Articles:
The Life of Christ
by Jeff Kimble

Jesus and Extra-Biblical History

Nearly all of the historical evidence for the life and teaching of Jesus comes from the New Testament, especially the gospels. The few extra-biblical sources that refer to him add little to the New Testament record. The two most common extra-biblical references to Jesus come from Tacitus Annals XV. 44 and Josephus Antiquities XVIII. 63-64. Unlike other extra-biblical references, these sources directly mention Jesus. The Annals mention only his title, Christus, and his execution in Judea by order of Pontius Pilatus. This is the only clear pagan reference to Jesus before AD 150.

"To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians. whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor by order of the procurator Pon­tius Pilatus. But the deadly cult though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready fol­lowing." (Annals)

By referring to Christ by name (Christus), and the general period of his death (executed when Tiberius was emperor, AD 14-37 and Pilate was governor, AD 26-36), Tacitus seems to place Jesus on an histori­cal timeline. But Tacitus' record hardly counts as an independent witness to the his­toricity of Jesus. His account merely repeats what Christians generally believed about the origin of the Christian movement since its beginning: that Christus, a man executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, originated the sect. Nowhere does Tacitus suggest that his mention of Christ is based on any official records of Christ's execution or anything more than what Christians commonly believed about their origins, historical or not. So, as historical evidence, Tacitus' brief no­tice of Christ only amounts to hearsay even though it comports with the New Testament record.

The second reference, however, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, carries a little more historical weight. Found in Josephus' Antiquities, it remains the only clear Jewish reference to Jesus during this period. But most scholars agree that the text referring to Christ is a Christian rewriting of the original penned by Josephus. They, nevertheless, accept that the original text did mention Je­sus, though perhaps in a less complimentary vein.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a performer of astonishing deeds, a teacher of men who are happy to accept the truth. He won over many Jews, and indeed also many Greeks. He was the Messiah. In response to a charge presented by the leading men among us, Pilatus con­demned him to the cross; but those who had loved him at first did not give up, for he ap­peared to them on the third day alive again, as the prophets of God had spoken this and thousands of other wonders about him. And still to this day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not disappeared." (Antiquities)

The historical value of this passage rests on a number of points: First, in a later section of the Antiquities (XX 200), Josephus again mentions Jesus in a reference widely ac­cepted as authentic. According to Josephus, in AD 62 Ananus, the newly appointed high priest, was abruptly removed from office because he illegally "covened the court of the Sanhednn, and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Messiah, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law. and handed them over to be stoned.'

According to some scholars, calling Jesus "the so-called Messiah," without any editorial explanation for his Gentiles readers, assumes a measure of literary dependence on the earlier Testimonium Flavianum for es­sential background information. "In other words, this short reference to Jesus in Book XX depends on the longer one in Book XVIII. If the longer one is not genuine, this passage lacks its essential background; if this passage is what Josephus wrote, then the previous discussion of Jesus (in the Testimonium Flavianum) cannot be dis­missed as a Christian interpolation either."

It seems likely, therefore, that both passages accurately express the thoughts of Josephus with a fair degree of reliability. Secondly, unless the events surrounding Jesus actually occurred, no discernible reason exists for Josephus to mention them. Josephus pre­sumably refers to Jesus because the facts surrounding his ministry and death circulated as part of the shared, popular history of Palestine during that time. Lastly, as a native Palestinian, Josephus likely knew Pales­tinian history and enjoyed ready access to firsthand information to corroborate his his­torical claims. Unlike Tacitus, therefore, Josephus arguably offers a stronger inde­pendent witness to the historical Jesus.

These passages, along with other minor extra-biblical references, offer a brief but unanimous picture of Jesus confirmed by the gospels: namely, that Jesus lived and resided in Palestine during the first century; that the Jewish leadership played a role in his death: that the Romans crucified him during the governorship of Pontius Pilate: and that many people saw his miracles, al­though some attributed them to sorcery. Thus the extra-biblical evidence confirms the gospel tradition concerning Jesus only in a very limited sense. But this comes as no sur­prise. Jesus held no distinguished social po­sition, attracted minimal attention as a teacher and miracle-worker, lived in a re­mote Palestinian province, and died at the order of a minor provincial governor. Under­standably then, extra-biblical history, which tends to focus mostly on celebrated rulers and notable political figures, offers only a minimal portrait of Jesus making extra-biblical sources alone a poor starting point for an adequate understanding of his life and teaching. Since the bulk of the evidence for Jesus comes mainly from the gospels, any serious investigation of Christ must begin here.

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition

Written as anthologies, the gospels comprise the written ac­count of Jesus as compiled and arranged by the four gospel writ­ers. Prior to the written gospels, however, the Jesus tradition circu­lated in the form of oral stories. In an age without the printing press, a great deal of information was persevered and passed on this way. In Jewish culture this prac­tice ensured that the religious tra­dition passed intact from one gen­eration to the next. Jewish rabbis, for example, developed elaborate means by which to communicate the tradition orally from genera­tion to generation.Rabbinic schools, which majored in the study of the law, taught the importance of careful memory work." Preserving the faith led many rabbis to memorize the en­tire Old Testament and much of the oral law. The home, school, synagogue reinforced this practice to such a degree that the Jewish historian Philo, said that the Jews, "carry the likeness of the com­mandments enshrined in their souls." Preserving religious tradi­tion was ingrained in their culture.

As evidenced from the New Testament documents similar care was taken to preserve and pass on the oral traditions of Jesus..Luke affirmed that the tradition he received had roots in those who were eyewitnesses and minis­ters of the word (Luke 1:1-4). When Paul writes about the gospel message or the tradition of the Last Supper that he passed on to the Corinthian church, he uses the language of tradition carefully passed on: 'I preached to you [the gospel] which you received' (1 Cor. 15:1), and, 'I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you' (11:23). The terms 'received' and 'passed on' are technical terms for hearing and passing on tradi­tion. In fact, Paul's version of this event reads virtually the same as how Luke recorded the event (Luke 22:14-23), showing that the church 'passed on' events in much the same way Judaism did. Nu­merous other passages reflect the use of Jewish forms of tradition, suggesting the apostles' connec­tion to the passing on of tradition; in some cases the oral tradition took on a fairly fixed form as it started to be passed on. In time, however, the oral traditions gave way to written ones. These written traditions probably became the source material for various portions of the gospels. Luke, for ex­ample, says that he examined many of the oral and written sources in the preparation of his gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye­witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated every­thing from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly account for you, most ex­cellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4)

Luke compiled his account from the "many" who, previous to his gospel, drew up written accounts about Jesus. He also referred to the oral traditions "handed down" by the first "eyewitnesses and servants of the word." And having examined his sources carefully, Luke composed his own "orderly" two volume account, Luke-Acts. Luke outlines in brief compass the three stages of gospel transmis­sion: the oral tradition stage, the source (written) tradition stage, and the stage of final authorship. The stage of final authorship refers to the composition of the gospels themselves.

Jesus and the Gospels

In the final stage of authorship, the gospel writers compiled and arranged the gospels to address the concerns of their respective audiences. The gospel of Matthew, for example, addressed primarily to a Jewish audience, attempts, among other things, to prove that Jesus fulfills ancient messianic expectations. The writer thus extensively quotes Old Testa­ment scripture to support that claim. The gospel of Luke, on the other hand, is written to a predominately Gentile audience as evidenced by die book's Greco­-Roman styled dedication to Theophilus, a Greek. Luke avoids Aramaic words such as "Rabbi" and "Abba, and, as early as the second chapter, highlights Christ's interest in redeeming the Gentiles. The gospels of Mark and John follow the same practice. But the gospel of John offers an account that differs significantly from the other gospels. As evident in read­ing the gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke structure the ministry of Jesus according to a general geo­graphical sequence: ministry in Galilee, withdrawal to the North (with Peter's confession as a cli­max and point of transition), ministry in Judea and Perea while Je­sus is on his way to Jerusalem (less clear in Luke), and final ministry in Jerusalem. Very little of this sequence can be found in John, where the focus is on Je­sus' ministry in Jerusalem during his periodic visits to the city. In content, the first three evangelists narrate many of the same events, focusing on Jesus' healings, exor­cisms, and teaching in parables. John, while narrating several sig­nificant healings, has no exorcisms and no parables (at least of the type found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Also, many of the events we think of as charac­teristic of the first three gospels are absent from John: the sending out of the Twelve, the transfiguration, the Olivet discourse, the last-supper narrative. By having Jesus on the move and by juxtaposing actions-miracles, especially-with (usually) brief teachings, the first three evangelists convey a tone of intense, rapid-fire action. This is quite in contrast to the more med­itative tone of John, who narrates far fewer events than do the synoptic evangelists and prefers to present Jesus as speaking in long discourses rather than in brief parables or pithy sayings.

Together, the four gospels offer the most extensive historical-theological account of Christ's life given m ancient times. The gospel writers collected, adapted and re­worded their sources and gave the church four theological histories of Christ's life and teaching.

The gospels come to us not as dispassionate history. Their com­positions stand as no mere chronology of events. The gospels come as a theological interpretation of Jesus which fully comports with type of history written at that time. To impose a modern conception of history as a purely chronological account prevents an accurate reading of the many topi­cally arranged portions in the gospels and misunderstands the nature of first century historical writing.

Rearranging, adding, omitting, and rewording need not detract from the historicity of the event or the teaching concerned. Why? First because, as Christians be­lieve, the Holy Spirit directed the process of writing the gospels. Both the process and the outcome were supernaturally directed. Secondly, from a merely human point of view, even newspapers will frequently rewrite for their own readers news-service reports that they receive, but their rewrites need not necessarily affect the ac­curacy of the report. Major speeches will sometimes be sum­marized in a few words or excerpts will be taken from them. In so doing, different newspapers may focus on different emphasis in the same speech. We do not ac­cuse these newspapers of inaccu­racy in doing this; nor should we accuse the evangelists of historical inaccuracies if they summarize, excerpt, or reword Jesus' own say­ings.

Gospels as Portraits of Jesus

As historical documents, the gospels do not fall neatly into any specific type of ancient literary form. In very general terms, they re­flect the literary style of ancient biography, but pressed too far even this description can be misleading. So, rather than define their type by the conventional literary forms of an­tiquity, for the sake of clarity, it seems best to define their type by analogy.

We might compare them [the gospels] to three types of visual art-a photograph, a painted portrait, and an abstract painting. A photograph records everything about a sub­ject and is virtually objective. Its limitation is that it cannot be very interpretive of the sub­ject. A painted portrait is selective in details, highlighting certain aspects of a subject while omitting others. An abstract painting conveys only a vague impression of its sub­ject and depends almost wholly on what the viewer is able to make of impressionistic de­tails and broad outlines on the canvas.

The gospels give us portraits of Jesus. Far too much has been omitted from the life of Jesus for the accounts to be considered photographs. The writers not only were selective in what they in­cluded; they also gave a particu­lar interpretation of the person and work of Jesus, making no at­tempt to give a wholly objective recording of the facts. Verbal portraits always leave a lot to the imagination of the reader, and those in the gospels are no ex­ception. Each gospel gives us a distinctive portrait of Jesus in which certain things arc high­lighted and others omitted.

The gospels come to us as histori­cal portraits with a religious aim. But because of their overtly reli­gious slant, some scholars dispute the gospel' s historical reliability. In their view, the historical "facts" come riddled with reli­gious biases so that the Jesus of "history" becomes indistinguish­able from the Jesus of "faith." The miracle stories, they insist, serve only to magnify the "religious" Jesus. The "historical" Jesus never performed any mira­cles. And so, these scholars conclude that the Jesus of the gospels lived only in the religious imagi­nation of the early Christians.

But this claim betrays a bias of its own. It assumes that the gospel writers, eager to pass on the theo­logical significance of Jesus, ei­ther deliberately or unwittingly embellished the facts in their ar­dor to convey the Christian message-as if to say that writing history with religious motivations precluded them from telling the truth. This assumption unduly subjects the gospels to a prejudi­cial reading. It rejects, from the outset, any possibility that they offer reliable history and so closes the door to reading the gospels on their own terms. In the gospels, history and theology both embrace the supernatural. Consequently, if the gospels are accepted as substantially reli­able, all other evidence must necessarily find its place in the context of the framework which they provide. It is only if the gospels are found unable to bear the historical weight that there can be any justification for building one's portrait of Jesus on hints and in­ferences drawn from the wider historical scene.

Jeff Kimble is the Business Data Specialist at Schenectady Christian School in New York. He also teaches a senior-level philosophy of religion class and leads a high school apologetics mentoring program.