Atheos Dialogue: Accuracy of the Gospels

There are mountains of evidence for the Gospels.

Select an ideal response for:

The Gospels are contained within the Bible, which is infallible.

That's just your opinion.

How do we know the Gospels are infallible? Isn't it true that they are often inconsistent with one another?

That's just what your minister wants you to believe.

Biblical infallibility is actually a very recent idea, having emerged in conservative Christian circles in the late nineteenth century.

Select an ideal response for:

But the Gospel writers were inspired to highlight different aspects of Jesus' life. The general story itself is consistent.

Aren't variations in descriptions different from factual discrepancies?

That's manifestly incorrect.

How can we know the writers were inspired? Do the documents themselves make that claim?

There, are, however, many parallel passages (e.g., Jesus' genealogy & baptism) that cannot be reconciled.

Select an ideal response for:

I've been taught this. Also, the authors either knew Jesus (Matthew, John) or were friends of eyewitnesses/apostles (Mark, Luke).

Did the authors have video of Jesus' deeds?

Did the authors have transcripts of Jesus' speeches?

Second-century Christian leaders assigned the Gospels to apostles or their friends to assert their textual authority.

But none of the Gospels makes a claim for authorship. The authors are anonymous.

Select an ideal response for:

But early Christian tradition (Luke 1:2; Papias) states that the Gospels were transmitted through eyewitness testimony.

If Mark received his information from Peter, why is Peter depicted so negatively in Mark's Gospel?

Does every eyewitness record identical testimony?

Early Christian tradition is notoriously unreliable.

If Matthew was an eyewitness, why is he so reliant on Mark's Gospel? Wouldn't he have more privileged information than Mark?

Select an ideal response for:

But Papias claims he received information directly from disciples of the eyewitnesses.

Many of Papias' other claims are unreliable. Why should we believe his assertion about eyewitnesses?

Papias was deliberately lying.

Could Papias' assertion about eyewitnesses be biased, or could he be using a common theme?

Papias isn't in the Bible, so his testimony should be dismissed.

Select an ideal response for:

At least we have the Gospel texts, which were written relatively early in Christian history (first century).

This doesn't ensure historical accuracy. Paul's letters were written earlier & he says almost nothing about the historical Jesus.

The Gospels were composed 40-60 years or more after Jesus' death. Should we expect them to contain a high level of historical accuracy?

The Gospel texts are filled with fanciful stories.

The production of the Gospel stories is quite complicated, involving many compositional stages.

Select an ideal response for:

I believe the Gospels were written by 'insiders' who had the best & most complete knowledge of Jesus.

The writers were insiders, but should that make us suspicious of their presentations of Jesus' life?

Insiders are biased & distort historical facts to serve their interests.

The Gospels are compilations of various written & oral traditions that emerged through community development.

These 'insiders' sure didn't know very much! In Mark, for instance, Peter denies Jesus & the disciples are ignorant of the resurrection.

Select an ideal response for:

I believe the Gospel materials stem from the disciples' eyewitness accounts & was guarded by them in later tradition.

The idea of the disciples as guardians of tradition is a fiction created by later Christians who sought to authenticate their own views.

The people who wrote the Gospels built a massive tome based on traditions passed on orally as well as written down.

Your position derives from your faith commitment, not historical objectivity.

The Gospel writers combined multiple sub-units of literary & oral tradition with creative storytelling to produce a compelling narrative.

Select an ideal response for:

But Luke, for instance, is a careful historian who relies on eyewitnesses & follows the highest standards of historiography.

Ancient & modern historiographical standards are quite different. We shouldn't expect objectivity in ancient history writing.

Ancient history writers displayed a wide range of styles & it was common for them to invent stories if it served their literary goals.

Ancient writers played fast & loose with the evidence. Luke's preface is a smokescreen that tries to hide his bias.

Ancient history writers made no attempts at objectivity.

Select an ideal response for:

Are you claiming that the Gospels are 'made up'?

There's nothing entirely surprising here; biographies based on known ancient writing styles fit the writing styles expected of the day.

Yes, they are complete fiction.

Yes. There is no reason to put your trust in their testimonies.

The writers wrote biographies that conformed to ancient authorial styles & matched expectations of their audiences.

Select an ideal response for:

But biographies are accurate chronicles of a person's life. And anyway, the scriptures are inspired (2 Timothy 3:16).

On the topic of inspiration, is it problematic to use scripture to defend scripture?

Would you agree that, even today, authors cannot create comprehensive life stories of their subject?

All authors, ancient & modern, are selective in their compositions. Composing a complete life story is impossible.

That's a naïve way of understanding literature. All texts are contextual.

Select an ideal response for:

But surely the Gospels record some factual information about Jesus.

Maybe, but we will never know since we weren't there when Jesus was alive & the texts were written.

They may reveal some historical information, but as extended confessional statements, they must be read with critical judgment.

No, I'm afraid they don't.

Do you give equal weight to extended, confessional statements as you do to valid historical references?

Select an ideal response for:

But the ancient manuscripts provide valuable witnesses for the stability of the Gospel tradition.

The manuscripts are dated much too late to be certain they contain any historical information.

Many early Christian scribes appear uneducated & make constant copying mistakes.

The earliest Gospel fragment is dated to about a century after Jesus' death.

The manuscript tradition is remarkably unstable through antiquity (cf. Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11).

Select an ideal response for:

Then how can we know what the original Gospel stories said?

Textual critics examine discrepancies & compare manuscripts to determine the 'most original' reading. The 'autographs' are lost.

Sometimes it's possible to discount passages that were deliberately altered to conform to later theological beliefs.

We can't. It's impossible.

We can't, there's no reason to rely upon the Gospels in our lives.

Select an ideal response for:

This seems to be needlessly tampering with God's word.

Shouldn't we use our knowledge to try to uncover the origins of a movement that has been so influential in world history?

There's no doubt these documents have been influential on people. Shouldn't that be all the more reason to investigate this fully?

God's word? That's a fairy tale!

We have a responsibility to uncover the falsity of the Gospels in order to liberate people from religious oppression.

Select an ideal response for:

Why haven't I heard any of this before? Where can I go to investigate these matters further?

You may have come from an 'insider' position that traditionally sees historical criticism as a threat to Christian belief.

The information has been deliberately withheld from you.

Examine academic scholarship & enroll in Christianity classes that adopt a critical rather than confessional perspective.

I don't know, but don't go to your minister, church leaders, or other Christians!