Home
 

Back To Top

The Case For Jesus Christ

Gospel Reliability

The Bible contains four Gospels.  The titles of these Gospels are:  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  They speak of Jesus Christ's crucifixion and resurrection; which is the core of Christianity.  To make a case for Jesus, we have to show that these Gospels are reliable.  First, we shall talk of authorship.

Authorship

Many Atheists deny that the Gospel's were written by the men who's names each hold a title in the four Gospels.  This assumption is not warranted.  It is true that the Gospels were, strictly speaking, written anonymously.   However, it was not disputed in the early church who the authors were, and there is no one else competing with authorship of these works with the exception of John. (1)

Papias confirmed that Mark was the one who had carefuly and accurately recorded Peter's eyewitness observations.  In addition, he wrote that Matthew had also preserved the teachings of Jesus.  Irenaeus also confirmed the traditional authorships.

More evidence is found in who these men really were.   Mark and Luke weren't even of the 12 disciples.  Matthew, on the other hand, was; but he was a hated tax collector.  These are unlikely characters to be credited with the writing of the Gospels if it were not so.

Legends

Some claim that the stories of Jesus became "legendary" between the crucifixion and the writing of the Gospels.  But there certainly was not enough time for this to happen.  The standard dating of the Gospels is Mark in the 70's, Mathew and Luke in the 80's, and John in the 90's with the crucifixion somewhere around 30 AD.  There is evidence to show that the Gospels were written earlier.  However, even with the standard datings, it is still within the lifespan of eyewitnesses.  Any stories could easily have been discredited by these people.  May it also be noted, that the first biographies of Alexander the Great were not written until more than 400 years after his death and are considered to be very accurate.

Were the details changed?

Doesn't it seem that they would change things to make him look good?  Not at all.  In fact, it would be just the opposite.   They had nothing to gain by speaking of Jesus except criticism, which many times lead to suffering and death.  Taking this into account, it does not seem logical that they would make anything up to help Jesus.

The Cover-up Theory

Were details left out that could have hurt the case for Jesus Christ?  It does not seem to be the case.  As quoted from Dr. Craig Blomberg in The Case For Jesus Christ, "They (speaking of the disciples) look like a bunch of self-serving, self-seeking, dull witted people a lot of the time."   Another example is Mark 13:32 where Jesus admits that he did not know the day or the hour of his return, which seems to limit his omniscience.  By leaving in the embarrasing or seemingly damaging testimony, it helps show that they were trying to give an accurate portrayal of what really happened.

The Corroboration Test

"I introduced this next test by asking Blomberg, "When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they check out to be correct in cases in which they can be independently verified?"  Often such corroboration is invaluable in assessing wheter a writer has a commitment to accuracy.

"Yes, they do, and the longer people explore this, the more the details get confirmed," Blomberg replied.  "Withing the last hundred years archaeology has repeatedly unearthed discoveries that have confirmed specific references in the gospels, particularly the gospel of John..." ~ from The Case For Jesus Christ.

The Adverse Witness Test

"Many people had reasons for wanting to discredit this movement and would have done so if they could have simply told history better," Blomberg said.

"Yet look at what his opponents did say.   In later Jewish writings Jesus is called a sorcerer who led Israel astray- which acknowledges that he really did work marvelous wonders, although the writers dispute the source of his power.

"This would have been a perfect opportunity to say something like, 'The Christians will tell you he worked miracles, but we're here to tell you he didn't.' Yet that's the one thing we never see his opponents saying.   Instead they implicitly acknowledge that what the gospels wrote- that Jesus performed miracles- is true."- from The Case For Jesus Christ.

Have the Gospels reached us Correctly?

As Lee Strobel asked in his book (The Case for Jesus Christ), "If all we have are copies of copies of copies, how can I have confidence that the New Testament we have today bears any resemblance whatsoever to what was originally written?"

Bruce Metzger PH.D. answers this question.   Bruce has also written or edited fifty books on the subject of the New Testament.   Here is his response to that question from the same book.

"This isn't an issue that's unique to the Bible; it's a question we can ask of other documents that have come down to us from antiquity," he replied.  "But what the New Testament has in it's favor, especially when compared with other ancient writings, is the imprecedented multiplicity of copies that have survived."

"Why is that important?" I asked.

"Well, the more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like.  The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the descent of the manuscripts."

"OK," I said, "I can see that having a lot of copies from various places can help.  But what about the age of the documents?  Certainly that's important as well, isn't it?"

"Quite so," he replied.  "And this is something esle that favors the New Testament.  We have copies commencing within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals, whereas in the case of othere ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy."- From The Case For Jesus Christ.

Josephus

Josephus was a very important historian of the first century.  He was born in A.D. 37 and worte most of his four works toward the end of the first century.  One of his works was called The Antiquities, which was the history of the Jewish people from Creation until his time.  Josephus wrote this passage about Jesus.  There are some lines that seem to be inserted by Christian copyists; these remain in blue.  However, Both Jewish and Christian scholars agree that the passage as a whole is authentic.  The passage reads as follows:

     About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed on ought to call him a man.  For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly.  He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.  He was the Christ.  When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.  On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.  And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Josephus is considered to be a very accurate historian.  Therefore, his mentioning to Jesus is extremely important.

In Conclusion,

The Gospels pass the test.  There simply was not enough time for Jesus to have become legendary.  The details given are not biased; they reflect the good and bad sides of the story.  The Gospels corroborate with archaeology.  They are not disputed by any non-believing witnesses, even when given the perfect chance.  The Gospels are more reliable as far as being "unchanged" then most documents we naturally accept.  Lastly, historians such as Josephus show the basic foundations of the Gospels to be valid.  Therefore, the Gospels give a reliable picture of Jesus.

What do you think?  [email protected]