Chapter 12: WERE THEY CORROBORATED?
Chapter 12
WERE THEY CORROBORATED?
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.48
—Albert Einstein, father of modern physics
Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If there is, strike here (tapping his forehead) and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent.49
—Robert Green Ingersoll, the nineteenth-century American political leader known as “The Great Agnostic”
I think that the people who think God wrote a book called the Bible are just childish.
—Bill Maher, comedian, television host, and political commentator
THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME SUPPORT
Christian Scripture is not merely a collection of proverbs or commandments related to moral living, although the New Testament certainly contains these elements. The Bible is a claim about history. Like other eyewitness accounts, the Bible tells us that something happened in the past in a particular way, at a particular time, with a particular result. If the accounts are true, they are not merely “legends” or “childish” stories, even though they may contain miraculous elements that are difficult for skeptics to accept. It’s not surprising that those who reject the supernatural would doubt those who claimed to see something miraculous. It’s also not surprising that these skeptics would want miraculous claims to be corroborated.
While there are times when an eyewitness is the only piece of evidence I have at my disposal, most of my cases are buttressed by other pieces of evidence that corroborate the eyewitness. I once had a case from 1982 in which a witness (Aimee Thompson) claimed to see a murder suspect (Danny Herrin) standing in the front yard of the victim’s house just minutes before the murder took place. At the time of the original investigation, Aimee identified Danny from a “six-pack photo lineup,” a series of six photographs of men (complete strangers to Aimee), arranged in two rows in a photo folder. Aimee did not know Danny personally, but she recognized his face in the photo. She remembered that he was wearing a popular concert T-shirt with a logo from the musical band Journey, announcing its tour in support of the Escape album. In addition to this, she told me that the man she observed stood in a peculiar way, hunched over just slightly as if he had some sort of physical injury. I knew that Danny also had this unusual posture and fit her description. Given this identification, I traveled out to the city where Danny lived for an interview. When I spoke with Danny, he denied that he was anywhere near the victim’s house. In fact, he claimed that he wasn’t even in the same city as the victim on that particular day. While it would have been nice to find some forensic evidence at the scene that corroborated Aimee’s observations, this was unfortunately not the case. The original investigators did, however, find a gas receipt in Danny’s car that had been issued from a gas station on the day of the murder, just a quarter mile from the victim’s house. In addition to this, I later interviewed Danny’s sister; she told me that Danny mentioned stopping by to see the victim on the day of the murder.
Now it’s true that the gas receipt and his sister’s statement alone would not prove that Danny murdered the victim, but these two additional facts did corroborate Aimee’s claims; if nothing else, her assertions were made more reasonable by her observations of Danny’s unusual stance and these additional supporting facts. There were two forms of corroboration working here. First, there was corroboration that was internal to Aimee’s statement. She described something that was true about the suspect (his stance), and could not have been known by Aimee unless she was actually present as she claimed. In addition to this internal evidence, there was also external evidence that corroborated her claim. The gas receipt and Danny’s sister’s statement were independent of Aimee, but still supported her assertions. Together, the internal and external evidence agreed with Aimee’s primary claims as an eyewitness.
CORROBORATION FROM THE “INSIDE OUT”
As it turns out, there is similar corroboration available to us when we examine the claims of the gospel accounts. Some of this corroboration is internal (evidences from within the gospel documents that are consistent with the claims of the text), and some is external (evidences that are independent of the gospel documents yet verify the claims of the text). Much has been written about the internal evidences that support the reliability of the New Testament authors; scholars have studied the use of language and Greek idioms to try to discover if the writing styles of each author corroborate the New Testament claims related to the authors. Is John’s use of language consistent with that of a first-century fisherman? Is Luke’s language consistent with that of a first-century doctor? While these exercises are interesting from a scholarly perspective, they did not pique my investigative curiosity as a detective. Two areas of internal evidence, however, did interest me as someone who has interviewed hundreds of witnesses.
THE GOSPEL WRITERS PROVIDED UNINTENTIONAL EYEWITNESS SUPPORT
As we discussed in chapter 4, one of the most important tasks for a detective is to listen carefully when multiple eyewitnesses provide a statement about what they observed at the scene of a crime. It’s my job to assemble the complete picture of what happened at the scene. No single witness is likely to have seen every detail, so I must piece together the accounts, allowing the observations of one eyewitness to fill in the gaps that may exist in the observations of another eyewitness. That’s why it’s so important for eyewitnesses to be separated before they are interviewed. True, reliable eyewitness accounts are never completely parallel and identical. Instead, they are different pieces of the same puzzle, unintentionally supporting and complementing each other to provide all the details related to what really happened.
More “Unintentional Support”
When I first read through the Gospels forensically, comparing those places where two or more gospel writers were describing the same event, I was immediately struck by the inadvertent support that each writer provided for the other. The accounts puzzled together just the way one would expect from independent eyewitnesses. When one gospel eyewitness described an event and left out a detail that raised a question, this question was unintentionally answered by another gospel writer (who, by the way, often left out a detail that was provided by the first gospel writer). This interdependence between the accounts could be explained in one of two ways. It may have been that the writers worked together, writing at precisely the same time and location, to craft a clever lie so subtle that very few people would even notice it at all. The second possibility is that the Gospels were written by different eyewitnesses who witnessed the event and included these unplanned supporting details; they were simply describing something that actually happened.
As someone who was new to the Bible, I began to investigate whether or not anyone else had observed this phenomenon and found that a professor of divinity named J. J. Blunt wrote a book in 1847 entitled Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings of the Old and New Testament, an Argument of Their Veracity; with an Appendix, Containing Undesigned Coincidences between the Gospels and Acts, and Josephus. This was one of the first books about the Bible I ever purchased. In his section related to the Gospels and the book of Acts, Blunt identified the very same inadvertent parallel passages I discovered when examining the Gospels forensically. Blunt described the phenomenon as a series of “undesigned coincidences” and identified over forty locations in the New Testament where this feature of unintentional eyewitness support could be seen on the pages of Scripture. Let me give you a few examples of what we are talking about here.
THE CALLING OF THE DISCIPLES
As someone unfamiliar with the Bible, the calling of Peter, Andrew, James, and John seemed odd to me when I first read it in the gospel of Matthew:
Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. Going on from there He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him. (Matt. 4:18–22)
That’s it? Jesus walked up and said, “Follow Me,” and they dropped everything “immediately”? Who would do that? How did they even know who Jesus was or if anything about Him was worthy of that kind of dedication? If Matthew’s account was the only testimony available to us (and for many communities in the ancient world, it was the only testimony available, at least for a number of years), this would remain a mystery. I do believe there is a clue in Matthew’s version of events (the mending of the nets), but the questions raised by Matthew aren’t answered for us until we hear from Luke:
Now it happened that while the crowd was pressing around Him and listening to the word of God, He was standing by the lake of Gennesaret; and He saw two boats lying at the edge of the lake; but the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their nets. And He got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little way from the land. And He sat down and began teaching the people from the boat. When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” Simon answered and said, “Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing, but I will do as You say and let down the nets.” When they had done this, they enclosed a great quantity of fish, and their nets began to break; so they signaled to their partners in the other boat for them to come and help them. And they came and filled both of the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus’ feet, saying, “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!” For amazement had seized him and all his companions because of the catch of fish which they had taken; and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not fear, from now on you will be catching men.” When they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed Him. (Luke 5:1–11)
The disciples didn’t just jump in with Jesus on a whim after all. Matthew was interested in describing how the disciples were called, but Luke was interested in providing a bit more detail. When the testimony of all the witnesses is considered in unison, we get the complete picture. The disciples heard Jesus preach and saw the miracle of the abundant catch of fish. This harvest of fish was so impressive and large that it broke their nets. Only after returning to the shore (and while James and John were mending their torn nets) did Jesus call them to follow Him. They left their lives as fishermen on the basis of the things Jesus taught and the miracle Jesus performed.
THE STRIKING OF JESUS
In the next example, let’s examine the description of Jesus’s beating that Matthew offered in chapter 26 of his gospel. In this scene, describing Jesus’s examination before Caiaphas, Matthew told us that the chief priests and the members of the council struck Jesus and slapped Him when he “blasphemed” by identifying Himself as the “Son of Man”:
Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?” (Matt. 26:67–68)
More “Unintentional Support”
This question posed by members of the council seems odd. Jesus’s attackers were standing right in front of Him; why would they ask Him, “Who is the one who hit You?” It doesn’t seem like much of a challenge, given that Jesus could look at His attackers and identify them easily. Luke told us more, however:
Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him, and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?” And they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming. (Luke 22:63–65)
Once again, one gospel eyewitness unintentionally supported the other in what J. J. Blunt called an “undesigned coincidence.” Matthew’s narrative makes sense once we read in Luke’s account that Jesus was blindfolded. Imagine for a moment that you are one of the earliest converts to Christianity, at a time and place in history where the gospel of Matthew was the only available account (in chapter 13, for example, we’ll hear a report of the gospel of Matthew used in the early days of Christianity to teach new believers east of Africa). This passage would be puzzling; it would raise a question that might never be answered unless you had access to the other eyewitness accounts. As a cold-case detective, I’ve experienced something similar to this a number of times. Often, questions an eyewitness raises at the time of the crime are left unanswered until we locate an additional witness years later. This is a common characteristic of true, reliable eyewitness accounts.
THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND
Perhaps the finest example of unintentional support is found in an episode described in all four gospels: the miracle of the “feeding of the five thousand.” Mark’s account of this miracle raises a question when considered without input from the other gospel writers. Mark wrote that just prior to this event, Jesus sent out the disciples to preach repentance in the local towns and villages. When they returned, they found themselves surrounded by a multitude of people:
The apostles gathered together with Jesus; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught. And He said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a secluded place and rest a while.” (For there were many people coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat.) They went away in the boat to a secluded place by themselves. The people saw them going, and many recognized them and ran there together on foot from all the cities, and got there ahead of them. When Jesus went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and He felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things. When it was already quite late, His disciples came to Him and said, “This place is desolate and it is already quite late; send them away so that they may go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” But He answered them, “You give them something to eat!” And they said to Him, “Shall we go and spend two hundred denarii on bread and give them something to eat?” And He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go look!” And when they found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” And He commanded them all to sit down by groups on the green grass. They sat down in groups of hundreds and of fifties. And He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up toward heaven, He blessed the food and broke the loaves and He kept giving them to the disciples to set before them; and He divided up the two fish among them all. They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish. There were five thousand men who ate the loaves. (Mark 6:30–44)
According to Mark, many people were coming and going in the area, even before Jesus and His disciples became the focal point of this crowd. Why was this crowd in the area in the first place? Mark never said. The question Mark’s account raised isn’t answered until we hear John’s testimony:
After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (or Tiberias). A large crowd followed Him, because they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick. Then Jesus went up on the mountain, and there He sat down with His disciples. Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. Therefore Jesus, lifting up His eyes and seeing that a large crowd was coming to Him, said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?” This He was saying to test him, for He Himself knew what He was intending to do. Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, for everyone to receive a little.” One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?” Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks, He distributed to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish as much as they wanted. When they were filled, He said to His disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost.” So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. (John 6:1–13)
John answered the question raised by Mark. The large crowd was the result of two circumstances: First, John alone told us that the people searched for Jesus because they knew He had been performing miraculous healings. Second, John alone said that it was nearly Passover, the holy Jewish holiday that caused thousands to travel through this area to arrive at Jerusalem for the celebration. While Mark mentioned the crowd, only John told us why it was there in the first place. But in unintentionally answering the question raised by Mark, John raised an unanswered question of his own. John’s account mentioned Philip and Andrew specifically. This stood out to me, only because the use of pronouns and proper names is an important focus of Forensic Statement Analysis. Andrew and Philip are not major characters in the Gospels; the gospel writers seldom mention them, especially when compared with Peter, John, and James. For this reason, their appearance here raises a couple of questions. Why did Jesus ask Philip where they ought to go to buy bread? Why did Andrew get involved in the answer? In addition to this, John also mentioned a detail that was not found in Mark’s briefer account. John said that the disciples fed the crowd “barley loaves.” John also repeated Mark’s testimony that there was “much grass” in the area. In order to make sense of the questions John raised and the role of the grass and the barley, let’s finish with an examination of Luke’s account:
When the apostles returned, they gave an account to Him of all that they had done. Taking them with Him, He withdrew by Himself to a city called Bethsaida. But the crowds were aware of this and followed Him; and welcoming them, He began speaking to them about the kingdom of God and curing those who had need of healing. Now the day was ending, and the twelve came and said to Him, “Send the crowd away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to eat; for here we are in a desolate place.” But He said to them, “You give them something to eat!” And they said, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless perhaps we go and buy food for all these people.” (For there were about five thousand men.) And He said to His disciples, “Have them sit down to eat in groups of about fifty each.” They did so, and had them all sit down. Then He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed them, and broke them, and kept giving them to the disciples to set before the people. And they all ate and were satisfied; and the broken pieces which they had left over were picked up, twelve baskets full. (Luke 9:10–17)
Luke is the only one who told us that this event occurred when Jesus withdrew to the city of Bethsaida. This revelation unlocks the mystery of Philip and Andrew’s prominence in John’s testimony; they were both from Bethsaida (according to John 1:44). We learned this detail not from Luke (who told us that the miracle occurred in Bethsaida) but from John (who mentioned it without any connection to the miracle). Jesus asked Philip about sources for the bread because He knew that Philip was from this part of the country. Philip and Andrew naturally tried their best to respond, given that they were uniquely qualified to answer Jesus’s question.
What about the grass and barley? Why were these details included in the narrative? Are they consistent with what eyewitnesses might have actually seen or experienced? As it turns out, the Passover occurred at a time (in April) that followed five of the rainiest months for the area of Bethsaida. In addition to this, the Passover occurred at the end of the barley harvest.50 These meaningless details are just what I would expect to hear from eyewitnesses who were simply describing what they saw, including the details that don’t really matter in the larger narrative.
THE GOSPEL WRITERS REFERENCED NAMES CORRECTLY
When I interview eyewitnesses, I listen carefully to their descriptions of the suspect and the environment in which the crime took place. Their observations of the scene, if they are genuine, should reflect the true nature of the time and location of the crime. When Aimee told me about her observations of the suspect in 1982, she described a Journey concert shirt that promoted an album (Escape) that was released in 1981. The description of the shirt was consistent with the time frame of the murder. If Aimee had described a shirt that was unavailable until 1990, for example, I would have been concerned that her statement was either inadvertently inaccurate or deliberately false.
The Corroboration of Language
Something similar can be observed in the gospel accounts. The gospel writers are believed to have written from a number of geographic locations. Mark probably wrote from Rome, Matthew may have written from Judea, Luke from either Antioch or Rome, and John from Ephesus.51 Skeptics have argued that these accounts were not written by people who had firsthand knowledge of the life and ministry of Jesus but were simply inventions written generations later by people who weren’t all that familiar with the locations they were describing. All of the gospel writers described a large number of people as they wrote out their testimonies, and often identified these individuals by name. As it turns out, these names provide us with important clues to help us determine if the writers of the Gospels were actually familiar with life in first-century Palestine.
Richard Bauckham52 examined the work of Tal Ilan53 and used Ilan’s data when investigating the biblical use of names. Ilan assembled a lexicon of all the recorded names used by the Jews of Palestine between 330 BC and AD 200. She examined the writings of Josephus, the texts of the New Testament, documents from the Judean desert and Masada, and the earliest rabbinic works of the period. She even examined ossuary (funeral-tomb) inscriptions from Jerusalem. Ilan included the New Testament writings in her study as well. She discovered that the most popular men’s names in Palestine (in the time span that encompassed the gospel accounts) were Simon and Joseph. The most popular women’s names were Mary and Salome. You may recognize these names from the gospel accounts. As it turns out, when Bauckham examined all the names discovered by Ilan, he found that the New Testament narratives reflect nearly the same percentages found in all the documents Ilan examined:
Popularity of Names Cited in Palestinian Literature of the Time
Popularity of Names Cited by the New Testament Authors
15.6% of the men had the name Simon or Joseph
18.2% of the men had the name Simon or Joseph
41.5% of the men had one of the nine most popular names
40.3% of the men had one of the nine most popular names
7.9% of the men had a name no one else had
3.9% of the men had a name no one else had
28.6% of the women had the name Mary or Salome
38.9% of the women had the name Mary or Salome
49.7% of the women had one of the nine most popular names
61.1% of the women had one of the nine most popular names
9.6% of the women had a name no one else had
2.5% of the women had a name no one else had
The most popular names found in the Gospels just happen to be the most popular names found in Palestine in the first century. This is even more striking when you compare the ancient popular Palestinian Jewish names with the ancient popular Egyptian Jewish names:
Top Jewish Men’s Names in Palestine
Top Jewish Men’s Names in Egypt
Simon
Eleazar
Joseph
Sabbataius
Eleazar
Joseph
Judah
Dositheus
Yohanan
Pappus
Joshua
Ptolemaius
If the gospel writers were simply guessing about the names they were using in their accounts, they happened to guess with remarkable accuracy. Many of the popular Jewish names in Palestine were different from the popular names in Egypt, Syria, or Rome. The use of these names by the gospel writers is consistent with their claim that they were writing on the basis of true eyewitness familiarity.
When names are very common, people find themselves having to make a distinction by adding an extra piece of information. My name is Jim Wallace, but I am often confused with Jim Wallis, the founder and editor of Sojourners magazine. For this reason, I will sometimes add the additional descriptor “of PleaseConvinceMe.com” when describing myself. I am Jim Wallace “of PleaseConvinceMe.com” (as opposed to Jim Wallis “of Sojourners”).
The Corroboration of Location
When you see the addition of a descriptor, you can be sure that the name being amended is probably common to the region or time in history. We see this throughout the gospel accounts. The gospel writers introduce us to Simon “Peter,” Simon “the Zealot,” Simon “the Tanner,” Simon “the Leper,” and Simon “of Cyrene.” The name Simon was so common to the area of Palestine in the first century that the gospel writers had to add descriptors to differentiate one Simon from another. This is something we would expect to see if the gospel writers were truly present in Palestine in the first century and familiar with the common names of the region (and the need to better describe those who possessed these popular names).
Jesus (Hebrew: Joshua) was one of these popular first-century names in Palestine, ranking sixth among men’s names. For this reason, Jesus was one of those names that often required an additional descriptor for clarity’s sake. Interestingly, the gospel writers themselves (when acting as narrators) didn’t use additional descriptors for Jesus, even though they quoted characters within the narrative who did. Matthew, for example, repeatedly referred to Jesus as simply “Jesus” when describing what Jesus did or said. But when quoting others who used Jesus’s name, Matthew quoted them identifying Jesus as “Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee,” “Jesus the Galilean,” “Jesus of Nazareth,” “Jesus who was called Christ,” “Jesus who was crucified.” Why the difference? Matthew, as the narrator of history, simply called Jesus by His first name over the course of many chapters. His readers were already familiar with the person of Jesus Matthew introduced early in his account. But Matthew accurately recorded the way we would expect people to identify Jesus in the context of the first century. Matthew appears to be acting merely as an eyewitness recorder of facts, limiting himself to “Jesus” when he is doing the talking, but accurately reporting the way he heard others refer to Jesus.
The manner in which the gospel writers described details (unintentionally supporting one another) and the approach the gospel writers took when they referred to people (using the names and descriptors we would expect in first-century Palestine) corroborate their testimonies internally. The gospel accounts appear authentic from the “inside out.” The words of the Gospels themselves are consistent with what we would expect from eyewitnesses.
CORROBORATION FROM THE “OUTSIDE IN”
If the Gospels are true, we should also expect them to be corroborated externally as well. Aimee’s testimony, for example, was corroborated by two additional pieces of evidence (the discovery of the gas receipt and the testimony of Danny’s sister). The Gospels are similarly corroborated from the “outside in” by the testimony of witnesses who reported what they knew to be true, even though they were not Christians and did not necessarily believe the testimony of the gospel writers. These non-Christian eyewitnesses were often hostile to the growing Christian movement and critical of the claims of the Gospels. In spite of this, they affirmed many of the details that were reported by the gospel writers.
As a cold-case detective, I’ve encountered this sort of thing many times. I once had a case with a victim who was killed in her condominium. The primary suspect in her murder originally denied ever being in her home. I interviewed him a second time and told him that we discovered his DNA was in the house, in the very room where the victim was murdered. He changed his story and told me that he remembered that the victim called him and asked him to come over to the house to help her move some boxes from this room to her garage. The suspect said he came over on the day of the murder and was in the victim’s room for a very short time to help her move these boxes. He still denied being involved in her murder, however. Although he continued to deny his involvement in the crime, his new statement included two reluctant admissions. The suspect now admitted to the fact that he had been in the room where the murder occurred and on the very day when the victim was killed. While he still denied the fact that he committed the crime, he reluctantly admitted important facts that would eventually be assembled with other pieces of circumstantial evidence to form the case against him.
NONBIBLICAL EYEWITNESSES CORROBORATED THE GOSPELS
In a similar way, ancient observers and writers who were hostile to Christianity reluctantly admitted several key facts that corroborate the claims of the Christian eyewitnesses, even though they denied that Jesus was who He claimed to be. Let’s examine some of these reluctant admissions and reconstruct the picture they offer of Jesus.
JOSEPHUS (AD 37–CA. 100) DESCRIBED JESUS
Josephus described the Christians in three separate citations in his Antiquities of the Jews. In one of these passages, Josephus described the death of John the Baptist, in another he mentioned the execution of James (the brother of Jesus), and in a third passage he described Jesus as a “wise man.” There is controversy about Josephus’s writing because early Christians appear to have altered some copies of his work in an effort to amplify the references to Jesus. For this reason, as we examine Josephus’s passage related to Jesus, we will rely on a text that scholars believe escaped such alteration. In 1971, Shlomo Pines, scholar of ancient languages and distinguished professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published a long-lost tenth-century Arabic text written by a Melkite bishop of Hierapolis named Agapius. This Arabic leader quoted Josephus and did so in the Arabic language, unlike the Greek used by other authors from antiquity. Overtly Christian references that are seen in other ancient versions of Josephus’s account are also missing from Agapius’s quote, and as a result, scholars believe that this version best reflects Josephus’s original text:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. 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.55
There are many other ancient versions of Josephus’s citation that are more explicit about the nature of Jesus’s miracles, His life, resurrection, and status as “the Christ,” but this brief and conservative version of Josephus’s text reluctantly admits a number of key facts about Jesus. From this text, we can conclude that Jesus lived, was a wise and virtuous teacher who reportedly demonstrated wondrous power, was condemned and crucified under Pilate, had followers who reported that He appeared to them after His death on the cross, and was believed to be the Messiah.
THALLUS (CA. AD 5–60) DESCRIBED JESUS
Thallus was a Samaritan historian who wrote an expansive (three-volume) account of the history of the Mediterranean area in the middle of the first century, only twenty years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Like the writings of many ancient historians, much of his work is now lost to us. Another historian, Sextus Julius Africanus, wrote a text entitled History of the World in AD 221, however, and Africanus quoted an important passage from Thallus’s original account. Thallus chronicled the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and offered an explanation for the darkness that was observed at the time of Jesus’s death. Africanus briefly described Thallus’s explanation:
On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.56
It’s a pity that we don’t have the complete account and explanation from Thallus, but in offering an explanation for the darkness, Thallus “reluctantly admitted” important details that corroborated portions of the Gospels. Even though Thallus denied that the darkness at the point of the crucifixion was caused supernaturally, he inadvertently corroborated the claim that Jesus was indeed crucified and that darkness covered the land when He died on the cross.
TACITUS (AD 56–CA. 117) DESCRIBED JESUS
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his Annals of AD 116, he described Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:
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 our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.57 (Annals, 15:44)
Tacitus, in describing Nero’s actions and the presence of the Christians in Rome, reluctantly admitted several key facts related to the life of Jesus. Tacitus corroborated that Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Him.
MARA BAR-SERAPION (AD 70–UNKNOWN) DESCRIBED JESUS
Sometime after AD 70, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact that Mara Bar-Serapion described Jesus as a real person with this kind of influence is important:
Ancient Jewish Corroboration
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.58
Although Mara Bar-Serapion does not seem to place Jesus in a position of preeminence (he simply lists Him alongside other historic teachers like Socrates and Pythagoras), Mara Bar-Serapion does admit several key facts. At the very least, we can conclude that Jesus was a wise and influential man who died for His beliefs. We can also conclude that the Jews played a role in Jesus’s death and that Jesus’s followers adopted and lived lives that reflected Jesus’s beliefs.
PHLEGON (AD 80–140) DESCRIBED JESUS
In a manner similar to his citation of Thallus, Sextus Julius Africanus also wrote about a historian named Phlegon who penned a record of history in approximately AD 140. In his historical account, Phlegon also mentioned the darkness surrounding the crucifixion:
Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth.59
Origen, the Alexandrian-born, early church theologian and scholar, also cited Phlegon several times in a book he wrote in response to the criticism of a Greek writer named Celsus:
Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to his predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power.
And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.
He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages made our defence [sic], according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered.60
Although Phlegon was not a follower of Jesus and denied many of the claims of the gospel writers, his statements did reluctantly admit that Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future and was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar.
These late first-century and early second-century writers were not friends of Christianity. In fact, they were largely indifferent to the fledgling Christian movement. In spite of this, they all provided important corroborating details of Jesus’s life, even if they did so reluctantly. If all the Christian documents had been destroyed, we would still be able to reconstruct a modest description of Jesus from these writers.
The ancient (and “reluctant”) nonbiblical description of Jesus would include the fact that Jesus was a true historical person and a virtuous, wise man who worked wonders, accurately predicted the future, and taught His disciples. His teaching drew a large following of both Jews and Gentiles; He was identified as the “Christ,” believed to be the Messiah, and widely known as the “Wise King” of the Jews. His disciples were eventually called Christians. His devoted followers became a threat to the Jewish leadership, and as a result, these leaders presented accusations to the Roman authorities. Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus to crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. A great darkness descended over the land when Jesus was crucified, and an earthquake shook a large region surrounding the execution. Following his execution, a “mischievous superstition” spread about Him from Palestine to Rome.
This description of Jesus, although incomplete, is remarkably similar to the description offered by the gospel writers. Early, external, non-Christian sources corroborate the testimony of the New Testament authors.
ARCHAEOLOGY CONTINUES TO CORROBORATE THE GOSPELS
Because Christianity makes historical claims, archaeology ought to be a tool we can use to see if these claims are, in fact, true. The archaeological efforts of the past two centuries have confirmed several details that skeptics used to highlight as areas of weakness in the case for Christianity. There are a large number of biblical passages that are now corroborated by both ancient non-Christian witnesses and archaeological evidence. Here are just a few:
QUIRINIUS HAS BEEN CORROBORATED
Other Significant Archaeological Corroborations
Luke wrote that Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian governor named Quirinius was conducting a census (Luke 2:1–3). Josephus confirmed the existence of this governor, but Josephus recorded Quirinius’s governorship from AD 5 to AD 6.61 This period of time is too late, however, as Matthew wrote that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (who died nine years prior to Quirinius’s governorship as recorded by Josephus). For many years, skeptics pointed to this discrepancy as evidence that Luke’s gospel was written late in history by someone who was unfamiliar with the chronology of leaders. Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century have provided additional information to remedy this apparent contradiction, however, revealing that Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time,62 and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch.63 Archaeology now corroborates the early existence of Quirinius as a governor at the time of the census recorded by Luke.
LYSANIAS HAS BEEN CORROBORATED
The Corroboration of Government
Luke also described a tetrarch named Lysanias and wrote that this man reigned over Abilene when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Josephus also recorded the existence of a man named Lysanias,64 but this man was a king who ruled over the region from 40 to 36 BC (long before the birth of John the Baptist). Skeptics once again used this apparent discrepancy to cast doubt on Luke’s account. As before, archaeology appears to have resolved the issue and corroborated Luke’s claim. Two inscriptions have been discovered that mention Lysanias by name. One of these, dated from AD 14 to 37, identifies Lysanias as the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus.65 This inscription confirms the reasonable existence of two men named Lysanias, one who ruled prior to the birth of Jesus and a tetrarch who reigned in the precise period of time described by Luke.66
THE POOL OF BETHESDA HAS BEEN CORROBORATED
John wrote about the existence of a pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–9) and said that it was located in the region of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, surrounded by five porticos. For many years, there was no evidence for such a place outside of John’s gospel; skeptics again pointed to this passage of Scripture and argued that John’s gospel was written late in history by someone who was unfamiliar with the features of the city. In 1888, however, archaeologists began excavating the area near St. Anne’s Church in Jerusalem and discovered the remains of the pool, complete with steps leading down from one side and five shallow porticos on another side.67, 68 In addition, the twentieth-century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls also provided us with ancient confirmation of the pool’s existence. The Copper Scroll (written between AD 25 and AD 68) described a list of locations in Jerusalem that included a pool called “Beth Eshdathayin” located near a porch.69 Once again, the claims of a gospel writer were corroborated by archaeology.
THE POOL OF SILOAM HAS BEEN CORROBORATED
Other Significant Archaeological Corroborations
John also wrote about the “pool of Siloam” (John 9:1–12) and described it as a place of ceremonial cleansing. Although the pool is also mentioned in the Old Testament (in Isa. 8:6 and 22:9), John was the only other ancient author to describe its existence. Scholars were unable to locate the pool with any certainty until its discovery in the City of David region of Jerusalem in 2004. Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukrun excavated the pool and dated it from 100 BC to AD 100 (based on the features of the pool and coins found in the plaster).70 This discovery corroborated the reliability of Christian Scripture and the testimony of John.
PONTIUS PILATE HAS BEEN CORROBORATED
For many years, the only corroboration we had for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the governor of Judea who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus) was a very brief citation by Tacitus (described in the previous section). In 1961, however, a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription with Pilate’s name.71 The inscription was discovered in Caesarea, a provincial capital during Pilate’s term (AD 26–36), and it describes a building dedication from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar. This single discovery corroborates what the gospel writers said about Pilate’s existence in history, his position within the government, and his relationship to Tiberius Caesar.
THE CUSTOM OF CRUCIFIXION HAS BEEN CORROBORATED
The gospel writers weren’t the only ones who described the Roman custom of crucifixion. Josephus, in his description of the destruction of Jerusalem, also described the practice.72 But while thousands of condemned criminals and war prisoners were reportedly executed in this manner, not a single one of them had ever been discovered in any archaeological site. Some skeptical scholars speculated that this was because executed criminals of this sort were not afforded decent burials; they were typically thrown into common graves along with other similarly executed prisoners. The gospel writers, however, wrote that Jesus received a proper burial. Skeptics doubted this was possible because they lacked evidence that a victim of crucifixion had ever been buried in this way. In 1968, however, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first remains of a crucifixion victim, Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol, buried in a proper Jewish “kôkhîm-type” tomb.73 Yohanan’s remains revealed that he had a spike driven into both feet and nails driven between the lower bones of the arms. The discovery of Yohanan’s tomb corroborates the fact that some criminals were, in fact, given burials similar to the one described by the gospel writers.
Many other gospel details have been corroborated by archaeology; such discoveries continue to validate the claims of the gospel writers from the “outside in.” Even when the written accounts of ancient nonbiblical writers seem to contradict the testimony of the gospel authors, archaeological findings continue to resolve the apparent contradictions by confirming the claims of the New Testament.
BROAD STROKES AND MINOR DETAILS
The internal and external evidences corroborate the gospel narratives and capture an image of Jesus’s life and ministry. The broad and general elements of the Gospels are imaged for us by the ancient nonbiblical authors of the first and early second centuries, and they are confirmed by the archaeological record. This part of the picture is minimal and less focused, but the image is clear enough to recognize. It matches (in broad strokes) the testimony of the gospel writers found in the New Testament. Beyond this general corroboration, however, many of the specific details of the gospel accounts are made clear for us from the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves. The more we identify instances of unintentional support that occur between the gospel writers (what J. J. Blunt referred to as “undesigned coincidences”), correct identification of proper names and locations, and the appropriate Greek language of the region and time, the more confidence we can have that these accounts are providing details consistent with first-century Palestine.
Our picture of Jesus is made clearer by the corroboration of the internal evidence as it authenticates the external evidence and validates the claims of the gospel writers themselves.
SO, WHY DO SOME CONTINUE TO DENY IT?
Some critics of the Gospels are unimpressed with the internal and external evidences we’ve discussed so far, in spite of the fact that these evidences are diverse and consistent with one another. Many skeptics have argued that there are still passages within the Gospels that are yet to be understood or supported by extrabiblical evidence. Let’s take a look at the objections of skeptics related to these areas of internal and external evidence to see why some (like Albert Einstein) have described the Gospels as an “expression and product of human weaknesses.”
SOME ORIGINAL WRITINGS OF ANCIENT AUTHORS ARE MISSING
Many critics have rejected some of the external corroboration we’ve described from ancient non-Christian authors like Thallus and Phlegon. They’ve argued that the original texts from these two ancient historians are unavailable to us. Instead we have been examining quotes from these writers as they were cited by Christian authors (Sextus Julius Africanus and Origen) who wrote much later in history. How do we know that these ancient Christian apologists didn’t distort or misquote Thallus and Phlegon? Skeptics argue that we cannot trust the quotes we have today because we don’t have access to the copies of Thallus’s or Phlegon’s complete texts.
BUT …
Both Africanus and Origen cite the work of Thallus and Phlegon from a position of skepticism, not agreement. Africanus said that Thallus proposed an eclipse to explain the darkness at Jesus’s crucifixion, but Africanus clearly did not agree with this conclusion; he said that Thallus made this claim “without reason.” In a similar way, Origen argued that Phlegon was mistaken about many aspects of his account (“falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter”), even as Phlegon reluctantly admitted that Jesus could predict the future. Neither Africanus nor Origen sterilized the accounts they cited, removing the details that didn’t support their case. Instead, Africanus and Origen quoted the work of Thallus and Phlegon even though they didn’t always agree with their conclusions. The best inference from the evidence here is that Africanus and Origen were correctly and honestly citing their sources, especially since we have no other competing ancient citations of Thallus and Phlegon that contradict what Africanus and Origen reported.
SOME GOSPEL TERMS ARE STILL “TROUBLESOME”
Some critics have cited a number of terms that appear to be used incorrectly by the gospel writers. They argue that these mistaken references either expose that the gospel writers were unfamiliar with the time and region they were describing, or that the Gospels were written much later than some would claim. As an example, skeptics have pointed to the Sermon on the Mount and argued that Jesus’s remarks about praying in public, as the hypocrites did in the synagogues (Matt. 6:5), are out of place. Some Jewish scholars have contended that ancient Jews of Jesus’s day did not pray in the synagogues and that this practice began only after the temple was destroyed in AD 70.74 If this were the case, the gospel of Matthew contains a claim that is curiously out of sequence. There are a handful of other similar examples offered by critics who claim there are terms that are either suspiciously unique to the gospel writers or appear to be used in a way unparalleled in other ancient writings of the time.
BUT …
Objections like these presume that we have perfect knowledge of the first-century environment in Palestine. In this specific objection, for example, there is no archaeological or ancient-document evidence that contradicts the claims of the gospel writers. Instead, critics have argued against the Gospels because they have not yet found external support for the biblical claims. But we’ve already seen a number of examples of other gospel claims that were once uncorroborated (the pool of Bethesda, for example) or appeared to be contradictory (the identities of Quirinius or Lysanias, for example) but were ultimately corroborated by archaeology. Much of the skepticism leveled at the biblical historical account is based on the presumption, even without evidential support, that the account is false unless corroborated. In essence, the gospel writers are guilty until proved innocent. There is no presumption of innocence for the authors of the New Testament. Unlike other ancient historical witnesses, the writers of the Gospels are not afforded the luxury of presumed credibility when there is silence on a particular claim from other ancient sources.
Much of this skepticism is due to the presupposition of philosophical naturalism that we talked about in chapter 1. The Gospels contain descriptions of the supernatural: healings, prophetic utterances, and miracles. Because critics deny the possibility of such things, they reject the biblical accounts and look for ways to describe them as fallacious. It is this presupposition that drives many skeptics to claim that the Gospels were written late in history, far from the region where the miraculous events reportedly occurred. How else could the gospel writers have fooled so many people with these stories about the supernatural? Certainly they couldn’t have written these accounts at a time or place in which the true eyewitnesses could expose their fabrications, could they? The evidence we have from archaeology and ancient sources does not support the claim for late or distant authorship, however, and Paul argued that there were many eyewitnesses still available to corroborate the miracles of Jesus (particularly His resurrection) at the time of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians in AD 53–57 (1 Cor. 15:6). If we can overcome our bias against descriptions of the supernatural, the claims of the gospel accounts are convincingly corroborated.
ARCHAEOLOGY CANNOT CONFIRM EVERY GOSPEL DETAIL
Some skeptics have argued that archaeology simply cannot satisfactorily corroborate the claims of any historical author or ancient eyewitness. There are many portions of the gospel accounts that are not supported by the current finds of archaeology, and (as we’ve demonstrated) there have been a number of biblical claims that seemed to contradict other ancient accounts and were unanswered by archaeology for many centuries. If archaeology is as limited as it appears to be, how can we trust it to completely corroborate the claims of the gospel writers? In addition, what kind of archaeological evidence could ever corroborate the miracles described in the Bible? Even if we believed that miracles were reasonable, what kind of archaeological evidence could, for example, corroborate Jesus’s healing of the blind man? For these skeptics, archaeology, while interesting, seems too limited to be of much assistance.
BUT …
The archaeological evidences we’ve discussed in this chapter are only one category of evidence in the cumulative circumstantial case we are presenting for the corroboration of the Gospels. Like all circumstantial cases, each piece of evidence is incapable of proving the case entirely on its own. Circumstantial cases are built on the strength of multiple lines of evidence and the fact that all the individual pieces point to the same conclusion. The archaeological support we have for the gospel accounts (like the archaeological support for any ancient event) is limited and incomplete. That shouldn’t surprise us. Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, historian and professor emeritus at Miami University, has rightly noted that archaeological evidence is a matter of “fractions.” Only a fraction of the world’s archaeological evidence still survives in the ground. In addition, only a fraction of the possible archaeological sites have been discovered. Of these only a fraction have been excavated, and those only partially. To make matters more difficult, only a fraction of those partial excavations have been thoroughly examined and published. Finally, only a fraction of what has been examined and published has anything to do with the claims of the Bible!75 In spite of these limits, we shouldn’t hesitate to use what we do know archaeologically in combination with other lines of evidence. Archaeology may not be able to tell us everything, but it can help us fill in the circumstantial case as we corroborate the gospel record.
It’s also important to remember that many of the objections leveled by skeptics trade on the assumption that the Gospels are written late, well after the lives of anyone who could testify to what really happened. The evidence from chapter 11, however, leaves little doubt that the Gospels emerged within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. If Luke’s gospel was written as early as the evidence suggests, any claim that Luke errantly cited a particular governorship or errantly described a sequence of leaders is unreasonable. If this were the case, the early readers of Luke’s gospel, reading it in the first century with a memory of what truly happened, would have caught Luke’s error from the very beginning. If nothing else, we would expect to see some early scribe try to alter the narrative to correct the mistaken history. No alteration of this sort ever took place, and the early readers of Luke’s gospel did not challenge Luke’s account. The gospel was delivered to them early, while they still knew the correct order of governors and kings. Thousands of years later, we may initially doubt Luke and then be surprised that archaeology eventually corroborates his account. If the evidence supporting the early dating of Luke’s gospel is correct, however, we really shouldn’t be surprised that Luke will ultimately be vindicated.
THE CASE FOR CORROBORATION
This circumstantial case can be examined with some abductive reasoning as we try to determine if the Gospels have been reasonably corroborated. Let’s once again list all the evidence we’ve examined so far, including the claims of skeptics. Is it reasonable to infer that the Gospels are sufficiently corroborated?
Even when considering the limits of archaeology and the limits of internal literary analysis, the most reasonable inference from the evidence is that the Gospels are incredibly reliable, especially considering the nature of such accounts. Few ancient records have been as critically examined as the New Testament Gospels. Few other documents from antiquity have been as heavily challenged and scrutinized. This prolonged scrutiny has given us a robust and detailed set of evidences that we can examine with abductive reasoning.
If we accept the first explanation (that the Gospels are reliable and trustworthy), we can integrate and embrace all the evidence without any contradiction or friction between pieces. The second explanation may exploit the last three claims but cannot account for the first seven truths. The inference that the Gospels are reliable and consistent with other contemporary evidences is the best explanation. The explanation is feasible, straightforward, and logical. It is superior to the alternative explanation. Once again, it meets the criteria we established for abductive reasoning; we can have confidence that we’ve arrived at the most reasonable explanation.
THE GOSPELS PASS THE SECOND TEST
So far we’ve examined two areas that juries consider when evaluating eyewitnesses. The evidence supports the fact that the gospel writers were present in the first century, and their claims are consistent with many pieces of corroborative evidence. Does this mean that they are reliable? Not yet, but we are halfway there. The Gospels have passed the first two tests; their testimony appears early enough in history, and their claims can be corroborated. Now we have to make sure they haven’t been corrupted over time. We’ve got to make sure that the accounts we have today are an accurate reflection of what was originally recorded by the eyewitnesses.
CASE NOTES
48. Albert Einstein, as quoted from his Gutkind Letter (January 3, 1954) in James Randerson, “Childish superstition: Einstein’s letter makes view of religion relatively clear,” Guardian, May 12, 2008, accessed April 25, 2012, www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion.
49. Robert Green Ingersoll, Lectures of Col. R. G. Ingersoll, Latest (Valde Books, 2009), Kindle edition, Kindle location 1319.
50. For more information, refer to Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel: The Evidence from Archaeology and the Bible (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, May 1987), 7.
51. For more information about the locations where the Gospels were written, refer to Eusebius, The History of the Church (Neeland Media LLC, 2009), chap. VIII.
52. For more information, refer to Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Kindle location 1113.
53. For more information, refer to Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE (Philadelphia: Coronet Books, 2002).
54. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Kindle location 1189.
55. Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Jerusalem, 1971), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 9–10, 16.
56. Quoted in Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 9, Irenaeus, Vol. II—Hippolytus, Vol. II—Fragments of Third Century (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1870), 188.
57. Cornelius Tacitus, Works of Cornelius Tacitus. Includes Agricola, The Annals, A Dialogue concerning Oratory, Germania and The Histories (Boston: MobileReference, 2009), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 6393–6397.
58. “Letter from Mara Bar-Serapion to His Son,” quoted in Bruce, New Testament Documents, Kindle locations 1684–1688.
59. Quoted in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, eds. Roberts and Donaldson, vol. 9, 188.
60. Origen, “Origen Against Celsus,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 4, Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885), 437, 445, 455. For more information related to Origen’s quotations of Phlegon, refer to www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm or William Hansen, Phlegon of Tralles’ Book of Marvels, University of Exeter Press: Exeter Studies in History (Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press, 1997).
61. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (Unabridged Books, 2011), bk. 17, chap. 18, sec. 2, v. 1.
62. Jerry Vardaman, from an unpublished manuscript (The Year of the Nativity: Was Jesus Born in 12 B.C.? A New Examination of Quirinius [Luke 2:2] and Related Problems of New Testament Chronology) as cited in John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 6332–6334.
63. Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Primedia eLaunch, 2011), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 3446–3448.
64. Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, Kindle edition, Kindle locations 1292–1295.
65. John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 2091–2095.
66. Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Primedia eLaunch, 2011), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 3630–3658.
67. Bruce, New Testament Documents, Kindle locations 1393–1400.
68. Shimon Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York: HarperCollins e-books, 2009), Kindle edition, Kindle location 73.
69. John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 2537–2543.
70. Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus, Kindle location 71.
71. McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, Kindle location 1922.
72. Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, Kindle edition, Kindle locations 31292–31294.
73. McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, Kindle location 2820.
74. Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount, Elibron Classics (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2011), 266.
75. For more information related to the “fraction” limitations of biblical archaeology, refer to Edwin Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), 146–62.