caesar." and not have had a person named Thallos.[13]

Africanus on Thallus

A solar eclipse.

In his Chronicle of Theophanes, 9th-century Christian chronicler George Syncellus cites the Chronographiai of Sextus Julius Africanus as writing in reference to the darkness mentioned in the synoptic gospels as occurring at the death of Jesus:[14]

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 the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let that opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth — manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period. But it was a darkness induced by God, because the Lord happened then to suffer. And calculation makes out that the period of 70 weeks, as noted in Daniel, is completed at this time.

So it is Africanus that goes on to point out that an eclipse cannot occur at Passover when the moon is full because it is diametrically opposite the Sun.[2][6][15]

According to minority views, that Thallos mentioned Jesus is an erroneous inference by ninth-century chronologer Syncellus who misinterpreted both Africanus and Phlegon.[7] As well as astronomical calculations, indicating any claims of total solar eclipses occurring from 23-43 CE in Jerusalem during Passover being entirely fictional. The darkness mentioned can be a literary device to emphasize cosmic significance, which was common in Greco-Roman and Jewish literature.[16] R. T. France, states that these words of Thallus cannot be known as they were not quoted, but transmitted through Julius Africanus.[17]

References

1. Rigg Jr., Horace (April 1941). "Thallus the Samaritan?". The Harvard Theological Review. 34 (2). Cambridge University Press: 111–119. doi:10.1017/S0017816000031461. S2CID 162863648.
2. Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament : An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. pp. 20–23. ISBN 0802843689.
3. Africanus, in Syncellus
4. Benjamin Garstad, "Theophilus of Antioch, Pseudo-Justin and Thallus' treatment of Moses" Studia Patristica XXXVI, 207 f.
5. Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament : An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. pp. 20–21. ISBN 0802843689. This fragment of Thallos used by Julius Africanus comes in a section in which Julius deals with the portents during the crucifixion of Jesus. Julius argues that Thallos was "wrong" (αλογως) to argue that this was only a solar eclipse, because at full moon a solar eclipse is impossible, and the Passover always falls at full moon. Julius counters that the eclipse was miraculous, "a darkness induced by God." Thallos could have mentioned the eclipse with no reference to Jesus. But it is more likely that Julius, who had access to the context of this quotation in Thallos and who (to judge from other fragments) was generally a careful user of his sources, was correct in reading it as a hostile reference to Jesus' death.
6. A. J. Levine, D. C. Allison & J. D. Crossan, The historical Jesus in context, Volume 12, Princeton University Press, 2006. p 405 Google Link
7. Carrier, Richard (2011–2012). "Thallus and the Darkness at Christ's Death" (PDF). The Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism. 8: 185–191.
8. France, R. T. (Richard Thomas) (1986). The evidence for Jesus. Internet Archive. London : Hodder & Stoughton. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-340-38172-4.
9. "Eusebius' Chronicle, The Romans".
10. H. Petermann, col. 265; Karst, Eusebius Werke.
11. Mosshammer, Alden E., The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition Bucknell University Press (Lewisburg, PA: 1979).
12. Josephus, Flavius (1895). "Antiquities of the Jews 18.6.4". Persius Digital Library. Tufts University.
13. Rigg, Horace A. (April 1941). "Thallus: The Samaritan?". Harvard Theological Review. 34 (2): 111–119. doi:10.1017/S0017816000031461. S2CID 162863648.
14. "CHURCH FATHERS: Extant Works (Julius Africanus)". www.newadvent.org.
15. Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, Publisher For Dummies, 2007. pp 75–76
16. Allen, N. P. L. (2018). "THALLUS AND PHLEGON: SOLAR ECLIPSE IN JERUSALEM c. 33 CE?". Akroterion. 63. doi:10.7445/63-0-975. ISSN 2079-2883.
17. France, R. T. (Richard Thomas) (1986). The evidence for Jesus. Internet Archive. London : Hodder & Stoughton. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-340-38172-4.

Suetonius.

The Roman historian Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122) mentions early Christians and may refer to Jesus Christ in his work Lives of the Twelve Caesars.[1][2][3] One passage in the biography of the Emperor Claudius Divus Claudius 25, refers to agitations in the Roman Jewish community and the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius during his reign (AD 41 to AD 54), which may be the expulsion mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2). In this context "Chresto" is mentioned. Some scholars see this as a likely reference to Jesus, while others see it as referring to another person living in Rome, of whom we have no information.[4][5][6]

Christians are explicitly mentioned in Suetonius's biography of the Emperor Nero (Nero 16) as among those punished during Nero's reign.[7] These punishments are generally dated to around AD 64,[8] the year of the Great Fire of Rome. In this passage Suetonius describes Christianity as excessive religiosity (superstitio) as do his contemporaries, Tacitus and Pliny.[2]

Historians debate whether or not the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of the Fiscus Judaicus in AD 96.[9][10][11] From then on, practising Jews paid the tax, Christians did not.[12]

Christians under Nero

Roman Emperor Nero reigned 54 to 68 AD. In Nero 16, Suetonius lists various laws by Nero to maintain public order, including halting chariot races, as the drivers were cheating and robbing, and pantomime shows which frequently were scenes of brawls.[13] Amongst these is punishment for Christians. He states:[1]

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians,[14] a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

The punishment of Christians by Nero are generally dated to c. 64 AD.[8] Unlike Tacitus's reference to the persecution of Christians by Nero, Suetonius does not relate the persecution with the Great Fire of Rome that occurred in 64 AD.

Apart from the manuscripts and printed editions of Suetonius's Lives, the sentence about Christians is first attested in an inscription by the Senate and People of Paris from 1590.[15] K.R. Bradley notes that the verb in the clause "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians" (Latin: afflicti suppliciis christiani) should be corrected to "affecti", based first on the frequent use of this verb with the word for "punishment" and second on that Orosius, according to Bradley, uses this verb in material dependent on the Suetonius Nero 16 passage.[16] These words in combination indicate that the punishment was capital; cf. e.g. Suet. Augustus 17.5 (death of young Antony), Claudius 26.2 (death of Messalina) and Galba 12.1 (death of officials).

Tertullian

Church father Tertullian wrote: "We read the lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith."[17] Mary Ellen Snodgrass notes that Tertullian in this passage "used Suetonius as a source by quoting Lives of the Caesars as proof that Nero was the first Roman emperor to murder Christians", but cites not a specific passage in Suetonius's Lives as Tertullian's source.[18] Other authors explicitly add that Tertullian's words are a reference to the passage in Suetonius's Nero 16,[19] while others hold that they refer to the Tacitus passage,[20] or both (Nero & Tacitus) passages.[21]

Interpretation

In Roman usage, the word superstitio refers to any excessive religious devotion, within or outside traditional Roman religious practice. To Suetonius this particular excessive devotion was new and mischievous. This may have been the case in Suetonius's time, but Marius Heemstra thinks he was backdating the accusation to the time of Nero.[22]

The word translated as "mischievous" above is maleficus which can also mean "magical". As a noun the word means "magician". It may be that Suetonius is here accusing Christians of using what would be called "black magic" in modern terms, as the pagan philosopher Celsus did about 177.[23]

The passage shows the clear contempt of Suetonius for Christians - the same contempt expressed by Tacitus and Pliny the Younger in their writings.[2] Stephen Benko states that the contempt of Suetonius is quite clear, as he reduces Christians to the lowest ranks of society and his statement echoes the sentiments of Pliny and Tacitus.[24]

Possible Christians under Claudius

Roman Emperor Claudius reigned 41 to 54 AD. Suetonius reports his dealings with the eastern Roman Empire, that is, with Greece and Macedonia, and with the Lycians, Rhodians, and Trojans.[25]

In Claudius 25 Suetonius refers to the expulsion of Jews by Claudius and states (in Catharine Edwards' translation):[1]

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

As it is highly unlikely that a hypothetical Christian interpolator would have called the Christ (Latin "Christus") "Chrestus", placed him in Rome in 49, or called him a "troublemaker", the overwhelming majority of scholars conclude that the passage is genuine.[26]

The Latin text

The Latin original version of this statement is as follows (in Ihm's edition):[27]

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto[note 1] assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

The brief Latin statement has been described as a "notorious crux"[29][note 2] and William L. Lane explains that the Latin text is ambiguous, giving two ways of interpreting it:

1. "He expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus"
2. "Since the Jews constantly make disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

The first indicates that Claudius only expelled those Jews who were making disturbances.[32] Boman (2012) uses the following translation, which he "consider[s] non-committal and adequately close to the original Latin": "From Rome he (Claudius) expelled the perpetually tumultuating Jews prompted by Chrestus."[33]

The spelling issue

Chresto (ablative of Chrestus) is the most trustworthy spelling in Suetonius's work. William L. Lane states that the confusion between Chrestus and Christus was natural enough for Suetonius, given that at that point in history the distinction between spelling and pronunciation was negligible.[34] Lane states that this is supported by the spelling of Christians in Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and in 1 Peter 4:16 where the uncial codex Sinaiticus reads Chrestianos.[34] Raymond E. Brown states in the second century, when Suetonius wrote, both Christus (Christ) and Christianus (Christian) were often written with an "e" instead of an "i" after the "r".[35] In Suetonius Nero 16 the word "Christians" is spelled christiani.

References

1. Suetonius, Catharine Edwards. Lives of the Caesars (2001) ISBN 0192832719 pp. 184, 203
2. John Dominic Crossan, Birth of Christianity (1999) ISBN 0567086682 p. 3
3. Van Voorst, Jesus, 2000. pp. 29-30
4. Van Voorst, Jesus, 2000. pp. 38-39
5. Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (2007) ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 pages 166
6. Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (2012) ISBN 0802868886 p. 66
7. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4, (Eerdmans, 1959) ISBN 9780802837844 p.216, col.2.
8. Matthew Bunson, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire 1994 ISBN 081602135X page 111
9. Jones, Christopher P. (2017). "The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw" (PDF). New Testament Studies. 63: 146–152. doi:10.1017/S0028688516000308. S2CID 164718138 – via Cambridge University Press.
10. Van der Lans, Birgit; Bremmer, Jan N. (2017). "Tacitus and the Persecution of the Christians: An Invention of Tradition?". Eirene: Studia Graeca et Latina. 53: 299–331 – via Centre for Classical Studies.
11. Cook, John Granger (2020-06-02). "Chrestiani, Christiani, Χριστιανοί: a Second Century Anachronism?". Vigiliae Christianae. 74 (3): 237–264. doi:10.1163/15700720-12341410. S2CID 242371092.
12. Wylen, Stephen M., The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction, Paulist Press (1995), ISBN 0-8091-3610-4, pp.190-192; Dunn, James D.G., Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, 70 to 135, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (1999), ISBN 0-8028-4498-7, Pp 33-34.; Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro & Gargola, Daniel J & Talbert, Richard John Alexander, The Romans: From Village to Empire, Oxford University Press (2004), ISBN 0-19-511875-8, p.426;
13. Gregory E. Sterling. "Customs Which Are Not Lawful: The Social Apology of Luke-Acts". Leaven. Retrieved 2012-08-20. p.1. (pdf)
14. The spelling christiani "seems to be the original reading"; cf. J. Boman, Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius' Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts, p. 355, n. 2
15. J. Boman, Comments on Carrier: Is Thallus Actually Quoted by Eusebius?, Liber Annuus 62 (2012), ISSN 0081-8933, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem 2013, pp. 324-325, n. 26
16. K. R. Bradley, "Suetonius, Nero 16.2: 'afflicti suppliciis christian'", The Classical Review, 22, p.10.
17. Tertullian. "Chapter XV" . Scorpiace – via Wikisource.
18. Mary Ellen Snodgrass, Encyclopedia of the Literature of Empire, USA 2010, p. 270. Cf. Heinrich Hoppe, De sermone Tertullianeo quaestiones selectae, Marburgi Chattorum 1897, p. 26 f. "Tertullian kombinierte im Jahr 211/212, als er 'De scorpiace' schrieb, eine Nachricht aus der Nero-Vita Suetons mit den Apostelakten und zwei Bibelstellen", writes Otto Zwierlein, Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse, 2nd ed., de Gruyter, Göttingen 2010, p. 119.
19. Waszink noted that "[I]n scorp. 15 (178, 11/2) we read vitas Caesarum legimus: orientem fidem Romae primus Nero cruentavit [i.e. "We read the lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith"] (again from Suet. Nero, ch. 16)"; see Jan Hendrik Waszink, "Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani De Anima", Brill, Leiden 2010 (original: J. M. Meulenhoff, Amsterdam 1947), p. 479. Merrill wrote: "He [Tertullian] also had read (perhaps while resident in Rome) the Lives of Suetonius", with "Scorp 15 uitas Caesarum ... cruentauit (Suet. Nero 16, 2)" supplied in the footnote; see Elmer Truesdell Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History, Macmillan 1924, p. 121 with n. 2.
20. See Anthony R. Birley, Marius Maximus: The Consular Biographer, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 34, 3, 1997, p. 2752, with n. 230, and Simon Swain, Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire (ed. M. Mark J. Edwards, Simon Swain), Oxford 1997, p. 24, n. 65. Both authors refer to Timothy D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study, Oxford 1971, for Tertullian having referred to Tacitus as "the Lives of the Caesars".
21. Eigler notes that Tertullian's passage is an "Anspielung auf Tac. ann 15, 44; Suet. Nero 16, 2"; see Ulrich Eigler, Lectiones vetustatis, Römische Literatur und Geschichte in der lateinischen Literatur der Spätantike (Zetemata: Monographien zur Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 115), Beck, München 2003, p. 188, n. 16.
22. Marius Heemstra, The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways (Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Company 2010) ISBN 9783161503832, p.89.
23. Wilken, Robert Louis (2003). The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (2nd ed.). Yale University Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-300-09839-6.
24. Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Indiana University Press, 1986) ISBN 0253203856 page 20
25. C. Adrian Thomas, A Case for Mixed-Audience With Reference to the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews, Peter Lang Pub (2008) p 116
26. Van Voorst, Jesus, 2000. p 30-31
27. De Vita Caesarum (C. Suetoni Tranquilli Opera. Vol. 1, ed. M. Ihm, 1908) OCLC 462167701.
28. J. Boman, Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius' Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts, Liber Annuus 61 (2011), ISSN 0081-8933, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem 2012, p. 375f.
29. Gruen, Eric (1998), "review of H. Dixon Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome", Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 1998-07-02
30. Donna W. Hurley (ed.), Suetonius: Diuus Claudius (Cambridge University Press, 2001) ISBN 9780521596763 p.177.
31. Leonard Victor Rutgers, "Roman Policy towards the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C.E." in Classical Antiquity 13, 1 (1994) p.66 JSTOR 25011005
32. Wm L. Lane, p.204.
33. J. Boman, Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius' Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts, p. 356
34. William L. Lane in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome edited by Karl Paul Donfried and Peter Richardson (1998) ISBN 0802842658 pp. 204-206
35. Antioch and Rome by Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier (May 1983) ISBN 0809125323 pages 100-101

Pliny the Younger.

Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus (now in modern Turkey), wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around AD 110 and asked for counsel on dealing with the early Christian community. The letter (Epistulae X.96) details an account of how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations and asks for the Emperor's guidance on how they should be treated.[1][2]

Neither Pliny nor Trajan mention the crime that Christians were supposed to have committed, except for being a Christian; and other historical sources do not provide a simple answer to what that crime could be, but most likely due to the stubborn refusal of Christians to worship Roman gods; making them appear as objecting to Roman rule.[3][4]

Pliny states that he gives Christians multiple chances to affirm they are innocent and if they refuse three times, they are executed. Pliny states that his investigations have revealed nothing on the Christians' part but harmless practices and "depraved, excessive superstition." However, Pliny seems concerned about the rapid spread of their practices and views Christian gatherings as a potential starting point for sedition.[4]

The letter is the first pagan account to refer to Christianity, providing key information on early Christian beliefs and practices and how these were viewed and dealt with by the Romans.[2][5][6] The letter and Trajan's reply indicate that at the time of its writing there was no systematic and official persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.[7][8] There was persecution of Christians before this but only on a local basis, like the Neronian persecution in Rome[9][10] or the expulsion of Jewish-Christians and Jews from Rome by order of Claudius.[11] Trajan's reply also offers valuable insight into the relationship between Roman provincial governors and Emperors and indicates that at the time Christians were not sought out or tracked down by imperial orders, and that persecutions could be local and sporadic.[12]

Context and overview

Background

Location of Bithynia and Pontus within the Roman Empire

Pliny the Younger was the governor of Bithynia and Pontus on the Black Sea coast of Anatolia, having arrived there as the representative of Emperor Trajan between 109 and 111 AD on September 17.[1] Pliny likely wrote the letters from Amisus.[13] The origin of Christianity in that region is not known, but it has not been associated with Paul the Apostle's travels.[1] Given the reference to Bithynia in the opening of the First Epistle of Peter (most likely written during the reign of Domitian in AD 81), Christianity in the region may have had some Petrine associations through Silas.[1][14]

In 111 Bithynia and Pontus was known for being in disorder, and Pliny was selected by Trajan because of his legal training and his past experience.[2] Pliny was familiar with the region, having defended two of their proconsuls for extortion in the Senate, one case being around AD 103.[13] However, Pliny had never performed a legal investigation of Christians, and thus consulted Trajan in order to be on solid ground regarding his actions, and saved his letters and Trajan's replies.[2] The way he expressed his lack of familiarity with the procedure may indicate that such prosecutions against Christians had taken place before (namely in Rome), but Pliny had not been involved in them.[2]

As governor, Pliny held large influence over all of the residents of his province.[12] This was especially true in the legal treatment of Christians. The Roman legal construct of cognitio extra ordinem afforded governors a large amount of discretion in deciding legal cases.[6]

Persecution of Christians

Prior to the 249 Decius edict which would require all inhabitants of the Roman Empire to sacrifice to the Roman gods, the persecution of Christians was based on local determinations.[7][8] Timothy Barnes characterizes the situation by stating: "Actual persecution…was local, sporadic, almost random".[12] During this period, individual governors treated Christians very differently depending on the public and social issues, e.g. Tertullian wrote that no Christian blood was shed in Africa prior to 180.[6][7]

Although it is clear that Pliny executed Christians, neither Pliny nor Trajan mention the crime that Christians had committed, except for being a Christian; and other historical sources do not provide a simple answer to this question.[3] Trajan's response to Pliny makes it clear that being known as a "Christian" was sufficient for judicial action.[3]

Everett Ferguson states that the charges against Christians by Pliny may have been partly based on the "secret crimes" associated with Christianity, later characterized by Athenagoras as atheism, cannibalistic feasts and incest.[4] The cannibalistic feasts and incest charges were based on misunderstanding of the Eucharistic act and Christians being "brothers and sisters", even after marriage. However, the charge of atheism related to the failure to worship the state gods, and made Christianity a superstition and not a religion.[4] George Heyman states that the refusal of Christians to participate in sacrificial rituals that honored the emperor and instead follow their own sacrificial rhetoric and practices conflicted with the Roman forms of social control, making them an undesirable minority.[3] However Eusebius (E.H. 9.7) asserts that it was fear of the gods being displeased by the Christians' refusal to worship them causing disasters to fall on cities that led to persecution. Ferguson states that Pliny viewed the obstinacy (contumacia) of Christians, as as much of a threat to Roman rule and order as the divergence of their beliefs from the Romans; and considered Christian gatherings as a potential starting point for sedition.[4]

Letter and response

Pliny's letter to Trajan

Main article: Epistulae (Pliny)

Opening questions

Letters of Pliny the Younger, Paris, 1826 (Click to read)

Pliny opens the letter (sections 1–4) with questions to Trajan concerning trials of Christians brought before him, since he says he has never been present at any trials of Christians. This may indicate that previous trials had taken place and that Pliny was unaware of any existing edicts under Trajan for prosecuting Christians.[15] He has three main questions:

• Should any distinction be made by the age of the Christian? Should the very young be treated differently from mature people?
• Does denying being a Christian mean the accused is pardoned?
• Is the "name" of Christianity itself enough to condemn the accused or is it the crimes associated with being a Christian? (Nomen ipsum si flagitiis careat an flagitia cohaerentia nomini puniantur.)

A. N. Sherwin-White states that "When the practice of a sect was banned, indictment of the nomen ("name"), i.e. of membership of a cult group, sufficed to secure conviction. This looked uncommonly like religious persecution to the victims themselves, but the underlying ground remained the flagitia ("shameful acts") supposed to be inseparable from the practice of the cult."[16]

Trial format

Reading of Pliny's letter to Trajan about the Christians, in Latin with English subtitles

Pliny gives an account of how the trials are conducted and the various verdicts (sections 4–6). He says he first asks if the accused is a Christian: if they confess that they are, he interrogates them twice more, for a total of three times, threatening them with death if they continue to confirm their beliefs. If they do not recant, then he orders them to be executed, or, if they are Roman citizens, orders them to be taken to Rome. Despite his uncertainty about the offences connected with being Christian, Pliny says that he has no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, at least their inflexible obstinacy (obstinatio) and stubbornness, (pertinacia) deserve punishment. This shows that, to the Roman authorities, Christians were being hostile to the government and were openly defying a magistrate who was asking them to abandon an unwanted cult.[17] Most notably, the Christians present at these trials Pliny is inquiring about were accused by a privately published anonymous document and not by Pliny nor the empire.

There were three categories of accused Pliny mentions with corresponding verdicts. If the accused denied that they had ever been a Christian, then once they had prayed to the Roman gods (in words dictated by Pliny himself), offered incense and wine to images of Trajan and the gods, and cursed Christ – which Pliny says true Christians are unable to do – they were then discharged. Accused who were at one point Christians but had quit the religion also followed the aforementioned procedure and were let go. Sherwin-White says the procedure was approved by Trajan but it was not a way to "compel conformity to the state religion or imperial cult", which was a voluntary practice.[18] Those who confessed to being Christians three times were executed.

Practices of Christians

Depiction of Christian Eucharistic bread, Catacomb of Callixtus, 3rd century

Pliny then details the practices of Christians (sections 7–10): he says that they meet on a certain day before light where they gather and sing hymns to Christ as to a god. They all bind themselves by oath, "not to some crimes", says Pliny, as though that is what he would have expected; rather, they pledge not to commit any crimes such as fraud, theft, or adultery, and subsequently share a meal of "ordinary and innocent food". Pliny says, however, that all of these practices were abandoned by the Christians after Pliny forbade any political associations (hetaeriai or "fraternities"). These clubs were banned because Trajan saw them as a "natural breeding ground for grumbling" about both civic life and political affairs. One such instance of a banned club was a firemen's association; likewise, Christianity was seen as a political association that could be potentially harmful to the empire.[19]

Pliny adds that he felt it necessary to investigate further by having two female slaves called deaconesses tortured, which was standard procedure in Roman interrogation of slaves, and discovered nothing but "depraved, excessive superstition" (superstitio). By using this word instead of religio, religion, Pliny is "denigrating the Christians' position"[20] because it was outside the religious practices of Rome.[21] The apparent abandonment of the pagan temples by Christians was a threat to the pax deorum, the harmony or accord between the divine and humans, and political subversion by new religious groups was feared, which was treated as a potential crime.[22]

Pliny ends the letter by saying that Christianity is endangering people of every age and rank and has spread not only through the cities, but also through the rural villages as well (neque tantum ... sed etiam), but that it will be possible to check it. He argues for his procedure to Trajan by saying that the temples and religious festivals, which before had been deserted, are now flourishing again and that there is a rising demand for sacrificial animals once more – a dip and rise which A. N. Sherwin-White believes is an exaggeration of the toll Christianity had taken on the traditional cult.[23]

Trajan's response

Trajan statue, Glyptothek, Munich

Trajan's short reply to Pliny affirms Pliny's overall procedure and gives four orders:

1. Do not seek out the Christians for trial.
2. If the accused are found guilty of being Christian, then they must be punished.
3. If the accused deny they are Christians and show proof that they are not by worshipping the gods, then they must be pardoned.
4. Anonymous accusations should not be considered.

Leonard L. Thompson calls the policy "double-edged", since, "on the one hand, Christians were not hunted down. They were tried only if accusations from local provincials were brought against them. But if accused and convicted, then Christians ... were killed simply for being Christians."[24] Therefore, Pliny's view of the treatment of Christians was not necessarily persecution but rather that Christians were executed only when they were brought before him at trial and confessed; however, pardons were also given to those who denied such charges. Ste. Croix says the recommended course of action "was 'accusatory' and not 'inquisitorial'", so that it was never the governors themselves but instead private, local accusers (delatores) who brought forth accusations.[25]

Authenticity

The received scholarly consensus is that this correspondence is authentic.[26] More recently, the authenticity of Pliny's letter was questioned: a stylometric comparison indicates the authenticity of Pliny's letter, and suggests instead the presence of large amounts of interpolation in the text of the letter.[26]

Significance

If it is genuine, Pliny's letter is the earliest pagan account to refer to early Christians and provides a key description of Roman administrative process and problems,[5][6] and also provides valuable evidence as to the attitudes of the Roman authorities with regard to early Christianity.[27] The document seems to show that the Roman Empire, as a government entity, did not at this time "seek out" Christians for prosecution or persecution.[28] Although Emperor Trajan gives Pliny specific advice about disregarding anonymous accusations, for example, he was deliberate in not establishing any new rules in regard to the Christians.[6] In doing so, Trajan allowed Pliny to try cases according to his discretion.

The letter as it is presented supports the existence of the early Christian Church and its rapid growth.

Later impact

Several ancient Christian writers mentioned the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan and its circumstances, and often embellished the account.

The first of them was the Latin writer Tertullian in the year 197, in his Apologeticum (2,6-7), a defence of Christianity. This work contains "a selective paraphrase" of the correspondence. Tertullian used it to support his point that, in legal theory, it was forbidden to track Christians down.[29]

Later, in the early fourth century, the Greek writer Eusebius of Caesarea mentioned the episode in his Church History. He did not have access to Pliny's original, but to Tertullian's paraphrase. He modified the story, among other things, by stating that Pliny asked Trajan for advice because so many Christians were put to death. (Historically, it was rather because Christianity raised complex legal questions and Pliny wanted to be safe from criticism.)[29]

Around 402, Rufinus of Aquileia embellished the account further in a Latin version of Eusebius's work. He had access to Tertullian and Eusebius, but again probably not to Pliny's original. His modifications include accentuating Pliny's compassion for the Christians, and eliminating his scepticism about Christ as a god.[29]

Other Roman sources

See also: Tacitus on Christ and Suetonius on Christians

Pliny is one of three key Roman authors who refer to early Christians, the other two being Tacitus and Suetonius.[30][31] These authors refer to events which take place during the reign of various Roman emperors, Suetonius writing about an expulsion from Rome of Jews because of disturbances instigated by a certain "Chrestus" during the reign of Claudius (41 to 54), and also punishments by Nero (who reigned from 54 to 68), Tacitus referring to Nero's actions after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, while Pliny writes to Trajan.[30][32] But the chronological order for the documentation begins with Pliny writing around 111 AD, then Tacitus writing in the Annals around 115/116 AD and then Suetonius writing in the Lives of the Twelve Caesars around 122 AD.[30][33]

Notes

1. The Early Christian Church Volume 1 by Philip Carrington (Aug 11, 2011) ISBN 0521166411 Cambridge Univ Press page 429
2. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians by Stephen Benko (1 Jul 1986) ISBN 0253203856 pages 5-7
3. The Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourses in Conflict by George Heyman (Nov 2007) ISBN 0813214890 pp xii–ix
4. Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson (Aug 19, 2003) ISBN 0802822215 pages 504-596
5. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford UP pages 57-59
6. St. Croix, G.E.M (Nov 1963). "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?". Past & Present (26): 6–38. doi:10.1093/past/26.1.6. JSTOR 649902.
7. J. B. Rives, "The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire", The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 89, (1999), pp. 135–154
8. Moss, Candida (2013). The Myth of Persecution. New York: HarperOne HarperCollins. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-210452-6.
9. Tacitus, Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44
10. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Book 6, Chapter 16
11. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Book 5, Chapter 25
12. Barnes, Timothy David (1971). Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 143–163.
13. Paul Krestez "Pliny, Trojan and the Christians" in Hitler und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Sep 1979) edited by Hildegard Temporini, ISBN 3110078228 page 274
14. The New American Commentary: 1, 2 Peter, Jude by Thomas R. Schreiner (Sep 1, 2003) ISBN 0805401377 page 37
15. A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 694.
16. A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 696.
17. A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 699.
18. A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 701.
19. Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 13.
20. Moss, Candida (2013). The Myth of Persecution. New York: HarperOne HarperCollins. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-06-210452-6.
21. Benjamin H. Isaac (2006). The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton University Press. pp. 466–. ISBN 978-0-691-12598-5. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
22. Valerie M. Warrior (16 October 2006). Roman Religion. Cambridge University Press. pp. 127–. ISBN 978-0-521-82511-5. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
23. A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 710.
24. Leonard L. Thompson, "Ordinary Lives", in Reading the Book of Revelation, ed. David L. Barr (Leiden: Brill Academic, 2004), 37.
25. G. E. M. Ste. Croix, Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 120.
26. Tuccinardi, Enrico (June 2017). "An application of a profile-based method for authorship verification: Investigating the authenticity of Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan concerning the Christians". Retrieved 2022-10-06.
27. Moss, Candida (2013). The Myth of Persecution. New York: HarperOne HarperCollins. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-06-210452-6.
28. "Pliny the Younger on the Christ". Archived from the original on 27 May 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2012.
29. Hanaghan, Michael Peter (2022). "Rufinus and the Reimagination of Pliny's Correspondence with Trajan". Vigiliae Christianae. 76 (2): 202–216. doi:10.1163/15700720-bja10044. S2CID 247263907. Retrieved 14 April 2023.
30. Stephen Benko "Pagan Criticism of Christianity" in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt edited by Hildegard Temporin et al ISBN 3110080168 page
31. Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 69-70
32. P. E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), The Cambridge History of Latin Literature, page 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996). ISBN 0-521-21043-7
33. Christianity and the Roman Empire: background texts by Ralph Martin Novak 2001 ISBN 1-56338-347-0 pages 13 and 20

Celsus.

Celsus (/ˈsɛlsəs/; Hellenistic Greek: Κέλσος, Kélsos; fl. AD 175–177) was a 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity.[1][2][3] His literary work The True Word (also Account, Doctrine or Discourse; Greek: Hellenistic Greek: Λόγος Ἀληθής)[4][5] survives exclusively via quotations in Contra Celsum, a refutation written in 248 by Origen of Alexandria.[3] The True Word is the earliest known comprehensive criticism of Christianity and Judaism.[3]

Hanegraaff[6] has argued that The True Word was written shortly after the death of Justin Martyr (who was possibly the first Christian apologist), and was probably a response to his work.[6] Origen stated that Celsus was from the first half of the 2nd century AD, although the majority of modern scholars have come to a general consensus that Celsus probably wrote around AD 170 to 180.[7][8]

Philosophy

All that is known about Celsus himself comes from the surviving text of his book and from what Origen says about him.[9] Although Origen initially refers to Celsus as an Epicurean,[10][11][12] his arguments reflect ideas of the Platonic tradition, rather than Epicureanism.[10][13][12] Origen attributes this to Celsus's inconsistency,[10] but modern historians see it instead as evidence that Celsus was not an Epicurean at all.[10][11] Joseph Wilson Trigg states that Origen probably confused Celsus, the author of The True Word, with a different Celsus, who was an Epicurean philosopher and a friend of the Syrian satirist Lucian.[11] Celsus the Epicurean must have lived around the same time as the author of The True Word and he is mentioned by Lucian in his treatise On Magic.[11] Both Celsus the friend of Lucian and Celsus the author of The True Word evidently shared a passionate zeal against superstitio, making it easy to see how Origen could have concluded that they were the same person.[11]

Stephen Thomas states that Celsus may not have been a Platonist per se,[10] but that he was clearly familiar with Plato.[10] Celsus's actual philosophy appears to be a blend of elements derived from Platonism, Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism, and Stoicism.[10] Wilken likewise concludes that Celsus was a philosophical eclectic, whose views reflect a variety of ideas popular to a number of different schools.[14] Wilken classifies Celsus as "a conservative intellectual", noting that "he supports traditional values and defends accepted beliefs".[14] Theologian Robert M. Grant notes that Origen and Celsus actually agree on many points:[15] "Both are opposed to anthropotheism, to idolatry, and to any crudely literal theology."[15] Celsus also writes as a loyal citizen of the Roman Empire and a devoted believer in the ancient Greek religion and the religion in ancient Rome, distrustful of Christianity as new and foreign.[16]

Thomas remarks that Celsus "is no genius as a philosopher".[10] Nonetheless, most scholars, including Thomas, agree that Origen's quotations from The True Word reveal that the work was well-researched.[17][18][13][16] Celsus demonstrates extensive knowledge of both the Old and New Testaments[10][13][16] and of both Jewish and Christian history.[13][16] Celsus was also closely familiar with the literary features of ancient polemics.[16] Celsus seems to have read at least one work by one of the second-century Christian apologists, possibly Justin Martyr or Aristides of Athens.[19][20] From this reading, Celsus seems to have known which kinds of arguments Christians would be most vulnerable to.[20] He also mentions the Ophites and Simonians, two Gnostic sects that had almost completely vanished by Origen's time.[19] One of Celsus's main sources for Books I–II of The True Word was an earlier anti-Christian polemic written by an unknown Jewish author,[16][10] whom Origen refers to as the "Jew of Celsus".[10] This Jewish source also provides well-researched criticism of Christianity[16] and, although Celsus was also hostile to Judaism,[16] he occasionally relies on this Jewish author's arguments,[16] to demonstrate the inconsistency of the Christian position, and he also uses Christian arguments among others to deconstruct the Jewish religion.

Work

Main article: The True Word

Celsus was the author of a work titled The True Word (Logos Alēthēs). The argument was contested by the contemporary Christian community and the book was eventually banned in 448 AD by order of Valentinian III and Theodosius II, along with Porphyry's 15 books attacking the Christians, The Philosophy from Oracles. No complete copies are extant,[4][5] but it can be reconstructed from Origen's detailed account of it in his eight volume refutation, which quotes Celsus extensively.[4][8] Origen's work has survived and has thereby preserved Celsus's work.[21]

Celsus seems to have been interested in Ancient Egyptian religion,[22] and he seemed to know of Hellenistic Jewish logos-theology, both of which suggest The True Doctrine was composed in Alexandria.[23] Origen indicates that Celsus was an Epicurean living under the Emperor Hadrian.[24][25]

Celsus writes that "there is an ancient doctrine [archaios logos] which has existed from the beginning, which has always been maintained by the wisest nations and cities and wise men". He leaves Jews and Moses out of those he cites (Egyptians, Syrians, Indians, Persians, Odrysians, Samothracians, Eleusinians, Hyperboreans, Galactophagoi, Druids, and Getae), and instead blames Moses for the corruption of the ancient religion. "The goatherds and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader were deluded by clumsy deceits into thinking that there was only one God, [and] without any rational cause ... these goatherds and shepherds abandoned the worship of many gods". However, Celsus's harshest criticism was reserved for Christians, who "wall themselves off and break away from the rest of mankind".[6]

Celsus initiated a critical attack on Christianity, ridiculing many of its dogmas. He wrote that some Jews said Jesus's father was actually a Roman soldier named Pantera. Origen considered this a fabricated story.[26][27] In addition, Celsus addressed the miracles of Jesus, holding that "Jesus performed his miracles by sorcery (γοητεία)":[28][29][30]

O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and Satan. So that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men.[31][32]

Origen wrote his refutation in 248, and it includes quotes, paraphrases, and references to Celsus's arguments. Since accuracy was essential to his refutation of The True Doctrine,[33] most scholars agree that Origen is a reliable source for what Celsus wrote.[34][35]

Biblical scholar Arthur J. Droge has written that it is incorrect to refer to Celsus's perspective as polytheism. Instead, he was a henotheist, as opposed to the Jewish strict monotheism;[6] historian Wouter Hanegraaff explains that "the former has room for a hierarchy of lower deities which do not detract from the ultimate unity of the One."[36] Celsus shows himself familiar with the story of Jewish origins.[37][clarification needed] Conceding that Christians are not without success in business (infructuosi in negotiis), Celsus wants them to be good citizens, to retain their own belief but worship the emperors and join their fellow citizens in defending the empire.[38] This appeal on behalf of unity and mutual toleration nevertheless centers on submission to the state and military service. One of Celsus's bitterest complaints is that Christians refused to cooperate with civil society and held local customs and the ancient religions in contempt. The Christians viewed these as idolatrous and inspired by evil spirits, whereas polytheists like Celsus thought of them as the works of the Daemons, or the god's ministers, who ruled mankind in his place to keep him from the pollution of mortality.[39] Celsus attacks the Christians as feeding off faction and disunity, and accuses them of converting the vulgar and ignorant, while refusing to debate wise men.[40] As for their opinions regarding their sacred mission and exclusive holiness, Celsus responds by deriding their insignificance, comparing them to a swarm of bats, or ants creeping out of their nest, or frogs holding a symposium round a swamp, or worms in conventicle in a corner of the mud.[41] It is not known how many were Christians at the time of Celsus (the Jewish population of the empire may have been about 6.6–10% in a population of 60 million to quote one reference).[42]

References

1. Young, Frances M. (2006). "Monotheism and Christology". In Mitchell, Margaret M.; Young, Frances M. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 452–470. ISBN 978-0-521-81239-9.
2. Chisholm 1911, p. 609.
3. Gottheil, Richard; Krauss, Samuel (1906). "CELSUS (Kέλσος)". Jewish Encyclopedia. Kopelman Foundation. Retrieved 4 September 2020.
4. Hoffmann p.29
5. Ulrich R. Rohmer (15 January 2014). Ecce Homo: A collection of different views on Jesus. BookRix GmbH & Company KG. p. 98. ISBN 978-3-7309-7603-6.
6. Hanegraaff p.22
7. Hoffmann 1987, pp. 30–32
8. Chadwick, H., Origen: Contra Celsum, CUP (1965), p. xxviii. The arguments for the date depend on factors such as the state of the art of gnosticism, possible references to the Augusti, appeals to defense against barbarian invasion, and the possibility of identifying the persecution described by Celsus with a historical one.
9. Wilken 2003, p. 94.
10. Thomas 2004, p. 72.
11. Trigg 1983, p. 215.
12. Wilken 2003, pp. 94–95.
13. Trigg 1983, pp. 215–216.
14. Wilken 2003, p. 95.
15. Grant 1967, p. 552.
16. Gregerman 2016, p. 61.
17. McGuckin 2004, p. 33.
18. Thomas 2004, pp. 72–73.
19. Trigg 1983, p. 216.
20. Wilken 2003, p. 101.
21. Origen, Contra Celsum, preface 4.
22. Chadwick, H., Origen: Contra Celsum. CUP (1965), 3, 17, 19; 8, 58. He quotes an Egyptian musician named Dionysius in CC 6, 41.
23. Chadwick, H., Origen: Contra Celsum, CUP (1965), p. xxviii-xxix
24. Gottheil, Richard; Krauss, Samuel. "Celsus". Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2007-05-18.
25. Chadwick, H. Origen: Contra Celsum, introduction.
26. Contra Celsum by Origen, Henry Chadwick, 1980, ISBN 0-521-29576-9, page 32
27. Patrick, John, The Apology of Origen in Reply to Celsus, 2009, ISBN 1-110-13388-X, pages 22–24,
28. Hendrik van der Loos (1965). The Miracles of Jesus. Brill Publishers. Retrieved 14 June 2012. According to Celsus Jesus performed His miracles by sorcery (γοητεία); ditto in II, 14; II, 16; II, 44; II, 48; II, 49 (Celsus puts Jesus' miraculous signs on a par with those among men).
29. Margaret Y. MacDonald (3 October 1996). Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521567282. Retrieved 14 June 2012. Celsus calls Jesus a sorcerer. He argues that the miracles of Jesus are on the same level as: 'the works of sorcerers who profess to do wonderful miracles, and the accomplishments of those who are taught by the Egyptians, who for a few obols make known their sacred lore in the middle of the market-place and drive daemons out of men and blow away diseases and invoke the souls of heroes, displaying expensive banquets and dining tables and cakes and dishes which are non-existent, and who make things move as though they were alive although they are not really so, but only appear as such in the imagination.'
30. Philip Francis Esler (2000). The Early Christian World, Volume 2. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415164979. Retrieved 14 June 2012. To disprove the deity of Christ required an explanation of his miracles which were recorded in scripture. Celsus does not deny the fact of Jesus' miracles, but rather concentrates on the means by which they were performed. Perhaps influenced by rabbinical sources, Celsus attributes Jesus' miracles to his great skills as a magician.
31. Ernest Cushing Richardson, Bernhard Pick (1905). The Ante-Nicene fathers: translations of the writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325, Volume 4. Scribner's. Retrieved 14 June 2012. But Celsus, wishing to assimilate the miracles of Jesus to the works of human sorcery, says in express terms as follows: "O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and Satan. So that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men."
32. Origen (30 June 2004). Origen Against Celsus, Volume 2. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 9781419139161. Retrieved 14 June 2012. But Celsus, wishing to assimilate the miracles of Jesus to the works of human sorcery, says in express terms as follows: "O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan. So that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a divine nature; but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men."
33. James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 2006. p 64
34. David Brewster & Richard R. Yeo, The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, Volume 8, Routledge, 1999. p 362
35. Bernhard Lang, International Review of Biblical Studies, Volume 54, Publisher BRILL, 2009. p. 401
36. Hanegraaff p. 38
37. Martin, Dale B. (2004). Inventing Superstition: From the Hippocratics to the Christians. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 141, 143. ISBN 0-674-01534-7.
38. Terrot Reavely Glover, The Conflict Of Religions In The Early Roman Empire, (Methuen & Co., 1910 [Kindle Edition]), chap. VIII., p. 431
39. Glover, p. 427
40. Glover, p. 410
41. Glover, p. 412
42. Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, (Yale: University Press, 2nd edition, 2003)

Bibliography

• Grant, Robert M. (1967), "Origen", in Edwards, Paul (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 5, New York City, New York: The MacMillan Company & The Free Press, pp. 551–552, OCLC 174214019
• Gregerman, Adam (2016), "Origen's Contra Celsum", Building on the Ruins of the Temple, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, vol. 165, Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 59–96, ISBN 978-3-16154-322-7
• Heine, Ronald E. (3 May 2004), "The Alexandrians", in Young, Francis; Ayres, Lewis; Louth, Andrew; Casiday, Augustine (eds.), The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–130, ISBN 978-0-521-46083-5
• Litwa, M. David (2014), Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, ISBN 978-1-45147-985-0
• Marcovich, M. (2001), "Preface", Contra Celsum: Libri VIII, Leiden, The Netherlands, Boston, Massachusetts, and Köln, Germany: Brill, ISBN 9004119760
• McGuckin, John Anthony (2004), "The Scholarly Works of Origen", in McGuckin, John Anthony (ed.), The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 25–44, ISBN 978-0-66422-472-1
• Olson, Roger E. (1999), The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, ISBN 978-0-83081-505-0
• Somos, Róbert (2015), Fürst, Alfons (ed.), Logic and Argumentation in Origen, Adamantiana: Texte und Studien zu Origines und seinem Erbe, vol. 7, Münster, Germany: Aschendorff Verlag, ISBN 978-3-40213-717-8
• Thomas, Stephen (2004), "Celsus", in McGuckin, John Anthony (ed.), The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 72–73, ISBN 978-0-66422-472-1
• Trigg, Joseph Wilson (1983), Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church, Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, ISBN 978-0-80420-945-8
• Wilken, Robert Louis (2003) [1984], The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, New Haven, Connecticut and London, England: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-30009-839-6

Sources

• Nixey, Catherine (2017). The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World. London, UK: Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-5098-1606-4.
• Hanegraaff, Wouter (2012). Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521196215.
• Hoffmann, R. Joseph (1987). On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-504151-4.

Further reading

• Theodor Keim, Gegen die Christen. (1873) [Celsus' wahres Wort], Reprint Matthes & Seitz, München 1991 (ISBN 3-88221-350-7)
• Pélagaud, Etude sur Celse (1878)
• K. J. Neumann's edition in Scriptores Graeci qui Christianam impugnaverunt religionem
• article in Hauck-Herzog's Realencyk. für prot. Theol. where a very full bibliography is given
• W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, i.169 ff.
• Adolf Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, ii. 129 if.
• J. A. Froude, Short Studies, iv.
• Bernhard Pick, "The Attack of Celsus on Christianity," The Monist, Vol. XXI, 1911.
• Des Origenes Acht Bücher gegen Celsus. Übersetzt von Paul Koetschau. Josef Kösel Verlag. München. 1927.
• Celsus: Gegen die Christen. Übersetzt von Th. Keim (1873) [Celsus' wahres Wort], Reprint Matthes & Seitz, München 1991 (ISBN 3-88221-350-7)
• Horacio E. Lona, Die »Wahre Lehre« des Kelsos. Übersetzt und erklärt. Kommentar zu frühchristlichen Apologeten, supplementary volume 1. Freiburg: Herder, 2005, ISBN 3-451-28599-1.
• "Celsus the Platonist", Catholic Encyclopedia article
• B. A. Zuiddam, "Old Critics and Modern Theology", Dutch Reformed Theological Journal (South Africa), part xxxvi, number 2, June 1995.
• Stephen Goranson, "Celsus of Pergamum: Locating a Critic of Early Christianity", in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough (eds), The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the "Other" in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007) (Information Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 60/61).

External links

Wikiquote has quotations related to Celsus.

• "Celsus the Platonist" . Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. 1908.
• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Celsus" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 5 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 609–611.
• "Celsus". The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901–1906.
• Origen's Text on Celsus
• full text of The Arguments of Celsus Against the Christians in Google Books
• Works by Celsus at Project Gutenberg
• Works by Celsus at Open Library
• Works by Celsus at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks

- Wiki - 

Celsus' Critique of Christianity: Early Non-Christian Testimony

September 27, 2025•by Matthew Frisbeehistorical. Origen, who preserved Celsus' critique in Contra Celsum.

Celsus was a Greek philosopher and one of the earliest outspoken critics of Christianity. Although his work The True Doctrine survives only through the rebuttal of the 3rd-century Christian scholar Origen in Contra Celsum, scholars generally regard the preserved quotations as substantially faithful to Celsus's original arguments, given their length, detail, and consistently unflattering portrayal of Christianity.

Writing around 178 AD, Celsus acknowledges that Jesus existed but seeks to discredit him, portraying him as an illegitimate figure, a sorcerer, and inferior to the wisdom of true philosophy.

📜 Celsus' Account of Early Christianity

Celsus' critique confirms several core facts about Christianity that were evidently well-known in the Roman world, even among hostile intellectuals:

Celsus on Christians (Direct Quotations) Inferred Facts
"Jesus was born a bastard... his mother was unchaste... and he practiced magic." (Contra Celsum, 1.32-34) Historical Jesus: Confirms that a man named Jesus lived and performed acts considered extraordinary or miraculous.
"He drew over to him certain people by sorcery and secret arts." (Contra Celsum, 1.32-34) Miracles Viewed as Sorcery: His miracles were noted even by critics, though dismissed as magic.
"The Christians worship a man who was executed as a criminal." (Contra Celsum, 1.48) Jesus Crucified and Worshipped: Confirms that followers regarded the crucified Jesus as a divine figure.
"They neglect reason, despise true philosophy, and follow this crucified charlatan." (Contra Celsum, 1.48) Faith vs Philosophy: Christians' devotion to Jesus contrasted sharply with Greco-Roman intellectual norms.
"They live communally, care for one another, and sustain widows and orphans in the cities." (Contra Celsum, 1.53) Charity and Brotherhood: Christians practiced mutual support and social care, even in the eyes of hostile critics.

Celsus repeatedly calls Jesus a "bastard," "sorcerer," and "charlatan," while deriding Christians as gullible and irrational. Yet, even in these insults, he inadvertently attests to core realities: Jesus existed, was crucified, attracted followers, performed extraordinary acts (dismissed as magic), inspired devotion, and founded a community characterized by radical care and servanthood.

🏛️ The Historical Significance of Celsus' Critique

Historians value Celsus not for his Platonic opinions, but because his hostility confirms essential facts about early Christianity from a philosophical enemy:

1. Jesus' Existence and Crucifixion: Celsus explicitly recognizes Jesus as a historical figure who was publicly executed, corroborating the non-Christian testimonies of Lucian and Tacitus.

2. Miracles and Influence: He admits that Jesus performed remarkable acts that drew followers, even if he dismisses them as sorcery — confirming the widespread knowledge of the miraculous claims.

3. Social Ethics: By noting Christians' fervent care for one another, including widows and orphans, Celsus provides independent evidence of their distinct and challenging social ethics, much like Lucian's astonished description of their charity toward the imprisoned.

4. Contrast with Philosophy: His primary criticism highlights how Christianity defied conventional Greco-Roman values, emphasizing faith in a crucified man over reasoned, intellectual philosophy.

Like Lucian, Celsus sought to portray Christianity as foolish and dangerous. Ironically, his critique preserves historical evidence of Jesus and Christianity's growing influence — making him a crucial, hostile witness to the early church. His work offers historians a window into what was known about the core tenets of Christianity among its most educated, sophisticated, and fervent opponents.

Celsus's acknowledgment that Christians "sustain widows and orphans" and "care for one another" provides crucial independent confirmation of their radical social ethics. This servant-heartedness, also attested by Lucian's astonished description of their generosity toward the imprisoned, was a defining and widespread characteristic of the early church. When even its harshest critics cannot help but document the movement's sacrificial charity and unbreakable communal ties, it powerfully underscores the historical reliability of the movement itself. By documenting what he opposed, Celsus confirms the reality, devotion, and powerful social impact of early Christianity, transforming his scorn into a profound, unintended historical witness to the early church's reliable foundations and core teachings.

📚 References

1. Origen. Contra Celsum. Book I. New Advent. Accessed September 26, 2025.

2. Celsus. The True Doctrine. Translated by R. Joseph Hoffmann. Oxford University Press, 1987.

3. Image Credits: Origen. Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain. Available here.

- seekandfindtruth.com - 

Josephus.

Flavius Josephus[a][b] (born Yosef ben Mattityahu;[c][d] c. AD 37 – c. 100) was a Roman–Jewish historian and military leader. Best known for writing The Jewish War, he was born in Jerusalem—then part of the Roman province of Judea—to a father of priestly descent and a mother who claimed Hasmonean royal ancestry.

He initially fought against the Roman Empire during the First Jewish–Roman War as general of the Jewish forces in Galilee, until surrendering in AD 67 to the Roman army led by Vespasian after the six-week siege of Yodfat. Josephus claimed the Jewish messianic prophecies that initiated the First Jewish–Roman War made reference to Vespasian becoming Roman emperor. In response, Vespasian decided to keep him as a slave and presumably interpreter. After Vespasian became emperor in AD 69, he granted Josephus his freedom, at which time Josephus assumed the Emperor's family name of Flavius.[9]

Flavius Josephus fully defected to the Roman side and was granted Roman citizenship. He became an advisor and close associate of Vespasian's son Titus, serving as his translator during Titus's protracted siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, which resulted in the near-total razing of the city and the destruction of the Second Temple.

Josephus recorded the Great Jewish Revolt (AD 66–70), including the siege of Masada. His most important works were The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[10] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation. Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Greek and Roman audience. These works provide insight into first-century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity.[10] Josephus's works are the chief source next to the Bible for the history and antiquity of ancient Israel, and provide an independent extra-biblical account of such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, John the Baptist, James, brother of Jesus, and Jesus of Nazareth.[11]

Biography

See also: First Jewish–Roman War, Siege of Yodfat, and VespasianGalilee, site of Josephus's governorship, before the First Jewish–Roman War

Josephus was born into one of Jerusalem's elite families.[12][13][14][15] He was the second-born son of Matthias, a Jewish priest. His older full-blooded brother was also, like his father, called Matthias.[16] Their mother was an aristocratic woman who was descended from the royal and formerly ruling Hasmonean dynasty.[17] Josephus's paternal grandparents were a man also named Joseph(us) and his wife—an unnamed Hebrew noblewoman—distant relatives of each other.[18] Josephus's family was wealthy. He descended through his father from the priestly order of the Jehoiarib, which was the first of the 24 orders of priests in the Temple in Jerusalem.[19] Josephus calls himself a fourth-generation descendant of "High Priest Jonathan", referring to either Jonathan Apphus or Alexander Jannaeus.[19] He was raised in Jerusalem and educated alongside his brother.[20]

At around 26 years old, Josephus traveled to Rome to negotiate the release of Jewish priests imprisoned there by Nero. With the assistance of Nero's wife, Poppaea, and a Jewish actor, he succeeded in securing their freedom.[21][22] Upon his return to Jerusalem, at the outbreak of the First Jewish–Roman War, Josephus was appointed the military governor of Galilee.[23] His arrival in Galilee, however, was fraught with internal division: the inhabitants of Sepphoris and Tiberias opted to maintain peace with the Romans; the people of Sepphoris enlisted the help of the Roman army to protect their city,[24] while the people of Tiberias appealed to King Agrippa's forces to protect them from the insurgents.[25] Josephus trained 65,000 troops in the region.[11]

Josephus also contended with John of Gischala who had also set his sight over the control of Galilee. Like Josephus, John had amassed to himself a large band of supporters from Gischala (Gush Halab) and Gabara,[e] including the support of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.[29] Meanwhile, Josephus fortified several towns and villages in Lower Galilee, among which were Tiberias, Bersabe, Selamin, Japha, and Tarichaea, in anticipation of a Roman onslaught.[30] In Upper Galilee, he fortified the towns of Jamnith, Seph, Mero, and Achabare, among other places.[30] Josephus, with the Galileans under his command, managed to bring both Sepphoris and Tiberias into subjection,[24] but was eventually forced to relinquish his hold on Sepphoris by the arrival of Roman forces under Placidus the tribune and later by Vespasian himself. Josephus first engaged the Roman army at a village called Garis, where he launched an attack against Sepphoris a second time, before being repulsed.[31] At length, he resisted the Roman army in its siege of Yodfat (Jotapata) until it fell to the Roman army in the lunar month of Tammuz, in the thirteenth year of Nero's reign.

After the Jewish garrison of Yodfat fell under siege, the Romans invaded, killing thousands; the survivors committed suicide. According to Josephus, he was trapped in a cave with 40 of his companions in July AD 67. The Romans (commanded by Flavius Vespasian and his son Titus, both subsequently Roman emperors) asked the group to surrender, but they refused. According to Josephus's account, he suggested a method of collective suicide;[32] they drew lots and killed each other, one by one, and Josephus happened to be one of two men that were left who surrendered to the Roman forces and became prisoners.[f] In AD 69, Josephus was released.[34] According to his account, he acted as a negotiator with the defenders during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, during which time his parents were held as hostages by Simon bar Giora.[35]

While being confined at Yodfat (Jotapata), Josephus claimed to have experienced a divine revelation that later led to his speech predicting Vespasian would become emperor. After the prediction came true, he was released by Vespasian, who considered his gift of prophecy to be divine. Josephus wrote that his revelation had taught him three things: that God, the creator of the Jewish people, had decided to "punish" them; that "fortune" had been given to the Romans; and that God had chosen him "to announce the things that are to come".[36][37][38][39] To many Jews, such claims were simply self-serving.[40]

Josephus interpreted the destruction of the Temple as a sign that God had turned to the Romans due to Jewish sins, urging submission to Roman authority. However, he also believed that the covenant between God and Israel remained intact, with restoration dependent on Jewish repentance, echoing biblical interpretations of the First Temple's destruction.[41]

In AD 71, he went to Rome as part of the entourage of Titus.[42] There, he became a Roman citizen and client of the ruling Flavian dynasty. In addition to Roman citizenship, he was granted accommodation in the conquered Judaea and a pension. While in Rome and under Flavian patronage, Josephus wrote all of his known works. Although he only ever calls himself "Josephus" in his writings, later historians refer to him as "Flavius Josephus", confirming that he adopted the nomen Flavius from his patrons, as was the custom amongst freedmen.[5][6]

Vespasian arranged for Josephus to marry a captured Jewish woman, whom he later divorced. Around the year 71, Josephus married an Alexandrian Jewish woman as his third wife. They had three sons, of whom only Flavius Hyrcanus survived childhood. Josephus later divorced his third wife. Around 75, he married his fourth wife, a Greek Jewish woman from Crete, who was a member of a distinguished family. They had two sons, Flavius Justus and Flavius Simonides Agrippa.

Josephus's life story remains ambiguous. He was described by Harris in 1985 as a law-observant Jew who believed in the compatibility of Judaism and Graeco-Roman thought, commonly referred to as Hellenistic Judaism.[10] Josippon, the Hebrew version of Josephus, contains changes.[43] His critics were never satisfied as to why his suicide attempt did not kill him in Galilee, and after his capture, accepted the patronage of Romans.

Scholarship and impact on history

The works of Josephus provide information about the First Jewish–Roman War and also represent literary source material for understanding the context of the Dead Sea Scrolls and late Temple Judaism.

Josephan scholarship had traditionally identified him as a Pharisee. Some authors portrayed him as a member of the sect and as a traitor to the Jewish nation—a view which became known as the classical concept of Josephus.[44] In the mid-20th century, scholars challenged this view and formulated the modern concept of Josephus. They consider him a Pharisee but describe him in part as patriot and a historian of some standing. In his 1991 book, Steve Mason argued that Josephus was not a Pharisee but an orthodox Aristocrat-Priest who became associated with the philosophical school of the Pharisees as a matter of deference, and not by willing association.[45]

Impact on history and archaeology

The works of Josephus include useful material for historians about individuals, groups, customs, and geographical places. However, modern historians have been cautious of taking his writings at face value. For example, Carl Ritter, in his highly influential Erdkunde in the 1840s, wrote in a review of authorities on the ancient geography of the region:

Outside of the Scriptures, Josephus holds the first and the only place among the native authors of Judaea; for Philo of Alexandria, the later Talmud, and other authorities, are of little service in understanding the geography of the country. Josephus is, however, to be used with great care. As a Jewish scholar, as an officer of Galilee, as a military man, and a person of great experience in everything belonging to his own nation, he attained to that remarkable familiarity with his country in every part, which his antiquarian researches so abundantly evince. But he was controlled by political motives: his great purpose was to bring his people, the despised Jewish race, into honour with the Greeks and Romans; and this purpose underlay every sentence, and filled his history with distortions and exaggerations.[46]

Josephus mentions that in his day there were 240 towns and villages scattered across Upper and Lower Galilee,[47] some of which he names. Josephus's works are the primary source for the chain of Jewish high priests during the Second Temple period. A few of the Jewish customs named by him include the practice of hanging a linen curtain at the entrance to one's house,[48] and the Jewish custom to partake of a Sabbath-day's meal around the sixth-hour of the day (at noon).[49] He notes also that it was permissible for Jewish men to marry many wives (polygamy).[50] His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He also describes the Sadducees, the Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius's census and the Zealots, and such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and Jesus.[51] Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus's writings and years of excavation allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover what he considered to be the location of Herod's Tomb, after searching for 35 years.[52] It was above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 km south of Jerusalem—as described in Josephus's writings.[53] In October 2013, archaeologists Joseph Patrich and Benjamin Arubas challenged the identification of the tomb as that of Herod.[54] According to Patrich and Arubas, the tomb is too modest to be Herod's and has several unlikely features.[54] Roi Porat, who replaced Netzer as excavation leader after the latter's death, stood by the identification.[54]

Josephus's writings provide the first-known source for many stories considered as Biblical history, despite not being found in the Bible or related material. These include Ishmael as the founder of the Arabs,[55] the connection of "Semites", "Hamites" and "Japhetites" to the classical nations of the world, and the story of the siege of Masada.[56]

References

1. Mason 2000.
2. Schürer 1973, p. 46.
3. Josephus 1737, 18.8.1.
4. "Josephus". Collins English Dictionary. HarperCollins Publishers.
5. Hollander, William den (2014). Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome: From Hostage to Historian. BRILL. pp. 1–4. ISBN 978-90-04-26683-4.
6. Collins, John J.; Harlow, Daniel C. (2012). "Josephus". Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4674-3739-4.
7. Ben-Ari, Nitsa (2003). "The double conversion of Ben-Hur: a case of manipulative translation" (PDF). Target. 14 (2): 263–301. doi:10.1075/target.14.2.05ben. Retrieved 28 November 2011. The converts themselves were banned from society as outcasts and so was their historiographic work or, in the more popular historical novels, their literary counterparts. Josephus Flavius, formerly Yosef Ben Matityahu (34–95), had been shunned, then banned as a traitor.
8. Goodman 2019, p. 186.
9. Mimouni 2012, p. 133.
10. Harris 1985.
11. Josephus, Flavius; Whiston, William; Maier, Paul L. (1999). The New Complete Works of Josephus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. pp. 7–8. ISBN 9780825429484.
12. Goodman 2007, p. 8: "Josephus was born into the ruling elite of Jerusalem"
13. Poole, Gary William. "Flavius Josephus". Encyclopedia Britannica, 21 Mar. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Flavius-Josephus. Accessed 1 June 2025.
14. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Flavius Josephus summary". Encyclopedia Britannica, 2 May. 2020, https://www.britannica.com/summary/Flavius-Josephus. Accessed 1 June 2025.
15. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "What was Flavius Josephus's childhood like?". Encyclopedia Britannica, 12 Feb. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/question/What-was-Flavius-Josephuss-childhood-like. Accessed 1 June 2025.
16. Mason 2000, pp. 12–13.
17. Nodet 1997, p. 250.
18. "Josephus Lineage" (PDF). History of the Daughters (Fourth ed.). Sonoma, California: L P Publishing. December 2012. pp. 349–350.
19. Schürer 1973, pp. 45–46.
20. Mason 2000, p. 13.
21. Josephus, Vita § 3
22. JaneBjork (3 December 2021). "Who Was Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian?". Patterns of Evidence. Retrieved 1 June 2025.
23. Goldberg, G. J. "The Life of Flavius Josephus". Josephus.org. Retrieved 18 May 2012.
24. Josephus, Vita, § 67
25. Josephus, Vita, § 68
26. Klausner, J. (1934). "Qobetz". Journal of the Jewish Palestinian Exploration Society (in Hebrew). 3: 261–263.
27. Rappaport 2006, p. 44 [note 2].
28. Safrai 1985, pp. 59–62.
29. Josephus, Vita, § 25; § 38; Josephus, Flavius (1926). The Life of Josephus. doi:10.4159/DLCL.josephus-life.1926. Retrieved 31 May 2016. – via digital Loeb Classical Library (subscription required)
30. Josephus, Vita, § 37
31. Josephus, Vita, § 71
32. Josephus, The Jewish War. Book 3, Chapter 8, par. 7
33. Cf. this example, Roman Roulette. Archived February 21, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
34. Jewish War IV.622–629
35. Josephus, The Jewish War (5.13.1. and 5.13.3.)
36. Gray 1993, pp. 35–38.
37. Aune 1991, p. 140.
38. Gnuse 1996, pp. 136–142.
39. den Hollander, William (2015). "Jesus, Josephus, and the fall of Jerusalem: On doing history with Scripture". HTS Theological Studies. 71 (1): 01–09. doi:10.4102/HTS.V71I1.2942. hdl:2263/51005. ISSN 0259-9422.
40. Goodman 2007, p. 9: "Later generations of Jews have been inclined to treat such claims as self-serving"
41. Katz, Steven T., ed. (2006). The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 31. doi:10.1017/chol9780521772488. ISBN 978-0-521-77248-8.
42. "Imagining Jerusalem : Josephus". exhibits.uflib.ufl.edu. Retrieved 1 June 2025.
43. Neuman, Abraham A. (1952). "Josippon and the Apocrypha". The Jewish Quarterly Review. 43 (1): 1–26. doi:10.2307/1452910. ISSN 0021-6682. JSTOR 1452910.
44. Millard 1997, p. 306.
45. Mason, Steve (April 2003). "Flavius Josephus and the Pharisees". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 19 February 2024.
46. Ritter, C. (1866). The Comparative Geographie of Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula. T. & T. Clark.
47. Josephus, Vita § 45
48. Josephus 1737, 3.6.4: After describing the curtain that hung in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, Josephus adds: "Whence that custom of ours is derived, of having a fine linen veil, after the temple has been built, to be drawn over the entrances."
49. Josephus, Vita § 54
50. Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston, A. M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley: 1895, s.v. The Jewish War 1.24.2 (end) (1.473).
51. Whealey, Alice (2003). Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. Peter Lang Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8204-5241-8. In the sixteenth century the authenticity of the text [Testimonium Flavianum] was publicly challenged, launching a controversy that has still not been resolved today
52. Kraft, Dina (9 May 2007). "Archaeologist Says Remnants of King Herod's Tomb Are Found". NY Times. Retrieved 24 September 2015.
53. Murphy 2008, p. 99.
54. Hasson, Nir (11 October 2013). "Archaeological stunner: Not Herod's Tomb after all?". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 27 September 2015. Retrieved 24 September 2015.
55. Millar 2011, Chapter 14: "Hagar, Ishmael, Josephus, and the origins of Islam": "Josephus is thus alluding to a proposition, not yet established in his narrative, that Ishmael was the founder (ktistēs) of the race (ethnos) of the 'Arabes' and offers this as his explanation of a custom currently observed by them."
56. Gilad, Elon (17 June 2019). "The Myth of Masada: How Reliable Was Josephus, Anyway?". Haaretz. Retrieved 28 September 2023. The only source we have for the story of Masada, and numerous other reported events from the time, is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, author of the book 'The Jewish War'.

- Wiki - 

Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the Testimonium Flavianum

August 22, 2025•by Matthew FrisbeehistoricalA manuscript leaf of Josephus's Antiquities visually connects this article's discussion of the Testimonium Flavianum to the work in which the passage appears.

Few ancient texts have faced more debate than Josephus's famous reference to Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum (TF), found in Antiquities 18.3.3. For generations, scholars have proposed varying degrees of Christian interpolation, leading many to approach the passage cautiously when discussing extra-biblical evidence for the historical Jesus.

However, recent research by historian Tom Schmidt has renewed the conversation through detailed literary and stylometric analysis. Schmidt argues that when the contested lines are understood in their original Greek context, the passage fits naturally with Josephus's usual wording and historical style, supporting the view that it substantially preserves his original account.

In this context, the Testimonium is best understood as Josephus's own restrained report of Jesus's public ministry and his execution under Pontius Pilate, not a later Christian invention. If so, it stands as an early, independent, non-Christian testimony to Jesus preserved within first-century Jewish history.

Rather than rehashing the entire debate, this article focuses on historian Tom Schmidt's recent research and the new evidence he brings to the question of the Testimonium's authenticity. While not all scholars agree with Schmidt's conclusions, his cumulative analysis has significantly reframed how the passage is evaluated within contemporary Josephus studies.

🧭 Introduction

In this hour-long interview, Tom Schmidt sits down with scholar Gavin Ortlund to unpack the latest evidence on the TF: a data-driven case for its substantial authenticity. The conversation brings his statistical, textual, and contextual arguments to life. The full conversation is worth engaging for its depth and nuance:

For those who want a deeper dive, Schmidt's book, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (Oxford University Press, 2025), is available free online as an open-access PDF: https://academic.oup.com/book/60034

Several of the most compelling elements of Schmidt's thesis hinge on how scholars evaluate the reliability of Josephus's account. To understand the force of his argument, however, we must first consider who Josephus was and how he typically wrote.

📜 Josephus in Historical Context

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–100 AD) was a Jewish historian, Pharisee, and former commander in the Jewish revolt against Rome, who later wrote under Roman patronage. His Antiquities of the Jews preserves a vast chronicle of Jewish history, culture, and politics in the first century.

One of the most debated passages in Antiquities is the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3), the earliest non-Christian account of Jesus.

Historically, scholars have been cautious about using this passage as evidence. The primary concern has been that it may have been altered by later Christian scribes, with certain phrases sounding overly flattering and some stylistic features appearing uncharacteristic of Josephus. This very controversy drew Schmidt into his 10-year research project, aiming to clarify the passage's authenticity through rigorous data analysis.

The Testimonium Flavianum (TF) in Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3 of Antiquities:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." — Josephus 18.3.3

❓Reasons for Skepticism: Traditional Critiques

Critics have long cited three main reasons for doubting Josephus's authorship of the TF:

1) Overly flattering language: The passage calls Jesus "the Christ," claims he was resurrected, performed miracles, and fulfilled prophecy. To early critics, this sounded too favorable to have been written by a non-Christian historian.

2) Stylistic mismatch: Some argued the TF did not match Josephus's usual Greek style, vocabulary, or narrative techniques.

3) Patristic silence: Early Christian writers do not clearly cite the Testimonium Flavianum until Eusebius in the fourth century. Critics have argued that if the passage existed in its current form earlier, apologists such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, or Origen would likely have appealed to it when defending the historicity or messianic identity of Jesus.

Even Schmidt once accepted these critiques until data-driven research revealed patterns and insights that challenge the traditional view.

🛡️Addressing Skepticism

Linguistic and Stylistic Consistency

Schmidt's work, alongside other scholarship, uses stylometrics, which is the statistical study of an author's writing style. This analysis demonstrates that the TF's vocabulary, syntax, and rhetorical devices are consistent with Josephus's other works, including Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War.

For instance: the passage's structure, vocabulary, and themes mirror his other works, challenging claims that it is a later Christian insertion. Also, Josephus frequently uses phrases to introduce new topics in the same way the TF begins.

While stylometric analysis addresses concerns about authorship and literary style, critics have also focused on the passage's specific wording. Several Greek terms have been read as overtly Christian in tone. Yet when these terms are examined within Josephus's broader usage, they may not carry the theological weight often assumed.

Reinterpreting Key Terms

1) 'Paradoxa' (Schmidt, Ch. 3)

The Greek term paradoxa is often translated as "miracles," implying divine intervention. But Josephus routinely uses paradoxa to describe extraordinary or unusual deeds performed by figures like Egyptian magicians not just acts of God.

Even among Jesus's contemporaries, extraordinary deeds weren't automatically seen as divine. The Pharisees, for example, accused him of casting out demons by the "prince of demons" (Matthew 12:2424 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."; Mark 3:2222 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "by the prince of demons he casts out the demons."; Luke 11:1515 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,").

This shows that Josephus could acknowledge remarkable deeds without attributing them to God, supporting a neutral, historical reading of the TF.1

2) 'Wise Man' and 'Doer of Wonderful Works' (Ch. 3)

These descriptors are part of Josephus's standard vocabulary, used for various figures he writes about, including prophets and philosophers, without necessarily implying divinity. For example, he uses similar language to describe the Essenes and other notable figures. Therefore, their use in the TF is objective, not theological.

3) 'He appeared to them alive again the third day' (Ch. 3)

The phrase traditionally rendered as "he appeared to them alive again the third day" is better understood as a neutral report of the disciples' perception. Tom Schmidt argues that a more accurate translation — "he seemed to them to be alive" — is supported by several lines of evidence:

1. Greek syntax – The verb used in the original Greek, ὤφθησαν (ōphthēsan), is the passive form of to be seen. In Josephus's other writings, he frequently uses this construction to report how events appeared to observers, without asserting them as factual.

2. Consistent reportorial style – Across Antiquities, Josephus regularly describes extraordinary events using phrasing that conveys perception rather than doctrinal affirmation, whether discussing Jewish figures or foreign magicians.

3. Manuscript evidence – Early Latin, Syriac, and Armenian translations render the phrase in a way that emphasizes appearance or perception, not theological assertion. For example, Syriac versions read "it seemed to them that he was alive," preserving the neutral tone.

4. Historical context – By reporting what followers believed, Josephus maintains his objective, historical perspective. The TF thus reflects contemporary perception rather than an endorsement of Christian claims about the resurrection.

This subtle but crucial shift in translation aligns the passage with Josephus's typical objective reporting style, strengthening the argument that the TF preserves his authentic voice rather than reflecting later Christian interpolation.

4) Jesus as 'The Christ' (Ch. 3, 4)

Josephus references Jesus in another passage concerning James:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others… he delivered them to be stoned." — Antiquities 20.9.1

Critics have argued that the TF must have been a Christian interpolation because it refers to Jesus as "the Christ," which seems theologically loaded. However, Schmidt demonstrates that this objection misunderstands Josephus's method. The phrase "who was called Christ" is consistent with his neutral, reportorial style: he is documenting how others identified Jesus, not endorsing a Christian claim.

Schmidt points out that even the TF's phrasing can be reconciled with Josephus's style. Early translations in Latin, Syriac, and Armenian often render the expression as "thought to be the Christ" or similar. This aligns with Josephus's historical reporting: he consistently records the beliefs and perceptions of people around him without asserting their truth. As Schmidt notes:

"The phrase 'he was thought to be the Christ' accurately captures the contemporary perception of Jesus as a messianic figure, reflecting Josephus's method of reporting beliefs without endorsing them." — Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ

By showing that both the Greek original and the early translations convey perception rather than doctrinal affirmation, Schmidt argues that the TF's use of "Christ" does not indicate Christian tampering. Instead, it reflects a factual report of a widely recognized title, fully consistent with how Josephus presents other figures in his histories.

Taken together, the Greek phrasing, Josephus's narrative style, and early translations demonstrate that the TF's reference to Jesus as Christ is not evidence of Christian interpolation but rather an example of Josephus's objective historiography.

5) Ancient Versions: Supporting Neutrality (Ch. 4)

Early translations of Josephus's works provide additional support for this interpretation. Latin, Syriac, and Armenian versions often render the phrase as "thought to be the Christ" or its equivalent. Schmidt argues that these translations preserve the original, reportorial intent:

• Latin manuscripts: emphasize perception rather than endorsement.

• Syriac translations: read along the lines of "he was considered to be the Christ," again showing a factual, non-doctrinal statement.

• Armenian versions: similarly frame the term as a contemporary designation, not a theological claim.

Together, the original Greek context, Josephus's narrative style, and these early translations reinforce the idea that Josephus is recording contemporary understanding and belief, rather than inserting Christian affirmation. This aligns with his broader historiographical method, where he consistently documents what people believed without adopting their convictions as his own.

Stylistic Evidence

1) Word Frequency and Stylistic Patterns (Ch. 4)

Tom Schmidt also conducted a word frequency analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum to assess its consistency with Josephus's broader writings. The results show that key vocabulary and syntactic patterns in the TF match Josephus's typical style, further supporting its authenticity.

For example, the TF describes the disciples as "receiving Jesus' teaching with pleasure." While this may sound flattering to modern readers, Schmidt notes that in Josephus's usage, this phrase often carries a slightly critical tone, describing people who are naive, overly eager, or easily impressed. This aligns with the New Testament depiction of the disciples' initial misunderstandings and enthusiasm, suggesting that the phrasing is characteristic of Josephus rather than a Christian interpolation.

The word frequency patterns, combined with these stylistic nuances, reinforce the argument that the passage likely originates from Josephus himself, reflecting his historical and reportorial voice rather than later theological embellishment.

2) Unique Word Usage: A Marker of Authenticity (Ch. 4)

Critics have previously flagged the use of a single unique word in the TF — one that Josephus does not use elsewhere in the passage — as suspicious. However, Tom Schmidt's analysis reframes this as a point of linguistic authenticity.

Josephus's writing demonstrates a high rate of unique word usage: across his works, he employs over 5,000 words only once, averaging roughly one unique word every 87 words. The TF is approximately 90 words long, meaning that the appearance of a unique word aligns exactly with Josephus's normal stylistic patterns.

Rather than suggesting Christian interpolation, this rare word is consistent with Josephus's frequency of unique words and serves as a subtle marker of authenticity. Its contextual fit within the passage further supports the view that the TF reflects Josephus's own writing rather than later theological embellishment.

3) Reception in Ancient and Medieval Literature (Ch. 1)

Another line of evidence comes from the ancient and medieval reception of the TF. Schmidt identifies roughly 20 quotations of the passage in Greek literature spanning antiquity and the medieval period, preserved across Greek catenae, chronographies, and historiographical compilations.

Interestingly, these citations:

• Focus on historical and factual elements such as chronology, number of disciples, nature of Jesus's teaching.

• Do not emphasize miracles, resurrection, or theological claims, which modern critics often highlight.

Schmidt interprets this as strong evidence that Josephus's original audience and later readers understood the passage as historical reporting rather than confessional or theological writing. They read the text much as Josephus did, categorizing Jesus as a notable historical figure whose followers had perceptions about him, without assuming divine endorsement.

From this perspective, the TF was regarded as interesting and noteworthy, but not miraculous or faith-affirming. This aligns closely with Schmidt's argument that the passage is reportorial in nature, consistent with Josephus's objective historiographical style, and not a later Christian interpolation.

🕵️‍♂️Why Don't Early Christians Quote TF? (Ch. 1, 2)

For generations, critics have pointed to the silence of prominent early Christian writers as proof that the TF is a later forgery. The most significant example is the scholar Origen (c. 185–254 AD). In his work Contra Celsus, Origen complains that Josephus, despite being a credible historian, "did not believe in Jesus as Christ." This statement, coupled with Origen's failure to quote the TF when he was actively looking for non-Christian evidence, has been used to argue that the passage did not exist in his day. The first clear citation of the TF appears in the works of Eusebius of Caesarea a century later (c. 260–339 AD), which is why many have suspected him of being the interpolator.

Origen specifically says this in Book 1, Chapter 47 of Contra Celsus:

"And further, he [Celsus] is not acquainted with the statements in the works of Josephus, who, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ, nevertheless, in treating of the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the temple, since he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these evils befalling the people, and since he knew that it was on account of these that they suffered these things, said, if I may so express myself, that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the crime against James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), since they had slain him, who was a most righteous man."

Tom Schmidt's Response: A Non-Apologetic Account

Schmidt turns the "argument from silence" on its head, arguing that the passage's lack of early use is actually evidence for its authenticity. He contends that early Church Fathers, like Origen, were looking for clear, unambiguous evidence to defend the divinity of Jesus. As Schmidt's analysis shows, the TF is a neutral, historical account. From a 3rd-century Christian perspective, a passage that refers to Jesus's works as mere paradoxa and describes him as "thought to be the Christ" would not have been seen as a powerful tool. It was not the explicit endorsement they sought, so it was largely ignored.

Schmidt argues that the early Church's primary concern was not proving that Jesus was a historical person (that was widely accepted even by their critics) but proving his divine nature. The TF, with its purely historical and non-theological language, would have been considered largely irrelevant to that debate. It confirmed Jesus's existence, but it didn't affirm his divinity, which was the core issue at the time.

According to Schmidt, Origen's frustration wasn't that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, but that he failed to express a Christian theological conviction about him. Schmidt's argument is that the phrase "who was called Christ" is a factual, historical designation, not a theological confession. This reconciles Josephus's text with Origen's statement, as Josephus could report what others believed without personally believing it.

In short, the passage's lack of early citation isn't proof of its non-existence. It is a sign that its original, non-theological meaning was so thoroughly misunderstood by later generations that it was only seen as "flattering" after centuries of Christian reinterpretation.

🏛️Conclusion

When viewed cumulatively, the evidence forms a coherent case for authenticity rather than interpolation. Schmidt's research establishes multiple, converging lines of evidence supporting the TF's authenticity:

• Linguistic and stylistic consistency with Josephus's writings

• Neutral reporting of events and titles

• Matches word frequency patterns, including unique word usage

• Early translations preserving original perception

• Reception history demonstrating historical, not theological, reading

Taken together, these findings suggest that the TF is not a later Christian invention but substantially preserves Josephus's original voice. Under this reading, the passage stands as an early, independent, non-Christian testimony to Jesus's life, public ministry, and execution under Pontius Pilate, standing as one of the earliest non-Christian attestations to Jesus in the ancient historical record.

📚 References

1. Schmidt, T. C. Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ. Oxford University Press, 2025. Open-access PDF

2. Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3; Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1.

3. Origen. Contra Celsus*, Book 1, Chapter 47.

4. Schmidt, T. C., interview with Gavin Ortlund. "Josephus and the Testimonium Flavianum." YouTube link

5. Image Credits: Leaf from Antiquitates Iudaice libri XX, De bello Iudaico libri VII (1466), attributed to Brother Maciej and the Master of the Lady with Unicorn, via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.

- seekandfindtruth.com - 

Talmud.

For the related article discussing the Hebrew name Yeshu, as found in Talmud and other Jewish literature, see Yeshu. For the Hebrew or Aramaic name, see Yeshua.Part of a series on Jesus in Christianity.

There are several passages in the Talmud which are believed by some scholars to be references to Jesus. The name used in the Talmud is "Yeshu" (ישו), the Aramaic vocalization (although not spelling) of the Hebrew name Yeshua.[1][2] Many such passages have been deemed blasphemous by historical Christian authorities, including the Catholic Church.

Most Talmudic stories featuring an individual named "Yeshu" are framed in time periods which do not synchronize with one another, nor do they align with the scholarly consensus of Jesus' lifetime, with chronological discrepancies sometimes amounting to as much as a century before or after the accepted dates of Jesus' birth and death.[3][4][5] This apparent multiplicity of "Yeshu"'s within the text has been used to defend the Talmud against Christian accusations of blaspheming Jesus since at least the 13th century.[6]

In the modern era, there has been a variance of views among scholars on the possible references to Jesus in the Talmud, depending partly on presuppositions as to the extent to which the ancient rabbis were preoccupied with Jesus and Christianity.[7] This range of views among modern scholars on the subject has been described as a range from "minimalists" who see few passages with reference to Jesus, to "maximalists" who see many passages having reference to Jesus.[8] These terms "minimalist" and "maximalist" are not unique to discussion of the Talmud text; they are also used in discussion of academic debate on other aspects of Jewish vs. Christian and Christian vs. Jewish contact and polemic in the early centuries of Christianity, such as the Adversus Iudaeos genre.[9] "Minimalists" include Jacob Zallel Lauterbach (1951) ("who recognize[d] only relatively few passages that actually have Jesus in mind"),[8] while "maximalists" include R. Travers Herford (1903) (who concluded that most of the references related to Jesus, but were non-historical oral traditions which circulated among Jews),[10][11] and Peter Schäfer (2007) (who concluded that the passages were parodies of parallel stories about Jesus in the New Testament incorporated into the Talmud in the 3rd and 4th centuries that illustrate the inter-sect rivalry between Judaism and nascent Christianity).[12]

The first Christian censorship of the Talmud occurred in the year 521.[13] More extensive censorship began during the Middle Ages, notably under the directive of Pope Gregory IX.[14][15] Catholic authorities accused the Talmud of blasphemous references to Jesus and Mary. Jewish scholars refuted these claims, stating that there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud and that names like Joshua were common and unrelated to Jesus. These disputations led to the removal of many references from subsequent editions of the Talmud.

Some editions of the Talmud, particularly those from the 13th century onward, are missing these references, removed either by Christian censors,[16] by Jews themselves out of fear of reprisals, or possibly lost through negligence or accident.[17] However, most editions of the Talmud published since the early 20th century have seen the restoration of most of these references.[citation needed]

History

Woodcut carved by Johann von Armssheim (1483). Portrays a disputation between Christian and Jewish scholars

During the Middle Ages a series of debates on Judaism were staged by the Catholic Church—including the Disputation of Paris, the Disputation of Barcelona, and Disputation of Tortosa—and during those disputations, Jewish converts to Christianity, such as Pablo Christiani and Nicholas Donin claimed the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus.[18] An early work describing Jesus in the Talmud was Pugio Fidei ("Dagger of Faith") (c. 1280) by the Catalan Dominican Ramón Martí, a Jewish convert to Christianity.[19] In 1681 Johann Christoph Wagenseil translated and published a collection of anti-Christian polemics from Jewish sources, with the title Tela Ignea Satanæ, sive Arcani et Horribiles Judæorum Adversus Christum, Deum, et Christianam Religionem Libri (Flaming Arrows of Satan, that is, the secret and horrible books of the Jews against Christ, God, and the Christian religion) which discussed Jesus in the Talmud.[19] The first book devoted solely to the topic of Jesus in the Talmud was the Latin work Jesus in Talmude published in 1699 by Rudolf Martin Meelführer, a student of Wagenseil at Altdorf.[20] In 1700, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger published Entdecktes Judenthum (Judaism Unmasked), which included descriptions of Jesus in the Talmud, and which would become the basis of much anti-Semitic literature in later centuries such as The Talmud Unmasked written in 1892 by Justinas Bonaventure Pranaitis.[21]

Starting in the 20th century the topic of Jesus in Judaic literature became subject to more unbiased, scholarly research, such as Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen (The Life of Jesus From Jewish Sources) written in 1902 by Samuel Krauss, which was the first scholarly analysis of the Judaic anti-Christian polemic Toledot Yeshu (The Biography of Jesus).[20] In 1903, Unitarian scholar R. Travers Herford wrote Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, which became the standard work on the topic in the Christian world. He concluded that a large number of references referred to Jesus, not as a historical individual, but instead as the messiah of Christianity.[22] In 1910, Hermann Strack wrote Jesus, die Häretiker und die Christen nach den ältesten jüdischen Angaben (Jesus, the heretics and the Christians according to the oldest Jewish data), which found no evidence of a historical Jesus in the Talmud.[20] In 1922 Joseph Klausner wrote Yeshu ha-Notzri (Jesus of Nazareth) which concluded that "the evidence [for a historical Jesus] in the Talmud is scanty and does not contribute much to our knowledge of the historical Jesus; much of it is legendary and reflects the Jewish attempt to counter Christian claims and reproaches" but he did conclude some material was historically reliable.[23] In 1950 Morris Goldstein wrote Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, including sections on the Toledoth Yeshu. In 1951, Jacob Z. Lauterbach wrote the essay Jesus in the Talmud.[24] In 1978 Johann Maier wrote Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung (Jesus of Nazareth in the Talmudic tradition) in which he concludes that there is virtually no evidence of the historical Jesus in the Talmud and that the references to Jesus were "legendary" and probably added late in the Talmudic era "as a reaction to Christian provocations".[25] In 2007, Peter Schäfer wrote Jesus in the Talmud in which he tried to find a middle ground between "anti-Jewish Christian" and "apologetic Jewish" interpretations. He concluded that the references to Jesus (as the messiah of Christianity) were included in the early (3rd and 4th century) versions of the Talmud and were parodies of New Testament narratives.[26][full citation needed]

In the context of Christian-Judaic polemics

In the first few centuries AD, there were many sects claiming to be Judaism (such as Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees), each claiming to be the correct faith.[27] Some scholars treat Christianity, during that era, referred to as Early Christianity, as simply one of many sects of Judaism.[28] Some sects wrote polemics advocating their position and occasionally disparaging rival sects. Some scholars view the depictions of Jesus in the Talmud as a manifestation of those inter-sect rivalries—thus, the depictions can be read as polemics by the rabbinic authors of the Talmud, which indirectly criticized the rival sect (Christianity), which was growing and becoming more dominant.[29][full citation needed]

Relationship to New Testament

Peter Schäfer concluded that the references were not from the early tannaitic period (1st and 2nd centuries) but rather from the 3rd and 4th centuries, during the amoraic period.[30] He asserts that the references in the Babylonian Talmud were "polemical counter-narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus' birth and death"[31][full citation needed] and that the rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. Schäfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a "bold and self-confident" assertion of the correctness of Judaism, maintaining that "there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater."[32][full citation needed]

By way of comparison, the New Testament itself also documents conflict with Rabbinic Judaism, for example, in the John 8:41 charge, "We are not born of fornication."[33] and "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?"[34] and in return in the description in Revelation of a "synagogue of Satan."[35]

Early anti-Christian sentiments

In contrast to Peter Schäfer, Daniel J. Lasker suggests that the Talmudic stories about Jesus are not deliberate, provocative polemics but instead demonstrate "embryonic" Jewish objections to Christianity which would later "blossom into a full-scale Jewish polemical attack on Christianity [the Toledoth Yeshu]".[36]

Ambivalent relationship

Jeffrey Rubenstein has argued that the accounts in Chullin and Avodah Zarah ("Idolatry") reveal an ambivalent relationship between rabbis and Christianity. In his view, the Tosefta account reveals that at least some Jews believed Christians were true healers, but that the rabbis saw this belief as a major threat. Concerning the Babylonian Talmud account in Avoda Zarah, Boyarin views Jacob of Sechania as a Christian preacher and understands Rabbi Eliezer's arrest for minuth ("heresy") as an arrest by the Romans for practising Christianity. When the Governor (the text uses the word for chief judge) interrogated him, the rabbi answered that he "trusted the judge." Boyarin has suggested that this was the Jewish version of the Br'er Rabbit approach to domination, which he contrasts to the strategy of many early Christians, who proclaim their beliefs despite the consequences (i.e., martyrdom). Although Rabbi Eliezer was referring to God, the Governor interpreted him as referring to the Governor himself and freed the rabbi. According to them, the account also reveals greater contact between Christians and Jews in the 2nd century than was commonly believed. They view the account of the teaching of Yeshu as an attempt to mock Christianity. According to Rubenstein, the structure of this teaching, in which a biblical prooftext is used to answer a question about biblical law, is familiar to both the rabbis and early Christians. The vulgar content, however, may have been used to parody Christian values. Boyarin considers the text to be an acknowledgment that rabbis often interacted with Christians, despite their doctrinal antipathy.[37]

Disputations and censorship

See also: Criticism of the Talmud

Between 1239 and 1775, the Catholic Church at various times either forced the censoring of parts of the Talmud that were theologically problematic or the destruction of copies of the Talmud.[38]

During the Middle Ages a series of debates on Judaism were held by Catholic authorities – including the Disputation of Paris (1240), the Disputation of Barcelona (1263), and Disputation of Tortosa (1413–14) – and during those disputations, Jewish converts to Christianity, such as Nicholas Donin (in Paris) and Pablo Christiani (in Barcelona) claimed the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus.[39][40][41]

During these disputations, representatives from Jewish communities presented various defenses against the charges brought by Christian disputants. A significant influence on later Jewish responses was the defense put forth by Yechiel of Paris in 1240. He argued that a passage in the Talmud referring to an individual named Yeshu did not pertain to the Christian Jesus. However, Yechiel also acknowledged that another reference to Yeshu did refer to him. This formulation has been described as the "theory of two Jesuses," although Berger (1998) notes that Yechiel actually argues for three distinct Jesuses.[42] This defence featured again in later Jewish defences during the medieval period, such as that of Nachmanides at the Disputation of Barcelona, though others such as Profiat Duran at the Disputation of Tortosa did not follow this argument.[43]

Amy-Jill Levine notes that even today, some rabbinical experts do not consider that the Talmud's account of Jesus' death is a reference to the Jesus of the New Testament.[44] Gustaf Dalman (1922),[45] Joachim Jeremias (1960),[46] Mark Allen Powell (1998)[47] and Roger T. Beckwith (2005)[48] were also favourable to the view the Yeshu references in the Talmud were not to Jesus. Richard Bauckham considers Yeshu a legitimate, if rare, form of the name in use at the time and writes that an ossuary bearing both the names Yeshu and Yeshua ben Yosef shows that it "was not invented by the rabbis as a way of avoiding pronouncing the real name of Jesus of Nazareth"[49]

Numerous times between 1239 and 1775, copies of the Talmud were destroyed. In 1280, following the Disputation of Barcelona, the Talmud was censored.[50] Following the invention of the printing press, the Talmud was banned by the Pope. All printed editions of the Talmud, including the Basel Talmud and the Vilna Edition Shas, were censored. In 1559, the Talmud was placed on the Roman Index and banned. In 1564, under the Tridentine Index, an expunged version of the Talmud was allowed. In 1592, the pope ordered all copies of the Talmud and other heretical writing destroyed, whether they were expunged or not. The total prohibition would stay in place until 1775. Even then, the censorship system would remain in force.[38] As a result of these disputations, many manuscript editions had references to Jesus removed or changed, and subsequent manuscripts sometimes omitted the passages entirely. Few copies would survive.

In the 20th century, new editions began restoring the censored material, such as in the 1935 English Soncino edition.[51][full citation needed]

Text-criticism, versions, and alterations

Starting in the 13th century, manuscripts of the Talmud were sometimes altered in response to the criticisms made during the disputations and in response to orders from the Christian church. Existing manuscripts were sometimes altered (for example, by erasure), and new manuscripts often omitted the passages entirely. Peter Schäfer compared several editions and documented some alterations as illustrated in the following table:[52]

Edition / Manuscript Passage on execution
(Sanhedrin 43 a–b) Passage on punishment in afterlife
(b Gittin 57a) Passage on disciples
(Sanhedrin 43 a–b)
Herzog 1 on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples
Vatican 130 he went and brought up Jesus the Nazarene
Vatican 140 he went and brought up Jesus
Munich 95 on the eve of Passover they hanged [name erased] he went and brought up Jesus [text erased]
Firenze II.1.8–9 on Sabbath even and the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples
Karlsruhe 2 on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples
Barco on the eve of Passover they hanged [not legible] [not legible] had five disciples
Soncino on the eve of Passover they hanged [not legible] he went and brought up [name missing]
Vilna [whole passage deleted by censor] he went and brought up the sinners of Israel [whole passage deleted by censor]

As evidence of the historical Jesus

Bart Ehrman, and separately Mark Allan Powell, state that the Talmud references are quite late in the 3rd-5th century CE hundreds of years later, and give no historically reliable information about the teachings or actions of Jesus during his life. Ehrman clarifies that the name "Son of Panthera" (Roman who allegedly was the seducer of Mary) was a tradition, as scholars have long recognized, that represented an attack on the Christian view that he was the son of a virgin. In Greek, the term for virgin is parthenos, which is similar to panthera, implying that "son of panthera" is a pun on "son of a virgin".[53][54] However, Robert Travers Herford, a British Unitarian minister and scholar of rabbinical literature who translated the Gemara, when commenting on the above hypothesis, could not understand why the Rabbi authors of the Talmud would choose to describe Jesus as a son of a virgin by using a word that supposedly connects to a Greek word for virgin rather than simply use an Aramaic/Hebrew word:

"Again, Pandira may represent παρθενος [parthenos/virgin], and the obvious appropriateness of a name indicating the alleged birth of Jesus from a virgin might make us overlook the improbability that the form παρθενος [parthenos/virgin] should be Hebraized into the form Pandira, when the Greek word could have been reproduced almost unchanged in a Hebrew form. It is not clear, moreover, why a Greek word should have been chosen as an epithet for Jesus. I cannot satisfy myself that any of the suggested explanations solve the problem; and being unable to propose any other, I leave the two names Ben Stada and Ben Pandira as relics of ancient Jewish mockery against Jesus, the clue to whose meaning is now lost." [55]

The name "ben Stada", used for the same figure, is explained by Peter Schäfer as a reference to his mother's supposed adultery:

His mother's true name was Miriam, and "Stada" is an epithet which derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic root sat.ah/sete' ("to deviate from the right path, to go astray, to be unfaithful"). In other words, his mother Miriam was also called "Stada" because she was a sotah, a woman suspected, or rather convicted, of adultery."[56]

Peter Schäfer states that there can be no doubt that the narrative of the execution of Jesus in the Talmud refers to Jesus of Nazareth, but states that the rabbinic material in question is from a later Amoraic period and may have drawn on the Christian gospels, and may have been written in response to them.[56]

Scholars debate whether the Talmud provides any evidence of Jesus as a historical individual. Van Voorst (2000) describes this as a spectrum of opinion:

• On one side stand Johann Maier (1978) and those broadly sympathetic to his conclusions such as John P. Meier and Jacob Neusner. Maier discounts accounts with no mention of the name Jesus, and further discounts those that do mention Jesus by name, such as Sanh. 43a and 107b, as later medieval changes.[57] Arguments against the current form of Talmudic references to Jesus being evidence of a historical individual include contextual evidence, such as chronological inconsistencies, for example the original contexts of accounts in the Tosefta and Talmud take place in different historical periods. Maier also views that the tradition first seen in the writings of Celsus can not be regarded as a reliable reference to the historical Jesus.
• On the other side stand scholars such as Joseph Klausner (1925), following R. Travers Herford (1901) and Bernhard Pick (1887), who believed that the Talmud gives some insight into Jesus as a historical individual.[58] Some of these researchers contend that the Talmud's importance and credibility as an early source lies in the fact that it gives the "opposition view" to Jesus, and they have used the Talmud to draw the conclusions about the historical Jesus, such as:
  • Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 111–120
  • Norman Perrin, The New Testament, An Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982. pp 407–408
  • R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, KTAV Publishing House Inc, 2007. pp 35–96
  • C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, 1976. pp 303–305

Possible Talmudic references

There are several Talmudic passages that are said to be referring to Jesus. The following are among those considered the most controversial, contested, and possibly the most notable.[59][60][61]

Our rabbis taught Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples, and these are they: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.[62][63][64][65]

The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.[66][67][68][69]

"Jesus son of Stada is Jesus son of Pandira?"
Rav Hisda said, "The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandera."
"But was not the husband Pappos son of Yehuda and the mother Stada?"
No, his mother was Miriam, who let her hair grow long and was called Stada. Pumbedita says about her: "She was unfaithful to her husband."[70][71][72][73]

On the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it." But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: "Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God] says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government."[63][74][75][76]

There are still noticeable challenges to the identification of Yeshu as Jesus, as elsewhere in the Talmud his stepfather, Pappos ben Yehuda, is mentioned as being martyred with Rabbi Akiva[77] and is himself mentioned as being among the Pharisees returning to Israel following their persecution by John Hyrcanus,[67] which would place Yeshu's lifetime anywhere between 130 after and 70 years before the birth of Jesus.

Specific references

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Redundancy with the following sections. Please help improve this section if you can. (May 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Sanhedrin 43a[78] relates the trial and execution of a sorcerer named Jesus (Yeshu in Hebrew) and his five disciples. The sorcerer is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover.[79]

Sanhedrin 107[80] tells of a Jesus ("Yeshu") who "offended his teacher by paying too much attention to the inn-keeper's wife. Jesus wished to be forgiven, but [his rabbi] was too slow to forgive him, and Jesus in despair went away and put up a brick [idol] and worshipped it."[81]

In Gittin 56b and 57a,[82] a story is told in which Onkelos summons up the spirit of "the sinner(s) of Israel". He describes his punishment in the afterlife as boiling in excrement.[83][84][clarification needed]

Some scholars claim that the Hebrew name Yeshu is not a short form of the name Yeshua, but rather an acrostic for the Hebrew phrase "may his name and memory be blotted out" created by taking the first letter of the Hebrew words.[85]

In addition, at the 1240 Disputation of Paris, Nicholas Donin presented the allegation that the Talmud was blasphemous towards Mary, the mother of Jesus (Miriam in Hebrew), and this criticism has been repeated by many Christian sources.[86] The texts cited by critics include Sanhedrin 67a,[87] Sanhedrin 106a,[88] and Shabbath 104b.[89] However, the references to Mary are not specific, and some assert that they do not refer to Jesus' mother, or perhaps refer to Mary Magdalen.[90]

Summary

Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:[91]

• Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a–b)
• Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
• As a Torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
• As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)
• As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
• Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)
• Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
• Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)

As a sorcerer with disciples

Sanhedrin 43a relates the trial and execution of Jesus and his five disciples.[92] Here, Jesus is a sorcerer who has enticed other Jews to apostasy. A herald is sent to call for witnesses in his favour for forty days before his execution. No one comes forth and in the end he is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover. His five disciples, named Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are then tried. Word play is made on each of their names, and they are executed. It is mentioned that leniency could not be applied because of Jesus' influence with the royal government (malkhut).

The full passage is:

The Rabbis taught, Yeshu had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah. They brought Mattai in, he said, "Shall Mattai be executed? Isn't it written, 'When (māṯay) can I go and meet with God?'" They said to him, "Yes, Mattai shall be executed, for it is written, 'When (māṯay) will he die and his name perish?'"
They brought Nakai in, he said, "Shall Nakai be executed? Isn't it written, 'Do not kill the innocent (nāqī) and righteous'?" They said to him, 'Yes, Nakai shall be executed, for it is written, 'In the hiding places he kills the innocent (nāqī).'"
They brought Netzer in, he said, "Shall Netzer be executed? Isn't it written, 'and a branch (nēṣer) shall grow out of his roots'?" They said to him, 'Yes, Netzer shall be executed, for it is written, 'But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch (nēṣer).'"
They brought Buni in, he said, "Shall Buni be executed? Isn't it written, 'Israel is my firstborn son (bənī)'?" They said to him, "Yes, Buni shall be executed, for it is written, 'I will kill your firstborn son (bīnḵā).'"
They brought Todah in, he said, "Shall Todah be executed? Isn't it written, 'A psalm of thanksgiving (tōḏā)'?" They said to him, "Yes, Todah shall be executed, for it is written, 'The one who offers thanksgiving (tōḏā) as his sacrifice glorifies Me.'"

— Sanhedrin 43a

Healing in the name of Jesus

Scholars have identified passages in the Talmud and associated Talmudic texts that involve invoking Jesus' name, as the messiah of Christianity, in order to perform magical healing:[93]

• Tosefta Hullin 2:22f – "Jacob ... came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of Pantera" - this section exists in variant spellings of Jesus: mi-shem Yeshu ben Pantera (principal edition), mi-shem Yeshu ben Pandera (London MS), mi-shem Yeshua ben Pantera (Vienna MS)[94]
• Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/12 – "Jacob ... came to heal him. He said to him: we will speak to you in the name of Jesus son of Pandera" (Editions or MS: Venice)
• Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/13 – "Jacob ... came in the name of Jesus Pandera to heal him" (Editions or MS: Venice)
• Qohelet Rabbah 1:8(3) – "Jacob ... came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera" (Editions or MSs: Vatican 291, Oxford 164, Pesaro 1519)
• Babylonian Abodah Zarah 27b – "Jacob ... came to heal him" (Editions or MSs: New York 15, Pearo, Vilna)

The full passage in the Talmud Bavli is:

(The Gemara) raises an objection: A person may not engage in dealings with heretics, and one may not be treated by them even in (cases of) life (-or-death matters).
A story of ben Dama, son of Rabbi Ishmael's sister, who was bitten by a snake. Jacob, a man of Sekhanya village, came to heal him, but Rabbi Ishmael did not let him. And (ben Dama) said to him, "Rabbi Ishmael, my brother, let him go, and I will be healed by him. I will cite a verse from the Torah (to prove) that this is permitted." But (ben Dama) did not manage to complete the statement before his soul departed, and he died.
Rabbi Ishmael recited with regard to him: "Fortunate are you, ben Dama, as your body is pure and your soul departed in purity, and you did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: 'And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him.'"

— Avodah Zarah, 27b

Whereas in the Talmud Yerushalmi, the passage is the following:

A story of Ribbi Eleazer ben Dama, who was bitten by a snake. Jacob, a man of the village Sama, came to heal him in the name of Yeshu (ben) Pandera, but Ribbi Ishmael did not let him. (Eleazer) told (Ishmael), "I shall bring proof that he can heal me." But, he could not bring proof before he died. Ribbi Ishmael said, "Blessed are you, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, as it is written, 'And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him.'" But did a snake not bite him (before such a dilemma even occurred)? It will not bite him in the World to Come. What could (Eleazar) have said? "Keep My decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them."

— Shabbat 14

Scholars also identify a separate account, featured exclusively in the Jerusalem Talmud, which contains an additional account of healing performed in the name of "Yeshu (ben) Pandera":

• Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/7 – "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera" (Editions or MS: Venice)
• Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/8 – "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera" (Editions or MS: Venice)

The full passage is:

Ribbi Joshua ben Levi had colic. Ribbi Hanina and Ribbi Jonathan told him to grind taḥlusin [either unripe dates or watercresses] on the Sabbath, put them in aged wine, and drink it to avoid being endangered.
His son's son was choking. A person came and whispered to him in the name of Yeshu (ben) Pandera, and he could breathe. As he left, (Joshua) asked him, "What did you whisper to him?" (The person answered:) "So-and-so words." (Joshua) said to him, "It would have been better that he died and not heard such things. It happened to him like an erroneous order from a ruler."

— Shabbat 14

Torah teacher

Scholars have identified passages that mention Jesus, as the messiah of Christianity, in the context of a Torah teacher:[93]

• Babylonian Abodah Zarah 17a – "One of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene found me" (Editions or MSs: Munich 95, Paris 1377, New York 15)
• Babylonian Abodah Zarah 17a – "Thus I was taught by Jesus the Nazarene" (Editions or MSs: Munich 95, Paris 1337)
• Tosefta Hullin 2:24 – "He told me of a word of heresy in the name of Jesus son of Pantiri"
• Qohelet Rabbah 1:8(3) – "He told me a word in the name of Jesus son of Pandera" (Editions or MSs: Oxford 164, Vatican 291, Pesaro 1519)

The full passage is:

(Rabbi Eliezer) said to him: "Akiva, you have reminded me; once I was walking in the upper markets of Sepphoris, and I found a man of the students of Yeshu, and his name was Jacob, of the village Sekhanya. He said to me, "It is written in your Torah, 'You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute...' What is (the halakha), (is it permitted) to make, from (the fee of a prostitute) a bathroom for a High Priest?" And I said nothing to him.
He said to me, "Yeshu taught me that (it is indeed permitted, for it is written): 'Since she gathered her gifts from the wages of prostitutes, as the wages of prostitutes they will again be used.' (The coins) came from a place of filth, let them go towards a place of filth."
And I derived pleasure from the statement, and due to this, I was arrested for heresy...

— Avodah Zarah, 17a

The son or disciple who turned out badly

Sanhedrin 103a and Berachot 17b talk about a Yeshu ha-Nosri (Jesus of Nazareth) who "burns his food in public", possibly a reference to pagan sacrifices or a metaphor for apostasy.[95] The account is discussing Manasseh the king of Judah infamous for having turned to idolatry and having persecuted the Jews (2 Kings 21). It is part of a larger discussion about three kings and four commoners excluded from paradise. These are also discussed in the Shulkhan Arukh where the son who burns his food is explicitly stated to be Manasseh. The passages identified by scholars in this context are:[93]

• Babylonian Sanhedrin 103a – "that you will not have a son or disciple ... like Jesus the Nazarene" (Editions or MSs: Firenze II.1.8–9, Barco, Munich 95)
• Babylonian Berakoth 17b – "that we will not have a son or disciple ... like Jesus the Nazarene" (Editions or MS: Oxford 23)

The full passages are:

Alternatively, the phrase "no evil shall befall you" means that you will be frightened neither by bad dreams nor by evil thoughts. "Nor shall any plague come near your tent", that you will not have a child or student who overcooks his food in public, i.e., sins in public and causes others to sin, such as [Yeshu].

— Sanhedrin 103a

"There is no breach", that our faction should not be like the faction of David, from which Ahitophel emerged. "And no going forth", that our faction should not be like the faction of Saul, from which Doeg the Edomite emerged. "And no outcry"; that our faction should not be like the faction of Elisha, from which Gehazi emerged. "In our open places", that we should not have a child or student who overcooks his food in public, as Yeshu (did).

— Berakhot 17b

As a sinful student who practiced magic and turned to idolatry

Passages in Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a refer to an individual (Yeshu) that some scholars conclude is a reference to Jesus, regarded as the messiah of Christianity. In these passages, Jesus is described as a student of Joshua ben Perachiah (second half of the 2nd century BCE), and he (Jesus) was sent away for misinterpreting a word that in context should have been understood as referring to the Inn; he instead understood it to mean the innkeeper's wife (the same word can mean "inn" and "hostess").[96] His teacher said "Here is a nice inn", to which he replied "Her eyes are crooked", to which his teacher responded "Evil one! Is this what you are occupied in?" (Gazing at married women was considered sinful.)[97] After several returns for forgiveness he mistook Perachiah's signal to wait a moment as a signal of final rejection, and so he turned to idolatry. Some passages that have been identified by scholars as mentioning Jesus, as the messiah of Christianity, in this context include:[98]

• Babylonian Sanhedrin 107b – "not as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed Jesus the Nazarene away" (Editions or MSs: Barco, Vilna)
• Babylonian Sotah 47a – "not as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed Jesus the Nazarene away" (Editions or MSs: Vatican 110, Vilna, Munich 95)
• Babylonian Sanhedrin 107b – "Jesus said to him: Rabbi, her eyes are narrow" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1)
• Babylonian Sotah 47a – "Jesus the Nazarene said to him: Rabbi, her eyes are narrow" (Editions or MS: Oxford 20)
• Babylonian Sanhedrin 107b – "The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic (Editions or MSs: Firenze II.1.8–9, Barco )
• Babylonian Sotah 47a – "The master said: Jesus the Nazarene because he practiced magic" (Editions or MS: Munich 95)

The full passage is:

It should always be (the) left (hand) to push (away), and (the) right (to) bring closeward. Not like Elisha who pushed Gehazi (away) with both hands, and not like Joshua ben Perachiah who pushed Yeshu, (one of) his students, with both hands...
When King Yannai was executing the Rabbis, Simeon ben Shetach was hidden by his sister (and) Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah went (and) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. When peace was made, Simeon ben Shetach sent him (the following letter): "From me, Jerusalem the holy city, to you, Alexandria of Egypt, my sister. My husband dwells amongst you, and I am sitting lonely". (Joshua ben Perachiah) said "I learn from (the letter) that there is peace!"
When he came, (they) arrived at an inn. (The innkeeper) stood before him with exemplary honor, and accorded him great honors. (Joshua) sat and was praising them, (saying): "How beautiful this ʾaḵsanyāʾ is!" Yeshu said to him, "My master, her eyes are narrow." (Joshua) said to him "Wicked one, is this how you conduct yourself?!" He brought out four hundred shofarot and excommunicated him. Every day, (Yeshu) would come before him, but (Joshua) did not accept him.
One day (Joshua) was reciting the Shema, (Yeshu) came before him. He intended to welcome him (this time), so he signaled (Yeshu) with his hands (to wait). (Yeshu) thought he was rejecting him. (Yeshu) went and erected brickwork, and worshipped it (as an idol). (Joshua) said to him "Return thyself!" (Yeshu) said to him "This I learned from you: Anyone who sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent!"

— Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 107

The story ends by invoking a Mishnaic era teaching that Yeshu practised black magic, deceived and led Israel astray. This quote is seen by some as an explanation in general for the designation Yeshu.

According to Dr. Rubenstein, the account in Sanhedrin 107b recognizes the kinship between Christians and Jews, since Jesus is presented as a disciple of a prominent Rabbi. But it also reflects and speaks to an anxiety fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism. Prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70, Jews were divided into different sects, each promoting different interpretations of the law. Rabbinic Judaism domesticated and internalized conflicts over the law, while vigorously condemning any sectarianism. In other words, rabbis are encouraged to disagree and argue with one another, but these activities must be carefully contained, or else they could lead to a schism. Although this story may not present a historically accurate account of Jesus' life, it does use a fiction about Jesus to communicate an important truth about the Rabbis. Moreover, Rubenstein sees this story as a rebuke to overly harsh Rabbis. Boyarin suggests that the Rabbis were well aware of Christian views of the Pharisees and that this story acknowledges the Christian belief that Jesus was forgiving and the Pharisees were not (see Mark 2:1–2), while emphasizing forgiveness as a necessary Rabbinic value.[37]

Punishment in the afterlife

In Gittin 56b–57a a story is recorded in which Onkelos, a nephew of the Roman emperor Titus who destroyed the Second Temple, intent on converting to Judaism, summons up the spirits of Yeshu the Nazarene and others to help make up his mind. Each describes his punishment in the afterlife.

The complete passage from the 1935 Soncino edition is:

Onkelos the son of Callinicus, son of the sister of Titus, desired to convert himself (to Judaism)...
(Onkelos) went (and) he conjured Yeshu the Nazarene (from the grave). (Onkelos) said (to Yeshu), "Who is of importance in that world?" (Yeshu) said (to him), "Israel." (Onkelos further queried) "Should I attach (myself) to them?" He (Yeshu) said; "Their welfare you shall seek, their misfortune you shall not seek, for anyone who touches them is regarded as if he were touching the apple of his eye".
(Onkelos) said to (Yeshu), "What is the punishment of that man (who seeks their misfortune)?" (Yeshu) said (to Onkelos), "boiling in excrement". As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement.
(As said in the Gemara:) Come see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world.

— Gittin 57a

Execution

Scholars[who?] have identified passages that mention Jesus in the context of his execution:

• Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a–b – "on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Karlsruhe 2)
• Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a–b – "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)
• Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a–b – "Do you suppose Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made?" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)
• Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a–b – "With Jesus the Nazarene it was different" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)[75][99]

The full passage is:

(The Mishna asserts) a crier goes out before (a man condemned to execution). Before him (i.e. when he is being led to execution), yes; but from the outset (i.e. before his conviction), no. But isn't it taught that on Passover Eve, they hanged Yeshu (after he was killed by stoning)? And a crier went out before him (for) forty days, (proclaiming): "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited (idolatry), and lead the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows (a reason to) acquit him should come (forward) and reveal it on his behalf!" And they did not find (a reason) to acquit him, and they hanged him on Passover Eve.
Ulla said, "And (how can) you understand? (Was) Yeshu worthy of a search to acquit him? He was an inciter, and the Merciful One states, 'Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him.' But, Yeshu was different, as he was close with the government."

— Sanhedrin 43a

In the Florence manuscript of the Talmud (1177 CE) an addition is made to Sanhedrin 43a saying that Yeshu was hanged on the eve of the Sabbath.[100]

Mother and father

Tombstone of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, a soldier who has been claimed to be the "Pantera" named by Talmud

Some Talmudic sources include passages which identify a "son of Pandera" (ben Pandera in Hebrew), and some scholars see it as referencing the messiah of Christianity.[101] Medieval Hebrew midrashic literature contain the "Episode of Jesus" (known also as Maaseh Yeshu), in which Jesus is described as being the son of Joseph, the son of Pandera (see: Episode of Jesus). The account portrays Jesus as an impostor.

The Talmud, and other talmudic texts, contain several references to the "son of Pandera". A few of the references name Jesus ("Yeshu") as the "son of Pandera": these connections are found in the Tosefta, the Qohelet Rabbah, and the Jerusalem Talmud, but not in the Babylonian Talmud.[102] The connections said to be found in the Jerusalem Talmud are debated because the name "Jesus" ("Yeshu") is found only in a marginal gloss in some manuscripts, but other scholars see it as being in the original versions of the Jerusalem Talmud.[103]

The texts include several spellings for the father's name (Pandera, Panthera, Pandira, Pantiri, or Pantera) and some scholars conclude that these are all references to the same individual,[104] but other scholars suggest that they may be unrelated references.[105] In some of the texts, the father produced a son with a woman named Mary. Several of the texts indicate that the mother was not married to Pandera, and was committing adultery and – by implication – Jesus was a bastard child.[104] Some of the texts indicate that Mary's husband's name was Stada.

Some Talmudic sources include passages which identify a "son of Stada" or "son of Stara" (ben Stada or ben Stara in Hebrew), and some scholars conclude that these are references to the messiah of Christianity.[106]

Son of Pantera / Pandera in a healing context

Two talmudic-era texts that explicitly associate Jesus as the son of Pantera/Pandera are:

• Tosefta Hullin 2:22f "Jacob ... came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of Pantera"
• Qohelet Rabbah 1:8(3) "Jacob ... came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera"

Both of the above passages describe situations where Jesus' name is invoked to perform magical healing.[107] In addition, some editions of the Jerusalem Talmud explicitly identify Jesus as the son of Pandera:[108]

• Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/7 "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera"
• Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/8 "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera"
• Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/12 "Jacob ... came to heal him. He said to him: we will speak to you in the name of Jesus son of Pandera"
• Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/13 "Jacob ... came in the name of Jesus Pandera to heal him"

However, some editions of the Jerusalem Talmud do not contain the name Jesus in these passages, so the association in this case is disputed. The parallel passages in the Babylonian Talmud do not contain the name Jesus.

Son of Pantiri / Pandera in a teaching context

Other Talmudic narratives describe Jesus as the son of a Pantiri or Pandera, in a teaching context:[109]

• Tosefta Hullin 2:24 "He told me of a word of heresy in the name of Jesus son of Pantiri"
• Qohelet Rabbah 1:8(3) "He told me a word in the name of Jesus son of Pandera"

However, the parallel accounts in the Babylonian Talmud mention Jesus but do not mention the father's name:

• Babylonian Abodah Zarah 17a "One of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene found me"
• Babylonian Abodah Zarah 17a "Thus I was taught by Jesus the Nazarene"

Pandera and alleged adultery by Mary

The Babylonian talmud contains narratives that discuss an anonymous person who brought witchcraft out of Egypt, and the person is identified as "son of Pandera" or "son of Stada". The Talmud discusses whether the individual (the name Jesus is not present in these passages) is the son of Stada, or Pandera, and a suggestion is made that the mother Mary committed adultery.[102]

• Babylonian Shabbat 104b "Was he the son of Stara (and not) the son of Pandera?" (Editions or MSs: Oxford 23, Soncino)
• Babylonian Sanhedrin 67a "Was he the son of Stara (and not) the son of Pandera?" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Karlsruhe 2, ...)
• Babylonian Shabbat 104b "husband Stada, lover Pandera" (Editions or MSs: Vatican 108, Munich 95, Vilna)
• Babylonian Sanhedrin 67a "husband Stara, lover Pandera" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Barco)
• Babylonian Shabbat 104b "husband Pappos, mother Stada" (Editions or MSs: Vilna, Munich 95)
• Babylonian Sanhedrin 67a "husband Pappos, mother Stada" (Editions or MSs: Vilna, Munich 95)
• Babylonian Shabbat 104b "his mother Miriam who let grow (her) women's hair" (Editions or MSs: Vilna, Oxford 23, Soncino)
• Babylonian Sanhedrin 67a "his mother Miriam who let grow (her) women's hair" (Editions or MSs: Karlsruhe 2, Munich 95)

The full passage is as follows:

And (the court) did the same to ben Stada of Lod, and they hanged him on Passover Eve.
(The Gemara asks: Why is he called) ben "Stada" (when) he was the son of Pandera? Rav Chisda says: "(Perhaps his mother's) husband was Stada, (but his mother's) lover was Pandera. (The Gemara challenges this, saying the) husband was Pappos ben Yehudah. Therefore, his mother was Stada. (The Gemara challenges this too, saying) his mother was Miriam, who braided women's hair. As they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed (səṭat dāʾ) from her husband.

— Sanhedrin 67a

Christians

Typically both Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds use the generic minim for heretics. Aside from mentions of the five disciples of "Yeshu ha Notzri," the plural Notzrim, "Christians," are only clearly mentioned once in the Babylonian Talmud (where it is amended to Netzarim, people of the watch) in B. Ta'anit 27b with a late parallel in Masekhet Soferim 17:4.[110] And then "The day of the Notzri according to Rabbi Ishmael is forbidden for ever" in some texts of B. Avodah Zarah 6a.[111]

Relation to the Toledot Yeshu

The Toledot Yeshu (History of Jesus) is a Jewish anti-Christian polemic that purports to be a biography of Jesus.[112] The work is an early account of Jesus, based on contemporary Jewish views, in which Jesus is described as being the son of Joseph, the son of Pandera (see a translation of the Yemenite text: Episode of Jesus, or what is also known as Toledot Yeshu). Some scholars conclude that the work is merely an expansion and elaboration on anti-Christian themes in the Talmud.[113] Stephen Gero suggests that an early version of the Toledot Yeshu narrative preceded the Talmud, and that the Talmud drew upon the Toledot Yeshu, but Rubenstein and Schäfer discount that possibility, because they date the origin of the Toledot Yeshu in the early Middle Ages or Late Antiquity.[114]

Related narrative from Celsus

The Platonistic philosopher Celsus (circa 150 to 200 CE) in his treatise The True Word wrote a narrative describing a Jew who discounts the story of the Virgin Birth of Jesus.[115] Scholars have remarked on the parallels (adultery, father's name "Panthera", return from Egypt, magical powers) between Celsus' account and the Talmudic narratives.[116][full citation needed] In Celsus' account, the Jew says:

"... [Jesus] came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. He says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery. Then he says that after she had been driven out by her husband and while she was wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave birth to Jesus. He states that because he [Jesus] was poor he hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and there tried his hand at certain magical powers on which the Egyptians pride themselves; he returned full of conceit, because of these powers, and on account of them gave himself the title of God ... the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera."[117][118]

See also

• Benjamin Urrutia
• Birkat haMinim
• Criticism of the Talmud
• Gamaliel
• Historicity of Jesus
• Judaism and Christianity
• Judaism's view of Jesus
• Life of Jesus in the New Testament
• Rejection of Jesus
• The Talmud Unmasked
• Toledot Yeshu
• Yeshu
• Yeshua (name)

References

1. Ilan, Tal (2002). Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part I: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 91). Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr. p. 129.
2. Stern, David (1992). Jewish New Testament Commentary. Clarksville, Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications. pp. 4–5.
3. Shinan, Avigdor (2009). Pirkei Avot: A New Israeli Commentary. Yedioth Books (in Hebrew). Yedioth Ahronoth. p. 12. ISBN 978-965-482-920-5. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
4. "The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud - Gil Student". Angelfire.com. Retrieved 2018-04-18.
5. L. Patterson, "Origin of the Name Panthera", JTS 19 (1917–18), p. 79–80, cited in Meier, p. 107 n. 48
6. Berger, David (1998). "On the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christianity: The Quest for the Historical Jesus". In Carlebach, Elishiva; Efron, John M.; Myers, David N. (eds.). Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (Google Books preview). The Tauber Institute for the Study of European Jewry. Vol. 29. Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-87451-871-9. LCCN 98-14431. OCLC 44965639. It is well known that when R. Yehiel of Paris was confronted in 1240 with the argument that the Talmud should be banned partly because of blasphemies against Jesus, he maintained that the Jesus of the Talmud and the Jesus of the Christians are two different people.…Whatever one thinks of the sincerity of the multiple Jesus theory, R. Yehiel found a way to neutralize some dangerous rabbinic statements, and yet the essential Ashkenazic evaluation of Jesus remains even in the text of this disputation.…In the fourteenth century, Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas made much stronger use of the theory of two Jesuses in defending Judaism and the Talmud against renewed attack.
7. Delbert Burkett (2010). The Blackwell Companion to Jesus. p. 220. "That is to say, varying presuppositions as to the extent to which the ancient rabbis were preoccupied with Jesus and Christianity can easily predetermine which texts might be identified and interpreted as having him in mind."
8. The Blackwell Companion to Jesus, ed. Burkett p. 220 2010 "Accordingly, scholars' analyses range widely from minimalists (e.g., Lauterbach 1951) – who recognize only relatively few passages that actually have Jesus in mind – to moderates (e.g., Herford [1903] 2006), to maximalists (Klausner 1943 ... especially Schäfer)"
9. Maurice Wiles, Edward Yarnold, P. M. Parvis (1997). Papers presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies. p. 398 "These scholars represent a school of thought, which can be described as minimalist, as it argues that there was minimal ... including Horbury, who accepts some aspects of the minimalist argument and does not dismiss Harnack outright."
10. James Carleton Paget (2010). Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity. p. 279. "44 Herford 1903, 63. 45 Even Herford, who takes a maximalist view of this material, agrees with this conclusion. "If the summary of the Jesus-Tradition, given above be examined, it will be found to contain little, if anything".
11. Lasker, p. xxi, summarizes Herford's conclusions; R. Travers Herford (1903), Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London: Williams & Norgate (reprint New York, KTAV, 1975)
12. Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007, pp. 6-7, 9, 21, 93-94 and more.
13. Reverend James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, p. 392
14. "Pope Gregory IX Orders the Seizure and Burning of Jewish Books: History of Information". www.historyofinformation.com. Retrieved 1 June 2022.
15. Chazan, Robert (1988). "The Condemnation of the Talmud Reconsidered (1239-1248)". Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research. 55: 11–30. doi:10.2307/3622675. JSTOR 3622675. Retrieved 1 June 2022.
16. William L. Merrifield (2010), Who Do You Say I Am?: Jesus Called the Christ, Tate Publishing. p. 39.
17. Weiss-Rosmarin, Trude (1977). Jewish expressions on Jesus: an anthology. KTAV. p. 3.
18. Maccoby, Hyam, Judaism on Trial
19. Schäfer, p. 3.
20. Schäfer, p. 4.
21. Rodkinson, pp 104–105
22. Schäfer, p. 4.; Lasker p. xxi:Lasker writes that Herford "argues that the Talmudic Yeshus do indeed, refer to Jesus of Nazareth, but the citations concerning him reflect non-historical oral traditions which circulated among Jews and are not based on the written Gospels or other more authentic records of the life of Jesus. One can learn nothing about the historical Jesus from rabbinic accounts; at most one can learn form them something about rabbinic attitudes towards Jesus. In sum, the Talmud does make reference to the Christian Jesus but has nothing to offer the searcher for the historical Jesus. Such a position [says Lasker about Herford] seems eminently reasonable ..."
23. Schäfer, p. 5; Theissen, p. 75.
24. Schäfer, p. 5.
25. Theissen, pp. 74–75; Schäfer, p. 5.
26. Peter Schäfer, p. 6ff.
27. Boyarin, pp. 1–3; Boyarin cites the Talmud as saying there were 24 sects.
28. Boyarin, pp. 1–3.
29. Schäfer, pp. 7–9.
30. Schäfer, pp. 7–9.
31. Schäfer, p. 9.
32. Peter Schäfer, p. 9: "I agree that much of our Jesus material is relatively late; in fact, I will argue that the most explicit Jesus passages (those passages that deal with him as a person) appear only in the Babylonian Talmud and can be dated, at the earliest, to the late third-early fourth century C.E. ... I propose that the (mainly) Babylonian stories about Jesus and his family are deliberate and highly sophisticated counternarratives to the stories about Jesus' life and death in the Gospels – narratives that presuppose a detailed knowledge of the New Testament in particular the Gospel of John, presumably through the Diatessaron and/or the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. More precisely, I will argue – following indeed some of the older research – that they are polemical counternarratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus' birth and death. They ridicule Jesus' birth from a virgin, as maintained by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and they contest fervently the claim that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Most remarkably, they counter the New Testament Passion story with its message of the Jews' guilt and shame as Christ killers. Instead, they reverse it completely: yes, they maintain, we accept responsibility for it, but there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater. Jesus deserved death, and he got what he deserved. Accordingly, they subvert the Christian idea of Jesus' resurrection by having him punished forever in hell and by making clear that this fate awaits his followers as well, who believe in this impostor. There is no resurrection, they insist, not for him and not for his followers; in other words, there is no justification whatsoever for this Christian sect that impudently claims to be the new covenant and that is on its way to establish itself as a new religion (not least as a "Church" with political power). This, I will posit, is the historical message of the (late) Talmudic evidence of Jesus. A proud and self-confident message that runs counter to all that we know from Christian and later Jewish sources. I will demonstrate that this message was possible only under the specific historical circumstances in Sasanian Babylonia, with a Jewish community that lived in relative freedom, at least with regard to Christians – quite different from conditions in Roman and Byzantine Palestine".
33. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1995, p. 992 ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley "And in Jn. 8:41 Jesus' opponents insist, "We were not born of fornication." Here "we" (Gk. hemeis) is emphatic, perhaps by way of contrast: "not we, but you?" Thus Jn. 8:41 may reflect early suspicions about Jesus' parentage, which Jewish polemics later made explicit. ... Origen, too, had to contend with the taunt of Celsus that the Virgin Birth was invented to cover up Mary's adultery with ..."
34. Isaac Kalimi Early Jewish exegesis and theological controversy, 2002, p. 57 "The last part of the verse from the Gospel of John, "For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans" (verse 9b), ... "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?". "
35. Ekkehard Stegemann, Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century, 1999, p. 346 "Other interpreters understand the author's anti-Jewish polemic as an expression of his conviction that believers in Christ are the true Jews, ... Thus in connection with the "synagogue of Satan" and based on linguistic usage in Revelation, the catchword blasphemia should be understood first of all as a blaspheming of God"
36. Lasker, p. xxiv: "What does emerge from the material presented by Herford is that even if Christianity was not a fundamental worry of emerging Rabbinic Judaism, basic Jewish objections to this religion, which hundreds of years later would blossom into a full-scale Jewish polemical attack on Christianity [Lasker is referring to the Toledot Yeshu "The History of Jesus"], are already present in embryonic form in rabbinic literature. Thus, Jesus was the product of adultery between his engaged mother and a man not her husband, not a result of miraculous birth. … God does not have a Son…. One can add to these arguments the Jewish accusations against Christianity and Jesus in the New Testament itself, for instance that if Jesus could not save himself, how could he save others (Matt 27:42)."
37. Jeffrey Rubenstein Rabbinic Stories (The Classics of Western Spirituality) New York: The Paulist Press, 2002
38. Jonathon Green; Nicholas J. Karolides (2009). Encyclopedia of Censorship. Infobase Publishing. p. 110. ISBN 9781438110011. Retrieved 13 February 2014.
39. Carroll, James, Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002
40. Seidman, Naomi, Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation, University of Chicago Press, 2006 p 137
41. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, Judaism and other faiths, Palgrave Macmillan, 1994, p 48
42. Berger D. "On the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christianity: The Search for the Historical Jesus." In Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, 1998, p. 33
43. Berger p33
44. Amy-Jill Levine. The Historical Jesus in Context, Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 20. "Similarly controversial is the Babylonian Talmud's account of Jesus' death (to the extant that some Rabbinic experts do not think the reference is to the Jesus of the New Testament!)."
45. Gustaf Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, London and New York, 1922, 89, cited in Joachim Jeremias, Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 1935, 3rd German ed. 1960, English 1966, p. 19.
46. Joachim Jeremias, Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 1935, 3rd German Ed. 1960, English 1966 p. 19, footnote 7. "On the other hand, as G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, London and New York, 1922 (ET of Jesus-Jeschua, Leipzig, 1922), 89, rightly supposed, the often quoted passage b. Sanh. 43a (Bar.): 'on the day of preparation Jeshu was hanged' does not refer to Jesus but to a namesake, a disciple of R. Joshua b. Peraiah (c. 100 BC), cf. b.Sanh. 107b (Bar.) par. b.Sot 47a."
47. Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Westminster John Knox, 1998, p. 34. "Scholars debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus in some of the collections of ancient Jewish writings, such as the Talmud, the Tosefta, the targums, and the midrashim... 'On the eve of Passover, they hanged Yeshu [= Jesus?] and the herald went before him 40 days... (Sanhedrin 43a)."
48. Roger T. Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian, Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, p. 294. "... the rest of the baraita, which states he was first stoned, and that his execution was delayed for forty days while a herald went out inviting anyone to say a word in his favour, suggest that it may refer to a different Yeshu altogether." footnote citing Jeremias 1966.
49. Bauckham, Richard, "The Names on the Ossuaries", in Quarles, Charles. Buried Hope Or Risen Savior: The Search for the Jesus Tomb, B&H Publishing Group, 2008, p. 81.
50. Berenbaum, Michael; Skolnik, Fred, eds. (2007). "Barcelona, Disputation of". Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-02-866097-4.
51. Schäfer, p. 132.
52. English translations from Peter Schäfer, pp. 133–140.
53. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman 2001 ISBN 019512474X, page 63.
54. Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (Nov 1, 1998) ISBN 0664257038 page 34
55. Herford, Robert Travers (1975). Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. Ktav Pub & Distributors Inc. pp. 39–40.
56. Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer (Aug 24, 2009) ISBN 0691143188, pp. 9, 17, 141.
57. Van Voorst 2000 - see also Thiessen and Merz mention Gustaf Dalman (1893), Johann Maier (1978), and Thoma (1990) in favour of this conclusion.* Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 74-76. *See also Jeffrey Rubenstein, Rabbinic Stories (The Classics of Western Spirituality) New York: The Paulist Press, 2002 & Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, Stanford University Press, 1999.
58. Theissen, p. 75: "[some authors conclude that the Talmud's passages] have no independent historical value. In contrast to this, other authors, e.g. Klausner, believe that they can discover at least some old and historically reliable traditions in the Talmud". Theissen cites Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 18–46.
59. "Google Link". Retrieved 2018-04-18.
60. Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, publisher? 1887 (reprint Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p. v–ix)
61. Edgar V. McKnight, Jesus Christ in history and Scripture, Mercer University Press, 1999. pp. 28–29.
62. "Google Link". Retrieved 2018-04-18.
63. Talmud Sanhedrin 43a
64. Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 75
65. Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, 1887 publisher? (reprint Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 116)
66. "Google Link". Retrieved 2018-04-18.
67. Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a
68. Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 35
69. Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, publisher? 1887 (reprint Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 114)
70. "Google Link". Retrieved 2018-04-18.
71. Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a
72. Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 18-19
73. Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, publisher? 1887 (reprint Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 117-120)
74. "Google Link". Retrieved 2018-04-18.
75. Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p. 64–65.
76. Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, 1887 (reprint Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 115)
77. Talmud Berakhot 61b
78. "Sanhedrin 43 online". Halakhah.com. Retrieved 2018-04-18.
79. Siedman, p. 137; Cohn-Sherbok p. 48.
80. "Sanhedrin 107 online". Halakhah.com. Retrieved 2018-04-18.
81. Cohn-Sherbok, p. 48.
82. Gittin 56 online, Gittin 57 online
83. Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer, Princeton University Press, 2007, p 13, 85–92, 98–100, 113, 174.
84. • Jewish history and Jewish memory: essays in honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi by Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, UPNE, 1998, page 33.
    • Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History by David Klinghoffer, Random House, Inc., 2006, page 154 (identifies source of criticism as King Louis IX).
    • Tolerance and intolerance in early Judaism and Christianity by Graham Stanton, Guy G. Stroumsa, Cambridge University Press, 1998, page 247.
    • Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians, by Israel Jacob Yuval, University of California Press, 2008, page 132.
    • Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence by Robert E. Van Voorst, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000, page 110. Also discusses the likening of Balaam with Jesus/Yeshua b. Sanhedrin 106b in relation to the age that Balaam died, page 111.
    • Church, State, and Jew in the Middle Ages by Robert Chazan, Behrman House, Inc, 1979, page 227-230 (transcript of 1240 Paris disputation).
    • A history of the Jews by Paul Johnson, HarperCollins, 1988, page 217 (identifies critic as Nicholas Donin).
    • Rabbi Moses ha-Kohen of Tordesillas and his book Ezer ha-emunah, by Yehuda Shamir, BRILL, 1975, page 31-32 (identifies Pope Gregory IX as a critic).
    • The Jew in the medieval book: English antisemitism, 1350–1500 by Anthony Paul Bale, Cambridge University Press, 2006, page 33.
    • From rebel to rabbi: reclaiming Jesus and the making of modern Jewish culture, by Matthew B. Hoffman, Stanford University Press, 2007, pages 4–5.
    • See also Talmud passage Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "R. Papa son of R. Aha b. Adda stated in the name of R. Aha b. Ulla: This teaches that he who scoffs at the words of the Sages will be condemned to boiling excrements. Raba demurred: Is it written: 'scoffing'? The expression is 'study'! Rather this is the exposition: He who studies them feels the taste of meat."The Soncino Babylonian Talmud: ERUVIN – 2a-26b
85. Howard, George, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer University Press, 1998. Howard cites Krauss, Das Leben Jesu, p. 68.
86. • Siedman, p. 137 (discussing Donin).
    • Donin said: "The passage says that someone ... was hanged in Lydda on the eve of Passover. His mother's name was Miriam, 'the hairdresser'; ... her lover's name was Pandira. So Mary is called an adulteress by the Talmud". – Cohn-Sherbok, p. 48, citing Maccoby, p. 157.
    • Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p. 113.
    • Chilton, Bruce, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, BRILL, p. 444.
    • Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Editors Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, InterVarsity Press, 1992, p. 366.
87. Sanhedrin 67a online Committed adultery
88. Sanhedrin 106a online "played harlot with the carpenters"
89. Shabbath 104b online Committed adultery
90. • "The rabbis in the Paris disputation responded that this could not be Mary because Jesus is not mentioned by name in the passage, and because it takes place in Lydda, not Jerusalem." – Cohn-Sherbok, p 48
    • Gil Student response to Mary criticism
91. Peter Schäfer
92. For a discussion of this passage, see Theissen, pp. 74–76.
93. English translations from Peter Schäfer.
94. Jaffé Dan, Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity: Text and Context, p. 56 footnote.
95. Hans Joachim Schoeps, The Jewish-Christian Argument, 1961, pp 24 (English language edition)
96. Boyarin, p. 24.
97. (This happened during their period of refuge in Egypt during the persecutions of Pharisees 88–76 BCE ordered by Alexander Jannæus. The incident is also mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud in Chagigah 2:2 but there the person in question is not given any name.)
98. English translations from Schäfer.
99. Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, publisher? 1887 (reprint Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 115)
100. Schäfer, p. 139.
101. Such as Herford, Schäfer.
102. Schäfer, pp. 15–24, 133–141.
103. Schäfer, pp. 138–139, 187–188.
104. Schäfer, pp. 15–24.
105. Maier
106. • Such as Peter Schäfer.
     • References are Shabbat 104b and Sanhedrin 67a in the Babylonin Talmud.
107. Schäfer, pp. 52–62.
108. Schäfer, pp. 52–62, 133–141.
109. Schäfer, pp. 41–51.
110. Yaakov Y. Teppler, Susan Weingarten Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in conflict in the ancient world, 2007. Page 48 - "The only clear mention is as follows: The rabbis said: the people of the watch used to pray for their brothers' offering to be acceptable, and the people of the course used to assemble in the synagogue and sit there."
111. Frankfurter judaistische Beiträge 35 Gesellschaft zur Feorderung Judaistischer Studien in Frankfurt am Main - 2009 [Yaakov Y. Teppler, Susan Weingarten] S. 49 zitiert bAZ 6a: "The day of the Notzri according to Rabbi Ishmael is forbidden for ever", ohne auf die Textprobleme hinzuweisen; ed. Wilna liest ____, was als Ergebnis der Zensur gesehen werden kann; MS Paris 1337 und JTS lesen ...
112. Schäfer, p. 2.
113. • Lasker, p. xxiv.
     • Rubenstein, SBT, p. 272.
114. • Rubenstein, SBT, p. 272.
     • Schäfer, p. 2.
115. Cited in Schäfer, p. 19.
116. Schäfer, p. 18.
117. Celsus' quote from Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. pp. 18–19.
118. Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, 1887 (reprint Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. pp. 117–120).

Bibliography

• Boyarin, Daniel: Dying for God, Stanford University Press, 1999
• Carroll, James, Constantine's sword: the church and the Jews : a history, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002
• Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, Judaism and other faiths, Palgrave Macmillan, 1994
• Dalman, Gustav: Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the Synagogue, Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1893
• Eisenmenger, Johann Andreas. Entdecktes Judenthum, 1711. English translations: 1732–34 by J.P. Stekelin "The Traditions of the Jews, with the Expositions and Doctrines of the Rabbins,"; English translation re-published in 2006 as "The traditions of the Jews", by Independent History & Research. German edition online here .
• Goldstein, Morris, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, Macmillan, 1950
• Herford, R. Travers, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London: Williams & Norgate, 1903 (reprint New York, KTAV, 1975)
• Hirshman, Mark, A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity trans. Baya Stein. Albany: SUNY Press 1996
• Klausner, Joseph, Yeshu ha-Notzri (Hebrew), Shtible, 1922. Translated and reprinted as Jesus of Nazareth, Beacon Books, 1964; translated and reprinted as Jesus of Nazareth, Bloch, 1989
• Krauss, Samuel, Das Leben Jesu nach judischen Quellen, Berlin: S. Calvary, 1902
• Laible, Heinrich, Jesus Christus im Thalmud (Jesus Christ in the Talmud), 1893. English translation published 2010 by General Books
• Daniel J. Lasker, 2007, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel ""Introduction to 2006 Reprint Edition", of Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, by R. Travers Herford, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2007
• Lauterbach, Jacob Z., "Jesus in the Talmud" in Rabbinic Essays, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951 (reprinted by Ktav, 1973).
• Johann Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung, Buchgesellschaft, 1978.
• Murcia Thierry, Jésus dans le Talmud et la littérature rabbinique ancienne, Turnhout, 2014; «Témoignages juifs et païens sur Jésus et sur le premier christianisme: la tradition rabbinique», dans Premiers Écrits chrétiens, Gallimard, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Paris, 2016.
• Neusner, Jacob, Judaism in the Matrix of Christianity Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1986
• Pick, Bernhard, The Talmud: what it is and what it says about Jesus and the Christians, 1887 (reprinted Kessinger Publishing, 2007)
• Rubenstein, Jeffrey, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud (cited as "Rubenstein SBT"), JHU Press, 2010
• Rubenstein, Jeffrey, Rabbinic Stories (cited as "Rubenstein"), New York: The Paulist Press, 2002
• Schäfer, Peter, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007
• Seidman, Naomi, Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation, University of Chicago Press, 2006
• Strack, Hermann: Jesus, die Haretiker und die Christen nach den altesten judischen Angaben, Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1910
• Theissen, Gerd, Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Fortress Press, 1998
• Van Voorst, Robert E.: Jesus outside the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000

- Wiki - 

References.

1. 

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 9 proofs that Jesus really existed. Following Christ. - 2026.

 https://youtu.be/3jjzac99p4Y?si=3OC81PsfxSv-Cm-m

11.

......