The Historical Reliability of the Four Gospels, Part 1 

Critics and skeptics often attack the historical reliability of the New Testament’s record and interpretation of Jesus’ life and ministry by pointing out what they consider evident contradictions or errors they say exist between the Four Gospels. They bring up these alleged errors or contradictions because it is believed they 1) invalidate the Gospels as trustworthy historical records and interpretations of Jesus' life, ministry, teaching, death, and resurrection, and 2) it is believed they disprove the historical Christian teaching on the divine inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the original New Testament documents. This author is a firm believer in the divine inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the original New Testament documents. But this belief, with all the pros and cons connected with it, calls for a separate article for its defense and exposition. But here we are concerned with showing the Gospels to be reliable historical records and interpretations of the Story of Jesus the Messiah, and then will address some of the key alleged "contradictions and errors" existing between them. But first, let me say something about the authorship of the Gospels, which is the first item critics and skeptics assault in their efforts to undermine their reliability and authority as historical documents  

Authorship of the Gospels: The External and Internal Evidence 

In the first century, Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, the Pauline epistles, the General Epistles (i.e., James, 1&2 Peter, Jude, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John), Hebrews, and the Apocalypse were circulated and exchanged among the churches as individual books and kept in their church archives as such. Then fairly early in the second century, perhaps through the influence of the Antiochian and Roman churches, the Gospels were put together in one book, entitled "The Gospel" and with the Four Gospels being given the subtitle, "According to Matthew, According to Mark, According to Luke, and According to John." Then Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and Hebrews were combined into one book, with Acts serving as the "historical introduction" to these letters, while the General Epistles and the Apocalypse remained as separate books. Nevertheless, from the time they were first published and circulated, the Gospels were recognized either as the work of the Apostles Matthew and John, or as the work of apostolic associates, Mark and Luke, which were approved by the Apostles Peter and Paul, even though unlike the NT letters, the Gospels do not clearly name their authors. How is this to be explained? Primarily, it is because of the internal literary evidence of the Gospels themselves, as well as the historical evidence provided by the testimony of early Christian teachers, apologists, and historians who regarded themselves as both the recipients and guardians of those books embodying Apostolic traditions.

The Connection Between Mark and Peter

For example, comparing the stories and teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark with the sermons of Peter recorded by Luke in Acts, and then with the statements Peter makes about Christ and his life in the two letters attributed to him (i.e., 1 and 2 Peter), the Petrine connection is clear. And then Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, confirms this by stating that having been impacted by Peter's preaching and teaching, the Roman Christians urgently requested that "Mark, as the companion of Peter, leave them a monument of the doctrine orally communicated in writing. Nor did they cease their solicitations until they prevailed with the man, and thus became the means of that history which is called the Gospel according to Mark...The Apostle Peter, having ascertained what was done by the revelation of the Spirit, was delighted with the zealous ardor expressed by these men, and that the history obtained his authority for the purpose of being read in the churches. This account is given by Clement, in the sixth book of his Institutions, whose testimony is corroborated by that of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis." (Eccles. History, Ch XV, pp. 64-65)

The Connection Between Luke and Paul 

Luke/Acts, which forms a two-volume history of Jesus the Messiah and the earliest Christians, was written by the same author, who was a close companion of the Apostle Paul, as is clear from the "we" passages of Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16. Certain stylistic and structural characteristics, such as the use of chiasm and the device of focusing on particular individuals, are common to both books, demonstrating they were written by the same author. And not only was this author a capable of high-quality Greek but was also apparently well versed in historical and scientific methods of investigation and description. Then there is the fact that during his final imprisonment in Rome, Luke alone was Paul's constant companion, during the same time when the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus) were written (c. 64 A.D.). A comparison of the Greek style and vocabulary of Luke/Acts with that of the Pastoral Epistles gives compelling evidence that the author of the Third Gospel also acted as Paul's stenographer and composed these letters under Paul's direction. Moreover, in 1 Tim. 5:17-18, where Paul gives instruction on supporting elders who govern well and faithfully preach and teach the message of Christ, he appeals to Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:4 as the Scripture that supports his teaching   So in addition to its own high merits as a historical account of Jesus' life and career, Luke/Act's Pauline connection secured its esteemed place in the NT canon.

Matthew as Disciple and Eyewitness to Jesus

  

Now we come to the Gospel of Matthew, which from the first was highly esteemed, widely used, and quoted frequently because it contained stories, parables and full discourses of Jesus not found in Mark, which was considered by many early Christians as an abridgement of Matthew. Not only did the Gospel of Matthew provide a fuller authoritative record of Christ's teaching necessary for the instruction and training of new converts, but it also provided material that was well suited for doing evangelism and apologetic ministry among Jews prior to the Jewish/Roman War (c. 66-73 A.D.). Levi-Matthew, the tax collector, who would have had training and skill in shorthand stenography and drafting detailed reports for his Roman employers, was long considered the author of this Gospel. However liberal scholars deny this. At most, they argue that Matthew may have written Q (considered a proto-gospel in Aramaic), which was later incorporated and expanded by a Jewish Christian writer, fluent in Greek, resulting in the Gospel of Matthew as we now have it in the Greek New Testament.

  

However, there is more than one way to interpret the external and internal evidence. For example, even if Matthew did write Q, as tax collector and reporter, he would have to be trilingual (i.e., would have had to have a working knowledge of Aramaic, Greek, and Latin) to do his work effectively. So, there is no reason why he could not have written a second edition of his Gospel in Greek, that incorporated Q, Mark's Gospel, plus things he recalled from his own memories of being with Jesus. As George Eldon Ladd states, "If Matthew wrote a first edition of his Gospel in Aramaic for the Jewish-Christian community of Antioch and Mark wrote a Gospel in Rome embodying the Petrine tradition, it is entirely credible that when Matthew later produced a second edition in Greek, he made free use of the Petrine Gospel, thereby adding his own testimony to its authority and proving that the apostolic witness to Christ was not divided" (cf. More Light on the Synoptics, Church Times, March 2, 1959, p.16)  Several NT scholars have pointed out that in the period in which this Gospel was written, the book would have had its authorship credited to the person who published and distributed it in Greek, not to the authority of the sources behind it. That is why, for example, the Gospel of Mark is not called the Gospel of Peter. And then other NT scholars, such as C. D. Moule and Carsten Peter Thiede have argued from Matt. 13:51-52 that, in a self-deprecating way, Matthew identifies himself as the one Jesus specifically called to write a historical record of his life words and deeds. "Is it not conceivable that the Lord really did say to that tax-collector Matthew: You have been a 'writer' (as the Navy would put it); you have had plenty to do with the commercial side of just the topics alluded to in the parables--farmer's stock, fields, treasure-trove, fishing revenues, [but] now that you have become a disciple, you can bring all this out again--but with a difference" (cf. "Dates and Debates," Eyewitness to Jesus, Carsten P. Theide and Matthew D'Ancona, pp. 17-18). Therefore, liberal critics and skeptics do not have the last word on the origins of the Gospels nor on their historical reliability.

The Testimony of John, the Beloved Disciple  

Now, though all Four Gospels cover Jesus’ ministry in both Galilee and Judea, Matthew and Mark focus primarily on his ministry in Galilee, while Luke and John focus primarily on his ministry in Judea. Of the Four, John delves most deeply into Jesus’ being the Incarnate Word or Wisdom of God, as well as into the person and work of the Holy Spirit. He also records stories and teachings of Jesus not found in the Synoptic Gospels. And up until the last hundred years or so, this Gospel was universally acknowledged as the work of the Apostle John. So, what is the external and internal evidence that supports the belief that the Apostle John was indeed the author of this Gospel? Well, first, the author was an eyewitness and close associate of Jesus, who wrote a widely known and accepted account of Jesus’s life and ministry (cf. Jn. 1:14; 19:35; 21:24). Second, he was Christ’s “beloved disciple,” and sat next to him at the Last Supper in one of two prestigious positions filled by himself and Peter, and it was he who Peter asked to find out who would betray Jesus (cf. Jn. 13:21-27). Third, this man was also a member of the innermost circle of friends whom Jesus most relied on--i.e., Peter, James, and John (cf. Mk. 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33)—and was the one whom he entrusted the care of his mother while dying on the cross (cf. Jn. 19:25-27), while Peter and James were in hiding. And when he wrote this Gospel, Peter and James had been dead for some time (cf. Acts 12:2; Jn. 21:18-19). So, as B. F. Westcott argued over a hundred years ago in his commentary, The Gospel According to John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, when you add everything up, there is only one conclusion to draw: the Apostle John was the author of this book. 

So, given the circumstances, though the writers of the Four Gospels do not clearly state their identity as authors—as do James, Peter, and Paul at the beginning of their letters in the NT—there is no denying that both the internal and external indicates that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels that have been ascribed to them by Christians down the centuries.