What do you think?
Rate this book
Can We Trust the Gospels?
Is there evidence to believe the Gospels?
The Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John—are four accounts of Jesus’s life and teachings while on earth. But should we accept them as historically accurate? What evidence is there that the recorded events actually happened?
Presenting a case for the historical reliability of the Gospels, New Testament scholar Peter Williams examines evidence from non-Christian sources, assesses how accurately the four biblical accounts reflect the cultural context of their day, compares different accounts of the same events, and looks at how these texts were handed down throughout the centuries. Everyone from the skeptic to the scholar will find powerful arguments in favor of trusting the Gospels as trustworthy accounts of Jesus’s earthly life.
The Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John—are four accounts of Jesus’s life and teachings while on earth. But should we accept them as historically accurate? What evidence is there that the recorded events actually happened?
Presenting a case for the historical reliability of the Gospels, New Testament scholar Peter Williams examines evidence from non-Christian sources, assesses how accurately the four biblical accounts reflect the cultural context of their day, compares different accounts of the same events, and looks at how these texts were handed down throughout the centuries. Everyone from the skeptic to the scholar will find powerful arguments in favor of trusting the Gospels as trustworthy accounts of Jesus’s earthly life.
162 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2018
295 people are currently reading
2748 people want to read
About the author
Peter J. Williams
29 books60 followersDr. Peter Williams is the current Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge, UK. In addition, he serves as Affiliated Lecturer for the University of Cambridge and Honorary Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies at the University of Aberdeen. His research includes the early history of translation with particular focus on translation of the Bible and textual criticism. He resides in Cambridge with his wife and two children.
History:
Senior Lecturer in New Testament, University of Aberdeen, 2005-2007
Lecturer in New Testament, University of Aberdeen, 2003-2005
Research Fellow in Old Testament, Tyndale House, Cambridge, 1998-2003
Affiliated Lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge, 1998-2003
Research Assistant, the Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database Project, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, 1997-1998
History:
Senior Lecturer in New Testament, University of Aberdeen, 2005-2007
Lecturer in New Testament, University of Aberdeen, 2003-2005
Research Fellow in Old Testament, Tyndale House, Cambridge, 1998-2003
Affiliated Lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge, 1998-2003
Research Assistant, the Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database Project, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, 1997-1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 392 reviews
November 26, 2018
Excellent though concise guide to some really specific apologetic issues related to historicity and authenticity of the four Gospels -- things like geographic knowledge, use of names, cultural markers, etc. My only critique is that I wanted it to be longer. A couple of chapters in fact, I thought maybe I'd gotten a defective copy, that pages were missing. They were pretty short and ended rather abruptly. But what is here is great.
March 6, 2019
This is "a short book explaining to a general audience some of the vast amount of evidence for the trustworthiness of the four Gospels" (from the Preface).
Dr. Peter J. Williams is the principal of Tyndale House in Cambridge and served as the associate editor (with Dirk Jongkind) of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament (published in 2017). He is an expert in New Testament textual criticism and has spent much time with the early manuscripts of the Gospels. He is in an excellent position, then, to write a book such as this in order to help build up the faith of believers in the historical credibility and reliability of the Gospels.
Chapter 1 ("What Do Non-Christian Sources Say?") covers the testimony of non-Christian sources (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus) to Jesus and the first-century Christian movement.
Chapter 2 ("What Are the Four Gospels?") continues the discussion of ancient evidence for Jesus. If the previous chapter looked at the non-Christian sources, this chapter considers the most important Christian sources, namely, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Williams has two tables on p. 40 that invite an interesting comparison. Table 2.1 lists the main sources for our knowledge of the Emperor Tiberius (the Roman emperor under whose reign Jesus conducted his ministry and died and rose and again). Table 2.2 shows the main sources for our knowledge of Jesus (the four Gospels), comparing the amount of words and the earliest copies of our sources for both Jesus and Tiberius. Williams is seeking to put our sources for the historical Jesus in perspective: "The amount of text we have about Jesus is good relative to one of the best-known figures from antiquity" (p. 42).
Chapter 3 ("Did the Gospel Authors Know Their Stuff?") was my favorite chapter. In this chapter, Williams points out all the little details of personal names, place names, and cultural context in the Gospels which attest to their authenticity. Consider how difficult it would be for us to make up a fake biography about a historical figure who lived in a distant time, place, and culture and to be able to pull it off so that all the little details are correct. In this day and age, with the Internet at our fingertips that wouldn't be impossible, but we would still have to do intensive research. It is amazing, then, to consider all the little things the Gospel writers get right. Table 3.1 lists all the references to towns in Judea and the surrounding regions (e.g., Aenon, Arimathea, Bethphage, Bethsaida, Cana, Chorazin, etc.). Table 3.2 lists the various regions referred to in the Gospels (e.g., Abilene, Decapolis, Galilee, Idumea, Ituraea, Samaria, Trachonitis, etc.). Tables 3.3 and 3.4 list the various bodies of water and other place names like Solomon's Colonnade. I also liked the discussion of Palestinian Jewish names. The Gospels have a high degree of historical authenticity not shared by the apocryphal 2nd century gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, or the Gospel of Mary.
Chapter 5 ("Do We Have Jesus's Actual Words?") argues that the Gospels provide us with a reliable report of the words and teachings of Jesus. Even if many of them were translated later from Aramaic into Greek, the content was reliably passed on. The rabbis of the time passed on their teachings to their disciples who committed them to memory. This practice was no doubt taken up by the disciples who memorized the sayings of Jesus. (Williams doesn't mention this, but the appeal to rabbinic oral tradition as a model for understanding the transmission of the sayings of Jesus was famously made by Birger Gerhardsson. Although many critical scholars disagree, many conservative scholars find Gerhardsson's theory to be compelling, e.g., my doctoral advisor, Donald Hagner.)
Chapter 6 ("Has the Text Changed?") deals with the text of the Gospels. The previous chapter is about the oral stage, the transmission of the words of Jesus from Aramaic to the written Greek Gospels. This chapter is about the textual stage, the manuscript transmission of the written text of the Gospels. There is a widespread myth that the scribes who copied the manuscripts of the Gospels introduced massive errors a la the game of telephone. This area is a specialty for Williams, but he doesn't get overly technical and does a good job of showing that we have tremendous confidence in the text of the Gospels. In this section, Williams gives some inside information from his work on the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.
This is a great little book. It is so important to understand and believe that the Gospels are historically accurate and that the record of Jesus and his deeds and words that we have in our Bibles is not fiction or literary flights of fancy or myth but solid history of the most important person that the world has ever known, the Son of God incarnate who lived and died and rose again for us. I love the fact that it is short (140 pages excluding indices) and that it covers all the main points in an accessible and readable way. Our thanks go to Dr. Williams for producing this helpful work of apologetics, defending the historicity of our faith and its foundational documents.
Dr. Peter J. Williams is the principal of Tyndale House in Cambridge and served as the associate editor (with Dirk Jongkind) of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament (published in 2017). He is an expert in New Testament textual criticism and has spent much time with the early manuscripts of the Gospels. He is in an excellent position, then, to write a book such as this in order to help build up the faith of believers in the historical credibility and reliability of the Gospels.
Chapter 1 ("What Do Non-Christian Sources Say?") covers the testimony of non-Christian sources (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus) to Jesus and the first-century Christian movement.
Chapter 2 ("What Are the Four Gospels?") continues the discussion of ancient evidence for Jesus. If the previous chapter looked at the non-Christian sources, this chapter considers the most important Christian sources, namely, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Williams has two tables on p. 40 that invite an interesting comparison. Table 2.1 lists the main sources for our knowledge of the Emperor Tiberius (the Roman emperor under whose reign Jesus conducted his ministry and died and rose and again). Table 2.2 shows the main sources for our knowledge of Jesus (the four Gospels), comparing the amount of words and the earliest copies of our sources for both Jesus and Tiberius. Williams is seeking to put our sources for the historical Jesus in perspective: "The amount of text we have about Jesus is good relative to one of the best-known figures from antiquity" (p. 42).
Chapter 3 ("Did the Gospel Authors Know Their Stuff?") was my favorite chapter. In this chapter, Williams points out all the little details of personal names, place names, and cultural context in the Gospels which attest to their authenticity. Consider how difficult it would be for us to make up a fake biography about a historical figure who lived in a distant time, place, and culture and to be able to pull it off so that all the little details are correct. In this day and age, with the Internet at our fingertips that wouldn't be impossible, but we would still have to do intensive research. It is amazing, then, to consider all the little things the Gospel writers get right. Table 3.1 lists all the references to towns in Judea and the surrounding regions (e.g., Aenon, Arimathea, Bethphage, Bethsaida, Cana, Chorazin, etc.). Table 3.2 lists the various regions referred to in the Gospels (e.g., Abilene, Decapolis, Galilee, Idumea, Ituraea, Samaria, Trachonitis, etc.). Tables 3.3 and 3.4 list the various bodies of water and other place names like Solomon's Colonnade. I also liked the discussion of Palestinian Jewish names. The Gospels have a high degree of historical authenticity not shared by the apocryphal 2nd century gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, or the Gospel of Mary.
Chapter 5 ("Do We Have Jesus's Actual Words?") argues that the Gospels provide us with a reliable report of the words and teachings of Jesus. Even if many of them were translated later from Aramaic into Greek, the content was reliably passed on. The rabbis of the time passed on their teachings to their disciples who committed them to memory. This practice was no doubt taken up by the disciples who memorized the sayings of Jesus. (Williams doesn't mention this, but the appeal to rabbinic oral tradition as a model for understanding the transmission of the sayings of Jesus was famously made by Birger Gerhardsson. Although many critical scholars disagree, many conservative scholars find Gerhardsson's theory to be compelling, e.g., my doctoral advisor, Donald Hagner.)
Chapter 6 ("Has the Text Changed?") deals with the text of the Gospels. The previous chapter is about the oral stage, the transmission of the words of Jesus from Aramaic to the written Greek Gospels. This chapter is about the textual stage, the manuscript transmission of the written text of the Gospels. There is a widespread myth that the scribes who copied the manuscripts of the Gospels introduced massive errors a la the game of telephone. This area is a specialty for Williams, but he doesn't get overly technical and does a good job of showing that we have tremendous confidence in the text of the Gospels. In this section, Williams gives some inside information from his work on the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.
This is a great little book. It is so important to understand and believe that the Gospels are historically accurate and that the record of Jesus and his deeds and words that we have in our Bibles is not fiction or literary flights of fancy or myth but solid history of the most important person that the world has ever known, the Son of God incarnate who lived and died and rose again for us. I love the fact that it is short (140 pages excluding indices) and that it covers all the main points in an accessible and readable way. Our thanks go to Dr. Williams for producing this helpful work of apologetics, defending the historicity of our faith and its foundational documents.
Read
March 17, 2024Yes
April 21, 2019
Williams is a good writer and I have no doubt an intellectual scholar. Being a volume of Apologetics, and his intended to assert to the reader what he says true in 140 pages there are several chapters that are objectively and scholarly weak. As an example: When discussing contradictions in the Bible he only focuses on a few verses of John, but fails to acknowledge larger contradictions between the gospels. If you want to be comforted in your belief and are set out to have them confirmed this is a wonderful volume. If you want to be challenged to answer and reconcile difficult questions to solidify your faith in a deeper way - this book is a bit weak. Acknowledging the uncomfortable doesn’t mean losing one’s faith, just as blindly accepting everything you are told doesn’t make you a faithful follower.
January 25, 2023
Re-read for talk prep – just as clear and coherent as ever.
February 18, 2021
For whatever reason, I’ve really wanted to read this book since I got it in my stack of free T4G books last year, and I’m glad that I finally got around to it. In this short and digestible book, Williams asks questions about the Gospel’s trustworthiness and then answers them winsomely. It was so good for me to think about why I trust the Gospels and to dwell on the realness of Jesus. My faith has been strengthened by this excellent book.
April 13, 2022
Awesome! Scholarly yet readable, fascinating and informative. I learned a lot!
In response to skeptics who claim that the New Testament Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are fictional or mythical or otherwise unreliable, Peter J. Williams (PhD, University of Cambridge), an expert on biblical manuscripts, examines many different aspects of the Gospels as historical documents. First, he examines non-Christian ancient sources which mention Christianity, and finds that those documents confirm some of the basic facts from the New Testament. He then examines the Gospels themselves and subjects them to multiple tests—did the authors really know what they were talking about? He examines many details in the Gospels that relate to geography, topography, names of people, finance, local languages, and unusual local customs. In all of these, the gospels show impeccable knowledge of Palestine in the first century AD. In contrast, apocryphal “gospels” like the Gospel of Thomas contain very few geographical references and have many characters with names that were completely unheard of in first century Palestine. Williams then examines several “undesigned coincidences” between the different gospels. These are situations in which a detail mentioned in one gospel is explained and clarified by one of the other gospels—something one would expect with different authors reporting on real events, but highly improbable if the accounts are fictional. He then goes on to examine the question of whether Jesus’s teachings were changed or corrupted in any way prior to being written down by the gospel writers. Then he addresses the question of whether the texts could have been changed or corrupted over the years since they were first written down—and he clearly shows that all the discoveries of ancient manuscripts in the last few centuries have continually shown that the gospels have been handed down virtually unchanged across the millennia. As Williams himself readily admits, all of these lines of evidence can be explained away by anyone who is determined to do so. However, explaining it all away produces several very complex and improbable scenarios, whereas one simple assumption makes sense of all the data at once: namely, that the writers of the gospels were accurately reporting real events that occurred in a real place involving real people.
That’s a lot of ground to cover in only 150 pages! This is a great resource for anyone who is wondering about these issues but doesn’t have time to read a huge scholarly tome. The book also includes recommendations for those who want to explore further.
In response to skeptics who claim that the New Testament Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are fictional or mythical or otherwise unreliable, Peter J. Williams (PhD, University of Cambridge), an expert on biblical manuscripts, examines many different aspects of the Gospels as historical documents. First, he examines non-Christian ancient sources which mention Christianity, and finds that those documents confirm some of the basic facts from the New Testament. He then examines the Gospels themselves and subjects them to multiple tests—did the authors really know what they were talking about? He examines many details in the Gospels that relate to geography, topography, names of people, finance, local languages, and unusual local customs. In all of these, the gospels show impeccable knowledge of Palestine in the first century AD. In contrast, apocryphal “gospels” like the Gospel of Thomas contain very few geographical references and have many characters with names that were completely unheard of in first century Palestine. Williams then examines several “undesigned coincidences” between the different gospels. These are situations in which a detail mentioned in one gospel is explained and clarified by one of the other gospels—something one would expect with different authors reporting on real events, but highly improbable if the accounts are fictional. He then goes on to examine the question of whether Jesus’s teachings were changed or corrupted in any way prior to being written down by the gospel writers. Then he addresses the question of whether the texts could have been changed or corrupted over the years since they were first written down—and he clearly shows that all the discoveries of ancient manuscripts in the last few centuries have continually shown that the gospels have been handed down virtually unchanged across the millennia. As Williams himself readily admits, all of these lines of evidence can be explained away by anyone who is determined to do so. However, explaining it all away produces several very complex and improbable scenarios, whereas one simple assumption makes sense of all the data at once: namely, that the writers of the gospels were accurately reporting real events that occurred in a real place involving real people.
That’s a lot of ground to cover in only 150 pages! This is a great resource for anyone who is wondering about these issues but doesn’t have time to read a huge scholarly tome. The book also includes recommendations for those who want to explore further.
January 28, 2022
I really enjoyed this little book!
It presented a wide range of facts and questions to consider in favor of the reliability and trustworthiness of the Gospels and did so in a way that was both irenic and concise.
Would recommend
It presented a wide range of facts and questions to consider in favor of the reliability and trustworthiness of the Gospels and did so in a way that was both irenic and concise.
Would recommend
February 11, 2023
Incredible! Clear, concise, carefully argued. A need to read for all - everyone will learn something. Such a great evangelistic ending too!
May 4, 2023
A 2nd, expanded edition would go down great.
July 29, 2025
This is going on my re-read list. It is only four hours but filled with new (to me) Information. I'd recommend listening/reading to any Christian wanting to grow their knowledge of apologetics about the gospels.
February 13, 2025
A short but fascinating book! I was expecting more external evidence for the gospels such as dates, manuscripts, etc. and there was some of that. However, the internal factors such as the undesigned coincidences and the gospels authors’ familiarity with geography, botany, etc was a fresh take for me. Lots of little details in the gospels that give clues as to their genuineness. Learned a lot I didn’t already know. Really really liked this.
March 14, 2019
Concise, incisive, and brilliant. More books like this one, please.
December 9, 2019
Really great. I plan on giving this book to skeptics. A great resource to have.
November 17, 2022
Makes a strong case that the Gospels accurately record history and have been reliably preserved to the present day. Williams shows that accepting the Gospels as truth is the simplest explanation of the facts. He explains that if the Gospels are wrong, you need to overcome many intellectual hurdles to explain why so many historical details in the Gospels are correct or plausible.
Questions addressed
• What Do Non-Christian Sources Say?
• What Are the Four Gospels?
• Did the Gospel Authors Know Their Stuff?
• Undesigned Coincidences
• Do We Have Jesus's Actual Words?
• Has the Text Changed?
• What about Contradictions?
• Who Would Make All This Up?
Notes
What Do Non-Christian Sources Say?
Non-Christian sources who wrote within 90 years of origin of Christianity: Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus.
Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus record that Christianity spread rapidly within 40 years. The more widespread it became, the harder it would've been for anyone to change its beliefs, especially because Christians paid a high price for their faith. If core beliefs (Jesus was God's Son, prophesied by Jewish Scriptures, crucified for sins, raised from the dead by God) arose decades after Christianity began to spread, why would Christianity have become popular in the first place, and why would early Christians adopt these later beliefs?
If core Christian beliefs are late additions, how can the wide geographic distribution of these beliefs in early, independent sources be explained? It was difficult and dangerous to travel in decades after Jesus, so it would be impossible for any group without political authority to impose major changes on a large, widespread group.
Pliny the Younger's description of Christians to Emperor Trajan corroborates Acts, which also lends credibility to Luke's gospel, since they have the same author.
Pliny records that early Christians assembled before dawn and sang to Christ as God. Christians refused to worship the emperor because they were monotheistic as Jews were, so this shows they viewed Jesus as the same God as the Creator God, not a second god. Also, Jews didn't worship mere humans. The belief that Jesus was God wasn't a later development.
Josephus corroborates that James, brother of Jesus, was a leader in early church in Jerusalem. To have such a role, he would have to believe that his brother was the promised Messiah (Christ). James' death for his faith shows his sincerity. Jesus' other brothers also spread Christianity after His death. They would've quashed any changes to core beliefs in early church.
Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus confirm New Testament (NT) facts about Jesus' death under Pontius Pilate, that He was worshiped as God early on, that early Christians were persecuted, that Christianity spread far and fast, and that some early Christian leaders knew of Jesus' family origins.
What Are the Four Gospels?
4 Gospels weren't chosen as result of political power, but became accepted by early Christians as best sources for info about Jesus, without a central authority pressuring them.
4 Gospels were recognized as a group by late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, seen from Papyrus 45 (early 3rd century, southern Egypt); Irenaeus' record (~AD 185, France); Tatian's Diatessaron (~AD 173, Syria).
We have more extended text about Jesus, in close proximity to His life, than we do about His most famous contemporary, Emperor Tiberius.
Gospels of Matthew and John were written by people already active as Jesus' disciples no later than AD 33. Gospel of Mark was by someone who was an assistant to Barnabas and Paul no later than ~AD 50. Gospel of Luke was by someone who accompanied Paul in AD 50s and 60s.
Did the Gospel Authors Know Their Stuff?
Gospel authors exhibit detailed knowledge of time and places they wrote about (geography, people, plants, events, etc.), showing the lived in that time and those places, or accurately reported the accounts of others.
Transmission of Gospels wasn't like game of telephone. Names of people and places are authentic, and conditions of early Christianity were unsuitable to corruption. Gospels had high emphasis on truth, sense of authoritative teaching, wide geographic spread, high personal cost for following Jesus.
"Jewishness" of Gospel material shows the early date of their accounts, because Christianity became rapidly less Jewish as it spread among Gentiles.
Undesigned Coincidences
Gospel writers show subtle agreement that would be difficult to deliberately contrive.
On 9 occasions, Synoptic Gospels explain John; on 6 occasions, John explains Synoptics; on 4 occasions, Synoptics explain each other. There are additional undesigned coincidences.
It's possible to explain away each coincidence, but each additional one adds complexity. A simpler explanation is that Gospels are accurate.
Do We Have Jesus's Actual Words?
That Jesus invented Golden Rule and taught other groundbreaking concepts is a simpler explanation than that multiple other people came up with them and attributed them to Jesus. Jesus' parables fit His time better than later times (showing that they weren't written later).
The fact that resurrection accounts agree on main points of story, differ on mid-sized points, and agree on tiny details reflect what we'd expect from independent reports (versus literary dependence or deliberate falsification).
We can trust that Gospels record Jesus' words because of the nature of the teaching, genre, parables, levels of verbal agreement between different accounts.
Gospels don't have verbatim agreement because modern rules of quotation didn't exist at time of Gospels.
Has the Text Changed?
Gospel manuscripts mostly come from outside Palestine (Egypt, Italy, Greece, Turkey), and we wouldn't expect people in these areas to insert accurate cultural knowledge to Gospels.
12 verses following Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11 are probably late additions. Erasmus (1466-1536) knew about the uncertainty of these passages. Erasmus knew about uncertainty of 27 of 35 uncertain Gospel verses, showing that number of uncertain verses has hardly increased since 1536.
By no later than 3rd century, Gospels were translated into multiple languages. This makes it very unlikely that major changes could be introduced to them without leaving a record (which we don't find).
The fact that some manuscripts include uncertain verses and others don't shows that no central authority imposed uniformity. When all manuscripts agree, there's no reason to doubt reliable transmission.
Williams and Tyndale House believe that Matt 16:2b-3, Luke 22:43-44, and Luke 23:34a are part of earliest text of NT.
It's extremely unlikely that Gospel manuscripts were altered within 40 years after their writing, because copies spread fast and far, as individual Gospels and collections of all 4, and it would be difficult to locate and alter so many.
Much copying was done by professional scribes who viewed their job as accurate copying without alteration.
What about Contradictions?
Alleged contradictions can both be true in some way. Their presence shows that Gospel authors were more interested in encouraging readers to read deeply than in satisfying those seeking faults. There are no alleged contradictions that are impossible to resolve.
Who Would Make All This Up?
Gospels contain many details that authors are unlikely to have invented. Simplest explanation is that Gospels are true.
Gospels include embarrassing facts (Jesus' crucifixion, Peter's denial of Jesus, disciples' lack of understanding, disciples disloyalty, etc.) which inventors of a religion would have no reason to include.
Miracles only seem far-fetched if you start with an atheistic, materialistic universe; the premise generates the conclusion. If you understand that the universe shows signs of being made, and accept Christian explanation of God as Creator, miracles aren't far-fetched.
Converging lines of evidence for truth of Christianity: nature of its message, moral realism of its story, fulfillment of prophecy, coherence of Bible, need for source of moral absolutes, seeming purposefulness of life and nature, our life experience.
Miracles aren't random and anomalous disruptions of order, but form an orderly, meaningful pattern pointing to God.
Problem with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that "extraordinary" isn't defined. For an atheist, belief in miracles is "extraordinary." For a theist, beliefs that living things spontaneously arose from non-living matter and conscious things arose from non-conscious things are "extraordinary." For either side to ask the other for extraordinary evidence risks circular reasoning.
Case for historicity of Jesus' resurrection
• Jesus was buried and His tomb was later found empty. Jews considered burial very important. If Jesus' body was still in the tomb, the story of His resurrection wouldn't have spread far.
• A wide variety of people believed they saw Jesus risen from the dead, in different places, as individuals or in groups of up to 500.
• Concept of bodily resurrection of 1 person before general resurrection of all people would've been odd in Judaism.
• Events of Jesus' death and resurrection fit Old Testament (OT) prophecy recorded hundreds and thousands of years prior.
Accepting Gospels as truth is simplest explanation of the facts. If Gospels are wrong, you need to overcome many intellectual hurdles to explain why so many historical details in Gospels are right or plausible:
• Origin of various layers of textual material, all of which display signs of familiarity with Jesus' time.
• Origin of parables, original teaching, range of cases where one Gospel is most simply explained by assuming truth of another.
• Numerical growth of Jesus' followers.
Idea that early Christians invented Jesus' story to fit OT doesn't explain undesigned coincidences, knowledge of local culture, existence of parables, genius of Jesus' teaching, careful differentiation between speech and narrative.
Either Jesus intended to die (in which case He probably saw Himself in OT narrative), or His death was a miscalculation (in which case loyal followers were extremely lucky to have pre-existing material in OT that they could adapt into a story about Jesus).
Questions addressed
• What Do Non-Christian Sources Say?
• What Are the Four Gospels?
• Did the Gospel Authors Know Their Stuff?
• Undesigned Coincidences
• Do We Have Jesus's Actual Words?
• Has the Text Changed?
• What about Contradictions?
• Who Would Make All This Up?
Notes
What Do Non-Christian Sources Say?
Non-Christian sources who wrote within 90 years of origin of Christianity: Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus.
Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus record that Christianity spread rapidly within 40 years. The more widespread it became, the harder it would've been for anyone to change its beliefs, especially because Christians paid a high price for their faith. If core beliefs (Jesus was God's Son, prophesied by Jewish Scriptures, crucified for sins, raised from the dead by God) arose decades after Christianity began to spread, why would Christianity have become popular in the first place, and why would early Christians adopt these later beliefs?
If core Christian beliefs are late additions, how can the wide geographic distribution of these beliefs in early, independent sources be explained? It was difficult and dangerous to travel in decades after Jesus, so it would be impossible for any group without political authority to impose major changes on a large, widespread group.
Pliny the Younger's description of Christians to Emperor Trajan corroborates Acts, which also lends credibility to Luke's gospel, since they have the same author.
Pliny records that early Christians assembled before dawn and sang to Christ as God. Christians refused to worship the emperor because they were monotheistic as Jews were, so this shows they viewed Jesus as the same God as the Creator God, not a second god. Also, Jews didn't worship mere humans. The belief that Jesus was God wasn't a later development.
Josephus corroborates that James, brother of Jesus, was a leader in early church in Jerusalem. To have such a role, he would have to believe that his brother was the promised Messiah (Christ). James' death for his faith shows his sincerity. Jesus' other brothers also spread Christianity after His death. They would've quashed any changes to core beliefs in early church.
Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus confirm New Testament (NT) facts about Jesus' death under Pontius Pilate, that He was worshiped as God early on, that early Christians were persecuted, that Christianity spread far and fast, and that some early Christian leaders knew of Jesus' family origins.
What Are the Four Gospels?
4 Gospels weren't chosen as result of political power, but became accepted by early Christians as best sources for info about Jesus, without a central authority pressuring them.
4 Gospels were recognized as a group by late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, seen from Papyrus 45 (early 3rd century, southern Egypt); Irenaeus' record (~AD 185, France); Tatian's Diatessaron (~AD 173, Syria).
We have more extended text about Jesus, in close proximity to His life, than we do about His most famous contemporary, Emperor Tiberius.
Gospels of Matthew and John were written by people already active as Jesus' disciples no later than AD 33. Gospel of Mark was by someone who was an assistant to Barnabas and Paul no later than ~AD 50. Gospel of Luke was by someone who accompanied Paul in AD 50s and 60s.
Did the Gospel Authors Know Their Stuff?
Gospel authors exhibit detailed knowledge of time and places they wrote about (geography, people, plants, events, etc.), showing the lived in that time and those places, or accurately reported the accounts of others.
Transmission of Gospels wasn't like game of telephone. Names of people and places are authentic, and conditions of early Christianity were unsuitable to corruption. Gospels had high emphasis on truth, sense of authoritative teaching, wide geographic spread, high personal cost for following Jesus.
"Jewishness" of Gospel material shows the early date of their accounts, because Christianity became rapidly less Jewish as it spread among Gentiles.
Undesigned Coincidences
Gospel writers show subtle agreement that would be difficult to deliberately contrive.
On 9 occasions, Synoptic Gospels explain John; on 6 occasions, John explains Synoptics; on 4 occasions, Synoptics explain each other. There are additional undesigned coincidences.
It's possible to explain away each coincidence, but each additional one adds complexity. A simpler explanation is that Gospels are accurate.
Do We Have Jesus's Actual Words?
That Jesus invented Golden Rule and taught other groundbreaking concepts is a simpler explanation than that multiple other people came up with them and attributed them to Jesus. Jesus' parables fit His time better than later times (showing that they weren't written later).
The fact that resurrection accounts agree on main points of story, differ on mid-sized points, and agree on tiny details reflect what we'd expect from independent reports (versus literary dependence or deliberate falsification).
We can trust that Gospels record Jesus' words because of the nature of the teaching, genre, parables, levels of verbal agreement between different accounts.
Gospels don't have verbatim agreement because modern rules of quotation didn't exist at time of Gospels.
Has the Text Changed?
Gospel manuscripts mostly come from outside Palestine (Egypt, Italy, Greece, Turkey), and we wouldn't expect people in these areas to insert accurate cultural knowledge to Gospels.
12 verses following Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11 are probably late additions. Erasmus (1466-1536) knew about the uncertainty of these passages. Erasmus knew about uncertainty of 27 of 35 uncertain Gospel verses, showing that number of uncertain verses has hardly increased since 1536.
By no later than 3rd century, Gospels were translated into multiple languages. This makes it very unlikely that major changes could be introduced to them without leaving a record (which we don't find).
The fact that some manuscripts include uncertain verses and others don't shows that no central authority imposed uniformity. When all manuscripts agree, there's no reason to doubt reliable transmission.
Williams and Tyndale House believe that Matt 16:2b-3, Luke 22:43-44, and Luke 23:34a are part of earliest text of NT.
It's extremely unlikely that Gospel manuscripts were altered within 40 years after their writing, because copies spread fast and far, as individual Gospels and collections of all 4, and it would be difficult to locate and alter so many.
Much copying was done by professional scribes who viewed their job as accurate copying without alteration.
What about Contradictions?
Alleged contradictions can both be true in some way. Their presence shows that Gospel authors were more interested in encouraging readers to read deeply than in satisfying those seeking faults. There are no alleged contradictions that are impossible to resolve.
Who Would Make All This Up?
Gospels contain many details that authors are unlikely to have invented. Simplest explanation is that Gospels are true.
Gospels include embarrassing facts (Jesus' crucifixion, Peter's denial of Jesus, disciples' lack of understanding, disciples disloyalty, etc.) which inventors of a religion would have no reason to include.
Miracles only seem far-fetched if you start with an atheistic, materialistic universe; the premise generates the conclusion. If you understand that the universe shows signs of being made, and accept Christian explanation of God as Creator, miracles aren't far-fetched.
Converging lines of evidence for truth of Christianity: nature of its message, moral realism of its story, fulfillment of prophecy, coherence of Bible, need for source of moral absolutes, seeming purposefulness of life and nature, our life experience.
Miracles aren't random and anomalous disruptions of order, but form an orderly, meaningful pattern pointing to God.
Problem with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that "extraordinary" isn't defined. For an atheist, belief in miracles is "extraordinary." For a theist, beliefs that living things spontaneously arose from non-living matter and conscious things arose from non-conscious things are "extraordinary." For either side to ask the other for extraordinary evidence risks circular reasoning.
Case for historicity of Jesus' resurrection
• Jesus was buried and His tomb was later found empty. Jews considered burial very important. If Jesus' body was still in the tomb, the story of His resurrection wouldn't have spread far.
• A wide variety of people believed they saw Jesus risen from the dead, in different places, as individuals or in groups of up to 500.
• Concept of bodily resurrection of 1 person before general resurrection of all people would've been odd in Judaism.
• Events of Jesus' death and resurrection fit Old Testament (OT) prophecy recorded hundreds and thousands of years prior.
Accepting Gospels as truth is simplest explanation of the facts. If Gospels are wrong, you need to overcome many intellectual hurdles to explain why so many historical details in Gospels are right or plausible:
• Origin of various layers of textual material, all of which display signs of familiarity with Jesus' time.
• Origin of parables, original teaching, range of cases where one Gospel is most simply explained by assuming truth of another.
• Numerical growth of Jesus' followers.
Idea that early Christians invented Jesus' story to fit OT doesn't explain undesigned coincidences, knowledge of local culture, existence of parables, genius of Jesus' teaching, careful differentiation between speech and narrative.
Either Jesus intended to die (in which case He probably saw Himself in OT narrative), or His death was a miscalculation (in which case loyal followers were extremely lucky to have pre-existing material in OT that they could adapt into a story about Jesus).
April 7, 2024
"Can We Trust the Gospels?" by Peter J. Williams dives into the reliability of the accounts of Jesus' life in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Despite being a short read, it packs a punch by exploring various aspects of the Gospels in depth.
One of the standout sections discusses geographical information, shedding light on how the writers accurately depicted locations and travel routes, which would've been tricky to fake back then. This insight adds weight to the credibility of the Bible's accounts.
Williams presents his arguments fairly, acknowledging counter views while pointing out their potential flaws. Whether you're a Christian or not, this book challenges skepticism and encourages critical thinking. It shows that faith in Jesus doesn't have to be blind.
Key takeaways include pondering why Christianity spread rapidly despite Jesus' crucifixion, and how James, Jesus' brother, went from skeptic to martyr for the faith. Williams also highlights the remarkable abundance of Gospel accounts compared to other historical figures of that era.
Overall, "Can We Trust the Gospels?" is an enlightening exploration that leaves readers with a deeper appreciation for the reliability of the Bible's accounts and the historical context surrounding them.
One of the standout sections discusses geographical information, shedding light on how the writers accurately depicted locations and travel routes, which would've been tricky to fake back then. This insight adds weight to the credibility of the Bible's accounts.
Williams presents his arguments fairly, acknowledging counter views while pointing out their potential flaws. Whether you're a Christian or not, this book challenges skepticism and encourages critical thinking. It shows that faith in Jesus doesn't have to be blind.
Key takeaways include pondering why Christianity spread rapidly despite Jesus' crucifixion, and how James, Jesus' brother, went from skeptic to martyr for the faith. Williams also highlights the remarkable abundance of Gospel accounts compared to other historical figures of that era.
Overall, "Can We Trust the Gospels?" is an enlightening exploration that leaves readers with a deeper appreciation for the reliability of the Bible's accounts and the historical context surrounding them.
December 30, 2024
It’s amazing that the Word of God is so trustworthy with cross references that could only be divinely inspired! I appreciated how Williams, who has personally worked on translating the NT from Greek with an editorial team, laid out the many proofs and sources confirming the validity of the Gospels in an easy to understand, short read. He also differentiated between some of the books from the Apocrypha and the Gospels and they simply did not compare, even down the accuracy and availability of Jewish names. He has made me grateful for the introduction of quotation marks in the 16th century and the authenticity they imply. Personally, I loved the graphs and charts he included as well.
March 20, 2025
I’m going to be honest this was a hard read for me only because I had a hard time understanding the points he was making in his arguments. It didn’t feel clear to me most of the time. That’s probably why I’m not a theologian 😜
June 4, 2022
Fantastic book. Really helpful for pastors wanting a refresher and perhaps a introduction to the reliability of the Gospels. Lay leaders and general congregants will also benefit from this book as it is generally accessible, however may need guidance by someone knowledgeable to help understand at parts. Really good book I would hand to anyone asking the question: Can we trust the Gospels?
April 15, 2024
I didn't intend on giving so many 5 star reviews out this year but i seem to keep picking books up that are deserving of it.
This is an incredibly fresh, well researched, authoritive, accessible and also very brief book on why the most plausible explanation for the gospel accounts is that they tell us the truth about Jesus being the Son of God.
Don't believe me? Have a read of it yourself.
This is an incredibly fresh, well researched, authoritive, accessible and also very brief book on why the most plausible explanation for the gospel accounts is that they tell us the truth about Jesus being the Son of God.
Don't believe me? Have a read of it yourself.
November 5, 2024
Excellent resource!
January 20, 2025
Short but extremely convincing and encouraging. Written in clear layman’s English, a book that can be given to any skeptic with a 12th grade education.
January 16, 2022
This book brings a new way of viewing the Bible to young Christians and even non-Christians. The one downside is that some chapters seem to end abruptly, and that they could’ve been used in more detail, especially Chapter 7. Overall, a very good book.
November 20, 2024
The short answer is yes. Loved this book, great practical knowledge and presented in a way that is easily understood even for a guy like me.
March 14, 2024
READ THIS!! So much more than textual criticism, this book explores the historical validity of the Gospels by examining the accuracy of geography, Jewish names used in different regions of the Roman Empire, examining Non-Christian sources from the first century and more! I had to talk about every chapter with my wife.
November 22, 2018
Peter Williams, Principal of Tyndale House in Cambridge, has done us a great favour in writing Can We Trust the Gospels? It’s 160-pages are academically rigorous and yet written at a popular level. It gives great confidence that we really can trust the Gospel accounts. Of course, Williams cannot prove their truthfulness, but he convincingly demonstrates that the Gospels show the signs of trustworthiness we usually look for in the other things we believe.
The Gospel accounts, for example, accord with and even provide explanatory power for the phenomena associated with early Christianity, as described by non-Christian writers like Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus. The Gospel writers also demonstrate a familiarity with the times and settings they write about, suggesting that they were either acquainted with the land themselves or accurately recorded what was reported by others. Confidence in the Gospels is likewise boosted as we recognise that the names of those in the Gospels correlates strongly with the most common names in Judea at the time – a fact all the more remarkable when we consider that a different set of names were in vogue amongst Jewish communities in other parts of the Roman Empire. This ‘ring of truth’ when it comes to place names and names of people suggests that the Gospel accounts can be trusted when it comes to their bigger claims:
Williams also touches upon a number of other issues that Christians can find troubling. Do we really have Jesus’ words? Why does Jesus apparently sound so different in John’s Gospel compared to the Synoptics? Can we assume that Jesus’ words have been accurately transmitted if he spoke them in Aramaic but were written down in Greek? Williams answers are satisfying, and also intriguing. He tantalisingly leaves the door open for (and indeed positively commends) the idea that Jesus may have sometimes taught in Greek – including his Sermon on the Mount – so that those less familiar with Aramaic could appreciate his teaching.
The other real strength of the volume is where Williams speaks about his own research concerning textual transmission of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. He leaves us in no doubt that rational people can hold that the text of the Gospels has been passed down the centuries with integrity.
It’s true that sometimes questions about the Gospels’ trustworthiness are asked merely to muddle the waters – the ultimate red herring posed to distance someone from the person of Jesus and his claims. It’s also true that a basic demonstration of the Gospels’ veracity is often enough to address doubts in Christians and non-believers alike – for these people, Amy Orr-Ewing’s 'Why Trust the Bible?' might prove an easier read, and is less academic in style. But for others – like the friend I described at the beginning of the article – a more thorough treatment of the evidence by a genuine expert at the forefront of research is necessary. Peter Williams’ well-researched book is just what’s needed for people like these.
I received a pre-order of Can We Trust the Gospels? from Crossway, but was free to write my own review.
Read more at https://peterdray.wordpress.com/2018/...
The Gospel accounts, for example, accord with and even provide explanatory power for the phenomena associated with early Christianity, as described by non-Christian writers like Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus. The Gospel writers also demonstrate a familiarity with the times and settings they write about, suggesting that they were either acquainted with the land themselves or accurately recorded what was reported by others. Confidence in the Gospels is likewise boosted as we recognise that the names of those in the Gospels correlates strongly with the most common names in Judea at the time – a fact all the more remarkable when we consider that a different set of names were in vogue amongst Jewish communities in other parts of the Roman Empire. This ‘ring of truth’ when it comes to place names and names of people suggests that the Gospel accounts can be trusted when it comes to their bigger claims:
Williams also touches upon a number of other issues that Christians can find troubling. Do we really have Jesus’ words? Why does Jesus apparently sound so different in John’s Gospel compared to the Synoptics? Can we assume that Jesus’ words have been accurately transmitted if he spoke them in Aramaic but were written down in Greek? Williams answers are satisfying, and also intriguing. He tantalisingly leaves the door open for (and indeed positively commends) the idea that Jesus may have sometimes taught in Greek – including his Sermon on the Mount – so that those less familiar with Aramaic could appreciate his teaching.
The other real strength of the volume is where Williams speaks about his own research concerning textual transmission of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. He leaves us in no doubt that rational people can hold that the text of the Gospels has been passed down the centuries with integrity.
It’s true that sometimes questions about the Gospels’ trustworthiness are asked merely to muddle the waters – the ultimate red herring posed to distance someone from the person of Jesus and his claims. It’s also true that a basic demonstration of the Gospels’ veracity is often enough to address doubts in Christians and non-believers alike – for these people, Amy Orr-Ewing’s 'Why Trust the Bible?' might prove an easier read, and is less academic in style. But for others – like the friend I described at the beginning of the article – a more thorough treatment of the evidence by a genuine expert at the forefront of research is necessary. Peter Williams’ well-researched book is just what’s needed for people like these.
I received a pre-order of Can We Trust the Gospels? from Crossway, but was free to write my own review.
Read more at https://peterdray.wordpress.com/2018/...
November 29, 2021
This is a short book on a huge topic, but it covers a lot of ground in its 140 pages, making a persuasive case that the simplest explanation available is that the Biblical Gospels are reliable historical accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Of course “humans are ingenious” (p.137), and can explain away anything they like, but when it comes to the Gospels, there is a lot of creative explaining that needs to be done to conclude that these writings have been fabricated.
Williams briefly but convincingly (to my mind, anyway) discusses the existence of non-Christian sources referring to Gospel content, the exceptional local detail (geography, speech patterns, personal names) employed by the Gospel writers, trivial coincidences among the Gospels that would seem unlikely to be deliberately contrived, the reliability of textual transmission over the ages, and the resurrection of Jesus as a simple explanation for how all of this could be true.
It seems to me that books like this offer a very powerful apologetic for the Christian faith: if the content we find in the Gospels is historically reliable, then Jesus is who the Gospels claim that he is. From this we have to conclude that God exists (both as Creator and in the person of Jesus), that the Old Testament is reliable (since it is quoted so frequently as an authoritative source in the Gospels), that the apostles are Jesus’ authoritative representatives (suggesting that the remainder of the New Testament is also reliable), and most importantly, that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, and deserves our faith and devotion.
Williams briefly but convincingly (to my mind, anyway) discusses the existence of non-Christian sources referring to Gospel content, the exceptional local detail (geography, speech patterns, personal names) employed by the Gospel writers, trivial coincidences among the Gospels that would seem unlikely to be deliberately contrived, the reliability of textual transmission over the ages, and the resurrection of Jesus as a simple explanation for how all of this could be true.
It seems to me that books like this offer a very powerful apologetic for the Christian faith: if the content we find in the Gospels is historically reliable, then Jesus is who the Gospels claim that he is. From this we have to conclude that God exists (both as Creator and in the person of Jesus), that the Old Testament is reliable (since it is quoted so frequently as an authoritative source in the Gospels), that the apostles are Jesus’ authoritative representatives (suggesting that the remainder of the New Testament is also reliable), and most importantly, that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, and deserves our faith and devotion.
July 21, 2024
The author does a great job of not overstating the case on each piece of evidence but allows the accumulated pieces to become an avalanche. He breaks complex data into bitesized chunks that make it easy to digest.
I also appreciate that he doesn't get bogged into side topics off his main question which keeps the book short. For example, he could have been sucked into debating the dating of the Gospels either before or after the fall of Jerusalem but after stating his view he shows that either viewpoint still coberates the premise that we can trust the gospels.
I also appreciate that he doesn't get bogged into side topics off his main question which keeps the book short. For example, he could have been sucked into debating the dating of the Gospels either before or after the fall of Jerusalem but after stating his view he shows that either viewpoint still coberates the premise that we can trust the gospels.
Read
August 28, 2025This book provides a historical examination of the four gospel presentations in the New Testament. The author examines them in a way that we would examine any other historical text to test its accuracy and reliability. Some of the questions he asks and answers are:
- Are the authors credible?
- Do they contradict one another?
- Do we have Jesus’ actual words?
- Were the authors accurate in the little details, such as geography?
I learned that we have more reliable information about Jesus than any other person alive during that time period, even Tiberius Caesar Augustus, who is one of the best known historical figures.
Another thing that stood out to me was the author’s refutation of the common “telephone game” argument. Some skeptics argue that the Bible was put together through an oral tradition similar to a game of telephone, where the end result is a jumbled mess compared to the original statement. The author argues that this is a poor analogy because in the game of telephone, the players must whisper and they are only allowed to say the phrase one time. In contrast, the Gospels were written by Jewish men who were extremely adept at committing scripture to memory, through oral tradition.
The author didn’t waste any words in this book and his argument was convincing. I recommend this books to Christians, skeptics, and Christian skeptics like myself who want to better understand the reliability of this two-thousand year old book.
- Are the authors credible?
- Do they contradict one another?
- Do we have Jesus’ actual words?
- Were the authors accurate in the little details, such as geography?
I learned that we have more reliable information about Jesus than any other person alive during that time period, even Tiberius Caesar Augustus, who is one of the best known historical figures.
Another thing that stood out to me was the author’s refutation of the common “telephone game” argument. Some skeptics argue that the Bible was put together through an oral tradition similar to a game of telephone, where the end result is a jumbled mess compared to the original statement. The author argues that this is a poor analogy because in the game of telephone, the players must whisper and they are only allowed to say the phrase one time. In contrast, the Gospels were written by Jewish men who were extremely adept at committing scripture to memory, through oral tradition.
The author didn’t waste any words in this book and his argument was convincing. I recommend this books to Christians, skeptics, and Christian skeptics like myself who want to better understand the reliability of this two-thousand year old book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 392 reviews