The NT Writers and Jesus of Nazareth: Did They Get His Story Right?

In our previous article, we examined the contemporary, non-Christian evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and the religious community which he founded.  Noting in our conclusion that this evidence confirmed the overall NT portrayal of Jesus and the earliest Christians as historical and reliable, we quoted one of the NT writers who stated that though Jesus said and did much more than he had recorded, he had recorded what was necessary for them to know that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God, sent to redeem and reconcile lost humanity with God.  And we had also concluded with the statement that only through the NT writings would we get the full story as to who Jesus was and what he had come to do, from the perspective of those who truly knew him and followed him.  Of course, this raises the following question:  Did the NT writers get the story of Jesus and the earliest Christians right?  Is the NT historically reliable, or is it pure religious propaganda that distorts facts to achieve some predetermined agenda?

The Alleged "Bias" of the NT Writers

There are a number of liberal and post-liberal scholars who would say that the New Testament cannot be trusted to give us a historically reliable witness to Jesus' life and ministry, nor to that of his earliest disciples.  The reason for this negative assessment, most of them would argue, is that these writers were "biased" towards the tenets of orthodox Christianity, and being committed to spreading a "message of salvation" would not hesitate to fabricate stories and sayings of Jesus that would promote their religious agenda.  Now, while this argument seems plausible enough, it rests on two unproven and contradictory assumptions:

1.  Any scholar or writer, whether ancient or modern, if committed to a particular religious or philosophical viewpoint, cannot engage in any honest, self-critical, and fruitful investigation and interpretation of historical or scientific data. 

2.  Only the modern scientific investigator, rigorously following the scientific method is "totally objective and value free," and so is best suited to carry on honest, self-critical, and fruitful analysis of data.

However, the problem with this argument and its premises is, as Thomas Kuhn, A.F. Scott, and Cornelius Van Til have demonstrated, that it does not give a true account of how human reason and scientific investigation actually work.  For in their respective fields of science, history, and theology these writers have demonstrated that all investigators, regardless of time and culture, have a dominant viewpoint of reality that shapes their perception and interpretation of the data they examine.

Everyone, consciously or unconsciously, possesses some basic worldview, philosophy of life, or interpretative paradigm through which they analyze and evaluate the data of daily existence.  And whether they recognize it or not, this viewpoint has been derived from the tradition of a community from which they came; from some religious authority, such as the Bible or Koran, which they perceive and accept as divine revelation; or from some common naturalistic philosophy which they believe adequately explains daily reality as they encounter it.  And it is the central axioms of these various worldviews that act as the control beliefs that regulate how an investigator will process, weigh, and evaluate the data presented to them.  Normally, unless these viewpoints fail to pass the tests of rational consistency, rational coherency, existential and psychological resonance, moral stability, and aesthetic symmetry--an investigator will not be moved either to modify his investigative methodology, nor consider acquiring a better "alternative" viewpoint.  Thus no investigator, ancient or modern, at whatever stage of analyzing and synthesizing data, is ever "totally objective and value free" in their judgments.  However, this does not necessarily mean that they cannot engage in honest, self-critical investigation and interpretation of historical data.  Let us consider a modern example of a "committed" historian.

Sir Winston Churchill: Example of A "Committed" Historian

It might be argued, for example, that Sir Winston Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples cannot be regarded as a generally reliable and useful history.  Why?  "Because." as some critic might well say, "Churchill, as an upper-class, well-educated British soldier and politician had a 'bias' toward Great Britain and all its achievements in politics, literature, and science.  He could never have written a history that was truly self-critical of the British people and culture, nor that justly and fairly treated the German people and their culture, especially in light of the deadly conflict in which both peoples were engaged during World War II." 

Now, as plausible as this argument may seem, it proves absolutely nothing regarding Churchill or his historical writing.  Nor does it automatically render his writings as historically invalid or worthless.  The question that his critics have to answer, in order to make their charges stick, is this:  Did Churchill present and interpret the facts regarding WW II, of equal concern to all the parties involved, without distorting or suppressing data that was not congenial to his own viewpoint?  Then their task would be to compare his writings with those of contemporary French and German historians who also recorded and interpreted these same historical figures and events, and demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Churchill had deliberately ignored or misrepresented the facts standing against his own position.  If, after careful investigation and research, it was found that Churchill and these other historians were found to agree on many key points--then on these key points Churchill would most certainly be regarded as a reliable recorder and interpreter of Anglo-American history.  And where they were shown to differ, on the basis of all the historical evidence, it would then have to be demonstrated  in these particular cases whether it was Churchill or the other historians who gave the most faithful record and interpretation as to what actually was said and done during WW II.

The NT Writers As "Committed" Historians  

This rule of historical investigation and verification that we applied to Churchill and his writings holds true as well for the NT writers' record and interpretation of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.  No one doubts that being "committed" Christians gave a certain "slant" to their interpretation of the historical traditions about Jesus they had inherited.  Both Luke and John plainly tell us, in their respective works (cf. Lk. 1:1-4; John 20:30-31; and 1 John 1:1-4), that what they offer us is a carefully investigated and historically reliable record and interpretation of Jesus' life and ministry, based on trustworthy testimony of eyewitnesses.  But they also tell us that their record is not exhaustive, but selective and geared to meet certain apologetical and pedagogical needs in the Early Church.  So while, as historians, they sought to accurately and faithfully pass on the true story of Jesus' life and ministry, the NT writers never pretended to be "totally objective and value free" in their historical analyses and judgments.

Nevertheless, it is a well-known and demonstrated fact that the NT writers retain a number of stories and sayings of both Jesus and the Apostles that would be quite embarrassing and shocking for anyone seriously attempting to give a "biased, uncritical" account of either Jesus or the Apostles.  For example, the Gospels record that at first John the Baptist and his followers gladly acknowledged Jesus as the promised Messiah; then, not too long after, they started having second thoughts about giving him their support and asked for confirmation that he was indeed the Messiah (cf. Matt. 3:1-16; Jn. 1:15, 19-42; Matt. 11:2-15).  They also record that Jesus, while going up to Jerusalem for the last time, openly predicted his coming death as a ransom for humanity's sin, and was also clearly determined to fulfill his Father's will in this matter.  Yet on the night before he was arrested and then condemned to death, Jesus is also shown as agonizing with God in prayer, pleading that if possible, an alternative to his horrible crucifixion might be provided (cf. Lk. 9:51-56; Mk. 10:32-34; Lk. 22:39-44).  And the Gospels also record that Jesus' twelve Apostles, who had loved him and pledged their loyalty even to death (Matt. 26:31-35; Mk. 14:26-31), when push came to shove, abandoned him and left him alone to face the mercy of his enemies (cf. Matt. 26:47-56; Mk. 14:41-52; Lk. 22:39-62).

Now if, as it is often charged, these NT writers intended to give a "biased, uncritical" account of Jesus' life and ministry, or even one of his Apostles, then how is that they preserved and recorded these "awkward" incidents in their books?  Poor propagandists indeed!  The very fact that they did record them proves that while they were orthodox Christians, the NT writers were also careful to demonstrate the historicity of the Christian faith.  For if their presentation and interpretation of Jesus' life and ministry, however selective it might have been, were not historically reliable and verifiable, then Christianity was patently false.  Indeed, this was the very point Paul made in his defense before Governor Festus and King Agrippa when he said, "I am not insane, most excellant Festus.  What I am saying is true and reasonable.  The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him.  I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:25-26, NIV).  And later, regarding the story of Jesus proclaimed by himself and the other Apostles, Paul commanded Timothy, "You have heard me teach things that have been confirmed by many reliable witnesses.  Now teach these truths to other trustworthy people who will be able to pass them on to others" (2 Tim. 2:2, NLT).

Conclusion

Lastly, when we compare compare the key elements of the NT writers' record with that of contemporary Jewish and Roman writers, such as Josephus and Tacitus, we know that they got the Jesus story right and kept the essential facts as the core of their presentation.  Their commitment to Christ did not prevent these writers from engaging in careful research and critical thinking as they sought to explain the true meaning and significance of who Jesus was and what God had sent hin to do in this world.  That is why Luke could write to Theophilus, "Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you. most honorable Theophilus, so that you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught" (Lk. 1:3-4, NLT).  So if you want to know the truth about Jesus, then take up and read the New Testament.  You will not find a truer and more reliable account anywhere else.  

Jesus of Nazareth: Did He Exist?

As incredible as it may seem, there are still people today who believe that Jesus of Nazareth, as he is depicted in the New Testament, never really existed. They are impressed with arguments by certain atheistic philosophers that Jesus, if he existed at all, was merely a traveling Jewish rabbi who taught some rather remarkable ideas about the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of men. But he never actually claimed to be the Messiah of OT prophecy, nor said or did half of the words and deeds attributed to him in the New Testament. Rather it was his disciples, as first century Jews disenchanted with life in Roman dominatated Judea and needing something to give their existence significance and purpose, creatively remade him into a legendary religious figure or mythical hero. It was they who claimed he said and did those "extraordinary things" that proved he was the Messiah, the Son of God, prophesied of in the Old Testament. "But Jesus, if he did exist, as an orthodox rabbi and practicing Jew of that time," so they would argue, "could never have said and done half of what the NT attributes to him."

Response Of NT Scholars and Historians To Above Arguments

However, a good number of modern biblical scholars and historians of antiquity, who are by no means religious fundamentalists, would judge these arguments as being fallacious, not only because they rest on ill-founded assumptions about God and the created universe, but also because they ignore the weight of the historical evidence. Using long-established criteria of historical investigation and verification (cf. Craig Blomberg in The Historical Reliability of the Gospels), they would argue from various early Jewish and Greco-Roman sources (written by several authors hostile to Christianity), that not only did Jesus of Nazareth, a traveling Jewish rabbi and prophet exist, but also that: 1) That he had been regarded and condemned by the official Judaism of his day as a Messianic pretender and sorcerer; 2) that under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea, he had been condemned and crucified as a rebel and criminal; 3) that his followers, known as "Nazarenes" and "Christians," confessed and proclaimed him as their Lord and God; and 4) that by 100 A.D., they had spread their religion throughout the Roman Empire, gaining large numbers of converts among both Jews and Gentiles.

Examination and Evaluation of Three Witnesses

In this article, we are focusing on non-Christian testimonies regarding Jesus and the earliest Christians. Though we could have consulted several ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman accounts, here we have three ancient writers who give us the fullest account of Jesus of Nazareth and his earliest followers. What we learn from them is very interesting. Our first witness is Rabbi Eliezer (c. 50-100 A.D.), a Pharisaic scribe and teacher. He wrote a commentary on Numbers 23:19, which has been preserved in the Palestinian Mishnah and Talmud. Most scholars agree that his commentary is a critique of Jesus and his followers; this is what he wrote:

"Balaam looked forth and saw that there was a man, born of a woman, who would rise up and seek to make himself God, and cause the whole world to go astray. Therefore, God gave power to the voice of Balaam that all the peoples of the world might hear, and thus he spoke, "Give heed that ye go not astray after that man: for it is written, 'God is not man that he should lie.' And if this man says he is God, he is a liar, and he will deceive and say that he departeth and cometh again at the end. He saith and he shall not perform" (As quoted from Paul Barnett's Is The New Testament History?, p.26). Though the rabbi doesn't mention Jesus by name, he certainly had Jesus and his followers in mind. For he would have known that the phrase, "a man, born of woman," was a designation given to Jesus by Jewish Christians that pointed to his virgin conception as the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy (Cf. Isa. 7:14 with Matt. 1:18-25 and Gal. 4:4-5).

Furthermore, when he denies that this "man" will fail to depart and return at the end as he promised--i.e., "he will deceive and saith he departeth and cometh again at the end. He saith and he shall not perform"--Rabbi Eliezer is clearly repudiating the teaching of Jesus and his followers that Jesus himself, as the risen and exalted Messianic Son of Man, would return at the end of the age to judge both the living and the dead (cf. Matt. 24:26-31; 26:62-64; Acts 3:11-24; Rom. 2:12-15; 2 Thess. 1:6-10). He clearly not only regards Jesus as a false prophet and Messianic pretender, but his followers as a heretical Jewish sect that has become a religious movement spreading throughout the Roman Empire, leading astray both Jews and Gentiles. This testimony not only confirms that Jesus of Nazareth existed and founded a religious movement bearing his name, but that this movement was also spreading the message that he was the Messianic Son of Man, a message and movement he firmly opposed.  And this testimony confirms the general NT picture paints of Pharisaic Judaism coming to regard Jesus of Nazareth as a false prophet and Messianic pretender, and firmly resisting and even persecuting his followers--a picture also confirmed by Justin Martyr's Against Trypho and the Jews, as well as by The Martrydom of Polycarp, both of which were written in the second century.

A second witness to Jesus and his earliest followers was the Roman historian and politician, Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55-120 A.D.), a contemporary and friend of Pliny the Younger.  Tacitus began his political career as a Roman senator during the reign of Emperor Vespasian (69-79 A.D.); entered the consulship under Emperor Nerva in 97 A.D.; and served as the Procounsul of Asia under Emperor Trajan from 112-113 A.D.  He was a very capable orator and writer, having the reputation of being a careful and reliable historian of the Empire.  However, Tacitus was very critical of certain earlier emperors and their policies which, in his opinion, had undermined the moral and social well-being of the Roman people.  And he also emphasized the noble contributions and achievements of the Roman aristocracy, whom he regarded as the true basis of Rome's greatness.

Tacitus wrote five historical works: Dialogue on Oratory, which discusses the decline of Roman oratory after Cicero; The Origins of the German Tribes, recognized as the major source about the German tribes before the barbarian invasions of Rome; The Life of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, a historical biography of a Roman senator and general who was instrumental in the conquest of Britain; The Annals of Imperial Rome, a history of Julio-Claudian Rome from 14-68 A.D.; and The Histories of Imperial Rome, a history of Flavian Rome from 69-96 A.D.  And it is in his Annuals and Histories that Tacitus makes passing, but very illuminating comments on Jesus of Nazareth and his followers.  His best-known comment, found in the Annals of Imperial Rome, is as follows:

" But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and all the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration [of Rome] was the result of an [imperial] order.  Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class of people hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.  Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out in Judea, the first source of evil, but also in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world meet and become popular.  Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who confessed; then, upon information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson, as of hatred of the human race" (ANNALs, 15:44, 2-5).

Since Tacitus was a Roman aristocrat, as well as a historian and politician, his dislike of anything that appeared as a threat to the stability of Roman society and culture comes through very clearly in the passage above.  Yet his having been a Proconsul of Asia Minor, where Christianity thrived despite persecution, convinced him that this new religious movement could not simply be ignored; it had to be properly recognized and dealt with.  Nevertheless, not only does he confirm Rabbi Eliezer's testimony that Jesus had been a Jewish rabbi and founder of a religious movement that was rapidly spreading throughout the Roman Empire, but also that under Pontus Pilate he had been judged and condemned as a rebel and criminal, during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but that his followers proclaimed Jesus as their Messiah and Lord, and that it was their refusal to acknowledge Caesar as Lord, an act of treason which he refers to as "hatred of the human race," that the Christians had been and continued to be murdered in the Roman arena.  Thus, however grudgingly given, Tacitus' testimony demonstrates the historicity of the "Jesus-tradition" forming the core of Apostolic proclamation, both oral and written, as being unquestionable and trustworthy.

Our third and final witness is Flavius Josephus (c. 37-100 A.D.).  He was born in Jerusalem as member of a priestly clan, and was educated and trained in the legal tradition of the Pharisees.  His career as a politician and governor of Galilee began during the reign of Emperor Nero.  During the early stages of the Jewish-Roman War (66-73 A.D.), Josephus was a resistance leader and fought against the Roman army.  When he and his troops were defeated by the Roman forces at Jotapata in 67 A.D., Josephus recognized the futility of the Jewish rebellion, and joined the Roman forces as an interpreter and mediator so as to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict.  However, most of his fellow Jews regarded him as a traitor, and so Josephus' attempts at mediating a peace settlement failed.  Consequently, the Jewish rebellion was crushed in 70 A.D., resulting it the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and with the death or deportation of large numbers of Jews.  Though one contingent of the Jewish rebels was able to escape to the fortress of Masada, and fight on for a time, their fight came to an abrupt end in 73 A.D.  The Jewish-Roman War was finally at an end.

After the War, Josephus went to Rome where, for the services he had rendered, he was made a Roman citizen and a courtier of the Emperor Vespasian.  During his years in Rome, Josephus wrote two of his best-known historical works:  History of the Jewish War, which even now is highly valued as a trustworthy account of this tragic conflict, and The Antiquities of the Jews, a history of the Jewish people from the creation of the world to Jewish-Roman War itself.  Now, as would be expected for someone in his situation, Josephus casts the character and achievements of his own people in the best light possible without unduly offending his Roman benefactors--while at the same those whom he considers enemies of either himself or of the Imperial Court he deals with in a harsh and pejorative manner.  "But when all this has been admitted the fact remains that while, as all scholars agree, we must use the greatest caution in accepting at its face value any statement Josephus makes about himself or his personal enemies, when he has no axe to grind and is not engaging in patent exaggeration, he is an informative and reliable historian" (G. A. Williamson, "Introduction," The Jewish War: An English Translation, Penguin Classics, p. 15).

Now that we know something about Josephus as person and as a historian, both as to his strengths and weaknesses, we can better evaluate his comments on Jesus and his early followers.  For in his Antiquities of Jews, he gives one of the fullest and most illuminating testimonies about Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christians.  However, it has also long been known that though he knew of the rise and spread of Christianity, Josephus himself did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah of Israel.  So taking this fact into account, here is his testimony:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man.  For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly.  He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.  He was the [so-called] Messiah.  When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.  On the third day, [so they claimed,] he appeared to them restored to life.  And the tribe of Christians [so called after him], to this day has still not disappeared" (Antiquities, 18:63, 64).

Not only does Josephus confirm the testimony of the previous witnesses that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was Jewish rabbi who founded a Jewish sect that became an Empire-wide religious movement, but also that he had been "a wise man...and...teacher" with an extensive ministry throughout Judea, involving not only teaching but the performance of "surprising feats" or miracles.  He also confirms that it was allegations made by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, along with personal reasons of his own, that Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor had condemned and crucified Jesus as a revolutionary and criminal.  But his disciples, convinced he had been raised from the dead, began proclaiming that the Risen Jesus was the Messiah and Lord of all, resulting in many converts among Jews and Greeks who heard and accepted their message.  And according to Josephus, at the time of his writing, the Christian movement was very much alive and thriving.

Conclusions To Be Drawn

Now if Jesus of Nazareth had never existed, nor had said or done anything that would have led his disciples to believe he was both Messiah and Son of God, then the New Testament would never have been written.  Nor would these ancient Jewish and Roman writers have found it necessary to discuss and debunk Christianity.  Summing up the confirmative value of these ancient witnesses to the NT's portrayal of Jesus and his followers, W. D. Davies has written:

"The passages referred to above, both Jewish and Gentile, sufficiently attest the historicity of Jesus.  That Jesus was a crucified teacher who caused embarrassment to Judaism and to Rome is clear.  For our present purposes this evidence is adequate; it does pin down the existence of Jesus of Nazareth beyond doubt.  And it is easy to understand why Jewish and Gentile sources do not reveal more.  Today, Christianity is a worldwide religion, and Jesus has become the object of reverence for millions.  In the first century, the Christian movement and its Lord were insignificant and, for Roman writers especially, objects of suspicion and contempt.  The silence of non-Christian sources, except for the details given above, is understandable.  Beyond the bare fact that Jesus was a crucified teacher, it is from the the specifically Christian sources that knowledge about him and his church must be learned.  This is another way of claiming what was asserted at the end of our last chapter, that Jesus, as a figure of history, gains significance only through those who responded to him" ("The Historicity of Jesus," Invitation to the New Testament: A Guide to the Main Witnesses, p. 71.).

Therefore, those who talk as if Jesus of Nazareth never existed betray their ignorance of the historical, non-Christian evidence.  Even so, if we want to know the full story of Jesus and the religious community he founded, then we must turn to the New Testament writings themselves.  For the NT writers state that though they have not recorded everything Jesus was known to have said and done, yet they recorded all that was necessary for us to that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and that all who trust in him are given eternal life:  "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.  But these are written that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:30-31, NIV 2011).