Jesus Christ Archives | CrossExamined.org - Christian Apologetics Resources

Was the Virgin Birth Story Made Up?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Did The Virgin Birth Really Happen?

What would you say if someone asked you if the story of Jesus’ virgin birth was real, or if it was copied from other religions? In this post, you see how to think through a few challenges to the historicity of the Virgin Birth. First, we’ll answer the question “Was the Virgin Birth copied from myths?” Then, we’ll think through the idea that the first Christians just made the whole thing up.

Where should we start when we hear about a supposedly parallel account in some old myth? The first thing to do is check out the myth for yourself and see if there’s really a parallel virginal conception there.

The Virgin Birth wasn’t Copied from Myths

For example, here are the top three stories that tend to come up in my conversations about the virgin birth..and check out my hand-drawn illustrations, too–that’s not stock art!

Horus – No Virgin Birth Story

When Peter Joseph’s conspiracy film, Zeitgeist, came out in 2007, I had a student come up to me after I taught one of my World Religion classes at a local college. As we were walking out to the parking lot together, he told me about this film and wanted to know if the story of Jesus was really based on pagan myths. For example, the video asserted that Jesus’ virgin birth was parallel with the birth of an Egyptian god named Horus. But does the myth itself really say that Horus was born of a virgin?

In Egyptian mythology, Horus’ mother, Isis, was already married to the god Osiris for some time before his conception. But more than this, the best Egyptian account of the myth tells us that that Horus was not born of a virgin. It actually says that Isis “took in his seed and created the heir…Osiris’ son, Horus, stout of heart, justified, son of Isis.”[1] So the idea that the first Christians copied the story of Jesus’ virgin birth from Horus doesn’t work right off the bat. Why? Because there’s no virgin birth story there to copy. In fact, there is no ancient evidence of a story about Horus being born of a virgin.

Mithra – No Virgin Birth Story

But other people have heard something about Jesus’ virgin birth being copied from the story of a god named Mithra. I remember hearing about this one Christmas in 1997, when I was just an undergrad at Biola. Honestly, I had no clue what to think. I wish someone would have encouraged me to see if there were any ancient stories saying that Mithra was literally born of a virgin. Because there aren’t any. Not one.

There are actually a few versions of how Mithra was created, but none of them have anything like Jesus’ virginal conception. For example, in the Roman version, Mithra was born as a full-grown adult coming out of the side of a rock. There’s actually an ancient inscription that says Mithra was “born from the rock.”[2] So, in Mithra’s story, not only is there no virgin, but there’s not even a woman! So, unless you want to call a huge rock a “virgin,” that’s not gonna work. No parallel there.

Caesar Augustus – No Virgin Birth Story

I remember one Christmas, seeing an ABC News special on Jesus where a scholar by the name of John Dominic Crossan compared the story of Jesus’ virginal conception to the idea that the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus was believed to be the son of Apollo. He was kind of suggesting these stories were “all over Greek and Roman mythology.” But does Augustus’ story actually talk about a virginal conception?

According to the Roman historian Suetonius, Augustus’ mother had already been married for years before a snake suddenly showed up while she was sleeping. She discovered this strange mark on herself and 10 months later, Augustus was born.[3] But again, in this story, there is no virginal conception at all. Augustus’ mom already had a kid with her husband before Augustus was born. He even had an older sister![4]

Checking out the ancient sources for alleged parallels is a good place to start when thinking through the idea that the Virgin Birth was borrowed from pagan mythology. In this case, we can be confident that the story of Jesus’ virgin birth wasn’t copied from Horus, Mithra or Augustus because none of them was said to be born of a literal human virgin in any ancient myth.

But if the virgin birth wasn’t copied, does that mean the church just made the whole thing up? How should we think through the claim that church made up the story of Jesus’ virgin birth?

The Virgin Birth wasn’t Made up by the Church

Here are three reasons why it doesn’t look like the early church made up the story of Jesus’ virgin birth.

The Virgin Birth Raised Suspicions

Making up a fake story about Jesus’ virgin birth wouldn’t make Christianity more attractive to the Jews. It would actually make people suspicious about Jesus. Who was the real dad? Did Mary hook up with a Roman soldier? That kind of thing. Why make it more difficult to accept the Christian message? The ancient church wouldn’t have taught that Jesus was born of a virgin unless they had good reasons for believing he actually was.

The Virgin Birth Wasn’t Emphasied

When we see the gospel preached in the New Testament, the church doesn’t emphasize the Virgin Birth story at all. Why wouldn’t the earliest Christians make more of Jesus’ virgin birth if they invented it to make the faith seem more attractive to the people who weren’t Jewish? Why wouldn’t they talk it up if the made it up?

The Virgin Birth is Different from Myths

People who thought of certain human rulers as gods only thought they were lower gods in the context of polytheism–a belief in many gods. For example, no one thought Caesar Augustus was the one, true God who made the heavens and the earth. More than this, there’s no snake sneaking up on Mary in the gospels accounts. Jesus is just conceived in her womb as miracle of God and the Bible doesn’t say much about how that actually happened.

In the end, it’s pretty unlikely that the first Christians would make up the story of the Virgin Birth because it wouldn’t help advance the Christian cause. If they thought it would help their case, why didn’t they emphasize this story in their preaching? And if the virgin birth was patterned after myths, why doesn’t it look like these myths?

It’s Reasonable to Believe the Virgin Birth Happened

So the church didn’t get the Virgin Birth story from somewhere else and they didn’t create it out of theological reflection; That means—as unusual as it sounds—the Virgin Birth story must have come from a real event. In other words, if the Virgin Birth wasn’t copied from myths and it wasn’t made up, the remaining option is that the Virgin Birth is real.

If there really is a creator God who made the heavens and the earth, and if Jesus left heaven to come to earth, it’s reasonable to believe that the virgin birth happened.

Notes

[1] The Great Hymn To Osiris From Dynasty 18 (Stela Louvre C 286) Mentions Isis’ Impregnation By Her Brother-Husband, Osiris, In This Myth: “Isis The Powerful…Took In His Seed And Created The Heir, Who Suckled The Child In Solitude…Osiris’ Son, Horus, Stout Of Heart, Justified, Son Of Isis, Heir Of Osiris.” Jan Assmann, Death And Salvation In Ancient Egypt, 24-25.

Françoise Dunand And Christiane Zivie-Coche Explain Horus’ Birth Succinctly In Their Publication With Cornell University Press: “After Having Sexual Intercourse, In The Form Of A Bird, With The Dead God She Restored To Life, [Isis] Gave Birth To A Posthumous Son, Horus.” Gods And Men In Egypt, 39. See Also All About Horus – An Egyptian Copy Of Christ? For More Scholarly Sources Refuting The Zeitgeist Movie’s Claims About Horus.

[2] “Mithra Was Known As The Rock-Born God. The Inscriptions Confirm This Nomenclature: One Even Reads D(Eo) O(Omipotenti) S(Oli) Invi(Cto), Deo Genitori, R(Upe) N(Ato), ‘To The Almighty God Sun Invincible, Generative God, Born From The Rock’. Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult Of Mithra: The God And His Mysteries, 62-63.

[3] “When [Augustus’ Mother] Atia Had Come In The Middle Of The Night To The Solemn Service Of Apollo, She Had Her Litter Set Down In The Temple And Fell Asleep, While The Rest Of The Matrons Also Slept. On A Sudden A Serpent Glided Up To Her And Shortly Went Away. When She Awoke, She Purified Herself, As If After The Embraces Of Her Husband, And At Once There Appeared On Her Body A Mark In Colors Like A Serpent, And She Could Never Get Rid Of It; So That Presently She Ceased Ever To Go To The Public Baths. In The Tenth Month After That Augustus Was Born And Was Therefore Regarded As The Son Of Apollo.” Suetonius “Twelve Caesars” Augustus 94:4, Accessed Online At Http://Penelope.Uchicago.Edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12caesars/Augustus*.Html

[4] Octavia Was Augustus’ Full Sister. Http://Www.Britannica.Com/Ebchecked/Topic/424838/Octavia

Matthew: Jesus’ Genealogy and Biblical Inerrancy

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ

By John A. Limanto

The first genealogy within the Gospel of Matthew is an important cornerstone of the Gospel. This genealogy—a relic of the pre-Jewish-Roman War—contains, at the very heart of it, a Jewish tapestry that may only be deciphered by a thoroughly Jewish mind. In interpreting the genealogy, we find that it is indeed the pinnacle of the Jewish message of the Gospel. Containing within it is the stupendous claim that Jesus of Nazareth—the carpenter and the Son of Mary—is in the line of King David and is worthy of the Throne of Israel. Lingering deep within this chapter is the Messianic priority that has been reserved for the Jews. As the words of St. Paul proclaim, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”[1]

However, far from being considered as a scrupulously precise report, Matthew’s genealogy has been widely regarded as incomplete. The differences that it bears with its Lukan counterpart along with the omissions of the names of several kings are demonstrably palpable. At surface value, these details may indeed impugn Matthew as a reliable source. Furthermore, the supposed symmetrical structure of the genealogy that Matthew posited seems to contain asymmetrical number of persons. This issue is critical especially when it is put in relation to the traditional doctrine of Biblical inerrancy—which is the doctrine that requires for there to be no error within the Scripture. How can this be accomplished when even the first genealogy in Matthew contains such follies? Have Matthew really crossed the unpardonable line of errancy?

Within this essay, I would like to present a case in support of the inerrancy for the Gospel of Matthew in light of the supposed problems found within Matthew’s genealogy. I believe that when we look at the case fairly—examining the evidences to their roots—we will begin to see how the first genealogy is not just inerrant, but has effectively accomplished its designed purpose. I will begin by providing some context to the Gospel of Matthew before moving on to the structure of the genealogy, the alleged “problems” before finally ending in my reconciliation between Biblical inerrancy and the Matthean genealogy

Context Regarding the Gospel of Matthew and the Genealogy

The Gospel of Matthew was likely written around the late AD 60’s.[2] Although this has placed the Gospel at a later date in comparison with Mark, it is likely that the information in the gospel has been gathered from the Gospel of Mark itself.[3] However, as the Gospel of Mark itself does not contain the names in the genealogy, Matthew must have had garnered the names from both the Old Testament and the extrabiblical sources found in Temple of Jerusalem prior to its destruction in AD 70[4]Thus, Matthew bears witness to names of kings that are not found anywhere else in the surviving Jewish Literature. R.T France wisely remarks, “While most of the names between Zerubbabel and Joseph conform to familiar Jewish types of name, there is no reason to link any of the individuals listed with anyone who is known to us from other sources.”[5]

One of the interesting things about genealogy is its etymology. The word used in Matthew (translated in the NIV as: “genealogy”) is the Greek word γένεσις (“genesis”). This alludes to the creation of the world; the coming of Jesus was supposed to mark a new creation—a new beginning. Moreover, Genealogies are particularly important within the Jewish tradition. It is said that out of genealogies, disputes were settled regarding properties and extensive genealogies were scrupulously preserved as records of the family.[6] Thus, it is very unlikely for Matthew, as a Jew himself, to contrive the names of the descendants of Jesus. As Matthew himself was writing very early after the death of Jesus, any fraudulent contrivances will be easily verified (assuming that the Matthean Gospel is written before the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem in AD. 70)

Structure of the Genealogy

The genealogy is divided into three main sections as Matthew himself claimed:

¹⁷So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.[7]

What importance does this hold? Matthew here seems to be designing his genealogy in a way that is symmetrical and easy to memorize. Thus, Matthew asserted that the genealogy contains fourteen generations per section. However, any shrewd reader will be apt to point out that the number does not correctly correspond to each section. Grant. R. Osborne points out,

There are fourteen names in the first series if David is counted. The problem is that there are only thirteen generations (periods between names)… In the second series, there are fourteen names only if David is not counted, so there are fourteen full generations (periods between names). In the third series, there are fourteen names if you count Christ.[8]

Here, Osborne rightly points out the numeral discord in each section. Let us consider the names in each series:

Series 1 (from Abraham to David): Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Aminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David (14)

Series 2: (David to Jeconiah): David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehosaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekieh, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah (15)

Series 3 (Jeconiah to Jesus): Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abihud, Eliakim, azor, Zadok, Akim, Elihud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus (14)

Osborne offers a creative escape as a way of interpreting this without asserting inaccuracy: “This is resolved by simply assuming that Matthew is counting the generation leading to Abraham.”[9] Thus, counting from Jesus, one can omit either Jeconiah or David from the second series—assuming the former to belong to the third series and the latter to belong to the first series. Our new series will thus be:

Series 1 (from Abraham to David): Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Aminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David (14)

Series 2: (David to Jeconiah): Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehosaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekieh, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah (14)

Series 3 (Jeconiah to Jesus): Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abihud, Eliakim, azor, Zadok, Akim, Elihud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus (14)

This strategy would satisfyingly do justice to Matthew’s original claim that there are fourteen generations each, while retaining the structural format.

The question as to why Matthew has chosen this particular format has perplexed the Biblical Scholar world. It is unclear as to what the number fourteen is supposed to represent. Nonetheless, many suggestions have been given.[10] One of the main suggestions has been gematria. This is the suggestion that even Osborne himself called as “the most likely.”[11] Gematria is the Jewish practice of using letters and alphabets for numbers. Every name and vowel has their own numeral significance—the word David in Hebrew consists of the three consonants dwd. Here, “d” equals to four and “w” equals to six (counted in Hebraic consonant order). In sum, the three letters produce the number fourteen. Scholars such as R. T. France, on the other hand, prefer the simpler explanation that fourteen is merely twice seven.[12]

The Omission of the Kings

This is the crux of the problem. The seemingly contrived structural format might have already given it away, but the genealogy has omitted—for some reason or another—the names of five kings along the line: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoahaz, and Jehoiakim. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are supposed to be in between the line of Jehoram to Uzziah, while the two brothers Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim are in between Josiah and Jeconiah.

Analysis of the Kings

Any robust analysis of the omission of the five kings must contain a discussion of each of these kings. A pattern that of unrighteousness can be noticed within each of the kings. Ahaziah was blatantly described as an evil king who “walked in the ways of the house of Ahab.” (2 Chronicles 22:3). He was later captured in Samaria and killed by the men of Jehu, the tenth king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. His successor, Athaliah, was subsequently executed and succeeded by Joash (2 Chr. 23:12-15)—who was the biological son of Ahaziah. Joash, in contrast, was first described as a righteous king (2 Chr. 24:2), but soon fell away at the end of his life. He was said to have served the Asherim and the idols and was later assassinated by his own servants (2 Chr. 24:18, 25). Likewise, Amaziah was a righteous king from the outset, but turned away later after striking the Edomites (2. Chr. 25:14).

It is obviously tempting for one to sway away the problem by merely attributing the omissions to the vile and the treacheries of these kings. Indeed, this solution has been proposed by R. T France himself. A clear success of such an approach is ambiguous, however—especially when the topic at hand is in regards to Biblical inerrancy. Such motives may give the opponents of the Scripture the necessary ammunition to impugn the Gospel of Matthew based on what they would perceive as “embellishments.”

Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim enters the picture as the two of the few ungodly kings recorded in 2 Kings 23-31 and 2 Kings 24:20. The Old Testament remarked that these kings include: Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin/Jeconiah, and Zedekiah. What does it, then, even mean when Matthew says “Josiah [is] the father of Jeconiah and his brothers?” A possible explanation is provided by Wilkins who points out that in the LXX (the Septuagint from where Matthew may have derived his genealogy from), the Greek word loakim denotes both Jehoiakim and Jeconiah.[13] It is possible that Matthew really intended for the word to have a double entendre—referring to both Jehoiakim and Jeconiah. Such an explanation will come more naturally when we understand the word “brothers” to not only mean the other rulers of the time, but also of the whole brotherhood of the Israelites sent to the exile—thus the whole clause is referring to a much greater scope than its literal meaning. Although this may be a possible interpretation, I shall adopt the worst possible scenario in this essay—that Matthew has actually omitted five kings from his genealogy.

In overall, the omission of the kings is a tougher issue to deal with for the inerrantist in comparison to the miniscule problem of the symmetrical structure. This understanding of Divine Inspiration is ubiquitous through the Christian tradition—and to deny such a doctrine costs a great price. Before we can proceed, however, it is good to inquire on what the biblical doctrine of inerrancy means.

Inerrancy

A solid understanding of what Biblical Inerrancy means will be vital to our discussion at hand. The most common misconception is that Biblical Inerrancy means that whatever the Bible says is true. However, this seems highly confused and misleading. For if whatever the Bible says is true, then the illustrations within the book of Revelation, would too, be literally true. But surely, this is absurd. The illustration in the book of Revelation is obviously a figure of speech or some sort. Thus, with this at hand, we can understand that defining inerrancy in its barest, narrowest sense will be counter-productive for any sincere truth-seeker. MacGregor avers:

“This classic doctrine of inerrancy stipulates that for each periscope within every document of the scriptural canon, when we first take into consideration that periscope’s original literary genre and the rules for what does and does not constitute an error in that genre, the periscope contains no errors.”[14]

The doctrine of Inerrancy does not concern what the Bible say on surface, but rather what the Bible teaches in its depth. We must determine the certain genre, literary tools, and context within a certain passage and determine whether it is correct in those senses.

Incompleteness and Inaccuracy

The best strategy for Christians, it seems, is to admit that there is incompleteness within the genealogy, but not inaccuracy. Herein, the difference is apparent. The Bible, for example, does not teach astrophysics or medicinal science. Does this mean the Bible is unqualified? By no means! Omissions of such details only signify an incompleteness of the Bible in discussing those topics.

However, here, we can go a step even further and ask ourselves, “is it appropriate for the Bible to omit such details?” Obviously, with regards to subjects such as astrophysics or medicinal science, one will adamantly agree that it is in all of a Bible’s propriety to leave out details that are not conducive to what the Bible focuses—the message of Salvation and knowledge of the One true God.

From here, we must likewise ask, “is it appropriate for the Gospel of Matthew to omit certain names within the genealogy?” If Matthew here meant to be precise and complete in his genealogy, doubtless that an incomplete genealogy would be Matthew’s errancy. However, does Matthew really intend for his genealogy to be perceived in such a way? Modern scholars think not.

The Purpose of the Genealogy

Matthew’s personal obsession in scrupulously arranging a symmetry is to be baffled about. Such an obsession, fortunately, helps to reveal to us Matthew’s original intent for the genealogy—an easy, memorisable, family data to help act as “signposts” for his Jewish audiences to identify Jesus within the line of the family of David. This identification of Jesus resonates with the unanimous view of New Testament scholars. Thus R. T. France says,

“But its [genealogy] main aim is clear enough: to locate Jesus within the story of God’s people as its intended climax, and to do it with a special focus on the Davidic monarchy as the proper context for a theological understanding of the role of the person whom Matthew, more than the other gospel writers, will delight to refer to not only as “Messiah” but also more specifically as “Son of David.”[15]

For such a purpose, the omission of the four kings will indeed be a beneficial tool in catalysing a compact genealogy for the purpose of easy memorization. In such a case, only the key people will be necessary within the genealogy with the purpose of acting as “signposts” pointing to the right direction. In fact, Craig S. Keener pointed out, “Matthew opens his Gospel by showing both Jesus’ historic inseparability from the history of Israel… The opening verse of the Gospel introduces two ancestors who become pivotal characters in the genealogy: Jesus is the son of Abraham (the ideal Jew) and the son of David (the Messiah).”[16] Here, Keener has even gone on to reduce the pillars of the genealogy to merely two characters: Abraham and David.

Keener goes on to argue that the main purpose of Matthew’s genealogy is not at all to show the genetic ancestry, but the emphasis has always been on His spiritual ancestry.[17] Ergo, he asserts, “Matthew thus establishes rhetorical community with his audience in his proem; proems typically appealed to audience sympathy.”[18] Keener’s view that such a genealogy is intended to build an emotional relation to the audience echoes well with Matthew’s colloquial and symmetrical format. Matthew here is not writing formally, but as a fellow Jew in his own relation to his brethren.

This theme of Jewish relation is indeed the majority view of Bible commentators with regards to Matthew’s purpose through the genealogy. Often times, this has been marked by the interpretation that Matthew has a theological focus more than one that is historical. Again, the theme is brought up that Matthew is not acting just as a historian in his writing, but also as a theologian. Wilkins’ statement is typical: “Matthew’s opening verse gives an important clue to his overall purpose and perspective. It had special meaning for those with a Jewish background, attempting both to awaken the faith of Jews and to strengthen the faith of Jewish Christians, insofar as Jesus is the “Messiah,” the “son of David,” the heir to the promises of Israel’s throne through King David.”[19] Some commentators have even gone so loose and say that for Matthew, this theological focus trumps over his historical focus. Thomas G. Long comments,

“It seems here that Matthew is more interested in making a theological point than in being genealogically precise. Almost every commentator has noted that this pattern of sets of uniformly numbered generation is an artificial creation, for each of these three time periods cover too many years to be spanned by only fourteen generations.”[20]

Comparison to Lukan Genealogy

A much broader issue appears once we compare the Matthean genealogy to its Lukan counterpart as expounded within Luke 3:23-38. Wilkins has formulated a list of five main differences that rifts apart the two genealogies.[21] 1) Matthew gives a descending genealogy, beginning with Abraham while Luke gives an ascending genealogy, starting with Jesus and tracing it backward to Adam. The Matthean genealogy here is more faithful to the Jewish tradition of genealogies while the Lukan genealogy adhere to genealogies more commonly found in Greco-Roman tradition. 2) Mathew places special emphasis on the covenants made with Israel, by tracing Jesus’ lineage to David and Abraham. Meanwhile, Luke places special emphasis on Jesus’ relation to all of humanity and to God by tracing his lineage to Adam and God himself. 3) The names of several persons after the Babylonian deportation differs between the two genealogies. Matthew follows the line through Jeconiah, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel. Luke follows the line through Neri, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel. 4) Matthew omits several names that are found in the genealogy of Luke. 5) Matthew puts emphasis on Jesus’ kingly lineage. David is not simply the son of Jesse—as Luke titles him—but that he is “King David”. Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan, who never reigned as king.

The issue of our interest regarding Matthean genealogy and Biblical inerrancy concerns third, fourth, and fifth point. The difference in the genealogy between Matthew and Luke itself is enough to crumble down the Biblical inerrancy. In the next passage, I shall attempt to reconcile the two together and provide a possible solution.

Reconciliation with Biblical Inerrancy

Henceforth, I will be arguing my last point—that by the context and the Biblical data that we have, we can see how the Matthean genealogy may be vindicated from accuses of errancy with regards to the omission of the four kings, differences with the Lukan genealogy and further, with regards to its symmetrical structure.

With regards to its symmetrical structure, we have observed that it is possible for us to view the genealogy in a way that will circumvent the issue of the asymmetrical number of people in each set. Although the first and third set contains fourteen people on its own, while the second contains fifteen, an easy way out would be to assume that Matthew was simply counting the generations leading to Abraham. Such a trick allows us to bypass the problem and retain the symmetrical structure of the genealogy that Matthew postulated.

With regards to the omission of the five kings, we have seen previously how this is consistent with the context of the Matthean genealogy—written colloquially in a structure that is memorisable to form an emotional relation with Jews who are reading the gospel. By the scrupulosity of Matthew towards its structural rigidity (despite the messiness that still ensues nevertheless) we can understand that Matthew never intended for his genealogy to be written as a complete, formal genealogy. Rather, his symmetrical focus and the unnecessity for the completion of the genealogy points to how Matthew deliberately omitted those kings in favour of the structural format.

Within such genre and context—there is no necessity for the genealogy to be precise. It ought to be precise only with regards to its theological and literary purposes—which it did. Therefore, form here we can infer that Matthew has indeed fulfilled its context, literary genres, and purposes; this is precisely what is needed to sufficiently fulfil the criteria for inerrancy. David L Turner is correct in saying, “Matthew has omitted three names … and other omissions can also be noted. But it is not that Matthew has erred, since he did not intend to work exhaustively and precisely.”[22]

Moreover, considering the insignificance of these five kings as signposts in the line of David, it would do little if those kings were omitted. To accomplish his purpose in the context of providing an informal genealogy for the lay people, the structural format has to be prioritized. In this regard, Matthew’s decision may even be praiseworthy as it shows his shrewdness as an author. It is further worthwhile to mention Keener’s remark that within the genre of ancient genealogies, it is not uncommon for such omissions to happen.[23] If this is indeed true, it would imply that not only such omissions permissible, but also in line with the mainstream tradition of ancient genealogies.

More, however, needs to be added with regards to the Lukan genealogy. There have been several possible suggestions posed as to how we can construe the differences in the Lukan and the Matthean genealogy. Luther has suggested that Matthew offered the Joseph’s ancestry while Luke offered Mary’s. This position, however, runs aground when we see the explicit wording in Luke 3:23 (cf. Luke 1:27). R. T France further excoriate this position by pointing out that ancient Jewish genealogies were not traced through the mother.[24] Another view that sprung up would be that either Matthew or Luke has simply invented names. But again, such a case is very unlikely. Genealogies are simply too important for any Jew to treat them so cavalierly.[25] Thus, Contemporary scholars have now opted for a third position that Matthew emphasized the royal lineage of Jesus by tracing the “throne-succession of the actual, and, after the exile, the putative kings of Judah.[26] Meanwhile, Luke may have emphasized the actual biological lineage of Jesus. France confesses that such a view may be speculative, but it is indeed possible that biological and dynastic line run on separate lines while converging on multiple occasions.[27]

Conclusion

I hope to have established a firm case for a reconciliation between the Matthean genealogy and Biblical inerrancy. As we have thus far seen, the obstacles into reconciling the two of them have fallen short. Though it is not at all unreasonable to doubt Matthew’s inerrancy—especially in light of its differences with the Lukan genealogy—, by the strength of the evidences, it seems more plausible for us to adhere to its inerrancy. Such a view is far more supported by our present understanding of Jewish tradition—their scrupulous preservation and recording of genealogies. With regards to the omission of the five kings and the asymmetrical number of people in the genealogy, I hope to have shown that there can be no reasonable doubt that Matthew has intended for the omission and this, too, fulfils the context, genre and purpose of the genealogy. The purported “asymmetry,” on the other hand, may be resolved simply with a quick re-evaluation as provided above.

Notes

[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 1:16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[2] The date of the authorship of Matthew has been clouded with much obscurities. The general scholars have been divided into two camps: the pre-70 AD camp and the Infra-70 AD camp. The position posed within this essay is the traditional position of the early Church Fathers. See Iraneus’, Against Heresies, 3.1.1. For a complete discourse regarding the debate of Matthew’s date of authorship, see R.T France, The Gospel of Matthew, 18-19; Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, 24.

[3] K Lachmann, 1835; C. H. Weisse and C. G. Wilke, 1838; H.j. Holtzmann, 1863; B. Weiss, 1886; B. H. Streeter, 1924. This impressive list of 19^th century scholars who have persuasively argued for the primacy of the Gospel of Mark is gathered in Edwards, James. R. 2002. The Gospel According to Mark. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[4] Genesis Rabbah 98:8; j. Taʿanit 4:2; see Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988), 204–6.

[5] The genealogy in 1 Chr. 3 ends in Zerubbabel. See R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 109

[6] Wilkins, Michael J. 2004. Matthew. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 57

[7] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 1:17). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[8] Osborne, Grant. R. 2010. Matthew. Michigan: Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 60.

[9] Ibid.

[10] See Davies and Allison, Matthew. They discuss eight views of this arrangement.

[11] Osborne, Grant. R. 2010. Matthew. Michigan: Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 59.

[12] France, R.T. 2007. Gospel According to Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 103.

[13] Wilkins, Michael J. 2004. Matthew. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 62.

[14] See Kirk MacGregor’s Luis de Molina, Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge, 177. In the book, MacGregor offers a compelling model for Biblical inerrancy that ought to draw our attention.

[15] France, R.T. 2007. Gospel According to Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 103.

[16] Keener, Craig S. 1999. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 73

[17] Ibid. 77

[18] Ibid.

[19] Wilkins, Michael J. 2004. Matthew. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 65.

[20] Long, Thomas G. 1997. Matthew. Westminster John Knox Press. 10

[21] Wilkins, Michael J. 2004. Matthew. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 57-58.

[22] Turner, David L. 1994. Matthew. Baker Academic. 27.

[23] “But skipping some generations was common enough in ancient genealogies, and Matthew would have seen no harm in approximating generations.” Keener, Craig S. 1999. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 75

[24] France, R.T. 2007. Gospel According to Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 104

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

Were Jesus’ Temptations Real If He Couldn’t Sin?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Historic Christianity affirms that Jesus Christ, though fully human, is also fully divine. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev. 22:13) — the eternal creator of all things (Jn. 1:3). The Nicene Creed (AD 325) declares of Jesus that he is:

With Jesus’ deity established, can we honestly say Jesus could experience genuine temptations? After all, James 1:13 declares that “God cannot be tempted by evil.” Doesn’t this present a bit of a dilemma for the biblical Christian? If Jesus was impeccable, that is, he was unable to sin, to what extent can we say that his temptations really affected him?

On the surface, it seems that Christians can’t take much comfort from Hebrews 4:15, which reads, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet he did not sin.”

Can we really say he was tempted in every way as we are? I experience temptation all the time and give in to those temptations more than I’d like to admit. That wasn’t a problem for Jesus, though. He couldn’t give in to his temptations. Doesn’t this seem like apples and oranges to you?

While I affirm that Jesus was unable to sin due to being fully divine, in the remaining space, I want to demonstrate that he experienced genuine temptations as a human. And I want to show that we can believe in both truths simultaneously.

A Spirit-Filled Human

I contend that the reason Jesus could not sin and the reason he did not sin are for different reasons. I believe Jesus could not sin because he is the second person of the Triune God who is incapable of sinning (Js. 1:13). The reason he didn’t sin, however, was because, as a human, he was filled and empowered by the Spirit. That is, Jesus lived his life on earth fundamentally as a human and relied on the Spirit to perfectly obey his Father. Let me give you a few texts of Scripture to support this claim:

And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon [the Messiah], the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD (Isa. 11:2).

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me (the Messiah) because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound (Isa. 61:1).

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country (Lk. 4:14).

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I (Jesus) cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (Mt. 12:28).

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him (Acts 10:38).

I believe this small sample size of texts demonstrates that Jesus lived his earthly life fundamentally as a human. If, in the incarnation, Jesus lived primarily as deity, the filling of the Holy Spirit would have been both redundant and unnecessary for his mission.

Jesus’ Sinlessness Illustrated

A few years back, daredevil Nik Wallenda tightrope across Niagara Falls on national television. As I watched Wallenda make the successful 1,800-foot journey across the falls, I remember feeling nervous for him, but I wasn’t worried he was going to die. Why? Because the television producers forced him to wear a safety harness to ensure he wouldn’t fall to his death while the entire world watched.

Now, could Wallenda have died on his walk across the tightrope? No, the safety harness protected him from falling. But, how did Wallenda make it across the tightrope? He balanced himself and walked across. The harness didn’t help him one bit. You see, the reason he could not have died and the reason he made it across are for two completely different reasons.

In the same way, Jesus could not have sinned because he was fully divine. This was his safety harness if you will. But Jesus didn’t sin because he perfectly obeyed the Father as a human in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, he experienced genuine temptations, but never once did he give into them.

The Extent Of Jesus’ Temptations

Some still object and say Jesus’ temptations were of a lesser nature than ours. After all, he didn’t have a sin nature. He didn’t battle the same kind of internal temptations we do. This much is true. But it doesn’t mean his temptations were less severe than ours.

Think about it. Whatever internal temptations Jesus didn’t experience, he more than made for up it by going toe-to-toe with Satan. Satan gave Jesus his best shot. He knew what was at stake during Jesus’ life. If he could get Jesus to sin, he wins. Game over. You and I probably won’t ever get Satan’s full onslaught like Jesus did.

Also, consider the fact that you and I often break in the face of temptation. Whether we’re tempted to lust, lash out in anger, or grow impatient, we typically can only handle so much before we eventually give in. The temptation builds and builds until we can’t withstand any longer, and we snap. Jesus, on the other hand, saw temptations all the way through to the very end, and even as the pressure built, he never once sinned. He stood firm in the face of the most intense feelings of temptation — something we often don’t get to because we cave earlier.

Consider, as an illustration, the world’s strongest man. He picks up a twig, holds it by both ends, and snaps it with ease. Next, he picks up an iron bar and attempts to do the same. He bends with every bit of force he can muster for a few minutes, but the bar remains unscathed. As you think about twig and the iron bar, which of the two-faced more intense pressure from the world’s strongest man? The iron bar, of course.

Well, we’re like the twig, and Jesus is like the bar. We snap before we can feel the full force of the temptation. Jesus, however, experiences the full force of the temptation and never once snaps. It seems naive, therefore, to suggest that we face more difficult temptations than he did.

Why This Is Important

When God the Son took on human flesh — or emptied himself according to Philippians 2 — he set out to live as much like a human as was possible for him to do. This means he couldn’t conjure his divine powers every time he got himself in a quandary. For example, when Satan tempted Jesus to turn the stones into bread, he tempted him to rely on his deity instead of his humanity in that situation.

Think about the problem we’d have if every time Jesus faced a difficult situation, he simply performed a miracle to make his life easier. If he healed himself every time he got sick, or if he teleported to Jerusalem instead of taking the long journey just like everyone else, in no real sense could he be one of us and represent us as our high priest before the Father (Heb. 4:15). Jesus, however, can be our faithful high priest because he lived his life on earth fundamentally as a human (Heb. 2:17-18). And as a human, he perfectly obeyed his Father because he was filled completely with the Spirit.

So, could Jesus have sinned? No. He was God. But did he experience genuine temptations as a human? Yes. Both are true at the same time.

Why Jesus Never Apologized

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

During a time of devotions, I came across a text written by A. W. Tozer. Tozer inquires, “Did you ever notice that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He walked the earth, never apologized? He never got up in the morning and said, ‘I’m sorry, boys. Yesterday when I was talking, I misspoke Myself, and I said this, but I meant that’” (Tozer, AOG II, 139–140). When the text is first read, one may think that Tozer implied that Jesus was obstinate and irritating. Such thoughts bring to mind that one person that everyone tries to avoid. You know the person, the one who always thinks that he/she is right and never apologizes when he or she is clearly in the wrong. However, this is not the point behind Tozer’s teaching. Tozer clarifies his intention when saying that Jesus never apologized because he never did anything that required an apology. How is this possible? It was only possible because Jesus was perfect. Tozer notes, “He was wisdom divinely incarnated in the voice of a man. And when He spoke, He said it right the first time. He never had to apologize” (Tozer, AOG II, 139–140). Jesus never had to apologize because he was perfect in all that he said and did.

Simon Peter taught this very thing. The amazing thing is that Simon Peter knew Jesus perhaps better than anyone. He walked, talked, and even lived with Jesus for 3 ½ years. He knew Jesus in public and in private. Yet he was still able to write the following about Jesus:

²¹For you were called to this, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ²²He did not commit sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth; ²³when he was insulted, he did not insult in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. ²⁴He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds^, you have been healed. ²⁵For you were like sheep going astray, but you have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls (1 Pet. 2:21–25, CSB).

Did you catch Peter’s teaching on Jesus’s perfection? He said that Jesus committed no sin and never said anything deceitful (1 Pet. 2:22). If a person thinks someone perfect, all one needs to do is to contact those who have lived with the person in question. My wife will quickly tell you how imperfect I am if asked. But this is not so with Simon Peter and the early disciples on their views of Jesus. Tozer is right in his assessment of Jesus. There are four ways that one can see how Jesus’s perfection negates any need for him to apologize.

Jesus never apologized for his suffering because he left us a perfect standard (1 Pet. 2:21, 23)

Jesus knew the difficulties he would face. But he willingly faced the sufferings of life so that he could serve as the perfect standard. Suffering is not something that someone should pursue. If a medicine is available to keep one from suffering, one should take it. However, when suffering comes, God can bring something good out of it. Notice that Peter said that Jesus did not threaten people when something did not go his way—a far cry from modern behaviors. He never had to apologize for a word falsely spoken, unlike yours truly. Everything Jesus said and did was intentional. While we all have role models we like to follow, Jesus is the best standard because he is the perfect standard. He knows the sufferings you endure because he has been there. He can identify with your suffering more than anyone ever could because he is the perfect standard. He suffered but never sinned.

Jesus never apologized for his actions because he was perfectly sinless (1 Pet. 2:22)

As Tozer previously noted, Jesus never apologized for something dumb that he did. He never had to express regret for a word misspoken. It was not as if Jesus would not have apologized and sought reconciliation if he were in the wrong. Jesus was humble. He was not obtuse in his manner of conduct. Rather, Jesus lived a perfect life that never required him to apologize. An important application for our lives can be found at this juncture. God’s actions are planned. God is doing something in your life with great intentionality. God never needs to apologize because his actions will bring forth an ultimate good. The good that God brings will be far greater than what we can contemplate. Thus, while things in the present may not make sense to us, we need to remember that God’s thoughts are far higher than ours (Isa. 55:8). Joseph could have easily thought that God had forsaken him when he was forsaken by his brothers, left for dead, before being sold as a slave. While in Egypt, he found himself imprisoned after being falsely accused of a crime that he did not commit. However, God elevated him to a status that would eventually allow him to save the lives of the very ones who enslaved him. God is bringing together a focused plan. The question is, do we trust God with our present and future?

Jesus never apologized for his death because he was the perfect sacrifice (1 Pet. 2:24)

When Jesus told his disciples that he would go to the cross, Peter abhorred the idea. He said that he would never allow someone to hurt Jesus. Peter, acting like a big brother to Jesus, wanted to protect his Savior at all costs, at least at that time. Jesus rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me because you’re not thinking about God’s concerns but human concerns” (Matt. 16:23, CSB). When reading the text in its totality, one discovers that Peter went from being called blessed after noting that Jesus was the Son of God to being called the Prince of Darkness in a matter of moments. That is what sticking your foot in your mouth will do for you. Even then, Jesus was calling out the spirit of darkness that tried to invade Peter’s thinking. The pandemic has surfaced the great instability of the modern psyche. The forces of darkness want you to be scared. They want you to think that all is lost. But remember, what people mean for evil, God intends for good (Gen. 50:20). The question is, do you trust God with your thinking?

Jesus never apologized for his leadership because he was a perfect Shepherd (1 Pet. 2:25)

One of the titles I have most appreciated is that of a pastor. The title relates to the role of a shepherd as its roots connect back to the concept of an overseer of grass-fed animals. Pastors impact their congregants. While many try to emulate the spiritual walk of their pastors or perhaps another person who has influenced their life, the ultimate role model is Jesus himself. When we try to become like another person, we adopt their bad practices. But with Jesus, he never had to apologize for bad leadership tactics. Jesus’s disciples were dismayed as they had hoped for a military leader who would take back Israel from Roman hands. However, Jesus was something greater than a military leader. He was, is, and forever will be the King of the Universe. Nations come, and nations go. Rulers rise and fall. But understand, Jesus will reign forever. Reading the comments from many Christians’ social media accounts, I am struck by the wonder that believers have not changed since the first century. Some seemingly indicate a preference for Jesus to serve as a political or military ruler, standing ready to blast away anyone with whom they find disagreement. However, Jesus’s leadership style has not changed. He will not apologize for his leadership style because he has come to seek and save the lost, not become our political pawn. He is a servant leader. He rules by compassion and grace. Modern believers must ask themselves, do they want a political hero, or do they want a divine King?

Conclusion

Jesus never had to apologize for anything he did because everything he did was perfect. Jesus holds the answers to the problems we face. As I read the writings of the NT, I am reminded how far from God’s mark we have become. The Christian life is about faith. It always has been and always will be. Faith is trust in a person. It does not indicate that a person believes something for which there is no evidence. That is a false definition of faith that has led to the very anti-intellectualism that harms the mission of the church. Rather, biblical faith is much more difficult. Biblical faith requires that one trusts God with the things that make sense and especially the things that do not. Jesus does not have to apologize because he is perfect. But we are anything but perfect. Do we trust the plan that Jesus has for us? Do we trust in his perfect mission? If you are looking for something for which you can be thankful, be thankful that you have a perfect Savior.

Sources

Tozer, A. W. Attributes of God. Volume Two. Camp Hill, PA: Christian, 2003.

Did Jesus Exist? A Critical Appraisal of Richard Carrier’s Interpretation of the Pauline Corpus

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ

By Jonathan McLatchie

Richard Carrier is an ancient historian who has risen to prominence as the lead advocate of Jesus Mythicism, a school of thought that entertains the idea that Jesus of Nazareth may never have existed at all. While Mythicism occupies only the fringes of the scholarly guild, it has gained much better traction on the internet, where poor scholarship can be widely disseminated unchecked. In 2014, Richard Carrier published the first academic defense of Mythicism through Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd., an academic publisher.[1] Since this volume represents the first scholarly peer-reviewed publication supporting the Mythicist position and is written by an author with a doctoral degree in ancient history, the contents of Carrier’s thesis are deserving of attention.

Carrier examines the extrabiblical evidence of Jesus’ historicity, as well as the sources we find in the New Testament – the gospels, Acts, and epistles. While there is much that could be discussed in regards to Carrier’s handling of these sources, for the purpose of the present paper I will focus primarily on Carrier’s interaction with the Pauline corpus, though – for reasons that will become clear – I will also remark on the book of Acts insofar as it helps to illuminate the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters.

Having rejected the gospels and Acts as reliable documents, Carrier maintains that the letters of Paul are the best sources that bear on the question of the historicity of Jesus. He, however, contends that the letters of Paul fail to unequivocally refer to Jesus as an historical person who walked on earth. Instead, argues Carrier, Paul viewed Jesus as a celestial being, inhabiting a spiritual realm in outer space, in which He was crucified by demons and subsequently resurrected. Carrier’s thesis is in fact not a new idea, but one which was originally proposed by Earl Doherty, to whom Carrier owes much of his material.[2]

I cannot help but point out an irony in Carrier’s advocacy of scholarship that to call fringe would be an understatement. In one of Carrier’s other books, Why I Am Not a Christian, Carrier writes concerning biological evolution, “The evidence that all present life evolved by a process of natural selection is strong and extensive. I won’t repeat the case here, for it is enough to point out that the scientific consensus on this is vast and certain, so if you deny it you’re only kicking against the goad of your own ignorance.”[3] One wonders whether this quote has any relevance to the debate over Mythicism. I could forego interaction with Carrier’s argumentation by noting that “the evidence that Jesus existed is strong and extensive. I won’t repeat the case here, for it is enough to point out that the scholarly consensus on this is vast and certain, so if you deny it you’re only kicking against the goad of your own ignorance.” Presumably, Carrier would – quite rightly – object that I need to interact with his arguments rather than simply make an appeal to scholarly consensus. This is somewhat of an inconsistency on Carrier’s part.

In this paper, I will be primarily interacting with Carrier’s book, On the Historicity of Jesus. However, I may on occasion also draw from other publications by Carrier, including his blog posts, which might serve to illuminate his views or where he may have anticipated some of the objections I raise here.

An Analysis of Carrier’s Exegesis of the Undisputed Pauline Corpus

If Carrier’s position is to withstand scrutiny, Carrier must plausibly interpret those texts in the Pauline corpus that appear to situate Jesus on earth. There are in fact quite a number of details provided by the seven undisputed letters of Paul that give the strong appearance of representing Jesus as having lived on earth. Paul tells us that Jesus was born of the seed of David (Rom 1:3); that He was born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4); that He delivered teachings about divorce (1 Cor 7:10); that He was betrayed (1 Cor 11:23); that He had a last supper (1 Cor 11:23-26); that He had brothers (Gal 1:19; 1 Cor 9:5); that He had twelve disciples (1 Cor 15:5); that He was crucified by the rulers of this age (1 Cor 2:8); and that He was killed by the Jews (1 Thes 2:13-16), and that He was buried. In this section, I will interact with Carrier’s exegesis of several of those texts listed above. I will not discuss Paul’s reference to “Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,” (1 Tim 6:13), since the authorship of the Pastorals is in scholarly dispute (and space does not permit me to do justice to the relevant literature), though I think a formidable case can be made for Pauline authorship of the Pastoral letters and indeed for all thirteen of Paul’s letters. I agree with Carrier, though for different reasons, that “There is a great deal wrong with how a ‘consensus’ has been reached on the dates and authorship of all these Christian materials, and the conclusions usually cited as established tend to be far more questionable than most scholars let on…I think there is a lot of work here that needs to be properly redone in NT studies, and I’m not alone in thinking that.”[4] I will also not discuss Paul’s reference to Jesus’ teachings on divorce or to the twelve, since I believe those can be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with Carrier’s thesis. The other texts listed above, however, are significant challenges to Carrier’s thesis, and it is to those that I now turn my attention.

Christ of the Seed of David (Rom 1:3): In the prologue of his letter to the Romans, Paul writes, “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born (γενομένου) of the seed (σπέρματος) of David according to the flesh,” (Rom 1:1-3). Carrier observes that, although the verb Paul uses here, γίνομαι, is used of birth by other authors, it is not the word that Paul customarily uses for birth, which is γεννάω (c.f. Rom 9:11; Gal 4:23,29).[5] Carrier argues that γίνομαι is used of God’s manufacture of Adam’s body from clay, and God’s manufacture of our glorified bodies in heaven. Thus, Carrier argues, this is a very odd word for Paul to use if he means to indicate that Jesus was born. Carrier’s proposed interpretation of Romans 1:3 is that God manufactured Jesus out of sperm that was obtained from David’s belly, an event that Carrier suggests took place in outer space.

Carrier has in mind here the Septuagint translation of Genesis 2:7, in which the word ἐγένετο (the aorist indicative form of γίνομαι) appears, describing the man as becoming a living creature. However, the word that is used here to describe the moment of divine manufacture is not ἐγένετο, but rather ἔπλασεν (the third person aorist indicative of the verb πλάσσω). The word ἐγένετο, rather, is used in this context to describe the change of state from non-living to living. Thus, it is not precisely correct to say that ἐγένετο refers to divine manufacture. Paul himself in fact alludes to this text (1 Cor 15:45). While Carrier asserts that Paul does not use γίνομαι to refer to a human birth, this only begs the question, since he must assume that Romans 1:3 and also Galatians 4:4 (which says that Jesus was born – γενόμενον – of a woman and born under the law) are not using the verb in this sense, which is the very question he is attempting to address. Furthermore, according to Liddell and Scott’s Intermediate Greek Lexicon, the verb γίνομαι, in the context of persons, means “to be born.”[6] We can independently verify this to be the case by analysing instances where this verb is used in the Septuagint, in order to discern how the word is used in relation to persons. Genesis 21:3 says, “Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore him, Isaac.” In the Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew word נּֽוֹלַד־ (“was born”) is translated γενομένου. Another example is Genesis 46:27: “And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two.” Again, the Greek Septuagint renders this as γενομένου. Finally, consider Genesis 48:5: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are.” Here once again, the Greek Septuagint uses the word γενομένου.

Carrier points out that Paul also uses another verb, γεννάω, to refer to being born. One instance is Romans 9:11: “though they were not yet born (γεννηθέντων) and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls.” The other instance is Galatians 4:23,29: “But the son of the slave was born (γεγέννηται) according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise… But just as at that time he who was born (γεννηθεὶς) according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.” While it may be granted that Paul uses the verb γεννάω to refer to being born, this entails nothing more than that Paul was willing to use synonyms for a word.

Another relevant question is how Paul himself uses the word σπέρματος (usually translated as “seed” or “offspring”) elsewhere. Paul writes, “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant (σπέρματος) of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin,” (Rom 11:1). Here, Paul uses the exact same word for descendant as he used in Romans 1:3 to describe Jesus as being a descendent of David. If Paul – as he presumably did – believed that his descendance from Abraham entailed that he himself existed on earth, then it stands to reason that he also believed that Jesus existed on earth by virtue of His descendance from David.

To wrap up my analysis of this text, I will note that it is very clear from the dead sea scrolls that there was an expectation of a Davidic Messiah, and, moreover, this is likewise very evident from the Hebrew Bible as well. Therefore, the interpretation that Paul intends to express that Christ was born of the line of David is much more plausible than Carrier’s thesis that it refers to divine manufacture.

Born of a Woman (Gal 4:4): In Galatians 4:4, Paul writes, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born (γενόμενον) of woman, born under the law.” Carrier connects this verse to Galatians 4:24, where Paul writes, “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.” Thus, Carrier wants to say that Galatians 4:4 is really only saying that Jesus was born of a covenant, not of a literal woman. This, however, is a very odd interpretation, since Paul only introduces the allegory in Galatians 4:21 — 17 verses after Galatians 4:4. In Galatians 4:24, Paul is only indicating that he is about to show an allegorical understanding of the narrative he has just alluded to in Genesis, concerning the births of Ishmael and Isaac. Indeed, the whole point of the allegorical interpretation of the two women is to show the true significance of Jesus’ birth given that Jesus traces his lineage back to Isaac, the child born through trust in God’s promise, and who who was born of the free woman Sarah (Gal 4:23).

But there is an even more damning objection to Carrier’s thesis here. That is, if Carrier’s theory about Galatians 4:4 is correct, then the allegorical interpretation makes sense only if we translate γενόμενον as “born” rather than “manufactured”. Therefore, if Carrier is correct here in his interpretation, he has himself refuted his own response to Romans 1:3, discussed above, that γενόμενον should not be used to refer to being born.

James the brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19): Paul claims personal acquaintance with an individual he refers to as “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19). Bart Ehrman cites this text as a persuasive piece of evidence for the historicity of Jesus.[7] Carrier observes that “Paul can use the phrase ‘brother of the Lord’ to mean Christian, since all Christians were brothers of the Lord.”[8] An example of this is Paul’s description of Jesus as “the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom 8:29). In response to this, Ehrman has pointed out that the phrase “the Lord’s brother” is used in Galatians 1:19 to distinguish James from Peter, who was not the brother of Jesus.[9] However, Carrier addresses this by pointing out that “the only two times [Paul] uses the full phrase ‘brother of the Lord’ (instead of its periphrasis ‘brother’), he needs to draw a distinction between apostolic and non-apostolic Christians.”[10] Thus, Carrier argues that James was not himself an apostle, and Paul uses the expression “the Lord’s brother” so as to distinguish him as a non-apostolic Christian, in contradistinction to Peter. However, this argument is problematic since it seems unlikely that Paul is implying – as would be required on Carrier’s interpretation – that he saw no other Christian, or even no-one of importance, in Jerusalem besides Peter and James. Ernest De Witt Burton concludes that “the phrase must probably be taken as stating an exception to the whole of the preceding assertion, and as implying that James was an apostle.”[11] Moreover, if Paul simply meant spiritual brother, one might expect him to instead write, ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν (“I saw none of the other apostles, except James our brother”). Indeed, Peter refers to ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος (“our brother Paul”) (2 Pet 3:15), so this would be a natural way of speaking of spiritual brotherhood.

Interestingly, Carrier also maintains that “only apostles ‘saw the Lord’, as that is what it was to be an apostle: to be one whom the Lord chose to reveal himself.”[12] But this statement appears to conflict with Carrier’s thesis that James was not an apostle, since Paul indicates that Jesus “appeared to James” (1 Cor 15:7). That this text is referring to the same James who is described in Galatians 1:19 is very likely, especially if, as suggested by many scholars, Paul received this creedal tradition upon his visit to Jerusalem some three years after his conversion, where he met with Peter and James (the very individuals specifically named in the creed) (Gal 1:18-19). Acts indicates that Peter and James were both prominent leaders in the Jerusalem church, and so they are natural for Paul to mention specifically by name. For Carrier to suggest that the individuals named James in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 15:7 are different persons is special pleading involving pure speculation to save his theory. The clustering of the names Cephas and James in those two texts also suggests that the same two individuals are in view.

Paul also refers to “the brothers of the Lord” in the context of asking, “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Cor 9:5). Carrier insists that these are no more than cultic brothers of the Lord, as are all baptized Christians (c.f. Rom 8:29). A more natural way for Paul to say this, however, would be, instead of οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς, to write Κηφᾶς καὶ άλλοι ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου (“Cephas and the other brothers of the Lord”, since Cephas would be a brother of the Lord also, albeit an apostolic one).

The way it is worded in 1 Corinthians 9:5 suggests that the expression “the brothers of the Lord” refers to specific individuals who have taken for themselves a believing wife, just as the name Cephas refers to a certain individual.

The fact that there exists independent evidence that Jesus had a brother called James also raises the prior probability that the allusion to “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19) is a reference to biological kinship. Mark reports people in a synagogue in Nazareth saying, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk 6:3; c.f. Mt 13:55). Mark also reports that one of the women who visited Jesus’ tomb on the first day of the week was “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,” (Mk 15:40). That this was Jesus’ mother is supported by the fact that Mark 6:3 reports that Jesus had brothers called James and Joses, likely mentioned in Mark 15:40 for their prominence in the early church. Matthew also indicates that Jesus had a brother called Joseph (Mt 13:55) – who presumably had inherited his father’s name – and Matthew’s account of the visit to the tomb of Jesus indicates that one of the women was “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 27:56). Thus, if Paul was identifying some other prominent Christian as “the brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), he would probably have taken pains to distinguish Him from this other James, the Lord’s biological brother. Though Carrier might reply that the gospel authors used Paul’s letters as a source and misunderstood his meaning in Galatians 1:19, this is unlikely, since the gospel authors appear to be well informed regarding the presence and identity of those women at the tomb on Easter morning, for reasons that I have documented elsewhere.[13]

The Rulers of This Age (1 Cor 2:7-8): Another text that Carrier must deal with is 1 Corinthians 2:7-8: “But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” At face value, this text certainly appears to indicate that Jesus was crucified on earth by the rulers and authorities of His day. Carrier argues that the “rulers” (ἀρχόντων – the genitive plural form of ἄρχων) here are demonic and spiritual forces rather than human authorities. In support of this, he argues, following Earl Doherty, that 1 Corinthians 2:8 “looks like a direct paraphrase of an early version of the Ascension of Isaiah, wherein Jesus is also the ‘Lord of Glory’, his descent and divine plan is also ‘hidden’ and the ‘rulers of this world’ are indeed the ones who crucify him, in ignorance of that hidden plan (see the Ascension of Isaiah 9.15; 9.32; 10.12,15). It even has an angel predict his resurrection on the third day (9.16), and the Latin/Slavonic contains a verse (in 11.34) that Paul actually cites as scripture, in the very same place (1 Cor. 2.9).”[14] However, that Paul is textually dependent upon the Ascension of Isaiah seems very unlikely, given that scholarly estimates of the date of the Ascension of Isaiah generally place it in the early second century (though estimates range between the late first century and the early third century). If there is any dependence, it is more likely that the Ascension is dependent on Paul, not the other way round.

Carrier claims that “The earliest version in fact was probably composed around the very same time as the earliest canonical Gospels were being written.”[15] However, Carrier offers no argument in support of this contention. Furthermore, no version of the Ascension of Isaiah indicates that Jesus was crucified by demons in the firmament. Maurice Casey, responding to Earl Doherty (from whom Carrier derives this argument) notes that “the devil is held responsible for an evil event. Crucifixions, however, took place on earth, as everyone knew, and there is nothing positive in this (or any other!) text to justify moving the crucifixion of Jesus up there. The subject of ‘will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree (9.14) is obviously people who were there at the time, the conventional story, which had been well known for centuries when this document was being compiled. There is no excuse for Doherty to invent the idea that this was really ‘Satan and his evil angels’ crucifying Jesus up there in the heavens.”[16] Indeed, the Latin 2 version and the Slavonic version state that Jesus was on earth in human form. Starting when Jesus reaches the fifth heaven, Jesus takes the form of the inhabitants of each realm to which he descends. Since Jesus becomes like Isaiah’s form, it is entailed that Jesus takes on a human form and thus he descended down to the earth. Indeed, the Latin 2 and Slavonic versions explicitly state, “And I saw one like a son of man, and he dwelt with men in the world, and they did not recognize him” (11:1). Thus, the Ascension of Isaiah teaches that Jesus did come to earth. Moreover, that Jesus was not crucified by spiritual legions is further supported by the fact that Jesus does not even give a password to the “angels of the air,” because they were “plundering and doing violence to one another,” (Ascension of Isaiah 10:31).

Returning to 1 Corinthians 2:7-8, is Carrier’s interpretation of the rulers of this age plausible? The same word, ἄρχοντες (the nominative plural form), is used in Romans 13:3 to refer to human rulers, so the word ἄρχοντες certainly can refer to human rulers. It is therefore appropriate to evaluate from the context of 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 whether the word there refers to spiritual forces or human authorities, a question that I will take up momentarily.

What about the word αἰών, translated “age” in 1 Corinthians 2:8? Can that word be used in a plain and temporal sense? Absolutely, it can. Indeed, Paul uses the word that way himself in the preceding chapter: “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?” (1 Cor 1:20). He also writes in the proceeding chapter, “Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise,” (1 Cor 3:18).

Now, what does the context of 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 reveal about the proper identification of the rulers of this age? Carrier correctly observes that there are parallel texts where the rulers are identified as the ones in heaven (Eph 3:9; 6:12). The point here, however, as we shall see, is the difference in context between the texts in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians. Paul, moreover, always uses specific modifying words when he is speaking about spiritual forces.

In any case, let us return to the specific context of 1 Corinthians 2. Paul writes, “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20). The one who is wise, the scribe, and the debater are clearly human individuals. Paul, moreover, refers to human strength (1:25); “a human perspective,” and things that are “foolish” and “weak” (1:27), “despised in the world” and insignificant (1:28), and to “human wisdom” (2:13). He furthermore adds that his desire is that the Corinthian faith “not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (2:5), and that, though he imparted wisdom, it was “not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away,” (2:6). It is in this context that we arrive at 2:8: “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” The text continues, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” (v. 9). Paul goes on to write, “For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God,” (v. 11) Paul’s primary referent appears to be humans the whole way through, not demonic forces. What Paul writes next supports this case yet further: “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ” (vv. 12-16, emphasis added).

Thus, while Carrier’s reading of this text is not entirely impossible, by far the more plausible interpretation of this text, it seems to me, is that the rulers being spoken of here are indeed primarily human rulers, not demonic or spiritual forces. However, even if it be conceded that the referent in this text is spiritual forces, this does not support Carrier’s thesis since apocalyptic Jews believed that demons acted through human agency. For example, in the book of Daniel, Gabriel tells Daniel, “The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,” (Daniel 10:13).

On the Night He was Betrayed (1 Cor 11:23-26): Carrier notes, rightly, that the verb παραδίδωμι, often translated in 1 Corinthians 11:23 as “to betray”, can also mean “to hand over.” Indeed, this same verb is even used of Jesus “giving up” His spirit at the time of his death (Jn 19:30). While “to betray” is certainly within this verb’s semantical range, Carrier is correct that this is an interpretive translation, based on the gospel accounts, and that “on the night He was handed over” – a reading that is consistent with Carrier’s thesis – would be an equally permissible translation. It is, however, more likely than not that betrayal is what Paul had in mind. All three of the synoptic gospels use this same verb in reporting Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and in those texts the “handing over” has connotations of betrayal (Mt 10:4; Mk 14:11; Lk 24:7).

Of further relevance here is Paul’s statement, also in this same chapter, that Jesus “took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me,’” (1 Cor 11:23-25). Carrier maintains that the meal being spoken of here is not an actual event that took place on earth, but something entirely hallucinated by Paul.[17] In support of this, he points to Paul’s words that “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,” (1 Cor 11:23). Thus, Carrier argues, this is information He has received directly from Jesus, and not from the apostles. However, Alfred Plummer and Archibald Robertson note, “why assume a supernatural communication when a natural one was ready at hand? It would be easy for St Paul to learn everything from some of the Twelve. But what is important is, not the mode of the communication, but the source. In some way or other St Paul received this from Christ, and its authenticity cannot be gainsaid; but his adding ἀπὸ ταῦ Κυρίου is no guide as to the way in which he received it.”[18]

The Jews who killed the Lord Jesus (1 Thes 2:15): Paul writes, “For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Thes 2:14-16). Carrier argues that this text is an interpolation, and was not originally part of Paul’s letter. However, not a single sufficiently complete manuscript lacks this text, so the arguments for supposing this text to be an interpolation rest entirely on considerations besides textual critical ones. The reason why some scholars have viewed this text as a scribal interpolation is because, though the epistle was written around 51 A.D., the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) appears to be in view, especially in verse 16b. However, David J. Williams points out that “there is nothing that compels us to identify this passage and, in particular, the second half of verse 16 with that disaster. An alternative suggestion (always assuming that the reference is to something past and not future) contends that Paul had in mind the series of disasters in A.D. 49 involving Jews, including a massacre in the temple (Josephus, War 2.224–227; Ant. 20.105–112) and their expulsion from Rome (Suetonuis, Claudius 25.4; cf. Acts 18:2 and see further, Williams, Acts, pp. 319f.). But in the context of this letter and in the light of 1:10 especially, it may be best to understand the reference as eschatological—the wrath is yet to come upon them. In this case, the aorist (past) tense would be functioning in the prophetic manner to express what is future.”[19] The grounds for presuming this text to be an interpolation, therefore, seem to be quite weak.

Christ was Buried (1 Cor 15:4): The final text I will deal with from the undisputed Pauline corpus is Paul’s reference to Jesus’ burial (1 Cor 15:4). Carrier maintains that the “same popular cosmology, the heavens, including the firmament, were not empty expanses but filled with all manner of things, including palaces and gardens, and it was possible to be buried there.”[20] He notes that “In this worldview, everything on earth was thought to be a mere imperfect copy of their truer forms in heaven, which were not abstract Platonic forms but actual physical objects in outer space.”[21] In support of his contention that in the ancient cosmology it was possible to be buried in the firmament, Carrier claims that “the Revelation of Moses says Adam was buried in Paradise, literally up in outer space, in the third heaven, complete with celestial linen and oils. Thus human corpses could be buried in the heavens.”[22] In a footnote, Carrier cites Revelation of Moses 32-41 (esp. 32.4, 37-40). However, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is drawing a comparison between what happened to Jesus and what will happen to other people in the day of the Lord. Jesus is described as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep,” (1 Cor 15:20). Indeed, Paul spills much ink in his letters defending the coming general resurrection of the dead in Christ. Paul points to Jesus as an example. In this text, Paul is saying that Jesus is the first of the faithful to die physically and to be resurrected in a transformed spiritual body. Since Jesus is the firstfruits of those who will be resurrected on earth, it seems most probable that, just like all of the other human bodies that were buried on earth, Paul is envisioning Jesus as having been buried on earth. Carrier thus has to engage in special pleading to make an exception in Jesus’ case. Paul’s argument here makes not one lick of sense unless he believed that Jesus had a real flesh and blood body that lived physically on earth.

The Relevance of the Book of Acts to Pauline Interpretation

If Luke-Acts represents the composition of an individual who was a travelling companion of the apostle Paul, then it would be quite odd if Luke and Paul were to have such strikingly different views of who Jesus was. Luke clearly perceived Jesus to have been a man who walked on earth. On Carrier’s thesis, this is particularly surprising given that Paul does not mention or differentiate himself from any alternative school which maintained that Jesus walked on earth. A demonstration of the personal acquaintance of Luke with Paul, therefore, provides confirmatory evidence that the traditional interpretation of Pauline Christology is essentially correct. There exist numerous lines of evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul. Notably, there are the famous “we” passages, beginning in Acts 16, which are best understood as indicating the author’s presence in the scenes he narrates. Craig Keener observes that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi.[23] This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi.

Luke demonstrates very specific and detailed local knowledge that points to his close familiarity with Paul’s travels. These are all items of information that would not have been general knowledge or easily accessible. I will provide a few examples here to give a flavour of the sort of evidence we are talking about, though other authors, such as Colin Hemer, have documented many more.[24] I will list a handful of instances of the titles of local officials that Luke so effortlessly gets right. Luke gets right the precise designation for the magistrates of the colony at Philippi as στρατηγοὶ (Acts 16:22), following the general term ἄρχοντας in verse 19. Luke also uses the correct term πολιτάρχας of the magistrates in Thessalonica (17:6). He also gets right the term Ἀρεοπαγίτης as the appropriate title for the member of the court in Areopagus (Acts 17:34). He also correctly identifies Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12), an allusion that allows us to date the events to the period of summer of 51 A.D. to the spring of 52 A.D., since that is when Gallio served as proconsul of Achaia. Luke, moreover, uses the correct title, γραμματεὺς, for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35), found in inscriptions there. Furthermore, when Luke tells us of the riot in Ephesus, he indicates that the city clerk told the crowd that “There are proconsuls” (Acts 19:38). A proconsul is a Roman authority to whom one might take a complaint. Normally, there was only one. So, why does Luke so casually use the plural term (ἀνθύπατοί) here? It turns out that, just at that particular time, there was in fact two as a result of the assassination by poisoning, in the fall of 54 A.D., of the previous proconsul, Silanus (Tacitus’ Annals 13.1). This, again, is something that would be rather difficult to get right by fluke. Luke even uses the correct Athenian slang word that the Athenians use of Paul in 17:18, σπερμολόγος (literally, “seed picker”), as well as the term used of the court in 17:19 — Ἄρειον Πάγον, meaning “the hill of Ares”. Luke also gets right numerous points of geography, sea routes, and landmarks. For example, he is correct about a natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5). He names the proper port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13). He names the proper port, Attalia, that returning travelers would use (14:25). Luke also correctly names the place of a sailor’s landmark, Samothrace (16:11). He also correctly implies that sea travel was the most convenient means of traveling from Berea to Athens (17:14-15). Furthermore, Colin Hemer notes that “Paul’s staying behind at Troas and travelling overland to rejoin the ship’s company at Assos is appropriate to local circumstances, where the ship had to negotiate an exposed coast and double Cape Lectum before reaching Assos,” (Acts 20:13-14).[25]

Luke even gets the implied location of the island of Cauda correct in Acts 27, despite Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder getting it wrong.[26] And so it goes on and on. Furthermore, numerous passages of Acts artlessly dovetail with Paul’s letters in a way that supports both the truth of Acts as well as the authenticity of the letters.[27] For example, the cause of Barnabas’ strong desire for Mark to accompany him and Paul (eventually leading to them splitting ways) (Acts 15:36-41) is illuminated by a casual reference by Paul to the fact that Barnabas and Mark were cousins (Col 4:10), a detail not supplied by Acts.

Carrier dedicates a chapter of his book to discussing the book of Acts[28], though his arguments in that chapter are extremely disappointing – possibly even more so than his handling of the Pauline corpus. Moreover, Carrier adopts an extremist and indefensible position, namely, that the narrative of the book of Acts is “certainly not what happened, even in outline.”[29] Space does not permit me to discuss all of this chapter’s many problems in detail, but I will offer a few examples.

Carrier complains that “In Acts’ history of the movement, from the moment the flock first goes public, in the very city of Jerusalem itself, at no point in the story (anywhere in all subsequent 27 chapters spanning three decades of history) do either the Romans or the Jews ever show any knowledge of there being a missing body. Nor do they ever take any action to investigate what could only be to them a crime of tomb robbery and desecration of the dead (both severe death penalty offenses), or worse.”[30] However, this is an argument from silence, which is an extremely weak form of argument in historical inquiry.[31] Just because a source makes no mention of an event, even when he might be expected to, it does not provide strong evidence disconfirming the event in question. For example, the first-century Jewish writers Josephus and Philo both fail to mention the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius, though it is mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius in the second century (Claudius 25.4). There is only one brief mention of the event in any first-century source (Acts 18:2). Despite the silence of these authors, it is widely recognized by historians that this event took place.

A second complaint that Carrier has about Acts is the fact that “all the people associated with a historical Jesus…disappear from the historical record entirely.”[32] As examples, Carrier points out that Pontius Pilate, Joseph of Arimathea, Simon of Cyrene, and his sons, Martha, Lazarus, Nicodemus, and Mary Magdalene are not mentioned at all in the book of Acts. However, this is an argument from silence of the very weakest sort. The silence of the book of Acts on the fate of characters who are significant in the gospels does in no way impugn the historicity of Acts. The book of Acts is about the spread of early Christianity and about certain key apostles, particularly Peter and Paul. There is absolutely no reason whatever to expect Acts to mention every character with a role in the gospels.

Carrier also claims that Luke contradicts Paul’s letters. He writes, “For example, we know Paul ‘was unknown by face to the churches of Judea’ until many years after his conversion (as he explains in Gal. 1.22-23), and after his conversion, he went away to Arabia before returning to Damascus, and he didn’t go to Jerusalem for at least three years (as he explains in Gal. 1.15-18), whereas Acts 7-9 has him known to and interacting with the Jerusalem church continuously from the beginning, even before his conversion, and instead of going to Arabia immediately after his conversion, in Acts he goes immediately to Damascus and then back to Jerusalem just a few weeks later, and never spends a moment in Arabia. And yet we have the truth from Paul himself.”[33] However, a closer inspection of those texts reveals no contradiction at all. Luke tells us that “When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket,” (Acts 9:23-25). How long a period of time is denoted by “…many days…”? In 1 Kings 2:38-39, the phrase “many days” in Hebrew is immediately glossed as three years. But what about the trip to Arabia? Luke is silent on it, but does Luke contradict Paul’s claim that he went to Arabia? I would place Paul’s trip to Arabia within the “many days” of Acts 9:23. Paul also informs us that he “returned again to Damascus (Gal 1:17), so it is not surprising that his subsequent trip to Jerusalem is from Damascus. As for Paul being “still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ” during his travels through Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:22), this does not seem to me to be a great difficulty at all. Acts 8:1-3 indicates that Paul had been involved in persecuting the church in Jerusalem, to be distinguished from the whole region of Judea. Acts 8:1 in fact indicates that the believers in Jerusalem “were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.” They no doubt would have told other believers with whom they came into contact of the persecution they had experienced under Saul of Tarsus, but it does not follow that the churches in Judea would generally have known him by sight, although they would doubtless have known him by reputation.

Carrier also claims various textual parallels that he argues “are too numerous to be believable history, and reflect the deliberate intentions of the author to create a narrative that served his purpose.”[34] However, even if textual parallels are close enough (and sufficiently improbable by coincidence) to be indicative of authorial intent, it is possible for an author to draw a parallel between real history and some other narrative, and deliberately word his account with the intent of drawing the reader’s mind to that text. The parallels Carrier draws, however, are generally unconvincing. For example, Carrier claims that “Luke makes Paul’s story parallel Christ’s.”[35] The parallels he draws attention to include that “both undertake peripatetic preaching journeys, culminating in a last long journey to Jerusalem, where each is arrested in connection with a disturbance in the temple’, then ‘each is acquitted by a Herodian monarch, as well as by Roman procurators’. Both are also plotted against by the Jews, and both are innocent of the charges brought against them. Both are interrogated by ‘the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin’ (Acts 22.30; Lk. 22.66; cf. Mk 14.55; 15.1), and both know their death is foreordained and make predictions about what will happen afterward, shortly before their end (Lk. 21.5-28; Acts 20.2-38; cf. also 21.4).”[36] These coincidences are not at all sufficiently improbable to indicate authorial intent, in particular since Jesus and Paul both occupied the same socio-political setting.

Furthermore, Carrier subsequently goes on to note that “Paul does almost everything bigger than Jesus: his journeys encompass a much larger region of the world (practically the whole northeastern Mediterranean); he travels on and around a much larger sea (the Mediterranean rather than the Sea of Galilee); and though, like Jesus, on one of these journeys at sea he faces the peril of a storm yet is saved by faith, Paul’s occasion of peril actually results in the destruction of a ship. Likewise, Paul’s trial spans years instead of a single night, and unlike Jesus, veritable armies plot to assassinate Paul, and actual armies come to rescue him (Acts 23.20-24). While Jesus stirs up violence against himself by reading scripture in one synagogue (Lk. 4.16-30), Paul stirs up violence against himself by reading scripture in two synagogues (Acts 13.14-52 and 17.1-5). However, whereas Christ’s story ends with his gruesome death (which had a grand salvific purpose, which could not be claimed for Paul’s ultimate death, and which to end well had to be followed by a once-and-final resurrection, something that could also not be claimed for Paul), Paul’s story ends on a conspicuously opposite note: ‘and he abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and received all that went to him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding him’, something even Jesus could not accomplish when he was in Roman custody (Acts 28.30-31). Thus Paul out-does Jesus even in that.” It appears here that, according to Carrier’s historical methodology, similarities between Jesus’ and Paul’s life are to be taken as evidence against Acts’ historicity, and differences between Jesus’ and Paul’s life are also to be taken as evidence against Acts’ historicity. This is a classic ‘heads I win; tails you lose’ argument.

Carrier also argues for a late date of Acts, following Richard Pervo who dates Acts to the second century A.D.[37] The primary motivation for such a late date is the argument that Luke was dependent upon Josephus’ Antiquities (~93 or 94 A.D.). Craig Keener notes in response to this suggestion that “It would be difficult, however, for Luke to have made direct use of Josephus; Josephus’s Antiquities probably was issued about 93/94, and the copies of its twenty books would have been quite expensive and not readily available soon after their publication to nonelite persons.”[38] Furthermore, he adds, “In the final analysis, it is highly unlikely that Luke depends on Josephus. The strongest argument for dependence is Luke’s citation of Theudas and Judas. Yet it seems unlikely that Luke would have read Jos. Ant. 18–20, used barely any of it, and then gotten wrong the one point most likely drawn from it, if he was dependent at all. The other matters that he could have taken from Josephus were widely known. Josephus did not compose his reports of Theudas or Judas from thin air, and oral or written reports about these leaders would have been available to Luke as well as to Josephus. Josephus completed his Antiquities no earlier than 93 C.E., but Luke’s sometimes positive portrayal of Roman administrators probably would make less sense in the later years of Domitian’s reign.”[39]

Finally, Carrier claims that whereas “everywhere else, the speeches and sermons in Acts are conspicuously historicist; but when Paul is on trial, where in fact historicist details are even more relevant and would even more certainly come up, they are suddenly completely absent. That is very strange; which means, very improbable. The best explanation of this oddity is that Paul’s trial accounts were not wholesale Lukan fabrications but came from a different source than the speeches and sermons Luke added in elsewhere – a source that did not know about a historical Jesus.”[40] However, Paul’s allusion to “the name of Jesus of Nazareth” in His defense before Agrippa implies that Nazareth was Jesus’ hometown (Acts 26:9). The Greek is τὸ ὄνομα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου (literally, “the name of Jesus the Nazarene”). Carrier might respond to this by claiming that the Nazarenes may have been a cultic sect, and that it is not referring to the town of Nazareth in Galilee.[41] However, it is worthy of attention that the servant girl in Matthew 26:71 likewise uses the exact same expression, speaking of Peter: Οὗτος ἦν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου (“this man was with Jesus the Nazarene”). But Matthew clearly believed that Jesus was raised in the town of Nazareth in Galilee (Mt 2:23; 21:11). Since the idea that Jesus was born in the town of Nazareth is found in all four gospels, including the independent birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, it is likely that this tradition goes back extremely early.

To summarize this section, there are good reasons to believe the author of Acts to have been a travelling companion of Paul, and Carrier fails to offer comparably good reasons for thinking he was not. If Paul was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, then it is quite surprising on Carrier’s thesis that Luke and Paul believed such starkly different things about Jesus – especially something as fundamental as whether Jesus lived on earth or was a celestial being who never actually walked the earth. Thus, the evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul suggests that the traditional interpretation of Pauline Christology is the correct hermeneutical framework for understanding those texts previously discussed.

Conclusion

To conclude, the evidence from the Pauline corpus strongly indicates that the apostle Paul believed that Jesus was a real person who lived physically on earth. Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, and thus the beliefs of apocalyptic Jews must be taken as the interpretive framework for understanding Paul’s letters. Since Paul was personally acquainted with multiple first-hand eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life (including Jesus’ closest disciple Peter, and Jesus’ biological brother James), Paul’s testimony provides good reason to conclude that Jesus existed.

Footnotes

[1] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014).

[2] Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man – The Case for a Mythical Jesus (Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications, 2009).

[3] Richard Carrier, Why I Am Not a Christian – Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith (California: Philosophy Press, 2009), 60.

[4] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 304.

[5] Ibid., 658. See also Richard Carrier, “The Cosmic Seed of David”, Richard Carrier Blogs, October 18, 2017. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13387.

[6] Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Calerondon Press, 2019).

[7] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (California: HarperOne, 2012), 145-148.

[8] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 669.

[9] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (California: HarperOne, 2012), 145-148. See also Bart Ehrman, “Carrier and James the Brother of Jesus”, The Bart Ehrman Blog – The History and Literature of Early Christianity, November 5, 2016. https://ehrmanblog.org/carrier-and-james-the-brother-of-jesus/

[10] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 588-590. See also Richard Carrier, “Ehrman and James the Brother of the Lord”, Richard Carrier Blogs, November 6, 2016. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516.

[11] Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1920), 60.

[12] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 137.

[13] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[14] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 64.

[15] Ibid., 53.

[16] Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicst Myths? (Biblical Studies) (London: T&T Clark, 2014), 262.

[17] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 642. See also Richard Carrier, “Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus”, Richard Carrier Blogs, April 25, 2018. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13812.

[18] Alfred A. Plummer and Archibald T. Robertson, A critical and exegetical commentary on the First epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (New York: T&T Clark, 1911), 242–243).

[19] David J. Williams, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Michigan: Baker Books), 48–49.

[20] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 217.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., 220.

[23] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

[24] Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

[25] Ibid., 125.

[26] Ibid., 330-331. See also James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880).

[27] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Ohio: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017). See also William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].

[28] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), chapter 9.

[29] Ibid., 424.

[30] Ibid., 429.

[31] Timothy McGrew, “The Argument from Silence”, Acta Analytica 29, 215-228 (October 2013).

[32] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 431.

[33] Ibid., 423.

[34] Ibid., 424.

[35] Ibid., 425.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 308; Richard Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologist (California: Polebridge, 2006).

[38] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 394.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 437.

[41] Ibid., 562.

Was Luke Wrong about the Census?

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ

By Ryan Leasure

One of the more challenging texts in the Gospels is Luke’s reference to the census. We read in Luke 2:1-5:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David, which was called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.

So, why is this text difficult? It’s difficult because Luke places Quirinius’ census at the time of Jesus’ birth prior to King Herod’s death in 4 BC (Mt 2:1; Lk 1:5). Historical records, however, date Quirinius’ Syrian governorship from AD 6-9. This alleged historical discrepancy has led to objections of various kinds. These objections can be summarized into five main points:[1]

Nothing is known of an empire-wide census during Augustus.
No census would require Joseph to travel to Bethlehem.
No census would have happened in Palestine during the reign of King Herod.
Josephus only knows of Quirinius’ census in AD 6.
Quirinius was not the governor of Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth.

Do these five objections prove that Luke was wrong about the census? Let’s consider each of them in turn.

Nothing is known of an empire-wide census during Augustus

This claim simply isn’t true. According to historical records, Augustus instituted at least three censuses.[2] We also know of other cyclical censuses that transpired across in the empire during this time period in places such as Syria, Gaul, and Spain.[3] If this is true, why couldn’t Augustus issue a census in Palestine for taxation purposes?

No Census would Require Joseph to Travel to Bethlehem

This objection assumes that Rome did not allow local regions to operate according to their own customs. We know, however, that Rome often allowed Israel to operate according to their own customs provided they didn’t cause too trouble for the Romans. For example, they were allowed to observe the Sabbath, maintain their temple, and opt-out of activities that violated their Jewish consciences.[4] With this in mind, it seems perfectly reasonable to think that Rome would allow the Jewish people to conduct an ancestral census per their customs (2 Sam 24).

Additionally, Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem coincides with the time period of Herod the Great’s reign. For if this census occurred in AD 6, Joseph never would have left Herod Antipas’ territory (Nazareth) to Archelaus’ territory (Bethlehem). A journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem for registration purposes only makes sense during an era when both towns were part of one jurisdiction. After Herod died, these territories were split up.

No Census would have happened in Palestine during the Reign of King Herod

This claim overexaggerates Herod’s power. After all, Herod was a puppet king for the Romans. Yes, he’s historically referred to as King Herod the Great, but let’s not forget that Caesar could have deposed him at any moment. Herod simply rose to power through some politically calculated moves on his part.

Furthermore, The Romans frequently conducted censuses in vassal kingdoms across the empire.[5] Palestine wouldn’t have been any different.

We also know that after Herod’s death, Roman taxes were slashed by 25% in Samaria under the rule of Archelaus, indicating that regular taxes existed in Palestine during the time of Jesus’ birth.

Josephus only knows of Quirinius’ census in AD 6

Josephus dates the Quirinian census to thirty-seven years after Octavian defeated Mark Antony at Actium in 31 BC. Thirty-seven years later places the census in AD 6.[6] Josephus also tells us that this census caused a significant revolt. Those who deny that a census took place during the birth of Jesus suggest that the AD 6 revolt was due to the fact that Rome had never conducted a census in Palestine such as this. But as has already been discussed, we have good reasons to reject that view.

Others suggest that the revolt occurred because Rome ignored the Jewish customs during the AD 6 census. Meaning, previous censuses were conducted in a way that satisfied the Jewish people. If this hypothesis is true, Josephus would have and no reason to comment on the Luke 2 census since it occurred without controversy. As with most historians, Josephus only writes about “newsworthy” events.

We must also note that just because Luke is the only one who testifies to this earlier census doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur. We have thousands of singularly attested events in ancient literature. Additional sources would certainly give us more confidence that those events occurred, but not having additional sources in no way proves those events didn’t happen. Let’s also bear in mind that Luke has proven himself to be meticulously accurate in his handling of facts that can be checked.[7]

Quirinius was not the Governor of Syria During the Time of Jesus’ Birth

If Jesus was born in 4 BC, and Quirinius wasn’t governor of Syria until AD 6, how can Luke be right about the timing of the census? Three solutions have been offered to this challenging objection.

First, many have suggested that Quirinius served as the Syrian governor twice. In fact, historical data leaves a governorship gap between 4-1 BC. Which means, we don’t know who served as governor of Syria during that time. The challenge with this particular view is that even if Quirinius filled the historical gap, his rule most likely would have come after Herod’s death. Yet this explanation could still work. Censuses were known to take several years. If the census began while Herod still reigned over Judea, the results might not have emerged until Quirinius’ reign so that his name was attached to the census.

Second, others argue that Quirinius was not the governor Syria during the Luke 2 census. Rather, he served in some administrative capacity – perhaps an overseer for the Syrian census. After all, Luke does not use the technical Greek word for “governor” in the text. Rather, he uses a verb which means “to rule, command, or lead.” In other words, Luke indicates that Quirinius was ruling in some kind of leadership capacity during this census. And since a census was a big job, it makes sense that someone would be appointed to oversee the project.

Third, some have proposed a different solution altogether. Instead of arguing from history, many have gone down the textual route by suggesting that the Greek word prote should not be translated “first” but “before.” If this is true, Luke is saying that the census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria. But without getting too technical, this view is a stretch. It also seems odd for Luke to tell us that this event occurred before someone was governor. Why not tell us who the governor was at the time? Most scholars agree that “first” is the better translation.

Solution

Based on the above discussion, we don’t need to adopt the view that Luke committed a historical blunder on the Luke 2 census. We know that Rome conducted censuses somewhat frequently, and Jewish customs would have required Joseph to return to his native homeland.

Luke also indicates in Luke 2 that this was the “first” census. Meaning, he knew of a later census. And it just so happens he refers to that later census from AD 6 in Acts 5:31 – the one which led to a Jewish revolt.

But how do we reconcile a census during the rule of both Herod and Quirinius? It seems to me that the best explanation is that Quirinius was appointed as administrator of this earlier census. After all, Luke did not indicate that Quirinius was the “governor” of Syria, despite our English translations. He merely indicated that he “ruled” at that time. We know that he later became the official governor of Syria in AD 6. But as is the case with most people in political power, they usually have other positions along the way as they climb their way up the ladder.

While we can’t be historically certain on this hypothesis, we don’t need adopt the view that Luke made a mistake.

Notes

[1] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 903.

[2] Tacitus, Annals 1.11; Dio Cassius, Roman History 53.30.2

[3] Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50. 904.

[4] Josephus, Antiquities. 14.10.6, 20.

[5] Hoehner, H. W., Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ cites 16 examples. Tacitus, Annals 2.42; 6.41

[6] Josephus, Antiquities. 17.13.5; 18.1.1.

[7] See Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.

Do the Genealogies of Jesus Contradict?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ry Leasure

If you’ve read through the gospels, you’ve probably noticed that they share much in common. In some places, the wording is exactly the same. In other places, they’re so different it looks like they might contradict. These similarities and differences are often dubbed the synoptic problem. The word synoptic means “to see together.” The synoptic problem has led scholars to ask, why are there similarities in the gospels? And also, why are there differences?

The prevailing theory amongst scholars is that the similarities in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) can be explained by the authors’ use of the same sources. Most believe Mark wrote his gospel first, and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark to compile their gospels. They’ve reached this conclusion because roughly 90% of Mark is found in Matthew, and about 60% is contained in Luke. Additionally, both Matthew and Luke shared another common source known as a “Q” – taken from the German word Quelle, meaning “source.” This sayings source explains Matthew and Luke’s common material not found in Mark. And then, both Matthew and Luke had their separate individual sources – sometimes referred to as M and L – which explains their own unique material. Luke’s prologue gives us a bit of a sneak peek into this process (Lk. 1:1-4).

In sum, these different sources explain both the similarities as well as the differences. Some, however, have tripped up over the differences. In fact, many go so far as to suggest that the gospels contradict one another. One such example is found in Jesus’ genealogies, to which we now turn our attention.

Jesus’ Genealogies

Only Matthew and Luke contain Jesus’ genealogy. And one side-by-side comparison reveals that the genealogies are radically different. So much so, that skeptics believe they’re irreconcilable. I’ve listed the genealogies from Matthew 1:1-18 and Luke 3:23-38 below for your convenience. Take a quick look at them so you can better understand the skeptic’s complaint:

At first glance, one glaring difference exists – Luke’s genealogy is much longer than Matthew’s. The reason? Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam while Matthew stops at Abraham. In both genealogies, the line from Abraham to David is roughly the same. But once we move past David, the genealogies diverge. Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan. Also, notice that Joseph has a different father in each account – Jacob in Matthew, Heli in Luke. How can we reconcile these differences? Lest we be tempted to think this is anything new, the church has dealt with this issue for almost two thousand years. And throughout that time, three different explanations have been given to explain the differences.

Option 1: Joseph vs. Mary’s Genealogy

One of the more popular explanations for the differences is to suggest that Matthew traces Joseph’s genealogy while Luke traces Mary’s. If this is true, the difference in genealogies makes sense. Think about your own genealogy for a moment. If you were to trace your father’s line and your mother’s line, you would get radically different family trees. Your father’s father and your mother’s father have different names. In Jesus’ case, his father’s father is Jacob while his mother’s father is Heli.

The reason some take this approach is because Matthew focuses his attention on Joseph in the birth narratives while Luke focuses more on Mary. In Luke, he describes Gabriel’s conversation with Mary, Mary’s Magnificat, and Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth. Moreover, even though Luke doesn’t mention Mary in the genealogy, he couches Jesus’ sonship to Joseph by saying “as it was supposed” (Lk. 3:23). Each of these clues indicates that Luke didn’t intend to give us Joseph’s ancestry but Mary’s.

Option 2: Royal vs. Biological Genealogy

Another explanation for the differences is that Matthew traces Jesus’ royal line with an emphasis on his Messianic claim to the throne while Luke traces Jesus’ biological line. According to this view, Matthew gives us several clues to suggest that he’s giving us a theological genealogy with an emphasis on King David, not a strict biological line.

For starters, Matthew begins the genealogy by stating, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt. 1:1). It’s well-known that Matthew writes to a primarily Jewish-Christian audience who would have understood the expectation that the Messiah would come through the line of David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer. 23:5-6). Therefore, from the outset, he tips off his readers to where he’s going with this genealogy.

Second, the mention of “Christ” alongside the name of Jesus in verse 1 also indicates Matthew’s intentions. While many may think of “Christ” as Jesus’ last name, it’s actually a title. It’s the Greek title for the Messiah. So, when Matthew prefaces his genealogy by stating that it’s the genealogy of Jesus Christ, he’s giving further evidence to his readers that his intention is to demonstrate that Jesus comes in the kingly line of David.

A third indicator that Matthew isn’t giving us a biological line but a royal one is his breakdown of the genealogy into groups of fourteen. In verse 17 we read, “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.”

A couple of points are worth noting here. Biblical scholars agree that the refrain “father of” or “son of” in genealogies don’t necessarily mean one generation after the next. Often times, genealogies will skip several generations. The language simply means that one is the ancestor of the next person in the line. Another point worth noting is the significance of the number fourteen and the Hebrew concept of Gematria. Gematria was the practice of ascribing a numerical number to a Hebrew letter – the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Aleph) has the numeral value of one and so on. Interestingly, the numerical value of David is fourteen. D(4) V(6) D(4) – 4 + 6 + 4 = 14.

It’s as if Matthew has a giant neon sign flashing “Son of David!” Luke doesn’t use any of these literary devices. He simply records the biological line of Jesus. And while Americans may be unfamiliar with the concept of royal lines, our British friends know that the line doesn’t always pass down neatly from father to son. In fact, the current queen of England inherited the throne from her father who inherited it from his brother. And the next king will probably be the queen’s grandson. All that to say, the royal line often diverges from the biological line.

Option 3: Levirate Marriage

A third explanation for the differences is the use of Levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is detailed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and states that if a married man dies without a male heir, his brother or closest relative must marry and seek to propagate with the widow in order to carry on the name of his deceased brother. This practice explains the Sadducees’ question to Jesus about which man would be a woman’s husband in heaven after going through seven brothers who all died (Mt. 22:24-28).

On this theory, something like the following scenario plays out: Jacob (Joseph’s father in Matthew’s genealogy) died before producing a male heir with his wife. Then, in order to fulfill the Levirate laws, Heli (a close relative of Jacob’s), marries Jacob’s widow and then conceives with his new wife which brings about Joseph. If this type of scenario played out, Joseph would be the legal son of Jacob and the biological son of Heli. Then Matthew traces Jacob’s line backwards to Abraham while Luke traces Heli’s line back to Adam. Scholars have listed several of these scenarios where something like this happened.

What’s the Best Explanation?

As I consider the three options, one of the options seems the least tenable. And that is option 1. While many have employed this option to explain the differences, Luke specifically states Joseph as the next person in Jesus’ genealogy, not Mary. He couches this relationship by stating “as it was supposed” because of his knowledge of the virgin birth. More than that, ancient Jewish genealogies always passed through the male’s line, not the female’s. Luke would have understood Jesus as Joseph’s adopted son.

This leaves options 2 and 3 as viable explanations, and my personal opinion is that a combination of the two best explains the differences in genealogies. Matthew clearly isn’t trying to give us a strict chronology with how he groups the names into lists of fourteen. Moreover, by tracing the line through king Solomon instead of Nathan like Luke, Matthew seeks to emphasize the royal nature of Jesus’ line. The levirate marriages could also help explain why different names exist in the genealogy as well.

In the end, we can’t be entirely certain which option is right. But one thing is for certain: we have viable explanations for why the genealogies are different in Matthew and Luke.

How Jesus “Emptied Himself”

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Few biblical texts receive as much attention as Philippians 2:5-8. It reads:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Theologians have spilt much ink over this text. After all, it’s a rich Christological text which proclaims significant truths about the nature of Christ. But far and away, the most controversial part is the phrase “but emptied himself.” What does this statement mean?

The Dilemma

Does this mean that Jesus emptied himself of his deity, thus ceasing to be God during his incarnation? After all, if he was fully God, how could he also be a human at the same time? This seems like a logical contradiction.

Or, perhaps the phrase means that he set aside certain divine attributes while maintaining others. In other words, he still kept some of his divine nature — holiness, love, wisdom — but willingly set aside other parts of his divinity — omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience — in order to be human. This view has attracted many supporters because it seeks to reconcile how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and present everywhere God could also possess qualities such as limited wisdom and limited spatial presence.

Or, does this phrase mean something else entirely? In fact, I do believe it means something else entirely, and I think I have good reasons for believing this. Allow me to explain.

The Deity Of Christ

There’s little doubt that this text proclaims Jesus as the pre-existent God of the universe. This text gives us two reasons for reaching this conclusion.

First, it states that Jesus was “in the form of God.” The word for “form” in the Greek is morphe, which denotes the exact substance or nature of something. Therefore, by declaring that Jesus was “in the form of God,” Paul emphatically states that Jesus shares the exact same nature as God. He is eternal, self-existent, all-powerful, all-knowing, holy, love, and so forth.

Second, Paul tells us that Jesus was equal with God when he wrote, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” Nothing, however, is equal to God except God. God even declares in Isaiah 46:9, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.” If what God says in Isaiah is true, how then could Paul make Jesus out to be God’s equal? It must be that Jesus himself is also God.

The Meaning Of “Emptied Himself”

We now come to the most controversial part of the text. What does Paul mean when he says Jesus emptied himself? I believe he tells us in the next part of the text when he asserts, “[Jesus] emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” Here, Paul indicates that the emptying of Christ doesn’t include losing any of his deity. Rather, the emptying includes adding a human nature to himself. In other words, it’s the formula of subtraction by addition.¹

Notice the text doesn’t state that Jesus emptied “part of himself.” That would indicate that he set aside portions of his divine nature in order to become a human. No, it simply states that he “emptied himself” by taking on the nature of a human.

Paul expresses that, even though Jesus had a divine nature and an exulted status in glory, he willingly chose to “empty himself” by coming to earth to experience all the limitations and sufferings of a human, ultimately culminating in his death on the cross.

This view is consistent with the historic orthodox view of the nature of Christ. At the Council at Chalcedon (AD 451), the church declared that Jesus was one unique person who possessed both a human and divine nature. That is to say; he was fully God and fully human, not part God part man. And for clarification, he wasn’t two persons. Rather, he was one person who had an eternal divine nature and an added human nature in the incarnation. Again, subtraction by addition.

“Emptied Himself” Illustrated

Let me give you an illustration to explain how adding something could look like subtraction.² Imagine that one day you decided to go to a luxury car dealership to test drive the nicest car in the showroom. The salesman gave you permission, so you took the shiny car out for a spin.

As you were driving down the road on that rainy day, you noticed a field off to your right and decided to take the car off-roading to see how well it could do donuts. After about fifteen minutes of spinning around in the field, sufficiently caking the car in mud, you took the car back to the dealership, handed the keys to the salesman, and thanked him for allowing you to test drive the car.

As you can imagine, the salesman demanded an explanation for why you plastered his new shiny car with mud. To which you responded, “hey buddy, why are you so upset? Did I take anything away from the car? No, I only added to it. I added mud!”

You see, even after the fifteen-minute test drive, the new luxurious car was still a new luxurious car. The full coating of mud, however, disguised its glory, so it wasn’t as obvious as before. In the same way, as Jesus added a human nature — much like mud in our illustration — he didn’t cease being God. Instead, the human nature merely disguised his glory like the mud disguised the glory of the new luxurious car.

As you read through the Gospels, you will find that Jesus’ humanity made it difficult to see his divinity. We even read of times where Jesus became hungry or tired or didn’t know certain details about future events. In a sense, this is the mud disguising his glory. It doesn’t mean he ceased being glorious, it simply means his human nature veiled his divine nature during the incarnation.

Why It Matters

Jesus adding a human nature has massive implications. After all, Paul tells us that Jesus emptied himself to become “obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” If he only had a divine nature, he could not have died for our sins, because God cannot die. The reason Jesus could die was because he possessed a human nature.

Thus, without his added human nature, we would still be lost in our sins. Thank God Jesus emptied himself.

Does Paul’s Silence About Jesus Prove That He Didn’t Exist?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Over 99% of historical scholarship acknowledges that Jesus was a real person. It doesn’t matter if that scholar is liberal or conservative, or Christian, atheist, agnostic or Jewish. The <1% of historians that believe Jesus is a myth are mostly atheists or agnostics. And it’s only the ‘internet infidel’ crowd that takes their arguments seriously.

One of the arguments that Jesus mythicists will often push is that Paul was mostly silent about the historical Jesus. Here’s GA Wells, one of the minority voices, who writes:

“Paul’s letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth…. They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter’s denial of his master…. These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels he worked so many.” (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 22)

And why didn’t Paul quote Jesus’ praise of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7? Or why not quote the Sermon on the Mount when Paul was teaching the Romans to bless their persecutors to give his message more authority? (Romans 12:14) Or why did Paul say, “we don’t know how to pray as we ought” (Romans 8:26-27) when Jesus taught his followers how to pray in Matthew 6:8-13?

One of those famous internet atheists, Dan Barker, sides with the Wells, writing: “The earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul, are silent about the man Jesus: Paul, who never met Jesus, fails to mention a single deed or saying of Jesus…and sometimes contradicts what Jesus supposedly said. To Paul, Jesus was a heavenly disembodied Christ figure, not a man of flesh and blood.”

At first glance, the mythicists seem like they have a point. But there are a few problems here.

Arguing From Silence Is Usually A Poor Way To Prove Your Point

For starters, arguing from silence is usually a terrible way to argue. For example, Union General Ulysses S Grant says nothing about the Emancipation Proclamation. The famous explorer Marco Polo traveled to China but never mentions the Great Wall. The archives of Portugal do not allude to the travels of Amerigo Vespucci.

An estimated 16,000-60,000 people died in 79 AD due to the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. But we only hear about this event in a personal letter of Pliny’s. The relative silence of historians we’d expect to mention these events doesn’t cause scholars to doubt their occurrence.

Regarding arguments from silence, philosopher Tim McGrew writes: “Such arguments from silence are pervasive in New Testament scholarship, but they are tenuous at best….it is a risky business to speculate upon the motives of authors for including or omitting various facts. To create an appearance of inconsistency by this device…is methodologically unsound.” (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology)

Paul’s Letters Were Occasional

There’s also the fact that most of Paul’s letters were occasional. Paul often wrote to combat error, or to provide specific guidance to churches. So, for example, Paul writes his entire letter to the Galatians to fight the doctrine of the Judaizers. Or there are the specific answers Paul gives about marriage, meat sacrificed to idols, spiritual gifts, and public worship in 1 Corinthians.

And think about it for a minute. If there weren’t some false teachers in Corinth saying there’s no resurrection, the great resurrection teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 would be missing from our Bibles! Jesus’ miracles, parables, virgin birth, arguments with the Pharisees, and so forth weren’t relevant to Paul’s purposes in writing those particular letters.

The Silence Of Paul…About Paul

In his book Did Jesus Exist?, agnostic Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman points out that Paul wasn’t just silent about some historical facts about Jesus, he also didn’t tell us a lot about himself. Like for instance: Who taught Paul? Where did he grow up? What did he do for a living? What did he do during his three years in Arabia or Damascus before meeting with Peter and James in Jerusalem? Or in the following fourteen years? Where did he go? Paul doesn’t tell us in his letters. We only learn about a few of these things from reading Acts.

Wells mentions that we don’t learn about Jesus’ miracles from Paul. But Paul said he had miracles in his ministry, and that was proof he was an apostle. (Romans 15:19, 2 Corinthians 12:12) Does Wells expect us to believe that Paul believed he and the other apostles had miracles, but Jesus didn’t?

The Silence Of Other Early Christians

But we can take it a step further. We have three letters from John, or at least attributed to him. Scholars believe he was writing to combat the proto-gnostics who were saying that sin wasn’t really a thing, and Jesus wasn’t a physical being. (1 John 1:1-3, 8) But the writer of these epistles, who wrote just like the writer of John’s Gospel, (I think they are both written by John, but scholars debate that) doesn’t mention Jesus turning water into wine, healing a man born blind, feeding the 5,000, walking on water or raising Lazarus from the dead. He doesn’t even quote the words of Jesus from that gospel. Why was the writer of 1-3 John silent about these things? Because they didn’t suit his purposes, not because he didn’t think that they happened.

Furthermore, most scholars believe that the author of Luke’s Gospel is the same author of Acts. Acts is Luke’s sequel. But in Acts, Lukes makes little use of the Jesus tradition he’s obviously familiar with. Clearly the lack of references to Jesus’ teachings in Acts doesn’t show that Luke was ignorant about what Jesus taught!

And what about the writings of some of the early church fathers? 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Polycarp’s letters to the Philippians. These letters fail to mention:

Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.
His parables.
That he healed the sick and cast out demons.
That he was transfigured on the mountain.
That he got into arguments with the Pharisees.
That he cleansed the temple.
That Judas betrayed him.
That Pilate had him crucified.

Do we conclude that these writers didn’t think Jesus existed? No, we don’t. In the case of Polycarp, he quotes Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but these other traditions were not relevant to why he was writing, so he fails to mention them.

Paul’s “Silence” Doesn’t Prove What The Mythicists Claim

Finally, Paul wasn’t silent about the historical Jesus. As I’ve written elsewhere, Paul knows a lot about Jesus. He knows that Jesus was a descendant of David, that he had a mother, a brother named James and other siblings, a disciple named Peter, 12 disciples, that he shared the last supper with his followers, was betrayed, abused, crucified, and he alludes to several of Jesus’ teachings. (Rom 1:3-4, Gal 1:18-19, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, 1 Cor 11:22-24, Rom 15:3, 1 Cor 1:23, 1 Cor 7:10-12, 1 Cor 9:14, 11:22-24, 1 Thess 4:15)

But Paul’s main focus was Christ and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2) It is what the cross and resurrection accomplish for the believer is what Paul is obsessed with. He’s interested in unpacking that teaching to the young churches. But his alleged silence isn’t a good argument to think that Jesus didn’t really exist. Bart Ehrman, no friend of traditional Christianity concludes that the so-called silence of Paul is a really bad way to argue, writing:

“What do these silences show? They do not show that these authors did not know about the historical Jesus because they clearly did. If anything, the silences simply show that these traditions about Jesus were not relevant to their purposes…What we can know is that Paul certainly thought that Jesus existed. He had a clear knowledge of important aspects of Jesus’s life—a completely human life, in which he was born as a Jew to a Jewish woman and became a minister to the Jews before they rejected him, leading to his death. He knew some of Jesus’s teachings. And he knew how Jesus died by crucifixion. For whatever reason, that was the most important aspect of Jesus’s life: his death. And Paul could scarcely have thought that Jesus died if he hadn’t lived”. (Did Jesus Exist? p. 145)

While I’ve disagreed with Dr. Ehrman many, many times, I have to offer a hearty amen here.

Is the Historical Jesus Fact or Fiction?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

As a pastor who spends a lot of time on the college campus, I hear the following challenges quite often from young skeptics: “There is no good evidence to think that Jesus ever existed,” or “Christianity has pagan roots!” One might put these common challenges as two questions: (1) Did Jesus of Nazareth really exist? (2) Are the gospel records of this man merely fictional mythology?

In this essay, I want to explore several lines of evidence that will show that the answer to the first question is a clear “Yes!” and to the second “No!”

i. Did Jesus of Nazareth really exist?

Though there are many “street atheists,” or “internet infidels” who espouse their unqualified views and who in the process influence many impressionable young minds, it should be pointed out that there are very few (if any) scholars and historians who would argue that Jesus never existed. There is just too much evidence to the contrary.

Space does not permit a thorough list of primary sources for Jesus’ historical existence outside of the New Testament, but the following will demonstrate that Jesus indeed lived. Further, the evidence cited will show that extra-biblical sources do not contradict the historical accounts in the Gospels. Indeed, they complement that history.[1]

The ancient sources[2] will be arranged in two ways: (1) Sources that specifically use the name “Jesus” or “Christ;” and (2) Sources that specifically reference events associated with Jesus.

Sources that specifically use the name “Jesus” or “Christ.”

a) Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion

This letter—written sometime later than A.D. 73—was sent by a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion to his son Serapion to encourage him in the pursuit of wisdom and pointed out that those who persecuted wise men were overtaken by misfortune.

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished…. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.[3]

This ancient document corroborates Jesus’ death, death by the Jews, and that His teaching obviously had continued on (i.e., He had followers who were spreading His teachings).

b) Flavius Josephus

Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote toward the end of the first century AD. There are three valuable references for the historicity of Jesus. One (Antiquities xviii. 5) describes John the Baptist just as the New Testament Gospels do. The second (Antiquities xx. 9) describes the death of James:

(Ananus [Ananias]) convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.

The reference to Jesus being the brother of James fits the New Testament data, but that Jesus is further identified as the Christ is remarkable in light of the following quotation from Josephus.[4]

Now there was about this 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 principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the 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)[5]

The value of these words of Josephus—though some words are controversial—can not be overstated. The Jesus of the New Testament documents is called a wise “man,” did wonderful works, was a great teacher, was the Messiah, was condemned and crucified by Pilate, reportedly arose from dead on the third day (in fulfillment of the Old Testament), and a movement of “Christians” continued at the time of Josephus’ writing.

c) Plinius Secundus, or Pliny the Younger: Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (A.D. 112)

The following is a letter he wrote to the emperor Trajan seeking counsel as to how to treat Christians:

In the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed…. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image… and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged…. They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn[6], and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition…. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. (Epistles X. 96)

The governor identifies Jesus as “Christ” and says his followers consider him “a god.” Their fault in his judgment is their “superstition” (Jesus’ resurrection?).

d) Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120)

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. 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 Pontius Pilate,[7] procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius; but the pernicious superstition,[8] repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.” (Annals XV. 44)

These are the chief references to Jesus outside of the 27 individual accounts comprised in the New Testament. A number of other sources are cited (here) on the FreeThinking Ministries website.

Sources that specifically reference events associated with Jesus.

a) Thallus, the Samaritan-born historian (A.D. 52)

Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean from the time of the Trojan War to his own time. Though his writings have disappeared, we only know of them from fragments cited by other writers. The citation below is from Julius Africanus, who is alluding to Thallus’ reference to the darkness that covered the earth from noon to 3:00 p.m. during Jesus’ crucifixion:

Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably, as it seems to me….[9]

It was “unreasonable,” of course because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.

b) Phlegon of Tralles, Chronicles (2nd century).

Though he is known to have written several works, his history—Chronicles—has disappeared. He, however, is quoted by several ancient writers.

During the time of Tiberius Caesar, an eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth occurred during the full moon.[10]

Phlegon is also noted by Origen:

“But,” continues Celsus… “although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that “there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?”

Answer: “With regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles” (Origen, Against Celsus, 2.33)…. He (Celsus) imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defense, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. (Origen, Against Celsus 2.59)[11]

From these references to Phelgon’s history, we see that the gospel account of the darkness (three hours long), which fell upon the land during Christ’s crucifixion and very possibly the earthquake were well-known. Origen’s account is especially helpful because he is responding to an antagonist who questions the New Testament record.

There are numerous other sources that corroborate events associated with Jesus’ life and death, some of which can be found by clicking here.

No reference in the above citations has been made to the New Testament documents, though we must not dismiss them as merely “religious books.” They are primary documents[12] and should be viewed as reliable history unless they fail to meet the muster of other ancient documents. Further, it is apparent in other places in the New Testament that the history of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, was commonly affirmed. The Apostle Paul in his first letter to the church at Corinth (15:3-5) gives a creed current in his day (prior to his death in AD 64) which states that Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins; that He died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day; and that He was seen by eyewitnesses.

Click here for more information regarding this creed.

ii. Are the gospel records of this man merely fictional mythology?

Though a strong case can be and has been made for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, this has not stopped many young skeptics from espousing popular bumper sticker slogans like “Christianity has pagan roots.” I personally have been challenged with the accusation that the story of Jesus being the Son of God and rising from the dead is plagiarism from Egyptian mythological pagan “gods” such as Adonis, Mithras, Osiris, Attis, and Horus, to name a few.

But careful analysis shows that such charges fail for several reasons. First of all, there are far more differences between Christianity and these mysterious stories of pagan religions than any similarities offered. For instance, it is purported that the pagan god Osiris was a dying and rising god, and that Christianity is a “copy cat” religion based on Osiris’ resurrection from the dead.[13] At first glance this appears to be troublesome, but when examining these stories with more scrutiny, the differences become glaring.

Osiris, so the account states, was murdered by his brother, and then his body was torn into fourteen pieces and scattered all across Egypt. Then his wife, Isis, found thirteen of the fourteen pieces of his body, revived him (quite different than a resurrection), and then went on to make him “god of the underworld.” This is nothing like the historical story that Jesus voluntarily went to the cross, which defeated and destroyed sin so that through His atonement we as humans could be reconciled with the Creator of the universe, and then three days later, Jesus rose from the dead in whole, and in a powerful, glorified body that we as Christians can also look forward to one day. The story the Bible teaches as historical fact seems quite different when compared to these mythical pagan stories.

Sean McDowell in an article entitled “Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?” says that “Parallels prove nothing.” He gives an interesting parallel: a British ocean liner that could carry 3,000 passengers, had a top cruising speed of twenty-four knots, had an inadequate number of lifeboats hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage, tore a hole in the side of the ship, and sank along with the 2,000 passengers on board. What ship was that? Most of us immediately conclude that this must be the account of the Titanic, but we are mistaken. Sean was describing the Titan, a fictional ship described in Morgan Robertson’s book, Wreck of the Titan, a fictional story written fourteen years before the sinking of the Titanic actually occurred. While the resemblance between the two accounts is eye-opening, the fictional “Titan” is irrelevant to the historical evidence that the Titanic was, in fact, a real ocean liner that sank in the Atlantic after colliding with an iceberg.

Similarly, even if pagan myths did exist that were comparable to the Gospel records and before the time of Christ, it would not undermine the historical evidence for Jesus’ miraculous life, death, and resurrection. “Parallels alone are inconclusive.”[14]

Up to this point, I have intentionally avoided using the Gospel records as historical evidence of the historicity of Jesus because many skeptics disregard anything the Bible says just because it’s in the Bible! However, just because the Bible reports something as a historical event, doesn’t mean we should immediately disregard it. In fact, the Bible is filled with outstanding historical documents. The “search for the historic Jesus” has been going on for well over a century. During this search, there has not been any “new evidence” supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God evolved from pagan myths over time. Conversely, modern discoveries have given more reliability to the content of the Gospel accounts in the New Testament. Greg Koukl’s summary states it well:

We know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so that writing came some time before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke’s Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar’s reckoning. This pushes Mark’s Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion. It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul’s interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1). The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors of the events they personally witnessed. There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. And their accounts were written early on while they’re memories were clear and other witnesses could vouch for their accounts. The Gospels are early accounts of Jesus’ life and deeds.[15]

In sum, the contentions that Jesus never existed or that He was a plagiarized version of mythical pagan deities does not pass the muster of historical research, and, therefore, skepticism regarding the reality of the historical person of Jesus is completely unwarranted. Jesus of Nazareth was a real person of history!

Interestingly, Bart Ehrman, one of the harshest and most critical voices regarding Jesus’ resurrection agrees and concludes,

“Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.”[16]

Notes

[1] A fuller list can be found at our website and the folder “Historical References to Christ from Non-biblical Sources.”

[2] Much of this material and bibliography can be found—often with further discussion—in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus; Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict; also the updated (by his son, Sean McDowell) Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World. See also Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson; He Walked Among Us. Some dating is based on J. N. D. Anderson Christianity: The Witness of History (pages 13-37, especially).

[3] The manuscript in the British Museum, preserving the text of this letter is quoted from F. F. Bruce in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

[4] Relatively little question is raised about the authenticity of this quotation.

[5] There has been much debate over this quotation, primarily because it is such a strong defense of the New Testament accounts of Jesus. All extant manuscripts of Josephus, however, contain it, which is a strong defense of its authenticity. For all the arguments, see McDowell and Wilson, He Walked among Us, 41-45. Though some have said that this quotation has been “edited” by Christians, the Arabic version still has the explicit reference to the resurrection. The Arabic version: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders” (Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios’ Kitab al-‘Unwan (“Book of the Title,” 10th c.). See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html). See also Habermas’ discussion of this and his reference to the Arabic translation of Josephus’ work.

[6] The time was the early morning on the first day of the week, thus celebrating the resurrection of Jesus. By this time, worship had moved from the Sabbath to Sunday.

[7] This is one of four references to Pilate outside the New Testament.

[8] Anderson: [This reference] “is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.”

[9] Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1.

[10] Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1.

[11] Phlegon is also noted by a six-century writer named Philopon: And about this darkness…Phlegon recalls it in his Olympiads….

[12] Especially F. F. Bruce, Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? In a Biola Christian Apologetics Program audio lecture (Craig Hazen, “Evidence for the Resurrection”), Hazen states “When these gospel accounts are scrutinized under the accepted principles of textual and historical analysis, they are found to be trustworthy historical documents and primary source accounts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of the man Jesus of Nazareth.”

[13] Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, 163.

[14] Sean McDowell, “Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?” quoted in The Apologetics Study Bible for Students, 1366.

[15] Greg Koukl, http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6760, accessed February 11, 2017.

[16] Bart Ehrman, “Did Jesus Exist?”, Huffington Post (March 29, 2012); http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html, accessed February 11, 2017.

Did The Virgin Birth Really Happen?

The Virgin Birth wasn’t Copied from Myths

Horus – No Virgin Birth Story

Mithra – No Virgin Birth Story

Caesar Augustus – No Virgin Birth Story

The Virgin Birth wasn’t Made up by the Church

The Virgin Birth Raised Suspicions

The Virgin Birth Wasn’t Emphasied

The Virgin Birth is Different from Myths

It’s Reasonable to Believe the Virgin Birth Happened

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Context Regarding the Gospel of Matthew and the Genealogy

Structure of the Genealogy

The Omission of the Kings

Analysis of the Kings

Inerrancy

Incompleteness and Inaccuracy

The Purpose of the Genealogy

Comparison to Lukan Genealogy

Reconciliation with Biblical Inerrancy

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Spirit-Filled Human

Jesus’ Sinlessness Illustrated

The Extent Of Jesus’ Temptations

Why This Is Important

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus never apologized for his suffering because he left us a perfect standard (1 Pet. 2:21, 23)

Jesus never apologized for his actions because he was perfectly sinless (1 Pet. 2:22)

Jesus never apologized for his death because he was the perfect sacrifice (1 Pet. 2:24)

Jesus never apologized for his leadership because he was a perfect Shepherd (1 Pet. 2:25)

Conclusion

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

An Analysis of Carrier’s Exegesis of the Undisputed Pauline Corpus

The Relevance of the Book of Acts to Pauline Interpretation

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Nothing is known of an empire-wide census during Augustus

No Census would Require Joseph to Travel to Bethlehem

No Census would have happened in Palestine during the Reign of King Herod

Josephus only knows of Quirinius’ census in AD 6

Quirinius was not the Governor of Syria During the Time of Jesus’ Birth

Solution

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus’ Genealogies

Option 1: Joseph vs. Mary’s Genealogy

Option 2: Royal vs. Biological Genealogy

Option 3: Levirate Marriage

What’s the Best Explanation?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Dilemma

The Deity Of Christ

The Meaning Of “Emptied Himself”

“Emptied Himself” Illustrated

Why It Matters

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Arguing From Silence Is Usually A Poor Way To Prove Your Point

Paul’s Letters Were Occasional

The Silence Of Paul…About Paul

The Silence Of Other Early Christians

Paul’s “Silence” Doesn’t Prove What The Mythicists Claim

Recommended resources related to the topic:

ii. Are the gospel records of this man merely fictional mythology?

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic: