Chapter One
CREDIBLE SOURCESICEBREAKER
Check out the headlines of a supermarket tabloid. Do you believe
or disbelieve them, and why?
Now examine the headlines of a high-caliber newspaper. Why
might you decide to believe or disbelieve them?
What standards do you use to decide whether any source of
historical information is reliable?
Whether you are researching yesterday's news, Napoleon
Bonaparte, or Jesus of Nazareth, you must always ask hard questions
about the sources. Why? Because it's critical to first establish
the credibility of those sources. This should also be true of Jesus-and
how the evidence stacks up for him. Let's take a look at what
these original sources say.
Read Luke 1:1-6
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.
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the
beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for
you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of
the things you have been taught.
In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named
Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth
was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were upright in
the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations
blamelessly.
DISCUSS!
1. What are the goals of the writer (in this case, Luke) in this
account?
2. What has Luke done to assure the accuracy of his account?
3. What clues reveal this account is historical rather than a myth?
4. Anyone who investigates the credibility of a document must ask
this significant question: How close were the reporters to the
action? Consider the following sources of information about Jesus:
Matthew One of Jesus' 12 closest followers. Spent three intensive
years studying and traveling with Jesus.
Mark Probably a youth on the fringes of Jesus' followers.
Became a disciple of Peter's (one of Jesus' closest disciples)
and is thought to have based his gospel on the
teachings of Peter.
Luke A first-century historian and physician, Luke did
research with primary sources to give an orderly
account to his friend.
John Known as the "disciple Jesus loved," John was among the
most intimate circle of three friends who went everywhere
with Jesus during his three ministry years. John, along with
Peter and James, probably knew Jesus for some time
before these ministry years began.
According to the question above, are these good sources?
Why or why not?
5. These four sources also agree with each other strongly. How
does this fact affect the credibility of these accounts?
6. The next reasonable question a person might ask about the
credibility of these sources is: Do any sources outside of the
Bible confirm or contradict the facts about the life of Jesus?
Consider that:
• very few manuscripts survived of any texts written during
Jesus' time;
• historians rarely wrote about religious figures;
• Jesus was active for a relatively short period of time; and
• he ministered in a remote corner of the Roman empire.
Knowing this, it would be amazing to find any sources outside
of the eyewitnesses that could confirm the details they report.
However, here are just a few of the historians who wrote snippets
about Jesus and the early Christian community-all within
a century of Jesus' life on earth!
Historians Who Wrote about Jesus
• Josephus, a Jewish historian writing for the Roman government
• Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian
• Pliny the Younger, a Roman historian
• Suetonius, a Roman historian
• Rabbi Eliezer, a Jewish historian
These authors confirm the following facts about Jesus (told also by
the eyewitnesses) and about the early church found in the Bible:
Facts about Jesus
• Jesus was a historical person whose public career occurred
in the time of Emperor Tiberius
• Jesus was called "the Christ"
• James was Jesus' brother
• Jesus claimed to be God
• Jesus was purported to have done miracles
• Jesus claimed he would "depart and come again"
• Pontius Pilate was the governor when Jesus died
• Christ was executed by crucifixion as a criminal in Judea
Facts about Early Christians
• Assembled together on a certain day of the week
• Read the writings of the apostles
• Practiced high ethical standards
• Believed Jesus was God
• Claimed Jesus rose from the dead
• Were helping Christianity to become a worldwide movement
by spreading it to Bythnia, Rome, and beyond
How do these sources help to build a case for supporting the
central facts of Jesus' life?
7. Some people have demanded eyewitness accounts of the resurrection
from non-Christians. Do you think this is a realistic
request-why or why not?
8. Those who are interested in the truth of the Bible also ask one
final key question: Is the text of the Bible today the same as
what the eyewitnesses originally wrote? That's a good question, for no original Bible manuscripts (just like other ancient manuscripts
of its day) have been found. So we cannot see if our current
copies perfectly match the original. We can, however, see
how much the copies and copies of copies match each other in
order to figure out exactly what the original did say.
In order to find out how close the copies are to the original
documents, we need to consider two things:
First, how close in time are documents we currently have to
the originals? The less time that has elapsed, the more likely
they are to be consistent. Consider the following graph that
compares the New Testament of the Bible to other highly reliable
sources of its day.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Second, how many ancient copies were made of the original
manuscripts? The more copies that agree with one another, the more
likely they are to mirror the original. Consider the following graph
comparing the New Testament to other reliable sources of its day:
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Given the norm for comparable documents, do you believe the
manuscripts of the New Testament are reliable-why or why not?
REALITY CHECK
When you consider all three tests for the reliability of the New Testament
(reliability of the authors, corroboration of outside sources,
quality of manuscript transmission), how trustworthy would you
rank it on a scale of 1-10, and why?
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
If you dismiss the historical knowledge we can gain from the New
Testament, what must necessarily happen to all other knowledge
we gain from history?
(Continues.)
