Can We Trust the Gospels?
The question of "can we trust the gospels?" is also a question about can we trust any historical documents? We understand, don't we, that it is just not possible for someone to write something that is not in some way biased.
When we try to record something about history we discover that the way we view the world has an impact on what we write.
So then can we ever trust anything (and hence the bible) to give us an accurate account of what happened? Didn't the writers of the books of the bible twist the meaning of what they wrote? In this short article I'll try and give a short answer but I hope you understand that being short means leaving out a great deal of detail.
It is partly correct to say that no one can write history without bias.
However this does not mean that those who are cynical about something give us better information about the even.
It is completely wrong to assume that because someone is in favour of something they cannot write a balanced account of an event.
Not everything we say is wrong even if it may be biased.
Take the holocaust for instance (I hate to use this as an example but it is very relevant for the argument).
Do we give equal weight to those who say it did not happen as we do to those who say it did? Do we assume that those who are cynical about the event can somehow give a more accurate picture of what happened? I don't think so.
Do we assume that Jewish writers are somehow not going to be able to give an accurate account of the events just because they are biased? I don't think so.
Even though we understand that some people are biased there are some things that we must accept as being true, either because of the weight of the evidence, or because we have become convinced of the truth through some other factors.
The bible records the life of Jesus in the gospels.
Four different books written by four different people.
It seems very likely that three of them shared some common descriptions of the events but they are still individual accounts.
We discover that these accounts are all written within the lifetime of those who witnessed the events and that they broadly agree with each other on the historical facts.
The differences are not significant to any of the Christian claims about Jesus and most can be explained very simply.
We also discover that there is very little evidence to support the claim that the gospels have been amended by subsequent editors and again where there is dispute about the claim that nothing has been edited there is never any threat to the basic Christian claims concerning Jesus Christ.
The gospels should be treated the same as any other historical document if we can ever hope to understand who Jesus is.
When those documents are put to the test as historical documents it seems that they stand up to the test very well.
As historical documents the gospels are very good.
So, I believe that there is every reason to be confident in the historical accuracy of the gospels.
The fact that in places they differ in detail only adds to the strength of their claims.
Surely the early Christians would have compiled one gospel if their intention was to deceive, and why then choose to put four books together that have places where details differ (even if only slightly)? It seems a little bonkers to me to claim an early church conspiracy when they compiled a new testament that has four eyewitness accounts that have variations in them.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you want to decieve people you make sure you get your story straight first.
Unless, of course, you were not wanting to deceive anyone and instead your aim was to be as true to the events as you can be and so include the eyewitness accounts even though they differ in places.
When we try to record something about history we discover that the way we view the world has an impact on what we write.
So then can we ever trust anything (and hence the bible) to give us an accurate account of what happened? Didn't the writers of the books of the bible twist the meaning of what they wrote? In this short article I'll try and give a short answer but I hope you understand that being short means leaving out a great deal of detail.
It is partly correct to say that no one can write history without bias.
However this does not mean that those who are cynical about something give us better information about the even.
It is completely wrong to assume that because someone is in favour of something they cannot write a balanced account of an event.
Not everything we say is wrong even if it may be biased.
Take the holocaust for instance (I hate to use this as an example but it is very relevant for the argument).
Do we give equal weight to those who say it did not happen as we do to those who say it did? Do we assume that those who are cynical about the event can somehow give a more accurate picture of what happened? I don't think so.
Do we assume that Jewish writers are somehow not going to be able to give an accurate account of the events just because they are biased? I don't think so.
Even though we understand that some people are biased there are some things that we must accept as being true, either because of the weight of the evidence, or because we have become convinced of the truth through some other factors.
The bible records the life of Jesus in the gospels.
Four different books written by four different people.
It seems very likely that three of them shared some common descriptions of the events but they are still individual accounts.
We discover that these accounts are all written within the lifetime of those who witnessed the events and that they broadly agree with each other on the historical facts.
The differences are not significant to any of the Christian claims about Jesus and most can be explained very simply.
We also discover that there is very little evidence to support the claim that the gospels have been amended by subsequent editors and again where there is dispute about the claim that nothing has been edited there is never any threat to the basic Christian claims concerning Jesus Christ.
The gospels should be treated the same as any other historical document if we can ever hope to understand who Jesus is.
When those documents are put to the test as historical documents it seems that they stand up to the test very well.
As historical documents the gospels are very good.
So, I believe that there is every reason to be confident in the historical accuracy of the gospels.
The fact that in places they differ in detail only adds to the strength of their claims.
Surely the early Christians would have compiled one gospel if their intention was to deceive, and why then choose to put four books together that have places where details differ (even if only slightly)? It seems a little bonkers to me to claim an early church conspiracy when they compiled a new testament that has four eyewitness accounts that have variations in them.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you want to decieve people you make sure you get your story straight first.
Unless, of course, you were not wanting to deceive anyone and instead your aim was to be as true to the events as you can be and so include the eyewitness accounts even though they differ in places.
