What the historians knew or didn't know
What they said (or should have said) about Jesus
The Romans were good administrators and good record keepers. There is nothing in Roman records of any of it.
Are there any surviving archives? I don't know of any.
What survives are the works of various historians, and none of Jesus Christ's contemporaries mentioned him, even when they might have done so.
This is a legitimate argument that they might not have known of him, or also, they knew something but discounted it as unimportant. However, it's not an argument that Jesus is fictional, or that anything about him in the Gospel accounts is fictional or dubious. (And "fictional" here doesn't just mean literally nonexistent, but also being so much different than the real historical figure that the character presented is effectively or virtually nonexistent, i.e., "fictional" in the loose sense.)
So, to say they didn't know of him is plausible, but not that this implies anything fictional about the Jesus appearing in the Gospel accounts. These accounts can be criticized as inaccurate in some way, but this judgment doesn't follow from anything about writers not mentioning him -- argument from silence.
Is it suspicious that Jesus is not mentioned by contemporary writers?
Why is this point made about the historical Jesus? Are we to assume something is amiss about the 1st-century Jesus as an historical figure (as depicted in the Gospels) because of the fact that he's not mentioned by certain contemporary writers/historians? Let's be moderate about the "Argument from Silence" and allow that this argument is not 100% wrong. Let's say it's maybe 50% legitimate as an argument, in cases where we're entitled to see some mention or reference to an alleged event or historical person, and yet this event/person is conspicuously absent. We need to consider each such case to see if we're entitled to find such a reference to him, and then to be suspicious when we find the writings in question are silent.
Should someone like Jesus be mentioned by the contemporary historians? ("contemporary" = maybe from 50-150 AD?)
It's an exception for the historians/writers to mention their contemporaries (other than the current emperor or famous general, or maybe a high political office-holder). They focus mainly on the dead historical persons 50-100-200 years earlier, also on acquaintances they knew directly, including their family, but not on a contemporary prophet or philosopher or writer, etc. whom they didn't know personally.
Socrates is mentioned by Plato and Xenophon, but only because they knew him personally, directly. The Stoic philosopher Seneca is mentioned very briefly by Tacitus, but only because Seneca was directly involved with the Emperor Nero. Without involvement like this directly with someone holding high political power, there'd be no mention of a famous philosopher or teacher or writer, etc., by a contemporary writer -- or if there is it's extremely rare.
Exceptions to this? What's the closest example of an ancient writer mentioning any contemporary other than someone of political power, and other than a direct acquaintance? Since Jesus had no impact on political power and no acquaintance with an historian or writer, there's no reason to expect that he'd be mentioned in the contemporary historical writings of his time.
Or again,
can anyone give us an example of this (in ancient history):
a writer mentioning a contemporary other than someone high in political power? or a contemporary to whom the writer has personal acquaintance? "contemporary" = living at the same time, rather than 100 or more years later
No doubt an example somewhere can be found. But it's probably a rare exception, so we should not require that there be such mention of an historical character by a contemporary writer as if this is a criterion to judge that the particular character must be fictional if such mention of him is lacking.
We can easily find names of real historical figures who are totally ignored by the contemporary writers. So such a rule that there must be this contemporary attestation is mostly disproven by the many examples which violate this rule and also by the so few cases to illustrate this rule as being the norm. Rather, the opposite of this rule is the norm.
Philo of Alexandria (Philo Judaeus: "Philo the Judean/Jew"): ~ 20 BCE - ~ 50 CE
He was interested in eccentric Jewish sects, and he . . .
Only
ancient sects which had existed already for more than a century. He was not interested in any new Jewish sects, like that of Jesus, appearing in recent history toward his own time.
. . . and he would have been willing to write about JC if he had known about JC.
Why didn't he write about John the Baptizer who had an eccentric and conspicuous cult following and likely was connected to the Essenes or similar sect? If Philo was disinterested in this cult figure, why assume he'd be interested in Jesus? or in the Jesus cult(s) appearing later than John's cult?
Philo names no Jewish teachers near to his own time, actually mentions no Jewish rabbis or prophets other than ones from the official Scriptures of centuries earlier. He makes no mention of the most famous rabbis of this period, Rabbis Hillel (died 10 BC) and Shammai (50 BC - 30 AD). Both of these were far more famous and recognized than Jesus in the time of Philo. In addition to John the Baptizer he also ignores James the Just, who was more popular and recognized than Jesus during this period. So there's no reason to think Philo should have mentioned Jesus, considering that he never mentioned so many others who were more well-known than Jesus was.
Flavius Josephus (Latiniized "Joseph"): ~ 37 CE -- ~100 CE
He wrote some books on Biblical and then-recent Jewish history, and he does not seem to have known about JC.
But he DID know about JC, even if you discount the famous text that is disputed. He mentions Jesus and James in Antiquities 20 chapter 9, where he says the phrase "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
His interest is directed more to James, who is the topic in this text and was more prominent than Jesus in the 1st century. But he obviously did know of "Jesus, who was called Christ." So it's incorrect to say he didn't know about JC. Most scholars accept this as an authentic quote from Josephus, and assume it refers to Jesus of 30 AD. Only a small minority of scholars dismiss it as some kind of later Christian interpolation.
So there's nothing jarring about Jesus being unmentioned by Philo and some other writers. And there actually is at least one reference in Josephus. It wasn't normal for the writers to mention anyone other than those in political power. But it is jarring to some Christians to learn that John the Baptizer and James and some others were more popular or more recognized than Jesus, at that time. The wide reputation of Jesus doesn't develop until 100-200 years later, not during his lifetime as in the case of John and James.
Maybe the reputation of Jesus the miracle-worker would have spread faster and caught up sooner if he had lived longer, like 10-20 years, doing the healing miracles longer. By comparison to all the others his public life is extremely short. We don't know for sure about the length of John the Baptist's public career, which also might have been short.
The simple straightforward conclusion to draw from all this is: Jesus is reported in the accounts as doing miracle acts, while no others are, and this must be
because he actually did perform such acts while none of the others did. There's no other explanation why he alone is credited with doing such acts while many others of higher status are not credited with doing such acts, even though there is mention of them and some are more widely recognized than Jesus was at that time.
The main evidence cited for his knowing about JC is the "Testimonium Flavianum" - something that seems very out of character for him, and something that some people have proposed to be some scribe's note that got misinterpreted as part of the text.
But this is NOT the "main evidence" that Josephus knew of him, since this text is disputed and thus is doubtful, whereas the other text "Jesus, who was called Christ" is not disputed. And yet even the disputed text is still thought to be an edited version of something originally from Josephus, which later got interpolated. So there are probably two Josephus texts, one disputed, which is good evidence that he knew of the Jesus of 30 AD.
Also, Josephus mentions Philo briefly, because the latter got involved in a political dispute involving the Emperor Caligula. This illustrates again the importance of connection to political power, or having an impact on the events, as a reason a writer would mention a contemporary. This might include official recognition by the Jewish religious Establishment, holding a high position, as an important factor. Since Jesus had none of this official status or connection or impact, we'd expect him to get little or no mention in the contemporary writings/histories.
If there's any omission by Josephus which is jarring, it would be his total neglect of the Rabbis Hillel and Shammai, who had official standing as recognized Jewish teachers/scholars. But this omission doesn't mean he was ignorant of Hillel:
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7698-hillel -------- When Josephus ("Vita," § 38) speaks of Hillel's great-grandson, Simeon ben Gamaliel I., as belonging to a very celebrated family (γένους δφόδρα λαμροῦ), he probably refers to the glory which the family owed to the activity of Hillel and Gamaliel I. Only Hillel's brother Shebna (
Soṭah 21a) is mentioned;
This example illustrates that in some cases a writer omits mention of an important person he knew of, so such omissions don't necessarily mean the writer did not know.
He mentions some self-styled prophets like Theudas and "the Egyptian", and he mentioned a riot in the Jerusalem Temple that was provoked by a Roman soldier exposing himself there.
The only reason he mentions Theudas and The Egyptian is that these were militant insurrectionists who led thousands of rebels out to do battle with the Romans. Except for this noteworthy political impact, involving Roman lives lost in battle, Josephus would have said nothing about these two characters.
He described King Herod I "The Great", the Herod of . . . [etc.]
Prominent political power-wielder.
Pontius Pilate at the "Trial"
Both Philo and Josephus also describe Pontius Pilate, a Roman provincial governor, as being a rather ruthless administrator, even by Roman standards. That is very contrary to what we find in the Gospels, of PP being reluctant to condemn JC, and . . .
There is nothing unrealistic about Pilate questioning the charges against Jesus. No matter how rotten Pilate was generally, this doesn't mean he wouldn't question the charges being made. He probably had good reason to doubt the accusations.
. . . and him sort of being pushed into doing so by the Jewish leadership.
Or "by the Jewish crowd" -- the "high priests" are there making accusations, but this doesn't necessarily mean the entire Sanhedrin, nor does it mean only the leaders, because a "crowd" is also there pushing Pilate. And there could have been a good reason for Pilate's reluctance toward a kind of lynch mob scenario taking place, so nothing about Pilate here is necessarily unrealistic.
It's important to note that this was not an official "trial" done by the book. There were members of the Sanhedrin who were NOT present, staying away because they opposed what was happening, some even being in sympathy with Jesus. Not all actions done were conducted according to the rules, which is normal when there are many rules or formalities that get in the way, and in this case there were many reasons to circumvent the rules and settle the matter, whatever it takes.
If Pilate is too much taking sides in favor of Jesus, it's not out of sympathy to an innocent victim, but out of his hatred for Judeans who were the accusers, toward whom he was negatively inclined. But then when he understood that there were anti-Roman rebels connected to Jesus, he changed and ordered the execution. There is nothing at all unrealistic here about him portrayed as not believing the charges initially. Just because he was generally rotten does not mean he would automatically condemn someone accused without questioning the charges.
Just because the Gospel accounts exaggerate Pilate's reluctance to condemn him doesn't mean the account is fiction. It's reasonable that he refused at first because he thought it was a petty squabble between some Judeans and Galileans, and he did have a special hate for Judeans.
That seems out of character for a Roman provincial governor, and certainly him, because he would not want some self-styled king to challenge Rome's rule.
It's not "out of character" as long as there was reason to doubt the accusations.
The texts say that Pilate did not believe the accusers but suspected there was some other motive they had against Jesus. There's no evidence to contradict this depiction of Pilate or of the accusers. If he truly thought they were fabricating accusations against Jesus, it was not out of character for him to hesitate. It isn't that he felt sorry for Jesus, but that he despised these Judeans. He probably yielded as soon as he was convinced that the recent insurrection had some connection to Jesus. That Barabbas appears as one of the insurrectionists suggests that this proceeding was probably prompted by that incident, i.e., the riot at the temple and assault on the moneychangers.
Despite some exaggerations, distortions, discrepancies, we should assume that the written record of this "trial" is accurate at those points where the accounts all agree about what happened, while granting that it's probably exaggerated. So instead of insisting that Pilate never hesitated at all, it's much more reasonable to assume he did hesitate at first, because there was doubt as to the accusations and guilt of Jesus. This probably included a claim that he had incited the riot.
Did Jesus really instigate the riot at the Temple?
Whether Jesus had really incited this riot might have been in dispute: If it's true that he led the riot, why had he not been arrested right then when it happened? And what if it was really Barabbas who had instigated the riot? Why was Barabbas arrested but not Jesus? That Barabbas is the one who was arrested suggests that he was more conspicuous than Jesus as the one leading the riot.
How to "CLEANSE" a Temple: The accounts of the riot have Jesus going into a rage, dragging each of the moneychangers to the door, kicking and screaming, and casting them outside violently, probably into a crowd of people and maybe scattering them this way and that, thus causing a disturbance. And he did this violent act several times, not just once, because he had to seize each moneychanger in turn and repeat this violent act again and again, dragging each one to the door and casting them headlong into the crowd, maybe knocking down or injuring a bystander. (Or can we imagine him somehow grabbing them all up at once to be carried to the door? -- something's not right about this picture.)
How did he get away with this blatant crime, lasting several minutes, and not be arrested? The police arrived soon enough to arrest Barabbas and probably others, so why didn't they arrest Jesus who couldn't have escaped notice, with all the commotion he was obviously causing?
And note also: There's no plausible explanation why this "cleansing" was necessary, or what the moneychangers were doing wrong. These legitimate operators were performing a needed service for the Temple, so the regular priestly functions could be carried out for the benefit of worshipers. No one has ever explained what proper action Jesus was performing by assaulting these workers at the Temple. Since this act by him was blatantly illegal, it's likely that this was the direct act that provoked the authorities to arrest him on criminal charges, and so this incident probably is connected with the "trial" and condemnation of him before Pilate.
The Barabbas episode
The Barabbas appearance in the accounts doesn't make sense, as presented. Yet all the accounts say he was brought forth to make some point. No one has explained what the point is. To make a metaphor out of it makes no sense, and neither does it make sense to say there was no Barabbas incident at all. Something must have happened involving this Barabbas character, even if it's not clear.
What's almost certain is that the "trial" is connected to the earlier Temple riot where Barabbas was arrested, and likely relates to the guilt for inciting the riot and doubt about who the real instigator was. This can explain why Pilate was hesitant, because he wasn't convinced about who really was to blame for starting the riot.
The Gospels obviously don't give any straightforward explanation, so we have to speculate.
One simple explanation (or part of the explanation) is that it was not Jesus at all who started the riot but someone else, and Jesus was nearby and got blamed in some way. It's certainly likely that Pilate was questioning the charges, as all the accounts say, and likely it was about guilt for inciting the riot -- and quibbling over whether Pilate was a bad person has nothing to do with it.
All the sources agree (no discrepancy) that Pilate hesitated but then pronounced the death sentence -- so his hesitation is likely part of the original event.
At some point Pilate acknowledged a connection of Jesus to the insurrectionists, probably believing Jesus was a "King of the Jews" pretender of some kind. The time-span of his hesitation might have been only a minute or 2, as he hesitated at first until the accusers convinced him. He might have suspected Barabbas was the real instigator and so tried to switch the blame from Jesus to Barabbas, and so at first he demanded better evidence from the accusers.
It's probably correct to say the Gospel accounts exaggerate this and artificially make Pilate appear heroic in defending Jesus. It's plausible that they all contain this exaggeration, based on a real detail from the original event, but not plausible that each account introduced its own distortion to have Pilate showing reluctance which he did not show -- they would not all fabricate such a detail. Fabrication of a whole new detail by each of the 4 accounts is much less likely than exaggeration of something already part of the original account or version of the story. And since all the accounts agree, and there's no evidence otherwise, we should assume Pilate resisted at first and had to be convinced -- and this moment of hesitation could easily have gotten exaggerated by all the writers sympathetic to Jesus who they thought was innocent.
Some such speculation as this can explain what happened while in no way contradicting the consensus among all the sources that Pilate was mean and evil and rotten.
en.wikipedia.org
