This is a chapter summary of Peter J Williams, “Can We Trust the Gospels?”. For the book overview and chapter summary links, click here.
In this chapter, Williams explains whether we truly have Jesus’s actual words. Compared to other ancient people who did not write books, there is arguably more knowledge available on Jesus’ words than others.
Many ancient speeches have but one source, such as Eleazar’s pre-suicide speeches, of which Josephus’ writings are the source. As such, with the four Gospels recording extensively, there is more to analyse.
Quotation and Memorization
We must first understand what is meant by ‘trustworthy reporting’. Williams argues that because the concept of quotation marks did not exist at the time of the writing of the Gospels, one should not judge the words of Jesus as found in the Gospels in that way.
This means the concept that no words should be omitted, added, modified or substituted without indication should not be used, as the clear separation between verbatim quote and a paraphrase simply did not apply.
Therefore, Williams argues that speech in the Gospels is announced with a verb or particle indicating so, yet should be read with the understanding that in accordance with ancient culture, there were some freedoms in quotation different from today.
Williams clarifies that this does not mean that truthful quotation could mean anything. In fact, he argues that within Judaism there is interest in the words of rabbis.
In the first 2 centuries, the oral law was memorised and passed down. The memorisation of what rabbis said would be the basis for much of the passing down of knowledge that happened. When considering how Jesus was seen as a rabbi by his disciples, it is easy to believe that his disciples would have memorised his words properly.
In fact, there are many things that Jesus said that would be difficult for most to accept, yet are passed down to us today. (In Matthew 7:11 Jesus calls his followers ‘evil’, something that would ostensibly be difficult to stomach for the disciples memorising his words. As with a previous chapter, this is unlikely to exist if it was not really Jesus’ words.)
Golden Rule
Williams also explains it is more straightforward to attribute a remarkable teaching to 1 person than to attribute it to multiple individuals who themselves attribute it to the same teacher.
The example here is the so-called ‘Golden Rule’, as explained in Matthew 7:12. (So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets) This idea is in Luke 6:31 as well.
While Williams acknowledges that the history of the Golden Rule is not simple, he argues that the most altruistic form of it is attributed to Jesus. Therefore he argues that Jesus is likely to be the one who first taught this ethic. (This is in comparison to the negative form of the Golden Rule, where one avoids doing things they would not wish on themselves)
Parables
Williams then discusses parables found in the Gospels. He argues that once again, the simplest explanation is to attribute them to Jesus, instead of another ancient rabbi.
In the Old Testament, there are few parables. Few parables are used by the early Christians outside of the New Testament.
If we attribute only some of the parables to Jesus, then the natural conclusion is that there were different parable tellers in different time periods before parables became ‘out of fashion’. The parable of the sower, Good Samaritan and prodigal son are a few examples of parables that are considered to be ‘masterpieces of composition’. Therefore, Williams argues it is easier for Jesus to have been the source of the parables, then a few separate brilliant minds.
John and the Synoptic Gospels
It is often known that how Jesus is recorded as speaking in John is very different from the other Gospels. Notably, there are no parables in the Gospel of John.
However, there is data to show that the Gospels draw on a larger body of common material, which is what common memory would be.
E.g. John’s record of Jesus describing his relationship with God the Father (Jn 10:15; 17:25) compared with Matt 11:25-27.
E.g. “Son of Man” sayings in the Synoptic Gospels coming from Daniel 7 and their subtle presence behind uses in John’s Gospel.
E.g. The resurrection accounts in Matthew and John seem to have discrepancies. (With regard to the events that happened and the people involved) Williams explains that the accounts are not incompatible if viewed as précis (abridged accounts or abbreviated summaries etc). However, the accounts converge the moment the women meet Jesus.
“9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshipped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”” (Matthew 28:9-10)
“17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”” (John 20:17)
In the passage in Matthew, the reason why Jesus responds the way he does in John is made clear. In addition, the reason that Jesus referred to his disciples as ‘my brothers’, when it was not commonly used, is explained in the passage in John, where Jesus refers to God the Father as ‘my Father and your Father’. According to Williams, the literary evidence hints at the fact that the speech was recorded by 2 witnesses.
Translation
Williams goes into detail (which will not be explained here) that the notion that Jesus only spoke Aramaic may not be entirely true. This would mean that the problem of mistranslation may not occur.
He also argues that correct translation is more likely than mistranslation in the first place. In the Sermon of the Mount in Matthew, there is evidence of Greek word play, which could suggest that Jesus spoke in Greek.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are a myriad of reasons to believe that the words of Jesus were truly from Jesus. The fact that there is no verbatim agreement is not a problem if one considers the context and culture of the time at which the Gospels were written.