Sharing Faith

Sharing Faith

By Jake Kohl

Question One

I. You are speaking with a new friend in the neighborhood. The conversation takes a turn towards religion, and you begin to share your faith and background with your friend. This friend shows a smirk across his face, and then states that he doubts that Jesus ever lived. How would you respond to him?

     My response would be to ask if he/she had ever considered the historically documented evidence outside of the Bible for the existence of Jesus. I would then ask in the same breath if he/she were aware that ancient historians, such as Flavius Josephus, who did not believe, included accounts in his records of this man named Jesus.  It isn’t just the fact that this Jesus was mentioned within their documents, but these documents and the information included on Jesus’s life matched the biblical account of his life. Furthermore, these historical documents, written by secular historians, wrote about Jesus in either a neutral or negative way and not from a biblical perspective, which would alleviate any thought that they were not true, thus, attempting to rumor a record that was false of this man named Jesus.
 

      The famous Jewish historian named Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian from the first century mentions “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James”.[1] The significance of this is that the Gospels report that Jesus had at least four brothers, James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon…”[2] From a secular non-religious Jewish historian to the very Gospels themselves – we can see a clear defining line on the existence of Jesus. Much of Flavius Josephus work regarding Jesus can also be read in his work entitled The Antiquities. 

     Another historical fact concerning the authenticity of Jesus was the work of another historian from the first century named Cornelius Tacitus, who mentions Jesus in his book, The Annals, by mentioning “superstitious "Christians" (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.”[3] Further reading from Tacitus will enhance the true identity of Jesus according to the Gospels by his report that “Nero fastened the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians… and that Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during his reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”[4]  

     Yet another who records information about Jesus Christ is a novelist named Lucian of Samosata, the Greek satirist who wrote, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rights, and was crucified on that account.”[5] This statement again, holds to the true accountability of Jesus being crucified and being worshiped by those who called themselves Christians. In his writings, he criticizes and mocks early Christians for their belief and worship of Christ. Why would Lucian, who mocked early Christians mention Jesus if this man was not who he claimed to be? This is another descriptive statement that matches the biblical portrait of Jesus according to the Bible.  

     There are also ancient writings of various government officials that contain proof for the existence of Jesus in history. A Roman author and administrator who served as governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor named Pliny the Younger mentioned Jesus in one of his books. “The tenth book, written around AD 112… provides some facts about Jesus”[6]  and his followers in a letter he wrote to Emperor Trajan to explain how he was handling their perceived inflexibility and political threat by interrogation, torture, and execution.[7]

     Jesus is also mentioned in the Talmud. The Talmud is a collection of Jewish oral tradition and commentary. The earliest period of compilation is called the Tannaitic period and is dated from AD 70-200. A portion from this early period records that Jesus was “hanged”[8] (a variant expression meaning the same fate as crucifixion) on the Passover for “practicing sorcery and enticing Israel to apostasy”[9]

     Speaking with my friend, I would end by asking him/her to consider the facts that was just presented and the improbability of Jesus not existing – even with the evidence presented from the non-biblical sources.   I would argue that the historical records were made by historians, government officials, religious leaders in which they did not accept Jesus as God. In turn, I would reason with him/her from a logical standpoint that with all the historical data we have; that Jesus truly did exist.  

Question Two

2. You meet a person on the ski lift at a local ski area, and in making small talk; you mention that you are taking college classes in the Bible. This new acquaintance is not trying to be antagonistic, but nevertheless, brings up something that he had heard regarding the “corruption” of the Bible. Upon further inquiry, you discover that this man has taken for granted the argument that the New Testament was corrupted over the centuries through the transmission process, and is thus unreliable. How might you answer him?

     I would begin by explaining that there are many people who claim that the New Testament cannot be trusted because it has been corrupted through centuries of being copied. Several facts must be considered before a conclusion can be made. There are many reasons to believe that our modern copies of the Bible are generally accurate reflections of the original manuscripts as we have today.

     There are many issues involved in the transmission of the New Testament down through the centuries.[10] To examine these issues; we must first look at some general disciplines which the first is called textual criticism. Textual criticism is better explained by, “… the study of the copies of any written document whose original is unknown or nonexistent in order to determine the exact wording of the original.”[11] This form of criticism is necessary in determining what are true verses what are false. 

     Another key component to understanding textual criticism is textual variants. A textual variant is: “any place among the manuscripts of the New Testament where there is not uniformity of wording.”[12] It is important to understand that there are “between three hundred thousand and four hundred thousand textual variants among the manuscripts.”[13] Interestingly enough is the fact that this means that there is an “average for every word in the Greek New Testament there are at least two variants.”[14] However this may seem, this is not the only evidence we have in trying to recover the original.

     When comparing the documents we have most scholars agree that the Greek New Testament we have today is more accurate due to the fact that there are thousands of manuscripts that was used in recovering the original verses that of the 1611 KJV where there were about a half dozen.”[15] While many rely on the King James Version for their information, it is evident that the Greek manuscripts are much more inferior to modern scholars as a more definitive source of accuracy.

     Furthermore, “over the period of many centuries, only about twenty-five hundred words were added to the original text.”[16] Komoszewski, goes further and states that the “New Testament grew in size from the earliest copies to the latest copies – fourteen hundred years later – by about 2 percent. Which he claims is a remarkably stable transmissional process.”[17] Out of all the textual variants within the manuscripts, the majority have only spelling differences – which have no impact on the meaning of the text.[18] There are many other variants which do not alter the way the text is translated.

     There are also many myths about the manuscripts that are simply wrong. There are two attitudes that we need to avoid when it comes to the New Testament: absolute certainty and total despair.”[19]  Generally, the KJV group only holds to the absolute certainty, while the radical liberals hold onto the absolute despair point of view. The absolute certainty holds to the view that we are “getting further away from the original texts of the New Testament – especially when it comes to the KJV which was written four-hundred years ago.”[20]

     Most believe that the KJV is the closest translation to the original manuscripts because it was written about four hundred years ago. “In order for this view to be true, three assumption must be demonstrated: (1) We have lost all date about the manuscripts that were used in producing the KJV New Testament, (2) no earlier manuscripts have been discovered in the past four hundred years, and (3) all modern translations are based on earlier translations exclusively rather than on an examination of the manuscript data.”, there are three assumptions must be demonstrated for this to be true.”[21]

     This assumption is grossly false because the fact that we have “almost all the manuscripts that were used in producing the KJV, not to mention the number of Greek manuscripts we have today is nearly one hundred times greater than the number used to produce the KJV and, the newer translations are also based on a detailed examination of the best critical editions of the Greek manuscripts.”[22]

     In today’s culture, we see some pretty strange myths and lies regarding the Bible. We see it paraded around on different media networks with some of it plain ridiculous in its attempt to make a mockery out of God’s word. This in itself twists the truth with false statements and beliefs that are then believed by others – especially those that aren’t knowledgeable of the content within. Being knowledgeable on the different methods of textual criticism and the truth that was discussed, is important in defending yourself from error and also defending the corruption you may hear regarding the Bible.    

Question Three

In an essay, answer the following question: Why is it important for the Christian to believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ? Or in other words, why is historicity important? The key word in this question is “why”. Be sure to answer accordingly.

 
     It is important for a Christian to believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ because Christianity is essentially the cornerstone of our faith – based on the who, what, when, where and how of this person we call Jesus. If we don’t believe in the historicity of Jesus, then what do we believe as our future – since our future in based on what Jesus himself has done – and how would we know or believe the historicity of Jesus if we fail to believe it to be true.  It is also important to believe the historicity of Jesus because it forms a worldview of unequal precedent.  

     If the historicity is not important then there would be no God. Throughout the responses I have given, I have argued the truth in the historical records we have that prove that there was truly a Jesus – a Jesus that aligns with the very Gospel we have today. There are far too many ancient records that we have in our procession with more being found through archeological dig each and every year to deny the historicity. 

     Historicity is important because it defines who we are. It gives us an ideal and a sense of understanding of the background we came from. It has been shown, through the evidences that were presented, that there really must be a Jesus – there really must not have been corruption within the texts of the Bible. So what does all this mean? It means that the very words written in the Bible that explain the history of Jesus are a foundation on which every believer should stand firm. It shows us the beginning and how we got from point A to point B and the trials and errors along the way. It gave us an understanding of the evil in the world and what took place for it to sweep our world. It shows us the sacrifice and the atonement and the escape from what is to come. It shows us our future and reminds us of our past.     

     As if telling a story to a young child, so it would be telling the story of Jesus. As with the story, there is a beginning and an end and this is important in building a foundation of structure in the historicity in general – especially when it comes to eternity. In fact, the historicity, being the foundation for our faith in Christ leads us to the conclusion that if what the Bible claims is true concerning those things that can be known objectively are true, we have reason to believe that what it claims concerning things that are otherwise unprovable are true as well. This therefore, leaves us the free will choice to choose if we believe or not. 

     In closing; we have examined the truths regarding the doubts many have with Jesus actually being alive and have shown that through historical documents from sources that are secular and not Christian that this Man, named Jesus did actually exist. We have examined the “corruption” of the New Testament and examined the textual criticism behind the writings along with the textual variants and other key components in which we determined that what we have today is more reliable that what we have ever had. And lastly, we have answered the important question as to why historicity is important to not only us as Christians, but to those that are not.

REFERENCES

Habermas, Gary R. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan:

            Kregel Publications, 2004.

Habermas, Gary R. 2008. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin: College Press Publishing Company. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com/books?id=pMMeqKHZIDkC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Habermas,+Gary+R.+2008.+The+Historical+Jesus:+Ancient+Evidence+for+the+Life+of+Christ.+Joplin:+College+Press+Publishing+Company.&source=bl&ots=xZWYvThObo&sig=m02nstZs9v3Cr9fhmFVkJ8CZy9g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yxEOVNelC8vGsQSnmIKACQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Habermas%2C%20Gary%20R.%202008.%20The%20Historical%20Jesus%3A%20Ancient%20Evidence%20for%20the%20Life%20of%20Christ.%20Joplin%3A%20College%20Press%20Publishing%20Company.&f=false  Accessed on September 08, 2014

Komoszewski, Ed. Reinventing Jesus. Grand Rapids , Michigan: Kregel Publications,

            2006.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, Book 15 – (A.D. 62-65), 15.44 Retrieved on September 02,2014 from http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitus/tacitusannals15.html

---

[1] Habermas, 2004, 67

[2] ibid

[3] The Annals, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, (15.44)

[4] Habermas, 2004, 49

[5] ibid

[6] Habermas, 2008, 198

[7] ibid

[8] See Sanhedrin 43a

[9] Habermas, 2008, 203

[10] komoszewski, Ed.,  2006. 53

[11] Ibid, 54

[12] ibid

[13] ibid

[14] ibid

[15] Ibid, 55

[16] ibid

[17] ibid

[18] Ibid, 56

[19] Ibid, 66

[20] ibid

[21] Ibid, 66-67

[22] Ibid, 67-68