Apicontent

Have you ever met a man who is the focus of attention wherever he goes? Some mysterious, indefinable characteristic sets him apart from all other men.

Well, that’s the way it was two thousand years ago with Jesus Christ.

Jesus’ greatness was obvious to all those who saw and heard him. And while most great people eventually fade into history books, Jesus is still the focus of thousands of books and endless media controversy. And much of that controversy centers on the radical claims Jesus made about himself—claims that astounded both his followers and his adversaries.

Jesus’ unique claims caused him to be viewed as a threat by both the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy. Although he was an outsider with no credentials or political powerbase, within three years, Jesus changed the world for the next 20 centuries. Other moral and religious leaders have left an impact on our world—but nothing like that unknown carpenter’s son from Nazareth.

What was it about Jesus Christ that made the difference? Was he merely a great man, or something more?

Some believe Jesus was merely a great moral teacher; others believe he was simply the leader of the world’s greatest religion. But many believe something far more. Christians believe that God actually visited us in human form. And they believe the evidence backs that up.

After carefully examining Jesus’ life and words, former Oxford scholar and skeptic, C. S. Lewis, came to a startling conclusion about him that altered the course of his life. So, who is the real Jesus? Many will answer that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but nothing more. As we take a deeper look at the world’s most controversial person, we begin by asking: could Jesus have been merely a great moral teacher?

Great Moral Teacher?

Even those from other religions acknowledge that Jesus was a great moral teacher. Indian leader, Mahatma Gandhi, spoke highly of Jesus’ righteous life and profound words.¹ Likewise, Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner wrote,

It is universally admitted … that Christ taught the purest and sublimest ethics … which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity far into the shade.²

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount has been called the most superlative teaching of human ethics ever uttered by an individual. In fact, much of what we know today as “equal rights” is largely the result of Jesus’ teaching. Historian Will Durant, a non-Christian, said of Jesus that,

…he lived and struggled unremittingly for ‘equal rights’; in modern times he would have been sent to Siberia. ‘He that is greatest among you, let him be your servant’—this is the inversion of all political wisdom, of all sanity.³

Many, like Gandhi, have tried to separate Jesus’ teaching on ethics from his claims about himself, believing that he was simply a great man who taught lofty moral principles.

But if Jesus falsely claimed to be God, he couldn’t have been a good moral teacher. Before we look at what Jesus claimed, we need to examine the possibility that he was simply a great religious leader?

Great Religious Leader?

Surprisingly, Jesus never claimed to be a religious leader. He never got into religious politics or pushed an ambitious agenda, and he ministered almost entirely outside the established religious framework.

When one compares Jesus with the other great religious leaders, a remarkable distinction emerges. All other religions provide instruction for a way of living. But only Jesus offers deliverance, forgiveness for sin, and personal life transformation through faith in him. Jesus’ teaching message was simply “Come to me” or “Follow me” or “Obey me.” Also, Jesus made it clear that his primary mission was to forgive sins, something only God could do.

And that leads us to the question of what Jesus really did claim for himself; specifically, did Jesus claim to be God?

Did Jesus Claim to Be God?

In The World’s Great Religions, Huston Smith observed that of all great religious leaders, only Jesus claimed to be divine.⁴

What is it that convinces many scholars that Jesus claimed to be God? Author, John Piper explains that Jesus claimed power which uniquely belonged to God. He cites a few of Jesus’ radical claims,

…Jesus’ friends and enemies were staggered again and again by what he said and did. He would be walking down the road, seemingly like any other man, then turn and say something like, ‘Before Abraham was, I am.’ Or ‘If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.’

Or, very calmly, after being accused of blasphemy, he would say, ‘The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.’ To the dead he might simply say, ‘Come forth,’ or ‘Rise up.’ And they would obey. To the storms on the sea he would say, ‘Be still.’ And to a loaf of bread he would say, ‘Become a thousand meals.’ And it was done immediately.⁵

But what did Jesus really mean by such statements? Is it possible Jesus was merely a prophet like Moses or Elijah, or Daniel? Even his enemies acknowledged that no prophet ever spoke like Jesus (John 7:46).

The Gospels reveal that Jesus claimed to be someone more than a prophet. No other prophet had made such claims about himself; in fact, no other prophet ever put himself in God’s place.

Although Jesus never explicitly said, “I am God,” He also never said, “I am a man,” or “I am a prophet.” Yet Jesus was undoubtedly human, and his followers considered him a prophet like Moses and Elijah.

In fact, Jesus’ statements about himself contradict the notion that he was simply a great man or a prophet.

• On more than one occasion, Jesus referred to himself as God’s Son.
• He told Philip, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father” (John 14:9).
• He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).

So, the question is: “Was Jesus claiming to be the Hebrew God who created the universe?”

Did Jesus Claim to Be the God of Abraham & Moses?

In the Hebrew Scriptures, when Moses asked God his name at the burning bush, God answered, “I AM (Yahweh).” God was revealing to Moses that he is the one and only God who is outside of time and has always existed.

Since the time of Moses, no practicing Jew would ever refer to himself or anyone else by “I AM” (Yahweh). The name was holy and revered exclusively for God. Yet Jesus referred to himself as “I am,” when telling the Pharisees, “Before Abraham was, I am.”

As a result, Jesus’ “I AM” claims infuriated the Jewish leaders. One time, for example, some leaders explained to Jesus why they were trying to kill him: “Because you, a mere man, have made yourself God.”⁶

These Old Testament scholars knew exactly what Jesus was saying—he was claiming to be God, the Creator of the universe. It is only this claim that would have brought the accusation of blasphemy. To read into the text that Jesus claimed to be God is clearly warranted, not simply by his words, but also by their reaction to those words. Former atheist C. S. Lewis explains the shock Jesus’ claim had on the Jewish leaders:

Then comes the real shock,among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time.⁷

To Lewis, Jesus’ claims were simply too radical and profound to have been made by an ordinary teacher or religious leader (For a more in-depth look at Jesus’ claim to deity, see Appendix page 82, Did Jesus claim to be God?).

What Kind of God?

Some have argued that Jesus was only claiming to be part of God. But the idea that we are all part of God, and that within us is the seed of divinity, is simply not a possible meaning for Jesus’ words and actions.

Jesus taught that he is God in the way the Jews understood God and the way the Hebrew Scriptures portrayed God, not in the way the New Age movement understands God. Neither Jesus nor his audience had been weaned on Star Wars, and so when they spoke of God, they were not speaking of cosmic forces.

Lewis explains,

Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God….

But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world, who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else.

And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.⁸

Although there are still people who believe Jesus was just a great moral teacher, Lewis argued that such a belief defies logic. He writes,

I am trying here to prevent anyone from 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.⁹

In his quest for truth, Lewis knew that he could not have it both ways with the identity of Jesus. Either Jesus was who he claimed to be—God in the flesh—or his claims were false. And if they were false, Jesus could not be a great moral teacher. He would either be lying intentionally, or he would be a lunatic with a God complex.

Could Jesus Have Been Lying?

Having dismissed the possibility that Jesus was merely a great moral teacher, Lewis concluded he was either lying, or he was a self-deluded lunatic—or he was who he claimed to be—the Son of God.

If Jesus was lying, the question we must deal with is: What could possibly motivate Jesus to live his entire life as a lie? He taught that God was opposed to lying and hypocrisy, so he wouldn’t have been doing it to please his Father. He certainly didn’t lie for his followers’ benefit, since all but one were martyred rather than renouncing his Lordship.

Do historians believe Jesus lied? Scholars have scrutinized Jesus’ words and life to see if there is any evidence of a defect in his moral character. In fact, even the most ardent skeptics are stunned by Jesus’ moral and ethical purity.

According to historian Philip Schaff, there is no evidence, either in church history or in secular history that Jesus lied about anything. Schaff argued,

How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could a deceitful, selfish, depraved man have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality?¹⁰

To go with the option of liar is in direct contradiction to everything Jesus taught, lived, and died for. To most scholars, it just doesn’t make sense. Yet, to deny Jesus’ claims, one must come up with some explanation. And if Jesus’ claims are not true, and he wasn’t lying, the only option remaining is that he must have been self-deceived.

Could Jesus Have Been Self-Deceived?

Lewis considered this option carefully. He deduced that if Jesus’ claims weren’t true, then he must have been insane. Lewis reasons that someone who claimed to be God 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.¹¹

Most who have studied Jesus’ life and words acknowledge him as extremely rational—the opposite of someone self-deceived. Although his own life was filled with immorality and personal skepticism, the renowned French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) acknowledged Jesus’ superior character and presence of mind, stating,

When Plato describes his imaginary righteous man…he describes exactly the character of Christ. …If the life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God.¹²

The claims of Jesus Christ force us to choose. As Lewis stated, we cannot put Jesus in the category of being just a great religious leader or good moral teacher. Neither does the evidence support him being a liar or madman.  This former skeptic challenges us to make up our own minds about Jesus, stating,

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. 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.¹³

In Mere Christianity, Lewis explores the options regarding the identity of Jesus, concluding that he is exactly who he claimed to be. His careful examination of the life and words of Jesus led this great literary genius to renounce his former atheism and become a committed Christian.

The greatest question in human history is, “Who is the real Jesus Christ?”  Lewis and countless others have concluded that God visited our planet in human form.

In the next chapter we will examine the historical and textual evidence demonstrating the overwhelming reliability of the New Testament.

---

Endnotes

We have seen that leading historians unanimously accept the fact that Jesus was a real person who has significantly impacted our world.

Nevertheless, countless conspiracy theories have attacked the New Testament teaching of his deity. Perhaps the most widely believed conspiracy theory has been postulated by Dan Brown in his fictional novel, The Da Vinci Code.

The Da Vinci Code is not to be ignored as a fictional plot. Its premise, that Jesus Christ has been reinvented by the church for political purposes, attacks the very foundation of Christianity. Its author, Dan Brown, has stated on national TV that, even though the plot is fictional, he believes its account of Jesus’ identity is true. So, what is the truth? Let’s take a look.

• Was Jesus’ deity invented by Constantine and the church?
• Were the original records of Jesus destroyed?
• Do recently discovered manuscripts tell the truth about Jesus?
• Did Jesus have a secret marriage with Mary Magdalene?

Several of Brown’s assertions regarding JesusChrist’s identity try to persuade the reader of a conspiracy. For example, the fictional scholar in the book states:

Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that Constantine took advantage of Christ’s substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today.¹

The Da Vinci Code book has sold over 80 million copies and has been watched by millions more in a blockbuster movie starring Tom Hanks. Although the plot is fictional, it has convinced many readers that its theme of a Jesus conspiracy is actually true.

The Jesus Conspiracy

Brown’s fictional plot begins with the murder of a French museum curator named Jacques Sauniere. A scholarly Harvard professor and a beautiful French cryptologist are commissioned to decipher a message left by the curator before his death.

The message turns out to reveal the most profound conspiracy in the history of humankind: a cover-up of the true message of Jesus Christ by a secret arm of the Roman Catholic Church called Opus Dei.

Before his death, the curator claimed to have evidence that could disprove the deity of Christ. Although (according to the plot) the Church tried for centuries to suppress the evidence, great thinkers and artists have planted clues everywhere: in paintings such as the Mona Lisa and Last Supper by da Vinci, in the architecture of cathedrals, even in Disney cartoons. The book’s sensational claims are these:

• The Roman emperor Constantine conspired to deify Jesus Christ by personally selecting the books of the New Testament.
• The Gnostic gospels were banned by men to suppress women.
• Jesus and Mary Magdalene were secretly married and had a child.
• Thousands of secret documents disprove key points of Christianity.

Brown reveals his conspiracy through the book’s fictional expert, British royal historian Sir Leigh Teabing. Presented as a wise old scholar, Teabing reveals to cryptologist Sophie Neveu that at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon,” including the deity of Jesus.

“Until that moment in history,” he says, “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.”

Neveu is shocked. “Not the Son of God?” she asks.

Teabing explains: “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”

“Hold on,” she exclaimed. “You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?”

“A relatively close vote at that,” Teabing tells the stunned cryptologist.²

So, according to Teabing, Jesus was not regarded as God until the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, when the real records of Jesus were allegedly banned and destroyed. Thus, according to The Da Vinci Code conspiracy theory, the entire foundation of Christianity rests upon a lie.

The Da Vinci Code has sold its story so well that many readers think its plot is factual rather than fictional. For example, one reader concluded, “If it were not true it could not have been published!” Another reader said he would “never set foot in a church again.” A reviewer of the book praised it for its “impeccable research.”³ Pretty convincing for a fictional work.

Although The Da Vinci Code is fictional, it does base much of its premise upon actual events (the Council of Nicaea), actual people (Constantine and Arius), and actual documents (the Gnostic gospels). If we are to get to the bottom of the conspiracy, our investigation must be to address Brown’s accusations and separate fact from fiction.

Constantine And Christianity

In the centuries prior to Constantine’s reign over the Roman Empire Christians had been severely persecuted—even martyred— because they worshiped Jesus rather than Caesar. Yet, the church grew through persecution, and when Constantine became Emperor in AD 306, over 10% of the Roman Empire were Christians.

Although Constantine wasn’t a Christian when he became Emperor, six years later he claimed to have seen a bright image of a cross in the sky inscribed with the words “Conquer by this.” Inspired by this vision, he marched into battle under the sign of the cross and embraced Christianity.

Constantine’s apparent conversion to Christianity was a watershed in church history. Under his reign, Rome became a Christian empire. For the first time in nearly 300 years, it was relatively safe to be a Christian.

No longer were Christians persecuted for their faith. Constantine then sought to unify his Eastern and Western Empires, which had been badly divided by schisms, sects, and cults, centering primarily on the issue of Jesus Christ’s identity.

These are some of the kernels of truth in The Da Vinci Code, and kernels of truth are a prerequisite for any successful conspiracy theory. But the book’s plot turns Constantine into a conspirator. So, let’s address a key question raised by Brown’s theory: did Constantine invent the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ deity?

Deifying Jesus?

To answer Brown’s accusation, we must first determine what Christians in general believed before Constantine ever convened the council at Nicaea.

According to ancient manuscripts, Christians had been worshiping Jesus as God since the 1^st century. But in the 4^th century, Arius, a church leader from the east, launched a campaign to defend God’s oneness. He taught that Jesus was a specially created being, higher than the angels, but not God.

Athanasius and most church leaders, on the other hand, were convinced that Jesus was—as the New Testament eyewitnesses claimed— God in the flesh.

Constantine wanted to settle the dispute, hoping to bring peace to his empire, uniting the east and west divisions. Therefore, in AD 325 he convened more than 300 bishops at Nicaea (now part of Turkey) from throughout the Christian world.

The crucial question is, did the early church think Jesus was the Creator or merely a creation—Son of God or merely son of a carpenter? To answer that question they looked to what the apostles believed and taught. So, what did the apostles teach about Jesus?

From their very first recorded statements, the apostles regarded Jesus as God. About 30 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul wrote the Philippians that Jesus was God in human form (Philippians 2:6-7, NLT). And John, a close eyewitness, confirms Jesus’ divinity in the following passage:

In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make. Life itself was in him…So the Word became human and lived here on earth among us (John 1: 1-4, 14, NLT).

This passage from John 1, has been discovered in an ancient manuscript, a copy of the original, carbon-dated at AD 175-225. Earlier fragments from John’s Gospel have also been discovered, proving that Jesus was clearly spoken of as God over a hundred years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea (See Appendix page 92, “Did the Apostles Believe Jesus is God?”).

This forensic manuscript evidence contradicts The Da Vinci Code’s claim that Jesus’ deity was a 4^th century invention. But what does history tell us about the Council of Nicaea? Brown asserts in his book, through Teabing, that the majority of bishops at Nicaea overruled Arius’s belief that Jesus was a “mortal prophet” and adopted the doctrine of Jesus’ deity by a “relatively close vote.” True or false?

The historical record reveals that only two of the 318 bishops dissented, one of them being Arius himself. Whereas Arius believed that the Father alone was God, and that Jesus was his supreme creation, the council overwhelmingly concluded that Jesus and the Father were of the same divine essence, condemning Arius as a heretic. The nearly unanimous vote only confirmed what the apostles had taught.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were deemed to be distinct, coexistent, coeternal Persons, but one God. This doctrine of one God in three Persons became known as the Nicene Creed, which is the central core of the Christian Faith and its trinitarian doctrine.

From the first days of the Christian church, Jesus was regarded as far more than a mere man, and most of his followers worshiped him as Lord-the Creator of the universe. So, how could Constantine have invented the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity if the church had regarded Jesus as God for more than 200 years? The Da Vinci Code doesn’t address this question.

Firing On the Canon

The Da Vinci Code also states that Constantine suppressed all documents about Jesus other than those found in our current New Testament canon.

The early church fathers were committed to preserving the writings of the original apostles, eliminating those that were fraudulent or questionable. This preservation of the original New Testament documents (canon) is recognized by the church as authentic eyewitness reports of the apostles.

However, in the book, Brown asserts that the New Testament accounts were altered by Constantine and the bishops to reinvent Jesus. Another key element of The Da Vinci Code conspiracy is that the four New Testament Gospels were cherry-picked from a total of “more than 80 gospels,” most of which were supposedly suppressed by Constantine.⁵ 

There are two central issues here, and we need to address both. The first is whether Constantine altered or biased the selection of the New Testament books. The second is whether he barred documents that should have been included in the Bible.

Regarding the first issue, letters and documents written by 2^nd century church leaders and heretics alike confirm the wide usage of the New Testament books nearly 200 years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea.

So, if the New Testament was already widely in use 200 years before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, how could the emperor have invented or altered it? By that time the church was widespread and encompassed millions of believers, all of whom were familiar with and trusted the traditional New Testament accounts.

In his book The Da Vinci Deception, an analysis of The Da Vinci Code, New Testament scholar Dr. Erwin Lutzer sets the record straight about the New Testament’s authenticity,

Constantine did not decide which books would be in the canon; indeed, the topic of the canon did not even come up at the Council of Nicaea. By that time the early church was reading a canon of books it had determined was the Word of God two hundred years earlier.⁶

Although the official canon was still years from being finalized, the New Testament of today was deemed authentic more than two centuries before Nicaea.

Why the Gnostic Gospels Were Excluded

This brings us to our second issue; why were these mysterious Gnostic gospels destroyed and excluded from the New Testament? In Brown’s book, Teabing asserts that the Gnostic writings were eliminated from 50 authorized Bibles commissioned by Constantine at the council. He excitedly tells Neveu:

Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history. …

Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.⁷

Are these Gnostic writings the real history of Jesus Christ? Let’s take a deeper look to see if we can separate truth from fiction.

The Gnostic gospels name comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” These people thought they had secret, special knowledge hidden from ordinary people.

The Gnostic writings date from the 2^nd to the 4^th century, at least a hundred years after Christ. Therefore, they couldn’t have been written by eyewitnesses. In comparison, the New Testament writings date from the mid to late 1^st century while eyewitnesses would still have been living.

Of the 52 Gnostic writings, only five are actually listed as gospels. As we shall see, these so-called gospels are markedly different from the New Testament Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

As Christianity spread, the Gnostics mixed some doctrines and elements of Christianity into their beliefs, morphing Gnosticism into a counterfeit Christianity. However, for their system of thought to fit with Christianity, Jesus needed to be reinvented, stripped of both his humanity and his absolute deity.

In The Oxford History of Christianity John McManners wrote of the Gnostics’ mixture of Christian and mythical beliefs.

Gnosticism was (and still is) a theosophy with many ingredients. Occultism and oriental mysticism became fused with astrology and magic. … They collected sayings of Jesus shaped to fit their own interpretation (as in the Gospel of Thomas), and offered their adherents an alternative or rival form of Christianity.⁸

Early Critics

Contrary to Brown’s assertions, it was not Constantine who branded the Gnostic beliefs as heretical; it was the apostles themselves. A mild strain of the philosophy was already growing in the 1^st century just decades after the death of Jesus. The apostles, in their teaching and writings, went to great lengths to condemn these beliefs as being opposed to the truth of Jesus, to whom they were eyewitnesses.

Check out, for example, what the apostle John wrote near the end of the 1^st century:

Who is the great liar? The one who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Such people are antichrists, for they have denied the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22).

Following the apostles’ teaching, the early church leaders unanimously condemned the Gnostics as a cult. Church father Irenaeus, writing 140 years before the Council of Nicaea, confirmed that Gnostics were condemned by the church as heretics. He also rejected their “gospels.” However, referring to the four New Testament Gospels, he said, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.⁹

Christian theologian Origen wrote this in the early 3^rd century, more than a hundred years before Nicaea:

I know a certain gospel which is called “The Gospel according to Thomas” and a “Gospel according to Matthias,” and many others have we read—lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine they possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the church has recognized, which is that only four gospels should be accepted.¹⁰

There we have it in the words of a highly regarded early church leader. The Gnostics were recognized as a non-Christian cult well before the Council of Nicaea. But there’s more evidence calling into question claims made in The Da Vinci Code.

Who’s Sexist?

Brown suggests that one of the motives for Constantine’s alleged banning of the Gnostic writings was a desire to suppress women in the church. Ironically, it is the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas that demeans women. It concludes (supposedly quoting Peter) with this eye-popping statement: “Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life.”¹¹

In stark contrast, the Jesus of the biblical Gospels always treated women with dignity and respect. The New Testament writings have been foundational to attempts at raising women’s status. As the apostle Paul writes,

In Christ there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians-you are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, NLT).

Mystery Authors

When it comes to the Gnostic gospels, just about every book carries the name of a New Testament character: the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Judas, and so on.

But since the Gnostic gospels are dated about 110 to 300 years after Christ, no credible scholar believes any of them could have been written by their namesakes. In James M. Robinson’s comprehensive The Nag Hammadi Library, we learn that the Gnostic gospels were written by “largely unrelated and anonymous authors.”¹² Dr. Darrell L. Bock, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote,

The bulk of this material is a few generations removed from the foundations of the Christian faith, a vital point to remember when assessing the contents.¹³

Biblical scholar Norman Geisler summarizes the case against including the Gnostic writings in the New Testament:

The Gnostic writings were not written by the apostles, but by men in the second century (and later) pretending to use apostolic authority to advance their own teachings. Today we call this fraud and forgery.¹⁴

Mrs. Jesus

The most provocative assertion of the Da Vinci conspiracy is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a secret marriage, resulting in a child that perpetuated his bloodline. Furthermore, Mary Magdalene’s womb, carrying Jesus’ offspring, is presented in the book as the legendary Holy Grail, a secret closely held by a Catholic organization called the Priory of Sion. Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci were all cited in the book as members of this secret organization.

Romance. Scandal. Intrigue. Great stuff for a conspiracy theory. But is it true? Let’s look at what scholars say.

A Newsweek magazine article, that summarized leading scholars’ opinions, concluded that the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were secretly married has no historical basis.¹⁵ The proposal set forth in The Da Vinci Code is built primarily upon one solitary verse in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip that indicates Jesus and Mary were companions.

In the book, Teabing tries to build a case that the word for companion (koinonos) could mean spouse.¹⁶ But Teabing’s theory is not accepted by scholars.

There is also a single verse in the Gospel of Philip that says Jesus kissed Mary. Greeting friends with a kiss was common in the 1st century and had no sexual connotation. There is no historical document to confirm its theory that Jesus and Mary had a marital relationship. And since the Gospel of Philip is a forged document written 150-220 years after Christ by an unknown author, its statement about Jesus isn’t historically reliable.

The “Secret” Documents

But what about Teabing’s disclosure that “thousands of secret documents” prove that Christianity is a hoax? Could this be true?

If there were such documents, scholars opposed to Christianity would have a field day with them. Fraudulent writings that were rejected by the early church for heretical views are not secret, having been known about for centuries. No surprise there. They have never been considered part of the authentic writings of the apostles.

And if the book’s expert, Teabing, is referring to the apocryphal, or Gnostic Gospels, they are not secret, nor do they disprove Christianity. New Testament scholar Raymond Brown has said of the Gnostic gospels,

We learn not a single verifiable new fact about the historical Jesus’ ministry, and only a few new sayings that might possibly have been his.¹⁷

The historical evidence reveals that Jesus’ followers believed in his deity from the time of the resurrection and early church history. The true church never deviated from the eyewitness accounts recorded in the New Testament. And although conspiracy theories like The Da Vinci Code attack the validity of the New Testament, scholars deem it the most reliable of all ancient writings. As New Testament Historian F. F. Bruce explains,

There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.¹⁸

New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger revealed why the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was not accepted by the early church:

It is not right to say that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded by some fiat on the part of a council: the right way to put it is, the Gospel of Thomas excluded itself! It did not harmonize with other testimony about Jesus that early Christians accepted as trustworthy.¹⁹

History’s Verdict

So, what are we to conclude regarding the various conspiracy theories about Jesus Christ? Karen King, professor of ecclesiastical history at Harvard, has written several books on the Gnostic gospels, including The Gospel of Mary of Magdala and What Is Gnosticism? King, though a strong advocate of Gnostic teaching, concluded, “These notions about the conspiracy theory … are all marginal ideas that have no historical basis.”²⁰

Despite the lack of historical evidence, conspiracy theories will still sell millions of books and set box office records. Scholars in related fields, some Christians and some with no faith at all, have disputed the claims of The Da Vinci Code. However, the easily swayed will still wonder; Could there be something to it after all?

But if you want to read the true accounts of Jesus Christ, then Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell us what the eyewitnesses saw, heard, and wrote.

And what the eyewitnesses wrote about was the most amazing person in the history of our planet: A man who healed the lame, deaf and blind, raised the dead, and defeated death. But the claim he made that led to his rejection and death was the same one that The Da Vinci Code attempts to refute—that God put on humanity to become our Savior.

In the next chapter we will examine the question: Is Jesus God.

The New Testament Gospels give us the accounts of Jesus’ life, words, death and resurrection. The book of Acts tells us how the apostles spread the message of Jesus throughout the 1^st century, and the letters to early churches are foundational to Christian doctrines believed today.

They claim to be eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the apostles.  Jesus’ close apostle, Simon Peter, wrote as an eyewitness when he declared,

We were not making up clever stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming again. We have seen his majestic splendor with our own eyes (2 Peter 1:16, NLT).

Regarding their accounts of Jesus, the apostle John wrote, “We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard…” (1 John 1:3).

But skeptics have argued that the New Testament was corrupted through its two thousand years of history, and what we read about Jesus today is the result of conspiring church leaders.

Furthermore, since none of the original manuscripts exist today, skeptics say that the New Testament accounts of Jesus we have today are unreliable due to numerous copying errors and textual variants.

So, is the New Testament a reliable witness of who Jesus Christ is, and what he said? Can we rely on its gospel message that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again on the third day? And can we trust his promise of eternal life to all those who embrace him as their Savior?

In the following pages we will examine the evidence for the following:

• When were the original New Testament manuscripts written?
• How do we know if the copies are faithful to the original words?
• How does the New Testament compare with other ancient writings?

Redating the New Testament

German critic Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860) once contended that John’s Gospel was not written until about AD 160, when all eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been dead. Other critical scholars went further, stating that the entire New Testament was written between the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries.  If these critics were right, the books named after Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and other New Testament books would all be forgeries.

This skeptical view of New Testament dating destroyed the faith of many for nearly a century until new forensic evidence proved Baur’s claim false.

So, what evidence do we have concerning when the Gospel accounts of Jesus were really written? The consensus of most scholars today is that the Gospels were written by the apostles during the first century. Four primary forms of evidence build a solid case for their conclusions:

Extrabiblical Documents
Late 1^st century to early 2^nd century writings from Christian sources such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp cite New Testament passages, proving they had already existed within 10-35 years after Christ, and were regarded by early Christians as authentic.

Plus, over 36,000 extrabiblical quotations from New Testament passages in letters and sermons from early church leaders date from the first three centuries, some only ten years after its last book was written.¹New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger notes, “If all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”²

Non-Christian Historians
Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius—all non-Christian Roman historians, confirm New Testament details about Jesus. These confirmations of New Testament details date from 20 to 150 years after Christ, “quite early by the standards of ancient historiography.”³

Early New Testament Manuscript Copies
In the early 20^th century a cache of New Testament papyri fragments was discovered in Egypt; among them was a fragment of the Gospel of John (specifically, P52: John 18:31-33) dated to about AD 125, only 25-50 years after John wrote the original. Since P52 was a copy of John’s Gospel, his original writing would have already existed.

Princeton New Testament professor, Bruce Metzger, explains its significance in dating the New Testament much earlier than critics like Baur had claimed:

Just as Robinson Crusoe, seeing but a single footprint in the sand, concluded that another human being, with two feet, was present on the island with him, so P52 [the label of the fragment] proves the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel during the first half of the second century in a provincial town along the Nile far removed from its traditional place of composition (Ephesus in Asia Minor).⁴

Paul’s Letters

Paul wrote 13 early letters to churches and individuals, forming a significant portion of the New Testament.  Paul’s letters, dated by scholars between the mid-40s and the mid-60s (12 to 33 years after Christ), constitute the earliest witnesses to Jesus’ life and teaching.

Non-Christian historian, Will Durant, wrote of the historical importance of Paul’s letters, “The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. … No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in the flesh.”⁵

Most scholars date Paul’s writings from AD 48-67. That’s consistent with Biblical archaeologist William Albright’s research, who concluded that all the New Testament books were written while most of the apostles were still alive. He wrote,

We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book after about 80 A.D., two full generations before the date given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.”⁶ 

Albright dates the writing of the entire New Testament at “very probably sometime between about 50 A.D. and 75 A.D.”⁷

In Redating the New Testament critical scholar, John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge concludes that most of the New Testament books were written between AD 40 and AD 65 and are the eyewitness accounts of the apostles. His scholarly work that led to his conclusions of early dating for the New Testament is impeccable.

Robinson puts its writing as early as seven years after Christ lived⁸ when any historical errors pertaining to Jesus’ teaching, death, and resurrection would have been immediately exposed by both eyewitnesses and the enemies of Christianity. For example, Peter could say of a forgery in his name, “That’s not my Gospel, I didn’t write that.” And Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John could respond to questions or challenges aimed at their accounts of Jesus.

Early dating of the New Testament is also confirmed by early Christian creeds and hymns citing various passages, including 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 about Jesus’ resurrection within a few years after its occurrence. As mentioned, there are also thousands of early extrabiblical documents, as well as writings from non-Christian historians that refer to accounts found in the New Testament.

Together with the early manuscript copies of the Gospels, and the early dating of Paul’s letters, there is overwhelming evidence that the entire New Testament was written while eyewitnesses to Jesus would still have been living.

Are New Testament Copies Reliable?

The original New Testament manuscripts were handwritten on papyrus, a paper-like material which deteriorated rapidly as they were used to make hundreds of copies for dozens of churches and thousands of believers in the 1^st century. Although none of the originals exist today, the same is true for all ancient historical documents—Christian or secular.

As the church spread throughout the Roman world, hundreds of copies of the originals were made by various scribes, who meticulously attempted to duplicate the original document. Yet, because slight copying errors occasionally occurred, how do we know whether copies, and copies of copies we have today are reliable, faithfully representing writings of the original authors of the New Testament?

Scholars studying ancient literature have devised the science of textual criticism, using three tests to determine the accuracy of manuscripts, and their faithfulness to the original writings:⁹

• Bibliographical test
• Internal evidence test
• External evidence test

Let’s see what happens when we apply these essential tests to the New Testament manuscript copies in existence today.

Bibliographical Test

In this test, textual critics examine both the quantity and quality of existing manuscript copies and the time gap from the original writings. It asks:

• How many copies of the original document are in existence?
• How large of a time gap is there between the original writings and the earliest copies?
• How well does a document compare with other ancient history?

Number of New Testament Manuscripts

Over 5,600 copies of New Testament manuscripts exist today in the original Greek language.¹⁰ Many are small fragments; a few are virtually complete books. Counting translations into Latin, Armenian, Slavic, Syriac & Coptic, 25,000 manuscripts exist today – dating from the 2^nd to the 15^th century. That’s over 2.6 million pages of biblical text for scholars to examine!

Textual critics have compared dating and accuracy of these manuscripts to determine what was in the original text. Since the New Testament has a wealth of manuscript copies to examine and compare, these scholars have great confidence in what was written in the original documents.

Since there are over 2.6 million pages of handwritten text in 25,000 manuscripts, minor errors such as misspellings, skipping lines, or reordering words during the copying process have led to over 400,000 textual variants. Most of these copying errors are so minor that even the outspoken skeptic, Bart Ehrman, has concluded that no major New Testament doctrine is impacted by its textual variants. Biblical scholar John Wenham affirms, “The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine.”¹¹

Time Gap from Originals

Most extant New Testament manuscripts date after the 3^rd century. However, as mentioned earlier, a tiny fragment from a copy of John’s Gospel (John 18:31-33, labeled P52) is dated by scholars to roughly 25-50 years after John wrote the original in Ephesus. This early copy of John’s Gospel supports Albright’s and Robinson’s opinions that the entire New Testament was written during the lifetimes of the apostles.

Internal Evidence Test

Like good detectives, historians also verify reliability by looking at internal clues. Such clues reveal motives of the authors and their willingness to disclose details and other features that could be verified. The internal clues textual critics use to test a document’s reliability are the following:¹²

• Consistency of eyewitness reports
• Details of names, places, and events
• Letters to individuals or small groups
• Features embarrassing to the authors
• Irrelevant or counterproductive material
• Lack of relevant material

Consistency

Eyewitnesses to a crime or an accident generally get the big events right but see it from different perspectives. Likewise, the four Gospels describe the events of Jesus’ life from different perspectives. Yet, critical scholars are amazed at the consistency of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ teaching, miracles, death and resurrection. Despite the different perspectives of the writers, all New Testament manuscripts present Jesus consistently in these key areas.

Details

Historians also verify the authenticity of a document by the accuracy of its details. Classical historian Colin Hemer “identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by Archaeological research.”¹³ From the Gospel accounts to Paul’s letters, the New Testament authors openly described details, even citing the names of at least thirty individuals who were alive at the time.

New Testament scholar Gary Habermas writes,

Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the early church.¹⁴

Jesus is mentioned by more sources than the conquests of Caesar during this same period. It is even more astounding since these confirmations of New Testament details date from 20 to 150 years after Christ, “quite early by the standards of ancient historiography.”

Letters To Small Groups

Historical expert Louis Gottschalk notes that personal letters intended for small audiences have a high probability of being reliable. Since large portions of the New Testament consist of personal letters written to small groups and individuals, scholars deem them to be highly reliable.

Embarrassing Features

Surprisingly, the authors of the New Testament presented themselves all too frequently as cowardly, and faithless. For example, consider Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus or the disciples’ arguments over which of them was the greatest—both stories recorded in the Gospels. As respect for the apostles was crucial in the early church, inclusion of this kind of material doesn’t make sense unless the apostles were reporting their accounts truthfully.

In The Story of Civilization, non-Chrisitan historian Will Durant writes of the apostles,

These men were hardly of the type that one would have chosen to remold the world. The Gospels realistically differentiate their characters, and honestly expose their faults.¹⁵

Irrelevant or Counterproductive Material

The Gospels tell us that the empty tomb of Jesus was discovered by a woman, even though in Israel the testimony of women wasn’t even admissible in court. Also, some of Jesus’ final words on the cross are said to have been “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Scholars have determined that irrelevant or counterproductive material like these are evidence of authenticity.

Lack of Relevant Material

Few of the major issues facing the 1^st century church—the Gentile mission, spiritual gifts, baptism, leadership—were addressed directly in the recorded words of Jesus. If his followers were inventing Jesus’ words, it is inexplicable why they would not have made up instructions from Jesus on these issues. The lack of relevant material is evidence of the New Testament’s faithfulness to the original writings.

The New Testament manuscripts meet textual critics’ bibliographical and internal evidence tests used to evaluate the authenticity of ancient documents. However, there is one more important test to consider.

External Evidence Test

The third and final test to determine the reliability of the New Testament is to compare its copies with those of other ancient historical documents.

 Comparison with Other Ancient Historical Documents

• Number of copies: Most ancient historical works have fewer than 10 copies. The second best documented ancient historical manuscript, Homer’s Iliad (8^th century BC), has just 643 copies, compared with 25,000 for the New Testament.¹⁶ New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger remarked, “In contrast with these figures [of other ancient manuscripts], the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material.”¹⁷
• Time Gap: Most ancient documents have time gaps of from 400 to 1,400 years from the originals. For example, Aristotle’s Poetics was written about 343 BC, yet the earliest copy is dated AD 1100, a time gap of over 1,400 years. In stark contrast, the earliest New Testament manuscript (P52) has a time gap of only 25-50 years.

Even critical scholar Robinson has admitted,

The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.¹⁸

Clark Pinnock, professor of interpretations at McMaster Divinity College, summed it up well when he said,

There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies. … An honest [person] cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational basis.¹⁹

As copies of the New Testament spread throughout the Roman world, the message of Jesus Christ written by the apostles transformed lives.

The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek, but its text has been faithfully translated by scholars into hundreds of languages, including several different English versions. Although these translations from the original Greek language have somewhat different sentence structures, the original meaning as written by the apostles is faithfully preserved in them.

The New Testament’s reliability assures us that we can trust the eyewitness accounts of Jesus today, including the fact that he died for our sins, rose again to give us eternal life, and is coming back for those who put their trust in Him.

As the apostle Peter wrote nearly 2,000 years ago,

We were not making up clever stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming again. We have seen his majestic splendor with our own eyes (2 Peter 1:16, NLT).

So, as you read the New Testament today, you can be confident that it’s God’s inspired Word to you, calling you into a deeper relationship with him.

For the Word that God speaks is alive and active; it cuts more keenly than any two-edged sword: it strikes through to the place where soul and spirit meet, to the innermost intimacies of a man’s being: it exposes the very thoughts and motives of a man’s heart (Hebrews 4:12, Phillips).

---

Endnotes

When Jesus was born, wise men from the East traveled to Israel to find and worship the newborn King of the Jews, following a bright star in the sky. They believed this brilliant star was a sign of the birth of a great king, who had been promised by ancient Hebrew prophets.

Author Ray Stedman reveals that the long-awaited hope for the Jewish Messiah is a resounding theme throughout the Old Testament (The Hebrew Scriptures also known as the Tanakh).

From the very beginning of the Old Testament, there is a sense of hope and expectation, like the sound of approaching footsteps: Someone is coming!… That hope increases…as prophet after prophet declares yet another tantalizing hint: Someone is coming!¹

Christians and Messianic Jews (Jewish followers of Jesus) are convinced that while on earth, Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled hundreds of these ancient messianic prophecies in detail.² However, most religious Jews are still waiting for their Messiah.

In his book, A Rabbi Looks at Jesus of Nazareth³, Jonathan Bernis attempts to unravel the mystery of the Messiah by taking a deeper look at Jesus (Yeshua) and his claims. As a Jew, Bernis thought Jesus was just a great moral teacher who started a new religion. After being challenged to look at Jesus in light of ancient Hebrew prophecies, he began his search.

Five profound questions intrigued Bernis:

1. Did Jesus truly fulfill the prophetic “fingerprint” of the Messiah?
2. Why did the Jewish leaders reject Jesus as their Messiah?
3. What was the Messiah’s Mysterious Identity?
4. Was Jesus the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53?
5. Did Jesus’ rise from the dead?

Did Jesus Fulfill the Prophetic “Fingerprint” of the Messiah?

When he read the New Testament, Bernis discovered that the original followers of Jesus were all Jews who saw him as the fulfillment of their scriptures. In fact, many of their writings in the gospels connect the ancient Hebrew prophecies to Jesus’ alleged fulfillment. So, Bernis read both the Old Testament messianic prophecies as well as the claims in the New Testament of how they were fulfilled by the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.

Bernis notes that the prophetic clues provide a “fingerprint” for the Messiah’s identity. He wondered if they would fit together like pieces of a puzzle to reveal Jesus as the Christ (Greek for Messiah). Or would they expose him as a fraud?

He also wanted to see if recently found mysteries from over 980 Dead Sea Scrolls would shed light on the Messiah’s identity. Hidden in caves for 1,900 years, these ancient scrolls were finally telling their story about the identity of the true Messiah. He wondered what clues they would reveal.

As he read the Scriptures, Bernis was shocked to see how ancient prophets had indeed provided a “fingerprint” from which the Messiah could be identified. A few examples are,

• He would be from the lineage of David⁴
• He would be born in Bethlehem⁵
• He would be rejected by his own people⁶
• He would be betrayed by a friend⁷
• He would be sold for 30 pieces of silver⁸
• He would be pierced in his hands and feet⁹
• He would be buried in a rich man’s tomb¹⁰
• He would be raised from the dead¹¹

Bernis then discovered that Jesus was from the line of David¹², was born in Bethlehem¹³, was rejected by the Jewish leaders¹⁴, was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver¹⁵, was nailed to a cross and then buried in a rich man’s tomb¹⁶. And, his followers proclaimed that he rose from the dead.¹⁷

Wondering if Jesus’ fulfillment might have been coincidental, Bernis read that the odds of Jesus fulfilling these eight prophecies would be one in 100 quadrillion. Professor of Mathematics Peter Stoner illustrates how improbable that would be:

First, blanket every inch of an area the size of Texas (268,000 square miles) with silver dollars two feet high.

Second, put a special mark on one dollar and bury it among the trillions of other silver dollars throughout the State of Texas.

Then blindfold someone and ask them to travel throughout Texas and pick up that marked dollar on one try.

It would have been more difficult for Jesus to have fulfilled eight prophecies than to pick up that one marked dollar. Yet, Jesus fulfilled far more— over forty-eight prophetic details written in roughly 300 Old Testament Scriptures.¹⁸ According to mathematicians, that’s statistically impossible.¹⁹ 

Why Did Jewish Leaders Reject Jesus? 

Since Jesus fulfilled so many of these prophecies, Bernis wondered why Israel’s religious leaders wouldn’t have been able to recognize him as the Messiah.

However, as he read the Gospel accounts, he realized that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies in ways that no one was expecting. Israel was looking for another Moses who would deliver them from the oppression of Rome. 

Yet, instead of conquering Rome, Jesus captured the hearts of people with his love and message of forgiveness. Instead of promoting himself, he brought glory to God by his words and deeds of compassion. Instead of wielding power, he exemplified humility and servitude. Instead of teaching legalistic rules about outward appearance, Jesus offered us a relationship with God by transforming hearts.

Jesus spoke of himself as a savior rather than a military conqueror, stating that he must suffer and die for our sins. He told his follower Zacchaeus, 

“I came to seek and save those who are lost.”²⁰

What Was Messiah’s Mysterious Identity?

Jesus also made claims that infuriated many of the Scribes and Pharisees such as claiming his eternal existence by telling them he had pre-existed the Jewish patriarch, Abraham who had lived two thousand years earlier.²¹

Several hundred years before Jesus was born, Isaiah wrote of the Messiah’s divine nature. He said, “For unto us a child is born,” whose identity would be “Mighty God,” “Everlasting Father,” “Prince of Peace.”²² Mysteriously, the prophet reveals that God would take on human form.

Although Jesus always pointed to his Father as God, he also called himself God’s only Son, claiming oneness with his Father.²³ And when Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father!”²⁴

Bernis was stunned to discover that the prophet Zechariah actually wrote of the day when the Jewish people would recognize Jesus as the Messiah they had rejected, a day when they will enter a time of repentance. In Zechariah 12:10 we read, “They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died.“²⁵

Imagine the scene! Zechariah prophesies that Israel will be nearly destroyed by its enemies. Then the Lord himself will descend in majestic power and glory, overthrowing Israel’s enemies. But when the rescued people of Israel see the wounds he had previously suffered—written hundreds of years before Jesus—they will suddenly weep bitterly. 

Why would these surviving Israelis be so distraught at such a time of victory? Could it be that their bitter anguish comes from the realization that their forefathers had rejected him two thousand years earlier and continued to reject him for almost 2000 years? Or could it be that their hearts had been unwilling to consider Jesus’ claims?

Was Jesus the Suffering Servant Depicted in Isaiah 53?

Just how strong is the case for Jesus being the long-promised Messiah?

The most comprehensive description of the Messiah is in Isaiah 53 where the prophet foretells the Messiah suffering and dying for our sins. Here are just a few portions of that messianic prophecy:

He took our suffering on him….the Lord has put on him the punishment for all the evil we have done….but he didn’t say a word. He was like a lamb being led to be killed….He was put to death….He had done nothing wrong.…He willingly gave his life….he carried away the sins of many…and asked forgiveness for those who sinned.²⁶

So, how do Jewish rabbis today deal with the obvious parallels between Isaiah 53 and their fulfillment by Jesus of Nazareth?

Unbelievably, most Jewish people are unaware of Isaiah’s 53^rd chapter because the synagogue readings of the weekly Haftarah purposely omit it, skipping from chapter 52 to 54.²⁷ Most rabbis today believe Isaiah 53 refers to the suffering servant as the nation of Israel, rather than the Messiah.²⁸ 

Bernis was shocked to learn Isaiah 53 was always viewed as messianic until a thousand years after Christ. The 2^nd century Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel viewed Isaiah’s prophecy as messianic. So too did The Babylonian Talmud, The Midrash Ruth Rabbah, the Zohar, and even the great Rabbi Maimonides, who wrote, “I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah; and, though he tarry, I will wait daily for his coming.”²⁹

That view was prevalent among Jewish sages until the 11^th century when Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi (known by the acronym Rashi) began teaching that the suffering servant was the nation of Israel, not the Messiah.³⁰

However, a careful reading of Isaiah 53 reveals that the prophecy of the suffering servant is speaking of a person, not the nation of Israel itself. 

Since the oldest copies of Isaiah were from the Masoretic Text, dated around AD 1000, skeptics suggested the prophecies might have been changed later by Christians to make it appear Jesus had fulfilled them.

However, in 1947, ancient Hebrew scrolls carbon dated around 200 years before Christ were discovered near the Dead Sea. Hidden for 1,900 years was a copy of Isaiah, virtually identical to the Book of Isaiah in our Bibles today. It’s clear that Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah’s 53^rd chapter occurred hundreds of years after the prophecy was written and couldn’t have been contrived.³¹

Isaiah clearly reveals the Messiah would give his life for our sins. And, when John the Baptist first saw Jesus, he prophetically said of him, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”³²

Is there Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection?

Bernis needed to know one more vital thing to be convinced that Jesus is the true Messiah. He asks, “Did Yeshua rise from the dead? For all of us, and most especially for Jews, the answer to this question makes all the difference.”³³

He read the Old Testament prophecy where David refers to the Messiah as “Your holy one who would not undergo decay for You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.”³⁴

After examining the compelling evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, he became convinced that it was an actual historical event. (See page 53, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?”) What other explanation could there be for Jesus’ followers to willingly risk their lives proclaiming the risen Jesus as the true Messiah?

Conclusion

After searching both the Old and New Testaments, Bernis finally became convinced that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 300 messianic prophecies written hundreds of years before his birth. He concluded that the odds for Jesus being the prophesied Messiah overwhelmingly pointed to him as the fulfillment.

Finally, Bernis became a Messianic Jew, accepting Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel, as well as his own personal Savior and Lord. He concludes,

Embracing Yeshua is the most Jewish thing I have ever done. In fact, it is the most important thing I have ever done. The same God who changed my life…still has the power to change lives today. His love is transforming the lives of Jew and Gentile alike, all over the world.

God created you with a divine destiny to fulfill, and the only way to come into that destiny is to say yes to God and surrender yourself completely to Him. ³⁵

---

Endnotes

According to eyewitnesses, a man named Jesus Christ demonstrated his power over death. They tell us that after he died on a cross and was buried, Jesus suddenly appeared to them alive on the third day. Then he was seen by other followers, including 500 people on a single occasion.

Soon word spread everywhere that Jesus had risen from the dead, impacting the entire Roman Empire, and our world today.

But could Jesus’ resurrection simply be a 2000-year-old legend? Or is it based upon verifiable historical evidence? If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then the foundation for the Christian Faith would forever be destroyed. Let’s examine the evidence.

Jesus Predicts His Own Death and Resurrection

Hundreds of years before Christ, the prophet Isaiah had written about a future Messiah who would suffer and die for our sins but later be restored to life (Isaiah 53).

Echoing the prophecy in Isaiah 53, Jesus claimed that he was the Messiah who would be betrayed, arrested, condemned, spit upon, scourged, and killed. But then three days later he would come back to life (See Mark 10:33).

Everything Jesus taught and claimed depended on his resurrection from the dead. If Jesus didn’t rise as he promised, his message of forgiveness and hope for eternal life would be meaningless. Jesus was putting his words to the ultimate test of truth.

Bible scholar Wilbur Smith explains, “When he said He would rise again from the dead, the third day after He was crucified, He said something that only a fool would dare say if He expected the devotion of any disciples – unless He was sure He was going to rise.”¹

So, what actually happened?

A Horrific Death and Then . . . ?

Exactly as Jesus predicted, eyewitnesses report he was betrayed by one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot. Then in a mock trial under the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, he was condemned, scourged, kicked, spat upon, brutally whipped, and finally crucified on a wooden cross.

Jesus suffered on the cross for approximately six hours. Then, at 3:00 in the afternoon he cried out, “It is finished” and died.² Suddenly the sky went dark and an earthquake shook the land.³  

Pilate wanted to verify that Jesus was dead before allowing his crucified body to be buried. So, a Roman guard thrust a spear into Jesus’ side. The mixture of blood and water that flowed out, according to eyewitnesses, was a clear indication that Jesus was dead. Once his death was certified, Jesus’ body was taken down from the cross, tightly wrapped in linen and buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. Roman guards then sealed the tomb with a large stone and were under strict orders from Pilate to watch the tomb 24 hours a day.

Jesus’ disciples were so utterly devastated by his death on the cross that they fled for their lives, fearing they too would be captured and killed. But then something happened . . .

According to a New York Times article,

Shortly after Jesus was executed, his followers were suddenly galvanized from a baffled and cowering group into people whose message about a living Jesus and a coming kingdom, preached at the risk of their lives, eventually changed an empire. Something happened … But exactly what?⁴

A Skeptic Examines the Evidence

English journalist Frank Morison believed Jesus’ resurrection was mythical and began research for a book proving his case. Morison wanted to know what actually happened that changed Jesus’ followers and started a movement that has made such a profound impact on our world.

He realized there were five possible explanations: 

1. Jesus didn’t really die on the cross.
2. Jesus’ body was stolen.
3. The disciples were hallucinating.
4. The account is legendary. Or,
5. It really happened.

Morison began examining the facts patiently and impartially to see where they would lead him.

1. Was Jesus Dead?

Morison first wanted verification that Jesus was really dead when placed in the tomb. He learned that Jesus’ death was considered factual for nearly 1800 years. Then about 200 years ago, a few skeptics postulated that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, but merely lost consciousness, and was revived by the cool, damp air of the tomb. This became known as the “swoon theory.”

Morison wondered if Jesus could have survived the cross. He researched both Jewish and Roman contemporary history and discovered the following facts supporting Jesus’ death:

• Jewish and Christian accounts affirm he died.
• Pilate verified he died.
• During the eyewitnesses’ lifetimes, no one disputes his death.
• Secular and contemporary historians, Lucian,⁵ Josephus,⁶ and Tacitus⁷ cite his death as factual.

Morison became convinced that Jesus was truly dead, a fact almost universally accepted as true by trusted scholars and historians.

Morison concludes, “That Jesus Christ died on the cross, in the full physical sense of the term…seems to me to be one of the certainties of history.”⁸

But, he wondered, maybe Jesus’ body was stolen?

2. Was Jesus’ Body Stolen?

Morison wanted to see if the disciples faked the resurrection story by stealing Jesus’ body, and then claiming he was alive. That might be plausible if the tomb was in an obscure area where no one would see them.

However, the tomb belonged to a well-known member of the Sanhedrin Council, Joseph of Arimathea. Since Joseph’s tomb was at a well-known location and easily identifiable, it would have been virtually impossible for Jesus’ body to have been stolen by his disciples.

Not only was the location well known, but the Romans had assigned guards to watch the tomb 24 hours a day. This was a highly trained guard unit comprised of four to 16 soldiers.

Former atheist and skeptic Josh McDowell spent more than seven hundred hours researching the evidence for the resurrection. McDowell notes, “The Roman Guard unit was committed to discipline and they feared failure in any way.”⁹ 

It would have been impossible for anyone to have slipped by the guards unnoticed and then move the stone. Yet the stone was rolled away, making it possible for eyewitnesses to enter the tomb. And when they did, the body of Jesus was missing.

If Jesus’ body was anywhere to be found, his enemies would have quickly exposed the resurrection as a fraud. Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association, summarizes the strength of this argument:

With an event so well publicized, don’t you think that it’s reasonable that one historian, one eyewitness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ’s body? … The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection.¹⁰

So, with no body of evidence, and with a known tomb clearly empty, Morison accepted that Jesus’ body had somehow disappeared from the tomb.

Perhaps the disciples were just hallucinating and only thought they saw Jesus? Morison began researching that possibility.

3. Were the Disciples Hallucinating?

Morison wondered if the disciples might have been so emotionally distraught that they hallucinated and imagined Jesus’ resurrection.

Psychologist Gary Collins, former president of the American Association of Christian Counselors, explains that,

Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature, only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren’t something which can be seen by a group of people.¹¹

Hallucination is not even a remote possibility, according to psychologist Thomas J. Thorburn.

It is absolutely inconceivable that … five hundred persons, of average soundness of mind … should experience all kinds of sensuous impressions – visual, auditory, tactual – and that all these … experiences should rest entirely upon … hallucination.¹²

Morison concluded that the hallucination theory was another dead end. He wondered, what else could explain away the resurrection?

4. Is the Resurrection Just a Legend?

Morison realized that some skeptics attribute the resurrection story to a legend that began with one or more persons lying or thinking they saw the resurrected Jesus. Over time, they speculated the legend would have grown and been embellished as it was passed on. But there are three major problems with that theory.

1. Legends simply don’t develop while multiple eyewitnesses are alive to refute them. One historian of ancient Rome and Greece, A. N. Sherwin-White, argued that the resurrection news spread too soon and too quickly for it to have been a legend.¹³ Even skeptical scholars admit that Christian hymns and creeds were recited in early churches within two to three years of Jesus’ crucifixion.¹⁴
2. Legends develop by oral tradition and are not supported with contemporary historical documents. Yet the Gospels were written within three decades of the resurrection.¹⁵
3. The legend theory doesn’t adequately explain either the empty tomb or the fervent conviction of the apostles that Jesus was alive.¹⁶

Morison’s original assumption that the resurrection account was mythical or legendary didn’t coincide with the facts. His book was on hold until he concluded what really happened after Jesus’ death on the cross.

So, what really happened?

5. Did the Resurrection Really Happen?

Having eliminated the main arguments against Jesus’ resurrection due to their inconsistency with the facts, Morison began asking himself, “did it really happen?” Instead of looking for evidence against Jesus’ resurrection, he wondered how strong the case was for its actual occurrence. Several facts stood out.

Women First

Each eyewitness account reports that Jesus suddenly appeared bodily to his followers, the women first. Morison wondered why conspirators would make women central to the plot. In the first century, women had virtually no rights, personhood, or status. Morison reasoned that conspirators would have portrayed men, not women, as the first to see Jesus alive. And yet we read that women touched him, spoke with him, and were the first to find the empty tomb.

Multiple Eyewitnesses

The disciples claim they saw Jesus on more than ten separate occasions. They said he showed them his hands and feet and told them to touch him. He reportedly ate with them and later, on one occasion, appeared alive to more than 500 followers.

In Caesarea, Peter told a crowd why he and the other disciples were so convinced Jesus was alive.

We apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Israel and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by crucifying him, but God raised him to life three days later … We were those who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.¹⁷

Morison realized that these early sightings of a risen Jesus by so many of his followers would have been virtually impossible to fake.

Then what else could have happened?

Consistent to the End

As Morison continued his investigation, he began to examine the motives of Jesus’ followers. He reasoned that something extraordinary must have happened, because the followers of Jesus ceased mourning, ceased hiding, and began fearlessly proclaiming that they had seen Jesus alive.

As if the eyewitness reports were not enough to challenge Morison’s skepticism, he was also baffled by the disciples’ behavior. These eleven former cowards were suddenly willing to suffer humiliation, torture, and death. All but one of Jesus’ disciples were slain as martyrs. He questioned, if they had taken the body, would they have sacrificed so much for a lie? Something happened that changed everything for these men and women.

It was this significant fact that persuaded Morison the resurrection must have really happened. He acknowledged,

Whoever comes to this problem has sooner or later to confront a fact that cannot be explained away … This fact is that … a profound conviction came to the little group of people—a change that attests to the fact that Jesus had risen from the grave.¹⁸

Professor J. N. D. Anderson and author of Evidence for the Resurrection concurs,

Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence – and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication … That simply wouldn’t make sense.¹⁹

Why Did It Win?

Finally, Morison was bewildered by the fact that “a tiny insignificant movement was able to prevail over the cunning grip of the Jewish establishment, as well as the might of Rome. He explains,

Within twenty years, the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish church… In less than fifty years it had begun to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire. When we have said everything that can be said… we stand confronted with the greatest mystery of all. Why did it win?²⁰

By all rights, if there were no resurrection, Christianity should have died out at the cross when the disciples fled for their lives. But the apostles went on to establish a growing Christian movement.

Whatever one believes about the validity of Jesus’ resurrection, clearly “something happened” after his death that has made a lasting impact on our world. When world historian H. G. Wells was asked who has left the greatest legacy on history, the non-Christian scholar replied, “By this test Jesus stands first.”²¹

What is that legacy? Let’s look at just some of Jesus’ impact:

• Time is marked by his birth, B.C.– before Christ; A.D. – in the year of our Lord.
• More books have been written about Jesus than about any other person.
• About 100 great universities were originally established to spread his teaching — including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Oxford.²²
• Jesus’ teaching that all people are created equal laid the bedrock for human rights and democracy in more than 100 countries.²³
• The high value Jesus placed on each person regardless of sex or race led his followers to promote the rights of women as well as abolish slavery.
• Humanitarian works such as the Red Cross, World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse, Mercy Ships and the Salvation Army were founded by his followers.

A Surprise Conclusion

In a reversal of his skepticism, Morison changed the title of his book to, Who Moved the Stone, which documents the evidence that persuaded him the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a true historical event.

Another scholar who wrote about evidence for Jesus’ resurrection was Dr. Simon Greenleaf, founder of the Harvard Law School. Greenleaf wrote many of the rules of evidence still used in our legal system today. Applying those rules to the events surrounding Jesus’ death, Greenleaf concluded that any honest jury would render a verdict that Jesus’ resurrection really happened. As with Morison, it was the sudden change in the disciples’ behavior that persuaded him. He writes,

It would have been impossible for the disciples to persist with their conviction that Jesus had risen if they hadn’t actually seen the risen Christ.²⁴

Jesus’ resurrection convinced his disciples that he was the Messiah who had died for our sins. He was “the only way to God,” and “the resurrection and the life.” They now knew Jesus alone had the power over life and death, and they gave their lives proclaiming him as the risen Lord.

Although he was originally a skeptic, Oxford scholar C. S. Lewis explains how Jesus’ resurrection was unique among all events in human history.

Something perfectly new in the history of the Universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door which had always been locked had for the first time been forced open.²⁵

The apostle Paul, who had also initially been a skeptic of Jesus’ resurrection, explains its impact on our lives.

For Christ has completely abolished death, and has now, through the Gospel, opened to us men the shining possibilities of the life that is eternal (2 Timothy 1:10, Phillips).

In the next chapter we will examine Jesus’ relevance to us today, and how we can have an eternal relationship with him.

---

Endnotes