Cold-Case Christianity
Page 23
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.
Chapter 13
WERE THEY ACCURATE?
The characters and events depicted in the … bible are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.76
—Comedians and magicians “Penn and Teller”
How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world.77
—Sam Harris, neuroscientist, speaker, and author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
TIME, DOCUMENTATION, AND LIES
People who claim that the biblical narratives are mere fiction and filled with error presume that the authors of the Bible wrote the Gospels long after the reported events allegedly occurred and far from the locations they described. False, fictional elements can be inserted into an account if they are inserted well after any living eyewitnesses are alive to identify them as lies. In addition, if the true historical record has not been preserved well or guarded to prevent corruption, errors can slip in without much notice. If this occurred with the Gospels, they are untrustworthy. Even if they are corroborated at several points by archaeology or internal evidences, they may still be inaccurate about any number of episodes they describe.
Cold-case investigators understand the relationship between time and reliability. We have to evaluate the prior statements of witnesses and suspects and do our best to figure out if these statements are true or fictional. Sometimes the passage of time provides an advantage to cold-case investigators that was not available to the detectives who originally worked the case. Time often exposes the inaccuracy of eyewitnesses and the lies of suspects. I’ve taken advantage of this over the years.
I once had a case where the suspect (Jassen) provided an alibi at the time he was originally investigated in 1988. Jassen said that he was driving to a friend’s house at the time of the murder, although he never made it there because he had a flat tire. When he said this to the original detectives, they wrote it in their notes. They failed, however, to document Jassen’s statement in their final report. They never found enough evidence to arrest Jassen, and as a result, they didn’t write an arrest report; their closing reports were far less complete than they would have been if anyone had actually been arrested for this crime.
Years later, I reopened the case and examined the original reports and notes of the first detectives. They had been carefully preserved in our department’s records division, where they were originally copied and stored on microfiche. I saw Jassen’s original statement in the first detective’s notes and asked this investigator to meet with me. He told me about his interview with Jassen, and without prompting from his notes, he recalled the details of what Jassen said with great accuracy. When I showed him the copy of his notes, he recognized them without hesitation.
I next arranged an impromptu interview with Jassen. While the original detective was careful to take notes about the interview he conducted in 1988, Jassen made no such record. With the passage of time, Jassen forgot what he first told the detective. The story he now gave to me was completely different from the story he first gave to detectives. Gone was his claim that he was driving to a friend’s house. Gone was his claim that he suffered a flat tire. Jassen now said that he was changing the oil in his garage at the time of the murder. When I presented him with the original story, he not only failed to recognize it as his own, but also adamantly denied ever making such a statement. Jassen couldn’t remember (or repeat) his original lie. The more I talked to him, the more he exposed the fact that the original story was a piece of fiction. Once he knew he had been caught in a lie, his alibi and confidence began to crumble.
Jassen was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder. The jury was convinced that the original notes from the detective were authentic and well preserved. They were convinced that the notes contained an accurate description of Jassen’s first statement. They were also convinced that Jassen’s latest statement was untrue.
WHAT DID THEY SAY, AND HOW WELL WAS IT PRESERVED?
How do we know that the biblical documents we have today are accurate and reliable? How do we know that they haven’t been corrupted over time and contain little more than fiction? Like our cold-case investigations, we need certainty in two important areas of investigation. First, we need to make sure we know what the Gospels said in the first place. Second, we need to know if there is good reason to believe that these documents were preserved well over time. Jassen’s statement in 1988 was well documented and preserved. We were later able to make a case for the accuracy of his statement in front of the jury. Can a case be made for the accuracy of the Gospels? In order to find out if this is possible, we’re going to investigate what the gospel writers first said and then study the way these statements were preserved over time.
One way to be certain about the content and nature of the early eyewitness statements is to examine the evidence related to the transmission of the New Testament. In chapter 8 we talked about the importance of identifying the original eyewitnesses and their immediate disciples in order to establish a New Testament chain of custody. If we can examine what these first eyewitnesses said to their students, we can reasonably trace the content of the Gospels from their alleged date of creation to the earliest existing copies. The oldest complete, surviving copy of the New Testament we have (Codex Sinaiticus) was discovered in the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Constantine Tischendorf observed it and pu
blished the discovery in the nineteenth century; scholars believe that it was produced sometime close to AD 350.78 The text of Codex Sinaiticus provides us with a picture of what the New Testament said in the fourth century, and scholars have used it to inform and confirm the content of Bible translations for many years now. Our examination of the New Testament chain of custody will attempt to link the claims of the original authors to this fourth-century picture of Jesus’s life and ministry.
When I first began to examine the “chain,” I searched the historical record to identify the first students of the apostles. After all, the apostles claimed to have seen Jesus and experienced life with Him; I wanted to know what, exactly, they said to their students. While the apostles had a number of pupils, not every one of these second-generation Christians became a leader in his own right or was identified by history. Not every apostolic student had occasion to lead a group or author a letter revealing what the original disciples taught him. While many of the apostles’ students may have written about the content of their teachers’ testimony, only a few of these documents have survived. That shouldn’t surprise us given the antiquity of the events we are examining. In spite of all this, I was able to identify several chains of custody that give us an idea of what the apostles observed and taught. In fact, I bet we could comfortably reconstruct an accurate image of Jesus from just the letters of the students of the apostles, even if all of Scripture was lost to us. Let’s take a look at the evidence from the New Testament “chains of custody”: