Historical reliability of the Gospels

Methodology

When judging the historical reliability of the gospels, scholars ask if the accounts in the gospels are, when judged using normal standards that historians use on other ancient writings, reliable or not. The main issues are what are the 'original' gospels, whether the original gospel works were accurate eyewitness accounts, and whether those original versions have been transmitted accurately through the ages to us. In evaluating the historical reliability of the Gospels, scholars consider a number of factors. These include authorship and date of composition, intention and genre, gospel sources and oral tradition, textual criticism, and historical authenticity of specific sayings and narrative events.

The genre of the gospels is essential in understanding the intentions of the authors regarding the historical value of the texts. New Testament scholar Graham Stanton states that "the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies." Charles H. Talbert agrees that the gospels should be grouped with the Graeco-Roman biographies, but adds that such biographies included an element of mythology, and that the synoptic gospels also included elements of mythology. E.P. Sanders states that “these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature.” Ingrid Maisch and Anton Vögtle writing for Karl Rahner in his encyclopedia of theological terms indicate that the gospels were written primarily as theological, not historical items. Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis notes that "we must conclude, then, that the genre of the Gospel is not that of pure 'history'; but neither is it that of myth, fairy tale, or legend. In fact, 'gospel' constitutes a genre all its own, a surprising novelty in the literature of the ancient world." Some critics have maintained that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation. This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus, which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.

Scholars tend to consider Luke's works (Luke-Acts) to be closer in genre to "pure" history, although they also note that “This is not to say that he [Luke] was always reliably informed, or that - any more than modern historians - he always presented a severely factual account of events.” New Testament scholar, James D.G. Dunn believes that "the earliest tradents within the Christian churches [were] preservers more than innovators...seeking to transmit, retell, explain, interpret, elaborate, but not create de novo...Through the main body of the Synoptic tradition, I believe, we have in most cases direct access to the teaching and ministry of Jesus as it was remembered from the beginning of the transmission process (which often predates Easter) and so fairly direct access to the ministry and teaching of Jesus through the eyes and ears of those who went about with him." Nevertheless, David Jenkins, a former Anglican Bishop of Durham and university professor, has stated that “Certainly not! There is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance.”

Critical scholars have developed a number of criteria to evaluate the probability, or historical authenticity, of an attested event or saying represented in the gospels. These criteria are applied to the gospels in order to help scholars in reconstructions of the Historical Jesus. The criterion of dissimilarity argues that if a saying or action is dissimilar to, or contrary to, the views of Judaism in the context of Jesus or the views of the early church, then it can more confidently be regarded as an authentic saying or action of Jesus. One commonly cited example of this is Jesus' controversial reinterpretation of the Mosaic law in his Sermon on the Mount, or Peter's decision to allow uncircumcised gentiles into what was, at the time, a sect of Judaism. The criterion of embarrassment holds that the authors of the gospels had no reason to invent embarrassing incidents such as the denial of Jesus by Peter, or the fleeing of Jesus' followers after his arrest, and therefore such details would likely not have been included unless they were true. Bart Ehrman, using the criterion of dissimilarity to judge the historical reliability of the claim Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, notes that "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate."

The criterion of multiple attestation says that when two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is more likely that the accounts are accurate reports of events or that they are reporting a tradition which pre-dates the sources themselves. This is often used to note that the four gospels attest to most of the same events, but that Paul's epistles often attest to these events as well, as do the writings of the early church, and to a limited degree non-Christian ancient writings. The criterion of cultural and historical congruency says that a source is less credible if the account contradicts known historical facts, or if it conflicts with cultural practices common in the period in question. It is, therefore, more credible if it agrees with those known facts. For example, this is often used when assessing the reliability of claims in Luke-Acts, such as the official title of Pontius Pilate. Through linguistic criteria a number of conclusions can be drawn. The criterion of "Aramaisms" as it is often referred holds that if a saying of Jesus has Aramaic roots, reflecting Jesus' Palestinian context, the saying is more likely to be authentic.

Earliest extant manuscripts

The earliest manuscript is a business card sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to the first half of the 2nd century. The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century. In the case of the Gospels, the gap of time between authorship and the earliest extant or existing manuscript text is less than other accepted ancient manuscripts, such as the manuscripts attributed to Plato. The earlier existing copy of Plato's dialogues dates about 1,000 years after Plato wrote the text. The conditions of the earliest manuscripts is important, but this does not necessarily impact the reliability, or lack of reliability, of a source.

The following table lists the earliest extant Gospel manuscripts.

Authorship and date

Most scholars hold to the two-source hypothesis which claims that the Gospel of Mark was written first. According to the hypothesis, the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke then used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document, in addition to some other sources, to write their individual gospels. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, by using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Scholars hold that these books constituted two halves of a single work, Luke-Acts.

Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous. The Gospel of John is somewhat of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle. During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle. Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions.

Synoptic Gospels

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because of a similar sequence and wording. They are also composed in Koine Greek and the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim.

The Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. They recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus, who spoke Aramaic. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, that were later translated into Syriac, Latin and Coptic.

Mark

Mark is the primary source for information about Jesus. It was possibly composed in Rome or Antiochine Southern Syria. New Testament scholars generally credit its account of Jesus as a Galilean holy man, including his baptism by John the Baptist, his reputation as an exorcist and healer, his preaching about the coming Kingdom of God, his band of close disciples, the disruption he caused at the Temple, his betrayal, and his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. In 1901, William Wrede challenged the historical reliability of the gospel, concluding especially that Mark portrays Jesus as secretive about his messianic identity because the historical Jesus had never claimed to be the Messiah. Form criticism later revealed that the narrative comprises fragments put in order by Mark, or by someone before him. While the majority of scholars consider Jesus to have been an apocalyptic prophet, as he appears in Mark, a minority of prominent contemporary scholars argue that his coming kingdom was to be a social revolution rather than a supernatural apocalypse.

Tradition holds that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist, as St. Peter's interpreter. Numerous early sources say that Mark's material was dictated to him by St. Peter, who later compiled it into his gospel. The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, which vary in form and in theology, and which tell against the story that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.

Richard Bauckham has noted that the geography in Mark is accurate when looked at from the perspective of fisherman from Capernaum, which is consistent with Mark relaying the gospel from Peter, who indeed was a fisherman. Many scholars use modern maps to gauge Mark, which often results in errors in judging Mark's geography. A fisherman would not have had a modern map in mind, but instead a mental map based on his experiential world.

According to some, Mark's geography was not always accurate, for example Mark 7:31, describing Jesus going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by way of Sidon (20 miles farther north and on the Mediterranean coast). The author of Mark did not seem to know that one would not go through Sidon to go from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, and there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the 1st century, only one from Tyre. Catholic scholars have interpreted this passage as non-problematic since Jesus would have traveled in a wide circle, first north, then east and south.

Matthew

Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria or in Northern Palestine. Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document. While Matthew arranged this material into compilations, such as the Sermon on the Mount, much of the material goes back to the historical Jesus. According to E. P. Sanders, the infancy narrative is an invention. Matthew presents Jesus' ministry as limited to the Jews, though the resurrected Jesus later commissions the disciples to preach to all the world. Geza Vermes judges that the ministry of Jesus was exclusively for Jews and that the order to proclaim the gospel to all nations was an early Christian development.

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness. While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew. The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.

Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100. Based upon internal evidence Harrington claims parts of the Gospel of Matthew may have first been written in Aramaic. The birth stories and the resurrection experiences on the other hand were composed in koine Greek. The Ebionim seem to have worked from a version of Matthew in Aramaic, that excluded birth and post resurrection stories.

Luke

Luke was written in a large city west of Palestine, although Burton Mack, on the basis of its colloquial Greek and clear Pauline connections, and its later acceptance by the heretical Marcionites, suggests an author from Greece or western Asia Minor. Like Matthew, Luke drew on Mark and added material from Q. Luke also includes a large amount of unique material, such as the parable of the good Samaritan, and many of these parables seem to be authentic. Luke emphasizes the universal nature of Jesus' mission and message, but Geza Vermes concludes that this theme is not authentic to the historical Jesus. As is the case with Matthew, much controversy has surrounded the Lukan birth narrative.

Some scholars uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.

As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to as late as 90 AD. Donald Guthrie argues, however, that Acts was written in the early 60s AD (since the book ends before the death of Paul, which most probably occurred during the Persecution of the Christians under Nero between AD 64 and AD 68), and therefore the Gospel of Luke would have to have been written prior to that, around AD 60.

It is generally agreed that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author. The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces were addressed to Theophilus, and Acts of the Apostles (1:1-2) says in reference to the Gospel of Luke, "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen." (NIV) Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author. Both books also contain common interests.

John

John was likely composed at Ephesus, although other possibilities are Antioch, Northern Syria, Palestine and Alexandria. Some scholars believe that Jesus' teaching in this gospel cannot be reconciled with that found in the synoptics, whilst others, including John A.T. Robinson hold the view that the synoptics are best reconciled within the framework of John.

In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John. Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply mediated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely. Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus. Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."

Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95.

Textual criticism and interpolations

Textual criticism deals with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations (such as including non-authentic additions). In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. These are called interpolations. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original.

For example, there are a number of Bible verses in the New Testament that are present in the King James Version (KJV) but are absent from most modern Bible translations. Most modern textual scholars consider these verses interpolations (exceptions include advocates of the Byzantine or Majority text). The verse numbers have been reserved, but without any text, so as to preserve the traditional numbering of the remaining verses. The Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman notes that many current verses were not part of the original text of the New Testament. "These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries," he adds. "And because the King James Bible is based on later manuscripts, such verses "became part of the Bible tradition in English-speaking lands." He notes, however, that modern English translations, such as the New International Version, were written by using a more appropriate textual method.

Most modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate passages that have disputed source documents. Bible Commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail. While many variations have been discovered between early copies of biblical texts, most of these are variations in spelling, punctuation, or grammar. Also, many of these variants are so particular to the Greek language that they would not appear in translations into other languages.

Two of the most important interpolations are the last verses of the Gospel of Mark and the story of the adulterous woman in the Gospel of John. Some critics also believe the explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John to have been a later addition.

The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 fragmentary Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. Not all biblical manuscripts come from orthodox Christian writers. For example, the Gnostic writings of Valentinus come from the 2nd century AD, and these Christians were regarded as heretics by the mainstream church. The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, although it gives scholars a better idea of how close modern bibles are to the original versions. Bruce Metzger says "The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the descent of the manuscripts.

In "The Text Of The New Testament", Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover and Nestle-Aland), concluding that 62.9%, or 4999/7947, are in agreement. They concluded, "Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. ... In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater" Per Aland and Aland, the total consistency achieved in the Gospel of Matthew was 60% (642 verses out of 1071), the total consistency achieved in the Gospel of Mark was 45% (306 verses out of 678), the total consistency achieved in the Gospel of Luke was 57% (658 verses out of 1151), and the total consistency achieved in the Gospel of John was 52% (450 verses out of 869). Almost all of these variants are minor, and most of them are spelling or grammatical errors. Almost all can be explained by some type of unintentional scribal mistake, such as poor eyesight. Very few variants are contested among scholars, and few or none of the contested variants carry any theological significance. Modern biblical translations reflect this scholarly consensus where the variants exist, while the disputed variants are typically noted as such in the translations.

A quantitative study on the stability of the New Testament compared early manuscripts to later manuscripts, up to the Middle Ages, with the Byzantine manuscripts, and concluded that the text had more than 90% stability over this time period. It has been estimated that only 0.1% to 0.2% of the New Testament variants impact the meaning of the texts in any significant fashion.

Internal consistency

Authors such as Raymond Brown point out that the Gospels contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details. W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could".

Nativity accounts

Modern scholars such as E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes and Marcus Borg consider both narratives non-historical, arguing that there are contradictions between them. On the other hand, biblical scholar Mark D. Roberts aims to establish a harmonised account of the birth of Jesus, maintaining that any contradictions can be reconciled. Many biblical scholars view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than historical accounts. The nativity narratives found in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1:1-17) and the Gospel of Luke (Luke 3:23-38) give a genealogy of Jesus, but the names, and even the number of generations, differ between the two. Some authors have suggested that the differences are the result of two different lineages, Matthew's from King David's son, Solomon, to Jacob, father of Joseph, and Luke's from King David's other son, Nathan, to Heli, father of Mary and father-in-law of Joseph. However, Geza Vermes argues that Luke makes no mention of Mary, and questions what purpose a maternal genealogy would serve in a Jewish setting. Ferrar Fenton, who translated the whole of the Bible into one of the first versions in modern English, omitted the genealogy of Luke, placing it instead as a note at the end of his translation. The reasons that he gave were that Luke's genealogy was inconsistent with Old Testament genealogies and also that the gospel reads more smoothly with this genealogy removed. Fenton thought that it was a gloss that had been added to the original gospel.

Dating the birth of Jesus

Both Luke and Matthew date Jesus' birth to within the rule of King Herod the Great, who died in 4BC. However the Gospel of Luke also dates the birth ten years after Herod's death, during the census of Quirinius in 6 AD described by the historian Josephus. Raymond E. Brown notes that "most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating on Luke's part." Some conservative Christian biblical scholars and commentators still believe the two accounts can be harmonised, arguing that the text in Luke can be read as "registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria", and Tertullian believed that a number of censuses were performed throughout the Roman world under Saturninus at the same time. Geza Vermes has described such approaches as 'exegetical acrobatics'.

Death of Judas

Raymond E. Brown states that there is an obvious contradiction regarding the death of Judas Iscariot: "Luke's account of the death of Judas in Acts 1:18 is scarcely reconcilable with Matt 27:3-10." In Matthew 27:3-8, Judas returns the bribe he has been given for handing over Jesus, throwing the money into the temple before he hangs himself. The temple priests, unwilling to return the defiled money to the treasury, use it instead to buy a field known as the Potter's Field, as a plot in which to bury strangers. In Acts 1:18, on the other hand, Judas uses the bribe money to buy the field himself, and his death is attributed to injuries from having fallen in this field. Other scholars state that the contradictory stories can be reconciled.

Archeology and geography

Archaeological tools are very limited with respect to questions of existence of any specific individuals from the ancient past. According to Eric Cline, there is no direct archaeological evidence on the existence of a historical Jesus or any of the apostles since the most direct way to address the existence of anyone in the past archaeologically, would be with a body. Craig Evans notes that archaeologists have some indirect information on Jesus' life and experiences from archaeological finds from Nazareth, the High Priest Caiaphas' ossuary, numerous synagogue buildings, and Jehohanan, crucified victim that had a Jewish burial after execution. A potential location of the House of Peter, which may have housed Jesus while he was in Capernaum, is another find. Other various details mentioned in the gospels have been verified by archaeological evidence, such as the Pool of Bethesda, the Pool of Siloam, the Temple Mount platform extension by King Herod, and a mosaic from a third century church in Megiddo mentioning Jesus.

Richard Bauckham has argued that the topography found in the Gospel of Mark, when looked from the view of a fisherman from Capernaum, is quite accurate. Thomas Howe examined Luke's description of Paul's sea journeys, including Luke's references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, and stated that he could not find any mistakes. However, Mark Allan Powell believes that Luke’s knowledge of Palestinian geography seems so inadequate that one prominent scholar was led to remark “Jesus route cannot be reconstructed on a map, and in any case Luke did not possess one”.