snex

there seems to be a claim going around a few apologetics websites that this supposed letter, written in or after 73AD, confirms the existence and crucifixion of jesus. the evidence is rather paltry, as jesus isnt even mentioned by name. but im not interested in the claims of the letter, im interested in the existence of the letter itself. before a few weeks ago, i had never even heard of this letter, so it kind of took me by surprise, as i thought i was familiar with all of the alleged secular mentionings of jesus.

many of these websites claim that the letter is housed in the british museum, so i hopped onto their website. i could not find a single reference to the letter, so i emailed them. just today, they replied with a referral to the british library. the email reply seems to imply that they do not have the artifact nor have they ever heard of it. i specifically asked in my email if they do have it and what information they could give me on it. the referral to the british library is literally all thats in the reply. maybe british people or just rude, or maybe im on to something here.

the british library website also has zero references to the letter, and i have emailed them as well and will keep you guys posted on the reply.

in the meantime, if anybody can verify the existence of this artifact, id love to hear from you.

Chris Weimer

I don't know too much about the letter itself but II has this and of course Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings.

snex

yeah ive seen those, but they dont really say where they got this information. the article on II seems to take the apologist websites at face value, and the early christian writings site doesnt give sources.

DramaQ

Hello all... been away for a while so I'm a bit rusty, but...

Seems to me that a casual observer writing in the first century wouldn't mistake a clearly ROMAN execution for one carried out by "the Jews". That smacks of someone steeped in the gospel spin on things.

Also seems to me that that same casual observer wouldn't have any reason to see an executed teacher as a "king". Again, if it is meant to refer to JofN, it would be a mighty Christian-oriented reference.

Just MHO....

Nice to be back...

DQ

snex

well, again, im not interested in the text, but the existence of the letter itself. ive caught a lot of creationists simply making things up out of thin air, so it wouldnt surprise me if such a thing happened here either.

Toto

The letter is supposed to be in the British Museum. I'm not sure if it is alleged to be the original, or how it is dated.

Toto

But it seems that the claim that the letter is in the British Museum is only found in apologetic sources. There is evidently no record of it in the online data base for the museum.

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/index.html

Perhaps one of our British members can help?

Roger Pearse

The unique manuscript is part of British Library Additional Ms. 14658. This is one of the Syriac manuscripts brought from the Nitrian Desert in 1842 by Archdeacon Tattam, and dates from the 6-7th century.

The British Library reference reads:

VARIOUS works of Aristotle, translated by Sergius of Rhesina; together with original works of Sergius; Bardesanes on Fate, etc. On vellum, of the vith or viith century. Quarto. [14,658.]

Sergius of Resh'aina was the Monophysite translator of the works of Aristotle into Syriac (there was also a Nestorian who did the same task for that community) in the 6th century.

The reason for the two sets of translations was political. Political dissent was not tolerated in the Eastern Roman Empire, which was a despotism, but a certain amount of theological dispute was tolerated. Consequently (as might be imagined) every political or personal dispute expressed itself in 'theological' terms, and, since the participants were still ancient Greeks, the whole thing tended to be couched in philosophical terms; specifically in Aristotelean dialectic. This meant that, to take part in the politics, the Syriac-speaking areas needed translations of the primary relevant philosopher, Aristotle. Both Syriac factions arranged for these to be translated.

This area fell under Arab rule in the 7th century. When in the 10th century the Arabs grew interested in Greek science, the Syriac translations formed the basis of the Arabic translations. These in turn came via Spain and formed the basis of medieval Latin knowledge of Aristotle. So the pointless disputes about the theotokos are responsible for the preservation of rather a lot of Greek scientific knowledge.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

snex

as i said in the original post, the british museum didnt seem to know about it when i emailed them.

countjulian

You mean like a theology that involved many gods such as Zeus but not Yahweh or Jesus?