Are the Gospel Eyewitnesses Reliable?
In Part One of this series, I presented a few reasons why historians believe that the Bible we use today accurately matches the original writings from the first century. Today, I am going to tackle an equally important question: How do we know that the original writings were truthful? In other words, how do we know that we aren’t holding an accurate copy of a lie? To answer this question, I would like to address a few common objections that skeptics put forth regarding this topic.
Objection #1: The Gospels were written too long after the events of Jesus’ life to be trustworthy.
Most scholars agree that the gospels (a.k.a. the biographies of Jesus) were written no more than forty to sixty years after Jesus’ crucifixion,[1] and they place Mark in the A.D. 70s, Matthew and Luke in the A.D. 80s, and John in the A.D. 90s.[2] Skeptics claim that after forty years, important details would have been forgotten and that over time facts were twisted and embellished in order to elevate Jesus from a simple teacher to the divine Savior. However, there are a few problems with this view:
1. Forty to sixty years is very brief when compared to other trusted ancient biographies.
2. Christianity did not begin as a result of the New Testament writings.
3. Many eyewitnesses were still alive at the time of the writings.
**Note: A good case can be made that most, if not all, of the New Testament was written before A.D. 62, but for the sake of time I will leave that out. In any case, this objection would likely remain the same even if the gospels were written within thirty years of Jesus’ ministry.
First, you may recall from Part One that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming when compared with other ancient writings. In the same way, the amount of time it took to write the gospels is actually quite short when compared with other biographies from the ancient world. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, which are considered by historians to be trustworthy, were written more than four hundred years after his death in 323 B.C.[3] Additionally, it certainly would have been possible to remember the major events of Jesus’ ministry despite the time that had passed, and here’s why: Although we typically don’t remember the vast majority of childhood, there are still various moments that stand out quite clearly in our memories, especially if they were emotionally charged. For example, I remember the utter embarrassment I felt during one particular P.E. class in the first grade. We were playing a game of tag in which the person who was “it” had to stand at half court and yell, “Go!” and then attempt to tag someone else before they made it from one side of the court to the other. On this fateful day, I was “it,” and I was standing at half court sporting a brand new pair of shoes. I yelled, “Go!” but as soon as I took my first step, my new shoes (which were full of traction) caught on the gym floor and caused me to face-plant in front of the entire class. Embarrassed, I quickly stood up, dusted myself off, and yelled, “Go!”…and then tripped a second time! Now mortified, I continued to lie on the floor while most of my classmates cried with laughter. This moment took place twenty years ago, and yet I still remember it vividly. I’m sure you can understand why - it was an emotional, impactful moment. Now, imagine being an eyewitness to much of the events of Jesus’ ministry, watching Him perform miracles, rise from the dead, and ascend into heaven. It’s not hard to believe that the disciples would remember these details vividly because those events would have constituted the most significant, emotionally charged moments of their lives.
Second, the Christian belief that Jesus is the divine Son of God did not originate from any of the New Testament writings. Rather, it developed as a result of the events that took place during Jesus’ life and ministry, namely His death and resurrection. In fact, we can see that the belief in Jesus as the divine Son of God was already circulating within a few years of His resurrection. How do we know this? Most people in that culture were illiterate, so they relied on a tradition of oral testimony.[4] People in religious circles often memorized creeds and confessions of faith that they would later pass on to others. Now, before you dismiss this as a giant game of “telephone,” understand that oral cultures were built on a robust system of checks and balances.[5]
“Books - or actually, scrolls of papyrus - were relatively rare. Therefore education, learning, worship, teaching in religious communities - all this was done by word of mouth…The community would constantly be monitoring what was said and intervening to make corrections along the way. That would preserve the integrity of the message.” - Craig Blomberg[6]
“In an oral culture like that of first-century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.” - William Lane Craig[7]
Paul’s letters, which make up a large portion of the New Testament and contain a general outline of the major events of Jesus’ life and ministry, are estimated to be written fifteen to twenty-five years after the death of Jesus.[8] Within these letters, Paul incorporated a number of creeds from the early church (one of the more theologically descriptive examples can be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7; see also Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20).
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (NIV)
These confessions of faith were being recited and shared among believers in the early church, so if Paul was quoting them in his letters, then of course he would have received them at an earlier date. Biblical scholar Craig Blomberg argues that Paul’s conversion to faith would have taken place about two years after the resurrection of Jesus, after which he spent time in Damascus and then met with the apostles in Jerusalem a few years later (it was there that Paul most likely received the early creed found in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7;[9] see Acts chapter 9). Blomberg says,
“Here you have the key facts about Jesus’ death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form - all dating back to within two to five years of the events themselves! That’s not later mythology from forty or more years down the road…A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, though not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of that very event.”[10]
Third, this objection does not take into account the fact that many eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus’ life would have still been alive at the time of the writings. This is extremely significant because, as Timothy Keller puts it, “the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life were circulating within the lifetimes of hundreds who had been present at the events of his ministry. The gospel author Luke claims that he got his account of Jesus’ life from eyewitnesses who were still alive” (Luke 1:1-4).[11] In fact, the Gospels are littered with similar references. One such example can be found in Mark 15:21, which lists “Simon of Cyrene…the father of Alexander and Rufus” as someone whom the Roman officials forced to carry Jesus’ cross. Many times, I have read this verse and missed the main point, thinking, “Jesus was too weak to carry his cross so they got someone to do it for him – on to the next verse.” However, Mark was essentially telling his readers, “Here is a man (Simon of Cyrene) who was present and involved in Jesus’ crucifixion, and these are his sons (Alexander and Rufus). If you don’t believe me, go ask them yourselves!” Keep in mind that Jesus’ supporters were not the only eyewitnesses that were still alive. Those who opposed Christ would have challenged any false narratives about Him. Keller writes,
“For a highly altered, fictionalized account of an event to take hold in the public imagination it is necessary that the eyewitnesses (and their children and grandchildren) all be long dead. They must be off the scene so they cannot contradict or debunk the embellishments and falsehoods of the story. The gospels were written far too soon for this to occur.”[12]
Objection #2: The early apostles/writers created a false religion for personal gain.
In order to answer this claim effectively, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of the disciples, the apostles, and the writers of the New Testament. Critics often claim that the writers fabricated many of the details surrounding Jesus’ life and teachings with the goal of creating a new religion. If that were the case, what might the apostles have to gain by lying? Detective J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold-Case Christianity, proposes that the motives to create a false religion could have only belonged to three categories: financial greed, sexual/relational desire, and the pursuit of power.[13] So, did the early apostles get rich and powerful? Did they attract all kinds of women? Of course not. They were ridiculed, imprisoned, beaten, tortured, and killed because of their faith (and many of the historical accounts of their deaths are well-attested).[14] Many people will die for something they believe in, but would you be willing to die for a religion you knew to be false - one that you had made up yourself? I know I wouldn’t. Alisa Childers writes,
“The earliest Christians had no possible motivation for making the whole thing up. In fact, they would have had every reason to recant under threat of death and torture. But they didn’t. Because it was all true.”[15]
Furthermore, if you were going to make up a new religion, wouldn’t you invent a strong, polished Savior whose followers (that would be you, the writers) were wise, loyal, and capable? Wouldn’t you create a message that would be easy to accept in order to attract the most amount of people? And yet the gospels are full of what Keller calls “counterproductive content”[16] that would have been very tempting to erase from the record. These are just a few examples:
The disciples regularly look foolish:
- They frequently don’t understand what Jesus was talking about (Mark 9:30-32, Luke 18:31-34, John 12:16)
- They repeatedly fall asleep when Jesus asks them to pray in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-41)
- After Jesus announced His coming death and resurrection, Peter tried to scold Him. Jesus then rebuked him, saying, “Get behind me Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” (Mark 8:31-33)
- The disciples run and hide when Jesus is arrested (Mark 14:50-52)
- Peter vehemently denies knowing Jesus, even cursing Him just hours after claiming that he would die before doing so (Matthew 26:33-35, 69-75)
Jesus isn’t always presented as the heroic, “God-like” character we would expect from a false religion:
- While praying just before his arrest and crucifixion, Jesus sweats blood because of anxiety and stress, even asking God the Father to “take this cup from me,” if possible (Luke 22:41-44).
- Jesus’ omnipotence seems limited when Mark says, “He could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people” (Mark 6:5)
- Jesus’ omniscience seems limited when he stated that He didn’t know the day or hour of His return (Mark 13:32).
- Jesus cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” while on the cross, creating potential confusion among readers who have repeatedly been told that Jesus is God (Mark 15:34).[17]
Other “Counterproductive” Content
- Jesus employed difficult teachings that caused many to turn away from Him (John 6:60-66). If they wanted to build a movement, why include these messages?
- In Roman society, crucifixion would have implied that Jesus was some sort of criminal.[18] Why would they include the crucifixion and risk Jesus’ reputation in that way if they wanted to portray Him as the perfect, sinless Savior?
- Why would the writers list women as the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection? Keller writes,
“Women’s low social status meant that their testimony was not admissible evidence in court. There was no possible advantage to the church to recount that all the first witnesses were women. It could only have undermined the credibility of the testimony. The only possible explanation for why women were depicted as meeting Jesus first is if they really had…It would have made far more sense (if you were inventing the tale) to have male pillars of the community present as witnesses when Jesus came out of the tomb.”[19] [20]
Archaeology Affirms the Claims of the New Testament
There are many archaeological examples we could examine here, but I’ll keep this brief. Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck has said that “it may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference.”[21] Likewise, archaeologist John McRay has stated, “Archaeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible. On the contrary…there have been many opinions of skeptical scholars that have become codified into ‘fact’ over the years but that archaeology has shown to be wrong.”[22] In his book, The Problem of God, Mark Clark shows us the consequences of declaring premature “facts” when it comes to the Bible. He writes that for decades, university professors taught that the Bible could not be trusted due to a discrepancy in John 5:1-2.[23] Here, John describes “Bethesda,” a pool with five roofed colonnades located “by the Sheep Gate.” Because archaeologists had explored the area and did not discover anything resembling John’s description, many of these students abandoned their faith in the Bible and walked away from Christianity. However, Clark goes on to say:
“In the mid-1900s, archaeologists dug a little deeper. With their more advanced technology they found the pool in Bethesda, the Sheep Gate, and the fived roofed colonnades exactly as John describes…I nearly cried thinking of all the people who rejected the claims of the Bible unnecessarily…Don’t walk away at the first sign of a contradiction or a problem. Sometimes scientific study needs to play catch-up to the Bible.”[24]
There is a lot more that could be said in regard to the truth of the original gospel accounts. Scholars have exhaustively researched this issue from numerous angles, including corroborations from non-Christian sources, literary elements, genealogical records, historical cross-references, Bible prophecy, and much more. As I mentioned in Part One, I am really only scratching the surface on this topic, but all the evidence points to the fact that the Bible is rooted in history. If you would like to investigate this more on your own, I would once again recommend the following books as a good starting point:
- The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel
- The Problem of God: Answering a Skeptic’s Challenges to Christianity by Mark Clark
- Another Gospel?: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity by Alisa Childers
- The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller
- I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler & Frank Turek
- Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace
Notes
[1] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (New York: Penguin Group, 2008), 104.
[2] Craig Blomberg, interviewed by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 34.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 244.
[5] Craig Blomberg, interviewed by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 47.
[6] Ibid, 45, 47.
[7] William Lane Craig, “The Evidence for Jesus,” cited in Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 245.
[8] Keller, 104.
[9] Craig Blomberg, interviewed by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 36-37.
[10] Ibid, 37.
[11] Keller, 104.
[12] Ibid, 105.
[13] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (Colorado Springs, CO: 2013), 240.
[14] Ibid, 250.
[15] Alisa Childers, “Was It True Only For Them?,” in Another Gospel?: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2020), Hoopla Digital Library.
[16] Keller, 107.
[17] Mark Clark, “The Problem of the Bible,” in The Problem of God: Answering a Skeptic’s Challenges to Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), Hoopla Digital Library.
[18] Keller, 108.
[19] Ibid, 108-109.
[20] Ibid, 213.
[21] Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Cudahy, 19590, 31, cited in Mark Clark, The Problem of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), Hoopla Digital Library.
[22] John McRay, interviewed by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 108.
[23] Mark Clark, “The Problem of the Bible,” in The Problem of God: Answering a Skeptic’s Challenges to Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), Hoopla Digital Library.
[24] Ibid.