30 AD: What was happening?
And who cared about any of it?
Pliny the Elder 23/24 CE - 79 CE was a military commander and researcher of just about everything who wrote a lot. But of his works, only his "Natural History" survives, and he makes absolutely zero mention of any of the miracles of Jesus . . .
There's no reason to expect this Roman author to have written anything about Jesus or other Jews of his time, or to have even known about them. He mentions a little of the geography there, but mentions no Jews by name.
The only possible connection of Pliny to Jews or Judea-Galilee would be that he spoke of the Essenes and their location near the Dead Sea. But this cannot be about Essenes during the time of Jesus, because Pliny's account of the Essenes is based totally on the much earlier history of the Essenes, back in the 1st and 2nd centuries BC. It was typical to restrict one's writings to much earlier subject matter, like 100 years earlier, and not about matters contemporary to the writer. (An exception like Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars etc. is the rare exception that makes the rule.)
Pliny's only source for the Essenes is Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, a Roman general back around 30 BC, and relates only to that time and earlier rather than anything during the time of Jesus or the term of Pontius Pilate. Except for his mention of the Essenes, he has nothing to say about any Jews or Jewish factions or Judeans or Galileans or the Roman/Jewish conflicts.
Did Roman writers care about Jewish dissidents? uprisings?
It's only in our modern Jewish/Christian culture that the Jewish-Roman wars of this period are thought to be a major event in this historical period, about 100 BC to 100 AD. Romans did not consider it important, except specifically in about 70 AD when it hit a climax, and even most Jews did not share the apocalyptic vision of the militant anti-Romans. They did not join forces against the Romans or support the militants going out to battle. Most were neutral and wanted the wars to stop and blamed both sides.
The crucifixion of Jesus sometime in 30-33 AD was not a widely-known event in the 1st century that would come to the attention of Roman writers, who were disinterested in Jewish politics and petty liberation crusaders. There's virtually no mention of Jewish leaders, including King Herod (37-4 BC), by a non-Jewish writer. Latin writers had no interest in Jewish leaders or in any possible rumors there may have been about another dissident Jew who got crucified as some kind of martyr.
Probably the 2nd most important Jewish ruler after King Herod would be Herod Agrippa ("king" unofficially) reigning from 37-44 AD, who was acquainted with Emperor Claudius. It appears there are NO Roman sources for this major Jewish figure until Cassius Dio (165 – 235 AD), illustrating that Roman writers had little or no interest in Jewish historical figures, neither the mainline leaders or the dissident rebels.
Here is a page giving Roman sources about Jews and Judaism
This appears intended as a comprehensive listing (though maybe only 99.9% exhaustive). In any case, this makes it very clear that Roman writers before about 200 AD had virtually nothing to say about any Jewish historical figures, no matter how important they were. From this it appears there is ONE ONLY mention of King Herod from all the Roman writers, anytime before 200 AD.
Virtually the only Jew given serious mention is Moses. And there's slight mention of 3 or 4 others from the time of Pompey imposing Roman rule in 63 BC.
Emperor Caesar Augustus in a decree mentions the High Priest Hyrcanus.
Geographer Strabo mentions first Moses, then skips to the Hasmonean Dynasty (167-63 BC) and names King Alexander Jannaeus and his sons Hyrcanus and Aristobulus who contended for the throne. He then mentions Herod the Great by name, and then refers to Herod's son Archelaus (not naming him). So this is our only Roman having anything to say about anyone Jewish, giving very brief mention to 4 or 5 Jews by name, and saying a little extra about Moses.
Historian Tacitus is also listed in the above, but no Jewish names are found other than Moses. End of list -- that's the entire listing here of Jews mentioned by any Roman writers. But, we could add one more -- i.e., the famous quote of Tacitus about the Christians killed in the persecution by Nero in 64 AD, in which Christ ("Chrestus") is mentioned as a troublemaker condemned to death by Pontius Pilate. Maybe this Tacitus reference was excluded above because some historians dispute this Tacitus quote.
So this is a virtual exhaustive listing of all Jews named by Roman writers before about 200 AD -- maybe half a dozen Jews named altogether, examples of Roman writers who name any noteworthy Jews. Then around 200 AD there finally appear some mentions by historian
Cassius Dio.
So if you exclude Jewish and Christian sources, we have almost no evidence that any ancient Jews existed, including King Herod.
So considering the virtual absence of any mention of Jews by Romans, why should the 1st-century writer Pliny the Elder mention Jesus? If he thought King Herod and all other famous Jews were not worthy of any mention in his writings, why should he suddenly make something important out of Jesus? He probably heard nothing of Jesus, or if he did, it was only something about another Jewish dissident who got crucified, of whom there were hundreds (thousands?), nothing noteworthy.
. . . zero mention of any of the miracles of Jesus Christ's crucifixion, like the sky becoming dark.
No Roman would ever write anything about the weather conditions during the crucifixion of an obscure Jewish dissident.
Luke adds that it was an eclipse of the sun (probably an embellishment by Luke). What difference does it make if the sky really became dark? Matthew and Luke simply accepted this from their Mark source. How dark is "dark"? Maybe it was cloudy. Or Mark added this for aesthetic reasons. Though most Christians today still want to pretend "the Bible" is infallible, in every detail, still they really know some details like this were added for aesthetic reasons.
His nephew Pliny the Younger 61 CE - ~113 CE ran into some early Christians and he asked what to do about these deniers of the official gods of the Roman Empire.
Lucian of Samosata ~125 CE - >180 CE was another writer. He wrote "The Passing of Peregrinus" in which he slammed early Christians as almost hopelessly gullible.
Notice how it's virtually impossible to find any Roman writer saying anything about the earlier Jews or Christians -- not just about Jesus, but about any Jew including those far more recognized than Jesus.
This 2nd-century Samosata, relating events 150 years later than Jesus, is not a legitimate source for the historical Jesus, other than as further attestation that Jesus did exist historically and was crucified, though we have sufficient 1st-century evidence for that. If he offered information debunking those 2nd-century Christians in some way, we should take it seriously since it's from his own time. Also he can be taken as a reliable source on false prophets like Peregrinus and others of the 2nd century, for whom Lucian might know some facts and be a primary source. But that he only poked fun at Christians of his time doesn't tell us anything about the miracles/Resurrection of Jesus 150 years earlier.
There's no reason to expect Roman writers to say something about an obscure Jewish dissident who got crucified (i.e., obscure in the 1st century).
He also wrote on a self-styled prophet, Alexander of Abonutichus, and describes him as a fraud. AoA would demand the expulsion of both Epicureans and Xians from his gatherings, because the Epicureans were skeptical about self-styled prophets, and because the early Xians denied all gods but theirs.
This tells us that there were writers then who debunked charlatans, and so alleged miracle-workers were not automatically believed but were scoffed at. So we can reasonably assume that if Jesus were such a charlatan, we'd likely have something near his time debunking the claims about his Resurrection etc.
That we have 4 (5) 1st-century sources attesting to the Jesus Resurrection/miracles and nothing debunking these is good evidence (not proof) that these miracle events did happen, or at least most of them happened, as the only explanation why we have this one conspicuous case of a miracle-worker for whom there is a written record near to his time, and no other such reported case.
E.g., for the two charlatans exposed by Lucian, Peregrinus and Alexander, there is no written record from anyone attesting to their miracle acts. Why? because no one took them seriously, in contrast to Jesus in about 30 AD. So all the evidence about these two, or all the facts from the writings, tells us that they were charlatans and did not really perform any miracle acts. Had they really done so, some writer would have seen the importance of it and would have recorded it for posterity, as the case of Jesus is reported in writings of the time.
Returning to the Gospels, gMatthew describes Jesus Christ as triumphantly entering Jerusalem as if he was some big celebrity. But Josephus doesn't mention that triumphant entry.
Something is wrong about the Triumphal Entry story, so it's difficult to interpret the point of it. Who wanted to include a story depicting Jesus arranging in advance to have a donkey prepared for him? i.e., to set the stage in advance for his Entry, to make sure the props are ready? Who were the ones at the donkey's location who knew of Jesus getting ready for this public performance and keeping the donkey there prepared for him for this scheduled event?
Whoever it was that wanted to include this story of Jesus making these advance preparations for the Great Triumphal Entry moment, these producers of a theatrical performance and their arrangement of the props, etc. -- these must have been some kind of apocalyptic Jewish crusaders acting according to their messianic vision which somehow made sense to them, but this could not have represented a typical Jewish vision of what the "Messiah" was to be.
So, there were many different messianic visions motivating different Jews -- this messianism was not a monolithic belief system that everyone subscribed to. Rather, any small faction could get its particular revelation into the story, putting its version of "Messiah" out there as THE Messiah for all, and maybe everyone would buy it, sort of, in the sense that no one ever said "No, that's not my belief," or "that's not the Messiah I'm talking about," etc. Rather, all the messianists were receptive to what anyone claimed about "Messiah" no matter how off-beat or nutty it may have been.
What is the Jewish MESSIAH idea?
Who originated it, or promoted it? and for whose consumption?
In general it was some kind of "King" hero-conqueror figure, but onto this very general outline one could place whatever made them feel good, for public consumption, even something nutty, and the general impulse was to accept it, rally around it if possible without asking critical questions -- asking questions and verifying anything was not the point. If the promoter with some vision is really a nutcase, you might sort of turn away to look elsewhere for your "messianic" material, but it was only impulses and feelings which drove anyone this way or that to find their "Messiah" to satisfy their craving. Like the motivation of a drug addict who will "try out" this or that in search of "the Real Thing" -- whatever seems to "fit" somehow -- it's difficult to calculate how someone decides what "makes sense" and what does not.
So whatever it was, this Messiah picture got put into the story, and someone bought it somehow, enough so that we now have this scenario recorded of the arriving "King of
the Jews" dispatching his agents somewhere to find a donkey he needs to be able to "ride into Jerusalem" like the ancient prophet prescribed -- somehow this narrative emerges, however nutty, and no one questions it. It gets put into the story through some strange process. Someone thought it made sense, and it's as though that one's will prevailed, as everyone else just yielded to it -- were they given some Donkey Stunt Kool-Aide to bring them on board with the idea? who knows? Even today it seems most Christians just accept this picture, even though it's comical and ludicrous.
Who created this "Messiah" product and marketed it?
Who was the customer?
So there was no "Council of Nicaea" session to debate what content would go into the "Messiah" story, but rather the "King of the Jews" idea just emerged from some different elements that came together with no one inspecting each element to see if it passed a test to make any sense, but just various impulses pushing this way or that so that after some end point we have a final "Messiah" picture popping out, an offspring somehow able to be seen as one entity but taking many different forms, getting passed along attached to its terminology and symbols in some way that pleases enough crusaders wanting this thing -- there's a general widespread seeking for it even though no one is quite sure what this thing is that they want.
How could normal messianic Jews believe this is the way the Messiah is going to present himself, needing to arrange for props and setting the stage in advance, having agents waiting somewhere to provide the donkey prop when it's needed for the show? It had to be abnormal -- not what most Jews understood, but somehow "making sense" to someone.
One explanation is that some charlatan messiah-pretender actually did do a stunt like this, requisitioning a donkey he knew of and planning to do this Entry into Jerusalem for an audience -- perhaps the audience, the crowd itself, was a paid group of actors, and this pretender planned to actually seize power at the Temple. And this fiasco then got attached to Jesus, causing someone to think it was Jesus who had organized the stunt and was the one riding that donkey.
Whatever the explanation, there's plenty of reason to question this reported event, or at least hope it was NOT what Jesus intended or envisioned -- to become the great King over all and making everyone his slaves -- and yet something must have happened for this triumphalist conquering picture of Jesus to get included in all 4 Gospel accounts. There was clearly the messianic vision among some Jews, anticipating a conquering warrior-hero to charge into the world, unleash the "Sons of Light" to massacre the "Sons of Darkness" and establish a grand Kingdom which would subject all non-Jews, Gentiles etc., to Yahweh and/or his King and make everyone his "footstool" -- this vision is not something Christ-believers or anyone should want.
The new IMPROVED Messiah, improved Formula
Of course the Jewish-Christian theology understanding is that this is to be a
different kind of Kingdom, not that of an Alexander the Great etc., but of an enlightened dictator, "anointed" like a King but not to subject everyone to a ruthless rule as all the known kingdoms historically have been which were established by inferior humans seeking to impose their power over all others for their selfish personal benefit/aggrandizement.
But there's no reason to believe that any Jewish Kingdom, if it had been successful in taking power and extending its rule as envisioned, would have turned out any better than all the others. Of course some "Kingdoms" or "Empires" might have been less brutal than others and might have performed some good along with the evil, but there's no reason to think any of these Kingdom or Messiah Visions is what humankind needs and is something to hope for as being Christ's plan with his "Kingdom of God" or "Eternal Life" promise.
Was Jesus really a "Kingdom of God" salesman?
Hopefully Jesus the miracle-worker did not really use the "Kingdom of God" language and these were words put into his mouth by later messianic apocalypticists using him as a tool to promote their vision of conquest over Gentiles (or Canaanites, or pagans, etc. even over Jews that observe the wrong calendar, etc.). You have to remember that it's not only Romans who are the enemy, but whoever Yahweh is angry at, for this or that reason.
In the Paul Epistles the "Kingdom of God" language is mostly avoided and instead it's "Eternal Life" which is offered to us. Since Paul is earlier and had direct contact with the original disciples, this might mean that the "Kingdom of God" rhetoric was not so important originally, maybe not used by Jesus, and that even Mark picked this up from the apocalyptic preachers rather than from a reliable source back to Jesus.
No doubt the militant apocalypticists very early seized upon the good news of Jesus the miracle-worker as something to fit into their conquering Messianic vision -- some of them having Jesus to be the "Son of Man" and others having Jesus announcing this coming conqueror and the grand end-of-the-world conflagration, plus a spectacular Judgment Day when most humans, 99.9% of them, are cast into the Lake of Fire, prepared for the Devil and all the hypocrites (who falsely claimed to be the good guys), while only the .1% elect Real McCoy faithful are granted eternal bliss (or the .1% elect are given rulership over the 99.9% enslaved etc.). Obviously the many different "Kingdom" visions contradict each other about the details, as each militant apocalyptic fanatic has his own particular version of who gets into the Kingdom vs. who is excluded or damned or made to suffer, and how they suffer, for having provoked Yahweh's wrath.
The Donkey -- a symbol of humility?
It's not clear that the Triumphal Entry scenario is intended to emphasize the low humble nature of the "King" riding on the donkey. This scene was not necessarily seen by messianists as conveying a humility theme, even though that's the religious interpretation today. If so, and the new "Messiah" is not really a traditional "King" at all, but only a Servant who saves us, maybe it's a harmless idea. But clearly those fire-breathing 1st-century messianists had in mind a Conqueror who would massacre millions of human enemies ("Sons of Darkness") and then enslave millions of others to his rulership, with probably the 12 Tribes having special power as appointed masters over these millions of slaves. Whatever they meant, we have no reason to want such a "Kingdom" to take place and every reason to hope this was not the vision of Jesus.
The worst possibility is that Jesus at first was tainted by some such "Kingdom" illusion, as a flaw in his understanding, but that he overcame this later. His "cleansing" the Temple and unprovoked assault on the moneychangers might be a major instance where this illusion prevailed over his better nature. That he might have been tainted in such a way does not negate the Good News and mean the miracle acts are fictional. Those must have happened, because if they did not, then there's no way to distinguish him from all the other preachers and prophets etc. who became totally forgotten in short order, even though many of them were more popular than Jesus was and should also have been mythologized into miracle-worker gods or heroes, if that's the way such miracle claims happen. But the evidence is that in some cases the miracle claims are true, even if 99.9% of such claims are fiction.
gMatthew continues with the people turning against him and wanting him crucified. But they said "His blood is on us and on our children!" which is very out-of-character for lynch mobs.
That dubious quote, only in Matthew, does not undermine the credibility of the general scene depicted, which is realistic in that historical situation. That lynch mob was not a normal gathering of Jews at a normal trial. But it was a lynch mob, as the evidence shows, all 4 accounts attesting to it. That the Matthew author exaggerated it doesn't change the basic evidence that it was a mob demanding his execution. The best explanation is that these were militant anti-Roman extremists who had wanted Jesus to start an insurrection against the Establishment -- against both Romans and the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem -- and when it was clear that he wouldn't do this, they turned against him.
This also explains why Judas betrayed him, because Judas too was one of the militants who turned against him when he saw Jesus would not support the insurrection. It also explains why they wanted Barabbas released, because Barabbas too was probably a militant who helped lead the riot at the Temple, even killing someone and being arrested for it, so that the rebels were sympathetic to him, seeing him as true to their cause, while seeing Jesus as a betrayer for not supporting their violent rebellion.
The "Trial"
The "lynch mob" demanding he be crucified
This militant aggressive mob of rebels were being very loud and restless, so that the way to pacify them was to condemn Jesus to death and release Barabbas, which was symbolic only, obviously -- and yet such symbolism is often the way to satisfy a mindless mob and avoid trouble -- let a scapegoat suffer as an easy resolution. Whereas the Christian writers later, or Jewish-Christian writers, knew Jesus was innocent and finally turned the blame against most or all Jews as responsible for the injustice of killing someone innocent and releasing the one who was guilty.
This is totally realistic, explaining the facts we have and what happened, i.e., the evidence or facts in the written record. Whatever the truth is has to accept the facts or evidence we have, as told to us in the written accounts, on the points where they agree or harmonize and are not contradicted by any sources. The only argument against this is that you don't like it -- it rubs you the wrong way, so you must create something else in place of the facts.
Plus also, there's no explanation for any of this unless Jesus did in fact do the miracle acts, which explains why he drew any attention at all and became expected by the messianic extremists to start the insurrection. So all the facts are explained by simply accepting the evidence that he must have done the miracle acts, causing him to become conspicuous as someone -- or The One -- to fulfill the messianic hopes, however deranged these hopes may have been (depending on which messianic version you choose).
It's OK if your impulse is to dismiss the miracle acts as impossible and therefore fiction. But then you are rejecting the evidence. You could argue that this is one case in history where the evidence has to be wrong. But you can't argue that these are not the facts, based on the historical record, or the written record from the time of the events.
