Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

by Mark D. Roberts

Attacks on the historical reliability of the Gospels--especially their portrayal of Jesus Christ--are nothing new. But are these attacks legitimate? Is there reason to doubt the accuracy of the Gospels? By examining and refuting some of the most common criticisms of the Gospels, author Mark D. Roberts explains why we can indeed trust the Gospels, nearly two millennia after they were written.

Lay readers and scholars alike will benefit from this accessible book, and will walk away confident in the reliability of the Gospels.

Genres: Christianity, Theology, Christian, History, Religion, New Testament, Nonfiction

202 pages, Paperback

First published June 8, 2007

Reviews

[Jared Totten · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Dan Brown's DaVinci Code. From academia to pop media, it's trendy to suggest that Christians have gotten the message—and the person—of Jesus horribly wrong.

Enter Mark D. Roberts and his easily accessible book, Can We Trust the Gospels? What began as a blog has turned into what Roberts calls a blook, which is a real word for a blog turned book (who knew?). Without delving into the highly technical arguments of textual criticism, Mark D. Roberts defends the reliability of the Gospels in such a manner that even those with a low view of Scripture should be impressed and perhaps even convinced.

While the book is less than 200 pages in length, Roberts deals with all of the most central challenges to the transmission of the biblical texts. He also addresses many of the more fringe challenges that may not find footing in the academic realm but may gain popularity among the general public (via a novel turned movie about the Gospel of Thomas, for instance). After all, I don't care what academia thinks of an idea as long as Ron Howard can work some explosions and intrigue in.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

Recommended: For apologists or anyone who wants to know if we can trust the Bible

This book was a free review copy provided by Crossway Books.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book.

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Answers several common questions about the Gospels with easy-to-follow explanations. The book is written for average people, not scholars, and is intended for those with questions and doubts about Gospels.

Roberts says he makes his case based on info that "most even-handed critical scholars, including non-evangelicals, would affirm," deliberately avoiding arguments that many conservatives would make (even though they may be stronger arguments), for the sake of using more widely-accepted arguments.

The chapter titles tell the questions answered in the book:
• Can we know what the original Gospel manuscripts really said?
• Did the evangelists know Jesus personally?
• When were the Gospels written?
• What sources did the Gospel writers use?
• Did early Christian oral tradition reliably pass down the truth about Jesus?
• What are the New Testament Gospels?
• What difference does it make that there are four Gospels?
• Are there contradictions in the Gospels?
• If the Gospels are theology, can they be history?
• Do miracles undermine the reliability of the Gospels?
• Do historical sources from the era of the Gospels support their reliability?
• Does archeology support the reliability of the Gospels?
• Did the political agenda of the early church influence the content of the Gospels?
• Why do we have only four Gospels in the Bible?
• Can we trust the Gospels after all?

Notes
A Bio and a Blook
Other books on reliability of Gospels
• The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce
• The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig L. Blomberg
• Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace
• The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel

Can We Know What the Original Gospel Manuscripts Really Said?
Oldest manuscript (ms) of Gospels (P52) is dated to ~ AD 125, written within a couple generations of original Gospel.

Many extant mss date to 3rd & 4th century, including Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), which contains whole New Testament (NT) and many sections of Old Testament (OT).

Extant mss of other ancient writings are dated to 500 - 1,000 yrs after their autographs, a gap far larger than Gospels, yet scholars and historians don't dismiss them for that.

There's a large number of variants among mss because there's a large potential for variants, with ~2k total mss of 4 Gospels containing ~64k total words.

Vast majority of NT variants are insignificant because they're so rare that they're obviously not original, or they're not in oder mss, or they don't affect meaning. Majority of variants in older mss are spelling variations or errors. Only ~1% of variants make any substantive difference, and few, if any, affect theologically important matters.

Most significant variants are Jn 7:53 - 8:11 (woman caught in adultery) and Mk 16:9-20 (Jesus after resurrection). Former is likely true, but was added to John's Gospel later. Neither passage substantially affects our understanding of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, NT scholar and critic of Christianity, says in Misquoting Jesus of variants, "… most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us. … The changes [the scribes] made – at least the intentional ones – were no doubt seen as improvements of the text, possibly made because the scribes were convinced that the copyists before them had themselves mistakenly altered the words of the text. For the most part, their intention was to conserve the tradition, not to change it."

Did the Evangelists Know Jesus Personally?
If Gospels were fabricated, fabricators wouldn't have claimed 2 authors were Mark (Mk) and Luke (Lk), because they didn't know Jesus during His earthly ministry, so those names wouldn't lend authority. Mark and Luke had access to reliable sources. Early acceptance of Mark's Gospel by early church supports idea that it was based on reliable sources. Reliability of Gospels doesn't depend on authorship as much as nature and purpose of writings.

When Were the Gospels Written?
2nd-century church leaders referred to Gospels. ~AD 180, Irenaeus mentioned Matthew (Mt), Mk, Lk, John (Jn) as being only authoritative Gospels, putting Gospel writing in latter half of 1st century.

Muratorian Canon, written ~10 yrs before Irenaeus, mentions Lk, Jn; probably included Mt, Mk.

~AD 130, Papias referred to Mk, possibly also Mt.

What Sources Did the Gospel Writers Use?
Gospel authors may have referenced earlier sources written within 15-30 yrs of Jesus' death.

Paul wrote 1st letter to Corinthians in early 50s AD, before Gospels were written. This shows that Christians were communicating about Jesus within ~20 yrs of His death.


Did Early Christian Oral Tradition Reliably Pass Down the Truth about Jesus?
Jesus and His followers lived in an oral culture, used to accurately remembering many details. If people shared info inaccurately, community would hold them accountable.

Jesus' followers were very motivated to accurately preserve His words and actions, because they believed He was God.

Jesus taught using methods that aided memorization (e.g., imagery, parallelism, parables).

Many of Jesus' teachings don't match, and even contradict, what early church wanted. If early church invented Jesus' teachings, they wouldn't have invented teachings in Gospels.

Variation in Gospels is due to people not telling stories and sayings in exactly same words every time, and translation of Jesus' Aramaic into Greek.

Early church remembered Jesus' words and actions because the stories were frequently retold.

What Are the New Testament Gospels?
Gospels are similar to Greco-Roman biographies, which were shorter, focused works that skipped major parts of person's life, focusing on key events or speeches. They existed to teach moral lessons, not provide complete academic records.

It was common and accepted for ancient biographers and historians to paraphrase or slightly alter spoken words for style, and to arrange events thematically rather than chronologically.

Gospels record Jesus' "voice" or meaning ("ipsissima vox"), not necessarily exact words ("ipissima verba").

What Difference Does It Make That There Are Four Gospels?
~AD 175, Tatian created Diatessaron, harmony of 4 NT Gospels, and it was used by church for many yrs, showing that early church recognized 4 NT Gospels.


Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?
Many apparent contradictions depend on superficial or rigid readings of the text.

That 2nd-century Christians didn't "clean up" Gospels shows that they didn't expect verbatim quotations, and wanted to accurately preserve written accounts, even though they were aware of variations.

Do Miracles Undermine the Reliability of the Gospels?

… miracles aren't contrary to science as much as they are outside of the realm of science. Science studies natural events. Miracles, by definition, are not natural, but super-natural.

Pagan Greco-Roman stories are fantastic; Jesus' miracles dealt with ordinary circumstances (e.g., sickness, hunger). Pagan miracles were often described in exaggerated, entertaining style. Jesus' miracles are understated. 1st Christians weren't Gentiles competing with Hercules and Appolonius, but Jews who believed Jesus was Israel's Messiah.

Gospel miracles are true history
• Gospels are reliable records
• Miracle stories are modest
• Jesus' powers seem to lapse at times
• Jesus' popularity was based on His miracles

Only Jesus' resurrection explains the counterintuitive rise of early Christianity.

Do Historical Sources from the Era of the Gospels Support Their Reliability?
Non-Christian sources that confirm reliability of Gospels
• Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan
• Suetonius' "Life of Claudius"
• Tacitus' Annals
• Talmud
• Josephus' Jewish Antiquities

Gospels accurately record people, places, culture.

There are several ways in which Lk 2:1-2 can be historically accurate about Qurinius, given grammar of verses and Qurinius' long political career. See also "Birth of Jesus" in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.

Does Archeology Support the Reliability of the Gospels?
Ancient artifacts, documents, locations, inscriptions confirm accuracy of Gospels.

Nothing in Dead Sea Scrolls undermines reliability of Gospels or orthodox Christianity.

Nag Hammadi Gospels were written at least 100 yrs after Jesus (except Gospel of Thomas); some over 150 yrs after. NT Gospels were written within 30-70 yrs of Jesus' death. Nag Hammadi Gospels don't fit 1st-century Jewish life.

Did the Political Agenda of the Early Church Influence the Content of the Gospels?
Gospel don't contain "agenda-driven material we might expect from people who play fast and loose with the truth."

Gospels describe Jesus' disciples (who became church leaders) negatively; as faithless, foolish, unreliable. If early church had written or edited Gospels, they wouldn't have described church leaders that way. Early church was willing to pass on truth even when embarrassing.

Why Do We Have Only Four Gospels in the Bible?
Books about canon
• The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce
• The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger

Church began making official lists of recognized sacred texts in late 2nd century. They weren't granting authoritative status, but recording what orthodox church had already implicitly affirmed by using those texts. 4 NT Gospels were accepted as canonical in almost every area of orthodox church. Some Christians used other Gospels, but 4 were uniquely regarded.

Standards for inclusion in canon
• Antiquity: demonstrably old enough to be closely connected to Jesus
• Widespread usage: well-known throughout Roman world, used in many churches (especially influential ones such as Rome, Alexandria)
• Apostolic: written by apostles or people closely associated with them, content consistent with apostles' original teaching
•"Rule of truth": faithfully representing core of Christian teaching

Can We Trust the Gospels After All?
There's no way to prove miracles don't happen, or that they do. "There's an irreducible element of faith on both sides …"

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A DEFENSE OF THE OVERALL RELIABILITY OF THE GOSPELS

Author Mark D. Roberts wrote in the first chapter of this 2007 books, “In this book I seek to answer a simple question: Can we trust the Gospels? I’m thinking of two different but related dimensions of trust. On the one hand, I’m asking if the Gospels provide reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth. On the other hand, I’m wondering if they offer a trustworthy basis for faith in Jesus. In this book I will focus almost exclusively on the historical dimension of trusting the Gospels.” (Pg. 13)

Later, he adds, “First, I want to encourage the person who is troubled by negative views of the Gospels, perhaps in a college New Testament course… I want to say, ‘Look, even if you believe most of ‘assured results of scholarship’ concerning the Gospels, you can still trust them.’ Second, I believe this book will have broader impact if I don’t fill it with theories that, however plausible, are popular only among conservative scholars… My basic point in this book is that if you look squarely at the facts as they are widely understood, and if you do not color them the pejorative bias or atheistic presuppositions, then you’ll find that it’s reasonable to trust the Gospels.” (Pg. 20)

He muses about the fourth Gospel, “Traditionally, [the author] has been seem as John, the son of Zebedee, though this identification is never made explicitly in the fourth Gospel itself. What is claimed, however, is that the one who wrote… was a disciple of Jesus, one whom Jesus dearly loved. That could well have been John, though surely Jesus might have loved another disciple, someone whose name we don’t know. For example, Ben Witherington III [his book, ‘What Have They Done With Jesus?’] has presented intriguing arguments in favor of Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple. This identification is supported by the fact that Lazarus is specifically and unusually described as one who was loved by Jesus [11:3, 5, 11, 46]. For our purposes, it doesn’t really matter whether the Beloved disciple was John, Lazarus, or some other disciple of Jesus.” (Pg. 46)

About the dating of the Gospels, he notes, “You can find some commentators who argue that the Gospels reflect no specific knowledge of these events, and therefore must be dated prior to 70. Yet you’ll find others who see between the lines of the Gospels ample references to the fall of Jerusalem, and therefore date all of the Gospels after 70. For my own part, I find some of the arguments for earlier dating enticing, but not so compelling as to convince me that they are correct… These arguments offer packed sand upon which to date the Gospels, but hardly a rock-solid foundation.” (Pg. 58)

He states, “the early followers of Jesus of Jesus had both the ability and the motivation to pass on oral tradition with accuracy. The combination of context, people, content, community, and process helped them to faithfully recount what Jesus did and said. A study of the Gospels shows that the early Christians did this very thing with considerable success. Thus the first-century dating … combined with their use of earlier oral tradition, add up to a convincing rationale for trusting the Gospels. What we find in these books accurately represents what Jesus himself actually did and said.” (Pg. 81)

He observes, “If Matthew was using Mark, as is likely, then he made a few changes. How could he do this if he was writing biography or history?... assuming for a moment that Matthew used Mark as a source, if we evaluate Matthew according to today’s standards, then we would say he’s not completely reliable, even though he mostly agrees with Mark. Yet this sort of anachronistic approach is unhelpful… Matthew was doing what historians and biographers in his day were expected to do. Nobody would have accused him of falsehood back then. Nor should we.” (Pg. 86-88)

He acknowledges, “I freely grant that there are significant differences among the four biblical Gospels on a number of key topics. For example, Matthew alone tells the story of the Magi’s visit to the child Jesus, while Luke alone has shepherds abiding in the fields… John is the most different of all, narrating the ministry of Jesus with a chronology that is more complex than what we find in the Synoptics, and adding extended discourses that are distinctive in both form and content.” (Pg. 97)

Of the Census of Quirinius in Luke 2, he comments, “Sure, it would be nicer if Luke had named as governor of Syria P Quintilius Varus, the Roman legate who supervised in 6 B.C. But if you have done much study of ancient history, you know that apparent confusions like this are frustratingly common. So the tendency of some scholars to rush to judgment against Luke is unwarranted… if we allow for the inherent imprecision of ancient records, and if we judge the Gospels by the standards of their own time, then the rare complications within them lose their significance, overshadowed by the extent to which the Gospels agree with secular history… There are some places in which the Gospels seem at first to be less than accurate, but none of these is terribly significant for the author’s main purpose, and all of these cases can be interpreted in ways that uphold the historical precision of the evangelists.” (Pg. 147)

He summarizes, “I have tried to be as balanced as possible in my presentation of the data. Yes, I have used more conservative scholarship than you would find in some writers. And I’ve drawn more generously from the liberal side than other writers… [But] I have not based my argument for the reliability of the Gospels on the most conservative theories… I have intentionally stayed in the mainstream of New Testament scholarship. My point in doing so is to show that… you can still trust the Gospels. If more conservative theories turn out to be true, so much the better.” (Pg. 189)

He concludes, “I have written this book primarily for people who have questions and doubts about the Gospels. Maybe these doubts have some in a natural process of intellectual growth… Our world today abounds with challenges to the dependability of the Gospels. What was once limited to the academy has now pervaded popular culture and cannot be ignored. I wish this book were unnecessary. I wish the Gospels weren’t under assault in the academy and in pop culture. But wishful thinking won't change reality… there will be an ongoing need for a basic, readable, popular, apologetic explanation of their reliability. That’s what I’ve tried to write.” (Pg. 192)

This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying the Gospels and the historical Jesus.

[Cotton Field · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can't say I was overly excited by this book, but then again I kept coming back to it. Mark Roberts relates considerable personal testimony to carry his thesis here. He query regarding "trust" of the Gospels had its origins in his college years. Scholars put his trust in the Gospels to the test, and he found himself puzzling over apparent contradictions in and discrepancies between books, especially the canonical New Testament accounts of Jesus' life an ministry.

Roberts believes that a systematic approach of applying logical analysis while considering the historical context, not to the mention the style of writing and documenting reflective of Greek views of time and narrative, is essential to rectifying careless interpretations and validating the Christian accounts. I feel at times he stretches this method a bit far and found myself bogging down in what at times repetitive. Likewise, I'm not sure I altogether buy his ideas on documentation, oral tradition, and reasons for recording the same event (birth, life, ministry, crucifixion of Jesus) in different ways. First and foremost I would think the author would insist that Christ and none other bequeaths faith in Him and provides peace and assurance to believe in Him, no matter what we perceive as discrepancies. Unbreakable, unshakable faith should be inserted at obvious junctures in this work to remind us that Christians believe, regardless.

[Brandon Vaughan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a must have for the pastor's library, not only to read, but to reference when needed. As a Harvard scholar, Roberts takes the rules of textual criticism and uses them against the skeptics, making a very strong case for the trustworthiness of the gospels. He included several ancient secular sources to validate the person, work, miracles, death and even the resurrection of Christ. He also used ample secular sources of antiquity to show why the church came to the conclusion that the four gospels were seen as inspired and the others were not. He presented several angles that I've never thought of. On a personal note, I also loved the way that Roberts took the time to completely destroy many of the fallacious arguments put forth in Da Vinci Code. The only reason that I didn’t give it five stars is because I felt at times that Roberts emphasized The humanity of Christ over his deity. He never got out of bounds with it but I’m super picky about that. An overall good read.

[Neh · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly quick and informative read. Such a concise yet thorough book on the topic. You can get a good glimpse through this Harvard grad that the ivory towers are not that tall.

I also appreciated his demolishing of Sir Teabing of Dan Brown effortlessly. (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi docs are two different things and they don't support the pagan anti-biblicists wish.)

As an outsider, I agree with the author on most things -- the traditional authorship, and Matthean precedence to Markan Euangelion (see how scholarly sounding that was!) I guess I am more conservative than the author.

[Rodrigo Sanchez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful book to give out to those with questions about the historical reliability of the Gospels. The chapters are short and to the point. Roberts admits that his aim is to popularize academic ideas for those outside academia. He also admits that popularizing ideas is dangerous, but he strikes a good balance. I also enjoyed his approach, "I have intentionally stayed in the mainstream of New Testament scholarship. My point in doing so is to show that, even taking most of the facts as they're portrayed in the typical college religion course, you can still trust the Gospel" (189).

[Bob Stains · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent work. Roberts' experience as a Harvard-trained scholar provides solid information and enables him to poke through some of the unexamined "givens" common in Biblical scholarship. His profession as a minister provides those of us who are neither scholar nor clergy with information that is accessible and helpful in understanding the reasons for confidence in the historicity of Gospel accounts. That said, unlike many conservative Biblical apologists, he also gives time and respect to the questions that scholars raise.

[Mark Schleier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really appreciate the honesty, the angles, and the perspectives Mark uses here. His last chapter I thought was very impressive; he never said "THIS IS IT... THIS IS 100% DEFINITE, AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME YOU ARE WRONG." He argued angles from all perspectives, and spoke in terms of likely hood and context. Very well done. Also, because it was a blook (blog turned into a book), it was very easy to digest.

[Philip Cottraux · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great introduction to New Testament apologetics. Shorter and more to-the-point than The Case for Christ or Cold Case Christianity (both still great books as well). I appreciate Roberts' very skeptical and scientific case for the historicity of the gospels. Covers complex information in easy-to-read format.

[Piper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nothing revolutionary, but a very good introduction to the topic.

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good popular level introduction

My son was required to read this book for a course at New Saint Andrews. I picked it up with a view to evaluating it for use with my other teenage children. The author does a good job of surveying the key points of the discussion in an accessible way. Recommended!

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Christian faith really rests, on an individual level, what is a person to make of Christ. Is the witness provided by others reliable that it changes everything, or is the witness nothing more than the exaggerated telling of a mystic teacher in Roman Palestine 2,000 years ago. Mark Roberts, a Harvard educated, PC-USA minister has made available to as probably a broad a modern lay audience as possible, a most unusual apologetic for the trustworthiness for the gospels of the New Testament.

What makes this book unusual is that Roberts was trained in the higher critical schools that doubt the veracity of the gospels, and he uses those methods to show how the four NT gospels are an acceptable and trustworthy account for the life of Jesus. There has been a great divide between higher critical Biblical scholars and traditional, orthodox ones, to the point where they do not interact with each other at all. Roberts, in using the language of the higher critical world that he studied in, is able to at least dialogue with a general population, who knows little of the back and forth debates and has picked up the information in a second hand matter. This book started as a blog series for Roberts, so in its 200 pages, its writing style takes on the familiar `jotty', FAQ style that is common online, yet it is informed by Roberts years of study in ancient history, manuscripts and theology.

This book is primarily for people who have doubts about the trustworthiness of the gospels. Roberts apologetic, is to attempt to remove obstacles to faith, in this case doubts about the historical validity of the four gospels. What permeates his writing is a sense of reasonableness, that what he presents is based on the best sort of reason. He cannot, for no person can, make the case of absolute certainty. You cannot do that with history. But as a believer and in this case most importantly, a pastor, he wants to remove objections to faith, so that individuals can come to faith with one less objection.

He assumes the reader is not at all deeply familiar with much, other than there are four gospels in the Bible that they have doubts over. As such, his writing on historical, archeological, and cultural evidences for the veracity of the gospels is strong. His explanation of strength of the oral tradition is particularly strong in relating to our non oral culture just how different and effective the transmission of teaching by word of mouth was in that culture.

This is a most effective, and accessible presentation of the facts for the historical reliability of the gospels. In an era buffeted by the popular fiction like the da Vinci Code, popular news stories and the unbending world of modern academia, this little book could be a welcome relief for those concerned and troubled with doubts of the gospels.

[Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Roberts makes a successful case for trusting the Gospels in a limited number of pages. Engaging contemporary ideas, as well as sometimes the fictional historian Sir Leigh Teabing from Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, Roberts argues that we can indeed trust the Gospels to give us accurate information about the events surrounding the life of Jesus. He covers issues such as the canon, oral tradition, archaeology, contemporaneous writers, supposed contradictions, and a host of other attacks on the Gospels' reliability. I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated Roberts' style, tone, and approach. Roberts writes to a lay audience and communicates his ideas effectively without getting too in-depth and thereby losing the reader. Furthermore, he is able to be funny, throwing in refreshing pop-culture references and anecdotes. I respect his even-handed approach overall and specifically with several issues. To give one example, he concedes both that John may not have written the Gospel attributed to him and the likelihood of a later date of authorship. In this way, Roberts avoids resorting to more conservative tactics of defending the reliability of the Gospels in this book. However, he doesn't devalue such approaches, but rather wants to see what he can get away with while operating under a skeptical methodology (a good approach to apologetics in general, if you ask me). To sum things up, the book is short and concise, funny and witty, yet full of good scholarship. The points are easy to follow and the style is engaging and readable. I highly recommend this book as an introduction on the topic of the reliability of the New Testament Gospels.

[Steve · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was truly disappointed with this book--particularly the last third of it. I had just finished "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, which I very much enjoyed and felt that had learned a lot from it. Then I came across this book by a conservative Presbyterian preacher and writer, who seemed to criticize Ehrman's book the introduction. The author, with a PhD in New Testament from Harvard has the skills and background to offer a detailed critical response to Ehrman (or other "liberal" scholars), if there is one to be made. The first half of the book has much good and honest information on the Gospels and the tools used to analyze them these days. He rightly notes that the very conservative Christians who insist on every word of the Bible being inerrant, paint themselves into a logical and intellectual corner. However, when it comes to his defense of the Gospels, it is too often in response to the straw man of "some scholars"--no one specified, no specific text cited, etc. The only detailed scholar critiqued is Keith Teabing, the fictional historian in the Da Vinci Code! Good Lord! Bart Ehrman did a better job of that years ago in "Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code." In the end, I suppose this book exposes the limitations of turning a blog into a book.

[Kessia Reyne · Rating 5 out of 5]

When Mark Roberts went to Harvard in the 1970s, he was an enthusiastic young Christian. Religion 140, "Introduction to Early Christian Literature" threatened to change all that. Suddenly Mark found his trust in the Gospels challenged. Were the Biblical accounts reliable sources on the life and person of Jesus? Should he abandon scholarship or his faith instead?

Mark went on to get his Ph.D. in New Testament from Harvard and later to pastor and teach. This work on the reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is both intelligent and reassuring to those who may have been challenged by the popular media's intense skepticism on the New Testament documents. It's persuasive, easy to read, and after grappling with the issues comes out on the side of faith.

[Timothy Bertolet · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book. It is short and easy to read yet it deals with the issues. Those who read a lot of Biblical studies books might wish he had dealt more in depth with the issues. However, the book is written for those who are at an introductory level and wondering if they can trust the gospels. This is a book I would definitely pass out to people wanting to know if we can really trust the gospels. The author was educated at Harvard and has had his share of liberal views of the origins of the gospels. He deals with a variety of issues in brief including the miracles, the dates of the gospels, the reliability of oral traditions, the gospel of Thomas, why we have four gospels and the genre of the gospels.

[Lewis Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Often, those who write Christian apologetic works are accused of not being "real" scholars. Roberts blows that stereotype wide open. A Harvard PhD educated in the skeptical mainstream of New Testament scholarship, he nonetheless affirms the essential historical reliability of the Gospels in language that is easy to understand and logic that is hard to refute. For anyone who engages in the great debate over the reliability of the New Testament, this work is indispensable! Roberts picks apart the most common criticisms of the New Testament, deftly eviscerating the popular works of skeptics like Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and want to read more of Roberts' works now!

[Tim Habert · Rating 2 out of 5]

I highly disagree with this book, but I gave it 2 stars because I think that the author did a good job explaining and fleshing out his points, regardless of how convincing I found the arguments to be.

What annoyed me the most though was how he didn't bring up the fact that the Jesus story is unoriginal. There were many gods before Jesus that had a similar life story, and the author never addressed it. Are the Gospels real, and these other "gods" story false? I would have really liked the author to approach this subject and tell me how I could believe the Gospels, but somehow ignore these other messiah stories where the exact same thing happens.

[Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent introduction to textual criticism. This book is actually based off Dr. Roberts' blog; he calls it a blook, I believe. This book changed some of my beliefs, I admit, but I've come through with more faith and confidence than ever in the authenticity of the gospels. If anything, the differences in the gospels are a good thing because they portray a clearer picture of events. Do you want 4 testimonies that say exactly the same thing, or do you want 4 testimonies that have different (but true) perspectives of the same event? As this book says, "All truth is God's truth."

[Vance · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mark D. Roberts is great at making something as complex as textual criticism useful and understandable to the non-scholar without being simplistic. Great to share with your friends who don't know much about the Bible as well as a good starting point to just start conversations about God. No matter how long you've been a Christian, you will learn a great deal about just how reliable the Gospels are. A great encouragement.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mark Roberts' _Can We Trust the Gospels?_ answers the titular question with a resounding "Yes!" using concise, convincing arguments grounded in scholarship and reason. I would recommend this to anyone interested in a layman's history of the gospels; it can be read in a few hours and understood by just about anybody.

[james spellman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Are the gospels reliable?

A disappointing and superficial argument for the reliability of the gospels. The author begins his arguments by stating the the prevailing counter arguments are wrong. He then fails to develop his argument by failing to counter specific arguments from other writers such as Ehrman. Instead, he merely presents a loose grouping of opinions.

[Ken · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good explanation of Gospel background for laymen.

[Denise · Rating 1 out of 5]

The short answer is No. Mr. Roberts should have left this as a blog.

[Pieter Lombaard · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent apologetic on New Testament reliability.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A standard work on the reliability of the gospels.

[Naomi]

My Dad is read this and got a lot of information out it.