Are the Gospels historically reliable?

Do you doubt the Bible’s claims? I know I have reservations from time to time, and I’ve been conservative evangelical Christian since 1996. Case in point: any thinking person will entertain doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels.

  • Are there contradictions in the Gospels?
  • Do the four Gospels have any support from archaeology?
  • Does John share any or many similarities with the other three?
  • Do they cohere together in a unified storyline?
  • Is the Gospel of John so far different from the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that John has little or no historical value?
  • How do theology and history interact in the four Gospels?
  • Can we trust them if they have a strong point of view and seek to persuade their readers or listeners?
  • What is the so-called Q “gospel”?
  • If it existed, what is its theology?
  • Are the Gospels based on eyewitness testimony?
  • If so, aren’t eyewitnesses notoriously unreliable?
  • How is eyewitness testimony disclosed, if it is, in the four Gospels?
  • Are the eyewitnesses whose traditions that feed into the written Gospels anonymous or named?
  • What is the role of the Twelve in securing the traditions about Jesus?
  • What is a tradition?
  • Were the traditions passed on orally or literarily (in writing)?
  • Are there cultural analogies that show how they were transmitted?
  • Most importantly, are the four Gospels historically reliable?
  • Can we trust them, historically speaking, in addition to their theology?

Good questions, certainly. James Arlandson tackles them in turn and promises to keep going, courtesy of The American Thinker.

Comments are closed.