Was It Meant to Be History?
September 7th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
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.
Good stuff here!
Thanks
Is it not worrying that in the gospels, the name of Jesus’ half brother was changed to honour King James supposedly. In the original it is Jacob but it was changed to James, also resulting in the book of Jacob being renamed the book of James. If God’s word was not meant to be changed then howcome they made those changes?
What historical evidence do you have of the alleged change and its connection to King James?
Jim and Eva,
I don’t know about any historical evidence to support a name change to honor King James. However, if you transliterate the Greek Jacob/James is spelled Iakobos which in Latin is Jacobus. Over time the name Jacobus has become Jacomus which was later changed to James. Actually Jacob is a more exact translation since Iakobos is the Greek form of the Hebrew name, Ya’akov (Jacob).
Thankyou hampton for that clarification.
Also arabic bibles which were translated separately to English bibles (and I believe well before) call Jesus’ brother Jacob not James. The name ‘Jacob’ of the OT is also used in the NT for Jesus brother and for the corresponding book. If the theory that Jacobus changed gradually to James over time, then why did that not happen to Jacob’s name too in the old testament?
The link if true, to me, is worrying because it seems that the translators were more concerned with honouring man than God, unless he himself decided to insert his name of his own accord.
eva,
You’ve just found one more hole in the KJO boat!
I was once convinced the KJV was the only trustworthy translation until I realized, through research, that exactly what you fear seems to have ocurred. The so-called “authorized version” wasn’t, as far as can be proved; and religious politics played far too heavy a hand in the translation policies and end result.
However, not to worry, because even the KJV translators advocated a plurality of translations in order to verify and clarify the meaning and consistency of the scriptures.
I think it is the underlying concept that I find worrying- the changing of God’s word.
Any insight?
Eva,
I’m glad that you worry about the concept of God’s word changing. That is something we should all fight against by examining translations to see if they are true to the most original manuscripts that we have. Unfortunately few of us, including myself, are able to really do this with any authority. Many times we have to trust those who are able to read Hebrew and Greek when they say that a translation is accurate. This being said, I feel that the name change from one language to another is not a corruption of God’s word. Almost every English translation uses Jesus as Christ’s name when Yeshua is a more accurate rendering of His name.
Another problem with the KJO notion is the use of the word “Easter”!
Hampton and the antiKJV crew
this is not a KJV issue or mistranslation- this is purposeful alteration. Yes the issue on the surface appears immaterial, a simple name swap, but it’s the underlying principle- are there other alterations we don’t know about? I guess I’m just stunned that God allowed it and am baffled as to why….
Hampton, that’s completely different. Jesus’ name was not deliberately changed to something completely different. It is just the anglicised version of Yeshua. AS i said above, if Jacob had been anglicised to James then OT Jacob would ve gotten the same treatment.
Finally, i don’t know why everyone is having a dig at the KJV- the James alteration is in most if not every modern English translation.
Eva,
Every translation is going to be imperfectly translated. Why does God allow it? I don’t know. I do know that there are godly, trustworthy men who have taken the time to examine the Greek manuscripts and have found them to be accurately preserved from the earliest to the latest. Jesus Himself said that not one jot or tittle would be lost. While He was referring directly to the OT, I believe that His statement about Scripture being preserved really included the NT that would be written. At some point no matter how much evidence we can find that supports the preservation of Scripture we must believe that God is true to His word and has made sure that it is preserved.
I also could care less about KJV translation. While it has been and will remain to be a good translation, it is just a translation.
The argument about James vs Jacob is extremely weak. Like Hampton said, they’re like different forms of the same name. Even Jacob Arminias is sometimes called James Arminias. It just matters how you decide to translate the name.
I’m a student of the Italian language and it’s the same there. Giacomo can be understood to mean James or Jacob. Giacomo derived from Iacopo, with the P instead of the M. B is subsituted for P as they’re both bilabial plosives, and you’ve got Jacob. With the M, it stays the same and you get James. It’s like trying to distinguish between Bobby and Robby, or Willy and Billy. They’re the same name. This in no way robs any translation — and certainly not the original inspired writings — of any credibility.
You ask why it wouldn’t be done for Jacob in the Old Testament. One can only speculate. It seems foolish to speculate, but it may have simply been to distinguish the two. But again, the absence of an answer to that question does absolutely no damage to the argument for the veracity, historicity, inerrancy, or infallibility of the Bible.
I am making no argument for anything, I came across those points and was wondering if anyone had a reasonable explanation. Granted this is an English translation issue not an original document issue…
What about the book of Jude, which is called the book of Judas?
Jude and Judas are the same exact thing. Ioudas is the Greek, derived from the Hebrew Yehudah. Can be translated (really transliterated) Jude, Judas, Judah, or Jehudah.
Again, ‘Judas’ is already present in the gospels as Judas. not Jude, so it makes no sense that it was changed later on for the book of Judas.
A slight digression..If yehudah was transliterated to Judas or Judah, then how did they know which to use?
Yehudah is the Hebrew. There’s a variant of that, which is rendered “Judah” in OT texts.
Judas is the Greek version of Yehudah, but it’s the English transliteration from the Greek Ioudas.
Jude is the English version of Yehudah and Ioudas.
The writer of Jude, noted as Jude, is actually called Judas in Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (Parallel passages).
So the answer to your “digression question” is: essentially the same reason that they chose to call Peter “Peter,” instead of “Petros” (Greek) or “Cephas” (Aramaic), see John 1:42, NASB. Since I’m not a translation scholar, I don’t know how they decide which language to use when.
Maybe one of the smarter guys at Grace can answer this? Nate? Matt? Nathan? Jesse? Bueller?
No need thanks. In conclusion, the translators made a few name changes, when they shouldn’t have done.
Why shouldn’t they have done that? Why should Peter have been written down as Cephas and not Petros? Does that mean the NT writers should have written the NT in Aramaic and not Greek, since they spoke in Aramaic?
There are no name changes. Nobody is arbitrarily CHANGING names. It involves either the translation of the name from Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek to English (Judah/Judas/Jude; Cephas/Petros/Peter), or it involves the linguistic evolution of a name over time (as in the Jacob/James example).
They shouldn’t have done that because bibles in other languages have managed to retain their integrity, despite being translated from the same original hebrew and greek documents.
A nearly plausible explanation for Jacob to James is linguistic evolution, as Hampton and yourself said at the start: Jacobus to Jacomus to James..I personally don’t agree but unless anyone has access to translations pre-KJV, to check how it was translated there, then that’s all there is to go on.
The name Ioudas in the greek appears in the NT in two situations: gospels and as the name of one of the NT books. It was translated to Judas in the gospels and not given the English treatment. However, when they came to the book of Judas, they decided to use the English version: Jude. Consistency? rationale?
Peter/Petros/Cephas has no bearing on this whatsoever.
In the Geneva Bible, published in 1577 (KJV=1611), renders Ioudas “Ivde” in Jude 1:1 and “Ivdas” in Mt 13:55. Same deal, except they have I’s for J’s and, following the Latin, the U was written as V (which, by the way is why we call a W a double-U even though it looks like two Vs).
I understand your point Eva, but just because I personally don’t have a rationale for it doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t one.
That’s certainly interesting….what does it say regarding Jacob in the Geneva bible?
No one seems to have a ‘liguistic’ rationale for it, not just yourself. I don’t like to submit to the: ‘just because we can’t explain it, doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation/it’s not true’ ideology till the bitter end, as that can be used to justify anything. I too wish to believe that it was a passive change in names but there is a case for intentional alteration by the translators.
Jacob = Iaakob (Gen 25:26)
James = Iames (Jas 1:1)
Be careful, though, Eva, not to ascribe to me positions I have not taken. I’m not using the “Just because we can’t explain it, doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation” thing to JUSTIFY the change. All I’m saying is that, as there may be a rationale, we can’t yet CONDEMN the change.
There’s a huge conceptual difference between saying that a possible explanation (though its unknown) proves something vs. a possible explanation postpones condemnation.
Provided, what you’ve posted is true and the Geneva bible had nothing to do with any Jamess, it blows the they changed JAcob to James to honour King James theory right out of the water. You know, you could’ve posted that 20 posts ago.
I was not condemning or proving anything, merely looking for the most reasonable explanation. You’ve subscribed to a variation of that ideology by introducing a time element into it, same thing though
Here’s another thought–perhaps the Epistle of Jude was called that so as to make sure one knew that Judas Iscariot was not the author. I don’t believe there are any places in Scripture where Judas Iscariot is called “Jude.”
[...] 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. [...]