Apicontent

What evidence is there that Jesus is who he really claimed to be? How do we know he wasn’t some kind of imposter? Let’s take a look at some renowned imposters and see if that title fits Jesus, or whether there is evidence to support his claims.

Ferdinand Waldo Demara Jr. was called the great imposter. Demara held phony identities of psychologist, university lecturer, college department head, school teacher, and prison warden. He even performed surgeries, as a bogus doctor.

Some argue that Frank Abagnale was an even greater imposter. Between the ages of 16 and 21, Abagnale was one of the world’s most successful con artists. He cashed $2.5 million in fraudulent checks in all 50 states and 26 foreign countries. He also successfully passed himself off as an airline pilot, an attorney, a college professor, and a pediatrician before being apprehended by the French police.

If this story sounds familiar to you, it’s probably because you watched the 2002 movie Catch Me If You Can, in which Abagnale was played by Leonardo DiCaprio (who passed himself off as an actor in Titanic).

What would it take to top Abagnale’s performance as a con man? Well, if Jesus Christ weren’t the Messiah he claimed to be, there would be no contest. We’re not talking about conning thousands, as in the case of Abagnale. If Jesus Christ were an imposter, his con job deluded billions of people and changed the course of 2,000 years of history.

So, could Jesus have been a fake Messiah, fooling even the most noteworthy religious scholars? Is it possible he was groomed by his parents or undisclosed mentors to become the long-promised king that Israel had been looking for?

In fact, if Jesus was an imposter, he would not be the first person in the history of Israel to have lied about being the Messiah. Through the centuries prior to Christ’s birth, and afterward as well, many self-proclaimed messiahs arose, only to be shown to be cons or lunatics.

Ancient Hebrew prophecies had clearly predicted the reign of a future king who would bring peace to Israel and be their Savior. A sense of expectancy filled the land and captivated Jewish hopes and aspirations. In such an atmosphere as Israel’s, could not someone less qualified have been pressed into, or conformed himself to fit, the mold of Messiah? The answer to that question hangs on the Old Testament prophecies pointing to the Messiah.

God’s Mouth Pieces

According to the Scriptures, the God of the Hebrews spoke to his people through prophets, men and women who were especially attuned to God and who may or may not have been a part of the religious establishment. Some of the prophets’ messages were for the present; others, for the future. Either way, their role was to proclaim God’s declarations and disclosures to the people.

In general, being a prophet ranked up there with working at a meatpacking plant among the world’s most hazardous occupations. Even when they were telling the truth, prophets might be killed or thrown into prison by people who didn’t like what they were saying. (Some kings hated hearing bad news.) According to historical accounts, the prophet Isaiah was sawn in half.

So consider a prophet’s dilemma: death if he was proved wrong and the possibility of death if he was right. No true prophet wanted to offend God, and just as few wanted to be sawn in half. Thus most prophets waited until they were absolutely convinced that God had spoken, or else they kept their mouths shut. Kings began to shudder at their words. A true prophet’s messages were never wrong.

Now here’s a question: how would the accuracy of these biblical prophets match up with today’s psychics?

Prophets Vs Psychics?

To consider whether modern psychics’ accuracy approaches that of biblical prophets, let’s take Jean Dixon as a case study. This American psychic seemed to have a special ability to foretell events. But upon analysis her reputation seems unwarranted.

For instance, Dixon had a vision that on February 5, 1962, a child was born in the Middle East who would transform the world by the year 2000. This special man would create a one-world religion and bring lasting world peace. She saw a cross growing above this man until it covered the whole earth. According to Dixon, this child would be a descendant of the ancient Egyptian Queen Nefertiti.¹ Where is this guy? Have you seen him? And how about that lasting world peace-it’s nice, huh?

In fact, an exhaustive search of her prediction yields two indisputable facts. Her rate of accuracy is equivalent to those guessing the future, and her most publicized fulfillments were prophecies so intentionally vague as any number of events could have been hailed as fulfillments.

Even the widely publicized prophecies of Nostradamus have frequently been proved wrong in spite of his vague oracles, which are difficult to disprove.² For example, here is one of the predictions of Nostradamus:

“Takes the Goddess of the Moon, for his Day & Movement: A frantic wanderer and witness of Gods Law, In awakening the worlds great regions to Gods will (Ones Will).”³

This is said to be about the death of Princess Diana. (You were probably thinking Margaret Thatcher.) Prophecies like this are as nebulous as seeing images in clouds. Yet some insist this is evidence of a Nostradamus prophecy fulfilled. Highly suspect, but difficult to disprove.

And this is generally the track record of psychics. When “The People’s Almanac” researched the predictions of 25 top psychics, 92 percent of the predictions had proved wrong. The other 8 percent were questionable and could be explained by chance or general knowledge of circumstances.⁴ In other experiments with the world’s foremost psychics, their rate of accuracy has been shown to hover around 11 percent, which might not be a bad average except for the fact that people making random guesses about the future score at the same percentile. This doesn’t disprove all future telling, but it certainly explains why psychics aren’t winning the lottery.

The difference between psychics and prophets seems to be more one of kind than one of degree. Prophets made specific declarations about future events in relation to God’s unfurling plan-and did it with unwavering accuracy. Psychics are more mercenary, providing vague sketches of the future to a market willing to pay for their services. They offer sensational information, but with a flawed track record.

Religious Prophecy In Perspective

Prophecy can be rather mystical, metaphysical, and — for lack of a better word — creepy. It conjures up images of séances and other worlds. In Star Wars there is the foretelling of one who would bring balance to the Force. The Lord of the Rings movies weave their imaginary themes around scenes of prophetic utterances. But such is the world of imagination.

Regarding the real world, it has been said that if a person knew just one minute of the future he could rule the world. Think about it. One minute of knowing every hand dealt at the Trump Casino. You’d become the richest person in the world and Donald would become a postal worker.

But in the world of religion, prophecy serves an important function. It becomes one sure way to know if someone is speaking from God or if he is not, for only an omniscient God could exhaustively know the future. And on this point the prophecy in the Old Testament stands as unique, for most of the renowned holy books from other religions are devoid of predictive prophecy. For example, some claim divine inspiration, there is really no means to corroborate their claims; you’re simply left with “Yeah, that sounds like something God might say.”

Bible scholar Wilbur Smith compared the prophecies of the Bible with other historical books, stating that the Bible “is the only volume ever produced by man, or a group of men, in which is to be found a large body of prophecies relating to individual nations, to Israel, to all the peoples of the earth, to certain cities, and to the coming one who was to be the Messiah.”⁵ Thus the Bible lays out its claim for inspiration in such a way that it can be either substantiated or disproved.

And if you put this degree of accuracy into everyday perspective, you can see how astounding it is. For example, it would have been miraculous if in 1910 you had predicted that a man named George Bush would win the 2000 election. But imagine if you had included some of these details in your prediction:

• The candidate with the most total votes would lose the election.
• All major TV networks would announce the winner and then reverse themselves.
• One state (Florida) would swing the election.
• The U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately determine the winner.

Had such occurred, there would be churches named after you and dashboard statuettes bearing your likeness. But you didn’t, so there aren’t. As difficult (or impossible) as it would have been in 1910 to have accurately predicted this precise sequence of events, the odds are incredibly more difficult for Jesus, or any one person, to have fulfilled all the Hebrew prophecies for the Messiah. Contained within the Old Testament, written hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, are 61 specific prophecies and nearly 300 references about the Messiah.⁶

According to the Hebrew requirement that a prophecy must have a 100 percent rate of accuracy, the true Messiah of Israel must fulfill them all or else he is not the Messiah. So the question that either vindicates Jesus or makes him culpable for the world’s greatest hoax is, did he fit and fulfill these Old Testament prophecies?

What Are The Odds?

Let’s look at two of the specific prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament.

“You, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village in Judah. Yet a ruler of Israel will come from you, one whose origins are from the distant past.” (Micah 5:2, NLT)

“The Lord himself will choose [a] sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel-‘God is with us.’” (Isaiah 7:14, NLT)

Now, before considering the other 59 prophecies, you have to stop and ask yourself how many people in the category of potential Messiah throughout history were born of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem. “Well, let’s see, there’s my neighbor George, but … no, never mind; he was born in Brooklyn.” In the case of 61 detailed prophecies being fulfilled by one person, we are talking about virtually impossible odds.

When forensic scientists discover a DNA profile match, the odds of having the wrong person is frequently less than one in several billion (something for deviants to keep in mind). It would seem we are in the same neighborhood of odds, and numbers of zeros, in considering a single individual fulfilling these prophecies.

Professor of mathematics Peter Stoner gave 600 students a math probability problem that would determine the odds for one person fulfilling eight specific prophecies. (This is not the same as flipping a coin eight times in a row and getting heads each time.) First the students calculated the odds of one person fulfilling all the conditions of one specific prophecy, such as being betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver. Then the students did their best to estimate the odds for all of the eight prophecies combined.

The students calculated that the odds against one person fulfilling all eight prophecies are astronomical-one in ten to the 21st power (10^21). To illustrate that number, Stoner gave the following example: “First, blanket the entire Earth land mass with silver dollars 120 feet high. Second, specially mark one of those dollars and randomly bury it. Third, ask a person to travel the Earth and select the marked dollar, while blindfolded, from the trillions of other dollars.”⁷

People can do some pretty squishy things with numbers (especially with a last name like that), so it’s important to note that Stoner’s work was reviewed by the American Scientific Association, which stated, “The mathematical analysis … is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound, and Professor Stoner has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way.”⁸

With that as an introduction, let’s add six more predictions to the two we’ve already considered, giving us a total of Professor Stoner’s eight:

Prophecy: The Messiah would be from the lineage of King David. – Jeremiah 23:5 – 600 B.C.
Fulfillment: “Jesus … the son of David …” – Luke 3:23, 31 – 4 B.C.

Prophecy: The Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. – Zechariah 11:13 – 487 B.C.
Fulfillment: “They gave him thirty pieces of silver.” – Matthew 26:15 – 30 A.D.

Prophecy: The Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced. – Psalm 22:16 – 1000 B.C. Fulfillment: “They came to a place called The Skull. All three were crucified there-Jesus on the center cross, and the two criminals on either side.” – Luke 23:33 – 30 A.D.

Prophecy: People would cast lots for the Messiah’s clothing. – Psalm 22:18 – 1000 B.C. Fulfillment: “The soldiers … took his robe, but it was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. So they said, ‘Let’s not tear it but throw dice to see who gets it.’ ” – John 19:23-24 – 30 A.D.

Prophecy: The Messiah would appear riding on a donkey. – Zechariah 9:9 – 500 B.C. Fulfillment: “They brought the animals to him and threw their garments over the colt, and he sat on it.” – Matthew 21:7 – 30 A.D.

Prophecy: A messenger would be sent to herald the Messiah. – Malachi 3:1 – 500 B.C. Fulfillment: John told them, “I baptize with water, but right here in the crowd is someone you do not know.” – John 1:26 – 27 A.D.

The eight prophecies we’ve reviewed about the Messiah were written by men from different times and places between about 500 and 1,000 years before Jesus was born. Thus there was no opportunity for collusion among them. Notice too, the specificity. This is not the genre of a Nostradamus prediction-“When the moon turns green, the lima bean will lie cloaked by the roadside.”

Out of His Control

Imagine winning a Powerball lottery with merely one ticket among tens of millions sold. Now imagine winning a hundred of these lotteries in a row. What would people think? Right, “It was rigged!”

And over the years a similar claim has been made by skeptics about Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. They have granted that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies but have accused him of living his life in such a way as to intentionally fulfill them. A reasonable objection, but not as plausible as it might seem.

Consider the nature of just four of the messianic prophecies:

• His lineage would come from David (Jeremiah 23:5).
• His birth would occur in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
• He would migrate to Egypt (Hosea 11:1).
• He would live in Nazareth (Isaiah 11:1).⁹

Now, what could Jesus do about fulfilling these prophecies? Neither he nor his parents had any control over his ancestry. His birth in Bethlehem was the result of a census mandated by Caesar Augustus. His parents’ move to Egypt was prompted by King Herod’s persecution. And once Herod died, Jesus’ parents naturally decided to resettle in Nazareth.

Even if at a young age an imposter Jesus looked at the prophecies he had accidentally fulfilled and decided to go for it and see if he could make the rest (like someone deciding to shoot the moon in the card game Hearts), the deck would still have been impossibly stacked against him. Consider some of the factors in the prophecies we’ve already looked at: the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver; he would be killed by means of crucifixion; and people would cast lots for his clothes. These prophecies all came true for Jesus, yet what control did he have over the fulfillment of any of them?

Bible scholars tell us that nearly 300 references to 61 specific prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The odds against one person fulfilling that many prophecies would be beyond all mathematical possibility. It could never happen, no matter how much time was allotted. One mathematician’s estimate of those impossible odds is “one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.”¹⁰

Bertrand Russell, adamant atheist, was asked in a Look magazine interview what evidence it would take for him to believe in God. Russell responded, “Well, if I heard a voice from heaven and it predicted a series of things and they came to pass, then I guess I’d have to believe there’s some kind of supernatural being.”

Bible scholar Norman Geisler responded to Russell’s skepticism. “I’d say, ‘Mr. Russell, there has been a voice from heaven; it has predicted many things; and we’ve seen them undeniably come to pass.’” Geisler was alluding to the fact that only a transcendent Being outside of time would be able to accurately predict future events.

Proof In A Jar

We’ve looked at the evidence for Jesus’ fulfillment of messianic prophecies from every angle but one. What if the Christian scribes who copied scrolls of Isaiah and the other Old Testament prophetic books altered them to make them correspond to Jesus’ life?

This is a question many scholars and skeptics have asked. And it seems possible, even plausible at first glance. It would prevent us from making Jesus into a lying imposter, which seems highly unlikely, and it would explain the amazing accuracy of his fulfillment of prophecies. So, how do we know that the Old Testament prophetic books, such as Isaiah, Daniel, and Micah, were written hundreds of years before Christ, as purported? And if they were, how do we know Christians didn’t alter the texts later?

For 1,900 years, many skeptics held fast to that theory, based upon the human impossibility of accurately predicting future events. But then something occurred that doused all enthusiasm for such a clandestine conspiracy. Something called the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Half a century back, the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls provided Bible scholars with copies of Old Testament books that were far older than any others known to exist. Extensive tests proved that many of these copies were made before Jesus Christ even lived. And they are virtually identical to the texts of the Bible we were already using.

As a result, even scholars who deny Jesus as the Messiah accept these manuscripts of the Old Testament as having predated his birth and therefore concede that the prophecies about the Messiah contained within them have not been altered in order to conform to Jesus.

If these predictions were fulfilled so accurately through the life of Jesus, it seems logical to wonder why everyone in Israel would not have been able to see it. But as his crucifixion attests, not everyone did see it. As the apostle John said of Jesus, “He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11). Why?

Considering the embattled history of Israel, it is not difficult to read into the definition of Messiah the idea of a political freedom fighter. It is understandable how a first-century Jewish person might think, How could the Messiah have come and Israel still be oppressed under Roman occupation?

While Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, he did so in ways that no one was expecting. He sought a moral and spiritual revolution, not a political one, accomplishing his objectives through self-sacrifice and humble service, healing and teaching. Meanwhile, Israel was looking for another Moses or Joshua who would lead them in a conquest to recover their lost kingdom.

Of course, many Jews of Jesus’ day did recognize him as the Messiah-the entire foundation of the Christian church being Jewish. The majority, however, did not. And it’s not so hard to comprehend why.

To better understand the first-century Jews’ misunderstanding, consider this messianic prophecy written 700 years before the birth of Jesus by the prophet Isaiah. Was it referring to Jesus?

“All of us have strayed away like sheep. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the guilt and sins of us all.”

“He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. From prison and trial they led him away to his death. But who among the people realized that he was dying for their sins-that he was suffering their punishment? He had done no wrong, and he never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave.”

“But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and fill him with grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have a multitude of children, many heirs … And because of what he has experienced, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins.” (Portions of Isaiah 53:6-11, NLT)

As Jesus hung on the cross, some understandably may have been thinking, How could this be the Messiah? At the same time, others may have been wondering, Who else but Jesus could Isaiah be talking about?

Impossible Imposter

So, what are we to make of Jesus having fulfilled so many prophecies written hundreds of years prior to his birth? Leonardo DiCaprio … I mean, Frank Abagnale might be a good imposter, but even he got caught by the time he was old enough to drink a beer legally.

Jesus doesn’t look anything like a more competent Frank Abagnale. He’s in a different category altogether. No imposter could ever beat such odds as those presented by Hebrew prophecy.

And what does that mean? Two conclusions emerge: First, only a transcendent Being could orchestrate such events. And second, it makes all of Jesus’ other claims credible and worthy of serious consideration.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus made the claim, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” Overwhelming evidence seems to indicate that the signature on that check is not a forgery.

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?

The greatest question of our time is “Who is the real Jesus Christ?” Was he just an exceptional man, or was he God in the flesh, as Paul, John, and his other disciples believed?

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!

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.

---

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

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 (big surprise here) 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. Perhaps they did it to keep recruitment numbers up and make Jesus a poster child for their cause. 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, magic. … They collected sayings of Jesus shaped to fit their own interpretation (as in the Gospel of Thomas), and offered their adherents an alternative or rival form of Christianity.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, to whom they were eyewitnesses.

Check out, for example, what the apostle John wrote near the end of the first century:

“Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son.” – 1 John 2:22

Following the apostles’ teaching, the early church leaders unanimously condemned the Gnostics as a cult. Church father Irenaeus, writing 140 years before the Council of Nicaea, confirmed that the 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 were they even 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.

Who would you be more likely to believe—someone who says, “Hey, I’ve got some secret facts that were mysteriously revealed to me,” or someone who says, “I’ve searched all the evidence and history and here it is for you to make up your mind on”? Keeping that question in mind, consider the following two statements, the first from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (c. 110-150 A.D.) and the second from the New Testament’s Gospel of Luke (c. 55-70 A.D.).

• These are the hidden sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Judas Thomas the Twin recorded.⁶
• “Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.” – Luke 1:1-4

Do you find the open and aboveboard approach of Luke appealing? And do you find the fact that it was written closer to the original events to be in favor of its reliability? If so, that’s what the early church thought as well.

And most scholars concur with the early church’s view that the New Testament is the authentic history of Jesus. New Testament scholar Raymond Brown has said of the Gnostic gospels, “We learn not a single verifiable new fact about the historical Jesus’ ministry, and only a few new sayings that might possibly have been his.”⁷

Thus, even though the Gnostic writings have impressed some scholars, their late dating and questionable authorship can’t compare with the New Testament. Such contrast between the New Testament and the Gnostic writings is devastating to those pushing conspiracy theories. 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

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?

The greatest question of our time is “Who is the real Jesus Christ?” Was he just an exceptional man, or was he God in the flesh, as Paul, John, and his other disciples believed?

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

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