Can We Trust the Gospels?
The Historical Reliability of the Narratives of Jesus

Charles Dunn

Particularly in the last two centuries, scholars have called into question the credibility of the texts that record the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The discourse has been widespread and controversial, not surprisingly in light of the content within the Gospel accounts. The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) garner so much attention because of the claims they make: they claim that Jesus was the Son of God and that he was crucified and resurrected from the dead, thereby paying the penalty for the sins of mankind and demonstrating himself to be the Son of God, offering salvation and eternal life to all who believe in Him. Indeed these are bold claims of monumental significance if true.

Christianity is, and always has been, rooted in historical revelation. It is therefore important to view its foundation documents through historical criticism. As Biblical scholar and critic F.F. Bruce writes, “History and theology are inextricably intertwined in the gospel of our salvation, which owes its eternal and universal validity to certain events which happened in Palestine when Tiberius ruled the Roman Empire.”1 In my discussion, I will attempt to examine the reliability of the Gospels. First I will seek to determine whether the authors are reliable sources. What credentials do the authors have? When did they write their accounts? Do they report similar facts about Jesus’ life? Do they hold up to tests of scrutiny? I will also highlight the independent historical and archaeological verification of the people and places mentioned in the Gospels, the accuracy of the transmission of the Gospel texts, and harmonizations of alleged contradictions.

Before beginning such a study, it is important to say something about method. Once one sees that the Gospel writers were attempting to write reliable history, one must adopt an important “presupposition which one exercises in the reading of all history. Without it no historiography, ancient or modern, would win acceptance. Briefly, it is this, that one accepts a statement upon the word of the reporter unless he has reason not to do so.”2 Should ancient historians presume texts unreliable until enough data can be produced to corroborate their accounts, they would find the corroborative data wholly insufficient and would have to disregard most of what is accepted today as reliable history. I mention this because many scholars have approached the Gospels under an intensely critical presupposition, thereby greatly distorting the conclusions and historicity of their results. The Gospels, like any other texts of ancient history, should be treated under the normative canons of historiography.

Are the Gospel writers reliable sources?

One of the first questions to ask about any supposedly historical account is “Who wrote it?” In the case of the Gospels, which record the life, teaching, death, and alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ, what access to this information did the Gospel writers have? Did they interact with Jesus, listen to his teaching, see his miracles, witness his death and perhaps meet with him after his purported resurrection? Did any of the writers scrupulously interview other eyewitnesses, ask difficult questions, and faithfully record what they discovered? The answer is a resounding yes. According to the uniform testimony of the early church, the Gospels were written by the authors we assign to them today. Writing in 180 AD, early Church apologist Irenaeus listed the authors of the Gospels confirming the statements of St. Papias (d. 130 AD), Tertullian (d. 220 AD), and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 AD):

Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.3

So essentially what we have are two Gospels written by two of Jesus’ disciples, Matthew and John, one by Mark the companion of the disciple Peter, and one by Luke, the historian and doctor companion of the apostle Paul. Therefore the Gospels are all based on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony.

Were the facts about Jesus exagerrated before they were recorded?

Even if this is so, one might wonder whether the time gap between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels was so great that the accounts were corrupted and distorted so that Jesus became more than just a wise teacher. Some scholars endorse this view, such as Karen Armstrong who in her book The History of God writes:  

We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was St. Mark’s gospel, which was not written until the year 70, some forty years after his death. [Jesus was crucified and allegedly resurrected in AD 33.] By that time, historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements, which expressed the meaning Jesus had acquired for his followers. It is this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable straightforward portrayal.4

First of all, there are highly persuasive arguments that the Gospels were written earlier than Armstrong’s dating suggests, but even if they were written later, her argument would not stand up. The latest dates for the Gospels put Mark in the 70’s, Matthew and Luke in the 80’s and John in the 90’s. At these dates there still would have been several eyewitnesses around to challenge inaccurate accounts.5 Furthermore, a forty-year gap appears infinitesimal when compared with other ancient biographies, which were written centuries after the death of the person being recorded. In the ancient world, an account written thirty to forty years after the fact is like a newsflash. Consider the biographies written about Alexander the Great by Arian and Plutarch, which were written more than four hundred years after the death of Alexander. Yet these are generally considered reliable. Myths about Alexander the Great didn’t start developing until the next five hundred years.6

In addition, the Gospels were likely written even earlier than Armstrong suggests. Luke completed his second book The Acts of the Apostles, in 62 AD, as a continuation of his Gospel.7 Therefore, the Gospel of Luke must have been written before 62 AD, and since Luke is believed to incorporate parts of Mark, Mark must have been written before that. Perhaps the most convincing evidence that belief in Jesus’ miraculous resurrection existed in the earliest days of Christianity comes from other books in the New Testament. By the time the Gospels were written, Paul had written nearly all of his epistles. In these epistles we find incorporated what are generally accepted as early church hymns or creeds, including 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul speaks of the tradition that he received after his conversion, which was two years after the death of Christ (33 AD). In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul reminds the Corinthians of the relatively fixed oral tradition that he had passed on to them. This creed affirms critical facts about Jesus’ death for man’s sins and a detailed list of the people to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection. The Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus can be firmly dated to within two to five years of Jesus death, not to forty years later when it allegedly arose through myth and distortion!8

What about the non-canonical “Gospels”?

Before moving on, it is necessary to consider the non-canonical “Gospels.” First of all, these alleged “Gospels” were written much later than the canonical Gospels, in the second, third, fourth, fifth, or even sixth centuries AD and are rather banal in content and tone. Secondly, they carry names of prominent companions of Jesus—the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mary—that are entirely unrelated to their actual authorship and are therefore not based on eyewitness testimony.9 Yet even if these can be disregarded as historically unreliable, how does one evaluate the historicity of the Gospel of Thomas, which some have placed on par with the other four Gospels? Unlike the four canonical Gospel accounts, which primarily record what Jesus did, the Gospel of Thomas exclusively records what Jesus said. It was likely written later than the canonical Gospels in Syria around 140 AD, not by Jesus’ disciple Thomas as the title suggests.10 While some of the recorded sayings of Jesus included in the Gospel of Thomas are similar to those recorded in the canonical Gospels, it also includes some statements by Jesus that are blatantly contrary to the teaching recorded in the four Gospels. According to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said, “Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life” and “Lo, I shall lead her and make her a male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.”11 In another place it cites Jesus as saying, “Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there.”12 This anti-feminist and pantheist Jesus is blatantly opposed to the Jesus recorded in the canonical Gospels! While the Gospel of Thomas may be an interesting text, it is of little historical value.

Are the Gospel accounts consistent?

One of the most important questions to ask when comparing multiple historical accounts of an event or series of events is whether or not the accounts corroborate each other. As applied to the Gospel writers, do they report similar facts about Jesus’ life? A thorough reading of the Gospels will show that they are harmonized and consistent in their presentation of Jesus yet are not identical to each other in wording. Some have alleged that minor differences in presentation and emphasis suggest contradiction. Yet if the Gospel accounts were identical, one could equally charge that the authors conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance, which would clearly cast doubts upon the independent testimony of their writing. If the accounts were too consistent, it would seem that we only had one account that everyone else was copying. Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School, who authored a landmark treatise on evidence, after studying the consistency of the Gospels wrote:

There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction.13

This is not to say that the alleged contradictions are not worthy of consideration, even by the most conservative of Christians. I will briefly touch on these “contradictions” later. But in summary, Greenleaf’s assessment of the consistency yet independent reliability of the Gospels is easily verified.

Did the Gospel writers intend to write historically?

A few scholars have sidestepped this entire discussion by questioning the intention of the Gospel writers themselves. They have purported that the Gospel writers never had any intention of recording historically accurate information but were rather writing in some other genre, such as “parable” stories to teach theological truth. While Jesus did sometimes teach in parables, stories that teach theological truth, it would be hard to read the Gospel accounts and believe that all the descriptions of what Jesus did (which are more common than what Jesus said) were not at least intended as historical record. After all, if the Gospels really are offering new possibilities for man’s relationship with God, then something must have happened in history to make these possible. James Williams, in his Gospel against Parable, demonstrates that the parables within the Gospels should not be understood outside of their historical narrative framework, concluding that the Gospels are generically the combination of two literary genres, biography and parable.14 Indeed, the writers of the Gospels make their intention to record historically accurate information quite apparent. Luke writes at the beginning of his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.15

Thus, it is apparent that Luke endeavors to write accurately about things he found to be well-supported by witnesses. Furthermore, a quick reading of the Gospels will show that they are written in a sober and responsible fashion, with care and accuracy in incidental details. They are not characterized by the outlandish mythologizing and blatant hyperbole present in much ancient writing.

Do the Gospel writers hold up to tests of scrutiny?

A few skeptics have questioned whether writers obviously devoted to Jesus could record accurate accounts of his life without changing details to improve Jesus’ image. While this is a possibility, it certainly does not have to be the case. The disciples’ love and devotion for Jesus, in addition to Jesus’ many teachings on honesty and integrity, could just as well have encouraged the Gospel writers to record Jesus’ life with great integrity. Besides, the disciples had nothing to gain except ostracism, criticism, and martyrdom. There was great pressure on the disciples to keep quiet, to deny or downplay Jesus, even to forget that they had known him. Yet because of their integrity, they recorded what they had seen, even in the face of suffering and death.16

The atmosphere of adverse witnesses at the time of the writing of the Gospels should also be taken into account. As Biblical scholar and critic F.F. Bruce points out, “It can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of his disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.” There were also plenty of people at the time opposed to Christianity. “The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so.”17

Are the Gospels contradictory?

Some have argued that the alleged contradictions in the Gospels are too substantial to be dismissed on the basis of merely being the variety that comes from independent testimony. In fact, alleged contradictions in the Gospels (or in the Bible as a whole) are perhaps the most frequently cited challenge to Scripture’s reliability. At the outset, it is important to keep in mind that the number of so-called contradictions is very few, especially considering the length of the texts. While the following cannot fully discount the alleged contradictions, it should also be noted that the “contradictions” do not concern any major event or article of faith.

For example, a great many of the alleged contradictions arise from not understanding the concept of ancient quotation and paraphrase and attempting to apply our modern concerns for accurate quotation to the texts. Greek and Hebrew had no symbols for quotation marks, and a historian or biographer did not necessarily try to exactly report the words used by the person in question.18

Not surprisingly then, alleged contradictions such as the following arise. According to the Gospels, the Roman praetor (governor), Pontius Pilate, posted a sign on the cross where Jesus hung. Three of the Gospel writers record what was written on that sign:

There is different wording but all three writers report that Christ was crucified, that a sign was erected, and all three wordings mean the same thing. When one recognizes that ancient writers were concerned with actual voice (ipsissima vox) not actual words (ipsissima verba), it is easy to see that this type of minor variation in wording that occurs with nearly every pair of Gospel parallels does not challenge their historical reliability.19

Another frequently cited type of contradiction centers around the chronology of events recorded in the Gospels. That is, many of the accounts of incidents in Jesus’s life do not occur in the same order in one Gospel as they do in the next. Yet from very early in church history, at least as early as Augustine (354-430 AD), it has been understood that the Gospel writers did not set out to report a detailed itinerary of Jesus’ ministry with every event in proper chronological order, but often arranged passages in thematic or topical order instead. Accordingly, one should only seek to create a chronological sequence between two Gospel portions when the text explicitly presents one. This becomes especially clear when one recognizes that the Greek connector words kai and de sometimes translated into English as “now” or “then” can often have no temporal significance and only mean “and.” One can see this principle very clearly in Luke’s Gospel where he frequently introduces passages with no clear temporal connection with the preceding passage, simply using the Greek word kai “and.”20 Modern biographers do exactly the same thing. They follow a line of thought or topic relevant to the life they are describing, only loosely following a chronological sequence. They are not criticized for this method, as writing a biography would be almost impossible in any other way.

Sometimes critics of the Gospels will question their historical reliability based on the omission of certain passages or sections by one Gospel that are included in another. Did a Gospel writer omit what another writer included for structural or thematic reasons or for a more practical reason, such as a desire to add other material to his Gospel account and limited room on a standard sized scroll? It would be hard to accuse a Gospel writer of being contradictory to another source simply because he omits some of the other’s information. As noted at the end of John’s Gospel, clearly anyone’s reconstruction of the life of Christ can only represent a fraction of his teaching and marvelous activity,21 so the omission of certain material should come as no surprise. Indeed the unity of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life is far more impressive than its diversity.22

Do archaeology and non-Christian historians corroborate the Gospels?

In addition to the internal evidence for historical reliability in the Gospels, one must also consider whether they can be corroborated by archaeology and other ancient history sources. Archaeology, of course, is limited. It cannot prove the truth of Jesus’ claims, but it can confirm that the geography and history of the Gospels is accurate. Archaeology has demonstrated, as noted by prominent Australian archaeologist Clifford Wilson, that “those who know the facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book.”23 Indeed, archaeologists have verified the accounts of Luke in both his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles, showing that in his references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands he did not make a single mistake.24

For some time the Gospel of John was challenged as being historically suspect in its references to locations that couldn’t be verified. One such allegation dealt with John 5:1-15, which tells of how Jesus healed a paralyzed man by the Pool of Bethesda. John also details that this pool had five porticoes. Since no such place had been found, John was accused of being inaccurate. Yet when archaeologists excavated the Pool, which was forty feet below ground level, they found the five porticoes (colonnaded walkways) just as John had described it. Further discoveries have added to the case for John’s accuracy such as the Pool of Siloam from John 9:7, Jacob’s Well from John 4:12, the probable site of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate where Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate in John 19:13 and even inscriptions affirming Pilate’s own identity.25 Summarily, archaeology has not produced anything demonstrably in contradiction with the Gospels, and many opinions of skeptical scholars have been shown to be inaccurate through archaeological discovery.

The historical reliability of the Gospels’ description of Jesus has also been verified by ancient non-Christian sources. These include the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, the Jewish Talmud, the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. If one did not have the Gospels, any of the New Testament, or any other Christian writings one would still know the following about the life of Jesus:

In conclusion, it is fair to say that the Gospels are further vindicated when they mention people, places, and events that can be independently verified.

Have the Gospel texts been corrupted or altered over time?

Even if one is willing to accept that the Gospels in their original manuscripts were historically reliable—even remarkably so—one might still question whether the manuscripts were faithfully passed along. Since we don’t have the first or original copies of the Gospels how do we know that they were not greatly altered, so that what we have today is significantly different than what was originally written?

Since the original manuscripts were written on papyrus, which is susceptible to moisture and cracking, they had a short life-span and accordingly had to be copied. And of course when texts are copied, they are subject to human error or intentional manipulation. The question regarding the manuscript accuracy of the Gospels is not unique to them but rather applies to all ancient texts. But the Gospels are unique when compared with other ancient writings due to the unprecedented sum of copies that have survived and the age of the copies available. The number of copies is important in textual criticism because they can be cross-checked against one another to ascertain what the original document was like. Presently more than 5,664 Greek manuscripts from the New Testament have been discovered in addition to 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus 8,000 Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian copies. In all there are about 24,000 manuscripts in existence.

Unlike other ancient texts, there are New Testament manuscripts copied within a couple of generations of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy. This wealth of remarkably early manuscript evidence led former director of the British Museum Sir Frederic Kenyon to state, “In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”27 Next to the New Testament, the greatest amount of manuscript material is Homer’s Iliad of which there are fewer than 650 manuscripts. They come from the second and third centuries AD and later, a considerably long time from when the work was first written around 750 BC.

Textual criticism has demonstrated that the New Testament has been passed down in a form that is 99.5% pure, and in the small percentage of cases where there is significant uncertainty about what the original texts said, the general sense of the sentence is quite clear from the context, and textual variants are listed in marginal notes.28 This evidence for the accurate transmission of the New Testament manuscripts led Kenyon along with many other scholars to conclude, “The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”29 Benjamin Warfield, who held four doctorates and taught at Princeton Theological Seminary until his death wrote:

If we compare the present state of the New Testament with that of any other ancient writing, we must…declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied—a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words…The New Testament is unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use.30

As the Gospels are repeatedly subjected to historical evaluation, they continue to bear the test of scrutiny. Their authors check out as reliable sources, and they corroborate one another as non-contradictory independent accounts. Despite two thousand years of elapsed time, the texts have remained true to the original manuscripts without distortion or manipulation, and archaeology and extra-biblical history continue to affirm the people and places mentioned in the Gospels. On multiple critical fronts, the Gospels appear historically reliable. Of course, Christians cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Gospel accounts are historically accurate, but they must attempt to show that there is a strong likelihood of their historicity, as is the case with all other historical hypotheses. After all, though people may act inconsistently and believe in God or Jesus despite the historical evidence, such belief would nonetheless be irrational and even un-Christian, as Christianity is rooted in the concept of God acting in history.31

Faith and History

It is important to talk about history with the topic of faith because in a way the two are inextricably intertwined. That is to say that Christians and non-Christians alike readily employ faith when it comes to history. Of course we can never be entirely certain that events that we accept as historically true actually took place. For that matter, we cannot really be sure that our reason or senses can be trusted. But we believe that they can be, and I think it would be unwise and quite impossible not to do so.

People are finite beings. We cannot be in more than one place at the same time, nor can we travel into the past and see it with our own eyes. There are innumerable events and happenings that we will never witness for ourselves, yet we will accept them as true on the basis of the testimony of others. Why is it that we accept their testimony? Why should we believe their witness to be true? Essentially, we ask ourselves whether or not our sources are reliable. This, among many other things, is what historians do. They look at sources or witnesses of events in the past, and they ask themselves whether or not they can be trusted as recording historical fact. The history of the early Church goes beyond the Gospel texts themselves, of course. The first Christians did not have these written documents, yet the Church was already alive and well. The early Church was nurturing the Gospel writers, as it was the first believers. And in what were they believers? Not in the Gospel texts themselves but in Jesus the Messiah, and they were strengthened in their beliefs by the teaching of Jesus’ apostles. The very existence of this community of people who believed such amazing and dangerous stuff at the risk of persecution or death gives historical credibility to the Gospels. These people were not risking persecution and death for some fable or for a Jesus who was no more than a wise teacher or moral examplar.

Why does it matter?

What is the significance of historical reliability, specifically as it relates to the Gospels? Ultimately, why should it matter to us what happened in Palestine in the early first century AD when Tiberius was the Roman Emperor? Even if the Gospels are historically reliable, what bearing does that have on people two thousand years later? Perhaps the best answer to this question can be found by actually reading the Gospels and seeing what they have to say. When asked by Jesus if he would continue to follow him, Jesus’ disciple Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”32

The Gospels make claims of eternal and monumental significance. They claim that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life, and that no one comes to God the Father except through him.33 They claim that we the human race are sick and in need of a doctor. They claim that there is mammoth distance between man and God and that this distance is the result of sin. They claim that the unavoidable result of this distance is death and eternal separation from God. Yet in the midst of this dire situation, a situation that first-century man both Jew and Gentile understood very well, God did the unthinkable. He sent his Son into the world to be born fully man yet fully God, to live a perfect life, and when his time had come, to die a humiliating death on a cross, thereby paying the price for all the sins of mankind. The Gospels claim that this God-man, Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead three days after his crucifixion and that he appeared to many of his followers for several days afterwards. What’s more, the Gospels claim that those who trust in Jesus will also share in his resurrection. They will be born-again into new life—death will no longer have the last word—they will have eternal life with God.

If the Gospels are to be trusted as historically reliable, then one is left with C.S. Lewis’ famous ‘trilemma’ argument:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing that we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.34

Charles Dunn ‘10 is from Dallas, Texas. He is a Classical Languages and Literatures major and a History minor.

  1. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Leicester, UK: InterVarsity Press, 1981), xiv.
  2. Neil J. McEleney. “Authenticating Material and Mark 7:1-23.” CBQ 34 (1972) p.446.
  3. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.4.
  4. Karen Armstrong, A History of God (New York: Ballantine/Epiphany, 1993), 82.
  5. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 41.
  6. Lee Strobel, 41.
  7. Ibid, 42.
  8. Ibid, 34-5.
  9. Ibid, 88.
  10. Ibid, 89.
  11. The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, trans. Marvin Meyer (New York: HarperCollins, 1992) v.114, 65.
  12. The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, v.77, 25.
  13. Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), vii.
  14. James G. Williams, Gospel Against Parable (Sheffield: Almond, 1985), 213.
  15. Luke 1:1-4, The NIV Study Bible, ed. Kenneth Barker et al. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
  16. Lee Strobel, 48.
  17. F.F. Bruce, 43.
  18. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, (Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 118.
  19. Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy”, in Inerrancy, ed. Normal L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 301.
  20. Craig L. Blomberg, 127-8
  21. John 20:31, The NIV Study Bible.
  22. Craig L. Blomberg, 130-1.
  23. Clifford Wilson, Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids: Zondervan; Richardson, Tex.: Probe, 1977), 120.
  24. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (Wheaton, Il.: Victor, 1992), 385.
  25. Lee Strobel, 99.
  26. Ibid, 87.
  27. Frederic Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1912), 5.
  28. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 96.
  29. Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper, 1940), 288.
  30. Benjamin B. Warfield, Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907), 12-13.
  31. Craig L. Blomberg, 10.
  32. John 6:68, The NIV Study Bible.
  33. John 14:6, The NIV Study Bible.
  34. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Collins; New York: Macmillan, 1955), 52.