Английская Википедия:Historicity of Jesus

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Use dmy dates Шаблон:Jesus The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth historically existed (as opposed to being a purely mythical figure). The question of historicity was generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century,Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Refn and today scholars in the field agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed.Шаблон:Refn

Academic efforts in biblical studies to determine facts of Jesus's life are part of the quest for the historical Jesus, and several criteria of authenticity are used in evaluating the authenticity of elements of the Gospel-story. There is no scholarly consensus concerning most elements of Jesus's life as described in the Bible stories, and only two key events of the biblical story of Jesus's life are widely accepted as historical, based on the criterion of embarrassment, namely his baptism, and his crucifixion (commonly dated to 30 or 33 CE).Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn A distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith',Шаблон:Refn and the historicity of supernatural elements like his purported miracles and the resurrection are deemed to be outside the reach of the historical methods.Шаблон:Refn

The idea that Jesus was a purely mythical figure has been and still is considered an untenable fringe theory in academic scholarship for more than two centuries,Шаблон:Refn but has gained popular attention in recent decades due to the growth of the internet.Шаблон:Sfn

The criterion of multiple attestation is used to argue that attestation by multiple independent sources confirms his existence. Besides the gospels and the letters of Paul, non-biblical works that are considered sources for the historicity of Jesus include a mention in Antiquities of the Jews by Jewish historian Josephus (dated circa 93–94 CE) and a mention in Annals by Roman historian Tacitus (circa 116 CE).

Modern scholarship

Mainstream view: a historical Jesus existed

Шаблон:Main article

Historical Jesus

Scholars regard the question of historicity as generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century,Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn and scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE.[1]Шаблон:Refn Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase.[2][3] Currently modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible about Jesus.[4][5]

Only two accepted facts of a historical Jesus

Шаблон:Main article

Файл:Sapsaphas Madaba.jpg
Part of the ancient Madaba Map showing two possible baptism locations
Файл:Bronzino-Christ-Nice.jpg
Bronzino's depiction of the Crucifixion with three nails, no ropes, and a hypopodium standing support, Шаблон:Circa

There is no scholarly consensus concerning most elements of Jesus's life as described in the Christian and non-Christian sources, and the only two events of this historical Jesus subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (who officiated 26–36 AD).[6]Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Refn

Файл:Bautismo de Cristo por Navarrete el Mudo.jpg
The criterion of embarrassment has been used to argue for the historicity of the baptism of Jesus, shown here in The Baptism of Christ by Juan Fernández Navarrete.

Based on the criterion of embarrassment, scholars argue that the early Christian Church would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[7] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus,[8][9]Шаблон:Sfn given that John baptised for the remission of sins, although Jesus was viewed as without sin and this positioned John above Jesus.[8]Шаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn

Lightfoot Professor of Divinity James Dunn stated that these two facts "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."Шаблон:SfnШаблон:Refn

In his popular book Did Jesus Exist? (2012), American New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman explained : Шаблон:Blockquote

A distinction is made between 'the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith',Шаблон:Refn and the historicity of the supernatural elements of the latter narrative, including his purported miracles or resurrection, are outside the reach of the historical methods.Шаблон:Refn

Fringe view: there was no historical Jesus

Шаблон:Main article

The Christ myth theory, which developed within the scholarly research on the historical Jesus in the 19th century, is, in Geoffrey W. Bromiley's words, the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology" possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact".Шаблон:Sfn Alternatively, Bart Ehrman (who himself rejects the Christ myth theory) summarises Earl Doherty's view as being "that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition".Шаблон:Sfn David Gullotta states that modern-day interest in mythicism has been "amplified by internet conspiracy culture, pseudoscience, and media sensationalism".Шаблон:Sfn Casey and Ehrman note that many of the proponents of mythicism are either atheists or agnostics.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Refn

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value with respect to Jesus's existence, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[10][11]

Virtually all scholars dismiss theories of Jesus's non-existence or regard them as refuted.Шаблон:Refn In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn[web 1]Шаблон:Refn

Sources for the historicity of Jesus

Шаблон:Main article

Файл:First century Iudaea province.gif
Judea Province during the 1st century

Methodological considerations

Multiple attestation

The criterion of multiple attestation looks at the number of early sources that mention, and evaluates the reliability of those sources. To establish the existence of a person without any assumptions, one source from one author (either a supporter or opponent) is needed; for Jesus there are at least twelve independent sources from five authors in the first century from supporters and two independent sources from two authors from non-supporters.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:Refn

There are Christian sources on the person of Jesus (the letters of Paul and the Gospels) and there are also Jewish and Roman sources (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and rabbinic traditionШаблон:Which) that mention Jesus,Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn[12] and there are also many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings from early Christianity.

These additional sources are independent sources on Jesus's existence, and corroborate details found in other surviving sources as a "bedrock of historical tradition".[12]Шаблон:Sfn Contemporary non-Christian sources in the first and second century never deny the existence of Jesus,Шаблон:Sfn and there is also no indication that Pagan or Jewish writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[13][14][12] Taking into consideration that sources on other first century individuals from Galilee were also written by either supporters or enemies as well, the sources on Jesus cannot be dismissed.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn

Early dates of the Christian oral traditions

Biblical scholarship assumes that the gospel-stories are based on oral traditions and memories of Jesus. These traditions precede the surviving gospels by decades, going back to the time of Jesus and the time of Paul's persecution of the early Christian Jews, prior to his conversion.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:Refn

According to Christopher M. Tuckett, most available sources are collections of early oral traditions about Jesus. He states that the historical value of traditions are not necessarily correlated with the later dates of composition of writings since even later sources can contain early tradition material.Шаблон:Sfn Theissen and Merz state that these traditions can be dated back well before the composition of the synoptic gospels, that such traditions show local familiarity of the region, and that such traditions were explicitly called "memory", indicating biographical elements that included historical references such as notable people from his era.Шаблон:Sfn According to Maurice Casey, some of the sources, such as parts of the Gospel of Mark, are translations of early Aramaic sources which indicate proximity with eyewitness testimony.Шаблон:Sfn

Paul’s letters (generally dated to circa 48–62 CE) are the earliest surviving sources on Jesus, and Paul adds autobiographical details such as that he personally knew and interacted with eyewitnesses of Jesus such as his most intimate disciples (Peter and John) and family members (his brother James) starting around 36 CE.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Refn

Reliability of sources

Шаблон:Main article

Since the third quest for the historical Jesus, the four gospels and noncanonical texts have been viewed as more useful sources to reconstruct the life of Jesus compared to the previous quests.[15][16]

On the quality of available sources, German historian of religion Hans-Joachim Schoeps argued that the Gospels are unsatisfactory as they were not written as detailed historical biographies, that the non-Christian sources provide no new information, and that the sources hopelessly intertwine history and legend, but present the views and beliefs of the early disciples and the Christian community.[17]

However, evangelical New Testament scholars like Craig Blomberg argue that the source material on Jesus does correlate significantly with historical data.Шаблон:Refn There are also archeological finds that corroborate aspects of the time of Jesus mentioned in the surviving sources.[18] Evans argues that archeological research correlates with basic details found in surviving sources on Jesus, shedding light on aspects of his life.[19]

Other historical persons in ancient sources

Historiographical approaches associated with the study of the poor in the past, such as microhistory, can help assess what type of sources can be reasonably expected in the historical record for individuals like Jesus. For instance, Justin Meggitt argues that since most people in antiquity left no sign of their existence, especially the poor, it is unreasonable to expect non-Christian sources to corroborate the specific existence of someone with Jesus's socio-economic status.[20] Ehrman argues that the historical record for the first century was so lacking that no contemporary eyewitness reports for prominent individuals such as Pontius Pilate or Josephus survive.[21] Theissen and Merz observe that even if ancient sources were to be silent on any individual, they would not impact their historicity since there are numerous instances of people whose existence is never doubted and yet were not mentioned by contemporary authors. For instance, Paul is not mentioned by Josephus or non-Christian sources; John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul, Philo, or rabbinic writings; Rabbi Hillel is not mentioned by Josephus - despite him being a Pharisee; Bar Kochba, a leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans is not mentioned by Dio Cassius in his account of the revolt.Шаблон:Sfn

With at least 14 sources by believers and nonbelievers within a century of the crucifixion, there is much more evidence available for Jesus than for other notable people from 1st century Galilee.Шаблон:Sfn Non-Christian sources do exist and they corroborate some details of the life of Jesus that are also found in New Testament sources.[12] Historian Michael Grant argues that when the New Testament is analyzed with the same criteria used by historians on ancient writings that contain historical material, Jesus's existence cannot be denied anymore than secular figures whose existence is never questioned.Шаблон:Sfn

New Testament sources

Synoptic Gospels

Шаблон:Main

Файл:Byzantinischer Maler um 1020 003.jpg
An 11th-century Byzantine manuscript containing the opening of the Gospel of Luke

The synoptic gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded.[22][23] The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus who spoke Aramaic. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities,[24] and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic.[25] Scholars argue that the surviving gospels show usage of earlier independent written and oral sources that extended back to the time of Jesus's death, but did not survive.[26]Шаблон:Refn Aramaic sources have been detected in Mark's Gospel, which could indicate use of early or even eyewitness testimony when it was being written.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as the Book of Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.[27]

Among contemporary scholars, there is consensus that the gospels are a type of ancient biography.[28][29][30][31][32]

Pauline epistles

The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine were written in a span of a decade starting in the late 40s (i.e., approximately 20 to 30 years after the generally accepted time period of Jesus's death) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus.Шаблон:Sfn Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about JesusШаблон:Sfn and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real personШаблон:Refn and a Jew.Шаблон:Sfn[33][34][35]Шаблон:Refn Moreover, he interacted with eyewitnesses of Jesus since he wrote about meeting and knowing James, the brother of Jesus[36]Шаблон:RefnШаблон:Refn and Jesus's apostles PeterШаблон:SfnШаблон:Refn and John.[37] Additionally, there are independent sources (Mark, John, Paul, Josephus) affirming that Jesus actually had brothers.Шаблон:Sfn

Craig A. Evans and Ehrman argue that Paul's letters are among the earliest sources that provide a direct link to people who lived with and knew Jesus since Paul was personally acquainted with Peter and John, two of Jesus's original disciples, and James, the brother of Jesus.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn Paul's first meeting with Peter was around 36 AD.Шаблон:Sfn Paul is the earliest surviving source to document Jesus' death by crucifixion and his conversion occurred two years after this event.Шаблон:Sfn Paul mentioned details in his letters such as that Jesus was a Jew, born of the line of David, and had biological brothers.Шаблон:Sfn According to Simon Gathercole, Paul's description of Jesus's life on Earth, his personality, and family tend to establish that Paul regarded Jesus as a natural person, rather than an allegorical figure.[38]

Non-Christian sources

Josephus and Tacitus

Шаблон:Main

Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the Шаблон:Circa first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline letters and synoptic gospels, and are usually independent of each other; that is, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.Шаблон:Sfn[39][40]Шаблон:Sfn From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavorable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, and he was executed during Pilate's governorship.[12] Josephus and Tacitus agree on four sequential points: a movement was started by Jesus, he was executed by Pontius Pilate, his movement continued after his death, and that a group of "Christians" still existed; analogous to common knowledge of founders and their followers like Plato and Platonists.[41]

Jesus is referenced by Josephus twice, once in Book 18 and once in Book 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94. On the first reference, the general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, in Book 18 most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery.[42][43] On the second reference, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of the reference found in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".[44][45]Шаблон:Sfn[46]

Tacitus, in his Annals (written Шаблон:Circa AD 115), book 15, chapter 44,[47] describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself.Шаблон:Sfn The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.Шаблон:Sfn[48][49]

Mishnah

The Mishnah (Шаблон:Circa 200) may refer to Jesus as it reflects the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[50][51][52][53] Other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.[50][54]

See also

Notes

Шаблон:Reflist

References

Шаблон:Reflist

Sources

Printed sources

Шаблон:Refbegin

(1991), v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Шаблон:ISBN
(1994), v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, Шаблон:ISBN
(2001), v. 3, Companions and Competitors, Шаблон:ISBN
(2009), v. 4, Law and Love, Шаблон:ISBN

Шаблон:Refend

Web-sources

Шаблон:Reflist

External links

Шаблон:Jesus footerШаблон:The Bible and historyШаблон:HistoricityШаблон:Historiography

Шаблон:Authority control

Партнерские ресурсы
Криптовалюты
Магазины
Хостинг
Разное

  1. ↑ Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist) who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, Шаблон:ISBN p. 61
  2. ↑ Ben Witherington, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (1997) Шаблон:ISBN pp. 9–13
  3. ↑ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1999) Шаблон:ISBN pp. 19–23
  4. ↑ John, Jesus, and History Volume 1 by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (2007) Шаблон:ISBN p. 131
  5. ↑ John P. Meier "Criteria: How do we decide what comes from Jesus?" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (2006) Шаблон:ISBN p. 124 "Since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria can not hope to do more."
  6. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  7. ↑ John P. Meier "How do we decide what comes from Jesus" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 Шаблон:ISBN pp. 126–128
  8. ↑ 8,0 8,1 Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 Шаблон:ISBN p. 47
  9. ↑ Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan, Richard G. Watts 1999 Шаблон:ISBN pp. 31–32
  10. ↑ "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, pp. 8–9
  11. ↑ Price, Robert M. (2009). "Jesus at the Vanishing Point". In Beilby, James K.; Eddy, Paul R. (eds.). The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity Press. pp. 55–83. Шаблон:ISBN
  12. ↑ 12,0 12,1 12,2 12,3 12,4 Шаблон:Cite web
  13. ↑ Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 Шаблон:ISBN pp. 730–731
  14. ↑ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. Шаблон:ISBN p. 15
  15. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  16. ↑ Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993) p. 13-14
  17. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  18. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  19. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  20. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  21. ↑ Шаблон:Harvnb: "Think again of our earlier point of comparison, Pontius Pilate. Here is a figure who was immensely significant in every way to the life and history of Palestine during the adult life of Jesus (assuming Jesus lived), politically, economically, culturally, socially. As I have indicated, there was arguably no one more important. And how many eyewitness reports of Pilate do we have from his day? None. Not a single one. The same is true of Josephus. And these are figures who were of the highest prominence in their own day."
  22. ↑ Шаблон:Cite encyclopedia
  23. ↑ Vermes, Geza. The authentic gospel of Jesus. London, Penguin Books. 2004.
  24. ↑ Mark Allan Powell (editor), The New Testament Today, p. 50 (Westminster John Knox Press, 1999). Шаблон:ISBN
  25. ↑ Stanley E. Porter (editor), Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, p. 68 (Leiden, 1997). Шаблон:ISBN
  26. ↑ Шаблон:Harvnb: "All of these written sources I have mentioned are earlier than the surviving Gospels; they all corroborate many of the key things said of Jesus in the Gospels; and most important they are all independent of one another. Let me stress the latter point. We cannot think of the early Christian Gospels as going back to a solitary source that “invented” the idea that there was a man Jesus. The view that Jesus existed is found in multiple independent sources that must have been circulating throughout various regions of the Roman Empire in the decades before the Gospels that survive were produced. Where would the solitary source that “invented” Jesus be? Within a couple of decades of the traditional date of his death, we have numerous accounts of his life found in a broad geographical span. In addition to Mark, we have Q, M (which is possibly made of multiple sources), L (also possibly multiple sources), two or more passion narratives, a signs source, two discourse sources, the kernel (or original) Gospel behind the Gospel of Thomas, and possibly others. And these are just the ones we know about, that we can reasonably infer from the scant literary remains that survive from the early years of the Christian church. No one knows how many there actually were. Luke says there were “many” of them, and he may well have been right. And once again, this is not the end of the story." (page 83) and "The reality appears to be that there were stories being told about Jesus for a very long time not just before our surviving Gospels but even before their sources had been produced. If scholars are right that Q and the core of the Gospel of Thomas, to pick just two examples, do date from the 50s, and that they were based on oral traditions that had already been in circulation for a long time, how far back do these traditions go? Anyone who thinks that Jesus existed has no problem answering the question: they ultimately go back to things Jesus said and did while he was engaged in his public ministry, say, around the year 29 or 30. But even anyone who just wonders if Jesus existed has to assume that there were stories being told about him in the 30s and 40s. For one thing, as we will see in the next chapter, how else would someone like Paul have known to persecute the Christians, if Christians didn’t exist? And how could they exist if they didn’t know anything about Jesus?" (page 85)"
  27. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  28. ↑ Stanton, G. H. (2004). Jesus and Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 192.
  29. ↑ Burridge, R. A. (2006). Gospels. In J. W. Rogerson & Judith M. Lieu (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 437
  30. ↑ Talbert, C. H. (1977). What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
  31. ↑ Wills, L. M. (1997). The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre. London: Routledge. p. 10.
  32. ↑ Burridge, R. A. (2004). What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. rev. updated edn. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
  33. ↑ Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making by James D. G. Dunn (2003) Шаблон:ISBN p. 143
  34. ↑ Jesus Christ in History and Scripture by Edgar V. McKnight (1999) Шаблон:ISBN p. 38
  35. ↑ Jesus according to Paul by Victor Paul Furnish (1994) Шаблон:ISBN pp. 19–20
  36. ↑ Galatians 1:19
  37. ↑ Galatians 2:9
  38. ↑ Gathercole, Simon. "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 16.2–3 (2018): 191, n. 32.
  39. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  40. ↑ Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg (2009) Шаблон:ISBN pp. 431–436
  41. ↑ Crossan, John (2009). "Response to Robert M. Price". In Beilby, James K.; Eddy, Paul R. (eds.). The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity Press. pp. 86. ISBN 978-0-8308-3868-4
  42. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  43. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  44. ↑ The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier Шаблон:ISBN pp. 662–663
  45. ↑ Josephus XX by Louis H. Feldman (1965), Шаблон:ISBN p. 496
  46. ↑ Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). Josephus, the Essential Works: A Condensation of Jewish Antiquities and The Jewish war Шаблон:ISBN pp. 284–285
  47. ↑ P.E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), The Cambridge History of Latin Literature, p. 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996) Шаблон:ISBN
  48. ↑ Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard (2001) Шаблон:ISBN page 343
  49. ↑ Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond (2004) Шаблон:ISBN page xi
  50. ↑ 50,0 50,1 Jesus and the Politics of his Day by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (1985) Шаблон:ISBN p. 393
  51. ↑ In Jesus: The Complete Guide edited by J. L. Houlden (8 Feb 2006) Шаблон:ISBN pp. 693–694
  52. ↑ Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer (24 Aug 2009) Шаблон:ISBN pp. 9, 141
  53. ↑ Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg (1 Aug 2009) Шаблон:ISBN p. 280
  54. ↑ Kostenberger, Andreas J.; Kellum, L. Scott; Quarles, Charles L. (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament Шаблон:ISBN. pp. 107–109


Ошибка цитирования Для существующих тегов <ref> группы «web» не найдено соответствующего тега <references group="web"/>

Источник — http://wikihandbk.com/ruwiki/index.php?title=Английская_Википедия:Historicity_of_Jesus&oldid=15255383