The Gospels Meet the Epistles

By Nathan Busenitz @http://www.sfpulpit.com

This is the next part of our series looking at ten reasons we believe the New Testament gospels are historically reliable. To access the previous posts in this series, click here.

Seventh, the picture of Jesus in the gospels is consistent with the picture of Jesus found in the rest of the New Testament.

Not only are the gospels consistent with each other, they are also consistent with the rest of the New Testament. This is first seen in the book of Acts, where the testimonies of Peter (in Acts 2:22-24; 3:13-20; 4:27-31; 5:29-31; 10:38-43), Philip (in Acts 8:25-40), and Paul (in Acts 17:30-31; 26:22-23) correspond perfectly with the accounts of the gospel writers. But it doesn’t stop there.

The rest of the New Testament also affirms that Jesus was a real Jewish man (cf. 1 John 1:1-4; 4:2), a descendent of Abraham (Rom. 9:5) and David (Rom. 1:3), who was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4) and had siblings (1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19; James 1:1; Jude 1). He was poor (2 Cor. 8:9; cf. Rom. 15:3; Php. 2:6-8), meek and gentle (2 Cor. 10:1; 1 Pet. 2:23), selfless (Rom. 15:3; Php 2:5), and righteous (1 Cor. 1:30; 1 Pet. 1:19).

He was transfigured on a mountain with several of His disciples (2 Pet. 1:16-18). Yet, at the end of His ministry, He was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23), and on the night He was betrayed instituted a memorial supper (1 Cor. 11:23–25). He then stood trial before Pontius Pilate (1 Tim. 6:13), suffered (1 Pet. 1:11; 2:21-23), and was crucified (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:8; Gal. 3:1, 1 Pet. 2:24, 3:18) through the instigation of the Jewish leaders (1 Thess. 2:14-15). On the third day He was buried and raised and appeared to many (1 Cor. 15:4–8; cf. 1 Pet. 1:3, 21). He then ascended (Eph. 1:20; cf. Rom. 10:6; Eph. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:21; 3:22) and will one day return to this earth for those who are His own (e.g. 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Tim. 6:14; Titus 2:11-14).

Thus, through their letters, Peter, Paul, and John affirm the main tenets of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Many scholars consider the testimony in Paul’s letters to be especially significant because they are usually dated earlier than the gospels (and are therefore considered the earliest biblical testimony to the facts of Jesus life).

In addition to the details of His life, the teachings of Jesus are also echoed in the rest of the New Testament. The apostle Paul emphasizes that Christ died to bring salvation to sinners (Rom. 5:6-8; Luke 19:10; John 15:13); that love fulfills the law (Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:14; cf. Mark 12:31); that taxes must be paid to whom they are due (Rom. 13:7; cf. Mark 12:16-17); and that Christians should not seek their own revenge (Rom. 12:17; Matt. 5:39), but rather should bless those who persecute them (Rom. 12:14; cf. Luke 6:27-28). Paul even quotes Jesus in 1 Timothy 5:18 (cf. Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7) in asserting that the laborer is worthy of his wages. Paul’s reference to faith moving mountains (1 Cor. 13:2) also seems to correspond to the words of Jesus in Mark 11:23.

Other New Testament writers, such as James and John show a similar familiarity with the teaching ministry of Jesus Christ (e.g. James 1:2 cf. Mt. 5:10-12; 1:22 cf. Mt. 7:24ff; 3:12 cf. Mt. 7:16; 2:5 cf. Mt. 5:3; 4:11-12 cf. Mt. 7:1; 5:2 cf. Mt. 6:19; 5:12 cf. Mt. 5:34-37; 1 John 1:1-3 cf. John 1:1, 14; 1:6 cf. John 8:12, 55; 2:3 cf. John 14:15, 23; 2:6 cf. John 15:4; 2:7 cf. John 13:34; 2:18 cf. Mark 13:22; 2:27 cf. John 14:16-17, 26; 3:1 cf. John 1:10; 3:2 cf. John 1:12).

All of this, of course, corresponds perfectly with the account of Jesus presented in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Jesus of the epistles does not contradict the Jesus of the Gospels. Quite the contrary, the letters of the New Testament affirm the reliability of the Gospel accounts.

Gospel Harmony

By Nathan Busenitz @

This is the sixth installment in our series on the trustworthiness of the New Testament gospels. In case you’ve missed any of the discussion so far, here are links to part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5.

Sixth, the picture of Christ and His ministry is consistent/harmonious within the four gospels.

Though penned by four different individuals (and thus from four different perspectives), the biblical gospels present a picture of Jesus Christ that is consistent. This is critical, because if the gospels did not agree with one another, they could not all be regarded as historically reliable sources of information.

In the gospels we learn about Jesus’ human lineage, both His legal ancestry through Joseph (Matt. 1:1–17) and His physical genealogy through Mary (Luke 3:23–38). We also learn about His heavenly preexistence (John 1:1–5; 14–18). As records of Jesus’ life, the gospels tell us about His birth, baptism, temptation, teaching, miracles, confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders; and ultimately His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.

Matthew presents Jesus as the King (Matt. 2:2), Mark as the Servant (Mark 10:45), Luke as the Savior (Luke 19:10), and John as the Son of God (John 20:31). Yet, in spite of their different emphases, the presentation of Christ in each is consistent with the rest. In all four, Jesus is the Messiah, the miracle-worker who preached with divine authority and called the world to turn from sin and follow Him (e.g. Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; John 12:26). In all four, He came to bring salvation to sinners by laying down his life on the cross and conquering death through His resurrection (e.g. Matt. 1:21; Mark 16:16; Luke 19:10; John 3:17). Though written from different perspectives, not unlike four different news reporters writing about the same news story, the biblical gospels combine to form a powerful and coherent account of the life and ministry of Jesus.

Though critics point to apparent contradictions within the gospel accounts, their allegations ultimately fall short. Satisfactory explanations for such “difficulties” are readily available.[1] In fact, “the large number of common-sense explanations available for almost every so-called contradiction that has ever been pointed out must surely be considered before glibly dismissing the NT as hopelessly contradictory.”[2] Often the supposed contradictions are nothing more than the same event being paraphrased or described from a different point of view. Thus, as Craig Blomberg notes:

Once you allow for the elements . . . of paraphrase, of abridgement, of explanatory additions, of selection, of omission—the gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it’s fair to judge them. [For that matter,] if the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting.[3]

Critics tend to point first to alleged contradictions between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the gospel of John—as though the presentation of Jesus given by John is incompatible with that of the other gospel writers. But such accusations ultimately stem from the imaginations of liberal scholars, and not from a straightforward reading of the text itself. In the words of New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce,

Whatever difficulties some scholars have felt, most readers of the Gospels in all ages have been unaware of any fundamental discrepancy between the Christ who speaks and acts in the fourth Gospel and Him who speaks and acts in the Synoptics. Many have testified that John leads them into an even deeper and more intimate appreciation of the mind of Christ than do the other three.[4]

In the end, liberal accusations about John’s gospel just do not hold up. Though most of John’s material is unique to his gospel, there is “nothing in John contradicts the synoptics, and vice versa.”[5] Once we understand that John’s gospel was written after the other gospels, as a supplement to them, we find that there are no irreconcilable contradictions between the accounts.

* * * * *

Notes:

[1] Gleason Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, or any good conservative commentary on each of the gospels, discusses interpretative issues and resolutions.

[2] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 208.

[3] Craig Blomberg, cited by Stroebel, Case for Christ, 41.

[4] F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Gospels: Are They Reliable?

[5] John MacArthur, The Gospel of John, vol. 1, introduction.

The Gospels and the Early Church

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

This is the next installment of our series regarding the trustworthiness of the New Testament. In past posts we have already considered four reasons why the NT gospels can be considered reliable witnesses to Jesus’ life.

Fifth, the early Christian community would have demanded an accurate record.

Throughout the book of Acts, the apostles emphasized the fact that they were eyewitnesses to the events of Christ’s life (cf. Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39). The apostle Paul similarly recorded that at least five hundred people had seen Jesus after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6). This included Christian leaders such as Peter, the twelve disciples, and James the brother of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5, 7). In addition to this, about three thousand others joined the church on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41), most of whom were familiar with the news about Jesus’ life and death and miracles (Luke 24:18; Acts 2:22; 26:26).

From the inception of the church, then, the truth about Jesus was validated by eyewitness testimony — testimony that included hundreds, if not thousands, of people. As Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their respective gospels, they would have known that many in the church were already familiar with the basic facts of Jesus’ life. Those with firsthand information about Jesus would have known immediately if something in the gospel records was incorrect.

That the gospel writers were subject to such accountability is confirmed by the early dates of each of their accounts. All four gospels were written in the first century, as even many liberal scholars are willing to admit.[1] This, of course, is necessarily true if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the actual authors of the gospels (a point which has already been established). It is further supported by both the archeological and historical evidence. For example, Matthew is referenced in the writings of the church father Ignatius (who died around 110 A.D.), and fragments of the gospel have been found which date to the latter part of the first century.[2] The gospel of John is likewise attested by fragments from as early as 100 A.D. which quote from or allude to the gospel (P52 and Papyrus Egerton 2).

Most scholars date Mark around 65-70 AD with Luke, Matthew, and John writing later.[3] Others argue for earlier dates (in the 40s, 50s, and 60s), and with good reason.[4] But even if late-first century dates are accepted, “the Gospels were still written during the time when eyewitnesses who had seen Jesus and had experienced his ministry were alive. One would, therefore, still be on good historical grounds for treating them as solid historical sources.”[5] Even at the end of the first century, not enough time had elapsed for the historical facts of Jesus’ life to have been eclipsed by legend.

In this regard, A. N. Sherwin-White, a scholar of ancient Roman and Greek history at Oxford, has studied the rate at which legend accumulated in the ancient world, using the writings of Herodotus as a test case. He argues that even a span of two generations is not sufficient for legend to wipe out a solid core of historical facts. The picture of Jesus in the New Testament was established well within that length of time.[6]

A full discussion of the proposed dates for each of the gospels is outside the scope of our purposes here. But whatever first-century dates are assigned, one point remains: Based on the archaeological and historical evidence, “the New Testament proves to be in fact what is was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 A.D.”[7]

This point is made even stronger when one considers the ethical standards upheld in the early church, where truthfulness and integrity were expected of those who followed Jesus (Acts 5:4; 26:25; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 2:21; 5:20). False teachers were not tolerated (cf. Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:14; 2 Pet. 2:1–21; Jude 1-16), and those who distorted the life and ministry of Jesus were openly condemned (cf. 1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7). Even the apostles were not above being confronted when necessary (Gal. 2:11-15; cf. 1 Tim. 5:19-20). Thus, because any type of false witness about Jesus would have dishonored the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 15:15), it is unreasonable to think the earliest Christians would have quietly allowed it.

* * * * *

Notes:

[1] Josh McDowell, in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 52-53, cites Kümmel and John A.T. Robinson as examples of non-evangelical scholars who believe all four gospels were written before 100 A.D.

[2] Boyd’s Handbook of Practical Apologetics, 233, notes that in early 1995 “three small papyrus fragments of Matthew stored in a library in England for decades, were reexamined. It was determined that they date to the latter part of the first century A.D.”

[3] Liberal scholars generally consider Matthew and John to have been the last two gospels written, meaning that Mark and Luke were written earlier. On the other hand, some conservative scholars consider Matthew to be the first gospel written. The Jesus Crisis, by Robert Thomas and F. David Farnell, defends that conservative view.

[4] Late dates do not adequately take into account factors such as the ending of Acts (which suggest a date for Luke-Acts in the 50s or 60s) or the seemingly absent awareness of the fall of Jerusalem, especially in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (suggesting they were all written before A.D. 70).

[5] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 151. Church tradition suggests that the apostle John, for example, lived until around 100 A.D.

[6] Ibid., 156. Moreland references Sherwin-White’s volume, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 186-93.

[7] William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 52-53.

The Gospels as Reliable History

By Nathan Busenitz

Last week, we began looking at ten reasons we can trust the New Testament gospels. Today’s post highlights the fourth reason in that list.

4. Fourth, the New Testament gospels were not only intended to be historically reliable (as we saw in point 3). They actually are historically reliable.

It is not enough to demonstrate that the gospel writers intended to be accurate. Good intentions are simply not enough. After all, “some fictitious narratives are couched in the guise of history, and many careful historians fail to achieve their objectives of complete accuracy.”[1] We must therefore go one step further and ask whether or not the gospel writers were successful in their attempt to be accurate. In other words, do the gospel accounts actually prove to be historically reliable?

If the gospels are to be considered part of the inspired Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17), coming from the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21), they must be marked by accuracy and truthfulness (John 17:17; cf. 2 Pet. 1:16-18; 1 John 1:1-4). Moreover, in the particular case of the apostles, Jesus promised that the Spirit would help them remember the details of His life. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26; cf. 14:17). This means that Matthew, Mark (in consulting Peter), Luke (in also consulting apostolic sources — cf. Luke 1:3-4), and John all had the Spirit’s help in remembering the teachings of Jesus (cf. John 2:22; 12:16). According to the promise of Jesus, the Spirit would guide them in the truth (John 16:13), truth that necessarily included the historical reliability of their collective testimony.

Luke’s gospel is a case in point in this regard, since he repeatedly lists names, places, and other verifiable details which can be tested for accuracy (Luke 1:5; 2:1-3; 3:1-3; Acts 5:36; 11:28; 18:2, 12: 25:1). As we noted earlier, “throughout his work Luke sought to demonstrate the truthfulness of what he recorded by tying the events to universal history.”[2] Significantly, two millennia later, Luke’s account has repeatedly survived the attacks of skeptics and detractors. “Attempts to impugn Luke’s reliability have constantly been made, but most of these have been rendered futile by light from the monuments of antiquity and the archaeologist’s spade.”[3]

On the other hand, archeology has repeatedly vindicated Luke’s careful research (in both his gospel or in Acts). Such confirmations include: the census at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1-3); Herod’s Temple and winter palace (Luke 1:9); the proconsul of Paphos named Serigus Paulus (Acts 13:6-7); the relationship between Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 14:6); the district of Macedonia (Acts 16:12); Artemis’ temple, statues, and altar (Acts 19:27-28, 35); the Ephesian theater and Golden House of Nero (Acts 19:29; 25:10); the two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28); the nature of the provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9); the manner in which one could invoke one’s Roman citizenship (Acts 25:18); the nature of being in Roman custody (Acts 28:16); and the conditions of being imprisoned at one’s own expense (Acts 28:30-31).[4] In Acts alone, “Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error.”[5]

Time and time again, we find that “Luke is a first-class ancient historian. . . . He is not careless, nor is he a fabricator of events.”[6] In the words of famed archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, “His statements of fact [are] trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense.”[7]

Of course, the motivation behind Luke’s concern for accuracy was not primarily historical. As noted before, it was both theological and evangelistic. In the words of New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall, “Luke was a historian because he was first and foremost an Evangelist: he knew that the faith which he wished to proclaim stands or falls with the history of Jesus and the early church.”[8] Others agree:

Luke was not only a reliable, objective historian, which is clear from his striking agreements with the historiography of Josephus, but Luke was also concerned with the infallibility of the facts. Luke wanted to describe the development of early Christianity. But he wanted above all to eliminate doubt as to the accuracy of the things that had been fulfilled, that is, the saving work of Christ, and desired to give assurance to Theophilus and his other readers regarding events in Christ’s life.[9]

It’s not surprising, then, that Luke’s accounts “have now been recognized as first-class historical writings”[10] by historians and archaeologists. “This means that Luke is fully trustworthy as a historian of the life of Christ. Therefore to read the third gospel is to encounter the authentic, historical Jesus.”[11]

Along with Luke, the other gospels also prove to be based on historically verifiable facts. As New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg explains, “In every case it has been concluded that an even-handed treatment of the data does not lead to a distrust of the accuracy of the gospels in what they choose to report.”[12] While some modern historians may sometimes wish the gospel writers had given more historical data, or more precise details about the events they recount, the bottom line is this: Their testimony to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ can be trusted.

Like Luke and the other synoptic gospels (of Matthew and Mark), John’s gospel also provides its readers with numerous references to testable data like geography and chronology.

These have been demonstrated to be highly accurate, particularly in light of modern archaeological discoveries: the five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda by the Sheep Gate ([John] 5:2), the pool of Siloam (9:1-7), Jacob’s well at Sychar (4:5), the “Pavement” (Gabbatha) where Pilate pronounced judgment on Jesus (19:13), Solomon’s porch (10:22-23), and so on.[13]

This is in keeping with John’s emphasis on truth throughout his gospel (John 1:14, 17; 3:21; 4:23-24; 5:33; 8:32, 40, 44-46; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:13; 17:17, 19; 18:37, 38; 19:35). He too would have been deeply concerned with presenting Jesus (“the way, the truth, and the life”–John 14:6), in a reliable way. In the words of one scholar:

The author claims to have been a true witness, that is an eyewitness of Jesus. In his first letter he said that he and his fellows had “heard,” “seen” and “touched” the “word of life” (1 John 1:1-2). His claims are extensive and specific. The alternatives are simple. Either the writer was the truthful eyewitness he claism to have been, or, as [some liberal scholars] believe, he was not.[14]

John’s concern for geographical places (cf. John 1:28; 4:5; 10:23; 11:18; 19:17, 20; 21:1), chronological details (cf. 1:29, 35, 43; 2:1, 12; 4:43, 52; 5:1; 7:1; etc.), cultural beliefs and customs (cf. 4:9, 27; 5:10; 7:22-23, 49), and eye-witness testimony (cf. 1:14; 21:24), demonstrates that he (like Luke) was also concerned with tying his witness to testable history.[15] When the details of his account are tested, they “take us, alongside that of the others [Matthew, Mark, and Luke], to the Jesus of history who remains an integral part of the Christ of faith.”[16]

The gospels, then, continually show themselves to be not only theological treatises, but historically reliable documents as well. Their historical trustworthiness (along with the rest of the New Testament) is “confirmed time and again by external evidence. . . . [T]o the unbiased observer, little doubt can be cast on the statement that archaeology has confirmed the historical reliability of the New Testament.” [17]

* * * * *

NOTES:

[1] Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 234.

[2] R. H. Stein, Luke (NAC), introduction.

[3] Merrill F. Unger, “The Role of Archaeology in the Study of the New Testament,” BSac 116 (April 1959), 155.

[4] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Ready with an Answer, 288. Also: http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/bible.html

[5] Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 47.

[6] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT, 13.

[7] Ramsay, Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 222.

[8] I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 52.

[9] Nicholas M. van Ommeren, “Was Luke an Accurate Historian?” BSac 138:589 (January 1991), 70–71.

[10] Clifford Wilson, Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability, 114.

[11] Marvin Pate, Moody Gospel Luke Commentary, 27.

[12] Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 234–35.

[13] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 219.

[14] Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, 72.

[15] Cf. Thomas D. Lea, “The Reliability of History in John’s Gospel” JETS 38:3 (September 1995), 387–402.

[16] John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament, 94.

[17] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 135.

Was It Meant to Be History?

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

In this article, we will consider a third reason why the NT gospels should be considered trustworthy sources regarding the life of Christ.

3. The NT gospels are written in such a way that indicates they were intended as historical.

Luke makes the purpose of his gospel clear at the very beginning. He wrote it so that his readers might know “the exact truth about the things” related to the life of Jesus (1:4). John makes a similar assertion at the end of his work, emphasizing that he was the one who testified “to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). In this regard, Luke and John are representative of all four gospel writers; each was committed to presenting Jesus in a way that was accurate and true. “History is important to the gospel writers. Their report of history in Jesus’ life required accuracy. Their accuracy provides us with a sure foundation for our trust in the redeeming message of the gospel.” [1]

Unlike other apocryphal accounts of Christ’s life, which are “clearly legendary” and often “so unreal and pointless that they can immediately be seen to be of a quite different character from the New Testament accounts of Jesus,”[2] the New Testament gospels were written to be reliable accounts of what actually happened. Their motivation for doing so would have been both theological and evangelistic. From a theological perspective, they would never have wanted to bear false witness against Jesus, the one whom they worshipped and served.

From an apologetics standpoint, they would have deeply desired their message to be believable. Since the events of Jesus’ life were well-known to the people of that day, especially in Israel (cf. Acts 2:22; 26:26; cf. 1 Cor. 15:6), the gospel writers needed to represent the facts correctly. As Donald Guthrie points out, “An intention to lead people to faith in Jesus as Messiah and as Son of God is hardly likely to be furthered by an account of Jesus which was not closely related to the historical facts.”[3]

It follows, then, that the gospel writers’ approach to the historical data was intended as accurate. The number of historical details they include (such as social customs, geographical locations, and the names of political figures) further suggests a desire to deal with factual data in a responsible and straightforward manner. For example, consider the twenty one allusions to historical events, geographical places, and political positions in Luke 3:1–2:

In the fifteenth year (1) of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (2), Pontius Pilate (3) being governor (4) of Judea (5), and Herod (6) being tetrarch (7) of Galilee (8), and his brother Philip (9) tetrarch (10) of the region of Ituraea (11) and Trachonitis (12), and Lysanias (13) tetrarch (14) of Abilene (15), during the high priesthood (16) of Annas (17) and Caiaphas (18), the word of God came to John (19) the son of Zechariah (20) in the wilderness (21).

In just two verses, it becomes clear that Luke’s goal was to convey that which was tied to historical fact. This is in keeping with his stated purpose for writing (Luke 1:4).

The style of the gospels further supports this conclusion. They are written in straightforward and sensible manner, giving the reader no reason to doubt the sincere motives of each author. Along these lines, the gospels include details that are embarrassing to the writers (and the other apostles), indicating that they were more interested in seeking the truth than in making themselves look good (cf. Matt. 17:16; 26:30–35; Mark 8:33; 9:32, 34; 14:40, 51, 66–72; Luke 18:34; John 12:16).

Consider the way the gospels are written—in a sober and responsible fashion, with accurate incidental details, with obvious care and exactitude. You don’t find the outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing that you see in a lot of other ancient writings. . . . The goal of the gospel writers was to attempt to record what had actually happened.[4]

On a side note, we might add that the apostle Paul also understood that unless his faith was based on real history, it was an empty faith (1 Cor. 15:12–19). His love for Christ (1 Cor. 16:22; 2 Cor. 5:14; Eph. 6:24), loyalty to Christ (1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 4:5; Gal. 6:14), and accountability to Christ (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 14:10; 1 Tim. 6:13–16), motivated him (like the other apostles) to preach a gospel that was true (cf. Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5–6; 1 Tim. 2:3–7). (As we will see below, Paul’s depiction of Jesus was in perfect harmony with that of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.)

Finally, it should be noted that the gospel writers, as well as all of the apostles, faced intense persecution for the gospel message they proclaimed (John 15:18–25; Acts 5:40–41; 2 Cor. 11:23–28; 1 Pet. 4:12–16). According to church tradition, both Matthew and Mark were martyred for their faith. Though Luke and John were probably not martyred, many of the other apostles were (including Peter, Paul, James, Andrew, Bartholomew, Thaddeus, Philip, Simon, and Thomas). It is hard to believe that the writers of these gospels and their fellow Christians would have endured such hardship for that which they knew was only a myth.

The point here is that the authors of the biblical gospels intended their material to be accurate and historically trustworthy. To be sure, they had theological and apologetic concerns too. But, as we have seen, those concerns would not have mitigated against historical accuracy. On the contrary, they would have made truthfulness all the more necessary.

In our next post (on Monday) we will consider whether or not the gospels actually demonstrate themselves to be historically accurate. In other words, did the writers achieve the historical accuracy for which they were aiming?

* * * * *

Notes:

[1] Thomas D. Lea, “The Reliability of History in John’s Gospel,” JETS 38/3 (September 1995), 402.

[2] John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (Oxford, England: Lion Publishing, 1999) 227.

[3] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1996), 345.

[4] Craig Blomberg as cited by Lee Stroebel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 40.