How Incomplete is Our Knowledge of 1st-Century Rome?

Factual Questions
21

The other cute quote (You’ll find in the Israeli Museum’s exhibit on Herod this year). Augustus allegedly said “It’s safer to be a pig in Herod’s household than to be his son.” Herod executed his son and the “pig” jibe is implying that Herod ate kosher.

Read the chapters of Josephus leading up to Herod’s ascendency. Herod was no worse than the bunch he replaced that could not keep the peace (or accept being overthrown). He may have been vicious but he brought a measure of stability, peace and prosperity for several decades.

As for surviving records - the place was trashed twice in less than a century within a few decades after the crucifixion. Written records would have been sparse at best - but laying Jerusalem and the countryside to waste did not encourage the survival of any more records. Much of what we know of the whole empire is a few detailed records that survive and a lot of guesswork… Some classics only survive because we can read them even though the ink was scraped off to reuse the parchment for liturgical books. Without Josephus we would know a lot less about Judea, and there’s some indication that even he was shading the truth.*

As mentioned above, there are only a few passing references to “governors” mentioned in the bible. Very little remains of Herod, either - although they think they’ve found his tomb at Herodium. When people wrote the gospels, they were telling stories to reinforce the religion, not scholarly works of historical accuracy. Even had they wanted, a lot was written from oral history - there was no Wikipedia Romanus with a convenient list of Judea, Governors of, chronological list with dates. The people who would know and remember were old. Significant events like local censuses would be confused with empire wide enumerations of citizens.

The bad guys in the narrative were bad guys, and the story was written that way. Interestingly, IIRC the gospel aimed at (roman) gentiles (Luke?) puts more of the blame on the Jewish priest hierarchy than the Romans. For the religious types, Herod was a bad guy. He was barely Jewish, he usurped a local (fractious) royal line with the assistance of the other bad guys, the Romans. He beheaded the prophet John, he murdered babies - all that’s missing is torturing puppies and kittens.

A lot of what we think we know - the location of almost every religious site other than the Temple - Golgotha, the last Supper, burial, stations of the cross, site of Jesus’ trial, sermon on the mount - all likely made up either 300 years later to keep Constantine’s mother happy, or definitely made up 1000 years later to satisfy the Crusaders.

( *the archaeological evidence shows Masada fell before the siege engine fully breached the walls; yet Josephus describes a pitched (sorry) battle where the Romans holding him won through their and the commander’s astounding bravery by breaching the walls before the defenders killed themselves.)

22

Distorted, both, fictionalized by either author, not necessarily. Both of them are writing nth-hand accounts and it’s not as if they had detailed records to check. I know many people who date things, not by its numerical year, but by “it was the year it snowed…” “no it wasn’t, it was two years after it snowed!” “wasn’t it the year it snowed?” “nooooo, remember that Lali had already started school?” “:smack: oh yes! She wouldn’t have been in school, on the year it snowed!”; that is two people who lived the events being recounted and what they’re using for a reference isn’t exactly stuff you expect to find a lot of documents about.

23

Plus, with oral or written history, people will use a literary device known as “make things up”, especially when it comes to slandering people they hated. Gibbon, in Decline and Fall IIRC mentions several instances where those writing about recent history were happy to repeat horrible and obviously false rumors and even concoct worse stories about the emperors and their entourage - as if the rumor mill in a place and time like that was not bad enough already.

So no surprise if Herod, who executed his own son, is said to have ordered the slaughter of babies. It makes for a juicy story, and adds to the miraculous nature of someone who survived.

Most likely the whole thing, wise men, slaughter of innocents, holy magical star are all stories made up to enhance the perception of sacred and mystical origins.

24

This is a bit of a hijack, since the OP is explicitly not asking about differences between Matthew and Luke, but I’ll try to address the issue quickly. The two stories are not just inconsistent, they are radically different. In Matthew, Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem, a star tells wise men from the East about the birth, the wise men visit first Herod and then Bethlehem, the wise men give gifts of gold, incense, and myrrh, Joseph takes Mary and Jesus to Egypt to hide out, Herod slaughters all the babies in the Bethlehem area. and Joseph brings his family back from Egypt and relocates in Nazareth. In Luke, Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth already, they travel to Bethlehem because Joseph is required to do so for the census, Jesus is born in a stable, and angels announce the birth to shepherds who come to pay homage.

These stories have almost nothing in common except the theologically required elements that Mary was a virgin and Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Their only common element that is not theologically required is that Mary’s husband was Joseph; his name is not mentioned outside the birth stories.

25

We only possess a small fraction of 1% of all the manuscripts that existed in the ancient world. Cicero’s writings were extensively quoted by later writers and stitched back together from those passages. For Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul we have virtually nothing else but his own account - kinda like having only Churchill’s History of the Second World War for WW2. An important source, but far from neutral.

26

Do the non-canonical Gospels shed any light, from a historical perspective? For example do they mention a census, who was in charge in Judea, Jesus’ home town, or indeed anything that deepens our historical picture of the times? And is there any reason to think they were composed closer in time to the era of Jesus than the canonical Gospels were?

27

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is dated from the second century, and lists many miracles (or curses — it reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode based on Jerome Bixby’s “It’s a Good Life”) of Jesus as a young boy, but does not name his home town, although it says that it is more than a day’s journey from Jerusalem, which Bethlehem is not.

The gospels of Mark and John both refer to him as “Jesus of Nazareth.” AFAIK they do not mention any connection to Bethlehem.