 |
|
Evidence Outside the Gospels for the Gospels
- Roman Documents
- Jewish Documents
- Other New Testatment Sources
- Early Christian Writings
- Textual Support
Every time there has been a persecution of Christians of any depth, there
is great hostility to the Bible, leading to it being banned, burned, or
confiscated. Those attacks on the Bible have all come from outside the
church, but it is the inside attacks that are the most deadly and insidious.
The worst 'inside attack' that the church ever faced on the Bible is the
attack that began in the German university in the 19th century on the
reliability of the New Testament documents and the four gospels, in particular.
These ideas invaded the seminaries and colleges of the church and soon
filtered down to the local churches, often destroying or muting the faith
of unthinking Christians. This movement, called liberalism, is now largely
discredited or dying, but it retains great force to confuse people. The
most recent example is the Jesus Seminar, where so-called scholars literally
vote with multi-colored ballots on whether different passages in the New
Testament are authentic or not.
The aim of the following is to provide a careful testimony to the validity
of the four Gospels as reliable documents. Very practically, you will
occasionally come across someone who has heard that the four Gospels are
just a made up story. Rarely has such a person actually read the Gospels
to see if they come across to him or her as a made up story - so the first
thing you want to do is to challenge them to see for themselves by reading
the Gospels. Nevertheless, it might be helpful to point out to them some
of the confirming strands of evidence outside the Gospels that will not
"prove" the Gospels - proof is something that you can often only approximate
in history - but it will take away some of the fog. Our goal here is fog
removal.
Why just focus on the four Gospels? It is the Gospels that have received
the brunt of the liberal attack on historic Christianity.
There are five converging lines of evidence, outside the Gospels themselves,
for the Gospel accounts: Roman sources, Jewish Sources, other New Testament
sources, early Christian sources, manuscript evidence. I will only look
at evidence that is commonly accepted by both skeptics and Christians.
It is beyond my scope to properly address it here, but I want to point
out a sixth strand of evidence: how thoroughly the scenes or words of
the Gospels are imbedded in the life and culture of first century Palestine.
Much continues to become known in this area. The range of this research
is very broad - going all the way from comparisons with the Qumram Community
to Kenneth Bailey's groundbreaking works, Poet & Peasant and Through
Peasant Eyes.
Roman Documents
It is important to get some perspective on the quantity of evidence available
to us. R. T. France points out that very little survived from that period
of history about anyone (The Evidence of Jesus, 19). For instance,
we have outside verification of Pilate's existence from two Jewish and
one Roman source, but that is it. No Roman documents have survived that
even mention his existence; because we have very few surviving Roman documents
that mention anyone's existence. Very little survived the barbarian invasions
and the Dark Ages of Europe. Furthermore, Jesus was a 1st century Jewish
peasant in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire whose public exposure
was only a few short years and largely confined to the backwaters of the
relatively unimportant district of Galilee. France writes,
Galilee and Judea were at the time two minor administrative areas under
the Roman province of Syria, itself on the eastern frontier of the empire.
The Jews, among whom Jesus lived and died, were a strange and remote
people, little understood and little liked by most Europeans of the
time, more often the butt of Roman humor than of serious interest. Major
events of Jewish history find their echo in the histories of the period,
but was the life of Jesus, from the Roman point of view, a major event?
The death of a failed Jewish insurrectionary leader was a common enough
occurrence, and religious preachers were a dime a dozen in that part
of the empire, a matter of curiosity, but hardly of real interest to
a civilized Roman. (20)
All of the earliest Roman references come in the early second century
and deal with the growing Christian movement. But important details can
be gleaned from these references that corroborate the Gospels.
The first reference we have comes in a letter written about A.D. 112
from Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor in Bythnia (just south of the
Black Sea in modern day Turkey - Peter wrote his first letter to Bythnia),
to his mentor and boss, the Emperor Trajan. Pliny mentions that the early
Christians sang hymns "to Christ as to a god" (Letters 10.96, see full
text of their fascinating correspondence in Appendix 1) .
The Roman historian, Tacitus, writing in A.D. 115-117 explains the persecution
of the Christians by Nero when Nero blamed them for burning Rome. Since
it is Tacitus' first reference to Christians, he gives a brief summary
of their origin:
They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the
procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the
pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh - not
only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but also in Rome itself,
where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and
find a home. (Annuals 15.44)
The third reference to Christ is an oblique one and comes from Suetonius,
a Roman historian writing about A.D. 120. Suetonius writes that in A.D.
49 "the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus,
he [Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome" (Life of Claudius
25.4). Most scholars believe this is a likely reference to the name of
Christ. Suetonius also confirms Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome,
Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men
given to a new and mischievous superstition. (Lives of the Caesars,
26.2)
The last clear Roman reference to Jesus comes from Lucian of Samasota
(ca. 120-180) who wrote a satire that contains a description of early
Christians living in Palestine.
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished
personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified in Palestine
because he introduced a new cult into the world.... You see, these misguided
creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for
all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion
which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their
original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they
are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified
sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, and
with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them
merely as common property (The Passing of Peregrinus 11-13).
Jewish Documents
The Talmud is the collection of Jewish writings during the Roman period,
the bulk of which is commentaries on commentaries of the Old Testament
(McDowell, 55). It is difficult to date early quotes in the Talmud with
the certainty that we can the Roman dates above. The following references
are taken from parts of the Talmud that are either first century or early
second century. The few references to Jesus are almost universally hostile,
but they provide interesting confirmation of the Gospels' accounts:
On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out,
in front of him, for forty days (saying): "He is going to be stoned,
because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone
who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf."
But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the
eve of Passover. (Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 43a)
And in the same section of the Talmud, we find a list of Jesus' disciples.
The only one we can clearly identify is Mattai as Matthew.
Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer,
Buni, and Todah.
Ironically, the Talmud also provides the only outside confirmation to
the Gospels' accounts of unusual circumstances surrounding the birth of
Christ.
R. Shimeon be 'Azzai said: "I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem
wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one (code for Jesus) is a bastard of
an adulteress". (Babylonian Talmud: Yebamoth 62b)
The other main source of information on the Gospels comes from Josephus,
a Jewish historian who finished writing his Antiquities of the Jews in
A.D. 93. Josephus provides detailed information about John the Baptist,
confirming the Gospels' portrayal of him as a prophet and his death at
the hand of Herod (Antiquities 18.5.2 see Appendix 2). He also tells of
James' death at the hands of the Sanhedrin, identifying him as "the brother
of Jesus who was called Christ" (Antiquities 20.9.1).
Finally, Josephus has a passage on Jesus himself. The words in italics
are words that some scholars think were added by later editors.
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should
call him a man. For he was a doer of deeds, a teacher of people who
receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among
many Jews and among men of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when
Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned
him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to
do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just
as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous
things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians,
named after him, has not died out. (Antiquities 18.3.3)
A Synthesis
If you put together these early Roman and Jewish sources, noting only
the ones where we have at least two confirming sources, some clear patterns
emerge. All of these are clearly non-Christian, and often antagonistic,
sources of information.
- Christ is used as a virtual name (Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny).
- He lived in Palestine (Josephus, bT Sanhedrin, 43a, Tacitus, Lucian).
- He was a teacher (Josephus, bT Sanhedrin).
- He worked wonders of some kind (Josephus, bT Sanhedrin 43a).
- He was killed by execution (Josephus, Tacitus, bT Sanhedrin 43a, Lucian).
- His death by Pontius Pilate (Tacitus, Josephus).
- The involvement of Jewish leaders in his death (Josephus, bT Sanhedrin).
- The presence of a movement that used his name (Josephus, Suetonius,
Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian).
- The emphasis on love in the movement (Pliny, Lucian).
Even more striking, Luke Timothy Johnson of Emory University points out
that these early sources are also uniform in what they do not say about
Jesus (55). They refer to Jesus and early Christianity in exclusively
religious categories. It was a depraved "superstition" (Suetonius, Tacitus,
Pliny) or "cult" (Lucian). The movement associated with Jesus was not
seen by any of these outside observers as a philosophy or form of magic
even though Jesus' activities made that connection possible. There is
simply no evidence to support any of the philosophical or stoic "Christs"
that have been created by Higher Criticism over the last 150 years.
It is striking how these sources agree with the general outline of the
Gospel's account. In addition, some of their individual observations,
such as Josephus' account of John the Baptist, provide detailed confirmation
of the Gospel's story line. It is interesting that Josephus does not connect
the Baptist with Jesus - which further points to the integrity of the account.
I.e. that would have been an ideal place for a Christian editor to insert
something about Jesus. It also confirms the Gospel's description of John's
ministry as a distinct ministry from Jesus'.
Other New Testament Sources
It might seem odd to mention the letters of the New Testament in support
of the Gospels - if you are going to doubt the Gospels aren't you also going
to doubt the rest of the New Testament? But most liberal scholars who
are trained in Higher Criticism accept the main letters of Paul along
with the books of James and Hebrews as not only authentic but predating
the writing of the Gospels. Johnson is just amazed that the Jesus Seminar's
'reconstructions' of Jesus totally ignore Paul's writings. Almost all
of Paul's writings (along with the books of James and Hebrews) are dated - by
liberals and conservatives alike - from A.D. 48 to 70, putting Paul within
20 to 40 years of Jesus' death. Johnson provides this summary (119-121):
- Jesus was a person born as a human; he was Jewish (Paul in Galatians
4:4 and Romans 15:8, Hebrews 7:14).
- Jesus was "descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom.1:3,
II Timothy 2:8). The writer of Hebrews says that he was a descendant
of Abraham and from the tribe of Judah.
- It is highly likely that Paul believed that Jesus prayed to God with
the Aramaic form of Abba (Gal. 4:6, Rom.8:15-16).
- Paul refers to Jesus' words concerning divorce (I Corinthians7:10),
payment for preaching (I Cor. 9:14, I Tim. 5:17), and the end-time (I
Thessalonians 4:15).
- Paul explicitly quotes the words of Jesus over the bread and the cup
"on the night he was betrayed" and identifies those words as a tradition
received by him and passed on to him and passed on to his readers (I
Cor. 11:23-25).
- Paul connects the death of Jesus to the Passover celebration of the
Jews: "Christ, our Paschal Lamb has been sacrificed" (I Cor. 5:7).
- Jesus was condemned by earthly rulers: "none of the rulers of this
age understood this; for, if they had, they would not have crucified
the Lord of glory" (I Cor. 2:8).
- Paul mentions the trial scene, ". . .Christ Jesus, who in testimony
before Pontius Pilate made the good confession" (I Tim. 6:3).
- Paul's allusion to Psalm 69:9 in Romans 15:3 suggests that Jesus underwent
abuse and humiliation. Hebrews confirms this.
- Paul involves the Jews in Jesus' death: ". . .the Jews, who killed
both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease
God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles"
(I Thess.2:14-16).
- Johnson points out that you might not like this statement on theological
grounds, but as historical evidence for a messianic view of the death
of Jesus dated to about A.D. 50, it is difficult to wish away.
- Paul repeatedly tells us that Jesus was crucified (I Cor. 1:23: II
Cor. 13:4, Phil.2:8; Gal. 3:1).
- Paul mentions Jesus' burial (I Cor. 15:4, Rom. 6:4).
- Paul asserts the reality of the resurrection, not simply as a conviction,
but as an experience of visions or encounters testified to by many including
himself (I Cor.9:1, 15:4-8, Gal.1:15-16).
Johnson makes a very telling point:
These bits of information in Paul do not prove the historicity of the
events, but they confirm the antiquity and ubiquity of the traditions
concerning the events, in a period as much as two decades earlier than
our earliest written Gospels. I want to emphasize the term ubiquity
as much as antiquity. Paul can assume, in other words, that the Roman
church, which he had never met, had as firm a possession of these basic
aspects of the Jesus story as did his own Corinthian community (120).
Early Christian Writings
Our fourth strand of evidence comes from the early Fathers of the church.
In particular, we will pay attention to the immediate generation following
the Apostles.
Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians is our earliest dated non-New
Testament document of the early church. Most date it in the 90's but it
could well be earlier. In fact, Clement could be the same Clement that
Paul mentions as a leader in the church of Philippi. Clement's letter
has extensive quotes from the book of Matthew and some from Mark and Luke
(He Walked Among Us, 77). For Clement to feel comfortable quoting Matthew
extensively from one side of the Roman empire to the other means that
the book of Matthew must have been widely disbursed and recognized in
the 90's - thus, pushing back the date of the writing of Matthew to fairly
early.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch wrote a series of letters ca. A.D. 115 to
the churches in Asia Minor as he was being led off to Rome to be killed.
Ignatius provides detailed corroboration of the Gospels' accounts of Jesus'
life in his letters.
We have nothing surviving of Papias' (ca. A.D. 60 or 70 to 130 or 140)
writings, but we have both Irenaeus' testimony that he was a disciple
of John, and Eusebius (writing in the early 300's) quoting from Papias:
On any occasion when a person came (in my way) who had been a follower
of the Elders, I would enquire about the discourses of the Elders - what
was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip or by Thomas or James,
or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what
Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did
not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books
as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice (History of
the Church, 3.39).
This Papias got directly from John:
And the Elder said this also: Mark, having become the interpreter of
Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without
however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For
neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards,
as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs
(of his hearers) but had no design on giving a connected account of
the Lord's oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote
down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care
not to omit anything that he heard, or set down any false statement
therein.
Eusebius also quotes to us the comments of Quadratus, possibly Bishop
of Rome, who said this while writing a defense of Christianity to the
Emperor Hadrian in the early 2nd century:
The deeds of our Savior were always before you, for they were true
miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead,
and who were seen, not only when healed and when raised but were always
present. They remained living a long time, not only while our Lord was
on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them
also lived to our own times (4.3).
Textual Support
Two strands of manuscript data offer strong support for the integrity
of the Gospels as historical documents. The first is that the oldest manuscripts
are relatively close to the original composition of the Gospels. Ironically,
our oldest document is a portion of the Gospel of John dated to A.D. 120-130
in the John Ryland Library. It is ironic because the Gospel of John has
been the one most attacked by liberal critics. The so-called scholars
of the Jesus Seminar assert that the John is almost a pure fabrication
of the early church. The Ryland manuscript is only thirty to forty years
from the date of the composition of the Gospel of John; such closeness
to original documents in antiquity is almost unheard of.
The second confirming strand of evidence is the sheer volume of Gospel
manuscripts we have from antiquity. With over 24,000 extant manuscripts,
the New Testament is by far the most documented book in the ancient world.
F. F. Bruce writes,
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript
attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical
works. For Caesar's Gallic Wars (composed between 58 and 50 B. C.) there
are several extant manuscripts . . .and the oldest is some 900 years
later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy
(59 B.C.-A.D. 17) only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more
than 20 manuscripts . . . only one of which is as old as the fourth
century (Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 41).
The list goes on.
Conclusion
You cannot dismiss the person of Jesus. On historical grounds alone, you
must come to grips with him as a real person who lived and died in Palestine.
Top of Page
|
|
|
|
|
