Are the Gospels Reliable History?: Can the Witnesses be Trusted?

The details of the life of Jesus are based on 4 primary historical documents.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

In the first case, we were given 3 fundamental questions when preparing for a trial.

1. Can the witnesses be trusted

2. Has the testimony been changed

3. Is there corroborating Evidence 

In this class we are going to answer the question:

Can the Witnesses be trusted?

How do we know the gospel authors were telling the truth?

How do we know they were recording history not myths?

Here’s the first thing to look at:

The gospel account Sounds like written history. 

Some stories start like this: (and it's going to be familiar to you)-

“A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away…”

Now is that fact or is that fiction?

 Well it's Star Wars…It's fiction.

Or how about this one:

“Once upon a time, there lived in a certain village, A little country girl, the prettiest creature ever seen.”

Now is that fact or fiction?

Well that's fiction. It's Little Red Riding Hood. 

Other stories though, they start like this:

“Many have undertaken to draw an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and Servants of the world. With this in mind since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning I too decided to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus so that you may know you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” -Luke 1:1-2

Now does that sound like fact or fiction? Sounds like this was a factual account not a fictional account.  

This is actually how Luke starts his gospel.  You know certain factors tip us off that Luke means to be writing history.  Listen carefully ‘Many have undertaken to draw an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses’.  Luke starts by referring to what sounds like real historical events.  These events he says were based on eyewitness testimony, that gives accurate information about the life of Jesus.  He says he's carefully investigated everything from the beginning.  He's written this orderly account to a leader named Theophilus.  Why do you do that?  So Theophilus would know with certainty that the things he's been taught about the life of Jesus. 

Do you see the difference between Luke and Little Red Riding Hood? This writing has all the indications of what's known as ancient history and it seeks to tell the true life story Of Jesus of Nazareth. In chapter 3, Luke gives even more historical detail:

“Now in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip was tetrarch talk of the region of Ituraea.” -Luke 3:1

Luke gives us an exact year of the “reign of Tiberius Caesar”…Who gives us the exact ruler “when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea”.  Luke names the exact governor and location.  “And Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip was Tetrarch of the region Ituraea.”  Luke identifies the exact Tetrarch and locations.

That's the way history is written.

So not only do the gospels Sound like written history….

 The New Testament writers Say it is Written history

For example, let's look at Peter's writing.

“For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” -1 Peter 1:16

He's saying he and the disciples didn't invent the accounts of Jesus's life, death and resurrection. He's saying that we're telling the truth. He was there….he saw it with his own eyes.

Let's look at John's writing (another primary source historical documents) and notice how many senses John appeals to here.  

“What was from the beginning what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands concerning the word of life, what we have seen and heard we Proclaim to you also.” -1John 1:1-3

John heard Jesus. John saw Jesus. John touched Jesus. John was concerned with the facts….not with fairy tales. 

So the New Testament writers say it's written history, but 

The gospel accounts also have the feel of written history. 

First- they include details of eyewitness history, they include times of day, weather conditions, local customs, and other minutiae that otherwise wouldn't be there. 

Second- the gospel authors include embarrassing details about themselves. The disciples often come across as petty, or slow to understand, or as arrogant, and oftentimes unfaithful. 

-Think of James as John as they are rejected in Samaria. They say ‘Lord do you want us to Command fire comes down from the heavens To consume them?’ and Jesus Rebukes them. 

-And then the mother of James and John (in the gospel of Matthew) tells Jesus command that in your kingdom these two sons of hers sit at his right and left 

-How about Peter who denies Christ? 

-How about the women who are the first to report the Risen Christ?

Why include these unflattering details If the gospels are works of fiction? There was no motivation for the writers to lie either. 

Think about, here's the basic rule about lying: Tell a lie that makes you look good or get you something good….Now I'm not telling you to lie, but don't lie and then have it get you beaten with rods,whipped or stoned, or crucified upside down, or beheaded.  That's not a good lie if you receive that from it.  The earliest disciples sign their testimonies in blood.

And Fourthly- 

Even historians (who are critics) take the gospels to be written history. 

Even if they don't believe everything written in the gospels (like the Miracles).

“You are asking with respect to the gospels ‘Do they actually describe what Jesus said and did?’ On this topic, there are some points which Mike and I are certainly going to agree on. We agree that the gospel writers were first century authors, who were writing according to the conventions and style of their day.  And they had limitations that were imposed upon them by their day.  We agree on that.  We agree that there's some material in the gospels that is certainly historically reliable. There really was a Jesus.  He was probably baptized by John the Baptist. He had 12 followers. He taught about the coming kingdom of God. He told parables. He had a trip to Jerusalem. He was arrested and put on trial and executed.  In Broad terms very, very broad terms, I agree that the gospels are giving us some reliable Information. But I don't think that the gospels are accurate in many of the things that they say that Jesus taught and did  “ -Bart Ehrman Atheist5r/Author/ New Testament Scholar   

So our first question is-

Can the witnesses be trusted?   And our answer is absolutely yes.

First the gospel accounts sound like written history. 

Second, the New Testament writer say that It's written history. 

Third, the gospel accounts have the feel I've written history. 

And fourth, even historians who are Critics take the gospels to be written history.  

-But there's another question we need to ask about the evidence. What if the words in the New Testament aren't actually the words of those authors? What if the documents have been tampered with? What if the documents have been changed? Those are the issues we'll answer in our next class