Was Jesus “Retrofitted” onto the Prophecies of the Old Testament?
by Terry Wane Benton
If the gospel writers just made the story of Jesus fit the Old Testament, what were the secular historical accounts doing?
Tacitus (c. 56–120 CE), the Roman historian, in his final work Annals (written around 115 CE), wrote about Emperor Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE. In one passage, he explains that the name "Christian" was derived from "Christus," who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus". This is also the claim of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Scholars generally accept this reference as authentic and consider it a valuable independent Roman source confirming Jesus's crucifixion. Did Tacitus “retrofit” that Jesus fit the crucifixion image of Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53? Of course not! The claim that Christians made Jesus “retrofit” the prophecies of crucifixion is absurd, and only advanced to try to offset the power of the evidence of God-given wisdom, which demonstrates that God is real, outside of time, space, and matter, and outside of the materialistic studies of the scientific method but powerfully demonstrated in the testimony of the prophetic word made more sure.
Lucian of Samosata, a second-century Greek satirist, mocked Christians for worshiping a "crucified sophist" from Palestine. While criticizing Peregrinus for adopting and then abandoning the Christian faith, Lucian includes his observations of the Christians themselves. He describes them as "misguided creatures" who worship "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world" (found in his work "The Passing of Peregrinus". Most scholars date the work to around 165–170 CE). This confirms that belief in Jesus's crucifixion was a central aspect of Christian identity and was known among pagan writers. Again, there was no “retrofitting” Jesus into the scripture descriptions of His death. They are just stating what happened. So, even when the enemies of Christ and Christians tried to undermine them, they admit that the fact of the crucifixion of Jesus was well known in the first and second centuries.
A reference in the Babylonian Talmud from the sixth century CE mentions a "Yeshu" who was "hanged on the eve of Passover" (Tractate Sanhedrin 43a). While it portrays Jesus in a hostile manner, some scholars believe it corroborates aspects of the gospel narrative. So, enemies corroborate what the four Gospel writers present as facts. Even the timing of Jesus’ crucifixion is not something the disciples made up to “retrofit” Jesus to the Passover; rather, the Old Testament Passover was already in place, and Jesus fit the deliverance from bondage theme because that was the God-given purpose for sending Him. Neither the disciples of Jesus nor the Jews’ Babylonian Talmud were written to “retrofit” Jesus in connection to the Passover. It is simply what happened, and the observation is just drawing necessary inferences from the facts.
Pliny the Younger noted how the early disciples of Jesus vowed to one another a high moral standard of commitment. Pliny's investigations revealed Christians vowed not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, falsify their word, or break a trust. Pliny the Younger describes Christians vowing to "not to falsify their word" in his famous letter to the Emperor Trajan, usually cataloged as Epistle 10.96. Yet, it seems strange that modern biblical critics are so quick to assert that their whole basis of their moral commitment not to falsify their word was based on lies. In looking inside the testimony of the apostles of Jesus, there was instruction to lie not to one another, stating that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire, and yet we are ridiculed for believing that the apostles did not die to tell the biggest lie of all history, and for what? While the motives of the early disciple were noted as high even by outsiders, it does seem that the modern skeptic’s motive to assign lies to the early disciples is not based in high standards of objectivity and honesty, but solely in an agenda to erase the credibility of both the witnesses who followed Jesus as well as the enemies of Jesus who corroborated the same basic facts. They have to assign negative motives to all historians who disagree with their agenda.
