Apicontent

At the core of Christianity is the belief that God came to earth in the Person of his Son, Jesus Christ. 

At least two of those who saw and wrote about Jesus called him the Creator of the universe. The apostle John said, “All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made (John 1:3). The apostle Paul said, “All things were made by Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16).

As J. I. Packer explains, “The gospel tells us that our Creator has become our Redeemer.”¹ Because this conviction is the central theme of Christianity, denying the deity of Jesus Christ places a dagger into the heart of the Christian message.

But did Jesus really claim to be God, or is that a teaching that evolved over time? Since Jesus spoke Aramaic (a dialect of Hebrew), we need to understand what his claims meant to his Aramaic-speaking audience. How did they react to his claims?

Since his Jewish audience was immersed in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), we need to also understand Jesus’ claims about himself in light of their teaching about God.

Did Jesus Teach God is One?

The Bible reveals God as the sole Creator of the universe. He alone is infinite, eternal, all powerful, all-knowing, personal, righteous, loving, just, and holy. Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, God says, “I alone am God. There is no other God; there never has been and never will be. I am the Lord, and there is no other Savior” (Isaiah 43:10-11, NLT).

When God spoke to Moses at the burning bush 1500 years before Christ, he told Moses his name is Yahweh, (I AM) (English translation: Jehovah or LORD). Since that time, the foundational Scripture (Shema) for Judaism has been: “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4).

It is in this world of monotheistic belief in one God that Jesus Christ began making claims that astounded all who heard them.

The question we must ask is: did Jesus equate himself with Yahweh, the one true God who spoke with Moses at the burning bush?

To find out, let’s look further at the names Jesus used for himself, and what those names meant to his Jewish audience. Who did they think Jesus was claiming to be?

Did Jesus use God’s Name for Himself?

As Jesus’ popularity swelled with the masses, the Jewish leaders (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes) began to see Jesus as a threat. Suddenly they began looking for ways to trap him.

One day Jesus was debating some Pharisees at the Temple, when suddenly he said, “I am the light of the world.” It is almost bizarre to picture this scene, where a traveling carpenter from the lowlands of Galilee tells these PhD’s in religion that he is “the light of the world?”

Believing Yahweh alone is the light of the world, they replied indignantly:

“You are making false claims about yourself” (John 8:13 NLT).

Jesus then told them that, 2,000 years earlier, Abraham had foreseen him.

Their response was incredulous: “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?” (John 8:57 NLT).

Then Jesus shocked them even more with words no ordinary man would dare to say: “The truth is, before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58 NLT).

To the shock of the religious leaders who heard him, Jesus claimed to have always existed with God the Father, meaning he never had a beginning.

Furthermore, he had used the I AM title (Greek translation: ego eimi),² the sacred name for God! These religious experts lived and breathed the Old Testament Scriptures declaring Yahweh alone as God.

It’s easy to understand the rage of those who realized Jesus was speaking of himself as God. Since the penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning, the Jewish leaders angrily picked up stones to kill Jesus. At that point Jesus could have said, “Wait! You misunderstood me—I’m not claiming to be Yahweh.” But Jesus didn’t alter his statement, even at the risk of being killed.

C. S. Lewis explains their anger:

He says… “I am begotten of the One God, before Abraham was, I am,” and remember what the words “I am” were in Hebrew. They were the name of God, which must not be spoken by any human being, the name which it was death to utter.³

Some may argue that this was an isolated instance, and Jesus never meant to use God’s holy name for himself. But Jesus also used “I AM” for himself on several other occasions. Imagine the religious leaders’ reactions upon hearing Jesus’ other radical claims:

• “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12)
• “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6)
• “I am the only way to the Father” (John 14:6)
• “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25)
• “I am the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11)
• “I am the door” (John 10:9)
• “I am the living bread” (John 6:51)
• “I am the true vine” (John 15:1)
• “I am the Alpha and Omega” Revelation1:7-8)

As Lewis observes, if these claims were not from God himself, Jesus would have been deemed a lunatic. But what made Jesus credible to those who heard him were the numerous miracles he performed, and eventually his resurrection from the dead.

Jesus called himself “Son of man,” and “Son of God” on several occasions. Let’s examine the meaning of those names in context of how his Jewish audience understood them.

What Did Jesus Mean by Son of Man?

Over eighty times in the New Testament Jesus refers to himself as “Son of man.” So, what did Jesus mean by Son of man, and what did it mean to his Jewish audience?

Packer writes that the name, Son of man referred to Jesus’ role as Savior-King, fulfilling the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53.⁴ In other words, God’s Messiah would be a man. Yet, the prophet Isaiah also said that the child who would be born would be the “Mighty God,” “Everlasting Father,” Prince of Peace,” indicating he would be both man and God (Isaiah 9:6).

By calling himself the Son of man, Jesus was also referring to himself as the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy.  Daniel prophesies,

I looked, and there before me was one like a Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him (Daniel 7:13-14).

In Luke 21:27, Jesus said that when he returns to earth, he will fulfill Daniel’s prophecy of the Son of man.  “Then everyone will see the Son of man arrive on the clouds with power and great glory.”

So, why is the Son of man being worshiped, when God alone is to be worshiped—unless he is God? Jesus’ claim to be the “I AM,” and his claim to be the Son of Man point to his claim to deity.

What Did Jesus Mean by Son of God?

Jesus also claimed to be the “Son of God.” This title doesn’t mean Jesus is God’s biological Son. Nor does it imply inferiority any more than a human son is inferior in essence to his father. A son shares his father’s DNA, and although he is different, they are both equal as men.

Scholars say that the term “Son of God” in the original languages refers to likeness, or “of the same order.” Jesus meant by it that he has divine essence, or in 21st century terms, the “DNA of God”. Professor Peter Kreeft explains,

What did Jesus mean when he called himself the “Son of God?” The son of a man is a man. (Both “son” and “man,” in the traditional language, mean males and females equally.) The son of an ape is an ape. The son of a dog is a dog. The son of a shark is a shark. And so, the Son of God is God. “Son of God” is a divine title.⁵

Jesus continually referred to his Father as God. And in John 17 Jesus refers to his Father as “the one true God.” However, in the same passage, Jesus speaks about the glory he and his Father shared before the world began. How could Jesus have existed eternally with the Father unless he and his Father shared the same divine attribute of eternal existence?

Packer explains what Jesus meant by using the term, “Son of God.”

When, therefore, the Bible proclaims Jesus as the Son of God, the statement is meant as an assertion of his distinct personal deity.⁶

Jesus’ use of the names, “I AM,” “Son of Man,” and “Son of God,” all point to the fact that he was claiming equality with God. Certainly, that’s the way the Jewish leaders understood him.

But if Jesus was truly claiming to be God, did he make it known in other ways? To find out, we need to examine Jesus’ actions during his three-year ministry. Did he speak and act with the authority of God? Or did he simply speak for God like Moses and other prophets?

How Could Jesus Forgive Sin?

In the Jewish religion, forgiveness of sin was reserved for God alone. Forgiveness is always personal; someone else cannot do the forgiving for the person offended, especially if the Person offended is God. But on several occasions Jesus acted as if he was God by forgiving sinners. His jaw-dropping claim to forgive sins infuriated the Jewish religious leaders who witnessed Jesus’ claim to forgive the sins of a man with palsy.

Mark records the instance. “The scribes who heard him said blasphemy! Who but God can forgive sins!” (Mark 2:7).

That’s just the point; no man has the right or authority to speak for God when it comes to forgiveness of sins. Lewis imagines the stunned reactions of all those who heard Jesus. Lewis wrote:

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.

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.⁷

What Did Jesus Mean by Being “One with God?”

Those who listened to Jesus, observed his moral perfection, and saw him perform miracles, wondered if he was the long-promised Messiah. Finally, in order to find out, his opponents surrounded him at the Temple, asking: “How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered, “The proof is what I do in the name of my Father.” He compared his followers with sheep saying, “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.” He then revealed to them that “the Father is greater than all,” and that his deeds were “at the Father’s direction.” Jesus’ humility must have been disarming. But then Jesus dropped a bombshell, telling them, “The Father and I are one.” (John 10:25-30).

Some argue that Jesus only meant he was in agreement with God. But if Jesus had meant that he was merely in agreement with God, why did the Jews respond by picking up stones to kill him? Their understanding of Jesus’ claim to be one with his Father becomes clear in the follow-up conversation.

Jesus then asked them, “At my Father’s direction I have done many things to help the people. For which one of these good deeds are you killing me?”

They replied, “Not for any good work; but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, have made yourself God” (John 10:33). Once again, Jesus could have denied that he was God—but the fact that he didn’t is evidence that his statement about being one with the Father was a claim to deity.

Was Jesus the image of God?

As Jesus was preparing his disciples for his upcoming death on the cross and departure, Thomas wanted to know where he was going and the way there. Jesus answered Thomas:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had known who I am, then you would have known who my Father is. From now on you know him and have seen him (John 14:6).

They were confused. Philip then speaks up, asking Jesus to “show us the Father.” Jesus answers Philip with these shocking words: “Philip, don’t you even yet know who I am, even after all the time I have been with you? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father!” (John 14:9). In effect Jesus was saying, “Philip if you want to see the Father, look at me!”

In John 17 Jesus reveals that this oneness with his Father had existed in eternity past, “before the world began.” According to Jesus, there has never been a time when he did not share God’s very glory and essence.

It wasn’t just Jesus’ enemies who were astounded at his jaw-dropping words. John Piper writes,

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.”⁸

Why Did Jesus Accept Worship?

Nothing is more fundamental to the Hebrew Scriptures than the fact that God alone is to be worshiped. In fact, the first of the sacred Ten Commandments is,

 “Do not worship any other gods besides me” (Exodus 20:3, NLT).

The most terrible sin a Jew could commit was to either worship another creature as God, or to receive worship. So, if Jesus is not God, it would be blasphemy for him to receive worship. That is why the words of his disciple, Thomas, are so significant.

After Jesus’ resurrection, the other disciples told Thomas they had seen the Lord alive (see John 20:24-29). The skeptical Thomas scoffed, telling them he would only believe if he could put his fingers on the nail wounds of Jesus’ hands and into his pierced side. 

Eight days later the disciples were all together in a locked room when the resurrected Jesus suddenly appeared in front of them. Jesus looked at Thomas and told him to “Put your finger here and see my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side.” Thomas needed no more proof. He instantly believed, exclaiming to Jesus: “My Lord and my God!”

Thomas could have simply called him, “Lord.” However, he further called Jesus “God,” and worshiped him. If Jesus is not God, he certainly should have reprimanded Thomas right there. But instead of reprimanding Thomas for worshiping him as God, Jesus commended him, saying: “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who haven’t seen me and believe anyway.”

Jesus accepted worship on nine recorded occasions. In context of Jewish belief, Jesus’ acceptance of worship speaks volumes about his claim to deity. But it was after Jesus ascended to heaven that his disciples fully understood. Before Jesus left earth, he told them to “baptize new disciples in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), putting both the Holy Spirit and himself on the same level as the Father.

Was Jesus the Alpha and Omega?

While John the apostle was in exile on the Island of Patmos, Jesus revealed to him in a vision the events that will occur in the last days. In the vision, John describes the following incredible scene:

“Look! He comes with the clouds of heaven. And everyone will see him—even those who pierced him…. I am the Alpha and the Omega—the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord God. “I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come, the Almighty One.” (Revelation 1:7-8, NLT).

So, who is this Person who is called “the Alpha and Omega,” “the Lord God,” “the Almighty One”? We are told that he was “pierced.” Jesus is the one who was pierced on the cross.

Then John sees Jesus on a throne, judging people from every nation. “And I saw a great white throne, and I saw the one who was sitting on it. … And the one sitting on the throne said … “I am the Alpha and the Omega—the Beginning and the End” (Revelation 20:11; 21:6).

It is the Lord Jesus Christ who reigns from the throne. Jesus had already told his disciples that he would be the final judge of men. Then, in the following verse, Jesus removes all doubt about whether he is God. As the Alpha and Omega, Jesus says, “All who are victorious will inherit all these blessings, and I will be their God, and they will be my children” (Revelation 21:7).

So, did Jesus claim to be God?

• He did so by calling himself, I AM.
• He did so by calling himself the Son of Man.
• He did so by calling himself the Son of God.
• He did so by forgiving sin.
• He did so by accepting worship.
• He did so by rising from the dead.
• He did so by claiming to be the Alpha and Omega.
• He did so by saying, “I will be their God.”

C. S. Lewis writes of Jesus’ uniqueness as both God and man. “What is beyond all space and time, what is uncreated, eternal, came into nature, descended into His own universe, and rose again.”⁹

And, his purpose was to become our Savior, making it possible for us to live eternally with God. As Packer writes, “Our Creator has become our Redeemer.”

Jesus’ claim to be God the Son needs to be understood in the context of his oneness with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 23:14; Matthew 28:19). The Bible teaches that all three persons of the Godhead are one in essence, attributes and eternal existence. The early church fathers called this unique oneness of God in three distinct persons the “Trinity.”

So, what did the apostles and early church fathers believe about Jesus’ deity? To find out, read the article, “Did the Apostles Believe Jesus is God?”

---

Endnotes

Watch the video based on this article

Legal scholar, Dr. Simon Greenleaf (1783–1853), decided to put Jesus’ resurrection on trial by examining the evidence. Greenleaf helped to put the Harvard Law School on the map. He also wrote the three-volume legal masterpiece, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which has been called “the greatest single authority in the entire literature of legal procedure.”¹ The U.S. judicial system today still relies on rules of evidence established by Greenleaf.

As a legal scholar, Greenleaf wondered if Jesus’ resurrection would meet his stringent tests for evidence.  He wondered whether or not the evidence for it would hold up in a court of law. Focusing his brilliant legal mind on the facts of history, Greenleaf began applying his rules of evidence to the case of Jesus’ resurrection.

Contrary to what skeptics might have expected, the more Greenleaf investigated the record of history, the more evidence he discovered supporting the claim that Jesus had indeed risen from the tomb.

So, what was that evidence? Greenleaf observed several dramatic changes that took place shortly after Jesus died, the most baffling being the behavior of the disciples. It wasn’t just one or two disciples who insisted Jesus had risen; it was all of them. Applying his own rules of evidence to the facts, Greenleaf arrived at his verdict.

After evaluating all the evidence, Greenleaf accepted Jesus’ resurrection as the best explanation for the events that took place immediately after his crucifixion. To this brilliant legal scholar, 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.²

To this legal expert, the case for Jesus’ resurrection was so compelling that he had no doubt it would hold up in a court of law. In his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Greenleaf documents the evidence supporting his conclusion. He challenges those who seek the truth about the resurrection to fairly examine the evidence.

Greenleaf believed that any unbiased person who honestly examines the evidence, as in a court of law, will conclude what he did—that Jesus Christ has truly risen.³

Click here to discover more of the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.

---

Endnotes

1. Knott, The Dictionary of American Biography, back cover of The Testimony of the Evangelists.
2. Simon Greenleaf, 1874. The Testimony of the Evangelists. New York, NY: 28.
3. Ibid. 46.

Watch the video based on this article

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

Jesus’ Bones Discovered?

Has the tomb of Jesus Christ been discovered in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiot?

In a 2007 Discovery Channel TV documentary, producer James Cameron (The Titanic) and Jewish director, Simcha Jacobovici, attempted to prove that Jesus’ burial cave and bones were discovered near Jerusalem. Cameron and Jacobovici further cited evidence that Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdalene.

If Jesus Christ’s tomb has really been discovered, then all of Christian history has been based upon a false claim—that Jesus physically rose from the dead, was seen alive by over 500 followers at once, spent 40 days teaching his disciples, and then ascended into heaven. But before we get caught up in another Da Vinci type conspiracy, let’s look at the facts behind Cameron’s claims.

The Facts Claimed:

1. In 1980 ten limestone bone boxes (ossuaries) dated to the first century, were discovered in an excavated tomb in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiot.
2. Six inscriptions were discovered with names similar to or the same as some of Jesus Christ’s family and disciples:
   • Jesua, son of Joseph,
   • Mary
   • Mariamene e Mara
   • Mathew
   • Jofa
   • Judah, son of Jesua.
3. Cameron attempts to prove that Mariamene e Mara is Mary of Magdalene, and that she and Jesus had a son named “Judah son of Jesua”.
4. DNA analysis identifies that tissues from the ossuaries of Jesua and Mariamene e Mara were not related, raising the possibility they may have been married and had a child.

Checking The Evidence

So, what are the odds that this is Jesus’ tomb? According to Cameron and Jacobovici, the statistical improbability of these names belonging to another family than that of Jesus Christ is 600 to 1. However, scholars challenge many of the assumptions in their interpretation of the facts. Let’s look:

1. It is true that these ossuaries were discovered in an ancient tomb. But thousands of similar tombs have been discovered in Jerusalem. And ossuaries were often used for the bones of more than one individual. In fact, according to Dr. Craig Evans, PhD, author of Jesus and the Ossuaries, the tomb carried the bones of about 35 different individuals, and about half were from these ossuaries. Evans also notes that there was considerable contamination of the site.

2. Are Cameron and Jacobovici correct about the names they assert are on the ossuaries? Not according to many experts. Some were written in Aramaic, others in Hebrew, and another in Greek. This indicates they were not buried in a similar time period. It is not even clear that “Jesus” is named on any of the ossuaries. Dr. Evans’s personal examination of the ossuary was inconclusive. Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, is also unsure that the name “Jesus” on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it’s more likely the name “Hanun.” Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.

Additionally, it should be noted that the names of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were extremely common in the first century. About 25% of the women in Jesus’ day were named Mary. Joseph was also a common name. And about one in ten had the name, “Jesua”. Dr. Evans indicates that approximately 100 tombs have been discovered in Jerusalem with the name “Jesus” and 200 with the name “Joseph.” The name “Mary” is on far more.

“Each name with the exception of Mariamene seemed common to their period, and it was only in 1996 that the BBC made a film suggesting that, given the combination, it might be that family. The idea was eventually discounted, however, because, as New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham asserted ‘the names with Biblical resonance are so common that even when you run the probabilities on the group, the odds of it being the famous Jesus’ family are “very low.”

3. The statistical support for the entire “Jesus tomb” theory rises or falls on the question of Mary Magdalene. So did the name Mariamene e Mara mean Mary Magdalene, as Cameron and Jacobovici attempt to prove? Not according to most experts. Their interpretation is simply not supported by evidence. Bauckham notes, “The first use of ‘Mariamene’ for Magdalene dates to a scholar who was born in 185, suggesting that Magdalene wouldn’t have been called that at her death.”

So, even though Cameron and Jacobovici employed a statistician, Andrey Feuerverger, to support their case, his numbers were based upon assumptions disputed by the majority of scholars. In fact, Feuerverger himself admits that the assumptions were given to him by Jacobovici, and that the single biggest factor in his 600 to 1 odds was the identity of Mariamene e Mara being Mary of Magdalene. Feuerverger defends his role in an interview with Scientific American, “I did permit the number one in 600 to be used in the film—I’m prepared to stand behind that but on the understanding that these numbers were calculated based on assumptions that I was asked to use.”

Yet Dr. Randy Ingermanson’s statistical analysis of the probability indicates that there is less than one chance in 10,000 that this was the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

4. But what about the DNA tests? Doesn’t that prove Jesus was in the tomb? Let’s look closer at what the DNA test measured. It took residue (there were no bones to examine) from the ossuaries Jacobovici identified as belonging to both Jesua and Mariamene, and used mitochondrial DNA testing to see if they were related. The results proved to be negative, indicating to him that the two individuals were not related maternally. He thus assumes the two were married. But Bauckham isn’t impressed. He writes, “If ‘Jesus’ and ‘Mariamene’ weren’t related matrilineally, why jump to the conclusion that they were husband and wife, rather than being related through their fathers? ”

It is the fact that these particular names have been discovered in the same tomb that has fueled speculation that it really could be Jesus’ tomb. But many scholars believe Cameron and Jacobovici have skewed the evidence to build a case that just isn’t there. Additionally, there are many contradictory questions that need to be answered before one jumps to a conclusion that overturns centuries of historical scholarship.

If It Really Was Jesus’ Tomb–

1. Why don’t Cameron and Jacobovici cite scholars who disagree with their conclusions? For example, in 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. In fact, the vast majority of archaeologists dispute their claim.
2. Since the custom was to bury the dead in their home town, why would Mary and Joseph’s family tomb be in Jerusalem instead of Nazareth? Middle East researcher and biblical anthropologist Joe Zias states, “It has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, he was known as Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus of Jerusalem, and if the family was wealthy enough to afford a tomb, which they probably weren’t, it would have been in Nazareth, not here in Jerusalem.” Zias dismisses Cameron’s claims as “dishonest”.
3. Why didn’t Jesus’ enemies, the Jewish leaders, expose the tomb? They searched unsuccessfully throughout Jerusalem for any evidence of Jesus’ body, claiming that Jesus’ disciples had stolen it. They hated Jesus enough to want him crucified, and would have been elated to discover his tomb, if it indeed existed.
4. Why didn’t the Romans expose the inscriptions as belonging to Jesus? Roman soldiers controlled the entire city of Jerusalem, and they knew his body was missing from a tomb they had been guarding.
5. Why didn’t contemporary Roman or Jewish historians write about the tomb? Not one single contemporary historian mentions the tomb in question.
6. Why was the James Ossuary, which has been labeled a forgery, cited by Cameron and Jacobovici as one of the reasons for the tomb’s validity? CBS News correspondent Mark Philips reports “the archaeological establishment has lined up to label this claim as bunk. This is the second time The Discovery Channel has been involved in a disputed claim about an ancient tomb,” reports Phillips. The man at the center of the previous case is now facing trial for forgery.” Ben Witherington, an early Christianity expert who was deeply involved with the James Ossuary, says “there are physical reasons to believe it couldn’t have originated in the Talpiot plot.”
7. Why are Jacobovici and Cameron waiting until just prior to Easter to launch both the book and documentary? Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television. “They just want to get money for it,” Kloner said.
8. Why would Jesus’ disciples endure torture for claiming he was resurrected, if they knew it was a hoax? New Testament scholar Darrell Bock asks, “why would Jesus’ family or followers bury his bones in a family plot and then turn around and preach that he had been physically raised from the dead?”

Asking The Experts

Stephen Pfann, who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film’s hypothesis holds little weight. “I don’t think that Christians are going to buy into this,” Pfann said. “But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear.” “How possible is it?” Pfann said. “On a scale of one through 10 – 10 being completely possible – it’s probably a one, maybe a one and a half.”

Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israeli government agency responsible for archaeology, said the Antiquities Authority agreed to send two ossuaries to New York, but they did not contain human remains. “We agreed to send the ossuaries, but it doesn’t mean that we agree with” the filmmakers, she said.

William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years. “The fact that it’s been ignored tells you something,” said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. “It would be amusing if it didn’t mislead so many people.”

In fact, Cameron and Jacobovici are not the only ones to assert Jesus’ tomb has been discovered. Let’s look at others who have cited “evidence” in books and on websites:

Scholar’s Verdict

So has Jesus’ tomb really been discovered? To find out, let’s hear from leading experts.

Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, expressed irritation that the claims were made at a news conference rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific article. By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers “have set it up as if it’s a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this,” she said.

Magness noted that at the time of Jesus, wealthy families buried their dead in tombs cut by hand from solid rock, putting the bones in niches in the walls and then, later, transferring them to ossuaries.

She said Jesus came from a poor family that, like most Jews of the time, probably buried their dead in ordinary graves. “If Jesus’ family had been wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb, it would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem,” she said.

Magness also said the names on the Talpiyot ossuaries indicate that the tomb belonged to a family from Judea, the area around Jerusalem, where people were known by their first name and father’s name. As Galileans, Jesus and his family members would have used their first name and home town, she said.

“This whole case [for the tomb of Jesus] is flawed from beginning to end.”

And that conclusion seems to be the consensus of the vast number of archaeologists. As an unbiased scholar who has been excavating ancient sites in Israel for 50 years,William G. Dever shares that view. He is widely considered the dean of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars. Dever writes,

“I’m not a Christian. I’m not a believer. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I just think it’s a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated.”

The Resurrection Of Jesus: Myth Or Reality

But aside from the tomb, the unanswered question for many is: what evidence exists in the 21st century that proves or disproves Jesus’ resurrection? The recent media attention about “The Jesus Family Tomb” calls for an honest investigation into the evidence. Some skeptics thought there wasn’t any evidence and began writing books to disprove Jesus’ resurrection. What surprising evidence did they discover?

Click here to take a look at the evidence for the most fantastic claim ever made—the resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Did Jesus Say What Happens After We Die?

If Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he must know what is on the other side. What did Jesus say about the meaning of life and our future? Are there many ways to God or did Jesus claim to be the only way? Read the startling answers in “Why Jesus?”

Click here to read “Why Jesus?” and discover what Jesus said about life after death.

Can Jesus Bring Meaning To Life?

“Why Jesus?” looks at the question of whether or not Jesus is relevant today. Can Jesus answer the big questions of life: “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” And, “Where am I going?” Dead cathedrals and crucifixes have led some to believe that he can’t, and that Jesus has left us to cope with a world out of control. But Jesus made claims about life and our purpose here on earth that need to be examined before we write him off as uncaring or impotent. This article examines the mystery of why Jesus came to earth.

Click here to discover how Jesus can bring meaning to life.

Did Jesus and Mary Magdalene marry and have two children? 

According to a widely publicized new book, The Lost Gospel, he did! Authors Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson begin their book with this sensational claim:

What the Vatican feared—and what Dan Brown only suspected—has come true!¹

How could that be? Such a sensational claim totally contradicts the four gospel accounts of Jesus in the New Testament, which portray Jesus ascending to heaven forty days after his resurrection.

So is this just another non-factual conspiracy about Jesus like Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code, or is there really evidence to support it? This latest attack on the truth of the Christian message has become a major news story—just in time for Christmas!

The British tabloid, The Daily Mail, reports,

If true, this would make it the greatest revelation into the life of Jesus in nearly 2,000 years.²

In The Lost Gospel, Professor Barrie Wilson and Jewish writer Simcha Jacobovici attack the very core of the Christian belief. They attempt to prove in their book that a 6th century manuscript in the British Museum is actually a “lost gospel” written in code.

Their theory is based on the claims that this ‘lost’ gospel and the ‘encrypted’ story of Jesus’ marriage was the work of a group of persecuted Christians. It apparently disappeared from public view around 325 AD.³

The authors claim in their book that the decoding of the manuscript reveals startling hidden facts about Jesus. The two most radical claims made in The Lost Gospel are:

• The New Testament gospels are wrong about the end of Jesus’ life.
• Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children.

What makes these claims so radical is that they undermine the truth of the entire Christian message. If the New Testament is wrong about what happened to Jesus after his death, how can we trust its message of forgiveness of sins and eternal life through Jesus’ death for us?

The credibility of the New Testament hinges on whether or not its reported eyewitness accounts about Jesus are true as the apostle Peter tells us,

When we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were not telling just clever stories that someone invented. But we saw the greatness of Jesus with our own eyes.⁴

The apostle John also claims here to have been an eyewitness to Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.

We are writing to you about something which has always existed yet which we ourselves actually saw and heard: something which we had an opportunity to observe closely and even to hold in our hands…we saw it, we are eye-witnesses of it, and are now writing to you about it. It was the very life of all ages, the life that has always existed with the Father, which actually became visible in person to us mortal men.⁵

But Jacobovici and Wilson say that the New Testament was changed, and the true story of what happened to Jesus was written in what they call, the “lost gospel.” Before addressing the facts about The Lost Gospel, it should be noted that Jacobovici has made other claims about Jesus that proved to be false.

• In 2002, he produced a documentary on the James Ossuary, arguing it provided evidence that Jesus had a family. Later, the Discovery Channel called it “one of the 10 top scientific hoaxes of all time.”⁶
• In 2007, he and film director James Cameron produced a Discovery Channeldocumentary on The Jesus Family Tomb, which they purported was the true burial place for Jesus. That claim also became headline news, drawing huge TV ratings. Archaeologists quickly denounced those claims as unfounded (see “Jesus’ Family Tomb: Fact or Fiction?“). William Dever, a non-Christian archaeologist from the University of Arizona, stated,

It’s a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich. And it will upset millions of innocent people because they don’t know enough to separate fact from fiction.⁷

Furthermore, a letter signed by 17 academics condemned Jacobovici’s work as“controversial,” citing its lack of objectivity.⁸

Although scholars have debunked Jacobovici’s prior claims about Jesus, The Lost Gospel needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Will the evidence show it to be simply another “publicity stunt,” or does it truly revise the history of Jesus Christ?

Let’s look at how Jacobovici and Wilson draw such radical conclusions about this 6^th century manuscript. They claim to have spent years “decoding” the text, a Syriac language version of a Greek story, entitled Joseph and Aseneth. The key to their “decoding” is the replacing of the name of Joseph with the name “Jesus,” and the name of Aseneth with “Mary Magdalene.”

Jacobovici and Wilson then launch readers on a trail of intrigue and hypothetical assumptions, ending up with their sensational conclusion:

We now have a decoded manuscript–at least as authoritative as the Canonical Gospels–that provides us with suppressed historical facts about one of the most important individuals who ever walked the face of our planet.⁹

Do Jacobovici’s words evoke memories of Dan Brown’s best-seller, The Da Vinci Code? Although Brown’s best-selling book is fictional, its woven tapestry of fact and fiction led millions into believing that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a secret marriage. The real facts, however, tell a far different story (see “Was There a Da Vinci Conspiracy?“).

What will the facts tell us about The Lost Gospel? How do we know if this 6^th century manuscript is the true history of Jesus Christ, or just another hoax like the documentaries Jacobovici produced on the James Ossuary and The Jesus Family Tomb? To find out, we need to examine these new claims in light of historical facts about Jesus Christ and other manuscript evidence.

Radical Claims of The Lost Gospel

The book, The Lost Gospel, is based upon one solitary manuscript purchased by the British Museum in 1847 from an Egyptian monastery. The document has been there for 160 years, and has been studied by a few scholars. But no one has considered it to be historically significant–until Jacobovici and Wilson began speculating it is really a coded history of Jesus Christ.

Let’s look at the key facts about this document, which is a portion of the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias Rhetor:

• The 29-chapter text dates back to 570 AD.
• It is written on vellum in the Syriac language (related to Aramaic).
• It is written by an unknown author.
• The “gospel” is entitled, Joseph and Aseneth.

Wilson and Jacobovici interpret the love story of Joseph and Aseneth as an allegory for Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Central to their claim is that Joseph was actually a code name for Jesus — and that Aseneth was actually a code name for Mary Magdalene.¹⁰

Dr. Robert R. Cargill, Assistant Professor of Classics and Religious Studies at the University of Iowa notes,

By that same allegorical logic, you could swap out the names of Samson and Delilah and claim that Mary Magdalene cut Jesus’ hair. Or swap out Adam and Eve and conclude that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were the primordial couple. Or read David and Bathsheba allegorically and end up with Jesus having a son named Solomon, who is guarded by the Priory of Sion, and…well, you get the picture.¹¹

In other words, the entire premise for believing this 6^th century manuscript is another gospel of Jesus Christ is based on the authors’ assumption that the names Joseph and Aseneth refer to Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Although world scholars don’t seem to be taking The Lost Gospel seriously, several Jesus-conspiracists, including some mass media outlets certainly are.

Assuming that Jacobovici and Wilson are correct about their interpretation of the names Joseph and Aseneth, let’s see if any actual facts substantiate their claims about Jesus.

Claim #1: “This ‘lost gospel’ is the true history of Jesus.”

According to Jacobovici and Wilson, the allegory of Joseph and Aseneth “is at least as authoritative” as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If so, we would expect it to be supported by other ancient manuscripts dated close to the time of Christ. So how does its credibility compare with the New Testament manuscripts about Jesus?¹²

• Although the authors speculate that the “lost gospel” is a copy of an earlier Christian manuscript, there simply aren’t any earlier manuscripts of the text. Cargill notes, “only hopeful speculation pushes the Syriac version of this text back to earlier centuries.”¹³
• Yet over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts exist (5,600 in the original Greek), some as early as the second century (see “Are the Gospels Reliable?“).
• Additionally, over 36,000 letters and documents outside of the New Testament confirm Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection.
• The earliest copies of New Testament manuscripts date from as early as 125 A. D, whereas the Syriac manuscript is dated 570 A. D., around 450 years later. Dating is an extremely important factor in determining a manuscript’s authenticity.
• Christian leaders who knew the apostles write of them as the authors of the New Testament. No such claim is possible for the “lost gospel.”

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is so strong that Professor of law John Warwick Montgomery stated,

No documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.¹⁴

Claim #2: “Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.”

The claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married has always been a great way to sell books. Sex combined with conspiracy is a proven money-maker. But is really true? (To read more about Jesus and Mary Magdalene see “Was Jesus Married?“).

Let’s examine the facts.

• Not one of over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts even hint of a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
• Not one of the 36,000 Christian letters or documents outside of the New Testament supports the contention that they were married.
• Not one early secular historian mentions them as being married.

The assertion by Jacobovici and Wilson that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married simply isn’t supported by the facts of history. Oxford Professor of Church History, Diarmaid MacCulloch, calls their interpretation of the manuscript, “implausible.”¹⁵

Professor Robert Cargill summarizes the opinion of most scholars regarding the claims set forth in The Lost Gospel.

I’m an agnostic. I have no dog in the fight of whether Jesus was married or not. He could be married and have 4 kids like me and I wouldn’t care. The problem is not a theological one, it is one of scholarship, methodology, and the (mis)use of evidence. 

Scholars won’t reject Mr. Jacobovici’s claims because they want to defend Christianity, scholars will reject Mr. Jacobovici’s speculations because he engages in circular reasoning, lacks evidence, breaks any number of rules of textual criticism, and engages in…“speculation wrapped in hearsay couched in conspiracy masquerading as science ensconced in sensationalism slathered with misinformation” – all of which is designed to sell books and get viewers to watch the accompanying documentary in the weeks leading up to Christmas.

There is a reason that the scholars of the world are not paying any attention to this latest so-called “discovery”: there’s nothing there.¹⁶

Regardless of what scholars like MacCulloch and Cargill conclude about The Lost Gospeland its claims, the debate over who Jesus Christ is will continue. Was he just a man–or someone far greater?

The New Testament writers, who claim to have been eyewitnesses to Jesus, tell us what they saw and believed. Having been one of Jesus’ closest followers, John wanted early Christian believers to know what he and the others disciples had witnessed.

We are eye-witnesses of it, and are now writing to you about it. the very life of all ages, the life that has always existed with the Father, which actually became visible in person to us mortal men.¹⁷

Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

The most outlandish claim in the New Testament is that Jesus came back to life after his death on the cross and burial in a known tomb. Jesus’ disciples truly believed he had returned to life three days later. They were so convinced that their message eventually changed history.

In a New York Times article, Peter Steinfels cites the startling events that occurred three days after Jesus’ death:

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?¹⁸

Several skeptics attempted to disprove the story of Jesus’ resurrection. See their stunning conclusions at “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?“.

---

Endnotes

Does a “secret Bible” discovered in a Turkish smuggling sting contain the real truth about the identity of Jesus Christ? According to a Turkish official, a 1,500-year-old ancient leather-bound text, secretly hidden for 12 years, could be an authentic version of the Gospel of Barnabas.

According to this “secret Bible,” Barnabas was one of Jesus’ original twelve apostles. However, in the book of Acts, Luke introduces Barnabas as an apostle who came after the original twelve, and was a fellow missionary with the apostle Paul. In their travels, Paul and Barnabas boldly declared Jesus’ death, resurrection and lordship in the first century.¹

A Different Jesus?

Although the document entitled the Gospel of Barnabas contains much of the same information as the four New Testament Gospels, it differs greatly with regard to the identity of Jesus Christ. A few of the significant differences are that the Gospel of Barnabas:

• Denies Jesus’ deity
• Rejects the Trinity
• Denies Jesus’ crucifixion

Let’s look at what the Gospel of Barnabas says about Jesus’ deity.

“I confess before heaven, and call to witness everything that dwells upon the earth, that I am a stranger to all that men have said of me, to wit, that I am more than man. For I am a man, born of a woman, subject to the judgment of God; that live here like as other men, subject to the common miseries.”²

Clearly the Gospel of Barnabas depicts Jesus denying his deity, whereas the apostle John clearly writes of Jesus as God the Son, Creator of the world:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made….The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory…”³

Who Is The Real Jesus?

In this passage, John claims he actually saw Jesus. Later he tells us he touched him, traveled with him and heard him teach for three years. He speaks about Jesus as a friend. But the writer of the Gospel of Barnabas makes no such claim.

Both writings also differ regarding Jesus’ crucifixion. The Gospel of Barnabas presents Judas Iscariot as the one who died on the cross instead of Jesus, whereas in the New Testament, Judas betrays Jesus.

This teaching that Jesus didn’t die on the cross is extremely significant since the entire Christian message is built upon the death of Jesus as the Savior for our sins and his resurrection as our hope of eternal life.⁴

Both messages can’t be true since the New Testament says Jesus clearly died on the cross and the Gospel of Barnabas states otherwise. So how can we know which Jesus is real?

The best way to know the truth about whether or not Jesus died on the cross is to check the historical record. Even secular historians are convinced that Jesus did truly die on the cross (See “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?“).

Another important way to verify whether the Gospel of Barnabas or the New Testament is portraying events truthfully is to compare the reliability of the two different accounts.

Although scholars use several tests to determine a manuscript’s reliability, the most important is whether or not it is an eyewitness account. In a criminal trial, eyewitness testimony is always considered far superior to the testimony of someone who didn’t witness the crime.

So can we know whether the Gospel of John or the Gospel of Barnabas is an eyewitness account?

One reason scholars cite for John’s authorship is the fact early church historians attribute the writing to him. But in order to have been written by him, it must have been written during John’s lifetime. If evidence points to it being written after the early second century when John was dead, it couldn’t have been written by him.

Likewise, if the Gospel of Barnabas was written after Barnabas’ lifetime, it too couldn’t have been an eyewitness account. However, if either gospel can be traced back to the first century, the likelihood of its reliability greatly increases. So what does the evidence tell us? Let’s begin with the Gospel of Barnabas.

Is The Gospel Of Barnabas An Eyewitness Account?

In order for the Gospel of Barnabas to have been an eyewitness account, it would need to have been written during Jesus’ lifetime in the first century. Since we don’t have the original writings for either the Gospel of Barnabas or the New Testament, we need to verify their dating by both historical evidence and the evidence from ancient manuscript copies.

There are only two ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of Barnabas other than the one discovered in Turkey: an Italian manuscript which dates to the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and a Spanish copy from around the same period which has been lost.⁵ The text in the newly discovered Turkish manuscript is in Aramaic. None of these copies are in Greek, the language of Barnabas and the apostles.

Two early Christian lists of apocryphal works, one from the fifth century and one from the seventh century, mention “A Gospel of Barnabas.” If these refer to the same Gospel, it would place its writing 400-500 years after Christ or earlier. But that still is several hundred years after the first century.

The Acts of Barnabas is a fifth-century apocryphal work directed to the church of Cyprus that is sometimes mistakenly confused with the Gospel of Barnabas.

The only book from the first century attributed to the apostle Barnabas is the Epistle of Barnabas, which is an apocryphal writing not in the New Testament. This first-century letter speaks of Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Lord. Scholars believe it was written by Barnabas between 70 and 90 A.D.

But if Barnabas writes of Jesus as Lord in the first century Epistle of Barnabas, why would he then write of Jesus as merely a prophet in the Gospel of Barnabas? Why would he write two contradictory accounts of Jesus?

The Epistle of Barnabas is accepted by scholars as an authentic first-century account of Jesus that agrees with the New Testament. However, the Gospel of Barnabas is a completely different book with a completely different timeline.

The following evidence suggests that the Gospel of Barnabas wasn’t recognized as a first-century gospel by early Christians or non-Christians:⁶

• No non-Christian writer refers to it until the fifteenth or sixteenth century.
• No Christian writer refers to it from the first to the fifteenth century.
• The earliest reference to it was made in the fifth century, but it is in doubt.
• It cites historical facts that didn’t exist until hundreds of years later.⁷

A Medieval Forgery?

Christian writers such as Irenaeus wrote extensively about anti-Christian documents such as the Gnostic gospels, classifying them as heretical. Yet, not one of Ireneaus’ letters or documents mentions the Gospel of Barnabas. There is simply no mention of it from any early writer.

Perhaps most indicative of its late date is that the Gospel of Barnabas describes medieval life in Western Europe, as well as a 100-year Jubilee, which wasn’t declared until the fourteenth century. How would Barnabas or any first-century writer know such historical detail hundreds of years before it was declared?

Dr. Norman Geisler concludes, “The evidence that this was not a first-century gospel, written by a disciple of Christ, is overwhelming.”⁸

Not only does the evidence argue against it being written by Barnabas in the first century, but some scholars believe the Gospel is a forgery. One expert writes, “In my opinion scholarly research has proved absolutely that this ‘gospel’ is a fake.”⁹

Christian and secular scholars are not alone in their verdict that someone tampered with the text, fraudulently making it appear to be the work of Paul’s companion, Barnabas.

That leads us to the question of the New Testament’s reliability. Can we discover the real Jesus through its pages?

Is The New Testament an Eyewitness Account?

So were the New Testament books written early enough to have been eyewitness accounts? If so, they must have been written during the first century. Let’s examine the evidence, and compare the dating of the New Testament with what we have discovered for the Gospel of Barnabas.

History provides clues from three primary sources regarding the date of origin for the 27 books of the New Testament:

• Testimony of Church Enemies
• Early Christian Accounts
• Early Manuscript Copies

The first clue is a partial list of New Testament books made by enemies of the Church called heretics. As outlaws of the Church, heretics wouldn’t have been concerned about agreeing with Church leaders about the authorship or dating of the New Testament. Yet, two early heretics, Marcion and Valentinus, did attribute the writings of several New Testament books and passages to the apostles.

In 140 A.D., the heretic Marcion listed 11 of the 27 New Testament books as being the authentic writings of the apostles.

About the same time, another heretic, Valentinus, alludes to a wide variety of New Testament themes and passages.

This tells us that by the middle of the second century many New Testament books had been in circulation for some time. Even heretic “outlaws” accepted these New Testament accounts as eyewitness reports from the apostles.

Early Christian Accounts

Our second clue is the vast number of early Christian letters, sermons, commentaries, and creeds referring to Jesus as the resurrected Lord. They appeared as early as five years after his crucifixion. Although many writings were burned under the edict of the Roman emperor Diocletian, thousands survived.

The number of these documents is impressive; more than 36,000 complete or partial writings, some from the first century, have been discovered.¹⁰ Their words could replicate virtually the entire New Testament except for a few verses.¹¹

So how does that compare with the Gospel of Barnabas? We have already noted that there are only two citations of it prior to the fifteenth century, and it is doubtful those references were to the “Gospel of Barnabas” in question.¹²

The earliest writings outside the New Testament were from men who knew and followed Paul, Peter, John and the other apostles. These early church leaders were not eyewitnesses to Jesus, but learned about him from those who had actually seen and heard him. Significantly, their writings confirm many New Testament details about Jesus, including his crucifixion and resurrection.

The most important of these early writings outside the New Testament are from Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna.

In 96 A.D., Clement of Rome wrote a lengthy letter to the church at Corinth in which he cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians. Some believe he is the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Since Clement’s letter was written in 96 A.D., these three books must have been written earlier.

In about 110 A.D., Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote six letters to churches and one to a fellow bishop, Polycarp, in which he refers to six of Paul’s letters.

Polycarp of Smyrna, also a disciple of the apostle John, makes reference to all 27 New Testament books in his letter to the Philippian church (110-135 A.D.). Therefore, the gospels must have been in existence during the first century while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive.

We have seen that no such early reference to the Gospel of Barnabas exists.

Early Manuscript Copies

Our third clue is the abundance of early New Testament manuscripts which have helped scholars determine the approximate time they were originally composed. Archaeologists have discovered over 5,600 manuscript copies of the New Testament in the original Greek language, some complete books, and some mere fragments. Counting other languages, there are over 24,000.¹³

Quite clearly, 5,600 to three is an enormous numerical manuscript advantage for the New Testament. Furthermore, archaeologists have discovered New Testament fragments that date to within a generation or two after Christ, compared with hundreds of years later for the Gospel of Barnabas.

In the early twentieth century, a fragment of the Gospel of John was discovered in Egypt (specifically, P52: John 18:31-33) dated 117-138 A.D. Renowned biblical scholar Bruce Metzger noted the significance of this remarkable discovery:

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 … “¹⁴

The discovery of this fragment means that within one generation of John writing his Gospel, a copy of it had migrated all the way from Asia Minor to Egypt.

There are many other early manuscripts dated from the late second century to the fourth and fifth centuries. Entire books of the New Testament dated from 200-1500 A.D. are preserved in various museums (Bodmer Papyri).¹⁵

An even earlier papyrus fragment from the Dead Seas Scrolls (7Q5) has been identified by a paleographer as a piece of the Gospel of Mark dated around 50 A.D., significantly earlier than the P52 fragment of John.

New Testament professor, Daniel B. Wallace, who has studied the Dead Sea Scroll fragment, agrees it is from the first century.¹⁶ Although there is debate over this fragment, the collective evidence from other manuscripts strongly supports a New Testament written in the first century.

Scholars’ Consensus

Prior to these findings, German critical scholars from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had argued that the New Testament was written by unknown authors in the second century. But this new evidence reveals that its books were all written in the first century. Historian Paul Johnson writes:

The late nineteenth-early twentieth-century notion that the New Testament was a collection of late and highly imaginative records can no longer be seriously held. No one now doubts that St. Paul’s epistles, the earliest Christian records, are authentic or dates them later than the 50s A.D.¹⁷

Archaeologist William Albright concluded that the entire New Testament was written at “very probably sometime between about 50 A.D. and 75 A.D.”¹⁸

Cambridge scholar John A. T. Robinson argues for even earlier dates. He believes that most of the New Testament was written between 40 and 65 A.D.¹⁹ Robinson bases his conclusion primarily on the fact that all the New Testament books are silent about the destruction of Jerusalem. Such a key event would certainly have been mentioned by them had it occurred prior to their writings.

Further evidence for early dating is that the deaths of Peter and Paul in 66 A.D. aren’t mentioned in any book. There is an incredible amount of detail written about their lives in the New Testament; why not their deaths? That convinces many scholars that their deaths hadn’t yet occurred at the time of the writings.

The consensus of most scholars today is that the letters of Paul begin in the early 50s, and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) were written in the early to mid-60s.²⁰ Estimates on other books range from A.D. 40-95, but the consensus is that all New Testament writings were composed in the first century.

These conclusions mean that the New Testament accounts about Jesus were written anywhere from seven to 30 years after his death, when thousands of eyewitnesses would have been alive to falsify the reports if they were wrong. Yet no such challenge to these eyewitness accounts exists.

Evidence for the reliability of the New Testament exceeds that of all other ancient history. John A. T. Robinson writes, “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.”²¹

In fact, the New Testament has far more manuscripts dated far earlier than the Gospel of Barnabas as the chart below reveals.

Compare The New Testament and the Gospel Of Barnabas

RELIABILITY TESTS	NEW TESTAMENT	GOSPEL OF BARNABAS
Date of Original	A.D. 40-95	A.D. 400-1500
Earliest Verified Copies	A.D. 117-138	A.D. 400-1500
Gap from Original	22-98 years	Undetermined
Years after Christ	7-30	370-1,470
Number of Manuscripts in Original Language	5,600+	None
Number of Manuscripts in All Languages	24,000+	3
Citations in other Historical Documents	36,000+	2

Conclusion

Whereas the “secret Bible” called the Gospel of Barnabas was written 400-1500 years after Christ, most scholars believe the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written in the first century, within one generation of his life.

As one reads the New Testament, it becomes apparent that the writers made every attempt to honestly record the life, words and events surrounding Jesus. Luke, the writer of both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, puts it this way,

“Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught”²²

The early writing of the New Testament strongly suggests that we can know what Jesus taught and what he was really like from the words of those who knew him, the eyewitnesses. One eyewitness, the apostle Peter, wrote:

“For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes”.²³

Peter and the other eyewitnesses boldly proclaimed “Jesus as Lord” at the risk of losing their lives. Perhaps the legacy of their unswerving commitment is the most compelling evidence of all that the New Testament, not the Gospel of Barnabas, presents the real Jesus.

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?

The eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ actually spoke and acted like they believed he physically rose from the dead after his crucifixion. If they were wrong then Christianity has been founded upon a lie. But if they were right, such a miracle would substantiate all Jesus said about God, himself, and us.

But must we take the resurrection of Jesus Christ by faith alone, or is there solid historical evidence? Several skeptics began investigations into the historical record to prove the resurrection account false. What did they discover?

Click here to take a look at the evidence for the most fantastic claim ever made—the resurrection of Jesus Christ!

---

Endnotes

There is solid historical and textual evidence to support the New Testament’s accounts of Jesus and the apostles. But many wonder why other so-called gospels aren’t included. Two of the most discussed writings that people wonder about are the Gnostic Gospels and the Gospel of Barnabas. We’ll look at the Gnostic Gospels first.

Are There Secret Writings About Jesus?

In 1945 a discovery was made in Upper Egypt, near the town of Nag Hammadi. Fifty-two copies of ancient writings, called the Gnostic gospels were found in 13 leather-bound papyrus codices (handwritten books). They were written in Coptic and belonged to a library in a monastery.

A few Gnostic scholars have gone so far as to assert that these recently discovered writings are the authentic history of Jesus instead of the New Testament.

But does their faith in these documents square with the historical evidence? Let’s take a deeper look to see if we can separate truth from fiction.

Secret “Knowers”

The Gnostic gospels are attributed to a group known as the Gnostics. Their name comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” These people thought they had secret, special knowledge hidden from ordinary people.

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… 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.¹

Early Critics

A mild strain of Gnostic philosophy was already growing in the first 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, of whom they were eyewitnesses.

Check out, for example, what the apostle John wrote near the end of the first 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, NIV).

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.” But, 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.”²

Christian theologian Origen wrote this in the early third 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.³

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, and so on. But could they have even been written by their purported authors? Let’s take a look.

The Gnostic gospels are dated about 110 to 300 years after Christ, and 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.”⁴

New Testament scholar Norman Geisler writes,

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.⁵

Mystery Versus History

The Gnostic gospels are not historical ac­counts of Jesus’ life but instead are largely esoteric sayings, shrouded in mystery, leaving out historical details such as names, places, and events. This is in strik­ing contrast to the New Testament Gospels, which contain innumerable historical facts about Jesus’ life, ministry, and words.

Consider the following two statements, the first from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (c. AD 110-150), and the second from the New Testament’s Gospel of Luke (AD 55-70)

• Gospel of Thomas: “These are the hidden sayings that the living Jesus spoke, and Judas Thomas the Twin recorded.”⁶
• Gospel of Luke: “Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught” (Luke 1:1-4, NLT).

Hidden sayings in the Gnostic gospels compared with factual accounts in the New Testament. Noted professor 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.⁷

Such contrast between the New Testament and the Gnostic writings is devastating to those pushing conspiracy theories.

In summary, the Gnostic gospels simply don’t meet the high standards required by scholars for inclusion in the New Testament.  New Testament historian F. F. Bruce wrote,

There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.⁸

The Gospel of Barnabas: Secret Bible?

A Turkish official discovered a 1,500-year-old ancient leather-bound text, secretly hidden for 12 years, that could be an authentic version of the Gospel of Barnabas.

According to this “secret Bible,” Barnabas was one of Jesus’ original twelve apostles. However, in the book of Acts, Luke introduces Barnabas as an apostle who came after the original twelve and was a fellow missionary with the apostle Paul. In their travels, Paul and Barnabas boldly declared Jesus’ death, resurrection and lordship in the first century.⁹

A Different Jesus?

Although the document entitled the Gospel of Barnabas contains much of the same information as the four New Testament Gospels, it differs greatly about the identity of Jesus Christ. A few of the significant differences are that the Gospel of Barnabas:

• Denies Jesus’ deity
• Rejects the Trinity
• Denies Jesus’ crucifixion

Let’s look at what the Gospel of Barnabas says about Jesus’ deity.

Gospel of Barnabas:

I confess before heaven, and call to witness everything that dwells upon the earth, that I am a stranger to all that men have said of me, to wit, that I am more than man. For I am a man, born of a woman, subject to the judgment of God; that live here like as other men, subject to the common miseries.¹⁰

Clearly the Gospel of Barnabas depicts Jesus denying his deity, whereas the apostle John clearly writes of Jesus as God the Son, Creator of the world.

Gospel of John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made…. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory…¹¹

In this passage, John claims he actually saw Jesus. Later he tells us he touched him, traveled with him and heard him teach for three years. He speaks about Jesus as a close companion. But the writer of the Gospel of Barnabas makes no such claim.

Both writings also differ regarding Jesus’ crucifixion. The Gospel of Barnabas presents Judas Iscariot as the one who died on the cross instead of Jesus, whereas in the New Testament, Judas betrays Jesus.

Both messages can’t be true since the New Testament says Jesus clearly died on the cross and the Gospel of Barnabas states otherwise. So how can we know which Jesus is real?

The best way to know the truth about whether or not Jesus died on the cross is to check the historical record. Even secular historians are convinced that Jesus did truly die on the cross.

Another important way to verify whether the Gospel of Barnabas or the New Testament is portraying events truthfully is to compare the reliability of the two different accounts.

Although scholars use several tests to determine a manuscript’s reliability, the most important is whether it is an eyewitness account. In a criminal trial, eyewitness testimony is always considered far superior to the testimony of someone who didn’t witness the crime. If either gospel can be traced back to the first century, the likelihood of its reliability greatly increases. So, what does the evidence tell us? Let’s begin with the Gospel of Barnabas.

Is The Gospel of Barnabas an Eyewitness Account?

In order for the Gospel of Barnabas to have been an eyewitness account, it would need to have been written during Jesus’ lifetime in the first century. Since we don’t have the original writings for either the Gospel of Barnabas or the New Testament, we need to verify their dating by both historical evidence and the evidence from ancient manuscript copies.

There are only two ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of Barnabas other than the one discovered in Turkey: an Italian manuscript which dates to the 15^th or 16^th century, and a Spanish copy from around the same period which has been lost.¹² The text in the newly discovered Turkish manuscript is in Aramaic. None of these copies are in Greek, the language of Barnabas and the apostles.

Two early Christian lists of apocryphal works, one from the 5th century and one from the 7th century, mention “A Gospel of Barnabas.” If these refer to the same Gospel, it would place its writing 400-500 years after Christ or earlier. But that still is several hundred years after the 1^st century.

The Acts of Barnabas is a 5^th century apocryphal work directed to the church of Cyprus that is sometimes mistakenly confused with the Gospel of Barnabas.

The only book from the 1^st century attributed to the apostle Barnabas is the Epistle of Barnabas, which is an apocryphal writing not in the New Testament. This 1^st century letter speaks of Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Lord. Scholars believe it was written by Barnabas between AD 70 and 90.

But if Barnabas writes of Jesus as Lord in the 1^st century Epistle of Barnabas, why would he then write of Jesus as merely a prophet in the Gospel of Barnabas? Why would he write two contradictory accounts of Jesus?

The Epistle of Barnabas is accepted by scholars as an authentic 1^st century account of Jesus that agrees with the New Testament. However, the Gospel of Barnabas is a completely different book with a completely different timeline.

The following evidence suggests that the Gospel of Barnabas wasn’t recognized as a 1^st century gospel by early Christians or non-Christians:¹³

• No non-Christian writer refers to it until the 15^th or 16^th century.
• No Christian writer refers to it from the 1^st to the 15^th century.
• The earliest reference to it was made in the 5^th century, but it is in doubt.
• It cites historical facts that didn’t exist until hundreds of years later.¹⁴

Medieval Forgery?

Christian writers such as Irenaeus wrote extensively about anti-Christian documents such as the Gnostic gospels, classifying them as heretical. Yet not one of Irenaeus’ letters or documents mentions the Gospel of Barnabas. There is simply no mention of it from any early writer.

Perhaps most indicative of its late date is that the Gospel of Barnabas describes medieval life in Western Europe, as well as a 100-year Jubilee, which wasn’t declared until the 14^th century. How would Barnabas or any 1^st century writer know such historical detail hundreds of years before it was declared?

Dr. Norman Geisler concludes, “The evidence that this was not a 1^st century gospel, written by a disciple of Christ, is overwhelming.”¹⁵

Not only does the evidence argue against it being written by Barnabas in the 1^st century, but some scholars believe the Gospel is a forgery. One expert writes, “In my opinion scholarly research has proved absolutely that this ‘gospel’ is a fake.”¹⁶

Is The New Testament an Eyewitness Account?

History provides clues from three primary sources regarding the date of origin for the 27 books of the New Testament:

• Testimony of Church Enemies
• Early Christian Accounts
• Early Manuscript Copies

The first clue is a partial list of New Testament books made by enemies of the Church called heretics. As outlaws of the Church, heretics wouldn’t have been concerned about agreeing with Church leaders about the authorship or dating of the New Testament. Yet, two early heretics, Marcion and Valentinus, did attribute the writings of several New Testament books and passages to the apostles.

In AD 140, the heretic Marcion listed 11 of the 27 New Testament books as being the authentic writings of the apostles.

At about the same time, another heretic, Valentinus, alludes to a wide variety of New Testament themes and passages.

What this tells us is that by the middle of the 2^nd century many New Testament books had been in circulation for some time. Even heretic “outlaws” accepted these New Testament accounts as the eyewitness reports from the apostles.

Early Christian Accounts

Our second clue is the vast number of early Christian letters, sermons, commentaries, and creeds referring to Jesus as the resurrected Lord. They appeared as early as five years after his crucifixion.

The number of these documents is impressive; more than 36,000 complete or partial writings, some from the 1^st century, have been discovered.¹⁷ Their words could replicate virtually the entire New Testament except for a few verses.¹⁸

So how does that compare with the Gospel of Barnabas? We have already noted that there are only two citations of it prior to the 15^th century, and it is doubtful those references were to the “Gospel of Barnabas” in question.¹⁹

The earliest writings outside the New Testament were from men who knew and followed Paul, Peter, John and the other apostles. These early church leaders were not eyewitnesses to Jesus but learned about him from those who had actually seen and heard him.

The most important of these early writings outside the New Testament are from Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna.

In AD 96, Clement of Rome wrote a lengthy letter to the church at Corinth in which he cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians. Some believe he is the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Since Clement’s letter was written in AD 96, these three books must have been written earlier.

In about AD 110, Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote six letters to churches and one to a fellow bishop, Polycarp, in which he refers to six of Paul’s letters. Polycarp of Smyrna, also a disciple of the apostle John, refers to all 27 New Testament books in his letter to the Philippian church (AD 110-135).

Therefore, the Gospels must have been in existence in the 1^st century when eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive. We have seen that no such early reference to the Gospel of Barnabas exists.

Early Manuscript Copies

Our third clue is the abundance of early New Testament manuscripts which have helped scholars determine the approximate time they were originally composed.

Archaeologists have discovered over 5,600 manuscript copies of the New Testament in the original Greek language, some complete books, and some mere fragments. Counting other languages, there are over 24,000.²⁰ However, only three copies of the Gospel of Barnabas have been discovered.

Furthermore, archaeologists have discovered New Testament fragments that date to within a generation or two after Christ, compared with hundreds of years later for the Gospel of Barnabas.

Scholars’ Consensus

Prior to these findings, German critical scholars from the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries had argued that the New Testament was written by unknown authors in the 2^nd century. But this new evidence reveals that its books were all written in the 1^st century. Historian Paul Johnson writes:

The late nineteenth-early twentieth-century notion that the New Testament was a collection of late and highly imaginative records can no longer be seriously held. No one now doubts that St. Paul’s epistles, the earliest Christian records, are authentic or dates them later than the A.D. 50s.²¹

Archaeologist William Albright states the entire New Testament was written at “very probably sometime between about 50 A.D. and 75 A.D.”²²

The following chart illustrates the significant difference between the writing of New Testament and the Gospel of Barnabas.

RELIABILITY TESTS	NEW TESTAMENT	GOSPEL OF BARNABAS
Date of Original	AD 40-95	AD 400-1500
Earliest Verified Copies	AD 117-138	AD 400-1500
Gap from Original	22-98 years	Undetermined
Years after Christ	7-30	370-1,470
Number of Manuscripts in Original Language	5,600+	None
Number of Manuscripts in All Languages	24,000+	3
Citations in other Historical Documents	36,000+	2

Conclusion

Whereas the “secret Bible” called the Gospel of Barnabas was written 400-1500 years after Christ, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written in the 1^st century, within one generation of his life.

Neither the Gnostic Gospels nor the Gospel of Barnabas meet the stringent standards early church fathers used to determine which books were the authentic eyewitness reports of the apostles. They were excluded for their late dating, fraudulent authorship and inconsistency with the eyewitness accounts of the apostles.

As one reads the New Testament, it becomes apparent that the writers made every attempt to honestly record the life, words and events surrounding Jesus. Luke, the writer of both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, puts it this way,

Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.²³

---

Endnotes

Jesus’ Hometown Discovered?

On December 21st, 2009, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced an archaeological discovery that may cause red faces for those who have doubted the New Testament’s historical accuracy. For the first time in history, archaeologists cite evidence of the 1st century town of Nazareth, the reputed hometown of Jesus.

Moreover, this discovery has the backing of scientists; Archaeologist Stephen Pfann, president of the University of The Holy Land, states: “It’s the only witness that we have from that area that shows us what the walls and floors were like inside Nazareth in the first century.”¹

Although Nazareth exists today as a thriving Arab city of 65,000 in northern Israel, some scholars have believed it didn’t exist during Jesus’ lifetime. For example, the Encyclopedia Biblica in 1899 stated, “It is very doubtful whether the beautiful mountain village of Nazareth was really the dwelling-place of Jesus.”²

In 2006, American Atheist Press published a book by Rene Salm entitled, The Myth of Nazareth. The author summarized his argument before this recent discovery. He writes, “What must matter to all Christians, however, is the inescapable fact that the evangelists invented this basic element in the story of cosmic redemption. The proof is now at hand that ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ a long-standing icon of Western civilization, is bogus.”³

In the face of this new discovery, Salm still defends the conclusions in his book. However, 1st century clay shards discovered in the Nazareth location seem to undermine his theory that Jesus’ hometown was mythical.

Archaeologists have also discovered other relics in recent times that confirm the existence of New Testament characters such as Pilate and Caiaphas (See “Was Jesus a real person?“).

So what’s the big deal about Nazareth, you might ask? According to a recent article by Frank Zindler on American Atheists‘website, the question of whether or not the town existed during the first century is a huge deal.

In reviewing The Myth of Nazareth, Zindler explains the reason why to his largely atheistic audience. Zindler makes his point clear, writing:

“If it could be shown conclusively that ‘Nazareth’ did not exist at the time that Jesus and his family are supposed to have lived there… You get my intended point.” He further cites, “archaeological excavations of Jesus’ home town make it absolutely certain—or at least as certain as any scientific argument can be—that the place now called Nazareth was not inhabited from around 730 BCE until sometime after 70 CE. This nasty fact is more than a mere inconvenience for those who seek historical facts in the Gospels.”⁴

Salm also argues its importance by writing, “If the tradition invented his hometown, then who can place faith in other aspects of the Jesus story, such as his virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion, or resurrection? Were these also invented? What, in other words, is left in the gospels of which the average Christian can be sure? What is left of his or her faith?”

Salm concludes his article in American Atheists’ article with these provocative words: Celebrate, freethinkers… Christianity as we know it may be finally coming to an end!”⁵

In other words, if Nazareth didn’t exist in the 1st century, as the New Testament gospels state, then how do we know whether anything in the gospels is historically accurate? (See “Are the Gospels Reliable?“)

But this coin has two sides to it. If indeed archaeologists have discovered 1st century Nazareth, what does that say about the reliability of the gospel accounts of Jesus? Christians see the discovery as an affirmation of their beliefs.

All of this points to an even bigger question: Who was the real Jesus of Nazareth? Certainly there are many opinions. Some say that he was simply a great moral teacher. Others believe he was a man who was made a legend by his followers. Historians tell us that he has changed the world more than any other person.

Christians believe that God actually visited us in the form of a man. A man unlike any other who has ever lived. But what did Jesus claim for himself, and what does the evidence tell us? To find out, see: “Is Jesus God?”

---

Endnotes

Zeitgeist claims that Christianity copied the death and resurrection of Jesus from the ancient deities Horus, Osiris, Attis, Adonis and Mithras. But are these mythological accounts really similar to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Furthermore, are they before or after Jesus’ death and resurrection?

Around 22 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote the following account to believers in the city of Corinth.

For I passed on to you Corinthians first of all the message I had myself received—that Christ died for our sins, as the scriptures said he would; that he was buried and rose again on the third day, again as the scriptures foretold. He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, and subsequently he was seen simultaneously by over five hundred Christians, of whom the majority are still alive, though some have since died.¹

Paul is writing here that more than five hundred eyewitnesses had seen Jesus alive at one time. And he says that most were still alive at that time. However, Zeitgeist says Jesus’ death and resurrection was copied from earlier pagan religions.

Although some pagan religions have accounts of dying and rising gods, they are quite different than the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The question we must ask is: do these accounts predate Christianity? Let’s take a closer look.

Dr. Norman Geisler answers the question.

The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament [resurrection] on mythology, not the reverse.²

Leading scholars of ancient religions tell us that “the ancient Egyptian cult of Osiris is the onlyaccount of a god who survived death that predates Christianity.” Yet Geisler notes the vast distinction between Osiris’ and Jesus’ resurrection.

The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris. In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld…This is far different than Jesus’ resurrection account.³

But what about Mithras, the Roman god who supposedly was the son of god who was born of a virgin, died for sins and rose again? Author Yousuf Saleem Chishti writes,

The Christian doctrine of atonement was greatly coloured by the influence of the mystery religions, especially Mithraism, which had its own son of God and virgin Mother, and crucifixion and resurrection after expiating for the sins of mankind and finally his ascension to the 7th heaven.⁴

Zeitgeist cites this as solid evidence that Christianity is truly a “copycat religion.”

However, no early account of Mithra speaks of his death or resurrection. Only after Christ did these elements appear. Professor Ronald Nash notes,

Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.⁵

Many scholars believe Mithraism, as well as some other ancient religions, actually copied elements of Christianity. Regarding Mithraism, Nash explains,

Mithraism flowered after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism. The timing is all wrong to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.⁶

The same is true for Attis, Adonis, Horus, Osiris and other deities. Noted scholar A. T. Fear reveals that the Greek god Attis didn’t resemble Jesus at all originally. Any similarities between Jesus and Attis that came after Christ “seem to have been provoked by a need to respond to the challenge of Christianity.”⁷

Professor T. N. D. Mettinger of Lund University, a non-Christian, says that almost all scholars agree; there were no dying and rising gods before Christ.

The consensus among modern scholars — nearly universal — is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century.⁸

Consider the Source

So how can Zeitgeist and the New Atheists argue that Christianity is a “copycat religion”?

Very easily: They begin with the conclusion they want to prove, and then cherry-pick sources who support their point of view. Zeitgeist leans heavily on the skeptical works of Acharya S. and a 19th century Egyptologist, Gerald Massey.

What is conspicuously absent from Zeitgeist are the views of leading scholars who disagree with them. In fact, the sources cited are not really experts at all.

Professor of New Testament, Dr. Ben Witherington notes,

Not a single one of these authors and sources are experts in the Bible, Biblical history, the Ancient Near East, Egyptology, or any of the cognate fields….they are not reliable sources of information about the origins of Christianity, Judaism, or much of anything else of relevance to this discussion.⁹

When all the evidence is examined, almost all leading scholars believe the case for Jesus’ existence is truly compelling. Although he is an atheist, historian Michael Grant speaks for most of them.

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.¹⁰

Historian Paul Johnson concurs.

I doubt if there is any serious scholar alive now who would deny Jesus’ historical existence. Indeed, He is much better authenticated than many secular figures of antiquity whose existence no one has ever presumed to question.¹¹

Perhaps the non-Christian historian H. G. Wells put it the best regarding Jesus Christ’s existence:

Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented.¹²

But what about Jesus’ resurrection? Could that story have been invented? Certainly there isn’t a shred of evidence that any ancient god of mythology ever existed, let alone died and came back to life. But what about Jesus Christ?

In a New York Times article, Peter Steinfels cites the startling events that occurred three days after Jesus’ death:

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?¹³

Steinfels asks the right question: What did happen? Whatever happened shortly after Jesus’ death was something that changed our world.

If Jesus did rise from the dead then he alone would have the answers to what life is about and what is facing us after we die. On the other hand, if the resurrection account of Jesus is not true, then Christianity would be founded upon a lie. Theologian R. C. Sproul puts it this way:

The claim of resurrection is vital to Christianity. If Christ has been raised from the dead by God, then He has the credentials and certification that no other religious leader possesses.¹⁴

All other religious leaders are dead, but, according to Christianity, Christ is alive.

Many believe that Jesus’ resurrection was simply a mythical account. Several skeptics who regarded Jesus’ resurrection as mythical decided to investigate the evidence. Read their startling conclusions in “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?”

---

Endnotes