Very God, very human.

APPENDIX 1. The Date of Christ’s Birth.
We do not know the date of Christ’s birth, but we do know, approximately, the date of Herod’s death (March or early April BC 4) and there is also the evidence of astronomers as to the appearance of an extra bright “star” or comet between Jupiter and Saturn in February BC 4.

The magi came after the visit to the temple which was 40 days after the birth. We do not know how long after, but as the stay in Bethlehem was apparently expected to be temporary, it is hard to believe that Joseph would have stayed on much longer after the ceremony and once Mary was well enough to travel.

Working backwards then, from some time in February we come to a date some time between late November and early January. The traditional date is not a bad estimate.

Some have questioned it on the grounds that “sheep would not be in the fields in winter” but Edersheim is quite clear that some sheep (the temple sheep at any rate) were guarded in those fields all the year round. And it may have been the cold of a Judean winter which drove the couple into a stuffy cave. In summer they might have prefered the open air.

APPENDIX 2. Roman soldiers or Temple Security Guards?
Many commentators, including those I most respect, take the view that Roman soldiers were involved in the arrest of Jesus and also in guarding the tomb. It is necessary therefore to give reasons why I reject this weight of authority and believe it was the Temple security guards in both cases; the only involvement of Roman soldiers being the scourging and the crucifixion.

The reasons for this conclusion are, in the case of those who guarded the tomb, very simple and in my view conclusive. Rather more complex reasons apply to the arrest.

Roman soldiers who slept on duty would be executed. No good words put in by the chief priests could possibly save them. The promise of the priests in Matthew 28:14 “If the governor hears we will protect you” could only have been given to the priests’ own staff - security guards employed mainly to protect the temple. If such men slept on duty, Pilate might make some derogatory remarks about the quality of the guard, but would not be interested in disciplinary action.

The arguments for the arrest’s being made by the same guard are less absolute but again in my view add up to virtual certainty.

First, Roman soldiers were highly disciplined and would have simply gone ahead and carried out orders, with no delay or hesitation. They might have needed Judas to locate and identify Jesus, but once that was done they would move in and act.

The guards were frightened of Jesus. They needed Judas as much to give them moral courage as to locate Jesus, but when Jesus moved forward and spoke in commanding tones, they fell back. They had seen Him do miracles in the Temple courtyard where they had been on guard. He said to them, “You all heard me in the temple, why didn’t you arrest me then?” (He could not have said that to Roman soldiers.)

Jesus Himself had to convince them that He was coming quietly - and could bargain for the safety of His friends “If you want me, let these others go.”

Furthermore, Peter thought it worth the attempt to attack them. A determined rush by eleven men might drive back a band of insecure hesitant security guards. Against Roman soldiers such an attack would be suicidal - nor would Roman soldiers have let Peter get away with it. They would have taken Jesus and then run after Peter as well.

The whole atmosphere of the scene in the garden of Gethsemane is dominated by their fear and hesitation. Only so could the conversations recorded have taken place.

Finally, when the priests eventually brought Jesus to Pilate, it was not as a prisoner in Roman custody but as their own prisoner. They desperately wanted Rome to take responsibility - once Jesus was in Roman hands no Jewish crowd could rescue Him. Until that moment the priests were afraid of the common people who were on Jesus’ side.

I conclude, therefore, that both the operations which were under the priests’ control were carried out by their own men. The Roman soldiers only carried out Pilate’s orders - first scourging then execution. In doing so they showed no sign of any fear of the prisoner.

APPENDIX 3. Two uncertain verses.
Comments on Matthew 27:52-53.
The case for accepting the four Gospels as valid history is strong. They differ, yet as has been demonstrated they can be pieced together to find a convincing coherent narrative. On most major points they confirm each other and on many they are confirmed by the rest of the New Testament.

Students of myth and legend confirm that the Gospels do not read like myth and legend. They have a ring of truth. They are written with the style that goes with fact not with fiction.

Just two verses stand out as failing to fit these criteria. Matthew 27:52-53 do sound like myth or legend. They are not confirmed by any other scripture - yet if anything so noteworthy had actually happened, surely all the writers would have mentioned it. They do not fit Matthew’s normal style (though it must be acknowledged here that arguments about authorship based on style are always highly suspect.)

If they are left out of the text, it reads smoothly as if uninterrupted. The earthquake damage to the temple curtain is mentioned in Mark and Luke but they make no mention of tombs opening and dead saints being raised.

Finally I have never, in half a century of Bible reading, felt the inward witness of the Holy Spirit (see 1.2) speaking to me through these two verses; nor so far as I know have any of my Christian friends.

My opinion therefore is that these two verses do not belong to the original text and are not true.

Immediately, however, there is another conclusion to be drawn from the sharp contrast between these two verses and the whole of the rest of the Gospels. Two verses without the ring of truth, show up in sharp relief the remaining text which has it. If these two verses are not authentic, the contrast adds strength to the case that all the rest are.

Appendix 4 Number of manuscripts and earlier fragments. (see Prologue)
The number of ancient manuscripts quoted as about 24000 are not all complete. There are some 6000 Greek New Testaments which include at least one Gospel, plus early translations into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopic. The number does not include over 30,000 quotes referring to New testament passages in other writings.

There may be earlier fragments than Rylands. One, called “7Q5” is dated very early indeed - Something like AD 40-68 - but is only a tiny scrap with a few letters on it. The letters, however, do fit the places where they would all be if the scrap came from Mark 6:52-53. The place name “Gennesaret” led to this verse, as the scrap contains the letters “n n e s” not found together in any other Greek word.

Another is the Magdalen fragment which is undoubtedly part of Matthew’s Gospel. Scholars originally dated it about AD 200 because at the time it was found the current theory was that Matthew was not written in the first century. More recently an early date has been put forward - AD 50-80 - but some scholars dispute this.

No one item of evidence is decisive in itself. It is the build up of many items which is overwhelming. There is no longer any dispute among serious scholars that all four New Testament Gospels are from the first century.

Appendix 5 Acknowledgements.
Over a lifetime of reading the Gospels I have referred to many scholarly reference books for explanation and background information. It is impossible to remember them all. Three stand out as being of critical importance.

The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim, 1883.

Redating the New Testament by Bishop John T Robinson, SCM, 1976.

Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1972.

RETURN TO MENU