The New Testament - Corroboration from External Sources

Early Christian Sources:

Clement of Rome (AD 95)

Origen (AD 185-253) on Clement ("The New Evidence", p. 44):

"Origen, in De Principus, Book II, chapter 3, calls him a disciple of the apostles." (Anderson, "The Bible, the Word of God", 1905, p. 28)

Irenaeus (AD 170) on Clement ("The New Evidence", p. 44):

"Irenaeus continues in 'Against Heresies', Book III, Chapter 3 that he [Clement] 'had the preaching of the Apostles still echoing in his ears and their doctrine in front of his eyes."

From "New testament Survey", by Merrill C. Tenney, Revised by Walter M. Dunnett, 1985, p. 405:

"Probably the first document to quote any of the books of the New Testament was I Clement, which itself was considered canonical by some Christians. It is found in Codex Alexandrinus, included with the New Testament books. It was written from Rome to the church in Corinth, and is usually dated about AD 95. In it are plain allusions to Hebrews, I Corinthians, Romans, and the Gospel of Matthew."

Tertullian (AD 160-220) on Clement (From "The New Evidence", p. 44):

"Tertullian, in "Against Heresies", Chapter 23, writes that he (Clement) was appointed by Peter."

From "Corinthians, 42", cited in "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowel, pp.130-131:

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they proved them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."

Papias, Bishop of Heirapolis (AD 70-130?) is cited by Eusebius ("The Church History", 3.39, AD 325):

"The Presbyter used to say this also: 'Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasion demanded, without giving systematic arrangement to the Lord's sayings, so that Mark did not err in writing down some things just as he recalled them. For he had one overriding purpose: to omit nothing that he had heard and to make now false statements in his account."

"Matthew compiled the sayings [logia of Christ] in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 180)

Ireneaus on the Apostle John

From "Against Heresies"2.33, as quoted by Eusebius 2.33:

"All the elders in Asia associated with John, the Lord's disciple, testify that John taught them the truth, for he remained with them until the time of Trajan." [Trajan ruled from 98 AD].

Irenaeus on Polycarp (From "Against Heresies" Book III (3.3)):

"Polycarp not only was instructed by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen the Lord, but also was appointed by apostles in Asia as Bishop of Smyrna. I also saw him in my childhood, for he lived a long time and passed away in extreme old age in glorious martyrdom. He continually taught the things he had learned from the apostles, the traditions of the church that alone are true. These facts are confirmed by all the churches of Asia and the successors of Polycarp to this day, and he is a much more reliable witness to the truth than Valentinus, Marcion, and all other errorists."

More on Polycarp's Apostolic Connection According to Irenaeus (from a letter from Irenaeus to Florinus cited by Eusebius 5.20):

"When I was still a boy I saw you in Lower Asia wit Polycarp, when you had high status at the imperial court and wanted to gain his favour. I remember events from those days more clearly than those that happened recently - what we learn in childhood adheres to the mind and grows with it - so that I can even picture the place where the blessed Polycarp sat and conversed, his discourses and goings, his character, his personal appearance, his discourses to the crowds, and how he reported his discussions with John and others who had seen the Lord. He recalled their very words, what they reported about the Lord and His miracles and His teachings - things that Polycarp had heard directly from eyewitnesses of the Word of life and reprted in full harmony with Scripture."

Irenaeus on the Gospels (From "Against Heresies", cited in "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowel, pp. 53-54):

"For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, and four universal winds, and as the Church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and the base of the Church and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immortality from every quarter and kindling the life of men anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifest to men, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, bur held together in one Spirit.

Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews (ie the Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church there.

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher.

Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast, himself produced his gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."

Irenaeus on Tatian: (From "Against Heresies" 1.26, cited by Eusebius 4.29):

"Stemming from Saturninus and Marcion, the so-called Encratites preached celibacy, annulling the original creation of God and tacitly condemning him who made them male and female for the generation of humanity. They also abstained from what they called "animate" things, in ingraditude to God who made all things, and deny the salvation of the first created man. This innovation they made recently when a certain Tatian first introduced this blasphemy. He had been a student of Justin, and as ling as he was with him he offered nothing like this, but, after Justin's martyrdom, he left the church and grew inflated at the idea of becoming a teacher superior to others. He taught his own brand of doctrine, spinning storied of invisible eons, like the followers of Valentinus, and condemning marriage as depravity and fornication, as did Marcion and Saturninus. He devised arguments of his own in denying Salvation to Adam."

The historicity of Jesus or the reliability of Scripture was not an issue. Esebius notes (1.26) that Tatian compiled the Gospels into the "Diatessaron" (Harmony of Four Parts). Though Irenaeus and Tatian were opposed to each other with respect to how to interpret Scripture, it appears almost certain they were working from the same body of inspired text. Esebius notes:

"Their former leader Tatian somehow produced a combination of the Gospels and called it the Diatessaron, which is still extant in some places. They say that he dared to alter some of the apostles words as if correcting their style." (Eusebius 4.26)

Manuscript discoveries of the Diatessaron:

From "Testaments of Time: The Search for Lost Manuscripts and Records", by Leo Deuel, 1965, pp. 330-331:

"These finds removed once and for all any doubts concerning Tatian's composition of a harmony, and its popularity in antiquity, but an original version of the work eluded the scholars…the breakthrough came, as we have seen, with the Dura fragment. Admittedly the evidence was pitifully slight. Yet it offered valuable insights - and hope for the future. First of all, it testified to the adoption and dissemination of the Diatessaron in early Christian Syria. As to its textual aspects, even so short a passage revealed its dependence on all Four Gospels…What makes the recovery of the 'lost Diatessaron unique is not only that it involved several avenues of search, including dirt archaeology, but that it furnished a paradoxical case history of manuscript hunting in which the object, said not to exist at all, had never really disappeared."

Summary of Manuscript discoveries by Deuel (re: The Diatessaron)

1. The Dura Parchment (P.326): "At first sight, the Dura parchment was recognised as referring to the end of chapter 15, verses 40-43, of ST, Mark, incorporating the well-known passage on Joseph of Arimathea's petition for Jesus' body. Further examination showed that the brief passage included material from all four Gospels. That is to say, it was what New Testament scholars call a 'harmony' - an integrated story pieced together from the canonical accounts of Christ's life. Kraeling's identification of the fragment with Tatian's Diatessaron was, despite such surprising and unexpected evidence, completely accepted by scholars everywhere. Though the parchment was pathetically brief, its appearance was an epochal event in New Testament studies …"

2. Quotes by St. Ephraem (pp.329-330): "In 1836, the fathers of an Armenian monetary located in Venice had published in their language a commentary with extensive quotations from the Diatessaron by St. Ephraem, a fourth century Syrian, some of whose work had appeared on the palimpsest deciphered by Tischendorf in Paris. If any proof of the existence of the missing work was needed, here it was."

3. Two 11^th Century Arabic Translations (p. 330) made available in 1888. One had been resting in the Vatican Library, even listed in a catalogue. When shown to a visiting Coptic dignitary, he recalled seeing another copy in Egypt.

4. 6^th Century Latin Version (p. 330) found by Bishop Victor of Capua was identified as the Diatessaron mentioned by Eusebius

5. Others (p. 330): "In due time, English, German Dutch and French harmonies - and, as late as 1952, even a Persian harmony - said to be traceable to Tatian were located."

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-212)

Clement on the Apostles: From his "Outlines", Book 6 (see Eusebius Book 2.1):

"Peter, James and John, after the Saviour's ascension, did not contend for the honor because they had previously been favoured by the Saviour, but chose James the Just as Bishop pf Jerusalem."

"Outlines", Book 7:

"After the resurrection the imparted the higher knowledge to James the Just, John and Peter. They gave it to the Seventy, one of whom was Barnabas. Now there were two Jameses: one, James the Just, who was thrown down from the parapet and beaten to death with a fuller's club; the other, the James who was beheaded [Acts 12:2]".

Hegesippus (AD 150) F.F Bruce comments concerning Hegesippus ("New Testament History", 1969, pp.405-406):

"…Hegesippus, the Palestinian Christian, who appears to have been a pioneer in the argument that the true and original Christian faith could be identified if one ascertained the consensus of belief in all the churches founded by apostles. He himself undertook this quest about AD 150 and travelled as far as Rome, interrogating the churches which he visited about their beliefs and recording his findings in five books of Memoirs, which (though long since lost) provided Eusebius with valuable source-material."

Hegesippus and the True Faith, by Eusebius ("The Church History", 4.21-22):

"Among those flourishing in the church at this time were Hegesippus, whom we met earlier, Bishop of Dionysius of Corinth, Bishop Pinytus of Crete, Philip, Apolinarius, Melto, Musanus, Modestus, and above all Irenaeus. Their orthodoxy and ardour for the apostolic tradition have reached us in written form.

Hegesippus has left a full record of his beliefs in five books that have come down to us. In them he tells of travelling to Rome and finding the same doctrine among all bishops there. After some comments about Clements letter to the Corinthians, he writes,

'The Corinthian Church remained in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I conversed with the Corinthians on the voyage to Rome, and we were refreshed by the true doctrine. After arriving in Rome, I compiled the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. In each succession and in every city, preaching corresponds with the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord."

Hegesippus and the Beginnings of Heresy, by Eusebius ("The Church History", 4.22)

(Quoting Hegesippus): "After James the Just had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon, the son of his [James'] uncle Clopas, was appointed bishop, recommended by all as the Lord's cousin. They used to call the church a virgin because she had not yet been seduced by profanities. But Thebouthis, because he had not been made bishop, began to defile her by means of seven heresies to which he belonged. Among these were Simon and his Simonians, Cleobius and his Cleobians, Dositheus and the Dositheans, Gorthaeus and the Gortathenes, and the Masbotheans. From these derove the Menandrianists, Marcionites, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Basilidians, and Saturnilians, each injecting their own opinion in their own peculiar way. From these come false Christs, the false prophets, and false apostles, who shatter the unity of the church by their poisonous teachings against God and his Christ."

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) Facts about Justin by Norman Geisler, "The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", 2000, p. 395:

• Justin was born of Pagan parents in Samaria
• Embraced Christianity in 130 AD
• Taught at Ephesus, wrote "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. 130)
• Eventually opened a Christian school in Rome
• Wrote "First Apology" there (ca. 155 AD)
• "Second Apology" was addressed to the Roman Senate

Eusebius (4.18) adds to the list of Justin's works:

"A Defence of Our Faith", addressed to Antonius Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate.
"A Second Defence of Our Faith", to his successor Atoninus Verus [Marcus Aurelius]…
"Against the Greeks", a lengthy discussion of issues debated by both Christian and Greek philosophers, as well as a discourse on demons.
"A Refutation", another reply to the Greeks
"The Sovereignty of God", drawn from both the Scriptures and the Greek works
"Songs of the Harp"
"On the Soul", reflecting his opinions and those of the Greek philosophers.
He also composed a dialogue against the Jews, held at Ephesus: the Dialogue Against Trypho, one of the most distinguished Hebrews of the day."

Justin on the Book of Revelation as quoted by Eusebius (4.18):

"He also writes that even up to his own day prophetic gifts brightened the church and cites the Revelation of John, stating that it was the work of John the Apostle."

Sunday worship and the "Memoirs", From his "First Apology", 1.67:

"And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together to one place of all those who live in cities or in the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits."

This section of information regarding Justin comes from "Justin Martyr: His Life and His Thought", by L.W. Barnard, Cambridge University Press, 1967:

Justin appears to have been well-travelled. From p. 12:

"In the acts of his martyrdom it is stated that he had resided twice in Rome. This is consonant with what we know of the various schools os thougt which Christian teachers established in the capitol city of the Empire. Valentinus had connections with Alexandria and Cyprus as ell as with Rome. Marcion's neckname, 'the sea-captain', suggests that he made a number of voyages. Greek philosophers such as Lucian of Samosata taught in province after province. It is not therefore to be assumed that Justin established a permanent school of Christian philosophy at Rome. Most probably, he taught in other cities at different times in his career."

Justin's Apostolic Connection (p. 13):

"Another pupil [of Justin's] was Irenaeus from Smyrna, a pupil of Polycarp."

Polycarp, it has been well noted, was a disciple of the Apostle John

Dialogue with Trypho (p. 22-23):

"The authorship of the Dialogue is not now held in question. It bears the marks of Justin's style, as known from the Apologies, quotes from the first Apology and is attributed to Justin by Eusebeus."

"Did this debate with Trypho really occur? The details of the meeting of Justin and Trypho says he is a refugee who has lately escaped from the Jewish war of AD 132-135, and the emotions which move both sides, are vividly described. We gain a clear impression of the character and outlook of Trypho and his friends - which essentially liberal and tolerant - in contrast to the fierce hatred of the Palestinian Jews against Christians which the war had inflamed. These personal references seem to rule out the view that the historical setting of the Dialogue is fictitious and that Trypho is a 'straw man' who is merely a tool in Justin's hands."

Justin and the Gospels (p. 59, 60):

"The agreement between Justin's account of Jesus' life and teaching taken from the Memoirs and our Synoptic Gospels pften extends to small particulars - and this is of significance. Thus his account of Jesus' infancy is identical with the Synoptic account apart from the statement that the Christ was born in a cave and that the Magi came from Arabia. The soberness of Justin's narrative is in marked contrast to the accounts of the second-century Apocryphal Gospels which go in for many embellishments. Justin refers to the enrolment under Cyrenius, Jesus' growth from infancy to manhood, he names the son's of Zebedee, he records Jesus' silence at his trial, Pilate's sending him to Herod, and the Jewish story that his body was stolen from the timb by his disciples. These coincidences in details, together with the general tenor of his account, suggest that Justin's Memoirs were in substance identical with our Synoptic Gospels whatever else they may have contained."

From p. 66:

"The uncanonical material found in Justin is of small compass compared with his agreements with the Canonocal Gospels. The marvel is that so little legendary materual appears in his works when we compare them with the fanciful accounts of the second-century apocryphal Gospels and even with traditions contained in other of the early Fathers. To compare Justin's sober account of the Magi with the account given by Ignatius of the Star of Bethlehem some forty years before is most instructive. Justin always gives the simple, unadorned story rather than fanciful embellishements. His few differences from our Gospels are due to lapses of memory, a desire to show a fulfillment of prophecy, the use of traditional Jewish-Christian oral material and possibly certain apocryphal books."

Justin and John's Gospel (p.61):

"Justin's writings illustrate rather the first tentative use which was made of the Fourth Gospel by an orthodox writer, and this tentativeness makes it difficult to believe that Justin regarded the Fourth Gospel as Scripture or as the work of an apostle."

This same source cites the work of J.N. Sanders, ("The Fourth Gospel of the Early Church", Cambridge, 1943, pp. 27-32) in which parallels are drawn between the writings of Justin and the fourth Gospel, no less than 23 paralells are given. Barnard states that not all of these are convincing, but cites two examples that are:

1) I Apol. Ixi.4 which parallels John 3:3,5

2) Dial. Ixxxviii.7, which paralles John 1:20

Barnard conludes (p. 63):

"We conclude that Justin was familiar with the four canonical Gospels. His Memoirs were in substance indentical with our Synoptic Gospels; he valued St. John's Gospel chiefly for doctrinal reasons and he was perhaps conscious that its apostolic authority was not everywhere accepted." (Emphasis mine, J.F.)

This statement regarding Johnine authorship is misleading and demands comment. Note that none of the Gospels enjoyed universal acceptance. Marcion rejected all but a corrupted version of Luke's Gospel (this because of intense anti Semitism). I think it erroneous to suggest that Justin himself doubted John's Gospel was inspired Scripture based soley internal evidences (ingnoring the apostolic connection from Justin via Irenaeus and Polycarp.)

Why no direct quotes by Justin from John?

Barard himself alludes to a possible explanation(s) on p. 55:

"It would seem that although four Gospels were known and used well before the middle of the second century what held back orthodox recognition longer than the heritical was uncertainty as the the apostoloic authorship of the fourth Gospel and its congeniality to the heretics. Perhaps this is why direct quotations from that Gospel are so few in early Christian literature."

Johnine Authorship Affirmed via Apostolic Connections

From "After Jesus: The Triumph of Christianity", 1992, p. 137:

"During the reign of Hadrian, a work called Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord in five books was written. The author of this work was Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor - not far from Smyrna - where his friend and collegue, Polycarp, was bishop. Bishop Irenaeus and the church historian Eusebius preserved only fragments of the Oracles that are known to scholars today. Papias was born about 70 AD and is said to have been a "hearer of John."

Confusion arises from Papias' statemant about there being two Johns. Craig Blomberg states ("The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel, p. 23-24):

"…the testimony of a Christian writer named Papias, dated about AD 125, refers to John the apostle and John the elder, and it's not clear from the context whether he's talking about one person from two perspectives or two different people. But granted that exception, the rest of the early testimony is unanimous that it was John the apostle - the son of Zebedee - who wrote the gospel."

From "New Testament Survey", by Merrill C. Tenney, revised by Walter M. Dunnett, 1985, p. 189:

"The theory that the Fourth Gospel was the product of some unknown presbyter by the name John and not of John the Apostle cannot be regarded as established. All the testimony of the fathers from the time of Irenaeus is overwhelmingly in favour of Johnnine authorship. Clement of Alexandria (AD 190), Origen (AD 220), Hippolytus (c AD 225), Tertullian (c AD 200), and the Muratorian Fragment (c AD 170) agree in attributing the Fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee."

Addressing the Question of Johnnine Authorship

Notes on Apostolic Connections:

Tatian and the Diatessaron (AD 170) According to Irenaeus (Book 1.26), Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr. After Justin's death, Tatian,

"…he left the church and grew inflated at the idea of becoming a teacher and superior to others. He taught his own brand of doctrine, spinning stories of invisible eons, like the followers of Valentinus, and condemning marriage as depravity and fornication, as did Marcion and Saturninus. He devised arguments of his own in denying salvation to Adam."

Eusebius states that a man named Severus augmented Tatian's heresy by using the Law, the Prophets and the Gospels, interpreting them in their own way, but denying the epistles of Paul. He goes on to say ("The Church History", 4.29):

"Their former leader Tatian somehow produced a combination of the Gospels and called it the Diatessaron, which is still extant in some places. They say that he dared to alter some of the apostles words as if correcting their style."

Recall that Irenaeus, though aligned against Tatian after Justin's death, stood aligned with him in the belief that there were four Gospels to be trusted and no more.

Non-Christian Sources

Critics often point to the fact that, as F.F. Bruce admits, ("New Testament History", p. 163): "Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent on these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic."

Nevertheless, when the overwhelming historical evidence verifying the truthfulness of the Gospel record is demonstrated, other critics argue, "It's the winners who get to record history anyway." If this sentiment is true, then the scanty and problematic extra biblical sources from Christianity's formative years are precisely what one would predict. Christianity was not the "winner" for at least three centuries.

Bruce notes ("New Testament History", p. 164):

"…while Christ and the Christians did ultimately come to be mentioned in Roman historical writing, the first Roman 'literature' in which we might expect to find any reference to them would be what we should call the police news. This is what in fact we find."

Suetonius (AD 69? - 140) Suetonius was chief secretary to the Emperor Hadrian (reigned AD 117-138). Two references are important (Both found in "The Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics", p. 381):

"Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city." [Claudius, 25]

"After the great fire at Rome…Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief." [Nero, 16]

Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55 - 120)

"Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontus Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: "…but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also."

Cornelius Tacitus, ANNALS XV, 44

Common Arguments: Tacitus was writing to expose the flaws in the imperial system. He uncritically relayed information to this end. His bias, coupled with the fact that he did not make his sources known (with respect to the comments he made regarding the birth of Christianity) makes him a poor source of external corroboration.

Rebuttals: It's obvious that Tacitus had a motive to record history. Every historian does. This does not negate the fact that history may still be recorded accurately. Japanese and American historians may have different motives for recording the events of Pearl Harbour, yet the events recorded by both may be entirely accurate.

Colliers Encyclopaedia, (Vol, 22, p. 28) states: "Tacitus vents all his stored up hatred of imperialism and tyranny in a style which, with great dignity, is conceise, vigorous, and compelling."

"The Encyclopaedia Americana", 2001, vol. 26, pp. 210-211, states: "In general Tacitus was a careful researcher and even his severest critics ordinarily concede that his facts are accurate."

Opinions vary concerning Tacitus' abilities as an objective historian. Stephen Usher ("The Historians of Greece and Rome", 1969, p. 234) makes a comment directly opposed to the Colliers' assessment of Tacitus:

"If we now ask whether Tacitus has been seen to present his story, according to his own initial undertaking, without anger, hatred of partiality, we must surely accept a negative answer. Both Annals and Histories are full of rancour and personal judgements, colored by a disturbing willingness to adduce popular rumor in their support."

The same source concludes,

"Above all, Tacitus is a superb stylist, tracing his lineage back to Sallust, the predecessor he most admired, and superseding him by virtue of his grasp of the historical forces in operation in his time, which assisted his artistic talents in the selection and arrangement of the rich material at his disposal."

Common Arguments We don't what Tacitus' sources were. He may have simply been repeating what Christians were saying at that time.

Rebuttal F.F. Bruce comments ("New Testament History", p. 165):

"It is unlikely that Tacitus acquired his accurate information about the execution of Christ from Christians (in view of the contemptuous and hostile tone which he adopts in speaking of them); if some account of the matter survived to his day in official archives, a man of his standing could have had access to it."

Tacitus and Suetonius

It is unlikely that the persecution of Christians under Nero at that time is something that Tacitus could have invented. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Christianity was in existence in Rome by AD 64. Note that corroboration for this is found in the writings of Seutonius (AD 69? - 140), Tacitus' contemporary:

"…because the Jews of Rome indulging in constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus he expelled them from the city." Seutonius, "Claudius", 25:4

Bruce states ("New Testament History", p. 298):

"Christ was not in Rome in the time of Claudius, but Seutonius, writing seventy years later, may have thought that he was. If his sources indicated that the riots which provoked Claudius' edict of expulsion were due to the introduction and propagation of Christianity in the capitol, he could well have drawn the mistaken inference that it had been introduced there by Christ in person. Tacitus was better informed; he knew that Christ was crucified under Tiberius; but such accuracy required a degree of research for which others had neither the interest nor the inclination. At any rate, our inference from Suetonius that the riots were due to the recent introduction of Christianity into the Jewish colony at Rome agrees well enough with our independent inference from the New Testament that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians before they came to Corinth."

AD 64 is about 30 years from the resurrection of Jesus. Consider these facts regarding Christianity in the first century:

• The Worship of a Crucified man: Crucifixion was the despised form of death. Marcus Tullius Cicero, Rome's most famous orator stated ("Pro Rabirio", V, 16, cited in Josh McDowel's "The New Evidence", p. 222): "Even the mere word, cross, must remain far, not only from the lips of the citizens of Rome, but also from their thoughts, their eyes, their ears." Christians were called to worship One who had died the most shameful death imaginable.

  F.F. Bruce ("New Testament History", pp. 211-212) comments: "The handicap with which the disciples embarked upon their public witness to Jesus can scarcely be exaggerated. They were bound to compromise themselves in the eyes of the Romans by proclaiming themselves the followers of a man whose execution had followed his conviction in a Roman court on a charge of sedition. And the idea of commending to their fellow-Jews as the long expected Messiah of Israel a man who had been crucified would, on all rational grounds, would been ruled out as absurd and scandalous. A crucified Messiah was a contradiction in terms."

• Christian Doctrine: Christianity demanded a strict moral code, far more demanding that even the Jewish religious system in place at that time.

• Charges of Atheism: Christian converts were the decided minority, often viewed scornfully as atheists because of their unwillingness to worship the Roman deities.

• Scorn for Material Wealth: Christian doctrine instructed believers not to lay up treasures on earth for themselves, but to wait for their reward in heaven. This goes completely against the grain of most people. Further, Jesus guaranteed that believers would face opposition, persecution and trouble in this world for following Him. In short, Christianity offered the new believer nothing in the way of political advantage or material possessions, virtually guaranteeing a life of persecution and scorn.

How likely is it that people could be duped into converting to a faith such as Christianity (keeping in mind the above points) by AD 64 - 30 years after the resurrection - without any empirical evidence whatever to support it? How likely is it that both Tacitus and Suetonius were in error regarding Christians and Christianity?

Josephus ben Mattathias - The famous Jewish historian writing about AD 95 stated:

"Now there was about his time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities, XVIII,33)

The three schools of thought regarding the Testimonium:

One says that the text is pure with no interpolations. This claim is made because every extant copy of the Testimonium is complete. This view fails, however because it would require that Josephus made statements - such as calling Jesus the Christ - that a non-Christian Jew would never make.

Another school of thought suggests that the entire quote is a Christian interpolation. This seems unlikely because, as mentioned, the Testimonium appears in all extant Greek manuscripts. Furthermore, Josephus mentions Jesus a second time (which we will consider) almost in passing and would have contained more identifying information if this was the first reference to Him. He also comments that Jesus won over many of the Greeks - a fact that is not paralleled in the New Testament but seems rather to be something that Josephus would have noted in his own day.

The last option - that the text contains some interpolations seems to be the best explanation.

John P. Meier, in an article entitled "The Testimonium: Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible", (Bible Review, June, 1991, p. 23) examines the text:

"Read the Testamonium without the italicised (underlined above J.F.) passages and you will see that the flow of thought is clear. Josephus calls Jesus by the generic title "wise man (sophos an'r, perhaps the Hebrew, "khakham"). Josephus then proceeds to "unpack" that generic designation (wise man) with two of it's main components in the Greco-Roman world: Miracle-working (wonderful works) and effective teaching. This double display of "wisdom" wins Jesus a large following among both Jews and Gentiles, and presumably - though no explicit reason is given - it is this huge success that moves the leading men to accuse Jesus before Pilate. Despite Jesus' shameful death on the cross, his earlier adherents do not give up their loyalty to him and so (note that the transition is much better without the reference to the resurrection in the deleted passage) the tribe of Christians has not yet died out."

Paul L. Maier, ("Eusebius: The Church History", 1999, p. 378) relates how a discovery of an Arabic manuscript containing Josephus' Testimonium corresponds almost exactly to previous scholarly projections of what he actually wrote:

"In 1972, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem announced his discovery of an Arabic manuscript of Josephus written by the tenth century Melkite historian Agapius, in which the passage in question translates as follows:

"At this time there was a wise man named Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucifies and to die. But 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 reported wonders. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."

Clearly this version of the passage is expressed in a manner appropriate to a non-Christian Jew, and it corresponds almost precisely to previous scholarly projections of what Josephus actually wrote."

Following the Testimonium a couple of section later, Josephus refers to James the brother of Jesus. In Antiquities XX, 9.1 he describes the actions of the high priest Ananus:

"But the younger brother Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bolt disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgement above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."

Louis Feldman, professor of classics at Yeshiva University and translator for the Loeb edition of Antiquities, states,

"Few have doubted the genuineness of this passage." (Josephus, "Antiquities", Loeb, 496).

Josephus remains an excellent non-Christian source for supporting the historicity of Jesus as a teacher, and a miracle worker, who was slain at the insistence of the Jewish religious leaders in the reign of Pontius Pilate.

Lucian of Samosata (Wrote about AD 160): Lucian was a Greek satirist who lived in the latter part of the second century. He spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians but never argues against Christ's existence or the fact that He had a following and was executed:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account …You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt for 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 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, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." (Lucian, The death of Peregrine, 11-13)

Common Arguments One critic stated, "…given that Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the historicity of Jesus."

Rebuttal This claim is demonstrably false. Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus, which all predate Lucian, have already been cited.

Thallus - The writings of the historian Thallus are extant today only in fragmented quotations by other writers. Julius Africanus composed a "History of the World" in five volumes around 220 AD. In one of the surviving fragments, Africanus cites Thallus as making mention of the three-hour darkness that occurred during Christ's crucifixion (XVIII.1):

"One 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. For the Hebrews celebrate Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the Passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: How then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. 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-manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period."

About the Above Passage:

• "this darkness" makes clear that Thallus was attempting to explain specifically the darkness which occurred at the crucifixion
• "let it carry the majority" implies that the darkness was real and was the topic for scholarly discussion
• "portent only to the eye" indicates that some argued that it was a mass hallucination - though still requiring scholarly explanation
• Phlegon recorded the event as well

Challenges to the Authenticity of Thallus' Statements and Some Quick Rebuttals

1. Thallus' exact identity is unknown.

Whether we can identify him with the Thallus of Eusibius or Josephus is entirely beside the point. It's clear he comes from at least a generation before Africanus (A.D. 221) Africanus writes (XIII.3) "For these things are also recorded by…Castor and Thallus, who record Syrian affairs…and by some of our own time…"

2. His writings are not extant, only Africanus' brief statement exists. The context of the quote is not available.

Africanus gives us the context. The burden of proof is on the critic to cast doubt in Africanus' ability and/or honesty.

3. Africanus assumes the darkness occurred at Passover (against Thallus & Phlegon). Charge: Africanus is rejecting historian's views for his faith.

There is nothing in the way Africanus conducted himself historiographically to support this charge. Much actually opposes it.

A Look at Thallus / Africanus in Detail

Identifying Thallus

Josephus Mentions a Certain Thallus ("Ant." 18.167):

"Now there was one Thallus, a freedman of Caesar's of whom he borrowed a million drachmae, and thence repais Antonia the debt he owed her; and by spending the overplus in paying his court to Caius, became a person of great authority with him."

If this is the same Thallus, it would explain:

• How he had the time to write history
• How he had access to records
• How he had knowledge of events in Palestine (being a Samaritan)
• How he had the financial means to do the heavy travel required

The requirements for writing Hellenistic history would necessitate such a background. Charles W. Fornara states ("The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome", 1983, p. 49):

"Polybius…fairly represents the great tradition of historia. The hallmark of the profession was personal observation (autopsy), inquiry, and travel. Now these conditions excluded all but the members of the highest levels of society. Wealth and social contacts were essential to their craft. The nature of what historians intended to investigate…required mobility, familiarity with the great, and the prestige necessary to ensure the cooperation of strangers."

Notes that others have favoured this identification of Thallus, though such an identification is not essential in establishing Thallus' credibility as a historian or Africanus' use of his writings.

Africanus Mentions Thallus Twice Before the Quote in Question:

(XXIII.2): "And after the 70 years of captivity, Cyrus became king of the Persians at the time of the 55th Olympiad, as may be ascertained from the "Binliothecae" of Diodorus and the histories of Thallus and Castor, and also from Polybius and Phlegon, and others besides these, who have made the Olympiads a subject of study. For the date is a matter of agreement among them all."

(XIII.3): "For these things are also recorded by the Athenian historians Hellanicus and Philochorus, who record Attic affairs; and by Castor and Thallus, who record Syrian affairs; and by Diodorus, who writes a universal history in his Bibliothecae; and by Alexander Polyhistr, and by some of our own time, yet more carefully…"

Thallus is in Good Company

Note the other historians he mentioned alongside and their credentials.

Hellanicus of Lesbos (From Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia), 1997):

"[Hellanicaus was a] Greek historian whose work marks an advancement in the development of historiography."

Polybius (From Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia), 1997, pp.576-577):

"In book II in which he attcks the Greek historian Phylarchus for practices that might be called unprofessional today, Polybius states:

'A historian should not try to astonish his readers by sensationalism, nor, like the tragic poets, seek after men's probable utterances and enumerate all the possible consequences of the events under consideration, but simply record what really happened and was said, however commonplace. For the object of history is the very opposite of that of tragedy. The tragic writer seeks, by the most plausible language to thrill and charm the audience temporarily; the historian by real facts and real speeches seeks to instruct and convince serious students for all time.'"

The article continues:

"Polybius defines the historians task as the study and collation of documents, acquaintance with relevant geographical features, and, finally, political experience (XII, 25e); of these the last two are the most essential. And he practiced what he preached, for possessed good political and military experience and had traveled widely throughout the Mediterranean and beyond. Nor did he neglect written sources; indeed for his introductory books, covering the period from 264 - 220, they were essential."

The Britannica article sums up regarding Polybius (p. 577):

"To the scholar his style is, however, no great obstacle, and, though in his anxiety to improve his reader he moralizes and belabors the obvious, the perennial interest and importance of his theme will always ensure him a following among those who can enjoy a historian who is accurate, serious, and sensible, who understands the venets of which he writes, and, above all, who asks the right questions."

Castor of Rhodes -( Africanus links Thallus twice with him)

Castor was responsible for setting the format for most of subsequent historical writing - the comparative columns format (later adapted by Africanus) - see "Historiography: Ancient, Medieval and Modern", by Ernst Breisach, 1944, 2nd ed.

Africanus Was a Competent Historian

From Encyclopedea Britannica (Micropedia), vol. 1, 1997, pp. 135-136:

(AD 180-250) - first Christian historian to produce a universal chronology. His life is not well documented, but evidence indicates that Africanus travelled considerably in Asia, Egypt, and Italy and later lived chiefly at Emmaus in Palestine…his work raised the prestige of early Christianity by placing it within a historical context."

From "The Early Church", Henry Chadwick, 1993 (2^nd Rev.), p. 103:

"At Rome he so impressed the Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235) by his erudition that the emperor entrusted him with the building of his library at the Pantheon in Rome"

"Africanus was the first Christian whose writings were not all concerned with his faith"

"He once attended a theological disputation during which Origen appealed to the history of Susanna, and afterwards wrote Origen a fatherly rebuke for failing to notice that the pun, being only possible in Greek, proves the History of Susanna to be an addition to the book of Daniel." Note that Africanus had literary critical skills and was honest enough to use them by confronting the most intellectually intimidating Christian figure of his time.

Samples of Africanus' Writings and Their Significance

From Africanus' Chronicle:

"When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some cases I found "the sons of God". What is meant by the Spirit, in my opinion, is that the descendents of Seth are called the sons of God…" (II)

1.Chooses the natural explanation over the supernatural

2.Compared source texts and found "better" readings

3.Observes a difference between fact and opinion

"And when the water abated, the ark settled on the mounains of Ararat, which we know to be in Parthia; but some say that they are at Celaenae of Phrygia, and I have seen both places." (IV)

1. Notice that when the data was divided, Africanus visited both sites

"And some say that the staff of one of the angels who were entertained by Abraham was planted there." (X)

1. Africanus is careful to qualify his remark ("some say")

2. Indicates an unconfirmed report

3. Careful not to mislead his reader as to the certainty of the source

"And after Ogygus, an account of the vast destruction caused by the flood, the present land of Attica remained without a king till the time of Cecrops, 189 years. Philochorus, however, affirms that Ogygus, Actaeus, or whatever fictitious name is adducted never existed." (XII)

1.Africanus notes the uncertainty of the mythological

2.Cites the specific scholar who took a strong position

"Up to the time of the Olympiads there is no certain history among the Greeks, all things before that date being confused and in no way consistent with each other. But these Olympiads were thoroughly investigated by many, as the Greeks made up the records of their history not according to long spaces, but in periods of four years. For which reason I shall select the most remarkable of the mythical narratives before the time of the first Olympiad, and rapidly run over them. But the after that period, at least those that are notable, I shall take together, Hebrew events in connection with Greek, according to their dates, examining carefully the affairs…" (XIII.I)

1. Notes a difference between certain and uncertain history

2. Values consistency of records/accounts

3. Knows that many have investigated Greek history

4. Knows the Greek records of their history

5. Knows the difference between mythical and non-mythical narratives

6. Spends little time on the mythical

7. Focuses on those matters "thoroughly investigated"

8. Commits to "examining carefully" the data

"And after the 70 years of captivity, Cyrus became king of the Persians at the time of the 55th Olympiad, as may be ascertained from the "Binliothecae" of Diodorus and the histories of Thallus and Castor, and also from Polybius and Phlegon, and others besides these, who have made the Olympiads a subject of study. For the date is a matter of agreement among them all." (XIII.2)

1. Documents his statement, cites other important records of his time

2. "others" - denotes he consulted other sources as well

3. Notes that they all agree - notes that agreement of disparate sources is an important historical piece of evidence

4. Was at home in the methods, records and content of the major scholars in his field

"For these things are also recorded by the Athenian historians Hellanicus and Philochorus, who record Attic affairs; and by Castor and Thallus, who record Syrian affairs; and by Diodorus, who writes a universal history in his Bibliothecae; and by Alexander Polyhistr, and by some of our own time, yet more carefully…" (XIII.3)

1. He is aware of the various field of specialization of the scholars

2. Familiar with contemporary writers as well

3. Notes that his contemporaries have greater methodological rigor

4. Note that Thallus is contrasted with those "of our own time"

"For Philochorus asserts that…Polemo, for instance, in the first book of his "Greek History", says… And Apion the son of Poseldonius, the most laborious of grammarians, in his book "Against the Jews", and in the fourth book of his "History", says that…And Heroditus also makes mention of this revolt…and Ptolemy the Mendesian, who narrates the history of the Egyptians from the earliest times, gives the same account of all these things…(XIII.6)

1.Gives a string of citations from the best practitioners of history, (giving book and location in some instances)

2.Used even "hostile" witnesses as a reliable source (I.e. Apion)

"As far, then, as in our power, we have taken the Scripture, I think, correctly; (XVIII.4)

1. Note that he qualifies his remark. He knew and practiced the difference between fact and opinion

Conclusion: What is found in the way of external corroboration for the New Testament is precisely what we would expect given the nature of early Christianity (birthed in relative obscurity but later spreading exponentially as the resurrection account was propagated). It is not unreasonable to suppose that the New Testament is factual history.