Can we believe the Gospels? A former chief magistrate examines the witnesses to the resurrection

There could be forensic-grade evidence. (DNA specimens, fingerprints, video recordings, etc.)

circlecity: From the first century? Really?

No hard evidence -> No belief. (Read my tagline.)

Having been written down two thousand years ago, by semi-literature, nomadic Bronze Age tribesmen, is no excuse. Having been transcribed and then translated and (mis-)translated numerous times, then sifted, redacted, and filtered by Councils, is no excuse. It does not absolve from the obligation to provide concrete evidence that can hold up under the closest scrutiny.

Regards,

My guess is that when Jesus(Yeshua) told people that if they’ve seen him, they have seen the Father would not be something you would agree to.

Just received my copy in the mail. Gary debated Anthony Flew and won. He’s one of the greatest living scholars.

Think about it...300 years from now...would there be any forensic grade evidence that any of us existed? Or that on January 1, 2024 you told your friend that you were going to succeed in all of your new years resolution?
You think your electronic media storage devices, or printed photos, or recordings of your voice, or DNA sequence could prove you existed...will that info even survive? Indeed will that information be saved and curated by some of our descendants?...buying futures in Carbonite,eh?
The contemporaries of Jesus saved the most important information about him in the only ways they could. Oral, written, art, changed lives, corporate worship, government laws, words and phrases, Christian organizations, they even argued among themselves over whether their understanding of him was correct.

“Textual critics” of the Gospels argue that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew/Mark/Luke) were written after the 70 AD destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, which supposedly shows that Jesus did not actually predict the destruction of the Temple, and so the Gospel writers instead attributed the prediction to him after the fact.

This argument falls on several grounds, the first being that the veracity of Jesus’ prophecy doesn’t depend on when the Gospels were written, just their faithfulness to the words of Christ. Even if they wrote it after 70 AD, or 200 AD, it in no way disproves an authentic account of the words of Christ.

The next problem with the argument is that, be it 30 years or 150 years afterwards, the Gospels recorded in writing the oral traditions started by the witnesses to Christ. It then becomes even more remarkable that, as the author notes, the Gospels are so consistent with one another, especially John as an accompaniment with and expansion on the Synoptics. Textual critics like to claim that since the three Synoptics are so similar, they’re really just the re-telling of one another, or of a single source, which they have invented and called “Q”. Again, the Gospels recorded what witnesses saw, so they necessarily have commonalities — in fact, as the author says, if they diverged from one another that would display inauthenticity, whereas they do not. Their similarities affirm the authenticity of the witnesses. (Craig Blomberg’s “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels” goes through all this thoroughly.) Here again, the dating of the Gospels as to before or after 70 AD doesn’t matter.

If the Gospels, and we include here Acts (originally composed and distributed together with the Gospel of Luke, anyway) were 1) inventions; 2) written after 70 AD, then why weren’t other significant events included? If the prediction of the destruction of the Temple was needed to prove Christ’s divinity, why not include other later events, such as the 50 AD Passover riot, the AD 64 Great Fire of Rome and subsequent persecution and martyrdom of Christians, especially Peter and Paul, or the eruption of Vesuvius? (John, who likely did write his Gospel after Peter’s death, mentions Jesus’ vague prophecy of it.)

Finally, these critics assume human invention for the Gospels. However, given their consistency, depth, genius, and utter novelty, faith is not even needed to see that God’s hand guided the authors, who each spoke to individual experiences and focus, yet completely affirm one another, to tell greatest and most important story ever.

Think about it...300 years from now...would there be any forensic grade evidence that any of us existed? Or that on January 1, 2024 you told your friend that you were going to succeed in all of your new years resolution? You think your electronic media storage devices, or printed photos, or recordings of your voice, or DNA sequence could prove you existed...will that info even survive? Indeed will that information be saved and curated by some of our descendants?...buying futures in Carbonite,eh?

You are absolutely right! In all likelihood, there will be no forensic-grade evidence of my existence.

That's why it would be absurd of me to demand that anyone at that future date believe in my existence (especially on pain of eternal damnation if they don't).

The contemporaries of Jesus saved the most important information about him in the only ways they could. Oral, written, art, changed lives, corporate worship, government laws, words and phrases, Christian organizations, they even argued among themselves over whether their understanding of him was correct.

Quite right! Unfortunate that they were unable to provide better evidence! But that does not excuse the lack of evidence. That does not absolve me of the obligation to believe only compelling evidence.

Regards,

The Holy Spirit of God is the author of the Gospels.

God chose the men He wanted to record His word in the manner He chose.