Evidence from Tacitus
Although there is
overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy
historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says
unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates
its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about
a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart
from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical
evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible. This, he wrote to Bruce, had
caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual
life." He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof
available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?" The answer
to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and
we will be looking at some of it in this article.
Let's begin our
inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the
most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on
Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed
Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the
guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the
populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme
penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and
a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out
not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .
What all can we
learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the
early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their
name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He
is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to
the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred
during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This
confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to
make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked
"a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only
in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here
"bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church
that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While
this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the
otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship
of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny
the Younger
Another important
source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the
letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of
Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks
Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against
those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the
emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex
stood accused of Christianity.
At one point in his
letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these
Christians:
They were in the
habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in
alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a
solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or
adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be
called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and
then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
This passage
provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and
practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a
certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ,
demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one
scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to
a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike
other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on
earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that
Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this
agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and
man.
Not only does
Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person,
it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For
instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath
not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical
teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of
sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the
"love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim
that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They
were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing
"ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated
such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same
today.
Evidence from
Josephus
Perhaps the most
remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of
Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish
Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference
describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin.
This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called
Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of
James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi
informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually
penned this passage.
As interesting as
this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing.
Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time
there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he .
. . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . .
.condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not
give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to
life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.
Did Josephus really
write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with
Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between
the third and fourth century A.D. But why do they think it was altered?
Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a
Christian would have made some of these statements.
For instance, the
claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase,
"if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It
implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus
would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have
flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to
Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third
day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms
Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we
disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good
deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was
a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under
Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as
Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to
Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges
which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears
that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are
one and the same!
Evidence from the
Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few
clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish
rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time
frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more
likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud,
the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most
significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the
Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a
herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has
practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
Let's examine this
passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named
"Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually,
"Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in
Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was
hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does.
But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for
"crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was
"hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were
crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the
eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned?
This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.
If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!
The passage also
tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and
enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile
source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat
differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what
might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both
accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the
charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out
demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such
a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed
miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny.
The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of
enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who
accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends
to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry.
Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our
knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Evidence from
Lucian
Lucian of Samosata
was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early
Christians as follows:
The Christians . . .
worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their
novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on
them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment
that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified
sage, and live after his laws.
Although Lucian is
jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments
about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man,
"who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's
followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His
contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that
account."
Although Lucian does
not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus
teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are
brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what
did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping
Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult
to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian
doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with
their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since
they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a
greater God than any that Greece had to offer!
Let's summarize what
we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian
sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as
wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered
teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous
feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He
was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And
the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are
possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both
Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He
was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that
Christians worshipped Jesus as God!
I hope you see how
this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps
corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many
ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But
since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well
established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative
"life of Jesus!"
