Are the gospels historically reliable?

To answer that question let me say three things in response.

1. the gospels are authentic versions of what was originally written

In other words these ancient documents have not been altered.

None of the original gospel records remain. All we have is copies of copies. That sounds troubling but it shouldn’t alarm us. This is not an issue unique to the gospels but to every ancient historical document.

• The earliest complete New Testament is Codex Siniaticus produced in 300s AD and currently kept in the British Museum.
• The earliest complete gospel was copied in the early 200s AD and is called the Chester Beatty Papyri.
• The earliest fragment is part of John’s gospel dated in the early 100s AD and that’s in the John Rylands Library in Manchester.

This raises an important issue. Do what we call gospels bear any resemblance to what was originally written? After all, 1900 years have passed since they were written and they could have been tampered with. So how trustworthy is the transmission of the original down the years?

Comparison of Ancient Texts

• Caeser’s Gallic Wars was written in the 1st Century BC, the earliest Copy we have is 900 AD and there are a total of 10 manuscripts.
• Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome were written in the 1st Century AD, the earliest copy we have dates from 1100 AD and there are a total of 20 manuscripts.
• Thucydides wrote in the 5th Century BC, the earliest copy is 900 AD and there are 8 manuscripts.
• Homer’s Iliad was written in the 9th Century BC, the date of the earliest copy is unknown but there are 643 manuscripts which provide an accuracy figure of 95%.
• New Testament was completed by the close of the 1st Century AD. The earliest copy dates from the 2nd Century AD. Over 5000 manuscripts have been preserved which provide an accuracy figure of  99%.  

a. The number of documents

Over 5000 early manuscript copies of the originals remain [complete New Testaments written before 350AD] and this allows comparison between them to see how similar they are. This causes F.F. Bruce, former Professor at University of Manchester to write, ‘There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament’.

b. The geographical distribution of documents

The wider the geographical distribution of manuscripts the less likely that they all come from one giant publishing house. If the same gospel can be compared from different continents and there is a high degree of agreement we can be surer of what the original document was. The need for translations in new languages was required by the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Mediterranean region. This led to a proliferation and preservation of the scriptures. Copies are available in Coptic, Latin, Syrian, Armenian and Georgian.

c. The age of the documents

There are copies of the New Testament written within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals. This is significantly nearer the original than any other form of ancient literature. Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum writes, ‘in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the NT’.  

As you would expect there are discrepancies between the different manuscript copies because the gospels were copied before the days of the photocopier. These copying mistakes came about because scribes whose job it was to copy by hand were human. However, they didn’t make many mistakes. This was their full time job and the few that exist are indicated in our Bibles in a footnote. However, this shouldn’t alarm us because no matter of substantial Christian history or doctrine is affected by suspected uncertainties. This led Bishop Stephen Neill to write,

‘Anyone who reads the New Testament in any one of half a dozen recent Greek editions, or in any modern translation, can feel confident that, though there may be uncertainties in detail, in almost everything of importance he is close indeed to the text of the New Testament books as they were originally written’. Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961

In conclusion, we can be sure that we have what was originally written.

2. The gospels are attested by non Christian writers of the period

In other words, though the gospel writers wrote from a particular standpoint they were accurate in what they recorded.

In order to deal with the objection that the Christian writers of the gospel were biased and invented stories about Jesus after he died we need to check out the non-Christian writings of the time. Inevitably as with our secular newspapers today you wouldn’t expect to find a whole load about Jesus Christ because it just wasn’t an issue for them. The religious affairs correspondent wasn’t a highly prized career move even then. But we find that the references in the gospels to key historical figures like Caiphas, Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist are all confirmed by contemporary secular historians. In addition they also confirm the rough outline of Jesus’ life as recorded by the gospels.

Roman sources: Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius

‘Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their crimes. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only in Judea where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also’. Annals 15.44, Tacitus

Jewish sources: Josephus

‘About that time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the (so called) Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of Christians so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared’. Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquities, Josephus

• From these and without the New Testament we would know
• Jesus was a Jewish teacher who claimed to be God and that he would depart and return (Eliezer)
• Many people believed that he performed healing and exorcisms
• Some people believed he was the Messiah or Christ and his followers were called Christians
• He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
• He was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius in Judea
• Despite his shameful death, his followers who believed he was still alive spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by AD64
• All kinds of people from the cities and the countryside, men and women, slave and free worshipped him as God

This leads Dr Paul Barnett in his book, ‘Is the New Testament History?’ to write,

‘While the evidence is not extensive, it is noteworthy that it does not in any way conflict with, but rather confirms, the historical information in the New Testament’.

In conclusion, we can be sure that what they wrote wasn’t inaccurate

3. The gospels are accurate eyewitness accounts of what occurred

In other words the gospel writers didn’t record myths but facts.

New Testament scholars are convinced that all four gospels were written before the close of the 1st century. Many are convinced that they were available within 30 years of Jesus’ death. To modern ears that time span may appear to be a very long time. But we need to remember that

• They were regularly retold in a culture where oral transmission was the norm
• They were so memorable; they’re not the kind of stories you’d forget that easily
• They could be disputed; at the time that they were written there were people who would have remembered Jesus and could have discredited anything untrue

None of this requires us to become a Christian but it does mean that what we read is historically reliable.

Should we celebrate Christmas? ‘Is he serious?’ ‘What is he planning now?’ ‘Please tell me he hasn’t gone to press on this?’ I can only imagine the panicked responses in the minds of the CCB faithful as they read the opening question. Our instinctive reaction is probably something like, ‘Of course, why wouldn’t we? After all everyone else does?’ That’s a post all on its own. Something along the lines of Christian accommodation to a secularist lifestyle. But I’ll save that for the New Yeat. The nagging doubt in some of our minds is probably, ‘is he seriously about to suggest that we shouldn’t’.

Relax. I may have iconoclastic inclinations but an increasing appreciation for the festivities of the season has kept them in check! Personal preference appears to have trumped principled action. To which my free church brethren would respond, ‘but he is an Anglican after all’!

Now I’m not the first person to raise the appropriateness of Christians celebrating Christmas. Some of the European Reformers of the 16th Century and the English Puritans of the 17th Century refused to do so. They were right on most things. So, at the very least, we ought to approach this subject with an open mind and a willingness to change our opinion. 

There are two main reasons given for not celebrating Christmas

1. Christmas Day is not Jesus’ birthday

Good point. In his gospel, Luke tells us that Jesus’ birth took place at a time when the Judean shepherds kept their flocks in the fields. Winters in Israel can be very severe and so it’s unlikely that these events took place at the end of December. In addition Luke also tells us that those fastidious administrators, the Romans, organised a census for the entire population. It’s unlikely that they’d decree this during a time when it was difficult to travel. Therefore it’s very unlikely that Jesus’ birth took place in winter. It probably occurred after harvest and before the bad weather set in. So autumn seems our best guess. Although it gives us these clues, the Bible gives us no date for Christ’s birth. The early church doesn’t offer us any clues either since the earliest Christians don’t appear to have celebrated the event. The first evidence for the celebration of Jesus’ birth is found in a Roman document dated AD336. The inauguration of Christmas day appears to have been an attempt to christianise a pagan festival. Under Pope Julius 1st the Roman Church decided to replace the traditional pagan midwinter festival in honour of the Sun with what we celebrate as the birth of God’s son.

2. Christmas customs do not have Christian origins

Another good point. For example

Father Christmas is not related to God the Father. The original Father Christmas was St Nicholas, a 4th Century Asian Bishop. He was a generous and anonymous supporter of the needy. Clearly not that anonymous! One day he climbed the roof of a house and dropped a purse of money down the chimney of a family of needy girls. The purse landed in the stockings that the girls had hung up by the fire to dry. In his memory it became customary to give gifts on the eve of St Nicholas’ day. In our culture this tradition was transferred to Christmas day.

Christmas trees originate with an 8th century English missionary called St Boniface who went to Germany. He apparently went encountered a group of people standing beneath a large oak tree ready to sacrifice a child to please their god. Boniface rescued the child and chopped the oak tree down. At its foot was a small fir tree and he gave it to the people as a symbol of life. In the 16th century Martin Luther, the German reformer, cut down a fir tree and took it home in the December of 1940. In the middle of the 19th century, Queen Victoria’s husband the German born Prince Albert introduced the Christmas tree into England. Woolworths have been doing the same ever since.

Christmas cards originate in the middle of the 19th century when the first one was made by Sir Henry Cole, the founder of the Victoria and Albert museum.

Turkeys were introduced into Europe in the 18th century by an officer called Sebastian Cabot. He had been part of an expedition to the New World. This native South American bird was called a turkey because it was popularised by merchants from that country.

Most of our Christmas customs do not have Christian origins.

But does this mean that we shouldn’t celebrate Christmas? Not in my opinion, for the following three reasons.

1. Christmas is part of our culture

Most people are completely unaware of the origins of Christmas. That’s not why people observe it. Therefore what it represents today has little to do with where it comes from. If we were being cynical we’d suggest that Christmas has to do with materialism. But that’s just an inherent danger and not the reason we celebrate it. I think that in most people’s minds Christmas is about with families, generosity and rest. Christians are all for those things and so we can be positive about Christmas. And there seems to be an increasing appreciation that Christmas is a Christian festival even if they stop short of acknowledging that it’s all about Jesus Christ. I thought it was striking that our school Christmas play this year was the Nativity and not something about Santa’s elves. Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights has been a vocal critic of our failure to acknowledge the significance of Christmas for fear of offending the religious sensitivities of those of other faiths. But as the article here points out those of other faiths are bemused by our culture’s reticence on this issue.

2. Christmas is an opportunity for the gospel

Many of us, and our unbelieving friends, are adept at pushing spiritual issues to the periphery of life. But, bombarded and intoxicated by the festive spirit at Christmas we’re especially susceptible to the invitation to church! Friends seem to be willing to come at this time of year. There’s something unthreatening and perhaps familiar about a carol service. Far from being an opportunity to abuse people’s vulnerability, it’s an opportunity for unbelievers to consider the big issues of life. Christmas can bring us face to face with the spiritual. In thinking about the birth of a baby we’re thinking about the birth of our saviour. And so we’re asked to consider why we need saving, what we need saving from, what are we saved for, how are we saved and so on. It’s hard not be enthusiastic about a seasonal celebration that gets people to hear that. 

3. Christmas is especially significant for Christians

Christians get the best of both worlds. Like everyone else we can enjoy the emphases of families, generosity and rest. But we also get to remember the birth of our saviour. This makes it all the more meaningful. It’s a great opportunity to take some time out with the family, repair some bridges and invest some time in those for whom we have responsibility. It’s a great opportunity to encourage ourselves and our children not only to think about what they’ll get but what they’ll give. And it’s a great opportunity to catch up on some sleep, recover from the last term’s activities and recharge the batteries ready for the rigours of the spring! But it’s also a time to be lost in wonnder at the profound mystery of the incarnation. It is an incredible thing that God became man to live, die and be raised as our eternal saviour.

May this, and not the vicar’s proposed forthcoming campaign to ban Christmas, be our ever increasing preoccupation this Christimas. Merry Christmas.