The Best Reason To Trust The Gospels
There is no shortage of controversy about the reliability of the Gospels.
One scholar says that as historical documents they are completely trustworthy, another says they are completely made up, and yet another says something in between.
Is there any way to know for sure? Of course.
You could take the next few years and do an exhaustive study of the content of the Gospels, historical methodology, and textual criticism...
or not.
This is a task that most people simply do not have the time to undertake.
Fine.
What about just one good reason? If one had to boil down all the information in support of the reliability of the Gospels, what would come out on top? Evidence The single best reason to trust the information in the Gospels is that they were written while eyewitnesses were still alive.
How do we know this? Well, the first Gospel to be written, probably Mark, was composed no later than A.
D.
70.
Given that Jesus died in about A.
D.
30, that means that no more than forty years passed between the time that Jesus died and information about Him was put into written form.
If forty years or less had passed, that means that eyewitnesses would still have been alive who would have known whether what was written about Jesus was true or false.
This means that when someone was listening to the Gospel of Mark being read, and he heard the story of the feeding of the five thousand, there would presumably be some of those people still around.
If someone started making things up about what Jesus said and did, there were people still alive who would be able to correct any errors.
It is important to keep in mind that when I say "eyewitnesses" were still alive, this did not only mean Christian eyewitnesses.
Skeptical eyewitnesses were still alive as well.
If the Christians tried to invent grandiose stories about Jesus and portray Him as something that He was not, they also had the ability to correct/counter the stories.
The fear of public correction would have provided a further reason (beyond any honesty the Christians might have had) for them to want to keep their stories about Jesus as accurate as possible.
Objection In response to this, someone might say "Fine.
Eyewitnesses on both sides could correct the message.
But, if forty years had passed, they would not be able to remember the facts accurately.
" I think this is a valid concern.
After all, most people who have lived that long have trouble remembering details from forty years ago.
Surely, they would have made some mistakes due to incorrect memory.
Response I think it is possible to grant every word of the objection and still think the Gospels are reliable.
Why? First, we were not arguing for the complete accuracy of the Gospels; rather, we were arguing for their reliability.
This means that there could be some mistakes in the details, but the core of the stories are the same.
For example, the accounts of the empty tomb record different visitors.
Was there one angel, two angels, or just a young man who was later interpreted to be an angel? Without getting into ways of trying to reconcile these two accounts, even if one of the authors got the facts wrong, that does not mean that the tomb was not empty or that no one was there.
On emptiness of the tomb and the presence of a visitor, all the accounts agree.
Second, memory is not as big of a problem as some might think.
If we are only looking for accuracy at the macro level and not for each individual detail, then it is not difficult to remember something for forty years.
This is especially true if the story revolved around a particularly interesting or traumatic event and if it were retold many times.
Someone who fought in Vietnam would be able to remember stories about his time at war enough to be able to tell them forty years later (especially if he had told them on other occasions prior to that time).
In the same way, the events recorded in the Gospels would have been very meaningful to the people who participated in them.
It is in no way implausible to believe that the eyewitnesses could remember the main points of a story for that length of time.
For the reasons mentioned above, I think that the fact that Gospels were written while eyewitnesses were still alive provides strong support for believing that the Gospels are reliable.
One scholar says that as historical documents they are completely trustworthy, another says they are completely made up, and yet another says something in between.
Is there any way to know for sure? Of course.
You could take the next few years and do an exhaustive study of the content of the Gospels, historical methodology, and textual criticism...
or not.
This is a task that most people simply do not have the time to undertake.
Fine.
What about just one good reason? If one had to boil down all the information in support of the reliability of the Gospels, what would come out on top? Evidence The single best reason to trust the information in the Gospels is that they were written while eyewitnesses were still alive.
How do we know this? Well, the first Gospel to be written, probably Mark, was composed no later than A.
D.
70.
Given that Jesus died in about A.
D.
30, that means that no more than forty years passed between the time that Jesus died and information about Him was put into written form.
If forty years or less had passed, that means that eyewitnesses would still have been alive who would have known whether what was written about Jesus was true or false.
This means that when someone was listening to the Gospel of Mark being read, and he heard the story of the feeding of the five thousand, there would presumably be some of those people still around.
If someone started making things up about what Jesus said and did, there were people still alive who would be able to correct any errors.
It is important to keep in mind that when I say "eyewitnesses" were still alive, this did not only mean Christian eyewitnesses.
Skeptical eyewitnesses were still alive as well.
If the Christians tried to invent grandiose stories about Jesus and portray Him as something that He was not, they also had the ability to correct/counter the stories.
The fear of public correction would have provided a further reason (beyond any honesty the Christians might have had) for them to want to keep their stories about Jesus as accurate as possible.
Objection In response to this, someone might say "Fine.
Eyewitnesses on both sides could correct the message.
But, if forty years had passed, they would not be able to remember the facts accurately.
" I think this is a valid concern.
After all, most people who have lived that long have trouble remembering details from forty years ago.
Surely, they would have made some mistakes due to incorrect memory.
Response I think it is possible to grant every word of the objection and still think the Gospels are reliable.
Why? First, we were not arguing for the complete accuracy of the Gospels; rather, we were arguing for their reliability.
This means that there could be some mistakes in the details, but the core of the stories are the same.
For example, the accounts of the empty tomb record different visitors.
Was there one angel, two angels, or just a young man who was later interpreted to be an angel? Without getting into ways of trying to reconcile these two accounts, even if one of the authors got the facts wrong, that does not mean that the tomb was not empty or that no one was there.
On emptiness of the tomb and the presence of a visitor, all the accounts agree.
Second, memory is not as big of a problem as some might think.
If we are only looking for accuracy at the macro level and not for each individual detail, then it is not difficult to remember something for forty years.
This is especially true if the story revolved around a particularly interesting or traumatic event and if it were retold many times.
Someone who fought in Vietnam would be able to remember stories about his time at war enough to be able to tell them forty years later (especially if he had told them on other occasions prior to that time).
In the same way, the events recorded in the Gospels would have been very meaningful to the people who participated in them.
It is in no way implausible to believe that the eyewitnesses could remember the main points of a story for that length of time.
For the reasons mentioned above, I think that the fact that Gospels were written while eyewitnesses were still alive provides strong support for believing that the Gospels are reliable.
