The second question Wilkins and Moreland ask in Jesus Under Fire is “Are the Biblical Sources About Jesus Accurate?” To answer this question we might need to talk a little bit about manuscripts and the copying process, but what is really at stake here is the intention of the original authors. Were they interested in writing an accurate history of Jesus? Everyone accepts the fact that the gospels are theological documents, but that something is a “theological document” does not mean that it is historically inaccurate.
When Historical Jesus scholars approach this question, they usually construct several tests for any given saying or event in the Gospels in order to determine the likelihood that the story really happened. For example, the Jesus Seminar uses several criteria of authenticity to dismisses much of the gospels as inaccurate, fanciful, or at best, a reflection of what might have happened to the real Historical Jesus. There is an assumed distinction between the “Jesus of History” and the “Christ of Faith.” The Jesus of History is virtually unknown, all we really know about is what the faithful believers who wrote the New Testament said about him One only needs to know the Christ of Faith for salvation, but that does not mean that he has to believe in the Jesus of History quite the way the Bible presents him.
A serious problem with these criteria is that they are only employed to support the scholar’s preconceived opinion. In most cases, a particular criterion could be used to prove or disprove a particular event or saying is an accurate reflection of Jesus. One example is the saying in Mark 10:45, which appears in a number of “layers of tradition.” The saying is not quite what we would expect from a Jewish perspective (“Messiah as a ransom” is not a common view in the Second Temple period). Nor is it particularly what the early church might have created to put in Jesus mouth (a “ransom” is not a pervasive metaphor for salvation in other NT documents). Yet the saying is rejected by the Jesus Seminar since it is too theological for their Jesus to say.
Is it likely that the biblical writers passed along information accurately, or were they inclined to “make things up” in order to present Jesus in a better light? Based on documents that are clearly later “fanciful” creations of Christians (such as the Infancy Gospel of James), the Gospels are sober-minded and historical treatments of the events of Jesus’ life. Unless one is inclined to some sort of conspiracy theory, Luke’s claim to be writing an ““accurate account” of the life of Jesus seems to mean that he thought his story was “what happened.”
I suppose that someone could say this is a circular argument since Jesus does miracles which could be described as “fanciful.” But the miracles found in the gospels are all signs of the messianic age drawn from the Hebrew Bible. That the Messiah would heal the sick and even raise the dead makes perfect sense after reading Isaiah 61 or Ezekiel 37. Even the Feeding of the 5000 (a miracle recorded in all four gospels) is an allusion to Israel’s wilderness experience. Jesus declares he is the good shepherd who provides food for true Israel in the wilderness. The reason for the miracles is drawn from the Hebrew Bible, not Greco-Roman myth. Jesus would look quite different if Luke (or anyone) were trying to write the Jesus story to imply “Jesus is like Apollo.”
I find many of the miracles in the post-biblical Gospels less grounded in the Hebrew Bible, reflecting a later, Greco-Roman sense of the miraculous. To me, that is a hint they were created by later writers and ought to be deemed as legend. In contrast, the miracles of Jesus are the sorts of things one would have expected from the Messiah after reading the Hebrew Bible.
Obviously there is more to this, but I think that the writers of the New Testament Gospels were interested in telling the story of Jesus accurately, but they were also interested in explaining what happened theologically. The combination of those two ideas are what bothers some scholars. A “theological document” does not necessarily mean a “historically inaccurate document.”
Before I get into anything else, the answer to the question is that the Biblical sources are accurate. If they aren’t our whole religion would be in question. We would not know what in the New Testament is true and what isn’t, this would cause pure chaos. Over time we have developed so many different tests that show that the Bible is accurate. Look at the test of embarrassment. Why would someone make something up about a God, show things that embarrass the church or even Jesus himself (Strauss, 263). They would show everything revolved around Jesus as if it was 100% perfect. If the New Testament was truly trying to create a cult following, they would show it as a perfect world, where everything works out. It is not as fun to join a religion where we know that we will still suffer here on earth, and bad things happen because humanity brought sin into the world.
First, everyone agrees that the Gospels are written with a religious purpose. but just because they have a theological angle doesn’t mean they’re not historically accurate. Scholars often make a distinction between the “Jesus of History” and the “Christ of Faith”. While it’s true that most of what we know about Jesus comes from these religious texts, that doesn’t mean they are unreliable. One problem with some scholars, like those in the Jesus Seminar, is that they use criteria that might reflect their biases. They dismiss a saying in Mark 10:45 about Jesus being a “ransom” because it sounds too theological. But just because something is theological doesn’t mean it’s not true or that Jesus wouldn’t have said it. It’s essential to consider the context of what was said. When we look at the intentions of the Gospel writers, it becomes clear they wanted to tell the story of Jesus accurately while also explaining its significance. Luke, for instance, claims he is writing an “accurate account” of Jesus’ life. The miracles attributed to Jesus, often seen as fanciful, actually connect with the expectations found in the Hebrew Scriptures. This shows that the Gospel writers weren’t just making things up, they were trying to highlight Jesus’ role as the Messiah.
By reading Strauss Chapter 11, I was able to get a good amount of background knowledge about the historical criticism of Jesus, the Gospels, and the Gospel writers. There have been 3 quests that we read about in Strauss that all aim to tackle the question of who the historical Jesus was. Many different scholars over several centuries proposed various ideas. How can we be so sure that the writers of the Gospels did not have their own theological intentions? Long points out that Luke 1:1-4 specifically shows how Luke desires to present his account of the good news accurately. If each of the Gospel writers wanted to team up and fake the account of Jesus to fulfill ideologies of the Greco-Roman world, why did each Gospel refer to the Hebrew Bible? Long points out several examples of miracles that are cross-referenced to parts of the Old Testament. Strauss also shows that the willingness of the disciples should credit the authenticity of the Gospels as well. If the 4 writers made up the Gospels, the disciples would have witnessed something completely different than what was written. But they all were willing to die for what they proclaimed they saw! Some of them did die brutal deaths too. Is it possible that despite all this evidence the writers of the Gospels were frauds with their own agendas? The burden of proof does not necessarily rest on our shoulders as Strauss says, but rather anyone who makes a claim. A claim that the historical Jesus is not the same person that is represented in the Gospels also shares the burden of proof.
Looking at the Gospels you will definitely feel that they were written with a theological purpose but, that does not mean there is not historical truth to the Gospels. When there is a push towards a theological view there will be an outlook that shows like is not as historically accurate due to the fact that the history is not the only focus. The writers of the Gospel were not just making up the same stories with different viewpoints but they were taking account of real events while making sense of the events by understanding God’s work through Jesus. A very prominent point brought up when defended the legitimacy of the Gospel and the Bible is when you talk about what happened to the disciples and how most of their lives ended still claiming that Jesus was the messiah. A lot of the most prominent Jesus followers were killed is some of the most gruesome ways imaginable and to think that some regular people that kept up this lie just to die horribly is not likely.
To start off with, obviously I believe that the Biblical Sources about Jesus are accurate. What would our entire religion and faith in Jesus be based on if they weren’t? We talked a lot in earlier weeks about the synoptic gospels. There was another blog post questioning if there was a “synoptic problem”. I believe it’s not a compromise of the integrity of the Gospels just because they are shared from multiple points of view. Each different author highlights his perspective of Jeus’ story. As readers, we’re challenged to create our own meaning and understanding by connecting the Gospels independent views. We also must consider how two people can look at the same scenario and come up with multiple interpretations. Because all of the synoptic Gospels are true, it is difficult to analyze them as a “problem.” The Gospels share God’s word. Each one disclosing the truths of God’s life and his narrative. Just because people see something as theological doesn’t mean that there isn’t any truth or that Jesus never said this. In fact, there are many different people like Matthew, Mark, and Luke who all heard Jesus say things and all recorded him doing so. Therefore from a faith perspective, the Biblical Sources are divinely inspired and fully trustworthy in revealing who Jesus is and was.
I would certainly make the argument that the biblical sources surrounding Jesus are in fact accurate. The intention of the Authors writing the bible was to write down God’s will, to bring glory to him, and to inform people of how God wants us to live our lives. The fact that the messages in the bible have continued throughout the course of time, and have not been destroyed, or even changed, is just another testament to how powerful the God we serve is. As nearly all other historical books have not managed to survive to the extent the bible has. Another interesting thing to think about that further proves the biblical sources are true are the prophesies that have been fulfilled over time. there is historical evidence to prove many of the prophesies made in the bible, further proving it to be true.