2. Can I Trust the Authors of the Bible?

Week 1

May 17

Week 1 • Day 2

Yesterday, we made the effort to establish that whatever has been handed to us in the Bible is reliable, meaning that we can have confidence that whatever is in the pages of our scripture was meant to be there!

Today, we take one more step. Can we trust the actual content written in the Bible?

Sure, we may have accurate information passed on to us that is corroborated by archaeological evidence. But that doesn’t mean that the actual message of the Bible is the “word of God” meant to be taken as a retelling of what actually happened. For all we know, the content passed down to us could have been a mythologization about everything – including Jesus’ life as a metaphor about how love conquers all. Are we actually meant to take the words of the Bible as an accurate representation of what happened in history?

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. - 1 Corinthians 15:13–15.

If Paul’s words are true here, then there is no better place to start than by addressing the claim of Jesus’ resurrection. If the story of Jesus’ resurrection has been fabricated or mythologized, then we can stop here because all of our faith is in vain. BUT...if there is plausible evidence that the story of Jesus’ resurrection has been accurately retold by the New Testament authors, and it is in fact true, then the implications on the rest of the Bible are staggering.

Today, we will only address whether the writers of the New Testament intended for the story of Jesus - including his physical bodily resurrection - to be taken as a literal retelling of an event that occurred in history.

In the Bible, there are 4 books that explain the life of Jesus titled “Gospels”. These Gospel accounts according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written in the 1st century in a common literary format called bios (from which we receive the word biography). This bios literary style was recognized by the 1st century Greco-Roman world as a spectrum of literature that ranged from the meticulously detailed academic biographies that you would see in the upper-class of Rome to the loosely exaggerated historical fiction pieces such as Life of Alexander which depicted Alexander the Great being born of an ancient Pharaoh assisted by a mystical god. So which type of bios are the 4 gospel accounts? Did the gospel writers “juice up” their own content to “deify” Jesus as some would suggest? Or were they meticulously detailing accurate information?

When we look at the evidence, we can be confident “beyond a reasonable doubt” that all 4 Gospels WERE meant to be understood as a factual retelling of events that actually occurred in the life of Jesus. Here are 4 important truths about whether the gospels can be trusted:

1. Every significant claim that upholstered the Christian faith was corroborated by contemporary writings outside of the 4 bios texts, namely the epistles!

The epistles affirm that Jesus was in fact born in the line of King David.

“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.” - Romans 1:1–4.

The epistles affirm that Jesus was sentenced to death during the administration of Pontius Pilate.

“I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,” - 1 Timothy 6:13.

The epistles affirm the presence of Jesus’ 12 disciples and his appearance to many disciples after the third day.

“...the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas.” - 1 Corinthians 9:5.

The epistles affirm that Jesus was crucified, buried, raised from the dead, was seen alive and ascended to heaven.

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” - 1 Corinthians 15:3–8.

“Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” - 1 Timothy 3:16.

But wait? Can you use the Bible to argue for the Bible? Well if you think this is circular reasoning, take the word of ancient historian Josephus.

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” - Josephus

2. We know that the Gospel narratives themselves have been written and organized with the express purpose of explaining the life events of Jesus to the masses.

The intention of Matthew was explaining Jesus in a way that aligned with Jewish thought. Mark highlights the power of Jesus to subvert the cultural and political power of the Greeks and Romans. Luke composes “an orderly account (Lk. 1:3)” so that all Gentiles could “walk the road” with Jesus and “dine” with him. Finally, John focuses on the identity of Jesus so that the early church, “ may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name,” ( Jn. 20:31).

The truth is that just because they all craft the same narrative in 4 different ways does not mean they fabricated any details. When I share the story of my childhood, I always mold the facts of my life to cater to my audience. I will probably emphasize stories of growing up in Alameda, California to someone else who was born in Alameda, California yet I might completely skip over these stories if I am talking to someone from another country. I will likely emphasize my background in sports to someone who is interested in sports, but I might tone down the sports banter with someone who shares my interest in psychology. These facts are all still true in my life, they are simply presented in a way that caters to my audience so that they are understood.

3. We can have confidence that the Gospels were meant to be interpreted as true events because of certain “sign-posts” that suggest that the disciples were actually there.

As opposed to “Once Upon a Time” fairy tales, the gospel writers leave small details that would only be known if they were familiar with the real-world region. Consider the passage in Luke in which the date, the location, and the people below have all been confirmed in history.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. - Luke 3:1–2.

Apart from scripture, the town of Chorazin has no writings that associate the city with Bethsaida and Capernaum. It wasn’t until 1926 that excavators discovered that Chorazin was on the road to Bethsaida and 3 miles north of Capernaum, a fact that was affirmed exclusively by the

authors of scripture. In this case, the archaeology didn’t inform the scriptures, the scriptures informed archaeology!

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. - Matthew 11:21–23.

4. The early church affirmed the eyewitness nature of the gospels which can be further corroborated by eyewitnesses of Jesus living during that time period!

Near the late 1st century - early 2nd century A.D., a bishop named Papias of Hierapolis writes

Matthew, in the Hebrew dialect, placed sayings in orderly arrangement, and each one translated them as he was able. ... Mark, who became Peter’s translator, wrote accurately as much as he remembered - though not in orderly form - of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed after him but later - as I said - he followed after Peter, who was giving his teachings in short anecdotes.” - from Historian Eusebius of Caesarea

In the late 2nd and 3rd century A.D., church leaders like Irenaues and Tertullian affirm that the gospel writers are who they say they are. Irenaeus writes:

Matthew composed his Gospel among the Hebrew in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and building up the church there. After their exodus, Peter’s follower and translator Mark handed down to us Peter’s proclamation in written form. Luke, Paul’s companion, wrote in a book the Gospel proclaimed by Paul. Finally John - the Lord’s own follower, the one who leaned against his chest - composed the gospel while living in Ephesus.

If you are skeptical, you might be wondering whether or not the early church made up these titles to make it seem like these authors wrote the Gospels to make their case sound more airtight. If this were true, why would all the manuscript evidence confirm each gospel title? Furthermore, if the church lied about the authors of the gospel, why wouldn’t they have picked “The Gospels of Peter, James, Paul, and Timothy”? Matthew and John make sense as 2 of the 12 original disciples, but why would the early church intentionally choose Mark who only followed Jesus later and heard from Peter? Why would the church choose Luke who is an obscure figure mentioned only three times in the rest of scripture (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 1:24)? The evidence gives us confidence that the Gospels derive from the thoughts and accounts of eyewitnesses!

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

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. - 1 John 1:1–2

5. If they were making this all up, would they have included such embarrassing stories about themselves?

IIf they were making this all up, why would they have given women (non-credible sources in the 1st century) the privilege of being the first to see the risen Jesus while the disciples were all left confused? If they were making this all up, wouldn’t it have been easier for the disciples to simply recant instead of suffer brutal persecution and martyrdom to defend the lordship of Jesus? If they were making all of this up, why did the early disciples leave room for so much skepticism and self-slander after falling asleep on the job and abandoning Jesus?

Again, you may not be totally convinced. But if you are growing more and more convinced, all of the evidence is pointing us to a confidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the Gospels were meant to be taken as a historical bios meticulously retelling what happened to Jesus.

And so if the words of the gospel are accurately retelling what happened by those who were there, then we are left to deal with this bios that includes his teachings and his resurrection from the dead. We are left to deal with the same claims of Jesus that got him and his disciples killed.

Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. - John 5:17–18.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, - John 8:58–59.

“I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. - John 10:30-31

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” - John 14:6–7

If the Bible is reliable and the gospels are meant to be taken as literal events in the life of Jesus, then EVERYONE (including you) will be forced to make a decision. C.S. Lewis puts it this way:

“Jesus [. . .] told people that their sins were forgiven. [. . .] This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. [. . .] I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.”
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

So which will it be? Is he a liar? Was he a crazy lunatic and the very Devil of hell? Or is he actually the Lord of all things whose teachings can be trusted and who rose from the dead?

Share the Gospel: The evidence suggests that the 4 gospel accounts were meant to be read as an accurate depiction of real historical events that happened to Jesus Christ and his followers in the 1st century, including his resurrection from the dead. Therefore, all of us face the decision as to whether we will call Jesus a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. If Jesus rose from the dead and proved that he is Lord, then the implications of his ministry are staggering!