Pulpit Magazine

(By Nathan Busenitz)

The following comes from Nathan’s new book, Reasons We Believe: 50 Lines of Evidence that Confirm the Christian Faith (Crossway). Today’s article is adapted from reason no. 24, regarding the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels.

Luke’s Gospel is a case in point with regard to historicity, 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). Robert Stein explains that “throughout his work Luke sought to demonstrate the truthfulness of what he recorded by tying the events to universal history.”[1] Significantly, two millennia later, Luke’s account (in both his Gospel and in Acts) has survived the attacks of skeptics and detractors. “Attempts to impugn Luke’s reliability have constantly been made,” observes Merrill Unger, “but most of these have been rendered futile by light from the monuments of antiquity and the archaeologist’s spade.”[2]

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.”[3] In the words of Sir William Ramsay, “His statements of fact [are] trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense.”[4] John Stott agrees:

Luke has been vindicated in recent years as an accurate and painstaking historian, and he includes in his two volumes many references to Roman provincial administration and to the secular and political affairs of his day.[5]

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.”[6] 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.[7]

It’s not surprising, then, that Luke’s accounts “have now been recognized as first-class historical writings”[8] by historians and archaeologists. “This means that Luke is fully trustworthy as a historian of the life of Christ,” concludes C. Marvin Pate. “Therefore to read the third Gospel is to encounter the authentic, historical Jesus.”[9]

Along with Luke, the other Gospels also prove to be historically verifiable. Craig Blomberg notes that, “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.”[10]  Thus the events they recount can be accepted as historically reliable. While modern historians may sometimes wish the Gospel writers had given us more data, “they should be judged for what they do tell us, not for what they do not tell us.”[11]

Each of the Gospels 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.”[12] 

An impressive case can be made for the general trustworthiness of the Gospels and Acts, via historical criteria alone. . . . Because the Gospels and Acts prove reliable in so many places where they can be tested, they should be given the benefit of the doubt in those places where they cannot.[13]

* * * * *

ENDNOTES:

[1] Robert H. Stein, Luke, The New American Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 36.

[2] Merrill F. Unger, “The Role of Archaeology in the Study of the New Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 116 (April 1959), 155. For specific examples of places in which Luke’s account has been verified by archaeology see John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Ready with an Answer, 288.

[3] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 13.

[4] William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1979), 222.

[5] John R. W. Stott, Basic Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964), 26. 

[6] I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1984), 52. 

[7] Nicholas M. van Ommeren, “Was Luke an Accurate Historian?” Bibliotheca Sacra 138:589 (January 1991), 70–71, referring to the views of W.C. van Unnik expressed in his essay, ““Remarks on the Purpose of Luke’s Historical Writing (Luke 1:1–4).”

[8] Clifford Wilson, Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1977), 114.

[9] C. Marvin Pate, Luke, Moody Gospel Commentary (Chicago, Moody Press, 1995), 27.

[10] Craig Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 234–35.

[11] D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 53.

[12] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005), 135.

[13] Craig Blomberg, Making Sense of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2004), 70. On a similar note, I. Howard Marshall writes, “Although the Gospels were not written by scientific historians, we have found good reason to believe that they incorporate reliable information about Jesus, so that the ordinary reader . . . may rest confident that the portraits of Jesus in the Gospels are based on historical fact” (I Believe in the Historical Jesus [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977], 235).

Trackback URI | Comments RSS