The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

by Craig L. Blomberg

The reliability of the Gospels is under attack. Skeptics seek to undermine the story of Jesus Christ by saying we cannot really trust the Gospel. "They were not written by eye-witnesses," "They contradict each other," "They have historical errors." Those who have not studied this subject may be caught off-guard and begin to lose the footing of their faith.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Religion, Biblical Studies, History, Nonfiction

Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

About the author

Dr. Craig Blomberg joined the faculty of Denver Seminary in 1986. He is currently a distinguished professor of New Testament.

Dr. Blomberg completed his Ph.D. in New Testament, specializing in the parables and the writings of Luke-Acts, at Aberdeen University in Scotland. He received an MA from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a BA from Augustana College. Before joining the faculty of Denver Seminary, he taught at Palm Beach Atlantic College and was a research fellow in Cambridge, England with Tyndale House.

In addition to writing numerous articles in professional journals, multi-author works and dictionaries or encyclopedias, he has authored or edited 20 books, including The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Interpreting the Parables, commentaries on Matthew, 1 Corinthians and James, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation, Christians in an Age of Wealth: A Biblical Theology of Stewardship, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions, Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions, Preaching the Parables, Contagious Holiness: Jesus' Meals with Sinners, and Handbook of New Testament Exegesis.

Reviews

[Kyrah · Rating 5 out of 5]

BART EHRMAN REFUSED TO DEBATE CRAIG BLOMBERG AND I JUST FIGURED OUT HOW TO USE BOLD FORMATTING ON GOODREADS

I Finished Reading about some weeks ago but didn't get a Chance to Review this Book. It's very Good Book for any People having Doubts for the reliability of the Gospel. Now at days pseudo Scholars like Dan Mcclellan like to Confuse the masses, with making them think the Gospels are 0% Reliable and All corrupted and filled with contradictions and stuff Jesus never said. And that Just not True, as this book shows. As it is simply impossible for all the disciples to Immediately forget jesus's teaching as soon as he left. Like they had their mind wiped or something.

I would Say the Bible is at least 70% preserved and If you get 70% on a Test in Canada that means you Passed and can Graduate so It's good enough for me. It's not like they got their mind wiped. And It's not like you have to believe the Bible 100% preserved to be christian, as religious scholars also agree some stuff might not be original. This is not reason to become an Atheist. Plus If your really like a "Bart Ehrman Type" that Goes "No it has to be 1000% the original and preserved straight from the mouth of jesus or else I'll become an Atheist" and Then Honestly just become a Muslim instead. but people like these Won't Joe cause I know your just angry at God, Like Bart Ehrman being Angry God made him Bald.

Any way there's a reason Bart Ehrman AND Dan Mclennan Refused to Debate, More on the Book I'm Glad of One Mayor Bloomberg's cousin Wrote this book and used his family money for good, although Isn't the Blomberg Family Jewish? If anything This should more legitimacy to the Book Since it can't be Biased.

[Michael K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I has been stated over the years that most freshmen college students who start their collegiate studies lose their faith by the begining of their sophmore year. Mostly because they are unprepared to defend their faith, in any situation. We as parents are charged with training up our children to not just teach them right from wrong, but the intricacies of defending what they believe, not because we believe it but why we believe it. We are also charged to challenge them to question and study and research the finer points of contention.

Craig Blomberg goes through, rather meticulously I might add, the points of trustworthiness of the Gospels themselves. We can extrapolate from his arguments and points of fact that the Bible, as a whole, is also as trustworthy just from the point that the various books of the Bible have been religiously handled and protected throughout the centuries. Anyone who says anything to the contrary has not read any of the chain of custodies of either the New Testament or the Old Testament. A definite book to have in your library to share with the family and discuss with them, even if they are small conversations; mas such tend to stick with a person enabling them to grasp hold of the points in small chunks.

[Chris Walker · Rating 2 out of 5]

"This research has self-consciously tried to avoid presupposing the infallibility of Scripture or the deity of Christ, but has merely attempted to follow the standard methods of historical enquiry."
The problem with this and many other books of its kind is that despite protestations like the one above (from the postscript) it comes as no surprise whatsoever that by the time the reader has made it this far, every conclusion that Prof Blomberg has drawn is consistent with a conservative, modernist, harmonising approach to reading the gospels. This is not surprising because it was signposted as far back as the first chapter, where Blomberg states:
"People may of course act inconsistently and choose to believe in God or Jesus 'in spite of' what seems to be inadequate historical evidence. But this is by definition irrational, and actually unchristian." So the Gospels must be historically reliable - presuppositions ahoy!
Having set his stall out in such a blatant fashion in the first chapter, all Blomberg has to do for the rest of the book is 'prove' that the Gospels are historically reliable texts, and that what some understand to be inconsistencies and errors in the texts are actually a matter of incorrect interpretation of the evidence.
To be fair to him, this is by no means an easy task, as there are so many issues to address in order to make the story hold together across Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And if anything is certain, it's that Prof Blomberg is a very capable scholar who has read widely and hunted high and low for evidence to support his view that the gospels are consistent and historically reliable. He fair-mindedly presents many of the arguments of sceptics and non-believers (or believers that don't agree with his line) at the beginnings of chapters before doing his best to explain why they are all wrong and to tidy up any scholarly loose ends.
Some people no doubt find all this heartening and can sleep soundly knowing that someone has figured out that there is a possible explanation for every inconsistency. Personally, I appreciated the effort put in and found much of it plausible. But I couldn't escape the feeling that all had already been concluded and that this wasn't a true inquiry. And some explanations just plain didn't work, including an attempt to harmonise the two contradictory accounts of the death of Judas that posited a scenario that was worthy of a B movie script.
In the end, this was published 30 years ago and there's no doubt that Gospel scholarship has moved on in that time. My worry is that books like this keep being cranked out to try and dampen down the doubts of believers, when for this doubting believer it appears more like an attempt to end the conversation. The reluctance to truly engage with the questions in a way that might allow for divergent answers in the end makes the answers that are produced a great deal less compelling.

[BJ Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a teacher of both Doctrine and Apologetics classes at the high school level, I found Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels to be an absolutely essential addition to my toolkit. Although it is definitely at a reading level where I wouldn't recommend it as a textbook, there is plenty to glean from it to help prepare them for the years ahead. Frankly, many freshman college students seem unprepared for the academic gauntlet, and much in this book can serve as an excellent foundation to bolster their confidence. Blomberg lays out the case for the trustworthiness of the Gospels as historical documents, a starting point that is crucial since the entire claim of Christianity is the person and work of Jesus Christ. If the gospels are how we know Him, then a lot hinges on the veracity of those accounts. If we can trust the Evangelists, then we can trust their testimony about the preeminent authority of Jesus in all matters of life, from ethics to the afterlife.

Blomberg does a remarkable job of interacting with a vast breadth of modern scholarship, surveying everything from traditional Synoptic Problem debates to newer methods like form criticism, redaction criticism, and reader-response criticism. The book balances the popular with the academic, demonstrating that viewing the Gospels as history is a perfectly reasonable and justifiable belief. One of the major hurdles Blomberg addresses is the false assumption that ancient documents must measure up to modern, hyper-skeptical interpretive standards—a stance that tends to presume the Scriptures are false until a near-miraculous piece of evidence proves otherwise. He argues, quite convincingly, that the burden of proof should actually fall on the skeptic who denies historicity, given that the Gospels are ancient biographies written to record actual events. This insight alone is worth the price of admission, although I have to say, if I approach a new book assuming it's bad until proven otherwise, my reading list is going to be shorter than my students' attention spans.

The work systematically tackles the most significant challenges to Gospel reliability, beginning with the problem of supernatural claims and the alleged discrepancies in the Synoptics and John. Blomberg argues that a belief in miracles doesn't destroy the integrity of scientific methodology, only its sovereignty—a distinction that is vital for apologists. He deftly shows that apparent contradictions are not actually true falsehoods, but rather the result of the Evangelists' legitimate ancient practices, like paraphrasing material, arranging stories topically, or offering cultural clarifications. Furthermore, he strengthens his case by examining a cumulative mountain of extra-Biblical evidence, citing Jewish, Greco-Roman, and even other early Christian sources to corroborate the core claims about Jesus. The fact that the books were also "religiously handled and protected throughout the centuries" just adds to their integrity; the chain of custody here is cleaner than my kitchen counter after a deep clean.

In conclusion, the book presents a thorough and compelling case for the Gospels' reliability, synthesizing hundreds of researched defenses. While some of Blomberg’s defensive arguments are stronger than others—I might quibble slightly with the application of the criteria of embarrassment as a sole defense for miracles—his overall methodology and systematic approach are a powerful reinforcement for confidence in the Scriptures. He successfully achieves his goal of bringing the academic debate to a wider readership, providing a strong, non-theological case for the historicity of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is definitely a book to have on your shelf.

[Bob O'Bannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

It has always seemed to me that the reliability of the Scriptures is absolutely essential to show in any effort to defend the Christian faith, and there is no better place to start than with the gospels. If the gospels are reliable, then we can trust what they say. And since the gospels say that Jesus Christ is the son of God who came into the world to save sinners; was crucified, died and buried; and on the third day rose from the dead, then Jesus must truly possess preeminent authority in all the matters to which he speaks. And since Jesus speaks definitively in the gospels about the existence of God, the reality of the afterlife, sexual ethics, and the authority of the Old Testament, among many other things, then we have just about everything we need to answer the big questions in life. But it all begins with the question of whether we can trust the Gospel accounts to begin with, and that’s what Bloomberg demonstrates quite convincingly in this book.

One of the big hangups for many biblical critics is that they expect an ancient document like the Bible to measure up to modern interpretive standards. They also tend to assume the Bible must be false unless proven otherwise by some near miraculous piece of evidence. But in fact we should approach the scriptures in the opposite way, assuming they are trustworthy until proven false (p.240f). Getting past these two false assumptions will go a long way in giving one confidence in the Scriptures.

I would not call this an upper level scholarly work, but Blomberg does interact extensively with the academy, so it’s actually a nice balance between a popularly written work and something more academic.

(NOTE: because it did not serve my purposes for reading this book, I skipped the chapter on problems in the gospel of John.)

[John Weis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Blomberg surveys hundreds of excellently argued, meticulously researched defenses of the Gospels, interacting with both liberal and conservative scholarship, to demonstrate the view of the Gospels as history is a reasonable, justifiable belief.

Blomberg begins by surveying various modern literary criticisms and hermeneutics (form, redaction, reader-response, etc.) before moving on to the problem of supernatural claims in the miracles and the Resurrection. Next, he explores the alleged issues in the Synoptics before moving on to John’s Gospel. Finally, he explores the attestations of Jesus found in extra-Biblical histories and examines apocryphal sayings compared to the Gospels. In the second edition, Blomberg has provided two very brief appendices on the helpful contributions of archaeology and the very limited challenge of textual criticism on the question of historicity.

As challenging as it is, Blomberg’s work is substantially more rewarding, giving the reader additional confidence that the portrait of Jesus contained in the Gospels is no mere fiction. Though well-structured, each chapter builds convincingly, especially as Blomberg begins to show that if the modern critical methodologies are applied, the question of historicity is a very logical conclusion (a most fitting way to conclude, by returning to some of the tools introduced in the first chapter!).

[Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely helpful overviews of the development of gospel criticism, the positive contributions critics have made, and responses to challenges raised against the texts' reliability. Especially noteworthy is the final chapter, which illustrates why the gospels' general reliability ought to be accepted even according to skeptical methodology. The discussions are nowhere near as detailed as they could be, but plenty of fuller works are cited in the footnotes.

[Brian Jay Kane · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Lauren K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summary

In The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Blomberg examines the Gospels’ reliability as historical documents, temporarily ignoring their theological value. As Blomberg explains, scholars have traditionally focused on differences between Gospels and considered their levels of history and myth. Additionally, scholars have used source criticism to identify the Gospels’ information sources: most scholars label Mark as the earliest Gospel, claiming that Matthew and Luke used Mark, an unknown sayings document called Q, and other sources for material.

As Blomberg notes, new approaches to Gospel study have arisen in the past century. Form criticism identifies passages’ genre and accuracy of transmission, while redaction criticism studies how Gospel authors adjusted their source information. Other scholars treat the Gospels as midrash, examining their relationship to the Old Testament. Finally, literary criticism examines the Gospels as literature: narrative criticism identifies passages’ structure, deconstructionism reveals interpretative limitations, and reader-response criticism asserts the difficulty in finding authorial intent. While skeptics use these approaches to undermine the Gospels’ historicity and meaning, these tools can actually confirm the Gospels’ reliability and explain their differences.

Next, Blomberg considers whether miracle stories undermine the Gospels’ historicity. Skeptics reject miracles as unscientific, improbable, and anomalous. However, if Jesus did not perform miracles, why did the Gospels quickly invent miracle stories? The Gospels’ uniqueness demonstrates that they did not borrow stories from other sources. Meanwhile, Jesus’ miracles fit with his kingdom message. Jesus’ resurrection—which is confirmed by his empty tomb, Jews’ belief in bodily resurrection, and Paul’s early testimony—makes his other miracles plausible.

After resolving the problem of miracles, Blomberg considers apparent discrepancies in the synoptic Gospels: the synoptics possess unique emphases, not true contradictions. The authors paraphrase material while preserving the core: they adopt unique summary terms, offer theological or cultural clarification, use synecdoche, or record limited details. Meanwhile, they arrange material topically and omit or combine details or stories. Like other ancient works, the Gospels preserve only speeches’ gist, sometimes incompletely. Without contradiction, they note similar but distinct events, list alternative but valid names, or cite only one person in a group.

Blomberg then examines John’s distinctive content, theology, arrangement, and style. John does include material that is found in, is similar to, or complements material in the synoptics, while confirmed historical details corroborate John’s reliability. Even when he develops theology, John merely makes the synoptics’ undertones explicit, rather than inventing new ideas. Meanwhile, John includes traditions not found in the synoptics to give a fuller picture of Jesus’ ministry and to clarify its chronology, including details in the passion narratives. While he maintains a distinct writing style, John does not ultimately contradict the synoptics.

All four Gospels cohere with historical facts; apparent errors are resolved by studying the nuances of historical allusions. While church fathers cite the Gospels as reliable sources, Greco-Roman and Jewish works confirm that Jesus existed as a sage, miracle-worker, and object of worship. Even the heretical and historically errant Nag Hammadi documents and apocrypha view the Gospels as reliable. Finally, other New Testament books allude to Jesus’ teachings and confirm his death and resurrection. Therefore, external sources confirm the Gospels’ reliability.

Overall, because the Gospels are ancient biographies aiming to record history, the burden of proof falls on skeptics who deny passages’ historicity. Meanwhile, criteria of authenticity—multiple attestation, Palestinian similarity, coherence, and plausibility—confirm the Gospels’ material. Archaeological evidence corroborates historical claims, while textual criticism verifies accuracy in transmission. Thus, Blomberg concludes that the Gospels are historically reliable. 

Analysis

Blomberg’s Historical Reliability of the Gospels offers an excellent defense of the Gospels’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Blomberg comprehensively reviews a range of issues, presenting a cumulative case for the Gospels’ trustworthiness. Indeed, he addresses philosophical objections by considering the possibility of miracles, he incorporates historical evidence outside the New Testament by citing extrabiblical sources that mention Jesus, and he examines the Gospels themselves by studying their alleged contradictions. Blomberg’s comprehensive approach to examining the Gospels presents a compelling case for their accuracy.

One of Blomberg’s greatest strengths is his systematic review and insightful interaction with the evidence. For example, rather than simply asserting that certain principles help scholars resolve the Gospels’ alleged contradictions, Blomberg actually applies these principles by examining and resolving numerous discrepancies among the Gospel accounts. Similarly, rather than just citing generic historical conclusions from a group of extrabiblical sources, Blomberg examines relevant sources individually. He provides historical background for each source before referring to and often quoting specific information from that source. By actually working through the data of alleged contradictions and extrabiblical sources, Blomberg provides insightful support for his conclusions.

One critique of Blomberg’s work is that he primarily takes a defensive approach to arguing for the Gospels’ reliability. In each chapter, he typically begins by considering objections to the Gospels’ reliability: for example, he considers the claims that accounts recording miracles must necessarily be false, or that John’s numerous distinctions make it historically suspect. Next, Blomberg seeks to refute these objections; for example, he demonstrates the unlikelihood of the Gospel authors inventing miracle stories so soon after Jesus’ life. Finally, Blomberg then turns the conversation around to argue that the Gospels actually possess great strengths in that particular area of concern. For example, Blomberg argues that John’s distinctives independently corroborate and supplement details found in the synoptic Gospels, confirming the Gospels’ overall reliability. Blomberg’s approach certainly merits some praise: he demonstrates that apparent problems with the Gospels can actually be turned around to strengthen the case for their reliability. However, his consistently defensive approach may lead one to believe that proponents of the Gospels are always merely responding to attacks, rather than presenting positive arguments. Blomberg could have strengthened his approach by beginning some of his chapters with a positive case and evidence for the Gospels’ reliability. Gospel defendants should be able to offer an offensive case, not just a defensive response and counterargument.

For example, Blomberg could have presented a positive case for the Gospels’ reliability by considering the realm of archaeology. Apart from a few brief citations of archaeological findings scattered across his book, Blomberg devotes a mere six pages to archaeology in an appendix, noting that this discipline does not contribute much to the question of the Gospels’ historical reliability. Granted, archaeology is less relevant than other disciplines to the Gospels’ overall accuracy. However, while archaeological discoveries do not prove the Gospels’ reliability, they do confirm historical facts mentioned in the Gospels, supporting aspects of the Gospels’ accuracy. If the Gospels are accurate in reporting historical details confirmed by archaeology, then it becomes more probable that they are also accurate in reporting Jesus’ sermons and deeds. Thus, Blomberg could have strengthened his argument by examining archaeological support for the Gospels as well. Nevertheless, Blomberg still presents a thorough and compelling defense of the Gospels’ reliability as historical documents.

[Lee Harmon · Rating 4 out of 5]

In an era when it’s trendy to question everything written in the Bible, here’s a scholarly exception. Blomberg is a conservative who isn’t content to found his faith on faith alone. After a run-down of the latest methods of Biblical analysis, he tackles three primary “problems” for scholarly believers:

[1] Miracles, and the problem of credibility. This may be Blomberg’s weakest argument, where he is reduced to concluding that if the resurrection really happened, then surely none of the other stories are that incredible!

[2] Contradictions within the three Synoptic Gospels. Perfect harmonization is an unreasonable expectation, and even if errors do exist (Blomberg does not admit to any, but confesses the possibility) then that may explain some of the apparent contradictions.

[3] The problem of John’s Gospel. What are we to make of this maverick writing? It seems to argue against the Synoptics at every turn, and repeatedly insists upon eyewitness testimony. Blomberg’s take (which I’m oversimplifying) is basically, “Let John be John;” the apparent contradictions are not severe enough to discredit either John or the Synoptics.

Blomberg then discusses the Jesus tradition outside the Gospels. What do the remaining books in the New Testament say about Jesus? What do the extra-canonical writings say? What do non-Christians say? He concludes that they reinforce the Gospel story.

So are the Gospels reliable history? Some Christians would affirm this merely because their doctrine of the inspiration of scripture requires them to, but Blomberg believes the Gospel story can stand on its own. He finds it neither a slam-dunk for or against historical reliability, but rather a topic deserving of serious scholarship, and certainly not a barrier to conservative Christian faith.

[Greg Baughman · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an okay book (3.5 stars). A surprisingly quick read, Blomberg's project is to show the historical reliability of the Gospels using accepted scholarly historical methodology. He does make clear and fairly convincing arguments, but this book is unlikely to convert the skeptic. That really isn't the intention of the book. He hopes to show that the Gospels are worth taking seriously as reliable sources of history. He does not get bogged down in debates about inerrancy and argues that some minor errors in incidentals do not discredit the Gospels as historically reliable (though he does not think such errors exist). I think he is most successful in demonstrating that the position of more Conservative NT scholars is not less rigorous in methodology (at time, perhaps, it is more so), and that the these arguments should be engaged instead of dismissed out of hand. One brief section that may prove helpful more widely is his final section in which he deals with the NT textual criticism of Ehrman. This portion is brief, but shows (rather convincingly) that Ehrman's project is philosophical and in no way historical.

[Casey Sudduth · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Summary

In this work, Blomberg surveys a broad range of topics related to the reliability of the Gospels. In his discussion regarding harmonization efforts between different Gospel accounts, Blomberg argues that both details and broad strokes can be defended as reliable, and that even a few minor errors, if they exist, would not call into question Gospel reliability as a whole. After a discussion of Gospel source material, Blomberg concludes that the Gospel accounts are rooted in early material that is likely from a time when people who personally knew Jesus were still alive. Blomberg also surveys different types of literary criticism that have been used to contest the historical validity of the Gospels, but he ultimately decides that these methods can be used to bolster our confidence in the Gospels if they are used appropriately.

Blomberg then turns to a variety of different issues related to historical reliability. On miracles, many scholars deny the possibility of historicity in miracle narratives, but Blomberg responds that the validity of the resurrection of Jesus would make all of the miracles possible, at least in theory. Regarding supposed contradictions between the accounts, Blomberg proposes solutions to many of the most contentious passages, and also that the Gospels compare quite favorably to differing accounts about other ancient historical figures. Blomberg devotes special attention to John, which has been challenged to a degree even further than the Synoptics. He concludes that even if John is written differently, it is still difficult to argue that it is not concerned with presenting accurate historical information, a conclusion that more and more scholars are coming to agree with. Blomberg then turns to Jesus material outside the Gospels, both inside and outside the New Testament, and concludes that these sources ultimately lend credibility to the fuller portraits of Jesus found in the Gospels.

Blomberg finished the book by discussing the genre of the Gospels — historical biographies that intend to record historical truth — and the criteria of historical authenticity that ought to be used to evaluate the material in this genre. After looking at some specific examples, he proposes that even those who come to the Gospels with a skeptical approach might be persuaded that the Gospels contain significant historical material on the bases of these criteria.

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Analysis

Blomberg offers a useful overview of many of the most important and contentious issues in recent scholarship regarding the reliability of the Gospels. It might be argued that this work is broader than it is deep, but Blomberg’s depth is difficult to question, even in this survey work. He points frequently to other resources that take the discussion further than space allows in this book, and on occasion these works are his own; it is evident that he is distilling substantial familiarity with the topics at hand into a digestible size that is more appropriate for this project.

Perhaps my favorite parts of the book were the various “case studies” or test cases that he offered. In various situations, Blomberg would make a statement about a particular literary method, or a particular harmonization, or a particular criterion of historicity, and then show how that statement applies to an actual passage in the Gospels to make his point more forcefully. Through these test cases and examples, Blomberg’s work takes the theoretical concepts of this discipline and offers practical examples of how to defend Gospel reliability in a particular passage. These examples are valuable as informed looks at the most controversial passages, but also as models for engagement on other passages not discussed.

Because of the broad nature of the book, I did struggle at times to feel flow, or overall cohesion. Ultimately, yes, it is clear that on the variety of issues discussed, they all work together in a case for defending the reliability of the Gospels. But at times, I did feel as though I was being pulled through a collection of largely unrelated areas of study: straight from an often theological chapter on miracles, into the depths of historical method on Gospel contradictions and answers in the next. Looking back, the order of the chapters does make sense, but I think Blomberg could’ve done more to explain his reasoning for the order of the book and how the pieces support each other. The chapters at times felt more like standalone units than a cumulative whole. Even so, Blomberg did successfully cover the most important issues for this discipline, and he made a strong case that the Gospels should be seen as trustworthy.

It’s also interesting that Blomberg chose to place his discussion of genre and criteria of historicity at the very end of the book. I’m inclined to prefer Craig Keener’s approach, that genre considerations most appropriately come at the beginning of the historical investigation. This way, we have a better understanding of what genre and audience expectations are before we read the text, and we are less likely to misinterpret the material or miss the key emphases or intentions that would’ve most likely been relevant to the original readers. If two readers are in agreement that the Gospels generally intend to share historical information, but one approaches the text through modern historical lenses and the other through ancient lenses, it is likely they will understand the texts very differently. An appropriate understanding of both is important in pursuit of historical truth. In an updated version of this book, I would like to see the material in this chapter moved significantly earlier, and also include a bit more comparison with other ancient biographies to show how favorably the Gospels compare. The leg-work of this study has been taken care of in Craig Keener’s new book Christobiography, and that material would serve as a nice foundation upon which Blomberg could build in defending particular biblical passages from objections.

[E · Rating 5 out of 5]

Evangelical scholarship at its best. Blomberg deals with it all: form criticism, redaction criticism, miracles, supposed contradictions between the gospels, testimony from non-canonical sources, burden of proof, etc. etc. etc.

Really, it's much harder to prove the gospels true than to prove them false. But truly no one has been able to do either one beyond a shadow of a doubt. All you can do is look at the evidence and see what is most plausible. And that is precisely what Blomberg does. Even the most liberal critics believe Jesus lived and taught. But what about all the details? Blomberg looks at all of this. His goal is to provide reasonable explanations for the content of the gospels. And in that he has greatly succeeded. No one can dismiss his arguments. You can challenge them, but you must consider them.

[Sanjuro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the best book I've read on the reliability of the Gospels. I find Blomberg to be one of the more reasonable conservative scholars writing today. Even with that, I found his tone more apologetic than I think he intended (judging from his post-script where he seemed to think he wasn't so), and I found some of his discussions lacking engagement with important counter arguments among scholars (for example, he never engages with Mark's framing method in regard to the fig tree episode, which is probably the best explanation there is). The first 100 pages or so are really helpful, in terms of simply laying out the issues regarding Gospel's scholarship - the books settles in to standard apologetic procedure from then on, but overall the arguments are lucid and helpful, and the book is structured well and fairly accessible to most readers. A solid, standard work.

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this book up because I was interested in the topic and at first glance it looked like a good read. So glad I got it. The book is comprehensive well written and approachable for those without Ph.D.s but still interested in academic topics. I thought Bloomberg did a great job stating both sides of arguments so the reader could understand the fuller context, and explained his rationale for focusing on certain subjects while brushing over others. For being such a long book, I felt it was an easy, palatable read. I finished the book eager to read more (and with the numerous references I have a ready list) and encouraged and confident about the historical reliability of the Bible. I'd definitely recommend to others interested in this and might go back to it for future reference.

[Paul O · Rating 5 out of 5]

In his book, The Historical Reliability of the Gospel, Dr. Craig L. Blomberg examines the various methods of historical criticism that have been applied to the Gospels and draws the conclusion that the substantial body of literature supports the historicity of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
In chapter 1, Blomberg surveys the traditional approaches to reliability employed throughout the history of the Church. The first seventeen centuries of Christian reflection were on how to harmonize the testimony of the various Evangelists and explain the apparent contradictions between the parallel accounts. However, the harmonization of the Gospels became suspect with the dawn of the Enlightenment, and the Bible was treated more and more as human literature, making it easier to assume they contained errors like those found in any other ancient book. In the past two centuries, Gospel scholarship has focused on the literary relationship between the Synoptics and the hypothetical document of Q.
Chapter 2 discusses “modern scholarship” and the developments in Gospel scholarship in the last century. Blomberg explores the merits and flaws of form, redaction, and midrash criticism. He draws the conclusion that although these methods offer valuable exegetical insights when stripped of their biases against the historical reliability of the Gospels, their overall claim that the Gospels are a mixture of reliable history and imaginative embellishment are unjustified.
Chapter 3 addresses the unique problems associated with the miracle stories in the Gospels. The major concern in this chapter is to show the reasonableness of believing, not in all alleged miracles, but in the particular miracles recorded in the Gospels. Blomberg makes the case that the miracle accounts must be viewed as lies, legends, or history; and if they are lies or legends, the Christian claim is a lie. However, much recent scholarship has served to strengthen the view that miracles are historical.
Chapters 4-5 consider some of the most significant apparent contradictions among the Gospel parallels by looking at several seeming discrepancies among the Synoptics and then examining the distinctive questions raised by John. Blomberg contends that most of the striking dissimilarities between various Synoptic parallels can be reconciled by proposals that readily concede that the Evangelists freely reworded and rearranged the traditions they inherited, but not to the extent that the Gospels should be considered historically unreliable. John writes more like a Greek dramatist than the other Synoptic authors but his attention to details of chronology and geography makes a case for his Gospel’s historicity.
Chapter 6 deals with the evidence for Jesus’ life and teachings outside the Gospel tradition in contemporary Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, in other Christian literature, and the other New Testament writings. Blomberg presents Jesus’ portrayal in these other texts and draws the conclusion that texts outside the Gospels reinforce confidence in their historical reliability.
Chapter 7 consolidates findings of previous chapters and outlines a method for dealing with the details of the Gospel tradition that have not been discussed such as the genre of the Gospels, burden of proof, and criteria of authenticity. Blomberg concludes that the Gospels should be evaluated with the same type of historical scrutiny as other ancient writings and that they stand up to this scrutiny admirably and may be trusted as historically reliable. It is unfair to begin historical inquiry by superimposing a theological interpretation over it but it is equally unfair to ignore the theological implications that arise from it.
One major strength of this book is Dr. Blomberg’s concise and accessible summary of the scholarship in the field of the Gospels. In his conclusion, Blomberg writes that the “aim of this book” is to bring the academic debate to a wider readership, which I believe he does well. The bibliography is fifty six pages and Blomberg does a great job summarizing the scholarship of others and provides a fair evaluation of methods for the historical study of the Gospels. Blomberg approaches the Gospels as a historian, not as a theologian, and the amount of sources that he uses demonstrates that a strong case can be made for the historicity of the Gospels without a theological appeal.
Although Dr. Blomberg builds a strong case for the historicity of the Gospel, I found his argument using the criteria of embarrassment as a defense of miracles relatively weaker than the other defenses he makes. In chapter 3, Blomberg makes the case that the miracle accounts in the Gospels are reliable and makes a strong argument against various dissenting objections, such as the scientific, philosophical, historical, and parallelism objections. However, when making the case for the historical reliability of reanimation accounts in the Gospels, namely the raising of Lazarus, Blomberg makes the case that the inclusion of dramatic details that are potentially embarrassing to Jesus adds to the credibility of the reanimation account. Blomberg lists Jesus delaying his departure for Bethany, Martha and Mary’s rebuke of Jesus for his tardiness, and Jesus’ display of strong emotions as examples of these dramatic details. However, the inclusion of dramatic and embarrassing details are not necessarily indicators of reliable history. In fact, these types of details can be seen as common characteristics and storytelling devices in fiction. Therefore, although Blomberg makes a strong cumulative case for the miracle accounts in the Gospels, the criteria of embarrassment is a weaker argument relative to the others that he makes.

[Geoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent overview that captures the best and most recent scholarship concerning the historical reliability of the gospels. Amidst extreme views on each side, this judicious evaluation of the data confirms a conservative position without polemic or dogmatism. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in reviewing the vast scholarship on the reliability of the gospels. It is based on a scholarly series called "Gospel Perspectives" that, having read this book, I am now interested in reading for myself.

[Bryan McWhite · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good read, although, strangely, it simultaneously strengthened by confidence in the reliability of the gospel narratives and shook my confidence in the doctrine of inerrancy - mainly because he often relies on the clear discrepancies in the gospels (which are hard to square with inerrancy) to demonstrate that the authors have been truthful and have often written independently about the same things (i.e. they have not conspired to 'get their stories straight').

[Makailynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though scholars and skeptics accept the historicity of the existence of Jesus, the Gospels are still unjustly viewed as a collection of unreliable mythical documents. However, in The Historical Reliability of The Gospels, Craig Blomberg sets out to prove that the dissonance of the Gospels, the discrepancies in the precise details, and the testimonies of miracles do not prove that the Gospels are unhistorical. Blomberg caveats the book by proclaiming, "I wear my historian’s hat, not my Christian believer’s hat in this project". This is a crucial forewarning, as church tradition typically has clung to their devout belief in inerrancy as their main apologetic argument. While some believers may be content with believing, despite inadequate historical evidence, Blomberg remarkably emphasizes the importance of history. He argues that the foundation of Christianity hinges on the concept of God acting in history and that Christianity is a commitment to a God who has intervened in the history of humanity.

Without delay, Blomberg quickly dives into the traditional approaches to the Gospel, such as the long-debated Synoptic problem, while also including the complications of newer methods in Gospel study. Though form, redaction, literary, and narrative criticism may be a standard study method familiar to most Bible scholars and students, Blomberg also explores the uniqueness of Midrash criticism, deconstructionism, and reader-response criticism.

Furthermore, Blomberg tackles what may seem historically impossible to prove: miracles. As society has progressed, so has the allegiance to science and technology. It would appear that it is no longer possible for anyone to seriously believe the New Testament view of the world, as we now have primitive scientific understanding. However. Blomberg suggests that a belief in a miracle does not destroy the integrity of scientific methodology, only its sovereignty. Blomberg supports this argument by providing brief evidence for God’s role in the Big Bang and the intelligent design movement. Bloomberg ushers readers into the realm of philosophical and historical objections to miracles. In this heavily well-researched section, Blomberg demonstrates how the approach of Jesus to miracles is distinctly different from the 1st-century philosophical traditions and methods of witchcraft, exorcism, and rituals.

Additionally, Blomberg explores the contradictions among the Synoptics and the uniqueness of John. Through various Scriptural examples, Blomberg illustrates that though the theological perspectives are not identical, the four Gospels are more complementary than contradictory. Through extensive 1st-century writing and storytelling research, Blomberg gives readers a much-needed history lesson on paraphrasing and the process of representational changes to specific audiences. Moreover, Blomberg again is found with a quiver of resources when he justifies the Passion narrative with the historical overview of the Jewish Passover schedule and tradition. Blomberg then takes a step away from the Gospel text and corroborates their historicity by highlighting the testimonies of Jesus from non-Christian Greco-Roman and Jewish sources.

As an avid Biblical Academia reader, I found Blomberg's research and presentation of facts outstanding. The almost 60-page bibliography includes works from scholars of differing backgrounds and opinions, providing readers with a mountain of evidence for his argument. While I imagine Blomberg sought to answer new questions and not regurgitate the dozens of historical arguments already made for the Resurrection itself, I feel like a chapter on the resurrection would have made this book the go-to New Testament skeptic book. However, I did feel as though Blomberg thoughtfully presented counterarguments upon counter-counterarguments that ultimately would leave any Christian apologetic student’s palate satisfied.

Furthermore, Blomberg make the subject matter approachable and understandable for the average layperson. Whether you are a skeptic of the Gospels or a lifelong Christian, the information presented in this book is invaluable. For example, before reading I did not feel as confident explaining miracles. However, I now feel equipped to speak to the historical reliability of the Gospel miracles by presenting the differences in healing rituals and pagan witchcraft from the 1st-century.

Additionally, I have not seen a more unique approach to the Gnostic Gospels than what was presented in this book. I have struggled with the Gnostic Gospels for quite some time, but Blomberg thoughtfully demonstrated that the Gnostic texts might be a more helpful argument than we think. For instance, Blomberg suggests that though the New Testament Apocrypha has little overlap with the Gospels, it is significant that rather than denying the truth of the canonical accounts, the early Christian circles invented additional stories about Jesus to fill in the gaps. Secondly, it is essential to note that these new gnostic claims did not convince the ancient world, and they eventually fizzled out. If written falsely like the Gnostic Gospels, why didn’t the Gospels die too?

That is just a glimpse of the pressing questions Blomberg continues to propose and answer throughout every page. I highly recommend one add this to their library, as I’ll most likely be referencing it for the rest of my academic journey.

[Thomas Wells · Rating 5 out of 5]

Blomberg does a great job of sorting through centuries of debate concerning the reliability of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). He delves into the formation of the canon, the early church fathers and the pros and cons of different theories that attempt to explain the discrepancies in the Gospels. He treats the issue much more fairly than non-Christian scholars do.

[Mark Antonio Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent survey of the scholarship of the Gospels. Not an overly technical read and so a good choice for the layman.

[Jon Sorensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a hefty book, but not unapproachable for someone getting started on the topic of the Bible.

[C · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent treatment of the historicity of the Gospels, covering miracles, apparent contradictions, extrabiblical sources, and (briefly) textual criticism. This was a more difficult read than Blomberg's Can We Still Believe the Bible?

Blomberg says that "this research has self-consciously tried to avoid presupposing the infallibility of Scripture or the deity of Christ, but has merely attempted to follow the standard methods of historical enquiry" and "I neither presuppose nor argue for the complete inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration of Scripture, even just with the Gospels. … I wear my historian's hat, not my Christian believer's hat in this project."

I read this because it was recommended in The Case for Christ.

Notes
Traditional Approaches to the Reliability of the Gospels
Matthew was probably written in AD 60s; part may have been as early as 50s. Majority dates John to 90s; minority dates it to 60s. Because Jesus was crucified no earlier than AD 30, Gospels were written within 1-2 generations of events they record.

Newer Methods in Gospel Study

The short period of time between the actual events described (circa A.D. 27-30) and the time in which Mark wrote (circa A.D. 70-75 at the latest, and probably pre-70) distinguishes the Gospels from most other allegedly parallel processes of oral transmission in antiquity, which generally span several centuries. Eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry, including hostile ones, could easily have refuted and discredited the Christian claims during this period if they were in any way mistaken. Eyewitnesses interested in preserving testimony about the life of Christ and those who interviewed them could likewise readily have produced accurate history. Luke 1:2 claims access to precisely such testimony. And these eyewitnesses are hardly limited to the apostles; most of the characters who appear on the pages of the Gospels could have functioned in this fashion.

This relatively short span of time was probably even shorter than the forty-year maximum just noted … Additionally, as with all the disciples of the ancient Jewish rabbis, Jesus’ followers may well have privately kept written notes while passing along the tradition orally in public.

For those whose views of biblical inspiration border on the concept of divine dictation, these findings could prove disconcerting. But if inspiration means that God superinteded the processes of the formation of Scripture so that exactly what he wanted written appeared there (as suggested by 2 Pet. 1:21), then there is no problem.

There is every reason to believe that many of the sayings and actions of Jesus would have been very carefully safeguarded in the first decades of the church's history, not so slavishly as to hamper freedom to paraphrase, explain, abbreviate and rearrange, but faithfully enough to produce reliable accounts of those facets of Christ's ministry selected for preservation.

Yet most good teachers or preachers regularly repeat themselves … Jesus almost certainly used many of his short, proverbial sayings in several different contexts, and probably some of the parables that seem similar and yet very different can be explained in this way as well.

Miracles
Majority of miracles in Greek religion bear no resemblance to Jesus' (Greek miracles include humans talking to animals, transforming into other creatures, charming rocks and trees, sending their souls on journeys, etc.).

Before 2nd century there was no clear stereotype of a "divine man," and among those "divine men" of stories during or before Gospels, there was no consistent pattern of miracle-working.

If one accepts Jesus' teaching about his ushering in the kingdom of God, then one ought to accept the reality of his miracles. The two go hand in hand, since Jesus uses the miracles to authenticate his teaching.

The tradition of Jesus' miracles is more firmly supported by the criteria of historicity than are a number of other well-known and often readily accepted traditions about his life and ministry … if the miracle tradition from Jesus' public ministry were to be rejected in toto as unhistorical, so should every other Gospel tradition about him.

None of the ancient myths and stories of dying and rising gods refer to real human individuals known to have lived among the very people narrating their stories within their living memory. Instead, they are closely tied to the annual death and birth of seasonal vegetation.

No pre-Christian Jew anticipated the resurrection of one person, even the Messiah, in advance of the general resurrection. Greeks and Romans often believed in the apotheosis (divinization) of great humans, most notably the emperors, after their deaths, but this belief did not lead to claims of having seen these persons alive again in bodily form fellowshipping with them.

Apparent inconsistencies in resurrection accounts actually point to their early writing and truthfulness. If they had been written later, or edited, the apparent inconsistencies would have been ironed out.

Contradictions Among the Synoptics?
In ancient world it was common to paraphrase others' speech. Greek and Hebrew had no symbols for quotation marks, and historians and biographers didn't necessarily try to cite exact wording, and that was accepted as long as original meaning was maintained.

Gospels don't intend to give detailed itinerary of Jesus' ministry in chronological order. They frequently arrange passages in topical or thematic order instead.

One reason Gospels repeat Jesus' teachings may be that Jesus repeated His teachings on different occasions. If a writer knew that Jesus had said something similar on several different occasions, he would have felt free to follow the wording used once in describing Jesus' teaching on any of those occasions.

Difference about what items disciples should take (Matt 10:9-10; Mark 6:8-9; Luke 9:3) may be explained by Matthew having combined some of Jesus' instructions to the 12 with His instructions to the 72 (Matthew telescopes accounts elsewhere).

When Gospels appear to include 2 accounts of same event (e.g., feeding of 5,000 and feeding of 4,000, woman anointing Jesus), enough details differ between accounts to show that they were different events.

Possible explanations for Jesus' genealogies (Matt 1:2-17; Luke 3:23-38): 1) Matt gives Joseph's ancestry and Luke gives Mary's, and 2) Matt gives legal succession-list showing Joseph as legitimate heir to David's throne, and Luke gives Joseph's human parents and their family tree.

Partial reports are not inaccuracies.

Greek words sometimes translated as "now" or "then" often mean only "and," without implying temporal sequence.

Omissions of events or teachings are not inaccuracies.

Matt 19:9 and 5:32 spell out exception that Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 leave implicit. "Maxims and proverbs, general statements of principle requiring qualification … were common throughout the ancient Mediterranean." Followers and Hillel and Shammai both agreed on exception in Matthew, so Jesus (or Mark) could have safely presupposed it without fear of misunderstanding.

Common cultural expressions that don't mean what they literally say are not inaccuracies.

Compressing or telescoping a narrative is not inaccurate.

Parallels in multiple contexts may reflect Jesus' own repetition of the same teaching on different occasions.

Problems in the Gospel of John
Because John wrote after Synoptics, it's not surprising that he doesn't repeat much of what they contain (see John 20:30; 21:25).

Difference in how disciples were called may be difference between informal association and formal calling.

Difference in date of Last Supper may be due to Jews celebrating Passover on different days, or because there were several nights of Passover meals.

One must not assume that John intended to write the same kind of history as the Synoptics. [John] must be seen … to be a highly developed theological interpretation of the meaning of Jesus, quite unlike a factual selection of the things he did and said. … The alleged contradictions between John and the Synoptics begin to disappear upon closer scrutiny.

The Jesus-Tradition Outside the Gospels
Possible explanation of account of Judas' death: 1) Judas hanged himself (Matt) but rope broke and his body was ruptured by fall (possibly after beginning to decompose); 2) What priests bought with Judas' money (Matt) could be regarded as his purchase by their agency (Acts); 3) Field bought by priests (Matt) was one where Judas died (Acts).

Some ancient sources speak of Quirinius leading military expeditions in eastern provinces of Roman Empire around time of Jesus' birth, which could mean he had an official post in Syria. He could have been a joint ruler (Luke's word simply means "to rule" or "to lead") before his more formal term in office. Alternatively, Luke 2:2 could be translated "this census was before one under Quirinius." Romans counted inhabitants of Egypt every 14 years (and may have done so in other parts of empire), and one was done in AD 6-7, so previous one would have begin 9-8 BC. A census could have taken 2-3 years. Augustus refers to a census he ordered in 8 BC.

Though rest of NT includes few direct quotations from Gospels, it contains many allusions.

In Acts, nearly every sermon of Peter, Stephen, Philip, Paul refers to Jesus, showing that they were familiar with His life.

Luke wrote Luke and Acts, so it wasn't necessary for him to repeat details from Jesus' life in Acts.

Paul's writings show a fairly detailed knowledge of Jesus' life. Most of his letters predate writing of Gospels, so his awareness of Gospel events confirms that people knew about them before writing of Gospels.

Evidence shows James may be earliest of NT writings (mid-to-late 40s). If true, it shows how widely Gospel events were known even prior to writing of Gospels.

The external evidence for the Gospel traditions [rest of New Testament as well as early Christian and non-Christian writers] reinforces the confidence in their historical reliability.

Appendix B: Textual criticism and the Gospels
Only 2 variants anywhere affect more than a couple of verses. Only 11 involve even a full verse or 2. Consensus among textual critics is that modern critical editions of Greek NT have 97% of what original authors wrote (in text itself or footnotes). No Christian doctrine depends solely one one or more textually uncertain passages.

Longer ending of Mark and account of woman caught in adultery aren't original; "the oldest and most reliable copies do not contain them, and those manuscripts that do contain them display far more divergent versions of them than is true of any other comparable stretch of the Gospels."

Misquoting Truth by Timothy P. Jones is "an outstanding introductory-level refutation" of Bart Ehrman. More thorough works include Reinventing Jesus by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, and Missing Gospels by Darrel Bock.

[Ayame Crosley · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig L. Blomberg takes the approach looking at the Synoptic Gospels as historical documents. He studies Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in comparison how others have written different historical writings and used the tools to break down each book using these tools to show that the Synoptic Gospels are reliable. There are traditional approaches on how to study historical documents and he used these first to show how the gospels work together and where they do not work together. Blomberg goes back to the second-century Christian writers and looks at how they think the gospels work harmonious together then as the culture changed there were more skeptics that started to challenge the harmony of the gospels. Blomberg researches these skeptic writers to see both sides of the debate. He wanted to show even if there were minor contradictions that one cannot rule out the whole document. Through the debate, it was discussed that the gospel writers read each other’s works and pulled from each other including a hypothetical document called Q.
He then discusses the contradictions of the gospels and discusses if there is theological conflict, chronological problems, if anything is omitted, similar speeches and similar places and people. He breaks down each of these subjects and looks at the skeptic’s views then Blomberg discusses his research of how most of these problems are not relevant and why. He uses the tools to discuss these topics that many use to study historical documents.
Blomberg writes a chapter just focusing on the book of John. He does this because John is different than the other Gospels because of Jesus claiming his deity more than the other gospels and the material that John writes about. There are stories of Jesus that are not found in John but found it Matthew, Mark and Luke like Jesus’ baptism, the calling of the Twelve, etc. There are some incidents in John that are similar with Matthew, Mark and Luke. Blomberg breaks down the reasons why some stories were written just in the three gospels but in John they were not and visa versa.
Blomberg later looks at resources outside the Gospels to get historical reliable documents to show the Gospels being reliable. Some say there are little but that is not true from reading Blomberg’s book. He first looks at people and places during that time and see if they line up with the history of what is going on at the time. He even looks at the Old Testament to get evidence of people and locations. For example, who was the high priest at the time and the governor during Mary and Joseph’s life. Later he looks at testimonies of non-Christian writers and Jewish sources, and Josephus. Extra-Biblical Christian traditions were studied like Apostolic Fathers, Nag Hammadi library and New Testament apocrypha.
He ends the book with looking at the historical method again of how to look at the Synoptic Gospels and discusses any final questions since his purpose of this book is to look at the four gospels as reliable documents.
I really enjoyed reading this book. I particularly enjoyed how he wrote a chapter just studying the book of John and how it is different than the other three Synoptics. It is very different with Jesus being clearer about his deity. It helped that he wrote about the problems of John and made them clearer to understand how it is reliable even addressing the problems that skeptics see. I also liked reading the chapter about miracles. This part can be hard to write about to prove the reliability of the Gospels because miracles rarely happen but we read about miracles that Jesus performed in the Bible. He writes about the problem of credibility and how to look at the miracles scientific, historical and philosophical. I appreciate he broke it down in this way and addresses it. I am aware that skeptics might have issues more with miracles then other issues. I am glad he makes sure he addresses it. I learned a lot about how to look at documents historically and Blomberg did a good job writing about how to look at documents historically and comparing the Gospels to other writings. This was a great idea!
I wish Blomberg wrote a full chapter on Archaeology of the Gospels. I know he is not an expert in this study but he did touch on it a bit at the end of the book. It would have been nice to have more info on this because I think this can bring much proof of reliability when looking at historical archaeology.

[Stephen Sun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Craig L. Blomberg’s work The Historical Reliability of the Gospels is a well-researched, informative, and persuasive work. It provides a thoughtful approach to arguing the reliability of the Gospels by covering the main topics that are essential to building up a case for the trustworthiness of the Gospels. Each of these topics he explores in depth, providing ample evidence as well as addressing some of the main objections to each argument.
The book begins with discussion various approaches to establishing the reliability of the Gospels. He explains how a traditional approach focused on harmonizing the differences in between the Gospels, and understanding the connection between the Synoptics. He then moves on to a survey of newer approaches which have presented challenges to the historicity of the Gospels. These include form criticism, redaction criticism, the gospel as midrash, and literary criticism. He provides strengths and weaknesses through examples of each, concluding that some have strong biases, but when those are removed, they offer valuable insights. However, none provide any real challenge to the historicity of the Gospels.
He then begins to build his case, by tackling the most obvious questions a person would have regarding the reliability of the Bible.
He starts with the question of miracles. He tackles this topic in depth, devoting an entire chapter to defining what miracles are, and going through philosophical, historical, and scientific objections to the claims of miracles. He dwells on the resurrection in particular, the most central miracle to the Christian faith, and also one which happens to have strong historical context. If the resurrection is true, then miracles are certainly believable. And that is approachable through historical facts.
The next two chapters are studies of the Gospels in and of themselves. They focus first on the question of differences between the Synoptic Gospels themselves and secondly on the unique features of the Gospel of John. He is able to satisfactorily answer questions like “what do we make of the differences in details between the Synoptic Gospels”, and “why is the Gospel of John so different from the other three Gospels?” An oversimplified summation of his point would be that people like to broadly make this claim, but when you actually study specific passages you find that the differences are inconsequential, and really when compared to other sources or works, all four Gospels are far more similar than they are different.
This leads to a fascinating study of sources outside the Gospels that corroborate accounts of Jesus’s life and lend credibility to them. This includes both extra-biblical sources such as contemporary historians, Jewish and non-Jewish, who make references to Jesus, his death, and the behaviors of his followers. It also includes sources inside the Bible, such as other New Testament books which reference Jesus’s teachings or quotes from the Gospels, as if they were Scripture.
All of these points together sum up to create a compelling case, that Dr. Blomberg has condensed into a very readable and approachable work. It reads much like a conversation, and I find him anticipating the very questions I myself would have, or the objections I have heard brought up, and walking me carefully through a thoughtful approach to each of these inquiries.

What I appreciated most about the book was that Dr. Blomberg handled a breadth of the most important questions surrounding the reliability of the Gospels, and his treatment was very thorough in responding to possible objections. His treatment on miracles was well done in convincingly establishing that miracles can and should be approached in the context of historical analysis, despite those who would discount them from being studied historically. I also appreciated his work on demonstrating thoroughly that the Gospels really have no major differences between them.
If I had to point out one weakness, as a reader I sometimes felt that he moved too quickly through some of the objections raised against the Gospels and I felt that he could have done a slightly more thorough treatment of that.

[Zach · Rating 2 out of 5]

Blomberg takes great pains to claim an unbiased stance while looking at the historicity of the gospels, yet consistently tossed out critical objections with a mere offhand statement that the objection is weak and invalid without actually examining it, while simultaneously approaching “possible” convoluted or flawed solutions to objections as if they were obviously unassailable!

A highlight from the postscript says “Similarly, more radical critics regularly charge conservatives with concluding only what their beliefs about Jesus and the Bible already permit. This charge is also occasionally valid. Perhaps some will try to apply it to this book.” Earlier in the postscript he also admits that his conclusions that the Gospels can stand up to historical scrutiny admirably represents a “minority report” among biblical scholars worldwide. And no wonder it is a minority report, since he has done the very thing he supposedly set out not to do - Blomberg has provided a highly conservatively biased & apologetic work that does not reflect the majority of Biblical scholars, by his own admission.

He even makes a few weird attacks against those who do not accept his version of things, saying things like that some do recognize the strength of his case but still stand opposed because they “realize the changes in their lives they would need to make if they took the religious steps that follow logically from an acceptance of the Gospels’ message, and they are unprepared to make those changes.” (This is but one example from the postscript, a few others occurred as well throughout the book, but the general tenor of this and a few other statements like it is that some of those in disagreement are in rebellion against God rather than actually disagreeing that what the Gospels claim is the truth.)

The realization that Blomberg is in the minority, approaching with his own major presuppositions, and willing to engage in ad hominem attacks on the motivations of some who disagree brings everything in the previous 300 pages into question, and upon further inspection his methods as a historian are revealed as mostly being unsound, since what he is doing is not actually being a good historian, but an evangelical Christian apologist, assuming the evangelical Christian interpretation to be true and working from there.

I’ve been working through this as I work through doubts as an evangelical Christian. I cannot say my doubts were assuaged by reading it, nor that I recommend Blomberg as a resource.

[Stuart Fear · Rating 5 out of 5]

With an average of 4 footnotes per page and close to 60 page bibliography, you know this is not a book to be taken lightly. At times it comes across a lot more like a PhD Thesis rather than a book to fill in the hours on the bus to work.
The opening chapters of the book were a difficult read for someone like myself without any prior experience in examining the Gospels. It gives a full overview of traditional methods used to analyze the scriptures before moving onto the newer methods - these two chapters lay the foundations for the rest of the book.

Although I found the opening chapters quite a difficult read and at times a little frustrating, when the book moves into the main topic of breaking down of the scriptures it becomes a very compelling read.
It was by no means a book you can just skim through, there is a lot of information and at times you find yourself having to reread paragraphs.
Having said that, content wise it is filled with information you have probably never seen or heard anywhere else, and will provide you with perspectives you never previously considered.
Dr.Blomberg despite being a faithful believer, at no times becomes preachy or makes assumptions where the evidence does not point. He is impartial throughout the entire 300+ pages, and if no answers are conclusive he will honestly present that.

Overall a very good book, and I would definitely recommend to anyone questioning the historicity of the New Testament.

[John Pawlik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really great book! Wonderful intro into the issues of historicity, authorship, and authenticity of the four gospels and the events they record. It gives a deep dive into the recent history of scholarship that’s attempted to prove the inconsistencies in the gospels prove it’s unreliability. Blomberg carefully and skillfully displays that the appearing inconsistencies really don’t need to be so, and are better explained by differences in style and better comprehended with a bit of patience and diligence in the text.

Without painfully stretching unnecessary harmonies, Blomberg shows how to read the four gospels in the type of synthesis that the original authors and church communities likely did, as we have to make sense of the fact that they did not alter the different accounts but left them be!

Really great book, I would definitely recommend it if someone has cast doubt for you on the synthesis of the gospel accounts and how to make sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

[Terence · Rating 3 out of 5]

This effort is meant to make an impartial and logical analysis of the reliability of the Gospels.

It is quite academic and makes me think of the debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It is thorough and relevant for Christian scholars. For everyone else I'd recommend 'Can We Trust the Gospels' by Peter Williams instead.

[Matthew Hanson · Rating 1 out of 5]

In fairness, this is academic writing. I still think and learned in my finance career, that not effectively communicating to individuals not of my profession called into question my grasp of that technical material.

I found his framing of the various methods that historians use in assessing the Gospels useful.

All in all, the lack of clear writing obscures the value of the material.