Should We Trust the Gospels?

Introduction

There’s not a proof-text for this topic necessarily,

There are relevant verses

2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable...

Psalm 18:30 “This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true...

Proverbs 30:5 “Every word of God proves true...

But they aren't quite 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says “this is crucial to our faith and I promised it really happened, and here’s how I know”

… so I’m not going to be preaching a specific text, although I will reference many. But, I also want you to see that this isn’t just a principle we’ve fabricated. It truly is evident in the scriptures. Although there is not one verse, the Scriptures contain an abundance of evidence relevant to investigating this claim of the trustworthiness of the scriptures.

In fact, I believe there are so many places and verses we could consider that it would take way more time than we have. So, we’ll focus our time on the gospels only. All of the scriptures attest to God’s plan of redemption, but our faith rests on what these gospel accounts say. In fact, our faith—Christianity—was born in these accounts, so that’s where we’ll spend our time tonight.

I also want to quickly clarify who it is that I’m speaking to and why. Everything we’ll talk about tonight is meant to encourage and motivate the one who has already trusted in Jesus. And that may sound a little backwards but let me explain and I think you’ll understand...

To know your faith isn’t irrational

I lived a lot of my life just accepting that I trusted in something unreasonable. And I kind of felt stupid for it. I didn’t really care that people might see me that way, but I kind of just accepted that I was a fool. But as I’ve studied apologetics and the reasonableness and the rationality of the Christian faith, I’ve come to see that our faith actually can hold up to the criticism and opposition and condescension from so many. And so I come to tell you tonight that you are no pea-brain for believing these things. You don’t have to feel inferior.

To strengthen you against doubt and opposing arguments

It seems like doubt and deconstruction have become really trendy in the last few years. And even virtuous—like, if you’ve never questioned your faith you’re living with rose-colored glasses. And that’s not to say that doubt/deconstruction are inherently bad. I believe they can be beneficial and even God glorifying when done the right way. (And let me just say this: if you’re in that season right now, or if you’re ever in that position, don’t do it alone). But legitimate doubts can arise and threaten to shake us, so this is my proactive approach to kind of shake you in a “safe space.” And in the same vein, I share these things with you in an effort to help you understand that there are reasonable answers and explanations to oppositions made against our faith.

To be equipped for bold and compassionate evangelism.

Peter commands us to be prepared to give a reason for our hope (1 Pt. 3:15)

Paul models being all things to all people in order to win them. (1 Corinthians 9:19, 21-22)

Not only do I want you to be able to defend your faith, I also want you to be able to promote the faith with reason—with grace and truth—in order that people might be attracted to Jesus. Not argued into it, but attracted to it. While some non-Christians just like to argue, many (most, even) have legitimate hang-ups when it comes to trusting in Jesus and I want you to be able to come alongside them in that.

To be stirred to worship God through apologetics.

As I’ve mentioned our religion is not weak, it is not inferior, it is not fragile because our God is none of those things. I pray that as we study tonight and next week and further, that you’d be amazed at the integrity and wisdom of our God. That as you consider these things your hearts would find deep comfort not in evidence, but comfort in a God—in a Savior—who is who he says he is; who has and will do what he says he has and will do.

So, with all that said I don’t want to just tell you that the gospels are trustworthy. That’s why the topic is worded the way it is. I want to avoid assumptions and preconceived notions about the scriptures and look at it objectively. Is that fair? So o get in the right frame of mind..tell me who this is

Abraham Lincoln Rule/Treating the Gospels Fairly

Who is this? How do you know? Have you ever met him? Seen his ID?

The bible is crazy. Talking serpents. The sun suspending in the sky. Seas split. A woman turns to salt. A man kills 1,000 others with a donkey bone. But let’s be fair. Let’s test this question like we would any other historical record of events.

Internal Evidence

Genre & Purpose

This may seem like an odd question but genre is important. It gives an indication to the reader what to expect. Fiction implies it will aim to entertain. Satire aims to make one chuckle. History books inform. Argumentative literature persuades. Narratives tell a story.

But the gospels are somewhat of a mixture. They include historical facts, but they’re not history books aiming to relay every instance in Jesus’s life and ministry. They tell stories, but not simply to entertain. And they paint a biography of Jesus, but not merely to inspire. You see this in the way the gospel authors frame their writing.

Matthew 1:1 “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

But in the first several chapters, he keeps interpreting the events for the reader. So as to tell them something through the narration.

Mark 1:1 “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

Mark starts his gospel with a sort of conclusion—that Jesus is the Messiah. So, you get a sense that Mark is about to explain you you why that is the case and why it matters.

Luke 1:2–4 “just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.”

Luke reveals that he’s trying to put together a highly-reliable, highly detailed record—“so you may have certainty”

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” | John 20:31 “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

John’s use of “the Word” translates logos implying ideas of logic or divine reason, an account, an argument. At the end of his gospel we see more clearly that he has written to show the way to true life through faith in a Savior, Jesus the Son of God

I say all of this to say that the gospels are rather fluid in their style. They include history, but they are not strictly history. They include story, but they are not strictly story. I believe they are primarily meant to inspire and persuade. But that doesn’t mean they seek to manipulate or coerce. Even though the authors do have an agenda, I don’t think that has to mean we should read with our guard up. I think it’s this blend of history and story and persuasion that actually allows us to let our guard down and read the gospels according to their intent. There is nothing for these writers to really gain in my mind from our trust in their writings. (If someone from you’d only met once or twice texted you to find shelter because part of their roof was torn off by a storm that was headed your direction, would you discount them because they had an agenda? Probably not. What do they have to gain from encouraging you to be safe).

Also consider how other writings corroborate gospel claims.

Romans 1:3 …[Jesus] was descended from David according to the flesh” (Jones, 52)

1 Timothy 6:13 …Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,” (Jones, 53)

1 Corinthians 15:3–5 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” (Jones, 53)

Not only do other Biblical genres reference these events, extrabiblical sources do as well

Tacitus, a first century Roman historian: talking about the cause/blame of the great fire of Rome

Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices,⁠ whom the crowd styled Christians.⁠ Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus…(Tacitus, 15.44)

Suetonius, another first century Roman historian, makes reference to Jesus while describing Emperor Claudius’ removal of the Jews from Rome

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus. (Suet. Cl. 25)

This quote is particularly intriguing because it not only references Jesus as an historical figure, but also matches the testimony of Luke in Acts 18:1-2

Acts 18:1–2 ESV

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome…

We are not the first to see the gospel writers as attempting to record actual events. Both Christians and unbelievers (even those who persecuted believers) provide a perspective that the gospel writers really did record true events.

Context & Setting

Have you ever noticed how familiar the gospel authors appear to be with the culture and setting of their story? Oftentimes we gloss over these kinds of details/ We live in a time and place where we can google virtually any one of these details. But research opportunities like this wouldn’t have been available in quite the same way they are to us. So, I want to consider a few details that the writers include in their account to see if they indicate integrity in their writings.

Geography: In many places, the gospels identify specific details concerning the landscape and geography of Israel.

Each writer mentions dozens of towns large and small. Some are uniquely mentioned in their gospel alone, while others are mentioned by all the accounts.

Only Luke 24:13 “That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem,”

Both Mark 8:27 and Matthew 16:13 “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”” reference Caesarea Philippi which lies North of Galilee

All the gospels reference obvious cities like Jerusalem, as well as insignificant cities like Bethany (the hometown of Lazarus and his sisters Mary and Martha)

On top of that, on many occasions the gospels record accurate details about even the topography of the region

In John 4:46–47 Jesus heals the Centurion’s Son. In the Centurion’s request he ask Jesus to come down from Cana (higher elevation) to Capernaum (lower elevation, by the Sea)

It seems to be a reasonable explanation that the gospel writers not only reported events with accuracy, but even based off experience of these places and features

Names: Similar to the geographical context is the use of names which accurately reflect the time and culture of the region

Think for a minute: If I told you a story about three guys from Mexico names Louis, François and Pierre…what would be your first thought; probably “wait a second”

And when we compare popular names for 1st century Palestine to the names used in the gospels, we see consistency. (It’s worth mentioning that these names weren’t only used in 1st century Palestine, but when compared to other [even nearby regions like Turkey] the list of common names have notable differences.)

{Table 3.6 Popular Jewish names in Palestine}

{Table 3.7 Correlation of names by percentage per category}

But, since these names were so popular and they needed to distinguish which “Simon” was being referenced

Mark 3:16–19 “He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”

Notice how Mark attaches specific identifiers to the most popular names, but not the lesser ones. This indicates Mark’s understanding that people reading his gospel would wonder “which Simon?”

Details that Undermine: I think this is one of the strongest arguments for the reliability of the gospel accounts. If the gospel writers are falsely testifying, these types of details only hurt their credibility.

Women’s testimonies in the first century did not hold up in court. They were wrongly dismissed as unreliable witnesses. If someone got mugged on the street and looked around for anyone who saw and only saw women, it would be like us looking up in the same situation and seeing no one. Yet, all four gospels claim that women were the first to testify of Jesus’s resurrection (Mt. 28:6-8, Mk. 16:6-8, Lk. 24:10-11, Jn. 20:1). Uh, oh. Why would they include that? Couldn’t they have omitted this detail? It provides no authenticity to the gospels, and in significant ways likely hindered the spread of the claim. Luke says the disciples even saw the women’s words as “idle tales.” If the gospels are trying to fabricate the most believable story, this would go down in the fail column.

The disciples’ failures are also undesirable details that make the biographers look bad. Don’t forget that if Matthew, Mark (whose gospel likely comes from Peter) and John are the true writers they are not only narrators but characters in the story. If they we’re holding the pen, why wouldn’t they make themselves look better? I mean, John does mention that he was the beloved disciple and outran Peter to the tomb, but that’s as good as it gets.

Mark constantly shows how the disciples are slow to understand or even completely miss the things the Jesus teaches them. They constantly ask for further explanation, misinterpret and misjudge Jesus (Mk. 4:10,13; 40-41; 8:4; 14,16; 32; 9:17-18)

Mark also records Peter’s denial of Jesus (Mk. 14:66-72)

Matthew mentions that all the disciples abandoned Jesus (Mt. 26:35,56)

John also records the misunderstandings and doubts of the disciples (Jn. 2:20-22; 12:16)

Third, the writers don’t polish Jesus’s teachings.

John 6:53 “So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

Luke 9:23–24 “And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”

Matthew 5:2–8 records Jesus saying senseless things: “Blessed are the poor in spirit… “Blessed are those who mourn… “Blessed are the meek… “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…“Blessed are the merciful…“Blessed are the pure in heart… “Blessed are the peacemakers… “Blessed are those who are persecuted fro righteousness sake…

Mark 10:23, 25 “And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!””…“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.””

So, if the gospel writers are trying to trick people, they’re doing a horrible job, in my opinion. There is no reason for them to include these details…unless their aim is to present a truly accurate account of the life of Jesus.

External Evidence

Manuscripts Data

I won’t spend as much time here (not because it isn’t important) because there are so many resources on this. It has become a very popular area and I want to encourage us to think fairly about it.

What is a manuscript?

Autographs are the original document (e.g. the actual papyrus Mark wrote on). We actually don’t have these. No one has discovered them, but what we do have are manuscripts which are copies of the original, or copies of copies. Individuals called scribes (like the ones mentioned in the gospels) were the professional printers of the day. If something needed to be duplicated, a scribe would copy a new version using the previous version. This was particularly common in the ancient world for all genres of literature. We have copies of the works of Tacitus, Suetonius, Homer, Plato and many others.

How many are there? (Quality)

But there’s something distinct about the New testament manuscripts.

{Show Ancient Manuscripts Chart, Part 1}

{Show Ancient Manuscripts Chart, Part 2}

What does this mean?

Quantity doesn’t necessarily prove the Bible is more reliable or authentic than any of the other documents mentioned. Many of those manuscripts are only fragments. It certainly does say something (e.g. people eager to read the Scriptures). But quantity won’t win the argument. If someone tells you that 100,000 manuscripts of the Iliad have been discovered, that doesn’t necessarily make it more historically reliable. We need to investigate the quality of manuscripts. Did those scribes copy the original texts reliably? Can we trust what they recorded? Do our copies reasonably reflect the original thought and intent of the biblical authors? That’s the standard we truly live by.

Are they all the same? (Quality)

Unfortunately, these manuscripts are highly inconsistent. Virtually no two are alike and the amount of variants among the biblical manuscripts are estimated to be anywhere from 400-500K+. But, if you ask me, this is logically related to the number of total manuscripts; it’s a proportional relationship. And, yet, because there are so many manuscripts, scholars and editors are better equipped to reconstruct the original text. How does that make sense? Well, let’s test this idea…imagine your friends invite you to hangout with your friend group

Hey, we’re going to go meet up at Soul Craft on campus at 10a, then go over to Chick-Fil-A for lunch.

Hey, we’re going to go meet up at Soul Craft on campus at 10p, then go over to Chick-Fil-A for lunch.

Hey, we’re going to go meet up at Chick-Fil-A on campus at 10a, then go over to Soul Craft for lunch.

How will you figure out when and where to meet your friends?

Hey, we’re going to go meet up at Soul Craft on campus at 10a to then go over to Chick-Fil-A on campus for lunch.

This example shows that contradictions between the messages don’t exactly cause us to question our friends integrity or intellect nor to assume there is no hangout at all. Although it may sound odd at first, the mistakes across the manuscripts—although very real—don’t require a wholesale rejection of the scriptures.

These manuscript differences are categorized into 4 categories (Barnett, STR.org)

Not viable and not meaningful

The variant is not probable to be original and it would’t change the meaning anyways

Misspellings (roughly 1/2 of all variants)

Viable but not meaningful

Variant may likely be original, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the text

Some manuscripts spell names differently, word order

Meaningful but not viable

Variant would change the meaning, but is not likely original

Luke 6:22 ““Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!”

Codex 2882 leaves out “on account of the Son of Man.” This reading of Lk. 6:22 would seem to mean all persecution is righteous an virtuous. But this reading only appears in this one manuscript which was written in the 11th century

Viable and Meaningful

This is would be the most critiqued variant. This focuses on differences that are quite possibly original and would change the meaning.

1 Jn. 1:4 “And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.” Some manuscripts read “that your joy may be complete”

Though most notable, many argue these represent a small percentage, even as low as 1% of all variations (Kokul, STR.org). And even secular critics admit none of these variants change the core doctrines of the Christian faith.

So to sum all this up: yes, there are thousands more new testament manuscripts than for any other work; but, no, the sheer number doesn’t automatically make the NT reliable; and, yes, the apparent inconsistencies between these manuscripts are extremely high. BUT, the number of manuscripts does help accurately reconstruct the original text with a great degree of reliability.

Conclusion

You tell me?

Do the gospel writers seem to conspire together to push a false narrative?

Did 1st century historians falsely report details surrounding the origins of Christianity?

Did the gospel authors plant geographical, cultural and personal details in an attempt to trick readers?

Are the biblical manuscripts less credible than other widely accepted documents of the day?

My 2 cents

Yes, the gospels, and all 66 books, can reasonably be trusted.

Meaning…they are not only trustworthy, but as we mentioned earlier, demand something from us—allegiance. Will we obey them? This is not just about seeing them as reliable, historic documents, but responding to their invitation to the kingdom of God—into the abundant life Jesus offers—into the salvation from our sin and rebellion through the the perfect work and purifying blood of Jesus.

We can be confident in both the accuracy of their testimony and the legitimacy of Jesus Christ’s salvation. We can rejoice in the wisdom of this religion. We can be strengthened against doubts. We can help others to see and believe. We can be moved to worship this holy God.

So that’s my prayer for you all : that you would have greater confidence in the truths in this book and that you would celebrate our God for who he is and what he has given to us.

Sources

Suetonius Claudius. 15.44. Accessed Jan. 29, 2026. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Aabo%3Aphi%2C1348%2C015%3A25

Why Should I Trust the Bible? | Jones, Timothy Paul.

Can We Trust the Gospels? Williams, Peter J.

“3 Ways the Gospels are Embarrassing: And why that’s a Good Thing.” Accessed Jan. 30, 2026. https://www.alisachildersblog.com/blog/3-ways-the-gospels-are-embarrassingand-why-thats-a-good-thing

Annals. 15.44.Tacitus. Accessed Jan. 29, 2026. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/thayer/e/roman/texts/tacitus/annals/15b*.html

“What Does the Greek Word “Logos” Mean?” Logos Bible Software. Accessed Jan. 29, 2026. https://www.logos.com/grow/greek-word-logos-meaning/#Greek-background

“The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts.” Windle, Bryan. Accessed Jan. 30, 2026. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/

https://www.str.org/w/textual-variants-it-s-the-nature-not-the-number-that-matters

https://biblequestions.info/2019/12/14/how-does-the-quantity-of-new-testament-manuscripts-compare-to-other-ancient-manuscripts/

https://www.str.org/w/-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman#fnref:29