THE
By
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
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
By
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
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
In other words, most burials in the gentile areas
in the eastern half of the
Gentile burials in the early
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
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
These
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
“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
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 [
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
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
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
THE DATE AND PLACE ORIGIN OF
THE
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
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
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
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
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
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 2nd 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
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
“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
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
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:
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
THE
By
Northwestern College
Part Two of Two Part Series
PART TWO: THE HISTORICAL
CONTEXT OF THE
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
When Claudius became emperor in 41 A.D., he was faced with a revolt by
nearly all the Jews in the
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
Shortly before the death of King Herod
[the Great], Agrippa was living in
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
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
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
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
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
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
Agrippa I, the brother of Herodias,
after returning from
John the Baptist had already started
his ministry by that time, and Jesus Christ would begin His ministry in
It is clear from the New Testament
that uncle Herod Antipas, who then ruled the
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
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
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
From 37 to 41 A.D. King Herod Agrippa
I ruled
As recent archaeological discoveries
have shown, Sepphoris was the largest and most beautiful city in all of
As was discussed earlier, in 41 A.D.
the new Emperor Claudius gave King Herod Agrippa I the additional areas
of
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