In this article, we will look at the Gospel accounts from an objective viewpoint and consider them in the same way as we would consider any ancient texts from that era. We won't attempt to show that the author's were telling the truth; our interest will be in establishing whether or not they could have been telling the truth. The issue of whether or not they were actually telling the truth is something we cannot learn from studying the Bible in isolation. For that, we have to look to outside evidence and that is something we have done in the article, "Were the Gospel Writers Telling the Truth?" Let's now turn our attention to the authors themselves.

Could They Have Been Telling the Truth?

Our first priority in establishing the truth of the Gospel will be to examine whether or not the authors were in a position to have seen and heard the events which the Gospels contain. Were they eyewitnesses, or did they have access to eyewitness accounts? Both the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Matthew were written by disciples of Jesus, so they would have been eyewitnesses to almost everything the Gospels contain. Mark was an associate of Peter's and based his account on Peter's testimony. Mark may also have been present at some key events in Jesus' life. Finally, Luke was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul and would have had access to the testimony of all of the first century disciples. As such, each of the authors would have had either first-hand or second-hand knowledge of all the events about which they wrote.

But how do we know these men were the authors?

There is external evidence to corroborate the authorship of the Gospels. Many of the early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Origen, Tertuillian and Eusebius, writing as early as the end of the 2nd century, confirm the authorship of these Gospels. Furthermore, the relative obscurity of these men, with the exception of John, suggests they are the real authors. It seems reasonable that if the authorship was in doubt, we would find more respectable names attached to the Gospels such as Peter or James. This is exactly we find in some of the later, extra-Biblical gospel which were written centuries after the events including the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Peter, neither of which were authored by the apostles. Claiming lesser names such as "Mark" and "Luke" as authors suggests they are legitimate.

Weren't the Gospels written half a century after the events?

One of the most common arguments against Christianity is that Jesus was just a man with some powerful ideas, but that He never claimed to be the Son of God. They claim that the elements of His resurrection and divinity grew out of legend in the many years that passed between His death and when the first accounts of His life were written. As we look at the time line, it will become clear that Jesus' followers believed He was the Son of God from the very beginning, for the written accounts of Jesus have their origins less than ten years after his death - far too short a time for legend to have eclipsed the facts.

It's not likely that more than 30 years went by before the 3 synoptic Gospels were completed. Our evidence here is the Book of Acts which Luke wrote after his Gospel. Most of the book of Acts is an account of Paul's travels, yet it ends abruptly before Paul's death sometime between A.D. 62 and 64. Surely an event of such importance would have been recorded in the Book of Acts, so it seems reasonable to conclude that Luke finished writing before Paul's death. We know that Acts was completed after his Gospel, and we know that Luke based some of his Gospel on Mark. Therefore, Mark could not have been completed any later than A.D. 62, but it was most likely already circulating long before then. That is less than 30 years after Jesus' death, which compared with other biographies of important historical people is an extremely small amount of time.

But that is just the Gospels. Most of Paul's letters were written before the Gospels and he quotes some ever earlier material. In 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15, Paul quotes some of the very early Christian Creeds from which we can see that the idea of Jesus' resurrection was already firmly established. Given the early date of 1 Corinthians less than 20 years after Jesus' death, the creeds likely date no more than a decade or two after Jesus' death, far too short a time for myth and legend to have given rise. Clearly, the idea of Jesus having risen from the grave was not a later invention. This important concept was believed by Christians from the very beginning.

Is thirty years too long a time to remember everything Jesus did and said?

It may seem so, but there are a few things we need to keep in mind. The first century Middle-East was primarily an oral culture where little was written down. At that time, men, especially Jewish students, would have been expected to have excellent memory and recall. Next, remember that the Gospels record a very small portion of Jesus life. Most of the Gospels focus on the week leading up to Jesus death. This was an extremely emotional and important time for the disciples, and we know from our own experience that our memories can be very vivid from those times in our lives which had the most emotional impact. Jesus often spoke in parables and even when he did not, his words were often in a kind of rhythmic meter, making it easier to memorize. Finally, we must remember that Jesus spoke to hundreds of people, so there would have been many eyewitness accounts to draw from.

When we examine the evidence for the Gospel accounts, it seems completely plausible that the writers could have been telling the truth. Each of the writers had first or second hand accounts of the events, and the accounts were written soon enough after the events to still be considered accurate. But were the authors telling the truth? Could they have been mistaken? Lying? Hallucinating? Please continue on the the article "Were the Gospel Writers Telling the Truth?" to look at the evidence for the truth of the Gospel accounts.