Did Jesus Christ Rise from the Dead?

A genuine question raised by the non-believing Christians and the other religions like Islam and Hinduism. They are not able to appreciate that such an event could be historical and real. Are you also having such doubts? In the 21^st century, with advanced scientific knowledge, how is it possible to believe in a thing like that? Do you think like that? Well, then it is time we look into the various views on the subject and discuss the evidences for and against it. Come, my friends, let’s go through this very interesting topic in this blog.

Since the time Jesus’ disciples claimed that they had seen the resurrected Jesus, controversies raged on the reliability of such an account. Jesus while he lived on earth had predicted that he would suffer, be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, be killed, and after three days rise again.[1] Of course his disciples couldn’t make head of tail of it. They had presumed that Jesus will drive away the Romans and establish his kingdom, in which they will all reign with him as his deputies with power and honor. How could he talk like this?

Well, what Jesus foretold was exactly what happened. He was betrayed by Judas Iscariot, his own disciple, arrested by the temple guards, accused of blasphemy before the high priests and elders, dragged before Pilate, the Governor, on charges of sedition and revolt against Caesar, flogged and crucified by Roman soldiers and he died on the cross. He was buried in a rich man’s tomb in a nearby garden. How sad and what a disappointment for the disciples! They just scattered like headless chicken.

But there was more to come. Jesus had predicted that he will rise again on the third day. Aware of this, the chief priests and other religious leaders like Pharisees ask Pilate to make the tomb secure so that his disciple do not come, steal the body and claim that he had risen from the dead. Pilate simple asks them to go and make sure it is guarded with their own guards. Then they left and made the tomb secure by affixing a seal on the stone that closed the entrance to the tomb and set the guard.[2]  

Still what they feared happened! Jesus rose again from the dead on the third day! What a miracle! But the guards set by the Temple authorities came and reported that the things that had happened – how there was a great earthquake, how an angel from heaven came and rolled the stone away and directed the women who had come to embalm Jesus’ body to go and tell the disciples that He is risen as He said He will and that they are to go to Galilee where they will see him.  The authorities consulted each other, gave a large sum of money to the guards to tell them a lie that Jesus’ disciples came in the night and stole the body, when they were asleep. They promised to protect them if this reached the Governor’s notice! And to this day it is said that Jews believed such a story among themselves.[3]

This view is still prevalent among the Jews that Jesus’ disciples came in the night and stole the body away, when the guards on duty slept. This is called the "Conspiracy Theory." You might wonder why no action was taken on the guards who slept on duty! Why were they not punished? Can a guard be so negligent as to sleep on duty? In 1^st century AD, such negligence will result in the guard being punished with death! Still nothing happened to them.

Moreover, even if the doubt was that the disciples came secretly and stole the body away, why didn’t they round them up, torture them and extract the truth from them and recover the body? Not that such methods were not followed during those days. After all the disciples were poor fishermen and could have easily been threatened to give up the body. But they didn’t do it. Why? The truth was there was no ‘body’ to be found for Jesus had really risen from the dead. How about you? Still have doubts? Ok, let’s go through another type of refusal to believe.

This excuse is from the Muslims. By the way, did you know that Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was born in AD 570, some 500 years or so after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? He died in AD 632 and you must always remember that the Quran that he was supposed to have written is at least 600 years later than any of the first accounts of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. Well, in Quran it is written that they (Jews) did not kill Christ Jesus, nor did they crucify him. “Only a likeness of that was shown to them … Allah raised him up unto himself”[4]

So according to Muslims, based on this writing in Quran, Jesus did not die, but someone else was killed in his place and Allah simply took Jesus away. This is called the ‘substitution theory.’ Imagine, writing this 600 years after the event! How much could be the element of truth in that! Ahmadiya Muslims have even a better story to tell. Jesus didn’t die, but survived the crucifixion, fled to India and lived in Kashmir, where he died in old age and was buried! You will be surprised that Ahmadiya sect of Islam was founded only in 1889 in Punjab, in the then British India. A local tomb of a Muslim holy man was claimed as that of Jesus by this group in 1889, which the local Sunni caretakers vehemently reject. Such myths are propagated after some 1800 years of the incident. How truthful can these be? Not a shred of evidence.

Three things need to be examined here. One, what made Muhammad to write like that? What were the resources on which this was based? Second, was it possible for another person to be crucified in the place of Jesus under the given circumstances? And thirdly, is it possible that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion to live another day? We will examine these now.

The note in Quran below the Surah quoted above, says that the Christians believed in blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins, and hence this death and resurrection of Jesus was required for their theology and they invented the whole thing. Jesus died in the place of the sinner, and his blood was shed as a sacrifice to pay the penalty due to the sinner, is Christian theology of salvation. This the Muslims reject. They cannot understand that another person can die in the place of a sinner. Since this is not the teaching of Islam, they had to cook up the story of someone else being crucified in the place of Jesus. Is this possible at all?

Jesus was identified as the culprit by Judas Iscariot kissing him; after he was arrested, the high priests and others who had seen Jesus and had interacted with him, took him to Pilate for his death penalty. The crowd in front of Pilate shouted that he be crucified. Pilate, the governor, after thoroughly checking Jesus’ person, and questioning him, scourged him,[5] handed him over to the soldiers of his establishment to be crucified.[6] There after the soldiers, under the command of a centurion, took charge of Jesus and led him to Golgotha and crucified him there.

Now, let our Muslim friend tell us, at what stage was it possible to replace Jesus with another man and crucify him and let Jesus escape? How is it possible to do such a thing in the broad day light under the full scrutiny of the Temple authorities, Roman soldiers and the Jews who accused Jesus? If any Roman soldier, let alone their chief, the Centurion, let a condemned criminal escape, he will be executed as a punishment! Compared to the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial, and crucifixion written within 20-30 years of the incident, Quran was written after 600 years, and it could only be a myth and a story created to discredit Jesus and his sacrificial death.

What is the basis for the Islam to arrive at such a conclusion? The same note under the Surah 4:157, gives four sources which also say that Jesus being God, did not die and only appeared to have died. These are Basilidans, Docetae, Marcionite Gospel, and Gospel of St. Barnabas. All the four writings arose in the 2^nd and 3^rd century AD, condemned by the church as spurious accounts and apocrypha and not even included in the 27 books of the New Testament. Why go and base the conclusions on such discredited books? Why not quote the gospels written by the earliest writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? There could be only one reason, it supported their contrary claims. That is all!

The next point for examination is whether it is possible for Jesus to have survived the ordeal of crucifixion? Well my dear readers, we need to postpone this to the next blog, as I have run out of space here. So do wait till next week and in the meanwhile don’t stop reading! Keep mulling these facts in your mind as you await the next blog, which is not far off!

God bless you and keep you.

---

[1] Mark 8:31; Matthew 17:22-23; Luke 18:32-33

[2] Matthew 27:62-66

[3] Matthew 28:2-8, 11-15

[4] Quran Surah 4:157-158

[5] John 19: 1

[6] Matthew 27: 11-25, 26-27

The Story of how the 27 books in NT came to be!

Have you ever wondered how the 27 books of the NT came to be in our Bible? Who selected these books? How were they selected? What were the criteria to be included in the list of NT as Scripture? When was it done? Who authorized it? These are all the questions that arise in your mind, isn’t it? Shall we go through the adventurous story of how this process happened over the ages? Come to my blog, let’s take up this journey now!

Before that we need to know what these 27 books are in the NT. Why don’t we group them under some categories, so that it is easy to remember? Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John); one history book (Acts); 13 Paul’s letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon); 1 anonymous letter (Hebrew); seven short letters (James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude) and the last one Revelation, the Apocalypse! See, isn’t that easy? Once we are through with this then we can move further.

The process by which a set of books got approved as books of the Bible is called Canonization. What is this funny sounding term? See, it comes from the word ‘canon,’ which depicts a scale or a ruler as we will use in our geometry classes. It measures things and sets a standard. The books that are accepted officially as sacred books of the Bible according to a standard are the ‘canonical’ books. Such ‘canonized’ books as per the standard measure is called ‘canonicity.’ It is the canonicity of the NT books that we are going to look into now. Is that clear my dear friend?

This process of selecting the books started very early in the history of Christianity. Did you know that the main Apostles, the direct disciples of Jesus, Peter and Paul were killed by 65 AD by Roman authorities? They were martyred, killed for worshiping Jesus Christ as God! Terrible, isn’t it? Well such things happen even today. Did you also know that John was the only disciple of Jesus to live until old age and die a natural death? Tradition has it that he ministered in Ephesus, Asia Minor and died at the age of 100 years! That is a long life, won’t you say!

Now, the letters written by Paul, some 10 of the major ones started to circulate as a collection of letters (Corpus Paulinum) by the 100 AD, and were circulated among the churches. This was called Apostolos (Greek). The book Hebrews was also bound up as one of his letters. Another collection of books containing the four gospels including the book of Acts were also making the round by that time. This was called evangelion (Greek).

The first person to write about these collections of books was Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. In must tell you something interesting about this Ignatius, who is one of the earliest Apostolic Fathers. The direct disciples of Jesus were called the Apostles and the next generation of church leaders were called the Apostolic (Church) Fathers. He was the Bishop of Antioch, Syria and was taken in chains accompanied by soldiers for trial and punishment to Rome for causing disturbance to peace! He was thrown to lions in the Circus Maximus now known as Collosseum in Rome, and was killed in 108 AD, becoming a martyr. But do you know what he did? On the way to Rome from Syria, he wrote at least 7 letters to the churches on his way! Groups of people accompanied him from town to town! They made him famous! He mentions the collection of the gospels and Paul’s letters in his writings.

Polycarp, a friend of Ignatius and the Bishop of Smyrna also mentions these collections in 115 AD. He mentions another collection called General Epistles, containing letters of Peter, James, John and Jude. So by this time the list of the books of the NT is emerging.

Clement of Rome, Bishop of Rome was also martyred in 99 AD; all the three, Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement quote from all the NT books, except Revelation, Philemon, 2^nd Peter, 2^nd and 3^rd John and Jude. These were the first church authorities to mention the books in the NT.

Now we have an interesting phenomenon happening; many spurious writings, in the name of apostles and the disciples start to appear and were circulating. The church authorities recognized the need to list out the authenticate books for worship, which could be used in the churches for the worship by the Christian people.

The first person to make such a list was Marcion in AD 144; unfortunately he was a heretic. He didn’t approve of OT as a scripture and approved only of Paul’s letters and gospel of Luke as genuine. He rejected everything else as having been corrupted by of Jewish influence. Well, expectedly the church of Rome threw him out but he still propagated his views from Asia Minor. Now the genuine church leaders felt the need to draw up the list of books urgently.

We have the first list in the Muratorian fragments from Rome, dated AD 180, which lists 22 of the 27 books of NT. It had four gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1, 2 John and Jude, but omitted Hebrews. It included two apocryphal books too. Do you know what is meant by Apocryphal books? These were writings teaching different truths from that of the gospels and the letters of Paul and all written in the second century AD, after the death of the direct disciples and Apostles of Jesus Christ. So the church refused to accept them as inspired writings or use them in the church for meditation or for teaching.

Next come Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul in AD 180. He calls the four gospels as the pillars supporting the church; Acts was separated from Luke and accepted separately. He accepts 21 books, leaving out 2^nd Peter, 2^nd and 3^rd John, James, Jude, and Hebrew.

Such a process continues through Origen, Bishop of Alexandria (AD 185-254), Tertullian, Bishop of Carthage and Rome (AD 155-240), Eusebius, Jewish historian (AD 265-340), and up to Athanasius of Alexandria (AD 296-373), who in AD 367 lists out all the 27 books as we have in NT now and this list is ratified in the Synod of Carthage in AD 397. The churches all over the world gradually accepted this list and it became the approved list of 27 books of the NT, authorized to be used in the churches for public worship and teaching.

Wow, what a journey, spread over almost 300-400 years! Some of the church fathers had to fight the heretical and spurious writings that sprang up in the second and third centuries and safeguard the real and truthful teachings of the Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Do you think they succeeded? I would say they did! Or else we wouldn’t be having our Bible now! 

So what were the criteria for canonization? 1. It had to be authoritative – taught by the Apostles, the direct Disciples of Christ or their close associates like Mark (associate of Peter) and Luke (associate of Paul). After the death of the last Apostle, John, the church cordoned off all other writings. 2. It had to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and contain the truth as taught by Jesus, as recorded in the gospels or the early epistles (letters). 3. Be authentic, without twisting of the doctrines and truth. 4. It had to be dynamic, with ability to change the life of the person who reads them. Saints like Augustine, the Reformation fame Martin Luther, Methodist founder John Wesley - all witness to how the Scripture transformed their lives. God’s Word has power to change a person! 5. Finally the books used by the ancient church in their worship and service, well received by the congregations and church leaders, became included in the list.

Some books were disputed and were accepted quite late, why so? Hebrew was anonymous, so was removed. 2 Peter and Jude were almost like Apocrypha, so the church leaders were hesitant to include them. 2 & 3 John were short and personal letters, so were not included. James emphasized work and not faith as Paul did. So this was disputed until it was seen that both talked about different sides of the same coin! Revelation, because it was highly symbolic with dreams and visions, but was accepted later as its significance came to e realized.

Well my dear friends, have you got a clear picture of the whole scenario of how the 27 books came to be in our NT? Did you enjoy the journey? I am sure you did! Do let me have your views and comments.

God bless you and keep you.

Apologetics: Reliability of Mark’s Gospel

Having seen the reliability of the NT as a whole through documentary evidence, eye-witness account, chain of custody, corroborative evidence, and archaeological evidence, we now pass on to see the reliability of one of the 27 books of the NT, the Gospel of Mark as a sample case. The reliability of the other books also can be worked out similarly, but right now we will examine the case of the Gospel of Mark.

Background of Mark, the author:

Mark was also known as John, for in the 1^st century AD it was common for the Jewish people to have two names, one of Hebrew and the other Greek. Marcus, is Mark, his name in Greek and John was his Hebraic name. This we see in Acts 12:12, 25 and Acts 15:37. He was ‘John whose surname was Mark,’ and ‘John called Mark.’ From these verses, we infer that Mark was a Palestine Jew, whose mother Mary was well to do, whose house in Jerusalem was big enough to be the meeting place for the local church to gather. He also knew Peter the Apostle well, for Peter on release from jail by the miraculous intervention of the angel of God, headed straight to his mother’s house.[1] It is possible that he was converted by Peter.

Testimony about Mark writing the Gospel:

The Internal Evidences: The writing style of the Gospel (here Gospel of Mark) is that of one whose first language was a Semitic language like Aramaic.[2] He uses a number of Aramaic words, for example, Thalitha, cumi which was translated ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise;’[3] ‘Corban,’ which meant ‘a gift to God’;[4] ‘Ephphatha,’ meaning ‘Be opened,’ which Jesus said while  opening the eyes of the blind man;[5] Jesus addresses God as his Father endearingly as ‘Abba, Father,’ while praying at Gethsemane[6] and again Jesus from the cross cries out in agony, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,’ which translated as ‘My Father, My Father, why have you forsaken me?’[7]

The outline of Mark’s Gospel correlates well with Peter’s outline as we see in his preaching at Acts 1:21-22 and Acts 10:37-41. Peter limited his preaching to the public life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Peter starts from the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and ends with ascension. Similar outline is followed by Mark; he omits the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke and starts his Gospel from the activities of John the Baptist. He gives a sharp, matter of fact, short and abridged version of the ministry of Jesus, ending it in his passion and ascension.

Mark also dilutes the instances where Peter shows indiscretion or less faith, may be just not to embarrass his mentor. This could be seen in a comparative reading of Mark’s Gospel along with that of Matthew’s or Luke’s or John’s Gospels. Examples that could be cited are Peter’s lack of faith on the lake – Mark 6:50 with Matthew 14:22-31, where Mark omits Jesus chiding the ever adventurous Peter, as “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” which is brought forth by Matthew. Again Peter’s behavior at the feet washing by Jesus narrated by John is detail in John 13:2-9 is almost omitted by Mark. Peter’s denial of his Master is likewise put forth in milder terms than Matthew who mentions that at the third identification of him being with the accused Jesus, ‘he began to curse and swear’ that he did not know the Lord.[8]

Mark also gives personal details of Peter’s life, like his home in Capernaum and his mother-in-law being sick whom Jesus healed.[9] In all these internal evidences we see that Mark is writing a true narrative though abridged form of the teaching and preaching of Peter, the direct disciple of Jesus and the Apostle of Christ.

External Evidences: The early church fathers beginning with Papias attest about Mark and the Gospel he wrote. Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis (AD 60-130) mentions that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and that he followed Peter and wrote it down. Irenaeus (AD 130-200) calls Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, who gave his preaching in written form. Justin Martyr (AD 150) calls Mark’s Gospel as the ‘Memoir of Peter,’ and mentions that Jesus renamed the sons of Zebedee, John and James as ‘Sons of Thunder,’[10] because both had impetuous temper. This information is given only by Mark in his Gospel.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) says people besought Mark, the follower of Peter to write and record Peter’s teachings. Eusebius, (260-340), the writer of Ecclesiastical History, who was also the Bishop of Alexandria, mentions that Peter preached in Rome and people requested Mark to write it out, and he wrote the Gospel. He further states that Peter knew about this but said nothing. That meant Peter was aware of Mark writing down his preaching and had no objection to the same.

Tertullin (AD 160-225), who wrote an Apologetics “Against Marcion,” affirms that Mark’s Gospel was written by Peter’s interpreter, Mark. The oldest fragment containing the list of NT books, Muratorian fragments dated 170 AD, affirms that Mark was present at Peter’s talks in Rome and that he recorded it.

Origen, (AD 185-254) says that among the undisputable gospels in the church, four are authentic, that of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; regarding the Gospel of Mark he says, mark composed it in according to the instructions/teachings of Peter, who acknowledged him as his son.[11] It also indicates that many unauthorised apocryphal gospels were circulating along with the genuine ones. Of the three prologues written in Latin Bibles in 4^th century AD, known as Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Mark is referred to be ‘stump-fingered,’ that is, small fingers compared to his body and that he was the interpreter of Peter and that he wrote the Gospel in Italy.[12] Possibly what Peter spoke in Aramaic, Mark translated and wrote in Greek.

All these writings of the church fathers abundantly clarify that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark and that he wrote it as a close associate of Peter and based on the preaching of Peter.  

Synoptic Gospels:

Of the first three Gospels, known as Synoptic Gospels,[13] Bruce points out that 606 out of 661 verses of Mark’s Gospel appears in Matthew’s Gospel. So also, 350 of Mark’s verse appear in Luke’s Gospel. That is to say Matthew has 50% of Mark’s material and Luke has 40% of it. Only 31 verses of Mark have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. These show that Mark’s Gospel is the oldest and most probably the main source of both Matthew and Luke.[14]

Chain of Custody:          

As seen earlier, the gospels and other NT materials were faithfully passed on from reliable person to person, who were disciples of the previous person. In the case of Mark, he was the direct disciple of Peter, the disciple and Apostle of Jesus Christ; Mark worked in North Africa and left behind 5 disciples in Alexandria, who became bishops of Alexandra one after the other; the last one, Justus (AD 135), had a disciple named Pantaenus (AD 195), who passed on the baton to the famous Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), who had an equally famous disciple, Origen (AD 185-254) who wrote commentaries on all the books of NT; next in line was Pamphilus (AD 300), who wrote an apology for Origen and then comes the famous historian Eusebius (AD 263-339) and thereafter the book entered Codex Sinaiticus (AD 350).[15]

As we see there is a continuous chain of committed Christians who passed on the Gospel till it reached the stage where it was incorporated in the codex or the book in 4^th century AD, thus ensuring its careful transmission through ages. It does say a lot about the reliability of the Gospel of Mark as well of the other books of NT.

Mark’s life and death:

Mark must have been an educated, young man, who was associated with both Peter and Paul as their help and assistants. He must have written this gospel when Peter was still alive around 50s or the 60s. Peter and Paul perished in the persecution of Nero in 64 -65 AD. Mark, it is believed went to Alexandria in North Africa, carrying the gospel along with him and had his own ministry there until in 68 AD when he himself died a martyr.[16]

Thus ended a glorious life, life devoted to Christ and His teachings; but Mark passed it on to us as the Gospel of Mark, thus still remaining alive with us, testifying his faith in Christ to all of us.

Glory to be His name, who had raised such committed Christians and for having preserved His Word to the future generations for our benefit.

  

---

[1] Acts 12:5-12

[2] Aramaic was a Semitic language spoken by Middle East since early times. In 5^TH and 6^th centuries to became the official language of Persian Empire and the vernacular of the Middle East before being replaced by Greek after Alexander the Great. In Syria and Palestine, it survived and it is believed that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic.

[3] Mark 5:41

[4] Mark 7:11

[5] Mark 7:34

[6] Mark 14:36. This endearing term is used by Paul twice in his letters at Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6.

[7] Mark 15:34 – a distinct quotation by Jesus of Psalm 22:1.

[8] Mark 14:66-72 and Matthew 26:69-75

[9] Mark 1:29-31

[10] Mark 3:17; according to Luke 9:54, the twosome wanted to call down fire from heaven to destroy the Samaritan village which refused to receive Jesus!

[11] 1 Peter 5:13

[12] For the writings of the church fathers, I have referred Wallace Warner, Cold Case Christianity.

[13] These are called Synoptic Gospels, because of their comparative coverage of Jesus’ life, teachings, public ministry, passion, death and resurrection.

[14] Bruce, pp.38-42

[15] Wallace, p.23

[16] Wallace, pp.18-23

Is New Testament Reliable? Archaeological Evidence

After perusing the documentary evidence, eye-witness account, chain of custody and corroborative evidence from other sources, we now come to the last but not least in importance, the archaeological evidence to prove that the NT accounts are reliable.

Many sites referred to in the Gospels and Acts and the Epistles in the New Testament have been unearthed by Archaeological searches and it goes to prove that these places or events surrounding these places as narrated in the NT really exist and the events happened.

First we will examine the evidence for the existence of the Pool of Bethesda, described in John 5:2, which had five porches, where Jesus healed a man who had infirmity for 39 years. This has been discovered in 1888, when excavations revealed an ancient church building in that quarter, mainly to mark the site of Bethesda. The pools, lying in the north and south with a rock partition between them and the five porticoes have also been identified.

The Pool of Siloam mentioned in John 9:7, where Jesus asks the blind man he healed to go and wash his eyes, has been identified. Thus these are not fictional accounts but actual places that existed during Jesus’ time. It is still there and it was a pleasure to visit it in 2015 during my trip to the Holy Land.

The tomb in which Jesus was buried near the hillock Golgotha, has been traditionally held as the place where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been built by Constantine, the first Christian Emperor in 345 AD. In 2018, while taking up renovation works, analysis of the mortar of the old original limestone cave walls of the tomb, over which had been build a marble edicule (A small building, a shrine), has been dated 1^st century AD, thus authenticating that that was the place where Jesus was buried. 

In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul sends greetings from one of his companions in Corinth from where he writes the letter, mentioning him as ‘Erastus, the City Treasurer,’ in Romans 16:23. In excavations carried out in 1929, on a pavement in Corinth was found the inscription ‘Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.’ (translated from Latin). This pavement is dated 1^st century AD. It is possible that this Erastus is the same person sending his greetings through Paul’s letter to the Romans.[1] By the time Paul wrote his letter, this Erastus might have been promoted from the office of Public works, to that of the city treasurer.[2]

Linguistic analysis of the Greek written by the not-very-well-educated disciples of Jesus, who were mostly fishermen, has established that this Greek was different from that of the classical Greek. The Greek these disciples used to write NT is known as the language of the common people, the vernacular Koine or common.[3] This clears the doubt how come the uneducated fishermen could write such gospels and epistles of the NT.

We must also remember that Peter’s teachings were abridged and written by Mark, an educated young man as the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles were written by Luke the Physician, definitely educated and a qualified practicing medical man. That leaves only Matthew and John, the former a tax collector of Roman Empire and as such must have been educated enough to do the official work and John definitely had the basic education in spite of being a fisherman. In Judea, every Jew had to be literate, if only to read Torah and understand it.   

Another very interesting episode is about Luke mentioning Lysanias as the Tetrarch of Abilene in Luke 3:1. Scholars had thought Luke has had it wrong, for Lysanias was not a tetrarch but the ruler of Chalcis some fifty years before the birth of Jesus. However, archaeology has discovered an inscription from the time of Emperor Tiberius, from AD 14-37, that one Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus. There had been two officials named Lysanias. Luke stands vindicated!

Luke in the course of his two writings, a gospel and a historical account of the first apostles, mentions nearly 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine islands, and not a single one is a mistake, their authenticity attested either by historical accounts or archaeology.[4] This is creditable indeed and goes a long way to authenticate the writings in NT.

Archaeological digs have also unearthed what is most possibly Peter’s house in Capernaum. Under the remains of an octagonal shaped church from 5^th century AD, they found the remains of an earlier church underneath it. This early church has been built around a private house, a place used by early Christians as a meeting place, dated as the second half of the first century AD. Today a modern church exists in this place, suspended above the site, with the excavated site visible through a glass floor. This could have definitely been the house of Simon Peter we read about in Luke 4:38.

Pontius Pilate, the Roman official who condemned and gave Jesus over to be crucified, was a true historical figure as ample evidence is available in written records as we have seen earlier. In 1961, an inscription was discovered written in Latin, dated AD.26-37, which translates “To Tiberius – Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.” What more proof you need to authenticate the historicity of Jesus and the gospel narratives about him in the NT?

I would quote just one more discovery. In 2002 archaeological digs unearthed a mid first century ossuary in the vicinity of Jerusalem, with the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” James was the half brother of Jesus, who became one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church after Christ’s crucifixion. He was martyred in 62 AD.

Well, there are many more finds of the archaeological investigations that keep throwing up many interesting facts confirming the reliability of the New Testament books and writings. But I think suffice has been said about these for anyone interested to dig deeper. It is an interesting study in itself and a rewarding one at that.

I will close my writings on “Is NT reliable?” with this final evidence from archaeology and we will turn to equally interesting topics from the next blog onward. I hope you have enjoyed these writings and look forward to more. God bless you all.

Good bye for now.

---

[1] F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? OM Books, Secunderabad: India, 2004, p. 112

[2] Leslie C. Allen, Romans, New International Bible Commentary, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan: USA, 1979, p. 1345

[3] Bruce, p.115

[4] Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, OM Books, Secunderabad: India, 2001, p. 98