None of Roman or Jewish historical writers make mention of Jesus [Answered]

None of the important historical writers of the period—Roman or Jewish—make mention of Jesus. It’s questionable whether he even existed.

No reputable scholar in the world denies that Jesus existed. You might as well as deny the existence of George Washington or Julius Caesar. As for Roman and Jewish historians, there are important ancient testimonies from key authors who write of Jesus as well as his early followers. You might also be surprised to know that almost all of these sources tell us more about Jesus than they do about any contemporary Rabbinic leaders. Does this mean that these famous rabbis never existed?

Yohanan ben Zakkai was one of the key leaders of the early Rabbinic movement, and, without a doubt, one of the greatest of the Tannaim.¹²² In fact, Rabbinic tradition recognizes him as the successor of Hillel, who declared that he was “the father of wisdom” and “the father of coming generations” (y. Nedarim v., end, 39b). According to a famous account preserved in the Talmudic writings (see b. Gittin 56b; cf.

also Lamentations Rabbah i. 5; Avot de-Rabbi Nathan iv.), during the Jewish war with Rome in 67–70 c.e., after his calls for his countrymen to surrender were not heeded, he was smuggled out of Jerusalem in a casket.

He was then brought to Roman leadership who allowed him to make a new start in Yavneh, thereby laying the foundations of Rabbinic Judaism. Not surprisingly, Rabbinic literature has much to say about this influential leader, who according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “felt the fall of his people more deeply than any one else, but—and in this lies his historical importance—he did more than any one else to prepare the way for Israel to rise again.”¹²³

Interestingly, not a word is spoken about him in any external sources—neither Jewish nor Roman. The primary Jewish historian of the day, Flavius Josephus, himself a Pharisee, does not mention Rabbi Yohanan, despite providing the most detailed account of the Jewish war and the fall of Jerusalem. If anyone should have written about him, it is Josephus, but he did not.

And there is a not a single Roman source that corroborates the Rabbinic accounts about this highly esteemed rabbi, despite the Talmudic claim that he, like Josephus, prophesied that Vespasian would become emperor and that the Romans would defeat the Jews, and that he received permission from Vespasian himself to establish an academy in Yavneh upon fulfillment of his predictions. Despite this, not a Roman historian mentions him.

Should we therefore claim that Yohanan ben Zakkai did not exist? How absurd! All the more absurd is it to claim that Jesus did not exist, especially in light of the historical evidence that explicitly speaks of him.¹²⁴ Since numerous scholarly monographs have been written on this subject, showing clearly that Jesus was written about by key historians in the ancient world, both Gentile and Jewish, I will only summarize the evidence here:¹²⁵

From the classical writings (those of the ancient Greek and Latin writers), we have the following attestations:

Later writers report that the Greek historian Thallus, who wrote in approximately 55 c.e., claimed that the darkness at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion was caused by a solar eclipse.¹²⁶
Pliny the Younger (ca. 61–113 c.e.), both a senator and prominent lawyer in Rome who adjudicated the trials of many Christians, sending some to their execution, began to have doubts about the whole process, asking counsel from the emperor Trajan. In Letter 96 of Book 10 of his writings, he speaks of false Christians who willingly “reviled Christ” and others who admitted to having gathered for early morning worship and singing “a hymn to Christ as if to a god.”¹²⁷
Suetonius, whose full name was Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. 70–ca. 140 c.e.) was a Roman writer and lawyer. In his book The Deified Claudius, he writes that, “[Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus.”¹²⁸ Obviously, to Suetonius, “Christos” in Greek was a name of no significance, and he mistakenly understood it to be “Chrestos.”¹²⁹
Cornelius Tacitus, the greatest of the Roman historians (ca. 56–120 c.e.?) made specific reference to Jesus in his Annals, the last of his historical works. In describing the great fire that ravaged Rome in 64 c.e., he had occasion to refer to people “whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians’ ”—an obvious misunderstanding of the name “Christians” by the crowd—then explaining, “The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”¹³⁰
Other less important classical writers also speak of the historical Jesus, including Mara bar Serapion, writing sometime after 73 c.e., who speaks of Jesus as the “wise king” of the Jews;¹³¹ Lucian of Samosata (ca. 115–ca. 200 c.e.), who writes of “that one whom they still worship today, the man in Palestine who was crucified because he brought this new form of initiation into the world,” also referring to him as “that crucified sophist”;¹³² and Celsus, writing after 175 c.e., whose work attacking Christianity was largely preserved in Origen’s famous Contra Celsum, and who speaks of Jesus as a magician.¹³³

As summarized by professor Robert E. Van Voorst:

First, we note a significant variety of witnesses to Jesus in classical authors. The famous Roman writers on history and imperial affairs have taken pride of place: Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger. On the other end of the spectrum, the comparatively unknown writers Mara and Thallos have also contributed their voices. Philosophic opponents to Christianity such as Lucian and Celsus have also written about Christ. These writers have a range of opinion:

from those perhaps sympathetic to Christ (Mara); through those moderately hostile (Pliny) and those fully hostile but descriptive (Tacitus, Suetonius); to those not interested in description, but who vigorously attack Christianity and in the process attack Christ (Lucian and Celsus).

A variety of languages is also notable: Latin, the official language of Rome; Greek, both a common literary language and the language of trade; and Syriac, a main language of the eastern Mediterranean. Together, they speak of a variety of topics about Jesus’ teachings, movement, and death. And they know that Jesus is worshiped by Christians, which they relate to his founding of a movement.¹³⁴

This is certainly an adequate body of testimony.

As to the question of why there are not even more references to Jesus in the classical writings, Van Voorst suggests that for the Roman historians, “Christ” did not become much of an issue to them until Christianity became more of a pressing concern. As to why there were not more contemporary references to Jesus in the classical authors, Van Voorst points to several factors: First, the works of most of the classical historians contemporary with Jesus “have almost completely perished.”¹³⁵

Second, “historical interpretation of events was not the ‘instant analysis’ we have become accustomed to, for better or worse, in modern times.”¹³⁶ In other words, these writers were historians, not news reporters, and the more prominent the author, the more reluctant was he to be the first to recount the historical events. Rather, he preferred to look back at the reports of lesser historians and then to write a more major history.

Third, “Roman writers seem to have considered Christianity an important topic only when it became a perceived threat to Rome.”¹³⁷ Fourth, “Romans had little interest in the historical origins of other groups, especially ‘superstitions,’ ” and for these Roman writers, Christianity to them was just another Eastern superstition.¹³⁸ In any case, what should be stressed is that a number of key classical writers, in a fairly consistent way, attest to a man known as Christ who lived and died in Palestine and who founded a whole new religious movement.

In Jewish literature, it is well known that Josephus wrote about John the Immerser, Jesus, and Jacob (James) the brother of Jesus. It is equally well known, however, that virtually all extant manuscripts of the relevant portions of his writings contain later, Christian interpolations. The question is:

Are these reports total and complete forgeries, or are they embellishments of the actual words of Josephus? The scholarly consensus, both Jewish and Christian, points to the latter, recognizing that Josephus did, in fact, have something to say about Jesus.

The statements largely recognized as authentic are found in his Antiquities 20.9.1 §200, where he speaks of the high priest Annas bringing Jacob (James), whom he calls “the brother of Jesus called Christ,”¹³⁹ before the Sanhedrin, and, more significantly, in Antiquities 18.3.3 §63–64, where, in all extant manuscripts, he speaks about Jesus at length, and with some level of admiration. According to what has been called the neutral reconstruction of the text, the passage, now greatly abbreviated from its later form, reads:

Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of the people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, [but] those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared.¹⁴⁰

A Slavonic manuscript of Josephus also has him referring to Jesus in his (Jewish War 5.5.4 §214; Jewish War 5.5.2 §195; and Jewish War 6.5.4, replacing §313, but these are generally recognized as interpolations.¹⁴¹ As for the lengthier statement just quoted, the question is not whether Josephus wrote about Jesus; the question is how much he wrote. Regardless of how that question is answered, the fact remains that the most important Jewish historian of the first century of this era did write about Jesus.¹⁴²

As for the Rabbinic writings, there are numerous possible references to Jesus, under the name of Balaam, Ben Stada, or “a certain one,” but there is dispute about whether they really do refer to him (see, e.g., b. Shabbat 10b; t. Shabbat 11:15; b. Sanhedrin 67; t. Sanhedrin 7:16; m. Sanhedrin 10:2; m. Abot 5:19; b. Gittin 56b–57a; b. Sanhedrin 106b; m. Yebamot 4:13; b. Yoma 66d; t. Yebamot 3:3–4; b. Sanhedrin 106a; b. Hagigah 4b; note that a good number of scholars, including traditional Jews, do believe that many—or even most—of these passages do refer to Jesus, and that in extremely negative and derogatory terms).¹⁴³

There are also clear references to a certain “Yeshu,”¹⁴⁴ but either the Talmud has its chronology totally amiss, placing him in different centuries more than a hundred years apart (see b. Sanhedrin 107b; b. Sotah 47a, placing him during the time of King Jannaeus, who died in 76 b.c.e.; note also y. Hagigah 2:2; y. Sanhedrin 23c), or else at least one of the references does not speak of Jesus (it is, however, possible, that the Talmudic editors did, in fact, make such a chronological error).

In these various accounts, Jesus is seen, among other things, as a deceiver, idolater, and apostate, but, to repeat, it is uncertain as to how many of these texts, if any, intended to speak of Jesus of Nazareth.

Having said this, there are some definite references to Jesus in the Talmud (always spelled Yeshu), most prominently the following account:

“On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus [Yeshu] the Nazarene. And a herald went out before him for forty days, saying, ‘He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.’ But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover” (b. Sanh. 43a; t. Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh. 7:16, 67a).¹⁴⁵

This same passage from b. Sanh 43a also states that “Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray” (b. Sanh 43a; cf. t. Shabbat 11:15; b. Shabbat 104b), making reference to five of his disciples, although only some of their names agree with their New Testament counterparts, pointing to the Talmud’s vague and largely erroneous recollection of the details surrounding the life and death of Jesus. There is also a negative reference to “Jesus of Nazareth” in b. Sanh 103a; cf. b. Berakhot 17b) and there are negative references to some of his followers in the early Tannaitic literature, notably as having the power to heal, but that is not germane to the question at hand (see, e.g., t. Hul 2:22–23).¹⁴⁶

Also of significance to traditional Jews, despite its late date, is the testimony of Moses Maimonides (1135–1204). In its original form (before being edited because of Catholic Church censors), Maimonides, in his law code, speaks of “Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Messiah and was executed by the court,” going on to explain why he could not be the Messiah but how, despite the false nature of their teachings, Christianity and Islam would still help prepare the world for the knowledge of the one true God (Hilchot Melachim 11:4).

For a religious Jew, this settles the question, since both the Talmud and Maimonides state clearly that Jesus lived and was put to death.¹⁴⁷ In fact, for a traditional Jew the existence of Jesus has never been questioned. Rather, the question has been, Who is he, really? And that question remains relevant for each and every reader, both Jewish and Gentile: Do you know for sure who he is?

Here is something worth considering. According to Isaiah 53:2, the origins of the Messiah, called in this passage the servant of the Lord (see vol. 3, 4.5–4.17), are described in the most humble terms:

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,

and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

The passage then goes on to speak of his rejection, suffering, and death, before pointing to his resurrection and ending with this divine promise in 53:12:

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,

and he will divide the spoils with the strong,

because he poured out his life unto death,

and was numbered with the transgressors.

For he bore the sin of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors.

Do you realize that this is exactly what has happened, not just in terms of Yeshua’s life on earth, which began in total obscurity, seeing that the Son of God was born in a stable and grew up as a carpenter’s son, but in terms of the larger picture of the development of his Messianic movement? That too started in obscurity as far as the Roman world was concerned, being ignored rather than revered and receiving scorn rather than admiration, while his followers were often mocked, imprisoned, and killed. How could this man and this movement impact the world?

Amazingly, as an extraordinary testimony to the power of Yeshua’s life, death, and resurrection, his movement continues to impact the world—quite impressively—to this very hour. The one whom a modern historian could characterize as “a marginal Jew”¹⁴⁸—in terms of his earthly life—has become the most influential figure in human history, as captured in these well-known words that describe this “one solitary life.”

Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.

He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself.…

While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth—His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.¹⁴⁹

With this, I rest my case.

¹²²The Tannaim were the Rabbinic scholars of the first two centuries of this era.

¹²³7:216. For convenient summaries, see the articles on him in Encyclopedia Judaica and the Jewish Encyclopedia, along with Gershom Bader, The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages, trans. Solomon Katz (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1988), 152–63. For a more full, critical study, see Jacob Neusner, A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai, ca. 1–80 C.E., rev. ed. (Studia Post Biblica; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970); idem, First Century Judaism in Crisis: Yohanan ben Zakkai and the Renaissance of Tora (Nashville, Abingdon, 1975); cf. also Amram Tropper, “Yohanan ben Zakkai, Amicus Caesaris: A Jewish Hero in Rabbinic Eyes,” Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 4 (2005): 1–17.

¹²⁴Interestingly, not one of the primary Rabbinic sources mentions Josephus! Perhaps we should conclude from this that Josephus didn’t exist? And Philo, the great first century c.e. Jewish philosopher, did not mention by name any of the most influential Pharisaical leaders of his day. What does this prove?

¹²⁵Cf. also Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996).

¹²⁶See Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 20.

¹²⁷Ibid., 25.

¹²⁸Ibid., 30.

¹²⁹For discussion and refutation of the argument that this Chrestus was not Christ, see ibid., 32–38.

¹³⁰Ibid., 41–42. For discussion of the authenticity of this text, see ibid., 42–44.

¹³¹Ibid., 53.

¹³²Ibid., 59.

¹³³Ibid., 66–67.

¹³⁴Ibid., 68.

¹³⁵Ibid., 70

¹³⁶Ibid.

¹³⁷Ibid.

¹³⁸Ibid., 71. Van Voorst also notes (ibid.) that even the Gospels were not written contemporaneously with Jesus—at the least, in their written form they are to be dated to two to three decades after his death and resurrection—and so it should not surprise us that Roman historians, who decidedly were not disciples of Jesus, would take some time to write about him.

¹³⁹Ibid., 83.

¹⁴⁰Ibid., 93. For full discussion of this text, see ibid., 84–104, with substantial bibliographical references.

¹⁴¹See again Ibid., 86–88.

¹⁴²For refutations of the totally negative position, see ibid., 88–102.

¹⁴³Cf. ibid., 104–21, again with substantial bibliographical references.

¹⁴⁴For philological comments on the name Yeshu, see below, n. 220.

¹⁴⁵For further discussion, with recent bibliography, cf. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 104–21.

¹⁴⁶Note that a number of the Talmudic texts, along with later legends, were compiled in a scandalous work called Toledot Yeshu (The Story [or, History] of Jesus). For more on this, see below, 5.26.

¹⁴⁷This was noted in a candid editorial by David Klinghoffer published in the Los Angeles Times on January 1, 2004, shortly before Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ was released. He stated, “It’s unfair of Jewish critics to defame Gibson for saying what the Talmud and Maimonides say, and what many historians say.” See further Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, 73.

¹⁴⁸John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One: The Roots of the Problem and the Person (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991).

¹⁴⁹According to Graham Pockett’s website, http://www.anointedlinks.com/one_solitary_life.html, this essay was adapted from a sermon by Dr. James Allan Francis in The Real Jesus and Other Sermons (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1926), 123–24, titled “Arise Sir Knight!” For the original text, see “One Solitary Life,” http://www.anointedlinks.com/one_solitary_life_original.html.

Brown, M. L. (2007). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 4: New Testament objections. (59). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Baker Books.