Continuing from last time, further criticism that the ancient Roman historian Tacitus was an unreliable historian and showed bias in favor of Christianity, is based upon his use of certain words. Critic G. A. Wells is among these scholars and points to specific termsusedby Tacitus as further evidence of his unreliability, citing his use of the word “Christ” in describing Jesus and the incorrect use of the title “procurator” when referring to Pilate.
In regard to the former term usage, Wells states that “if Tacitus had gotten his information from official records, he would have called Jesus by his name,” However, had Tacitus used the name Jesus, then further information would have been needed to explain which “Jesus” was being referred to. The term “Christus,” is a logically convenient title to use. Also, had Tacitus blindly used Christian sources, it is likely that he would have used the more intimate name of Jesus of “Christ Jesus.” Additionally, the term “Christus” is consistent with the common usage of “Christ” as a proper name. At the time of both Tacitus, and Josephus, the word Christ was already a proper name for Jesus among Gentile Christians.
In regard to the latter, the term “procurator” would have been very much in line with what was considered appropriate for the position held by Pilate. In rebuttal to Wells’s critique, Josh McDowell adds that Tacitus’s use of the same term “procurator” in The Annals when referring to Lucilus Capito shows consistency and that his use of the term “procurator” is merely a general term used in order to provide clarity concerning key positions certain persons held.
An analysis of the Tacitus passage as a whole; gives good evidence that Tacitus was reliably testifying that Jesus did indeed exist. While the passage does not seem like much to critics, it is reasonable to agree with McDowell when he says “it is surprisingly useful in discounting different theories which are still advanced; that Jesus of Nazareth never existed.”
In addition, the writing of Tacitus is not an isolated piece of evidence; Flavius Josephus has something significant to contribute as well. Josephus was a devoted Jewish historian, writer, and member of the Pharisee sect. He was also a contemporary of Tacitus and wrote the seven-volume History of the Jewish War, and the twenty-volume Jewish Antiquities. In the Antiquities (AD 93), Josephus makes mention of Jesus and His brother James.
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananas the high priest] assembled Sanhedrin judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions], and when they had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
This passage provides evidence, independent of the Bible, of a man named Jesus who was called the Christ. It also provides non-biblical corroboration to James’s identity as the brother of Jesus (cf Matt 13:55; Gal 1:19).
G.A.Wellsarguesthattheelaboration of James as the brother of Jesus should be removed to read simply “James and other.” The basis of Well’s argument, and his attempt to debunk theaccuracyoftheJoesephuspassage is rooted in his assumption that the text has been violated by interpolators, referring to the descriptive words used to define the relationship of Jesus to James. Wells’s argues that the use of the name Jesus was later added by Christian interpolators. To that end, Wells argues that without corruption by the interpolators the passage would simply read a Jewish leader named James. However, this is not a plausible argument by Wells. Removing the name Jesus from the passage would, in fact, render the passage vague and confusing and would raise the question, to which James is Josephus referring? It would be poor historical writing and remiss on Josephus’s part to not relate the brother of Jesus to James and to identify Jesus as the namesake of the Christian faith. Without the connection being made between James and Jesus, James has no significance beyond an ordinary Christian, which raises the question of why James would be mentioned specifically by name if he were not associated with such a familiar person as Jesus.
Critical argument that the Josephus passage has been interpolated by Christians is also based upon use of the word “Christ.” As already discussed, when analyzing the Tacitus passage, the use of the word Christ to describe Jesus is not indicative of interpolation; at the time Josephus wrote the passage, the word Christ was already in use as a proper name among Gentile Christians.
ItisthestageuponwhichJosephus stands that is perhaps the most convincing argument that the passage is reliable. His writing in favor of the Jewish people but to a Roman audience, was likely very cautious about giving the Romans reason to further suppress the Jews. Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, would not have been likely to make Christian-leaning statements that were not accepted as common knowledge. This makes for a strong argument that can be made for the reliability of the passage as a whole. Bible scholar Robert Gundry states “eyewitness of Jesus prevent fabrication and distortion of information.” Within the context of the eyewitnesses to the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus, had Jesus not been a real person, then the reputation of Josephus would have been destroyed and he would have been exposed to Roman punishment.
Join us next week as we continue to look at the writings of Josephus. Until then, what say you: is God dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo!
Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.