The Reliability of the New Testamet Gospels
Of all of the religious figures who have lived on earth, none has been the subject of controversy as much as Jesus of Nazareth. Throughout the centuries, even back to his own time, people have questioned and argued over who Jesus really was, what he really taught, and how he should be understood. This debate has resurged in the past several decades, especially with the emergence of organizations like the Jesus Seminar and stories like Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code. Many people find the orthodox understanding of Jesus to be unacceptable, and claim we must distinguish the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” In order to overthrow the accepted account of any historical event or figure, one must challenge the historical record. In the case of Jesus, the primary historical record is the collection of the gospels in the New Testament, particularly the first three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These three have been targeted by many skeptics who have claimed that the accounts we read in these books developed out of a faith bias on the parts of the authors, and are therefore, unreliable as historical records. However, if all of the evidence is taken into honest consideration, it is apparent that the gospels are reliable historical accounts of Jesus and should be accepted just as orthodox Christianity has held all along.
Recently, I read an article in the November 2007 edition of Decision magazine in which Sean McDowell presented a brief overview of some of the most compelling evidence for the authenticity of the gospels. In the article, McDowell noted that, while most ancient books have fewer than ten extant manuscripts, the New Testament has more than 5,000 partial or whole extant manuscripts in the Greek language alone. In response, some critics claim that there are too many variations among the manuscripts to conclude that we can be certain of obtaining an accurate translation. However, McDowell noted, 80% of the variations are nothing more than spelling errors, and all of the remaining discrepancies are incidental, with absolutely no effect on any foundational Christian teaching. Critics searching for a point of attack on the historical record have apparently embellished the severity of minor variations that are to be expected in dealing with so many hand-copied documents. How many times has a student made a mistake in copying homework questions from a textbook? Academically speaking, a misspelled or misplaced word may be cause for a deduction in grade, but if the central point is not changed by the mistake, a sentence or paragraph will still convey the proper thought. Finding such minor mistakes in such a large volume of different ancient texts should not discredit the reliability of those texts. On the contrary, the fact that there are so many manuscripts that all convey the same basic information should strengthen the consideration for that information’s reliability and accuracy.
Besides the consistency among such a large number of manuscripts, the reliable historicity of the New Testament gospels is further strengthened by evidence that the gospels were written so closely in time to the events they report. While some scholars have tried to support the idea that the gospels were written as late as the second century, there is convincing evidence that they were written much earlier. As McDowell observed, the book of Acts, which even skeptical scholars accept as having the same authorship as the gospel of Luke, records the history of the Christian church as it became established after Jesus left earth. Among the more notable events recorded in Acts are the martyrs’ deaths of Stephen and James. However, Acts does not record any information on the deaths of Paul or Peter, which, according to the article I referred to above, took place between 63 and 66 C.E., although the book does record the works of both Paul and Peter in particular detail. Nor does Acts mention the war between the Romans and the Jews in 66 C.E., or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. As McDowell mentioned, omitting these events from the historic account of the church would be similar to omitting the events of September 11, 2001 from a historic account of the United States. Based on the significance of these events, it is resonable for us to conclude that the book of Acts was written before the mid-60’s C.E. Since even critics of the New Testament accept that Luke was written before Acts, and generally agree that Matthew and Mark were written before Luke, it is apparent that all three of these gospels were written within 30 years of Jesus’ life, well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who would have most certainly confronted any embellishments or mistakes.
Furthermore, given the popularity of Jesus and the influence of his life, it is difficult to imagine that accounts of him could have been erroneously fabricated in such a short period of time.
Even if the gospel writers had waited much longer to write their accounts of the words and actions of Jesus, there is other evidence that indicates they did not change the story, an indication which scholars commonly refer to as the “embarrassment factor.” One thing that we all must admit is that, by nature, we want others to notice our good qualities and overlook our bad. In a lot of cases, this causes many of us to tell lies, skew facts, and exaggerate in order to improve or protect our reputations, even at the expense of others. This may be especially true if we feel our work is of great importance. Considering the costs of following Jesus for the early believers – excommunication from society and family, even brutal death in many cases – the work of the gospel writers was certainly of extreme importance, and the leaders of the beginning church would have been greatly admired. In spite of the opportunity for building prominent status for their own selves, however, the gospel writers included a number of incidences that could have proven quite embarrassing for the church. Some of the incidents McDowell pointed out are Jesus calling Peter “Satan”, the disciples’ failure to understand Jesus’ stories, and Jesus scolding the disciples for their lack of faith. At other times, the disciples were unable to perform miracles Jesus had already empowered them to perform, displayed their own selfish ambition by arguing among themselves over who was greater, two of them who were brothers had their mother ask Jesus to give them places of honor in the afterlife, and, perhaps most familiar of all, Peter denied even knowing Jesus during his “moment of truth.” Historians often consider this “embarrassment factor” when judging the validity of a historical record, and by this standard the New Testament gospels fair extremely well, again indicating that the writers sought to portray the truth as it was, not as their pride may have wanted it to be.
While there are many more things to be considered and studied by scholars, these three criteria alone indicate that the New Testament gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life. Still, critics continue to posit skeptical ideas about how the gospels were produced and in what ways the story of Jesus was changed to develop the religious figure we speak of today. In the very face of evidence, these theorizers develop their own compilations of the Bible books to include erroneous documents such as the late-written “Gnostic Gospels” and the purely hypothetical, non-extant “Q Document”, claiming that the orthodox Jesus is not the same Jesus who walked the lands in and around Jerusalem. There are no historical documents that contradict the biblical accounts, yet we are told we must distinguish the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” Should we not trust the sources of information we do have, rather than draw conclusions based on sources that are proven inferior or do not even exist? The historicity of the New Testament gospels is strongly supported by all of the evidence we have in existence and should be trusted as such. Otherwise we will be making up our own ideas of Jesus, which will reflect our own subjective thoughts and imaginations, most certain to be void of historical facts.
Presented to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, January 28, 2008
Recently, I read an article in the November 2007 edition of Decision magazine in which Sean McDowell presented a brief overview of some of the most compelling evidence for the authenticity of the gospels. In the article, McDowell noted that, while most ancient books have fewer than ten extant manuscripts, the New Testament has more than 5,000 partial or whole extant manuscripts in the Greek language alone. In response, some critics claim that there are too many variations among the manuscripts to conclude that we can be certain of obtaining an accurate translation. However, McDowell noted, 80% of the variations are nothing more than spelling errors, and all of the remaining discrepancies are incidental, with absolutely no effect on any foundational Christian teaching. Critics searching for a point of attack on the historical record have apparently embellished the severity of minor variations that are to be expected in dealing with so many hand-copied documents. How many times has a student made a mistake in copying homework questions from a textbook? Academically speaking, a misspelled or misplaced word may be cause for a deduction in grade, but if the central point is not changed by the mistake, a sentence or paragraph will still convey the proper thought. Finding such minor mistakes in such a large volume of different ancient texts should not discredit the reliability of those texts. On the contrary, the fact that there are so many manuscripts that all convey the same basic information should strengthen the consideration for that information’s reliability and accuracy.
Besides the consistency among such a large number of manuscripts, the reliable historicity of the New Testament gospels is further strengthened by evidence that the gospels were written so closely in time to the events they report. While some scholars have tried to support the idea that the gospels were written as late as the second century, there is convincing evidence that they were written much earlier. As McDowell observed, the book of Acts, which even skeptical scholars accept as having the same authorship as the gospel of Luke, records the history of the Christian church as it became established after Jesus left earth. Among the more notable events recorded in Acts are the martyrs’ deaths of Stephen and James. However, Acts does not record any information on the deaths of Paul or Peter, which, according to the article I referred to above, took place between 63 and 66 C.E., although the book does record the works of both Paul and Peter in particular detail. Nor does Acts mention the war between the Romans and the Jews in 66 C.E., or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. As McDowell mentioned, omitting these events from the historic account of the church would be similar to omitting the events of September 11, 2001 from a historic account of the United States. Based on the significance of these events, it is resonable for us to conclude that the book of Acts was written before the mid-60’s C.E. Since even critics of the New Testament accept that Luke was written before Acts, and generally agree that Matthew and Mark were written before Luke, it is apparent that all three of these gospels were written within 30 years of Jesus’ life, well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who would have most certainly confronted any embellishments or mistakes.
Furthermore, given the popularity of Jesus and the influence of his life, it is difficult to imagine that accounts of him could have been erroneously fabricated in such a short period of time.
Even if the gospel writers had waited much longer to write their accounts of the words and actions of Jesus, there is other evidence that indicates they did not change the story, an indication which scholars commonly refer to as the “embarrassment factor.” One thing that we all must admit is that, by nature, we want others to notice our good qualities and overlook our bad. In a lot of cases, this causes many of us to tell lies, skew facts, and exaggerate in order to improve or protect our reputations, even at the expense of others. This may be especially true if we feel our work is of great importance. Considering the costs of following Jesus for the early believers – excommunication from society and family, even brutal death in many cases – the work of the gospel writers was certainly of extreme importance, and the leaders of the beginning church would have been greatly admired. In spite of the opportunity for building prominent status for their own selves, however, the gospel writers included a number of incidences that could have proven quite embarrassing for the church. Some of the incidents McDowell pointed out are Jesus calling Peter “Satan”, the disciples’ failure to understand Jesus’ stories, and Jesus scolding the disciples for their lack of faith. At other times, the disciples were unable to perform miracles Jesus had already empowered them to perform, displayed their own selfish ambition by arguing among themselves over who was greater, two of them who were brothers had their mother ask Jesus to give them places of honor in the afterlife, and, perhaps most familiar of all, Peter denied even knowing Jesus during his “moment of truth.” Historians often consider this “embarrassment factor” when judging the validity of a historical record, and by this standard the New Testament gospels fair extremely well, again indicating that the writers sought to portray the truth as it was, not as their pride may have wanted it to be.
While there are many more things to be considered and studied by scholars, these three criteria alone indicate that the New Testament gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life. Still, critics continue to posit skeptical ideas about how the gospels were produced and in what ways the story of Jesus was changed to develop the religious figure we speak of today. In the very face of evidence, these theorizers develop their own compilations of the Bible books to include erroneous documents such as the late-written “Gnostic Gospels” and the purely hypothetical, non-extant “Q Document”, claiming that the orthodox Jesus is not the same Jesus who walked the lands in and around Jerusalem. There are no historical documents that contradict the biblical accounts, yet we are told we must distinguish the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” Should we not trust the sources of information we do have, rather than draw conclusions based on sources that are proven inferior or do not even exist? The historicity of the New Testament gospels is strongly supported by all of the evidence we have in existence and should be trusted as such. Otherwise we will be making up our own ideas of Jesus, which will reflect our own subjective thoughts and imaginations, most certain to be void of historical facts.
Presented to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, January 28, 2008
posted by Jonathan Branch at 12:43 PM
0 comments
