Volume > Issue > On the Reliability of the Four Gospels

On the Reliability of the Four Gospels


By John Warwick Montgomery | May 1994
The Rev. John Warwick Montgomery, a Lutheran, is a practicing barrister and Professor of Law and Humanities at the University of Luton in England.

Debate time again in London! A year ago, your humble servant reported on his public debate with Prof. G.A. Wells, who denies Jesus’ existence (NOR, May 1993). The sponsor of that confrontation, the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, provided a second op­portunity for classic Christianity and secularism to battle it out in the marketplace of ideas. So, on Febru­ary 17, at the Inns of Court School of Law, Richard Cunningham, a Christian apologist, took on Darren Newman of the Central London Humanist Society. The subject: What basis for truth?

Newman commenced with the admission (sel­dom as clearly recognized by the modernist theologian!) that the truth of Christianity depends squarely on the historical veracity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ: If it happened, Christianity is true; if not, not. Thus, all depends on the reliability of the Gospel ac­counts — and, according to Newman, when they are weighed in the balance, they are found wanting. Con­sider: (1) The four Gospels are all anonymous; from the books themselves we cannot tell who their au­thors were. (2) A 40-year gap separates the events they recount, including the alleged resurrection of Jesus, from the writing down of them. And we need only remind ourselves that in less time than that after the assassination of President Kennedy, myths developed concerning that event. (3) “Matthew,” “Luke,” and “John” could not possibly have been eyewitnesses, for they rely on source materials by others — and the same is probably true of “Mark.” An eyewitness has no need to consult accounts of the events he has himself observed. (4) The Gospel accounts contain doublets (e.g., the feeding of the 4,000 and the feed­ing of the 5,000, obviously two confused treatments of the same alleged event) and contradictions (the Roman guard at the tomb appears in only one ac­count and is totally ignored in the others, whereas he would surely have been mentioned by all had he really been there). (5) Detailed narratives, such as Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, are set forth which no one could have known (the disciples were asleep!). It therefore follows that the Evangelists’ ac­counts are not historical descriptions but literary cre­ations. (6) A Gospel writer such as “Matthew” roman­ticizes by elaboration; thus, to the more simple ac­counts of Jesus’ crucifixion set forth by the other writers, he adds the earthquake and the saints com­ing forth from their graves. In light of such mytholo­gizing, Newman has no choice but to opt (says he) for reality — the reality of humanness, as exemplified by the Humanist credo.

Richard Cunningham, who has debated widely on behalf of classical Christianity in the United King­dom, chose not to speak to these particular points, leaving them, in effect, for the question period. For him it was dangerous to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Cunningham preferred to turn his guns on Humanism itself.

Enjoyed reading this?



You May Also Enjoy

The Parable of the Wheat & the Weeds: A Magna Carta for Dissent & Heresy?

Can some sense be made of the Pope's inaction?

A New Look at the Old Testament

Short-selling the Old Testament is regrettable. The Church of Rome has always been clear that the New Testament doesn’t supersede the Old.

The Virgin Birth: A Problem?

England is the preeminent country for the cel­ebration of Christmas. Blessed with Dickens and no…