Apologetics Notes on the Reliability of Gospels - Ministry Exchange (MX)

ÓInterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1997 All Rights Reserved
NOTES ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE GOSPELS

(for use in small groups as questions come up)

Material taken from: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Craig

Blomberg, IVP, 1987 Handbook of Christian Apologetics, P. Kreeft and R. Tacelli, IVP, 1994 Commentary on Matthew, Craig Keener, IVP, 1997

Why Gospel accounts are accurately preserved

. Jewish students and Greco-Roman students heavily emphasized accurate memorization . Comparison of earliest manuscripts with later ones show only a few, very minor differences. Since these manuscripts are scattered geographically and across time, it is highly unlikely someone would have corrupted all the manuscripts. . The notion that the current Gospels are corrupted depends on the existence of an original “uncorrupted” version and transitional versions in between. No such version has ever been discovered, which should be strongly expected by that notion. There is no evidence of any inauthentic gospel’s existence in the first century. With a single exception, no apocryphal Gosepl is ever even quoted by any known author the first 300 years after Christ. . Memory of the correct authorship would have been strongly preserved with the text, since the author is what gave authority to the Gospel accounts.

Internal Evidence within the Gospel for its Reliability

. Most scholars now place certainly before 80AD, some place Mark as early as 65 AD. . There would have been plenty of eyewitnesses for authors to collect material from. Moreover, those eyewitnesses would have prevented from any account that was fabricated from gaining acceptance. . Myths require enough time to pass after the original event. But Gospels were all written within 30 to at most 50 years after the event. There is no example in history of any myth arising that soon after the original event. (Compare with the myths that arose hundreds of years after Muhammed, Buddha, and Lao Tzu.) . The style of the Gospels are of eyewitness account, totally unlike myth or any other genre known to the ancient world (see Kreeft, p. 189). . The Gospel get a myraid of details (geographical, political facts, etc.) correct that only an eyewitness would have gotten. There are no anachronisms present as one would expect if they were written hundreds of years later. . Luke and Matthew both show careful attention to their souce material (Mark). You would expect wider divergence had they been fabrications. . If the Gospels were invented, the most likely culprits would be the early church (as most liberal scholars hypothesize). Yet, the Gospels include many unflattering details about the disciples, who would have been revered founders in these early churches.

External Evidence For Gospel’s Reliability

. There are more copies of the text dated closer to Jesus’ life than we have for any other ancient event. Scholars dismiss the Bible because it contains accounts of miracles, but if not for this bias against miracles, the biblical history would be regarded as more firmly established than most of the history of classical Greece and Rome. . No serious scholar denies that Paul’s letters were written in the first century, most probably within a few decades of Christ. Those letters attest to the same events (i.e. Resurrection) and person of Christ as the Gospels. Moreover, there is a strong link between the dating of Paul’s letters (obviously written before his death) and the dating of Acts (which describes Paul in great detail and ends before Paul’s death) and the dating of Luke (which was written before Acts). . Ancient writers up to 315AD completely accepted the authorship of the Gospel to their traditional authors (see Kreeft, 194). Even Christianity’s early opponents – Celsus, Emperor Julian, etc. – conceded this. (For Matthew, a early first century author, Papias attributes the Gospel to Matthew).