CHAPTER 2 –
"The disciples wrote
it"
We are often told that the reports
about Jesus must be rejected because the disciples wrote them and, therefore,
they cannot be objective. Some people say that the Gospels were written because
of the early church's desire to emphasize Jesus and therefore, they cannot be
reliable. We disagree, based on the following considerations:
Is what has been written and spoken
about true? Firstly, it is not a question of who wrote the
Gospels, but whether the details they wrote about are true. The fact that the
disciples were successors of Jesus does not matter, if they only told the
truth. Only speaking the truth truly does matter, not the relation of the
writers to the events:
-
(2 Peter 1:16) For we have not followed
cunningly devised fables, when we made
known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were
eyewitnesses of his majesty.
-
(John 21:24) This is the disciple which testifies of
these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is
true.
The appreciation of Jesus. The fact that the disciples
regarded Jesus to be the Son of God, and His words to be worthy of
preservation, suggests that they would strive to preserve them in their
original form. The more valuable someone considers a person, the more
accurately they will try to preserve his words. His value motivated disciples
to accurately preserve the message. Many researchers, of course, hold the
opposite opinion.
- (John 6:68,69) Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we
go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of
the living God.
Relationship between rabbis and
their disciples. Another point that supports the
accounts’ accuracy is the rabbis' relation to their disciples. In the society
of that time, teachings of famous rabbis were regarded as "holy
tradition" and were to be learned carefully by heart and then to be
distributed on to others. The relation of Jesus to His disciples was probably
of this kind; and besides, Jesus was not an ordinary rabbi; His disciples
understood him to be the Messiah, sent by God. They would not have dared to
change His words, or add anything to them.
What would they have achieved by lying? If stories about Jesus were not true, we might ask how the disciples
would have benefited from lying. The fact is that most of them had to suffer
for the sake of their message; eleven out of the twelve Apostles suffered a
martyr’s death. (How many liberal theologians are ready to die because of
their beliefs?) It would be a great wonder, indeed, if twelve men invented
a lie for no reason, then willingly died to support that lie. The following
quote refers to how little the disciples would have benefited from their
supposed lie.
Furthermore,
I noted that the Bible always refers to large and public events. If these had
not actually taken place, the cancellation of the Bible's information
would not have been a problem for its enemies, who have always been the
majority. But nobody has succeeded in it. On the contrary, they have become
stronger as the message of the Bible has been despised and ridiculed. I also
noted that those who have testified of these events have been ready to die for
it. They have stood fast, even though it has not benefited them in any outward
way but has caused mere trouble, suffering and death. Why would they have done
so if they had not been convinced of its truthfulness? Why would Peter and John
and Thomas and others have testified that Jesus had risen from the dead if they
had not seen it? Why would they have stuck with their testimony if they knew it
would result in a lot of suffering for them? We can read their answers in 2
Peter 1:16- 21 and 1 John 1:1 - 3. (4)
The description of Jesus. The claim that the disciples
embellished the image of their Master as being heavenly is not true. If they
had done so, they would certainly have created another kind of person: they
would have created some kind of a victorious hero. Doctor Chr. Ernst
Luthard wrote about this:
But
if the disciples had, according to their expectations, created a picture
of the Messiah they certainly would have done it in another way. They would have
created a royal son of David, and not a Galilean prophet, crucified and
resurrected. The outward reality of Jesus' history was more of an obstacle than
an aid to their faith, as it was not in line with their wishes. Only the
influence of Jesus' personality raised them higher than all insults of their
faith and assured them that He was the Messiah. (5)
The disposition of Paul. The next verses describe the
character of Paul, the man who wrote most of the letters in the New Testament.
It is unlikely that a person like Paul would have been guilty of lies:
- (2 Cor 12:14,15) Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I
will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours but you: for the children
ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.
15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the
more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.
- (2 Cor 2:3,4) And I wrote this same to you, lest, when I came, I should
have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all,
that my joy is the joy of you all.
4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you
with many tears; not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the
love which I have more abundantly to you.
- (Rom 9:1-3) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also
bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have
great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my
brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh
- (2 Tim 3:10,11) But you have fully known my doctrine, manner of life,
purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came to me at Antioch, at
Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord
delivered me.
-
(Phil 3:17) Brothers, be followers together of me,
and mark them which walk so as you have us for an example.
Archaeological and other findings. Many archaeological and other findings prove the reliability of the
Gospels. They indicate that these writings accurately reflect the lifestyle and
conditions of society back then. For example, the researcher-archaeologist
William Ramsay – a man who examined the Gospel of Luke and especially the
reliability of the Acts – stated:
In
the beginning, my reaction towards it was negative as the ingenuity and
apparent conclusiveness of Tubing's theory completely convinced me at some point.
(…) Gradually, I understood that the different details of the (biblical) report
were surprisingly truthful. When I started, I was sure of the book having been
written in the second century and that it was not reliably telling about the
conditions during the first century, but slowly I found it to be a useful ally
in some difficult research." (6)
Ramsay has also referred to the significance of Luke as a historian:
Luke is a forefront historian; he
describes the facts reliably, but in addition to that he shows genuine
comprehension of history; he internalizes the large lines of historical
development and proportions his presentation to the significance of each
case. He grabs important and decisive events and by dealing with them
extensively shows the right view, but he deals with subjects, which in his view
are insignificant only briefly or not at all. In brief, this author should be
among the greatest historians. (7)
A.N. Sherwin-White, a researcher of
the classical era who has been regarded as the pre-eminent expert of Roman law,
also wrote about the reliability of the Acts of the Apostles (Roman Society
and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963,
p. 173). He states that attempts to deny its reliability are absurd:
The historical accuracy of the Acts
has proven to be amazing. (…) Any attempt to reject the fundamental quality of
the history of the Acts, even in the small details, seems absurd. Researchers
of the history of Rome have for a long time regarded it as self-evident.
The well-known archaeologist Nelson Glueck wrote (Rivers of the
Desert, 1959, p. 31) about archaeology related to the Bible. He
indicates that the archaeological findings confirm the historical reliability
of the Bible:
Absolutely
and certainly speaking, not a single archaeological finding has ever questioned
any passage of the Bible. Tens of archaeological findings that confirm the
historical statements of the Bible either in broad outline or in detail have
been made. (8)
Miracles. The claim that the miracles, which Jesus worked and His resurrection
are not true is not consistent with other sources:
- Jewish historian Josephus wrote
about the miracles and resurrection of Jesus
- The Talmud, in which there are
writings of the religious Jews of that time (mainly Pharisees), mentions
miracles performed both by Jesus and by the disciples, even though the Talmud
warns everyone against turning toward disciples of Christ for assistance even
in danger or threat of death.
- In a fragment of the writings of
Quadratus, Jesus' miracles and how He raised people from the dead are
mentioned. Some of the people risen from the dead were alive when the writings
were written.
- In the letter of Barnabas (appears in the
book “The Apostolic Fathers”) the miracles by Jesus are
mentioned.
Additional accounts outside the
Bible. Other written accounts additional to those
found in the Gospels are essentially similar to those written by disciples.
Other accounts provide the following picture of Jesus:
- Jesus was a man filled with
wisdom, if he can even be called a man (Josephus).
- Jesus was known by the name Jesus
the Nazarene (Talmud).
- He said that he did not come to
abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Talmud).
- He was a teacher (Josephus,
Talmud).
- He had disciples (Talmud).
- He worked miracles (Josephus,
Talmud).
- His disciples healed the sick and
worked miracles (Talmud).
- Pilate (26–36 A.D.) condemned Him
to death (Tacitus, Josephus) because of the provocation of influential Jewish men
(Josephus) during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (14–37 AD.) (Tacitus).
- He was condemned to death on the
cross (Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Talmud).
- There was darkness at the time of
His crucifixion (Thallus).
- He was crucified during the Passover
(Talmud).
- He rose from the dead (Josephus).
- The successors of Jesus regarded
Him as God and sang songs to praise Him (Plinius the Younger).
- He had Jewish and Greek successors
(Josephus).
- Faith in Christ originated from Judea
(Tacitus, Josephus) and spread to Rome from there (Tacitus).
- Jesus' successors were called
Christians (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plinius the Younger).
- Jesus had a brother called Jacob
(Josephus).
- Jesus was called Christ or the
Messiah (Josephus).
Other points which are EVIDENCE of THE
truthfulness of the gospels:
In addition to the external
references mentioned above, there also exist other points which prove the
reliability of the Gospels, such as:
Unfavorable material from the point
of view of the writers. One thing that proves the
truthfulness of the Gospels is the unfavorable information in them (concerning
the writers and Jesus) that certainly would have been left out if the disciples
had not tried to be truthful and tell how matters really were. Such unfavorable
points are, for instance, the fact that Jesus could not perform any miracles in
Galilee (Mark 6:5) and that His brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5),
many people turning away from Him and no longer following Him (John 6:66),
Jesus' words to the rich young man, "Why call
you me good?" (Mark 10:18), some other people claiming that Jesus
did miracles by the power of Beelzebub (Matt 12:24), Peter denying Jesus (Matt
26:69-75), some doubting when they saw the risen Lord, (Matt 28:17) as well as
the disciples fearing and being behind locked doors (John 20:19).
The existence of such
negative references in the text, strongly support the historical accuracy of
the events.
There
is no clear reason – except that the writers wanted to tell the matters just as
they were – for why the Gospels include such a strange detail as Jesus shouting
on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" If the
primary target of the writers of the Gospels was to describe Christ as the
Messiah ("the Anointed one") and as the Son of God, by no means would
they have included this passage in their accounts. And they certainly
could not have made it up! (9)
Large public events and crowds. A strong point that proves the historical accuracy of these events
are the crowds of thousands of people that appeared during the activity of both
Jesus and the Apostles. The Apostles might also, in their public speeches,
appeal (Acts 2:14-36, 3:12-26, 7:2-53, 13:16-41, 17: 22-31, 22:3-21, 24:10-21,
26:2-23) to the fact that the listeners themselves knew matters and, therefore,
they did not occur anywhere out of reach.
It would certainly have
been impossible to speak and write about such issues or to get thousands of
people to believe in Christ if these really had not been true, as there were
certainly many hostile witnesses around who could immediately nullify any
incorrect information. The next verses refer to large crowds:
- (Matt 4:24,25) And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought to him all sick people that were taken
with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils,
and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
25 And there followed him great multitudes of people
from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from
beyond Jordan.
-
(Mark 3:8) And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and
from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude,
when they had heard what great things he did, came to him.
- (Matt 14:16,20,21) But Jesus said to them, They need not depart; give you them
to eat.
20 And they did
all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained
twelve baskets full.
21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men,
beside women and children.
- (Matt 16:9-11) Do you not yet understand, neither remember the five
loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up?
10 Neither
the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you took
up?
11 How is it that you do not understand that I spoke it not to you
concerning bread, that you should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of
the Sadducees?
-
(Acts 2:22,40,41) You men of Israel, hear these
words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and
wonders and signs, which God did by him in the middle of you, as you
yourselves also know
40 And with many
other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this
untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and
the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls.
- (Acts 26:24-26) And as he thus
spoke for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside
yourself; much learning does make you mad.
25 But he said, I
am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and
soberness.
26 For the
king knows of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I
am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was
not done in a corner.
- (Acts10:37,38) That word, I say, you know, which was published
throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John
preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with
power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the
devil; for God was with him.
Several well-known people. The Bible often speaks about influential people who are known from
history (Herod the Great, Pilate, Caiphas the High Priest and his
father-in-law Annas, Joseph of Arimathea, the prominent member of the
Council, Herod Agrippa, Gamaliel, Proconsul Sergius Paulus, Proconsul Gallio,
King Agrippa, Governor Felix, Governor Porcius Festus, etc.) and
refers to large and public events. If these events had not taken place, it
would not have been difficult for the opponents of the Gospel to invalidate the
information of the Bible, as they were always the majority and many of
them were still alive at the time when the New Testament was written. As
Polycarpos, a pupil of the Apostle John, said:
So
sure is the ground on which these Gospels rest that even the heretics
themselves prove in favor of them, and from this, each of them try to draw up
their own special doctrines. (10)
All things have their causes. There must be a good reason why the Christian church began in the first
century and started growing explosively, because nothing comes from nothing. If
Jesus Himself was not this reason, then we must find some other cause.
Why would we search for
other causes or people – about whom historical sources tell nothing – since
there exists enough support for Jesus providing the impetus? If He had not been
regarded as the Son of God, and His resurrection and performance of miracles as
facts; if His life was not the fulfillment of prophesies; If His actions as the
Saviour did not atone for our sins (the most important issue!), then
surely no one would have written anything about Him. If He was not more special
than all other people in every way, then there existed no reason to write
about Him. The only reasonable explanation for writing about Him must have been
that the events actually occurred, and the disciples - the witnesses – wanted
to record their testimony
- (Luke 24:47,48) And that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And you are witnesses of these things.
Accurate details. If several accounts of the Bible were not true, there could be no
accurate details in them: the
Gospels and the book of Acts are full of such details. Many stories do not
include such accurate details, while the Gospels include many: it indicates that
people who witnessed and experienced the events were present. The following
quote refers to this:
The
accounts of the Gospels are full of slight details that are not directly in
connection with the plot of the story. The historians (and the lawyers) are
commonly of the opinion that this is an indication of an eyewitness account (or
at least of an account declared by an eyewitness). John, for example, mentions
how he won Peter in the race to the tomb. He goes on to say that he looked in
the tomb and saw the strips of linen there, but that he himself did not go in.
But Peter went into the tomb and saw "the burial cloth that had been
around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the
linen." (John 20:4-8).
There is no
clear reason for adding these details; they do not add anything to what is
essential in the account. On the contrary, they are quite unexpected. Who would
have intentionally made up an account from which it can be concluded that Jesus
rose from the dead nude? Such details existing can mean only one thing – that
everything happened just like this. (11)
No mythology. Even though the Gospels speak of supernatural things, they do not
include any mythological features – on the contrary, they are very moderate in
describing things. The faults and imperfections of the disciples are described
very realistically; they are not portrayed as invincible heroes or heroines,
which was normal for stories told by ancient nations. Another point that
accounts for the reliability of the stories is, naturally, that they were
written only a few decades after the fact and when there still were
hostile opponents. Noteworthy material of legends could surely not have come
about in such a short time.
C.S. Lewis, who was a
professor in Oxford University, referred to the contents of the Gospels and how
they do not resemble legends at all:
As
a researcher of literary history, I am completely convinced that whatever the
Gospels are, they are not legends in the least. I have read plenty of legends
and it is completely clear to me that these are not such.
the
Simplicity of ISSUES
Some researchers claim that
the Gospels are not reliable because they contradict each other and the
order of events change. They think that these matters weaken their historical
reliability and make them unreliable.
However, we say that
those researchers cannot see the wood for the trees; that is, they cannot
distinguish between the whole picture and unessential features (or as Jesus
said, "You blind guides, which strain at a gnat,
and swallow a camel", Matt 23:24). What should be more
significant is whether Jesus lived, not in what order He spoke or did
things. The order of the speeches is not so important with respect to the whole
picture (even though we can clearly see some kind of an order in the events).
Or should we assume that the Gospels would be exactly the same, word for word?
Would this not be used to support the view that the Gospels are merely invented
stories? (For example, when a traffic accident occurs, the eyewitnesses may
have slightly different statements but this does not render the issue void –
the accident nevertheless happened.)
So, we must understand
that these small contradictions are petty and unessential with respect to the
whole. Instead, what is more essential is that the Gospels give an answer to
the most important question: who Jesus Christ really was. They point the way to
Him, which is of course the most important thing.
So, most essential for
us is certainly whether Jesus lived, what He spoke and did, and whether we
receive the message of Him or not. We will still study each of these three
matters separately:
Did Jesus live?
First of all, there is the question
of whether Jesus lived, that is, whether He is a historical person. Actually,
we have already answered this question, as we noted that He has really lived
and been on Earth. In addition to the Gospels, He is referred to by
historians like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plinius the Younger, and Thallus
and in the Talmud. They indicate that Jesus once lived on Earth.
The Encyclopedia Britannica (15th
edition, part 3, p.145) refers to these other sources that talk about Christ:
These
separate reports prove that in the ancient times even the enemies of Christianity
never doubted that Jesus was a historical person. The first time it was
questioned was by many writers at the end of the 1700s, in the 1800s
and in the beginning of the 1900s, with insufficient proof.
Gottlieb Klein was the main rabbi in
Stockholm. Martin Buber, philosopher and Hasidic theologian, once stated that
Gottlieb Klein knew the Jewish literature from the time of the second temple
better than anybody else. Klein wrote in his book Is Jesus a Historical
Person that Jesus surely lived on Earth:
My conclusion, which I have not come to at the
last minute, but which has been formed after more than three decades and as a
fruit of examining the history of the New Testament, can be summarized as
follows: No other doctrine of the ancient world has written a brighter, more
accurate and more personal account than that of Jesus. We can see and hear a
real, a specific person before our eyes, who has the features of His time and
who can be explained only in the light of the conditions that prevailed during
His own time and environment. Ethical monotheism from somewhere else is
searched for in vain as Jesus preached it in the spirit of a prophet and with
them. A similar Jewish intellectual world to where Jesus walked, is searched
for in vain. The sure historical fact, which no professor can ever change,
therefore, is: Jesus is a historical person. (12)
What Jesus spoke and did
The next question concerns what
Jesus spoke about and what He did. We can believe that the Gospels have just
enough information about this. These writings indicate, for instance, that
Jesus is the only way to God and that He came to fulfill the law, which is a
basis for everyone's sins having been forgiven. Several verses indicate the
significance of Jesus Christ:
-
(John 8:24) I said therefore to you, that you shall
die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in
your sins.
- (John 8:45,46) And because I tell you the truth, you believe
me not.
46 Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why
do you not believe me?
-
(John 5:40) And you will not come to me, that
you might have life.
-
(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way,
the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
To receive the message or to reject it
The third thing is receiving. Even
though Jesus is already the way to God, has fulfilled the law for us and all
being based on grace, we have something to do as well. We have to want to turn
to Him and give our lives to God. Grace has already come through Jesus, but we
can reject it, if we turn our back on God. Do not, therefore, reject the mercy
of God and undervalue this important issue:
-
(2 Cor 6:1) We then, as workers together with him, beseech
you also that you receive not the grace of God in vain.
