The New Testament: Is it authentic?

1) Did Jesus write an autobiography?

No. There are no direct writings of Jesus.

2) Who wrote the Gospels?

Matthew – Jew – former tax collector – one of the twelve disciples (see Mk. 9:9) – written possibly 55-70 AD

(John) Mark (see Acts 12:25) – not one of the twelve disciples – believed to largely be written from accounts of Peter and to be the first gospel written (~ 55-70AD)

Luke – physician – not one of the twelve disciples – wrote a chronological account (~55-70 AD) – believed to have been written after Mark

John – Jew - fisherman – one of the twelve disciples – believed to be the last gospel written (due to some references that may have come from the others) (~75-90 AD)

3) If the disciples of Jesus and later followers wrote the Gospels and the New Testament and were just “making it up”, why does it make them look so bad? For example:

Peter:
- loses faith when walking on water Mt.14:22-32 (Lk. 8:22-25; Mk. 6:45-51)
- called ‘satan’ Mk. 8:31-34 (Mt. 16:21-24)
- denies Jesus Mk. 14:66-72 (Mt. 26:69-75; Lk. 22:54-62; Jn. 18:15-18, 25-27)

Peter looks (by his own account really in Mark) to be weak in his faith, to have little understanding of what Jesus was saying and to be fearful and timid. The question is why he is portrayed as such when it isn’t necessary just to tell the story of Jesus. My feeling (and that of many others) is that this testifies the truth of what was being told (i.e. you can tell if someone is telling the truth by how they make themselves look). This is not to criticize the disciples because I can see myself acting similarly, but rather to hold them up as an example of truthful messengers (no doubt guided by the Holy Spirit).

Other examples:
- incorrectly corrected others (Lk. 9:49-50)
- incorrectly tried to prevent children from coming to Jesus Mk. 10:13-16 (Mt. 18:13-14; Lk. 18:15-17)
- argue about who is greatest Mk. 9:33-35 (Lk. 9:46-48)
- did not understand who Jesus really was Lk. 9:42-45
- afraid of storm (with Jesus) Lk. 8:22-25

While there are passages in the gospels that show the disciples performing signs, there are many examples of the disciples making many mistakes and being corrected (rebuked) by Jesus. (As was pointed out in during our class, these men weren’t highly trained or educated in the scriptures so it is not surprising that they didn’t understand many things and it is clear that they don’t clearly understand Jesus or his purpose until later). What these do is show that the writers of the gospel were not very interested in their own prestige or how they might look by their own accounts. Again, why do this if you are just making it up? Why not simply omit these areas or increase your role and apparent understanding? Why not have Jesus compliment you?

Gethsemane – fell asleep Mk. 14:32-41 (Lk.22:47)

This is a great example of truth in telling. The disciples fall asleep when Jesus tells them to stand watch (not once, but twice!) right before he is taken away.

4) Where were they (the disciples) when Jesus was crucified? (Jn. 19:25-27; Lk.23:49)

None of the disciples (except John who says nothing in defense of Jesus) were at his crucifixion. They were all away in hiding (probably in fear).

5) Who buried Jesus? (Jn. 19:38-39)

Joseph of Arimathea (a member of the Sanhedrin) and Nicodemus buried him. Again, where are the disciples? In a work of fiction, wouldn’t the disciples wanted to appear more assertive here, perhaps demanding his body or at least helping bury him?

6) After his crucifixion, whom did Jesus appear to?
(Jn. 20; Mt. 28; Mk. 16; Lk. 24 – note Mk. 16:14)

First?

Mary Magdalene and (in some accounts) Mary the mother of Jesus went to the tomb and he appeared to them. Note that none of the disciples (men) went and this really makes them appear fearful (or cowardly) – especially for a first century Jew.

Later?

He appeared to the disciples (note again in Mk. 16:14 he rebukes them for their lack of faith).

(Why say this if you are making it up? How difficult is this to write for a first century Jewish man?) This would appear to be very difficult to write about oneself and I can’t see why someone writing a fictional account would describe events this way if it weren’t true.

7) Why become a Christian in the first century?
(Jn.15:18-16:4; Acts 5:17-18; Acts 8:1-3)

Jesus warned that the world would hate his followers. The book of Acts records the arrest and whipping (scourging) of his apostles (and deaths of some as well). In Acts 8 we read that the church was scattered from Jerusalem. Does this sound like a great recruiting strategy to get more followers or does it sound like the truth?

What if you were a Jew?

You would be separated from your family and your community who would have nothing to do with you. The Jewish religious leaders would persecute and perhaps beat or kill you. You may be forced out of your homes as many were in Jerusalem.

What if you were a gentile?

Gentiles would be condemned later by Roman authorities for their refusal to support and bow down to the Roman gods (sometime emperors were considered gods). They would later experience waves of persecution (the first major one of these was under Nero ~64-68 AD who blamed Christians for causing the great fire in Rome in 64 AD).

The point here is that there is no worldly incentive to become a Christian (unless you like being persecuted). There is, of course, the infinitely more important fact of salvation through belief. However, if this is a work of fiction, why make it seem so against one’s own self interest to become a Christian? Why not offer some worldly incentive? Our answer is because it is the truth and people heard, understood and believed without any “plus”. (This really does make one wonder where all of the “prosperity” gospel being offered today is coming from. It certainly doesn’t appear to be from the apostles!)

8) What was support for the testimony of disciples? (see 1 Cor. 15:3-6)

Paul reports that, after appearing to the disciples that he appeared to more than five hundred people. So many people saw the resurrected Jesus that the word spread and it became impossible to refute it.

9) After Pentecost (Acts 2), what happened?

Acts 4:13-14

We see that Peter and John who had been so wrong and afraid in the gospel accounts are now preaching with such courage, eloquence and conviction that even the Jewish religious leaders were “astonished”.


Acts 5:12-16, 25-42

We see that the apostles performed many signs and wonders, but that others were afraid to join them. Here again we see the transformation of the disciples at work even when everyone else is afraid.

The latter part of Acts chapter 5 shows that the apostles speak directly to the Sanhedrin and refuse to stop preaching the gospel even though they are threatened with death. Two things to note 1) the transformation in these men and 2) the fact that none of them ever recanted or denied the truth of the resurrection of Jesus despite being threatened with death and being flogged (scourged). In fact (Acts 5:41-42), “Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. 42And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.” Why (if you are making this up) wouldn’t you recant to avoid beatings or possible death?

Acts 14:11-18

A final note (much later) the apostles Paul and Barnabas are confused for gods themselves. This they vehemently deny begging the people not to worship them as they are only men. If you are making a work of fiction, why not be gods yourself?

10) Conversion of Paul – why would make up his story? Why would he become a Christian if it wasn’t authentic?

Acts 9:1-9

Paul’s (Saul’s) conversion on the road to Damascus is well known. What makes it more miraculous is the fact of who he was and why he would ever have had such a “change of heart” if it wasn’t true.

Why convert from his heritage? (Phil. 3:4-6)

Paul (Saul) had everything that you could want in the world; power, prestige, wealth and even his conviction that he was working for God in persecuting Christians. Paul says it best himself:

“4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. 7But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—“ (Phil. 3:4-9)

Conclusion:

So a group of “ordinary” men from a “backwater” province of the Roman Empire claim to have seen someone resurrected from the dead and were able to begin a church that today is the largest in the world and has endured for two millennia. This would appear to someone looking at it from the outside to be really difficult to believe. Imagine that you lived in the first century (and new nothing of Jesus) and someone asked you what you thought people would consider more significant/relevant in two thousand years; the Roman Empire or a carpenter’s son from Galilee.

I am always impressed with how much the disciples change (by their own account) and how often they fall short of any kind of righteousness of their own (just as we all do). This appears to be a testimony to the truth of their story and the spirit that motivated them to do so and that is one reason (in my opinion) that the gospel has lasted. More importantly, this has to be the work of God or it could not possibly have endured.