Are the Gospels Historical?

It is difficult to convince a skeptic to take the Bible as God’s Word. And so Christian apologists often take a different tack. Their goal is to convince unbelievers to first accept that the gospels are historical. Once this is agreed to, they argue that this historical Jesus–who is said to have risen from the dead–must therefore be God, and that the sayings attributed to him in the gospels should therefore be taken seriously. They argue that this Jesus believed the scriptures, including Genesis. But I must stop them at their first point. Are the gospels historically accurate?

Who Wrote the Gospels?

First, we don’t know who wrote the gospels. None of these authors identifies himself. Who were they? Were they honest? Did they have first-hand knowledge or accurate sources? We don’t know.

The first record we have of anybody clearly associating the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John with these books was Irenaeus in 180 AD, a century and a half after the reported events. Is it possible that he was mistaken or made up the names of the authors? This was a long time after the events reportedly happened.

Yes, there was one earlier mention of books by a Matthew and a Mark. Papias mentions this around 130 AD. We have only an excerpt of his book as recorded by Eusebius centuries later. The books Papias describes seem to be very different from our copies of Matthew and Mark, so we don’t know what books he is talking about.

So, we really don’t know who wrote the gospels. If we do not know the authors, how do we know they can be trusted?

By convention we continue to name the books as Irenaeus did: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That does not mean we think these are the names of the authors. It is simply the names that we give to the books.

When Were they Written?

Not only are the authors unknown, but they appear to be writing long after the events they record.

The book we call Mark was most likely first. We have good reason to believe it was written after 70 AD. Mark 13 describes in detail the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in 70 AD. How did Mark know about this? The skeptic would say he must have written after this event. Thus, he knew all about the fall of Jerusalem.

“Ah,” you might say, “but Jesus was a prophet. Mark was recording the words of one who knew all this before it happened.”

However, if we carefully read all of Mark 13, we can see that Mark is not writing as one that now accurately knows the future. Yes, Mark does say Jerusalem will be destroyed, but he also prophesies,

in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

Mark 13:24-26

Mark says this will happen “in those days”, that is, immediately after the fall of Jerusalem that he just described. Elsewhere in this chapter, he specifically says the disciples he is speaking to will see these things. He also specifically says these things will happen before the disciples’ generation has passed away, that is, in their lifetime.

Mark was wrong. These things did not happen. So no, Mark 13 was not reporting the words of an infallible prophet.

If Mark 13 was not reporting the words of an infallible prophet, how did he know the details of the destruction of Jerusalem that happened in 70 AD? The most likely answer is that he wrote after this date.

Up until 70 AD, the supposed prophecy of Mark 13 is accurate. After that, he is completely wrong. Why? Most likely the events of 70 AD were history to him, but the predictions of events after that were Mark’s failed predictions.

Other reasons for dating Mark after 70 AD include the fact that Mark has an anachronism about hand washing that would have been irrelevant 40 years earlier. And Mark’s portrayal of the crucifixion sounds far more descriptive of the turbulence of 70 AD rather than the peaceful period around 30 AD. All this indicates he wrote sometime after 70 AD.

I discuss all this further at When Were the Gospels Written?

So, there must be at least 40 years from the supposed time of Jesus to the writing of the gospels. Memories can change over time. When the gospels say that Jesus said something, how can we be sure they are quoting Jesus accurately? Did Jesus really say he was the way, the truth, and the life? Did he really state support for the Hebrew scriptures? Did he speak of the flood as though it really happened? Did he really promise heaven and warn of hell? We don’t know.

Another reason this late date is important is that it would now have been hard for anybody to disprove what was written. When the gospels were first circulating, the disciples probably were no longer alive. If they had actually survived the destruction of Jerusalem, they were likely scattered in the hills. If in the meantime the gospels came around with fictional accounts, how would anyone disprove them? Who would you talk to? Would you dig around for a 40-year-old corpse to prove it is still there?

So, the late date gives the opportunity to slip things into the story that never happened.

Kooks and Quacks

And by the way, why would one even want to bother to disprove these things? People would not have had time to disprove every myth that they heard. There were too many kooks and quacks. Would you be running around looking for evidence to show every kook wrong?

Even if somebody did find Peter and hear that this wasn’t quite how it happened, why bother to write that down? Would people be documenting the error in writing every time a quack said something? So, absence of an early rebuttal of the resurrection story is not proof that the resurrection happened.

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: a look into the world of the gospels  by Richard Carrier

Mark

The book we call Mark, which was probably first, may have never been intended as history. Many have observed that his book appears to have been derived from the Old Testament and from previous epic tales. How do you know that Mark intended his book to be interpreted as history? Mark never tries to represent his book as history. He calls it a gospel. If Mark meant it as fiction, why should you and I think it is true? And if other writers expanded on his story, why should we think their accounts are true? So, unless you can show that Mark thought it was historical, it has limited value as history.

Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Richard Carrier. Evidence that Mark was writing fiction.

Matthew Copied from Mark

Matthew and Luke copy much of Mark, often word for word.

For instance, in Mark 13, Mark pauses in the middle of Jesus’s speech to say “Let the reader understand” (Mark 13:14). Obviously, this is Mark’s insertion. Had Jesus said this in his speech, he would have said something like, “Let those who hear understand.” But Mark here is putting in a comment to the readers –“Let the reader understand”. He thinks this is important, so he emphasizes that the reader needs to understand this.

Matthew repeats the same speech, complete with the same parenthetical– “Let the reader understand”. (Matthew 24:15) Why did Matthew decide to insert the same comment right where Mark did? Are we to believe that, at the exact same point in the speech, both Matthew and Mark decided to insert the exact same comment to the readers? It certainly looks like Matthew was copying Mark.

If you lay Matthew and Mark side by side, you find Matthew repeating 90% of Mark’s verses, often word for word. For instance, here is what it would look like if you took Mark 2:14-17 and edited it to make Matthew 9: 9-12. The base text below is Mark’s. Strikethroughs indicate where Matthew deleted from Mark, and brackets indicate additions.

Mark 2:14 And as he [Jesus] passed by from thence, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus [a man, called Matthew,] sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

Mark 2:15 And it came to pass, that [as] he was sitting [sat] at meat in his [the] house, and many publicans and sinners [came and] sat down with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

Mark 2:16 And [when] scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and publicans [saw it, they] said unto his disciples, How is it that he [Why] eateth and drinketh [your Teacher] with [the] publicans and sinners?

Mark 2:17 And when Jesus [he] heard it, he [saith unto them] [said], They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

If Matthew and Mark were handing in their work as a school project, and the teacher saw this, he would know instantly that one was copying, or perhaps both were copying from a common source.

Matthew adds additional stories and teachings, yes, but where he tells Mark’s story, he basically copies with edits. He is not telling it from scratch from his viewpoint. He is copying. This seem to discredit Matthew as an eyewitness. Wouldn’t an eyewitness tell it from his own viewpoint?

If the writer really was Matthew, the very man being called to follow Jesus in these verses, surely this story would have been burned into his memory. This was the moment he personally was called to be a disciple of Jesus! Why doesn’t his own account flow freely here? Why doesn’t he tell it in his own words? But he does not do that. He simply copies Mark –“he [Matthew] arose and followed him.” Really Matthew? That is all you have to say about your life-changing event?

So, it is hard to take the book we call Matthew as a credible witness. The author is plagiarizing. The author hardly qualifies as an independent witness to what Mark says.

By the way, there are many reasons to think it was Matthew that copied Mark, and not the other way around. Matthew often cleans up needless repetition found in Mark. That’s a logical thing to do. Matthew adds stories about the birth and resurrection, and a lot of teachings of Jesus, which is also a logical thing to do. But it doesn’t make much sense for Mark to copy Matthew, completely leaving out much important content, while inserting needless redundancies. So, we think Matthew came later and copied from Mark.

Luke’s Sources

Luke, like the previous gospels, is completely anonymous, so we really don’t know who wrote it. We still call the book Luke, because that is what everybody calls it, but we don’t know the writer’s name.

Luke copies over 50% of the verses in Mark with minor changes. And so, just like Matthew, he must have written significantly after 70 AD.

Also, Luke shows signs that he was using Josephus, so that puts him after Josephus. The book is commonly dated at 80 – 130 AD by critical scholars. I put it after 95 AD. That probably puts the book too late to be a reliable document unless the author had good sources. What were his sources? Let’s look at his introduction:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us,

just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,

it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus,

that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed

(Luke 1:1-4)​

Luke simply does not tell us his sources. He does tell us that there were many books about Jesus that had been written. He does not tell us whether he used any of the books we know, or even that he used any books. He just says that he knows and is writing to tell us the truth. This could be implying that the former accounts (e.g., Matthew and Mark) were not always truthful.

What books is Luke talking about? We know of the book of Mark, and the book of Matthew. The early church fathers have quoted a few other books, including Secret Mark, Gospel of the Narzoreans, and the Gospel of the Ebionites. None of these books exists today, but we know enough about them from quotes of the early church fathers to say that they were probably close to our Matthew and Mark.

Where did these books come from? Probably there was an original book of Mark that evolved into Secret Mark, Mark, and a Proto-Matthew. This Proto-Matthew then appears to have evolved into our modern Matthew and also the other two gospels listed above.

Early versions of some of these may have been available to Luke. These may be what he is referring to. Or he could be referring to early versions of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, or other books. At any rate, we have the testimony of Luke that there were many books about Jesus.

One can easily see how the story would spread with changes. Matthew and Mark were apparently written to Jews who were scattered around Galilee and Syria, many of them having fled after the recent fall of Jerusalem. These books may have been available at community centers, where people clung to the idea of a Jesus coming to Galilee and leading them to a new age free of the Romans.

We don’t know if they thought the stories were even true. Perhaps those in charge knew that these were mostly religious fiction. But as these books built up hope, folks copied the gospels. As they copied, they made changes. We ended up with the many similar books of which the early church fathers spoke.

The copies likely experienced something similar to biological evolution. Many changes were probably being made to the copies. After all, these folks would have been amateur scribes on the run. Those copies that were the most popular were copied the most. Hence, we have “speciation” and “survival of the fittest”. We really don’t know which of the many copies were most like the original. What we have left are those popular copies that survived.

A book that wins in the contest to be copied and preserved by scattered folks in the hills fleeing the fallen Jerusalem is not necessarily the truest. It it the one that was most liked.

Luke

Luke had a unique purpose. He was writing to a more general audience of Christians spread throughout the Roman Empire. They were likely followers of Paul. Paul wrote little if anything about the earthly life of Jesus. It was not his concern. His later followers might have heard of the gospels floating around Galilee and would have wanted a book that gave them the straight scoop. So, Luke tells them that he is now giving them the real story. However, he does not tell us how he knows he has it right.

Luke ends up using some version of Mark as a source, but also uses a lot of the sayings of Jesus that are found in Matthew. The sayings are usually word for word, so some book must be the source. Some have suggested that both Matthew and Luke got these sayings from a proposed book we call Q. Recently this idea has been losing popularity. Instead, it is being recognized that Luke likely had been using both Mark and Matthew, or perhaps just an early version of Matthew. So, there is no need for Q. (See links table below). Luke appears to have selected Matthew and Mark, or something close to them, and set out to write his book. He could have gotten all the “Q” sayings straight from Matthew.

Synoptic Gospels links When Were the Gospels Written? I examine this issue in more detail. Synoptic Problem by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. He argues that Luke and Matthew copied from Mark. I disagree with his early dates but agree with his analysis that Matthew copied from Mark. The Case Against Q by Mark Goodacre. Luke may have known about Matthew, and wrote contradictory things anyway. Why do we Still Believe in Q? by Richard Carrier How Matthew used Mark’s Gospel This site lists the texts side by side for easy comparison. Luke and Josephus by Richard Carrier. Why we think Luke and Acts were written after Josephus

Luke respects Mark and follows him fairly closely when he tells the same story. But he freely changes Matthew.

Matthew, for instance starts out with a genealogy, tracing the line of Jesus down through the kings of Judah, leading to the claim that Jesus is the rightful heir. Luke’s readers would not be looking for a Jewish king, so Luke traces Jesus through a different line, through a different son of David. Matthew and Luke cannot both be telling the truth. Luke likely knew what Matthew wrote, and flatly contradicted him anyway. That blatant contradiction, knowing that Matthew had written differently, leaves both Matthew and Luke in question.

There are other differences. Matthew interpreted scripture as saying Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Thus, he needed some way to get Jesus, who is reported to be from Nazareth, born in Bethlehem. And so, he tells how the family of Jesus in Bethlehem had to flee to Egypt, and later to Nazareth, as fugitives from Herod, who wanted to kill Jesus. But Luke will have none of that. Perhaps he knew, if such an event as the mass killing of babies by Herod had happened, he would have surely heard about it.

So, Luke, having found out about a census under Quirinius, decides the family was actually native to Nazareth, and had gone to Bethlehem specifically for the census. When they finished their trip, they had simply returned home.

Incidentally, the forced travel of everybody to the home of their ancestors as described by Luke is also historically bogus. The Romans would never do something like that. Such a disruption of everybody’s life would have had no purpose.

So, were Joseph and Mary fugitives coming from Bethlehem to Nazareth to escape Herod as Mathew writes? Or were they local natives of Nazareth, who, having taken a short trip to Bethlehem, were now coming back home, as Luke writes? Luke simply does not care that his story differs with Matthew. He writes a different, contradictory story to get the Bethlehem-born Jesus to grow up in Nazareth

As another example of Luke contradicting Matthew, consider that, if Luke is true, then Jesus had to be born after 6 AD, in the time of Quirinius. But Matthew has him born under Herod, who died in 4 BC. Both cannot be true.

Differing stories after Easter

Mark had promised that the disciples would see Jesus in Galilee to establish his kingdom shortly after the fall of Jerusalem (Mark 13). The original Mark, which ends at 16:8, says nothing about Jesus actually appearing before this promised appearance after the fall of Jerusalem.

Matthew, writing perhaps a decade or two later, sees that it did not yet happen as Mark wrote. So Matthew tries to explain the delay in the coming. (Matthew 24:42-25:13) He also adds a story of an appearance in Galilee a few weeks after Easter (Matthew 28:19-20). So, Matthew finds a way to write that Jesus had already appeared in Galilee as Mark had promised. How did Matthew know this? He doesn’t tell us. If it really happened, why did Mark say nothing about it?

But Luke has no need to discuss an appearance in Galilee. He is not writing to a limited set of Jews in Galilee. Instead, he is writing to the empire. He has no need to tell his diverse audience that Jesus is coming to the hills of Galilee. Luke has the disciples stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost, where, miraculously, they start speaking many different languages. Thus, they begin a ministry throughout the empire. Luke says that Jesus appeared to them in Jerusalem on Easter day. There, he commands them to stay in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36-49). Luke continues in Acts to confirm that the disciple had indeed stayed at Jerusalem until Pentecost. This is a flat disagreement with Matthew, which says they went to Galilee.

So, how is it that Matthew speaks of the appearance in Galilee? If Luke is correct, the disciples had already seen him in Jerusalem, and had been commanded not to leave Jerusalem.

So, Luke adds details that simply are not in the earlier gospels, details that in fact contradict the earlier gospels. Yet he gives no source of information that he used to overrule the other books. Many of us conclude that he made up the stories that he adds about Easter.

So I don’t find in Luke the credible history we need.

John

Then we come to the book of John. It adds many fantastic stories and statements of Jesus that are not mentioned anywhere else.

Once again, we find the author of this book does not identify himself. He does however, hint at a source. John 21:24 says, “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” In context, this refers to a mysterious “disciple whom Jesus loved” that appears only in the book of John. We don’t know who he was, but the book of John claims him as a source. Some have claimed he is John, but they cannot prove that.

Note that the author is not saying “I am the disciple whom Jesus loved”. No, he says “he is the disciple that testifies these things”, that is, the writer of John claims to have a witness, a source, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Again, we will call the author by the name John since that is what everybody calls him, but we do not know the author’s real name.

Neither do we know when the book was written. Since the author appears to be aware of the other books, especially Luke, and the other books appear to not know of John, John probably was the last to be written. The concepts expressed in John are quite advanced. Critical scholars date John typically in the range of 90 -120 AD.

For most of his book, John at least speaks for himself rather than copy from Mark. John apparently reads the others and decides he can do better. Starting with a plain piece of papyrus, he writes a different gospel. John simply ignores much of the other gospels up until passion week. Instead, he inserts new stories. In John, for the first time, we learn that Jesus turned water into wine, that the first person getting into a certain pool after an angel stirred the water was healed, and that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. But are these stories true?

Tall Tales

Let’s break here and talk about new stories. Mark had let the cat out of the bag. Not only were people copying Mark with changes, but people started to come up with all sorts of different stories about Jesus.

For instance, in the Infancy Gospel of James, we learn that Joseph won Mary’s hand in marriage because a dove flew out of his staff. We read that Salome lost her hand performing an exam to prove Mary a virgin, but it was later restored. And, in the Infancy Gospel of John, we learn:

At the age of 5, Jesus formed twelve sparrows out of mud, clapped his hands and told the birds: “Off you go!“. They flew away. Later, Jesus collected some water. Another boy, Annas, scattered the water. Jesus cursed Annas and he instantly withered up. Later, Jesus and Zeno were playing on the roof of a house. Zeno fell to the ground and was killed. Jesus restored him to life.

(See The Gospels of Mary and Judas. The infancy gospels of Thomas and James )​

And in the Gospel of Peter we read, that the cross itself follows Jesus out of the tomb, and answers a question. (See Gospel of Peter – Wikipedia )

I mention these stories, not because I think they are true, but to illustrate the new phenomenon of people trying to outdo each other in their tales of Jesus. I think most Christians will agree that many of these new stories are simply wrong. And yet a new cottage industry has sprung up, and people are busy spinning tales about Jesus. In light of that, when we start to see new stories like we read in John that have never been told before, should we believe them?

Early Christian Writings by Peter Kirby. An exhaustive source of text and commentary. Overview of the Gospels

John’s Message

Getting back to John, not only are the stories that John tells very different from the other known gospels, but the message is very different. Whereas the other gospels have Jesus dispensing simple folk wisdom, as in the Sermon on the Mount, the book of John really has no moral teaching other than to love. Instead, we find John’s Jesus giving endless lectures on theology and his own greatness, proclaiming himself the way, the truth and the life; declaring himself the light of the world; and even claiming “before Abraham was I am”. And John has a constant emphasis that all one needs to do is believe. (e.g., John 3:16) Where is any of that in the other gospels?

One can understand how different authors might emphasize different things, but how can the other three authors show no interest in these grand statements of Jesus, while John shows no interest in their folk morality? It sure looks like people may have been writing that Jesus said whatever they wanted him to say, rather than accurately reporting what happened.

And what about the signs? Mark had reported that Jesus gave no signs. Matthew ups that to one, saying that they Jesus gave them the sign of the prophet Jonah. But when we get to John, we read that Jesus gave many signs. So how many signs were there? Was the story developing with time?

John writes a lot of comments about Jesus, which sound very much like what he quotes Jesus as saying. Since John is the only one that has Jesus making these claims, and since the quotes John gives for Jesus sound very much like what John himself writes, it looks to many like John is just putting words into Jesus’s mouth. That is not reliable reporting.

So, I don’t find John to be reliable history.

Why You Should Not Believe the Apostle John Wrote the Last Gospel by Richard Carrier

Historical Consistency

The books are not verified by other sources. Other historians were writing during this time, but nobody seems to have noticed the life of Christ. Why do none of these secular historians note that Herod killed all babies up to two years old in Bethlehem? How could they miss it? Jesus supposedly did many miracles and preached to many. Nobody outside of the small religious group seems to have noticed. Could that be because these stories are just made up?

Josh McDowell’s “Evidence” for Jesus by Jefferey Jay Lowder Historicity Of Jesus FAQ by Scott Oser History’s Troubling Silence about Jesus

Matthew tells a fantastic tale: “The graves were opened,” he writes, “and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 27:52-53) Think about it. This is not a claim of one isolated resurrection. Oh, no. Many dead people came out of their graves and appeared to many. Surely people must have been talking about it. Yet no historian mentions it. None of the other gospels mentions it. Only Matthew writes about it. Did other writers not notice that many people were reporting that they were seeing dead people walking?

By contrast, the book of Acts records the difficulty the apostles supposedly had in trying to convince the people of Jerusalem that Jesus had risen from the dead. If Matthew is to be believed, many in Jerusalem had just seen many of the other dead that arose when the graves were opened. Why was it hard to convince people of a resurrection? If you had just seen your grandfather rise from the dead, would it be hard for you to believe that Jesus also had resurrected that week? Jesus would have just been one of the many that resurrected. And yet the disciples in the book of Acts, as Luke tells the story, don’t even mention it. They ignored their strongest argument that resurrections occur. Everybody seems to be unaware that this mass resurrection even happened.

Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection. I discuss the credibility of the gospels in detail in this online debate. I discuss much of the content of this page.

Implausible Stories

In addition, the accounts are often implausible. In John 8, for instance, we find Jesus having a conversation back and forth with the Jews. How can you hold such a detailed conversation with an entire crowd? With different people, yes, but with the crowd? Notice how the crowd responds in John 8:52-53 :

The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?”

Did they speak in unison?

Perhaps the author was merely writing a drama years later. Perhaps he made up this conversation to compare Jewish thought with Christian thought. It seems implausible that such a conversation ever took place between Jesus and a crowd of people. The author must have made it up.

Many other things are implausible. How could a star lead the wise men to a particular building? Look up at the night sky and tell me which building those stars are over. And as the stars move along as the night progresses, how can they continue to point to the same building? But Matthew tells us a star stood over the building where the baby Jesus was, and that it guided the wise men to this exact building. That is not plausible, is it?

Is it likely that many dead people got out of their graves and appeared to many? Is it really plausible that a swarm of demons would leave a man and enter a herd of pigs, causing the pigs to all stampede into a lake and kill themselves?

Later Edits

Even if the original accounts were accurate, we do not know what was changed in the gospel texts after the original writing. The four gospels were apparently never widely distributed until more than 100 years after Christ. Rather, they were passed along by people in the hills and in small communities. Outside documents seem to be unaware that the gospels existed. What changes were made to them in that period? We do not know. Could there have been major changes?

We do not know who had custody of these books. We do not know if any effort was made to keep them unaltered. But we have reasons to suspect that some people were changing them.

Ah, but what about the thousands of manuscripts we have? They are from the Middle Ages. Ten thousand manuscripts from the Middle Ages mean nothing. What is important is the line of transmission in the first two centuries.

Conclusion

What really happened? The gospel accounts were written late by unknown authors with unknown sources. They conflict with known history and contradict each other. They are often implausible. They were kept in unknown custody for years. There are good reasons to doubt that they can be trusted as accurate history.

This brings us to the resurrection. Despite the reasons for doubt, do we have enough evidence to at least establish the possibility of that story having a core of historical truth? We will ask that question next.