Witnessing Jesus: Josephus & Tacitus

“The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score.”

—CHRISTOPHER TUCKETT.

Jesus is a historical person who lived in first-century Palestine. He also happens to be the Son of God without beginning or end inviting all people everywhere to commune with Him for all of eternity, but that is a separate topic to the one I am interested in this article. The Jesus of the Christian faith is not a different Jesus to the ‘historical Jesus’, a phrase which is fraught with methodological problems.¹ He is more to be sure, but certainly no less. For the Christian faith is a historical faith concerning He “who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried…” (Apostles Creed). That is why Christians do not only say ethereal sounding stuff like “God is love” (1 John 4:8) but throw in historically verifiable claims like “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world…” (Luke 2:1) which concretise the more abstract claims. But as a subject of history, our knowledge of Jesus is strictly limited to the nature of our historical sources, mediated as they are through the eyes of others. In this sense, the ‘historical Jesus’ is the person whom our sources enable us to reconstruct; He is the same as the Jesus of the Christian faith – the ‘real Jesus’ – only limited to the disciplinary lens of history.

Of all ancient people, few come close to having the volume of textual attestation enjoyed by the historical Jesus. Even American New Testament Scholar and outspoken agnostic, Bart D. Ehrman, affirms: “He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees.”² While the majority of this evidence is found in Christian sources, there are a number of non-Christian texts which serve as independent witnesses to the basic claims of the primary source texts of Jesus’ life, the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. Three non-Christian texts stand out in particular: two texts from Josephus’ Antiquities (Jewish),and one text from Tacitus’ Annals (pagan). A quick google search will return all sorts of opinions on the viability of these sources. What I will do in this article is provide an analysis of each, extracting relevant data points for corroboration with the New Testament, to provide a comparative evaluation of their value as non-Christian sources for the historical Jesus.³

Josephus’ Source Texts (Jewish)

Flavius Josephus (ca. AD. 37/38–100) was a well-educated, Roman-friendly Jewish aristocrat and historian. His 20-volume Antiquities of the Jews (ca. AD. 93/94)⁴ contains two key references to Jesus.⁵

Antiquities, Book XX.200

The shortest reference to Jesus is found in book XX of the Antiquities and concerns the death of James, the brother of Jesus:⁶

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of [1] Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was [2] 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…” (Josephus Ant. XX.200)

This text provides two data points which can be corroborated with elements from the New Testament. [1] Jesus existed and was called Christ (Matt. 1:16); and [2] Jesus had a brother named James who was condemned to death (Matt. 13:55 which records James as Jesus’ brother, though excludes any reference to his death).

Josephan scholars largely regard this text as genuine for reasons related to the second data point. In the words of Josephan scholar, Louis H. Feldman, “… few have doubted the genuineness of this passage on James.”⁷ Four main reasons tend toward this conclusion. First, Josephus is somewhat blasé in his passing reference to Jesus; Jesus is only mentioned to identify James, and James is only identified to explain the deposition of the Jewish High Priest, Ananus.⁸ Second, the way James is identified as the brother of Jesus displays an ignorance of James’ family of origin, which was otherwise known to Christian writers (Matt. 13:55; cf. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). Third, the manner in which Jesus is referenced displays a comparatively low Christology in that Jesus is almost always referred to as “Lord” or “Saviour” by New Testament and patristic writers.⁹ Fourth and finally, Josephus puts James’ death pre- AD. 70 (early AD. 62) and differs in the details to other patristic accounts, is further reason to think that this text was not edited at a later time by Christian scribes.¹⁰

Antiquities, Book XVII.63-64 (the Testimonium Flavianum)

Far more controversial than the Ant. XX.200 text is the longer reference to Jesus found in book XVIII of Josephus’ Antiquities. Also known as the Testimonium Flavianum, Ant. XVII.63-64 gives testimony of Jesus’ ministry and execution, however there is much scholarly debate regarding its authenticity given what appear to be later Christian-inspired scribal additions:¹¹

“Now, there was about this time [1] Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man] for he was [2] a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. [3] He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ] when [4] Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, [5] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him] and [6] the tribe of Christians, so named from him, [7] are not extinct at this day.” (Josephus Ant. XVIII.63-64).

Excluding the interpolations, this text provides seven data points which can be corroborated with elements from the New Testament. [1] Jesus existed as a “wise man” (Luke 4:22-36); [2] Jesus did “wonders” (John 20:30) and taught others (Mark 1:21); [3] Jesus had followers, both “Jews” and “Gentiles” (Rom 1:16; cf. Acts 19:10; 1 Cor. 12:13);¹² [4] Jesus was executed under the (AD. 26-36) Judean governorship of “Pontius Pilate” (Matt. 27:2; cf. Acts 13:28), with Jewish approval (John 18:12-24; cf. Acts 2:36; 4:10), by crucifixion (Matt. 27:32-56);¹³ [5] Jesus’ followers did not forsake him (2 Cor. 4:8-9; cf. 1 Pet. 4:12-14); [6] Jesus’ followers were called “Christians”; and [7] Christians persisted in their beliefs.

While these data points are compelling in their corroboration with the New Testament, the question still remains: ‘How can we be confident of the text as a whole if at least part of it is suspected interpolation by later Christian scribes and theologians?’

In total, three basic positions can be distilled from Josephan scholarship regarding the authenticity of the Testimonium.¹⁴ First, the ‘total rejection’ view, which says that the original did not contain any reference to Jesus,¹⁵ or if it did, it was in a pejorative sense;¹⁶ either way, the entire extant text is a Christian forgery. Second, the ‘yes but’ view, which says the extant text is largely authentic with easily identifiable interpolations made by later Christian scribes.¹⁷ Third and finally, the ‘total acceptance’ view, which says the entire extant Testimonium is authentic.¹⁸ Commenting on these positions, Meier observes that, “With a few exceptions, this last position has been given up today by the scholarly community. The first opinion has its respectable defenders but does not seem to be the majority view. Most recent opinions move somewhere within the spectrum…”¹⁹ that is, within the second ‘yes but’ view.

Three main reasons can be adduced in support of the ‘yes but’ view. First, the obvious presence of a double-voice in the text (highlighted above in the [brackets]); if the entire text were an interpolation containing no Josephean originality, why would the text contain this tension? For example, in the Christian voice, why would a Christian begin, “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man”, only to qualify their opening as though it were a contradiction to their conviction in the expression, “if it be lawful to call him a man”? Similarly, the seemingly out-of-place statement, “He was the Christ”, is confessionally Christian,²⁰ not Jewish, as is the affirmation of post-crucifixion appearances (1 Cor. 15:5). Reciprocally, the Josephan voice is seen in that we can rightly ask: what Christian would refer to those who executed their Lord and Saviour as “principal men”, or reference Christians as “not extinct” as though that was something of a Christian expectation? Moreover, the suggestion that Jesus “drew over” many “Jews” and “Gentiles” goes against the presentation in the four canonical gospels in that, according to the book of Acts, the Gentile mission was pioneered by the Apostle Paul post Jesus’ ministry. Also, the reference to “a doer of wonderful works [paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs]” is not consistent with the common New Testament terminology for miracles, which are four: dynamis (deeds of power), erga (deeds), sēmeion (signs) and teras (performances).²¹Second, if Ant. XX.200 is accepted as authentic, then we have a further reason to regard the original Ant. XVIII.63-64 text as referencing Jesus insofar as Ant. XX.200, by referring to James simply as “the brother of Jesus”, seems to imply something of an assumed knowledge by the reader as to who this ‘Jesus’ is. If Jesus were previously mentioned in Ant. XVIII.63-64, we have a possible answer. Third and finally, in the words of Meier, “the vocabulary and grammar of the passage (after the clearly Christian material is removed) cohere well with Josephus’ style and language; the same cannot be said when the text’s vocabulary and grammar are compared with that of the NT”.²²

Tacitus’ Source Text (Pagan)

In addition to Josephus, the Roman senator and historian Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. AD. 56–120) is another important witness to the historical Jesus. Tacitus’ Annals, a treatise on the history of Rome from AD. 14 through 68, includes a retrospective reference to Jesus (“Christus”) in the context of Tacitus’ recording of the great fire of Rome (AD. 64):²³

“…neither human resourcefulness nor the emperor’s largesse nor appeasement of the gods could stop belief in the nasty rumour that an order had been given for the fire. To dispel the gossip Nero therefore found culprits on whom he inflicted the most exotic punishments. [1] These were people hated for their shameful offences whom the common people called Christians. [2] The man who gave them their name, Christus [Jesus], had been [3] executed during the rule of Tiberius [4] by the procurator Pontius Pilatus. [5] The pernicious superstition had been temporarily suppressed, but it was starting to break out again, not just in Judaea, the starting point of that curse, but in Rome, as well, where all that is abominable and shameful in the world flows together and gains popularity.” (Ann. XV.44).²⁴

Despite the relatively sparse detail, the text provides five data points which can be corroborated with elements of the New Testament as well as the above Josephan texts. [1] Followers of Jesus were hated (John 15:18) and called “Christians” (1 Pet. 4:16; cf. Acts 11:26; 26:28; [6] of Ant. XVIII.63-64); [2] Jesus existed and was called Christ (Matt. 1:16; cf. 16:16; [1] of Ant. XX.200); [3] Jesus was executed during the (AD. 14-37) reign of “Tiberius” (Luke 3:1); [4] Jesus was executed under “Pontius Pilate” (Matt. 27:2; cf. Acts 13:28; John 18:28-40; [4] of Ant. XVIII.63-64);²⁵ and [5] Christianity persisted despite opposition (2 Cor. 4:8-9; cf. 1 Pet. 4:12-14; [7] of Ant. XVII.63-64), spreading from Judea to Rome (Acts 1:8; 24:5; Rom. 15:31).²⁶

The scholarly consensus is that Ann. XV.44 is genuine for the primary reason that there is simply a lack in any textual clues suggestive of Christian interpolation or later scribal editing. Like Josephus, Tacitus’ passing reference to Jesus and his followers is somewhat blasé,²⁷ and their inclusion appears ‘accidental’, so to speak, in that they only exist for the purpose of explaining something else (i.e., Tacitus’ recording of the great fire).

Evaluation

Tabulating the extracted data points above, and adopting the ‘yes-but’ interpretation of Ant. XVIII.63-64, we can deduce and tabulate both the minimum and maximum claims discernible from the cited texts of Josephus and Tacitus:

As with all kinds of study, care must be taken by historians to ensure that no more and no less is concluded other than what the data permits. Nonetheless, what the above comparative evaluation unmistakably shows is that even non-Christian textual sources corroborate the basic claims of the primary Christian source texts of Jesus life contained in the New Testament. On the strength of the analysis, it seems clear that the value of Josephus and Tacitus as extra-Biblical (non-Christian) witnesses is less by way of contribution and more by way of corroboration. For while they offer comparatively little information about the historical person of Jesus, Josephus and Tacitus corroborate basic facts about his life, death and subsequent influence (the minimum claim) with those of the New Testament thus providing historians with independent reasons for considering the latter as a historically reliable witness to Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Even American New Testament Scholar, Bart D. Ehrman, known for his work on the historical figure of Jesus as a secular agnostic, has written: “He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees”. Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God: Why Bible Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 285.
2. The essay question seems to equate two sorts of evidence which are not the same: (1) non-Christian, and (2) extra-Biblical. For the purposes of this essay concerning “the value of the extra-biblical ‘evidence’ for Jesus of Nazareth”—and in keeping with the context of Tuckett’s article—the scope is limited to consideration of non-Christian source texts. Scholars have counted a total of 11 non-Christian references to Jesus. Of these, the two by Josephus and one by Tacitus considered in this essay are valued as “important.” For this valuation, refer to the assessment of Craig A. Evans’ “Jesus in non-Christian Sources,” in Bruce David Chilton, Craig Alan Evans eds., Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden, Boston: Brill Publishers, 1998), 443. Here, Evans categorises non-Christian sources into: “(1) dubious sources, (2) sources of minimal value, and (3) important sources” (the latter of which contains Josephus and Tacitus). Where relevant, footnotes to other non-Christian sources (in addition to Josephus and Tacitus) will be included, however these will by no means be exhaustive.
3. Christopher Tuckett, “Sources and Methods,” in Marcus Bockmuehl ed., The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 124.
4. Josephus’ Antiquities was written for primarily non-Jewish readers. Somewhat apologetically, the work seeks to affirm Jewish life, customs and history in contrast with the Hellenistic religio-cultural norms and values subsumed by the Romans. In his own words: “Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks (that is, all the Gentiles, both Greeks and Romans) worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.” Josephus, Antiquities, I.5. Note: all citations of Josephus’ Antiquities are taken from: Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, enlarged-type ed. Trans. Wm. Whinston (Grand Rapids, MI.: Kregel Publications, 1980). These citations follow the convention: [title].[book].[section].
5. A third important text relating to John the Baptist is found in Ant. XVIII.116-119. However, as this text is not directly linked to Jesus or His followers, they are excluded from the scope of this essay. Additionally, the reference to Jesus surviving in Slavonic translations of Josephus’ The Jewish War (II.169) will not be considered, given the overwhelming scholarly consensus that it is an unauthentic reading (see Robert Eisler and G. A. Williamson as exceptions). John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Roots of Jesus. Vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 57.
6. Note: where applicable, block quotations are numbered [1], [2], [3], etc. for ease of cross-referencing data points between the sources. Cf. Table 1 for a final side-by-side evaluation of these cross-references.
7. L. H. Feldman, Josephus (Loeb Library Edition), vol. 10 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 108. See Tessa Rajak as an exception, noting, however, that even she confesses: “it has been unfashionable, of late, to doubt the James passage…” in Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 131 n. 73.
8. See Meier, referring to a study by James Abraham Schalit (1968), in Meier, A Marginal Jew, 57-58.
9. See Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 9:5; cf. Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiae, 2.23.4; 3.32.5; 3.20.1; 4.22.4.
10. See Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae, 2.23.12-18.
11. Interpolations are included in [brackets].
12. Irrespective of the inaccuracy in Josephus’ account, that Jesus ‘won over’ many Gentiles during his lifetime (which are considered below), the more general data point considered here is that both Jews and Gentiles were considered amongst the followers of Jesus known to Josephus.
13. We possess a sympathetic report from the Syrian Stoic philosopher, Mara bar Serapion, who wrote a letter to his son dated around AD. 73, shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. Here, he refers to Jesus as a “king”, a “teacher”, and a “martyr” (though not by name). See Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis, MI.: Fortress Press, 1998), 76-79.
14. These three views have been adapted from the four proposed by Meier in A Marginal Jew, 59. For comparative purposes, see Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History (Grand Rapids, MI.: Kregel Publications, 2007), 336-337; and Zvi Baras, “The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James”, in L. H. Feldman and Gōhei Hata eds., Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Publishers, 1987), 339.
15. See Hans Conzelmann, Jesus, trans. J. R. Lord (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 13-14. Also, J. Neville Birdsall, “The Continuing Enigma of Josephus’s Testimony about Jesus”, BJRL, 67 (1984-1985): 609-622.
16. See Henry St. John Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929), 125-153. Also, C. Pharr, “The Testimony of Josephus to Christianity”, AJP, 48 (1927): 137-147; and Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus & John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus’ recently rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the other Jewish and Christian sources (New York: Lincoln Macveagh, the Dial Press, 1931), 22-58.
17. See L. H. Feldman, “The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question”, Christological Perspectives. Essays in Honor of Harvey K. McArthur, ed. R. F. Berkey and S. A. Edwards (New York: Pilgrim, 1982), 179-199. Also, Paul Winter, “Excursus II – Josephus on Jesus and Jaes”, in Emil Schürer ed., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 432; and James H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 90-98.
18. See Franz Dornseiff, “Lukas der Schriftsteller. Mit einem Anhang: Josephus und Tacitus”, ZNW, 35 (1936): 129-155. Also, Étienne Nodet, “Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe”, RB, 92 (1985): 320-348.
19. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 59.
20. See Luke 23:35; John 7:26; Acts 9:22, etc.
21. For example, consider Acts 2:22: Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται ἀκούσατε τοὺς λόγους τούτους: Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς δυνάμεσι [dynamesi] καὶ τέρασι [terasi] καὶ σημείοις [sēmeiois]…” Note, this passage of Acts does not contain the Greek word ergon in any form. Interestingly, the only New Testament writer who mentions ergon in the sense of miracles is John in his Gospel (4:48), and only when Jesus is talking about His own works. See also, Géza Vermès, Jesus in His Jewish Context (London: SCM Press, 2003), 92.
22. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 62. A similar conclusion is made by Graham Stanton: “Once the obvious interpolations are removed this paragraph gives an ambivalent or even mildly hostile assessment of Jesus—one which can be attributed to Josephus with confidence”. Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 150.
23. Tacitus records that the great fire was reportedly “worse and more calamitous than all the disasters that have befallen this city from raging fires”. Tacitus, Annals, XV.38. Note: all citations of Tacitus’ Annals are taken from: Tacitus, The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero (Oxford World Classics), trans. J. C. Yardley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). These citations follow the convention: [title].[book].[section]. Also, given our present purposes, it is worth highlighting the unfortunate reality that some books of the Annals have been lost, including those covering the period AD. 29 through 32; the period during which Jesus’ trial and death may have been recorded by Tacitus (if, indeed, it was).
24. Immediately following, Tacitus records the brutal treatment of Christians by Nero, who were scapegoated less for being arsonists and more for being hated for their spurning of the Roman gods and peculiar oriental beliefs and practices. Pliny the Younger who provides one of the earliest accounts of such practices, as Christians meeting pre-dawn to ‘worship Christ as a god.’ See Betty Radice, ed., Pliny. Letters and Panegyricus, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1969), vol. 2, 288. Also, the satirist Lucian of Samosata (ca. AD. 115-200) wrote mockingly of Christians as those “worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws”. See “The Passing of Peregrinus”, in A. Harmon ed., Lucian (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1936), vol. 5, 15. Yet, despite himself referring to Christians as “deserving exemplary punishment,” even Tacitus observes something of a “pity for them [Christians]” as it was “felt that they were being exterminated not for the public good, but to gratify one man’s cruelty”. (Ann. XV.44).
25. Scholars have observed an inaccuracy on Tacitus’ part in his identification of Pilate as “procurator”. For example, David Noy writes, “A fragmentary Latin text from Caesarea Maritima, found in reuse in the theatre there (Lehmann and Holum no. 43), contains the name [Po]ntius Pilatus with his official title, praefectus Iudaeae (Tacitus incorrectly calls him procurator)”. David Noy, “Inscriptions and Papyri”, in Craig A. Evans ed., Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014), 300.
26. See J. C. Rolfe ed., Suetonius, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1914), vol. 2, 52. The text tells of how Christian converted Jews were spreading their faith in Roman synagogues (ca. AD. 40-50).
27. Indeed, contrary to Christian interest the author shows a clear interest in Rome, specifically the presence of Christian superstitions and the like as contributing factors to what they perceive as a general decline of Roman virtue to decadence.
28. Table 1 is original to this author.