{"id":3856,"date":"2013-03-15T10:05:56","date_gmt":"2013-03-15T10:05:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cvm.org.uk\/blog\/?p=3856"},"modified":"2016-01-06T14:36:18","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T14:36:18","slug":"its-in-the-details","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cvm.org.uk\/blog\/demolition-squad\/its-in-the-details\/","title":{"rendered":"It’s In The Details"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a recent Demolition Squad article we\u00a0saw how well established Jesus is in the historical record<\/a>. History indeed shows Jesus as a man whose life and death had a huge impact on the communities, governments, and religions around him. So what was it about Jesus that produced these momentous tremors on the historical seismograph? The answers can be found in the four accounts of the life of Jesus: the gospels.<\/p>\n

Now the four gospels of the New Testament claim to be based on eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. The thing is, as far as historians can tell, none of the four gospels were written in the location they were set in. Countries like Syria (Matthew) and Egypt (Mark) are thought likely locations for the origin of these texts, so also is the Greek city of Ephesus (John). The Gospel of Luke may well have been written in Rome or Antioch and yet in the opening of his book Luke says that his writing is based on accounts, \u201chanded down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.\u201d<\/p>\n

Well it is all very nice claiming eyewitness testimony you might say, but isn\u2019t it a far simpler explanation to conclude that actually the origins of these books show that these so-called accounts are fabricated stories, made up far away from where the events supposedly took place?<\/p>\n

To begin to answer this objection we must first take into account the style of writing of the gospels. Scholars agree that the gospels are presented to us as straightforward historical account. That is, they are full of facts such as names of places and names of people etc. Tom Clancy may fill his novels to the brim with every last detail but historical fiction didn\u2019t bother with such exactitude. It just wasn\u2019t the way it was done. The story was much more important that than the finer points. However, historical account was very much concerned with the facts.<\/p>\n

Well, of course, showing that the style <\/i>was historical account in no ways shows that what we have is a faithful<\/i> account. What is does show however is that the authors were presenting their accounts to their readers as history. In that age historians thought that history had to be written during the time when eyewitnesses of the historical events were still available to be cross-examined. Polybius \u2013 a 2nd<\/sup> C. BC Greek historian \u2013 said that the role of the historian was \u201cto believe those worthy of belief and to be a good critic of the reports that reach him.\u201d The obvious benefit of this is that names, dates, people involved etc. \u2013 these could all be corroborated or disputed by the eyewitnesses themselves. In this way, the gospels leave specifics to be examined.<\/p>\n

In the film Ronin<\/i>, there\u2019s a great scene the where CIA agent Sam, played by Robert De Niro, confronts Spence (Sean Bean) who claimed to be have been in the SAS. Spence is defending his tactics and Sam isn\u2019t buying it so he pushes him on his story. \u201cWhat\u2019s the colour of the boathouse at Hereford?\u201d, he demands. Spence falters, his story crumbling as a detail that would have been known to him if he had ever been around the SAS training base caught him out. Spence wasn\u2019t in Hereford, he didn\u2019t train with the SAS, he didn\u2019t know the details.<\/p>\n

Richard Bauckham published a book in 2006 called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses<\/i><\/a>. One brilliant piece of research highlighted in this book looks at the difference between Jewish names in Palestine in the 1st<\/sup> Century, and Jewish names in Egypt in the 1st<\/sup> Century. The popular names were different for the two countries despite common culture and language. \u00a0An author writing in 1st<\/sup> Century Egypt, who had no knowledge of Palestine, would simply not know this information. Yet, when we read the Biblical accounts we see two things. Firstly, the frequency of the names used throughout the Gospels correlates extremely well to the names recorded by wider history from Palestine at that time.<\/p>\n

Secondly, and quite incredibly, the popular names are well qualified. Let me explain. In my GCSE maths class there were four Jonathans in the room, and we all sat next to each other on purpose. To our 16-year old minds it was hilarious when our teacher would shout \u201cJonathan!\u201d and we would all simultaneously express complete innocence. But it didn\u2019t work when our surnames were snarled at us from the front.<\/p>\n

Similarly, when we see a popular name mentioned, like Simon (most popular in Palestine at the time) we see a qualifier e.g. Simon Peter<\/i> or Simon the Zealot<\/i>. That is how a guy called Simon would have been known to his friends, because there were many Simons around. But someone with a less popular name wouldn\u2019t need a qualifier, and indeed, the gospels show this too.<\/p>\n

The fact is that the gospels are full of precise details that scholars have since verified as authentic. We see place names, distances, and the names of people involved all matching up. The four gospels were presented and accepted in the 1st<\/sup> Century as true historical accounts. 2000 years on after much research our studies still continue to show how incredibly trustworthy these documents are. The evidence has been shown to be sound and now it is up to each of us to decide if we will accept Jesus for who he, and history, says he is.<\/p>\n

<\/div>