Jesus of Nazareth has had more of an impact on world history than any other man to have walked the face of the Earth. In their 2013 book Who’s Bigger? Where Historical Figures Really Rank (published by Cambridge University Press) Steven Skiena and Charles B. Ward place Jesus of Nazareth as the most significant figure in all of human history.
And rightly so. Two thousand years later, this penniless preacher has turned the world upside down.
So it might surprise you to even question whether or not Jesus of Nazareth existed—yet some skeptics are seriously making this claim. For instance, Christopher Hitchens wrote of the “highly questionable existence of Jesus.”[1] Bertrand Russell wrote, “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we know nothing about him.”[2] Following in their footsteps, many atheistic websites hold to mythicism—the notion that Jesus was merely a myth created by the early church.
What is the evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Was the world changed by a man or by a myth? While a full and robust case can be made by appealing to the New Testament (NT) documents (see Evidence Unseen “Part Four,” 2013), here we will only appeal to the hostile witnesses of history from outside of the NT.
In this first article, we begin by appealing to Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-117), who serves as one of the better historical sources from the ancient world. In fact Van Voorst states that Tacitus is “generally considered the greatest Roman historian.”[3] In book 15 and chapter 44 of his Annals, he recounts Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome (AD 64).
“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 Judea, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city as of hatred against mankind. [10] Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good but rather to glut the cruelty of one man that they were being destroyed.”[4]
Could this be a Christian interpolation or forgery? Van Voorst states that “the vast majority of scholars [agree] that this passage is fundamentally sound.”[5] He gives four reasons why: (1) the style is the same as the rest of Tacitus’ writing;[6] (2) it fits with the burning of Rome mentioned earlier in the chapter; (3) a Christian interpolator wouldn’t have been so negative toward Christians (“hated for their abominations” “mischievous superstition” “hideous and shameful” “hatred against mankind”); (4) a Christian interpolator wouldn’t have been so terse and succinct in describing Christ. Habermas and Licona concur, “Most scholars accept this passage in Tacitus as authentic,”[7] and even critical scholar John Meier writes, “Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessed in all the manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible.”[8]
Why does Tacitus call him Christ? Why not call him Jesus? In the context of chapter 44, Tacitus was trying to explain where “Christians” came from. It makes more sense for him to call their founder “Christ,” rather than “Jesus.” Moreover, at this stage in history, Jesus’ personal name was largely replaced by his title, Christ.
Why does Tacitus call Pilate “procurator” instead of “prefect”? Most scholars believe that the NT title (“prefect”) was correct, and Tacitus had this title wrong. Van Voorst writes, “Most scholars believe that Tacitus’ use of ‘procurator’ was anachronistic, because this title changed from prefect to procurator after AD 41.”[9]
Archaeology later vindicated Pontius Pilate. Archaeologist James Hoffmeier writes, “In 1961 a partial inscription bearing his name was discovered there [Palestine] which reads: PONTIUS PILATUS PREFECTUS IUDAEAE, ‘Pontius Pilate, Prefect [governor] of Judea.”[10] This inscription dates to AD 31.[11]
In subsequent articles, we will look at the other extra-biblical sources that refer to Jesus of Nazareth. For now, this excerpt from Tacitus gives us several important comments which corroborate with the NT historical record: (1) Christians took their name from their founder: Christ (c.f. Acts 11:26). (2) Jesus died under the reign of Pontius Pilate (AD 26-36),[12] and Emperor Tiberius (AD 14-37), which concurs with the NT (Lk. 3:1). (3) Tacitus’ reference to the “extreme penalty” is surely an allusion to crucifixion. The Romans considered crucifixion to be the most shameful death imaginable.[13] (4) An “immense multitude” of Christians had sprung up in Rome by AD 64—even under intense persecution.
[1] Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2007. 114.
[2] Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian. London: George Allen and Unwin. 1957. 16.
[3] Van Voorst, Robert. Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2000. 39.
[4] Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, 15:44.
[5] Van Voorst, Robert. Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2000. 42-43.
[6] Norma Miller writes, “The well-intentioned pagan glossers of ancient texts do not normally express themselves in Tacitean Latin.” Norma P. Miller, Tacitus: Annals XV (London: Macmillan, 1973) xxviii. Cited in Van Voorst, Robert. Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2000. 43. Van Voorst writes, “Tacitus certainly did not draw, directly or indirectly, on writings that came to form the New Testament. No literary or oral dependence can be demonstrated between his description and the Gospel accounts.” (p.49)
[7] Habermas, Gary R., and Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004. 273.
[8] Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume 1. New York: Doubleday, 1991. 90.
[9] Van Voorst, Robert. Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2000. 48.
[10] Hoffmeier, James Karl. The Archaeology of the Bible. Oxford: Lion, 2008. 155.
[11] Van Voorst, Robert. Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2000. 48.
[12] Philo, Legation to Gaius 299–305; Josephus, Jewish War 2.9.2–4 §169–77; Antiquities 18.3.1–4.2 §55–64, 85–89.
[13] See Cicero, Against Verres II.v.64. paragraph 165; II.v.66, paragraph 170.
