Caledonia: Rome In Scotland

In 77 AD, Gnaeus Julius Agricola arrived in what is now Wales during the summer as governor and commander of the Roman forces in the British Isles.  It was not his first time, there, having served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus in 58 through 62 AD.  He has served on the staff on Suetonius during the rebellion under Boudica.  We know a great deal about him  due to the biography of him written by his son-in-law, Tacitus.

Agricola was from a family with roots in Gaul and thus was a Celt. He served as a Tribune and then later as Praetor.  It was fortunate that his posting was outside of Rome for he was in Spain when Nero committed suicide.  The death of Nero led to the turmoil known as the Year of Four Emperors.  The Governor of Spain, who had ordered Agricola to make an accounting of the treasures of the Temple, was Galba. Galba succeeded Nero as Emperor, but was then murdered by Otho.  Agricola supported Vespasian after Otho (who had murdered Agricola’s mother, with whom Agricola had been quite close).

After his appointment as Governor of Britain by Vespasian, Agricola advanced his troops into southwestern Scotland, or Caledonia, as the Romans then called it.  He apparently advanced to the what is now known as the River Tay.

The Caledonians opposed this movement, according to Tacitus, under a leader known as Calgacus.  Little to nothing is known about Calgacus; he is not recorded on any of the Scottish or Irish lists of Pictish kings.  Tacitus calls him: ‘outstanding in bravery and of noble birth’.  The name Calgacus, which is the Latin form of a very old Celtic word ‘Calgach’, probably meaning ‘The Swordsman’, and derived from ‘Calg’, signifying anything sharp, like a spear or sword. The modern Gaelic adjective ‘Calgach’ can mean either passionate or piercing.

He assembled an army of 30,000 warriors against the Romans at the Battle of Mons Graupius in 83 A.D.  Tacitus records a speech of Calgacus about the Romans, which some scholars believe has a ring of truth to it, unlike most speeches reported in antiquity:

“Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace.”

In particular the last line, which in Latin is ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant, is particularly poignant.

The Battle of Mons Graupius, from whence possibly the name of the Garmpian Mountains comes, was according to Tacitus, a one-sided affair.  Agricola brought his men up in close order to prevent the Picts from using their swords, which were designed for slashing, in the way intended. The Picts, according to Tacitus, lost 10,000 men and the Romans only 360.  The Picts army melted away into the Highlands mist, as did Calgacus, who never graces the pages of history again.

I make this same introduction into the history of Scotland as a prelude to me next book, Caledonia: A Song of Scotland, which will be published within days.

I present to you what will be on the flap of the hardcover version of Caledonia: A Song of Scotland:

By the author of the critically acclaimed novel, Casting Lots, William D. McEachern, Caledonia: A Song of Scotland is his second historical novel. Caledonia is the epic tale of Scotland’s struggle to become an independent nation. In the process, the story of Scotland is revealed in its people, the Picts, the Irish Missionaries, the Norsemen, and the Highland Clans. All the natural beauty and wonder that is Scotland are captured for the reader’s enjoyment, from the wind-swept Isle of Skye through the Highlands with its towering bens, riven with numerous waterfalls, across the moors, purple with heather, and dotted with sheep and the lowing, ruddy Highland cattle, to the reflecting waters of the lochs, some mysterious and mist-laden, like Loch Ness, or picturesque, like Loch Lomond. Told from the viewpoint of one clan-the MacDonalds of Clanranald-the reader is swept along through the major events in the history of Scotland, from the writing of the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, the Massacre at Glencoe by the Campbells, the MacDonalds greatest enemy, through the Rising of 1745 under Bonnie Prince Charles’ to the decisive defeat at the Battle of Culloden and the bloody Highland Clearances under William, the Duke of Cumberland. Caledonia acquaints the reader with why so deeply ingrained in Scotland’s national psyche is its fight for freedom, both political and religious. Caledonia is the first novel in the series which will tell the story of the Scots not only in Scotland, but also in America.

I hope you will enjoy me next novel.

Early Christianity: Introductory Comments

Early Christianity is an area which holds many challenges for the historian.  First, there is the debate as to whether the Gospels are historical documents, followed closely by whether the Gospels are reliable historical documents.  Second, some attack the pagan sources as being forgeries or later interpolations by Christian authors.  Third, early Christianity is attacked as being a derivative of Stoicism.

In this monograph concerning early Christianity, I will not deal with the first two issues, although in some of my other monographs on this blog I have looked into the question to a slight degree of whether certain pagan documents might have been forged or altered by later Christian authors.

This review of early Christianity will look at Stoicism and its similarities to Christianity, as well as analyzing why Romans reacted to early Christians as they did.  Finally, this monograph will analyze some of the reasons why Christianity spread  even in the face of opposition from the Rome government.

Turning first to Stoicism, superficially there appears to be much in common between Christianity and this philosophy.  Stoicism taught that one should love one’s neighbor.  This love should grow out of the Stoics desire to become united with all things on earth.  As one becomes more united with things on earth, the Stoic has charity for the things of the earth and, therefore, love of neighbor should follow.  In Christianity, love of neighbor grows out of the law of love.  Because God loves us, we should love all facets and all creatures of his creation.

Likewise too, Stoicism teaches about Logos. In fact, Stoicism is the first system to introduce the concept of Logos.  To the Stoic, Logos meant the rational principle by which the universe exists-it was a pantheistic concept, by which  the universe was planned, or that gave order to the universe, as well as being the source of human reason and intelligence.  In the hands of some, such as Philo of Jerusalem, it became amorphous:  it was the ideal world of which our world was but a mere copy; it was wisdom personified.  In this later meaning, the word Logos became identified with the High Priest himself.

In Christianity, Logos was Jesus before he became a human.  In John’s Gospel, the author formulates this as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.”

So although early Christianity may have used the word Logos, it meant something entirely different from the Stoics. Stoicism and Christianity do not provide the same answer to the questions of the universe: what are life and death and what is the nature of God?

Early Christianity spread due to the work of St. Paul.  In the late 40’s or early 50’s AD, St. Paul, after debate in Jerusalem set out to spread the word to gentiles, bringing what had been a Jewish Sect onto the world stage as a separate religion.  Although there are some indications that the were Christians in Rome in the 40’s AD, by July 19, 64 AD, Christians were so numerous in Rome that could readily blame the fire that devastated Rome upon the Christians.   They were a readily identifiable group that were known to most Romans.  How do we know this?

Tacitus wrote about the fire in his Annals:

“…Now started the most terrible and destructive fire which Rome had ever experienced. It began in the Circus, where it adjoins the Palatine and Caelian hills. Breaking out in shops selling inflammable goods, and fanned by the wind, the conflagration instantly grew and swept the whole length of the Circus. There were no walled mansions or temples, or any other obstructions, which could arrest it. First, the fire swept violently over the level spaces. Then it climbed the hills – but returned to ravage the lower ground again. It outstripped every counter-measure. The ancient city’s narrow winding streets and irregular blocks encouraged its progress.

Terrified, shrieking women, helpless old and young, people intent on their own safety, people unselfishly supporting invalids or waiting for them, fugitives and lingerers alike – all heightened the confusion. When people looked back, menacing flames sprang up before them or outflanked them. When they escaped to a neighboring quarter, the fire followed – even districts believed remote proved to be involved. Finally, with no idea where or what to flee, they crowded on to the country roads, or lay in the fields. Some who had lost everything – even their food for the day – could have escaped, but preferred to die. So did others, who had failed to rescue their loved ones. Nobody dared fight the flames. Attempts to do so were prevented by menacing gangs. Torches, too, were openly thrown in, by men crying that they acted under orders. Perhaps they had received orders. Or they may just have wanted to plunder unhampered.

Nero was at Antium. He returned to the city only when the fire was approaching the mansion he had built to link the Gardens of Maecenas to the Palatine. The flames could not be prevented from overwhelming the whole of the Palatine, including his palace. Nevertheless, for the relief of the homeless, fugitive masses he threw open the Field of Mars, including Agrippa’s public buildings, and even his own Gardens. Nero also constructed emergency accommodation for the destitute multitude. Food was brought from Ostia and neighboring towns, and the price of corn was cut to less than ¼ sesterce a pound. Yet these measures, for all their popular character, earned no gratitude. For a rumor had spread that, while the city was burning, Nero had gone on his private stage and, comparing modern calamities with ancient, had sung of the destruction of Troy.

By the sixth day enormous demolitions had confronted the raging flames with bare ground and open sky, and the fire was finally stamped out at the foot of the Esquiline Hill. But before panic had subsided, or hope revived, flames broke out again in the more open regions of the city. Here there were fewer casualties; but the destruction of temples and pleasure arcades was even worse. This new conflagration caused additional ill-feeling because it started on Tigellinus’ estate in the Aemilian district. For people believed that Nero was ambitious to found a new city to be called after himself.

Of Rome’s fourteen districts only four remained intact. Three were leveled to the ground. The other seven were reduced to a few scorched and mangled ruins.”

Tacitus continued his Annals by reporting how the conflagration was blamed upon the Christians by Nero:

“But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. 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 “Chrestians” 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 Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in  Judea, first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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. 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.”

In our next section, we will continue our discussion of the Great Fire.

A Survey of Current Literature

Periodically, I review in this blog publications which I find compelling,

Thus, I start with the National Geographic Magazine, December 2014. In a small article, the gilded chariots of Pharaoh Tutankhamun are finally being given the attention and study which they deserve.  Of particular interest is the fact that the golden panels which adorned the chariots have unusual designs, which may have come from Syria.  Christian Eckman, the metal expert of the team said of the image of a dog and a mythical winged-creature hunting an ibex, which might be on the cover of a quiver: “This is not a motif which is familiar in Egypt.”

Archaeology in the January/February 2105 issue reports of the finding of a wooden toilet seat at Vindolanda. This is a very unique find, because in the past only marble or stone seats have been found.  This wooden seat clearly was greatly used as it is worn.  Researchers commented that the seat, however, is very comfortable.

Ancient Warfare in Vol. VII, Issue 3, covers the early Roman Republic with a multitude of excellent articles.  While the entire magazine is worth reading, of greatest importance is the article entitled: Fetiales and the Law of Nations: How the Romans Justified their Wars.  The author, Mark McCaffrey, demonstrates a complete knowledge of understanding of his subject.  Another very worthy article is The Battle of Lake Regilus, Rome Confirms the Republic.

The most important article of the year, however, is in the January/February 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review and is written by Lawrence Mykytiuk.  Professor Mykytiuk is an associate professor at Purdue University and holds a Ph.D. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies.  In his article, Dr. Mykytiuk explores the question of the historicity of Jesus.  He reviews in depth the literary documents from a number of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus, which were reviewed by me earlier in this blog, as well as Lucan.   Dr. Mykytiuk disregards the ossuaries which have been found to date as not yet having been verified.  He notes that the names Jesus and James are very common in the era and thus even if they are authentic; the inscriptions may not refer to Jesus the Christ. Having said, he concludes that Jesus was a real person and that there is really no evidence to deny the existence of Jesus.  I will review this article in depth in a future blog.  Needless to say, Dr. Mykytiuk has written a must read article. While I am writing usually about the Roman Empire and Early Christianity, I do not exclusively limit this blog to these topics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Historicity of Pontius Pilate-Part V

One writer of antiquity, Pliny the Younger, who wrote about Christianity, did not mention Pontius Pilate. I include him in this article, because some have argued that the absence of commentary by Pliny the Younger is damaging to the case of historicity of Pontius Pilate.

Pliny the Younger was born Gaius Caecilius Cilo in 61 AD in Novum Comum (Como). His mother, Plinia Marcella, was the sister of Pliny the Elder. He was a lawyer, author, and magistrate. Pliny’s uncle, Pliny the Elder, helped raise and educate him. He revered his uncle, who at this time was extremely famous, and provides sketches of how his uncle worked on the Naturalis Historia. Both were witnesses to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24, 79 AD, during which the Pliny the Elder died, while Pliny the Younger escaped by boat.

Pliny the Elder made Pliny his adopted son and heir under his will.  Under Roman law, when a person was adopted, their clan name was changed to the clan name of the adopting family and their clan name became a “nickname”.  Hence, Gaius Caecilius Cilo became Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, with Secundus, being an additional nickname.

After being first tutored at home, Pliny went to Rome for further education, where he was taught rhetoric by Quintilian, a great teacher and author, and by Nicetes Sacerdos of Smyrna. Although born an equestrian, he achieved entry into the upper class by being elected Quaestor in his late twenties. Pliny was active in the Roman legal system. He was a well-known prosecutor and defender at the trials of a series of provincial governors, including two governors of Bithynia-Pontus.   This may be ironic in that he later became Governor of Bithynia.  He was a friend of the historian, Tacitus, and employed the biographer, Suetonius, on his staff.  Pliny the Younger was known as a connoisseur of writing and collected a number of authors as friends and colleagues.

Why is Pliny important? He wrote hundreds of letters, many of which still survive, that are of great historical value for the time period.

In one letter, Pliny the Younger wrote to the Emperor Trajan as to whether the “crime” of being a Christian was sufficient justification for a capital prosecution of a Christian:

“The method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed. For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel no doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.”

Trajan assured Pliny the Younger that being a Christian was sufficient for a capital prosecution.

Pliny detailed the practices of a Christian as being:

“They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of a meal—but ordinary and innocent food.”

Unfortunately, while all of this is very interesting and gives us a great deal of information about early Christians, it does not bear upon the question of the historicity of Pontius Pilate. Thus, although Pliny is a great source for information about this age, he does not assist us in the quest to determine the historicity of Pilate.  The lack of a mention, however, of Pontius Pilate does not equate to a conclusion that Pontius Pilate did not exist.  The letter contents do not lend themselves to a discussion of Pontius Pilate.  Nor would a mention of Pontius Pilate have been appropriate.  The letter is an official letter from a Governor of a province to the Emperor asking for guidance on the law.  It would have been very out of place for such an official to mention the infamous governor in such a context, as well as of being of no import to the question being raised.  Further, it would have impolite as well as being apolitical.  Pliny the Younger demonstrated throughout his life the ability to thread the political needle and it would have been out of character for him to make a misstep here.

 

 

The Historicity of Pontius Pilate Part II

Last week we reviewed the works of Josephus, now we turn to Tacitus, a first century Roman senator and historian, likewise mentions Pilate, in his Annals, as the man who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus.

Who was Tacitus? Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus, c. AD 56 – after 117, was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The surviving portions of his two major works—the Annals and the Histories—examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero as well as those who reigned in the Year of Four Emperors AD 69. These two works span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in AD 14 to the years of the First Jewish Roman War in 70 AD. Tacitus is considered one of the greatest writers of the Silver Age of Literature of the Roman Empire.

The context of the portion of the Annals, which relates to Pilate, is the about the event of the great six day fire that consumed much of Rome.

Tacitus wrote of Pilate as follows:

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 Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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. 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. Annals of Tacitus Book 15, Chapter 44.  This excerpt was written in 116 AD.

Why should we credit this report?

Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the  acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and the acta diurnal populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors’ speeches, such as Tiberius and Cladius.  He is generally seen as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore proof-read) his work.

Tacitus cites some of his sources directly, among them Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and  Pliny the Elder, who had written Bella Germaniae and a historical work which was the continuation of that of Aufidius. Tacitus also uses collections of letters (epistolarium). He also took information from exitus illustrium virorum. These were a collection of books by those who were antithetical to the emperors. They tell of sacrifices by martyrs to freedom, especially the men who committed suicide.

Tacitus’ historical style owes some debt to Sallust. The Annals, however, are written from source or primary documents, and his intimate knowledge of the Flavian period, and are therefore thought to be more accurate. His historiography offers penetrating insights into the psychology of power politics, blending straightforward descriptions of events, moral lessons, and tightly focused dramatic accounts. Tacitus’s own declaration regarding his approach to history, Annals 1, I, is well known:

“inde consilium mihi … tradere … sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo.”

my purpose is to relate … without either anger or zeal, motives from which I am far removed.

 

Conclusions on the Historicity of Jesus

I began this article with the question: Did Jesus exist? In accordance with the definition of   historicity which deals with the issue of analyzing historical record to determine whether Jesus, as a person, existed, we looked at a number of historical records, but apart from the Gospels and other writings of the New Testament. The question of whether Jesus existed is crucial to the foundation of Christianity. If Jesus did not exist, then what of Christianity?

The survey which I have provided, first examined Josephus, a Jewish General who fought against the Romans, and who after his capture was befriended by Titus. His testimony, in Chapter 3, Book XVIII of his Antiquities of the Jews, is especially weighty in my mind, because as a Jew of this era, he is antagonist to Christianity and as a Roman he is antagonist to Christianity. There is no reason for him to invent his testimony, and a great many reasons for him to not have recorded his testimony. For example, as a Flavian family member, his testimony is not particularly flattering to the Roman Empire or to the Roman Emperor.

Next, we reviewed the writings of Tacitus. In his Annals, Tacitus writes of the great six-day fire that consumed a large portion of Rome and squarely puts the blame upon Nero for using the Christians as a scape-goat. His report of Christianity is clearly hostile; he views Christianity as being a great evil, a dangerous cult: “…a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.” For Tacitus to speak of the crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is clearly at odds with his view of Christianity. Why would he do this, if it were not true?

The next Roman historian was Suetonius. Again, his testimony must be given great weight. As the Imperial Librarian and Archivist, and personal secretary to the Emperor, all of which we know from an inscription on a stone discovered in 1952, he was certainly one person who would be in a position to know and to have a duty to record the true facts.

Pliny the Younger’s testimony is actually different from the others: his is correspondence with the Emperor asking for guidance upon the subject of dealing with the Christians: how to try them for crimes. This is an “official document”. It must be given great weight. But having said that, this document does not mention the personage of Jesus, and thus, while extremely important in its documentation of the practices of the early Christians, it has only tangential weight in proving the historicity of Jesus. Although while would there be early Christians with a well-defined moral code and a faith in a man-God, if he did not exist? This question is though more speculative than dispositive.

There are other sources which were not reviewed in any depth in this article. The Jewish Babylonian Talmud, for example, which was written in the first century, mentions Jesus, but does so in a highly hostile manner. For example, it refers to his miracles as being “magic” and records that he claimed to be God.  But it further mentions his execution on the eve of the Passover, all of which supports the historical existence of Jesus. Also, Justin Martyr, who was a philosopher who later converted to Christianity, wrote around 130 AD, when there was wide-spread opposition to Christianity and the threat of martyrdom was great:

“There is a village in Judea, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, where Jesus Christ was born, as you can see from the tax registers under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea…”  First Apology 34

 

 

 

This reference to official Roman records, which apparently he reviewed and which he invites others to review, are exactly the type of record one would expect to find, but only if Jesus was a person who existed and was listed in census-type rolls for the purpose of taxation.

Throughout, I have avoided the use of the Gospels and other writings in the New Testament to prove the historicity of Jesus, because presumably these sources would have a vested interest in taking the position that Jesus existed. I have focused on other records, some of which are “official Romans records”, as well as writing of Jews and Romans, because these are presumably free of this tainted of bias. It is because of these sources, some of which are very hostile to Jesus and Christianity, that I conclude that Jesus did exist as a person. But the fact that Jesus existed as a person does not in any way then prove that he was God. Nonetheless, if he was not remarkable, then why did so many sources write of him, his crucifixion, and of his followers? I leave this to the reader to ponder.

A Brief Review of the Historicity of Jesus: Part II

Most of the facts of the life of Tacitus are shrouded in mystery. We do not know for certain whether his first name was Publius or Gaius, the exact year of his birth, or the place of his birth.  We do know that he was a friend of Pliny the Younger, but this does not help us to raise the veil much. What is known about his early life is scant: he was a member of the Cornelius clan and he was probably born in 56 or 57 AD.

It is thought that his father, who was also named Cornelius Tacitus, was a friend of Pliny the Elder, which explains the friendship of the two sons. Tacitus married, Julia, the daughter of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, that is the famous General Agricola, who conquered Britannia. This fact supports the contention that Tacitus may have come from Gallia Narbonensis. Nonetheless, shortly after marrying Julia, his career took off, and he quickly went through the various offices of the cursus honorum. Becoming a quaestor, praetor, and then, a quindecimvir sacris facundis, a priest presiding over the all-important Sibylline Books and the Ludi Saeculares, the so-called Secular Games, which marked the changing of epochs of 100 or 110 years, the supposed longest possible human lifetime in 88AD. As a quindecimvir sacris facundis, he was a member of the council which supervised foreign cults in Rome, and, thereby, Van Voorst argues that he could have become familiar with Christianity in this way. As a senator and as a lawyer, he was renowned for his oratory, which is ironic given his cognomen of Tacitus or “silent”. Ultimately, he rose to the highest governorship position in the Empire, Governor of Asia.

He authored numerous works, including ‘The Life of Agricola’,’Germania’, “Dialogue on Oratory’, ‘Histories’, and the ‘Annals’. The last two works together provide a continuous history from 14 AD (the death of Augustus) to 96AD (the death of Domitian).

The context of the Annals, as it relates to Jesus, is the great six day fire that consumed much of Rome. Tacitus wrote of Jesus as follows:

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 Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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. 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. Annals of Tacitus Book 15, Chapter 44

First and foremost, this passage, confirms the crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and thus the historicity of Jesus.   While it incorrectly refers to Pilate as a procurator, a term which was applied to leaders of Judea after 42 AD, some six years after Pilate left Judea, it correctly dates Pilate’s tenure in Judea to the reign of Tiberius. This passage is highly critical of Christians-‘a highly mischievous superstition’ and labeling Judea as the ‘first source of the evil’. It is thus unlikely that this passage is a later interpolation into the Annals, for why would Church fathers write thusly of their own religion?

The issue of whether the term procurator demonstrates that the passage is a later interpolation has been dismissed by most scholars. Many leading scholars now agree with Bruce Chilton, Craig Evans and Robert E. Van Voorst that Tacitus probably used the term which was more familiar to his readers of his day, rather than to use a discarded more ancient term.

Likewise, the issue of whether Tacitus used the word Christians or Chrestians is really unimportant because there is a great deal of evidence to support the fact that Christians used both terms. Luke in Acts uses the term ‘Christian’, which appears to be the origination of that term, but that is only a single usage. Otherwise, Christians often referred to themselves as Chrestians.

This passage also tells us a great deal about early Christianity. First, by 64 AD, that is the date of the Great Fire of Rome, there were Christians in Rome. Second, Christians could be distinguished by the Romans from Jews. Third, Judea was seen as the home of Christianity. Fourth, Christians were martyred in Rome.

Given as to how negative this passage is concerning Christianity, and given Tacitus’ clear goal of painstakingly verifying his facts, it is hard to conceive that this passage is not genuine.

In future parts to this article, I will discuss other Roman writers, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, who give further support to the historicity of Jesus, as well as shedding light on early Christianity.

The Author at Theater in Taormina

A Brief Review of the Historicity of Jesus: Part I

Did Jesus exist? Was he crucified? The historicity of Jesus deals with the issue of analyzing the historical record to determine whether Jesus lived, as well as whether any of the events set forth in the Gospels, such as the crucifixion, happened. Historicity is to be distinguished from reconstructing the historical life of Jesus. We are solely looking at the issue of whether there is historical evidence of Jesus apart from the Gospels.

It is beyond the scope of this five-part article to deal with the entirety of the historical record and, therefore, we will focus upon only two records at this time and will return to this issue at a later date. The records to be reviewed are The Antiquities of the Jews, written by Josephus (Part I), and the Annals, written by Tacitus (Part II).

Josephus wrote in Chapter 3, Book XVIII of his Antiquities:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, 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 the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Why should we believe this account? There are a number of reasons which include: (1) the identity of Josephus; (2) date of the writing of the Annals; (3) mentions of Jesus by Josephus in other of his works; (4) his profession of wanting the facts, the true facts, to be recorded; and (5) his accuracy in presenting the facts of other events recorded in his works.

Joseph ben Matthias, later Titus Falvius Josephus, was born in Jerusalem around 37 AD to a father of priestly descent and a mother claiming royal descent. As a general, he fought against the Romans in the First Roman Jewish War. He surrendered after the siege of Jotapata to Vespasian about whom Josephus made the prophecy that Vespasian would rule the world. Vespasian kept Josephus as a hostage and as a translator. Later, after Vespasian became Emperor, Josephus was granted his freedom and took the Flavian family name. He became close friends with Vespasian son, Titus, and fully defected to Rome. Thereafter, as Titus besieged Jerusalem, Josephus acted as his translator. With this background, as a Jew who defected to Rome, it is highly unlikely that Josephus would write accounts of Jesus, if Jesus were not a historical personage. This account confirms both the existence of Jesus, as well as his crucifixion.

Many noted scholars have concluded that the crucifixion of Jesus, as well as obviously his existence, are historical facts. One, John P. Meier, states that several criterion proves the historicity of Jesus and the crucifixion including the criterion of embarrassment, by which he means that early Christians would not have invented the death of their leader, particularly by crucifixion; the criterion of multiple attestation, that is the confirmation of Jesus by many different sources; the criterion of coherence, that is it fits with other established historical elements; and, finally, the criterion of non-rejection, by which he means that ancient sources did not dispute either the existence of Jesus, nor his crucifixion.

In my next blog, I will continue with an examination of the Annals by Tacitus.

Please let me know if these articles are of value to you, as well as topics you would like to see discussed in future blogs.

Looting of Temple In Jerusalem by Titus-Arch of Titus