Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Why We Can Trust the Gospels as History - Catholic Stand
Why We Can Trust the Gospels as History - Catholic Stand
Why We Can Trust the Gospels as History - Catholic Stand
religion, a faith that’s based on allegedly historical people and events, so the question of historicity is fundamental to our
faith. If the Gospels relate historical fact, then our beliefs stand on some pretty firm ground; however, if they relate fiction,
So how do we answer these questions? How can we determine if the stories the Gospels tell are really true? From a purely
historical perspective, we cannot have absolute certainty about this (that is impossible in history), but there are a few things
at which we can look to see if they are reliable, a few clues that can tip the scale one way or another. Let’s now take a look
at some of those clues and see what they can tell us about the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels.
Gospels is that Jesus Christ is the climax and goal of the story told in the Old Testament. Now, Judaism (both in the first
century and in the Old Testament) was a historical religion. It was based on past events that supposedly happened in
history, and the Jews were expecting certain future events to occur in history as well (like the coming of the Messiah). As a
result, it would not have made much sense for a group of first-century Jews to just make up things that never
happened. The prominent New Testament scholar N. T. Wright explains this point well in his book The New Testament and
[T]he fact that the evangelists believed themselves to be bringing the story of Israel to its great
climax, the turning-point from which at last the long history of the world would change course,
means inescapably that they believed themselves to be writing (what we call) history…History was
where Israel’s god must act to redeem his people…If we are to think Jewishly, and to see the
evangelists as doing so too, we cannot but conclude that they intended to refer to Jesus and his
historical ministry.1
If they were telling the story of Jesus as the climax of Israel’s history, there is every reason, over
and above biographical curiosity, why they would have intended that their stories should have a
clear historical referent.2
Granted, this doesn’t prove anything, but it does provide us with some evidence that the Gospels are reliable. Telling stories
that never happened would have been counterproductive to their entire enterprise; it would not have made any sense for
them to make up a Messiah or to tell fake stories about some random first-century Jew. As a result, we have good reason to
believe that the evangelists were trying to write history. However, this raises a question for us: even if they wanted to write
traditionally attributed to Matthew (an Apostle), Mark (a close companion of the Apostle Peter), Luke (a close companion of
the Apostle Paul), and John (an Apostle), but modern scholars often reject these traditional attributions. There a few
reasons for this stance, but one of the main ones is that the texts of the Gospels never actually name their
authors. Nowhere do the Gospels come out and tell us who wrote them, so many scholars today claim that the Gospels are
anonymous documents that were later attributed to specific (but, most likely fictional) authors.3
However, this skepticism is unwarranted. First, even though the Gospels never identify their authors within the texts of their
stories, every complete ancient manuscript of the Gospels that we possess today is titled “The Gospel According to…” We
don’t have any complete copies that are actually anonymous; they all contain the names of their supposed
authors. Consequently, the claim that they were originally anonymous is really just an educated guess; it is not supported by
Moreover, if the Gospels were originally anonymous, we would expect to see speculation and argumentation about their
authorship in the early Church, but we don’t. Already by the early second century, we see Christian writers confident that
these Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and nobody disputed that. There were other biblical works
whose authorship was disputed, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, which does not name its author either in its text or in its
title, in contrast to the Gospels. Since we see the exact opposite of what we would expect, if the Gospels were originally
choice to whom to attribute one of the Gospels, the other three authors present no basis for a likely, arbitrary
attribution. Matthew was an Apostle but not a prominent one, and Mark and Luke were not important figures in the New
Testament at all. Simply put, if the early Church wanted to attribute the Gospels to people who would lend them an air of
authority, they made some pretty bad choices. Instead, the most likely explanation for the traditional attributions is that
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John really did write the works that bear their names.
Now, two of these men were Apostles, and the other two were close associates of Apostles (Mark was an associated of
Peter, and Luke was an associate of Paul), so they were definitely in a good position to write accurate history about Jesus’
life and preaching. Because of all this, we already have some good reasons for believing that the Gospels are historically
reliable even before we look at their content. Both their nature as first-century Jewish documents and the likely identities of
their authors attest to this. However, that is only half the story. Next, we have to look at what the Gospels actually say and
see if their content gives us any further clues about their historical trustworthiness.
embarrassing. For example, we can look for stories or sayings that seem to denigrate Jesus. If the Gospel writers simply
made their stories up, they would not have included such events, but if they were trying to write accurate history, then they
would have simply recorded the facts as they actually happened, regardless of how much they might seem to contradict
When we look at the Gospels, we find that all four of them do in fact include such details. For example, Mark 6:1-5 says that
when Jesus returned to his hometown, he wasn’t able to perform many miracles there because of the people’s
disbelief. This event seems to cast doubt on Jesus’ power to work miracles, so it clearly fits this criterion. The fact that
Mark chose to include it despite its potential for embarrassment shows that he was genuinely concerned about the facts as
they historically happened, not just about made-up stories that simply supported his own theological agenda.
The other Gospel writers did the same thing. We find little bits and pieces that seem to belittle Jesus in Matthew 27:46
(when He cries “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” on the cross), Luke 3:21 (when Jesus is baptized, an event
that could imply that Jesus needed to repent and be cleansed of His sins), and John 14:28 (when Jesus says “The Father is
greater than I”). All four Gospels show that their authors were interested in relating events as they actually happened, even
that the most pressing theological issue facing the first Christians was the incorporation of Gentiles (non-Jews) into the
Church. More specifically, it was the question of whether or not Gentile converts had to be circumcised and follow the
Jewish Law.6 Now, if the evangelists were simply making stuff up, we would expect them to include some stories or sayings
But they don’t. Jesus sometimes hints at the future inclusion of Gentiles in the Church, but he never says anything about
whether or not they need to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law. This shows once again that the Gospel writers were
interested in histortcal facts, in what actually happened. They did not simply invent stories or sayings of Jesus to fit their
needs or to further their own theological agendas; instead, they recounted things that actually happened.
trustworthiness of the Gospels, but from what we have seen here, we can be confident that our faith does have a solid basis
in history. We have good reason to believe that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life are largely accurate and that the Jesus
they depict is in fact the real Jesus who lived and preached 2,000 years ago.
Endnotes
1) N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 397.
2) N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 399.
3) For example, Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998),
240; E P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 6, 13.
4) Curtis Mitch, “Introduction to the Gospels,” in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament, ed. Scott Hahn and
Curtis Mitch, xv-xxiii (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), xvi; D A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New
5) Curtis Mitch, “Introduction to the Gospels,” in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament, ed. Scott Hahn and
Curtis Mitch, xv-xxiii (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), xvi, n. 2; Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus
Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 391-
392.
6) St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is all about this , and the Council of Jerusalem, the first Church council in history, was
PINTEREST
JP NUNEZ
JP Nunez has been a theology nerd since high school. He has master's degrees in both
theology and philosophy (with a concentration in bioethics) from Franciscan University
of Steubenville, and he spent three years in Catholic University of America's doctoral
program in biblical studies before realizing that academia isn't where he wants to be.
During his time in Steubenville, he worked for two years as an intern at the St. Paul
Center for Biblical Theology, where his responsibilities included answering theological
questions and helping to format and edit their Journey Through Scripture Bible studies.
He blogs at JP Nunez: Understanding the Faith Through Scripture.
All Posts »
PREVIOUS NEXT
Bring Back Traditional Dating Do You Have a Death Wish?
CHRISTOPHER
JULY 10, AD2019 AT 4:14 PM
Yes, I believe the Gospels were created by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We easily forget that, before the printing
press, only 10% knew how to read and/or write. The tribe of Levi would likely be the majority of that 10% since it was
their job to be Priests. Matthew almost certainly knew how to read and write because the Romans hired him as a tax
collector – He was educated. Luke was a Physician, and a brilliant writer! Peter and John were fisherman – almost
certainly illiterate. Peter and John were also likely “rock stars” and had no trouble finding the top scribes available
(Mark and Anonymous). All in all, I would not be surprised if all of them did not have some help because all are very
well organized, and I can even see apprentice scribes getting a piece of the action. Paul (Levite) surely was literate,
but he was just as remote as Luke to Jesus` ministry – but Luke was a far better writer. I trust the Gospels with my
life.
Loading...
Reply