Historicity. 

        The uncertainty as to authorship need not affect our view as to the historicity and accuracy of the book; the oriental memory does not need to be tied to ink and parchment. Decisive should be our Lord’s use of the book as historical (Matt. 12:40f, Luke 11:30). The appeal to our Lord’s self-emptying (Phil. 2:7, R.V. — the “kenosis” theory) is invalid, for He who had not the Spirit “by measure” would surely have been able to distinguish between history and parabolic or allegorical teaching, however noble.

        Apart from the deep-rooted dislike of the modern spirit to accept the miraculous, there is no really valid argument against the historicity of the book. A man’s unwillingness to accept the miraculous lies outside the scope of rational argu­ment, and indeed our own willingness to accept is primarily an act of faith based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which in the last analysis we accept unhesitatingly because of what we know of Him.