Introduction (II): Can the Gospels be Trusted?

How do we know that the Gospels are a trustworthy source of knowledge about Jesus Christ?

We have seen in the previous introductory lesson how knowledge by faith comes to us. When we are speaking of supernatural faith, the witness we all depend on is Jesus Christ. A cradle Catholic easily accepts this fact. A person who has not been born in a Catholic environment, on the other hand, may need further proof that what Jesus said and taught is really true and reliable. How do we do that?

First, we have to dig into the sources of our knowledge about Jesus Christ. We need to look for historical documents that attest to Jesus' existence, his life and his teachings. It is generally accepted that the most of important of these historical documents are the Gospels. But then, we have to prove in turn that the Gospels are reliable historical documents. To do this, we need to show three things:

that this record has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries (the question of integrity)
that the authors of the Gospels can be verified (the question of authorship); and
that those authors were in a position to observe and take note of the events we find in the Gospel (in other words, that the Gospels record real events in the past, not mere legends--the question of historicity).

To explain this procedure a bit more, let us assume someone tells me that a certain event X has happened. My next question will be, "How did you know?" Perhaps he will say "So-and-so told me." Then I will ask, "Did he see it happen?" or "Was he a first-hand witness?" If the matter is important enough, I will ask, "Did other people see it happen?"

1. The Question of Integrity

Are our present documents the same as the original ones?

Our first task is to prove that the documents we call Gospels are substantially the same documents that were written many centuries in the past. The answer to this question lies

in other works that refer to or quote the Gospels, and
in the manuscripts

1.1 Supporting Evidence

Let us take a look at some of the works that make reference to or quote the Gospels.

There are other proofs that the Gospels we have today are basically the same as the one used in the beginning of Christianity.

A papyrus fragment of the Fourth Gospel (St John's), dated ca. 140 AD found in Egypt (there are more than 50 extant papyri in the official list)
One of these is the fact that the writing of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament was done between 50 and 100 AD. By the year 140 AD, Christians were already reading the Gospels in the celebration of the Eucharist (see St Justin, First Apology). Such would have required manuscripts or hand-written copies of the texts.
While St Justin testifies to the existence of the Greek text, there are also proofs that the Latin translation already existed. In the trials of the first Christian martyrs, for example, they were ordered to surrender the Scriptures written in Latin for burning. Authentic documents tell us, just to cite an example, that the Proconsul Saturninus of Numidia held a trial on 17 July 180 AD of twelve Christians, in the course of which he ordered the Latin Scriptures burned.
There are also proofs of the existence of texts in Syriac. There are two manuscripts still in existence: the Curetonian Syriac and the Sinaitic Syriac.

1.2 Manuscripts

In ancient times, the only way to make a copy of some written work was to copy it by hand. We are looking for three important features here: namely,

the number of manuscripts: the more manuscripts we have, the greater the number of references we can compare our present texts with;
the agreement of the manuscripts among themselves: less differences among the texts will make it easier to determine if our present texts really follow the original ones;
and the dates the manuscripts were composed: the closer the dates of composition to the actual events, the more accuracy in reporting those events.

How do Gospel manuscripts compare with other classical works of Latin and Greek authors? Let us take a few samples.

See this comparison of the New Testament with other documents: Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? (If you cannot find it, click here for a cached copy.) As we can see here, the number of manuscripts of the Gospels is far more than that of other classical works.

Are there differences among the manuscripts? Modern versions of the Catholic Bible contain footnotes which point out the differences between manuscripts. It will be noted that the differences are few and minor. The agreement among the texts provides further basis for determining whether our present-day Gospels are substantially the same in content with the manuscripts.

2. The Question of Authorship

Are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the real authors of the Gospels?

Why should we bother about who wrote the Gospels? Is that really important? Yes, it is. By knowing who wrote the book, we will know if he was truly in a position to verify the events that he is writing down.

Let us first take a look at the external evidence which mentions all four Gospels (there are many others that mention each one of them). Then we will examine the internal evidence, comparing these with the external ones.

2.1 External Evidence

2.1.1 Tertullian of Carthage (c. 150-220)

Who was Tertullian? (Click here for lots of detailed information, courtesy of "The Tertullian Project".)

In his work Adversus Marcionem, he says:

So I affirm that among them— and I am not now speaking only of apostolic churches, but of all those which are in alliance with them in the fellowship of the mysteryc—that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned. Admittedly that gospel too has its churches; but they are its own, of late arrival and spurious: if you search out their ancestry you are more likely to find it apostatic than apostolic, having for founder either Marcion or someone from Marcion's hive. Even wasps make combs, and Marcionites make churches. That same authority of the apostolic churches will stand as witness also for the other gospels, which no less we possess by their agency and according to their text—I mean John's and Matthew's, though that which Mark produced is stated to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was.

2.1.2 St Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140-202/203)

Who was St Irenaeus of Lyons? (Click here for more details about St Irenaeus of Lyons, courtesy of "Early Christian Writings".) One of the most important data in his curriculum vitae is that he was the disciple of St Polycarp of Smyrna (155/156) who in turn was a disciple of St John the Apostle! (Big time, huh?)

In Adversus Haereses, he writes:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

2.1.3 Origen (c. 185-254/255)

Who was Origen? (Click here for more stuff about the origins of Origen, courtesy of "Early Christian Writings".)

In his Commentary on Matthew, Origen states the following:

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, "The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son." And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

2.2 Internal Evidence

Is external evidence sufficient to prove the authorship of the Gospels? Yes. They are abundant and conclusive. So what is the use of looking at internal evidence? The writers of the Gospel do not identify themselves. Only St John gives strong hints that he was the one who wrote the Gospel. Would it help to examine non-conclusive internal evidence?

Internal evidence corroborates the data provided by non-biblical sources. We will, therefore, use a comparative approach in discussing internal evidence. We can compare some of the external evidence with what we find inside each one of these Gospels. If what we find coincides with the external evidence, then we have further proof of the authorship of these texts.

2.2.1 St Matthew

External evidence provided by writers such as St Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius declare that

Matthew is the author of the first Gospel,
he addressed it to the Jews,
it was originally written in the Aramaic language, and
it was intended either to strengthen converts from Judaism or to attract prospective ones.

What do we find in the internal evidence to support this data provided by other writers? Examination of the text strengthens the position that the Gospel was written for the Jews.

There is abundant use of and reference to the Old Testament, which the Jews are familiar with.
He quotes prophecies of the Old Testament that point to the Messiah.
He names Jewish customs and traditions but--unlike the other Gospels--does not explain them since it is assumed that the readers understand the customs that this Gospel speaks about.

For a detailed discussion, see the Catholic Encyclopedia on the "Gospel of St Matthew".

2.2.2 St Mark

Writers like Papias, St Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian associate St Mark with St Peter, and confirm that Mark was asked by the early Christians in Rome to write down St Peter's preaching. This is what external evidence tells us.

Several facts in the Gospel seem to corroborate the external evidence.

Peter is mentioned 24 times (in Matthew, 26 times; in Luke, 29 times; in John, 41 times, but at least twice as often as all the other apostles), but unlike the other Gospels, Peter is portrayed with his frailty. What this shows is that Mark simply followed the preaching of St Peter, who spoke humbly of himself.
In contrast with Matthew, this Gospel does not make any references to either Old Testament prophecies or Jewish customs.
Many of the events he narrates are those that St Peter witnessed personally and therefore preached about.

For a detailed discussion, see the Catholic Encyclopedia on the "Gospel of St Mark".

2.2.3 St Luke

We can find external evidence provided by St Jerome, Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, St Irenaeus, St Polycarp and St Justin Martyr, who attest that the Third Gospel was written by Luke, a Gentile, a physician and a close associate of St Paul. He was writing to the non-Jewish converts to Christianity.

The following internal evidence supports what external evidence provides:

The grammatical construction shows that the author is not a Jew.
St Paul refers three times to his association with "Luke, the beloved physician". Luke, who is also credited with the Acts of the Apostles, refers to his association with St Paul in the book of the Acts.
He employs a physician's way of describing diseases when he speaks about the cures worked by Jesus Christ.
He addresses the converts and encourages them. He speaks a lot about the joy of conversion.

For a detailed discussion, see the Catholic Encyclopedia on the "Gospel of St Luke".

2.2.4 St John

St Irenaeus, a disciple of St Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of St John himself is an outstanding witness that St John wrote this Gospel. Eusebius, Justin, and many others attest also to the authorship.

There is more direct internal evidence here, than in the other three. St John says in 19:26: "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"" And then, in verse 35 of the same chapter, he adds, "He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may believe."

Furthermore, he identifies himself in Chapter 21:

20 Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" 23 The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24* This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

For a detailed discussion, see the Catholic Encyclopedia on the "Gospel of St John".

3. The Question of Historicity

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John record real events?

We have examined the integrity and the authorship of the Gospels. We have asked whether the Gospels as we know them today are substantially the same as the original manuscripts. We have also inquired into the claims that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The next question is whether the four Gospel-writers were in a position to know the truth of events which they recorded in the Gospels.

3.1 A Look Into Each Evangelist

To investigate this question, we need to consult the writers of the early Christian era, especially the so-called Ante-Nicene writers (writers before the Council of Nicea, convoked in 325). Their familiarity with the tradition concerning the Gospels provide us with a valid reference. Among these, we find Eusebius of Caesaria (265-340) who speaks about the evangelists as reliable witnesses especially in his Historia Ecclesiastica ("Church History").

3.1.1 St Matthew

For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Book III, Chapter 24, 6)

3.1.2 St Mark

And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. (Book II, Chapter 15, 1)

3.1.3 St Luke

But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.

3.1.4 St John

And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. (Book III, Chapter 24, 7)

3.2 The Gospel Accounts Are Credible

There are two questions that we need to answer:

Are the authors sincere? Are they striving to tell the truth?
Are they well informed regarding the matters in question?

3.2.1 The Sincerity of the Authors

St Luke says in Chapter 1 of his Gospel:

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2* just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3* it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely * for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4* that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

Meanwhile, St John, in Chapter 21 of his Gospel writes:

24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

Another important proof of their sincerity is that they were willing to die for the things they claim. Peter and Paul, whom Mark and Luke record respectively, died for defending the truthfulness of the events they claim to have happened. John the Evangelist was exiled to the island of Patmos.

3.2.2 The Reliability of the Information They Give

Were the Gospel-writers well-informed? Weren't they, perhaps, mistaken or misled?

As we have seen above, they were either eye witnesses or in contact with the eye witnesses of the events they describe. That assures us that the information they hand down to us is reliable.

3.2.3 How Do We Explain the Differences In Their Accounts?

There are several explanations for this:

Jesus taught like the rabbis of Israel. He would repeat the same thing in different occasions, maybe using different words, to help the disciples remember. Hence, there would be differences in different accounts of the same thing.
Each Gospel-writer was drawing from a different source, and those sources would narrate things in a different way.
Each Gospel-writer would remember things according to his mentality and his way of understanding.
The Evangelists were addressing different groups, and they wrote with a specific purpose. They would thus highlight those events that suited more their purpose.

See this important passage from the Navarre Bible on the Credibility of the Gospel accounts.

3.2.4 Why Do Some People Question the Truth of the Gospels?

In the first introductory lesson, we have seen the three ways by which we acquire knowledge. Aside from direct observation, we can use reason or we can accept the testimony of other people. In accepting someone's word, we need to have a certain willingness to do it. The human will plays a part also in human knowing because it can reject the sources from which knowledge comes. This is especially true where faith is involved, whether it be human or supernatural. Hence, it is possible that in spite of overwhelming evidence, a person may still refuse to accept such knowledge.

3.2.5 Are There Any Other Historical Documents Aside From These?

There are pagan and Jewish sources which we can use as reference points for determining the historicity of the Gospel accounts. See here for a more detailed discussion.

Introduction (II): Can the Gospels be Trusted?

How do we know that the Gospels are a trustworthy source of knowledge about Jesus Christ?

Recommended Reading