Category: Ancient History

The Gospels: Seven Reasons to Trust Their Reliability

On By Jovan PayesIn 2022, Ancient Biography, Ancient History, Biola University, Christian Apologetics, College Papers, Early Christianity, Gospel Studies, Graduate Work, Greco-Roman World, Jesus Studies, New Testament, Research Papers, Talbot School of Theology, Theology

In the summer of 1996, I picked up a little green Gideon New Testament and began reading the gospels. At the time I was searching to see if perhaps Jesus would be the help I needed in my personal quest to leave the street gang life, overcome my dependency on illicit drug use, and establish a relationship with God. The experience had a radical impact on my hope of what was possible in my life, that I could be other than what I was, and how I could be reborn into the kingdom of God. A few days after Christmas day, I committed my life to following Jesus. In that nascent period of my emerging faith, I relied on the gospels to “tell me the story of Jesus.”

Since that time, I have immersed myself in the study of the gospels for faith and for hope, for truth, and for the renewing power of the historic Jesus who is the Christ of my faith. However, in that same period, it became clear to me that a number of sources (academic and popular) questioned the historical reliability of the Gospels (and the Bible). In this present paper, I affirm their reliability in a cumulative case, based on seven good arguments that make it more probable than not that the Gospels are historically reliable.[1]

The case will be divided into three categorical units.[2] I begin with four “ground-clearing” arguments to resolve important front-end misgivings regarding the reliability of the gospels. Second, I argue how four compositional conventions demonstrate a remarkably stable environment for writing ancient biographies of a recent figure within living memory. Then, I show how three historical features of the Gospels affirm their reliability. Finally, I offer a summation of what this abbreviated cumulative case affirms regarding the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Cumulative Argument for Reliability

There are two aspects of the present cumulative case for the reliability of the Gospels to consider before moving forward: the method and the goal. The method of a cumulative case is to use a series of individual arguments that are “less than sufficient” to bear the whole burden of a case by themselves, but together argue a compelling case that is reasonable. Former cold case detective, J. Warner Wallace, says it helps others to “see the forest for the trees.”[3] If the overlapping nature of the arguments makes for a reasonable argument, then the goal is to demonstrate that the cumulative case is more probable than the alternatives.

As an illustration, consider the colloquial commonsense argument: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has a bill like a duck, then it is a duck.” These three arguments form a cumulative case that the “bird” is a duck. With this admittedly limited illustration, I point to the commonsense nature of overlapping lines of reasons and evidence, of varying weight, together to offer a big-picture argument.

Presently, then, the seven arguments below overlap to argue positively that it is reasonable and more probable (not just plausible) than not the Gospels are in general historically reliable as an ancient historical biography of a recent religious teacher (Jesus) within the living memory of his disciples. This is a threshold argument. Do the gospels crossover to the category of historically reliable? This is significant since the Gospels are our best available source for any historical picture of Jesus of Nazareth.[4]

Ground Clearing Arguments

The following arguments are treated as “ground-clearing” lines of evidence as they address “front-end” matters of reliability.[5] What extant sources are available for knowledge of Jesus? Has the text of the Gospels been preserved and reliably transmitted? Even if the textual tradition is adequate, are the translations reliable? How early are these Gospels and who wrote them? These are important questions that must be given consideration due to so many misgivings about them in popular circles.[6]

Ancient Sources for Jesus

In the first place, what sources exist to know that Jesus existed and what he said and did? Apart from the Gospels, there is a cache of early ancient non-Christian, often hostile, testimony about Jesus available from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, later Christian, and heretical and apocryphal literature within the first one hundred years.[7] The composite picture of what is known of Jesus from these sources remarkably corroborates with what is found in the four Gospel accounts: Jesus was a Jewish itinerant, miracle-working rabbi in the Roman province of Judea, who many believed was the Messiah; but he was executed under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar; his disciples believed he resurrected spreading this belief throughout the Rome. The Gospels remain the best sources for Jesus, but corroboration of their portrayal of Jesus with ancient non-Christian sources is a necessary starting place.

Reliable Transmission

Additionally, skeptic Richard Carrier, a historian of ancient Rome, lists “textual analysis” as the first stage of historical inquiry.[8] This second ground-clearing argument asserts the Gospels pass the “bibliographical test” as part of the reliable transmission of the Greek New Testament from the ancient text to the modern reader.[9] New Testament textual criticism can evaluate, detect, and correct textual corruptions due to the access of textual critics to over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, early ancient translations, and early church quotations.[10] There are two significant variants in the gospels which involve an entire passage (Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11), but these are the exception. According to Blomberg, we have “upwards of 97% of what the original writers wrote reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt,” and the remaining 3% affects no Christian doctrine.[11] As an ancient, hand-copied group of books, the Gospels have been reliably transmitted.

Reliable English Translations

As a third argument, standard English Bible translations are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of knowing the deeds, sayings, and passion of Jesus in the Gospels. Translation is the work of transferring the meaning and ideas of words from one language into the language of a receptor language. Biblical scholar Philip W. Comfort notes that a translation “must reliably replicate the meaning of the text without sacrificing its readability.”[12] In translation theory, there are formal equivalence (“word for word”) translations (ESV, NASB), and there are dynamic equivalence (“thought for thought”) translations (NLT, CEB).[13] Additionally, there are optimal equivalence translations that seek an ideal blend of formal and dynamic methods (CSB, NIV).[14] No translation is perfect, but they typically succeed in producing a “reliable and readable” English text.

First-Century Documents

Finally, the Gospels are first-century biographical documents. Although the traditional authorship attributed to the Gospels attributed to them by the earliest Christian claim has been disputed and denied by critical scholarship, the dating given for most of the canonical gospels is within the window of “living memory” for the writing of ancient biographies about a historical figure.[15] Keener defines “living memory” as a time when “some people who knew the subject were still alive when the biographer wrote” their biography.[16] This is an ideal time to write a Gospel given the access to “better sources” and communal accountability to “document” events and sayings than a later biographer would have at their disposal. Scholarly consensus places the publication of each Gospel within the range of “living memory” of the first century. This fits within a literary period of the early Roman Empire in which concern for historical biographical accuracy peaked, roughly between the first century B.C. to the third century A.D.[17]

The Argument from Memory

In Christobiography, Craig Keener marshalls a compelling case that the Gospel biographies have many of the features of the ancient biographies. The following section seeks to condense Kenner’s overall argument. I argue for a remarkably stable environment for historical writing, with a focus on living memory and oral sources, which were adapted to write an ancient biography of a recent figure within living memory with a concern for accurate history telling.[18]

To focus the present argument, the historical preface to Luke-Acts will be used to inform and illustrate these conventions:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1–4 English Standard Version)[19]

Luke’s preface elicits the reader to anticipate that a historical narrative is forthcoming and constrained by pre-existing Jesus knowledge. Luke readily demonstrates that a historian’s use of convention to compose history is not incompatible with the doctrine of inspiration.[20] Nevertheless, here the focus is only given to how the Gospels are examples of reliably composed ancient biographical documents using the sources and conventions available to the authors.

Luke illustrates that the early church had a depository of oral tradition available to them extending back to “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2). The presence of oral tradition alone does not suggest stability, as it could be argued that the further away from Jerusalem over the years, the oral tradition lacked authentic “controls on the content” to prevent corruption.[21] Admittedly, this is a very complex question. It requires an appreciation that one’s memory precedes chronologically “memoir” and “oral tradition,” which brings into focus the question: how reliable was the first-generation memory of Jesus on which the Gospels are written? Part of the answer is found in the strength of the communal memory of the first generation of eyewitnesses to preserve and provide accountability to the transmission of oral tradition even if certain details were distorted, or allowable stylistic changes crept in.[22] That is to say, distortions may occur when forgetting certain details (location, timeframe), but in an organically controlled environment, memory will likely not invent new stories.

Craig Keener argues at length that memory studies “offer no reason to discount” that the Gospels, as ancient biography, “preserve substantial information about Jesus.”[23] Debates occur over how much “core” Jesus is preserved in the Gospels from the source of memory and oral tradition. The skepticism of how much ancients could remember, it should be tempered with contemporary “Westerners” use of memory to reconstruct from their own living memory, despite the natural limitations of organic memory.[24] When it comes to what the earliest disciples should have remembered, memory studies point to an expectation that the collective memory and oral tradition of the disciples should have provided a basic historical portrait of Jesus.

The retelling of the same or parallel events with stylized segments of Jesus’ teaching, the person mentioned, or details omitted, are the kinds of elements that would be found within well a preserved oral tradition and communal memory. This is particularly important for the oral teaching of Jesus in which the oral community cared more for substance (the gist) over the verbatim recollection.[25] Thus, Keener argues, there are good historical grounds for accepting the shared events, themes, teachings, and deeds of Jesus and his inner circle.[26]

Historical Arguments

The present historical arguments affirm the reliability of the Gospels. First, archaeological confirmation situates the realism of the biographical narratives. Second, early Christian letters predating the Gospels include early Christian creedal statements, possible quotations, and allusions to the teaching of Jesus.

Archaeological Corroboration

Archaeology is a precarious discipline as it does not always yield all the desired corroborating evidence for a specific event or person. Nevertheless, “evidence-based apologetics” is linked to the proper use and interpretation of archaeological findings.[27] Excavations from various cities connected to Jesus have illuminated the realism found in the Gospel narratives, but by the nature of the case, they do not confirm the supernatural deeds of Jesus.[28] It is immaterial if one’s horizon believes the Gospels exaggerate these aspects of the historical Jesus or allow for them.[29] There was a time when it was believed that archaeology could only date the birth of Christ but provide little that would illustrate Jesus’ life.[30]

Archaeology has since demonstrated places mentioned exist (e.g., Nazareth), illustrating agrarian life (mill stones, viticulture), living conditions (homes), topography, economics (Roman and Judean coins), and other socio-cultural realities.[31] In 1961, an inscription was found at Caesarea Maritimis confirming externally that Pontius Pilate was the Judean prefect during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. The realism of stories of the twelve disciples traveling by boat in the Sea of Galilee was confirmed in 1986 when a first-century fishing boat was found in the Sea of Galilee. In an impressive find, in 1968 the remains of an early first-century crucified man, named Yehohanan, were discovered in a family bone box (ossuary) found in the northern city limits of Jerusalem. This find illuminates Jewish death customs of the period, that Judean crucified victims as criminals received proper burial rites (like Jesus), instead of the claim of some that the crucified were buried in unmarked mass graves.[32]

Pre-Gospel Allusions in Paul and James

A second historical argument is made from pre-Gospel publication creedal statements, quotations, and allusion to Paul and James the Just. Paul is believed to have suffered martyrdom under Nero in Rome (A.D. 64–67).[33] In Galatians 1:11–2:10, the content of Paul’s gospel is authenticated by the earliest disciples of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:1–8, Paul appeals to a pre-existing creedal statement affirming the death, burial, resurrection, and multiple resurrected appearances of Jesus (Matt 28:1–10; Luke 24:1–49). Additionally, Paul distinguishes his teaching on marital issues from known circulating instruction from Jesus (1 Cor 7:10, 12).[34] In Romans 1:1–6, is found the belief that Jesus is of Davidic lineage (Matt 1:17). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul cites what is likely an oral saying of Jesus that is found nearly verbatim in Luke 10:7.[35]

Additionally, James wrote an early epistle to Hebrew Christians. He was executed by high priest Ananus II during the transition from procurator Festus to Albinus (A.D. 62), alluding to the teaching of his brother Jesus.[36] Blomberg demonstrates that no epistle “contains as many passages that verbally resemble the teaching of Jesus” as James, so much so, that some believe James had access at minimum to Matthew’s sermon on the mount (Matt 5–8).[37] The resemblances seem consistent with the fluid nature of oral tradition.

These references from Paul and James, and many other letters, do not alone prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the historical reliability of the Gospels, but they do show how the Gospels fall within the continuity of pre-publication beliefs.

A Summation

The “ground clearing” arguments demonstrate that there is good ancient first-century source material that has been adequately preserved and reliably translated into English for those who would like to know about Jesus. Additionally, the oral tradition techniques and composition with available sources to write ancient history are remarkably stable to deliver the four Gospel biographies of Jesus within living memory. Finally, the external historical reliability of the Gospels is seen in the authentic writings of Paul and James, and archaeological corroboration of the realism and setting of the Gospels. I pray this cumulative case leads someone to believe that the Gospels are reliable so that one day they may come to believe in the Jesus of the Gospels.[38]

Endnotes

  1. To be clear, I do not affirm that these are the only arguments that can be made. Nor have I included all historical “ground clearing” issues (e.g., historical methodology, etc.). I have limited the discussion to these seven arguments due to space and convenience.
  2. These are my personal arrangements of the arguments.
  3. Former cold-case detective, J. Warner Wallace, remarks, “cumulative case arguments are typically built on a number of pieces of evidence, each of which may be imperfect or insufficient when considered in isolation. When examined in totality, however, the case becomes strong and reasonable.” He goes on, “opponents of cumulative cases usually attack the imperfections or insufficiencies they observe in the single pieces of evidence within the larger case. But remember, each individual evidence is admittedly less than sufficient, and this has no impact on whether or not the final conclusion, given the overwhelming nature of the cumulative case, is reasonable.” See, “Intense Investigation,” Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith, Logos electronic ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2017), n.p.
  4. Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019), 11.
  5. The idea of “ground clearing” arguments is taken from a passing statement in a lecture by Craig L. Blomberg on the reliability of the Gospels. The structure of this paper relies on the selective use of Blomberg’s lectures from a Fall 2022 Biola University graduate course titled, “The Reliability of the Gospels.”
  6. Paul Barnett likewise asserts, “our first and most basic step is to identify, date, and assess the historical value of our sources for Jesus Christ” (Finding the Historical Christ [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009], 11).
  7. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 249–280; Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ, 11–64.
  8. Richard C. Carrier, Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Kindle ed. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2012), location 174: “We have to use the methods of textual criticism and paleography to ascertain whether a document we presently have is authentic and accurately reflects its original—since usually only copies of copies exist today.”
  9. John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law and Christianity (1964; reprint, Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014), 11–13; Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2017), 46–47.
  10. Blomberg points out it is not a fair use of the textual evidence to suggest the earlier back one goes, there will be an increase in variants (Historical Reliability, 335–36). Still, the earliest extant manuscripts are second-century papyrus fragments of Matthew 23:30–39 (P77) and John 18:31–34 and 18:37–38 (P52), and John 18:36–19:7 (P90) attesting to the early circulation of these books (Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990], 31–71). There are witnesses to Syriac and Old Latin translations of the gospels as early as the second century (Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001], 25–35). The gospels are cited or alluded to in first-to-second-century patristic literature such as Ignatius, Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, etc. (cf. Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (reprint, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research, 2009).
  11. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 332–33; For his alarmist rhetoric see, Bart Ehrman, “The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings” in Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 45–69.
  12. Philip W. Comfort, Essential Guide to Bible Versions (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2000), 104.
  13. Comfort, Essential Guide, 103–04.
  14. On “optimal equivalence” see “The CSB Translation Philosophy: Optimal Equivalency” (Feb. 14, 2017).
  15. McDowell and McDowell compare the dating ranges of the four Gospels among conservative and liberal scholarship and provide these ranges in Evidence that Demands a Verdict (42–46): Matthew (early 60s–80s; 80–100), Mark (late 50s–late 60s; 70s), Luke (early 60s–80s; 70–110), John (mid-60s–100; 90–100).
  16. Keener, Christobiography, 2.
  17. Keener, Christobiography, 68–103.
  18. Due to the nature of this essay, especially this section, I am arguing the case for reliability without seeking the shortcut of appealing to “Holy Spirit-guided inspiration.” I am fully committed to the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. I believe God used the conventions of the day in the production of his written Word.
  19. Unless otherwise noted Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
  20. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 38, footnote 42: “Luke describes the composition of his Gospel according to the standard process of ancient history-writing–consulting written sources, learning from oral tradition, interviewing eyewitnesses, selecting what is deemed most important for one’s own objectives.” In Keener, Christobiography, 221–39, the two-volume work Luke-Acts is profiled as a mixture of “biohistory” with each book from a sub-category of the historical genre: Luke (ancient biography) and Acts (ancient history).
  21. J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006), 30.
  22. Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing, 33–36.
  23. Keener, Christobiography, 366.
  24. Keener, Christobiography, 373. Keener points out how memories are not “videocameras… not straightforward, objective records of what happened” (374). They include constant reworking, bias, and conflation, and are vulnerable to suggestion.
  25. Keener notes that verbatim recollection was very rare, and given the sample size of the teaching of Jesus, one should expect the kind of substance-focused material found in the Gospels (385–90). Cf. Darrell L. Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Jesus Under Fire, eds. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 74–99.
  26. Keener, Christobiography, 384.
  27. McDowell and McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 416.
  28. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 326–27.
  29. I. Howard Marshall explores what is meant by “historical” as whether a person named x actually existed or whether a historical reference to someone named x is more fiction than history. Additionally, he pursues his project by seeking to go from “I believe in that there was a historical person called Jesus… what, if anything can be known about this person” (I Believe in the Historical Jesus, rev. ed. [Vancouver: Regent College, 2004], 16). C. K. Barrett assesses the uncomfortableness for the modern historian reading pre-scientific literature like the Gospels largely centers on the supernatural elements that do “not so appear in his own experience.” Still, it would be a “bad historical method to rule out a priori… such events” (Jesus and the Gospel Tradition [Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1968], 4). See a more recent discussion on “preunderstanding” horizons in Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 38–50.
  30. James H. Charlesworth, “Jesus Research and Archaeology” in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, eds. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 441.
  31. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 326–31. Charlesworth lists over one-hundred-twenty items ranging from the mundane to the illustrious (“Jesus Research,” 443–45).
  32. Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and the Ossuaries,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003): 33. The multiply attested “burial tomb tradition” (Mark 15:42–47) has been doubted by various critical scholars, like John Dominic Crossan, who believes crucifixion meant “death-without-burial” and “body-as-carrion” (Who Killed Jesus? [New York: HarperCollins, 1995], 163–68).
  33. For Paul’s death see 1 Clement 5:5–7, 6:1; for context and historical analysis see Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (2008; reprint, New York: Routledge, 2015), 93–114.
  34. Blomberg describes this as a “powerful confirmation of the care with which the first Christians distinguished the words of the historical Jesus from later instructions inspired by his Spirit” (Historical Reliability, 287).
  35. Although critics do not list 1 Timothy among Paul’s authentic letters, the arguments are far from definitive and do not make Pauline authorship impossible (Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro [Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1972], 1–5; George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles [1992; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013], 21–52).
  36. For the death of James the Just see Josephus Antiquities 20.197–200; For context and historical analysis see Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles, 115–34.
  37. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 292–93.
  38. This “two decision” model is taken from Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 255–58.

Works Cited

Barnett, Paul. Finding the Historical Christ. After Jesus, volume 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.

Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1968.

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2nd edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007.

Bock, Darrell L. “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Jesus Under Fire, edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 74–99. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.

Carrier, Richard. Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Kindle edition. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2012.

Charlesworth, James H. “Jesus Research and Archaeology” in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, 439–66. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Antisemitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. New York: HarperCollins, 1995.

Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Herm. Edited by Helmut Koester, et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperCollins, 2005

Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and the Ossuaries.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003): 21–46.

Keener, Craig S. Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019.

Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. 1992. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.

Komoszewski, J. Ed, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.

Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Revised edition. Vancouver, BC: Regent College, 2002.

McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2017.

McDowell, Sean. The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus. 2015. Reprint, New York: Routledge, 2018.

Montgomery, John Warwick. History, Law and Christianity. 1964. Reprint, Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014.

Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2013.

_____. Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith. Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2017.

Rise of Empires: Persia and Rome in Profile

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, College Work, New Testament Background, Old Testament Background, Persia, Roman Empire

[Note: In light of the fact that both Persia and Rome are significant empires integral to the biblical narrative in both the Old Testament (Persia) and New Testament (Rome), sharing this historical background paper may be helpful to gain a broad appreciation of these empires. Obviously, this is only a rough sketch of these two global ancient empires.]

There are many areas to evaluate and examine ancient empires. In this paper, the Persian and Roman Empires will be evaluated based on their similarities and differences. This will be done by considering four lines of comparisons and contrasts.

First, I look at the rise of the Persian and Roman Empires, then, the political and economic bases that sustained each empire. Third, I consider the impact of environmental factors upon Persia and Rome and conclude with the major internal and external challenges that Persia and Rome confronted and how they were resolved.

These areas of discussion will be considered in light of class lecture notes[1] on the Persian and the Roman Empires respectively, and the related sections of Craig A. Lockard’s book, Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History, 3rd edition (abbreviated SNT).[2]

The Rise to Empire

Persia. The rise of the Persian Empire is connected to its expansion through conquest. In the seventh century B.C.E., the Persian kingdom competed against the Medes until Persian dominance displaced them. The Persian kingdom begins significant expansion during the reign of Cyrus II (Cyrus the Great) in the sixth century B.C.E. (r. 550-530) and Cambyses II (r. 530-522 B.C.E.). These kings were members of the “ruling family” known as the Achaemenid and they reigned during the “peak” of the classical Persian Empire (SNT 140). Then, King Darius I (r. 521-486 B.C.E.) who usurped the throne continued Persian expansion on to the time of Xerxes I (r. 486-465 B.C.E.). 

In a period of fewer than one hundred years, the small coastal Persian kingdom expanded through conquest to include Afghanistan, western India along the Indus River, and Central Asia in the east; in the west, their geographic control included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and all of Anatolia including the most western Anatolian kingdom of Lydia.

Rome. Concerning the rise of the Roman Empire, the expansion through conquest does not occur during the imperial period (31 B.C.E.-476 C.E.), but instead during the period of the Republic (509-31 B.C.E.).

As Map 8.2 in SNT (169) demonstrates, there was still unrest in certain areas of the Empire despite the Pax Romana (13 B.C.E.-180 C.E.); moreover, territories were still being added to the Roman Empire by the death of Emperor Hadrian (138 C.E.). The vast geographic territory touching the Mediterranean Sea (southern Europe, Greece, Anatolia, northern Africa, Egypt, etc.), however, is not technically the product of the Roman Empire (SNT 165).

The rise of the Roman Empire is more the result of political maneuvering away from a representative government towards a government of concentrated power in one man. This maneuvering begins with Julius Caesar.

Caesar is a victorious general who desires to become a member of the Republic Senate and was named Dictator upon arrival in the city of Rome. He violated the traditions of disarming at the city limits and the military one-day celebration to show the spoils of war; instead, Caesar crosses the Rubicon river armed, and celebrated for three days. Consequently, the senate responds to his actions by assassinating him. This ushered in a political civil war, where Caesar’s adopted son (nephew) Octavian and the allies of Julius Caesar take revenge upon all the assassins and their families, confiscate lands, and even kill slaves.

Octavian ultimately would become the first Roman Emperor, renamed himself Augustus, and reigned for approximately forty-one years (r. 27 B.C.E.–14 C.E.). The consequence was the loss of democracy, the rise of consolidated power, and as Juvenal notes distractions (“bread and circuses” SNT 168).

Thus, the rise of these two empires is seen from two different arcs. With Persia, the kingdom becomes an empire through traditional means – conquest and domination. The Roman Empire emerged due to political maneuvering rather than conquest. Yet, the rise of these empires emerges from a similar source: a small region or city that becomes a dominant world power.

Politics and Economics

Persia. Lockard describes the Persian rule during the imperial expansion as an “autocratic but culturally tolerant government” (SNT 141). In general, then, the diplomacy strategies of the Persian kings provided codified and humanitarian laws, kind economic policies, provincial governments, and expressed religious and social-cultural tolerance toward the peoples they conquered by force. Cyrus II (the Great) issued what is often called the first charter of human rights, and Darius I provided a codified law similar to that of Hammurabi.

The provinces were governed by a satrap (“protector of the kingdom”) who enforced established laws and paid taxes yearly to the king (SNT 143). Also, the religious and social-cultural tolerance shown to the diversity (language, religion, territories) of the growing empire is thought of as “most crucial” to its political success since it allowed Persia stability and flexibility not only in governing but also in battle and in commerce. Xerxes, however, was a less tolerant and more burdensome king (SNT 145).

Economically, other elements complimented Persia’s political success such as Darius completing the first Suez canal which temporarily unifies the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, thus expanding the land-based commerce of Persia (e.g. the “royal road”) to also include maritime trade from the west to the east. The trade routes not only reinforce the economic forces of the Persian Empire but also extends the political power of its aristocracy.

Rome. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, saw unquestioned control of the Mediterranean for nearly a century and a half (27 B.C.E.-180 C.E.) following the emergence of Caesar Augustus. This is known as the Pax Romana (Roman Peace). By the first century C.E., Rome was a multinational, diversely populated empire. Despite this diversity, there was equality under Roman law and emphasized personal responsibility before the law. It is believed that Stoicism, a Greek philosophy, influenced Roman law in its policies of tolerance, moderation, and acceptance of life (SNT 168).

Meanwhile, the economic bases of the Roman Empire came from its growing trade routes and industries which took advantage of its maritime technologies and routes, and its vast networks of Roman roads across land extending over 150,000 miles (SNT 171). The trade routes on land not only connected Europe, Greece, Anatolia, and Egypt, but Rome made contact with India on the Silk Road, and even with China. Unfortunately, overconsumption and lack of productivity from the western part of the Empire would overburden the economic system, inflation would be a problem, and expensive conquests would deplete the mines and the farmlands (SNT 172).

Thus, the political and economic bases of Persia and Rome faced similar challenges of managing a multinational population and a vast expanding trading network. They both extended a measure of political toleration and equality, and both took advantage of land-based and maritime trading and commerce. Yet, in Persia it would appear that the policies of intolerance would hurt the empire; meanwhile, in Rome, it would be the overconsumption of its scarce resources, and a lack of fiscal responsibility that would hurt its political and economic future.

Environmental Factors

Considering the environmental factors of both the Persian and Roman Empires, respectively, geography is crucial. Map 7.1 in SNT (142) demonstrates some topographical elements of the geographic environment of the Persian kingdom and the breadth of the Persian Empire at its height (cir. 500 B.C.E.).

The Persian homeland was on the northwestern shore of the Persian Gulf and would suggest the potential to have some maritime trade and quite possibly some naval strength needed to control those waters. Persia would then have some connection to India, China, and Egypt. It would also probably have rich fisheries. However, on its northern borders, the Persian kingdom faces the Zagros Mountains and other mountain ranges. It is therefore landlocked on this side. The Persian kingdom also would then have depended upon land-based trade.

When the imperial expansion occurred, trade opportunities were strengthened along newly controlled waterways (Indus River Valley, Suez, the Mediterranean Sea, etc). It may be observed that many of the environmental factors that shaped Persia were overcome through expansion as a result of conquest.

Based on Map 8.2 in SNT (168), there would be a tremendous impact of environmental factors upon the Roman Empire.

First, the fact that the Mediterranean Sea is the center of the Roman Empire suggests its importance in shaping the environment of Rome. There would be fishing, and fisheries, maritime travel and trade, maritime technologies, and naval capacities. There would also imply that the world would be more connected due to maritime travel.

Second, the mountainous European lands like Greece and Italy would also imply that it would be possible to be landlocked in various places, so on land, there would be difficulty in travel and communication. The valleys and small communities would also be a natural place for the growing of grapes and shepherding. This would suggest then wool, fabrics, textiles, and dairy products. The environmental factors of the Roman Empire would also imply the sharing of many ideas from the farthest parts of their world.

Thus, both the Persians and the Romans had experienced due to their environments maritime travel, trade, and diet. Rome however appears to have had more diversity in land-based production in dairy, wool, olive trees, and vineyards.

The Challenges of Empire

Every political system and government has pressures working on it from within and from outside. For all their success, the Persian and Roman Empires are no different.

Persia. Persia faces significant challenges, particularly during the reign of Xerxes (486-465 B.C.E.), son of Darius I, which will ultimately weaken the empire. Xerxes inherits a larger kingdom after his father’s conquests, but it comes with growing unrest among the Greek-speaking communities in the west which do not like Persian rule. The Scythians and several Ionic coastal cities become increasingly rebellious and Xerxes is forced to deal with the expensive task of shutting down their rebellion. Xerxes does so and desires to completely conquer the divided and weak Grecian peninsula; but, what should have been a “cakewalk” ends in an epic failure.

Moreover, Xerxes’ reign represents a significant shift towards intolerance, internal Achaemenid strife, and financial instability. Xerxes and his successors “unwisely reversed” the policies which had brought about the Persian Empire’s greatest strengths and flexibilities (SNT 145). The weight of these policy shifts weakened and exacerbated the empire internally and externally, and as a consequence, concluded with Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire in 330 B.C.E.

Rome. Rome, as well, faced major internal and external challenges. As mentioned above, later in the Roman Empire there were significant political and economic problems that undermined it. As a result of an over-reliance upon soldiers, the emperor would eventually come from soldier-backed emperors and this transition did not come without consequences.

For example, “none died peacefully in old age” (SNT 172). Yet, also, conquests would end due to the overconsumption of natural and agricultural resources. Externally, Rome would face in its declining years the rise of the Celtic and German societies in Europe. These societies exhausted Roman military resources, especially since Romans could not raise enough taxes to pay for soldiers to fight them off, especially the Germans (SNT 172-173).

Thus, the internal and external conflicts seem more focused on the Empire during the days of Xerxes when there was a reversal of policies away from tolerance and goodwill towards its subjects. Instead, there was internal unrest and military embarrassment in his failure to conquer the Grecian peninsula. Meanwhile, Rome struggled with political shifts as well, but it suffered tremendously due to mismanagement of natural and financial resources, and the unrest generated by the Celtics and the Germans.

Observations

In conclusion, there are few observations that can be made regarding the similarities and differences between the Persian and Roman Empires.

First, while the Persian Empire rose to world power through traditional means of expansion through conquest, the Roman Empire emerges due to political maneuvering and the transition from a representative government to one of consolidated power in Caesar.

Second, the political and economic bases that sustained the Persian and Roman Empires demonstrate similar demands for managing multinational populations under their rule and the economic capacity to trade and connect to other nations, but each empire succumbed to undermining what made it strong. For the Persians, it was their political tolerance and for the Romans, it was their lack of restraint with their resources.

Third, both the Persians and the Romans had experienced due to their environment: maritime travel, trade, and diet. Rome however appears to have had more diversity it land-based production in dairy, wool, olive trees, and vineyards.

Fourth, the internal and external challenges which confronted Persia and Rome are similar in that are rooted in policy changes and military interaction with outsiders. In the case of Persia, it was a drastic change in policy, while in Rome’s case it was a lack of management.

Endnotes

  1. The class lectures referenced here are from Professor Ann Wiederrecht, Bakersfield College. The citation format/style for the paper will remain as submitted (cf. SNT, page).
  2. Craig A. Lockard, Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History Volume 1: To 1500, 3rd ed. (Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015).

Who is Claudius Lysias?

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, Bible Study, Biography, Book of Acts, Early Christianity, Greco-Roman World, New Testament, New Testament Background, New Testament World, Roman EmpireLeave a comment
Reconstruction of Fort Antonia by Ehud Netzer in Biblical Archaeology Review 35.1 (Jan.-Feb. 2009).

Claudius Lysias, the Tribune

Claudius Lysias is called “the tribune” (χιλίαρχος, chilíarchos) 16 times within Acts 21-24 (21:31-33, 37; 22:24, 26-29; 23:10, 15, 17, 19, 22; 24:22); 17 times if Claudius Lysias is also included in among the “military tribunes” in the “audience hall” when Herod Agrippa II and Bernice come to hear Paul (Acts 25:23). However, such speculation is uncertain, especially considering a minimum of two years from when Claudius Lysias sent Paul to the Procurator Marcus Antonius Felix in c. AD 57/58 Acts 23:26-35, to within the first few months of the new Procurator Porcius Festus who rules from AD 60-62 (Acts 24:27-25:1-22).

The Greek term chilíarchos is said to be used to translate the Roman tribunus militum (following Polybius), and also for the phrase tribuni militares consulari potestate (Plutarch). The responsibilities of a chilíarchos were as a “commander of a thousand men”.[1] Essentially, Claudius Lysias is “a high ranking military officer in charge” of anywhere from 600 to 1,000 men,[2] and this appears to be the case for it is said that his command was over a “cohort” (σπειρα, speira) in Jerusalem which is “the tenth part of a Roman legion having about 600 men” (Acts 21:31).[3]

Tribune of a Jerusalem Cohort

Claudius Lysias’s complete description as found in the New Testament book of the Acts of the Apostles is “the tribune of the cohort” in Jerusalem, which resided in nearby “barracks” (Acts 21:34, 37; 22:24, 23:10, 16, 32). It takes six cohorts to make up a legion, and each legion had six tribunes with a thousand men (“soldiers and centurions” Acts 21:32) under his command if the cohort was full; consequently, Claudius Lysias was a part of a larger military force.

The exact numbers in his cohort may never be known, however, he had sufficient men to spare two centurions, two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to accompany Paul to Caesarea Acts 23:23-24. Furthermore, when the security detail arrives before Antipatris (Acts 23:31), Claudius Lysias allows for the seventy horsemen to go on with him and Paul to Caesarea, the headquarters of the Procurator Felix (Acts 23:32-35).

The “barracks” referenced in the book of Acts (21:34, 37; 22:24; 23:10, 16, 32), in connection to Claudius Lysias and his cohort are references to the Tower of Antonia, which Herod the Great rebuilt from a previous structure and named it after Marc Antony.[4] The Antonia was added on to the northwest side of the Temple facilities, “from which stairs descend into the outer court of the temple” (Acts 21:32, 35, 22:30).[5] For this reason, the Roman Tribune could hear the commotion caused by the confusing riot over Paul’s presence in the Temple and respond with speed (Acts 21:27-32).

Claudius Lysias in the New Testament

The military tribune Claudius Lysias enters the New Testament narrative when he protects Paul of Tarsus from a hostile Jewish mob on the outside of the Temple grounds in Jerusalem (Acts 21:30-32). The Acts text does not explicitly state why the tribune arrests Paul aside from asking “who he was and what he had done” (Acts 21:33); consequently, it appears Paul is detained for investigation as reflected later in Paul’s interrogation in the Antonian barracks because he was a cause of instigation among the Jews (Acts 22:23-24).

Claudius Lysias is aware of Jewish anarchistic movements, for when Paul speaking in Greek asks permission to speak to the shouting Jewish mob, the tribune appears shocked that he speaks Greek (Acts 21:37). Paul, as a controversial Greek-speaking Hebrew, evidently met some of the criteria for Lysias to conclude he was a Jewish revolutionist. Consequently, it appears that Lysias suspects him of being “the Egyptian” who “stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins [σικαρίων] out into the wilderness” (Acts 21:38).

This individual operated around A.D. 53, and this revolution amounted to amassing these four thousand men, positioning themselves upon the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem, and anticipating the walls of Jerusalem to collapse at his command. The Romans attacked this band of men, and the Egyptian lost six hundred men, and fled into the wilderness where he disappears awaiting “further revelation.” Evidently, “the Egyptian” was still on the run, wanted by the Roman military and the tribune was going to see if Paul was this anarchist.[6]

Paul was able to persuade Lysias that he was not an agitator, and provides him with his provincial citizenship as being from Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia (Acts 21:39). This was not an “obscure city” and either this suggests his citizenship could be authenticated, or Paul distinguished himself from the obscure Egyptian. In either case, Paul’s point is clear, he is not the Egyptian; the tribune accepts Paul’s case, and grants Paul an opportunity to speak to the Jews on the steps of the Temple facilities adjoined to the Antonian fortress (Acts 22:39-40).

The Jews did not respond peaceably to Paul’s speech, and Claudius Lysias decides to take Paul into the “barracks” of Antonia and “examine” him through the process of binding him to flog him (Acts 22:22-24). On receiving a report that Paul was a Roman citizen and then making a personal inquiry, Claudius is afraid of having violated the rights of a Roman by having him bound (see “Roman Citizenship” below). Claudius desires to arrive at the truth concerning the Jewish case against Paul and commands the Sanhedrin to assemble. Dissension among the Sanhedrin towards Paul arises again and causes Claudius Lysias to order his men to take Paul to the safety of the Antonian barracks (Acts 22:30-23:10).

Upon learning of a plot to kill Paul, Claudius Lysias summoned a military convoy to leave for Caesarea Maritima. In compliance with Roman law, he also sent a statement of the case to the procurator Antonius Felix. The letter reads:

Claudius Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings.

This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman citizen. And desiring to know the charge for which they were accusing him, I brought him down to their council. I found that he was being accused about questions of their law, but charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment. 

And when it was disclosed to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, ordering his accusers also to state before you what they have against him. (Acts 23:26-30, English Standard Version)

The letter format is consistent with the general format in the Graeco-Roman world, of “author” to “recipient” with a “greeting” with the subsequent content of the reason for the letter.[7] This letter, however, was not altogether factual. It is an interesting “specimen” of Roman military correspondence (Acts 23:26-30).

Although acknowledging Paul’s innocence, Claudius Lysias gave the impression that he had rescued Paul because of having learned that the apostle was a Roman, whereas in reality, he had violated Paul’s citizenship rights by having him bound and even ordering that he be examined under scourgings. As to the disciple Luke’s knowledge of the letter’s contents, it may be that the letter itself was read at the time Paul’s case was heard.

Roman Citizenship

In Acts 22:23-29, a discussion between Paul and Claudius emerges on the topic of Roman citizenship. Part of Claudius’ investigation procedure to find out more information was to stretch out the detained for whips and flog them.

Before his flogging begins, Paul questions the centurion given this detail, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” (Acts 22:25). Roman citizenship had a number of privileges, as John Polhill writes:

A Roman citizen was subject to Roman law and thus was protected from such things as being beaten without a trial, from cruel punishments like crucifixion, and from unlawful imprisonment, rights which did not belong to an ordinary provincial (peregrinus). Citizens had the right of appeal. Only a Roman citizen could legally marry another Roman citizen. Citizens were exempted from certain taxes. Beyond this, there was the considerable factor of honor and deference such a status afforded.[8]

It was such a valued honor, that some people risked the death penalty given for falsely claiming citizenship.[9] Interestingly, one could hold dual citizenship, as Paul was not only a citizen of the city of Rome but was also a citizen of the city of Tarsus from the province of Cilicia (Acts 21.39; 23.34).

Roman citizenship was conferred in a number of ways. The basic ones are as follows:

(1) The most common way was being born of two Roman citizens.

This is the claim Paul makes when asked how he obtained his citizenship (“I am a citizen by birth” Acts 22:28), which implies that both of Paul’s parents were Jewish Roman citizens (cf. #4).

(2) One could obtain citizenship as a reward for military service.

Regularly, military veterans were given citizenship upon discharge. This was the surest way to get it, taking 20 to 25 years depending on the level of ranking.

(3) Imperial conference, though heard of, was not entirely common.

Nevertheless, the emperor could confer citizenship, either on individuals or on whole communities, as in the establishment of a new colony. Often the result of doing some loyal service to Rome. Also, many times through these services, one gained an audience with the Emperor through expensive gifts to members of the inner Imperial court.

This may have been how the Tribune Claudius Lysias gained his citizenship (Acts 22:27-28). In fact, the tribune’s name provides evidence to assume the plausibility that Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41 – A.D. 54) conferred upon Lysias citizenship since those granted this honor would bear the name (the nomen) of the family or patron which conferred it; hence, Lysias gained the name of his patron Claudius. It has been noted that the emperor was quite “promiscuous” in his conference of citizenship.[10]

(4) Roman citizenship was also conferred through the emancipation of a slave from the house of a Roman citizen.

Some have suggested that Paul’s ancestors may have been freedmen from among the thousands of Jews whom Pompey took as slaves in 63 B.C.[11]

Endnotes

  1. H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon: Abridged from Liddel and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (1888; repr.; Oak Harbor, Wash.: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 888.
  2. Barclay Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, revised ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 200.
  3. Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary, 167.
  4. Josephus, Antiquities 15.293; 15.409.
  5. George A. Smith, et al., “Jerusalem,” Encyclopaedia Biblica, eds. T. K. Cheyne and J. Southerland Black (London: A & C Black, 1901), 1:2429.
  6. Robert M. Grant, The Sword and the Cross (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1955), 49.
  7. T. C. Mitchell, Biblical Archaeology: Documents from the British Museum (New York, NY: University of Cambridge, 1988), 89.
  8. John B. Polhill, “Political Background of the New Testament,” Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 531-32.
  9. Abraham J. Malherbe, “Life in the Graeco-Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe (1967; repr., Abilene, Tex.: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 9.
  10. Polhill, “Political Background of the New Testament,” 532.
  11. John B. Polhill, “Political Background of the New Testament,” 532; Richard R. Losch, The Uttermost Part of the Earth: A Guide to Places in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 176-77.

This originally appeared as a fully edited submission to Wikipedia.org. I have posted this here in case it is revised or rewritten.