lesson 6 stuff Flashcards
PROBLEMS
WITH SOURCES
- Most of our sources for the past are literary, that is, they are texts written by authors who refer to the person’s words and deeds
–> sources of this kind are not always reliable
–> eyewitness accounts are often contradictory, and contemporary observers not infrequently get the facts wrong
- most historical sources, for the distant past at least, do not derive from eyewitnesses but from later authors reporting the rumors and traditions they have heard
criteria for determining which sources can be trusted and which ones cannot
sources that (a) are numerous, so they can be compared to one another
(b) derive from a time near the event itself, so that they are less likely to have been based on hearsay or legend
(c) were produced independently of one another, so that their authors were not in collusion
(d) do not contradict one another so that one or more of them is not necessarily in error
(e) are internally consistent, suggesting a basic concern for reliability
(f) are not biased toward the subject matter
Jesus’ impact on society in the first century?
was practically nil, less like a comet striking the planet than a stone being tossed in the ocean
How many times is Jesus mentioned among the hundreds of documents by pagan writers in the 1st century
what does this mean
almost never
–> There are no birth records, official correspondence, philosophical rebuttals, literary discussions, or personal reflections
it means Jesus didn’t have clout
the first bit of historical information about Jesus from a pagan author
from Tacitus in same context than when Nero was blaming christians
“Christus, from whom their [the Christians’] name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius”
Tacitus goes on to indicate that the “superstition” that emerged in Jesus’ wake first appeared in Judea
–> scholars have noted that even this bit of knowledge is not altogether reliable
why did Tacitus called Christianity a “superstition,” as did a number of our later Roman sources?
Authors in the Greco-Roman world used this term to describe any set of religious beliefs and practices that were antisocial, irrational, and motivated by raw fear of divine vengeance
Such beliefs and practices were antisocial in that they involved religious acts that were not sanctioned by the recognized cults and so were out of bounds from the point of view of society at large
They were irrational in that they could not be justified in terms of the prevailing modes of logic
They were motivated by fear, rather than the more “noble” virtues of love, truth, and honor, in that they maintained that the gods were bent on punishing those who did not perform their prescribed religious acts regularly and scrupulously
Jewish author who both wrote during our time period (before 130 C.E.) and mentioned Jesus
The Jewish historian Josephus
–> wrote his insider’s perspective on the Jewish War against Rome in 66–73 C.E.
–> wrote his twenty-volume history of the Jewish people from Adam and Eve up to the time of the Jewish War, a book that he titled The Antiquities of the Jews
—-> One reference to Jesus occurs in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus
—-> Jesus has a brother named James
the second passage indicates that Jesus was a wise man and a teacher who performed startling deeds and as a consequence found a following among both Jews and Greeks
–> it states that he was accused by Jewish leaders before Pilate, who condemned him to be crucified; and it points out that his followers remained devoted to him even afterwards
We might conclude that he was considered important enough for Josephus to mention, though not as important as, say, John the Baptist or many other Palestinian Jews who were thought to be prophets at the time
No other non-Christian Jewish source written before 130 C.E. mentions Jesus.
Why would Josephus, a devout Jew who never became a Christian, profess faith in Jesus by suggesting that he was something more than a man, calling him the messiah (rather than merely saying that others thought he was), and claiming that he was raised from the dead in fulfillment of prophecy?
writings were not preserved by Jews, many of whom considered him to be a traitor because of his conduct during and after the war with Rome
it was Christians who copied Josephus’s writings through the ages
–> Is it possible that this reference to Jesus has been beefed up a bit by a Christian scribe who wanted to make Josephus appear more appreciative of the “true faith”?
problems with christian sources outside of the gospels
little information about the historical Jesus can be gleaned from the New Testament writings that fall outside of the four Gospels
The apostle Paul, who was not personally acquainted with Jesus but who may have known some of his disciples, provides us with the most detail
–> it is not much tho
–> Paul says almost nothing about the life and teachings of Jesus, even though he has a lot to say about the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection and his expected return in glory
The other New Testament authors tell us even less
To what extent are these New Testament documents reliable for the historian, and how can they be used to answer historical questions about Jesus?
the earliest surviving Gospels were produced thirty-five to sixty-five years after the events they narrate
–> In modern terms, this would be like having written records of John F. Kennedy or Albert Einstein or Babe Ruth appear for the first time 20 years ago
these Gospels were likely not among the earliest followers of Jesus
–> they themselves do not claim to be disciples; the books are all anonymous, and they give no solid information as to their authors’ identity
all of this doesn’t make it necessarily bad tho
What is more telling is the lack of consistency among these earliest accounts of the life of Jesus
–> all of the early Christian authors had perspectives on who Jesus was and on how he was significant
–> These perspectives affected the ways they told stories about him
–> each author inherited a number of his stories from earlier written sources. and each of these sources had its own perspective
rules of thumb regarding credibility of the sources (not the same as the first question)
- The Earlier the Better
- Theological Merits / Historical Demerits
- Accounts of Jesus that are clearly imbued with a highly developed theology are less likely to be historically accurate
–> later sources tend to be more theologically oriented than earlier ones (similar to first one)
- Beware the Bias
–> we should see if other authors share the same bias towards emoting or someone
the most religiously significant and theologically powerful account of Jesus’ life has been which Gospel?
whats the degree of credibility?
Gospel of John
John says things about Jesus found nowhere else in Scripture
–> why do they never occur in sources that were written earlier than John? Nothing like them can be found in Mark, Q, M, or L—let alone Paul or Josephus
–>i t is difficult to think that they represent things he really said to his disciples
three criteria to make a case for what actually happened during Jesus’ life
The Criterion of Independent Attestation
The Criterion of Dissimilarity
The Criterion of Contextual Credibility
The Criterion of Independent Attestation
A strong case will be supported by several witnesses who independently agree on a point at issue
–> So too with history
–> An event mentioned in several independent documents is more likely to be historical than an event mentioned in only one
For the life of Jesus, we do in fact have a number of independent sources
–> would not work for the stories shared in Mark, Matthew, and Luke
the most we know of Jesus’ stories that have been written by different authors independently
stories in which John the Baptist encounters Jesus
Jesus is said to have brothers
–> Mark, Paul, and Josephus all identify one of his brothers as James
Jesus tells parables in which he likens the kingdom of God to seeds
Aramaisms as a Criterion of Authenticity
if a saying of Jesus can be translated back from the Greek of the Gospels into Jesus’ own language, Aramaic, and if it appears to make even better sense there than in Greek, then it is likely to be authentic
The Criterion of Dissimilarity
Authors from the ancient world were not under oath to tell the historical facts, and nothing but the facts
The criterion is rooted in the fact that early Christians modified and invented stories about Jesus
How can we know which stories were made up and which ones are historically accurate?
–> The surest way is to determine the sorts of things Christians were saying about Jesus in other sources and then assert whether the stories told about his sayings and deeds clearly support these Christian views
limitations of the Dissimilarity criterion
Just because a saying or deed of Jesus happens to conform to what Christians were saying about him does not mean that it is accurate
The Criterion of Contextual Credibility
For the testimony of a witness in a court of law to be judged trustworthy, it has to conform with what is otherwise known about the facts of the case
For ancient documents, reliable traditions must conform with the historical and social contexts to which they relate
used to argue against a tradition, on the grounds that it does not conform to what we know about the historical and social context of Jesus’ life
the traditions that we can most rely on as historically accurate are those that are:
independently attested in a number of sources
that do not appear to have been created to fulfill a need in the early Christian community
that make sense in light of a first century Palestinian context
is there a consensus among scholars about the credibility of the New Testament?
nah
the context of Jesus’ adult life in the 20s of the Common Era in the Palestinian territory
In a nutshell, the political history of the land had not been happy for some 800 years
–> it experienced periodic wars and virtually permanent foreign domination
–> The northern part of the land, the kingdom of Israel, was overthrown by the Assyrians in 721 B.C.E.; then, about a century and a half later, in 587–86 B.C.E.
–> the southern kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonians
etc etc
what did Jews think of Herdo the Great? why?
Many Jews castigated Herod as an opportunistic collaborator with the Romans, a traitorous half-Jew at best
the largest Jewish sect at the time of Jesus
the Pharisees
did most jews belong to the four main jewish sects?
nah boy
The Pharisees
the best-known and least understood Jewish sect
insisted on knowing and obeying the Law of their own God to the fullest extent possible
The rules and regulations that developed among the Pharisees came to have a status of their own and were known in some circles as the “oral” Law, which was set alongside the “written” Law of Moses
–> Pharisees generally believed that anyone who kept the oral law would be almost certain to keep the written law as a consequence
had no real power
kind of isolated
did the Pharisees have power in Jesus’ day?
no
Pharisees were not the “power players” in Palestine in Jesus’ day
–> no real political clout
the Sadducees
the Sadducees were evidently the real power players in Palestine
Jewish aristocracy in Jerusalem who were closely connected with the Jewish priesthood in charge of the Temple cult
Sadducees appear to have been conciliatory toward the civil authorities, that is, cooperative with the Roman governor
Jesus roused their anger by predicting that God would soon destroy the locus of their social and religious authority, their beloved Temple
how many Saduccees literary works do we have?
none
the real power players in Palestine in Jesus’ day
the Sadducees
The Essenes
Essenes started their own monastic like community, with strict rules for admission and membership
The Essenes are important for understanding the historical Jesus, in part because Jesus appears to have shared many of their apocalyptic views, even though he did not belong to their sect
did jewish scribes reliably recopy their texts?
for the most part, they did
Two kinds of writing found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that are of particular interest to historians of early Christianity
what jewish sect is the most relevant in them?
The Biblical Commentaries
The War Scroll
–> Both have to do with the Essenes’ belief that God had revealed to members of the community the course of historical events
The Biblical Commentaries from Essenes
the Essenes believed that the prophets of Scripture had spoken about events that came to transpire in their own day, centuries later
The Essenes had developed a particular method of interpretation to explain these secret revelations of God’s divine purpose
–> pesher
the history can be read from their own interpretations of the ancient prophecies
The War Scroll
details the final war between the forces of good and evil that will take place at the end of time
sketches the course of the battles, gives regulations for the soldiers who fight, and describes the outcome that is assured by God as the “children of light” (the members of the Essene communities) overcome the “children of darkness” (the Romans, the apostate Jews, and everyone else)
This document, then, provides an apocalyptic vision of the final struggle between good and evil, between the forces of God and those of his enemies
The “Fourth Philosophy”
were very much supportive of violent overthrow of any outsider governing the land of Moses
–> assassinations and kidnappings of high ranking Jewish officials who were thought to be in league with the Roman authorities
includes the Zealots that took back Jerusalem in a coup and urged the revolt against romans
–> ended in them getting roasted
POPULAR MODES OF
RESISTANCE TO OPPRESSION
Silent Protests
Nonviolent Uprisings
Prophetic Proclamations
Violent Insurrections
Silent Protests examples
Jews celebrating the Passover
–> they were looking to the future, when God would save them yet again, this time from their present overlords, the Romans
–> Roman officials appear to have understood full well the potentially subversive nature of the celebration
Nonviolent Uprisings
It appears that for most of the first century the protests were nonviolent
Prophetic Proclamations
prophets predicting the imminent intervention of God on behalf of his people
–> This intervention was modeled on earlier acts of salvation as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures
–> Some of these prophets gathered a large following among the Jewish masses
For obvious reasons, they were not well-received by the Romans
