Mark D. Roberts @ Typepad

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Summary and Conclusion

At last I come to the end of the long series. At last!

Here are all the links to the entire series, with a brief annotation on each article. This summary and conclusion can guide the readers in the future as to which part to click on, according to their needs.

Part Fifteen . . . .

Similarities among John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

How many similarities do all four Gospels share? How many similarities do John and at least one Synoptic Gospel (Matthew, Mark, or Luke) have in common?

Over fifty? Over a hundred? Over two hundred? Fewer than fifty?

This is Part Fourteen in a series on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

This is Part Thirteen in a series on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Eyewitness Testimony in John's Gospel

This is Part Twelve on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Eyewitness Testimony in Luke's Gospel

This is Part Eleven on the historical reliability of the four Gospels.

Eyewitness Testimony in Mark’s Gospel

The goal here -- another long, ole-fashioned Bible study -- is to establish that Mark's Gospel has the earliest and best eyewitness testimony embedded in it.

This is Part Ten in a series on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Authoritative Testimony in Matthew’s Gospel

This article rounds a corner from the traditions transmitted before the Gospels were written to the Gospels themselves, as we have them now. Do they enjoy eyewitness testimony at their foundation?

Folks, this is a long, ole-fashioned Bible study. So get your favorite non-alcoholic beverage, settle in, and happy reading! Or print it out, get your Bible, and take them to your favorite non-alcoholic drinking place and . . . happy reading, again!

Part Nine in a long series on the historical reliability of the Biblical Gospels.

Did Some Disciples Take Notes during Jesus' Ministry?

This is a question that must be explored.

This article is Part Eight in a series on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

What is the Q 'Gospel'? The Gospel According to 'St Q'?

In this article and the previous two, we explore what was happening between Jesus' ministry and the written Gospels. Here we turn our attention mainly toward so-called Q. This article is a Q & A on Q. The question is – is Q OK?

Here is Part Seven on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Reliable Gospel Transmissions

As noted in the previous article, we are talking about this gap:

Jesus’ ministry |               | Written Gospels

Those two vertical bars are not meant to be firm barriers, as if the disciples did not learn or observe anything during Jesus' ministry and carried it forward past the first bar. But the question still remains: How were the teachings and deeds of Jesus handed on during the gap? Reliably or not?

This is Part Six on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

The Gospel Traditions

With this article we turn a corner away from archaeology and non-Christian written references to Gospel persons (the last three articles). Now we discuss the preservation of Jesus' ministry -- his words and activity -- after his crucifixion (and resurrection) and up to the time when the Gospels were written.

The disciples were keeping careful track of what Jesus was saying and doing during his ministry, but for simplicity, here is the gap that the next three articles will cover:

Jesus' ministry |                 | Written Gospels

What was preserved between that timeframe, in the gap? How was it preserved? Accurately and reliably or otherwise?

Part Five in a long series on the historical reliability of the Gospels . . .

Did Jesus Even Exist?

In the last article, Archaeology and John’s Gospel, I asked whether skepticism chic is passé. Maybe I should have used the term hyper-skepticism. Is it waning? No.

Did Jesus even live? Personally, I have no doubt that he did. But we should take a moment to provide resources that counter hyper-skepticism.

Part Four in a long series on the historical reliability of the Gospels

Archaeology and John's Gospel

For many decades John's Gospel has been ignored or slighted in its historical details. Is this fair? Is there any evidence that shows that the historical assumptions within the Gospel correspond to or cohere with the historical facts outside of the Gospel?

This is Part Three in a long series on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels

There is a "rock" solid correspondence and coherence between the historical assumptions within the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and the historical facts outside of those three Gospels, in archaeology. This article has ten representative examples of this coherence.

Part Two in a series on the historical reliability of the Gospels . . .

Historical Reliability of the Gospels

Christianity has always been the religion of the Book, the Bible. More specifically for this series, all Christians of all denominations cherish the four Biblical or canonical Gospels. But there is no pleasant way to put this. In the past decade – but also several before that – the Gospels have been assaulted by liberal scholars and other critics.

It is no longer feasible – if it ever was – for web readers and TV viewers to ignore these criticisms, since they come across the mass media and the web seemingly from one month to the next.

So who should read the series? Anyone who has access to the news media in print, over the airwaves, or through the web. Maybe high school and college students, home Bible study leaders, Sunday school and catechism teachers, pastors, and priests may find something of value in the long series. But it is mainly intended for the laity or nonspecialist. I have put the series in the Q & A format for clarity and ease of understanding.