Excerpts from

From Jesus to Christianity (2004)

by L. Michael White

Jesus did not come as the founder of a new religion, and yet a new religion Christianity, was founded in his name or, more precisely, in his memory. In this section we will look at how it all began. Belief in Jesus was central to the new movement from the very beginning, in the obscure days and years following his death. Ironically, that is where the story commences—with the death of Jesus. Jesus was a Jew born in the last years of Herod's reign, sometime before 4 BCE. He died as a criminal at the hands of the Roman provincial governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. As with his birth, the date of his death can only be approximated; he probably died in the first few years of Pilate's administration, that is, around 26-29 CE. Ever since, the questions have been: "What happened?" and "Why?" But those are not easy questions.

We may start with some basics. That Jesus was a real figure of first-century Judean history is no longer much questioned, as it once was. Later sources from opposing camps—Romans, Jews, and Christians—show that all sides acknowledged both his life and his death. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 117 CE, clearly outlines some of the raw facts. Speaking of the great fire of 64 CE that ravaged Rome, Tacitus says:

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 Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, 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. (Annals 15:44)

As this text shows, by Tacitus's day Christians had become a known commodity in Rome; the author was neither impressed nor sympathetic. Nor did he like Jews very much. So there is hardly any reason to think that Tacitus has somehow doctored the facts. Although Tacitus confirms the basic facts regarding Jesus's death under Pilate, he tells us little more and Jesus remains an enigma.

The Ancient Sources About Jesus

The Jewish and Christian sources, on the other hand, are more difficult in this regard. Although they tend to give us considerably more information, they are inherently biased either in favor of or against a religious understanding of Jesus. Neither sort of biased presentation can be taken at face value, especially when it comes to the reporting of past events. And therein lies the difficulty, since none of these sources come from the time of Jesus himself. Nor are there any contemporary court records or even casual reports as to what happened. All accounts are from decades and even centuries later. Jesus himself wrote nothing and left no direct archaeological evidence on the landscape of Judea. It is as if no one really cared to keep a record at the time, but later, after the movement had started to take off, people began to reflect on Jesus's life, what happened to him, and why. But then, as time passed and the Christian movement became more organized, the "why" was increasingly the object of apologetic interests and theological interpretation. Later still, as Jews and Christians came into greater conflict over Jesus's identity, Jewish texts take a polemical stance in order to counter Christian claims. Thus, these later sources—and here we must include the Gospels—reflect ideas and issues that were not at work in Jesus's own day or at the time of his death. . . .

Other ancient sources reflect a different problem—later tampering with texts to make them support certain ideas. This problem is seen in an infamous passage from Josephus. Because Josephus is such an important source for Jewish history in the early period and an eyewitness to the first revolt, his possible knowledge of Jesus has received considerable speculation. The passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, comes from Antiquities 18:63-64:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets had foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Josephus wrote the Antiquities in the mid-90s CE; however, the passage above is widely considered to be a Christian forgery, either in whole or in part, inserted centuries later. The parts in bold above almost all scholars agree are Christian interpolations; the remainder are doubted by some but accepted by others. There are several reasons. The parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War make no mention of Jesus, and Christian writers as late as the third century CE who made extensive use of Josephus's Antiquities show no awareness of it. Had it been there, they would have gladly used it for proof of Christian claims. Instead, these same writers, notably Origen, admit that Josephus did not believe in Jesus.

On the other hand, another passage in the Antiquities makes reference to an event in 62 CE under the high priest Ananus. The event was the trial and death of the Christian leader James, whom Josephus describes as "the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ." Since few scholars doubt that this passage is authentic, it indicates that Josephus knew about Jesus, or had at least heard Christian claims about him. So it appears that the nonboldfaced portions of the Testmonium Flavianium may well be genuine . . .

The Four Gospels as Historical Sources

So where do the Christian Gospels fit in all of this? They are without doubt some of the earliest sources we possess regarding the life and death of Jesus. Some are earlier than, or at least contemporaneous with, Josephus; almost all are earlier than Tacitus. But they still come from a considerably later period than Jesus himself. The earliest is the Gospel of Mark, which was written sometime between 69 and 75 CE . . . Thus, all of the Gospels come from a period at least forty years—or one full generation—after the death of Jesus. In fact, they all come after the first revolt. The latest, the Gospel of John, might be from a full century later, depending on where we finally date it . . .

The Gospels are not "histories" as such, at least not in any modern sense. Rather, they fall into the ancient literary category known as "lives," such as were written of Alexander the Great and other famous people. It was quite common in such literature to embellish the story with fanciful or romantic details, some of which might or might not be true. Many times the sources were oral traditions, legends, and exaggerations that grew up to fit the frame or persona of the character in later times. So, for example, it became common in the later lives of Alexander the Great to attribute his birth to miraculous conception, accompanied by a number of signs and omens, all of which were to demonstrate that this was to be a person with divine gifts and powers. A similar story later crept into some versions of Augustus's life . . . In like manner, the Gospels were written as "lives" of Jesus as the founder of the Christian movement. They are thus products of later reflection on his life in the light of the importance that later believers placed on him. They are, in that sense, expressions of the faith of those early Christians who told and retold the story of Jesus in the later decades of the first century.

From a historical perspective, therefore, we must constantly be aware of several important methodological considerations when looking at the Gospels. In some ways,they apply to any piece of ancient narrative that depicts past events . . .

1. We must always be aware of when the account was written relative to the actual events that is purports to describe. Of course, it is much easier when there is a clear date given for a particular writing. Even so, most ancient sources (and modern ones too) give us some clues about the perspective from which they were written, which lead to several other historical questions.

2. What is the stance or perspective from which the author is recounting the events, and is there some indication of later perspectives or new information?

3. What was the situation or purpose of the writing, and what was the account doing in its own time and later?

4. What were the sources for the author, and how were they used?

5. From there we can begin to ask whether the account is an accurate rendering of the earlier event in all respects. Or is there some sort of "spin" being put on the account that becomes more intelligible in view of the author's situation or agenda?

In the final analysis, then, we are always asking two equally important historical questions simultaneously: What really happened? and Why did a later writer tell the story of what happened in a particular way? We cannot hope to answer either question without addressing them both. In both cases, and in all our historical study, the most important issue will be context—the original context of an event as well as the context of those who told the story of that event in later generations. Nor is this an effort to deny the faith stance of the Gospels (or any other piece of religious literature) or to discount it in favor of some arbitrary notion of history. Quite the contrary. Only by recognizing the beliefs and goals of both the authors and their audiences can we hope to understand their writings. [95-100]

Each of the Gospels tells the story in a different way. That means more than merely rearranging certain episodes or adding new sayings here and there . . . Changing the order and wording of such episodes usually reflects a distinctive understanding of Jesus’s life, teachings, and death on the part of the Gospel author who was far more interested in the theological significance carried by the story than in historical accuracy. [116]

QUESTIONS:

1) What are the author's main points about the use of historical sources for the life of Jesus?

2) Why can we not take historical sources (the Gospels or any others) at face value as an simple account of what happened? Explain.