THE NAZARETH INSCRIPTION: PROOF OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST?

 

By Clyde E. Billington, Ph.D.

Northwestern College

Part One of Two Part Series

 

PART ONE:  TRANSLATION, COMMENTARY, AND DATE

 

INTRODUCTION

            The Nazareth Inscription is a Greek inscription on a marble tablet measuring approximately 24 inches by 15 inches.  The exact time and place of its discovery is not known.  In 1878 it became an addition to the private Froehner Collection of ancient inscriptions and manuscripts, but the details of its acquisition are unknown.  Froehner’s inventory of this Inscription simply states: “This marble was sent from Nazareth in 1878.” This is all that is known about the time and place of its discovery. (Cumont 241-242, Zelueta 1-2)  While Froehner did make a Greek miniscule transcription of the original Greek uncial version of the Nazareth Inscription, he never published either the miniscule or the uncial version, and the contents of the Nazareth Inscription remained unknown to the scholarly world for more than fifty years. .

            In 1925 the Froehner Collection was acquired by the Paris National Library, where the Nazareth Inscription was rediscovered and read by M. Rostovtzeff.   Rostovtzeff told his friend, the French scholar M. Franz Cumont about this Inscription in the Paris National Library. (Cumont 241-242)  With the encouragement of Rostovtzeff, Cumont published a Greek transcription and a translation of the Nazareth Inscription with a commentary in his article Un Rescrit Imperial Sur La Violation De Sepulture in the French journal Reveu Historique, CLXII, in 1930.  The Nazareth Inscription took the scholarly world by storm because, as will be seen, it could be read as an imperial decree against the Apostles stealing Christ’s body from His tomb and faking His resurrection.  It is also very similar to the Jewish high-priestly version of the resurrection of Christ as found in Matthew 28:11-15, in other words His Disciples stole His body from the tomb.          

            Cumont’s publication of the Nazareth Inscription led to a snowstorm of scholarly articles; more than twenty were published by the end of 1932.   None of these early articles questioned the authenticity of the Nazareth Inscription.  It is highly unlikely that it is a forgery.  As will be seen, the Greek text of this Inscription and its historical connections provide strong support for its authenticity.  However, its interpretation and possible connection to the story of the resurrection of Christ are still hotly debated today. 

            The purpose of this paper is to determine if the Nazareth Inscription is an imperial response to the story of the resurrection of Christ.  While the views and opinions of key modern scholars will at times be discussed, it is not the intent of this study to do reviews or critiques of the many articles written on the Nazareth Inscription. 

            While there are several English translations available of the Nazareth Inscription (Zulueta 184-185; Brown 2-3), I disagree with them on the translation of a few key Greek words and phrases, and I have for this reason chosen to provide by own translation below. 

 

 

 

 

THE NAZARETH INSCRIPTION TRANSLATION

By Clyde E. Billington, Ph.D.

Northwestern College

 

 

1.                                  EDICT OF CAESAR    

 

2.  It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs --whoever has made

 

3.  them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household

 

4.  members --that these remain undisturbed forever.  But if anyone legally

 

5.  charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted

 

6.  those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who

 

7.  have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has

 

8.  moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person I order that a

 

9.  judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in

 

10. human  religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat

 

11. with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to

 

12. allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed].   But if

 

13. [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under

 

14. the title of tomb-breaker.

 

 

NOTES AND COMMENTARY ON MY TRANSLATION

            While the Greek word “decree” “diatagma” used in line one[1] of the Nazareth Inscription may suggest to modern readers some sort of imperial legal process, the fact of the matter is that the Nazareth Inscription is almost certainly a rump or abridged version of an imperial rescript.  As will be seen below, a rescript was a letter of response sent by the emperor to some sort of an imperial official. It was not uncommon for imperial rescripts to be treated as legal decrees.  See Charlesworth, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius and Nero, p. 14 where the Emperor Claudius himself calls one of his rescripts on Jewish rights “touto mou to diatagma” or “this decree of mine.”   As will be seen below, there is an imperial rescript of the Emperor Claudius, which fits the pattern of the Nazareth Inscription very well.  The rescript process will also be discussed in detail below.

            F. de Zuluet, in his 1932 article Violation of Sepulture in Palestine at the Beginning of the Christian Era, p. 184, and Frank E. Brown in his 1952 article Violation of Sepulture in Palestine , p. 2 both translate the  Greek phrase “threskeian progonon” in line 3 of my translation as “cult of their ancestors;”  thereby suggesting that the Nazareth Inscription fits best in a pagan Greco-Roman context, where religious rituals were performed at graves by relatives.  However, the word “threskeian” is best translated as “religious observance.”  It is used five times in two known imperial rescripts dealing with the Jewish religion. [Charlesworth, Documents, pp. 5, 14, 15].  It is also used in this same way for the Jewish religion by the Jewish historian Josephus [AJ, 17.9.3].  In addition, this same Greek word [“threskeian”] is used several times in the New Testament as related to Christianity, see Acts 26:5, James 1:26-27, and Col. 2:18.   The Greek work “threskeian” therefore does not necessarily suggest pagan religion and can best be translated as “religious observance” or even simply as “religion.”  

            It must be noted that lines 3 and 4 assumes the existence of family tombs where only dead bodies --not the ashes of cremated humans-- were placed.  It should also be noted that there in nothing in this decree which assumes or states that the ashes of the cremated dead had been moved, lost or scattered, or that funeral urns had been destroyed or stolen. This decree also does not mention bodies or funeral urns being dug up out of the ground.  Inhumation or burial in the ground in cemeteries was for both corpses and funeral urns with human ashes the normal gentile method of burial in the Roman Empire. 

            The ancient Jews did not cremate, while on the other hand, cremation was more common than the inhumation of corpses for both Greek and Roman gentiles.  Lesley and Roy Adkins in their Dictionary of Roman Religion write:

 

            “Cremation was the dominant rite until the first and second centuries in Italy and             Rome, and by the mid-third century, in the rest of the empire, when inhumation became most common,” p. 34.

 

 In other words, most burials in the gentile areas in the eastern half of the Roman Empire in the first century A.D. were by cremation and inhumation of funeral urns with ashes, and not the inhumation corpses. 

            Gentile burials in the early Roman Empire, for both bodies and urns, were in individual graves in cemeteries, and not in family tombs.  Only a few of the very wealthy were buried in mausoleum-style tombs, and even these mausoleum-style tombs were for individuals, and not for family burials.  There are no known examples of family tombs, like those in Second Temple Israel, to be found among the other ethnic groups in the Roman Empire. This fact strongly suggests that the Nazareth Inscription was written for Jews and Jewish Christians and not for pagan gentiles.   Incidentally, catacombs were nothing more than underground cemeteries, and they too were not divided into family tombs.

            There are six features in the Nazareth Inscription, which do not fit a non-Jewish, gentile context.  First, there is no reference to bodies being dug out of the ground, only of their being “extracted” from tombs and graves.  Second, there is no reference to human ashes being scattered or to the urns of cremated individuals being stolen or destroyed.  Third, there is no reference made to coffins, and most Roman inhumation burials of dead bodies were in wood or lead coffins.  Fourth, as was mentioned above, there is an assumption of the existence of family tombs, and the gentiles in the Roman Empire did not have family tombs. Fifth, there is no reference to cemeteries, in which almost all Greco-Roman burials were made.  And six, “sepulcher-sealing stones” – see my discussion of line 8 below-- were not used for inhumation burials by gentiles in the Roman Empire. In other words as was stated above, the Nazareth Inscription fits very well within a Jewish family tomb context, but it does not fit at all within a gentile Greek or Roman context.          

            The Greek phrase doloi poneroi in line 6 “with wicked intent” is almost certainly the equivalent of the Latin cuius dolo malo, which is found in later Roman law [see Justinian’s Digest 47.12.3].  The Latin “cuius dolo malo”translates as: “by someone’s evil design.”  However, Zulueta renders this Greek phrase “doloi poneroi” by the adverb “maliciously” in his translation of the Nazareth Inscription. [Zulueta, 185]   Frank E. Brown in his translation in his Violation of Sepulture in Palestine, p. 2 renders this same Greek phrase as “with malice aforethought.”  Brown’s translation is far better than Zulueta’s, but still does not give the full sense of what is being said. 

            This entire Greek phrase in line 6 reads as “eis heterous topous doloi poneroi metatetheikota.  The placement of doloi poneroi between heterous topous and metatetheikota clearly indicates that it was the moving of dead bodies to other places that was being done “with wicked intent.”  In other words, bodies were being moved to perpetrate some sort of a fraud.  The proper translation of doloi poneroi as “with wicked intent” gives strong support to the conclusion that the Nazareth Inscription was a rescript written in response to the story of the resurrection of Christ, which many Jews and pagan Romans believed was a fraud perpetrated by Christian Jews. 

            In line 8 in the Greek text, there is an epsilon “e” [“or”] found between the words “sepulcher sealing [or] stones”  “katoxous e  lithous.”   This is almost certainly a scribal error.  The Greek words katoxoi lithoi, --without the Greek epsilon “e” [“or”] between them-- appears in several other Greek documents and translates as “sepulcher-sealing stones.”  It is for this reason that I do not place an “or” between these two words in my translation. Sepulcher- sealing stones were used for Jewish family tombs and were not used in Greco-Roman style burials, which were by inhumation in individual graves in cemeteries.      

            Even for Jews, the period of time that sepulcher sealing stones were used for family tombs in Israel was relatively short, basically lasting less than 200 years and ending with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.  After the fall of Jerusalem, Jews in the Roman Empire buried their dead much like their gentile neighbors, in individual graves in cemeteries.  This fact clearly indicates that the Nazareth Inscription had to be issued before 70 A.D. 

            These Second Temple, Jewish, family tombs with sealing stones are today called “kok/kokh” tombs by archaeologists.  There is no archaeological or documentary evidence, which indicates that such “kok” tombs with their sepulcher-sealing stones were ever used by gentiles in the Roman Empire.  This fact strongly suggests that the Nazareth Inscription was written against Nazarene Jews who spread the story that Christ has been resurrected from the dead. 

            I believe that the Greek phrase “criterion ego keleuo genesthai” [“I order that a tribunal be created”] found in lines 8-9 indicates that a trial for the crime of “Violation of Sepulcher” was a sacrilege to be handled by a local religious tribunal. The punishment, however, was to be meted out by temporal Roman officials. It should be noted that both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul were put on trial by Jewish religious leaders for sacrilege, and then handed over to or seized by Roman officials for possible punishment [John 18:28-33, and Acts 20:28 and 22:30].

            Frank Brown in his article Violation of Sepulture in Palestine, p. 15 argues that the presence of the word “gods” in line 9 indicates that the Nazareth Inscription was written for a pagan audience, probably the Decapolis.  Brown writes of this appearance of the word “gods” in the Nazareth Inscription:

 

            “Such an insult to Jewish feeling, an insult calculated to precipitate a general insurrection, was exactly what Roman policy did its utmost to avoid.” p.2. 

 

This statement by Brown is pure nonsense. First, as Josephus clearly states, Gaius Caesar [Caligula] nearly drove the Jews to revolt because of his hubristic insistence that his statue be set up for worship as a god in the Jewish Temple. [AJ, XIX.5.1-3]   So much for the supposed Roman policy of Roman emperors doing their “utmost to avoid” causing a “general insurrection” of the Jews!  And second, there still exists a rescript written to the Jews by the Emperor Claudius which calls Caesar Augustus “the god,” see Charlesworth, Documents, p. 14. 

            The reference to “gods” in line 9 should be viewed in conjunction with the establishment of the religious tribunal mentioned in lines 8-9.  In other words, this imperial rescript is simply saying that, just as religious tribunals were to try cases of religious sacrilege involving the gods, so also such religious tribunals should try cases dealing with the removal of bodies from tombs.  In other words, the crime of violation of sepulture was to be handled as a religious crime.  

            This interpretation is supported by the later Theodosian Code 9.17.2 from the Christian period where it is stated that investigations into the crime of “De Sepulchris Violates” in the city of Rome were to be conducted by the judges and “the pontiffs.” [Pharr, 239]  That the crime of violation of sepulcher was considered to be a religious crime in Roman law can also be seen in Justinian’s Digest 47.12.4 where it is stated: “Sepulchra hostium religiosa nobis non sunt,” [“The sepulchers of enemies are for us not religious”]. In other words, the tombs of enemies could be violated without religious penalty.

            The Greek word used in line 12 “metakeinesai” should be translated as “to move,” i.e. dead bodies. This is not reflected in the translations of Zulueta, “disturb them” [p.159], or Brown “forcibly disturb them” [p.  3]. This sentence in lines 11-12 is simply restating for the second time that dead bodies were not to be removed from tombs.  The fact that this warning against removing the dead from tombs is repeated for the second time [see lines 5-6] strongly indicates that this was the main reason why this decree was issued, and this fact strongly suggests that this rescript was written as an imperial response to the story of the resurrection of Christ.  It should also be noted that there is no accusation made in the Nazareth Inscription that tombs or bodies were being robbed, only that bodies were being moved.[2] Why would any sane person want to move a body and not rob it?  This is very strange, unless one assumes that Claudius had heard the Jewish version of the resurrection of Christ, i.e. His disciples stole His body from His tomb.

            Lines 13-14 of the Nazareth Inscription impose the death penalty on anyone found guilty of removing bodies from tombs.  As modern scholars have noted, there is no other example in all of Roman law for the use of capital punishment to punish the crime of breaking into a tomb and removing a dead body.  

            Generally under Roman law, tomb breaking was treated as a matter for a civil suit by the family of the person buried in the violated tomb. See Justinian’s  Digest 47.12, De sepulchro violato.  However, it was also possible for non-family members to bring such suits, and if successful, be paid compensation by the violator.  Civil fines could also be imposed on violators as is seen in The Theodosian Code 9.17-1-6 [Pharr, 239-240]. The context of The Theodosian Code indicates that the later destruction of limestone tombs was taking place so that the limestone could be burned into lime for cement.  Fines are also imposed in The Theodosian Code for using stones from tombs to build private residences.  However, there is nothing in the Nazareth Inscription, which suggests that either of these problems were being addressed by this imperial decree.

             Justinian’s Digest 47.12.3.7 does impose the death penalty on anyone who “robs dead bodies” [“cadavera spoliant”] “by armed force” [“manu armata”]; but there is no reference in all of Roman law to the death penalty being imposed for breaking into a tomb and removing a dead body.  It must be noted that the Nazareth Inscription has absolutely nothing to say about the robbery of tombs or the use of armed force.  Ancient peoples did rob tombs, but the stealing of dead bodies from tombs was probably not a problem that normally would have needed to be dealt with by Roman law. 

Greco-Roman pagans generally believed that the ghosts of the unburied dead could and would haunt the living.  There are many pagan Greco-Roman stories from the ancient world about the living being haunted by ghosts whose bodies or ashes were not properly buried.  In other words, besides the unpleasantness of moving a dead body, gentile Greco-Romans would not have wanted to remove a body from a tomb since it might result in a haunting.  This provision in the Nazareth Inscription imposing the death penalty for the stealing of dead bodies from tombs does not fit a pagan gentile context.  It does, however, fit very well with the story of the resurrection of the Jesus Christ.

            The Greek word which I translate as “title” in line 14 is “onomati” or “name.”  I believe that the word “onoma” or “name” was an early Greek substitution for the Latin word “titulus.  The word titulus was used in Latin for the written accusation posted at the site where a condemned person was to be executed.  See for example the titulus: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” which was posted over Christ’s head at His crucifixion. 

            The Roman practice of posting a titulus at an execution site was foreign to the Greek-speaking half of the Roman world, and there was no equivalent Greek word to translate the Latin word “titulus.”  This can even be seen in all three of the synoptic Gospels in the New Testament, where the Greek words “aitia” [“legal charge”] and variants of the verb “grapho” [“write”] are used together to describe the titulus of Christ, see Matt.27:27, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38.   However, by the time that the Apostle John wrote his gospel, the Latin word “titulus” had become a loan word in the Greek language in the form “titlos.”   John 19:19 uses the word “titlos” for the written charge placed over the head of Christ.  The fact that the Nazareth Inscription uses the Greek word “onoma” or “name” and does not use the later Latin loan word “titlos” strongly suggests that the Nazareth Inscription was written sometime before the Apostle John wrote his Gospel in the late first century A.D.

            In summary, the Nazareth Inscription fits well in a Jewish context where there were family tombs with “sepulcher-sealing stones.”  In addition, the fact that dead bodies were being moved “with wicked intent” suggests something unusual was happening.  The highly unusual imposition of the death penalty for removing dead bodies from tombs supports this interpretation and also strongly suggests that the Nazareth Inscription was issued to deal with what the Roman emperor saw as a major problem.  I believe that this problem was the new sect of the Nazarenes, which taught that Jesus Christ was the King of the Jews and that He had resurrected from the dead. 

            The Roman emperor who wrote the Nazareth Inscription --almost certainly Claudius-- probably saw the new Jewish sect of the Nazarenes as a dangerous, anti-Roman religious movement.  It should be remembered that Jesus’ followers believed that He was the Messiah, the King of the Jews.  Roman emperors took a great deal of interest in people who proclaimed themselves kings.  It should come as no surprise that a Roman emperor might want to nip this new religious-political movement in the bud.  It should be remembered that the home base of the violent and rebellious Jewish Zealots was located in Galilee, and this may have caused the emperor to confuse the new sect of the “Nazarenes” with Jewish Zealots.  And it should also be remembered that the first name given to Jewish Christians was “Nazarenes,” clearly connecting them to the area of Galilee.  In addition, it should also be remembered that one of Jesus’ Disciples was named Simon the “Zealot.”

            To counter the Nazarene/ Christian teaching that Jesus had been resurrected, Jewish leaders claimed that His disciples: “came by night and stole him away.” [Matt. 28:3 NASV]  It is almost certain that this was the version of the resurrection of Christ,  which came to the ears of the Roman Emperor Claudius, who consequently issued the Nazareth Inscription and had it posted in the city of Nazareth.[3] 

 

THE DATE AND PLACE ORIGIN OF THE NAZARETH INSCRIPTION

            There has been a great deal of scholarly debate about the dating of the Nazareth Inscription.  The French scholar M. Franz Cumont, who first published the Nazareth Inscription, placed its date between 50 B.C. and 50 A.D.  He based his dating of this rescript on the style of its epigraphy. [Cumont 265]  However, the American scholar Frank E. Brown of Yale University argued: “… that our inscription comes from the decade after the stamping out of the [Jewish] revolt of 132-135 A.D.” [Brown 19]   On the other hand, both Cumont and Prof. F. de Zulueta argued for dating this Inscription in the reign of the Emperor Caesar Augustus, 31 B.C. to 14 A.D. [Cumont 265; Zulueta 186]  

            M. P. Charlesworth in his book Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius and Nero lists the Nazareth Inscription as one issued by Claudius, but writes that it: “…is of doubtful provenance and date, but some scholars ascribe it to Claudius.” [Charlesworth,  3]  It will be argued in this article that textual evidence and historical synchronisms provide strong support for dating the Nazareth Inscription to the early reign of the Emperor Claudius, 41-54 A.D.

            Textual support for dating the Nazareth Inscription to the reign of Claudius is very compelling. But before dealing with this evidence, it is first necessary to deal with a theory, first advanced by Cumont, that the Nazareth Inscription was originally written in Latin and translated into Greek. [Cumont 265]   Cumont believed that the translation from Latin into Greek was probably done by the Imperial Chancellery.  There is, however, no compelling reason for believing that the Nazareth Inscription was composed originally in Latin.  There are other examples of imperial letters written in Greek, which almost certainly were not first composed in Latin.

            In the period from the first century B.C. through the first century A.D., almost all educated Romans could speak and write in Greek.  It is known from ancient sources that debates in the Roman Senate at times took place in Greek.  If the Emperor Claudius was the author of the Nazareth inscription, as this article will argue below, then there are very good reasons for assuming that the original version of the Nazareth Inscription was dictated directly into Greek by Claudius himself. 

            Claudius, while he at times found it necessary to play the part of a fool before he became emperor, was actually a very well-educated man, although apparently weak of will.  He was especially dedicated to the Latin writings of Cicero, and wrote a book defending him titled Defense of Cicero against the Writings of Asinius Gallus.  The Roman historian Suetonius calls this book: “…a work of no little learning.” [Suetonius vol, ii, 77][4]   Claudius loved Cicero, and I believe that Claudius’ rescripts in Greek show clear evidence of the stylistic features of Cicero’s Latin writings, as also does the Nazareth Inscription. As anyone who has read Cicero in Latin knows, he loved very long sentences filled with clauses tied together with relative and demonstrative pronouns. The best way to approximate Cicero’s Latin style in the Greek language is to use participles, which serve much the same function as relative and demonstrative pronoun clauses do in Latin.  In the Nazareth Inscription, as well as his other rescripts, Claudius makes frequent use of Greek participles and his sentences tend to be quite long.  As will be seen, Claudius was very proficient in Greek.

            Claudius, before he became the emperor, was a friend of the famous Roman historian Livy, who encouraged him to write history.  Claudius wrote his many histories in both Latin and Greek.  Suetonius in his The Lives of the Caesars writes of the Emperor Claudius: “…he even wrote historical works in Greek, twenty books of Etruscan History and eight of Carthaginian.” [Seutonius, vol II, 77]   In the first century when Claudius wrote, Etruscan was a dead language, and he may have been one of the last people who could translate it. 

            Suetonius also writes that Claudius: “… gave no less attention to Greek studies, taking every occasion to declare his regard for that language and its superiority.” [Suetonis vol. ii, 77]    In addition, Suetonius states that Claudius as emperor held court in both Latin and Greek, depending on the language of the person speaking to him. [Suetonius ii, 77]   Claudius was unquestionably fluent in Greek, and it is nearly certain that, when Claudius dictated official rescripts for the Greek-speaking, eastern half of the Roman Empire, he dictated them in Greek.

            One additional feature must be considered before examining some of the textual evidence for dating the Nazareth Inscription to the reign of Claudius. Cumont correctly noted in his article that the Nazareth Inscription was a “rescrit,” or rescript.  When a Roman official wrote a letter of inquiry to the emperor asking some legal or political question, then the emperor would write a rescript letter back answering those questions, and in the process sometimes make law. 

            One of the best examples of this rescript process is the letter written by the Emperor Trajan  [ruled 98-117 A.D] to Pliny the Younger.  Governor Pliny the Younger had earlier sent a letter of inquiry to the Emperor Trajan asking for guidance on how to deal with Christians.  Pliny the Elder wrote a rescript letter in reply giving Pliny the Younger legal guidance on how best to proceed in handling Christians. [Pliny ii, 400-407]

            While the Nazareth Inscription does not give the name of the Emperor who wrote this rescript letter, or the name of the author of the letter of enquiry, there is little doubt that the Nazareth Inscription is an Imperial rescript, as Cumont correctly noted.  As will be seen below, an imperial rescript letter could have the force of law and could be referred to in Greek as a “diatagma” or decree, the very Greek word used in the Nazareth Inscription. 

            The Greek title on the Nazareth Inscription calls it a “Diatagma Kaisaros” or “Decree of Caesar.”  In other words, the Nazareth Inscription is an imperial rescript, which had the force of law.  However, it should be noted that rescripts were often local in their scope, and that they frequently dealt with unusual legal, religious, or political issues, which had arisen in a specific city or province. 

            Most rescripts did not have the force of universal law throughout the entire Roman Empire, but were, as was noted above, local in nature.  However, on some occasions rescripts could decree universal Roman law.  For example, the Jewish historian Josephus provides one rescript letter of Claudius in which the Emperor protected Jewish rights throughout the entire Roman Empire.   This rescript letter is given by Josephus in Greek, and it is likely that he found it written in Greek in the imperial chancellery.  This rescript has many connections to the Nazareth Inscription and for this reason it is translated in its entirety below.

 

            Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribune, Twice-Elected  Consul states: King Agrippa and Herod,[5] persons dear to me, have asked that I assent to guaranteeing the same rights to the Jews in all the areas under Roman rule, as has been done for those Jews living in Alexandria.   Not only do I happily grant this request to those who have asked me, but [I do so] also because I am convinced that [King Agrippa and Herod] are worthy [of having their request granted] and because of their loyalty to and love for the Romans.  I especially determine it to be just that no Greek city deny [to the Jews] these same

            rights, since they were guaranteed to them by the god [Caesar] Augustus.  It is   therefore fitting that the Jews, in all [parts] of the world ruled by us, be        unhindered in observing their ancestral [religious] customs.  I also now command [the Jews] that they make use of this my generosity to them in the most reasonable manner [possible] and that they not show contempt for the religious beliefs of other ethnic groups, [but rather] that they obey their own [religious]             laws.  I also order that the leaders of     cities, colonies, and municipalities,[6]  both           inside and outside of Italy --including kings and dynastic governors, through their      own officials-- have this my decree [diatagma] engraved [on a stone tablet] and        posted outdoors for not less than 30 days in a public place where it can be easily read from paved ground. [ Charlesworth, 14; Josephus, AJ, XIX, 5, 3][7]

 

It should be noted that the above rescript was called by Claudius a “diatagma” or a “decree,” and that it was to be engraved in stone and publicly posted, just as was also apparently done for the Nazareth Inscription.  It is very likely that when this decree on Jewish rights was posted, it was posted in an abridged version.  There would be no reason to include the portions of this letter referring to Agrippa and Herod in the publicly posted version of this decree.  The poor spacing of the letters in the Nazareth Inscription and its rump or abridged form --which will be discussed below-- strongly suggest that it too was  intended for public posting.

            It should also be noted, in the rescript on Jewish rights translated above, that even kings and dynastic governors were ordered by Claudius to post this decree.  This fact destroys the assumptions and consequent arguments used by Frank E. Brown for his dating of the Nazareth Inscription.  Brown’s dating of the Nazareth Inscription [mid 2^nd century A.D.] was largely based on his assumption that the Nazareth Inscription was as imperial decree and that it therefore could not have been written during the rule of any Jewish king over Galilee.  Brown writes:

 

            “In the realms of such kings, created and upheld in independence by the emperor and the senate for the purpose of securing the frontiers, no constitution of the emperor was valid.”  [Brown 14] 

 

Clearly Brown’s assumption is false, and his consequent arguments for dating the Nazareth Inscription are faulty and unreliable. The Emperor Claudius in the above rescript clearly gives orders to “kings and dynastic governors.”  This rescript letter of Claudius was available to Brown in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, and he should have read it and also other passages in Josephus, where Josephus clearly states that the Roman governor of Syria had authority over all the kings and dynasts in his province, including the Jewish King Herod Agrippa I.

            There in one more feature to be considered before attempting to date the Nazareth Inscription.  As was suggested above, not only is the Nazareth Inscription a rescript, but it is also a rump or shortened version of the original imperial rescript letter.  This is clearly seen by the fact that the name and all of the titles of the emperor are missing.  For example, a typical rescript letter sent by the Emperor Claudius to the people of Alexandria begins: 

 

            “Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus, Germanicus, Emperor [Autokrator],          Pontifex Maximus, Tribune, Consul, sends greetings to the city of the            Alexandrians.”  [Charlesworth 3]

 

This same rescript letter of Claudius continues on to give the names of the Greek leaders of Alexandria who had sent him the earlier letter of inquiry. It was common for an imperial rescript to give the name[s] of the person[s] who wrote the original letter of inquiry.  The name[s] of the author[s] of the letter of inquiry is not given in the Nazareth Inscription.  The omission of the name[s] of the author[s] of the letter of inquiry and the omission of the name and titles of the emperor issuing this decree strongly support the assumption that the Nazareth Inscription is a rump version of an imperial rescript.   

            In addition, the very text of the Nazareth Inscription itself clearly shows that it is a rump or abridged version of an original imperial rescript letter.  For example, this can be seen by both the Greek word “te” which is placed ungrammatically after the word “tumbous” “tomb” in line 3 of the Greek text and also by the disconnected definite article “tai” “the” found in line 11.  These were almost certainly scribal errors made by the abridger and/or engraver. 

            There are also several disjointed grammatical phrases, which strongly suggest abridgement.  In addition, the fact that the Greek word “kai” [“and”] is not used even once in the Nazareth Inscription --the Greeks normally made frequent use of “kai” in their literary works and inscriptions-- suggests abridgement.  This abridgement of an imperial rescript should not come as a surprise.  The shortening of an imperial rescript, for the purpose of engraving it on stone and publicly posting it, was almost certainly a regular feature in the Roman world.  Only the relevant parts of an imperial rescript needed to be engraved when it was to be publicly posted. 

 

THE DATING OF THE NAZARETH INSCRIPTION BY ITS TEXT

            The Nazareth Inscription contains words and grammatical structures, which are very similar to those found in several other Greek rescripts of the Emperor Claudius, especially those which in some way deal with the Jews.  For example, of the 90 words used in the Nazareth Inscription, the only Greek words or phrases not found in other known  rescripts of Claudius are: taphous [graves], tumbous [tombs], ametakinetous [undisturbed], katalelukota [destroyed],  kekedeumenous [those entombed], ekserriphota [extracted], dolo ponero, [wicked fraud], katoxus lithous [tomb stealing stones], kriterion [tribunal], metakinesai [move], kephales katakriton [capital punishment], and tumburuxias [tomb-breaker].  Nearly all of these words deal with the specifics of the reason for which this rescript was written, i.e. breaking into tombs, stealing dead bodies, and moving them to other places.

            A number of similar phrases are also used in both the Nazareth Inscription and other rescripts of the Emperor Claudius, as the following chart illustrates:

 

NAZARETH INSCRIPTION                       OTHER RESCRIPTS OF CLAUDIUS

 

Diatagma Kaisaros                                         mou to diatagma[8]

[Decree of Caesar]                                          [my decree]

 

threskeias anthropon]                                     patrion threskeian[9]

[religious observances of men]                      [paternal religious observance]

 

keleuo……medeni                                         keleuo meden[10]

[I order that….. to no one]                             [I order that nothing]

 

kathaper peri theon                                        kathaper ek progonon

[just as concerning gods]                               [just as from parents]

 

mallon …. xre to alethes eipein                     mallon deesei tous kekedeumevous timan

[moreover it is required to tell the truth]       [moreover it is necessary to honor the dead]

 

This is only a partial list but serves to illustrate that the Nazareth Inscription fits well with the vocabulary and style of the rescripts of the Emperor Claudius.

            As was noted above, both Cumont and Prof. F. de Zulueta argue for dating this Inscription in the reign of the Emperor Caesar Augustus, 31 B.C. to 14 A.D. [Cumont 265; Zulueta 186].  However, the use of the phrase “Decree of Caesar” argues for a later period than Caesar Augustus, in other words for a later period when the name Caesar had become established as a synonym for Emperor, just as it is used in the New Testament by both Jesus and the Jews.  As will be seen in Part Two of this article, it is very likely that the Nazareth Inscription was written in 41 A.D.

            In conclusion, the Nazareth Inscription is a rump version of an imperial rescript, which was issued by the Emperor Claudius for posting in a public place, probably in Nazareth.  The context of the Nazareth Inscription clearly proves that it was written for Jews and not gentiles, and that it was almost certainly issued by Claudius in response to the story of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.  Part Two of this article will deal with the historical context of the Nazareth Inscription and will show how the Nazareth Inscription itself fits very well with known historical events found both in the New Testament and in first century historical sources.

 

 

 

 

THE NAZARETH INSCRIPTION: PROOF OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST?

 

By Clyde E. Billington, Ph.D.

Northwestern College

Part Two of Two Part Series

 

PART TWO: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE NAZARETH INSCRIPTION

            As was seen in Part One of this study, the textual evidence strongly suggests that the Nazareth Inscription was written by the Emperor Claudius.  Claudius had an excellent source of knowledge of all events that were happening in Palestine, and especially what was happening in Palestine as related to the development of Christianity.  This source was the Jewish King Herod Agrippa I.  Herod Agrippa I was a childhood friend of Claudius and was also a close personal friend of Claudius’ predecessor the Emperor Caligula.  As will be seen, Herod Agrippa I also had an intimate knowledge of Christ and of early Christianity.  King Herod Agrippa I was almost certainly the one who motivated the Emperor Claudius to issue the Nazareth Inscription in response to the story of the resurrection of Christ.

When Claudius became emperor in 41 A.D., he was faced with a revolt by nearly all the Jews in the Roman Empire.  The previous Emperor Gaius [Caligula], his nephew, had driven the Jews to the brink of revolt by his insistence that his statue be placed in the Temple in Jerusalem. {Josephus, AJ, xviii.8.2][11]  Only the assassination of Caligula and the wisdom of Petronius, the governor of Syria, who delayed implementing Caligula’s commands, prevented war in 41 A.D. between the Jews and the Romans.

            Claudius knew the dangerous Jewish situation very well, not only because of his imperial connections, but also because of his friendship with the Jewish King Herod Agrippa I.  Agrippa had been raised and educated by the imperial Julio-Claudian family in Rome.  Josephus writes:

 

            Shortly before the death of King Herod [the Great], Agrippa was living in Rome. He was brought up with and was on very familiar terms with Drusus, the son of the emperor Tiberius.  He also won the friendship of Antonia,[12] the wife of Drusus the Elder [the brother of Tiberius], for his mother Bernice ranked high    among her friends and had requested her to promote the son’s interest. [Josephus, AJ, xviii.6.1, vol. II, 95-97] 

 

Antonia, whom Josephus mentions in this passage, was the mother of Claudius and the grandmother of Caligula.

 Just a few years before he was made a king by Caligula in 37 A.D., Agrippa had fallen into disfavor with the then still-living Emperor Tiberius because of huge unpaid debts which Agrippa had owed for years to powerful Romans.  Josephus continues:

           

            Undismayed by the emperor’s [Tiberius’] anger, Agrippa asked Antonia, the     mother of Germanicus and the future emperor Claudius, to grant him a loan of  300,000 drachmas so that he might not lose the friendship of Tiberius.  Antonia, both because she still remembered Bernice, his [Agrippa’s]       mother –for the two      ladies had been deeply attached to each other— and because Agrippa had been            brought up with Claudius and his circle, provided the money. [Josephus, AJ, xviii.6.4, vol. II, 107]

 

Antonia was the daughter of Mark Antony and his wife, Octavia, the sister of Caesar Augustus.  She was also the wife of the Emperor Tiberius’ brother, Drusus the Elder. She had two sons, the popular general Germanicus and the future Emperor Claudius.  Her deceased son Germanicus was the father of the future Emperor Caligula.  In other words, Agrippa had as a friend the most powerful and influential woman in Rome, as well as being friends with her son Claudius and her grandson Caligula, both of whom would become Roman emperors.  

 

            When Agrippa was received as a friend by Antonia, he took to attendance upon            her grandson, Gaius [Caligula], who was held in the highest honor because of the popularity enjoyed by his [deceased] father [Germanicus]. [Josephus, AJ,    xviii.6.4, vol. II, 107]

 

In other words, Herod Agrippa I was a boyhood friend of Claudius and became a close friend of Gaius, the future Emperor Caligula.  Tiberius died in 37 A.D., and his grandnephew Caligula became the new emperor.  Shortly afterwards the Emperor Caligula summoned Agrippa to his palace, and “put a diadem on his head and appointed him king of the tetrarchy of [his deceased uncle] Philip, presenting Agrippa also with the tetrarchy of Lysanias.” [Josephus, AJ, xviii.6.10; vol. II, 143]  Caligula’s crowning of Agrippa as a king was to have major consequences for the career of the Tetrarch Herod Antipas, who is famous for events in the New Testament.

            Jealous of Agrippa’s new title of king and nagged by his wife Herodias, who earlier had had her daughter Salome ask for the head of John the Baptist, the Tetrarch Herod Antipas petitioned the Emperor Caligula to also make him a king like his nephew and rival Agrippa.  The ambitious King Agrippa I, seeking revenge for earlier insults by Antipas, sent letters and emissaries to Caligula and accused Antipas of treason and of plotting a revolt against Rome with the support of the Parthian Persians.  As proof Agrippa said that Antipas had enough weapons stored in Galilee to arm 70 thousand soldiers. [Josephus, AJ, xviii, 7.2, vol. II, 140]  As a result of Agrippa’s false accusation, the Emperor Caligula removed Antipas as tetrarch of Galilee and gave Galilee to Agrippa in 37 A.D.  Antipas and Herodias were sent into exile to the city of Lyon in Gaul [France].  Agrippa was now the king of all of northern Israel, including the area of the Galilee where the city of Nazareth was located

            When the Emperor Caligula was assassinated and his uncle Claudius became the new emperor in 41 A.D., King Agrippa happened to be visiting the city of Rome. While there he played a key role in Claudius’ assent to the throne. It was Agrippa who took charge of preparing Gaius’ dead body for cremation.  At that time there were a number of Roman senators who wanted to restore the old Roman Republic and did not want Claudius or anyone else as an emperor.  Meanwhile Claudius needed more time to shore up his support.  To buy time and to keep Claudius’ enemies off balance, Agrippa lied and announced to the Senate that Caligula was only in a coma and was not yet dead.  It was also a later speech by Agrippa, which helped to convince the Roman senate not to go to war with Claudius in an attempt to re-establish a republic in Rome. [Josephus, AJ, xix.iv. 5-6, vol. II, 325-341]

            Claudius therefore owed much to his childhood friend King Agrippa.  Once he had secured the imperial throne, Josephus writes that Claudius rewarded his good friend King Herod Agrippa I for his important help in making him the next emperor.

 

He [Claudius] then promulgated an edict whereby he both confirmed the rule of Agrippa, which Gaius [Caligula] had presented to him, and delivered a panegyric poem in praise of the king.  He also added to Agrippa’s dominions all of the lands that had been ruled by King Herod [the Great], namely Judea and Samaria. He [Claudius] restored these lands to him as a debt due to his belonging to the family of Herod.  But he also added Abila, which had been ruled by Lysanias, and all the land in the mountainous region of Lebanon as a gift out of his own territory, and he [Claudius] celebrated a treaty with Agrippa in the middle of the Forum in the city of Rome. [Josephus, AJ, xix.v.1, vol. II, 341-343]

 

            As was seen above, King Herod Agrippa I was a close friend of the Emperor Claudius. The two men were drawn even closer together by problems in the Jewish communities in Palestine and Alexandria Egypt.  As was seen in the rescript letter on Jewish rights in Part One of this article, Claudius relied on Agrippa for advice on how to deal with Jewish issues.  It was Agrippa’s advice, which had helped calm the near revolt of the Jews in 41 A.D.  Claudius also almost certainly relied on Agrippa for information on the new Jewish sect of Christians.  There is no doubt that Claudius had heard about Christians from some well-informed source. That source was almost certainly his childhood friend, the Jewish King Herod Agrippa I, and Agrippa knew Jesus Christ and the Christians very well.

 

KING HEROD AGRIPPA  I AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY           

            Even before he was made a king by Caligula in 37 A.D., Herod Agrippa I must have been very well informed about the new Christian faith.  As will be seen below, he was almost certainly living with and/or being supported by his sister Herodias and her husband Herod Antipas at the same time when both John the Baptist and Christ were killed.  It was Herod Antipas who ordered the death of John the Baptist, and it was also Herod Antipas who interviewed Jesus at the time of His crucifixion. [Luke 23:6-12]  Herod Antipas was the uncle of Agrippa, and Antipas’ new wife, Herodias, was the full sister of Agrippa.

            Herod Agrippa I was born in ca. 10 B.C. and was educated, as was discussed above, in Rome by the Julio-Claudian family. As a spoiled young prince growing up and then living in Rome, Agrippa wasted his money on riotous living.  Deeply in debt and no longer able to afford to live in the city of Rome, Agrippa returned to Judea in 24 A.D.     

            Meanwhile, probably also in 24 A.D., Herod Antipas on a visit to Rome met his attractive niece Herodias, the wife of his half brother Philip, and fell in love with her.  Herodias agreed to marry Antipas, but only if he divorced his Nabatean wife, to whom he had been married for many years.  When Antipas’ Nabatean wife learned of this affair, she was furious and fled to her father, King Aretas IV of Petra.  Aretas in anger declared war on Antipas.  In late 25 A.D. Aretas crushed the army of Antipas, who was then forced to ask the Emperor Tiberius for Roman forces to fight Aretas.  According to Josephus,[13] it was shortly before his loss to Aretas that Antipas had the head of John the Baptist cut-off at the request of the insecure Herodias. [Josephus xviii.5.2, vol. II, 81-83]  This on-and-off-again war with Aretas would last until Antipas lost his tetrarchy in 37 A.D.

            Agrippa I, the brother of Herodias, after returning from Rome to Judea in 24 A.D. had moved south to Idumea.  Without any source of income and being deeply in debt, Agrippa became despondent and planned to commit suicide.  He was rescued by his wife Cypros and his sister Herodias.  Herodias convinced her new husband Herod Antipas to appoint Agrippa to a governmental position in the Galilee, an area that Antipas then ruled.  Antipas appointed Agrippa as the new “commissioner of markets” in the newly-built city of Tiberias, along the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. [Josephus, AJ, xviii.6.1-3, vol. II. 99-103]  This appointment was probably made by Antipas shortly after his return home from Rome with his new wife in early 25 A.D. 

            John the Baptist had already started his ministry by that time, and Jesus Christ would begin His ministry in Galilee in 25 A.D.  In other words, Agrippa was living in the city of Tiberias at the very time that Christ began His ministry in the Galilee.  Agrippa would certainly have also known about John the Baptist, because Agrippa had a good source of information in his sister Herodias, who hated John for undermining her position as the wife of Antipas.  John the Baptist was a threat not only to Herodias but also to Agrippa, because Agrippa’s job depended upon his sister Herodias remaining as the wife of Antipas.  It should be noted that John was killed while Antipas and Herodias were living in Machaerus, a fort located just east of the Dead Sea in what is today the nation of Jordan.   Machaerus was the fort from which Antipas waged war against his former father-in-law, King Aretas, whose capital Petra was located about fifty miles south of the Dead Sea.           

            It is clear from the New Testament that uncle Herod Antipas, who then ruled the Galilee, had also heard much about Jesus.  Luke 23:8 states that Antipas had heard about Jesus “for a long time.”

           

            Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see him for a         long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some     sign performed by Him. [NASV]

 

It is very likely that Herodias herself was with Antipas in Jerusalem when he met Christ at the time of the Crucifixion in early 29 A.D.  If Herod Antipas had heard about Jesus “for a long time” then it is certain that both Herodias and her brother Agrippa had also heard about Jesus “for a long time.”   

            While Herod Antipas loved his new wife Herodias, he and his nephew/ brother-in-law Agrippa hated one another.  Antipas seems to have enjoyed insulting his employee Agrippa and to have constantly reminded him of his dependency and poverty.  Agrippa appears to have endured these insults for nearly a decade.  Eventually the two men had a major confrontation, and the insulted Agrippa quit his job with Antipas and returned to Rome.  The date of Agrippa’s departure for Rome is not given by Josephus, but historical sources indicate that Agrippa had only been living in Rome for a few years when Tiberias died in 37 A.D.  This would place Agrippa’s arrival in Rome in either 34 or 35 A.D.

             It is very likely that the reason why Agrippa picked this particular time to clash with Antipas and to go to Rome was the death of his uncle, and Antipas’ brother, Philip the Tetrarch of Ituraea, who died in 34 A.D., [14]  It is also almost certain that Agrippa hoped that by going to Rome, he might receive Philip’s tetrarchy from his good friend Caligula, who was heir to the Imperial throne.  Everyone knew that the Emperor Tiberius was old and in ill health.

            It is also very likely that the reason why Antonia loaned Agrippa the 300 thousand drachmas mentioned above was because she knew that her grandson Caligula would eventually appoint Agrippa as the new ruler of Ituraea.  As the ruler of Ituraea, Agrippa would have been able to repay her huge loan with interest.  If Agrippa did not return to Rome until 34 A.D., then he must have been living in the Galilee during the entire ministry of Jesus Christ.  When Tiberias died in 37 A.D., the new Emperor Caligula almost immediately made Agrippa king of Ituraea, and then later that same year, after deposing Herod Antipas from his tetrarchy for treason, Caligula also gave Agrippa the Galilee and Peraea.  Peraea was located in what is today the northern half of the nation of Jordan.

            From 37 to 41 A.D. King Herod Agrippa I ruled Galilee, spending much of his time in his capital cities of Tiberius and  Sepphoris.  His uncle Herod Antipas had earlier made Sepphoris his royal capital in the Galilee, and then had later made his newly-built city of Tiberius his second capital.  The Jewish historian Josephus writes that “Herod (Antipas) fortified Sepphoris to be the ornament of all Galilee, and called it Autocratoris.” [Josephus xviii, 2.2, vol. II, 25]  “Autocratoris” [“Emperor”] was a title held by the Roman emperor.  Archaeological and historical evidence indicates that Sepphoris was populated by highly “Hellenized” Jews.  During the Jewish War from 66-70 A.D., the cities of Sepphoris and Tiberius remained loyal to Rome. It should be noted that Jesus is not mentioned in the New Testament as having ministered in either city.

            As recent archaeological discoveries have shown, Sepphoris was the largest and most beautiful city in all of Galilee at that time.  In addition, it was located only about five miles away from the city of Nazareth.  The city of Tiberius, the second capital of the Galilee, was situated about midway along the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, and it was located only about 15 miles away from Nazareth.  The city of Tiberius was also located only about 6-7 miles by land [about 5 miles by boat] from the city of Capernaum where Jesus spent so much time ministering.  Herod Antipas almost certainly had heard much about Christ and Christianity while he was residing both in Sepphoris and in Tiberius on the Sea of Galilee.  Incidentally, it seems very likely that the Nazareth Inscription was engraved by a stone-cutter from the nearby city of Sepphoris, and was then posted in Nazareth on the orders of the Emperor Claudius. 

            As was discussed earlier, in 41 A.D. the new Emperor Claudius gave King Herod Agrippa I the additional areas of Judea and Samaria.  King Agrippa I then ruled all of the territory that his grandfather Herod the Great had once ruled.  However, his rule over a united Israel was to last less than three years. Shortly after being given Judea in 41 A.D., King Herod Agrippa I went to Jerusalem, his new capital, and, wanting to become more popular with traditional Jews,[15] he began to persecute Christian Jews.  He killed the Apostle James, and arrested the Apostle Peter. [Acts 12:1-3]  It was during his imprisonment by Herod Agrippa I that the New Testament says that the Apostle Peter was miraculously released from prison by an angel. [Act 12:4-19]  Shortly after these events, the hubristic Agrippa suddenly died in the city of Caesarea in 44 A.D. being “eaten by worms.” [Acts 12:23] 

            As was discussed earlier, King Herod Agrippa I was a favorite of the Emperor Claudius, and the emperor relied on Agrippa for advice on how to deal with the Jews.  It is very likely that it was Agrippa who told Claudius about Jesus Christ and the Christians.  That Claudius knew about Christ can be seen in a passage from Suetonius’ Life of Claudius where it is stated: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” [Suetonius, Claud. xxv. Vol. II, 53].  Chrestus is just an early alternate spelling for Christus, or Christ.  The expulsion of the Jews from Rome is referred to in the New Testament in Acts 18:2 where the Jewish Christians Aquila and Priscilla are said to have been expelled from Rome by the Emperor Claudius. The exact date of the expulsion of the Jews is unknown, but it was certainly after the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D. 

            Claudius’ concern about Jewish affairs continued after the death of Agrippa I.  However, Claudius seems to have distrusted or lacked confidence in the young Agrippa II and refused to give to him his father’s kingdom.  Finally in ca. 50 A.D. Claudius made Agrippa II the tetrarch of the small area of Chalcis, and in 53 A.D. he gave him more land and the title of king.  The Emperor Nero later gave him Galilee and Perea, but King Agrippa II did not rule Galilee during the reign of Claudius. Agrippa II would never rule Judea. While it is argued above that it was during the reign of King Agrippa I that the Nazareth Inscription was produced, his son Agrippa II is also known to have been very familiar with the teachings of Christianity, and this fact gives further proof that the Herodian family was well-informed about Christ and the development of Christianity.  The interest in Christianity by the Herodian family was almost certainly politically motivated. 

            The Apostle Paul’s defense before King Agrippa II in ca. 62 A.D. indicates that Paul believed that Agrippa II knew well the story of the resurrection of Christ.  Paul first says to Agrippa II: “…you are an expert in all customs and questions among the Jews.”  [Acts 26:3, NASV]   Paul continues telling Agrippa II that the main reason why the Jews were persecuting him was because of his belief in the resurrection of Christ. [Act 26:7-8]  This was the very issue, which the Nazareth Inscription tried to address. It is very likely that Agrippa II’s knowledge of Christianity came from his father, Herod Agrippa I.

            The Emperor Claudius was assassinated in 54 A.D. by his wife and niece  Agrippina, the mother of Nero, the next Emperor.  As was argued above, Claudius was almost certainly the emperor who issued the Nazareth Decree.  However, Nero is relevant to this study because he also clearly knew about Christianity and because he persecuted Christians who were living in Rome in 64 A.D. [Tacitus, xv. 44, vol. iv, 283-285]  

The Emperor Nero was, for the most part, not much interested in what was happening in the provinces.   It was for this reason that he would blunder into the Jewish War.  As nearly every Christian knows, Nero was a persecutor of Christianity and killed many early Christians in Rome, including both Peter and Paul.  Nero is relevant to this study, because as the successor, grand nephew,  and stepson of Claudius, he was well enough informed on Christianity to see Christians as handy scapegoats to blame for the great fire in Rome in 64 A.D.

            Not only the imperial family but also the entire Roman world seems to have known that the Jews were expecting the coming of their messiah.  The Roman historian Suetonius in his  Life of  Vespasian indicates that the main cause of the Jewish Revolt, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D., was a belief among the Jews that they were destined to rule the world.  Suetonius writes:

 

            “There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief that it was     fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world.”  [Suetonius,       Vesp. iv. vol. ii, 280-282] 

 

A key phrase in this quote from Suetonius is “at that time” [“eo tempore”].  In other words, there was a Jewish belief that a Jewish Empire was destined “at that time” to replace the Roman Empire.  Suetonius continues on to say that it was this belief which was the direct cause of the Jewish Revolt  in 70 A.D.[16]  Incidentally Suetonius wrote his Lives of the Caesars in ca. 100 A.D. 

            The belief that the Jews would rule the world was directly connected to the Jewish belief in the coming of the Messiah/ Christ, who would establish a worldwide Jewish Empire on the earth.  This was exactly what the Essenes taught, as can be seen in the War Scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  It is likely that this element of Jewish eschatology was also known not only later to the Emperor Vespasian as Suetonius reports, but also earlier to the Emperor Claudius.  It is very likely that the source of Claudius’ knowledge was again Agrippa I.  However, any emperor who heard about this Jewish belief could not help but be alarmed and interested in the promised Jewish Messiah/ King and in Jewish eschatology. 

            While there is no direct evidence proving that the Emperor Claudius, who ruled from 41- 54 A.D., knew Jewish eschatology, there are two good reasons for believing that he did.  First, as was seen above, he grew up with the Jewish prince Agrippa I, who unquestionably knew Jewish eschatology on the coming the Messiah.   And second, as both a historian and as the Emperor of the Roman Empire, Claudius would have almost certainly investigated Jewish religion so that he could understand the reasons why the Jews nearly took up arms to fight Rome, when Caligula in 41 A.D. ordered that his statue be placed in the Jewish Temple.

 

CONCLUSION

            The Nazareth Inscription is almost certainly authentic and is a rump version of an imperial rescript.  It was also almost certainly issued by the Emperor Claudius in 41 A.D. The text of the Nazareth Inscription fits both the style and structure of other known rescripts of Claudius. 

            The Emperor Claudius was also well placed to know a great deal about Jewish religion.  He was the boyhood friend of the future Jewish King Herod Agrippa I.  Agrippa I, being both the nephew of Herod Antipas and the brother of Herodias, was himself well placed to have heard about Christ and His teachings. Agrippa I also was a governmental official in the city of Tiberius in the Galilee at the same time when both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ were ministering in Israel. Agrippa’s uncle Herod Antipas certainly knew that Jesus was a Galilean from Nazareth, [Luke 23:5-7] and King Agrippa I also must have known this. 

            The close connection between the name of Jesus and the city of Nazareth is important for determining the place where the Nazareth Decree was posted. A careful look at the New Testament reveals that the followers of Jesus were at first not called Christians but rather “Nazarenes.” The Apostle Paul when he appeared before the Roman Governor Felix was accused by his Jewish enemies of being: “…a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.”  [Acts 24:5 NASV] 

            It is also very clear in the New Testament that Jesus during his ministry was called Jesus of Nazareth, and only later was called “Jesus the Christ/Messiah.”  There are many references in the New Testament to “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus the Nazarene.” These references are made by both His followers and His enemies.  Every one who had heard of Jesus knew that he was from Nazareth.  In Mark 14:57 the Apostle Peter is accused of being a follower of “Jesus the Nazarene.”   The titulus, which Pilate placed over the head of Jesus on the cross, read “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” [John 19:19]   Peter in his sermon in Acts chapter 2 calls Jesus “the Nazarene.”  When Peter appeared before the High Priest and the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:10, he spoke of: “Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead.”   Unquestionably, Agrippa I, who was related to the family of the high priests, would have known that Jesus was from the city of Nazareth in Galilee.

            That King Agrippa I was well acquainted with Christianity can also be seen in his behavior after Claudius added Judea to his kingdom in 41 A.D.  As soon as he returned from Rome in 41 A.D. to claim Judea, one of the first things that Agrippa did was to persecute Christians in the city of Jerusalem, his new capital.  With his intimate knowledge of the new Jewish sect of Jesus the Nazarene, it is very likely that it was King Herod Agrippa I who wrote the letter of inquiry to the Emperor Claudius about how to deal with the sect of Jesus the Nazarene.  It is also very likely that it was in response to Agrippa’s letter of inquiry that Claudius wrote an imperial rescript forbidding the removal of bodies from tombs to counter the Christian doctrine that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead.  It is also very likely that it was King Herod Agrippa I who, through his influence on Claudius, had the Nazareth Inscription posted in Nazareth, the home city of the “sect of the Nazarenes.”  In addition, Herod Agrippa I may have even used the Nazareth Inscription as imperial authorization for the persecution of Christians and the execution of James the brother of John, see Acts.12:1-3.

The best date for the posting of the Nazareth Inscription is 41A.D.  In 41 A.D. Claudius became emperor and immediately had to deal with a developing revolt among the Jews, both those living in Israel and also those living in the city of Alexandria.  As was related above, just before his assassination, Caligula had driven the Jews to the brink of revolt by ordering Roman troops to set up his image in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.  Greeks in Alexandria had used Jewish resistance to worshipping Caligula as an excuse to attack the Jews as anti-Roman and unpatriotic.  To deal with this explosive situation in 41 D.D., Claudius almost certainly turned to his friend Agrippa I for advice and information.  Since Agrippa I is known to have disliked Christians and since he also knew, as the Book of Acts records, that Christians were causing an uproar in Jerusalem at the very time when he became king of Judea in 41 A.D., it is very likely that it was at this same time that Agrippa I wrote his letter of inquiry to Claudius, and Claudius wrote his rescript letter forbidding the removal of bodies from tombs.  With Agrippa I’s intimate knowledge of Christ and Christianity, it was almost certainly he who selected Nazareth as the site for the posting of the Nazareth Inscription.

            The question that now needs to be answered is:  Does the Nazareth Inscription prove the resurrection of Christ.  The answer to that question is no.  But what it does prove is that the story of the resurrection of Christ was already well known, even to the Emperor Claudius in ca. 41 A.D.  This fact clearly proves that the story of the resurrection of Christ was widely known almost immediately after His crucifixion. In other words, the story of the resurrection of Christ must have been a story that was circulated by his Apostles themselves, and it was not a later invention by Christians of the post-apostolic period, as some modern scholars in the past have argued.  The Nazareth Inscription does force modern scholars into making a choice of either believing in the resurrection of Christ or of believing that His disciples stole His body from the tomb in order to perpetrate a great religious fraud.  As is true for philosophy, science, and religion, belief is always the key issue.

           

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Adkins, Lesley &       Dictionary of Roman Religion, New York: Facts on File.

   Adkins, Roy

1996   

 

Brown, Frank E.        Violation of Sepulture in Palestine in American Journal of  

1952                           Philology, vol. LII, 1, No. 205, pp. 1-29

 

Charlesworth, M. P.   Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius and Nero,

 1952                            Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Cumont, M. Franz.    Un Rescrit Imperial Sur L Violation De Sepulture in Reveu

 1930                            Historique, LXIII, 2e, pp. 241-266.

 

Josephus                     Antiquities of the Jews, trans. by Louis Feldman. Cambridge, MA: 1965                              Harvard University Press.

 

Pharr, Clyde                The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian

1952                             Constitiutions.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

Pliny the Younger      Letters, trans. by William Melmoth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard   1958                             University Press.

 

Suetonius,                   The Lives of the Caesars.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University     1959                              Press, vol. ii, Claudius, Bk. V.

 

Tacitus, Cornelius      The Annals, trans. by John Jackson, Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

1962                            University Press.

 

Zulueta, F. de            Violation of Sepulture in Palestine at the Beginning of the Christian                          1932                            Era, in the Journal of Religious Studies.

 

 

FOOTNOTES