Pliny the Younger wrote of "Christians" which implies a "christ".
There were plenty of Christs around that time. At this time the word "Christ" was a title (the Messiah) and not a personal name..
Christós, meaning 'anointed' is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), the Messiah.
Pliny's writing do not mention the name Jesus. This could have referred to any of the other "christs", who were being followed by some Jews who thought they had found the messiah.
Pliny’s report is only of what other people believed. Even if this sentence does refer to a group who followed Jesus it is not particularly enlightening as no one denies that Christianity was in existence at that time. Pliny's report might be useful in documenting the cult, but not the historic Jesus.
[Pliny served as an
imperial magistrate under
Trajan (reigned AD 98–117).
[1] Pliny was considered an honest and moderate man, consistent in his pursuit of suspected
Christian members according to Roman law. He rose through a series of Imperial civil and military offices, the
cursus honorum (see below). He was a friend of the historian
Tacitus and employed the biographer
Suetonius in his staff.]
Errr....yes. What's your point?
Suetonius wrote of Chrest and his followers.
Gaius Suetonius wrote in about AD 120, in his major work, “Lives of the Caesars.”
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
Now, Chrestus may be a misspelling of Christus, but it is also the correct Latin version of a different Greek name. So this passage means one of two things:
Either:
- There were Christians in Rome at the time of Claudius, causing trouble in the name of their Christ, whose name was misspelled by an expert in linguistics; or
- There was a Jew in Rome called Chrestus, directly causing trouble.
Either way, the passage written by Suetonius proves little about the historical accuracy of Jesus as a person.
Josephus who was of the Jewish establishment also did, contemporary with these writers.
[Josephus fully defected to the Roman side and was granted
Roman citizenship, and became an advisor and friend of Vespasian's son
Titus. He served as an advisor and translator to Titus when Titus led the
Siege of Jerusalem].
Josephus is not a contemporary of the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels and attributed to somewhere around AD 33. At least one of the two passages where he supposedly wrote about Christ is considered to be a later interpolation, while the other is subject to much debate.
Josephus was born about AD 37, three-four years after the traditional date fixed for the crucifixion of Jesus. It is also believed that his writings were made about AD 93, and took place AFTER the writing of the first gospel, commonly believed to be that of Mark.
There are two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings...
The first reads as follows:
"About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
and the second reads as follows:
"Ananus… convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."
There are serious doubts that Josephus actually wrote the first of these passages. For example why would Josephus (a Jew), call Jesus the Messiah. As a Jew he would believe that the Messiah is yet to come. Origen, a Church father, who dealt extensively with Josephus - stated that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, i.e., as "the Christ." So why did Josephus call Jesus that? It almost imputes that Josephus was a devout Christian and he certainly was not!
Furthermore many historians have stated that the first passage seems out of context and has been placed there by a later Christian, possibly Eusebius about AD 324. No one before Eusebius quotes the passage, though second and third-century Christian scholars such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen knew the Josephus book well. Had they known of the passage, surely they would have quoted it in their theological disputes with the Jews. They didn't.
This is the same Eusebius who said that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ:
"I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).
Voltaire in the 16th century also cast significant doubts on the Josephus passage.
Opinion about the second "James" passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the first may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. Now if Jesus was so well known and in fact performed the great miracles that are reported in the Gospels, then why doesn't Josephus mention these in more detail?
However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.
Whatever the case, using Josephus as firm evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ of the Gospels is based on somewhat shaky ground.