The Reliability of the Gospels as History

Over the last two hundred years or so, several writers and teachers have questioned the reliability of the accounts of the life of Jesus found in the Bible. These accounts include, of course, the four books known as the Gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--but also include passages in letters by Paul, John, and Peter. The doubters have generally suggested that a teacher (or mystic, or philosopher, etc.) named Jesus was popular enough among some circles during his lifetime to be remembered, and that for one reason or another (defiance of Rome, sentimentality, etc.) the memories were exaggerated, stories concerning his deific nature and miraculous deeds gradually being added by his reverers much in the same way the story of a probably historical Briton king, for instance, turned into the legend of King Arthur. The most recent among major critics doubting the reliability of the New Testament witness to the details of Jesus' life are John Dominic Crossan and other members of the Jesus Seminar.

Defenders of the reliability of the New Testament, noting that their opponents generally cast doubt on passages whose truth depends on the supernatural, point out that the accounts smack through-and-through of historicity and that serious doubts of their reliability can arise only from an a prior rejection of miracles. But if we have accounts that are otherwise quite internally consistent and historically reliable, why not accept them as good arguments for the truth of the miraculous events and supernatural cosmology they teach? In addition to the consistency of the texts themselves, the defense of the reliability of these texts rests on the acknowledgement that their truth is the simplest explanation for the empty tomb, the meteoric rise of Christianity, and the defense to the point of violent death by the authors of the accounts.

What follows is an outline of many branches of the detailed arguments. Some of this is my own thinking, but most of it I got from the books listed at the end of the text. Anyone interested in exploring the issue more will be rewarded by looking in those sources, but I would be happy to contribute what I can to anyone who would like to converse instead of reading.

The Nature of Proof
Proof Positive?

Can it be positively proven without a shadow of a doubt? Sire, 136: "Is the case closed, the truth for the Christian faith proved absolutely? No. We never have that level of philosophic certitude about any religious or philosophical claim."

What does the Bible say about it?

People with all available proof right before their eyes
often rejected it.
Jesus, when He was right there, said proof was in doing.
John 7:17
John Wenham, 9: "Belief in the Bible comes from faith in Christ, and not vice versa; and . . . it is possible to proceed from faith in Christ to a doctrine of Scripture without sorting out problems of criticism."

Don't expect me or anybody to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus is one of the three persons of the one God, and that He came to earth in human form, died for our sins, and rose again. I can't prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that the computer you are looking at and touching is real. You don't ask for positive proof that the ground in front of you is solid before you take each step. You are not being fair or realistic if you ask for positive proof that Jesus is who He said He is before you take the first step toward belief.

Historical Proof

Bibliographic evidence---Is this the original text? How early is earliest copy? Does is agree with other copies? These arguments are summarized in "The Trustworthiness of the Bible," elsewhere on this web site.
Internal evidence--As Aristotle suggests in the Poetics, 1460b-1461b, the benefit of the doubt is given to the document unless known errors or contradictions arise. Luke 1:1-4, John 19:35, I John 1:1-3, and II Peter 1:16 all claim that the documents they are a part of are history and not fiction, myth, or poetry. Other aspects of this question are covered below.
External evidence--Aspects of this issue are treated below.

The Jesus Seminar
John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar claim to try to determine what it is that Jesus actually said. They regard as possible sources several apocryphal gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas. They say that many gospels were read by early Christians, and that the four gospels, which were latecomers, were canonized only after 250-300 years. They say that Jesus was like a Greek sage who was later made more Jewish through the creation of legends. They say that Jesus' reputed sayings can only be regarded as historical if they meet the following criteria:

Dissimilarity--unlike what was said before or since
Multiple attestation--in more than one source
Coherence--if it fits sayings passed by other criteria
It must be in the form of an aphorism or parable: something that could survive outside its immediate context.

Reasons to Believe

Accepted principles of critical and historical analysis.
The ability of the Christian worldview to provide the best explanation of the tough questions of life.
The testimony of Christians who show transformed lives.
The character of Jesus.

Who Was (Is) Jesus?
or
Lord, Liar, Lunatic Revisited

C. S. Lewis popularized an argument known as "Lord, Liar, Lunatic." It goes essentially as follows:
(1) Anybody claiming to be God must be telling the truth or not.
(2) If someone says he is God but isn't telling the truth, he must either know it, in which case he's a liar, or not know it, in which case he must be crazy.
(3) Jesus claimed to be God.
(4) Jesus must be God, a liar, or crazy (Lord, liar, or lunatic).
(5) Jesus was a great moral teacher.
(6) Liars and lunatics can't be great moral teachers.
(7) Jesus can't be merely the great moral teacher (falsely claiming to be God) that many people believe He was since liars and lunatics can't be great moral teachers.
(8) Jesus can't be a lunatic or liar because great moral teachers can't be liars and lunatics.
(9) Jesus was God, as He said He was.

A few other possibilities actually exist.

Lyric poet--People using poetics figures of speech ("He is as strong as an ox") aren't telling the truth, but they aren't liars, and they aren't necessarily crazy. Was Jesus just speaking poetry when He said He was God, that He would rise from the dead, that He would return? Would a poet submit himself to crucifixion because the people obviously misunderstood his poetry for literal truth? (See Matthew 26:64-66, where Jesus claims to be God's Messiah, promises to return, is accused of blasphemy for saying this and is sentenced to death.)
Learned Philosopher or Guru--The Jesus Seminar says He was simply an oriental mystic. This possibility is similar to that of the poet. Besides the argument raised there, is the question of how a good Jew who never left Palestine could become a guru of the east-Asian type.
Legend--Maybe Jesus didn't say these things at all. Maybe the New Testament writers made at up. The argument to this position, applying to these authors an argument similar to "Lord, Liar, Lunatic," is given below.

Who Were the New
Testament Writers?
or
Witness, liar, lunatic?

Liars?
Problem: What if writers just made up the history that linked
some sayings?
Answers:

Why did they paint themselves so unfavorably?
Why would they make up commands they had trouble following?
What about the violent detractors? How would they let inflated interpretations grow? (In fact, detractors admitted many miracles)
Many unusual details, some of them historically peculiar and accurate. (Mother in front of bier--known to be a custom only in Galilee. See Luke 7:11-17)
They died torturous deaths.
Their character doesn't seem to fit: they changed the morality of the western world.
Pascal, no. 310: "The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus's death and conspiring to say that he had risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out."
Pascal, no. 322: "While Jesus was with them he could sustain them, but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act?"
Montgomery, 66: The apostles were completely unprepared for the suffering type of Messiah. They were expecting a warrior who would liberate Israel from all oppressors.
Women witnesses not considered respectable or reliable at the time. If they made up the story of the tomb, why would they make the bulk of their witnesses women?
Thomas Oden, The Word of Life, 220: "The 'critical' premise itself requires a high degree of gullibility." Thinking that the gospel accounts are hard to believe, critics must try to answer the questions above. The necessary conclusion of the premise that the accounts were exaggerations or myths is harder to believe than the literal truth of the accounts.

Lunatics?
Problem: Maybe post-death appearances were hallucinations.
Answers:

Appearances part of earliest Christian sources.
Eyewitnesses named were still living and could have been questioned.
The hypothesis that he appeared explains more (empty tomb) than the hypothesis that they were hallucinations.
Multiple hallucinations that agreed?
The first leaders of the church do not show other signs of mental instability.

Poets?
Problem: Maybe they didn't really mean it all literally.
Answers:

I Cor. 15:13-15, II Peter 1:16, Luke 1:1-4, John 19:35

Reasons to Doubt
(and some answers)
From Sire, 98.
We do not have the original manuscripts; maybe there are errors.

The NT is the most accurate ancient document we have. Translators have introduced errors.
We have the Greek and can learn to read it. "We know miracles can't happen today."
This is a matter of faith; we don't know any such thing. The gospels are full of contradictions.
Contradictions with external sources: maybe the other sources are wrong.
Internal contradictions: these can be explained by considering (1) the absence at that time of the possibility or ethical necessity of quoting exactly, and (2) the differing points of view of different authors. As any trial lawyer knows, the differences actually increase the reliability of the witnesses.

"The gospels were written so long after the fact."

Modern scholarship has put this doubt to rest.
No second-century anachronisms, etc.

The real reason to doubt: If Jesus really said and did the things the Bible says He did, then we are accountable for our actions and must change our lives or suffer eternal consequences. Our independent nature balks at the thought. Are you looking at the question truly objectively? Are you willing to accept the personal consequences that would result if the accounts were true?

Some Answers to the Claims
of the Jesus Seminar

Maybe the Jesus seminar is right and Jesus only said some of the things.

Their Jesus is not sufficiently Jewish.
Why would he have been killed?
Why would his family have thought he was crazy at first if He only told simple moralistic proverbs?
Why would later believers make up commands they had trouble following?

Maybe he was like a Greek sage.

How did a Greek sage catch on like fire with Jews and then a Judaized myth catch on in the Greco-Roman world?
Maybe the Gospel of Thomas is really our earliest source.
No evidence to push date back before 150 AD, the time of some similar writing.
Parallels between Thomas and all four Gospels, even to unique parts: did all four writers independently use Thomas? More likely that Thomas used the four.
Some sayings in Thomas in an order suggested only by the history in one of the Synoptic Gospels. Ex: Wicked tenants is no. 65 in Thomas, and the cornerstone is no. 66. See Mark 12:1-11.

Maybe there were lots of gospels early on, and the four were settled on only late.

Montgomery 47-48: Papias (ca. 130) tells about Mark and Matthew, and Irenaeus (ca. 180) tells about the writing of each of the four gospels. Justin Martyr argues for the four gospels. While epistles were not settled on for three centuries, the gospels were widely agreed upon very early in the Christian era.
Morison suggests that less glamorous writers--Mark who deserted Paul for a time (see Acts 13:13 and 15:37-38), Luke who had only a minor role in Acts times, Matthew who had been a tax collector and hated collaborator--are more likely real (why would someone faking the authority of his book choose someone unreliable?), while Peter and Thomas (who had problems with doubt and faithlessness, but only before Pentecost) are more likely fakes.

Criteria of Seminar

Dissimilarity (1) Okay, but shouldn't be exclusive: while dissimilarity is a case for authenticity, similarity is not a case for spuriousness. Obviously Jesus could very well have said some things that were similar to what was said before and after the time.
(2) This criterion should give credence to "Son of Man" as title of Messiah, but these scholars deny that Jesus identified Himself as the Messiah. It seems the real criteria of the Jesus Seminar are not criteria of textual criticism but a priori doubts about, for instance, the possibility that God could send a Messiah, and that He could inspire prophets to foretell a Messiah's coming.
Multiple attestation--same two problems as with dissimilarity.
Coherence--fine, but more reasonable application of first two allows more sayings.
Special problems (real criteria): redemptive purpose and Messianic claims.
An example: Mark 10:45. It fits the criteria; why not accept it as an authentic saying of Jesus?

More Answers to Doubts

What if Jesus just said some things and claims of Godhood were added?

Why was he killed? How can we expect gospel writers to remember long speeches?
Paraphrasing, not quoting, is the norm in ancient literature.
Before books remembered for us, people trained their memories to be able to retain long speeches, arguments, stories, etc.
Thucydides 1.22.1: He noted that he tried to "adhere as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said." Ancient writers were well aware of the problem.

From Who Moved the Stone?, Frank Morison:
Maybe the tomb wasn't empty.

Both sides agreed it was.
Nobody located the body.
Nobody venerated any other location as the true final resting place. (Why did hardest-to-prove sect become the dominant sect? Why not a Christianity based on a martyr?)
Empty tomb story early and simple, not the stuff of legends.
Women witnesses not a good lie for the time.

Maybe the resurrection wasn't preached at first.

"Three days" as unifying feature in the four gospel accounts of the accusation points to its historicity, and Jesus actually used "three days" to refer to resurrection.
What else would have caused the undisputed rise in Christianity?
Story of the women is full of problems that a fake apologetic wouldn't have: terrified, looked only quickly, etc. Maybe the differences in order in the gospels show it isn't history.
The differences show that they are not diaries. Histories use different orders and emphases to make different points.

Maybe Gospel of John is not real because it is so different, so blatant about Jesus being God, so interpretive, etc.

John wrote late in the century and had a lifetime to think about it.
John was a certain person; couldn't he have his own personality, his own concerns, his own tastes on what should be reported?
He was Jesus's special friend, and perhaps heard certain things others didn't.
It gives more references than others to time and geography.
It is not so clearly Messianic.
The synoptic gospels tell about virgin birth, Jesus forgiving sins, Jesus being the basis of eternal destiny of believers. In them, Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man, the shepherd, the sower, the vineyard owner, the bridegroom, etc.-- all references to God or Messiah in the OT. So John is not more emphatic about the deity of Jesus; he just says it in a different way.

Maybe contradictions and miracles keep us from accepting them as history.

Jesus Under Fire, 37: Only four sources for Caesar crossing Rubicon: they are slightly different and one attests to a supernatural being who beckoned Caesar. And yet, no historian doubts the historicity of that event.

Maybe He wasn't buried, or correct identity of tomb was forgotten.

Burial part of earliest Christian sources.
Unknown member of Sanhedrin from insignificant town (Joseph of Arimathea) and women witnesses unlikely lies.
No other burial story exists (from that time) even though early Christians preached within a stroll of the tomb.

Maybe He didn't die.

How did He move the stone?
How did He revive after torture and being wrapped?
How did Roman soldiers make a mistake?

Appendix

As the following quote shows, the members of the Jesus Seminar are not approaching the problem with an open mind but with the assumption that the Christ of the gospels couldn't possibly be true and that people in a scientific age shouldn't believe it.

R. W. Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 2: "The contemporary religious controversy . . . turns on whether the worldview reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith. . . . The Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo's telescope."

But is this assumption really true? I think not. I agree with the following argument.

From G. K. Chesterton, "Science and the Fall of Man": "The real truth is that science has introduced no new principle into the matter at all. A man can be a Christian to the end of the world, for the simple reason that a man could have been an Atheist from the beginning of it. The materialism of things is on the face of things; it does not require any science to find it out. A man who has lived and loved falls down dead and the worms eat him. That is Materialism if you like. That is Atheism if you like. If mankind has believed in spite of that, it can believe in spite of anything. But why our human lot is made any more hopeless because we know the names of all the worms who eat him, or the names of all the parts of him that they eat, is to a thoughtful mind somewhat difficult to discover."

It seems to me (and many others) that the only legitimate reason for not believing these accounts is an unwillingness to deal with the consequences of their truth. If you want to know if these things are true, first lay aside your demand to be independent in the universe; allow God to exist and to demand something from you. Then start studying the texts of the Bible, talking and questioning people who believe them, even telling them your honest doubts. If you feel comfortable, pray for God's help. Then, follow Jesus's advice found in John 7:17: start to do the will of God (which you will be learning by reading the Bible), and then you will know if the teachings of the Bible are true.