Who was Jesus and how can we know?

At the church where I server, we are in the middle of a sermon series entitled Skeptical. During this series we are spending our time looking at the eight common questions that skeptics pose as a challenge to the Christian faith. And as we go through this series, our hope and prayer is that we would address these eight common questions that skeptics pose to challenge Christianity in way that answers these questions and that equips us to have confidence and convictions about the nature and character of God and His activity in the world around us.

This week I would like for us to address the second of these eight common questions that those who are skeptical pose as a challenge to Christianity. And that question is this: “Who was Jesus and how can we know?” In other words, “How can we really know who Jesus was? What sort of historical evidence do we have?”

The first type of historical evidence that we have concerning Jesus as a historical figure comes from the accounts of Jesus life that are recorded for us in the letters that make up the Bible. In the letters that make up the Bible, we have four accounts of Jesus life that were all written within the lifetime of those who knew Jesus.

Two of the accounts of Jesus life, called the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of John, were written by individuals who were His closest followers and were eyewitnesses to all that Jesus said and did in history. The other two accounts of Jesus life, called the gospel of Mark and the gospel of Luke were written by two individuals who were closely associated with two of the undisputed leaders of the new movement that Jesus started in history, which we know today as the church: Mark, who was closely connected with Peter, and Luke who accompanied the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys.

Now, you might be reading this and immediately a skeptical objection has been raised in your mind.  And if we were to have a conversation, that objection would sound something like this: Dave, you can’t use the Bible to prove things in the Bible. And anyways the accounts of Jesus life in the Bible are not historically reliable. What is written in the Bible is myth and legend that were written hundreds of years later.

If that skeptical objection resonates with you, I just want to let you know that you are not the first person to raise that objection. And if we were having a conversation, my response would be this: Most scholars and historians believe that the gospel of Luke was written in the early 60’s A.D. Since Luke drew some of his information from the gospel of Mark, it makes sense that Mark must have come even earlier, most likely in the mid 50’s.

In addition, the gospel of Matthew mentions the Temple tax as though it was still being collected, which suggests a date before 70 A.D., when the Temple was destroyed. Also none of the accounts of Jesus life mention the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D., which would most certainly be mentioned if it had occurred prior to writing the accounts, as it was something that Jesus had predicted would occur.  

Thus, all of the accounts of Jesus life were written within 30 years of Jesus death, which is hardly enough time for legends to develop. After all, people were still alive who could confront any falsehoods that would have been stated in the accounts. By contrast, some of the other gospel accounts of Jesus life that we hear about, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary were written in the early second century or later.

Another skeptical objection that is often raised is that the manuscripts, or copies of these accounts of Jesus life have been corrupted or altered and therefore cannot be trusted as being reliable. If that skeptical objection resonates with you, and if we were having a conversation, my response would be this: would we agree that the same standard should apply to all documents when it comes to their genuineness and accuracy. Because, if we do, then let’s look at some examples of literature from history.

Take for example Julius Caesar’s book, the Gallic War, which is a primary source for historians when it comes to Caesar’s military campaigns in what is now France, which was written in 50 B.C. The earliest Greek manuscript that we have of any part of that book dates to about 900 A.D.

By contrast, most scholars and historians believe that all of the letters that make up the New Testament of the Bible were written by 95 A.D. The earliest fragment that we have from the gospel’s dates to about 125 A.D., which is a span of between 30-35 years. In addition, we have almost the entire New Testament preserved in Greek manuscripts from the second century, and at least 48 manuscripts that come before 300 A.D. All together we have over 5,700 Greek manuscripts of the letters that make up the New Testament.

The next greatest manuscript evidence for any ancient work is Homer’s Iliad, of which there are fewer than 650 manuscripts that come a full 1,000 years after the original writing. So if you are going to maintain that Homer wrote Iliad and that we can trust that work; if you are going to maintain that we can trust the accuracy of Caesar’s the Gallic Wars, then we must hold the same view of the letters that make up the New Testament of the Bible.

Another skeptical objection is that the writers of these accounts of Jesus life were only concerned about was making sure that people believed Jesus spiritually, not who Jesus was in history. In other words, the Bible is about religious and spiritual stuff and is not accurate historically. However, notice how Luke starts his account of Jesus life in Luke 1:1-4:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

The writer of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts was a doctor named Luke. Luke was hired by a man named Theophilus, who was a wealthy Roman official, to research and to provide an accurate and orderly account about the origins of Christianity. As a doctor, Luke was a very educated man and was thus well qualified for the task that he was given.

And as a result of the generosity of Theophilus, Luke, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, spent several years involved in intensive research and investigation that produced this two-volume set that we now have as a part of our Bibles today. Luke traveled throughout the regions where Jesus lived and ministered, investigating and interviewing individuals who were witnesses to the events that occurred during Jesus life.

Luke interviewed Mary, the mother of Jesus, along with the disciples and other close followers of Jesus. Luke is universally recognized, by skeptics and followers of Jesus alike, as being a scrupulously accurate historian. One archaeologist carefully studied Luke’s references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, without finding a single error.  As a matter of fact, many have credited the gospel of Luke as being one of the most beautiful and historically accurate pieces of literature ever written.

So if these writers were interested in proclaiming who Jesus was in history, then what do they say about Jesus? We will answer that question tomorrow…