1*:9-*7.&1*:9-*7.&
$41:2* 88:* 79.(1*
&>
*8:8&3)".'*7.:83=&2.3&9.434+!4:7(* *1.&'.1.9>*8:8&3)".'*7.:83=&2.3&9.434+!4:7(* *1.&'.1.9>
".249->-7.82&3
.'*79>#3.;*78.9>
9(-7.82&31.'*79>*):
4114<9-.8&3)&)).9.43&1<4708&9-9958).,.9&1(4224381.'*79>*):*1*:
&794+9-*.'1.(&1!9:).*842243839*11*(9:&1.8947>422438-.14845->422438&3)9-*
*1.,.4:8"-4:,-9"-*414,>&3)-.14845->4+ *1.,.43422438
*(422*3)*).9&9.43 *(422*3)*).9&9.43
-7.82&3".249->*8:8&3)".'*7.:83=&2.3&9.434+!4:7(* *1.&'.1.9>
1*:9-*7.&
-9958).,.9&1(4224381.'*79>*):*1*:;41.88
"-.879.(1*.8'74:,-994>4:+47+7**&3)45*3&((*88'>9-*!(-4414+.;.3.9>&9!(-41&787488.3,9-&8'**3
&((*59*)+47.3(1:8.43.31*:9-*7.&'>&3&:9-47.?*)*).9474+!(-41&787488.3,47247*.3+472&9.4351*&8*
(439&(98(-41&71>(422:3.(&9.4381.'*79>*):
*8:8&3)".'*7.:83=&2.3&9.434+!4:7(* *1.&'.1.9>*8:8&3)".'*7.:83=&2.3&9.434+!4:7(* *1.&'.1.9>
'897&(9'897&(9
!.3(*9-*.3974):(9.43949-*(7.9.(&12*9-4)4+89:)>.3,9-*1)&3)*<"*89&2*39.39-*3.3*9**39-
(*39:7>)4:'9-&8'**39-74<3439-*-.8947.(&17*1.&'.1.9>4+9-*'.'1.(&13&77&9.;*&((4:398*85*(.&11>9-*
+4:7485*18%*9+&71*888(7:9.3>&3))*3.,7&9.43-&;*'**3&551.*)94-.8947.(&184:7(*8<7.99*3):7.3,
9-*9.2*4+9-* 42&325.7*(425&7.8439-*3.8574548*)9<4:1)'*'*3*@(.&194(425&7*9-*
84:7(*89-&9)*9&.1*)9-*1.+*&3)2.3.897>4+*8:84+&?&7*9-3&2*1>&99-*<&70:0*&3)4-3
&3)9-*+4:784:7(*8<-.(-(-743.(1*)9-*1.+*4+".'*7.:8*25*7474+9-* 42&325.7*):7.3,9-*
.3.897>4+*8:84<)49-*84:7(*8(425&7*&8949-*.7(42548.9.43.3574=.2.9>949-*.78:'/*(94
9-*84:7(*8&,7**<.9-43*&349-*789-*7*&1*;*14+4'/*(9.;.9>.39-*84:7(*89-&9&114<*)9-*294
57*8*399-*(477*(9)*9&.184+9-*.78:'/*(9"-*8*6:*89.438<.11)*9*72.3*9-*7*1.&'.1.9>4+9-*
)4(:2*398.36:*89.43&3)<-*9-*79-*+4:7485*182*&8:7*:594(7.9.(&1*=&2.3&9.43
*><47)8*><47)8
*8:8".'*7.:8485*18.8947.4,7&5->
4;*7&,*449349*4;*7&,*449349*
".249->-7.82&3-&3).)&9*.'*79>&59.89"-*414,.(&1!*2.3&7>
"-.8&79.(1*.8&;&.1&'1*.31*:9-*7.&-9958).,.9&1(4224381.'*79>*):*1*:;41.88
Eleutheria 4:1 Spring (2015) 2-17
INTRODUCTION
In regards to the search for the Jesus of history, many have asserted that
only the scantest of information is available to the modern scholar. Historical
skeptics largely base this assertion on the unreliability of the Gospels. John
Dominic Crossan, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, dismissed the four canonical
Gospels as predominantly unreliable, claiming that they were “neither histories nor
biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres.”
1
In a similar
vein, Bart D. Ehrman, professor of religious studies at the University of North
Carolina, has regarded them as preservations of traditions “that have been modified
over time in their retelling, it is impossible simply to take these stories at face value
and uncritically assume that they represent historically accurate information.”
2
However, it appears that other figures of history have lesser demands placed upon
them than those demanded of Jesus. Therefore, a comparison is proposed: let the
accounts of Jesus be compared to the chronicles about an historical contemporary,
whom historians would agree has sound and ample evidence about his life,
achievements, and significance. A suitable person for comparison would be the
reigning Emperor of Rome during the ministry of Jesus, Tiberius Caesar.
Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (42 B.C.-37 A.D.), born
Tiberius Claudius Nero, was the son Livia Drusilla, the wife of Augustus Caesar (r.
31 B.C.-14 A.D.). His mother’s marriage provided excellent connections which
eventually propelled Tiberius to succeed Augustus as emperor.
3
Tiberius reigned
from 14 to 37 A.D. At first taking an active part in government in Rome, Tiberius
eventually became disgusted with the various intrigues of the court and his own
family. In 26 A.D., Tiberius departed for the island of Capreae at the age of sixty-
seven and left the commander of the Praetorian Guard, Lucius Aelius Sejanus in
charge of the day-to-day operations of the empire.
4
Sejanus would eventually be
replaced by Sutorius Macro in 31 A.D.,
5
but Tiberius was never to return to Rome,
dying at the villa of Lucullus in March 16, 37 A.D., at the age of seventy-eight.
6
Tiberius’ contemporary lived under entirely different and far less privileged
circumstances and died at a young age by crucifixion. He had no political influence
or rights, lived in poverty, and spent his entire lifetime within one small region of
the world. Yet, this contemporary, Jesus of Nazareth, founded a faith which spread
throughout the Roman Empire and, eventually, throughout the world.
These two individuals lived vastly different lives. Yet, the question remains,
“Is the historical testimony of one more reliable than the other?” The best way to
1
John Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
(New York: Harper San Francisco, 1991), xxx.
2
Bart D. Ehrman,
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
(Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999), 53.
3
David Shotter,
Tiberius Caesar
, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2004), 4.
4
Gregorio Maranon,
Tiberius: The Resentful Caesar
, trans. Warre Bradley Wells (New York:
Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1956), 210.
5
Shotter,
Tiberius Caesar
, 54.
6
Frank Burr Marsh,
The Reign of Tiberius
(New York: Barnes and Noble, 1959), 218.
3
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
answer the question is to examine the sources, the approximate dates of their
composition, their preservation from antiquity to the modern era, their genre, their
accuracy and agreement between one another, and their portrayal of the their
subject, namely Tiberius and Jesus. After the comparison is completed, then the
sources will be judged on their reliability.
THE SOURCES
For the historian investigating the lives of Jesus and Tiberius, information in
the form of historical chronicles is available. The first was written by Velleius
Paterculus, who served in the military under Tiberius and later in the Senate
during Tiberius’ reign, eventually rising to the rank of praetor. Paterculus’ history
is comprised of two volumes and has a far more personal tone than the other
histories concerned with Tiberius.
7
Considered to be the most reliable history of the
Roman Empire in the first century is Publius Cornelius Tacitus’
The Annals of
Imperial Rome
. Describing the events at the end of Augustus’ reign to the death of
Nero, Tacitus’
Annals
is regarded as his greatest work. Tragically, not all of this
work survived, but what remains serves as a valuable resource. Tacitus served as a
senator during the Flavian dynasty, primarily during the reign of Domition (81-96
A.D.) and became consul in 97. He also served during the reign of Trajan (98-117)
and became governor of the province of Asia fifteen years after his consulship.
8
A third source, the
Life of Tiberius
, comes from a contemporary of Tacitus,
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillis. During a majority of his life, Suetonius held the
career of schoolmaster, but during Trajan’s and Hadrian’s reigns, he served in
secretarial posts. This gave him access to the records needed for writing his
biographies of the emperors. Beginning with Julius Caesar, Suetonius penned the
lives of the rulers of the Roman Empire and finished with Domitian. Unfortunately,
Suetonius’ privileged status ended when he fell out of favor with Hadrian in 122.
Once he lost access to the records of privileged to government officials, Suetonius’
biographies declined in quality. The treatment of Tiberius is considered to be one of
the stronger biographies.
9
Cassius Dio Cocceianus, the Greek noble from Nicaea and
author of
Roman History
, had a far more successful career, enjoying two
consulships. The family Dio served under was the Severan dynasty, including the
erratic and dangerous Caracalla (211-217). His history is composed entirely in
Greek. He spent ten years researching his history and another twelve writing it.
10
Concerning Jesus, the sources that provide detail of any significance are the
four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the epistles of Paul of Tarsus.
For the sake of brevity, only the Gospels will be investigated. The Gospel of
Matthew has a much disputed origin among experts in the field of the New
7
Shotter,
Tiberius Caesar
, 82.
8
Michael Grant, “Translator's Introduction,” in
The Annals of Imperial Rome
, rev. ed. (New
York: Penguin Books, 1971), 7-9.
9
Shotter,
Tiberius Caesar
, 86.
10
Ibid., 88.
Eleutheria 4:1 Spring (2015)
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
4
Testament.
11
According to the Church father, Papias, the Gospel was written by the
apostle and eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, Matthew. It is considerably longer than
the Gospel of Mark and most scholars contend that Matthew relied upon Mark as a
source. Also, Matthew is considered as having a better chronological order than
Mark.
12
Mark, the associate of Peter, wrote his Gospel from the oral recollections of
the Apostle Peter. He therefore provided the Petrine perspective of the ministry of
Jesus. This is important to recognize for Peter was an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry
and direct recipient of His teachings.
13
As evidence of Peter’s influence upon this
Gospel, New Testament professor, Richard Bauckham cites the numerous instances
where Peter is present in Mark, which occur throughout the document (Mk. 1:16;
3:16; 8:29; 9:2; 14:66-72).
14
The author of Luke, who most critics also believe wrote the Book of Acts, was
an associate of Paul of Tarsus, the apostle. His use of the first person plural in the
Acts narrative (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18) demonstrates his relationship with
Paul. Evidence leans toward Luke the physician as the author.
15
Because of his
rigorous attention to detail, the author of Luke has been recognized by scholars as a
historian and as a theologian.
16
Though different from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the
Gospel of John represents a valid tradition of its own. Often dismissed as
historically unreliable, C.H. Dodd has presented a robust argument for John
containing solid and early material. Certainly the writer or evangelist was of
Jewish origin and understood well the setting of Jesus’ ministry. Of notable
11
D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris,
An Introduction to the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 66-68. Though there are objections to his
proposal, Martin Hengel has made a strong case that the four gospels were never actually
anonymous. He noted that Tertullian objected to Marcion submitting his own gospel without
attaching his name to it. The Early Church, then would not accept documents without knowing the
author and a title that included the author would be necessary to distinguish recognized documents
from those not recognized by the Church. Therefore, the Church understood who the writers were or
they would have never accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Early Church believed
Matthew the Apostle to be the author of the first Gospel in the New Testament. Eusebius records
Papias’ comments on this Gospel, who stated that Matthew was the author.
12
Ibid., 66-74.
13
Richard Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 179.
14
Ibid., 126. The Gospel of Mark has more references to Peter than any other gospel. Mark
mentions Peter by name considerably more than Matthew, although Matthew has a specific interest
in Peter. Luke also fails to mention Peter by name as much as Mark does. For instance, in the
words of the angels at the empty tomb, Luke does not name Peter, but Mark does (Lk. 24:6-7).
15
Carson, Moo, and Morris,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 113-114. Several second
century sources affirm Luke’s authorship, namely Marcion in the middle of the second century, a
prologue to the Gospel of Luke written near the end of the second century, and the Muratorian
Canon. Furthermore, patristic theologians such as Ireneus and Tertullian assume Luke’s
authorship without a doubt. Bodmer Papyrus XIV, the oldest manuscript of Luke names the
physician as the author.
16
Ibid., 122-123.
5
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
mention is the length of Jesus’ ministry explained by Jesus’ celebration of three
Passovers. In the Synoptics, Jesus journeys to Jerusalem only to the end of His
ministry. The geographical descriptions included in John are best understood as
remembered details. Jesus’ discourses in John find similarity in character to His
sayings in the Synoptic Gospels.
17
Such evidence leads some scholars, such as J.A.T.
Robinson, G.R. Beasley-Murray, Martin Hengel, Ben Witherington, D.A. Carson
and C.S. Keener to believe that the writer of John was one of the twelve and John
the son of Zebedee and brother of James. While John the Apostle’s authorship is far
from universally accepted, more recent scholarship has drawn the conclusion that
the writer of the Fourth Gospel was an eyewitness close to Jesus and to the events
surrounding his ministry and life.
18
DATING THE SOURCES
The time in which the sources were written weighs significantly on their
reliability. The central factor behind dating sources concerns the number of years
between time of the event or lifetime of the person and time the source was written.
Thus, the smaller the number, the closer the source is to the subject matter.
When probing the dates of Tiberius’ historians, one finds a varied spectrum.
Velleius Paterculus published his short account of Tiberius in 30 A.D. Though
valuable for being composed during the reign of Tiberius, certain events, such as the
denunciation and execution of Sejanus, had not yet occurred when Paterculus’ work
was completed. It would take eighty years before another history of Tiberius would
surface. Cornelius Tacitus wrote his
Annals
between 106 and 117 A.D. His
contemporary, Gaius Suetonius, finished the
Life of Tiberius
in the 120’s. The last
major source for Tiberius,
Roman History
,
was composed by Dio Cassius in the
220’s.
19
Dating the Gospels has proven to be far more controversial than the Roman
histories covering the life and career of Tiberius. The more critical New Testament
scholars ascribe a later date to the Gospels. The Catholic scholar, Raymond E.
Brown, for instance, has dated Matthew between 80 and 90 A.D.,
20
Mark between
17
James D.G. Dunn,
Jesus Remembered
, vol. 1 of
Christianity in the Making
(Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 166-67.
18
Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, 410-411. The New Testament scholar states that
“in the case of the Gospel of John these characteristics are linked with its claim to be entirely the
testimony of an author who was himself an eyewitness. In this case, the whole historiographic
process of eyewitness observation and participation, interrogation of other eyewitnesses,
arrangement and narrativization in the formation of an integrated and rhetorically persuasive
work…Thus, whereas scholars have often supposed that this Gospel could not have been written by
an eyewitness because of its high degree of interpretation of the events and the words of Jesus, by
contrast with the Synoptics, in fact the high degree of interpretation is appropriate precisely because
this is the only one of the canonical Gospels that claims eyewitness authorship.”
19
Shotter,
Tiberius Caesar
, 81.
20
Raymond E. Brown,
An Introduction to the New Testament
(New York: Doubleday, 1997),
172.
Eleutheria 4:1 Spring (2015)
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
6
65-75 A.D.,
21
Luke at 85 A.D.,
22
and John between 80 and 110 A.D.
23
However,
capable conservative scholars have argued for earlier dates. A strong case has been
made to date Matthew before 70 A.D. and possibly in the middle 60’s.
24
Mark could
safely be placed between the late 50’s and middle 60’s and Luke could have been
written in the early 60’s or as late as after 70 A.D.
25
Recent scholarship has placed
John in the early 90’s.
26
Based on the dating of the histories, the sources for Tiberius begin from a
contemporary setting with Paterculus, to more than eighty years with Tacitus and
Seutonius, and finally over two hundred years with Dio Cassius. In the case of
Jesus, the accounts of His life are relatively close to one another in date. All of the
21
Ibid., 127.
22
Ibid., 226.
23
Ibid., 334.
24
Craig L. Blomberg,
Matthew
,
The New American Commentary
, edited by David S.
Dockery, 22 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1992), 41-42. Matthew can be dated before 100 A.D.
due to the fact that Ignatius quotes from the Gospel around 110-115 and the
Didache
, dated in the
late 90’s, alludes to it. The most common reason for assigning a late to Matthew is Jesus’ prediction
of the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the temple, which occurred in 70 A.D. To date Matthew
after 70 for this reason demonstrates a refusal to accept the possibility of prophetic predictions and a
presupposition against all things supernatural. Keeping this in mind, certain inclusions in Matthew
appear to hint at a date earlier than 70, including references to the temple tax (Matt. 17:24-27),
offerings (Matt. 5:23-24), and keeping the Sabbath in Judea (Matt. 24:20). All these references
would have no relevance after the destruction of the temple. Though one cannot assign an early date
with absolute certainty, to regard Matthew as a product in the 60’s is within the parameters of
possibility.
25
.John A.T. Robinson,
Redating the New Testament
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1976), 116. While hardly considered to be a conservative evangelical, Robinson had no issue with
placing the final composition of the Synoptic Gospels in the late 50’s to early 60’s. Addressing the
objection that the Gospels presented too highly a developed theology to be written at such an early
date, Robinson called this “precariously subjective.” The entire Pauline corpus, which contains a
highly developed Christology, he argues, was finished before 70 A.D. Also, James A. Brooks,
Mark
,
(Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1991), 28. Brooks places Mark right before the Neronian
persecution of Christians in Rome. Since both the external evidence of the Early Church fathers and
the internal biblical evidence put the location of the writing of the Gospel in Rome, Mark would have
some reference to the persecution if it was written during or after the event. No explicit reference is
found, so date of 63 or the first half of 64 A.D. is most likely. Robert H. Stein,
Luke
, (Nashville:
Broadman and Holman, 1992), 24-26. The key to dating Luke is the dating of Acts. Some have
suggested that because Paul’s trial and execution were not recorded in Acts and because Acts was
written after Luke (Acts 1:1), Luke had to have been written before 62 A.D. However, if Luke
depended on Mark, as most Gospel scholars affirm, a later date better fits the evidence. Stein
suggests some time after 70 A.D. because of the tradition relating the writing of Mark with the
martyrdom of Peter circa 65-67. In addition, he considers Luke to be “looking back” on the events
surrounding the fall of Jerusalem, but he considers the Domitian persecution of 95-96 to be too late.
26
Ben Witherington,
New Testament History: A Narrative Account
(Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2001), 398. Though Witherington believes the Beloved Disciple, who wrote the Gospel
was not one of the twelve original disciples, he does consider him to be an eyewitness of Jesus’
Judean ministry. The Fourth Gospel’s detail of Jesus’ last Passover and His trial before the high
priest clearly demonstrate first hand knowledge and therefore, had to have been written in the first
century.
7
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
Gospels were written within a generation or two of Jesus’ ministry, which places
them close to the events they record.
THE EXTENT OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE SOURCES
It is no secret that a large number of ancient documents have not survived
and of those that have survived, many have not completely survived. The modern
researcher has at his disposal fragments of former complete works. The sources for
Tiberius are no exception. Much of the earlier section Paterculus’ two volume
history is lost, but the chapters dealing with Augustus and Tiberius are still
intact.
27
Certain sections of the
Annals
of Tacitus are also missing, including the
entire reign of Caligula, half of the reign of Claudius, the last two years of Nero, and
more than two years of Tiberius’ rule in Rome.
28
The only work of Suetonius’ to
survive is his series of biographies of the first twelve Caesars.
The Lives of the
Twelve Caesars
has some missing components, but overall, has survived nearly
complete.
29
Of all the chronicles on Tiberius, Dio’s is the most fragmented and
offers no more insight provided already by Tacitus and Suetonius, with the
exception of the two years before the execution of Sejanus.
30
The preservation of the documents of the New Testament have been attested
by the competent scholarship of textual criticism. New Testament scholar, Bruce
Metzger, in
The Text of the New Testament
verifies the strong preservation of every
New Testament document. Over 5,000 Greek manuscripts exist, which contain part
or all of the New Testament. Because of the incredible volume of manuscripts,
textual critics have been able to competently demonstrate that every book of the
New Testament, including the four Gospels, have been preserved intact in their
entirety.
31
The codex Vaticanus, a fourth century manuscript, contains the Old and
New Testaments, with some omissions, but the Gospels are completely intact.
32
Therefore, no fragmentation of any of the four Gospels exists. They are intact and
preserved.
THE SOURCES AS HISTORY
When evaluating the chronicles of the second emperor of the Roman Empire,
historians determine whether or not the documents actually bear the qualities of a
historical resource. Though dated within lifetime of Tiberius, historians value
Paterculus’ two volume compendium as the least dependable source. Criticism of
Tiberius is utterly absent from Paterculus’ account. His work is acknowledged more
27
Robin Seager,
Tiberius
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 266.
28
Grant,
The Annals of Imperial Rome
, 9.
29
Seager,
Tiberius
, 262.
30
Shotter,
Tiberius Caesar
, 90.
31
Bruce M. Metzger,
The Text Of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration
, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 36.
32
Ibid., 47-48.
Eleutheria 4:1 Spring (2015)
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
8
as a eulogy rather than an objective chronicle, but Paterculus does insert details
from the contemporary setting that were unavailable to the late historians.
33
In the comparison of sources chronicling the events of the first century,
Tacitus’ works are regarded as the purest form of history available to modern
historians. His reputation as the greatest of Roman historians rests upon his
Histories
and
Annals.
Tacitus vigorously adhered to an annalistic format that
progressed from year to year. Additionally, Tacitus applied detail throughout his
work, attempting to create a dependable resource.
34
Though he did allow his own
opinions to color his accounts, Tacitus attempted to provide an objective history. He
states in the first chapter of the
Annals
, “I shall write without indignation or
partisanship: in my case the customary incentives to these are lacking.”
35
Suetonius, instead of providing a careful chronology, submitted epitaphs of
famous persons. Epitaphs mentioned the affiliations of the persons, their public
offices, and their military victories. Earlier instances of epitaphs included the
virtues of the person in question. Taking this format, Suetonius added flesh to it
with the insertion of questionable anecdotes and distorted examples.
36
When
discussing the death of Tiberius, Suetonius lists three different rumors that
declared that Tiberius was murdered and he placed these rumors within the realm
of plausibility, without seeking to confirm them with evidence.
37
Another failing on
the part of Suetonius is the lack of motive for explaining Tiberius’ actions. From
Suetonius, what historians consider valuable are the excerpts from Augustus’
letters to Tiberius, Augustus’ will, and the letters and speeches of Tiberius.
38
Dio attempted to provide a more detailed account than Suetonius, but it does
not equal the work of Tacitus. Clearly, he used different sources than those
available to Tacitus. He did seek to explain the confusing actions and twists of
behavior displayed by the second emperor. As later historians would recognize,
Tiberius possessed a complex personality and Dio attempted to explain this. More
will be said of this later. Unfortunately, Dio’s history did not possess the smooth
chronological flow of Tacitus. He begins with a description of the early reign of
Tiberius and follows it with a chronological list of what he deemed as important
during Tiberius’ rule. In this list, the German wars, which Tacitus describes in
great detail, is not even mentioned. Primarily, Dio valued entertainment over
accuracy, seeking to captivate his readers.
39
For this reason, exaggerations are
found in Dio’s history. In one instance, Dio states that Tiberius enriched a number
of senators who desired to leave the senate on account of their poverty.
40
However,
33
Shotter,
Tiberius Ceasar
, 82.
34
A.J. Woodman,
Tacitus Reviewed
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 104.
35
Grant,
The Annals of Imperial Rome
, 32.
36
Seager,
Tiberius
, 263.
37
Suetonius,
The Life of Tiberius
, trans. J.C. Rolfe, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars (St.
Petersburg: Red and Black Publishers, 2008), 73, 113.
38
Seager,
Tiberius
, 264.
39
Ibid., 265.
40
Cassius Dio,
Dio's Roman History
, trans. Ernest Cary (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1924), 57. 10, 136-37.
9
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
Tacitus recorded only one such instance of generosity, in the case of Marcus
Hortensius Hortalus.
41
In short, a wide variety exists among the sources of Tiberius’ life. Each
historian has his own style and each has his own strengths and weaknesses. One
writer in particular, Tacitus, stands out as the most capable and understood his role
as historian far better than the others. Among the many in the academic
community, the Gospels have not had the reputation that Tacitus has had. Until
two decades, ago, the Gospels were not considered actual historical documents.
During the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, many considered the
Gospels to be of a particular type of genre invented by the early Church.
42
However,
because of the pioneering work of Richard Burridge, the Gospels are now seen by
many New Testament scholars as a form of Graeco-Roman biography.
43
As proof for this thesis, Burridge notes that the primary focus of each Gospel
is Jesus and not predominantly a promotion of the Christian message. A quarter of
the verbs in Mark center on Jesus Himself and an additional fifth of the verbs come
from His lips. In Matthew and Luke Jesus dominates the focus having a sixth of the
verbs referring to Him.
44
John, though often regarded, as the least concerned with
the activities of Jesus, has a surprising fifth of the verbs have Jesus as their
subject.
45
Furthermore upon examining the content of the Gospels and comparing
them with ancient biographies, Burridge states that “all four gospels share similar
internal features of settings, topics and atmospheres with Graieco-Roman”
biographies.
46
Though different from each other in approach and, to a degree, style
of language, the Gospels fall into the category of historical documents.
MOTIVE AND BIAS IN THE SOURCES
Every historian operates from some degree of subjectivity in the recording of
objective events.
47
This includes both ancient and modern historians; each having a
particular motive for composing his work and each having a slant in the
interpretation of events. Velleius Paterculus certainly had strong motives when
writing his Roman history. Producing his work during the reign of Tiberius and
41
Tacitus,
Annals
,
4, 94-96.
42
.Darrell L. Bock,
Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods
(Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 213.
43
Richard A. Burridge,
What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004), 105.
44
Ibid., 190.
45
Ibid., 216.
46
Ibid., 232.
47
Gary R. Habermas,
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
(Joplin:
College Press Publishing, 1996), 260. They, in general, understand that history contains two
factors: the actual events and the chronicling of those events. Therefore, the study of history
involves the events and how they have been interpreted from observers as well as from subsequent
generations of historians.
Eleutheria 4:1 Spring (2015)
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
10
before the corruption of Sejanus was exposed, Paterculus deeply admired Tiberius.
The purpose of his chronicle was to eulogize the current emperor.
48
Throughout Tacitus’ work, a deep appreciation of the Roman Republic is
clearly evident. Therefore, the principate, who held captive the actual powers of the
Senate, fell under the disapproval of Tacitus.
49
In fact, he possessed a contempt for
the Julio-Claudian line of emperors, despising their craving for power.
50
Though
expressing a noble purpose of chronicling the nobility and wickedness of the notable
people of Roman history, Tacitus clearly intended to reveal how the emperors
trampled over the powers of the republic.
51
For instance, when Augustus created
the principate, it appeared to establish a system of justice and peace, but Tacitus
stated that Augustus used bribery and bloodshed to fulfill his lust for power.
52
Cassius Dio wrote his
Roman History
as an expansion of an earlier work that
detailed the emperor, Severus’ rise to power. Severus appreciated this history and
encouraged Dio to write on the overall scope of Roman history. Obviously, Dio
described certain emperors, especially the dynasty during his lifetime, in favorable
terms.
53
Without doubt, definite motives were behind the composition of the Gospels.
Martin Hengel has declared that the Gospels were written expressly to present
truth claims concerning Jesus. The Gospel writers intended to have them read in
public settings, especially in the context of worship. The Gospels were for the entire
Church so that Christians may understand the identity of Jesus and the purpose of
His ministry.
54
The universal purpose of the Gospel writers was identical. However, each
had additional motives for composing their accounts. For the writer of Matthew, it
is assumed that he intended to address the needs of Christians in his own area and
also to those living in other regions, but with a similar background. Succinctly put,
Matthew intended to primarily address Christians with Jewish backgrounds.
55
Mark desired to record the eyewitness testimony of Peter and preserve it. He
wanted to provide a testimony of Jesus’ actions and words so that the Church would
have them for posterity.
56
Luke is quite explicit about his purpose. In the prologue (Lk. 1:1-4), he
addresses Theophilus, a Gentile believer who needed security in his understanding
of the identity and actions of Jesus. Luke also desired to have his narrative read to
48
Shotter,
Tiberius Caesar
, 82.
49
Seager,
Tiberius
,
256
50
Paul Barnett,
The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years
, vol. 1 of
After Jesus
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005), 13.
51
Seager,
Tiberius
, 256.
52
Tacitus,
Annals
, 1, 38.
53
Shotter,
Tiberius Caesar
, 88.
54
Martin Hengel,
The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of
the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels
, trans. John Bowden (Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 2000), 116.
55
Carson, Moo, and Morris,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 79.
56
Ibid., 101.
11
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
a larger audience of Gentile background. As the narrative unfolds, Luke reveals
how God has fulfilled and continues to fulfill His promises (Lk. 1:17; 2:10-14; 4:14-
21).
57
The writer of John wrote to non-Christians who were Diaspora Jews and
Jewish proselytes. He focused in particular on the question of identity of the Son of
God (Jn. 1:1-4, 14-18). Thus John was both an evangelistic work and an apologetic,
striving to point the Way to Salvation (Jn. 14:6) and prove that Jesus is God’s Son
and the Messiah (Jn. 2:1-12; 11:43-45).
58
An overall and sincere desire surfaces from the evangelists writing the
Gospels. They truly wanted to inform. Nothing is included to bring them glory or
fame or exoneration. The Gospel writers wanted to proclaim their message.
THE ACCURACY OF AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOURCES
A crucial question that the historian must ask concerning the primary
sources available to him is, “Do they agree with one another?” Oftentimes, they do
not. Such is the case for the sources describing Tiberius. As stated earlier, Tacitus
provided the most reliable histories and Suetonius and Dio’s value lies in their
ability to fill in the gaps of Tacitus’ missing sections.
59
Paterculus’ overly positive
account cannot be considered reliable.
When comparing the sources, several discrepancies surface in reference to
the life of Tiberius. Suetonius accused Tiberius of committing certain crimes for the
purpose of stealing money. This included the execution of Vonones, the deposed
king of the Parthians, who was killed so that Tiberius could take possession of his
treasure.
60
Yet, Tacitus, giving a detailed description of the death of Vonones, does
not mention Vonones’ treasure as a motive nor does he link Tiberius with event.
61
Apparently, Suetonius wanted to demonstrate the avarice of Tiberius and drew
erroneous conclusions about the event.
62
Dio did not use the same sources as
Tacitus and though the two agree over certain details, they conflict in others.
Portraying Livia, Tiberius’ mother, as exerting considerable power, Dio stated that
official letters from Tiberius included her name as well.
63
However, Tacitus
describes Tiberius’ animosity towards his mother, which would seem to negate his
sharing of power with Livia.
64
These clear discrepancies reveal weaknesses in
Suetonius and Dio and relative strength with regard to Tacitus. In short, the
sources contradict one another and they are not always accurate.
57
Luke Timothy Johnson,
The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 203.
58
Carson, Moo, and Morris,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 170-171.
59
Marsh,
The Reign of Tiberius
, 272.
60
Suetonius,
The Life of Tiberius
, 49, 104.
61
Tacitus,
Annals
, 1.5, 111.
62
Marsh,
The Reign of Tiberius
, 273.
63
Dio,
Roman History
, 57, 141.
64
Tacitus,
Annals
, 1.1, 41.
Eleutheria 4:1 Spring (2015)
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
12
Skeptics have often asserted the same for the four Gospels. They claim that
the narratives of concerning Jesus are contradictory and wildly inaccurate.
65
Closer
investigation discloses a different story. The Synoptic Gospels especially have
striking similarities. John the Baptist’s sermon in Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9
have almost one hundred percent verbal agreement. The episode recorded in Mark
1:21-28 and Luke 4:31-37 of Jesus performing an exorcism does not have exact
verbal parallel, but records the same details of the event.
66
The discrepancies that skeptics believe are contained in the Gospels can be
accounted for by different perspectives and selection of information. Evangelists
submit accounts of different lengths. An example of this is found with the
description of the Pharisees confronting Jesus about the disciples plucking ears of
corn on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:1-8; Mk. 2:23-28; Lk. 6:1-5). Matthew submits the
longer version, while Mark and Luke give a version of similar length. None of the
accounts disagree, but distribute various degrees of information.
67
When one reads the Gospels, it quickly becomes apparent that each writer
approaches the subject with a different perspective. Readers observe this the most
in the differences between the Synoptic Gospels and John. Such differences are
invaluable for giving a fuller picture of Jesus. Matthew’s and Luke’s description of
the healing of the centurion’s servant serves as a perfect model (Mt. 8:5-13; Lk. 7:1-
10). The heart of the story parallels almost exactly, but in Matthew, the centurion
approaches Jesus on his own, while in Luke, the centurion sends servants to speak
to Jesus. Obviously, Matthew chose to abbreviate the description of the occasion
and dispensed with the secondary pieces of information. Differences like these in
the Gospels cannot be counted as discrepancies and inaccuracies.
68
Perhaps the most glaring examples for skeptics hold to discrepancies between the
four Gospels is the existence of different versions of accounts or discourses. The
beatitudes listed in Matthew and Luke are clearly different (Mt.5:3-12; Lk. 6:20-23).
Matthew presents a longer version both have a different order. The beatitudes that
match do not match perfectly and are variants of one another. Though appearing as
a significant problem at first glance, one can resolve the issue by accepting that
both evangelists used the same source or one collection of Jesus’ beatitudes. Each
evangelist, however, selected and arranged the material to emphasize a particular
point.
69
The Australian scholar, Paul W. Barnett, comparing the Gospel accounts of
the events of Jesus’ ministry, has noted striking similarities. For instance, careful
comparison of texts of Mark and John reveal that the two Gospels are not
dependent upon each other. However, they both contain numerous events in
common, including the feeding of the five thousand (Mk. 6:30-44; Jn. 6:1-14), the
65
James D.G. Dunn,
The Evidence for Jesus: The Impact of Scholarship on Our
Understanding of How Christianity Began
(London: SCM Press, 1985), 1.
66
Ibid., 4-6.
67
Ibid., 10-11.
68
Ibid., 14-15.
69
Ibid., 22-23.
13
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
anointing of Jesus (Mk. 14:3-9; Jn. 12:1-8), Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Mk.11:1-10;
Jn. 12:12-19), Jesus’ arrest (Mk. 14:42-50; Jn. 18:1-11), Peter’s denial of Jesus (M,.
14:66-72; Jn. 18:15-18), the trial of Jesus before Pilate (Mk. 15:1-15; Jn. 18:28-40),
the mocking and abuse of Jesus by the soldiers (Mk. 15:16-20; Jn. 19:1-4), Jesus’
crucifixion at Golgotha (Mk. 15:21-32; Jn. 19:17-24), and Jesus’ burial in Joseph of
Arimathea’s tomb (Mk. 15:42-47; Jn. 19:38-42).
70
Though Mark and John are two
entirely different sources in reference to style and perspective, they agree with the
events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
The Gospels as sources for the life, ministry, and teaching of Jesus present a
unified testimony from differing perspectives. Examining the four Gospels in depth
enables the reader to see not vast differences, but striking parallels. With four
distinct perspectives presenting a unified testimony, the arguments and messages
delivered by the Gospel have a much stronger foundation.
THE HISTORIANS AND THEIR SUBJECTS
The reliability of the sources for Tiberius and Jesus has been examined, but
one important avenue has yet to be explored. How do the historians view their
subjects? Do they view them negatively or positively? The attitudes of the
historian, especially an ancient historian, affect how the historical figure is
perceived for generations. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate how Tiberius and
Jesus were perceived by their historians.
For Tiberius, with one exception, the historians showed little kindness. Only
Paterculus gives praise to the emperor. As a contemporary living under the shadow
of Tiberius and producing his work before the more disastrous years of his reign,
Paterculus, for the most part, must be discounted.
71
Tacitus presents Tiberius in
five stages of life. Under the reign of Augustus, Tiberius lived a blameless life and
enjoyed a fine reputation. While Germanicus, Tiberius’ heir and Drusus,
Germanicus’ brother, still lived, Tiberius was corrupt inwardly, but outwardly
appear noble in character. While his mother still lived, Tiberius still possessed a
degree of virtue, but this disappeared after her death. When Tiberius exiled himself
to Capreae, Sejanus’ dictatorship hid Tiberius’ detestable qualities. After Sejanus’
death, Tiberius revealed his true nature as a criminal exhibiting the lowest of
morality.
72
Suetonius depicted Tiberius as a cruel tyrant who enjoyed causing suffering
to those around him. Tiberius, according to Suetonius, possessed a sensitive nature
that, when affronted, demanded satisfaction. One instance Suetonius recorded
70
Paul W. Barnett,
Jesus and the Logic of History
, ed. D.A. Carson, New Studies in Biblical
Theology (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 104-5. An even closer study of the feeding of
the five thousand reveals a strong agreement in the two Gospels. Although Mark and John share
little vocabulary and the literary settings are different, they state similar facts that Jesus used five
loaves and two fishes to feed five thousand men with their families in the springtime as they sat on
green grass and had twelve baskets of additional food left over.
71
Shotter,
Tiberius Caesar
, 82.
72
Tacitus,
Annals
, 1.8, 227.
Eleutheria 4:1 Spring (2015)
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
14
occurred when a fisherman approached the emperor to offer him a gift of mullet.
Furious that the man approached him unexpectedly, Tiberius proceeded to punish
the fisherman by scrubbing his face in the fish. The final and tragic testimony of
Tiberius’ life occurred at his death. When the news of his demise reached the
Roman people, they rejoiced.
73
Cassius Dio also described Tiberius in unflattering terms, but he attempted
to explain his behavior. The earlier Tiberius was decent in character, but the death
of Germanicus became a pivotal moment in his life. Without the rival biding his
chance, Tiberius believed that he could do as he pleased. From then on, Tiberius
transformed himself into a cruel tyrant.
74
Without question, the historians
presented some positive aspects of Tiberius’ reign and personality, but their
concluding remarks and their descriptions of the latter years of his reign, displayed
an outright denouncing of the character of Tiberius.
The Gospels present a far different and quite positive description of the
character and achievements of Jesus of Nazareth. As stated earlier, the Gospels
deliver a unified testimony. Their testimony proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as
Messiah, Son of God, and Risen Savior.
Matthew writes that Jesus said of Himself, “I tell you, hereafter you will see
the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of
Heaven.”
75
In the Gospel of Mark, God the Father declares, “You are My beloved
Son, in You I am well-pleased.”
76
Luke testifies of Jesus, “for today in the in the city
of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”
77
Finally, in
John, Thomas, the doubting disciple, upon seeing Jesus risen from the dead
declares, “My Lord and my God!”
78
All four Gospels present far more than flattery and admiration. They declare
Jesus to be God in the flesh and worthy of worship. There are no discrepancies.
The Gospels agree. They announce the deity of Jesus. They declare that He is the
Messiah. The Gospels describe His terrible death (Mt. 27:33-54; Lk. 24:33-46) as
the means of salvation for mankind. Jesus was the motive for their work. The
message concerning His life and His actions was something that they were
compelled to share.
CONCLUSION
The comparison between the sources that chronicle the life of Tiberius Caesar
and those that detail the ministry and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth has revealed
some startling results. The historians of Tiberius range from a contemporary
setting to two hundred years after his lifetime. Tiberius had one notable and
73
Suetonius,
The Life of Tiberius
, 57-75.
74
Dio,
Roman History
, 57, 165.
75
Mt. 26:64b (New American Standard Bible).
76
Mk. 1:1 (NASB).
77
Lk. 2:11 (NASB).
78
Jn. 20:28 (NASB).
15
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
outstanding historian; Tacitus. Two others, Suetonius and Dio Cassius, left much
to be desired, but did provide some useful information. The fourth chronicler
named Vellius Paterculus did not even compose a history, but an overly positive
declaration of admiration. Besides the testimony of Tacitus, inaccuracies and
inconsistencies abounded among the sources. Yet, for the exception of Paterculus,
they agreed in their disgust of the second emperor of the Roman Empire.
The four Gospels of the New Testament fare much better under intense
scrutiny. They were written within one generation of Jesus’ ministry. They
demonstrate an overall agreement between one another. The Gospels reveal a
strong attention to detail and a concern for accuracy. The narratives of Jesus were
written by evangelists who had the agenda, not of self-preservation or the wish to
despoil the reputations of certain individuals, but to correctly present the actions
and words of the Master they followed.
Comparing the sources behind these two historical personalities reveals the
strength of the accuracy of the four canonical Gospels. As documents for the
historical portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth, the Gospels demonstrate a consistent
faithfulness. Critics have found a modern lucrative enterprise in picking apart the
Gospels, but they have been less vocal in placing the same strenuous examinations
on other ancient sources. Through comparison of the Gospels with other ancient
historical documents, one must admit that few can measure up to the standard of
correctness seen within the passages of these New Testament narratives.
Eleutheria 4:1 Spring (2015)
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
16
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barnett, Paul.
The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years
. Vol. 1 of
After
Jesus
. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005.
Barnett, Paul W.
Jesus and the Logic of History
. Edited by D.A. Carson. New
Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1997.
Bauckham, Richard.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness
Testimony
. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.
Blomberg, Craig L.
Matthew
. The New American Commentary, edited by David S.
Dockery, Vol. 22. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1992.
Bock, Darrell L.
Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods
.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Brooks, James A.
Mark
. The New American Commentary, edited by David S.
Dockery, Vol. 23. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1991.
Brown, Raymond E.
An Introduction to the New Testament
. New York: Doubleday,
1997.
Burridge, Richard A.
What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman
Biography
. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004.
Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris.
An Introduction to the New
Testament
. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
Crossa, John Dominic.
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant
. New York: Harper San Francisco, 1991.
Dio, Cassius.
Dio's Roman History
. Translated by Ernest Cary. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1924.
Dunn, James D.G.
Jesus Remembered
. Vol. 1 of
Christianity in the Making
. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.
Dunn, James D.G.
The Evidence for Jesus: The Impact of Scholarship on Our
Understanding of How Christianity Began
. London: SCM Press, 1985.
Ehrman, Bart D.
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
Grant, Michael. “Translator's Introduction.” In
The Annals of Imperial Rome
. Rev.
ed. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
17
Jesus and Tiberius: An Examination of Source Reliability
Habermas, Gary R.
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
.
Joplin: College Press Publishing, 1996.
Hengel, Martin.
The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An
Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels
.
Translated by John Bowden. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000.
Johnson, Luke Timothy.
The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation
.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
Maranon, Gregorio.
Tiberius: The Resentful Caesar
. Translated by Warre Bradley
Wells. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1956.
Marsh, Frank Burr.
The Reign of Tiberius
. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1959.
Metzger, Bruce M.
The Text Of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption,
and Restoration
. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
New American Standard Bible. Updated Edition. La Habra: The Lockman
Foundation, 1999.
Robinson, John A.T.
Redating the New Testament
. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1976.
Seager, Robin.
Tiberius
. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.
Shotter, David.
Tiberius Caesar
. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Stein, Robert H.
Luke
. The New American Commentary, edited by David S.
Dockery, Vol. 24. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1992.
Suetonius.
The Life of Tiberius
. Translated by J.C. Rolfe.
The Lives of the Twelve
Caesars
. St. Petersburg: Red and Black Publishers, 2008.
Tacitus.
The Annals of Imperial Rome
. Translated by Michael Grant. Rev. ed. New
York: Peguin Books, 1971.
Witherington, Ben.
New Testament History: A Narrative Account
. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2001.
Woodman, A.J.
Tacitus Reviewed
. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
