The Problem of the Historical Jesus - Answering a Skeptic's Challenge - Mark Clark
The Bible tells us a lot about Jesus. But what does *history* tell us? Here’s what the sources say.
Outside the Bible, ten writers talk about Jesus. Even if we didn’t have the New Testament, we would know quite a bit about Jesus from these writers: that he was a Jewish teacher, that people believed he performed miracles and exorcisms, that people thought he was the Messiah, that he was tried and crucified by Pontius Pilate, and that people interacted with him after his death and worshipped him as God.
On top of this, the four gospels themselves are primary source documents that meet the standards of historical investigation. The events and people they describe have been corroborated by historians, archaeologists, and extra-biblical primary sources.
What about the discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible? Most historians actually argue that such contradictions bring legitimacy. Here’s why: if the story was fabricated, then it would likely be internally consistent; if a group of people got together to make it up, they would be careful to get their facts straight.
But because the story was experienced by many people over many years—and remembered (and misremembered) over many *more* years—subtle differences appear, as they do in other primary source documents describing other historical events. Each version of the story reflects the differences in how it was experienced and remembered by various people and communities who interacted with Jesus, and who documented those interactions in the years and decades after Jesus’ ministry.
▶️ WATCH THE REST OF THIS SERIES ON MASTERLECTURES:
📕 GET THE BOOK:
