I saw a post on Facebook yesterday that called the Christmas story a "myth" but "still inspiring".
I was curious. Why did they believe the story of Jesus' birth was only a myth? Apparently, "because the Bible told me so" wasn't convincing enough, so... perhaps they questioned the reliability of the Gospels? Maybe even questioned whether or not Jesus was (is) God?
I've been doing some reading lately on the defense of the Bible and thought I should write a blog outlining the evidence. The evidence for believing in the Bible, and specifically in the Gospel accounts, and in the truth they hold.
Many times, Christians are told we must simply have faith when questioning hard things. While faith is important, our faith need not be blind. There are many logical reasons and a great quantity of evidence out there for believing in God and in the Bible. There is literary evidence, historical evidence, archeological evidence, wise philosophical arguments, and even science - yes, science - to back up the claims of the Bible.
Our faith need not be blind.
Obviously, all of this cannot be summarized in a single blog post. So, let's focus on why we can trust the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and face some of the myths (or should we call them lies?) out there about them.
The gospels were written by unlikely authors. Matthew was disciple but first a tax collector, who were hated by the Jewish people. John Mark was the companion of Peter who had a falling out with Paul. Luke was the apostle Paul's physician and likely a Greek. John was the youngest of Jesus' disciples. But their gospels were eyewitness testimonies of Jesus - either which they themselves had witnessed or which they had heard from someone who was there. It wasn't uncommon for disciples of a rabbi to write notes during the rabbi's teaching. They may have used wax tablets to record important teachings and then referenced those notes later while writing their accounts.
Though skeptics claim the gospels were written many, many years after Jesus, the evidence says otherwise. The book of Acts was written likely before Paul's death in AD 63, meaning the gospel of Luke must have been written before. And Luke is well believed to have been written after Mark, so that had to be even earlier. All of the gospels are mentioned by the author's name (ie. "the gospel according to Matthew") - and are quoted - in early church letters. We have hundreds of these letters which were written by disciples of the disciples, dating from AD 90 - 110. Not only does this show the gospels were written by then, but they had also circulated enough to be known and quoted by these fathers of the early church.
The earliest manuscript we have from the gospels is dated to AD 125. Scholars believe this copy was a direct copy of the original. It's a part of the gospel of John. All in all, we have thousands of manuscripts - many more than any other ancient document. We also have earlier editions of the originals than any other ancient document.
Skeptics also say there are too many "variants" between the copies for us to be able to trust the Bible. Well, given the sheer number of manuscripts we have, it is unsurprising to have variants - that is, differences between them. However, the majority of variants - about 97% of them - are minor differences in spelling or grammar which do not change the meaning of the text in any significant way or challenge any Christian doctrine. For example, sometimes John's name is spelled with one n versus two. Sometimes instead of Jesus it says Christ, or vice a versa. The most common variant is that sometimes there's a "nu" at the end of a word and sometimes there isn't, which is a Greek equivalent to sometimes saying "a" and sometimes saying "an".
Even the larger variants don't challenge any Christian doctrine. For example, there are two passages we aren't sure were in the original text (this is usually noted in Bibles) as they aren't in the earliest copies. But again, no doctrine is based on these passages.
By comparing the tens of thousands of manuscripts against each other, we can derive what was most likely the original text. We can also compare them to the thousands of quotes in the letters from the early church fathers. We can derive nearly the entire New Testament merely from these references, and these written just 100-150 years after Jesus' life and death.
Another challenge to the gospel accounts in particular is skeptics say Jesus never claimed to be God, but that was added by Christians later in history. Again, the evidence stands against this claim. First, we have the letters of Paul, which were from AD 48-65. In Paul's letters, there are early creeds, hymns, and confessions of the faith, all consistent with the belief in Jesus as the Son of God, who died and rose again. A careful reading of the gospels also shows Jesus claiming Godhood multiple times... and these references are included in the early texts and in the church father's letters.
There are extra-Biblical sources as well which confirm main facts from the gospels. Tacitus, a Roman historian, confirmed in his accounts written around AD 110 that Jesus was put to death by the Romans. He also mentioned the start of the Christian religion thereafter. Pliny the Younger, a Roman counsel, in AD 110 confirmed that the Christians sang "to Christ as if to a god". Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote about Jesus in AD 100 and how his disciples claimed he had risen. The Talmud in AD 180 notes Jesus was condemned to death for "committing sorcery." None of these people had any hidden agenda - not only were they not Christian, they were opposed to Christians. And yet, the gospel accounts are verified.
What about the Christmas story then? What about the virgin birth and the star and the angels?
Only in Matthew and Luke do we see the story of the birth of Jesus. Matthew focuses more on the facts. Luke, a researcher who likely interviewed Mary, focuses more on the heart of the story. It should be noted that Paul, Peter, the letter to the Hebrews, and John in one of his letters, all allude to the virgin birth. It appears they believed it.
There is some historical evidence to the Christmas story. There was a census happening, though there's some disagreement about when exactly it happened. There were astronomical events happening around that time which could have created a "star" or the appearance of something in the heavens to draw the wise men to Jesus. The geographical places all existed.
Maybe we should ask ourselves, could it have happened? If we outright believe it could not have, because it's not physically possible for a virgin to give birth (at least without some type of intervention, like a "Jane the Virgin" scenario), then all the evidence in the world will not convince us. But... if we're talking about God intervening, if we believe miracles can and do happen, then perhaps... it's not so hard to believe after all.
Our faith is not blind. Despite what skeptics attempt to argue, there is evidence of the gospel accounts being written early - early enough that people who were there could have disagreed or corrected them or told a different story, yet, we don't see that happening. Instead, we see collaboration and support from early church leaders, leaders who studied under the disciples of Jesus themselves, and from Paul, who also studied with the disciples before launching out on his own. We see a church spreading the gospels around and reading them as Scripture as early as sixty years after Jesus. We see a people so moved by what they heard and experienced they were willing to die for it.
Would you die for a myth? For something you knew was only a story?
I doubt it.
In the end, what matters is: What do you believe? Who do you say Jesus is?
In the words of C.S. Lewis:
"You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
Sources / Recommended Reading:
"In Defense of the Bible" by editors Cowan and Wilder
"The Case for Christ" by Stroebel
"The Case for the Real Jesus" by Stroebel
Add comment
Comments