By Lester L. Grabbe

 

The few references to Jesus in non-Christian sources do not tell us much, but they do attest to his existence. This and the question of whether they tell us anything about him that we do not otherwise know makes examination of these sources a fascinating exercise. They can be surveyed briefly here, but for greater detail regarding primary sources and secondary studies reference can be made to my more extensive 2012 article.

Tacitus (56- c. 120 CE) was a Roman historian of note. He writes the following about an episode during the reign of the emperor Nero:

Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. (Annals 15.44)

Drawing of Tacitus, based on an antique bust. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tacitus_portrait.jpg)

 

Unfortunately, this important reference was written almost a century after Jesus is supposed to have died. Yet Tacitus often had good sources, including the archives of the Senate. His statement should be taken seriously. But where did he get his information? He does not seem to have known Josephus. It is likely that his source is Roman. Tacitus is the only Roman writer to mention Pilate. If Pilate had reported to the Senate on the matter, which is not unlikely, this would probably have been available to him in the senatorial archives.

Suetonius was a slightly younger contemporary of Tactitus (c. 70-130 CE).

A bust of Suetonius in the Capitoline Museums, Rome. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Su%C3%A9tone.JPG)

 

His Lives of the Twelve Caesars are noted for their focus on the sensational rather than historical accuracy; nevertheless, they are an important source of information and often draw on archival material. Both of the following quotations are found in a list of miscellaneous accomplishments or acts of the emperor in question:

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. [Claudius 25.4]

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. [Nero 16.2]

Suetonius’s reference to the punishment of the Christians under Nero is paralleled by the statement of Tacitus. The name “Chrestus” (variant Christus) might indicate that he had information on Jesus, yet the reference to the Jews indicates he thought this “Chrestus” was troubling the Jews in the time of Claudius. His statement seems too problematic to draw conclusions.

Finally, there is the writer Pliny the Younger whose letter to the Emperor Trajan (10.96.1-4, 6-7) in about 110 CE is important because it is the first non-Christian writing to give any information of substance about Christians.

Statue of Pliny the Younger, possibly the work of Giovanni Rodari, dating from before 1480, Como, Italy. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Como_015.JPG)

 

Yet it seems clear that Pliny has information only on the Christians in his own time, and the references to “Christ” relate to beliefs of contemporary Christians: it does not appear that Pliny has any information going back before his own time.

As for Jewish sources, the most important is Josephus (c. 37 to 100 CE). He refers in Antiquities 20.9.1 §200 to “Jesus who was called the Christ”, which most accept as an authentic statement.

The 1st-century Roman portrait bust said to be of Josephus at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Josephusbust.jpg)

 

However, Josephus’s main passage on Jesus, commonly referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.3.3 §§63-64), is widely believed to be the victim of amendment by the Christian scribes who preserved the writings of Josephus.

In recent times, there have been essentially three positions: (1) a few scholars have continued to defend the Testimonium Flavianum; (2) a number of respectable experts have rejected the passage as a complete fabrication; (3) the vast majority have believed that Josephus did mention Jesus but that the version preserved in the extant manuscripts has been worked over by Christian scribes to agree with and provide support for the NT account.

One of the first Christian writers to refer to the works of Josephus was Origen (c. 185 to c. 254).

Representation of Origen writing from a manuscript dated to c.1160. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Origen3.jpg)

 

He stated that Josephus had mentioned Jesus but also declared that he did not recognize him as the messiah (Comm. in Mat. 1:17; Contra Celsum 1.47; cf. 2.13]). Similarly, Jerome (writing around 400) quoted the Testimonium Flavianum as stating that Jesus “was believed to be the Christ” (De viris illustribus 13]), which contradicts the bald statement of the Testimonium, “This man was the Christ.”

New information now comes from Near Eastern sources. In 1971 the Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines published a study of the statements of Agapius, the Christian Melkite bishop of Hierapolis in the 10th century, who wrote a chronicle called the Kitāb al-‘Unwān (Universal History). Agapius mentions several writers in Greek who refer to Jesus, including Josephus; he then quotes a version of the Testimonium but one that differs in certain essentials from the one in our extant Greek tradition. It is Pines’ contention that this quotation comes from the Syriac tradition.

Since Pines wrote, more work has been done on the sources of Agapius and Michael the Syrian (discussed by Alice Whealey in 2008). Michael quotes James of Edessa for the period before and up to the first century, which is likely to be his source for the Josephus quote. It would also make sense if Agapius depended on it, but Agapius is more likely to have merely paraphrased his source. Michael, on the other hand, quite often quotes his sources word for word. Whealey argues that, contrary to the views of Pines, Michael is closer to the original statement of Josephus.

It strikes me that Whealey has an important point: both Michael and Agapius drew on a Syriac version of the passage in Josephus (which explains their similarities), but Agapius has paraphrased rather than quoting literally. She is correct that, by and large, Michael’s version looks like a statement that Josephus could have written. Yet in a couple of places where Agapius differs from Michael, his text looks prima facie more like Josephus. Thus, in the end I think Pines’ preference for Agapius’ version is justified, and his view that even Michael’s statement has already been the subject of Christian editing is more likely. Yet as Whealey suggests, the one part of the statement that is most important is the statement about Jesus being the Christ/Messiah, and both Michael and Agapius state only that this was the view of some, a statement that Josephus could well have made.

Hypothetical reconstruction based on conjecture rather than actual texts is always problematic. Yet based on the general expectation of what Josephus might have written about Jesus and the actual statements found in Michael and Agapius (supported by Jerome and Origen), the following has a reasonable probability of being what Josephus actually wrote:

About this time there was a wise man named Jesus. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the Greeks became his disciples. He was thought to be the Christ. But upon the testimony of the principal men of our nation, Pilate condemned him to the cross. Yet those who had loved him did not cease to love him. They reported that he appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvellous things. And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till this day.

In addition, we have two other Jewish sources relating to early Christianity. One is the Toledot Yeshu, which is a life of Jesus in Hebrew. It is generally agreed that this is a medieval work (or at best a production several centuries removed from its subject) and, like other rabbinic references, has no claim to information on the historical Jesus. More recently brought to scholarly attention is the “Hebrew Gospel of Matthew” published by George Howard in 1995. It was found in a 14th-century treatise of Shem-Tov-ben-Isaac ben-Shafrut but seems to be older. Although Howard argues that it shows a certain independence from the canonical gospel of Matthew (not identifying Jesus with the Messiah, for instance), there is so far no indication that it has original independent information about Jesus.

Conclusions

An examination of the accounts—most known for centuries—indicates that even the few extant are not all helpful. The interesting letter of Pliny the Younger to the emperor Trajan gives important information on Christianity of the time, but there is no evidence of any data going back to the supposed historical Jesus. Likewise, Suetonius gives us some brief information on the history of Christianity, but it is not clear that he has any actual information on Jesus. Finally, the many references to Jesus in rabbinic literature are of no help because of lack of any evidence of data from the early first century. This leaves us with two sources: the Roman historian Tacitus and the Jewish historian Josephus. Note the following points:

1. Tacitus and Josephus appear to obtain their information independently of each other. Their independent references to Jesus make it very likely that such an individual existed and was known as the founder of the Christian sect.
2. Both mention Jesus’ death under the governorship of Pontius Pilate. This suggests some sort of evidence for the event. One might think that Jesus’ death, like that of so many executed by the Romans, would have gone unrecorded. But it seems to have been substantial enough to be noted by the Roman administration. Tacitus probably obtained his information from a document or archival source. Josephus’ source of information is more uncertain, since he seems to report a number of things from oral tradition, but a Roman source is a distinct possibility.
3. Tacitus’ account is hostile to the Christians, as we might expect of an upper-class Roman. Josephus, on the other hand, was often neutral toward such individuals. The present form of the Testimonium Flavianum in the Greek tradition is favorable toward Jesus, but this is unlikely to represent what Josephus wrote. Other versions (including Origen, Jerome, and one of the Syriac traditions [attested in Michael the Syrian and Agapius]) look more like what Josephus would have written and give a more descriptive and arms-length account, though not unsympathetic.
4. The data emerging from these non-Christian accounts is minimal but nevertheless significant:
   1. Jesus existed and founded the Christian sect.
   2. He gained disciples from among both Jews and “Greeks” (non-Jews in general?).
   3. He was tried and executed by crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius under the governorship of Pontius Pilate, some of the leading Jews apparently helping to gain his condemnation.
   4. His followers reported various supernatural things about him, including that he was seen alive the third day after the crucifixion and that some thought he was the Christ/Messiah.
   5. The Christian sect was still in existence in the early 2nd century CE.

This may not seem much, but its value lies in its apparent independence from the Christian tradition.

 

Lester L. Grabbe is Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull.