The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection

8/4/2019 The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-new-testament-documents-and-the-historicity-of-the-resurrection 1/24

The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection

Sam Shamoun

The historicity of the resurrection is firmly rooted in the reliability of the New Testament

documents. If it can be shown that the NT documents are unreliable, then the case for theresurrection goes out the window. If, however, it can be demonstrated that the NT documents

are historically accurate and were written down during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the

life and resurrection of Jesus, then the truth claim of Christianity is affirmed.

We will examine both the external and internal evidence and see where does it lead us.

External Evidence

External evidence would include the number and dating of the available NT manuscripts as

well as archaeological evidence that serves to affirm or debunk the early composition of the

New Testament. The first will be the evidence furnished by the MSS themselves.

Manuscript Evidence

We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament,

another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than

24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from

McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict , vol.1, 1972 pp. 40-48; Time, January 23,

1995, p. 57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation atour disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals

contained. No other ancient writing of antiquity has as many MSS as the New Testament.

In fact, when we compare the works of antiquity with that of the NT documents, we will then

see how superior the New Testament really is in terms of dating and number of MSS.

The Time Gap And The Number Of MSS:

Author Date

Written

Earliest

Copy Time Span

Copies

(extent)

Secular Manuscripts:

Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8

Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?

Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5

Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10

Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7

Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?

Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/contact.htm





In comparison, we have copies of the NT which date approximately 15-20 years after the

authors of scripture originally penned the autographs.

Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts):

Magdalene Ms (Matthew

26)1st century 50-60 AD coexistent(?)

John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years

Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years

Chester Beatty Papyri (NT) 1st cen. 200 AD 150 years

Diatessaron by Tatian

(Gospels)1st cen. 200 AD 150 years

Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st cen. 325-350 AD 275-300 years

Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st cen. 350 AD 300 years

Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st cen. 400 AD 350 years

Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others

= 24,000 copies. Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230. Some of the most important

MSS include:

The John Ryland Papyri:

Manuscript portions of the Gospel of John, located in the John Ryland Library of Manchester,

England and believed to be the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, dated AD 130,

within 40 years of the original.

Lukan Papyrus:

"The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or

early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996,

pg.8)."

Mark and Qumran:

"But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research

which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly

released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of

Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written

sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this

manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly

earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!"



Magdelene Manuscript:

"The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew

(chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analyzed by Dr. Carsten Thiede,

and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the

handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, hedifferentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height

and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis

Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found

at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one

from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the

Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four,

and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of

65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were

written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a

portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy, which was written while

Matthew and the other disciples, and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. Thiswould be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-

exists with the original writers!

"What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text

nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie

or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our

discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognized centuries

before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There

is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the

dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism leveled

against the gospel accounts (such as the "Jesus Seminar") that the early disciples knew

nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the

Christian community in the second century (AD)."

(NOTE: The preceding citations can be found at the following web page:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm)

Other, more extensive, copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri,

containing major portions of the New Testament and dated early 3rd century, the Bodmer

Papyrus, dated late 2nd century, the Codex Sinaiticus, dated AD 350, and the Codex

Vaticanus, dated AD 325 - AD 350. Some of the codices contain the entire New Testament. Itcan be seen that, as far as the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament

and the earliest extant manuscripts, there is no work from the ancient world which can

compare to the New Testament. As Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Curator of the British

Museum, says:

"The net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap

between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far

that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book

has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text." (Sir Frederic G.

Kenyon, The Bible and Modern Scholarship [London: John Murray, 1948], 20, as cited in

McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict , p. 49)

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm





Add to this list the possible discovery of several NT quotations found in Qumran:

"Jose O'Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world on March

18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran ... as a piece of the Gospel

of Mark. The piece was from Cave 7. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated

between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50, hardly within the time frame established for New Testamentwritings. Using accepted methods of papyrology and paleography, O'Callahan compared

sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as

belonging to one Gospel, Acts, and a few Epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later

than 50, but still extremely early ...

Mark 4:28 7Q6 A.D. 50

Mark 6:48 7Q15 A.D. ?

Mark 6:52, 53 7Q5 A.D. 50

Mark 12:17 7Q7 A.D. 50

Acts 27:38 7Q6 A.D. 60+

Rom. 5:11, 12 7Q9 A.D 70+

1 Tim. 3:16; 4:1-3 7Q4 A.D. 70+

2 Peter 1:15 7Q10 A.D. 70+

James 1:23, 24 7Q8 A.D. 70+

"... Both friends and critics acknowledge that, if valid, O'Callahan's conclusions will

revolutionize New Testament theories. If even some of these fragments are from the New

Testament, the implications for Christian apologetics are enormous. Mark and Acts must

have been written within the lifetimes of the apostles and contemporaries of the events.

There would be no time for mythological embellishment of the records... They must be

accepted as historical ... There would hardly be time for a predecessor series of Q

manuscripts ... And since these manuscripts are not originals but copies, parts of the New

Testament would be shown to have been copied and disseminated during the lives of the

writers. No first-century date allows time for myths or legends to creep into the stories

about Jesus." (Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics [Baker Books,

Grand Rapids; 1999], p. 530)

Hence, if further research confirms O'Callahan's theories this would establish beyond any

reasonable doubt the reliability of the New Testament. Even without these discoveries, the

evidence from the Patristic writings and MSS overwhelmingly supports the authenticity andreliability of the biblical text.

For instance, in the Patristic writings the case for the preservation of the NT text and its early

composition is further established, as well as the extensive usage of the New Testament,

especially that of the four Gospels:

"Of the four gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late

first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Ireneaus (active in

the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen

(ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s-ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236) and

3258 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca. 339…) Earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, 1Corinthians in 95 to 97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110, and between



110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four Gospels, Acts and most of Paul's Epistles.

Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, I Corinthians, and other books.

Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, I Corinthians, and other books. Papias,

companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John. This argues

powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some

eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive." (Norman Geisler, Encyclopedia, pp. 529-530)

Some critics have tried to debunk the NT documents due to the variant readings that exist

between the MSS. Geisler responds:

"There is widespread misunderstanding among critics about 'errors' in the biblical

manuscripts. Some have estimated there are about 200,000 of them. First of all, these are not

'errors' but variant readings, the vast majority of which are strictly grammatical. Second,

these readings are spread throughout the more than 5300 manuscripts, so that a variant

spelling of one letter in one verse in 2000 manuscripts is counted as 2000 'errors.' Textual

scholars Westcott and Hort estimated that only one in sixty of these variants have

significance. This would leave a text 98.33 percent pure. Philip Schaff calculated that, of the150,000 variants known in his day, only 400 changed the meaning of the passage, only fifty

were of real significance, and not even one affected 'an article of faith or a precept of duty

which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of

Scripture teaching' (Schaff, 177).

"Most other ancient books are not so well authenticated. New Testament scholar Bruce

Metzger estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent

accuracy and Homer's Illiad with about 95 percent. By comparison, HE ESTIMATED THE

NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT 99.5 PERCENT ..." (Geisler, Encyclopedia, pp. 532-533)

B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the editors of The New Testament in Original Greek , also

commented:

"If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article

with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt

can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament." (B.F.

Westcott, and F.J.A. Hort, eds., New Testament in Original Greek , 1881, vol. II, 2.)

Sir Frederick Kenyon states:

"... no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantiallysound." (Kenyon, The Bible, as cited in McDowell, Evidence, p. 49)

Kenyon rightly concludes:

"It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially

is this the case with the New Testament." (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient

Manuscripts [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1941], 23 as cited in McDowell, Evidence, p.

45)



F. F. Bruce comments:

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for

many writings of classical author, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.

And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would

generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988], p. 15)

Archaeology And The NT

Independent archaeological research has solidified the authenticity and the historical

reliability of the New Testament. Some of the discoveries include:

Luke refers to Lysanias as being the tetrarch of Abilene at the beginning of John the

Baptist’s ministry, circa 27 A. D. (Luke 3:1) Historians accused Luke of being in

error, noting that the only Lysanias known was the one killed in 36 B. C. Now,however, an inscription found near Damascus refers to "Freedman of Lysanias the

tetrarch" and is dated from 14 and 29 A. D.

Paul, writing to the Romans, speaks of the city treasurer Erastus (Romans 16:23). A

1929 excavation in Corinth unearthed a pavement inscribed with these words:

ERASTVS PRO:AED:P:STRAVIT: ("Erastus curator of public buildings, laid this

pavement at his own expense.")

Luke mentions a riot in the city of Ephesus which took place in a theater (Acts 19:23-

41). The theater has now been excavated and has a seating capacity of 25,000.

Acts 21 records an incident which broke out between Paul and certain Jews from

Asia. These Jews accused Paul of defiling the Temple by allowing Trophimus, a

Gentile, to enter it. In 1871, Greek inscriptions were found, now housed in Istanbul

which read:

NO FOREIGNER MAY ENTER WITHIN THE BARRICADE WHICH

SURROUNDS THE TEMPLE AND ENCLOSURE. ANYONE WHO IS CAUGHT

DOING SO WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO THANK FOR HIS ENSUING DEATH.

Luke addresses Gallio with the title Proconsul (Acts 18:12). A Delphi inscription

verifies this when it states, "As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of

Achaia ..."

Luke calls Publicus, the chief man of Malta, "First man of the Island." (Acts 28:7)Inscriptions now found do confirm Publicus as the "First man". (Josh McDowell, The

Best of Josh Mcdowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 110-111)

The five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda by the Sheep Gate and the pool of Siloam

mentioned in John 5:2 and 9:1-7 has now been unearthed.

The pavement (Gabbatha) of John 18:13 and Solomon’s porch in the Temple

precincts (John 10:22-23), have been found.

Archaeologists have unearthed Jacob’s well at Sychar. (John 4:5)

An inscription found in Ceasarea confirms Pilate’s role as the prefect of Judea during

the time of Christ.

The discovery of a bone-box of a crucified man named Johanan from the first century

Palestine confirms the fact that nails were used to pierce the ankles of the victims.Such was the case of Christ, of course, and this discovery is significant in answering



the skeptics who believed that the Romans used only ropes to tie the victim’s legs to

the cross.

Finally, in 1990, the burial grounds of Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, and his family

were uncovered. This is an undeniable fact that Caiaphas existed as a true historical

figure.

The significance of such extra-Biblical evidence is of such magnitude that honest skeptics are

now forced to agree that the Bible is historically accurate and reliable. One such person was

Sir William Ramsey, considered one of the world’s greatest archaeologists. He believed that

the New Testament, particularly the books of Luke and Acts, were second-century forgeries.

He spent thirty years in Asia Minor, seeking to dig up enough evidence to prove that Luke-

Acts was nothing more than a lie. At the conclusion of his long journey however, he was

compelled to admit that the New Testament was a first-century compilation and that the Bible

is historically reliable. This fact led to his conversion and embracing of the very faith he once

believed to be a hoax.

Dr. Ramsey stated:

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ... this

author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Ramsey further said: "Luke is unsurpassed in respects of its trustworthiness." (Josh

McDowell, The Best of Josh Mcdowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 108-109)

Other skeptics who have conceded the Bible’s historical accuracy include the renowned

Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck:

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a

biblical reference," and "the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and

particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact." (Josh McDowell, Evidence That

Demands A Verdict p. 65)

This is a very significant statement since it is made by one who totally denied the inspiration

of Scripture. Earl Radmacher, former president of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary,

notes:

"I listened to him [Glueck] when he was at Temple Emmanuel in Dallas, and he got rather

red in the face and said, ‘I’ve been accused of teaching the verbal, plenary inspiration of theScripture. I want it to be understood that I have never taught this. All I have ever said is that

in all my archaeological investigation I have never found one artifact of antiquity that

contradicts any statement of the Word of God.’" (Ibid., p. 22 [emphasis ours])

Another one time skeptic was Dr. Clifford Wilson who, due to the discoveries made,

concluded that, "It is the studied conviction of this writer that the Bible is ... the ancient

world’s most reliable history textbook ..." (Wilson, Rocks, Relics And Biblical Reliability,

p. 126)



Dr. Wilson, like Ramsey, goes on to hail Luke for his accuracy:

Luke demonstrated a remarkably accurate knowledge of geographical and political

ideas. He referred correctly to provinces that were established at that time, as indicated in

Acts 15:6. He demonstrated a clear knowledge of local customs, such as those relating to the

speech of the Lycaonians (Acts 14:11), some aspects relating to the foreign woman who wasconverted at Athens (Acts 17:34), and he even knew that the city of Ephesus was known as

the "temple-keeper of Artemis" (Acts 19:35) ... he refers to different local officers by their

exact titles – the proconsul (deputy) of Cyprus (Acts 13:7), the magistrates at Phillipi (Acts

16:20,35), the politarchs (another word for magistrates) at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), the

proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12), and the treasurer of Corinth (Aedile) – which was the title

of the man known as Erastus at Corinth (Acts 19:22; Romans 16:23 ...)

Luke had accurate knowledge about various local events such as the famine in the days of

Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:29); he was aware that Zeus and Hermes were worshiped together

at Lystra, though this was unknown to modern historians (Acts 14:11,12). He knew that

Diana or Artemis was especially the goddess of the Ephesians (Acts 19:28); and he was ableto describe the trade at Ephesus in religious images. (Ibid., pp. 112-113)

Hence, Wilson’s statement:

"Those who know the facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a

remarkably accurate source book ..." (Ibid., p. 120)

Leading NT archaeologist John McRay was interviewed by atheist turned Christian Lee

Strobel regarding the archaeological evidence for the NT. After dealing with the evidence for

Luke's accuracy, Strobel asked McRay about the evidence supporting John's Gospel:

Archaeology may support the credibility of Luke, but he isn't the only author of the New

Testament. I wondered what scientists would have to say about John, whose gospel was

sometimes considered suspect because he talked about locations that couldn't be verified.

Some scholars charged that since he failed to get these basic details straight, John must not

have been close to the events of Jesus' life.

That conclusion, however, has been turned upside down in recent years. "There have been

several discoveries that have shown John to be very accurate," McRay pointed out. "For

example, John 5:1-15 records how Jesus healed an invalid by the Pool of Bethesda. John

provides the detail that the pool had five porticoes. For a long time people cited this as anexample of John being inaccurate, because no such place had been found.

"But more recently the pool of Bethesda has been excavated - it lies maybe forty feet below

ground - and sure enough, there were five porticoes, which means colonnaded porches or

walkways, exactly as John described. And you have other discoveries - the pool of Siloam

from John 9:7, Jacob's well from John 4:12, the probable location of the Stone Pavement near

Jaffa Gate where Jesus appeared before Pilate, even Pilate's own identity - all of which have

lent historical credibility to John's gospel."

"So this challenges the allegation that the gospel of John was written so long after Jesus that

it can't possibly be accurate," I said.



"Most definitely," he replied. (Strobel, The Case for Christ - A Journalist's Personal

Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI,

1998; ISBN: 0-310-20930-7], p. 99)

Finally, John Elder states emphatically, "Nowhere has archaeological evidence refuted the

Bible as history." (Elder, Prophets, Idols And Diggers, p. 16)

The Internal Evidence

The evidence within the NT documents also affirms the early composition of the New

Testament.

The Authors Claimed That They Were Recording Eyewitness Testimony:

The writers claimed that they were either eyewitnesses or personally knew the eyewitnesses.

For instance, Luke claims to have carefully investigated everything handed down to him from

the eyewitnesses:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among

us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses

and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated

everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account

for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you

have been taught." Luke 1:1-4

Luke also was Paul’s traveling companion who had also met James the brother of the Lord

and the elders of the Jerusalem Church:

"After we had torn ourselves away from them, we put out to sea and sailed straight to Cos.

The next day we went to Rhodes and from there to Patara. We found a ship crossing over to

Phoenicia, went on board and set sail. After sighting Cyprus and passing to the south of it, we

sailed on to Syria. We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo. Finding the

disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go

on to Jerusalem. But when our time was up, we left and continued on our way. All the

disciples and their wives and children accompanied us out of the city, and there on the beach

we knelt to pray. After saying good-by to each other, we went aboard the ship, and theyreturned home. We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we

greeted the brothers and stayed with them for a day. Leaving the next day, we reached

Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four

unmarried daughters who prophesied. After we had been there a number of days, a prophet

named Agabus came down from Judea. Coming over to us, he took Paul's belt, tied his own

hands and feet with it and said, "The Holy Spirit says, `In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will

bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.'" When we heard this, we

and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, "Why

are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in

Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up

and said, "The Lord's will be done." After this, we got ready and went up to Jerusalem. Someof the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, where



we were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples. When we

arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of

us went to see James, and all the elders were present . Paul greeted them and reported in

detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they heard this,

they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews

have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law." Acts 21:1-20

Luke also knew Mark:

"When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called

Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying." Acts 12:12

In fact, Luke also records that Mark caused a rift between Paul and Barnabas due to the fact

that Mark had left them on one missionary journey to go back home. (cf. Acts 13:5, 13;

15:36-41)

Paul in his epistles mentions not only Luke, but Mark as well:

"My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of

Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)…

Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings." Colossians 4:10, 14

Incidentally, Paul supplies additional information as to why Barnabas would want Mark to go

with them on their missionary journey even after the latter had abandoned them. Barnabas

and Mark were cousins! Paul also mentions that both Mark and Luke were with him at the

same time, implying that the two knew each other.

"Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in

my ministry." 2 Timothy 4:11

The Apostle Peter mentions both Mark and Paul in his writings:

"She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my

son Mark." 1 Peter 5:13

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, JUST AS OUR DEAR BROTHER

PAUL ALSO WROTE YOU WITH THE WISDOM THAT GOD GAVE HIM. His letters

contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,AS THEY DO OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

Whether one accepts Petrine authorship or not, this is evidence of the early acceptance of

some, if not all, of Paul's writings as Scripture. Being conservatives, we affirm Petrine

authorship and hence believe that Peter spoke highly of Paul and considered the latter’s

writings to be inspired by God. In fact, Peter personally testifies in this very same epistle that

he had seen Jesus glorified before his very eyes:

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming

of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor

and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying,



‘This is my son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice

that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain." 2 Peter 1:16-18

Another disciple, John, opens up his first epistle with the claim of being an eyewitness to the

life of the historical Jesus:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our

own eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim

concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we

proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and appeared to us. We

proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with

us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to

make our joy complete." 1 John 1:1-4

The Apostles also appealed to hostile eyewitnesses for verification of their claims:

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you bymiracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves

know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you,

with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised

him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death

to keep its hold on him." Acts 2:22-24

"Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead? I too was

convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the

saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Many a time I

went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to

blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them.

"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the

chief priests. About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter

than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a

voice saying to me in Aramaic, [1] `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you

to kick against the goads.' "Then I asked, `Who are you, Lord?' "`I am Jesus, whom you are

persecuting,' the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to

appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show

you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them

to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God,so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by

faith in me.' "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to

those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I

preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

That is why the Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. But I have had God's

help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying

nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen- that the Christ [2] would

suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to

the Gentiles." At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind,

Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane." "I am not insane, most

excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiarwith these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has



escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the

prophets? I know you do." Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time

you can persuade me to be a Christian?" Paul replied, "Short time or long-I pray God

that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except

for these chains." Acts 26:8-29

It would have been impossible for the Apostles to appeal to hostile Jews and Roman

authorities for the verification of the resurrection and get away with it had the resurrection

not occurred.

Finally, the NT documents indicate that there were eyewitnesses present for nearly every

moment of Jesus’ final hours and eventual resurrection:

There were eyewitnesses present at Jesus’ arrest. (cf. Mt. 26:47-56; Luke 22:44-54;

John 18:1-13)

There were eyewitnesses present at Jesus’ trial. (cf. John 18:15-28; Luke 22:61-62)

There were eyewitnesses at the cross. (cf. Mark 15:40-41; John 19:25-27) There were eyewitnesses to his burial. (cf. John 19:38-42)

There were eyewitnesses who saw the empty tomb. (cf. Matthew 28:11-15; John 20:1-

7)

Finally, there were eyewitnesses who testified that they had seen Jesus alive from the

dead, and who were willing to die for their claim. (cf. Luke 24:36-46; Acts 1:1-5; 1

Corinthians 15:3-8- more on this passage later)

Evidence For Early Dating:

The Gospels furnish evidence that attests to the fact that some of the books were definitely

written before the year A.D. 70.

Mark

Mark mentions the high priest without naming him. (cf. Mark 14:60-63) According to the

other writers, the high priest at the time of Jesus’ public ministry was Caiaphas. (cf. Matthew

26:57) Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18-37. This presumes that Mark’s audience would

have automatically known to which high priest he was alluding to, affirming that the tradition

underlying this gospel is very early, possibly no later than A.D. 40.

Mark also mentions Alexander and Rufus and presumes that his audience would have known

who these gentlemen were:

"A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on

his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross." Mark 15:21

Church Tradition indicates that Mark composed his Gospel in Rome. Interestingly, Paul in

his letter to the Romans dated approximately at A.D. 57 mentions a person named Rufus:

"Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too."

Romans 16:13



This is possibly the same Rufus mentioned by Mark.

Luke

The consensus of NT scholarship agree that Luke-Acts were authored by the same person. A

great portion of the book of Acts centers on Jerusalem, the Temple, Paul’s conversion and hismissionary activities. The author also mentions the deaths of Stephen (Acts 7:51-8:1) and

James, the brother of John (Acts 12:2).

Interestingly, the author does not mention the deaths of James the brother of the Lord (A.D.

62), Peter (A.D. 65-68), and Paul (A.D. 67-68). He also does not mention the burning of

Rome and the persecution of Christians there (A.D. 64) or the destruction of the Temple

(A.D. 70) but ends at Paul’s imprisonment at Rome (A.D. 63).

It seems rather stranger that the author would choose to omit such information had he in fact

been writing after these events had already taken place. This seems to strongly support the

fact that the book must have been written no later than A.D. 63.

In fact, the apostle Paul actually quotes from the Gospel of Luke:

"For the SCRIPTURE says, 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The

worker deserves his wages.'" 1 Timothy 5:18

Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. The second quote is from Luke 10:7:

"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for THE WORKER

DESERVES HIS WAGES. Do not move around from house to house."

Paul quotes Luke and places it on the same level of authority of Moses’ writings! The

consensus of scholars agree that Luke was the last of the synoptic gospels to be written,

implying that all three were in circulation at the time of Paul's writing, which some scholars

date at approximately 61-65 AD. This argues the fact that Luke must have been written

between 55-60 A.D. with Acts shortly following.

John

The Gospel of John provides several lines of evidence supporting its early dating. The first is

John 5:2

"Now there IS in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda

and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades."

John doesn’t say that there "was" a pool, but that there still "is." This suggests that John’s

Gospel was written before the destruction of the Temple, and hence the destruction of the

pool itself, or that the material underlying John's Gospel is quite early.

John also records an incident, which seemingly has no historical value other than a

recollection, which only an eyewitness would know:



"So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other

disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips

of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and

went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had

been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw andbelieved." John 20:3-8

How would the author have known these pieces of incidental information if he were not an

eyewitness or at least recording the testimony of an eyewitness?

The NIV Study Bible furnishes additional evidence for the early dating of the Gospel of John:

"The author is the apostle John…'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,

20, 24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel -

which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. The author knew

Jewish life well, as seen from references to popular Messianic speculations (e.g., 1:20-21;7:40-42), to the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9), and to Jewish customs,

such as the duty of circumcision on the eighth day taking precedence over the

prohibition of working on the Sabbath ... He knew the geography of Palestine, locating

Bethany about 15 stadia (about two miles) from Jerusalem (11:18) and Cana, a village

not referred to in any earlier writing known to us (2:1; 21:2). The gospel of John has

many touches that were obviously based on the recollections of an eyewitness- such as the

house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (12:3). Early

writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian say that John wrote this Gospel, and all the evidence

agrees ..."

The Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie continues to say in relation to the evidence

furnished by the Dead Sea Scrolls and its effect on the dating of John:

The question is now affected by the relations of Jn with Qumran* documents; these have

more affinities with Jn than any other NT book, and this seriously questions the

authorship of Jn. Many critics have questioned the authorship of Jn because they thought the

Gospel was the product of Hellenistic thought rather than Jewish thought; specifically,

elements of Hellenistic-Oriental mysticism or mystery* religion, or Syrian or Iranian

Gnosticism were proposed. Even before the discovery of the Qumran documents many

studies had shown that the roots of the thought of Jn are satisfactorily shown in the OT;

cf separate articles on theological topics. The affinities of Jn with Qumran go far toexclude anything but a Palestinian origin of the Gospel. If this be accepted, the question of

the date becomes urgent once more.

If Jn is the most Jewish rather than the least Jewish of the Gospels, it becomes doubtful that

it is the latest. If it is to be dated at the latest before 70 . It is probably earlier than both

Lk and Gk Mt, and possibly early as Mk ..." (McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible

[Touchstone Book; New York, NY 1995], p. 449)

Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew gives us some hints that it is an eyewitness document. One such hintcomes from Matthew 27:3-8:



"When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with

remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. ‘I have sinned,’

he said, ‘for I have betrayed innocent blood.’ ‘What is that to us?’ they replied. ‘That's your

responsibility.’ Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and

hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, ‘It is against the law to put

this into the treasury, since it is blood money.’ So they decided to use the money to buy thepotter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of

Blood TO THIS DAY."

The fact that the field was still known to Matthew’s readers presumes that Matthew was

writing to eyewitnesses who could have gone to the site themselves and personally verified

whether such a place existed.

Matthew records another tradition that had also been circulating during his time:

"While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to

the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the eldersand devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to

say, `His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this

report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers

took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated

among the Jews to this very day." Matthew 28:11-15

If the results on the early dating of the Magdelene Papyrus are accepted, this affirms that

Matthew was originally written in the early fifties. Even if we accept the later dating of the

liberal scholars which places the Gospel sometime after A.D. 70 the tradition itself definitely

precedes the composition of Matthew. This implies that within forty years of Jesus’ death and

resurrection, a rumor had been circulating that the Apostles had stolen the body. This

indirectly affirms that the tomb was in fact empty! The claim that the body had been stolen

presumes that there was no corpse lying in Jesus’ grave.

Paul

Writing to the Corinthian Church in A.D. 55, Paul appeals to a tradition that he had

previously received and had passed down orally to the Corinthians when visiting them for the

first time:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sinsaccording to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according

to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he

appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are

still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the

apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." 1 Corinthians

15:3-8

Paul not only passes on a tradition that he had previously received before A.D. 55, but also

appeals to nearly 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus that were still alive at the time

of his writing!



The preceding lines of evidence led men like John A.T. Robinson in his book, Redating the

New Testament , to affirm that all the NT books were completed before 70 A.D. The late

William F. Albright, considered to be one of the world's foremost archaeologists, commented

on the composition of the New Testament:

We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and

150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today. (Josh McDowell & Bill

Wilson, He Walked Among Us- Evidence For The Historical Jesus [Thomas Nelson

Publishers; Nashville, TN, 1993], p. 110 emphasis ours)

Albright also went on to say:

In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew in the forties

and eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and

75)." (Ibid.)

Critics who concur that the books of the New Testament, including John, are historically

accurate include Tübingen's Dr. Peter Stuhlmacher. "As a Western Scripture scholar," stated

Dr. Stuhlmacher, "I am inclined to doubt these [gospel] stories, but as a historian I am

obliged to take them as reliable." (Ibid.)

He also says, "The biblical texts as they stand are the best hypothesis we have until now to

explain what really happened." (Ibid.)

Four Additional Lines of Evidence Supporting the Historicity of the Resurrection

There are essentially four established facts which the consensus of NT scholars universally

accept that affirms the empty tomb, and hence the resurrection. They are:

Fact 1: After the crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in his own

personal tomb.

NT researchers have established this fact on the basis of the following evidence:

The oldest Christian traditions attest that Jesus was buried. (cf. 1 Cor. 15:4; the

tradition underlying Mark) It seems highly unlikely that Christians would have invented the story of Joseph of

Arimathea, especially since the Gospels purport that Joseph was a member of the

Sanhedrin, which had earlier condemned Jesus to death. It would have been highly

improbable for the Gospel traditions to pass off Joseph as an actual member of the

Jewish ruling council in light of the fact that these traditions were circulating at the

same time the ruling council was still in existence.

The burial story lacks any traces of legendary development which were commonly

used in narrating mythical events.

No competing burial story exists which would serve to challenge the credibility of the

Gospel traditions. The earliest evidence suggests that the only burial story in

circulation amongst the Christians is that of Joseph of Arimathea.



John A.T. Robinson, himself a liberal, admits that the burial of Jesus is one of the best-

attested facts on the historical Jesus. In refutation of those who denied the entombment of

Jesus, Robinson stated that the burial of Jesus "is one of the earliest and best-attested facts

about Jesus." (The Human Face of God [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973], p. 131)

Fact 2: On that first Easter Sunday, a group of women found the tomb of Jesus empty.

There are a number of reasons why most scholars accept this fact.

The empty tomb story is found in the oldest Christian traditions (the source material

used by Mark; the allusion to the empty tomb by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-5).

The discovery of the empty tomb lacks any legendary embellishments. The Gospels

do not record how Christ rose from the dead, but simply state that the tomb was found

empty.

The curious fact that it was a group of women who found the empty tomb strongly

argues for authenticity. This is due to the fact that in first century Palestine, a

woman’s testimony was considered useless. Why would the Evangelists have womendiscovering the empty tomb if they wanted to convince their audience of the

historicity of the resurrection? This is perhaps one of the reasons why Paul does not

include the women in his list of eyewitnesses to the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:3-8.

As we had indicated earlier, the early Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen

the body presupposes that the body was missing from the tomb.

Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist in the resurrection, states that "by far, most scholars

hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb." ( Die

Osterevangelien: Geschichten um Geschichte [Stuttgart Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977], pp.

49-50)

Fact 3: On multiple occasions and under different circumstances various individuals

and groups experienced appearances of Jesus being alive after his death.

Three specific reasons universally accepted by NT Scholars support the fact that these

appearances did occur.

The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ postresurrection appearances as quoted by Paul

guarantees that these appearances occurred. (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5-7) This is based on the

fact that the great majority of these eyewitnesses, nearly 500 individuals, were still

alive when Paul wrote this down. The Gospel traditions provide multiple, independent attestation for the appearances of

Christ.

Researchers have discovered certain signs of historical credibility in specific

appearances - i.e., the unexpected activity of the disciples fishing prior to Jesus’

appearance by the Lake of Tiberias, and the conversion of James and Paul, two

skeptics.

The late Norm Perrin, former New Testament scholar at the University of Chicago, summed

up the view of the consensus of NT scholarship:



"The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to

appear upon which they are based." (Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark,

and Luke [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977], p. 80)

Fact 4: The first followers believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead despite the

fact that they had no reason to believe this.

The reason for the disciples not having any reason to believe that their Messiah had been

raised include:

Their leader was dead. The Jews had no belief in a dying and rising Messiah since

they believed that the Messiah would reign forever.

According to the Law, Jesus’ execution was an indication that he was a criminal and a

blasphemer who had fallen under the curse of God. To believe that Jesus was the

Messiah in light of his shameful death would have been something impossible for the

disciples to accept.

Finally, the Jews had no prior belief that a single individual would be raised from thedead to an immortal life, especially on the third day. The Jews believed in a general

resurrection where the entire nation would be raised to life.

Yet, the disciples both believed and were willing to die for the fact that Jesus had been raised

from the dead. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge rightly concluded that we have a belief for

which no prior historical influence can account. The only explanation that makes sense in

light of the data is that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. (Moule and Don Cupitt, "The

Resurrection: A Disagreement," Theology, p. 75 [1972]: 507-19; Moule, The Phenomenon of

the New Testament , Studies in Biblical Theology, 2 series, no. 1 [Naperville, Ill.: Alec R.

Allenson, 1967], pp. 3, 13)

The Early Church on the Inspiration of the New Testament:

As we have already noted, we have in our possession the writings of the Apostles’ disciples

and their followers. It is interesting to read that not only did they quote extensively from the

NT documents, but they also viewed the writings on the same level of authority and

inspiration as that of the OT books. Let us proceed to the Church Fathers:

"For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, and four universal winds [these

two comments refer to N, S, E, W], and as the Church is dispersed over all the earth, and thegospel is the pillar and base of the Church and breath of life, so it is natural that it should

have FOUR PILLARS ... [God] has given us the gospel in FOURFOLD FORM, BUT HELD

TOGETHER BY ONE SPIRIT." Irenaeus, d. 180 A.D. [follower of Polycarp disciple of the

Apostle John]. (Josh McDowell , Evidence That Demands A Verdict , Vol. I [San Bernardino,

CA: Here's Life, 1972], pp. 63-64)

"Take up the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul. What did he write to you Corinthians) at the

time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, he wrote to you UNDER THE

INSPIRATION OF THE SPIRIT." Clement of Rome 96 A.D. (David W. Bercot, ed., A

Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs [Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts, 1998], p. 601)



"The apostle has used the same word in writing. For he was guided, of course, BY THE

SAME SPIRIT BY WHOM THE BOOK OF GENESIS WAS DRAWN UP- AS WERE ALL

THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES." Tertullian, 198 A.D. (Ibid., p. 602)

"Although different matters are taught us in the various books of the Gospels, there is not

difference as regards the faith of believers. For in all of them, all things are related UNDERONE IMPERIAL SPIRIT." Muratorian Fragment, 200 A.D. (Ibid.)

"In addition for the proof of our statements, we take the testimonies from that which is called

the Old Testament and that which is called the New- WHICH WE BELIEVE TO BE

DIVINE WRITINGS." Origen, 225 A.D.

This clearly indicates that from the inception of the writings one can find support for the

Church's view of both the authority and inspiration of most, if not all, of the NT books.

Early Non-Christian References to Jesus

Thallus (c. A. D. 50-75):

A third-century Christian historian, Julius Africanus, composed a History of the World down

to around ad. 220 in five volumes. In one of the surviving fragments, Julius discussed the

three-hour darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. Matthew 27:45) and

makes this comment:

In the third book of his history, Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun - wrongly

in my opinion. (5.50)

(NOTE: For a more detailed outline on the authenticity of Thallus and Africanus we

recommend the following articles at the Christian Thinktank: [1] and [2])

Pliny the Younger (c. A.D. 62-113):

Governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey, writing a letter to the emperor Trajan about the

Christian movement, dated A.D. 111:

"I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the

nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds of startingan investigation and how far it should be pressed ... I have asked them if they are Christians,

and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the

punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for,

whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and

unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished ... They also declared that the sum total of

their guilt or error to be no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed

day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and

also bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft,

robbery, and adultery ... This made me decide that it was all the more necessary to extract

the truth by torture from two slave-women whom they call deaconesses. I found nothing but a

degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths."

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html



http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html







Lucian of Samosata, Second-century Satirist:

Lucian speaks scornfully of Christ and the Christians, connecting them with the synagogues

of Palestine alluding to Christ as,

"the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world...Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another

after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and worshipping the

crucified sophist Himself and living under His laws."

Cornelius Tacitus (c. A. D. 55-117):

Roman historian writing in A.D. 115 on Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians in the year

A.D. 64:

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiation of the gods did

not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently,to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a

class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom

the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands

of one of its procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition thus

checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil,

but even Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find

their center and become popular ..."

The only superstition that had broken out from Judea to Rome was the Christian claim that on

the third day the crucified Christ had been resurrected from the dead.

Flavius Josephus (b. A. D. 37):

A first-century historian became a Pharisee at the age of 19 and at the age of 29 was

commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee. Being captured by the Romans, he was attached

to their headquarters. Josephus wrote several works in Greek: an autobiographical Life;

Contra Gekum, an apologetic treatise on Judaism; an eyewitness account of the revolt against

Rome (A. D. 66-74), titled The Jewish War and a history of the Jewish people from Adam to

his time, called the Antiquities.

It comes as no surprise to find Josephus writing on the ministry of Jesus Christ, called theTestimonium Flavianum:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it is lawful to call him a man, for he was

a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew

over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when

Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned Him to the

cross, those that loved Him at the first did not forsake Him; For He appeared to them

alive again in the third day; and the divine prophets had foretold these and countless other

wonderful things concerning Him. And the tribe of Christians so named from Him are not

extinct at this day." ( Antiquities, xviii. 33.)

The following is a tenth-century Arabic version of the Testimonium:



"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And His conduct was good, and

[He] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations

became His disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And those who

had become His disciples did not abandon His discipleship. They reported that He had

appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He

was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Many scholars attacked this passage as nothing more than a Christian forgery due its pro-

Christian statements. Others, however, agree that the reference has an authentic core to it,

despite its seemingly pro-Christian insertions. New Testament scholar Edwin M. Yamauchi

explains that although there is obvious Christian terminology used throughout, there are a

number of factors that point to a Josephan style of writing:

1. Jesus is called a "wise man." Though the phrase is complimentary, it is less than one

would expect from Christians.

2. "For he was one who wrought surprising feats." This is not necessarily a statement

that could only have come from a Christian.3. "He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks" is simply an observation.

4. "Those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for

him," confirms to Josephus’ characteristic style.

5. "and the tribe of the Christians, so-called after him, has till this day not disappeared."

Most scholars would agree that the word phylon "tribe", is not a typically Christian

expression. (Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire: Modern

Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, p. 213)

Renowned Jewish scholar Geza Vermes also believes that the Testimonium originates fromJosephus, albeit with Christian additions. Vermes demonstrates that the expressions ‘wise

man’ and a ‘performer of astonishing deeds’ are thoroughly Josephan in style:

(1) The form of the description of Jesus as sophos aner and paradoxon ergon poietes, when

compared with the presentation of other personalities, biblical and post-biblical, strikes me

as genuinely Josephan. King Solomon is referred to as ‘a wise man possessing every virtue’

(andri sopho kai pasan arêten echonti) ( Ant . viii 53). The prophet Elisha was ‘a man

renowned for righteousness’ (aner epi dikaiosune diaboetos) who performed paradoxa erga

( Ant . ix 182). Daniel, in turn, is portrayed as ‘a wise man and skilful in discovering things

beyond man’s power’ (sophos aner kai deinos heurein ta anechana) ( Ant . x 237). A little

later he appears as ‘a good and just man’ (aner agathos kai dikaios) ( Ant . x 246). Ezra is said

to have been ‘a just man who enjoyed the good opinion of the masses’ (dikaios aner kaidoxes apolauon agathes para to plethei) ( Ant . xi 121). Among post-biblical personalities,

Honi-Onias is called ‘a just man and beloved of God’ (dikaios aner kai theophiles) ( Ant . xiv22), and Samaias ‘a just man’ (dikaios aner ) ( Ant . xiv 172). John the Baptist is introduced as

‘a good man’ (agathos aner ) who ‘exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice

justice towards their fellows and piety towards God’ ( Ant . xviii 117). As for the leading

Pharisee at the time of the outbreak of the first revolution, Simeon ben Gamaliel, he is

presented as ‘a man highly gifted with intelligence and judgment’ (aner pleres suneseos kai

logismou) (Vita 192) ...

In brief, there seems to be no stylistic or historical argument that might be marshaled against

the authenticity of the two phrases in question. In fact, the clause that follows ‘wise man’,viz. ‘if indeed one might call him a man’ (eige andra auton legein chre), which is generally



recognized as an interpolation, seems to support - as Paul Winter has aptly pointed out - the

originality of sophos aner , an idiom which in the mind of a later Christian editor required

further qualification.

(2) In addition to appearing prima facie to be Josephan, closer analysis of sophos aner

and paradoxon ergon poeites points to the improbability of their later Christianprovenance. To begin with, the title ‘wise man’ has no New Testament roots, and in the

absence of such an authoritative backing it is, I think, totally unfit to express the kind of

elevated theological notion that a forger would have intended to introduce into Josephus’ text.

It would have been meaningless to invent a testimony that did not support the belief of

the interpolator. But not only does it fail to convey the idea of the divine Christ of the

church; it actually conflicts in a sense with New Testament terminology. Jesus is

admittedly twice identified by Paul in I Cor. 1:24 and 30 with the abstract ‘wisdom of God’,

but the adjective sophos as applied to men in the same chapter (1:18-31) carries a pejorative

connotation. Furthermore, on the only occasion where the Gospels put this word into the

mouth of Jesus, ‘the wise’ are unfavourably compared to ‘babes’ (nepioi) (Matt. 11:25; Luke

10:21). In the few instances where the term sophos is employed positively, it relates toChristian teachers, but never to Jesus himself . (Vermes, Jesus In His Jewish Context

[Fortress Press Minneapolis, 2003], pp. 92-93; bold emphasis ours)

Even the radical liberal NT scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder and member, John

Dominic Crossan, believes that both the Testimonium and Tacitus’ statement are basically

authentic early witnesses to Jesus. Crossan writes:

Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.

For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion,

we would still know about him from two authors not among supporters. Their names are

Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus ... We have, in other words, not just Christian

witnesses but one major Jewish and one major pagan historian who both agree on three points

concerning Jesus: there was a movement , there was an execution because of that movement,

but, despite that execution, there was a continuation of the movement.

In describing civil disturbances during Pontius Pilate’s rule over the Jewish homeland’s

southern half between 26 and 36 C.E., Josephus mentions Jesus and followers called

Christians. His text was later preserved under Christian control, and I give their delicate but

deliberate improvements italicized within brackets so that you can ignore them:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he wasone who wrought surprising feats and was 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. ( Jewish Antiquities 18.63)

(Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of The

Death of Jesus [HarperSan Francisco, paperback edition 1996], p. 5)

Josephus also mentions John the Baptist’s ministry and beheading at the request of Salomeduring the birthday feast of Herod Antipas. ( Antiquities, xviii. 116-119) Furthermore, he



mentions James, the Lord’s brother, and the fate which befell him at the hands of the High

Priest Ananus:

"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was a bold

disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who were

severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus wasof such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead,

and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it

the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James, together with

some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

( Antiquities, xx 9:1)

From the preceding non-Christian sources we discover:

Jesus Christ was worshipped as God.

Christ performed wonderful deeds.

Christ was sentenced to die on a cross by the orders of Pontius Pilate during the reignof Tiberius.

Christ’s followers claimed that he had appeared alive to them after his death,

affirming that he had been resurrected, something considered to be nothing more than

a superstition.

Those who were devoted to him refused to recant their faith, opting instead to die

horrible deaths for the sake of the one they had come to love and adore.

Jesus’ brother was well known even by non-Christians, having been put to death

presumably for his belief that his brother was in fact the Messiah.

In light of the preceding factors, we find that the non-Christian sources are in agreement with

the New Testament portrayal of Jesus Christ. This serves to further establish the authenticity

of the New Testament beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Recommended Reading

The following Books are highly recommended for further study on the historicity of the New

Testament and the resurrection:

Michael Wilkins & J.P. Moreland, eds.

Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical JesusZondervan Publishing House, 256p

Boyd, Gregory A.

Cynic, Sage, or Son of God?

SP Pubs, 1995, ISBN 1-56476-448-6

Gary R Habermas

The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

Paperback, Published by College Pr Pub Co., June 1996

ISBN: 0899007325 [third revised/enlarged edition of the earlier "The Verdict of History"]



N. Thomas Wright

Jesus and the Victory of God

Augsburg, Fortress Press, 1996, ISBN 0-8006-2682-6

William Lane Craig

Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and ApologeticsCrossway Books, 350p, ISBN 0-89107-764-2

Paul Copan, ed.

Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John

Dominic Crossan Grand Rapids, MI Baker Books, 1998 ISBN 0-8010-2175-8

John Ankerberg, John Weldon (Contributor)

Ready With an Answer

Harvest House Publishers, Inc., June 1997 ISBN 1565076184