Underappreciated Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels & Acts, Part 1

Introduction

Are the gospels trustworthy? Do they reflect the testimony of those who were originally eyewitnesses of Jesus’ public ministry, death, and resurrection? Or did these accounts arise and develop decades after the purported events transpired? Over the past two hundred years, particularly since the publication of David Strauss’ Life of Jesus: Critically Examined in German in 1835 [1], the New Testament has been subject to a sustained assault by critical scholarship, concluding not only that we have no idea who wrote the gospels, but the gospels cannot be relied upon to give us an accurate account of Jesus’ teachings and ministry.

My purpose in this article is to review various categories of underappreciated evidence that support that the gospels and Acts are indeed reliable and grounded in the credible testimony of eyewitnesses. The evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is so extensive, that it would be impossible to survey it all within the constraints of this essay. I can only provide a brief sampler.

The evidential categories that I will review include undesigned coincidences, artless similarities, unexplained allusions, and external confirmations. The present article will discuss the four gospels, and a subsequent essay will review the evidence bearing on the book of Acts. In the concluding section of this article, I will consider how the data reviewed here may be integrated into a robust argument for Jesus’ resurrection.

The Reliability of the Gospels

Undesigned Coincidences

An undesigned coincidence occurs when two accounts overlap concerning an event. The two accounts then dovetail with one another in a manner that would be surprising if the details are fictitious, if one source is copying from the other, or both from a common source. Typically, an undesigned coincidence arises when one account answers, in passing, a natural question raised by the other. The sources thus fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. To take a fictional example, consider a scenario where a man (let’s call him Bill) is late for work. Arriving at the office, he apologises to his boss (let’s call him Jim), explaining that he got stuck in traffic due to an accident at a particular intersection. Later that day, a client (let’s call him Doug) arrives late for a business meeting. He apologises to Jim, explaining that he got a flat tyre having allegedly driven over broken glass that lay on the road at a particular intersection – as it happens, the same intersection that Bill had mentioned earlier that day as the cause of his being late for work. Are Bill and Doug telling the truth about the cause of their being late?

Given that the two accounts fit together in a casual, undeliberate way, we would infer that their account is very credible. The glass was apparently lying at this particular intersection because of the accident earlier that day – and yet it does not appear as though either Bill or Doug is attempting to explain the other – the two accounts dovetail in a realistic and believable way.

Let us now turn to examine some instances of this phenomenon from the gospels. An example can be found in the accounts in Luke and John concerning the last supper. Below are the relevant texts

• Luke 22:27 – “For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.”
• John 13:4-5 – “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…”

A reader of Luke’s gospel might ask what Jesus is referring to when he says, “I am among you as the one who serves.” John’s account, however, illuminates the broader context. Jesus gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood by washing the disciples’ feet, an event not recorded in Luke’s account of the same occasion. A reader of John’s gospel might ask, why does Jesus wash their feet? What prompted this object lesson in servanthood?

The answer is given in Luke 22:24 – “A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” John reports the object lesson in servanthood, whereas Luke reports the occasion that gave rise to it – namely, the dispute among the disciples over who was the greatest. Thus, Luke explains John, and John explains Luke. These two undesigned coincidences corroborate the historicity of the event.

A further example can be found in the accounts concerning Jesus’ approach towards Bethany and his triumphal entry into Jerusalem the following morning. In John 12:1-2 and verses12-13, we read:

Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table… 12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”

John has given us a very specific extraneous detail (not found in any other gospel’s account of this event): Jesus arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover, and the following day rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey (which would have been five days before the Passover). Can we confirm John’s accuracy on this? Yes, we can. Turn back to Mark 11:1-11, which parallels the arrival at Bethany (although Mark does not give us the time-stamp supplied by John):

Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it… 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. 8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. 9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” 11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.

Mark does not tell us that Jesus approached Bethany six days before the Passover, nor that it was the following day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem. However, it appears implicit that they fetched the colt early in the morning. This may be inferred since the disciples fetch the colt, there is the triumphal entry, and Jesus and the disciples entered the temple and “looked around at everything” (which was presumably a whole day’s activities). If then, we assume that Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover (explicit in John and implicit in Mark), then we can begin counting off the days narrated in Mark’s gospel, to see if the narrative synchronises with that of John.

Verses 12-14 narrate the cursing of the fig tree, which according to verse 12 happened “the following day” (i.e. four days before the Passover, assuming John’s time-stamp to be correct). Jesus then cleansed the temple and according to verse 19 “when evening came they went out of the city.” In verse 20, we read, “As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.” Checking our timeline, we are now three days before the Passover. In Mark 13, we read of the Olivet discourse on the Mount of Olives. This, we can assume, took place in the evening, since the Mount of Olives was mid-way between the temple in Jerusalem and Bethany where Jesus and the disciples were staying. The event marks the end of three days before the Passover. When we turn over to Mark 14, we read in verse 1, “It was now two days before the Passover.” We see that Mark and John calibrate perfectly. They corroborate the time-stamp given to us by John, thereby confirming one of John’s extraneous details.

Artless Similarities

Artless similarities refer to the unplanned consistency with which a character is depicted across different stories, and across the four gospels. Indeed, the evidence for this consensus on personality in the gospels is a category of argument that was advanced by apologists in the 19th century, such as Stanley Leathes and J.S. Howson. It is regrettably seldom used today. I am indebted to my friend and colleague Dr. Lydia McGrew for bringing this form of evidence to my attention. Like undesigned coincidences, artless similarities are best explained by offering examples, and it is to those that I now turn.

The portrayal of Jesus Himself shows remarkable consistency across the four gospels. Here, I will consider a handful of examples. Consider this episode from John 7:21-23, when Jesus has been challenged by the Jewish authorities about his practice of healing on the Sabbath:

21 Jesus answered them, “I did one work, and you all marvel at it. 22 Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well?

Compare this reported incident to a similar but different episode from Luke 13:15-16. On a separate occasion Jesus responds to Jews who accuse Him of breaking the Sabbath following Jesus’ healing of a disabled woman:

15 Then the Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? 16 And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?”

Take careful note of the similarity between Jesus’ response on those two occasions. In both episodes, Jesus highlights the Jews’ hypocrisy concerning Sabbath practice, and uses a pun. The pun implies that Jesus has done something that is far more important on the Sabbath than is permitted by the Jewish customs (which went beyond the law of Moses).

In John, the pun concerns circumcision; cutting off part of a man on the Sabbath vs. Jesus’ making a man whole on the Sabbath. In Luke, the pun compares untying an animal on the Sabbath with Jesus loosing the woman who had been bound for eighteen years and was in such a predicament that she was unable to stand upright.

A related instance can be found in Jesus’ rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:23-24:

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

In this rebuke, Jesus points out the foolishness of religious leaders dwelling on ‘lightweight’ details of Torah Law, seen here in the tithing of literal lightweight goods. He contrasts this with the neglect of weightier matters of law such as justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Thus, in all three texts, we see instances of Jesus exposing hypocrisy and misplaced priorities regarding Torah observance. He characteristically does so using witty word parallels – circumcising vs. making whole, untying an animal vs. untying a person, light vs. heavy. These sayings of Jesus, which are derived from three different gospels, involving separate episodes in Jesus’ ministry, all appear to come from the same mind.

Let us take another example, this one pertaining to the consistency with which Jesus deflects praise. According to the gospel of John, Nicodemus, a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews, came to visit Jesus by night. Nicodemus makes an attempt to flatter Jesus, saying, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). To this, Jesus immediately replies in verse 3, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus’ remark seems incongruous, and the reader may fairly ask, “Where did that come from?” Likewise, in Matthew 8:19-20 and Luke 9:57-58, a man came up to Jesus and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” How does Jesus respond? He says, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” Again, this remark seems vague and detached.

Similarly, in Luke 11:27-28, Jesus deflects a compliment. Luke tells us that “As [Jesus] said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” How does Jesus respond? He says, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” A further example occurs when Jesus is approached by a rich young man who “ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’” (Mark 10:17; cf. Luke 18:18) What was Jesus’ reply? “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). In each of these examples across different interactions and different gospels, we see Jesus turning away compliments.

Many additional examples could be given, but the examples offered above should give you a sense of the unifying consistency of the portrayal of Jesus across the four gospels and across different episodes in His life. The consistent presentation of subtle aspects of Jesus’ character is, in my opinion, best explained by the accounts concerning this individual being rooted in real historical episodes involving Jesus of Nazareth.

Unexplained Allusions

An unexplained allusion refers to when a source mentions superfluous details that are not relevant to the story. Typically, when inventing a story, one would want to minimise unnecessary details, especially if those unnecessary details are subject to investigation. Furthermore, writers of fiction tend to not leave loose ends hanging and typically seek to clarify confusion rather than create it. Here, I will offer some examples from the gospels.

Mark 15:21 describes the scene where Jesus is led to His execution site to be crucified. Mark tells us that “they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.” This raises a curious question: Who were Alexander and Rufus? They seem to be name-dropped as though we are supposed to know who they are, yet they play no further role in any narrative in the gospels or book of Acts. Presumably, these individuals would have been familiar to the original readers of Mark’s gospel, but they are not known to us. They are not mentioned anywhere else in any of the four gospels. The fact that Mark name drops them here is highly suggestive of the truth of the narrative. It invites Mark’s first century readers to inquire with Alexander and Rufus who presumably would be able to corroborate their father’s involvement.

It is quite possible that the Rufus mentioned here is the same individual as the Rufus to whom Paul sends his greetings in Romans 16:13, especially given the early church tradition that the gospel of Mark was composed in Rome. Whether he is the same individual or not, the fact that Mark mentions those individuals with no further elaboration as to their identity has a distinct ring of verisimilitude.

Another example of an unexplained allusion may be found in Luke 13:1-5:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Jesus’ original audience would have had knowledge of the events that he refers to here. Both the Galileans who were killed by Pilate and the eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam collapsed, were recent events that He draws upon for illustrative purposes. It is in fact characteristic of Jesus throughout all four gospels to draw lessons from His surroundings or, as in this case, from known events. There is no reason, however, to believe that Luke’s audience would have been familiar with the events of which Jesus speaks in this text. In an age before the internet and ease of access to information, they probably didn’t, and Luke makes no effort to explain. In a very realistic manner, Luke simply records what Jesus said.

In John 2:12, following the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee, we read, “After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days.” John informs us that Jesus and his mother and brothers travelled to Capernaum and stayed there for a few days. No further elaboration or explanation is given. From the reader’s point of view, this seems like an utterly arbitrary thing for John to include. It seems to allude to some business that Jesus’ family had to attend to in Capernaum, but no further explanation is given.

In John 3:25 we read:

25 Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew over purification. 26And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptising, and all are going to him.”

In verse 25, we learn about a debate that was taking place between some of John’s disciples and an unnamed Jew concerning purification rites. John the Baptist’s disciples approach John the Baptist in verse 26. The reader may be anticipating that the disciples look to him for wisdom on the topic of dispute or ask him to arbitrate the debate. However, John’s disciples do not ask him a question at all. Rather, they tell him that Jesus is baptising more people than he is and is gaining quite a following. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute with the other Jew over purification rites. If there is any connection between the debate and what John’s disciples said to him in verse 26, it is extremely cryptic. Thus, the mention of the debate over purification in verse 25 is unexplained.

Another example pertains to the following statement by Jesus at the feast of booths in John 7:37-39:

37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

It is striking that the Scripture Jesus seemingly quotes from is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible. This is surprising if this speech is being fictitiously attributed to Jesus. Plausibly, Jesus was giving an interpretation of some set of Old Testament Scriptures, but it seems less likely that a forger of Jesus’ words would attribute to Jesus a quotation of a non-existent Scriptural text. Leon Morris comments:

“One [problem] is the notorious difficulty of knowing what passage of the Old Testament Jesus had in mind. But the very fact that the difficulty can arise is, of course, evidence for the genuineness of the passage…. It is intelligible that Jesus cited Scripture in an unusual fashion. It is not intelligible that someone who was manufacturing the incident would affirm that Jesus ascribed certain words to Scripture, but do it so badly that no one has been able to find the passage.”[2]

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, when fabricating a fictional account, a forger might be expected to minimise unnecessary detail. The many loose threads found in the gospels, sampled above, are less surprising if we view the accounts as reflecting historical reportage. They therefore contribute to the positive case for the trustworthiness of the gospel narratives.

External Confirmations

In addition to undesigned coincidences between the gospels, there are also undesigned coincidences between the gospels and external secular sources. Here, I will review two examples.

Mark 6:17-18 gives us the evangelist’s understanding of the motive behind Herod’s imprisonment of John the Baptist:

17 For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because he had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”

Mark’s statement of Herod’s motivation in imprisoning John the Baptist contradicts the statement of Josephus, who wrote:

“Now, when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.” (Antiquities 18.118-119) [3]

According to the gospels, it was not just Herod’s suspicious temper or his fear of an uprising; it was because of John’s disapproval of Herod’s marriage to his brother’s wife, Herodias. Of course, these motivations are not incompatible, and it may have been a combination of the two. This does raise the interesting question, however, of how the evangelists could know what Herod Antipas’ motives were for having John imprisoned. A plausible answer to this is supplied by Luke 8:3. This passage indicates that one of Jesus’ female disciples, who had followed Him from Galilee, was “Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager.” Evidently, we see that Jesus’ followers had family in the highest ranks of Herod Antipas’ employment.

There is also another interesting feature of this text from Josephus that is of evidential value. Herod Antipas’ previous wife, Phasaelis, whom Antipas had divorced, returned to her father, Aretas IV, king of the Nabateans. This resulted in a military conflict between Antipas and Aretas IV (Antiquities 18.108–115). Josephus indicates that Herod lost the war against Aretas IV with many of the Jews blaming the way he treated John the Baptist for the defeat (Antiquities 18.116–117). The explanations that the Jews offered for Herod’s defeat at the hands of Aretas IV makes sense in view of the gospel account. This informs us that the reason why Herod had John the Baptist imprisoned was because “John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’ And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death.”

John the Baptist was a strong critic of Herod Antipas’ adulterous relationship with Herodias, which had led to John’s imprisonment and ultimately to his execution. It was Herod Antipas’ adulterous relationship with Herodias that led to the war between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV and ultimately to his defeat. Is it any wonder, then, that the Jews blamed the destruction of Herod’s armies on Herod’s treatment of John the Baptist? This undesigned coincidence between Mark and Josephus again supports the veracity of Mark’s account.

Let us consider one further example. In Luke 13:31-33, we read of some Pharisees cautioning Jesus about Herod Antipas’ intention to have him killed. Given that Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee (as Luke himself emphasises – see 3:1 and 23:5-12), and that Jesus at this point has already departed Galilee and has been journeying towards Jerusalem (Luke 13:22), this caution by the Pharisees may strike the reader as strange. Josephus, however, informs us of the dividing of Herod the Great’s territory among his sons, and indicates that “Now, to him it was that Perea and Galilee paid their tribute,” (Antiquities 17.318).[4]  It therefore transpires that Perea was also under Herod’s jurisdiction. Strikingly, Luke’s gospel (in which this scene occurs) gives no indication of where geographically this warning was given. However, the three other gospels indicate that Jesus, not long before his death, spent time in Perea, east of the Jordan River, though none of them use that name (Matthew 19:1, Mark 10:1, John 10:40,54). This artless coincidence involving Luke, the three other gospels, and Josephus confirms that the account is based on historical memory.

Why It Matters – The Case for the Resurrection

The evidence sampled in the foregoing is only the pinnacle of the proverbial iceberg. The sheer number and specificity of incidental confirmations of the gospel accounts provides a compelling cumulative case that the gospels are composed by individuals who are well informed, close to the facts, and habitually scrupulous. This justifies the contention that the statements in the gospels concerning the nature and variety of the risen Jesus’ appearances to the disciples reflects the testimonies of those claiming to be eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. In evaluating any set of testimonial claims, we must assess three mutually exhaustive hypotheses: the claimants either were honestly mistaken, they were lying, or else the content of their claim is true.

I would contend that the content of the claimed experiences renders it quite implausible that they were honestly mistaken – they involve group conversations, extended discourses, physical contact, and are alleged to have taken place over a forty-day period. Moreover, they involve eating with Jesus on more than one occasion – including an occasion where Jesus cooked breakfast for seven of the disciples on the shore of the sea of Galilee (John 21).

Furthermore, the context of the claimed experiences renders it quite unlikely that the evangelists were lying. The evidence indicates that early evangelists were willing to undergo danger, imprisonments and persecution against their own self-interests. Paul testifies that he himself persecuted the early Christians and imprisoned them (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:23; Phil 3:6). Paul also gives us his own eyewitness testimony of persecution by Jews against himself following his conversion (2 Cor 11:16-33; 2 Tim 3:10-11).

Conclusion

In conclusion, then, we’ve seen that there are powerful reasons for thinking that the Gospels are a faithful record of what the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s ministry saw and heard. As a result, if the hypotheses that the apostles were honestly mistaken and that they were lying are quite implausible, the best – most probable – explanation of the pertinent evidence is that Jesus in fact rose from the dead. In part two, I will sample the evidence for the reliability of the book of Acts, which speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ.

As William Paley puts it so eloquently, the “apostles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.”[5]  Since it is probable that the apostles were sincere (given their willingness to voluntarily undertake such dangers and sufferings) it may be taken as confirmatory evidence that the apostles had encountered the risen Christ.

References

1. David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus: Critically Examined, trans. George Eliot, Fourth Edition. (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1902)
2. Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 159–160.
3. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 484.
4. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 473.
5. William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.