Roman Emperor Tiberias and Jesus - A Tale of Two Contemporaries

The Emperor and the Carpenter: Why Ancient History Judges Jesus by a Double Standard

Introduction

When evaluating ancient history, perspective is everything. Modern readers often expect ancient biography to look like modern journalism, forgetting that survival of firsthand records from the first century is extraordinarily rare. For an itinerant teacher in a remote Roman province to leave behind multiple narrative accounts within decades of his death is an anomaly. In fact, if we measure biographical evidence by the standards of the Greco-Roman world, the historical record for Jesus rivals that of the single most powerful man alive at the time: Emperor Tiberius Caesar.

The Emperor’s Record

Tiberius ruled the entire Roman Empire from AD 14 to 37. At the height of his power, he commanded legions, directed imperial finances, and governed tens of millions of subjects across three continents. Yet, when modern historians seek narrative accounts of his life and administration, the contemporary paper trail vanishes almost entirely. Our understanding relies almost exclusively on four core literary sources - each carrying distinct limitations, gaps, and biases:

• Velleius Paterculus (Compendium of Roman History): Written around AD 30 while Tiberius was still alive, Paterculus offers our only surviving contemporary narrative. However, as an active cavalry officer and devoted partisan serving under Tiberius, his work is undisguised panegyric [a formal speech or piece of writing that offers high, elaborate praise for a person, group, or thing without mentioning anything negative]. He showers the emperor with glowing praise, framing every policy and military campaign in the most heroic light possible.

• Tacitus (Annals, Books I–VI): Written circa AD 110–120 - roughly 80 to 90 years after Tiberius’s reign - Tacitus provides the most detailed surviving account. Despite having access to Senate records (acta senatus), Tacitus wrote from a staunchly pro-senatorial, aristocratic perspective. He portrays Tiberius as a brooding, duplicitous tyrant consumed by paranoia, treason trials (maiestas), and ruthless purges.

• Suetonius (The Twelve Caesars: Tiberius): Composed around AD 121, [80 to 90 years after Tiberius’s reign] Suetonius served as imperial private secretary (ab epistulis), granting him access to imperial archives. Rather than a rigorous political chronology, his biography is thematic and heavily sensationalized. Suetonius focuses disproportionately on court gossip, omens, sexual deviance, and the lurid rumors surrounding Tiberius’s self-imposed exile on the island of Capri.

• Cassius Dio (Roman History, Books 57–58): Written in Greek during the early third century - nearly 200 years after the death of Tiberius. While Dio was a meticulous consul and historian who synthesized earlier lost records, his retrospective analysis views the early principate through the lens of late-empire autocratic politics.

Beyond these four literary texts, external evidence for Tiberius consists primarily of fragmented coins, public inscriptions, and brief passing mentions in philosophical or Jewish writings (such as Philo and Josephus). Even for the absolute ruler of the Mediterranean world, surviving historical narrative is limited to a handful of delayed, politically charged, and mutually conflicting accounts.

The Historical Bridge 

These sources do not align smoothly. They frequently conflict in tone, detail, political interpretation, and personal motive. Yet classical historians do not throw their hands up and declare Tiberius a mythical figure or his life unrecoverable. They cross-examine the discrepancies, account for authorial bias, and reconstruct a clear historical portrait.

The double standard emerges when this same critical lens is applied to the New Testament Gospels -  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Despite being four independent narrative accounts composed within a similar or shorter timeframe than the primary sources for Tiberius, the Gospels are often met with extreme historical skepticism that classical texts escape.

The Verdict from Classical History

Eminent Oxford Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White highlighted this very disparity in Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament:

"It is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn... that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. This seems very curious when one compares the case for the best-known contemporary of Christ, who like Christ is a well-documented figure—Tiberius Caesar... Everyone would admit that Tacitus is the best of all the sources, and yet no serious modern historian would accept at face value the majority of the statements of Tacitus about the motives of Tiberius. But this does not prevent the belief that the material of Tacitus can be used to write a history of Tiberius."

Conclusion

The disparity between how we treat the records of Tiberius and the records of Jesus exposes a profound methodological double standard. When evaluating the Roman emperor, classical historians routinely sift through late, biased, and politically motivated accounts without questioning the historical reality of the man or the core milestones of his reign. Discrepancies are treated as natural byproducts of human perspective, and delayed sources are welcomed as standard for the ancient world.

The hypocrisy arises when the New Testament Gospels are subjected to an entirely different set of rules. Four independent accounts written within decades of the events are often dismissed as "unreliable" or "mythological" simply because they contain theological conviction or varying perspectives - standards that would effectively erase most of Greco-Roman history if applied consistently. Secular biographers like Suetonius and partisan officers like Paterculus are given critical charity, while the Gospel writers are met with an impossible demand for immediate, sanitized neutrality.

If the fragmented, conflicting paper trail of the most powerful emperor in Rome is sufficient to establish historical fact, holding the New Testament narratives to an exclusionary filter is not rigorous skepticism - it is historiographical prejudice. When judged fairly on the actual playing field of ancient literature, the biographical case for Jesus does not just match the evidentiary standard of his imperial contemporary; it surpasses it.

Was the Passion narrative Forged or Faked to Fulfill a Supposed Prophecy in Psalm 22

Here is a Reddit post by Opposed38 who put forth this argument:

The Passion of Jesus is first described in the synoptic gospels, where we have Jesus crying: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?". This is a reference to Psalm 22, in which that is the starting verse. If you look at the Psalm, you already start to see the parallels: "They pierced my hands and my feet" is the most characteristic, because of the crucifixion itself, but when you read the gospels, you see fragments of the Psalm copied exactly as they are!:

Psalm 22:7 - "They hurl insults, shaking their heads" Mark 15:29 - "Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads"

Psalm 22:8 - "He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him" Matthew 27:43 - "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’"

Is it coincidental that, specially in Mark, there would be such a strong parallel? It is not simply a description that fits, it's word for word copied.

As I understand it, there are five Psalm 22 verses that are alluded to in the Gospels. If I missed any, please let me know.

Preliminaries 

Greek and Hebrew belong to separate language families (Indo-European and Semitic respectively), their grammatical structures are naturally dissimilar in many respects. Why is that important? Because the way different languages are constructed, it would be difficult to have a "word for word" copying from what was written in the OT [Hebrew] and the NT [Greek] 

Greek, with its complex system of declensions, conjugations, and cases, relies heavily on word endings to convey grammatical function. The predominant word order is Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), similar to English. However, word order can be relatively flexible, and other orders like VSO (Verb-Subject-Object) are also possible.

Hebrew, while also having a complex verb system, is more dependent on word order and prefixes/suffixes for grammatical information. Biblical Hebrew, which is VSO (Verb-Subject-Object), is a common exception, particularly in narrative and poetic passages. 

This would seem to necessitate a change in Syntax - the rules governing the arrangement of words in a sentence to create grammatically correct and meaningful phrases and sentences

In English, a simple example of correct syntax is "The dog barked" (subject-verb), while an example of incorrect syntax would be "Barked dog the" (as it doesn't follow the typical word order).

So the Gospel writers reading this is Hebrew and writing in Greek would have to change, at least some, grammar of the Hebrew for it to make sense in Greek. 

The evaluation of the argument

So, as always, when someone makes an argument from the Scriptures ensure that you look to the data, the actual verses to see what it says. Read it in context to understand the author's point. As Greg Koukl says "...always read a paragraph at least..."  

I think the following will make it clear that the authors definitely did not copy Psalm 22 word for word.

1 . Psalm 22:18 —“they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

Jn 19:23–24 - When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things.

Mt 27:35 - And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.

Mk 15:24 - And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take.

Lk 23:34 - And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.

2. Psalm 22:7 —“All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads”

Mt 27:39 - And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads

Mk 15:29 - And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days

Analysis: None of the Gospel writers quote PS 22:18 word for word.  Matthew comes the closest. 

3. Psalm 22:8 —“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

Mt 27:43 - He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.

4. Psalm 22:1—“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?”

Mt 27:46 - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Mk 15:34 - And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me

5. Psalm 22:31—“they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.”

Jn 19:30 - When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.Psalm 22:31— For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet

Luke 24:39 - See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.

Analysis:  Not once was there a word for word quote in the NT of and PS 22 verse.  

This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

Note: Some say that that Psalm 22:16 should read, “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” However "like a lion," and "they have pierced" are very similar in Hebrew: כּארי verses כּארוּ. And the older Hebrew manuscripts, and manuscripts in other languages that predate most of the Hebrew manuscripts, strongly argue for “pierced” being the correct reading.

Conclusion: As I said, there is no instance where PS 22 was copied word for word in the Gospels. The ideas in PS 22 verses were certainly used by the Gospel authors in their own words.

So is there a better explanation for the use of PS 22 other than some sort of fakery?

Yes. Jesus knew the OT and taught it to the Apostles, who also mostly likely read the Scriptures daily. And most likely Jesus taught this Psalm in regard to his death. So, the Gospel writers had that teaching blazing in their hearts and minds when they realized what happened and was said during the crucifixion, thus fulfilling PS 22. So, they wrote down what they heard and saw. No fakery or forgery needed to explain the allusions to PS 22 in the Gospels.

Addendum

There are Jewish writings which associate this Psalm with a future event and Messiah.

Commenting on this Psalm, Rabbi Rashi [Shlomo Yitzchaki] says, ‘They (meaning the Jewish people) are destined to go into exile and David recited this prayer for the future.’ So this would mean that the Psalm does have a future application.

Rashi’s commentary on this verse was: “Why have You forsaken me?: They are destined to go into exile, and David recited this prayer for the future.”

The famous Midrash from the eighth-century, Pesikta Rabbati, places some of the words of Psalm 22 on the lips of the suffering Messiah. In fact, the Midrash explicitly states that: “it was because of the ordeal of the son of David, that David wept, saying: “My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death.” (Ps. 22:16)

According to this Rabbinic Midrash, King David described the future suffering and death of Messiah Son of David in this Psalm.

The following rabbinic Midrash which was written prior to the Masoretic text:

“During the seven year period preceding the coming of the son of David, Iron beams will be brought low and loaded upon His neck until the Messiah’s body is bent low. Then He will cry and weep, and His voice will rise to the very height of heaven, and He will say to God: Master of the universe, how much can my strength endure? How much can my spirit endure? How much my breath before it ceases? How much can my limbs suffer? Am I not flesh and blood? …During the ordeal of the son of David the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him: Ephraim, My true Messiah, Long ago, ever since the six days of creation, thou didst take this ordeal upon thyself. At this moment, thy pain is like my pain. At these words, the Messiah will reply: ‘Master of the Universe, now I am reconciled. The servant is content to be like his Master.'” [Midrash Pesikta Rabbati, 36:2]

The Midrash goes on to clarify:

“Ephraim, our true Messiah, even though we are thy forbears, thou art greater than we, Because thou didst suffer for the iniquities of our children, and terrible ordeals befell thee. For Israel thou didst become a laughingstock and a derision among the nations of the earth; And didst sit in darkness, in thick darkness, and thine eyes saw no light and thy skin cleaved to thy bones, and thy body was as dry as a piece of wood; and thine eyes grew dim from fasting, and thy strength was dried up like a potsherd (Psalm 22:16), All these afflictions on account of the iniquities of our children.” [Pesikta Rabbati 37:137]