Evidences that Jesus was a Historical Figure

Introduction

In 2007, a movie named “Zeitgeist” was posted to the internet. It swept YouTube, bringing the belief to millions that Jesus’ existence was purely mythological. In fact, as of 2019, it has garnered over 4 million views on just one of the channels on which it was posted.[1] While the video seems to present unquestionable facts that Jesus was simply borrowed from ancient myths – where is the truth? What evidence exists to prove that Jesus as a person existed and is not just as a compilation of ancient stories? In this paper I will use nonbiblical sources to show that Jesus was as a genuine, historical figure.

Tacitus on Christians and “Christus”

One ancient author named Tacitus mentions a man named “Christus” who was said to have been executed at the command of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures 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 one of our procurators, 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, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[2]

This quote does many things, including establishing that Jesus lived during the lifetime of the known historical character, Pilate, who was also mentioned in the biblical narrative.

But what can be said about the problem of the spelling of Jesus’ title––Christ? Is it possible that Tacitus was referring to someone other than Jesus, since “Christ” is simply a title meaning “Messiah?” The misspelling of the name Christ as “Christus” or as “Chrestus” has been a recurring issue raised by skeptics. While some have desired to doubt the source, the trustworthiness and consistency of Tacitus’s record as a historical source is doubtless. The author of the blog, History for Atheists, Tim O’Neill, observes, “Tacitus was one of the most reliable of all Roman historians and many first century figures are known to us solely through his mentioning of them.”[3]

Also, scholars do not tend to have an issue with Jesus’ title being misspelled. For instance, in his work, The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated, Eric Zara delves into the textual evidence that “Chrestus” was not an interpolation or even a big issue for ancient authors.[4] His conclusion of the textual evidence is that “Chrestus” would have been the original reading. However, some, including Carrier, have also argued that there was another man at that time whose name was similar to “Christ” and that “Chrestus” was indeed referring to a completely different person.[5] Zara rejects this claim. Based on Renehan’s work, Christus or Chrestus in Tacitus?, Zara asserts that “Chrestians” would have been a genuine reading because that may have been what Romans called Christians at that time. He observes, “What has been believed to be the earliest usage of the term Chrestiani, ‘Chrestian,’ is in the Latin inscription, dated to no later than the year 37 CE, which is interpreted as being about a “Chrestian” selling the right for his urn to be placed in a certain burial place.”[6] While a minor point indeed, it can safely be asserted that a spelling error is not a problem when it comes to the ancient witness of the historical Jesus.

            Some, however, contend that the entire selection is an interpolation. Stephen Dando-Collins, in his book The Great Fire of Rome: The Fall of Emperor Nero and His City, asserts that Christians invented the entire section in an effort to add validity to their cause. [7] To him, the sentence appears “out of context” and “without any reference to or connection with the Great Fire [of Rome] and can almost certainly be dismissed as a later fictitious insertion in Suetonius’ original text by a Christian copyist.” Zara comments, however, “All the fourteen MSS [manuscripts] contain the passage about Christians being punished by Nero. The most common spelling (ten MSS) is the nomen sacrum-abbreviation xpiani, often with a line above the pi.”[8] In short, while Dando-Collins rightly asserts that the lack of original manuscripts prevents a look at the original writing, nothing in that lack would prevent the conclusion that the presence of the name “Christian” is genuine. Moreover, there is no evidence to prevent its presence in the text, especially considering the earliest manuscript evidence available on the questionable texts.

Scholar Norma Miller also notes, “If stylistic criteria mean anything at all, the chapter was written either by Tacitus or by a very skillful imitator of his style… the vocabulary and sentence structure… are most plausibly produced by the historian himself, and not by a later interpolator.”[9]

 

The Testimonium of Josephus

Perhaps the most important early author to discuss Jesus was Josephus, who wrote during the end of the first century. In his work, Antiquities, written between AD 93-94, Josephus records several accounts of interest to historians studying the life of Jesus.[10]

The first major contribution toward demonstrating the historicity of Jesus in Antiquities is Josephus’s so-called Testimonium. In this passage, Josephus reports on the crucifixion of Jesus under the authority of Pilate. He wrote:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.[11]

Scholars have long-debated the authenticity of this passage. Some, such as Murdock (Acharya S) claim it is entirely a forgery, while others (such as Tabor) contend that only parts of Josephus’s account were interpolated.[12] A general consensus tends to explain that some parts of Josephus’s claims were interpolated at a later date, such as the “if indeed one ought to call him a man” or “such people as accept the truth gladly” or “He was the Messiah.”[13] Tabor states “we are more than fortunate that these pious scribes had such heavy hands, since their additions appear to be so blatant and obvious, in both placement and phrasing.”[14]

            Scholar Paul J Hopper claims Josephus’ Testimonium is entirely forged. He states:

The Testimonium itself is … unusually short. Its very brevity is a suspicious feature, [leading] some defenders of its authenticity to suggest that while parts of the text are genuinely Josephan, the text has been tampered with by later Christians wanting to erase scandalous content… however, the syntax of the Testimonium does not display the kinds of discontinuities we might expect to find if substantial changes such as major deletions or insertions had been made.[15]

However, Tabor notes that the scribes’ “heavy hands” are clearly obvious. When the clearly-interpolated passages are removed, Josephus’ original text would resemble the following:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonders. He drew many after him both of the Jews and the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.[16]

While a claim could be made that Christians removed material, the evidence exists of addition. Subtraction is another discussion altogether, but as Tabor notes in his discussion of Mason, “inserting deletings is infinitely more susceptible to speculation than removing obvious interpolative additions.”[17] Both Goldberg, who believes that Josephus and Luke share a common source, and Tabor discuss the tenth century Arabic translation which Professor Shlomo Pines discovered.[18] This version lacks the interpolations of the Greek version and can be used as a helpful guide when understanding how the text may have morphed through the years. As Tabor attests, “it has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version [referring to the Greek]…and it reads remarkably close to our ‘non-interpolated’ version.”[19]

Josephus on “James, the Brother of Jesus”

            A second passage from Josephus’s Antiquities confirms the historicity of Jesus. While addressing the appointment of Ananus, a temperamental Sadducee, to the high-priesthood, Josephus recounts the following:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions]. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the King [Agrippa] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which account King Agrippa took the high-priesthood from him when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[20]

What is interesting in this quote is the fact that two different persons named Jesus are mentioned. The first notes that James is the brother of Jesus, “who was called Christ.” That the passage refers to Jesus not as the Christ, but rather as being called the Christ is evidence that the passage is original to Josephus. Furthermore, the second Jesus referred to in the passage is distinguished from the former by identifying him as the “son of Damneus.”

Conclusion

            In summary, while there are quite realistically some corruptions that have worked their way into the texts of the various authors, there is no substantial reason to believe that every reference to Jesus in extra-biblical sources is an interpolation. This paper has demonstrated that strong non-biblical evidence exists that affirm the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was the brother of James, he was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and he had followers called Christians. Though they may be referred to him by a slightly misspelled name, the existence of Jesus cannot be credibly doubted.

Works Cited

Acharya S/D. M. Murdock. “Jesus passage in Josephus a forgery in toto, says Greek expert.”

Freethough Nation, February 2, 2015 https://freethoughtnation.com/jesus-passage-in-

josephus-a-forgery-in-toto-says-greek-expert/).

Barber, Nigel. “Jesus Never Existed, After All.” Huffington Post (blog), May 5, 2016.             https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/jesus-never-existed-after_b_9848702.html   (accessed February 5, 2019).

Dando-Collins, Stephen. The Great Fire of Rome: The Fall of the Emperor Nero and His City.     Cambridge: De Capo Press, 2010.

Goldberg, GJ. “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of

Josephus.” originally published in The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995) pp. 59-77 (available http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf).

Hopper, Paul J., “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus,” as quoted in “Testimonium Flavianum:

The Jesus Passage in Josephus is a forgery, says expert – D.M.Murdock.” (2/13/2015). https://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/testimonium-flavianum-the-jesus-passage-in-josephus-is-a-forgery-says-expert-d-m-murdock/

Meier, John P. “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal.” TBQ 52.1, (January 1990), p.77.

O’Neill, Tim. “Jesus Mythicism 1: The Tacitus Reference to Jesus,” History for Atheists (blog),

September 7, 2017. https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/jesus-mythicism-1-the-tacitus-reference-to-jesus/ (accessed January 15, 2019).

Tacitus. Tacitus: The Annals, bk.15. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson       Brodribb, (The Internet Classics Archive, 1994),             http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html.

_____. Tacitus: Annals CV. Edited by NP Miller. London: Bristol Classical Press, 1994, xxvii,    in Robert M. Bowman, Jr. “Tacitus, Suetonius, and the Historical Jesus.”             http://bib.irr.org/tacitus-suetonius-and-historical-jesus#_irr_end_ref4 (accessed February          13, 2019).

Tabor, James. “The Ancient Jewish Historian Josephus on John the Baptizer, Jesus, and James.”

TaborBlog: Religion Matters from the Bible to the Modern World Feb. 21, 2017.

https://jamestabor.com/the-ancient-jewish-historian-josephus-on-john-the-baptizer-jesus-and-james.

Josephus. Antiquities XX.9 http://www.piney.com/Ant-20.html (accessed 2/5/2019).

Zara, Eric. “A Minor Compilation of Readings of Suetonius’ Nero 16.2,” 2011, in

http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zarasuetoniuschristiani.pdf (accessed 1/15/2019).

_________. “The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated.” (2009)., accessed 1/15/2019,

http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zaratacituschrestianos.pdf.

Zeitgeist: The Movie, written and directed by Peter Joseph (GMP LLC distr., June 18, 2007),
            YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTbIu8Zeqp0 (accessed February 5,           2019).

---

[1] Zeitgeist: The Movie, written and directed by Peter Joseph (GMP LLC distr., June 18, 2007), accessed 2/5/2019, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrHeg77LF4Y. Over 4.3 million views noted on YouTube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTbIu8Zeqp0.

[2] Tacitus, The Annals, bk.15, trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, (The Internet Classics Archive, 1994), accessed 2/5/2019, http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html.

[3] Tim O’Neill “Jesus Mythicism 1: The Tacitus Reference to Jesus,” History for Atheists, September 7, 2017, accessed January 15, 2019, https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/jesus-mythicism-1-the-tacitus-reference-to-jesus/.

[4] Eric Zara, The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated, (2009), 1-3, (accessed 1/15/2019), http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zaratacituschrestianos.pdf. Since “interpolation” will be used repeatedly throughout this paper, a simple definition is in order. Interpolation is an insertion into a text of a statement (or phrase) by a more modern author. For instance, many believe that later Christian scholars may have inserted words and phrases to ancient texts in order to add more evidence of Christ’s early existence. A refutation of some of these claims as well as acceptance of some of these claims will form the key spine of this report.

[5] Nigel Barber, “Jesus Never Existed, After All,” HuffPost, accessed 2/5/2019, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/jesus-never-existed-after_b_9848702.html.

[6] Zara, 3.

[7] Stephen Dando-Collins, The Great Fire of Rome: The Fall of the Emperor Nero and His City (Cambridge: De Capo Press, 2010), 6.

[8] Eric Zara, “A Minor Compilation of Readings of Suetonius’ Nero 16.2,” 2011, accessed 2/13/2019, http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zarasuetoniuschristiani.pdf.

[9] Tacitus, Tacitus: Annals CV, ed. N.P. Miller. (London: Bristol Classical Press, 1994), xxvii, in Robert M. Bowman, Jr., “Tacitus, Suetonius, and the Historical Jesus,” accessed 2/13/2019, http://bib.irr.org/tacitus-suetonius-and-historical-jesus#_irr_end_ref4.

[10] John P. Meier, “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal,” published in TBQ, 52.1, (January 1990), 77.

[11] GJ Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus,” originally published in The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995) 59-77 http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf.

[12] Acharya S/D. M. Murdock, “Jesus passage in Josephus a forgery in toto, says Greek expert,” Freethought Nation, February 2, 2015, https://freethoughtnation.com/jesus-passage-in-josephus-a-forgery-in-toto-says-greek-expert (accessed January 15, 2019).

[13] James Tabor, “The Ancient Jewish Historian Josephus on John the Baptizer, Jesus, and James.” ,” TaborBlog: Religion Matters from the Bible to the Modern World, Feb. 21, 2017, https://jamestabor.com/the-ancient-jewish-historian-josephus-on-john-the-baptizer-jesus-and-james (accessed February 13, 2019).

[14] Tabor.

[15] Paul J. Hopper, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus,” quoted in “Testimonium Flavianum: The Jesus Passage in Josephus Is a Forgery, Says Expert – D.M. Murdock.” Bharata Bharati (blog), February 13, 2015. https://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/testimonium-flavianum-the-jesus-passage-in-josephus-is-a-forgery-says-expert-d-m-murdock/ (accessed February 25, 2019).

[16] Tabor.

[17] ibid.

[18] Goldberg

[19] Tabor.

[20] Josephus, Antiquities XX.9, http://www.piney.com/Ant-20.html (accessed February 5, 2019).