The Historical Jesus

¹⁸See Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin (New York: Doubleday, 1978).

¹⁹For these details, see Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud (Ann Arbor: Servant, 1981), especially chapter 2.

²⁰Ibid., Chapter 4.

²¹For an authoritative description of some of the proposed tests to be performed on the shroud, see Kenneth E. Stevenson, Editor, Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference on the Shroud of Turin (Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild, 1977).

²²See Stevenson and Habermas, Verdict, chapters 5-6 and Appendix A. See also John Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983), especially chapters 12-14.

²³Stevenson and Habermas, Verdict, chapters 3, 10.

²⁴For details concerning this correspondence that cannot be presented in this book, see ibid., chapter 9.

²⁵Heller, Report, p. 218.

²⁶These conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of any other researchers. See Stevenson and Habermas, Verdict, chapter 11. For a more detailed and intricate argument concerning the shroud as evidence for the resurrection, see also Gary R. Habermas, “The Shroud of Turin: A Rejoinder to Basinger and Basinger,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982), pp. 219-227.

²⁷A stern disclaimer is definitely in order here. Whether the shroud is or is not the true burial sheet of Jesus, it is absolutely crucial that we not be involved with any sort of worship or veneration of this cloth. God’s warning against worshiping any object still stands, along with the serious judgment pronounced against those who disobey (Exod. 20:4-6, for example). We need to totally oppose any such activities.

²⁸For many of these objections to the 1988 carbon dating, see, for example, Paul C. Maloney, “Is the Shroud of Turin Really Medieval?” and “The Carbon Date for the Shroud of Turin: The Position Statement of the Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin, Ltd.,” in The Assist Newsletter, vol. 1, no. 1 (1989), pp. 1, 5-8. Cf. Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, The Shroud and the Controversy: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for Authenticity (Nashville: Nelson, 1990), chapters 3-4, Appendix A.

²⁹Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 188.

³⁰Boyd, Tells, p. 183.

³¹Ibid.

³²Tacitus, Annals, 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities, 18:3.

³³France, The Evidence for Jesus, pp. 141-142.

9Ancient Non-Christian Sources

Continuing our historical investigation into the early sources for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, we turn next to the ancient non-Christian sources. We will move, successively, from ancient historians, to government officials, to other Jewish and Gentile sources, to early Gnostic sources and then to lost works that speak of Jesus.

Ancient Historians

Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus (ca. AD 55–120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over a half dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for his moral “integrity and essential goodness.”¹

Tacitus is best known for two works — the Annals and the Histories. The former is thought to have included eighteen books and the latter to have included twelve, for a total of thirty.² The Annals cover the period from Augustus’ death in AD 14 to that of Nero in AD 68, while the Histories begin after Nero’s death and proceed to that of Domitian in AD 96.

Tacitus recorded at least one reference to Christ and two to early Christianity, one in each of his major works. The most important one is that found in the Annals, written about AD 115. The following was recounted concerning the great fire in Rome during the reign of Nero:

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 Judaea, 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. 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 to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.³

From this report we can learn several facts, both explicit and implicit, concerning Christ and the Christians who lived in Rome in the AD 60s. Chronologically, we may ascertain the following information.

⁽¹⁾ Christians were named for their founder, Christus (from the Latin), ⁽²⁾ who was put to death by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilatus (also Latin), ⁽³⁾ during the reign of emperor Tiberius (AD 14–37). ⁽⁴⁾ His death ended the “superstition” for a short time, ⁽⁵⁾ but it broke out again, ⁽⁶⁾ especially in Judaea, where the teaching had its origin.

⁽⁷⁾ His followers carried his doctrine to Rome. ⁽⁸⁾ When the great fire destroyed a large part of the city during the reign of Nero (AD 54–68), the emperor placed the blame on the Christians who lived in Rome. ⁽⁹⁾ Tacitus reports that this group was hated for their abominations. ⁽¹⁰⁾ These Christians were arrested after pleading guilty, ⁽¹¹⁾ and many were convicted for “hatred for mankind.” ⁽¹²⁾ They were mocked and ⁽¹³⁾ then tortured, including being “nailed to crosses” or burnt to death. ⁽¹⁴⁾ Because of these actions, the people had compassion on the Christians. ⁽¹⁵⁾ Tacitus therefore concluded that such punishments were not for the public good but were simply “to glut one man’s cruelty.”⁴

Several facts here are of interest. As F.F. Bruce has noted, Tacitus had to receive his information from some source and this may have been an official record. It may even have been contained in one of Pilate’s reports to the emperor, to which Tacitus would probably have had access because of his standing with the government.⁵ Of course, we cannot be sure at this point, but a couple of early writers do claim to know the contents of such a report, as we will perceive later.