Jesus according to non-Christian accounts and archaeological evidence within 150 years of his life

 

The evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible confirm that the Jesus story in the NT is rooted in history. This is because the core outline of most of the Jesus story is attested by sources who had access to independent information outside of the Bible. The pieces of evidence listed display here claim or imply the following about Jesus:

1. Jesus existed.
2. Jesus was an important distinguished person (possibly The James Ossurary,Mara bar-Serapion, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata). Josephus calls Jesus a "sophos aner," which implies that Josephus thought of Jesus was an extremely important person. As Ulrich Victor points out (2010), this phrase commonly referred to men of very high importance in both Josephus' writings and outside of his writings in ancient Greek literature. People who are called σοφὸς ἀνήρ outside of Josephus' writings include people like Socrates (Plato, Apol. 18b:7), Plato (Chion. Ep. 5.1), along with Aesop, Solon, Thales, Xenocrates, Aristotle, Themistocles, Pindar, etc. If the phrase "if indeed it is right to call him a man" is authentic, as I think, then not only does this imply that Josephus saw Jesus as an important man, but also an extraordinary one. However, as Victor argues, the phrase "wise man" (which is typically taken as authentic by scholars) was more exclusive than the phrase "if indeed it is right to call him a man." In short, I don't see any reason to take the less exclusive phrase as inauthentic than the more exclusive phrase ("wise man"), which is nevertheless taken as authentic by most (see Bart Ehrman's blog cited below for this claim). Mara-bar-Serapion also compares Jesus to Socrates and Pythagoras, both famous and important people in the ancient world. Lucian explicitly calls Jesus a "distinguished personage."
3. Jesus was born in a village in Judaea (Celsus).
4. Jesus had a father named Joseph (James Ossuary), or a Roman soldier named Pantera (Celsus). The latter is clearly reflective of Jewish polemic.
5. Jesus had a brother named James (James Ossuary, Josephus).
6. Jesus claimed to be born of a virgin (Celsus).
7. Jesus was poor (Celsus).
8. Jesus went to Egypt out of poverty (Celsus).
9. Jesus was wise (Mara bar-Serapion, Josephus).
10. Jesus was law observant (Celsus).
11. Jesus did miracles (Josephus, Celsus). The early Mishnaic Sanhedrin 43a also attests to this. The words "παραδόξων έργων" (startling deeds), which are used in the TF, often refers to activity of divine/supernatural elements in Josephus' books (e.g., Ant. 2:223, 267, 285, 295, 345, 347; 3:1, 14, 30, 38; 5:28, 125; 6:171; 9.14, 58, 60, 182; 10:28, 235; 13:282; 15:379; Ag. Ap. 2:114). In addition, every person in Josephus' works that are called a "wise man" are also described as having supernatural powers.
12. Jesus was a teacher and a lawgiver (Mara bar-Serapion, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata).
13. Jesus taught that all of his followers are "brothers" (Lucian of Samosata).
14. Jesus claimed to be "a god" (Celsus).
15. Jesus founded various rites (Lucian of Samosata).
16. Jesus gained many followers that did not cease after the crucifixion (Josephus, Tacitus).
17. Jesus was known as the Christ (Josephus).
18. The Jewish authorities accused Jesus and handed Him over to Pilate (Josephus). Mara bar-Serapion also attests to Jewish involvement.
19. Jesus was crucified by Pilate in Judaea during the reign of Tiberius (Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata).
20. Jesus was resurrected from the dead and appeared to many (Josephus, see below).

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.  [Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 -Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.]

This sentence from the Testimonium Flavianum [TF] though, if original, has interesting implications for the appearance to the 500 as reported by Paul and his pre-Pauline apostolic informants, because Josephus says that Jesus appeared to "them," with the "them" referring to the followers who did not yield after Jesus' death, which in turn refers back to the "many" Jewish and "many" Greek followers that Jesus gained during his life. 500 is "many."

(A) The James Ossuary (62/63 C.E.) "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." There has been huge controversy over the inscription on this ossuary. The ossuary itself is not a forgery, but many question the latter half of the inscription on the ossuary which references Jesus. The inscription says: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Another large group of scholars think that this is authentic (or at least plausibly so) and refers to Jesus of Nazareth. The reader may be interested in a scholarly piece here by Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 2014) which I think offers very valid critiques against the biased and unprofessional decision of many of the members of the IAA, who ruled the inscription on the ossuary as forged or redacted.

Some also doubt whether the reference to James being the father of Joseph and the brother of Jesus is specific enough to conclude that the ossuary is James the Just's, since Jesus, James, and Joseph were all common names at the time. According to a calculation by Tel Aviv University statistician Camil Fuchs, it is 95 percent likely that only four people of first century Jerusalem named James would have a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus. However, the fact that the inscription specifies that James was the brother of Jesus indicates that this Jesus was an important figure. Only one other ossuary from the ancient world ever studied mentions the brother of the deceased. Further reading: Is the “Brother of Jesus” Inscription a Forgery? · A to this ossuary being authentic is the testimony of Hegesippus (170 CE). Jodi Magness says: "Hegesippus’s testimony suggests that James was buried in a pit grave or trench grave marked by a headstone (stele)" - Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit, p. 176.

"The evidence that James was buried in a grave dug into the ground and not in a rock-cut tomb renders the controversy over the “James ossuary” moot" - Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit, p. 179.

However, while Hegesippus may have some useful kernels of information of James' death to supplement Josephus (especially since he was raised in Palestine [though he wrote later in Rome]), he is largely unreliable and legendary in his account. 

First, clear legend can be detected in the depiction of James as a Nazirite high priest. He even mentions James going into the Temple alone, just like the high priest on the day of atonement. This is probably legend or embellishment and seems implausible. 

Second, he seems to try and parallel the death of James with the story of Stephen's death in Acts. 

Third, the account of Hegesippus claims that James was buried "on the spot" of his death, and that his burial was "by the Temple."

However, as Yaron Z. Elia points out (HTR, 2004), "scholars felt uneasy with such a positioning because it appears to contradict Jewish law. Strict halakhic rules forbid any sort of impurity in the temple area, making a grave at the site of the temple highly unlikely; indeed, a human corpse is considered the most potent source of impurity. Yet proposals that would resolve these difficulties by relocating the tomb elsewhere—for instance, to the ravine east of the city known as the Valley of Jehoshaphat (see fig. 2.3)—are totally at odds with the picture drawn by the tradition. Hegesippus repeatedly underscores the close proximity of James’s tomb to the temple. Not only does he formulate the site’s name as the “pterygion of the temple,” he also locates the burial site and monument, which according to him survived to his day, in the immediate vicinity of the temple’s shrine" (p. 42). Finally, if Hegesippus is right, it seems strange that James' grave site would be identifiable after the Jewish war, where the Temple was razed to the ground,

(B) Mara bar-Serapion (~73 C.E.) "What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews by killing their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down."

Mara Bar-Serapion, a non-Christian Syriac philosopher, probably had knowledge of Jesus, who, if so, is labeled as the "wise king." Cicero doesn't mention Spartacus by name either, and he is our earliest source for Spartacus. Do historians reject that as a source for Spartacus? No! Arguing that Mara bar-Serapion is referring to another unattested person is ad hoc. No other person in ancient history that was claimed to be the king of the Jews was killed by "the Jews" except Jesus, as Serapion says. Indeed, the whole range of the features of the wise king doesn't fit anyone else except Jesus: the people who caused his death, his new law, the connection of the wise king's death with the Jewish war, etcetera.

Serapion also compares this wise king to Socrates and Pythagoras, so no bloke, that's for sure. Mara Bar-Serapion says that the wise king was killed unjustly by "the Jews," and that the 'wise king' lived on because of his new teachings. Serapion also links the 'wise kings' death with the Jewish war. Thus, he is likely partially or fully dependent on Christian thought. In my opinion, Serapion would likely date in the 70s C.E., though there is disagreement in scholarship, with some scholars dating it later. Most scholars support the early dating in the 70s C.E., however (e.g., Ilaria Ramelli; Michael Blomer; David Rensberger; Annette Merz; Teun L. Tieleman; Ephrem-Isa yousif; Gerd Theissen; Fergus Millar; Craig A. Evans). The fact that the author of this letter was not Christian (he speaks openly about "our gods," for example) is significant, since he gives his non-believing opinion that Jesus was an important figure. He is also independent of the Gospel stories if he dates in the 70s C.E.

(C) Josephus (93 C.E.) About this time there comes Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds and was a teacher of such people that receive the true things with pleasure. He won over many Jews, but also many of the Greek element. He was ["called" or "known as"?] the Christ. When Pilate, at the accusation of the principal men among us, had condemned him to a cross, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease doing so. For he appeared to them having a third day living again, for the divine prophets had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after this fellow, has still to this day not disappeared. (Antiquities 18:63-64)

“Ananus . . . assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20:200).

"Much of the past impetus for labeling the textus receptus Testimonium a forgery has been based on earlier scholars’ anachronistic assumptions that, as a Jew, Josephus could not have written anything favorable about Jesus. Contemporary scholars of primitive Christianity are less inclined than past scholars to assume that most first-century Jews necessarily held hostile opinions of Jesus, and they are more aware that the line between Christians and non-Christian Jews in Josephus’ day was not as firm as it would later become. The implication of this is that supposedly Christian-sounding elements . . . cannot be ruled inauthentic a priori" - Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic," NTS, 2008, pp. 575.

"In recent times, with gradually more balanced discussions of the text, the authenticity of the passage, or at least an authentic core, seems to be increasingly accepted, except perhaps that many scholars will agree that Jerome (Vir. ill. 13) may well have been right in translating credebatur esse Christus, instead of the Greek text's ὁ χριστὸς οὖτος ἦν, 'he was the Christ,' his translation being supported by the Syriac version." - Jan N. Bremmer, "Ioudaismos, Christianismos and the Parting of the Ways," in Jews and Christians – Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE?, Walter De Gruytur 2021, pp. 69-70.

(i) Arguments Against the Whole-Sale Invention of the TF.

First, the episode of John the Baptist has no obvious connection with the TF. John appears to be an independent person in Josephus, unlike in early Christian theology. The John episode also awkwardly appears after the TF in Ant. 18., whereas John's ministry is before Jesus' in early Christian theology (such as in Eusebius' quotation of Josephus). This all points to an original Jesus and John passage.

Second, the Testimonium is much shorter than many other preachers Josephus speaks of. If a Christian editor was as audacious as to forge an entire paragraph, it would be much longer and elaborate. And compared with any Christian text of the second to fifth centuries, it is for the most part very bland. Nothing about son of God, coming from God, pre-existence, Trinitarianism, Holy Spirit, atonement, being in Christ, shed blood, gone to heaven, about to return in the clouds, reluctance of Pilate, etc. etc. The only real puzzles are the Christ clause and the resurrection sentence. J.C. Paget points out: "Where we can be certain of the existence of Christian additions to Josephus as well as glosses, they strike a more aggressively Christian note" (Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," The Journal of Theological Studies, 2001, pp. 600).

Third, the language used in most of the TF is very specific to Josephus, and at times uses language that was considered negative by Christians. For the former point, the Greek construction πολλοὺς μὲν . . . πολλοὺς δὲ also seems Josephan in style (e.g., J.W. 1:146, 322, 383, 2:49, 177, 341, 4:643, 5:562; Ant. 7:194; 15:296; 20:98). For example, Ant. 15:296 says: "many [πολλοὺς μὲν] of his allies in the war as well as many [πολλοὺς δὲ] of the neighboring populations." Another way that this passage appears typical of Josephus is the plural noun ("Jews") followed by the singular adjective ("of the Greek [element]"), which Eusebius changes to "many Jews and many Greeks." Josephus making a noun from an adjective (as he does here), or a noun from a participle plus an adjective is a technique Josephus used commonly (especially in Ant. 17-19!).

This seems far too specific for a Christian editor to replicate centuries later author technology. For two examples of the latter, first, it's difficult to see how a Christian interpolator would have chosen the word ἡδονῇ to include in his passage if it were not originally from the pen of Josephus, because it has strongly negative connotations in all uses in the NT: Luke 8:14; James 4:1, 3; Titus 3:3; 2 Peter 2:13 (ἡδονὴν). Eusebius changes the text to "those who revere the truth." Tibor Grull (2020, pp. 19), Bermejo-Rubio (2014, pp. 354, n. 130), and Graham Twelftree (1999, pp. 305) rule out a whole-sale interpolation of the TF from this alone. Josephus was often not someone who held back on negative language on people he disliked, and we don't seem to have a clear contextual indicator which shows this to be the case. Instead, we have to glean and speculate what Josephus thought about Jesus through statistics on certain words and phrases, which is inconclusive when taken together as will be shown here.

Second, the word ἐπηγάγετο occurs twice in the NT, it is used negatively both times (Acts 5:28; 2 Peter 2:1), which points against a later Christian addition. Eusebius omits this word and replaces it with "σεβομένων." Ken Olson however has recently tried to reignite the hypothesis that Eusebius forged the entire TF, since he is the first to quote it, and adopts much of Josephus' language. But Sabrina Inowlocki writes that "this has not found support among scholars" - Inowlocki, “Josephus and Patristic Literature,” in A Companion to Josephus, Wiley Blackwell 2016, p. 359.

Alice Whealey likewise says that "the overall thesis of fabrication by Eusebius has not been generally accepted in the scholarship" - Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum," in A Companion to Josephus, p. 352. See Alice Whealey's essay in the book called Josephus und das Neue Testament (Mohr Siebeck, 2007) for convincing arguments against Eusebius inventing the TF. Eusebius never even explicitly pointed out/highlighted important parts of Josephus' passage on Jesus which he quotes in his works. For example, Josephus mentions how Jesus did miracles. Except Eusebius never stresses this detail. This in spite the fact that the reference to Jesus' miracles in Josephus would have been useful in his rebuttal to those who denied that Jesus did miracles (see Whealey 2007: 80), and in spite of the fact that Eusebius explicitly highlights more mundane portions of the TF (such as the mention of Jesus gathering many followers). Eusebius also highlights other details in other Josephan works, such as the Jewish War in his anti-Jewish rhetoric to prove that the Jews suffered for killing Jesus, in contrast to the more "Christian" sounding parts of the TF. Eusebius also doesn't ever highlight Josephus' hesitation in calling Jesus a man, his mention of Jesus being the Christ, or the resurrection sentence. This fits with how Eusebius used Josephus to back up Christian doctrine as a non-believing Jewish person. For Eusebius, Josephus being a non-believer was extremely important, and so inventing and/or touching up the TF passage would have gone against his interests.

Fourth, Steve Mason argues:

"The order of his identifiers suggests that he chooses James as representative of the condemned group because he is ‘the brother of the one called [or known as] Christos’, already known to the audience. James’ name comes as an afterthought. This formulation suggests, therefore, that Josephus has mentioned someone ‘known as Christos’, recently enough for his audience might remember. The only plausible candidate is Jesus in Book 18." (Mason, "Sources that Mention Jesus from Outside the Circles of Christ-Followers," Jesus-Handbuch (ish), 2017, p. 12)

Some try and relate Ant. 20:200 to Jesus ben Damneus, but the Greek in 20:203 is constructed in such a way as to introduce this figure to his audience. In addition, as TimO'Neill points out here, this view entails that Josephus employs appellations to both Jesus' in a way he does nowhere else. Alice Whealey writes that the authenticity of the Jesus reference in Ant. 20.200 is "accepted by most contemporary scholars" - Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum," in A Companion to Josephus, 2016, p. 353.

(ii) Josephus' Source of Information.

If anyone has the greatest chance at having heard of Christians and Jesus from outside Christian sources, surely it is Josephus of Jerusalem. Josephus was born around 37 C.E., shortly after Jesus' death. Gary J. Goldberg points out (2021, pp. 32) that Josephus notes in Vita, 9 how he grew up in Jerusalem with "principal men" which Josephus mentions in the Testimonium, who would have chiefly been 30-60 years old (some younger, some older).

These men Josephus grew up with are who Josephus got his information regarding pre-70 Judaism from and are thus a possible source of information for Jesus and indeed for the other first century Jewish preachers. Supporting this is the mention the principal men that Josephus says handed Jesus over to Pilate is said to come from "among us," since Goldberg points out in his 2021 article (pp. 19) that: "in historical narrative, Josephus takes care to write in the third person." But here he doesn't. He combines "principal men" with "among us," which he does nowhere else. 

If Josephus just wanted to say the "principal men among us" to mean that these principal men came among us in the sense of being Jewish people of his own class, Josephus could have used his more typical phrase seen in e.g., Ant. 14.165 ("the principal ones of the Judaeans"). This all may imply that Josephus knew at least some of these people who are said to hand Jesus over to Pilate. It is also possible that he heard about Jesus from Ananus II or the Jewish leaders related to James’ death in the early 60s when Josephus himself was in Jerusalem. Ananus II was the son of Ananus, who interrogated Jesus (John 18:13-14).

(iii) A Note on the Scholarship of the Tone of the TF.

Bermejo-Rubio has to admit: "the overwhelming majority assert nowadays that it was originally neutral" (Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, "Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a 'Neutral' Text?," JSJ, 2014, pp. 327). See Tibor Grull's 2020 article for critiques of negative tone like that argued by Rubio. 

Josephus was often not someone who held back on negative language on people he disliked, and we don't seem to have a clear contextual indicator which shows this to be the case. Instead, we have to glean and speculate what Josephus thought about Jesus through statistics on certain words and phrases, which is inconclusive when taken together as will be shown here. One shouldn't be too worried about Josephus' tone. 

In addition to what was pointed out above vis-à-vis tone, Josephus was a complex writer, who had no single agenda. He often changed his appraisals of individuals between his Jewish War and Antiquities, because of the works’ different issues (Herod and family, Ananus II, Simon son of Gamaliel). AND even when discussing the same person (e.g., Saul, Gaius Caligula, Nero) he can say ‘positive’ things while being generally critical. Josephus was not a robot who held onto simple views of things. 

No reason to think that Josephus would have been so negative personally about Jesus. Consider Josephus' mention of the fate of Jesus’ brother James: he and others were executed by the rather savage Sadducee Ananus II, in a brief moment when there was no Procurator. Josephus points out that all the fair-minded people thought that Ananus had behaved illegally and immorally in executing James, and he also seems to personally have thought the same. So why would Josephus be overly critical, whom he describes chiefly as a Judaean teacher of virtue (not as crucified son of God, etc.).

(iv) ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων ("For he appeared to them having a third day living again, the holy prophets having foretold these things and many other marvels about him"). 

In support of authenticity here, first of all, are the words "having a third day...," which does not match the Christian story since it implies that three days already passed, as opposed to "on the third day" (which Eusebius changes it to) in the inclusive way of counting days. 

Second, the phrase "having a third day" is rare in not only the NT, but other Greco-Roman writers in general. However, the phrase "having X days" (with "days" as the object of ἔχω) is very at home with Josephus, appearing in e.g., Ant. 2:72; 3.290; 5:327; 7:1; 9:223; 14:96. 

Third, the phrase ἄλλα μυρία is Josephan (see e.g., Ant. 8:382; J.W. 2:361). 

Fourth, the words "divine prophets" has an almost exact parallel in e.g., Ant. 10, where Isaiah is called a divine prophet. Other places where the words "divine" and "prophet" occur close to together include Ant. 6:222; 8:243; 9:60; 10:180. For a similar phrase (τοῦ θεοῦ προφήτης), see Ant. 8:402; 9:33, 211; 10:92. 

Fifth, some sort of mention of the resurrection to Jesus' followers in some way "provides a better explanation for the fact that, as the text asserts, the Christians continued to remain attached to Jesus" (Bermejo-Rubio 2014, pp. 354, n. 90). 

Sixth, Josephus avoids the typical resurrection verbs such as egeiro, used especially in the New Testament, in keeping with Josephus elsewhere. Seventh, there is little evidence for an interpolation in the manuscript tradition or the versions. While the text seems to imply that the author actually believed Jesus rose from the dead and the prophecy connection, there are many places where Josephus appears to agree with things that elsewhere he rejects, most obviously giving plausible speeches to characters he doesn’t like. Most importantly though, much of what Josephus writes in the Antiquities is from someone else’s report, and so having an oratio obliqua (e.g., "they reported...") would have gone without saying. Alice Whealey also says the construction of the Greek doesn't necessarily imply a claim of belief for Josephus.


(4) Tacitus (~115 C.E.)

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." (Annals 15:44)

Tacitus was a Roman historian and is typically considered one of the most reliable and careful ancient historians of the period by modern historians. He is probably reliable in what he writes, especially if he is independent from Christians. Tacitus reports that Jesus (a) was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, (b) was the founder of the Christian sect in Judaea, and (3) had followers who spread Christianity even further after Jesus' death.

Tacitus: Independent Information?

For one, Tacitus thought of Christians as “a most mischievous superstition ... evil ... hideous and shameful." This does not seem like words one would expect from someone willing to accept information from Christians, whether directly or indirectly. This is especially since Tacitus disliked hearsay stemming from street gossip and the "popular report" (see Annals 4:11), which Tacitus would have considered Christians surely. 

Moreover, nothing in Tacitus' passage suggests as Christian source, since he makes no mention of anything that indicates a purely Christian origin. Pliny, on the other hand, in reporting what Christians said, mentions hymns sung to Jesus "as to a god." There is actually a more likely source of information that Tacitus got his information about Jesus from: the aristocratic Jewish exiles who were in Flavian court as he was. This included Princess Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa. 

One has to keep in mind that the Jesus Sect began in Galilee, and Tacitus was at court with the daughter of the Herod Agrippa of Galilee who was a contemporary of Jesus and tetrarch of Galilee shortly after Jesus' death. Someone like her would have been more keenly accepted by Tacitus, since she was much closer to his class, was not despised (unlike Christians), and would have had relevant information on Jesus from reliable sources.

(5) Lucian of Samosata (~165 C.E.)

"... the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. (Lucian of Samosata, The Passing of Peregrinus, 11)

"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 of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws." (Lucian of Samosata, The Passing of Peregrinus, 13)

Lucian of Samosata was a Syrian satirist who references Jesus. It is possible that Lucian of Samosata provides us with an independent tradition regarding Jesus's crucifixion, too, since he uses a word to describe the crucifixion with a Greek word that ancient Christians are never documented as using ("stauroun" = "impaled") for the crucifixion of Jesus. 

Plus, Lucian detested Christians, and so probably would have been less keen on accepting their information. 

Finally, Lucian isn't entirely accurate in his representation of Christian practices, which may suggest that he didn't interact much with Christians. Scholars like Craig Evans and Paul Eddy support Lucian of Samosata relaying a tradition of Jesus' crucifixion independent to that of Christians.

Nevertheless, writers like Tacitus and Lucian show that Jesus' crucifixion was an accepted fact by Romans in the second century. Lucian also records Jesus being the originator of many of the Christian rites, as well as being a teacher or lawgiver. Lucian also seems to imply that the "crucified sage" was considered important ("distinguished personage").

(6) Celsus (~175 C.E.)

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery with a soldier named Pantera. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god. (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28)

Celsus was a second century Roman philosopher and critic of Christianity. The books criticizing Christianity from Celsus are lost but quoted by Origen, who wishes to try and debate Celsus. While Celsus knows much about the Christian story from Christian literature, the evidence suggests that he is also relying on ancient Jewish tradition. Origen even explicitly says that Celsus is relying on Jewish polemic. 

Second, what Celsus says parallels ancient second century (or earlier) Jewish polemic in reflected in Tosefta 2:22-23, where people in Galilee are scolded for healing in the name of "Jesus son of Pantera" (Tosefta 2:22-23). As in Celsus, there is a tradition that Jesus was born of a person named Pantera. Adolf Deissmann showed in 1906 that "Pantera" was a surname for Roman soldiers in particular, and later Talmudic sources from the early fourth century CE show that ancient Jewish people were claiming that Jesus was born from a Roman soldier named Pantera explicitly. 

As for historical datums of Jesus, he attests to a lot. Outside of this quotation, Celsus also says that Jesus claimed to be born of a virgin and was law observant. The major question is whether the earlier Jewish polemical source reflected by Celsus is wholly reliant upon Christian information, which is ambiguous. 

That seems unlikely, however. Indeed, Markus Bockmuehl for instance cites Ernst Bammel who claims that there may have been independent tradition concerning Jesus in Jewish circles until the year 500 CE (This Jesus, p. 184). One also cannot accept on face value many of the points made in this account of Jesus, since it is polemic. However, Celsus seems to be working off of core facts here which could have been relayed to him by his earlier Jewish source. Plus, he can't be totally inaccurate in his account, since no one would have taken his arguments seriously if he was.


Honorable Mentions and Possible Sources

Thallus (49-52 C.E). Dale C. Allison Jr. writes: "Thallus was a pagan or Samaritan historian who wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world from before the Trojan War to his own day, which was the middle or latter part of the first century C.E. His work, composed in Greek, has perished and is known only through mention in later writers. Among these is the ninth-century Byzantine historian George Syncellus who, in a quotation from another lost history, that of the early third century Christian Julius Africanus, refers to Thallus' words about the darkness that accompanied the death of Jesus (cf. Matt 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44) . . . Yet the fact that the latter states his disagreement with Thallus' interpretation—"This, it seems to me, is contrary to reason"—strongly implies that Thallus was offering a mundane explanation for what had happened when Jesus died" - Dale C. Allison Jr., "Thallus on the Crucifixion," in The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton University Press, 2006), pp. 405-406. 

In short, I think the way Julius Africanus/George Syncellus responds negatively tips the scales in my direction. Benjamin Garstad puts it this way: "There has been unwarranted doubt as to whether or not Thallos actually wrote about the Crucifixion or merely an eclipse . . . If Thallos had not connected the darkness at the Crucifixion to an eclipse, he would not have been censured by Synkellos for explaining a miraculous sign as a natural event" - Benjamin Garstad, ‘Thallos’ in Brill’s New Jacoby, Ed. Ian Worthington et al., Brill Academic Publishers, 2007.

Pliny the Younger (111 C.E.). Pliny the Younger wrote a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan. Pliny is relying upon Christian information here (but not the Gospels), and he confirms that early Christians worshipped "Christ" as "a god." Pliny also gives us information as to how these ancient Christians he encountered in Bithynia worshipped before the writing of this letter. He does not give any information about the historical Jesus though aside from his existence, and so is not included.

Suetonius (119-122 C.E.). See John Granger Cook, "Chrestiani, Christiani, Χριστιανοί: a Second Century Anachronism?," Vigiliae Christianae, 2020, p. 253 for a recent defense of Suetonius having mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. Chrestus was a common misspelling of ‘Christus’ as the substitution for ‘e’ for ‘i’ was a common itacistic error. For example, the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus has the spelling (Chrestianos) in the three NT of the term ‘Christian’ (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). 

However, Suetonius may imply that 'Chrestus' was in Rome in the late 40s CE, which wouldn't fit. Then again, if Irenaeus could claim that Christ was crucified during Claudius’s imperium, maybe this mistake is forgivable. If Suetonius attests to Jesus' existence, he also attests to the presence of a Christian populace influential enough to cause the Jewish people to cause instigations and be kicked out in the city of Rome in the 40s C.E. Things are not certain though. While many NT scholars think Suetonius does have Jesus of Nazareth in mind, some classical historians disagree with this view. Since he doesn't provide any evidence of the historical Jesus aside from his existence, and since this can be disputed to be a reference to Jesus after all, Suetonius is not included in the main list.

"Contemporary or shut up!" That these documents were not contemporary and therefore are not reliable is a non-sequitur. It doesn't necessarily follow. The "it must be contemporary" rule is not used by any contemporary credentialed historian of today. Of course, such sources are preferable, but most documents in the ancient world were not contemporary to the events recorded in them. Such people or events were the exceptions, not the rule. For example, the first written source attesting to the existence of king Archelaus of Cappadocia is Josephus in his book Jewish War, around 60 years after his death. 

Another example: only six sources attest to Spartacus within 150 years of his life, the earliest of which doesn't explicitly name Spartacus by name (Cicero), and another of which is lost (Varro), with the rest being short passages written decades or a century after the events. None of the sources to Spartacus were witnesses nor were they written during Spartacus' life. 

If we want to dismiss the later references to Jesus at the end of the century and in the next, do we do this with all ancient sources that are not contemporary? Markus Bockmuehl argues in his book Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study that the date of a source doesn't necessarily become a serious problem for the core of the story until we are 150+ years out from the events. Indeed, the 100–150-year timeframe after an event is when 'living memory' ends (e.g., when people who knew eyewitnesses typically all die out). Hence the time frame used here.

The Early Dating of the New Testament

Background: Who was the author of Acts?

Evidence for the author of Luke also being the author of Acts is found in the well-known “we” passages of the latter half of the book (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1—28:16). These passages show that the narrator of Acts accompanied Paul from Troas in Asia Minor to Philippi on the continent of Europe, returning with him to Troas. Later he and Paul traveled from Palestine to Rome. 

The author was probably an educated Gentile, as attested by the style and the high level of Greek used in Luke and Acts. His Greek is sometimes fully classical (Luke 1:1-4). 

The author’s methodical approach to writing and his interest in research reveal an educated, highly trained man. It appears from Col. 4:14 that Paul was with “Luke the beloved physician.” In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars drew attention to the medical terminology found in Luke and Acts and to the author’s interest in diseases (Luke 4:38; 8:43-44; Acts 3:7; 12:23; 13:11; 20:7-11; 28:3,8). Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1 are both addressed to Theophilus.

Thus it is reasonable to think that Luke the physician was the author of both Luke and Acts. 

The Argument for an Early Date for Acts 

If most of the NT texts were early, then that ties in with other evidence [see
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony] that the gospels are based on eye-witness testimony, and so their sense of authenticity is a product of their essential reliability, and not merely a narrative device. 

Whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts, since Acts is the sequel to Luke, then this must mean that Luke predates Acts. And if Mark predates both Luke and Matthew, then this would date Mark even earlier. Hence, if we can date Acts early, then we can date Luke earlier, and we get the date for Mark.

Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:

Point 1 There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. Josephus states that the Roman army killed 1.1 million Jews, and they took 200,000 captive as slaves.  This period was an absolute nightmare. And yet, Luke didn’t write a word about it in the book of Acts?!?!? To put this in perspective, this would be similar to a reporter failing to mention World War II, while he was on assignment in Paris in the 1940s.

Point 2 There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.

Point 3 There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s. Acts 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he is free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. 

Nero began a horrific persecution of Christians after the great fire in Rome, crucifying Christians and burning them alive by the thousands. But yet again, Luke didn’t mention a word about this in his book. Luke recorded other persecutions (Acts 8:1; 11:19), but he didn’t mention this one, which was one of the worst of its kind. Indeed, a late date for Acts seems utterly out of character with Luke’s picture of the Romans being so friendly and positive to Christianity, which would make no sense after Nero’s campaign. 

However, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64

Point 4 There is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James [at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths.  Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent in 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred about A.D. 68.

Point 5 The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism. Acts emphasizes the legal protection of Christianity under Judaism. Before the Jewish War (AD 66), Judaism was a legal religion. But after? The Romans revoked these privileges. Why then does Acts spill so much ink to demonstrate that Christianity is a legal religion like Judaism (see Acts 18-28), if it was written after Judaism had lost this protection in AD 66 as a result of the Jewish War?

Point 6 The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.

Point 7 The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time, a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.

Point 8 The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem. Acts presents theological disputes that would only be issues before AD 70. For instance, Acts 15 centers on whether Gentiles should be circumcised. But after AD 70, most Jewish Christians were sadly gone, and Gentile-centered Christianity grew exponentially. Indeed, the gospels are thoroughly Jewish, but Judaism and Christianity departed radically after AD 70.

Point 9 Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.

Point 10 The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.

Why did Luke fail to mention all of these 66-70 A.D. cataclysmic events? The answer is surely obvious: since we should expect to read about these events, this does strongly suggests that the better explanation is that Luke finished the Book of Acts before any of these events occurred.

Point 11 Certain vocabulary points to an early date. This vocabulary includes:

1) “disciple”; “the first day of the week” (later to become “the Lord’s Day,” Rev. 1:10);

2) a reference to “the people of Israel” in 4:27 (a term later to include both Jews and Gentiles; Titus 2:14);

3) the early title “Son of Man” (7:56);

4) as well as a close similarity in Luke and Acts: worldwide outlook, interest in Gentiles, interest in woman, apologetic tendency

5) Many facts about the “political, geographical, and social fields,” “nomenclature,” “titles of officials,” and “Roman citizenship” indicate that the work was written not long after the events occurred

Objection A: How do we even know that Luke finished Acts? Maybe he wanted to write a third volume because it got too long.

Reply: This is a possibility; but it would also mean that ALL of the Gospel had the same intent since NONE of them mention fall of Jerusalem in 70 - the most cataclysmic event of thier time.  

But Luke did mention the Temple - Luke 21:5-6 - And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

If Luke was writing after this event, why say, "the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" when it was a past event? In fact, all three Gospels refer to the Temple destruction as a future event. If they were writing after this event, why say, "the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" when it was a past event?

Even if Luke was going to write a third volume, referring to a past event as "the days will come", make no sense - it makes more sense if the event hadn't happened

Back to the argument: 

Thus, if Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [Luke 1:1-4]

Luke states that he took much of his materials from earlier sources (Lk. 1:2). And whenever Luke is mentioned in the NT, Mark is mentioned in the same context (Phile. 23-24; Col. 4:10-11, 14; 2 Tim. 4:11). This seems to be strong evidence that Mark’s gospel predated Luke’s gospel. Thus, if Luke dates to the late 50s AD, then we should we date Mark earlier

Objection B: Critics argue that we cannot possibly date the Gospels before AD 70, because there was no way that Jesus could have made such predictions.

Reply 1 - This is a philosophical objection—not a historical one. If God exists and Jesus was who he claimed to be, then predicting these events four decades in advance would not be difficult. Critics could be right that God doesn’t exist, but do they ever offer good evidence for this claim? We have reasons to think that a physical only model of the world is false, that the universe was fined tuned, that life was designed

Reply 2 Luke records the fulfillment of Agabus’ prediction of a famine under Emperor Claudius (Acts 11:28), but he never mentions the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction about the Temple?!?!? Why would Luke record the fulfillment of some no-name, lost to history prophet but neglect mentioning on of Jesus’ most famous predictions? What is a better explanation than it hadn't occurred yet?

Reply 3 Jesus told his disciples to “pray that it may not happen in the winter” (Mk. 13:18). However, Titus destroyed the Temple in the summer (July/August AD 70; Mishnah Taanith 4.6). Likewise, Jesus told his disciples to “flee to the mountains” (Lk. 21:21). Yet, historically, Eusebius and Epiphanius tell us that the Christians didn't follow that advise and fled to Pella, which is topically lower than Jerusalem.

Critics will have to do better than simply make assertion about the impossibilities or implausibilities of prophecy.

Objection C:   "...if you look at the themes of Acts, the ending makes perfect sense. One of the central themes of Luke-Acts is that the gospel first goes to the Jews who reject it and after that it goes to the gentiles. We find this very explicitly in Acts 13:46:....We also find it in other places, such as Acts 18:6:...This theme is also reflected in the overall structure of Acts. It starts with the disciples preaching in Jerusalem, the city of the Jews, and it ends with Paul preaching in Rome, the city of the gentiles. Acts 28:28-31 is a completely natural ending to this theme." -  It starts with the disciples preaching in Jerusalem, the city of the Jews, and it ends with Paul preaching in Rome, the city of the gentiles.

Reply: I would say that Acts has three main themes that are related: the Holy Spirit, the Great Commission, and the Church. The Holy Spirit gives power to the Great Commission, which is Jesus' command for followers to share the Gospel message with others worldwide. The Church is the result of the Holy Spirit empowering followers of Jesus to accomplish the Great Commission. The overall theme of the book is the growth of the early church.

But why would your objection mean that Luke wrote late? He could have written late [or early] and decided to end there. So, your "theme of Acts" objection seems decidedly inconclusive.

If Luke, the historian, is writing post 70 A.D. but then fails to record the death of Peter and Paul, the two main subject of Acts? That would seem to be a better stopping point: These two men gave their lives for the spreading of the Gospel. Not to mention, the War of 66, persecution of Nero/Rome, the fall of Jerusalem, and the million killed and thousands enslaved.

The fact that none of the Gospel writers didn't record their deaths seems to be better explained by the fact that they wrote early.

Objection D: Christopher Zeichmann argues that Mark 12 is a reference to the Fiscus Judaicus - Video link

The Passage: 13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,[a] but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius[b] and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him. [Mark 12:13-17]

The Reply: 

First, κῆνσος is a general term for tax. It covers all taxes, not just poll taxes. And the passage is clearly not about any specific tax but the general principle of whether it was a sin to pay taxes. There were examples of these types of taxes throughout the history of Roman administration well before AD 70:

κῆνσος, “tax,” is a Latin loanword (census) that was used in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew (cf. קְנָס qĕnās, DJPA, 497–98). Matthew follows Mark in using κῆνσος, but Luke uses φόρος, “tribute,” in his parallel account (20:22) and uses it again in L material where Jesus is accused of forbidding the Jewish people to pay tribute (23:2). On κῆνσος in the papyri, see BAG, 431, and MM, 343. The full meaning is enrollment (ἀπογράφειν) of names and assessment of property for the purpose of levying taxes (Luke 2:1–5); the word census or κῆνσος alone can mean “tax.” On hatred of taxes in the Herodian period, see Josephus, Ant. 17.11.2 §308. Following the removal of Archelaus in 6 C.E., Judas the Galilean urged Jews not to pay Roman tribute and incited a revolt (cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.8.1 §118; Ant. 20.5.2 §102). An event such as this and the passions it had aroused would still have been felt twenty-five years later when Jesus was asked about his opinion on whether to pay taxes to Caesar. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary 

The subject of whether one should pay taxes was widely debated in Jesus' time, with many Pharisees believing it was a sin and Herodians believing it wasn't. This was a pre-AD 70 debate as no one would have it in the context of open war and Herodians ended as a viable political force within Palestine after AD 70 -- The last ruler of Herod survived until AD 92, but they were completely discredited after AD 70 and would not debate with Pharisees after that point as no Pharisee would associate with them. 

The Pharisees and the Herodians held to very different views on this controversial subject. The Herodians (Ἡρῳδιανοί, from Latin Herodiani, meaning supporters of the Herodian rulers) believed that it was appropriate for Jews to pay taxes to Rome directly (as in Judea in the time of Jesus) or indirectly through the Herodian client-rulers (as in Galilee and Gaulanitis). The Pharisees, or at least those who approached Jesus, probably viewed the payment of taxes to Rome as idolatry. At least some Pharisees took this view (and some perhaps did not, if the rabbinic literature is any guide; cf. b. Pesaḥ. 112b; b. B. Qam. 113a). One should remember that Saddok the Pharisee was among the followers of Judas of Galilee (or Gaulanitis) at the time that he refused to pay taxes to Rome (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.1.1 §§1–10; J.W. 2.8.1 §§117–18).  Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary 

So how can Zeichman misread the passage in such an obvious way? Because he is an expert on coinage and he ignores what the passage is about -- the raging debate between the Pharisees and the Herodians as to whether it was a sin to pay taxes, which firmly dates it pre-AD 70 -- and obsesses over the mention of "denarius", as that is his area of study. Moreover it doesn't appear that Zeichman knew about the various tax revolts that happened pre AD 70 and so he thinks that there was no κῆνσος levied even though we have clear examples of it being levied. His research confirmed a large increase in denarii after the first Roman war - as Rome gave coinage to its soldiers and workers and thus after any building project or military presence the region would have more coins. From this simple observation, Zeichman concludes that Mark was probably written after AD 70, even though denarii were present in Palestine and circulated at the time of Christ (and well before), but in smaller numbers than after AD 70. The misleading argument that this must have been a poll tax that was payable only with a denarius is simply not present in this passage, which discusses the principle of paying tribute (which we know was being paid), using an example denarius (that we know was in circulation) to illustrate a point that money is the creation of the state but that man is God's creation, and each should be given their due, thus resolving the religious debate about whether paying taxes was a sin.

Objection E: The author of Luke-Acts used the works of Josephus.

Reply: My first thought is, why assume that Luke used Josephus instead of Josephus using Luke?

Furthermore, Steve Mason [a major proponent of the "Luke borrowed from Josephus" theory] begins his chapter on Josephus and Luke-Acts by acknowledging, regarding the notions that Luke borrowed from Josephus or that Josephus borrowed from Luke, "Neither position has much of a following today, because of the significant differences between the two works in their accounts of the same events." (Josephus and the New Testament, p. 251)

But after reviewing the breadth of events mentioned in both Josephus and Luke, and noting that no other writings from the first century even come close to covering all these events, Mason concludes, "I find it easier to believe that Luke knew something of Josephus' work than that he independently arrived at these points of agreement. Nevertheless, further study may provide alternatives." (p. 293) [though he gives no reasons for his "Luke borrowed from Josephus" conclusion] Mason also concedes that the dating is a bit tricky, since most scholars consider Luke-Acts to have been written before Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

Objection F: The author of Acts was probably not Luke, and obtained his information about the revolutionaries, Theudas and Judas (5:36,37) from the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.4-10 and 20.97-98), who wrote during the latter half of the first century. 

And Luke made use of Josephus’s account of the death of Herod Agrippa I in A.D. 44 (12:19-22), since both use similar words in describing the event.

Reply: But the Theudas mentioned in Acts may have been one of many revolutionaries who arose about the time Herod the Great died, and not the later Theudas mentioned by Josephus. Luke’s knowledge of Judas was not necessarily derived from Josephus, any more than Josephus’s knowledge was derived from Luke. 

The two accounts of the death of Herod Agrippa differ considerably. Given that both were historians it is not unreasonable that they would record Herod's death and differed since they used different sources

Objection G: Eric Eve argues Mark references Flavian propaganda and can only be written in 69 CE at the earliest. The healing of the blind man with spit (Mark 8:22-25), and the healing of a man with a withered hand in Mark 3:1-5, Eve argues that the Vespasian story originated in 69 CE as part of pro-Flavian propaganda. This has implications on the date of Mark as written sometime after the summer of 69 A.D. and must then have been written after that

Reply: This is similar to objection E; but why assume that Mark was responding to Flavian propaganda? It could just as easily the Flavian propagandists used Mark's work to dress up and give credance to their Vespasian story

The rest of the NT dates:

Paul makes allusions to the gospels and even cites them verbatim at times. Since we can date Paul’s letters fairly accurately, this gives further evidence for an early date of the Gospels. At the very minimum, this means that Paul had access to the sayings and deeds of Jesus early on. However, we would argue that this implies that the gospels were already in circulation.

The following is based on D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo’s Introduction to the New Testament; based on the text of that book.

James: around 46–48 (just before the Jerusalem Council) - the terminology of Jas 2:14–26 is at apparent variance with Paul (compare to Rom 3:21–26) If the letter were written after the conference, when Paul’s terminology and meaning would certainly be known to James, then Jas 2:14–26 would seem to be an intentional repudiation of Paul. If the letter comes before the conference, though, it is reasonable to suggest that Paul and James happened to use the same language [with different meaning] independently, without any attempt to contradict each other.

James clearly has a setting in the land of Israel. The term “former and latter rain” (3:7) addresses a weather concern unique to Israel and regions closely adjacent. James is the only book in the Bible outside of the gospels to use “gehenna” for “hell”. Gehenna was a valley outside Jerusalem where trash was burned. Verses like 3:11-12 fit with Israeli geography and farming culture.

Abraham is described as “our father” (2:21), yhe book has no mention of any gentiles. Likewise, there is no mention of any of the issues associated with gentile involvement in the church, such as idolatry, food offered to idols, fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians, etc.

Galatians: 48 (just prior to the Jerusalem Council) - Galatians does not mention the Jerusalem Council, and the omission is telling. Paul is extremely emotional in Galatians in his opposition to the "Judaizers", Jewish Christians who followed him to Galatia and had been teaching the gentile believers there that they needed to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses. Paul was adamently opposed to that idea, and it was this controversy that led to the Jerusalem Council of 50 A.D., [Acts 15]

It seems likely that Galatians was written just prior to the Jerusalem Council, when the controversy over gentile believers was white hot. If it was penned afterward, Paul would have appealed to the authority of the council's decision that favored him.

1 Thessalonians: 50 - Paul mentions going to Athens alone but leaving Timothy behind (1 Thess 3:1-3). This event occurred in Acts 17:14-15. By the time Thessalonians was written, Timothy had returned to Paul (1 Thess 1:1; 1 Thess 3:6). Therefore, the earliest that it could be written would be in Acts 18:5 when Timothy returns to Paul.

2 Thessalonians: either in late 50 or early 51 due to the same names mentioned in 2 Thess 1:1.

1 Corinthians: probably early in 55 - the Gallio Stone dates the beginning of Gallio’s office in Corinth to the early summer of AD 51. This serves as a timestamp, dating 1 Corinthians sometime in the mid-fifties AD.

When Paul refers to “the Lord,” he is referring to the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 2:8; 4:5; 7:12; 7:25; 9:5). Jesus, of course, spoke about the subject of divorce in a number of places in the Gospels (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18). This seems to be a strong allusion to the notion that Paul has a copy of at least one of the Gospels. Otherwise, how could he claim to know Jesus’ stance on divorce? This is especially true in light of verse 12, where Paul says he doesn't know Jesus’ views on unbelieving spouses.

2 Corinthians: 56 (i.e., within the next year or so of 1 Corinthians??) written shortly after 1 Corinthians based on the mention of forgiving the repentant brother that was rebuked in 1 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:6-7). However, some time had passed, because Paul had left Ephesus and was then writing from Macedonia (2 Cor 7:5, 2 Cor 9:4; cf. Acts 20:1). A question arises from the presence of Timothy in 2 Cor 1:1 that could place this epistle at even a later date on a subsequent trip to Macedonia.

Romans: 57 - Romans is most certainly written from Corinth (Cenchrea) evidenced by Paul staying with Gaius in his house, along with the presence of Erastus and Phebe (Rom 16:1, 23). Also the same company of people found in Romans 16:21 is also found in Acts 20:4 when Paul was leaving Greece to return to Jerusalem (also mentioned in Romans 15:25-26).

Philippians: mid–50s to early 60s if written from Ephesus (61–62 if written from Rome) Though Paul was in prison many times, his mention of “the palace” (Phil 1:13), and greetings from “Caesar’s household” (Phil 4:22) fit nicely with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome upon his appeal to Caesar (Acts 28:16, Acts 28:30).

Mark: sometime in the late 50s to the early 60s - Due to the evidence listed above for the date of Acts (~AD 62) In addition to that evidence, Papias (AD 130) states that “Mark became Peter’s interpreter, [and] he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord” (Church History 3.39.15). If Nero executed Peter in AD 67, then Mark’s gospel would pre-date this time. While Irenaeus (AD 180) states that Mark “handed down” his gospel after the martyrdom of Peter (Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Church History 5.8.3), this could simply mean that Mark widely disseminated his gospel after their deaths.

Philemon: probably Rome in the early 60s - Philemon must precede, if only shortly, Colossians since it is in Philemon that Onesimus is saved while in bonds with Paul (Phm 1:10).

Colossians: early 60s, probably 61 - Philemon and Colossians are linked in time primarily because the same companions with Paul are mentioned in both epistles, which would mean Tychicus traveled with Onesimus with both epistles to Colosse (Col 4:7).

Ephesians: the early 60s - There is not much information to date Ephesians, except that Tychicus delivered the letter (Eph 6:21). For this reason alone, it is assumed Ephesians was written at the same time as Colossians and Philemon, although Tychicus may have traveled to Ephesus multiple times (2 Tim 4:12).

1 Peter: almost surely in 62–63 - Knowledge of Peter’s death would have been known to the letter’s recipients. Therefore, even if 1 Peter was written by someone other than Peter, it is difficult to see how it could have been passed off as from Peter if it was written after the apostle’s death around AD 65.

Titus: probably not later than the mid-60s - The apostle Paul wrote this letter to his coworker Titus. The letter was probably written in the mid-60s A.D. between Paul’s first imprisonment (Acts 28) and his second imprisonment, which is not mentioned in Acts.

1 Timothy: early to mid-60s - Paul probably wrote this letter to Timothy in the mid-60s A.D., during a mission trip not recorded in Scripture. This trip took place after the events described in Acts, between Paul’s first and final Roman imprisonments.

2 Timothy: early or mid-60s (about 64 or 65)

2 Peter: likely shortly before 65

Acts: mid-60s - based on the evidence listed above

Jude: middle-to-late 60s - due to the letter’s apparent Jewish perspective, Jude’s audience was probably Jewish Christians, or a mixture of Jewish and Gentile readers where the Gentiles were familiar with Jewish traditions.

Luke: mid or late 60s - based on the evidence listed above

Hebrews: before 70 Hebrews reads as a book written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Heb 5:1-4 says “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.” This passage about what high priests do is set entirely in the present tense, something that would be not be possible after 70 A.D after the Temple was destoyed

Matthew: not long before 70 - In Matthew 22:23, we read the present tense to describe the Sadduccees (“[those] who say there is no resurrection”). Those who date Matthew after AD 70 will have difficulty with this passage, because the Sadducees virtually disappeared after the Jewish Revolt (AD 66) and the Destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70). (see also Acts 23:8)

John: 80–85 - D.A. Carson holds to a tentative date of AD 80 to 85—though he states that any date from AD 55 to 95 is possible. Other scholars date the gospel to the second half of the first century (AD 50-100).

1 John: early 90s

2 John: early 90s

3 John: early 90s

Revelation: 95–96 (at the end of the Emperor Domitian’s reign)

The standard later dates could very well be true, and surely many Christian scholars hold to these dates. It’s also good to remember that even if we accept these later dates, the Gospels were still written far earlier than other ancient biographies. For instance, the Roman emperor Tiberius died just a few years after Jesus (AD 37), and Tacitus and Suetonius wouldn’t write a biography of him for 70-80 years (AD 110-120). Likewise, Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, and Arrian of Nicomedia (AD 130) and Lucian (AD 100) didn’t write a biography for over 400 years! Thus, if we are skeptical of Jesus, then we need to be even more skeptical of these great figures in history.

Early dating is important for several reasons. 

First, since the gospels were written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, it is very likely they recorded a firsthand account of Christ’s life. 

Second, the closer in date to the event, the more accurate the record. Early dating indicates that eyewitnesses were alive and able to attest to the accuracy of the newly circulating gospels. Apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile crowd pointing out their knowledge of the facts as well (Acts 2:22, Acts 26:26). 

Third, the time period between the events and their written record is too short for myths to proliferate. The reason for this is that there needs to be sufficient time for the eyewitnesses to pass from the scene, otherwise they would be able to object to any changes 

Fourth, with the brief time period from Jesus’ ministry to the writing of the first gospel of Mark, there seems even less of a possibility that a “Q” document exists. Q is a hypothetical document from which many scholars believe Matthew and Luke derive the material for their gospels.

That the Gospels were written within one generation of Jesus’ death in A.D. 30, while eyewitnesses of his ministry were still alive, and by those who were either close companions of Jesus or close associates of those companions. Luke 1:1-4 suggests a careful, historical process of composition, and the overall genre of the Synoptics most closely resembles ancient biographies rather than novels or works of fiction.

God as a source for objective morality - a proposition

Axiology is a branch of philosophy that studies values. Axiology includes questions about the nature of values, how they are classified, and what things have value. It also includes the study of value judgments, especially in ethics. 

To be meaningful, in an objective sense, axiological statements must have the force of obligating a moral agent to either perform a prescribed action or prohibit him from carrying one out.  If that force is not sufficiently authoritative, by what right may any human impose his personal convictions on other humans? 

If moral obligations aren’t grounded in a sufficiently authoritative way, then we are not justified in making absolute moral pronouncements. We have no warrant to say things like, “striving to eliminate poverty is objectively good” or that “racial oppression has and will always be bad, in all places and for all peoples”. Nor would one have any basis to say that "rape is wrong, or that "torturing babies for fun is morally wrong".

Only a transcendent Person who is rightly authorized in and of himself (since he alone is the author of all created things) to hold us accountable for them is justified in making absolute moral pronouncements. 

Objectively binding moral obligations can’t rightfully be imposed from within the human community, regardless of consensus by any arrangement of individuals in that community. They must come from a source external to the community (i.e. not derived from but independent of the community). That source would have an authoritative claim on the community because it would have constituted the community.

 It would also have an immutable nature, without which moral imperatives are subject to change over time. The only qualified candidate, with no conceivable substitute capable of satisfying the requirements for grounding objective morality, is God. Only his character – his intrinsically good nature – establishes the basis for why all people are properly obligated to be good.

Is there any reason to conclude that a prefect God, who created humans for a purpose, could not provide them a morality that is free from bias, individual perspectives, cultural norms, and societal values - i.e. objective morality?

Objection 1: One can be moral without believing in God. 

Reply: I’m not saying one can’t be a good, moral person unless you believe in God. I’m saying that if you accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, yet you can’t provide a coherent explanation for how to derive them, then your view of the world is incoherent.  

And if you do not accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, if morality is simply the subjective realm of desires and preferences that invariably differ from one individual to the next, then one cannot say anything is right or wrong; good or evil; moral or immoral. 

Objection 2: All morality is subjective

Reply: if you do not accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, if morality is simply the subjective realm of desires and preferences that invariably differ from one individual to the next, then one cannot say anything is right or wrong; good or evil; moral or immoral.  

See also: The Problem of Evil: Solved for Christians; A Major Problem for Atheists

Is Sola Scriptura Self-Defeating?

Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase that translates to "by Scripture alone". It is a Christian theological doctrine that states that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. This doctrine is held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions

1) The doctrine of sola scriptura need not be taught formally and explicitly. It may be implicit in Scripture and inferred logically. Scripture explicitly states its inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and its sufficiency is implied there as well. This passage contains the essence of sola scriptura, revealing that Scripture is able to make a person wise unto salvation. And it includes the inherent ability to make a person complete in belief and practice.

2) Scripture has no authoritative peer. While the apostle Paul’s reference in verse 16—to Scripture being “God-breathed”—specifically applies to the Old Testament, the apostles viewed the New Testament as having the same inspiration and authority (1 Tim. 5:18; Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7; 2 Pet. 3:16). The New Testament writers continue, mentioning no other apostolic authority on par with Scripture. The New Testament writers directed Christians to test their teachings by remembering the words of the prophets and apostles, not by accessing the words of living prophets, apostles, or other supposedly inspired teachers (Heb. 2:2-4; 2 Pet. 2:1; 3:2; Jude 3-4, 17).” 

3) Scriptural warnings such as “do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6) and prohibitions against adding or subtracting text (Rev. 22:18-19) buttress the principle that Scripture stands unique and sufficient in its authority.

4) Christ held Scripture in highest esteem. The strongest scriptural argument for sola scriptura, however, is found in how the Lord Jesus Christ himself viewed and used Scripture. A careful study of the Gospels reveals that he held Scripture in the highest regard. Jesus said: “The Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35); “Your word is truth” (John 17:17); “Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law” (Matt. 5:18); and “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17).

5) Christ appealed to Scripture as a final authority. Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19) while judgment will be measured out by the same standard (Luke 16:29-31; John 5:45-47). He used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every theological and moral matter under dispute. When disputing with the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, he proclaimed: “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition” (Mark 7:13).

Conclusion: Because Scripture came from God, Jesus considered it binding and supreme, while tradition was clearly discretionary and subordinate. Whether tradition was acceptable or not depended on God’s written Word. This recognition by Christ of God’s Word as the supreme authority supplies powerful evidence for the principle of sola scriptura. 

Why the Puddle Analogy Fails against Fine-Tuning

Many people are fascinated by the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence. The late Christopher Hitchens called the fine-tuning argument “the most intriguing.” Physicist Sean Carroll referred to it as “the best argument that the theists have when it comes to cosmology.”

But just like other arguments for God’s existence, there are rejoinders. One popular-level response is called “the puddle analogy.” The analogy was originally expressed in Douglas Adams’s The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Some think the puddle analogy deals a fatal blow against the fine-tuning argument. If the pondering puddle shouldn’t be surprised about its existence, we shouldn’t either. But does the analogy work? Are advocates of the fine-tuning argument engaging in “puddle thinking?”

Arguments from analogy are a kind of inductive argument. Basically, they reason that because two things are similar, what is true of the first is also true of the second. For an argument from analogy to work, the analogy has to be a good analogy

Of course, no analogy is perfect—there will always be differences. But for an argument from analogy to work, the similarities have to be significant, and the differences have to be superficial. But if the opposite is true—if the differences are significant and the similarities are superficial—well, then, we have a problem. In other words, if the analogy fails, so does the argument.

Puddle Problems

In a recent article titled “The Trouble with Puddle Thinking,” astronomers Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes explain why this analogy fails.

Consider more closely the puddle’s reasoning. Let’s name our puddle Doug. He has noticed a precise match between two things: 1) his shape and 2) the shape of the hole in which he lives. Doug is amazed! What Doug doesn’t know is that, given A) the fluidity of water, B) the solidity of the hole, and C) the constant downward force of gravity, he will always take the same shape as his hole. If the hole had been different, his shape would adjust to match it. Any hole will do for a puddle. [Emphasis added.]

This is precisely where the analogy fails: any universe will not do for life. Life is not a fluid. It will not adjust to any old universe. There could have been a completely dead universe: perhaps one that lasts for 1 second before recollapsing or is so sparse that no two particles ever interact in the entire history of the universe. [source]

In the puddle analogy, the puddle can exist in any hole. That’s how puddles work. The shape of the hole is irrelevant to the existence of the puddle. If you change the shape of the hole, the shape of the puddle changes, but you always get a puddle.

The problem is, life doesn’t work like that. Life cannot exist in any universe. The evidence from fine-tuning shows that a life-permitting universe is extremely rare. If you change certain conditions of the universe  just slightly, you cannot get life anywhere in the universe. For instance, slightly increase the mass of the electron or the up quark, and get a universe with nothing but neutrons. No stars. No planets. No chemistry. No life.

The significant difference:   We know that changing the dimensions of a hole does not affect the existence of the puddle. Any old hole will do. There is no fine-tuning for puddles. However, we also know that changing the conditions of the universe does affect the existence of life. There is fine-tuning for life.

So, the puddle analogy has a problem. And it’s a big one. It’s a false analogy. The analogy doesn’t work because getting a life-permitting universe is vastly different from getting a puddle-permitting hole.