The Studious Sleuthing of Lee Strobel: Why the Gospels Are Historically Reliable

Did it really happen? Did Jesus actually do and say what the Gospels claim? If not, we Christians believe in a fairytale and it’s time to grow up. If so, the greatest story ever told about this dying and rising God-in-theflesh is more than just myth or legend, it’s historically and factually true—true in the same sense that it’s true Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, or that Julius Caesar was stabbed by senators. Nobody seriously doubts that these events occurred. With Jesus, however, skepticism and unbelief run rampant. He is dismissed daily as a fraud and a fabrication in college classrooms, in countless books and videos, and on the internet.

Perhaps the primary cause for all this doubt is the assumption that the Gospels paint a false picture. Modern scholarship, we are told, has shown that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the products of people who never knew Jesus, and who greatly distorted his teachings and life. But is this the case? When the historical record is examined, does it support or refute the Gospel accounts? These are crucial questions that demand a weighing of the evidence. As with any case, however, the weighing of the evidence can be tainted by one’s preconceived notions. This is why it’s helpful to consider the findings of an atheist-turned-apologist named Lee Strobel.

Becoming Skeptical of Skepticism

Strobel was an unbeliever who was unwilling to affirm much about Jesus beyond His reputation as a rebellious rabbi and His brutal death on the cross. Starting with the assumptions that miracles don’t happen and that the Bible is full of myths and contradictions, he easily rejected the notion that Jesus is God’s Son who rose from the dead. Strobel, an investigative journalist with a master’s degree in law studies, was convinced that faith in anything must be founded on facts, not on opinions or emotions or wishful thinking. It was precisely this training, however, that helped Strobel change his tune.

Upset that his wife became a Christian, Strobel set out to examine the evidence for Jesus, using his legal skills and journalism experience. He had investigated numerous criminal cases—studying crime scenes, interviewing eyewitnesses, analyzing the physical evidence—and he was used to seeing careful research overturn the assumptions of experts. But when he turned his critical eye toward the Gospels for the first time, he began to see how sloppy and prejudiced he had been when it came to Jesus. Strobel had selectively accepted views that confirmed his skepticism, written off Scripture before giving it a fair hearing, and mistaken his anti-Christian bias for neutral objectivity. In short, Strobel quickly realized his views were based on nothing more than blind faith.

The End of a Long Journey

For two years, Strobel thoroughly studied the case for Christ. He read books, interviewed specialists, studied ancient history, learned about archaeology, and picked apart the Gospels. He looked at all manner of evidence, including eyewitness, documentary, scientific, corroborative, circumstantial, and psychological evidence—all the categories of proof that are admissible in court. When his sleuthing ended, Strobel was led to an inescapable conclusion: The Gospels are indeed historically reliable accounts about Jesus.

While not particularly happy about the outcome, Strobel was honest enough to admit that all his major objections were answered. He was also a good enough journalist and legal scholar to know that his verdict need not rest on 100% certainty. Court cases and historical claims are judged based on a reasonable level of probability— that is, on whether they provide the best explanation of the evidence. And Strobel knew that no alternate theory about Jesus could do that. Surprisingly, his attempt to disprove Christianity took him on a long, slow journey during which he was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom.

Let’s follow Strobel’s lead, and treat the Gospels like any record of ancient history, as we briefly consider three main aspects of his quest: the reliability of the manuscripts, the reliability of their content, and external evidences.

The Manuscripts as Reliable

Do the Gospels we have today faithfully resemble what was first written, or did copyists change them? This inquiry involves comparing all known copies of the manuscripts, noting where they differ, and reconstructing the originals. To do this, we want to know: 1.) the time difference between the copies and the original, 2.) the number of copies, and 3.) how important any discrepancies are.

Errors tend to multiply over time when making handwritten copies, so the earliest ones tend to be more accurate. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between AD 50-100, and the first renditions we have are from around AD 125. This may sound like an extremely long interval, since we are used to copying information instantly today, yet it is actually insignificant for two reasons. First, the originals were written on papyrus, which lasts for over a hundred years before wearing out. So they were read and circulated until at least AD 150, and served as a safeguard against scribes making any significant changes. Second, scholars easily accept copies of other ancient works that come much later than the originals. In the cases of the ancient historians Herodotus, Thucydides, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, the earliest known copies are separated from their authors from 500 to 1000 years or more!

For the number of copies available to compare with one another, the Gospels likewise surpass all other works from this time. There are about 20 times more Gospel manuscripts than the average number for any writing of the GrecoRoman world. To give examples from both ends of the spectrum, there are about 200 copies of Suetonius and only three of Tacitus. While 200 sounds a lot better than three, historians accept the contents of both as being reliable. Yet there are about 2,000 manuscripts of the Gospels, blowing every other ancient literary work out of the water.

When all copies of the Gospels are compared, there are indeed many places where there is not a wordfor-word match (a non-match is called a variant). The issue, however, is not the quantity of variants but the quality of variants. For example, if the Trinitarian reference at the end of Matthew differed between copies (which it doesn’t), that could be a problem, but foreign names spelled differently in some copies of Matthew is inconsequential. In fact, most variants have no bearing on what the text means; for the few places where they do, not one affects a single point of Christian doctrine.

The Content as Reliable

Having accurate copies, however, does not mean the original authors got it right. Ancient historians believed eyewitness testimony was required for their works to be credible. Whenever possible, those who experienced the events firsthand were interviewed, and the account was written within the witnesses’ lifetimes so they could confirm or deny the reports. The Gospels are no exception to these rules. To be trustworthy, their content needs to originate with people who saw and heard Jesus.

Interestingly, “Matthew,” “Mark,” “Luke,” and “John” weren’t the original titles of the Gospels. These were added later, which has caused some to wonder if they can be traced to anyone who actually knew Jesus. They can be. Around the year 80 AD, when some eyewitnesses of Jesus and his disciples were still alive, a man named Papias performed the original investigation into who wrote the first two Gospels. After acquiring testimony from living witnesses, Papias concluded that Mark had documented Peter’s preaching about Jesus, and that Matthew also composed a Gospel.

In the Gospel of Luke, the author admits that since he never knew Jesus he purposely relied on eyewitnesses and carefully examined everything (Luke 1:1-4). In his sequel, the Book of Acts, the author reveals certain instances in which he would have met disciples and witnesses of Jesus. Virtually no scholar denies it was written by Luke himself.

The fourth Gospel clearly claims to have been written by a follower of Jesus (John 1:14). He even stresses that this is why his narrative should be believed: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). While he does not name himself, the primitive church had little doubt he was John. What really matters, however, is not his name but his vantage point as an eyewitness.

So two Gospels, Mathew and John, were composed by companions of Jesus, while two others, Mark and Luke, were written by those who had direct contact with the eyewitnesses. This makes for good history writing, which historians in their day would have easily recognized. The Gospels were also written early enough that both favorable and hostile witnesses would still be living and could correct or protest any inaccuracies. Yet no written reports to the contrary emerged until the second century, when all the witnesses had died.

What about the oral tradition that pre-dates the written Gospels? A generation or two sounds like a long time to remember words and deeds accurately before recording them. But the disciples lived in an oral culture, where rote memorization was the primary means of education. We might botch lines from our favorite movies, but they were used to retaining massive amounts of data with ease. Studies of oral cultures have shown that the significance of major events remains constant with each retelling, even if some material gets rearranged or summarized. This helps explain why the Gospels are so similar, yet sometimes differ on peripheral issues. And common sense tells us Jesus’ words and deeds were so profound that they’d be remembered no matter how much time had passed.

External Evidence

On the one hand, external evidences for the Gospels are nice but not necessary. Four biographies in strong agreement about someone, written by those who knew either Him or His followers, amounts to a historian’s goldmine. On the other hand, external corroboration can increase confidence in the Gospels. So while there are literally thousands of artifacts relating to Jesus, we will only mention a few contemporary writings and archaeological finds.

In addition to the nine different authors of the New Testament, there are another 33 sources that mention Jesus within 150 years of his life: 20 are Christian compositions, four are heretical writings (such as gnostic texts), and nine are secular Greek or Roman authors. By contrast, only 10 authors mention Tiberius Caesar (the Roman Emperor at the time of Jesus’ death) within 150 years of his life. The ratio of all sources between Jesus and Tiberius for the same timeframe is 42:10! Even when counting only nonChristian sources for each, the ratio becomes an even 9:9. Therefore, to make extra demands for Jesus without doing so for Tiberius or other historical figures is a clear double standard.

At least three non-Christian historians mentioned Jesus. The most famous is Josephus, a Jew writing at the end of the first century. He said Jesus was a wise teacher, performed astonishing deeds, was followed by Jews and Greeks, had a brother named James, was called the Christ, was accused by prominent Jews, was crucified by Pilate, and was believed by some to have risen from the dead. The Romans Tacitus and Suetonius also refer to Jesus by the year 115. Tacitus referenced His crucifixion under Pilate, while both implied they knew of Jesus’ claimed resurrection. These observations from secular scholars match the Gospels well.

In terms of archaeology, the list of items that support the Gospels is massive. From the record of the census issued by Caesar Augustus, to Peter’s house by the Sea of Galilee, to the mortal remains of Caiaphas the high priest, to the sites of the crucifixion and empty tomb, numerous discoveries indicate the Gospels are works of history, not fiction or legend.

The Truth Will Come Out

It has been said that there is no story people have wished was true more than the Christian story. For Strobel, however, he wished it was false. Like so many skeptics, his superficial search for an alternate Jesus allowed him to discover what he wanted to discover in the first place. But when he put his investigative skills to work and tried to disprove the Gospels, he found something he never would have guessed: The Jesus encountered in these texts is the real Jesus after all. And because the Christian faith is founded on historical facts, we continue to encounter this same Jesus, who comes to us and rescues us through His saving Word.

Rev. Mark A. Pierson wrote the chapter on the historical reliability of the Gospels in the book, Making the Case for Christianity. You can email him at markapierson@gmail.com