The canon of Scripture

The canon of Scripture

Bible is derived from the Greek, biblos, meaning book. As such it is applied by Christians, by way of eminence, to the collection of sacred writings of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The word itself, biblos, is found in Matthew 1:1, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ…”.

Apparently it originated from the Lebanese town of Biblos, which produces papyrus sheets for writing in ancient times.So the oracles of God, His inspired Word, is collectively known today as the Holy Bible, a book set apart from all the others as unique, one of its kind.

The Old Testament Canon

There are 39 books in the Old Testament, no more and no less, for the simple yet profound reason that only these books have the stamp of divine authority on them.

Only these – before the incarnation of the Son of God – subdivided into the Law (Torah), the Writings (Ketubim), and the Prophets (Nabiim), proceeded from the mouth of the living God, and as such were kept, preserved, read, held dear, believed and obeyed by the covenant people of God before the appearance of Jesus Christ, their long-awaited for Deliverer.

From all the literature of ancient times, only these 39 books carry with them the divine seal, originating from above and being given through the instrumentality of holy men who were moved by the Spirit of God and who spoke with the authority of God.

Only these 39, because these and no more have withstood the test of time, close scrutiny and scholarship. And more than that, they speak to the renewed heart as bearing the imprimatur of the Almighty. Other writings, whether it be by Seneca or Aristotle or Buddha, though ancient, do not enjoy this divine impress.

How were the 39 Old Testament books authorised? Though the Jewish nation had its scribes, scholars and men of authority among them, there is absolutely no evidence that they at some point in time declared these or those books as inspired and therefore canonical.

All the evidence we have is that as they books were written and delivered to the nation they were accepted for what they were: the rule by which the people were to live and abide. They were looked upon as the oracles of God, His authentic message for them which He wanted to be passed on from generation to generation.

These 39 books are canonical by virtue of what they are intrinsically and inherently, as coming from the mouth of God Himself. By virtue of their content, their authorship by God’s prophets in general, and the stamp and seal of their sanctifying power, they were received by the Jews – being entrusted with such a task – as God’s Word. Some contend that the canon of the Old Testament was not closed before the Council of Jamnia (90 A.D.). They say this because there were still some doubts about Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

But others, more numerous, such as David Kimchi (1160-1232) and Elias Levita (1465-1549), two Jewish scholars, maintained that the final collection of the Old Testament canon was completed by Ezra and the members of the Great Synagogue, in the fifth century before the coming of Christ.

We have the testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus to the effect that the Old Testament canon was closed in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the time of Ezra. Ezra was peculiarly concerned with the sacred oracles. He is described as the Scribe (Nehemiah 8:1,4,9,13; 12:26,36), and a specialist in the law of Moses (Ezra 7:6), being taught in the commandments of the Lord and teaching His statutes to Israel (Ezra 7:11).

Whatever Ezra and others of like mind did and contributed to the final compilation of the Old Testament canon, it is evident that God’s supervising providence brought the final result about. Ezra and others only recognised what was inspired from its very inception.

The testimony of Josephus

Though unsympathetic with the infant Christian church, Joesephus gives this testimony about the inherited collection of books that the church enjoyed, namely, the Old Testament.

Writing about the year 100 A.D., he states: “For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only 22 books, which contain the record of all time; which are justly believed to be divine…It is true our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.* And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, it is evident by what we do; for, during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them” (Against Apion, I.8).

*In this sentence Josephus is referring to the intertestamental uninspired books known commonly as the Apocrypha. Accidentally, such an interesting testimony agrees perfectly with the Protestant position of excluding the Apocrypha from the biblical canon, as against the Romanist position.

Melito of Sardis

“Melito, bishop of Sardis, the capital of Lydia, was a shining light among the churches of Asia Minor in the third quarter of the second century…Melito was a man of brilliant mind and a most prolific author. Tertullian speaks of his elegant and eloquent genius…

“To Melito we owe the first Christian list of the Hebrew Scriptures. It agrees with the Jewish and the Protestant canon, and omits the Apocrypha. The books of Esther and Nehemiah are also omitted, but may be included in Esdras. The expressions “the Old Books,” “the Books of the Old Covenant,” imply that the church at that time had a canon of the New Covenant. Melito made a visit to Palestine to seek information on the Jewish canon” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol.2, page 736-738).

In accordance with the orthodox Jewish and the primitive Christian view, Protestantism excluded the Apocrypha from the Old.

The New Testament canon

What was the primary factor in the completion of the New Testament canon? Was it the decision of the Roman Catholic church? No; for the obvious reason that the Roman Catholic church (at least as it showed its distinctive features later on) was non-existent at this early stage in history (4th to 5th century).

Romanist apologists, though, insist that it was through the initiative and intervention of the Roman church that we have the Bible as we know it today. Their reasoning is that the church caused the New Testament books to be written, so the church is above the books of the New Testament (she being their originator).

If I, as a jeweller, were to inspect and upon verifying, issue a certificate that a certain ruby is genuine, that does not automatically make me the owner of the precious stone. And yet, this is what the Roman church is saying: in insisting that she recognised the books of the New Testament, that makes her the sole possessor of those same books. As the most, she may be credited with insight and discernment, but not with the ownership (and sole right to interpret) the Scriptures.

The blatant falsity of Rome’s claim needs no answer. The Holy Spirit was He who gave the New Testament writings, just as He moved the prophets to write the Old Testament: same Source (heaven), same Author (God), same method (by inspiration), same instrumentality (holy men).

The fact is, God gave the Bible to His church, and not the church gave the Bible to itself.

Was it the then an accidental drawing together of the various documents? This proposal is even more ludicrous, for in so saying we would be virtually denying the wise and all-powerful providence of God. Nothing happens by accident, not even as sparrow falling to the ground. How much less the collection of the inspired writings into one canon! No Christian would entertain such an absurd thought in his mind, especially as he reads what the Bible says about itself and its origination (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Was it the decision of the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.? Historically, the church was forced to pronounce what constitutes Scripture and what doesn’t. This was because of false teachers, such as Marcion, who were either rejecting parts of the established canon or else adding uninspired writings to the Bible. The Council convened at Carthage was the first gathering of bishops that issued a list of the 27 canonical books of the New Testament, recognising that as inspired, and rejecting all other (sometimes competing) literature. This council was simply the culmination of a current within the church that was needed in order to have the canon of Scripture made known for what it was: fixed and unalterable.

Individual preachers, such as Chrysostom, had already compiled lists of the canonical books, no more and no less, before 397 A.D. But such actions, significant as they may be, are not determining or prime factors in the completion of the New Testament canon (see the final assignment for the real and crucial factor).

The documents that make up the New Testament were recognised as having Apostolic Authority. The church, which hears the voice of her Good Shepherd (John 10), has certainly been instrumental in the recognition of the canonical books. Being what she is – the assembly of the living God – she will not go after strange voice (pseudopigraphical books), but will rather find concord with the voice of her Master, who teaches her by His Word and Spirit.

Though the church of the early centuries had a unique role to play in the recognition of what constitutes the Holy Bible and what not, she was not the primary factor.

The books of the Bible

We have 66 books in the canon of Scripture, no more and no less

The formal conclusion of the New Testament is at least intimated at the end of Revelation (22:18). The difference of how the two Testament close is highly significant. The anticipatory and unfulfilled hope of the Old Covenant is articulated at the end of the last book, Malachi. It gives an assurance of the coming of another prophet. But on the other hand, no continuing revelation is mentioned at the end of the New Testament. Rather we find an announcement about the Lord’s soon return and thus the consummation of all things at the Eschaton. The natural conclusion is that no other voice will be heard from heaven before the second Advent of Christ.

An important proof of all this is that, since the close of the biblical canon, no attempt was made by anyone to add some other book to the established and recognised sixty-six.

As God wrote His message though the instrumentality of holy men, so also He made known the canon of Scripture through men, particularly His people who know Him and hear His voice. The canon, comprising sixty-six books, no more and no less, was recognised by His own covenant people, to whom the Scripture was given to be believed and obeyed.

This is a great wonder. His infallible Word not only was received and written down in incomparable documents, but was also infallibly collected in one volume to be the sole rule of faith (cf. the Greek kanon, meaning measuring rod or rule).The same collection of books was preserved from corruption, destruction or any human and devilish attempt to change it.

The canon was not added to or deducted from; we may rest assured that it is not adulterated by non-inspired writings. God took special care to determine the formation of the canon, as it is also obvious that He ruled its transmission so that His truth may reach to all His elect.

This was His way of giving His Scriptures to His people, and nobody can accuse God that His purpose has somehow failed.So when it comes to determine the crucial and indispensable factor that determined the collecting together of the sixty-six books, it must be expressed as being the wise and all-powerful providence of God, who certainly operates through second causes (His church). But the determinative reason why Jude is in the canon, when it has so much in common with 2 Peter, and why four gospels narrating mostly the same events, instead of just one longer Gospel, the reason must be the inscrutable and ineffable wisdom of God, who thought it proper and fit to give just those sixty-six and no more, with all the repetitions and similarities between books (Kings and Chronicles, and so on).

He knows best, and He knows what issued from Him and what not. There must we rest.

If it were left to mere human agency, I am positively sure the canon would have been far different.

There were principles upon which the church has largely determined which were the inspired books and which not. I emphasise “largely,” because the criterion of apostolicity does not strictly account for Mark, Luke-Acts, and possibly Hebrews.

The criterion of antiquity is really a variation on apostolicity and fails to explain why Paul’s “previous” letter (mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9) was not included in the canon.No matter how strong the evidence for apostolicity (and therefore of canonicity) may be in many instances and no matter how forceful the arguments in favour of the apostolicity of certain other writings may be, historical judgements cannot be the final and sole ground for the church’s accepting the New Testament as canonical.

Just these sixty-six books God has chosen to preserve, and He has not told us why. In the matter of the New Testament as canon, too, until Jesus comes “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). But that faith, grounded in the apostolic tradition of the New Testament, is neither arbitrary nor blind. It has its reasons, its good reasons; it is in conflict only with the autonomy of reason.

I conclude by saying that the books which were to form the future completed canon forced themselves on the Church by their intrinsic prophetic and apostolic authority, as they still do, because the Lord Christ speaks in them.

Paul Mizzi – www.tecmalta.org Permissions: Quotations must accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. Any article on ‘Truth for Today’ may be duplicated and distributed in any format, or posted on the Internet, provided that the wording is not altered and no fee is charged. Please include the following statement with every copy or webpage: Copyright Paul Mizzi www.tecmalta.org Used by Permission.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Michael Gleghorn examines evidence from ancient non-Christian sources for the life of Jesus, demonstrating that such sources help confirm the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Evidence from Tacitus

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that “apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like,” there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him “great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life.”{2} He concludes his letter by asking, “Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?”{3} The answer to this question is, “Yes, such collateral proof is available,” and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let’s begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus’ rather enigmatic statement that Christ’s death briefly checked “a most mischievous superstition,” which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here “bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.”{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan’s advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8}Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny’s statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, “unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth.”{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny’s letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus’ person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny’s reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the “love feast.”{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing “ritual cannibalism.”{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus’ teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one “James” by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul’s description of James in Galatians 1:19 as “the Lord’s brother.”{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that “few scholars have questioned” that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the “Testimonium Flavianum,” the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, “if indeed one ought to call him a man,” is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as “the so-called” Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus’ resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus’ later reference to Jesus as “the so-called Christ,” a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the “biblical Jesus” and the “historical Jesus” are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”{21}

Let’s examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named “Yeshu.” So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, “Yeshu” (or “Yeshua”) is how Jesus’ name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus “was hanged”? Doesn’t the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term “hanged” can function as a synonym for “crucified.” For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was “hanged”, and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus cast out demons “by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus’ miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke’s account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26}Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus’ powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, “who introduced their novel rites.” And though this man’s followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He “was crucified on that account.”

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That’s harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It’s not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn’t say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let’s summarize what we’ve learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus’ followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative “life of Jesus!”

Notes

1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.

5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.

7. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

8. Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198.

9. Ibid., 27.

10. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

11. M. Harris, “References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors,” in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?”, in Jesus Under Fire, ed. by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.

12. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

13. Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.

14. Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.

15. Ibid.

16. Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament”, 212.

17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament”, 212.

18. Ibid.

19. Although time would not permit me to mention it on the radio, another version of Josephus’ “Testimonium
Flavianum” survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor
Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most
of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, “as
Schlomo Pines and David Flusser…stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against
Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter
would have had less chance of being censored by the church” (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).
The passage reads as follows: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was
good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations
became his discip20. les. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become
his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three
days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning
whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism,
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).

20. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03.

21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

22. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

23. See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.

24. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32.

25. Matt. 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.

26. Luke 23:2, 5.

27. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.

©2001 Probe Ministries

Copyright/Reproduction Limitations

This document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. Permission is granted to use in digital or printed form so long as it is circulated without charge, and in its entirety. This document may not be repackaged in any form for sale or resale. All reproductions of this document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright 2019 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Limitations notice.

Biblical Evidence

The evidence is primarily the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and the various epistles written by those who claim to have been with Christ, i.e., Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude, etc.

Still, some will say these documents are not reliable or are fabrications, written too long after the fact. Therefore, they don’t constitute proof. Even though it’s difficult to argue with someone’s ignorance and fervent belief when denying Christ, it doesn’t mean we can’t present some basic evidence.

First of all, New Testament documents were written shortly after the life of Christ. Jesus died around the year A.D. 33.  The Book of Acts, for example, is a history book of the early church. It does not record the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 , nor does it record the deaths of Peter and Paul which occurred around A.D. 60.  Why would such incredibly important events not be recorded in a book that deals with documenting significant events in the early Christian church? The most logical answer is that the Book of Acts was written before they occurred. That puts the book’s date around A.D. 60 or prior. This is significant because Luke wrote the book of Acts, and the Gospel of Luke was written prior to Acts. So, maybe that was around A.D. 55.  The Book of Matthew was written before the Book of Luke. Maybe that was around A.D. 50.  Mark was written earlier than that, maybe A.D. 45.  Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33.  That means there was about a 12-year gap between the event and when it was first recorded. Plus, the apostles were all still around when Mark, Luke, and Matthew were written; and we have no record anywhere of the disciples who were then living saying the Gospels were incorrect in any way.

In addition, the Gospel accounts are very accurately transmitted from then to now. Let me illustrate something. When a Gospel was written, it was copied very carefully by scribes. Their living depended on their accuracy and competency in making copies. These copies would be disseminated throughout the Mediterranean area. So, for example, one copy of the Gospel of Matthew was sent to one area, and another copy was sent somewhere else hundreds and hundreds of miles away. Then copies of those copies would be made with the same meticulous precision. Archaeologists have uncovered thousands of such copies, and they have compared them. The New Testament documents are better than 99.5% textually pure. That means less than one-half of 1% of the copies, 5,000 of them, have any textual variation in their copying. That is incredible and far more accurate than anything dealing with Plato, Socrates, etc.

So, is this evidence sufficient to demonstrate reasonably that Christ existed? It depends on the person’s presuppositions. If he or she is already leaning towards denying Christ’s existence, then this evidence would not be sufficient. But if another person was open to the historical evidence and did not have a leaning either way, the evidence can be easily sufficient.

We can’t prove absolutely that Jesus existed, but we can give sufficient evidence, the Biblical Gospels, to show that He was an actual historical figure. It’s up to you to decide whether or not you accept or reject the evidence. Once you do that, then you have to face what Jesus said about Himself in the Gospels.

https://carm.org/proof-that-jesus-existed

Historical Facts about Jesus:

These early non-Christian sources provide the following facts about Jesus Christ:

• Jesus was from Nazareth.

• Jesus lived a wise and virtuous life.

• Jesus was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.

• Jesus was believed by his disciples to have died and risen from the dead three days later.

• Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats.

• Jesus’ disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.

• Jesus’ disciples lived moral lives and worshiped Christ as God

This general outline of Jesus’ life agrees perfectly with the New Testament.

• 
  Gary Habarmas notes, “In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century.” According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, ”These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.”
  The preceding article was excerpted from Was Jesus A Real Person? Quoted in Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, vol. 1(Nashville: Nelson, 1979), 87.

“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.