adminThe historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Although some claim that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability, others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.
Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, as well as the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion. On one extreme, some Christian scholars maintain that the gospels are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus. On the other extreme, some scholars have concluded that the gospels provide no historical information about Jesus’ life.
These gospels, that of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark, believed to be the first written of the four gospels, narrates the Baptism of Jesus, his preaching and the Crucifixion of Jesus. Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s narrative, with some changes and add substantial amounts of Jesus’ ethical teaching, such as The Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount and Sermon on the Plain.
The Gospel of John, differs greatly from the first three gospels. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, although there are passages in Acts that have been interpreted to contradict Luke. Acts of the Apostles narrates the events of the Apostolic Age, from the resurrection of Jesus around 33AD to the arrival of Paul the Apostle in Rome around 62AD.
According to the majority viewpoint, the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts. The gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, that were later translated into Syriac, Latin and Coptic.
Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate authentic, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations and alterations. Since the gospel manuscripts include many variants, scholars use textual criticism to determine which variants were original. They also determine which details can be trusted within the context of the first century Greco-Roman world and which cannot.
To answer this question, scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them, what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were and how far removed in time the sources were from the events they describe.
Scholars can also look into the internal evidence of the documents, to see if, for example, the document is making claims about geography that were correct, or if the author appears to be hiding embarrassing information. Finally, scholars turn to external sources, including the testimony of early church leaders, writers outside the church (mainly Jewish and Greco-Roman historians) who would have been more likely to have criticised the church, and to archaeological evidence.
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 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. 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.
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 pre-dates 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 re-interpretation 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.
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. These three gospels are called the Synoptic Gospels since they are all very similar. 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.
Mark
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 around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.
The theory that the Gospel of Mark was written first and is the earliest of the Gospels is not without its problems. For example, its author seemed to be ignorant of Palestinian geography. Mark 7:31 describes 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 you 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 first century, only one from Tyre.
Catholic scholars have interpreted this passage as indicating “that Jesus travelled in a wide circle, first north, then east and south”.
Matthew
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 70 and 100.
Luke
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.
Some scholars date the Gospel of Luke to c. 80-90, although others argue for a date c. 60-65.
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.
The book of Acts has been most commonly dated to the second half of the first century. Given that, therefore, Luke was written by the same person who wrote Acts, and that Acts must have been written in the early 60s AD (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), it would seem that Luke was written around AD 60.
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 meditated 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. Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80-95. — wikipidea.
Online Reporter