THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS
Ancient Secular Historians, Continued.
Cornillius Tacitus (c. 56(7) –
120AD)
Considered one of the
greatest historian of ancient Rome, in the Annals
XV covers the reign of Nero and the fire of Rome which was blamed on the
sect of Christians.[i]
Nero
“. . . ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor he falsely
charged with great guilt, and punished with most exquisite torture, the persons
commonly called Christians . . . the founder Christus, was put to death by
Pontius Pilate procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberius; but the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only
throughout Judea, where it originated, but through the city of Rome also”.
(Annals XV 44)
It is commonly
believed that this pernicious superstition is in reference to the resurrection
of Jesus.[ii] Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the
execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both
authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early
Christianity that is in unison with other historical records … Tacitus was a
patriotic Roman senator and his
writings shows no sympathy towards Christians. Andreas
Köstenberger and separately Robert
E. Van Voorst state that the tone of the passage towards Christians is
far too negative to have been authored by a Christian scribe - a conclusion
shared by John P. Meier. Robert
E. Van Voorst states that "of all Roman writers, Tacitus gives us
the most precise information about Christ". John
Dominic Crossan considers the passage important in establishing that
Jesus existed and was crucified, and states: "That he was crucified is as
sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...
agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact." Bart D. Ehrman states:
"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was
executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime
during Tiberius's reign." have
debated the historical value of the passage, given that Tacitus does not reveal
the source of his information However,
Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also
likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not
need other sources.
[i] Michael
Grant, The Ancient Historians, (New
York, Barnes and Noble 1970) pp 275, 280
[ii] Josh
McDowell, New Evidence, p 120, 121;
