Historical evidence for believing the Gospels

PhD student tackles five basic questions about the Bible.

Many everyday Canadians doubt the legitimacy of the Bible, but in fact there’s a lot of good scholarship that addresses those doubts. Let’s look at some basic questions about the four Gospels, which claim to record the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

The Gospels are supposedly written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Who were they? 

• Matthew was one of Jesus’s disciples. 

• Mark was not a disciple himself but is traditionally understood to have written his Gospel based largely on the testimony of Peter, one of Jesus’s closest followers. 

• Luke, a physician and companion of the Apostle Paul, was not an eyewitness to Jesus’s ministry but compiled his account from the reports of key eyewitnesses. 

• John, often quoted as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” was among Jesus’s inner circle. 

So, we have four men from the time of Jesus who claim to have written accurate and honest historical accounts of his life, teachings and miracles. Do their claims hold up under scrutiny? Let’s explore some of the evidence suggesting the depiction of Jesus as the Son of God is historically and theologically credible. 

How can we know the Gospels were written by those four? 

Around AD 125 an early Christian bishop, the Greek Apostolic Father Papias of Hierapolis, affirmed that Mark wrote down Peter’s eyewitness accounts of his time with Christ “accurately, though not in order.”  

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born AD 37), though not a Christian, also references Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus is widely regarded as a careful and credible historian, and his mention of Jesus – albeit brief – confirms Jesus was a real historical figure known for his “surprising deeds.”  

Around AD 180 another bishop, Irenaeus of Lugdunum, substantiated the traditional authorship of all four canonical Gospels, affirming that Matthew published his Gospel for the Hebrews, Mark recorded Peter’s preaching, Luke compiled Paul’s testimony and John wrote his Gospel while living in Ephesus. 

These early attestations form part of a chain of historical testimony that supports the traditional authorship and credibility of the four Gospels. 

Were the Gospels written too long after Jesus’s death to be reliable? 

The Gospels were written remarkably close to the events they describe – especially when compared with other ancient biographies. For instance, the earliest surviving biographies of Alexander the Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch, date to more than 400 years after his death in 323 BC. Yet historians generally consider these accounts reliable.  

Similarly Homer’s Iliad, which was transmitted orally for centuries before being written down, is still taken seriously as an ancient source of cultural history. 

By contrast the Book of Acts, written by Luke, is widely believed to have been completed before AD 62, as it ends abruptly without mentioning Paul’s death (which occurred around AD 64–67). Since Acts is the second part of Luke’s two-volume work, the Gospel of Luke must have been written even earlier. Moreover, because Luke relied on Mark’s Gospel, Mark must predate both – placing his writing within roughly 30 years of Jesus’s crucifixion in the early AD 30s.  

In historical terms this is extraordinarily close. Few ancient accounts were written so soon after the events they record. The proximity of the Gospels to Jesus’s lifetime makes them virtually unparalleled in ancient biographical literature. 

We don’t have the original manuscripts – isn’t that a problem? 

It is true that we no longer possess the original autographs of the New Testament writings. However, this does not undermine their reliability. The number, age and distribution of New Testament manuscripts far exceed those of any other ancient work. 

For example, a fragment of the Gospel of John known as Papyrus 52 (P52) has been dated to AD 100–150 – possibly within a generation of the apostle John’s lifetime. This suggests portions of the New Testament were circulating very early in Christian history. 

Furthermore, more than 300 Greek “uncial” manuscripts (written in capital letters) survive, including the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both dating to around AD 350. These contain the majority (some contain the entirety) of the New Testament. 

By AD 800 a new script known as “minuscule” emerged, and nearly 3,000 Greek minuscule manuscripts have been cataloged. Scholars have identified nearly 6,000 Greek manuscripts, plus tens of thousands of translations in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and other languages. 

Such abundance provides unparalleled textual evidence. Early fragments like P52, combined with the consistency across thousands of manuscripts, show that the New Testament has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy and care. 

Has archaeology disproved the Gospels? 

No. Archaeology has repeatedly confirmed historical details. 

Take Luke, for instance, sometimes criticized in the past as a not-very-good historian. Recent archaeological discoveries have consistently vindicated his precision. Luke refers to Lysanias as the tetrarch of Abilene around AD 27–28 (Luke 3:1). Critics long claimed this was an error, since a Lysanias was known to have ruled Chalcis 50 years earlier. Yet an inscription from the reign of Tiberius (AD 14–37) was later discovered, mentioning Lysanias the tetrarch – exactly as Luke described. 

Another example concerns Luke’s use of the title “politarchs” in reference to officials in Thessalonica (Acts 17:6). Since this term was not found in Roman literature, critics dismissed it as fictional – until an inscription on a first-century arch in Thessalonica, now housed in the British Museum, confirmed its authenticity. 

Similarly in John 5:2 the Gospel writer describes the Pool of Bethesda as having “five porticoes.” For centuries, no such site was known. Excavations in Jerusalem, however, uncovered a pool with five porticoes exactly as John described. 

What about other alleged miracle workers? 

Skeptics sometimes point to other ancient figures such as certain rabbis or the philosopher Apollonius of Tyana who are said to have performed miracles. Supposedly this is evidence Jesus was not unique and therefore could not be the Son of God. 

However, key distinctions exist. Ancient Jewish miracle stories, for example, often describe rabbis calling upon God to act, whereas Jesus’s framework for performing miracles was profoundly different. It was by His own authority, consistent with the Gospels’ portrayal of Him as divine. 

As for Apollonius, his biography was written more than 150 years after his death by Philostratus, who was commissioned by the Empress Julia Domna – a devoted follower of Apollonius. The work is clearly hagiographic and politically motivated, lacking the immediacy, eyewitness grounding, impartiality and historical restraint of the Gospels. 

By contrast the four Gospel writers faced social and political persecution, not reward, for their writings. Their commitment to recording these events, despite the personal cost, strengthens rather than weakens their credibility. 

Conclusion 

This intro only skims the surface of the vast field of New Testament studies concerning the historical reliability of the Gospels and their testimony that Jesus is the Son of God. 

The evidence – textual, historical, archaeological and theological – strongly supports the authenticity and accuracy of the Gospel accounts. While skepticism is understandable, the weight of scholarly and historical data invites an open-minded reconsideration. 

The Gospels are not mythic embellishments, but courageous, carefully preserved testimonies that have withstood two millennia of scrutiny. They may yet challenge or even disarm the most hesitant of skeptics. 

For further reading 

• Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? (IVP Academic, 2004) 

• Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2nd ed. 2017) 

• Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP Academic, 2nd ed. 2007) 

• Mark Roberts, Can we Trust the Gospels? (Crossway, 2007) 

• Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Zondervan, 2014/2007) 

• Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament (Eerdmans, 2000) 

• John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2008) 

• Gregory Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God? Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies (Wipf and Stock, 2010) 

• Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (five volumes, Baker, 2000) 

• Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 2nd ed., 2016) 

• William Lane Craig, The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Wipf and Stock, 2000) 

• Richard Swineburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Clarendon, 2003) 

William Horton is a Catholic educationalist working in postsecondary education and studying for a PhD in education at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont. He writes widely on education, religion, culture, philosophy and politics. Bible photo by Pierre Bamin on Unsplash.