It Looks Like History - The average person can know the Gospels are reliable (Part 1 of 8)

So how does the ordinary reader develop the conviction that the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are reliable? These days, people seem to be obsessed with the Real Jesus, assuming there is some alternative Jesus behind the Jesus we see in the Bible. These theories range from denying Jesus existed altogether to bizarre stories of Jesus secretly being married and having children. Whatever the theory, it doesn’t look much like the traditional gospel accounts. Yet for some reason, millions of Christians for the past two thousand years have been convinced the Jesus of the New Testament is the real Jesus. I want to offer ten reasons why the ordinary reader of the Gospels can develop a well-grounded, common sense conviction that they are reading REAL history. No advanced degrees are necessary. All that is needed for this conviction is you and your Bible. This is part one of a ten part series.

If you picked up a book that began with “Once upon a time…” you would immediately recognize it as fictional story. Fiction and history have a way of distinguishing themselves to the ordinary reader in a variety of ways. For instance, the Gospel of Luke opens with these words: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” Luke makes clear the intention of his work. Whatever one wants to make of the accuracy of Luke, the obvious intent is a reliable account of the life of Jesus based on eyewitness testimony. John makes similar assertions in John 20:30-31 and John 21:24-25.

In addition to their claims of being historical, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John read like reportage, chronicling the events surrounding the life of Jesus. He goes up to one place, then down to another. He interacts with Mary, Jairus, and Nicodemus. He feeds the five thousand around Passover, heals on the Sabbath, and dies outside the city of Jerusalem on Friday. Despite the astonishing detail, little strikes the reader as embellishment. The gospels aren’t narrating the secret thoughts of Jesus or the hidden motives of Judas, as much as we would crave such detail. Instead, you are getting a “just the facts ma’am” approach. There is a ring of truth to the entire account in the surprising detail, the omission of extravagance, and the clumsiness of style.

On the other hand, a distinguishing mark of fiction is the author’s knowledge of the thoughts and emotions of his characters. Authors of fiction assume an omniscient stance, taking the reader into the minds of each character. They may narrate about persons, places, and actions, but they assume a god-like insight into each as they weave together an entertaining story. Such knowledge tips the reader off that this is a fictional story, for no human author could recount such things. But this is not what we find in the New Testament. As C.S. Lewis once said: “Now as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced, that whatever else the Gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legends and myth and am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.”

Now you may ask, “What if someone took some real history about the actual person Jesus, and added fictional details, turning this man into a divine figure?” Is this a reasonable assumption? As the rest of our reasons will demonstrate, this idea is highly unlikely. But for the sake of argument, let’s test this hypothesis with what we know about the appearance of historicity in the gospel accounts. A person writing a mytho-history of Jesus, expecting others to believe him, would have significant difficulties to overcome. Not being acquainted with all the details of names, dates, geography, people, and politics of Jesus’ final three years, you have two options. First, in an age without the internet, you could invent a wide variety of details, hoping readers don’t catch your mistakes. But as we will see in the other posts on this topic, the gospel writers get the details right to a degree highly improbable for a person not intimately familiar with the actual events. Second, a writer trying to create a believable yet embellished account could omit details and only write about things readers couldn’t falsify. This is what the other false gospels of the 2nd and 3rd century do (e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc.). But as we look at our four gospels, we find surprising amounts of detail that turn out to be right. It seems to me the myth conspiracy just doesn’t fit the facts, making it very implausible.