Were the writers of the New Testament attempting to write history?

A small detour from the rules of logic!


Often sceptics will say that the new testament is just 'a book of stories', and that the events of it 'may or may not have happened'. The answer to this hinges partially on whether the writers of the new testament, who unanimously testified to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus were attempting to write historical accounts. If they were, then the new testament must be seriously considered and analyzed to see if it is an accurate account of the life of Jesus and the early church. If the opposite can be shown (that the gospels were never meant to be historical documents), then they can be discarded as myths, or at best - something akin to a Dan Brown novel - a nice story, but never intended to be anything more. 


So, was the new testament (NT) intended to be historical? 
To determine this, we need to look at the purpose the authors of NT were writing with. I will examine briefly some examples of the purpose/intentions of the NT authors Luke, John and Peter. Obviously I am not a world class historian, but just inspecting the text of the new testament and using your brain can help you a lot when answering this question. 

Luke

Luke begins his gospel with the introduction:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, ²  just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, ³ it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

Here, Luke tells us that:

1. Many people have tried to write a narrative of Jesus' life (verse 1)
2. There are people around who were eyewitnesses to Jesus, and have told Luke what they have seen (verse 2)
3. Luke thought it a good idea to write a compiled account of Jesus life for Theophilus
4. He wrote it down so that Theophilus would be able to have some certainty of what he has heard about Jesus from an account based on eyewitness accounts 

I won't labour on this - but clearly from the outset - Luke is intending to write a factual, historically accurate account of Jesus. Further investigation of the book of Luke and Acts shows Luke to be correct in many many secular historical details that he includes - he is claiming to be a historian, and is one of the highest rank. 

John

John includes a similar statement at the end of his gospel:

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

this is more theological purpose - John wants people to know that Jesus did many incredible things that he did not document. But his purpose is that by knowing what Jesus did they would believe that he is the son of God, and the Christ (i.e God's chosen one and Lord himself). John's intent is not to write a good page turner, but that people may have certainty of eternal life through belief in Jesus. 

Furthermore, the book of 1 John (written by the same John) has this statement at the very beginning:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— ²  the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— ³  that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. ⁴ And we are writing these things so that our^[a] joy may be complete. (1 John 1:1-4)

Here, John is more explicit in claiming to be an eyewitness to Jesus. Look at the verbs he uses:

1. He heard Jesus speak (verse 1, 3)
2. He saw Jesus with his own eyes (verse 1, 2, 3)
3. He touched Jesus with his own hands (verse 1)

So John too - is writing as an eyewitness.

Peter

Peter writes this in 2 Peter:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,^[i] with whom I am well pleased,” ¹⁸ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18)

Here, Peter is claiming to be an eyewitness to the transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:1-8, Matthew 17:1-8, Luke 9:28-36), at which he was there, with John and James. He stresses that he is not following clever myths, but is writing the truth in his letter to the churches, but that he was an eyewitness to Jesus. It's also significant that he anchors this in his witnessing of the transfiguration, an event recorded in all the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) by authors other than himself. 

I think it is significant that we have 2 out of 3 of Jesus' beloved disciples (the other being James) claiming to be eyewitness and making it clear that they are writing for historical purposes. It is one thing for a historian removed from the events to write an account (other ancient historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Arrian and Plutarch wrote about events before their lifetime), but for people to write historical accounts having been close eyewitnesses means that their accounts must be taken seriously. 


The sceptic may then argue that because Peter and John were close to Jesus, they would write with a religious bias, and because Luke was a companion of Paul, so would he. However, making this objection concedes the point that Peter and John were close to Jesus, so would have had information about him not available to others. Secondly, all ancient historians write with some bias, be it religious or political (and they still do today) so this accusation can be levelled at any piece of literature/documentation! There may not be similar statements from Paul, Matthew, Mark, James or the author of the letter to the Hebrews, but we can say that the authors of 9 of the 27 books of the new testament make it explicit that they are writing as eyewitnesses, and are trying to write the truth of what they saw and heard. Add to this the further details around the authorship of new testament, such as:

1. All the books were written within 1 generation of the life of Jesus, which was not enough time for the accrual of legends or the removal of the core facts
2. There were enough eyewitnesses present when the gospels and letters were being written and distributed to check them for their validity and factual accuracy
3. The tradition of memorization and oral teaching amongst 1st century Jews was strong, so we can be confident that the facts were retained and that the disciples took great care to use memorization when recalling the facts about Jesus.
4. Closer analysis of the NT finds the authors to get secular historical details correct

We grow ever more confident that when we read the new testament, we are reading accounts meant to be history, and that are historically accurate.