The Nazareth Decree

The Nazareth decree: Roman law testifies to empty tomb Historical, secular evidence which strengthens the veracity of the resurrection of Christ. The Resurrection of Christ, after His death on the Cross, constitutes the mainstay of Christian faith. This victory over death, Christians believe, is epitomised by the empty tomb. The Bible tells of the great stone that was rolled away by the angel to reveal a tomb devoid of anything but the shroud; no body of Christ was ever found. But what evidence do present-day Christians—or anyone, for that matter—have of the empty tomb? The Bible testifies to it, for sure, but what else does? Since the 1930s, there appears to be some other testimony: the Nazareth Decree.

The inscription of the Nazareth Decree is in Greek and translates as follows, line by line: 1. EDICT OF CAESAR 2. It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs—whoever has made 3. them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household 4. members—that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally 5. charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted 6. those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who 7. have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has 8. moved sepulchre-sealing stones, against such a person I order that a 9. judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in 10. human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat 11. with honour those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to 12. allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if 13. [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under 14. the title of tomb-breaker. Historical The Nazareth Decree belongs to Roman law and there is very strong indication it was decreed by Emperor Claudius around 41AD. It is engraved on a stone slab 24 x 15 inches. The exact time and place of its discovery is unknown; in 1878 it became an addition to the private Froehner Collection of ancient inscriptions and manuscripts, but the details of its acquisition are unknown. Froehner’s inventory states: “This marble was sent from Nazareth in 1878”. In 1925, the Nazareth Decree moved together with the Froehner Collection to the Paris National Library. It was translated into French in 1930 and then into English in 1932. The Roman Emperor Claudius ruled during 41 – 54AD. Claudius was well educated, published books on history, wrote in Latin and Greek and used to hold council in both languages depending on the language of those present. Herod Agrippa I, a grandson of Herod the Great, was King of Galilee in 37 – 41AD and acquired Judea and Samaria 37 – 41AD following the exile of Herod Antipas (who ordered the beheading of John the Baptist) and his wife Herodias to Gaul (France). Herod Agrippa I was raised and educated in Rome where he was a friend of Claudius. It was customary for local rulers to send correspondence to the Emperor regarding local issues and for the Emperor to reply. The reply can be in the form of an edict/law that would be universally applied to the whole Empire or just to deal with the local issue. The Emperor would dictate the edict, written on papyrus or parchment. The local ruler might abridge the edict and having it engraved on stone for display so as to receive wider recognition. Death penalty for ‘moving bodies’ It is thus likely that Agrippa I sent to Claudius asking his opinion about how Agrippa would deal with the new sect of Christians, then known as the “Nazarenes”. To counter the Nazarene/Christian teaching that Jesus had been resurrected, Jewish leaders claimed that His disciples “came by night and stole him away” [Matt. 28:3]. It is almost certain that this was the version of the Resurrection of Christ which came to the ears of the Roman Emperor Claudius who consequently issued the Nazareth Inscription and had it posted in the city of Nazareth. The Decree is directed to the inhabitants of Palestine who comprised both Jews and gentiles. It announces the penalty of death for moving bodies from tombs. Gentiles believed that the spirit of the deceased seeks revenge from those who hurt the dead person. Surely a gentile would not dare move a dead body. Beside, most gentiles in Palestine (and other areas of the Empire) would burn their dead; unlike the ancient Egyptians who would mummify for their special belief in the afterlife. Thus it is clear the Decree was directed to the Jews. The Decree mentions family tombs, another practice specific to Jews. Further, it refers to “Sepulchre” and “Sepulchre sealing stones”; both also very specific to Jewish, and Israelite burials. Tomb robbery was well known in ancient times but rather for robbing valuables and stones and masonry to be used for building but not for “moving” bodies of the deceased. This Imperial Decree is directed definitely for “moving bodies”. Material evidence Why should an Emperor in Rome send a decree to his dominion Palestine regarding “moving bodies” from Jewish tombs with the death penalty as punishment? Why send it especially at or shortly after the year 41AD, less than a decade after the Crucifixion of Christ? Could it have been a reaction to the events of Christ’s Passion Week in Jerusalem in around 33AD, with the consequent “Empty Tomb”. Admittedly the abridged version of the Decree as engraved on the stone does not mention Christ, or His followers the Nazarenes. When the Roman soldiers went to the authorities in Jerusalem to inform them about the empty tomb, the High Priests bribed them with money so that they say that the disciples of Jesus came and took his body from the tomb whilst the soldiers were asleep (Matt 28:11-15). Fearing a potential threat to the Jewish religion and Roman rule, the High Priests and Roman authorities tried to subdue the new religion, but to no avail. Herod Agrippa I, being himself a Jew, was uneasy about these events and to the growing number of the Nazarenes in his domain. He sends to his friend Emperor Claudius a request: what should I do with this new sect? Claudius answers with an edict which Agrippa found so important as to engrave an abridgement of on stone to make it well publicised throughout his land that the death sentence is the punishment of any who would dare “move” a dead body. The Nazareth Decree is evidence of an “empty tomb”. It is important historical material evidence that points to the Resurrection of Christ. Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. Evidence from Tacitus Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote: Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....[5] What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus. But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."[6] While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.[7] How else might one explain that? Evidence from Pliny the Younger Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.[8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9] At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians: They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.[10] This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."[11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man. Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath" not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."[12] This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely "food of an ordinary and innocent kind". They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."[13] The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today. Evidence from Josephus Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."[14] F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."[15] And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.[16] As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.[17] Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.[18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.[19] For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian. But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same. In 1971 Shlomo Pines discovered an Arabic Josephus passage quote in Agapius, “The book of the Title”. Here is what the undoctored text says: “At this time, there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” As we can see, even though it does not have Josephus explicitly stating Jesus was the Christ (like he does in doctored versions), everything he says verifies what we see in the New Testament. The account is reliable as, coming from a Jewish source through non-Christian Arabic translations, there is no motive for these people to affirm Christian teaching. Josephus also records in Antiquities 18.5.2 how John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipas. Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21] Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans. [24] The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus? Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament. Evidence from Lucian Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows: The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [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.[27] Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account." Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer. Conclusion Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God. This small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospel, and confirms the veracity of the gospels account. Addendum. The Death Of Jesus The preternatural darkness reported at Jesus’ crucifixion was no metaphor. It was a real historical event based on eyewitness accounts and independently corroborated by a number of highly qualified ancient historians. And just as the darkness recorded in the gospels was based on real history, the reason for Jesus’s death is rooted in the real history recorded in the Book of Genesis. During the last three hours of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross, an eerie darkness struck the land. This darkness is documented by the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It is also confirmed by three extra-biblical historians: Thallus, Phlegon, and Africanus. A closer look will reveal strong historical evidence for this unparalleled event. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke Each of these authors briefly records the three-hour darkness during Christ’s crucifixion (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44–45). Matthew was one of Jesus’ apostles and an eyewitness to the event. Mark was a close companion of Peter, one of Christ’s three innermost apostles. Mark also traveled with Paul, Luke, and many of the earliest Christians in the Book of Acts. Luke was a Greek physician and historian who carefully investigated the events of Christ’s life. His historical investigation was based on direct and indirect eyewitness accounts from Paul, Peter, James, Mark, Mary (the mother of Jesus), and many of Jesus’ first female followers.1 Luke is considered to be one of the most reliable historians of all time.1 J.A.T. Robinson, a liberal New Testament scholar, conducted an in-depth study in which he discovered strong historical, textual, and logical evidence for dating all of the gospels betweenAD40–65.2 And Robinson was no friend of conservative biblical Christianity. Based on these dates, Matthew, Mark, and Luke would have written about the darkness a mere 7 to 32 years after the actual event.3 Compared to other ancient historical accounts, this is like a news flash. Suetonius, a Roman historian, wrote his account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least 110 years after the event, and it is considered to be generally reliable.4 The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death, and they are considered trustworthy accounts.1 (Compare also Who was Luke and what did he write?) Even more compelling is the fact that Rudolph Pesch, the German New Testament scholar, dates the source for Mark’s passion narrative no later thanAD37 based on language, style, grammar, and personal references.5 This is a maximum of four years after the actual event! It can be conclusively stated that the Gospel accounts of the darkness at the crucifixion are extremely early, reliable, and based on eyewitnesses. Thallus, Phlegon, and Africanus Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in aboutAD52.6 Although his original writings have been lost, he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably as it seems to me.’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion. Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology aroundAD137: In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e.,AD33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’7 Phlegon provides powerful confirmation of the Gospel accounts. He identifies the year and the exact time of day. In addition, he writes of an earthquake accompanying the darkness, which is specifically recorded in Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 27:51). However, like Thallus, he fallaciously attempts to interpret the darkness as a direct effect of a solar eclipse. Africanus composed a five volume History of the World around AD 221. He was also a pagan convert to Christianity. His historical scholarship so impressed Roman Emperor Alexander Severus that Africanus was entrusted with the official responsibility of building the Emperor’s library at the Pantheon in Rome. Africanus writes: 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 Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period.8 Africanus rightly argues that a solar eclipse could not have occurred during the lunar cycle of the Passover, as this diagram shows. He also questions the link between an eclipse, an earthquake, and the miraculous events recorded in Matthew’s Gospel. Eclipses do not set off earthquakes and bodily resurrections. We also know that eclipses only last for several minutes, not three hours. For Africanus, naturalistic explanations for the darkness at the crucifixion were grossly insufficient, as he showed by applying real science. Local or global? Many have pondered whether or not the darkness was a regional or global phenomenon. A vast majority of biblical translations records that the darkness was ‘over the land’, ‘over all the land’, or ‘over the whole land’. However, some translations of Luke’s account state the darkness was ‘over all the earth’ or ‘over the whole earth’. What we do have is a plethora of extremely early, historically reliable, and highly respected sources for the darkness during the crucifixion. The Greek has the usual word for earth, gē,9 here, from which we derive ‘geology’. The language of most translations appears to strongly suggest that the darkness was a local or regional phenomenon, which is a possible rendition in some contexts. All the same, if it was regional, it was over an extensive region. Dr Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, notes ‘This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities.’7 On the other hand, Africanus writes of the darkness as a global event. Tertullian, the famous second century apologist, also hails the darkness as a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’. Appealing to skeptics, he wrote: At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day.10 Apparently, Tertullian could state with confidence that documentation of the darkness could be found in legitimate historical archives. It is plausible that future archaeological discoveries could lend stronger support to the notion that the darkness was indeed witnessed throughout the entire world. Why aren’t there more sources? Many skeptics ask why John’s Gospel does not mention the darkness at the crucifixion. Simon Greenleaf, of Harvard Law School, said it best about the gospels: There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they were all independent narrators of the same great transaction.11 In other words, independent narrators will sometimes record different secondary details about the same exact event. Many skeptics also ask why other early historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger fail to mention the darkness. But the skeptics are committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. It is unreasonable to expect every contemporary writer to include every event that happened—and there are good reasons not to expect these specific authors to mention the darkess (see Thallus: Darkness Rules). What we do have is a plethora of extremely early, historically reliable, and highly respected sources for the darkness during the crucifixion. The list of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thallus, Phlegon, Africanus, and Tertullian is impressive indeed. Conclusion There is powerful evidence for the historicity of the darkness at Christ’s crucifixion. It was a real historical event, and its very existence was rooted in the real historical events in Genesis. As the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), Christ came to suffer the horrible and ignominious death of crucifixion in order to die for the sins of the world. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).’ References Craig, William Lane, The Evidence for Jesus, 2005; see also Luke: A consideration of Gospel authorship and publication date. Robinson, John A.T., Redating the New Testament, Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2000. Return to text. Cf. Wenham, John, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, IVP, 1992; see review. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars 1:31–33,AD121. . Strobel, L. The Case for Christ, p. 220, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998. Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus, pp. 196-7, College Press Publishing Company, 1996. Maier, Paul. Pontius Pilate (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1968), p. 366. Phlegon’s citation is a fragment from Olympiades he Chronika 13, ed. Otto Keller, Rerum Naturalium Scriptores Graeci Minores, 1 (Leipzig Teurber, 1877), p. 101. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html The Greek phrase in Luke 23:44 is καί σκότος εγένετο έφ ‘όλην τήν γήν (kai skotos egeneto eph holēn tēn gēn), ‘and darkness came upon the whole earth’. Sanders, Oswald. The Incomparable Christ, p. 203, Moody Publishers, 1982. Greenleaf, Simon. The Testimony of the Evangelists, vii, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984. . The Bible declares: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 4868 [4] Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82. [5] Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82. [6] N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190. [7] Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82. [8] Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198. [9] Ibid., 27. [10] Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199. [11] M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?", in Jesus Under Fire, ed. by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66. [12] Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199. [13] Bruce, Christian Origins, 28. [14] Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36. [15] Ibid. [16] Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212. [17] Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212. [18] Ibid. [19] Another version of Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, "as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church" (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). [20] Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03. [21] The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203. [22] Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203. [23] See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33. [24] Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32. [25] Matthew 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56. [26] Luke 23:2, 5. [27] Lucian, "The Death of Peregrine", 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206