These skeptics evaluate the gospel accounts with the assumption (based on the presence of the miraculous) that Christians must have written them in the second or third century, unafraid that their lies would be detected by those who lived in the first century. This proposal ignores, of course, all the evidence that supports an early dating for the New Testament documents. It also assumes that the gospel accounts are false until proved true. This is just the opposite approach we take with witness testimony when it is presented in court. We ought to presume that witnesses are telling us the truth until we discover otherwise, and the presence of the miraculous alone should not cause us to believe that the gospel eyewitnesses were lying.
There is no evidence, aside from the existence of supernatural elements within the gospel accounts, to support the assumption of late dating that form critics have proposed. While the insertion of miraculous elements late in history might be possible, it is not evidentially reasonable. Once again, the primary motivation for denying the early authorship of the Gospels is simply the bias against supernaturalism.
THERE WAS A SECOND-CENTURY BISHOP IN ANTIOCH NAMED “THEOPHILUS”
Some have tried to argue that the “Theophilus” described by Luke in the introduction to his gospel and the book of Acts was actually Theophilus, the bishop of Antioch (who served in that city from approximately AD 169 to 183). They support this claim by pointing out that some ancient authorities maintained that Luke originally came from this city, and the fact that Theophilus of Antioch wrote a defense of Christianity that discussed the canon of the New Testament (which, of course, would have included the gospel of Luke). Skeptics who argue for this identification of Theophilus also point to the opening sentence of Luke’s gospel, where Luke wrote, “Many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us.” Isn’t it possible that Luke was referring to the many late-second-century heretical, false gospels (like the gospel of the Egyptians) that caused Theophilus of Antioch to write his own defense in the first place? If this is true, Luke’s gospel ought to be dated in the second century, after the appearance of these heretical gospels and during the tenure of Theophilus of Antioch.
BUT …
Luke addressed Theophilus as “most excellent” in his gospel introduction. This is a title of authority, indicating that Theophilus held a position of leadership. If Theophilus were already in a position of lifetime Christian leadership (governing the church of Antioch as a bishop and deserving of Luke’s title), would he really know so little about the life of Jesus that Luke would need to send him an account “in consecutive order” so he could “know the exact truth about the things [he had] been taught”? Luke’s introduction makes it sound as if Luke was in a position of greater knowledge than Theophilus and seems completely inconsistent with the possibility that Theophilus was someone already knowledgeable enough to have ascended to such an important position of Christian leadership.
Who Is “Theophilus”?
Many have tried to identify “Theophilus.” While no one knows the answer for sure, there are many reasonable possibilities:
He’s Every “Friend of God”
Some have observed that the word Theophilus is Greek for “Friend of God.” For this reason, they propose that Luke wrote his works for all those who were friends of God and interested in the claims of Jesus.
He’s a Roman Official
Since Luke uses the expression “most excellent” only when addressing Roman officials, many believe that Theophilus must have held some similar Roman position. Paul Maier, in his novel The Flames of Rome, makes a case for Titus Flavius Sabinus II as the person to whom Luke wrote.
He’s a Jewish High Priest
Others have identified a pair of Jewish high priests who lived in the first century (Theophilus ben Ananus or Mattathias ben Theophilus), arguing that Luke’s focus on the temple and Jewish customs related to the Sadducees could best be explained if one of these two priests was his intended audience.
It does appear, however, that Theophilus was in some position of leadership, given the way that Luke addressed him. Are there any reasonable first-century explanations consistent with the other pieces of circumstantial evidence placing the gospel in the first century? Yes, in fact, there are. Luke used the same “most excellent” title when addressing Felix (in Acts 24:3) and Festus (in Acts 26:25), both of whom were Roman officials. Theophilus may, therefore, have been a Roman official of some sort. It’s interesting to note that Luke did not use this title when addressing Theophilus in the book of Acts. This may reflect the fact that Theophilus was serving a short-term position in the Roman government (rather than a lifetime position as a bishop in Antioch). Perhaps Theophilus began to serve his term of office during the time when Luke was writing the gospel. Such positions of leadership were certainly available in the first-century government of the Roman Empire.
Roman officials of the first century aren’t the only reasonable candidates for Theophilus’s identity. There were a number of Jewish leaders in the first century who possessed the name, including Theophilus ben Ananus (the Roman-appointed high priest of the Jerusalem temple between AD 37 and AD 41).47 If this was, in fact, the Theophilus whom Luke was addressing, it might explain why Luke began his gospel with a description of another priest, Zechariah, and his activity in the temple. This might also explain why Luke alone spent so much time writing about the way that Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the temple following His days of purification and then again when He was twelve years old. It might also explain why, interestingly, Luke failed to mention Caiaphas’s role in the crucifixion of Jesus (Caiaphas was Theophilus ben Ananus’s brother-in-law).
While it is possible that Luke was writing to Theophilus of Antioch late in the second century, it is not evidentially reasonable. Even if we don’t have enough evidence to identify the true Theophilus with precision, there are some reasonable first-century explanations available, and the manner in which Luke described Theophilus in Luke 1 is inconsistent with Theophilus of Antioch.
LUKE AGREED WITH MUCH OF WHAT JOSEPHUS REPORTED
Some skeptics have examined the writings of Titus Flavius Josephus, the first-century Roman-Jewish historian who lived from AD 37 to approximately AD 100 and wrote about life in the area of Palestine, including the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews in the early 90s (AD 93–94). Critics cite a number of similarities between Luke and Josephus and argue that Luke actually used Josephus as a source for his own work. This, of course, would place the date of Luke’s work sometime after the early 90s, perhaps even as late as the early second century.
BUT …
The fact that Josephus mentioned historical details that are also described by Luke (e.g., the census taken under Quirinius, the death of Herod Agrippa, the identity of the tetrarch Lysanias, and the famine during the reign of Claudius) does not necessarily mean that Luke was using Josephus as his source. Josephus may, in fact, be referencing Luke’s work; both may be referencing the work of someone who preceded them; or each may simply be citing the facts of history independently. In any case, the dual citations we see here ought to give us confidence that Luke’s record is historically accurate.
If Luke was using Josephus as a source (in a manner similar to his use of Mark or Matthew), why didn’t he quote Josephus? This would certainly be consistent with his introductory proclamation that he was referencing other sources to compile his history. Luke readily quoted Mark and inserted many parallel accounts that are also found in Matthew’s record; why not quote or mirror Josephus in a similar way? Luke never did this, however, and his work demonstrates no similarity with Josephus’s literary style.
While it is certainly possible that Luke was borrowing from Josephus, it is not evidentially reasonable. There are a number of unrelated pieces of circumstantial evidence that point to an early date for Luke’s gospel
, nearly forty years prior to the work of Josephus. All the alleged evidence that supports the claim that Luke referenced Josephus can also be used to defend the claim that Josephus referenced Luke. The cumulative circumstantial case for early dating can help us determine which of these possibilities is the most reasonable.
THE MOST REASONABLE CONCLUSION
We can now employ some abductive reasoning as we try to determine which explanation related to dating is the most sensible. Like our dead-body scene described in chapter 2, we begin by listing all the evidence that we’ve examined so far, including the evidence that has been identified by skeptics. Next, we list the two possible explanations that might account for this evidence:
Using the lifetime of the alleged eyewitnesses (the gospel writers) and the destruction of the temple as a point of differentiation, the evidence can allow for two possible inferences: either the Gospels were written prior to the destruction of the temple (and during the span of time in which the alleged eyewitnesses were alive), or the Gospels were written well after the destruction of the temple and after the alleged eyewitnesses would have been long in the grave. If we accept the first explanation, we can integrate and embrace all the evidence without any contradiction or friction between pieces. The second explanation may explain the last five pieces of evidence, but has great difficulty (at best) explaining the first eleven. The inference that the Gospels were written in the first century, prior to the destruction of the temple (and during the lifetime of those who claimed to see Jesus), is the best explanation. The explanation is feasible, straightforward, and logical. It exhausts all the evidence we have assembled, and it is superior to the alternative explanation. It meets the five criteria we established for abductive reasoning; we can have confidence that we’ve arrived at the most reasonable explanation.
THE GOSPELS PASS THE FIRST TEST
Juries are encouraged to evaluate eyewitnesses in the four categories we described in chapter 4. They begin by making sure that witnesses were truly present at the time of the crime. When evaluating the gospel writers, the most reasonable inference from the evidence is an early date of authorship. Does this mean that they are reliable? Not yet; there’s much more to consider. But the Gospels have passed the first test; their testimony appears early enough in history to confirm that the gospel writers were actually present to see what they said they saw.
CASE NOTES
31. Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 177.
32. Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 2002), 8.
33. Charles Burlingame Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred (San Diego: Book Tree, 2011), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 5080–5082.
34. Flavius Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus: Wars of the Jews, Antiquities of the Jews, Against Apion, Autobiography, trans. William Whiston (Boston: MobileReference), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 7243–7249.
35. Barbara Levick, Vespasian, Roman Imperial Biographies (New York: Routledge, 1999).
36. Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), commenting on Acts 28:31.
37. Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, Kindle locations 28589–28592.
38. Kenneth Berding, Polycarp of Smyrna’s View of the Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy, Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 4 (1999), 349–360.
39. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), Kindle edition, Kindle location 409.
40. Papias, quoted in Eusebius, “Church History,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wallace (New York: Cosimo, 2007), 172–73.
41. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16, as translated by Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 222.
42. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Kindle location 3072.
43. Howard I. Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 155.
44. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 184.
45. Marshall, New Testament Interpretation, 156.
46. Black and Dockery, New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, 184.
47. Mentioned by Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (Unabridged Books, 2011), bk. 17, chap. 5, sec. 3.
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.
Cold-Case Christianity Page 19