Contending for Easter is an 8-day (8-part) series of blog essays/articles published by members of the Canadian Apologetics Coalition. Each article makes a brief case for the truthfulness and historicity of Christian belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection. Yesterday's article (access
here), finely-authored by Tim Barnett of
ClearThinkingChristianity, argued that (a) the resurrection lies at the very center of Christian faith and belief; and (b) the resurrection is a historically testable event open to rational investigation and scrutiny.
Today's article (Monday, March 25, 2013) is authored by yours truly. I make a (very) brief case for the general historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels. If the Gospels are not trustworthy (in general) as historically-informative documents, then it will be difficult to ascertain anything noteworthy about the post-mortem fate of Jesus of Nazareth. I hope the article is helpful on some level, and that you continue to follow the entire series of essays.
Contending for Easter, Part II - The Gospel Truth: Or Is It?
Are the New Testament Gospels Historically Reliable?
In
the 1980s, the Jesus Seminar argued that the vast majority of words attributed
to Jesus in the Gospels do not actually originate in Jesus. They argue that the Gospels are unreliable,
theologically-colored texts. If the
Jesus Seminar is correct, it will be difficult to build a historical case for
the resurrection of Jesus. After all, our
knowledge about what happened to Jesus after His arrest stems primarily from
the New Testament Gospels, as even the Jesus Seminar affirms. If our knowledge of Jesus’s fate derives from
the Gospels, then it is certainly important to know whether we can trust what
the Gospels say—whether the Gospels can and do contain accurate biographies of
Jesus’ life and ministry. To that end, I
am going to suggest five lines of evidence which give us strong reason to believe
that the Gospels aim to and actually deliver an accurate historical record.