The details of the life of Jesus are based on 4 primary source-historical documents: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In our first class, I listed 3 fundamental questions when preparing for a trial:
1/ can the witnesses be trusted?
2/ has the testimony been changed?
3/ is there corroborating evidence?
In this class, we're gonna answer the question: can the witnesses be trusted? So, how do we know the Gospel authors were telling the truth? How do we know they were recording history, not myths? Here is the first thing I want you to see. The Gospel accounts sound like written history.
Some stories, they start like this, this is going to be familiar to you "a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away..". Now, is that fact or is that fiction? Well, it's Star Wars, it's fiction!
How about this one: "Once upon a time, there lived in a certain village, a little country girl, the prettiest creature ever seen". Now, is that fact or fiction? Well, it's fiction. It's Little Red Riding Hood.
All the stories though, they start like this: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word".
“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". Luke 1:1-2.
Now, does that sound like fact or fiction to you? Sounds like this is a factual account, not a fictional account. It's actually; this is how Luke starts his Gospel. You know, certain factors tip us off that that Luke means to be writing history. Listen carefully:
“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". Luke 1:1-2.
Luke, He starts by referring to what sounds like real historical events. These events, he said, are based on eyewitness testimony, that gives accurate information about the life of Jesus. He says he has carefully investigated everything from the beginning. He's writing the orderly account to a leader named "Theophilus".
Why would he do that? So Theophilus would know with certainty the things he's been taught about the life of Jesus. Do you see the difference between Luke and Little Red Riding Hood? This writing has all the indications of what's known as ancient history. And it seeks to tell the true life story of Jesus of Nazareth. In chapter 3, Luke gives even more historical detail; he gives an exact year! He gives an exact ruler, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea; Luke names the exact governor and the location!
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene". Luke 3:1.
And Herod was tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip was tetrarch in the region of Ituraea. Luke identifies the exact tetrarchs and their locations. That's the way history is written! So, not only the Gospels sound like written history; the New Testament writers say it is written history. For example, let's look at Peter's writing:
“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty". 2 Peter 1:16.
He is saying, he and the disciples didn't invent the accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. He's saying that "we're telling the truth". He was there. He saw it with his own eyes. Let's look at John's writing; another primary source-historical document and notice the number of senses John appeals to here:
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ". 1 John 1:1-3.
John heard Jesus. John saw Jesus. John touched Jesus. John was concerned with the facts not with fairy tales. So, the New Testament writers say they are written history; but the Gospel accounts also have the feel of written history. First, they include details of eyewitness testimony, they include times of day, weather condition, local customs and other minutiae that otherwise wouldn't be there. Second, the Gospel authors; they include embarrassing details about themselves. The disciples, they often come across as petty, as "slow down to stand", arrogant and often time unfaithful.
Think of James and John as they rejected in Samaria, they said "Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from Heaven to consume them?". And Jesus rebuked them. And then, the mother of James and John; this is in the Gospel of Matthew, she says "command that in your Kingdom (of Jesus), that these 2 sons of mine may sit at your right and one on your left". Well, thanks mom. You know, telling Jesus what to do!! How about Peter who denies Christ?! How about the women who were the first to report the risen Christ?! Why include these unflattering details if the Gospels were works of fiction? There was no motivation for the writers to lie, think about this with me. What is the basic rule about lying? Tell a lie that makes you look good or get you something. Now, I'm not telling you to lie, but don't lie and have get you beaten with rods, whipped or stoned, or crucified upside down or beheaded. That's not a good lie if you receive that from it. The earliest disciples signed their testimonies in blood. And fourthly, even critics of the New Testament believe that the Gospels are history.
"You are asking with respect to the Gospels: do they actually describe what Jesus said and did? On this topic, there are some points on which Mike and I are certainly going to agree. We agree that the Gospel writers were first century authors who were writing according to the conventions and style of their day and that they had limitations that were imposed upon them, we agree on that. We agree that there is some material in the Gospels that is certainly historically reliable. There really was a Jesus. He was probably baptized by John the Baptist. He had 12 followers. He taught about the coming Kingdom of God. He told parables. He had a trip to Jerusalem. He was arrested and put on trial and executed. And in broad terms, I agree that the Gospels are giving us some reliable information. But, I don't think that the Gospels are accurate in many of the things that they say; that Jesus taught and did".
Bart Ehrman, Atheist, Author, New Testament Scholar.
So, our first question is: can the witnesses be trusted? And our answer is absolutely Yes. First, the Gospel accounts sound like written history. Second, the New Testament writers say that's written history. Third, the Gospel accounts have the feel of written history. And fourth, even historians who are critics, take the Gospels to be written history. But there's another question we need to ask about the evidence: what if the words in the New Testament aren't actually the words of these authors? What if the documents have been tempered with? What if the documents have been changed? Those are the issues we will answer in our next class.
For more ressources, visit:
(Stand to Reason)
https://training.str.org/