Professor Enigma's Official Site

Evidences II: The Bible Speaks

In this article we’ll pull down some more of those atheistic, or skeptical strongholds. This article will invariably tie into a previous one, where I will continue and/or add to points made previously. My goal is to prove that the Bible is a reliable and accurate text historically, philosophically, and theologically. Don’t expect all the answers here, as that would be rather voluminous. However, what I am going to cover will show "beyond a reasonable doubt," (remember skeptics, reasonable doubt, not ridiculous doubt) that the Bible is true in these aspects. The issues that will be covered are very important to us, as well to many other people. Many of them are mature Christians and some are "babes in Christ," tired of hearing the biased skeptical bologna rammed down their throats. (All scriptural quotations are from the KJV unless noted otherwise)

The issues to be covered are: 1) The Exodus; including the when of the Exodus; the where of Mt. Sinai (Horeb, Mt. Of YHWH); the Exodus route; the Pharaoh that "knew not Joseph" (Exodus 1:8); the Pharaoh that Moses fled from (Pharaoh of the oppression, Exodus 2:15); the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Exodus 14) and Egyptian chronology.

2) Examination of the myriad of ancient flood stories and their relation to the account in Genesis. This section will NOT include any discussion of positive or negative geological evidence for a global flood. That is not the subject at this point. So please don’t write in saying, "You didn’t include a discussion of evidence for the flood, why not?"

3) Are the NT documents reliable accounts? This will include: Various evidence for the reliability of the NT documents— Discussion will center on: A) The Resurrection in general and alternative resurrection theories—are they viable? (Swoon, Wrong Tomb, Hallucination, and Legendary Development theories, which will branch out with a discussion of the NT in comparison to various ancient writings B) The census in Luke C) The historical Jesus—did He exist? (Yes, some skeptics still use this argument) D) This section will center on what I like to call Principles of Embarrassment—meaning, if the biblical author just "made X up," (as many skeptics still whine) it would have been counter-productive to his apologetic E) The Guard at the tomb: Historical or mythical?

4) Various archaeological evidence pertaining to the Bible

With that in mind let’s begin our quest to illuminate the truth. In many cases the attacker of a belief can ask several short questions and engage in a plethora of a priori presuppositions that cannot be answered in short order. So many skeptics rely on the "bazooka" technique, drowning their opponent in a quagmire of questions that can be answered, but NOT in short order. This is the main reason I consider most (but not all) live debates to be worthless. Inevitably, the skeptic will ignore the arguments that they were refuted on and just focus on the ones that weren’t answered (usually because of time constraints) to shift the onus to their opponent and avoid having to make any defense of the criticisms leveled at them.

I won’t and can’t answer every skeptical diatribe, but my prayer for this writing is to dig to the heart of the matter and make a clear and concise case for biblical truth. Let’s get down to brass tacks shall we?

Section I: The Exodus

As I noted in my opening paragraph, several skeptical objections have been answered in a previous article, therefore it would be wise to consult that particular section first. What I didn’t delve into in the previous article was the when of the Exodus, etc (see notes above). This is my objective at this point. To determine the when of the Exodus, one should go to God’s Word first and see if it answers our question. When did the Exodus occur? The starting point for anyone familiar with this would be I Kings 6:1. "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the Land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord." That text (if taken literally, this will also be discussed) pigeonholes exactly when the Exodus occurred. Exactly 480 years after the Exodus, in Solomon’s 4th year (of 40) the Temple began to be constructed.

Reputable scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen ¹ call a literal interpretation of this text the "lazy man’s solution" (See Anchor Bible Dictionary II: 702, "The Exodus", D.N. Freedman, gen. ed. (Bantum: New York, 1992) and believe that the 480 years are allegorical. This figure represents 12 generations and not a literal 480-year time frame. I firmly believe that this route is taken by many people because of the alleged lack of any archaeological evidence (see earlier article referenced in opening paragraph) for the Exodus, should the 480 years be taken literally. If this figure were absolute then that would place the Exodus at ca. 1446 B.C.

Another objective for us will be to look at other dates and time frames given prior to the Exodus to determine if the 480-year figure is absolute or not. Prior to Abraham we are totally in the dark concerning the exact time of creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc. However, from Abraham forward we are given some subtle scriptural clues to the year of said event.

The beginning of Solomon’s reign is generally placed in 971 B.C., (first full year began in spring 970 B.C.) meaning his 4th year would be 966 B.C. (966+480=1446) ² There are other biblical dates that we can tie into I Kings 6:1 to make a literal meaning clear. With that we now turn to Exodus 12:40-41.

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. And it came to pass at the end of the 430 years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt." Notice the phrase " the selfsame day," this argues against an allegorical interpretation because Moses here is stressing that exactly after 430 years the Israelites left Egypt. The problem with this verse is two-fold. ³, ⁴ A) An alleged chronological clash with Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6. B) An alleged ambiguity of the verse. Let’s deal with point A first.

"[T]hy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them 400 years… And God spake on this wise, that [Abraham’s] seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil 400 years." (Genesis 15:13; Acts 7:6)

There are two ways to deal with this "problem." 1) The 400 years is not intended to be exact, but simply rounded off. Analogous to me saying, "Jesus lived 2,000 years ago." 2) The 400 years is an exact figure—in that case we have to find these 30 extra years somewhere in Scripture.

Either case is plausible, (Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, p. 53, regards the 400 years as "a round figure in prospect") but if we can find these extra thirty years in Scripture we would be able to confidently conclude that the 400 years is a literal 400 years. Since Paul (See Galatians 3:16-17; this verse will also be discussed shortly) puts the beginning of the 430 years when God makes the covenant with Abraham, we’ll look for these extra thirty years prior to the starting point in Genesis 15:13. Genesis 15:13 informs us that the 400 years begin with the seed of the covenant, in this case Isaac. Since Abraham was 75 when he entered Canaan (Genesis 12:4) and was 100 when Isaac was born (Genesis 21:5). That gives us 25 years and the remaining 5 years could easily be found when during the time Abraham dwelt in Haran before his father’s death (Genesis 11:31-12:1). The text is clear that he dwelt there; it was not a short stay. Therefore, the 400 years is a literal 400 years. The second point about the ambiguity in Exodus 12:40 is answered in footnotes 3 & 4.

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Galatians 3:16-17) Paul puts the beginning of the 430 years at the convening of the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore, the LXX (Septuagint) reading of Exodus 12:40 to include time prior to the enslavement (in Canaan) by the Egyptians is correct. The LXX and Paul agree, therefore the 430 years cannot be considered allegorical; they’re literal—period.

Let’s continue ⁵ and locate some more biblical proclamations pertaining to the date of the Exodus. Assuming for now that all the biblical dates discussed so far are literal, we should be able to work backwards and discover the year Moses, Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, etc. were born.

According to Exodus 7:7 Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus, which puts his birth at 1526 B.C. Moses fled to Midian when he was forty (Acts 7:23-24), therefore he fled Egypt in 1486 B.C. Abraham’s birth can be pigeonholed at 1946 B.C. because he was seventy when the promise was given and at that time the 430 years began, which culminated in the Exodus from Egypt. Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born (1846 B.C.), Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (Genesis 25:26, 1786 B.C.), and Jacob was 130 years old when he entered Egypt. (1656 B.C., Genesis 47:9) This means that the Israelites sojourned in Egypt for 210 years, not 430. (1656-210=1446 B.C.)

Ted Stewart (Solving the Exodus Mystery, I: 34-35) discovered that the rabbis believed that Israel sojourned for 210 years in Egypt and young Jewish children are taught the same thing. He informs us:

"Dr. Michael Halberstam, head of a law firm in New York City… informed me that Rashi, the greatest of Jewish medieval commentators, cites the Babylonian Talmud, book of Megillah, p. 9, that teaches that Israel’s stay in Egypt was 210 years. Dr. Halberstam also pointed out that the lineage from Levi to Moses in Exodus 6:16-19 proves that Israel could not have lived in Egypt 430 years. He also informed me that all Jewish children from six years and older are taught that Israel lived in Egypt for only 210 years."

As far as the Bible is concerned, the 430 years are indeed literal, not allegorical. Our next task is to discover what the Bible says about the state of affairs in Egypt at and before the Exodus. What can we glean from this to determine what dynasty exactly was in power when the Jews exited Egypt?

As is well known (or should be) Egypt was not always a united monarchy. For example, after the fall of the 12th Dynasty, Egypt was in utter chaos. ⁶ Dynasties 13-17 were something that later Dynastic rulers would like to push out of their memory. The Bible says that Joseph (Genesis 41:40-46) was basically made Pharaoh’s "right hand man." Only Pharaoh himself was greater than Joseph in Egypt. Joseph’s post would have been dubbed "Vizier," as he was second to Pharaoh over all of Egypt. The key phrase is "over all the land of Egypt." This tells us that whenever Joseph was Vizier, it was not during the Second Intermediate Period. During this time there were at least 2 rival dynasties ruling simultaneously. The most probable time period for this is either the 12th or 18th Dynasty. It must also be noted that this particular Pharaoh had only one Vizier, as others had a Vizier for Upper (Southern) and Lower (Northern) Egypt. ⁷ Joseph also traveled "throughout all the land of Egypt," (v. 46) indicating that he was sole Vizier to this particular Pharaoh.

Joseph could NOT have been a Vizier to an 18th Dynasty Pharaoh because during this period there were two Viziers—one over Upper Egypt and one over Lower Egypt. (Stewart, Solving the Exodus Mystery, p. 101; William C. Hayes, Cambridge Ancient History, II.I.353-354 (Cambridge: New York, 1970-1973). However, some 12th Dynasty Pharaohs did institute this practice.

Another point that must be taken into account is the fact that the Egyptian capital was located near Goshen, the place where the Israelites settled when they entered Egypt. We know that Goshen was close to the Egyptian capital (district of Rameses) but was not in the same district. In Genesis 45:10 Joseph sends messengers to his father to tell him that he will "dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt be near unto me…" Proving that it was separate from the district of the Egyptian capital, Genesis 46:28 says: "[Jacob] sent Judah… to direct his face unto Goshen." The Israelites discerned the locale of the Egyptian capital (Tanis), but knew not the locale of their new dwelling. This can also be seen in Moses’ frequent meeting with Pharaoh, for if Goshen was a long distance away he would not have been able to meet with Pharaoh so often. It is also clear from Exodus 8:22 & 9:26 that Goshen was outside the Egyptian capital. The plagues that punished the Egyptians did not occur in Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled.

The question now is: Where was Goshen? The answer to this question will also tell us where (at least as far as Moses was concerned) the Egyptian capital was. Kenneth Kitchen (Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia, II: 777-778 (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 1976) comments:

"Geographically, Goshen is closely linked with the land and city of Raamses… Goshen can readily be placed in the territory between Saft el Henneth in the South (at the west end of Wadi Tumilat) and Qantir and El Salhieh in the North and Northeast. It could hardly be further extended up to Tanis." (as cited in Stewart, p. 210, emphasis his)

William Ward, Professor of Egyptology at Brown University agrees:

"[Goshen is a r]egion in the eastern Egyptian Delta where the Hebrews lived during their stay in Egypt. Though some authorities argue otherwise [see R.G. North, Archeo-Biblical Egypt, (Rome: 1967)], this is a place distinct from (1) Goshen on the S border of the land said to have been occupied by Joshua (Josh 10:41) and (2) Goshen in the hill country of Judah (Josh 15:5). In both latter cases, the LXX renders the spelling Gosom, suggesting that this tradition considered them to be localities other than the Goshen in Egypt… There has been a long debate over the precise location of the Egyptian Goshen. In the LXX, Goshen in Egypt is rendered as Gesem or Gesem Arabia (Gen 45:10; 46:34). Arabia was used by Herodotus to refer to the area from the Nile to the Red Sea and, more specifically, by Pliny and Ptolemy the Geographer to designate the 20th Lower Egyptian nome, or administrative district… This nome, attested first in Egyptian texts of the 8th century [B.C.], lay on the border of the eastern Delta in the region of modern Faqus is ancient Phacusa, which, according to Ptolemy, was the capital of the Arabian nome, and Saft el-Hinna preserves the ancient name Pr-Spdw, ‘Domain of (the god) Sopdu,’ the Egyptian term for the 20th Lower Egyptian nome. Support for this has been seen in a place name, generally read Gsm.t, found in the geographical lists of the Ptolemaic temples at Edfu and Dendera and on a Ptolemaic shrine from Saft el-Hinna itself. Gsm.t has been equated with the LXX Gesem (Arabia), providing internal Egyptian evidence for the location of the biblical Goshen at the latter site… The precise location of gosen of the Hebrew text remains problematic. The basic requirement for Jacob and his family was pasturage for their herds; the general region of the E Delta fits this admirably. Egyptian texts speak of other Canaanites moving into that area for precisely this reason, and their presence was carefully recorded in official frontier journals. The biblical references clearly indicate that the Hebrews settled within Egypt, and the story of Moses and the bulrushes (Exod 2:3-9) shows they lived along the Nile in proximity to the royal family and its official residence… The evidence at hand suggests that the biblical ‘land of Goshen’ was located in the E[astern] Egyptian Delta in the general region of modern Faqus, Saft el-Hinna, and Tell ed-Daba/Qantir." (Anchor Bible Dictionary II: 1076-1077, emphasis in original)

With that information in mind, we’ll have to see which Egyptian Dynasties had their capital in this area. Ted Stewart (p. 209-226) answers the question admirably: What Egyptian Dynasty located their capital close to biblical Goshen? Stewart proposes that the 12th Dynasty capital was Itjtowy (Tanis; Zoan; San el-Hagar), located near biblical Goshen. Generally, the 12th dynasty was supposedly El Lisht, but better evidence suggests that it is actually Itjtowy (Seizer-of-the-Two Lands).

Stewart, quoting Kenneth Kitchen, demonstrates some of the evidence: "A series of discoveries by Egyptian scholars in the Eastern Delta makes it highly probable that a royal residence existed in the 10th and 12-13th dynasties (including the ‘Hyksos’ town of Avaris) in the same region favored centuries later by Ramses II for his Delta residence of Raamses." (Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia, II: 779) Statues of 6th-12th dynasty rulers have been found in abundance at Itjtowy, including those of Amenemhet I, II and Sesostris I, II, and III. (Stewart, p. 217)

An inscription of Amenemhet I, founder of the 12th dynasty, alludes to his capital being in the Delta of Egypt (See Stewart, p. 218). "I journeyed to Yebu [Elephantine, in southern Egypt]; I returned [north] to the Delta." (Taken from Ancient Records of Egypt, I: 232, Breasted (trans.), emphasis mine; Ancient Egyptian Literature, I: 137, Lichtheim (trans.) This statement alludes to the fact that Amenemhet I began in northern Egypt to Yebu and then returned to the north, where his capital was located.

Stewart (218-220) appeals to the ancient Egyptian Story of Sinuhe, gleaning pertinent information from it in our quest to locate the 12th dynasty capital. ⁸

"Sinuhe, an official of Amenemhet I, reported that the king had sent his son Sesostris I with the Egyptian army to fight against Libya (Tjemeh), which is located west of Egypt… During the battle Amenemhet I had died in the palace at Itjtowy. Court officials sent messengers ‘to the western border’ to inform Sesostris I of his father’s demise. Sesostris I had already conquered the Libyans (Thekenu) and was returning to his capital in Itjtowy when he met the messengers. Since the messengers were heading west from the capital toward Sesostris I at the Libyan border, then Sesostris I was obviously heading east back toward the capital of Itjtowy on the same road. Therefore, the road both groups traveled lay latitudinally in an eastern/western plane. Sinuhe… [fled] ‘southward,’ rather than continuing eastward with Sesostris I. Sinuhe thus followed the road leading south parallel to the Nile River on its western side, heading toward the pyramids of the twelfth dynasty and the city of El Lisht. However, Sesostris I led the army east, not south, when they returned to the capital city of Itjtowy (Zoan) in the northeastern Delta. Therefore, Sinuhe’s flight toward El Lisht proves that the cemetery city was not the capital of the twelfth dynasty." (Stewart, 218-219, emphasis in original)

Further buttressing the hypothesis that Itjtowy was the 12th dynasty capital (Stewart, p. 221-222) the Cambridge Ancient History II.I.45, 48 (Cambridge: New York, 1973) tells us that Itjtowy remained Egypt’s capital for the entirety of the 12th dynasty. Lastly, for those who place the capital of Ramses II here, Kenneth Kitchen (Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia, V: 14, 1068; quoted in Stewart, p. 215) gives us 4 reasons why Itjtowy (Tanis, Zoan) was not his capital 1) All monuments from his time have been found to have been moved to Tanis from elsewhere 2) No palaces or tombs of him or his advisors have been found at Tanis 3) Egyptian texts indicate that Pi-Ramesse was located on the "waters of Ra," the old eastern arm of the Nile. However, this branch of the Nile was not navigable at Tanis during the reign of Ramses II 4) During Ramses II’s reign the "fields of Pi-Ramesse" and "fields of Tanis" are listed separately. They are also listed as two separate locales in the Onomasticon list, consequently, these two are not synonymous and Ramses capital cannot be Tanis.

With that, we need to remake The Ten Commandments and change the name of Pharaoh. However, we can keep Charlton Heston as Moses. The next biblical text we should look at is Exodus 1:8. "Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph." Who was the Pharaoh that knew not Joseph? Stewart identifies Sesostris III as the Pharaoh that knew not Joseph. ⁹

I’ll give a brief, but effective summary of the evidence for Sesostris III being the Pharaoh spoken of in Exodus 1:8. The first bit of information would be the length of Sesostris III’s reign. Most Egyptologists attribute a 19-year reign to Sesostris III. However, Josef Wegner in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (55, # 4 (1996), p. 249-279) relays evidence from a newly discovered construction during Sesostris III’s reign. An inscription on this construct alludes the 39th year of his kingship. This discussion is for later, but empirical verification of Sesostris III’s 39+ year reign annihilates astronomical compatibility for these "absolute" dates that determine who ruled and when. We will discuss this later, but please keep this in mind.

The Egyptian Execration Texts ¹⁰ reveal the cruel and belligerent nature of this tyrant. Sesostris III’s attitude towards foreigners and enemies (or anyone he didn’t like which was pretty much everyone!) fits with the description of the Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph." This Pharaoh dropped the hammer on Israel, lest they become too numerous and powerful to deal with.

The next order of business will be Amenemhet III, the Pharaoh that sought to kill Moses (Exodus 2:11-15). Moses fled to Midian at the age of forty (Acts 7:23-30) and returned at the age of eighty. Whoever was Pharaoh when Moses fled had to have a lengthy reign because God told Moses 40 years later: "Go, return to Egypt, for all the men are dead which sought thy life." (Exodus 4:19) Amenemhet III’s reign lasted 46-48 years, ¹¹ depending on whether his co-reign with his son, Amenemhet IV lasted 4 or 6 years. This fits well with the 40 years Moses had to stay out of Egypt because Amenemhet III sought his life. This brings us to Amenemhet IV, the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

Stewart comments:

" Petrie reports that the Turin Papyrus give Amenemhet IV a reign precisely nine years, three months and twenty-seven days. My astronomical chronology causes Amenemhet IV’s accession year to begin in Amenemhet III’s forty-second year of reign, resulting in a six-year co-reign until Amenemhet III died in his forty-eighth year of reign. See Table C-4 (p. 410). Amenemhet IV’s short reign fits the Biblical description of the short reigning Pharaoh of the Exodus, who came to sole power only a few years before Moses returned to Egypt and died in the Red Sea in the year of the Exodus. His pyramid and tomb have never been found. By way of contrast, all of the other Pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty had magnificent pyramids and tombs within them for their high officials. The glorious and powerful twelfth dynasty came to an abrupt and mysterious end… Amenemhet IV’s wife, Sebeknefru, reigned in the place of her dead husband. However, she was forced to leave Itjtowy, the capital of the twelfth dynasty, moving to Thebes in southern Egypt. She reigned 3 years, ten months and 24 days. She disappeared without a known grave or pyramid for her body." (Stewart, p. 409, emphasis his)

The chaos in Egypt was understandable, for without an army (floating in the Gulf of Aquaba), horses or chariots, there was no one around to defend the country from anarchy. We also need to take note of the fact that Amenemhet IV’s firstborn son did not take the throne, but rather his wife. It is possible that his son wasn’t old enough or competent enough to take the throne, but it is equally possible that he was wiped out in the plague of the firstborn. His actual reign was less than 4 years, for he co-reigned with Amenemhet III for six years. A legitimate successor for Amenemhet IV is never mentioned. Mysteriously, his body, and his successors body, nor their pyramids are accounted for.

Stewart (p. 247) relays another interesting fact. The gravesite of Amenemhet IV’s butler (Kemuny) has been found (See Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, I: 210, 246 (Metropolitan Museum of Art: New York, 1990), but Amenemhet IV’s tomb is still conspicuous by its absence. Our next order of business is to comb non-biblical sources for any information concerning the 12th dynasty’s demise, and what occurred in the wake of it.

The Ipuwer Papyrus is solid extra-biblical evidence for the demise of the 12th Egyptian dynasty. ¹² In this document several events are described that curiously mirror the plagues of the Exodus. Ipuwer describes such things as: Foreigners have become people everywhere (Chapter 1—Egyptians did not regard foreigners as real people. Talk about Nazi-esque racism) Robbery is everywhere (Chapter 2) Poor men have become the possessors of treasures. He who could not make himself a pair of sandals is (now) the possessor of riches (2) [M]any dead are buried in the River. The stream is a tomb. (2—undoubtedly the Nile) Nobles are in lamentation, while poor men have joy (2) The River is blood (2) [T]he desert is spread throughout the land. The nomes are destroyed. Barbarians from outside have come to Egypt… there are really no people anywhere. (3—again the reference to "no people anywhere" refers to foreign infiltration into Egypt. Also take note that the "desert is spread throughout the land, implying ecological disaster) They who were in the ship of the god are charged with forced [labor]. (3) But really, every foreign country [comes]. (3) [T]he children of nobles are dashed against the walls. (4) Why really, grain has perished on every side… Everybody says, ‘There is nothing!’ The storehouse is stripped bare…" (6) The grain-sustenance of Egypt is (now) a come-and-get-it. Why really, the laws of the enclosure are put out-of-doors. Men actually walk on them in the highways. Poor men tear them up in the streets… Why really, the children of nobles are abandoned in the streets." (6)

Behold now, something has been done which never happened for a long time: the king has been taken away by poor men." (7) ¹³ Behold now, it has come to a point where the land is despoiled of the kingship by a few irresponsible men. (7) Behold, the nobles’ ladies are (now) gleaners, and nobles are in the workhouse. (But) he who never (even) slept on a plank is (now) the owner of a bed." (7) Behold, the king’s men thrash around among the cattle of the destitute." (8—Wilson indicates here that this means the remaining officials of the king are running amuck appropriating the property of commoners. Ipuwer’s criticism here is directed at the palace, not the commoners) Behold, not an office is in its (proper) place, like a stampeded herd which has no herdsman. (9—another reference to the social anarchy of Egypt)

Men shall say: ‘He is the herdsman of all men… Though his herds may be small, still he had spent the day caring for them… Would that he might perceive their character from the (very) first generation! Then he would smite down evil; he would stretch forth the arm against it; he would destroy the seed ¹⁴ thereof and their inheritance…But there is no pilot in their hour. Where is he today? Is he then sleeping? Behold, the glory thereof cannot be seen." (12) ^{15 16}

It is becoming clear that the 12th dynasty fell because of some kind of foreign invasion or influence. Pharaoh was dead, his army was gone as well and as a result people were free to do as they pleased. This mirrors the activity during the blackout in New York City several years ago. When that occurred the people began to loot, pillage and plunder with an unforeseen propensity.

Although this could have been discussed earlier, we’ll shift gears now and focus on some brief evidence for the seven years of plenty and seven years of famine in Egypt (Genesis 41:15-32). ¹⁷ There is a text dubbed "The Tradition of Seven Lean Years in Egypt" (See The Ancient Near East, I: 24-27 and Ancient Near Eastern Texts…p. 31-32 for the text—see also Ancient Israel, "The Patriarchal Age: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," Hershel Shanks (ed.) for discussion) but this text comes from the 3rd dynasty under the reign of one, Djoser. This inscription mirrors the Joseph narrative concerning the seven years of famine closely, (it also records low Nile levels) but alas, it wasn’t inscribed until the 2nd century B.C. Sorry skeptics, if any borrowing occurred it was the inscribers of this text borrowing from Genesis. There is also some debate as to whether it is a priestly forgery, justifying some territorial privilege. The inscription might be a copy of the original reflecting an actual event or, as it seems right now a priestly forgery from the 2nd century. (See also BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) 21:03 (May/June 1995), "Queries and Comments.")

Our focus however, will not be on the aforementioned forgery, but an inscription from the time of a 12th dynasty governor (Ameni) and his mentioning of a famine (Sesostris I was Pharaoh at this time). James Breasted translates part of the inscription:

"When years of famine came I plowed all the fields of the Oryx nome, as far as its southern and northern boundary, preserving its people alive and furnishing its food so that there was none hungry therein… Then came great Niles, possessors of grain and all things, but I did not collect the arrears of the field." (Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, I: 252-253)

Here we have a 12th dynasty government official validating that a famine did indeed occur in Egypt at this time. Stewart relates concerning his search for the when of this particular famine:

"Ameni’s inscription says that his twenty-fifth year as… (governor) was Sesostris I’s forty-third year. Therefore, Ameni became [governor] in Sesostris I’s eighteenth year of reign, three years after the famine had ended. See Table 11-A on the next page. How could Ameni distribute grain in the seven years of famine when he did not begin to rule as governor until three years after the famine is supposed to have occurred [according to Stewart’s synchronizing of Egyptian and Biblical history]? When I first contemplated this chronological problem, I theorized that Ameni probably distributed to the hungry during the years of famine while assisting his father, Khnumhotep, before he was appointed… (governor)." [Breasted cited a text which validated Stewart’s hypothesis, Ibid, p. 251] (Stewart, p. 131)

To make a long story short, Stewart traveled to Egypt with his wife Dot and located the tomb of Khnumhotep and Ameni where Breasted copied some of his texts. In this tomb they found a giant inscription on the southern wall, featuring Ameni himself receiving Egyptians and foreigners as they purchase grain during a famine! Ameni did in fact play a major role in the selling of grain during the famine despite the fact that he was not officially governor at this point in time. Also listed on the wall were "years of famine" and "years of plenty." This is nothing short of an amazing discovery, a 12th dynasty famine attested to in Egyptian texts. Skeptics who illogically rely on the "it’s only recorded in the Bible so it’s false" argument are now completely stonewalled. We now will shift gears and cover something that I did not explore in my earlier article; the route the Hebrews took to Sinai—better put, where is Sinai located?

Honestly, I cannot see why there is any sort of debate concerning the locale of the Mountain of God, but those with philosophical presuppositions and/or a belief that the evidence is lacking will propose alternative theories, which Ockham’s Razor would cut up rather quickly. Where is Sinai? The Bible answers the question. It’s key to remember that after Moses fled to Midian, ¹⁸ when Amenemhet III learned of his assault on an Egyptian, and it was there that we was near the Mountain of God (Mt. Sinai). When Moses was contesting God’s decision to send him to Pharaoh, God (while in Midian) told him: "Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee, when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt [and its sphere of influence], ye shall serve God upon this mountain." (Exodus 3:12) God is telling Moses, after you have brought the children of Israel OUT OF EGYPT, you will RETURN to this mountain and worship me. God told this to Moses while he was in Midian; therefore, Mt. Sinai must be in Midian, not the traditional site in the Sinai Peninsula WEST of the Gulf of Aquaba. Further bolstering this identification is Exodus 3:1. "Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb."

The point is crystal clear; Mt. Sinai is in Midian as far as the Bible is concerned. Paul evidently agrees, stating: "This is allegorically speaking, for these women [speaking of Hagar and Sarah] are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves, she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia…" (Galatians 4:24-25a, NASB) Paul locates Mount Sinai in Arabia, which would put it EAST of the Gulf of Aquaba, contrary to the "traditional" location. G.I. Davies, in ABD, VI: "Sinai, Mount," puts Mt. Sinai in the traditional spot, west of the Gulf of Aquaba.

"From early in the 4th century A.D. (Eusebius of Caesarea) Christian tradition has located Mount Sinai in the S massif of what is now known as the Sinai Peninsula. The specific identification with Jebel Musa [Mountain of Moses] is clearly attested in the Peregrinatio Egeriae (381-384 A.D.), and already in her time a monastery existed at the foot of the mountain, which Justinian later rebuilt… Possible evidence of this location exists in a 2d-century A.D. Jewish source… but the other early evidence is imprecise or points to a location closer to Palestine. There is, however, no foundation for the view that Paul knew a tradition which located Sinai in Saudi Arabia." (Italics in original, bold emphasis added)

Davies criticizes Paul’s testimony for a Saudi Arabian location of Sinai on the basis that "there’s no such evidence." This seems rather curious since Paul’s testimony would antedate any of the references that he cited—moreover, the fact that a monastery was at the foot of the mountain in the 4th century (more than 1700 years after the fact for crying out loud!) doesn’t seem too concrete to me. Just because Paul didn’t list off his references (it’s possible that he was using LXX or MT copies of the OT) for his testimony of an Arabian location doesn’t nullify his passages in Galatians. Considering that, along with the OT testimony of a Midianite setting for Mt. Sinai, it hardly seems possible that Sinai is in the traditional spot. The "traditional" mountain has been subjected to numerous archaeological excavations and has turned up nothing suggesting that it is indeed the real Mt. Sinai. ¹⁹

This will also require a changing of the Exodus route of course, because the destination was obviously different. The old route does not make sense anyway, for during the 12th dynasty, the Egyptians had military installations and mining expeditions throughout the Sinai Peninsula. To put Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula keeps Israel within arms reach of Pharaoh. Surprisingly, Hill & Walton (A Survey of the Old Testament, p. 87) reject a Midianite locale for Sinai on these grounds:

"The central route theory locates Mount Sinai in northwest Arabia, beyond Aquaba (sic), partly on the grounds that the Exodus narrative of the covenant experience describes an active volcano (19:16-25) and partly because the same region is traditionally connected with the homeland of the Midianites (cf. Exod. 3:1; 18:1). Today the central route alternative has been largely discounted by biblical scholars due to the strength of counter-arguments made in separate studies. First, it has been demonstrated that the Sinai theophany is typical of other recorded ancient Near Eastern divine manifestations that do not presuppose an active volcano; there is therefore no need to place Sinai in Arabia, the nearest site for volcanic activity. Second, Moses is identified as being related to the Kenites as well as to the Midianites, and it is believed that the Kenites were a nomadic Midianite clan whose presence in the Sinai region is well attested (cf. Judg. 1:16; 4:11); so there is no need to place Moses in Arabia."

I beg to differ. The passage in Exodus cited by Hill & Walton does not imply that the Sinai was an active volcano. Verse 18 (NASB) makes it clear: "Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the Lord descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace…" The reason Sinai was full of smoke and flame was because God was descending upon it. Concerning their point of Moses being of Kenite descent, this is true, but from the scholarly evidence presented above, as well as the OT evidence (It’s curious that Hill & Walton cite this but then summarily ignore it—nonetheless, this is an informative and excellent work.), Sinai is in Arabia, like it or not.

Bob Cornuke and the late Ron Wyatt claim to have discovered the real Mt. Sinai in the Saudi desert. The only problem with this is since the Saudi government isn’t going to let Biblical scholars in to validate parts of the Bible (that would be bad news for Islam), skeptics can rely all too easily on their oft-repeated "It’s fabricated" argument, as one seminary dropout from Colorado suggested to me. Why even worry about Wyatt, he’s a non-issue. Oh yes, I know, because he is such an easy target. Predatory animals don’t take on the dominant male in the herd; they seek out the crippled and the young. (This is NOT a personal slam on Wyatt, just an analogy.)

Those like Extraterrestrial Babinski, who wastes inordinate amounts of ink on people who most Christians and creationists don’t even take seriously; (referring mainly to Wyatt) have way too much time on their hands. Rather than take on heavyweights like Kitchen, Millard, ben-Tor or Hoerth, he picks on midgets like Wyatt. Perhaps E.T. would like to engage a seasoned veteran like James Hoffmeier? I doubt it, because then he would have to do some actual thinking, such a pity. This is a skeptical tactic that has never failed to amaze me. For example, when they "critique" creationism they pick on, of all people, Kent Hovind! Why not take on people with PhDs in their respective fields—such as Sarfati, Batten, Denton, Dembski, Wieland, Behe, or Spetner? (If Babinski thinks Hovind or Wyatt’s "seminars" are more "attention grabbing" than perhaps Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt or Moreland and Craig’s Naturalism: A Critical Analysis then his attention span must be that of a 4-year old—but I digress.)

Our last piece of business for this section concerns and adjustment of Egyptian chronology. The skeptic will assert that the 12th dynasty ended circa 1800 B.C., much too early for the Exodus—therefore, all your evidence is rubbish. Not so fast clowns, these "astronomically absolute" dates are coming under fire, and for good reason. The first point I would like to make is the foggy nature of determining when the 1st dynasty of Egypt convened. Stewart is not an Egyptologist, but one should not discount his evidence just on that. He relies on his sources and critical thinking, which most humanists sadly lack. Moreover, Stewart isn’t the only one proposing an adjustment of Egyptian chronology (In fact, Stewart relies on and cites Rohl in his book). But as the old saying goes, "old theories die hard" and humanists have had their fair share of disappointments in recent years.

Concerning the beginning of the 1st dynasty (See Stewart chapter 21 and Lennart Moller, The Exodus Case, p. 80-85, esp. 84 (Scandinavian Publishing House: Copenhagen, 2002), this seems like some kind of cruel guessing game. ²⁰ Taking into account all the revisions of Egyptian chronology and the assumptions involved it was only a matter of time before this dogma was exposed and unceremoniously put out to pasture. Let’s get down to brass tacks and expose some of the misinformation.

The "certainty" of these "astronomically absolute" dates arises from the gratuitous assumption that Egypt always used a 365-day calendar. This calendar consisted of 12 months, 30 days each, with a 5-day festival at the end of the year, equaling 365 days (The Sothic Calendar).

However, there is evidence that Egypt switched to a 360 day calendar (dropping the 5-day period at the end) and back to the "traditional" calendar several times. ²¹ For example, an 18th dynasty Pharaoh, Amenhotep I adopted the 360-day calendar and dubbed it "Eber’s calendar." This calendar was used for at least 56 years. This 56-year period would be sufficient to break the "Sothic Cycle." ²² Thutmose III, an 18th dynasty Pharaoh revived the 365-day calendar and Amenhotep III once again returned the 360-day calendar to prominence (Stewart, Chapters 21 & 22). With the Sothic Cycle broken, these astronomically "absolute" dates, previous to, and after Amenhotep are invalid. We touched on this earlier (Stewart, Chapter 13 & Appendix C) but it is now know that Sesostris III had a reign of at least 39 years, not 19 as was previously thought. Surprisingly, carbon-14 dating of several structures, one being the boundary wall of Sesostris III’s pyramid, dated at 1540 B.C. This date was only 2 years later than Stewart’s proposed adjustment of Egyptian chronology. This date is approximately 3 centuries later than the "traditional" Egyptian chronology for the reign of Sesostris III. In fact, all of the carbon dating samples taken (concerning the 12th dynasty) are way too late for the traditional chronology to be correct (Stewart, Chapter 23).

Stewart points out another devastating discovery for traditional Egyptian chronology, courtesy of Dr. David Rohl:

"David Rohl’s book, Pharaohs and Kings, refers to a letter that Abimilku, ruler of Tyre, wrote to Akhenaten soon after his father Amenhotep III had died [See David Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings, p. 237 (Crown: New York, 1995]. Both of these Pharaohs lived in the latter half of the eighteenth dynasty. Abimilku reported to Akhenaten, in the Amarna Letters that "Fire destroyed the palace at Ugarit; (rather), it destroyed half of it and so half of it has disappeared." Dr. Rohl pointed out that Nikmaddu II, ruler of Ugarit, was a contemporary of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) when this burning occurred. Archaeologists found in one of the burnt palace rooms a clay tabled that was blackened from the fire. The tablet reported that an eclipse of the sun occurred at sunset on the same evening that a new moon appeared. The eclipse and new moon were dated on the first day of the month of Hiyyaru, which occurs in the Julian months of April and May… Dr. Rohl contacted Wayne Mitchell… to search for an eclipse of the sun that occurred just before sunset at the latitude and longitude of Ugarit. During the entire second millennium…. he found only one eclipse of the sun that occurred at Ugarit just before sunset. The time was 6:09 p.m., May 9, 1012 B.C. Thus, no eclipse of the sun occurred at sunset at Ugarit during the fourteenth century B.C., when most Egyptologists date Amenhotep III and his son [Amenhotep IV]. " (Stewart, p. 356-357, emphasis in original)

This is a veritable roadblock for those who cling to these "astronomically absolute" dates to push the Exodus into the 13th century or throw it out altogether (which hinges on an argument from silence anyway). This would be a good time to list the five dates that are observed and catalogued concerning Sirius’ rising (See Stewart, p. 295). 1) 8-16 [8th month and 16th day on Egypt’s calendar] in year 7 of Sesostris III, a 12th dynasty Pharaoh 2) 11-9 in year 9 of Amenhotep I, 18th dynasty 3) 11-28 sometime during Thutmose III, 18th dynasty 4) 10-1 on July 19 (Julian), 238 B.C., in Ptolemy III’s 8th year 5) 1-1 on July 20 (Julian), 139/140 A.D.

Stewart relates some of the problems Egyptologists fail to come to terms with when declaring their astronomically "absolute" dates:

"In the fall of 1994 I secured the services of Danny Faulkner. Faulkner’s doctorate is in astronomy. He teaches astronomy and physics at the University of S. Carolina… Faulkner informed me that Brad Schaeffer, head of the Bethesda Space Center in Maryland, has done the most thorough study of the Sidereal Year, ²³ which determines the dates of Sirius’ rising. Faulkner… received permission to use [Schaeffer’s] computer program which calculates precise dates of Sirius’ heliacal rising throughout ancient antiquity from any longitude and latitude. At my request Faulkner calculated 130 pairs of Julian/Gregorian dates for Sirius’ annual appearance at four different latitudes of Egypt form 2000 B.C. to A.D. 300… Sirius’ rising at the same latitude occasionally fluctuated back and forth on different dates of the Julian Calendar between centuries and within the same century. Sirius’ rising fluctuated less frequently on the Gregorian Calendar than it fluctuated on the Julian Calendar. But all Egyptologists use the Julian Calendar, not the Gregorian Calendar to calculate their astronomical dates because its number of 365.25 days is easier to work with then the shorter, but more accurate Gregorian Calendar of 365.2425 days. Table 21-D (p. 306) notes that Sirius’ rising at 300 latitude fluctuated back and forth five different times between the Julian dates of July 14 and July 15 during the years 2000 to 1200 B.C. Sirius’ rising at 240 latitude fluctuated back and forth six different times between the Julian dates of July 7, 8, and 9 from 2000 to 1210 B.C., before shifting forward to July 10, in 1200 B.C… Egyptologists, including the astronomer Ingham, never observed these fluctuations in the dates of Sirius’ rising within centuries and between centuries… Because, they were unaware of the precise wobble of the earth on its axis and because they did not calculate a sufficiently larger number of dates to note these fluctuations… [Egyptologists don’t] have sufficiently precise methods of calculating the precise wobble of the earth… in comparison to [Schaeffer’s software]." (Stewart, p. 303-305, emphasis his)

This information devastates those "absolute" dates and gives us the evidence to redate the 12th dynasty some three centuries earlier, making a strong case for this being the dynasty of the Exodus (not the 18th as has been thought). Throughout Stewart’s book, with the help of Faulkner and Schaeffer’s software, these "astronomically absolute" dates and the alleged accuracy of these dates were shown to be false. The majority of these dates were found to be incorrect, nullifying the entire "traditional" chronology of Egypt. All the cumulative evidence weighs heavily against the traditional chronology and what emerges is the plausibility of a 12ty dynasty Exodus from Egypt, with Amenemhet IV and his army reaching their doom in the middle of the Gulf of Aquaba in 1446 B.C.

The Bible is clear that the Exodus did indeed occur in 1446 B.C., declaring these dates as "allegory" is just an imaginative compromise that can no longer be taken seriously. We can now, with confidence, be able to assert that the Exodus from Egypt was a real event in space/time and not some mystical "reminisce" of a group of Hebrews during the Babylonian Exile. This concludes Section I, we must now move on to Section II: Ancient Flood Stories

¹ Kitchen also argues for this point throughout his Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Tyndale Press: London, 1966). In spite of this, Kitchen has to be considered one of the prime contributors to OT study. Kitchen argues for a mid 13th century B.C. Exodus from Egypt. See also, Hill & Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (rev. ed.), "Exodus," (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2000) for arguments for/against late and early Exodus hypotheses.

² Edwin Thiele (See Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, (new rev. ed.) chapters 4, 5, & p. 229 (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, Mi., 1994) has been a major player in answering the question: How do we know Solomon’s first full year was 970 B.C.? Thiele used 10 astronomically calculated dates (9 eclipses of the sun), which in turn connect the rule of 8 different Assyrian and Babylonian kings to biblical kings. This allowed him to pigeonhole Solomon’s first full year of kingship beginning in 970 B.C.

³ The NIV translates Exodus 12:40: "Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years." The NKJV (v. 40-41) says: "Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt was 430 years. And it came to pass at the end of the 430 years—on that very same day—it came to pass that all the armies of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt." The NASB (v. 40-41) says: "Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years. And at the end of 430 years, to the very day, all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt."

The KJV and NKJV seem to imply that the 430 years do not necessarily mean time spent in Egypt. However, the NASB and NIV seem to imply that the sum of time spent literally in Egypt was 430 years. There has been much haggling over the interpretation of this text. Taken to mean 430 years physically in Egypt would require one to push adjust the date for Abraham’s birth and perhaps cause them to compress parts of their chronology.

⁴ Hoerth (See Alfred J. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 58 (Baker: Grand Rapids, Mi., 3rd print. Mar. 2001, emphasis in original) comments on Exodus 12:40: "Conservative scholars agree that the patriarchal period lasted 215 years, since several verses require that span of time (Gen. 12:4; 21:5, 25:26; 47:9). But they do not agree on the length of the Egyptian sojourn… Since Exodus 12:40 is ambiguous, the Septuagint… added a phrase to clarify the meaning (indicated by italics): ‘ The time that the sons of Israel, which dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, sojourned was 430 years.’ Clearly, in the last centuries B.C., Exodus 12:40 was understood to mean that the 430 years encompassed both Egypt and Canaan. (The Samaritan Pentateuch, which also dates to the pre-Christian centuries, has a similar reading.)"

For more on the NIV and NASB mistranslation of this scripture see Ted Stewart, Solving the Exodus Mystery, I: 32-33 (Biblemart.com: Lubbock, TX, 2nd print. 4/03)

⁵ Ted Stewart’s Solving the Exodus Mystery, Vol. I was invaluable to me in my quest for the Pharaohs of the oppression, Exodus, adjustment of Egyptian chronology, etc. I highly recommend that anyone wanting to delve deeply into this issue should read this work.

⁶ Hoerth (p. 141-143), Kitchen (Ancient Orient…p. 73-75), and Stewart (p. 281-284) record briefly the tumult in Egypt during the 13th-17th Dynasties (Second Intermediate Period). Egypt was divided and foreigners ruled some parts of it. This indicates that there was not one Pharaoh, in fact, there were up to four dynasties ruling simultaneously, three of them being foreigners.

⁷ There were also Viziers (the equivalent to our modern-day governor) for nomes (modern equivalent would be province or state) that were under the chief Vizier, he who was second only to Pharaoh. Other Pharaohs also did away with nomarchs (governors of Egyptian provinces) altogether, probably because of rampant paranoia (possible coup attempts) and egomania. One of the later 12th Dynasty rulers (Sesostris III) stripped the nomarchs of all power and had 3 separate Viziers—Northern, Southern, and Middle Egypt respectively. (See Stewart, p. 99, 174)

⁸ Stewart quotes from "Story of Sinuhe," Ancient Egyptian Literature, Lichtheim (trans.), but you can also find this text in James Pritchard’s (ed.) The Ancient Near East Vol. I. (Princeton Univ. Press: 6th hrdcvr. print. 1973) and also Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, (Prichard (ed.), 5th print. 1992).

⁹ Primary source of information on Sesostris III is Stewart (chap. 13; App. C)

¹⁰ The text of the Execration Texts can be found in Cambridge Ancient History I (Stewart’s source) or Pritchard’s The Ancient Near East Vol. I (p. 225-226) and Ancient Near Eastern Texts…(p. 328-329). These texts are attributed to Sesostris III and reflect the hatred of foreigners by the Egyptians. Numerous shards of pottery with inscriptions have been found—this being a demonstration of Egyptian belief that inscribing your enemies’ names on pottery and then smashing it strips them of their power. Sesostris III was indeed a hater, murderer and paranoid tyrant.

Sesostris III and his successor, Amenemhet III, both sent their enemies to watery tombs. Lichtheim (Ancient Egyptian Literature I: 119) quotes Sehetep-Ib-Re, one of Amenemhet III’s officials as saying: "His eyes seek out every body. He is Re who sees with his rays… Noses turn cold when he starts to rage, when he is at peace one breathes air… The king’s beloved will be honored, His majesty’s foe has no tomb, His corpse is cast into the water." Stewart says that he has yet to find any Egyptian Pharaoh prior to the 12th dynasty that sent his enemies into a watery grave. This fits what Exodus 1:22 says; the Pharaoh at that time sentenced all male Hebrew newborns to a watery grave.

¹¹ Stewart (Appendix C) cites Breasted, A History of Egypt, p. 598-599, Petrie, A History of Egypt, Vol. I: 152, and Hayes, Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. I, Part I, p. 182 in support for a 46-48 year reign of Amenemhet III

¹² Stewart (chap. 19) quotes from Lichtheim’s translation of The Ipuwer Papyrus (Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. I)—this text can also be found in Ancient Near Eastern Texts…p. 441-444. (This is the source I will be quoting from—italics in original, bold emphases are mine) John Wilson (the trans. in Ancient Near Eastern Texts…) says, "Although our manuscript was written in the Nineteenth or Twentieth Dynasty (1350-100 B.C.), the original belonged to an earlier time, perhaps to the period between the Old and Middle Kingdoms (2300-2050 B.C.). The language and orthography are ‘Middle Egyptian.’" (p. 441) Stewart (p. 253) also alludes to A.H. Gardiner (Gardiner, Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, p. 111 (Leipzig, 1909); cited by Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I: 19, 149) and Hayes’ (See Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, I: 196) proclamations that the Ipuwer Papyrus (Admonitions of Ipuwer) was written sometime during the 12th or 13th dynasties. In fact, scholars are in agreement on this—they do however, differ on whether the document is literary fiction or not.

¹³ Most people would automatically assume that this statement implies a palace coup (this is how Amenemhet I came to power and something that he was also victimized for: bad karma?), but this is hardly the case. Wilson (Ancient Near Eastern Texts…) notes: "The next stanza makes this explicit as the robbing of royal tombs. But there is an explicit attack here on the king who heard the words for his failure to preserve former order." (p. 442, note 24, emphasis added) What we do for sure from this statement is that lawlessness ruled the day; the king’s tombs were robbed (if the king was actually in power at this time, the perpetrators would have been executed). Pharaoh was nowhere to be found, powerless to bring this unrest to a halt.

¹⁴ Concerning the last 4 sentences this is a possible reference to shepherds. Shepherds were detested by the Egyptians, as were all foreigners. (Genesis 45:10, 46:33-34) We are not sure exactly what "generation" or what "seed" Ipuwer is referring to here, but it could possibly be the Hebrews. Constant references to the "poor" now being "rich" and the nobles being dropped several rungs on the social ladder make this a definite possibility. It is impossible to deny that foreigners were a major cause of the fall of the once mighty 12th dynasty—Ipuwer makes this crystal clear.

¹⁵ Wilson states concerning the last 4 sentences (p. 443, note 38): "In an unintelligible section, here omitted, Ipuwer uses the second person singular. As Nathan said to David: ‘Thou art the man,’ so Ipuwer must finally be addressing the pharaoh, pinning the responsibility for Egypt’s woes directly on the king, as indicated in the following context."

The following text says: " Authority, Perception, and Justice are with thee, (but) it is confusion which thou wouldst set throughout the land, together with the noise of contention. Behold, one thrusts against another." Wilson comments (n. 39):

"Hu ‘authoritative utterance’ or "creative command,’ and Sia ‘intellectual perception’ or ‘cognition,’ were a pair of related attributes, often deified. As attributes of kingship, they were sometimes linked to ma’at ‘justice’ or ‘truth.’ Kingship thus needed the ability to comprehend a situation, the authority to meet the situation by command, and the balance of equitable justice."

¹⁶ As one can see when they read through "The Admonitions of Ipuwer," there are several things similar to the state of Egypt described in the wake of the Exodus. The River (Nile) being blood; anarchy is rampant (due to an absent Pharaoh and his minions); cattle are few; the land is dilapidated (desert); food is lacking; the nobles and their families are now living like peasants, while the poor run amuck and rob the tombs of Pharaoh without any thought of retaliation. The storehouses are bare, cattle are stolen, and the land is in a general state of utter chaos.

¹⁷ See Stewart, chapter 11, I have also cited other sources.

¹⁸ Midian is located in modern-day Saudi Arabia, on the EAST side of the Gulf of Aquaba (Red Sea). Consulting reliable Biblical maps will also support this. For example, the Holman Book of Biblical Charts, Maps, and Reconstructions (Marsha A. Ellis Smith, gen. ed., (Broadman & Holman: Nashville, 1993), p. 118 locates Midian on the EASTERN shore of modern-day Saudi Arabia. They do however; erroneously locate Sinai in the "traditional" spot, in the Sinai Peninsula. George Mendenhall in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV: 817, (hereafter designated ABD) places Midian EAST of the Gulf of Aquaba: "Archaeological evidence strongly indicates that Midian was an important political entity that came into existence rather suddenly in the [North] Hejaz region, [East] of the Gulf of Aquaba…" The Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, "Sinai," (ed. Charles Pfeiffer, (Hendrickson: Peabody, MA, 1st print. 2000) puts Midian in the same locale—east of the Gulf of Aquaba. Why is the location of Midian so important in relation to Mt. Sinai—keep reading.

¹⁹ For demonstration of this see Itzhaq Beit-Arieh in BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review), 10:04 (July/Aug 1984), "Fifteen Years in Sinai." It is not surprising that the archaeological evidence is lacking at the traditional Sinai, for the Israelites were wandering in Arabia, not the Sinai Peninsula.

²⁰ The myriad of different starting points that have been proposed as follows. 5546 B.C.; 3400 B.C.; 3100 B.C.; 2925 B.C.; which comes to a total revision of a whopping 2,621 years! The 12th dynasty has suffered from the same fate. Once thought to begin in 3579 B.C., it has been revised to: 2000 B.C.; 1991 B.C., and finally 1938 B.C. Moller (The Exodus Case, p. 84) quotes E.A. Wallis Budge as saying:

"The dates that [Egyptologists]… have assigned to the first dynasty depend upon the number of the years that they have assigned to these two intervals. But these dates—Lepsius BC 3892, Bunsen BC 3623, Lieblein BC 3893, Brugsch BC 4455 or 4400, Meyer BC 3315, Breasted BC 3400, Hall BC 3500—are only indexes to the opinions of those who propose them, and it is quite possible that every one of them is wrong in point of actual fact, the material for fixing with certainty the date of the first dynasty does not exist at present." (Taken from Budge, The Mummy, rev. 1989, Cambridge: New York)

²¹ The information in the rest of this section can be found in Stewart, p. 292-411

²² The Sothic Cycle: Censorinus called dubbed the star Sirius as "Sothis," hence the name "Sothic Cycle." He also claimed that Sirius’ rising (since the Egyptians did not account for leap year—in contrast our modern Gregorian Calendar averages 365.2425 days over a 4-year period and is our most accurate measurement of the earth’s rotation around the sun) shifted forward on Egypt’s 365-day calendar one day every 4 years. At this rate, it would take 1,460 years for Sirius’ rising to coincide with Egypt’s new year. This is what is called a "Sothic Cycle" and this is what is used by modern Egyptologists to determine these astronomically "absolute" dates.

²³ Faulker explained to Stewart the four different methods (p. 303-304) for measuring a "year." 1) The Tropical Year: Measures the time it takes for the earth to completely rotate round the sun. Averages 365.242199 days and measures the 4 seasons of the year 2) Gregorian Year: Averages 365.2425 days per year over a 4-year span and is man’s best measurement of the earth’s rotation around the sun. 3) Sidereal (Stellar) Year: Averages 365.256484 days over a 13,000-year cycle. Measures the time that the earth rotates around the sun until it reaches the same position with the stars, not the sun. The relationship between the earth and stars has gradually changed so that the Sidereal Year averaged a fraction of a day slower (365.2520796 days) during the years 1698 B.C. and 238 B.C. 4) Julian: Is 365.25 days exactly. The reason Egyptologists are more apt to use this calendar is because it is much easier to calculate dates than the more complicated (but also more accurate) Gregorian Calendar.

Section II: Ancient Flood Stories

This section was originally going to be a documentation of the finds at ancient Ebla (Tell Mardikh—in modern-day Northern Syria) and their relation to the Bible. The reason for the change in topic is the biblical evidence at Ebla (concerning monotheism and references to Adam and Eve) is because the evidence is not what it seems. Some people believe that some of the tablets discovered at Ebla (ca. 2500 BC—see G. Pettinato, Ebla: A New Look at History, p. 58-64 (Johns Hopkins: 1991) (trans.) C. Faith Richardson) refer to Adam and Eve, as well as conveying a monotheistic religion. McDowell (The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 375-377 (Thomas Nelson: 1999) seems to believe that Ebla indeed betrays a monotheistic religious worldview, but doesn’t concretely affirm that Adam and Eve are mentioned, but merely stating, "The Ebla tablets reportedly contain references to… Adam, Eve, and Noah." (Ibid, p. 376, emphasis added) He also writes: "The tablets report belief in creation out of nothing, declaring: ‘Lord of heaven and earth, the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you created it, the morning light you had not [yet] made exist…’ [This] destroy[s] the critical belief in the evolution of monotheism from supposed earlier polytheism and henotheism." (Ibid)

The preceding message inscribed on a tablet at Ebla is far more likely a reference to Dagan, the principal god at Ebla among a pantheon of deities. There are other well-known deities mentioned in the Ebla texts such as: Istar, Ba’al, Rasup, Kamis, Sipis, Adad, et al. In offering texts and in the onomastica, Dagan often appears not with a proper name but with the appellative Lord. Ebla was very tolerant of the deities of other Semetic peoples as is shown by their sacrifices to foreign gods. The Eblaites also sent gifts as offerings to gods in distant lands such as—Byblos, Adab, and Gasur (See Pettinato, Ebla, p. 176-181). Therefore, the belief that Ebla was monotheistic and the alleged mentioning of Adam and Eve in the Ebla tablets is, at this time, pure conjecture.

Moving to the crux of this section, it’s commonly asserted by super skeptics that the biblical creation and flood accounts are borrowed from Sumerian and Babylonian literature, taken wholesale and inserted into Genesis by later redactors. As we will see, this contention is also pure conjecture, for when one critically examines these accounts in depth (and not just a cursory evaluation) they will see that there are marked differences in the accounts and hypothesizing a biblical dependence upon Babylonian and Sumerian literature is a grand stretch of one’s imagination.

The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic ¹ and Sumerian flood stories are championed as the primary source for biblical borrowing concerning the Deluge. It is intriguing that there are so many flood stories in ancient cultures; the Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. II, p. 798, s.v. "Flood") declares that no less than 68 different peoples are known to have flood motifs in their culture. Mark Isaak, at the home of sophistry has a large section chronicling various flood stories from around the world. Isaak simply chronicles them and offers no comments (he isn’t any sort of authority in this area anyway, so any comments would need to be taken with a heap of iodized salt), perhaps he got tired of collecting stamps and started collecting flood stories instead. Jim Meritt (this link was broken last time I checked it, however it is still listed in the Talk Origins Archive section) however, in his "scholarly" evaluation of flood stories has (in his eyes) settled the issue for everyone in a mere 13 paragraphs (and short ones at that). Meritt contends that the Gilgamesh Epic has been hijacked and traces of it can be found in Genesis. But is this the case? As we will see, Meritt should promptly quit his job as self-proclaimed biblical critic and go sell hamburgers or used cars. Meritt would also benefit his readers if he would learn to reference actual page numbers and not just cite the book. This gives the impression that he hasn’t really consulted any of these works (as will be shown later), but is merely borrowing this skeptical rag from someone else, who borrowed it from the sales clerk at Barnes & Noble and so it goes on ad infinitum.

Let’s delve into some of Meritt’s rant that doesn’t directly relate to what I’m covering first. He begins, "Scholars have known that there are two interwoven creation myths in Genesis for over 200 years." Who these "scholars" are is a mystery, for even the footnote below is blank, offering no one the chance to see what Jimmy has in mind. The only "borrowing" occurring here is Meritt’s parroting of listless skeptical rag. Concerning the allegation that there are dual creation accounts, see this. Meritt blathers again:

"Elohim is really the plural form (gods). This is entirely logical since the entire creation myth was actually ‘borrowed’ (a euphemism for stolen) from the Babylonians who in turn ‘borrowed’ their version from the Sumerians. Virtually all monotheistic religions evolved from earlier polytheistic religions."

This has all the earmarks of someone who threw this together at 2 in the morning after a night out on the town. Meritt "borrowed" this from the bathroom attendant at the local 7-11, who "borrowed" it from C. Farris McTill, who "borrowed" it from Frank Zindler. Elohim does NOT indicate a polytheistic worldview contrary to Meritt’s fact-free diatribe. References 2, 3, and 4 at the bottom of Meritt’s page are of no use whatsoever. Two could be referring to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, but he lists no page numbers, publishers, or editors so it’s anyone’s guess. Three is a work largely put together by anthropologists not biblical scholars, and four is (chuckle) a reference to Isaac Asimov. What’s next, Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller commenting on the Exodus from Egypt?

Meritt, like most skeptics, gratuitously assumes that since other flood stories are out there, then the Bible had to have borrowed its from the Babylonians and/or Sumerians. It is true that there are general similarities in various flood stories; it is also true that the Babylonian and Sumerian accounts can be traced far into antiquity, ² but this evidence isn’t as powerful as Meritt would like you to believe. The fundamental differences are what make the "borrowing" position tenuous.

The non-biblical flood versions all come from a polytheistic motif and as noted above, the Hebrew version is set in a monotheistic motif.

The ship itself is markedly different from Noah’s Ark. The boat used by Utnapishtim (also called Ziusudra) was an exact cube, being 120 cubits long, wide, and high. Contrast this with the Ark (Genesis 6:15), which was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Noah’s ship was long, wide, and low; Utnapishtim’s was an exact cube and would have capsized easily in the tumultuous waters. Noah’s boat ³ would have had a displacement of 43,300 tons and Utnapishtim’s 228,500 tons (See Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, p. 236).

The duration of the flood is quite different, the Sumerian version has the flood raging for a mere 7 days and nights, which culminated with the sun-god coming forth and shining his light over heaven and earth. In GE the Deluge begins with an evening rainfall, which at the break of day turned into a cataclysmic storm lasting six days and nights. The Bible (Genesis 7) states that the rain was upon the earth forty days and nights (Ibid, p. 248).

The cause of the flood in these stories also differs markedly, in Genesis we learn that it was a torrential rainfall of biblical proportions (pun intended) as well as subterranean water sources being unleashed (Genesis 7:11, 8:2). The Sumerian tablet lists the amaru, meaning "rainstorm, rain flood, cloudburst," etc. These elements, accompanied by thunder and lightning are listed in GE as shamutu kibati (destructive rain), sharu (wind), mehu (tempest), radu (downpour), abubu (rainstorm) and imhullu (evil wind). The breaking of dikes also contributed to the floodwaters. As one can see, the Bible attributes the flood to not only torrential rain, but also the breakage of subterranean water sources. The Sumerian Deluge (SD) and GE attribute the flood solely to torrential rain. Some have tried to attack this problem (it is hard to believe that a torrential rainfall could flood the entire earth in 6 or 7 days) and reduce these accounts to localized floods, a product of the yearly inundation of the Tigris and Euphrates. The term abubu, referenced above does not refer to a flood in and of itself (it seems that the "flood" of GE isn’t really a "flood" at all, but more like a "heavy rainstorm."), it is never used in this manner, to designate a river-flood or high tide of water the Babylonians would have employed melu or edu. Even if this is not so, it is still obvious that GE attributes the flood to a heavy storm. So, the SD and GE seem to betray a belief in a heavy rainstorm flooding the earth in a week. The biblical account sounds more believable, a torrential downpour amplified by the cleaving of the fountains of the deep over a 40-day period with the floodwaters subsequently prevailing for 150 days and then beginning to subside. (Ibid, p. 240-241)

The reason for the flood itself is different; the Bible attributes the flood to the increasing wickedness of all mankind and his propensity to sin. This is divine judgment for sin against God. A fragment of the Atrahasis Epic tells us why the flood was sent; (according to non-Hebrew accounts) man had become too numerous and noisy, thus depriving the chief deity Enlil of his sleep. Prior to the flood Enlil sent plague after plague and famine after famine to silence mankind, but to no avail. Finally, Enlil sent a flood (of which nobody was supposed to know, however one of the lesser deities Ea, warned Utnapishtim in a dream of the coming Deluge) to destroy them all and put an end to their racket. This seems rather crass, especially in light of the fact that mankind was created solely to cater to the needs of the gods. Enlil just got tired of man and like an old pair of shoes tossed them out. The GE and SD indicate that the flood was sent for all people, the sinner and righteous alike. Ea’s rebuttal to Enlil makes it clear that not all were sinners: "On the sinner lay his sin; on the transgressor lay his transgression!" (Ibid, p. 225-227)

The hero of the flood in the Bible (Noah) and other accounts (Ziusudra, Utnapishtim) are greatly different as well. Noah was "a just man and perfect in his generations" (Genesis 6:9), yet after the exiting the Ark the Bible moves right along do Noah’s intoxication and nakedness (Genesis 9:20-21), while GE and SD deify the flood hero and some of the other boat occupants, including Utnapishtim’s wife. (Ibid, p. 257-258)

The final column of Fragment IV of the Atrahasis Epic records the Ea and Mami, with the assistance of 14 woman (survivors of the flood?) created 14 more humans beings after the deluge. This was done, perhaps in hope of a speedy repopulation of Earth. Ea and Mami recite incantations over a lump of clay, which Mami breaks into 14 pieces, placing 7 to her left and 7 to her right. The aforementioned 14 women are called upon and eventually give birth to 7 boys and 7 girls, these modeled out of the pieces of clay. There is however, no biblical parallel to this episode. (Ibid, p. 259-260)

Taking into account the marked differences between the Genesis version and the SD and GE versions (there are more but this will suffice for now), as well as subtle agreements there are 3 ways we can look at this: 1) The SD and GE borrowed from the Hebrew account 2) The Hebrew account borrowed from the SD and GE 3) All these flood accounts come from a common source. ⁴

It is no surprise that some details are agreed upon, namely, a global flood occurred and a "hero" was called upon by a deity or deities to construct a boat to preserve mankind (even if this was not the intention of the gods). It is far more likely that the third scenario is correct, that all these flood accounts come from a core story that has been passed down from generation to generation. Unless one would propose the outlandish claim that all these cultures invented the same myth at relatively the same time with several general details in agreement.

Another skeptical objection that I have heard runs like this: "It is far more believable that the ancients saw a local flood and then concluded that this was a global flood." This only seems palatable if you believe the "ancient people are morons" theory just because they didn’t act and talk like you. The ancients were not a bunch of slack-jawed Neanderthals that couldn’t tell their heads from doorposts. Pettinato, in his work Ebla referenced above provides a plethora of material showing that the Eblaites were a highly developed culture as far back as 2500 BC, not a throng of clueless buffoons groping about the landscape. And lastly, to close this section, a few salient points from the pen of Heidel and Kenneth Kitchen concerning the contention that the Hebrews ripped off Babylonian and Sumerian material:

"[T]his view, for which many more authorities could be quoted finds no confirmation in the biblical text. In the biblical record there is not the slightest indication of an inundation caused by the rising of the rivers or the swelling of the sea. As we have observed, it mentions only torrential rains from heaven and the bursting of the subterranean fountains. Moreover, the first of these two elements is anything but characteristic of climatic conditions in Babylonia, while the second is by no means unknown in the West… attention has been called to the bird episode. But we have seen that on this point, as in many other instances, the data of the biblical record are at differences in the kind and number of birds and in the order in which they were released. Furthermore, as R. Andree has observed, the general idea of sending forth birds on the high seas for the purpose of obtaining information is met with also elsewhere in ancient literature and it not as extraordinary as it may seem at first. Pliny reports that the seafarers of Ceylon… ‘carry birds on board with them and at fairly frequent intervals set them free, and follow the course they take as they make for the land…’ Finally, there is a third way of accounting for the analogies between the Hebrew and the Babylonian versions of the deluge, viz., that they revert to a common source of some kind. This source need not at all have sprung from Palestinian soil but may very well have originated in the land of Babylonia, where, indeed, the Book of Genesis localizes the home of postdiluvian mankind (11:9) and whence Abraham emigrated to Palestine. Such as source is a very distinct possibility, especially since we know that a number of different deluge versions were current in the Tigro-Euphrates area… The skeleton [of the flood stories] is the same in both cases, but the flesh and blood and, above all, the animating spirit are different. It is here that we meet the most far-reaching divergences between [the different flood accounts]… The main Babylonian flood legend, in particular, is ‘steeped in the silliest polytheism,’ to quote the words of Dillman. The gods are divided in their counsel, false to one another and to man, they flee in consternation to the highest heaven and cower like dogs in their distress; they quarrel and lie… the moral or ethical motive is almost completely absent." (Ibid, p. 262, 264, 267-268)

Kitchen adds and rehashes some previous points:

"In the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa. In the Ancient Orient, legends were not simplified or turned into pseudo-history (historicized) as has been assumed for early Genesis… In the case of Genesis 6 to 8 and the Mesopotamian of the Flood, the situation is different. A series of basic general similarities suggests a definite relationship between the two traditions, but there are also many detailed differences (from of the Ark, duration of the Flood, the birds) and the Hebrew version is again simpler and less evolved. The Hebrew and Babylonian accounts may go back to a common ancient tradition, but are not borrowed directly from each other. The verdict of some specialists in cuneiform literature (e.g. Heidel, Kinnier-Wilson) is even more cautious, a fact that ought to be remembered in Old Testament studies." (Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, p. 89-90 (Tyndale: 1966)

¹ For the text of the Gilgamesh Epic and other ancient flood stories consult James Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East, Vol. I (Princeton: 6th hrdcvr. print. 1973) and Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton: 5th print. 1992) also edited by Pritchard

² Jack Sasson, professor of religious studies at North Carolina University states in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (II, s.v. "Gilgamesh Epic") that one version of GE (Gilgamesh Epic) stems from the Old Babylonian period, dating from 1750-1600 BC and another Neo-Assyrian version dating from 750-612 BC.

Jack Lewis, former professor of biblical studies at Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis dates a Sumerian version of the flood story (found at Nippur) prior to 2000 BC (See Anchor Bible…II, s.v. "Flood").

Alexander Heidel (See Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, p. 14-16 (Univ. of Chicago: paperback 1963) points out, "[T]he main base of our knowledge of the epic, date from the reign of Ashurbanipal, i.e., from the seventh century BC; the fragment from the city of Ashur is probably two or three hundred years older." (p. 15) He agrees with other commentators that it probably originated around 2000 BC.

³ "Noah’s Ark, as evidenced by its dimensions and the names by which it is designated in Greek and Hebrew, was of flat-bottomed, rectangular construction, square on both ends and straight up on the sides. Such a craft is represented in bronze coins from the Phrygian city of Apameia…" (Ibid, p. 235)

⁴ My friend J.P. Holding also has an article refuting the skeptical contention that the Hebrews hijacked Babylonian and Sumerian creation accounts. This does not relate directly to the material above, but will show some general flaws in the skeptical positions taken, which will apply directly to the material above.

Section III: Is the NT Reliable?

Ask some Internet screwball wasting his time on message boards and chat rooms and the answer is "no." However, considering that these clowns have spring-loaded elbows, which are only used to pat themselves on the back for their stupendous "accomplishments," it really amounts to squat. Most skeptics lack the critical thinking skills to honestly evaluate the New Testament, let along write a thought-provoking critique of it. In this section I endeavor to show their arguments to be wanting, as well as expose some of their paramount arguments and assumptions to be faulty. With that finished, let’s begin with the greatest event in the Bible and human history itself, an event that has more ink spilled about than any other event in history—the Resurrection of Christ Jesus.

This man Jesus and His claims have been the catalyst for more controversy than any other event in history. If it is true, then your eternal destiny hinges on your response to him. You cannot avoid it you must make a decision. So, did the Resurrection occur or not? The Resurrection as stated by Paul so eloquently in I Corinthians 15, "[I]f there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." The Resurrection is the paramount biblical event. Without it the faith of the Christian is rubbish. Skeptics would do well to attack it, for refuting it would render everything else obsolete. Instead of trying to find contradictions in the OT about the number of stalls Solomon had, the skeptic should focus on this. If the Resurrection is true, then everything else is "just details." In a previous work mentioned several times in this current work, I laid out some evidence that presents the Synoptics and Acts as pre-70 A.D. compositions. The evidence could actually push them back a bit further, but the point is that they were written within the lifetimes of the first generation of Christian believers, too close to the events concerned to be a product of legendary development. Let’s begin with the empty tomb.

If the tomb isn’t empty, the argument is over, plain and simple. One of the first skeptical objections leveled at the empty tomb is Paul’s alleged silence concerning it. After all, Paul is the earliest Christian writer to proclaim Christ Jesus rose from the dead, why is he so silent concerning it? The silence isn’t really any silence at all. I’m not saying that you have to "read between the lines" to find it, but just because Paul doesn’t come out and say, "The tomb is empty, the body is gone," doesn’t make him "silent" on the matter. Craig comments:

"The empty tomb also seem implicit in Paul’s speech in Antioch of Pisidia, which follows point for point the outline of the formula in I Cor. 15:3-5… ‘[T]hey took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb… But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem’ (Acts 13:19-31). No first century Jew or pagan would be so cerebral as to wonder if the tomb was empty or not. That the empty tomb is not more explicitly mentioned may be simply because it was regarded as selbstverstandlich, given the resurrection and appearances of Jesus… [T]he Gospel of Mark shows that the empty tomb was important to the early church, even if it was not appealed to as evidence in evangelistic preaching. So I think it apparent that the formula and Paul at least accept the empty tomb, even if it is not explicitly mentioned." (William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, p. 93-94 (Edwin Mellen Press: Lewiston, NY, 1989) emphasis in original)

Paul’s speech in Acts 2:24-32 also alludes to the empty tomb: "[Speaking of Christ] Whom God hath raised up… [L]et me speak freely of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day… This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." What goes down must come up. Rehashing I Corinthians 15, Paul makes it clear: "[T]hat Christ died… and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day…" (v. 3,4) In these passages we have what is called by Gary Habermas, a "triple hoti clause." Hoti (See Strong’s # 3754) is defined as: "a conjunction, demonstrating that (sometimes redundant), causative, because." We have Paul linking Christ’s death (that Christ died) with His burial (and that He was buried) and lastly, His resurrection (and that He rose). What goes down is what comes up. Stating that Christ died, was buried, resurrected and appeared implies that the tomb is empty. If I walked up to someone today and said, "I saw Richard Nixon today," their first reply wouldn’t be "but is his grave still empty?" At least if they thought like a first-century Jew this wouldn’t be their reply. Thus, nobody can read Paul accurately and conclude that he had no belief in the empty tomb.

Another oft-regurgitated skeptical axiom is: "Mark’s Gospel actually ends at 16:8, the remaining verses are a late scribal addition. These verses proclaim Christ’s resurrection, therefore Mark didn’t really believe in an empty tomb." Firstly, I will agree that Mark 16:9-20 is PROBABLY NOT part of the of the original Markan composition. ¹ This is what textual criticism is all about, working hard to find out what should and what shouldn’t be there. Skeptics like to make a lot of hay over this, using it as a blanket argument against the reliability of the entire Bible itself! "Since Mark is de facto, the earliest Gospel (which is the usual view of scholars but not the all-out consensus) and it doesn’t imply the empty tomb, we can see how this view "evolved" with the later Gospels. John’s is the latest and the most mythological of the four. It’s obvious!" blathers Dr. Fudd of the K-Mart dept. of textual criticism. This doesn’t work at all and especially not in this case. In v. 7 Mark says, "But go your way, tell [Jesus’] disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." This verse implies that the tomb is empty and that Christ intends to greet them in Galilee, with an emphasis on Peter, the source for most of Mark’s material. Verse 6 is even more direct: "Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth… He is risen, He is not here." Even without v. 9-20, the empty tomb and an appearance to Peter is explicitly implied.

In review, to say that Paul didn’t believe in the empty tomb is preposterous. He implies it clear enough in several of his passages and Mark (as well as the three other Gospel writers) implies the same thing. If the Jewish authorities did not believe that the tomb was empty, they would have been more than happy to produce the body. Instead, the tale of the disciples’ theft of the body was concocted as a rebuttal (Matthew 28:11-13). The non-believers didn’t believe that Christ had been raised, but they didn’t object to an empty tomb.

How do we account for the empty tomb? Better yet, how do we explain the belief in a resurrected Christ? Most NT scholars assert that the disciples genuinely believed that they saw Christ. How is this so? There are several possibilities—sadly, the last one is usually not even entertained as a possibility. Not because it lacks evidence, but because of philosophical presuppositions that stand in the way like a Babylonian siege ramp. 1) The Swoon Theory—the belief that Christ didn’t really die on the cross, He just swooned and was revived by the cold air of the tomb. He never really died. 2) The women went to the wrong tomb. 3) The disciples and Paul hallucinated, thinking that they saw Jesus when it was just "in their minds." 4) Jesus was raised from the grave by God the Father. Let’s deal with objection #1 first and take them in that order.

The Swoon Theory

This theory, believed by such intellectual midgets as Barbara Thiering, Donovan Joyce, and Hugh Schonfield—purports to account for the empty tomb in an entirely naturalistic vein (See Schonfield, The Passover Plot, (Bantum: New York, 1965) and Joyce, The Jesus Scroll). This theory is seriously at odds with medical and scriptural evidence. Lee Strobel, in his interview with Dr. Alexander Metherell (See Strobel, The Case for Christ, chapter 11 (Zondervan: 1998) totally demolishes any probability of Christ surviving the crucifixion. Let’s delve into some of the things Metherell touched on—showing how Christ could not have survived the crucifixion, much less walked out of the tomb three days later under his own power.

Roman floggings (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15) were very brutal. The soldier would use a whip of braided leather thongs with metal balls woven into them. When the whip would strike the flesh, these balls would cause deep bruises or contusions, which would break open with further blows. The whip also had pieces of sharp bone as well, which would cut the flesh severely. Some people that were subjected to Roman floggings had been beaten so badly that part of the spine was exposed by deep cuts. The whipping typically started at the shoulders and worked its way down the back, all the way to the buttocks and finished with the back of the legs. Alexander Metherell states, "One physician who has studied Roman floggings said, 'As the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh.’" Eusebius described a flogging by saying, "The sufferer's veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure." A lot of people would probably die before they even made it to the cross.

The victim would begin to lose large quantities of blood and in turn would go into "hypovolemic shock." Because of this the heart would race in an attempt to replace the lost blood. This would cause the victim’s blood pressure to plummet and would result in fainting (Matthew 27:32). Third, the kidneys would stop producing urine to preserve the remaining volume. Fourth, the person becomes very thirsty as the body craves fluids to replace the lost blood volume—Christ also experienced this (John 19:28-29).

Once they got the victim to the crucifixion site they would stretch him out on the crossbeam (called the patibulum, which was separate for the time being from the vertical beam which was permanently set in the ground) and drive two spikes, 5 to 7 inches long through each wrist. These spikes tapered to a very sharp point. If the victim were nailed through the palms the weight of his body would cause tearing. The wrists were a more secure position. The wrists were also considered to be part of the hand in that day. When the spike was drove through the wrists, a nerve called the medial nerve, which is the largest nerve going out to the hand, would be utterly crushed. Remember what it feels like to hit your "funny bone?" Multiply that by 1,000 and you'll get the picture. After that, Jesus was hoisted as the crossbar was attached to the vertical stake, and then the nails were driven through Jesus' feet. This would have also crushed the nerves in His feet, generating more excruciating pain. Hanging from the cross would have severely stretched the arms and pulled the shoulders out of joint. When a person was crucified they would literally die of asphyxiation. The stresses of the cross on the muscles and diaphragm put the chest into an inhaled position and in order to exhale, the victim must push up on his feet. This would tear the flesh in the feet and the spikes would eventually lock up on the tarsal bones. This causes more pain, as the bloodied back of the victim would scrape the rough wood on the cross. Eventually, when the person runs out of energy, and can't push up anymore, they can't breathe, and death comes quickly. When the person slows down their breathing a process called "respiratory acidosis" occurs. The carbon dioxide in the blood as dissolved as carbonic acid, causing an already racing heart to beat in an irregular manner. The hypovolemic shock would have sustained a rapid heart beat and that would have contributed to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart, called a pericardial effusion, as well as around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion. That would explain that when the Roman soldier thrust his spear into the side of Jesus, some clear fluid, resembling water, a product of the pleural effusion and the pericardial effusion, would pour out. A large volume of blood would have also poured out. (John 19:34) Although it wasn't literally water, it is not surprising that a medically untrained person such as John would describe it as "water." The heart cavity most likely collapsed and Christ died of none other than, cardiac arrest. ²

If Christ made it to the tomb alive (which He did not), He would’ve lost enough blood from the flogging, the holes courtesy of the spikes and the spear that He would’ve bled to death. A crippled Christ would have had to rip loose of the bandages (His arms would most likely be wrapped tightly against His chest) walk His crippled little feet to the tomb exit, roll a massive stone out of the way, piledrive the guards and be on His way. What kind of "faith" would a crippled and beaten Christ have generated with His disciples? It wouldn’t be a resurrection; it would be simply put, a "survival." The Swoon Theory is a joke and is taken seriously only by those with a philosophical axe to grind. Lastly, even the Journal of the American Medical Association (3/21/86, p. 1463), which is no doubt a Christian propagandist publication (grin) concluded:

"Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right rib, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and hear and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge." (As cited in Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 128 (Baker: 1999, emphasis added)

In other words, Joyce and Schonfield’s theories are garbage and lack any factual basis. ³ You’re welcome to believe them if you want, for after all you have the God-given freedom to be as dumb as Al Gore or Bill Maher if you want to, but the facts don’t support you and they never will.

The Wrong Tomb Theory

Simply put, the women visited the wrong tomb, found it empty and then declared that Christ was gone. The disciples, being as dumb as bricks (you’ve got to believe that ancient people were stupid just because they weren’t blessed with the critical thinking skills that most skeptics are luckily endowed with) visited the same wrong tomb and thus the resurrection was declared. The answer to this problem sits in the corner like an 800-pound gorilla. The Sadducees and Pharisees would have been more than happy to laugh and show the ignorant disciples the correct tomb and that would have been the end of it.

The Hallucination Theory

Other than the "disciples just made it all up" or the "Jesus didn’t exist" hogwash, this theory seems to be the next best thing (Primary source is G. R. Habermas, "Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection," in Christian Research Journal, Vol. 23 # 4 (2001). However, like the aforementioned theories, this one too isn’t grounded any anything empirical, it’s just the current "flavor of the month." Jack Kent in his work entitled The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (Open Gate: London, 1999) pushes the theory that Paul had a "conversion psychosis" as well as a "Messiah Complex" to explain his radical change in worldviews. The disciples, save Thomas, who were already believers in Christ, had what are called "grief hallucinations" in the wake of His death. This is where they began to see "visions" of Christ soon after. These visions were not physical; they were "all in the mind." This would be akin to an old woman whose husband of 50 years dies and in the wake of that event, in her grief, she begins to see visions of him. She would be a good candidate for what psychologists call "grief hallucination." The appearance to the 500 believers and other cases where multiple parties saw the resurrected Christ are dubbed as "collective hallucinations."

Kent believes that Anthony Flew lost his famous 1985 debate with Habermas on the resurrection because he had no silver bullet to explain these appearances of the risen Christ away. The hallucination theory, in Kent’s opinion is the real deal. In fact, in the 2000 debate between Habermas and Flew (moderated by John Ankerburg), Flew endorsed the hallucination theory as his thesis as well.

This theory isn’t new and was proposed as an explanation of the resurrection as early as the 19th century. However, it is no more convincing today then it was back then. This theory has several problems that render it utterly futile. For example, you have the conversion of three skeptics (Thomas: John 20:24-29; Paul: Acts 9:1-30; James: I Corinthians 15:3-4,7), who either had no grief in the wake of Christ’s death (Paul and James didn’t believe Jesus’ message and didn’t care) and/or had no expectation of His return from the grave.

Let’s take on the "collective hallucination" proclamation first. There are several problems with this thesis, the belief that large groups of people could somehow have the same hallucination at the same time. Habermas (Ibid) notes:

"[T]he collective hallucination thesis is unfalsifiable. It could be applied to purely natural, group sightings, simply calling them group hallucinations, too. Concerning this thesis, crucial epistemic criteria seem to be missing. It can be used to explain (away) almost any unusual occurrence. How do we determine normal occurrences from group hallucination? Even if it could be established that groups of people experienced hallucinations, it does not mean that these experiences were therefore collective. If, as most psychologists assert, hallucinations are private, individual events, then how could groups share exactly the same subjective visual perception? Rather, it is much more likely that the phenomena in question are either illusions — perceptual misinterpretations of actual realities—or individual hallucinations. (Emphasis in original)

Just how do we do that Mr. Kent? Zusne and Jones (See Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behavior and Experience, p. 135 (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1982) state that expectation and emotional excitement are prerequisites for such group experiences—but this clashes mightily with the disciples’ despair in the wake of their master’s execution. They thought it was all over and were ready to give up. Peter had no "emotional excitement" after Jesus’ death, as far as he was concerned there was nothing to look forward to, for the man that had taught and nurtured him for the last 3 years was now dead. How many people at a funeral exhibit such "emotional excitement" after the death of a parent or loved one?

The cases of supposed visions at Fatima are different, for they are "illusions" not "hallucinations." Kent makes this differentiation in his book, for an illusion is a misconception of something that is there—akin to putting your hat on a coat rack and then perceiving it as a man standing over you when you wake up. A hallucination is an apparition, a vision of something that is not physically there at all. At Fatima most of the participants are seeing events in the sky, the stars and moon moving and such. They are also going there with the expectation of seeing something amazing, exactly the opposite of the disciples and the women as they ventured to the tomb. Zusne and Jones (Ibid, p. 136) also admit that group hallucinations have a "dubious status" because it is not possible to know whether the individuals were actually hallucinating or not. Furthermore, they add (Ibid, p. 135) that if group hallucinations did actually occur (there is no empirical evidence to suggest that they do), not everyone would have the same experience. Hallucinations do occur in some circumstances but they’re rare, they’re short-lived and go away quickly, they’re not life changing and lastly, they are subjective (See S.J. Segal, "Imagery and Reality: Can They Be Distinguished?" in Origins and Mechanisms of Hallucinations, ed. Wolfram Keup, p. 103 (New York: Plenum, 1970).

This observation is also corroborated in an unpublished study of hallucinations by Shea Lambert, "Hallucinations and the Post Death Appearances of Jesus," 9/20/00 p. 2-5, 8-9. It must be noted that Kent tries to avoid "collective hallucinations." (Kent, The Psychological…p. 89-90)

Kent also proposes a "conversion disorder" for Paul (Ibid, p. 6–11, 49–61, 85–90) in the wake of his radical paradigm shift—solicited because of his experience on the way to Damascus. This "conversion disorder" is characterized by such physical symptoms as blindness or paralysis in the absence of specific neurological or medical causes. This was brought about by Paul’s inner turmoil, doubt and guilt. This is asinine because there is no indication whatsoever that Paul felt sorry about Stephen’s murder, nor is there any sort of hint that Paul wanted to convert to Christianity. Where does Kent (et. al.) get the idea of Paul’s doubt and/or guilt? James would fall under the same category, as noted above, there’s no such evidence that he had the slightest pang of doubt, guilt, or remorse over the death of his brother. Unbelief is a crummy prerequisite for hallucination.

Habermas deals with Kent’s "conversion disorder" aptly: "The psychological profile provided for conversion disorder also strongly opposes an application to Paul, James, or Peter. It most frequently occurs in women (up to five times more often), adolescents and young adults, less-educated persons, people with low I.Q.s or low socioeconomic status, and combat personnel. Not a single characteristic applies to Paul and it would be difficult to prove them for the other two apostles." (Habermas, "Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection," in Christian Research Journal, Vol. 23 # 4 (2001), emphasis added; see also Harold Kaplan, Benjamin Sadock, and Jack Grebb, Synopsis of Psychiatry, 7th ed., p. 621 (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994)

Adding to the problems with Paul’s "conversion disorder" one would have to posit both auditory and visual hallucinations simultaneously; combining that with the above data, this seems extremely unlikely (For more info see S. J. Segal, "Imagery and Reality: Can They Be Distinguished?" in Origins and Mechanisms of Hallucinations, ed. Wolfram Keup, p. 103-113)

Habermas ("Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection") points out more problems with the hallucination theory:

"If the appearances were hallucinations, then opponents should have located Jesus’ body safely and securely in His grave just outside the city of Jerusalem. That body would undoubtedly be a rather large disclaimer to the disciples’ efforts to preach that Jesus was raised! Because the hallucination hypotheses do not even address the historical arguments for the empty tomb, another naturalistic thesis is required in order to do so… Why did the hallucinations stop after 40 days? Why didn’t they continue to spread to other believers, just as the other hallucinations had… The resurrection of a contemporary individual contradicted general Jewish theology, which held to a corporate resurrection at the end of time. So Jesus’ resurrection did not fit normal Jewish expectations, and most of the witnesses to Jesus’ bodily resurrection were Jewish." (Emphasis mine)

Concerning the emphasized point in the passage above, William Lane Craig points out (See Wilkins & Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, p. 160-161) that the Jewish concept of "resurrection" was to occur at the end of the world, not in the middle of history—Nor was it to occur to an isolated individual, but as a general resurrection of all people. The skeptic will immediately point out instances in the OT (such as I Kings 17:22; II Kings 4:32-37, 13:20-21) where a "resurrection" occurred hoping to circumvent this argument. I agree that there were resurrections of the dead in the OT, however, these simply dealt with a return to earthly life, where the revived person will inevitably die again and then participate in the general resurrection of the dead. In Jewish thought the resurrection did not occur until YHWH had terminated world history. The traditional Jewish belief of the disciples is exhibited in such passages as Mark 9:9-13 and John 11:24.

The belief of a general resurrection prior to God’s ending of world history is foreign to Jewish thought. According to C.F.D. Moule of Cambridge University, the disciples’ belief in the resurrection of Christ cannot be accounted for in terms of previous historical factors (See Ibid, p. 160; Moule and Cupitt, "The Resurrection: A Disagreement" in Theology 75 (1972) p. 507-519). This explains why the disciples didn’t "seem to get it" when Christ spoke (what seemed plainly) about His death at the hands of men and His return from the grave 3 days later. Assimilating this information shows why the proclamations of one, C. Farris McTill are simply wrong. McTill (et. al.) thinks the disciples’ ignorance of Jesus’ plain speech concerning His resurrection creates a problem—ironically, it appears that the Pharisees did understand what Christ meant. After all, they took such measures to secure the tomb lest the disciples nab the body and declare the resurrection. The Pharisees thought Jesus was a screwball and they took Him seriously when He said something (even if it didn’t fit the Jewish motif), while the disciples believed and still interpreted "resurrection" in the typical Jewish manner.

Craig also adds that if the disciples did hallucinate, their hallucinations would have been molded around the Jewish expectation and as we have seen, it does not fit what Christ was saying. Hallucinations can contain nothing that is not already in the mind. In other words, if I was to hallucinate, I won’t be seeing Bultmann rifling through my tool cabinet looking for an oil filter wrench. Therefore, the hallucination theory can be discarded onto the garbage heap to rot with other theories of days gone by. Kent’s thesis is littered with errors and ignorance, the psychiatrists themselves don’t support his conclusions, but once again, perhaps the skeptic will aver, "So much worse for the facts!"

Glenn Miller has also written a short piece on the hallucination theory, debunking the claims of one skeptical reader who wished to manipulate Zusne and Jones’ writings, et al., to "prove" his hallucination theory. And lastly, as a little aside, Robert Price alleges that there is a "competing burial tradition" in Acts 13:28-29, supposedly showing that Jesus’ enemies put Jesus in His tomb and not Joseph of Arimathea. The first thing that popped into my head was that this doesn’t really help Bobby much anyway, because if Jesus’ enemies buried Him, then why didn’t they just produce the body when the disciples starting declaring the resurrection? This would only provide the Christian with more ammunition in favor of the resurrection, but then again, Price hasn’t made any guest appearances on Bill Nye: The Science Guy lately and now we know why.

Price also finds a difficulty with the disciples waiting until Pentecost 50 days later to proclaim the resurrection because after that it would be impossible to identify Jesus’ body, even if the Sanhedrin produced it (He doesn’t show us how he arrived that this conclusion). This objection is pretty weak for reasons noted in the section on the Guard at the tomb. Evidently, Price also rejects Jesus’ appearances to skeptics (Thomas, Paul, James) out of hand. For more on Price’s "arguments" go here.

The Legendary Development Theory

This theory is a favorite of the skeptical crowd as an alternative to the Rez, after all, Mark wasn’t written until after AD 90 and the rest of the Gospels until the 2nd century, it was all a case of legendary development. ⁴ This position is an utter failure, for even the most liberal scholars put Mark circa 70 AD, which would be within 40 years of the Resurrection, too close for a legendary story to develop. I would put the Synoptics and Acts prior to the conflagration of Jerusalem, which would be even earlier. Getting to my point, was this sufficient enough time for such a legend to develop? Geisler doesn’t think so:

"This does not allow time for an alleged mythological development by persons living generations after the events. The Roman historian Sherwin-White has noted that the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legends develop. He concluded that ‘the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition…" Julius Muller (1801-1878) challenged the scholars of his day to produce even one example in which an historical event developed many mythological elements within one generation. None exist." (As cited in Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia…p. 8; Sherwin-White quote from Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 190; Muller quote from The Theory of Myths, in Its Application to the Gospel History, Examined and Confuted, p. 29)

If this is not enough time for sufficient legend (or any sort of legend) to develop then the skeptic’s gratuitous assumption of Jesus’ evolution from "wise man" to "God" has been circumvented. Let’s compare the NT with other documents of antiquity and see how this plays out. We’ll compare not only the sheer number of copies, but also how close they come to the setting of the events being written about.

We have 5,600+ complete and partial extant Greek manuscripts (mss) of the NT, (as well as 24,900+ if non-Greek mss are included) which dwarfs all other literary compositions of antiquity in comparison. ⁵

For example: Homer’s Iliad was written circa 800 BC, the earliest copy we have is from 400 BC. No scholar conjectures that the Iliad was subject to massive redaction and legendary development, yet there is a 4-century gap to account for. Herodotus’ History, written circa 480-425 BC; earliest copy from 900 AD and we only possess 9 copies today! Did a throng of pious Neanderthals significantly redact Herodotus’ writings? Plate wrote in 400 BC, yet we have only 7 copies today and the oldest one dates from 900 AD. The Gallic Wars was composed in 100-44 BC, yet we have only 10 copies today and the earliest again dates from 900 AD. Livy’s History of Rome was composed in the late 1st century BC with the earliest partial from the 4th century AD (most are from the 10th century AD) and only 19 other mss known to exist. Tacitus’ Annals—only 20 mss are know to exist with the earliest being from 1100 AD. Lastly, Pliny’s Natural History, the earliest copy is over 7 centuries removed from the original and only 7 mss are known to exist.

As one can see, when the Bible is pitted against other documents of antiquity it greatly surpasses them in the sheer number of mss as well as closeness to the original. The John Rylands Papyrus, a fragment containing part of John 18, dating from 117-138 AD and found in Egypt is the earliest undisputed NT fragment. Adolf Deissman (See Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 39 (Oxford: 1964) believes that it is even earlier, at the beginning of the 2nd century. It was found in Egypt, a good distance from the traditional place of composition in Asia Minor, showing that John’s Gospel is undoubtedly a 1st century composition, not 160 AD as some have conjectured. Metzger comments:

"Had this little been known during the middle of the past century, that school of New Testament criticism which was inspired by the brilliant Tubingen professor, Ferdinand Christian Baur, could not have argued that the Fourth Gospel was not composed until about the year 160." (Ibid)

The so-called Bodmer Papyri contains fragments of John (ca. 200), and the earliest copies of Jude, Luke, I Peter, and II Peter (ca. 175-225). The Chester Beatty Papyri mss date from 200 AD (P46) and 300 AD (P45, P 47), containing most of the NT (See Kurt & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 57). It contains all or parts of the Gospels and Acts, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Hebrews, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and I Thessalonians.

The Codex Vaticanus (ca. 325 AD) contains most of the LXX and the NT. Interestingly enough, John 7:53-8:11 and the longer ending of the Markan Gospel are purposely omitted. Also missing are I Timothy through Philemon, Hebrews 9:14 to the end of the NT and the General Epistles. Codex Sinaicatus (ca. 350 AD) contains over half of the LXX, and the entire NT corpus minus John 7:53-8:11 and Mark’s longer ending. Lastly, the Codex Alexandrinus (ca. 5th century) contains all the OT except for sections of the Psalms, I Samuel, and Genesis. The NT is intact except for most of Matthew, and part of John and II Corinthians. (Consult footnote 5 for more detailed information on NT mss)

With so many mss so close to the originals, especially when compared to other ancient literary works, redaction criticism is certainly not rendered useless or futile, but the a priori assumption of legendary development within the NT is. The "miraculous" in biblical literature often falls prey to philosophical assumptions rather than logical argument. Many redaction critics fall prey to illogical methodology and apply a different standard to the biblical texts than other ancient documents. For example:

"A good illustration of the way many biblical scholars and theologians are simply unfamiliar with how ancient history-writing worked has been exposed by University of Ottawa historian Paul Merkley. Many people have cited Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon River as he returned from Gaul to Italy in 49 B.C. as a model of incontrovertible historical fact from the ancient world that also has historical significance: with that deed Caesar committed himself to civil war, and the course of the Roman empire was forever altered. What is often overlooked is that we are not absolutely sure of the date of the crossing or the location of the Rubicon. And, as with the Gospels, we have four accounts of the event from later historians—Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Appian. Only the first of these was even born before the mid-first century after Christ. All apparently relied on one eyewitness source, that of Asinius Pollio, which has disappeared without a trace. Yet the four accounts vary at least as much as the Gospels do when reporting the same event… Suetonius attributes Caesar’s decision to cross the Rubicon to seeing ‘an apparition of superhuman size and beauty,’ who was ‘sitting on the river bank, playing a reed pipe.’ When this kind of meticulous detail appears in a Gospel account, the entire story is usually rejected as mythical. Here is appears in an account of an event that is regularly cited as one of the most well-established historical facts of antiquity!" (Wilkins & Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, p. 37, emphasis in original)

The double standard is readily seen here—how many skeptical "chat room heroes" and intellectual dwarfs like Wells, Joyce, and C. Farris McTill have declared that Julius Caesar’s existence is mythical (or at least his crossing of the Rubicon) because an event in his life is chronicled with a "supernatural flavour?" Tacitus is not named as the author in the Annals except as a "header" in the document, are scholars now going to declare that Tacitus’ name must’ve been added posthumously? (As an aside, I don't mind a "robust" debate--I can handle scorn, it's no big deal--but McTill has taken it a bit too far)

As one can readily see, the Bible as a whole, and especially the NT is head and shoulders above all other major documents of antiquity in the number of extant mss and the closeness to the events being recorded. With that information, why do classical scholars fail to doubt that Herodotus, Livy, Homer, or Tacitus’ writings have been significantly altered when their mss attestation is much further from the original and with fewer mss? The answer is a sharp two-edged philosophical ax (yes, I know swords are two-edged and axes aren’t), but that ax has been ground down significantly on the NT wet stone. All the above evidence considered the "legendary development" theory doesn’t hold water.

Luke’s Census

Now that we’re finished with those wonderfully articulate alternate theories for the Rez, let’s deal with the Census described in Luke. The text reads: "And it happened in those days, a decree went out from Caesar Augustus (for) all the habitable world to be registered. This registration first occurred (during) the governing of Syria (by) Cyrenius. And all went to be registered, each to (his) own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of (the) city of David which is called Bethlehem, because of his being of (the) house and family of David…" (Luke 2:1-4, literal translation) These passages have generated a lot of debate because Mary became pregnant when Herod was King of Judea. Herod died in 4 B.C. and Cyrenius (Quirinius) didn’t become governor of Syria until 6-7 A.D., when this census began. Unless you propose a ten-year pregnancy you have a major problem.

First, let’s deal with whether such censuses even took place. I have J.D. Crossan on videotape proclaiming that such a census would have been "a bureaucratic nightmare," suggesting that such a thing would not have taken place (videotape, Who is this Jesus?). This, like most of Crossan’s gratuitous presuppositions and arguments from silence has been convincingly overturned in light of archaeological discoveries. John McRay, quoting one official government document from 104 A.D.

"Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt (says): Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments." (John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, p. 155 (Baker: 1991) emphasis added)

Another document cited by Joseph P. Free, dating from A.D. 48 says: "Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them." (Free, Archaeology and Bible History, p. 285, emphasis added) This indicates that entire families were involved in the census, bureaucratic nightmare or not, these censuses occurred. The issue now at hand is whether such a census occurred in Jesus’ time. Right now we don’t have concrete archaeological evidence or otherwise pointing to the very census that Luke is referring to (scholars are divided as to which census Luke himself is referring to) but there is a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak. Philip C. Schmitz of the Dept. of History and Philosophy at Eastern Michigan University takes a pessimistic approach, saying:

"Proposed solutions to the chronological problem have attempted to separate Quirinius from the census by means of historical and linguistic arguments. The historical argument posits a census previous to the of 6/7 [A.D.], at some point late in the reign of Herod… It is thus unlikely, though not impossible, that a Roman census would have been conducted during Herod’s lifetime… The grammatical argument necessitated by any separation of Quirinius from the census interprets the Lukan clause haute apographe prote egeneto (2:2) adverbially as ‘this census was the first’ (of two made by Quirinius) or ‘this census was before’ (another made by Quirinius)… It fails to account for the following genitive absolute, and is therefore unsatisfactory. Yet another approach has been to speculate that Quirinius held an earlier term of office as legate to Syria during which he conducted a census previous to the one with which Josephus concerns himself. Various inscriptions have been appealed to in support of such a reconstruction of Quirinius’ career, but classical scholarship remains unconvinced." (ABD, I: "Census")

Karl P. Donfried, Professor of Religion and Biblical Literature at Smith College blathers:

"Some who would wish to defend the accuracy of the information about Quirinius presented in Luke 2:1-3 point to the existence of a damaged inscription from Tivoli, the lapis or titulus tiburtinus, now in the Vatican Museum, which refers to a nameless Roman who was twice governor of Syria. Mommsen, W.R. Ramsay, and others argue that the person in question is Quirinius and that his first reign was in the late years of Herod’s reign. Ramsay has also pointed out that there are recorded occasions when two mean with the rank of legatus Caesaris were appointed to one province and that it is possible that Quirinius was given some type of extraordinary command alongside the regular governor of Syria. Yet there are problems with this defense of Lukan accuracy: (1) there is no evidence that the titulus tiburtinus refers to Quirinius; (2) the Latin of the text is wrongly translated. As Fitzmeyer and others have shown, iterum does not modify optinuit but the preceding phrase. Thus, the text reads: as ‘propraetorial legate of Divus Augustus for the second time, he received Syria and Phoenicia.’ Further, there is no evidence that a proconsul would become a legate of the emperor twice in the same province." (ABD, I: 1012, "Chronology," emphasis in original)

Donfried engages in at least two arguments from silence: 1) There is no evidence that titulus tiburtinus refers to Quirinius and 2) no evidence that a proconsul would rule twice in the same province. Why is this so far-fetched? Grover Cleveland served as president twice in a non-consecutive fashion for crying out loud! As far as the translation of this inscription, it is hardly unanimous. Glenn Miller, citing Dr. Ernest Martin’s statement concerning the inscription at Trivoli:

"A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated." (Chronos, Kairos, Christos, (ed.) Edwin Yamauchi (et. al.) p. 90 (Eisenbrauns: 1989)

The other interpretation, in which Ramsay was the catalyst, is that this inscription refers to Quirinius himself. In the former case, Quirinius would have been a procurator during the time of Christ’s birth. Miller notes that either way, someone served twice; Quirinius could easily have played a part in the census.

Skeptics are quick to point out that Luke 2:2 should be translated the traditional way, leaving him with a grievous error. This is not the case, much to the chagrin of the skeptical camp. F.F. Bruce states:

"There is good inscriptional evidence that when Quirinius took up office in Syria in AD 6 this was the second occasion on which he served as imperial legate. The first occasion was when he commanded an expedition against the Homanadensians, a mountain tribe of Asia Minor, some time between 12 and 6 BC. But our evidence does not state expressly in which province he was imperial legate at this earlier date… The question is not yet finally decided, but it may be best to follow those commentators and grammarians who translate Luke II. 2 as ‘This census was before that which Quirinius, governor of Syria, held.’" (Bruce, The New Testament Documents, p. 87; see also N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, p. 23ff, (T&T Clark: 1965)

Geisler points out that "a census was a massive project which probably took several years to complete. Such a census for the purpose of taxation begun in Gaul between 10-9 B.C. took 40 years to complete." (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia… p. 431) Habermas interjects:

(1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 B.C.-14 A.D.), placing it well within the general time from of Jesus’ birth. (4) The date of the specific taxation recounted by Luke could very possible have been 6-5 B.C., which would also be of service in attempting to find a more exact date for Jesus’ birth." (As cited in Ibid; Habermas, The Verdict of History, p. 153)

Bringing to light other possible solutions:

"[P]eriodic registrations of this sort took place on a regular basis every 14 years. According to the very papers that recorded the censuses, (see W.M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? 1898), there was in fact a census taken in about 8 or 7 B.C. Because of this regular pattern of census taking, any such action would naturally be regarded as a result of the general policy of Augustus, even though a local census may have been instigated by a local governor. Therefore, Luke recognizes the census as stemming from the decree of Augustus… Luke’s account fits the regular pattern of census taking, and its date would not be an unreasonable one. Also, this may have been simply a local census that was taken as a result of the general policy of Augustus… [Pertaining to the when of Quirinius’ governorship] Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 B.C. to about 4 B.C. Varus was not a trustworthy leader, a fact that was disastrously demonstrated in A.D. 9 when he lost three legions of soldiers in the Teutoburger forest in Germany. To the contrary, Quirinius was a notable military leader who was responsible for squelching the rebellion of the Homonadensians in Asia Minor. When it came time to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate problem in the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superceding… Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special authority in this matter." (Geisler & Howe, When Critics Ask, p. 383-385 (Baker: 1992)

Skeptics also like to make hay about the fact that Judea did not become a Roman province until 6 A.D.; therefore no such taxation-census could have taken place. This is completely false, even as a so-called "client kingdom," Judea was still much under the thumb of Roman authority; Rome still did what it wanted. Client kingdoms were still subject to enrollment decrees, period (See Blaiklock, The Century of the New Testament, (1962) and The Archeology of the New Testament (1970). It is also well known that later in Herod’s reign, Augustus treated him more like a vassal than a friend. What better way to prove to the people of Judea that they’re at your mercy?

In review, the practice of censuses stem from Augustus himself, of which Luke alludes to. But, the very census in which Mary and Joseph took part in might have had a local origin. Quirinius could have been given a special position in this activity due to the incompetence of Varus or there were two Quiriniuses, which has been proposed by Ramsay. Bolstering that contention is a coin discovered by Jerry Vardaman, with Quirinius’ name inscribed on it in micrographic letters, placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod. (See Strobel, The Case for Christ, p. 101-102; Robert Boyd, Tells, Tombs, and Treasure, p. 175 (Baker: 1969); cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p. 172 (College Press: Joplin, MO 1996)

And last, but not least Miller writes:

"[T]he term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, Festus, Felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270), this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term. My point is… nothing is really out of order here."

In conclusion, there is no reason to deny Luke’s historical accuracy here. Considering the myriad of historical reminisces that Luke is correct on, as well as the plausible alternatives to declaring an error in Luke—there is no good reason to find him at fault. Now for those biblical minimalists out there who still contend that he’s wrong, we’ll wait patiently while you go back to the drawing board and try, try again. The ancient document always gets the benefit of the doubt unless proven concretely wrong—for those who object to this, take it up with the courts, for a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The Historical Jesus

The list of people that object to a Jesus that existed in space/time is shrinking by the minute and for good reason. Rather than try to attack the Resurrection or something more specific, why not just knock out the founder of this religious movement and declare, "Jesus never even existed." One has to remember that the people making this asinine proclamation are those who reject the Bible out of hand and require extra-biblical attestation for everything spoken of in God’s Word. This seems rather crazy, we don’t see Tacitean scholars demanding outside evidence for everything that Tacitus wrote about—we don’t see Egyptologists demanding extra-Egyptian evidence for everything they find. Why do they subject the Bible to a more rigorous test? Probably because Tacitus or Rameses didn’t proclaim that your response to them would affect your eternal destiny.

What I am going to do is tie half of my brain behind my back just to make it fair (ala Rush Limbaugh) and limit our discussion of a historical Jesus to only extra-biblical material. The written material about Jesus Christ outside the Bible is not mountainous, but it is nonetheless convincing enough to show that He did actually exist in space/time (that’s if you reject the Bible because if a philosophical presupposition).

As I stated before, the extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is NOT mountainous, but IT IS effective. Here are the allusions to Jesus Christ and the order that we’ll take them in. 1) Josephus: Has 2 ref. to Jesus, but the most important one is the disputed Testimonium Flavianum. 2) Mera bar-Serapion: Wrote a letter to his son possibly mentioning Christ 3) Jewish Rabbinical writings: Such as the Talmud, the Mishnah, etc. 4) Cornelius Tacitus: Mentions the crucifixion under Pilate 5) Thallus and Phlegon’s writings 6) Suetonius: In his history of the life of Claudius 7) Pliny the Younger: Governor of Bithynia during the 2nd century—writes about the Christian movement 8) Lucian of Samasota: Renowned satirist, calls Christ a "crucified sophist."

It is important to note before we begin that none of these writers were Christians, in other words, the worn-out "bias" card that the skeptical camp likes to play will not work here. This section also takes into account the famous "Principle of Enemy Attestation," in other words, what your enemies admit is usually true. Let’s being and take them in order.

Josephus

Josephus’ clearest (for the sake of argument only) reference to Jesus occurs in Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1 (as cited in Whiston, The Complete Works of Josephus, p. 423, emphasis added) where he writes:

"[The high priest] Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority.]… [Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

This event occurred in A.D. 62, Jesus’ brother James being murdered at the hands of the Sanhedrin. The important thing to remember is that here Josephus calls Jesus the one "who was called Christ." This seems to be a pretty obvious denial of Jesus’ status by Josephus; he does not believe that Christ is who He said He was. The plain mention of James’ death at the hands of the Sanhedrin, along with no mention whatsoever of either party’s role in the Christian movement seems to argue strongly for the authenticity of this passage. It is doubtful that a Christian interpolator would call Jesus "ho legomenos christos" (the so-called Christ). This passage is a concrete allusion to a historical Christ by a renowned ancient historian. The second reference to Jesus is a hotly disputed passage. It reads thus:

"Now, there was bout 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 amongst 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." (Quoted in Ibid, p. 379, emphasis added; Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3.)

I clarified the disputed part of the passage in italics for clarification, for these are the parts of the passage that are not typically Josephan. The former citation from Josephus makes it clear that he viewed Jesus as the "so-called Messiah" or "so-called Christ" and not the Messiah. There are 3 ways that a person can deal with this passage. 1) For those who are incapable of critical thinking—throw it all out because some of it has been altered. These are the same dough heads that find a scribal error amongst Hebrew numerals in the OT and conclude that God doesn’t exist. The bath water is dirty, so we’ll throw the baby out with it (grin). 2) The passage is entirely authentic and came originally from the pen of Josephus. This is pretty doubtful, for reasons we will delve into shortly. 3) The majority of the passage is authentic and contains a Josephan allusion to Christ and His demise, even though it has been subsequently "dressed up" by a later interpolator.

I take the third position and the evidence clearly demonstrates that this is the most logical position to take, anything else is a grounding of one’s feet firmly in mid-air. The passage minus the italicized words is typically Josephan. The italicized phrases are typical of a believer, but certainly not an Orthodox Jew like Josephus.

Josephus certainly did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, because elsewhere he says Vespasian fulfilled the OT promise of a world ruler! (See Wars of the Jews, 6.5.4) In addition, Jerome (De Viris Illustribus 13) alters the text, amending it as, "he was believed to be Christ." It seems that later Christians also found this to be much too rich for even Josephus! Lastly, the description of Christ as a "wise man" sounds Josephan, to a Christian, Jesus is more than just a wise man—the description of Christians as a "tribe" is absent from early Christian literature, whereas Josephus uses it to describe the Jewish "race" as well other national and communal groups (See R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, p. 28-29 (Hodder & Stoughton: London 1999 edition). This affirms the belief that Josephus made an actual allusion to Christ and the passage was subsequently "dressed up" at a later date. However, there are those who still argue against this passage, despite the facts—So much worse for the facts, right?

G.A. Wells, a strong advocate of the "Jesus never existed" theory believes (naturally) that this entire passage should be discarded as a Christian insertion (See Wells, Did Jesus Exist, p. 10 (Pemberton: London 1975); for the rest of his "arguments" see, Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, (Prometheus: NY 1982). He argues that this passage about Christ interrupts the "proper sequence" of this section of Antiquities of the Jews. R.T. France makes short work of Wells’ "argument":

"In Book XVIII of the Antiquities Josephus relates some of the provocative actions of Pontius Pilatus. Two such anecdotes take up sections 55-62, and Josephus eventually returns to the theme in sections 85-89, where he relates Pilatus’ ultimate dismissal. In between these accounts of Pilatus is… the Testimonium Flavianum (63-64), one about a scandal in Rome involving the priests of Isis (65-80), and one about a Jewish ‘con trick’ in Rome which led Tiberius to expel the Jews from the city (81-84). These last two events, which Josephus deliberately brackets together, happened about A.D. 19, well before the governorship of Pilatus in Judea, so that it seems this whole section of Book XVIII is not a very carefully compiled collection of miscellaneous events relating to the theme of bad relations between the Jews and Rome… Both the brief account of Jesus and the longer pair of stories about scandals in Rome are introduced by a vague connecting phrase, ‘And about this time.’ All this makes one wonder how Wells can argue that if the passage about Jesus is removed ‘the argument runs on in proper sequence.’ To achieve such a ‘proper sequence’ one would surely need to excise sections 65-84, so that the Pilatus stories could stand together. Yet these sections relate to events which are independently attested to both by Tacitus and by Suetonius." (France, The Evidence for Jesus, p. 27-28)

In 1971, an Israeli scholar, S. Pines published a monograph on an Arabic version of Josephus done by Agapius, the tenth-century bishop of Hierapolis. The Greek text and the Arabic text were compared and the differences were telling. The Arabic version assumes that Jesus is human, the text refers more to Jesus’ righteousness rather than his miraculous deeds, and the resurrection appearance is called "a report," and "perhaps" is inserted before the phrase "he was the Messiah." What we have here is evidence that points to an authentic Josephan allusion to Christ and His crucifixion under Pilate—minus the interpolations. Pines believed that this verse was indeed the closest to the original text of this passage. (See Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, (eds.) Moreland & Wilkins, p. 213 (Zondervan: 1995)

In review, the evidence points strongly towards two allusions to Christ by Josephus. The latter has been edited, but extracting the additions from it actually aids the "flow" of the passage. Josephus, a reputable historian obviously believed: 1) That a man names Jesus, the so-called Messiah existed in space/time 2) His brother James was executed by the Sanhedrin in AD 62 3) He was a "wise man" with superior oral skills, convincing many of His preaching 4) He was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Mara bar-Serapion

In a letter to his son, dating sometime after AD 70 he writes:

"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 shortly after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: The Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teachings 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." (Cited in F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, p. 114)

Once again, we have typically non-Christian terms being employed—the comparison to Socrates and Pythagoras, the reference to Him as a "wise king," and (obviously) if he were a Christian he would say that Christ lives on not only in His teaching, but because He was raised. Whoever Serapion is, he isn’t a Christian. Although Christ is not explicitly mentioned here, the reference to "the Jews executing their wise king" narrows the field down quite a bit. The Jewish kingdom being abolished most certainly refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D., which happened within 40 years of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. The reason 1st century references to Christ and Christianity in general are so scarce and ambiguous is because at that time it was, from a Roman viewpoint, a ridiculous superstition not worth their time. However, due to the uncertainty of the date of this document (Socrates’ death was already centuries old anyway) it is of very little historical value, although the reference to the Jews’ execution of their "wise king" could possibly be a reference to Christ.

Rabbinical writings ⁶

The Rabbinical writings have a very brazen attitude towards Jesus and His claims. Those who opposed Him didn’t pull punches and mince words—their hatred was at the forefront of every mention of Him. The Babylonian Talmud (5th century AD) Sanhedrin 107b reads thus:

"One day he (Rabbi Joshua) was reciting the Shema (Deut. 6:4) when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. [Jesus thought] it was to repel him, went, put up a brick and worshipped it… And a master has said, ‘Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray." (Emphasis added)

"It was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (the Nazarene) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, emphasis added)

Although this testimony comes from the 5th century it is still important because this is an enemy attestation to the existence and some of the deeds (or as they perceived it—sorcery) of Jesus Christ. The writers do not deny that He existed, nor do they deny His ability to perform miracles (sorcery), Jesus evidently made enough of a ruckus that He and His testimony needed to be quashed. In other writings (See Yamauchi, "Aramaic Magic Bowls," in Journal of the American Oriental Society, # 85 (1965) p. 511-523 for discussion) Jesus is identified as a student of Rabbi Joshua ben Parahya (circa 100 B.C.), a notorious practitioner of magic. Obviously Jesus wasn’t a student of his, but the point being: The Rabbis would have no reason to invent such a man; they hated Him and insulted Him in typical polemical fashion.

These passages assert correctly that Jesus was "a Nazarene" and the charge of "practicing magic" is a typically Jewish one. Charges similar to this are paralleled in the NT (See Mark 3:22; Matthew 9:34, 10:25, 27:63). The section about an announcer going forth for 40 days prior to His death is not paralleled in the Gospels, but is typical of the process before a person is to be executed. For example, right before the execution a final public appeal is made where one can step up and plead on behalf of the accused is paralleled in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:1). An appeal procedure of forty days is however, NOT paralleled in the Mishnah. The reference to "hanging" is most likely a historical reminisce of Jesus’ death, or at the very least the way the Rabbis thought Christians perceived it. The punishment for "practicing magic" is also in an entirely Jewish context. That these passages attest to Jesus’ death on the eve of Passover for "practicing magic and leading Israel astray" is an important enemy attestation to His life and crucifixion even though there are clearly legendary and polemical insertions.

Other writings (Tosefta Hullin 2:22-24) refer to Jesus as the product of an adulterous affair between Mary and "some soldier called Panthera." Jesus is referred to as Pantera several times in Rabbinic writings and this is also acknowledged by Origen (Against Celsus, 1:32). Mary is branded as an adulterer, a "women’s hairdresser," and the like (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 67a). This is most likely a polemic attack on the Christian belief of the virginal conception of Jesus.

In review, the evidence is not mountainous, it contains some polemical and legendary insertions, but the multiple testimony to Jesus’ conviction of sorcery, "hanging" on the eve of Passover, as well as the accusation that His mother was a harlot have earmarks of historical reminisces—attested by enemies of Christ. Therefore, we can conclude with confidence that the Rabbis believed in a historical Jesus and His death because of "sorcery."

Cornelius Tacitus

Born in the mid-1st century AD, a renowned Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen emperors, has this to say in his Annals, XV: 44

"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, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (As cited in R.M. Hutchins (ed.), Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 15: The Annals and The Histories by Cornelius Tacitus (William Benton: Chicago, 1952)

Tacitus hated Christians and Jews and acknowledged that Christus (common pagan misspelling of Christ) was the catalyst for this "pernicious superstition" (probably a reference to Christian proclamations of the Resurrection), though "checked" for a time (by the execution of the founder under Pilate), has now spread all over Judea (where it all got started) and even throughout Rome. He also tells us who was emperor when this got started. Incredibly, Tacitus supplies us with many details that fully agree with the NT.

Those like Wells, who refute this with petty objections such as: Tacitus was just regurgitating Christian propaganda (and this goes on ad nauseum)—are simply digging holes they cannot crawl out of. Tacitus’ hostile tone towards Christians in his writings suggests that he was NOT using them as a source of information (how will the skeptic endeavor to positively affirm such a fact—don’t ask me to disprove your contention, I cannot prove a negative), but that does not deter Wells (See Wells, Did Jesus Exist? p. 13-15). He whines, "there is no compatibility between a hostile attitude and careful cross-examination of those on trial," as might be the case with Pliny.

Tacitus’ references to Christus, (if he were consulting Christians he would have addressed Jesus as "Christ") is positive evidence only for what was believed about Christianity in 115 A.D. when he penned this. Putting that aside, there’s plenty other biblical and extra-biblical testimony to prove this. Moreover, his passage just happens to be consistent with the picture painted in the NT. This passage is a factor in favor of Christian apologetics, not a negative, as Wells tries to spin doctor his way out. Wells cannot simply blather that Tacitus was regurgitating Christian propaganda, he has to prove it and he is far from it. (See France, The Evidence…p. 21-23)

Lastly, Tacitus was governor of Asia at the same time Pliny the Younger was ruling Bithynia, and he was the son-in-law of Julius Agricola, governor of Britain from 80-84 A.D. If Pilate did send a report to Rome, Tacitus would probably have had access to it. Tacitus is also the only ancient author outside of Jewish and Christian sources to mention Pilate. It is utterly ironic that the lone mention Pilate receives from a Roman historian is his role in the execution of Jesus Christ (See F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, p. 117-118). Spin-doctor Wells needs a bigger shovel.

Thallus and Phlegon

More bad news for the "Jesus never existed" crowd. Sharpen your pencils skeptics you might learn something. I have lumped Thallus and Phlegon together because they both focus on similar events—namely the period of darkness during Christ’s crucifixion (Mark 15:33; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44-45). Thallus and Phlegon’s works are now lost but are preserved in the writings of one Julius Africanus. Let’s start with Thallus. ⁷

Some skeptical of this mention (because this is evidence that purports to support the biblical mention of the darkness) of the darkness during the crucifixion usually use 1 of 2 objections: 1) Africanus is just making it up wholesale (which is without support) and 2) Why is this only mentioned in the works of Christian apologists?

Are you kidding me? Thallus and Phlegon are hardly Christians, and the skeptic fails to deduce that Africanus was NOT writing an apologia, but was writing a historia. Let’s knock down some more skeptical axioms.

The best place to start, naturally, is the passage in question, where Thallus mentions the darkness. So, Julius Africanus:

"As to His works severally, and His cures effected upon body and soul, and the mysteries of His doctrine, and the resurrection for the dead, these have been most authoritatively set forth by His disciples and apostles before us. On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the Passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, as their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let that opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period. But it was a darkness induced by God, because the Lord happened then to suffer." (Africanus, Chronography, XVIII:I; as cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI, p. 136-137, (ed.) A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Eerdmans: 1997 reprint)

It is ultra-important to note that Thallus did NOT object to the fact that this darkness was occurring; he simply tried to explain it away in a naturalistic manner, which Africanus exposes as utter rubbish. Africanus also didn’t critique Thallus for the actual occurrence of the darkness, just his explanation of it. The fact that Christ was crucified under the paschal moon shows that this could not be explained away as an eclipse. Another objection is that this event happens to be a chronicling of an actual eclipse that occurred in AD 29 (another one of Well’s "arguments"). As already noted, Thallus wouldn’t have need to concoct a naturalistic explanation had this been the case.

Africanus also mentions Thallus in another passage: "And after the 70 years of captivity, Cyrus became the king of the Persians at the time of the 55th Olympiad, as may be ascertained from the Bibliothecae of Diodorus and the histories of Thallus and Castor, and also from Polybius and Phlegon, and others besides these, who have made the Olympiads a subject of study… For these things are also recorded by the Athenian historians Hellanicus and Philochorus, who record Attic affairs; and by Castor and Thallus, who record Syrian affairs; and by Diodorus, who writes a universal history in his Bibliothecae; and by Alexander Polyhistor, and by some of our own time, yet more carefully and by all the Attic writers." (As cited in Ibid, p. 133; Africanus, Chronography, XIII:II, III)

Here we see Thallus lumped with such great historians as Polybius, Hellanicus, and Castor of Rhodes. Whoever he is, he is in good company. In other words, Thallus’ historical writings are probably accurate and trustworthy.

Thallus is also mentioned by Eusebius as the author of a Greek work chronicling world history from the Fall of Troy to the mid-first century AD. Thallus’ works are generally agreed to have been composed in the mid to late first century AD (See Murray Harris in Gospel Perspectives, 5: 344 (eds.) R.T. France and D. Wenham (JSOT Press).

Josephus has a possible allusion to this Thallus in Antiquities of the Jews (18.6.4):

"Now there was one Thallus, a freedman of Caesar’s of whom he borrowed a million of drachmae, and thence repaid Antonia the debt he owed her, and by spending the overplus in paying his court to Caius, became a person of great authority with him." (As cited in Whiston, The Complete Works of Josephus, p. 384-385)

If this is the same Thallus spoken of by Eusebius and Africanus, Miller tells us that this shows us 4 very important things: 1) How he had the time to write such a history 2) How he had access to records being associated with Tiberius 3) How he had knowledge of such events in Palestine being of Samaritan descent 4) How he had the financial means to do the traveling necessary for doing a history (historia) in those days. Miller adds a very salient point:

"What I find interesting about the existence of this interchange is the context of Julius' purpose in writing. He is writing a HISTORY/CHRONOLOGY, not an APOLOGETIC per se. He is trying to anchor dates and merge biblical chronology with the chronologies of Greece, Rome, etc. In this effort, he is much more concerned about proving that the darkness was NOT an eclipse than that it was a supernatural event. The chronology needs to be consistent with astronomical data (as required for ALL good 'historia'). His concern is historical TRUTH, not theology."

With that considered, how can people, such as Wells discard this passage with such petty, nonsensical objections? So much worse for the facts Professor Herr. It would also be recommended to read the points Miller gives concerning Africanus and his impeccable credentials. These three writers (Africanus, Phlegon, Thallus) were reliable historians by any standard, had the credentials, the social status, and the ability to write and compile such histories. Phlegon ironically even refers to the very hours that the darkness occurred (6th to 9th hours) and that it occurred during the reign of Tiberius.

In conclusions we know: 1) These three men took the existence of Jesus as a watershed issue 2) This man, Jesus, was crucified during the reign of Tiberius 3) During his crucifixion, the land was covered in darkness for 3 hours. These facts deal a deathblow to the "Jesus never existed" theory and only make it more and more impossible to lend any credibility to anyone pushing such nonsense.

Suetonius

Suetonius says this concerning the expulsion of Jews from Rome in Life of Claudius, 25.4. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [another spelling of Christus], he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome." This passage is somewhat problematic, as Suetonius seems to imply that this instigator (Christus) was literally in Rome at the time. If this is true, then the passage cannot be speaking of Christ, for He had already ascended. Some scholars believe that Suetonius was simply confused about these riots and if he was talking about Christ, wrongly stated that He was in Rome. In Acts 18:2 we have a parallel to Suetonius’ statement about the Jews being expelled from Rome by Claudius in AD 49.

In his Lives of the Caesars, 26.2, Suetonius says, concerning the fire that swept through Rome in A.D. 64, "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." He doesn’t explain the reason for this treatment, and again gives us nothing directly related to Christ Himself. However, what he does do is: 1) Confirm that "Christians" and their beliefs were prevalent as far as Rome in the mid-first century 2) The reference to a "mischievous superstition’ could refer to the proclamation of the Resurrection—at the very least we have a major religious movement that needs some kind of explanation as to how it started.

Pliny the Younger ⁸

Pliny the Younger was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (112 A.D.), and was writing to Trajan as to how he should treat Christians. Pliny had killed so many Christians that he wondered if he should keep doing this or just kill certain ones. Pliny states that he had made Christians bow down to statues of Trajan and that he also "made them curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." In that same letter (Epistles X, 96) Pliny says, "They affirmed however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up."

Once again, in the aforementioned letter Pliny says this to his good friend, Emperor Trajan: 

"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished... This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they called deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths."

Pliny does name the founder of this religious movement, acknowledging that Christ as the catalyst for it. This evidence some what parallels Suetonius’. Christians were numerous in areas other than Rome, in this case northwestern Asia Minor, including rural and urban areas and those who were free and those who were slaves.

Lucian

An avowed hater of Christ and Christianity, and renowned satirist writes in his The Death of Peregrine, 11-13:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them as common property."

Lucian (mid-late 2nd century) verifies some salient points: 1) That Christians worship a "man" named Jesus who literally lived in space/time 2) Was the founder of this belief system and its rituals 3) Was crucified because of this

Lucian wasn’t too far removed from the events surrounding Christ and being an avowed hater of Christianity he would have no good reason to make this up. If he were the only author writing about Christians and their founder the "he was just regurgitating Christian propaganda" argument might work. Of course, how one is going to endeavor to prove that Lucian was doing such a thing is beyond me at this point. Considering all the cumulative evidence (some direct and some indirect) we can reasonably conclude: 1) A man named Jesus existed in space/time 2) He was the founder of the "tribe" or "sect" called Christians 3) He was executed under the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate 4) This movement was prevalent in the first century with Christians permeating rural and urban areas including Rome, Asia Minor, etc.—All from NON-CHRISTIAN authors.

This is really bad news for the Muslim camp, for the Qur’an seems to contain a grievous historical error, stating that Christ was not crucified, but someone was substituted for Him. The Muslim counter-argument will probably be: "The person that was really crucified looked like Jesus, that’s why everyone was fooled." This argument might sound good to someone with no capacity for critical thinking, but how on earth is one going to positively prove such a thing? I could say, "Prove to me there weren’t yellow invisible undetectable aardvarks at the theatre where Lincoln was shot," how would you prove me wrong? The fact of the matter is—this Muslim hypothesis is an unprovable one, without a shred of historical foundation in the 1st or 2nd century AD. No classical historian or NT scholar would take this seriously and for good reason. Therefore, the Qur’an is a worthless document in terms of constructing a historical biography of the life of Christ.

Nobody with any scholarly credibility (remember that Wells was a scholar in German, not a classical historian or NT scholar and the rest of these clowns like Joyce and Thiering don’t have the qualifications either. Sorry to ruin your day) believes that the man Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist, nor do they deny the historicity of the crucifixion under Pilate.

Even within the ultra-liberal Jesus Seminar (primarily J.D. Crossan and Borg) there’s no one who disputes that Christ really was crucified. Now you can see why Otto Betz declared: "No serious [or credible] scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (Betz, What Do We Know About Jesus? p. 9 (SCM Press: 1968)

Lastly, in spite of the biblical and extra-biblical testimony for Jesus’ existence, skeptics still whine about "all those other authors who didn’t mention Jesus." (In other words, they cannot answer the material presented, so they endeavor to change the subject) This objection is a petty one at best. As J.P. Holding points out, most of those authors would not have any reason to mention Jesus. Yet skeptics still concoct screwball objections that every clown with pen and parchment should’ve churned out volumes concerning Jesus. Better start cracking open those books skeptics, your arguments have been flattened. And for those who believe that Christians just silenced everyone and outlived those who knew better and yet were silent, I highly recommend that you read this.

Principles of Embarrassment

In this section I endeavor to show several lines of evidence from the NT itself that display things, if invented out of thin air, would have been counter-productive to the apologetic or mission of the NT apostles and the early church. This section is similar to my friend J.P. Holding’s "The Impossible Faith" and I hope I can add some more food for thought on this subject.

Let’s start with Paul, for skeptics are always suggesting that Paul inserted data from thin air into his writings, since he was not a companion of Christ during His ministry. Paul writes: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband." (I Corinthians 7:10) Here Paul explicitly differentiates between the teaching of Christ and his own teaching. Further illustration of this in found in I Corinthians 9:14: "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live the gospel." Contrast this with I Corinthians 7:12, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord," and 7:25. "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord, yet I give my judgment." Paul is distinguishing between what is a genuine saying of the Lord and what is his interjection. The reason this seems "embarrassing" is this great apostle to the Gentiles appears to be ignorant, or at least admitting that Christ said nothing about this matter. It seems counter-productive to just create out of thin air a controversy that didn’t exist and then admit that the Lord said nothing directly addressing it.

Paul’s conversion itself would seem rather embarrassing to an Orthodox Jew, for Paul was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5) from Tarsus with a high social status. Paul had everything to lose and nothing to gain socially by becoming a follower of Christ. Witherington notes:

"As Malina and Neyrey point out, Paul has framed this discussion carefully [Galatians 1] to fend off criticisms that he was guilty of chameleonlike behavior. He does not wish to be seen as an opportunist or a fickle person. An-cients did not much believe in the idea of personality change or development. Or at least they did not see such change—a conversion, for example—as a good thing; it was rather the mark of a deviant, unreliable person who was not being true to type. Thus Paul here presents his change in a rhetorically effective manner, making clear that it came about through an action of God." (Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest, p. 75 (Intervarsity Press: 1998) emphasis added; see also Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, p. 39-40 (John Knox: Louisville, 1996) ⁹

Witherington also discusses other aspects of Paul’s social status that would have suffered as a result of his conversion (See Witherington, The Paul Quest, p. 18-51, 170-173). He notes that in ancient Roman society ties with the family, remote kin were more important and far more prevalent then today. Ancients didn’t ask, "Who am I," but rather "whose he is, or who he belongs to." (See Philippians 3:5 for a demonstration of this) It was the social network of the ancients that defined identity, a marked difference to today’s culture. Malina and Neyrey state that the three fundamental building blocks of ancient personality were: generation, gender, and geography.

Witherington stresses the importance of geography in the ancient world. Paul, for example, was not just Saul, but he was Saul of Tarsus, one of the three great university towns and metropolises of antiquity (See Acts 22:3). Contrast this with Jesus, who hailed from an insignificant village like Nazareth (See John 1:45-47).

In Philippians 2:4-11 Paul says things that would have been jaw-dropping for an ancient "honor-shame" society. He emphasizes Christ’s voluntary servitude, in spite of the fact that He was God incarnate. "But [Jesus] made himself of no re-putation." Paul himself followed this example and became a servant (See Romans 1:1; I Corinthians 9:19; Galatians 1:10 et al.). Witherington rightly points out that this was not the goal of Greco-Roman society—people were not eager to be cast into servitude, for be there put you a few rungs down on the social ladder. In an honor/shame society where most of the shaming was done by the social elite, either to put someone in their place or to keep them there, servitude was the last thing one wanted. Humility was not a virtuous trait in 1st century Palestine, especially if it meant acting like a slave, unless you actually were one.

Paul turned this deplorable behaviour of servitude into a virtuous trait, modeled after Christ. This deconstructed several key attitudes of the social elite, namely, those of higher status in the church (and society as a whole) would cease relating to others on the basis of "a social pecking order." For Paul and Christ, being a servant was honorable, for the greatest must serve all (Mark 10:44)! For a Pharisee like Paul, being from an important city like Tarsus to reduce himself to a servant and declare it virtuous would have raised more than a few eyebrows. Paul had everything to lose and nothing to gain socially and economically.

Lastly, Witherington notes (p. 194-195) that slaves were generally considered "living property" and while the Torah had laws to protect slaves from mistreatment, Roman laws were far less strict. Usually, a person only became a voluntary slave to gain something they do not possess, economic stability. For one to voluntarily submit to servitude suggests that they had a low economic and social standing, both of which were foreign to Paul.

In conclusion, for Paul to invent his "conversion" out of thin air and willingly demolish his own high economic and social standing argues against logic and fact. In his "paradigm shift" he argued against the status quo and if his belief was pure human invention then he would only be hurting himself and his pupils.

Switching gears, Craig Blomberg in Jesus Under Fire (p. 33-34) notes:

"Much of Jesus’ ethical instruction as portrayed in the Gospels is so challenging that it is unlikely that it would have been invented. What later Christian, convinced of Christ’s deity would have made up an account in which Jesus denied knowing when he would return (Mark 13:32) or was unable to work a miracle because of people’s unbelief (Mark 6:5-6). Who would have made him ask, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good—except for God alone’ (Mark 10:18), as if to deny either his goodness or his deity of both… The list is so extensive that one recent book on Jesus’ ethics was understandably entitled Strenuous Commands. The entire history of the church is one of its inability to come to grips with these stringent teachings, so it is not likely to have created them."

In the 1st century women were considered to be liars and were unable to testify in a court of law. ¹⁰ In Mark 24 we have the women discovering the empty tomb, going to the disciples and declaring this, however, the disciples did not believe them—the women’s "words seemed to them as idle tales" to them (v. 11). If you’re inventing this out of whole cloth, you don’t have women discover the empty tomb. This 1st century belief of the words of women to not be trustworthy is displayed by the disciples’ reaction. Some skeptics object to this and wonder aloud why Paul didn’t mention this in his list in I Corinthians 15. Just as noted above, it was probably because women were not considered competent witnesses at this time and their appearance in I Corinthians 15 would be unnecessary.

Craig Evans makes note of another "controversy" within the Gospels that supports this principle (See Evans in Jesus Under Fire, p. 112, n.2). He makes note of the Seminar’s denial (See W.B. Tatum, John the Baptist and Jesus, p. 145-157 (Polebridge: Sonoma, CA, 1994) of the authenticity of Jesus’ proclamation after John’s imprisonment. They believe that John did actually baptize Christ but the subsequent vision and descending of the dove are fiction. They believe that Jesus was a disciple of John but Jesus deliberately separated His movement from John’s. Shortly thereafter, some of John’s disciples, believing that Christ was John’s successor came over to His side. John’s question to Jesus in Matthew 11:3 and Luke 7:19 is colored gray, indicating a great deal of doubt concerning its authenticity. "Are you the one to come or should we look for another?" This is allegedly an early Christian apologetic demonstrating the rivalry between John and Jesus’ sects.

Evans finds it difficult to believe that Christian writers would have manufactured this account out of thin air; because they were anxious to have "Jesus claim fulfillment of ancient prophecies (such as Isa. 35:5-6; 62:1-2; cf. Matt. 11:4-6 = Luke 7:22-23), [why would they] invent a question in which John gives expression to doubts about Jesus’ identity and calling." (Jesus Under Fire, p. 112, n.2) This tradition in all likelihood is authentic—if it is just imaginary then why not also report that John was persuaded by Jesus’ answer? Whether John was totally satisfied is not reported.

Most scholars regard Joseph of Arimathea ¹¹ as historical (again, Crossan dissents) because: 1) If the disciples wanted to create a more persuasive account they could have had Jesus buried by His enemies or the disciples themselves (although Joseph of Arimathea did hold Jesus in high esteem there is no indication that he was a "close friend" of Jesus. His discipleship was "secretive.") 2) It is unlikely that Joseph would be created out of thin air, with mention of his hometown and his membership with the Sanhedrin, especially considering that the Sanhedrin had voted to condemn Christ to the cross (Mark 14:55, 64; 15:1). Luke 23:50-51 shows us that Joseph did not consent to this condemnation and his insistence for a proper burial of Jesus’ body would have alienated himself from his colleagues. 3) The burial of Christ in a new tomb is historical; because Joseph couldn’t just place the body in any tomb he wanted to. Moreover, it had to be a new tomb or the body of an "executed criminal" would defile the bodies of those already residing there. 4) Arimathea has no scriptural prominence and is of relative unimportance.

All these factors considered it is doubtful that the Gospel writers would invent an individual, give him a name, a place of origin, let alone place him within the historical council of the Sanhedrin. These claims could have been easily checked out by the Sanhedrin and other religious leaders in Jerusalem and if false would have been immediately quashed.

The crucifixion itself and the events surrounding it are rather nasty in a Jewish vein, considering the belief that God came down as a man (which would be blasphemous enough to an Orthodox Jew), if that wasn’t enough, He then proceeded to be executed as a criminal (this would have been the straw that broke the camel’s back)!

Holding shows in the best part of his article (in my opinion) that crucifixion was a shameful death only suffered by those who were criminals, weak, and pathetic (at least if you’re an Orthodox Jew). In other words, if you’re going to invent a Messiah you surely don’t have him crucified as a criminal. Men like Philo would have thought this to be utterly bombastic and blasphemous to have YHWH incarnated and then executed on a cross. This would have done little to convince the Jews of Jesus’ deity and would have given them more reasons in their own minds to reject Him as a demon-possessed fraud.

The Guard at the Tomb:

Historical Reminisce or Mythical Invention?

The guard at the tomb ¹² who was responsible for keeping the disciples from stealing Jesus’ body is mentioned only by Matthew (28:11-15) and so the controversy begins. ¹³ Neither the Jews nor anyone else disputed the empty tomb, what was disputed is how the tomb became empty. The disciples and women insisted that Christ had been raised—while the scribes insisted that the disciples stole Jesus’ body while the guard slept. The disciples insisted that the Sanhedrin bribed the guards to say: "The body was stolen while we slept."

The most important thing to determine first, in my opinion, is the identity of the guard. Was he a Roman guard or a Jewish guard supplied by the Sanhedrin themselves? Skeptics are quick to affirm that the guard was in fact Roman; in that case his failure to keep watch on the tomb would’ve cost him his life. This is way too quick and doesn’t fully examine the evidence available. Craig writes: "If Pilate gave [the chief priests] a guard it is strange that Matthew does not make this explicit, like the Gospel of Peter, as this would strengthen his apologetic. It is intriguing to not that according to John both Jewish guards and Roman soldiers were involved in Jesus’ arrest (Jn. 18:3, 12)." (Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, p. 208)

Matthew 27:62-66 may give us an indication that it was indeed a Jewish guard, for Pilate says to the chief priests and Pharisees when they ask to have the tomb be secured lest the disciples steal the body: "Ye have a watch, go your way, make it as sure as ye can." Koustodia (See Strong’s 2892) translated "watch" in v. 65-66 means: "of Latin origin ‘custody,’ i.e. a Roman sentry." The part about the Roman sentry is inferred from Strong’s; the word basically means "custody." That Pilate told the Jews that they "had a watch," go and make is secure as you can; may indicate that he left that up to them entirely. That could possibly mean that a Jewish temple guard was used.

If it was a Roman guard it is not clear how the Sanhedrin could keep them out of trouble unless they persuaded Pilate with a fictitious story about how loyal the guards were. Whether or not this happened, or could work is not known. Further bolstering the contention that a Jewish guard was used is v. 11-14. In v.11 the guards (some of the watch came into the city) show "the chief priests all the things that were done." That the guards reported to the Jews suggests that he was Jewish not Roman. V. 14 is also important, where the priests tell the guards, "If this [comes] to [Pilate’s] ears, we will persuade him, and secure you." If he was Roman he would more than likely be directly responsible to Pilate, no matter what the chief priests did or said. These passages close with the priests giving the guards large sums of money to tell everyone that the disciples made off with Jesus’ body while they slept. The evidence available indicates a Jewish guard.

Another skeptical argument is that the Jews wouldn’t and couldn’t go to Pilate on the Sabbath (See Matthew 27:62-66), but it does not say that they all went as a group, but only that they met there and it is not indicated that they entered the praetorium (See also John 18:28). Lastly, this objection underestimates the hypocrisy (Matthew 23, esp. v. 3-5) of these men who wouldn’t blink at fastening heavy burdens to others and not lift a finger in assistance.

The next skeptical objection will probably be to the "absurdity" of such a story, the Jews would never make up something so asinine. This Jewish polemic was as good as anything else, who else would’ve stolen the body (assuming it was stolen) if not the disciples—the Magi? Another segment of this would be the assumption that the guard was Roman, for the evidence indicates that he was not.

Another objection would be: "Why doesn’t Mark testify to this?" Not that they would believe it if he did, for I doubt the skeptics would be converting in droves if Mark did. This also assumes that Matthew is totally reliant on Mark; those arguments are for another time and place. Craig finishes off this objection:

"Since the guard played virtually no role in the events of the discovery of the empty tomb -- indeed the Matthean account does not exclude that the guard had already left before the women arrived --, the pre-Markan passion story may simply omit them. If the slander that the disciples stole the body was restricted to certain quarters ('the story has been spread among Jews [para Ioudaiois] to this day'), then it cannot be ruled out that Luke or John might not have these traditions. And the evangelists often inexplicably omit what seem to be major incidents that must have been known to them (for example, Luke's great omission of Mk. 6. 45 - 8. 26) so that it is dangerous to use omission as a test for historicity."

Actually, if Matthew invented the story of the guard, it would fit the "Principle of Embarrassment" category rather well. For example, if Matthew is pulling this out of thin air then he does a crummy job because there is a certain period of time (just prior to dusk on Friday to Saturday morning) where the disciples could have nabbed Jesus’ body shortly after Joseph of Arimathea deposits it in his tomb. If Matthew invented this he forgot to tie up a loose end, for this problem sits in the corner like an 800-pound gorilla.

The Sanhedrin may have expected Jesus’ body to be discarded in a common grave and eaten by wild dogs (J.D. Crossan eat your heart out!), but learning of Joseph’s placing of Jesus’ body in his own tomb provoked the visit Pilate the following morning.

Lastly, it is doubtful that Matthew would have invented a fictional guard, which the Sanhedrin would quickly point out never existed. It is hard to fathom why Matthew would invent a false apologetic to the Jewish charge that the body was stolen. Even more unbelievable, the Jews counter Matthew’s fabrication with yet another: This fictional guard that Matthew invented fell asleep and then the body was stolen! For the Jews would have stopped Matthew right there and said, "What are you talking about, there was no such guard you dolt!" Before we close this section, Craig makes a much-needed point:

"[T]he fact that the story is an apologetic answering the allegation that the disciples stole the body does not therefore necessarily mean that it is unhistorical. Similarly, it counts for little to press the theological objection against this story, as is often done, that it overshoots the remaining witness that Jesus only appeared to his own, but remained hidden to his enemies…The idea that only the eye of faith could see the risen Jesus seems foreign to the gospels and Paul, for they all appear to agree on the physical nature of Christ’s resurrection body." (Craig, Assessing…p. 211-212)

Although there are actually some logical objections to the guard story, taking into the account the whole corpus of evidence, the objections vanish. To be redundant yet again, the Jews didn’t dispute the emptiness of the tomb, the question now is: How did it become empty? Those alternative theories (swoon, wrong tomb, legendary development, hallucination) don’t work, what’s the only viable alternative? Stealing a page from the skeptical manual, a plea for open-mindedness. Those who are open minded and not blinded by a philosophical presupposition or a radical adherence to a listless worldview will see the evidence for what it is. (John 14:6) Like it or not, all knees will bow to Christ. The question isn’t "if" but "when." Will it be one second after you die, or will it be in this life? Please don’t put it off, take the time to examine the life of Christ and draw a conclusion, those who are not for Him, are against Him (Luke 11:23).

¹ Robert H. Gundry (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, p. 1009-1021 (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, paperback ed., 2000) does make a good, thought-provoking argument for its inclusion in the Markan Gospel. However, the textual evidence still argues strongly against it. See Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 102-106 (Stuttgart: 2nd ed. 4th print. 2001); Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 226-229 (Oxford Univ. Press: 3rd ed. 1992); F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, var. ref. esp. p. 288-289 (Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL 1988); F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? (Intervarsity: 11/2001 reprint); William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, p. 601-605 (Eerdmans: 1974); R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, p. 133-139 and Kurt & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, (trans.) E.F. Rhodes (Eerdmans: rev. ed. 1989)

² Roman centurions were obviously not doctors, but they were good at what they did. When they went around to smash Jesus’ legs and hurry the execution they noticed that He had already died. If a criminal somehow escaped the cross the soldier in charge would pay with his life, so it was in his best interests to make sure. It is doubtful that a centurion, who had done things like this many times before, would be so ignorant as to let Christ be taken down alive. A person can only "fake death" for a short time on the cross before they have to push up with their legs again to get a breath of air. Christ didn’t even make it to the tomb alive; much less make His way out three days later under His own power in a completely naturalistic scenario.

³ Josephus states (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.2.1, as cited in Whiston, The Complete Works of Josephus, p. 377 (Kregel: Grand Rapids 1981), "When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus’s money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium…" giving us the indication that this census took place in 6-7 A.D.

⁴ Wells (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 10-11, 107-113) argues that Mark was a post 90 AD composition, which even liberal scholars today reject. Wells’ blind pursuit of an unhistorical Jesus and magnificent delusions of grandeur only push him further into the realm of fantasy. Wells isn’t a historical or NT scholar, hasn’t the CRUDentials to argue this intelligently and it shows. For evidence of a pre-70 AD composition of the NT (Synoptics and Acts in particular) go here or here.

⁵ See Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia…, "New Testament Manuscripts"; Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, chapter 26 (Moody: Chicago, 1986); Metzger, Text of the New Testament, (Oxford: 1964); Geisler & Saleeb, Answering Islam, p. 231-239 (Baker: 8th print. Nov. 2000); McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, chapter 3 (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 1999) and Kurt & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, various ref.

⁶ Info in this section can be found in: France, The Evidence for Jesus, p. 32-39; Wilkins & Moreland (eds.), Jesus Under Fire, p. 214-215; F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, p. 100-102

⁷ I have used some information compiled by Glenn Miller concerning Thallus; I have cited other sources as well

⁸ See Wilkins & Moreland (eds.), Jesus Under Fire, p. 216-217

⁹ Malina and Neyrey also point out that the Greco-Roman culture valued stability and an unchanging character. A change in character was not expected nor was it praiseworthy. The honorable Stoic philosopher was one who "surmises nothing, repents of nothing, is never wrong, and never changes his opinion." (Malina and Neyrey, p. 39) Therefore, Paul’s conversion is likely authentic, for he put his high social standing in jeopardy.

¹⁰ Josephus notes: "But let not a single witness be credited; but three, or two at least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex" (Antiquities of the Jews, 4.8.15; cited in Whiston, p. 97, emphasis added). Whiston rightly notes that the Pentateuch says nothing about the exclusion of women as witnesses, but this was the practice of the Jews in the days of Josephus.

¹¹ For material on Joseph of Arimathea see Jesus Under Fire, p. 147-148; Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, p. 173-176

¹² Primary sources are Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, p. 207-222 and here.

¹³ The Apocryphal "Gospel of Peter" also mentions the guard.

"But the scribes and Pharisees and elders, being assembled together and hearing that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying ‘If at his death these exceeding great signs have come to pass, behold now how righteous he was!’ were afraid and came to Pilate, entreating him and saying, "Give us soldiers that we may watch his sepulchre for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead, and do us harm.’ And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the sepulchre." (Gospel of Peter, 8:28-31; as cited in New Testament Apocrypha, (ed.) W. Schneemelcher, I: 224 (John Knox: Louisville (rev. ed.) 1991)

The resurrection account in the Gospel of Peter deviates from the Gospels markedly at this point. A loud voice in heaven calls out, which is followed by the stone rolling itself away from the tomb entrance. At that point, three men and the cross walk out, two of the men are so tall that their heads reach into the clouds and the cross even talks.

Maurer and Schneemelcher (Ibid, p. 221) cannot fix a date for the composition of this work, saying, "We can scarcely get beyond conjectures." It does date prior to AD 190 because of Serapion’s testimony, outside of that there is no clear-cut evidence.

P.A. Mirecki, assistant professor at Kansas University doesn’t get into specifics about the date, but does give credence to Crossan’s "hypotheses" that the 4 canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Peter are dependent on the so-called Cross Gospel (See Crossan, The Cross that Spoke, p. XII-XIV (San Francisco: 1988) for the passion and resurrection narratives. (See Mirecki, ABD, V: "Peter, Gospel of.") Of course, for Crossan’s theories to have any weight he has to conjecture that Matthew is largely dependent on Mark and Mark is dependent on Q.

Section IV: Archaeology Confirms Scripture

There’s a great deal we don’t know about the Bible, oddly enough, if a Christian living in 1850 was resurrected today, he/she would be astounded at the discoveries made. There can only be more to come. Time and time again, skeptics have declared the Bible a falsehood on the basis of an "argument from silence." However, usually they end up with egg on their faces when a new discovery gives their previous arguments a dirt nap.

In my previous article I focused on such things as: The "House of David" inscription, giving us viable extra-biblical evidence for David’s existence (which usually isn’t required of other ancient documents); discovery of a Galilean fishing boat; Merneptah Stela; Moabite Stone; existence of various Judean and Israeli kings; and Hezekiah’s redirecting of the Gihon Spring, dug in the wake of an Assyrian threat to Jerusalem. Let’s continue and put some more insipid skeptical arguments out to pasture.

It has often been repeated (as well as copied and regurgitated uncritically) by skeptics that Jesus’ homeland, Nazareth did NOT exist in the 1st century A.D. Frank Zindler, the Bill Maher of atheism has made this contention (among others) several times in public forums and debates. The contention that Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century is patently false. Zindler is probably aware of this, but chooses not to acknowledge it. Frank doesn’t like to "be confused with the facts" so it is understandable that as an avowed intellectual midget, getting him to recognize this would be a massive dental procedure. Zindler wrote an article entitled "Where Jesus Never Walked" in American Atheist (Winter 1996-1997), supposedly putting this to rest for all-time. Zindler, of course, doesn’t even believe Jesus existed, so evidently He didn’t walk anywhere, but if He did, it surely wasn’t Nazareth!

Jack Finegan, in his The Archaeology of the New Testament (Princeton Univ: 1992, rev. ed.) p. 43-44, 46, provides viable evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist in the 1st century A.D. Finegan comments:

"In spite of this silence of the OT, Josephus, and the Talmud [concerning Nazareth], excavations shortly to be mentioned… show that it was certainly a settled place at an early date, and Nazareth is also named in an inscription of the end of the third century or beginning of the fourth century found at Caesarea… as well as by both Julius Africanus… [which is] cited by Eusebius and in the Onomasticon of Eusebius…" (p. 43)

The evidence of excavations is not overwhelming but nonetheless effective in undermining Zindler’s ridiculous contention. Finegan relates that 23 tombs have been found within a distance of 250 to 750 yards from the Church of the Annunciation, to the north, west, and south. The Jews didn’t bury the dead within city limits so this gives us a relative idea of the size of Nazareth. Some of these tombs had pottery dating from the 1st to the 3rd or 4th centuries, four of them sealed with rolling stones, this being typical of the Jewish period ending 70 A.D.

An inscription found at Caesarea in 1962 provides the earliest occurrence of the name Nazareth in Hebrew. The 3 fragments provide a list of the 24 priestly courses, giving the name of each family in its proper order and the name of the town where it was situated. This was necessary after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., in the wake of Titus’ siege. This is why Finegan can conclude: "From the tombs, therefore, it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period…" (p. 46)

James Strange in ABD (Vol. IV: "Nazareth") writes:

"As inferred from the Herodian tombs in Nazareth, the maximum extent of the Herodian and pre-Herodian village measured about 900 X 200 m, for a total area just under 60 acres… After the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome, the twenty-four ‘courses’ or divisions of priests from the Temple in Jerusalem fled northward. One priestly family by the name of Hapizez (or Hapises) settled in Nazareth (Mishmaroth 18). That Nazareth was the home of a priestly course is repeated in a fragment of a Byzantine period Hebrew inscription, a list of the priestly courses, found at Caesarea in 1962."

This information was available to Zindler long before he began blathering about the alleged non-existence of Nazareth in American Atheist (See also, Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, p. 42; Meyers & Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, p. 56-57 (Abingdon: Nashville, 1981). Don’t expect him or his self-proclaimed biblio-skeptics to touch on this; their only intention is to feed on people’s ignorance. Zindler and his friends usually don’t come up with anything worthy, the only purpose they serve is to copy from each other and serve as veritable echo chambers for ridiculous arguments. With that, we can conclude with confidence that Nazareth was indeed a small and insignificant village in the 1st century, but an established village nonetheless. Case closed!

The village of Capernaum has also come under fire, Zindler stated in his famous debate with William Lane Craig at Willow Creek Church that Capernaum "might not exist." (Zindler got hammered so badly in this debate that most atheists in the audience thought he’d lost. American Atheists were so impressed with Zindler that they refused to endorse this debate as to avoid association with this clown. Even so, he still continues to be one of their "hired guns." Sad, but true.)

Myers & Strange write concerning Capernaum (Ibid, p. 58-60):

"Capernaum was larger than Nazareth, stretching east to west along the northern coast of the Sea of Galilee. The Fanciscans believe that the total size was about 500 by 200 meters. Yet there is some evidence that the lake was higher in antiquity and that ruins extend under the modern level of the water. ¹ In fact, Wilson and Warren report that the ruins stretch one-half mile by one-fourth mile. The first area would be 100,000 square meters, while the second would be about 324, 756 square meters. If we accept 300,000 square meters as approximately correct, the ancient population would have been between 12,000 and 15,000. It should be no surprise that Capernaum is substantially larger than Nazareth, for it was the seat of a tax collector according to Mark 2:14. Avi-Yonah believes that the presence of this officer also implies that Capernaum was probably at the eastern extremity of Galilee… In any case, the excavators at Capernaum have found no public buildings of the first century. This does not mean that they do not exist, only that they have not yet been found… The pottery and other finds from this town indicate that its history, like Nazareth’s goes back to the second century [B.C.]… A Roman milestone of the Emperor Hadrian [117-138 A.D.] implies that a Roman road of the second century passed through here, probably following and already established route. We cannot leave Capernaum without mentioning the House of Saint Peter… the church in question was centered on one room of the block beneath… The lowest floors of this room had early Roman pottery and coins sealed between them, which must mean that the founding and earliest use of this room, and therefore of the entire block of houses, was in the first century [B.C.]. Either late in the first century or early in the second century [A.D.] this room received extensive interior remodeling…" (Emphasis added)

Stanislao Loffreda, writing in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (ed. Eric Meyers, Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), Vol. I, p. 417-418 states:

"Archaeological excavation at the site has not only provided full confirmation of all the periods of occupation recorded by the literary sources, but brought to light specific buildings… Capernaum is mentioned for the first time in first-century [A.D.] sources, namely in Flavius Josephus, and particularly in the Gospels. Excavation has, however, pushed back the settlement’s origins by three thousand years by recovering sporadic sherds (band-slip ware) from the third millennium… It is indisputable that the synagogue and the church were not built on virgin soil, but on previous strata dating back at least to the Hellenistic period (under the octagon) and the Late Bronze Age (under the synagogue). Scholars agree that the late fifth-century octagonal church was preceded by a fourth-century domus ecclesia (a house used for religious gatherings by a Christian community). The excavators suggest that this change had already taken place in the late first century [A.D.]." (Bold emphases added)

Once again, the evidence for first century A.D. occupation is NOT mountainous, but nonetheless effective. I am not sure if Zindler and his rag-tag band of bozos are stating the Capernaum ² never existed (which would be utterly preposterous) or that it didn’t exist in the first century A.D., but in light of the evidence it matters not. For more information on Zindler’s ridiculous proclamations go here, here, and (sigh) here.

Belshazzar, the Babylonian king mentioned several times in the Book of Daniel was once thought to be a figment of some 2nd century Jew’s imagination. His father, Nabodinus was well known in the annals of history, but this mysterious Belshazzar, a vile ruler of Babylon, was mentioned only in the Bible. That all changed in 1854 when a man by the name of J.G. Taylor discovered some clay cylinders of Nabodinus (See E. Sollberger, "Mr. Taylor in Chaldaea," Anatolian Studies 22 (1972) p. 129–139). Alan Millard relates the scenario in "Daniel and Belshazzar in History" (BAR 11:03 (May/June 1985):

"[I]n 1854, a British consul named J. G. Taylor explored some ruins in southern Iraq on behalf of the British Museum. He dug into a great mud-brick tower that was part of a temple of the moon god that dominated the city. Taylor found several small clay cylinders buried in the brickwork, each about four inches long, inscribed with 60 or so lines of cuneiform writing. When Taylor took the cylinders back to Baghdad, he showed them to his colleagues. Fortunately, his senior colleague was Sir Henry Rawlinson, who was one of those who had deciphered the Babylonian cuneiform script. Rawlinson was able to read the writing on the clay cylinders. The inscriptions had been written at the command of Nabonidus, king of Babylon from 555 to 539 B.C. The king had repaired the temple tower, and the clay cylinders commemorated that fact. The inscriptions proved that the ruined tower was the temple of the city of Ur. The words were a prayer for the long life and good health of Nabonidus—and for his eldest son. The name of that son, clearly written, was Belshazzar! (Emphasis added)

In Daniel 5:7, Belshazzar offers Daniel the 3rd highest position in all of Babylon. The reason for this was—his father, Nabonidus, was the king of Babylon, presumably ruling outside the capital and his infantile son, Belshazzar was his co-ruler, ruling from the capital. People should’ve learned by now—just because X is mentioned only in the Bible doesn’t make it false. For more information on Belshazzar see, T.W. Fawthrop, The Stones Cry Out, p. 46 (Marshall, Morgan & Scott: London, 1934).

The Hittites, a powerful ancient empire, once believed to be centered in Syria, but instead Anatolia, is mentioned some 48 times in the OT, were once thought to be a myth. This all changed when a German cuneiform expert named Hugo Winckler ³ went to the area where the Hittites were supposed to have lived. Since then more than 10,000 tablets have been discovered, firmly establishing the Biblical contention that the Hittites were a real kingdom, in fact, one of the most powerful in the 2nd millennium B.C. One text proves the Hittites weren’t a band of rag-tag nomads—a treaty is outlined between the Hittite leader (Hattusilis III) and none other than Pharaoh Ramesses II, inscribed right on the walls of the temple of Karnak. Once again, and I hate to sound redundant, just because the Bible is the only source of information concerning X, that does not make it false.

The Philistine god Dagon (he was also a god of many other people with many different functions) mentioned some 13 times in the OT has been verified archaeologically. Lowell Handy writes:

"Dagon is attested as the patron deity of the Middle Euphrates region centered around Tuttul, Mari, and esp. Terqa, from the 3d millennium [B.C.]. The earliest reference to the worship of this god is in the inscriptions of Sargon of Akkad, though proper names containing the Dagon element are common from the middle of the 3d millennium [B.C.] throughout Mesopotamia… All biblical references to Dagon appear in literary narratives and may not be considered primary data. Temples are reported for Dagon as a Philistine deity (1 Sam 5:1-7; Judg 16:23; 1 Chr 10:10; 1 Macc 10:83-84; 11:4) in the cities of Ashdod, Beth-shan, and perhaps Gaza. Yet, no archaeological evidence has independently confirmed such a temple to Dagon in any of these sites." (ABD, II: "Dagon")

However, Handy’s contention that "no archaeological evidence exists" is again a gratuitous argument from silence, which has been overturned anyway. In BAR 01:02 "Philistine Temple Discovered Within Tel Aviv City Limits" (June 1975) a Philistine temple for Dagon was discovered at Tel Aviv, providing solid evidence that the biblical author was correct, Dagon was a god worshipped by the Philistines (also known as the "Sea Peoples"). The author writes:

"The Philistine temple dates from the period of the Judges (11th century B.C.), contemporaneous with Samson and Samuel. The building is part of a small, but well-planned Philistine city of straight, parallel streets and carefully built houses. Before this Philistine city existed, two earlier Philistine cities had been built on the same site. Indeed, the Philistines were the original settlers of the site, sometime in the 12th century, B.C. (The town history of the site had previously been revealed by excavations in the late 1940’s conducted by Professor Benjamin Mazar of Hebrew University, who is currently excavating at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. His nephew Amihai directed the recent excavations of the Philistine temple.) As the site was first settled by Philistines, the excavations disprove the long-held belief that the Philistines founded no cities of their own, but simply resettled cities of others. The city was probably founded here because of its proximity to the inland port on the Yarkon River—and the Philistines were a great sea-faring people." (Ibid, emphasis added)

Considering that two other cities were built on this site and the hit-and-miss nature of some archaeological excavations, we may indeed turn up some more evidence in the near future at this and other sites.

The text of Genesis 25:29-34 has come under some fire as an impossible account, as nobody would be dumb enough to sell their birthright for food. However, Tupkitilla of Nuzi sold his birthright for a mere three sheep! (See Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 109; Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, p. 154; E.F. Campbell and D.N. Freedman (eds.) The Biblical Archaeology Reader, II: 21-33) Tupkitilla traded an entire orchard for only 3 sheep and this text also shows that Jacob’s request for Esau’s birthright, in exchange for food was albeit crazy, but entirely legal!

The existence of Pilate, to my knowledge, has not been questioned by anyone with any credibility (in other words, if Zindler or Kenneth Harding questioned it, it would be de facto laughed at), but the discovery of the so-called Pilate Stone (or Pilate Inscription) was interesting nonetheless. Discovered in 1961 at Caesarea’s Roman theatre, a stone with the words "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea" ⁴ inscribed on them, the Pilate Stone also attests to the accuracy of Luke’s Gospel, (3:1) giving similar titles for government officials (See R. Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 307-308 (Harvest House: Eugene, OR, 1997).

Pilate’s favorable attitude towards Christ in the Gospels has been the target of skeptical sophists recently, however, that contention has also been crushed. It is true that Pilate was a vicious madman, ⁵ but the Gospel portrayal of him is not inaccurate by any stretch of the imagination. Paul Maier (See P. Maier, "Sejanus, Pilate, and the Date of the Crucifixion," in Church History, 37 (1968) p. 1-11) states that Pilate’s protector Sejanus was snuffed out in A.D. 31 because of a plot against the emperor. This left Pilate, who already had a shaky track record with Rome, in a precarious position. Risking another Jewish riot and possible retribution from Rome, he had to be more accommodating to the Jews than he would have liked to be. It is most likely because of Sejanus’ demise that he was easier to deal with than usual. Therefore, the Gospel portrayal of an almost milquetoast Pilate is not inaccurate.

The ossuary, or bone box of Joseph Caiaphas, high priest of the Sanhedrin and a contemporary of Pilate’s has been found (See R. Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 305-306; Ronny Reich, "Caiaphas Name Inscribed on Bone Boxes," in BAR, 18:05, (Sep/Oct 1992) and Zvi Greenhut, "Burial Cave of the Caiaphas Family," in BAR, 18:05, (Sep/Oct 1992). Discovered in November 1990 by accident during the construction of a water park in Jerusalem, among the 12 ossuaries found, one had the words "Joseph, Son of Caiaphas," inscribed on them. Greenhut comments:

"But the most exceptional and significant finds were the two ossuaries that, for the first time in an archaeological context, contained a form of the name Qafa’, or Caiaphas, a name known to us from both the New Testament and from the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. I will leave it to my colleague Ronny Reich to analyze these inscriptions in the accompanying article [See Reich article referenced above]. Suffice it to say that the form(s) of the name Caiaphas inscribed on these ossuaries is probably the same as that of the well-known family of high priests, one of whom presided at Jesus’ trial… There is no doubt that this ossuary is special. Its elaborate decoration must have something to do with the name(s) inscribed on it. Could this be the ossuary of the high priest who presided at Jesus’ trial? Inside this ossuary, we found bones from six different people: two infants, a child between two and five, a young boy between 13 and 18, an adult woman—and a male of about 60 years! (The other ossuary with a Caiaphas inscription contained the bones of five individuals with an age and gender distribution very similar to the one just described—except for the absence of an elderly male!)" (Ibid)

This confirms not only the existence of the Caiaphas family nickname, but the Joseph Caiaphas who presided at Jesus’ trial. Reich adds:

"The name 85! (Qafa) or 8*5! (Qayafa) is an Aramaic form. The name Joseph son of Caiaphas does not necessarily mean that Caiaphas was Joseph’s father. Caiaphas may designate simply a family nickname. Thus the inscription may well be understood as Joseph of the family Caiaphas. The elderly man buried in the highly decorated ossuary was apparently Joseph. It was probably a forefather who had acquired this nickname, which then became a sort of family name—inherited by his descendants. In the most recent statistical study of personal names from the Second Temple period, it was found that approximately 28 percent of the men mentioned in literary sources as well as on inscriptions had one of only four names. Nine names accounted for 44 percent of the men. In these circumstances a family nickname may well have been a good means of distinguishing among people with the same personal name. Joseph ( *%&24 and its variants *&2% and *&2* ) and Simon ( :/3&0 ) were the two most popular Jewish names among males during this period. A person named Joseph with the nickname Caiaphas was the high priest in Jerusalem between 18 and 36 C.E. The New Testament provides only his nickname in the Greek form: ÊáéÜöáò (Caiaphas, see Matthew 26:3,57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49,18:13,14,24, 28; Acts 4:6). Josephus, however, gives his proper name as well: Joseph Caiaphas, or elsewhere, "Joseph who was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood." In short, we are explicitly told by Josephus that Caiaphas was indeed a nickname. Incidentally, Josephus reflects the same variation in the spelling of the name Caiaphas as we find in our ossuaries, although in Greek rather than Aramaic. Both the New Testament and Josephus preserve only the Greek form of the name. Our inscription provides us with the original Semitic form of the name." (Reich, "Caiaphas Name Inscribed on Bone Boxes," in BAR, 18:05)

Thus, we have a strong confirmation of NT accuracy with this inscription. Where are Frank Zindler and Shabir Ally? The Pool of Siloam (John (9:7, 11) mentioned in John’s Gospel has been archaeologically verified, proving that the composer of this work (John, Bishop of Ephesus) was familiar with this area and most likely a contemporary. In a previous work I covered the Siloam Inscription relating to Hezekiah’s redirecting of the Gihon to rob the oncoming Assyrians of a water supply; but this was the 7th century B.C., our focus now is its state in the 1st century A.D. Josephus mentions the Pool of Siloam (Jewish War, 5.4.2—he instead refers to it as a "fountain") and indicates that it is situated on the southern end of the Tyropoeon valley. This would place the Pool of Siloam as mentioned in John 9 at the Old (Lower) Pool or the nearby Upper Pool, which Hezekiah made. This pool had a four-fold portico that was probably Hadrian’s handiwork. A church was built near this site in circa 451 was probably erected in honor of Christ’s healing of the blind man (John 9:7). The Persians sacked this church in 614, its ruins excavated in 1897. Today the Lower, Old Pool is dry and the "modern" Upper Pool still receives water courtesy of the Gihon spring. As far as the Byzantine church goes, an Islamic mosque occupies its territory so further excavation there would cause more bombings by the kooks in the Muslim camp. (See W. Harold Mare in ABD, VI: "Siloam, Pool of," and Finegan, Archaeology and the New Testament, p. 190-192) For pictures of the Pool of Siloam see Finegan, p. 191 and The Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, p. 529.

In Genesis 3:14 God tells the serpent (Satan): "[T]hou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field, upon thy belly shalt thou go…" Simply stated, if the serpent goes to his belly, that implies that he wasn’t there before. This passage implies that snakes used to have extremities used for walking. Sound far-fetched? If evolutionists didn’t believe this, it would be categorized as a myth, but since the plastic theory of evolution predicts this, it is accepted as a fact. So far, there have been at least two finds, one in a quarry in Germany, and one near Jerusalem, where a snake with legs, yes legs, was unearthed. (See also R. Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 22; U.S. News & World Report, 4/28/97, p. 14) The humanists will vehemently protest that this "proves" evolution, but you’ve got the Bible attesting to the fact that snakes walked, which will inevitably rain on their parade. Don’t expect the liberal media to publicize this; they will only blather about the "scientific" debate concerning the alleged evolutionary origin of snakes. Was it a marine origin or a terrestrial origin? The answer is neither; snakes were created by divine fiat, and it just so happens that the Bible attests to them having walking appendages at one time. We don’t find whales with legs, (Although they would like you to think they have—the fundamentalists on the humanist side come up with something new almost everyday.) so there’s no need for the evolutionary community to do back flips over this, you already have several nails in your coffin.

Sanballat, mentioned 10 times in Nehemiah, and governor of the province of Samaria has been archaeologically verified. So, F.M. Cross, writing in BAR, 04:01 (Mar 1978) "The Historical Importance of the Samaria Papyri":

"One of the first items to come to our attention was a sealing affixed to the remnants of Papyrus 5 inscribed in a clear Paleo-Hebrew script which read: " … yahu, son of [San] ballet, governor of Samaria." The governor of Samaria had affixed his seal to this papyrus. Another papyrus fragment also mentions Sanballat. The last line on the reverse of this fragment reads, "this document was written in Samaria." Above, on the preceding line, partly broken, appears the names of the officials before whom the document was executed: "[before Yes]ua’ son of Sanballat (and) Haan the prefect… We are of course intrigued by the fact that the governor of Samaria mentioned in the Daliyeh finds had the familiar name of the governor of Samaria about 50 years earlier, in the days of Nehemiah. Nehemiah’s Sanballat is also mentioned in a papyrus from Elephantine in upper Egypt. He is well known as the devious and malicious enemy of Nehemiah. He was governor of the province of Samaria in 445 B.C., when Nehemiah arrived in Zion; by 410 B.C. Sanballat was an aged man, whose son Delaiah acted in his name. Sanballat gained notoriety in the Bible for his opposition to the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem, and for conspiring against the life of Nehemiah, in league with Tobiah, the Jewish governor of Amman, and Gashmu (Geshem), king of the Qedarite league."

The Temple of the Greek goddess Diana (Artemis) spoken of in Acts 19:24-41 has been archaeologically verified. This theatre was capable of holding up to 25,000 people—inscriptions speak of silver statues of Artemis to be displayed during a session or gathering (See John Crawford in BAR, 22:05 (Sep/Oct 1996) "Multiculturalism at Sardis"; Carl Henry, Revelation and the Bible, p. 326 (Baker: Grand Rapids, MI, 1969); J. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, p. IX (rev. and exp. by H. Vos, 1992) and Hubert Martin Jr., in ABD, I: "Artemis").

Goliath’s hometown of Gath, its location elusive for decades, has been tentatively identified (Tell es-Safi). Aren M. Maeir and Carl S. Ehrlich relay some of the evidence:

"Three of the five cities of the famous Philistine Pentapolis have long been known—Ashkelon, Ashdod and Gaza. A fourth, Ekron, has recently been confirmed by an inscription, locating it at modern Tel Miqne. Gath, the fifth, remains somewhat of a mystery. We believe we have found it—at Tell es-Safi, where we have been digging now for four years… We believe we have now located Gath at modern Tell es-Safi. Interestingly enough, the church father Eusebius, the archbishop of Caesarea in the early fourth century C.E., identified Gath with the village of Saphita, from which the name Tell es-Safi is presumably derived. Saphita also appears on the Madaba Map, a sixth-century C.E. mosaic map on the floor of a church in Jordan. Already in the 19th century, Tell es-Safi was identified as the most likely candidate for Philistine Gath. Indeed, this identification motivated the first excavators of Tell es-Safi, Frederick J. Bliss and R. A. S. Macalister, to mount two short seasons of excavation there in 1899… Finally, in 1996, a team led by Aren Maeir of Bar-Ilan University, assisted by Adrian Boas of the Hebrew University and Tami Schneider of the Claremont Graduate School, surveyed the surface of Tell es-Safi. In one key observation, they noted that the site had been almost continuously inhabited from the Chalcolithic period (fourth millennium B.C.E.) until the village’s abandonment during the 1948 war. More importantly, however, they discovered that the ancient city at Tell es-Safi was four times larger (more than 100 acres) than previously thought and was only partially covered by the remains of the Arab village and cemeteries. There was, therefore, more than enough surface area to be excavated, even if the acropolis of the site is, as a practical matter, inaccessible. The very size of the site is a powerful argument in favor of its identification as Gath. For big means important, and Gath was certainly an important site in antiquity… Lawrence Stager, the excavator of Ashkelon who initially questioned our identification of Gath, has recently indicated in personal communications that he too now leans toward the identification of Tell es-Safi with Philistine Gath. Massive amounts of early Philistine monochrome pottery (decorated in only one color and known technically as Mycenaean IIIC: 1b pottery) found at Tel Miqne underscore the importance of Ekron during Iron Age I (1200 B.C.E.–1000 B.C.E.). Thus far we have found only small amounts of this early form of Philistine pottery at Tell es-Safi, but this may be because we have not yet reached in many places the levels associated with the initial Philistine settlement of the site. This paucity may just be a reflection of the luck of the archaeological draw. Or perhaps Tell es-Safi did not have a strong Philistine presence during the earliest stage of Philistine settlement in Canaan. The large amounts of Philistine bichrome ware, the pottery decorated with red and black and which came after monochrome pottery, at both Ekron and at Tell es-Safi indicate that both cities were major players during the period of Philistine expansion in Iron Age I. Their location in the fertile "Philistine Alluvial Basin" probably afforded them ample resources for joint expansion." (BAR, (Nov/Dec 2001) "Excavating Philistine Gath: Have We Found Goliath’s Hometown?")

The evidence right now points strongly towards Tell es-Safi as biblical Gath. Several times before archaeologists have been "sure" of the location of Gath, only to be refuted. However, the more digging that’s done at Tell es-Safi, the more the identification becomes clear. After more than 4 years the evidence continues to mount. Trude Dothan, arguably the greatest authority on Philistine culture, pointed towards Tell es-Safi as the probable site of biblical Gath as early as 1982 (See "What We Know About the Philistines" in BAR, (July/Aug 1982); see also Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, (eds.) Avraham Negev & Shimon Gibson, p. 190-191, (Continuum: London, rev. and exp. 2001). Should this change, you’ll be the first to know, for now we have a strong, but not totally concrete identification. Goliath, eat your heart out!

Randall Price relays our last find in this section:

"News has come that through the use of a form of infrared satellite technology, the lost Pishon River has now been revealed. Long buried by the desert sands, its ancient course could be traced by the satellite in the riverbed Farouk El-Baz, which runs from Hijaz in western Arabia to Kuwait. It was this river, along with the well-known Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, that helped define the location of the Garden of Eden in the Bible (Genesis 2:11)." (R. Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 22)

In conclusion to this section I must REITERATE that archaeology has its limitations—it cannot prove that God exists, it is simply the study of "durable rubbish" as one man put it. What it can prove is that the Bible is historically accurate and trustworthy, giving us further reason to believe, or at least investigate with confidence; the belief that the Bible was God-breathed and He revealed Himself decisively in Christ Jesus. Skeptics will dispute this, but there hasn’t been one archaeological discovery that is in direct and irreconcilable contradiction to a biblical passage. Of course, if you skeptics think you possess that elusive "silver bullet," please send it my way, if I don’t know anything about it I will find someone who does. Have a nice day!

¹ The statement that the lake was higher in antiquity has to be a typo because the ruins are under water, which would suggest the level of the lake was actually lower in antiquity. Evidently, some wires got crossed in the transcription of this section; this however, does not affect the scope of Meyers and Strange’s evidence.

² For more information on Capernaum see Virgilio Corbo in ABD, I: "Capernaum"; Mendel Nun in "Ports of Galilee," BAR, 25:04 (July/Aug 1999); Shanks & Strange in "Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?" BAR, 08:06 (Nov/Dec 1982) and Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament, p. 97-110

³ For information on Winckler, his excavations, and the Hittite empire in general, see Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate in ABD, III: "Hittite History"; R.A. Torrey, The Higher Criticism and the New Theology, p. 140-141 (Montrose Christian Literature Society: Montrose, 1911); Aharon Kempinski, "Hittites in the Bible: What Does Archaeology Say?" in BAR 05:05 (Sept/Oct 1979); and Gregory McMahon in ABD, III: "Hittites in the OT."

⁴ On why this is the correct reading of the partial inscription on the Pilate Stone see reply from Robert Bull "Queries and Comments," in BAR, 08:05 (Sept/Oct 1982)

⁵ Pertinent information on Pilate’s usual (but not perpetual) behaviour can be found in Joan Comay & Ronald Brownrigg, Who’s Who in the Bible? "Pilate, Pontius" (Bonanza Books: New York, 1980)