Chapter Five:  Materials Concerning Jesus  

1 

We will see in the next chapter that Jesus of Nazareth makes precisely the claim that concerns us:  i.e. to be the self-disclosure of the noumenon in a concrete, historical, human being.  Where can we find primary source material concerning him:  what is the raw material available to us, the “traces” of historiography, by which we can judge the validity of that claim?  There are basically three types of documents about Jesus:  those written by pagans, those by Jews, and those by Christians.  We will look at the pagan documents first. 

No official records have been preserved of Pontius Pilate; however Justin and Tertullian (early Christian writers) must have believed that such records were extant in their time, for they challenge skeptics to look in the Roman archives, in which Pilate’s report about Jesus’ trial was said to be preserved. [1] 

Suetonius 

Suetonius was a Roman historian who compiled biographies of emperors, writing around 120 A.D.  He talks about the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 A.D. under the emperor Claudius.  The cause of the disturbance is said to be “Chrestos” (a variant of the name “Christ”).  He says that Claudius “expelled the Jews from Rome, on account of the riots in which they were constantly indulging, at the instigation of Chrestus”, [2] and that “punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a body of people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.” [3] 

Tacitus 

Cornelius Tacitus, another Roman historian, writes between 115 and 117 A.D.; he speaks of the first of Rome in 63 A.D., where Nero diverted the blame onto the Christians. 

They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.  That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh – not only in Judaea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home. [4] 

It is entirely possible that Tacitus revealed his information from non-Christian sources, perhaps even an official report about the crucifixion, because of the hostile terms in which Christians are reported. 

Pliny the Younger 

Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (son of Pliny the Elder, author of Natural History), was accustomed to consulting the emperor when any decision was made.  Ten books of correspondence have survived to this day.  Interesting points in the following lengthy quote are: 

Tertullian, the Christian apologist, was aware of this letter, and used it in his Apology.  One of Pliny’s letters to Emperor Trajan (112 A.D.) is so interesting that its entire text is included below: 

My Lord:  It is my custom to consult you whenever I am in doubt about any matter; who is better able to direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? 

I have never been present at Christian trials; consequently I do not know the precedents regarding the question of punishment or the nature of the inquisition.  I have been in no little doubt whether some discrimination is made with regard to age, or whether the young are treated no differently from the older; whether renunciation wins indulgence, or it is of no avail to have abandoned Christianity if one has once been a Christian; whether the very profession of the name is to be punished, or only the disgraceful practices which go along with the name. 

So far this has been my procedure when people were charged before me with being Christians.  I have asked the accused themselves if they were Christians; if they said “Yes”, I asked them a second and third time, warning them of the penalty; if they persisted I ordered them to be led off to execution.  For I had no doubt that, whatever kind of thing it was that they pleaded guilty to, their stubbornness and unyielding obstinacy at any rate deserved to be punished.  There were others afflicted with the like madness whom I marked down to be referred to Rome, because they were Roman citizens. 

Later, as usually happens, the trouble spread by the very fact that it was being dealt with, and further varieties came to my notice.  An anonymous document was laid before be containing many people’s names.  Some of these denied that they were Christians or had ever been so; at my dictation they invoked the gods and did reverence with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose along with the statues of the gods; they also cursed Christ; and as I am informed that people who are really Christians cannot possibly be made to do any of those things, I considered that the people who did them should be discharged.  Others against whom I received information said they were Christians and then denied it; they meant (they said) that they had once been Christians but had given it up:  some three years previously, some a longer time, or two as many as twenty years before.  All these likewise did reverence to your image and the statues of the gods and cursed Christ.  But they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this:  they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath – not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honor it.  After this, they went on, it was their custom to separate, and then meet again to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.  And even this, they said, they had given up doing since the publication of my edict in which according to your instructions, I had placed a ban on private associations.  So I thought it the more necessary to inquire into the real truth of this matter by subjecting to torture two female slaves, who were called “deacons”; but I found nothing more than a perverse superstition which went beyond all bounds. 

Therefore I deferred further inquiry in order to apply to you for a ruling.  The case seemed to me to be the proper one for consultation, particularly because of the number of those who were accused.  Nor has this contagious superstition spread through the cities only, but also through the villages and the country-side.  But I think it can be checked and put right.  At any rate the temples which had been well nigh abandoned, are beginning to be frequented again; and the customary services, for the sacrificial animals, too, is beginning to find a sale again, for hitherto it was difficult to find anyone to buy it.  From all this it is easy to judge what a multitude of people can be reclaimed if an opportunity is granted them to renounce Christianity. [5] 

Private letters are considered by historians to be an excellent source of information, for they are usually not written with public polemical intent, but instead have many elements – taken for granted in the correspondence itself – that are fairly straight-forward.  This letter shows very vividly the growth of the early Christian movement, and the threat it presented to the traditional modes of religion in Rome and its satellites. 

Julius Africanus 

Eusebius preserves the writing of Julius Africanus, who is concerned to refute Thallus (thought to be a Samaritan) who, in writing a history of the Eastern Mediterranean in 52 A.D., sought to explain away the darkness at the crucifixion as an eclipse. [6]  Africanus points out that this interpretation is impossible, for the crucifixion took place at the full moon.  The importance of this example is that – in Rome of 52 – there were already efforts to explain Christianity by means of natural phenomena, and that the central details of the faith were known. 

Mara Bar Serapion 

There is also a letter from Mara Bar Serapion to his son (preserved in the British Museum), written in Syriac sometime later than 73 A.D., in which Jesus is specifically mentioned and compared to Pythagoras and Socrates in that he died for his teaching. [7] 

2 

There are two major Jewish sources concerning the historicity of Jesus.  They are Flavius Josephus, and the Talmud.

Josephus 

Josephus was born in 37 A.D., captured by the Romans during the revolt of 67 A.D., brought before Vespasian, and his life was spared.  He occupied himself with writing the history of the Jews.  His book Antiquities of the Jews, written about 93 A.D., refers to many New Testament characters, in particular John the Baptist, James the Just (Jesus’ brother), and Jesus himself. 

Some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army was a divine judgment, a very just penalty for his murder of John the Baptist.  For Herod killed him in spite of the fact that he was a good man, who taught the Jews to practice virtue, to show righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and to form a community by means of baptism.  … His fellow-Jews gathered around him, for they were greatly impressed when they heard him preach.  But Herod was afraid that his great power of persuading men might lead to a rising, for the people seemed ready to follow his counsel in everything.  So he thought it was advisable to arrest him and kill him before he started a revolt; this, he thought, was better than to repent after the event, once a revolt had broken out.  So John, falling a victim to Herod’s suspicion, was sent in chains to the fortress of Machaerus … and put to death there.  The Jews, then, believed that it was to avenge John that God brought this disaster upon Herod’s army. [8] 

… he convened a judicial session of the Sanhedrin and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ – James by name – and some others, whom he charged with breaking the law and handed over to be stoned to death. [9] 

The passage below concerning Jesus is one of much debate.  Various parts are considered by many to be of Christian interpolation, because Josephus, not being a Christian himself [10], uses phrases that are almost impossible to believe came from him.  Some, because of this, have proposed to throw out the entire passage.  A more reasonable approach might be such a reconstruction as follows, by inserting the italic passages or replacing other passages with them: 

Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of mean who gladly welcome strange things.  He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles.  He was the so-called Christ.  When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today. [11] 

Talmud 

The “Talmud” is a collection of Jewish writings, embodying a large commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures:  the “Law and the Prophets.”  After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the work of reconstruction for the Jewish people was immense.  The school of Hillel began the work; Yohanan ben Zakkai collected and codified some of the oral tradition concerning the Law and the Prophets; later Rabbi Akiba arranged the material according to subject matter; then Rabbi Meir (135 A.D.) continued the work; and Rabbi Judah the Prince (200 A.D.) compiled the “Mishnah”, which was the completed compilation of tradition. [12] 

Commentaries on the Mishnah are called “Gemaras.”  Together, they make up the Talmud.  The Palestinian Talmud was completed about 350-400 A.D., and the Babylonian about 500 A.D.  One portion that mentions Jesus is the following, from the Babylonian Talmud: 

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve.  Forty days previously the herald had cried, “He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy.  Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.”  As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve.  … Ulla said:  “Would you believe that any defense would have been so zealously sought for him?  He was a deceiver, and the All-merciful says:  “You shall not spare him, neither shall you conceal him.”  It was different with Jesus, for he was near to the kingship.” [13] 

While it is conceded by most scholars that the “apologetic” parts are not necessarily historically relevant, we will note that the Jews were forced to account for Jesus’ reality and impact in some way.  They conceded his historicity, his crucifixion, his miracles – calling him a sorcerer – and his following. 

To sum up, we have found a variety of interesting things from a perusal of the pagan and Jewish sources regarding Jesus.  Jesus was a real historical person.  He was called the “Christ” and was executed by sentence of Pontius Pilate during Tiberius’ reign.  He did miraculous works, and attracted a large following from both Jews and Gentiles.  James the brother of Jesus, and John the Baptist, also were real persons, and their murders are mentioned.  Jesus; followers would not commit idolatry by worshipping another, while giving Christ divine honors, and therefore many were tortured and killed, although they bound themselves by a promise to act honorably and morally.  These documents rest in large part on the Christian “cult” already developed; however, as in Tacitus and Pliny, the ideas of non-Christians may have been derived from non-scriptural sources (e.g. Roman archives, secular accounts, etc.) 

3 

The documents of the Christians should be divided into four categories.  The first contains those works that were always, at all times and places, accepted by the Christian church.  The second is composed of those that were disputed by the Christians, and finally accepted after great debate.  The third category is of the books disputed and finally rejected; and the fourth is the category of those works always rejected or considered spurious by the church.  The first two categories are the books composing what we call the “New Testament.” 

The original autographs of the New Testament writings are gone; therefore their content must be re-traced through a close examination of the extant copies.  Obviously, the more copies available for study, and the earlier their dates (i.e. the closest to the original), the better chance we will have in determining the original content of the autographs.  This work of comparison and analysis is called “textual criticism.”  The basic method that textual critics use is to examine the early Greek MSS (the language of the N.T.), checking their findings with the additional help of early versions (translations from Greek to another language), quotes from early Christians in their works (useful because these works utilize earlier texts than those extant), and church lectionaries (somewhat similar to some current hymnals or books of prayer). 

Once we have enumerated the hard evidence at hand, we’ll then list some of the things textual critics look for in evaluating the evidence:  what sort of errors are likely to occur, how to judge between variants, etc.  Then we’ll compare the findings of the textual critics in the area of New Testament study with the results of similar studies in classical literature.

4 

The first group of MSS to be dealt with is what is called the “Greek Uncials”, those Greek MSS, usually in Codex (book) form, dating from 350 A.D. into the middle ages. [14]  (Appendix C. gives a list of these)  The Codex Vaticanus is dated around 350 “A.D.  It was not known to scholars until 1475, and couldn’t be studied until 1189-1890 because of Vatican rules.  It contains most of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament except Hebrews 9:14 to the end.  It is one of the most well-known manuscripts extant.   

Another is the Codex Sinaiticus, dated also around 350 A.D.  It was discovered by Count Tischendorf in 1844 at the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai, where the Count handily rescued the MSS from their use in stoking the fire!  The MSS was purchased from Russia by Britain and now resides in the British Museum.  It contains more than half of the Old Testament, and all of the New Testament. 

The Codex Alexandrinus, dating about 450 A.D., contains all of the Old Testament except for some mutilations; it has most of the New Testament except Matthew 1-25, John 6-8, 2 Corinthians 4-12.  It, like Sinaiticus, is at the British Museum.   

The Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, dating 345 A.D., contains nearly all of the New Testament, lacking 2 Thessalonians and 2 John.  It is a “palimpsest”, that is, a document written over the “erasure” (by scraping) of a previous work. 

The Codex Bezae, dating 450-550 A.D., is a bilingual MS (Greek and Latin), containing the four gospels, Acts, and 3 John, with some omissions.  These are some of the manuscripts used that are Uncial (capital letters) Codices (book form). 

5 

There are a number of MSS not in book form, called Papyri, using uncial letters.  Some of these bridge the gap between 100 A.D. (the definite end of the New Testament writings) and 350 A.D. (the earliest codices).  (See Appendix C. for a list of the papyri).  Three significant papyri that bridge the gap are: [15]  the Chester Beatty Papyri, dating 250 A.D. (P45, P46, P47), containing most of the New Testament; the Bodmer Papyri, dating 200 A.D. (P66, P72, P75); and the John Rylands fragment, dating 117-138 A.D.  The last is the earliest New Testament fragment, containing a part of John’s gospel.  It effectively sets an empirical ceiling on the dating of the gospels, because, while dated twenty or so years after 100 A.D., they were located at such a distance from the place of writing that a significant time-lapse must have been involved in the MS’s travel. 

Added to the uncials and the papyri are the miniscules (written in lower-case letters, with cursive form), dating somewhat later (9th to 15th century).  Many of these are good and valuable copies because of their derivation from very early texts. [16]  (see Appendix C. for a list of the miniscules)  There are at least 2,646 miniscule MSS of varying sizes and degree of integrity extant. 

6 

Besides the Greek MSS at our disposal, there are thousands of MSS which are translations from the Greek to other languages, e.g. Syriac, Coptic, Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, and others.  The value of these translations, called “versions”, is obvious.  The type of errors likely to be found in translating Greek to Latin (for instance), and in copying from Latin to Latin, are going to be different from the type of errors copying from Greek to Greek.  Similarly, bilingual MSS are of great help in comparing translation-errors, etc.  There are at least 8,000 MSS available in checking the findings of the more primary Greek MSS. [17] 

7 

Another method of checking the results of analyzing the extant Greek MSS is to examine the works in which early Christian writers quoted the New Testament in their works.  And they quoted the New Testament plenty!  The “apostolic fathers” of 70-150 A.D. refer to or quote the New Testament in the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas, Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the seven epistles by Ignatius, Polycarp to the Philippians, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache (teaching of the twelve apostles), and the writings of Papias. 

The “ante-Nicene fathers”, from 150-300 A.D., that quote the New Testament are Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian.  The “Nice” and “post-Nicene” fathers, from 300-430 A.D., are Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Crysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. [17a] 

In fact, so much of the New Testament is quoted in these early writings that, were the New Testament MSS all to perish, it could literally be reconstructed on the basis of these early quotations!  One many even sat out to do this very thing: 

Sir David Dalrymple’s curiosity was aroused on this subject when once he was asked, “Suppose that the New Testament had been destroyed, and every copy of it lost by the end of the third century, could it have been collected together again from the writings of the Fathers of the second and third centuries?”  Having given himself to research on this question, he was later able to report … “Up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.” [18] 

A table showing the Patristic quotations is shown in Appendix D. 

One of the values in checking these quotations is that the authors often had at their disposal earlier manuscripts than are now extant, and so – if they quoted correctly – we would have excellent access to very good MSS.  The problem in this is that the authors often quoted from memory, or paraphrased, so that their evidence should be used only in checking results from ore assured techniques rather than supplanting them. 

8 

A further method of checking our results is the use of early Christian lectionaries (in Greek), which contain – for liturgical purposes – abundant quotations from the New Testament.  Most of these lectionaries are from the seventh to the twelfth centuries, though some are earlier. [19] 

The total number of MSS to be examined is vast.  There are at least 297 uncials, 76 papyri, 2,646 miniscules, roughly 2,000 lectionaries, over 8,000 versions (translations), and literally thousands of patristic quotations to evaluate. [20]  Of course, the more MSS available, the better our results can be; and the earlier the better.  The uncials and papyri, followed by the miniscules, make up the base of investigation.  Then checks are applied through the analysis of the versions, lectionaries, and patristic quotations.  There is indeed abundant material upon which to make a decision. 

9 

It is important to know the sort of errors that are likely to turn up in manuscripts.  Various accidental errors often depend on the means of transmission.  For example, if the MS is being read out loud to a group of people writing new copies, errors of hearing may crop up in the new MSS, while if each person has a MS to directly copy, errors of seeing (like skipping a line, etc.) are likely.  This is combined with the likely errors of memory, judgment, and writing common to both methods. 

Similarly, intentional errors are sometimes found.  These are alterations concerning the following:  linguistic changes, historical difficulties cleared up, harmonistic corruptions, doctrinal “corrections”, and liturgical corruptions. [21]  Sometimes, notes are made in the margins of the text, which get picked up by the next copyist as text. 

In general, the reading is to be preferred that explains the origins of the others, is the more difficult, is the more characteristic of the author, or sometimes the one that is merely shorter.  Sometimes the earliest MS is to be preferred, but that is not a strict rule, for later extant MSS may be very good copies of very early good MSS, while its competitor may not be based on such good MSS. [22] 

According to Philip Schaff, of the 150,000 variations known in the extant MSS, only 400 affect the sense of the passages!  And of these, only 50 or so are of any significance.  And of these, none affect any article of faith or precept of duty “which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching.” [23]  Therefore, even if there were a small number of MSS available, instead of the wealth of information before us, we would have no textual difficulty in dealing with the major concepts of the New Testament text. 

10 

In dealing with textual criticism of the New Testament, we should be aware of the results of textual criticism in other fields of literature; it should help us to compare these results to place our inquiry in proper scholarly perspective.  This is where we see the true strength of our study of the N.T. text, for it turns out to be based on abundantly more material than any other textual analysis of ancient works!  (See Appendix E. for a comparison of the N.T. text with that of classical authors.)   

F.F. Bruce gives three excellent examples.  The first is Caesar’s Gallic War, of which only nine or ten MSS are of any value, the earliest of this mere handful at least 900 years removed from the original!  Second, he points out that the Histories of Tacitus, dated about 100 A.D., are based on only two MSS, of the ninth and eleventh centuries.  And third, the historical writings of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) are based on eight MSS, the earliest 900 A.D.  Yet, with this paucity of empirical evidence, scholars accept the integrity and authenticity of these works without any problem. [24] 

The case for the integrity of the New Testament text is so strong that there is no reputable scholar in that field that I’ve been able to find that really debates the point.  F.G. Kenyon, in a now-famous passage, sums up the findings with great clarity: 

The interval then between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to use substantially as they were written has now been removed.  Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. [25] 

Therefore, as we can clearly see, the textual problem is really a pseudo-problem posed by those unfamiliar with the hard empirical data.  First, even without resolving the variants, our doctrine and understanding of the major points of the text are unaffected!  Second, we have good MSS from around 350 A.D. - and therefore, since they are substantially the same as our current Bible, it hasn’t changed since then, e.g. through the Middle Ages and beyond! 

These MSS are supplemented by many good papyrus and miniscule evidence, checked by the lectionaries, versions, and patristic quotations. 

In addition, the shorter MSS we possess from the second and third centuries bring us very, very close to the original time-frame of the autographs.

Next, to compare the findings of the N.T. textual criticism with that of all classical authors puts it into perspective:  the hard evidence available in studying the New Testament is abundantly greater than that for any other classical work.  Therefore, to deny its findings is tantamount to historical solipsism.  In short, there may be problems in the study of the New Testament documents, but they are not of a textual nature.