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
Erastus
In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.” A piece of pavement was discovered in Corinth in 1929 confirming his existence.
Iconium
In Acts 13:51, Luke described this city in Phrygia. Some ancient writers (like Cicero) wrote that Iconium was located in Lycaonia, rather than Phrygia, but a monument was discovered in 1910 that confirmed Iconium as a city in Phrygia.
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 accurately described the government that existed in first-century Palestine under Roman rule. His account demonstrates that he was writing at the time and place he claimed:
He correctly described two paths to Roman citizenship in Acts 22:28.
He correctly described the process by which accused criminals were brought to trial in Acts 24:1–9.
He correctly described the manner in which a man could invoke his Roman citizenship and appeal his case to Caesar in Acts 25:6–12.
He correctly described the manner in which a prisoner could be held by a Roman soldier and the conditions when imprisoned at one’s own expense in Acts 28:16 and Acts 28:30–31. (Refer to Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.)
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 “Bet
h 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
Politarchs
For many centuries, Luke was the only ancient writer to use the word politarch to describe “rulers of the city.” Skeptics doubted that it was a legitimate Greek term until nineteen inscriptions were discovered. Five of these were in reference to Thessalonica (the very city in which Luke was claiming to have heard the term).
Sergius Paulus
In Acts 13, Luke identified Sergius Paulus, a proconsul in Paphos. Skeptics doubted the existence of this man and claimed that any leader of this area would be a “propraetor” rather than a proconsul. But an inscription was discovered at Soli in Cyprus that acknowledged Paulus and identified him as a proconsul.
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 sim
ilar 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.
Cold-Case Christianity Page 22