The Historical Reliability of the Four Gospels, Part 2 

If you have listened to various YouTube podcasts or videos over the last six months, various atheists and skeptics have been working hard to spread the news that the New Testament writings, which are the foundational documents of the Christian Church’s beliefs and practices, are historically unreliable and do not provide a true record of who Jesus was and what he said and did.  We have already seen that they begin with an assault on the authorship and composition of the Four Gospels, after which they proceed to expose “apparent contradictions and discrepancies” existing between the Four Gospels which, for them, is “proof-positive” that these documents are not historically reliable. However, the “problem” of these apparent contradictions or inconsistencies among the Gospels is not something new. 

Christians Long Aware of and Responsive to this Problem 

From the earliest days to the end of the eighteenth century, the historical reliability of the Four Gospels and Acts was naturally assumed by most Christians, since they were considered an inspired and infallible accounting of God's work of redemption and reconciliation through his Son, Jesus the Messiah. Of course, as early as the third century, biblical scholars and theologians, such as Augustine and Jerome, were aware of "apparent" contradictions or discrepancies found in parallel stories and sayings of Jesus in the Gospels. Therefore, they offered explanations that "harmonized" these passages by appealing to the different theological perspectives of the different writers which shaped the selection and arrangement of their material.

  

Moreover, Augustine argued that since the gospels did not always clearly state the location or sequence of events, that the reader should assume continuity of time and place unless explicitly stated in the text itself. He also argued that while parallel passages might vary in wording yet convey the same sense, highly divergent "parallels" might in fact represent similar events and sayings from separate occasions in Jesus' life and ministry. And during the Reformation, John Calvin argued that certain discourses, such as Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, could be composite constructions that gathered together Jesus' teaching from separate occasions. And whatever anomalies remained that could not be solved by harmonization might resolved in the future by new historical and literary discoveries. 

 

However, with the dawning of the Enlightenment in the late eighteenth century, atheistic rationalism, naturalistic/evolutionary materialism, and the perversion of science into scientism began to sprout and then came to full bloom in the twenty-first century. As result the New Testament was treated no longer as a true and reliable record of what Jesus, the Son of God and the Savior of the world had said and done. Instead, it was treated as a collection of fabricated and sometimes contradictory stories about a Jewish rabbi and sage whom, if he ever truly existed, was used by various rogue Jewish communities to justify their existence and to address their religious concerns and needs.

  

In fact, a few years ago, using what many biblical scholars and historians regarded as questionable "authenticating" criteria, a group called the Jesus Seminar, decided which stories and sayings of Jesus were authentic, which were probable, and which were fabrications. In their judgment, only about 20% of the Jesus stories and sayings were authentic. (Of course, because of their prior concept of Jesus as Jewish rabbi and sage, anything that painted Jesus as an eschatological prophet, performing miracles, and confirming he was the fulfilment of Israel's Messianic expectations were dismissed out of hand.) However, if the Gospels are not a compilation of religious myths and legends but are actual historical records and interpretations of Jesus’ life and career, then we have some basis for critical analysis and weighing of their content. So, what kind of documents are the Four Gospels? 

The Nature and Purpose of the Gospels from a Greco-Roman Viewpoint 

Now, when we look at the Four Gospels and start reading them, what kind of books are we reading? Are they a mere compilation of myths and legends about an obscure Jewish rabbi and sage revered by members of an outlandish Jewish sect of the first century? If that is all they are, then how did the Christian revolution, as Tom Holland describes the Jesus movement in his book, Dominion, ever transform the Roman Empire the way it did? And how would scholars, historians, and writers in the centers of ancient Greco-Roman learning have understood these books? Would they have viewed them as compilations of myths and legends, with which they were familiar, or would they have recognized them as something on a different scale altogether?

 

N. T. Wright and Michael Bird, in The New Testament in Its World, point out that if these books had been given to the scholars and librarians resident at the great Library of Alexandria in Egypt, they would have recognized them as historical biographies, like Xenophon's Memoirs of Socrates, since they follow the literary conventions of historical biography that existed at the time. Such historical biographies were written in continuous prose; they present the stylized career of a public leader; they provide a chronological framework of the person's birth, deeds, death, and legacy; they contain vignettes highlighting their character and achievements; they say quite a bit about the person's manner of death; and such works extol their central figure for his virtues while defending them from accusations from various detractors.

 

But then in addition to this, and quite strange to them, the Gospels clearly seek to connect and integrate the Story of Jesus with the Story of Israel as God's Chosen People, revealing him as the fulfilment to the Abrahamic promise that "all the nations of the earth will be blessed through you and your seed" (Cf. Gen. 12:1-3 with Gal. 3:15-29). They would see that the writers of these books, in their respective ways, sought to demonstrate that Jesus, as the culmination of all Israel's Messianic hopes and expectations, is God's Chosen One through whom his plan to bring about the redemption and reconciliation of humanity and the whole creation with himself has been and, yes, will be accomplished. They would see that the Gospels rehearse OT themes and literary patterns; they would see clear echoes of OT Messianic prophecies and promises; but above they would see that the Gospels insist that if the Jewish OT was telling a Great Story looking for a perfect ending, then Jesus the Messiah and the New Era he had inaugurated based on his death and resurrection was that ending. 

Yet each of the Four Gospels, though sharing many common Jesus stories, sayings, and discourses, are not carbon copies of each other. In seeking to portray Jesus as the Suffering Servant of the LORD (Mark), the Fulfilment of Israel’s Messianic Hope (Matthew), Lord and Savior of the World (Luke/Acts), and The Incarnate Wisdom and Word of God (John), the Gospel writers use various topical and chronological arrangements, as well as selections of stories and teaching, to give substance to their respective portrayals of who Jesus was and is in terms of his identity and Messianic mission. And it is, in part, these differences that give rise to charges of contradictions and discrepancies by the critics and skeptics. So, we will now seek to explain why these “alleged” contradictions and inconsistencies are just that—alleged, not actual. 

Now when you compare Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the so-called "Synoptic Gospels," the unity and diversity between them is clearly seen in how they describe certain common events and the similarity in form which they give to common discourses. This is because Mark, regarded as the earliest and shortest of the Gospels, was used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. And they, in the main, follow Mark's geographical/chronological order. Yet it is not a slavish use of Markan material, and in several places, Matthew and Luke add stories and sayings of Jesus that fill out their respective versions of the Story of Jesus.

  

Again, in addition to their use of Mark, Matthew and Luke have records of events and discourses that are abbreviated in comparison with what you find in Mark, or in some cases, they add some stories and sayings of Jesus not found in Mark. And in some other cases, Matthew and Luke have either recast or paraphrased certain statements of Jesus that, due to the rougher and colorful phrasing of Mark, might lead to serious confusion or misunderstanding by Greek and Roman readers not familiar with Jewish literary idioms or cultural references (cf. Craig Blomberg, "Contradictions Among the Synoptics?" The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, pp. 113-152). 

And in some cases, in various locations, we find similar sayings and parables in the Gospels. This is to be explained in the fact that Jesus was an itinerant preacher. As D. A. Carson states,” [T]hat Jesus was an itinerant preacher (cf. comments at Mt. 4:23-25; 9:35-38; 11:21) is passed over too lightly. To attempt a tradition history of similar sayings, which the evangelists place in quite different contexts, overlooks the repetitive nature of itinerant ministry. Of course, each case must be examined on its own merits and depends in some instances on source-critical considerations; but we shall observe how frequently this basic observation is ignored. See especially the introductory discussion on parables at 13:3a." (D. A. Carson, "Matthew," EBC Vol. 8, p.9)   

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. 

 UAPs: Not of This World, But Are They Paranormal?

In a previous post, I mentioned that I have been a longtime amateur astronomer, observing the skies with both binoculars and telescopes, gazing on a grand universe which, as I have now come to understand, displays the Creator's wisdom, power, and artistic genius to those able to see it.  And I also mentioned that in all my years as a stargazer there had been several occasions on which, like many others, I had seen "unidentified aerial phenomenon" (UAPs) that I could not explain in reference to any natural objects or manmade aircraft that was known to me. And lastly, I mentioned that I was glad that a recent US government report had declared UAPs to be something real and so worthy of serious scientific investigation, and expressed my hope that the government would actually investigate these UPAs and do something about them.

Now, I would have left it at that. But then a friend shared a YouTube video with me, in which a former Naval pilot asserted that these UPAs were one of three things: 1. A secret US advanced weapon/aircraft; 2. A secret foreign weapon/spy aircraft; 3. Alien spacecraft. Then he went on to explain why he believed they were neither foreign fighter/spy aircraft nor alien spaceships, but a secret advanced US weapon/fighter aircraft. What he said seemed reasonable and plausible enough. Yet he also mentioned observed and recorded characteristics of these "craft" that are hard to explain in terms of what we currently understand about the general laws of physics.  

These "craft" fly silently without any conventional propulsion systems; make incredible 300-500 G turns that would kill human pilots; and seem to operate as easily in water and outer space as they do in our atmosphere without any design change or compromise.  Moreover, these "craft" possess stealth capability, and yet have been tracked at speeds of Mach 5 and above.  According to Luis Elizondo, a government investigator and former head of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Investigation Program (AATIP), it is these "5 observable" characteristics of instantaneous acceleration, transmedium travel, hypersonic speed, low visibility and positive lift that lead him to favor the alien hypothesis, though he wants to keep an open mind on the true nature of UAPs, their origin, and their purpose.

Interestingly, in a recent interview with New York Post journalist Steven Greenstreet on his program "Basement Office," Mr. Elizondo referred to a conversation he had had with a Pentagon official (whom he knew and respected) in which he was told that the identity of the UAPs was already known. When Mr. Elizondo asked for clarification, to his surprise he was told that if he was familiar with the Bible, he would know these things were demonic in nature and so needed no further investigation. In this Pentagon official's view, these objects were indeed real and not of this world. But being demonic or paranormal in nature, they would not, in his view, be subject to strict scientific investigation and explanation.  

However, this viewpoint is not a total surprise.  When you study the history of the investigation of UAPs over the last 40 years, there have been a few investigators who, due to the evidence available, have opted for the paranormal explanation. For example, Jacques Vallee, a French astronomer who studied this phenomena for several decades, has written several books on "interdimensional beings" and their questionable activities in such books as Messengers of Deception and Project Trojan Horse. So the question is, if UAPs are paranormal phenomena, and not visitors from outer space, what are they a manifestation of, and how do we deal with them?