Part 2:
Are They Historically Reliable?

Like the textual reliability of the documents, their historical reliability must also be established. Given that most data that can be evaluated as historical is found in the Gospels and Acts, that is where we will be focusing our attention. It is important to note here that, like any other work of antiquity, tests for historicity can only be applied where possible. We can’t verify every person, place, or event in the Gospels, Acts, or other historical texts using outside sources. Some details simply aren’t confirmed elsewhere. If a text proves to be historically reliable where it can be tested the benefit of the doubt should be extended where it cannot. The late historian of religion, Dr. Martin Hengel, sums it up nicely¹:

​

“We know too little to be able to reject in advance what sources say, in a hypercritical attitude which is at the same time hostile to history, without examining them carefully. Today, after more than 200 years of historical-critical work on the New Testament, such an attitude must be termed uncritical and unhistorical. The real danger in the interpretation of Acts (and the Gospels) is no longer an uncritical apologetic but the hypercritical ignorance and arrogance which – often combined with unbridled fantasy – has lost any understanding of living historical reality.”

​

In sum, rejecting source material simply because it cannot be tested is extremely bad practice. It exemplifies an ignorant and arrogant method of studying ancient history.

​

Who Wrote the Gospels?

The authorship of the four Gospels is traditionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, it begs the question: Is there evidence that can be presented to support that claim?​

Manuscript Evidence

The manuscripts of the Gospels vary in their titles². However, despite the variety of titles found on the surviving manuscripts of the Gospels, the evidence is unanimous as it relates to the authors themselves. All Gospel manuscripts on which the title is intact attribute the authorship of the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, without exception, in every language. There is no manuscript or other historical evidence to suggest that the authors of the four Gospels were either unknown, or anyone other than the traditional four.

​​​​​​

Evidence From Tradition

The writings of the church fathers across various parts of the world all testify unanimously on the authorship of the Gospels.³ The first challenge issued against the authorship of the Gospels is believed to be that of Faustus the Manichean in the late 4th – early 5th centuries AD. This was strongly opposed and answered by Augustine of Hippo.⁴ Casually, his response was, “Why don’t you question the authorship of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, etc., when the authorship of the Gospels is as well or better attested than theirs?” Again, it is important to note that there are no competing traditions regarding authorship of the Gospels. They have always and consistently been attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

​

When Were the Gospels and Acts Written?​

Most of modern scholarship assigns the period of the writing of the Gospels to ca. 65-100 AD, thirty-five to seventy years after the death of Yeshua of Nazareth. There is a minority, however, who ascribe to an earlier dating schema. Is there evidence for the earlier dates? How strong is that evidence?

​

Preliminary Historical Data​

• There was a great famine all over the world in the days of Claudius Caesar ca. 46-47 AD (Ac. 11:28).⁵

• The Jews were expelled from Rome under Claudius ca. 51-52 AD (Ac. 18:2).⁶

• The deaths of Paul and the Apostle Peter were likely sometime during the great persecution under Nero Caesar ca. 64-68 AD.⁷

• The destruction of Jerusalem and Herod’s temple within it is dated to 70 AD.

Internal Evidence

The texts show a familiarity with more specific details of the Jerusalem and the temple and/or its services, which would be inaccessible after its destruction for use in compiling accounts like the Gospels (i.e., no detailed architectural plans, pictures, or service rules and guidelines existed that one could refer to). This means that the Gospel authors themselves, or those who were interviewed by the authors, had to have been alive while the city and temple still stood and been familiar with such things.⁸

​​​​

We read that the temple, before and up to the time of the feast of Passover, was filled with money changers (Mt. 21:12-13; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45-46; Jn. 2:13-17)⁹, we find mention of a structure known as “Solomon’s Porch” (Jn. 10:23; Ac. 3:11, 5:12)¹⁰, and the author knew that there was a single gate in the temple that was named “Beautiful” (Ac. 3:2, 10)¹¹. Acquiring knowledge of those little, relatively insignificant details would have been very difficult if the documents were written after the city and temple were in ruins, and those who lived at that time had all passed away.

​

Many teachings and instructions are also found in the Gospels that would be meaningless if the temple no longer stood at the time and are therefore unlikely to be added by an author after its destruction. We find comments on swearing by the temple or the altar (Mt. 23:16-22), instructions including the offering of gifts at the altar (Mt. 5:23-24), and the admonishment to continue tithing, even though it was only for the Levites (Mt. 23:23; Lk. 11:42; c.f. Num. 18:21-24). The two-drachma temple tax is also still being exacted (Mat. 17:24)¹², which only had force while the temple stood¹³. Also of important note, currency exchange references are accurately valued. Peter later caught a fish with a stater (often translated shekel) in its mouth (Mt. 17:27), which was equivalent to four drachmas, exactly what was needed to pay the tax for both of them.

​

The style and content of the Gospels are also distinctly Hebraic. The nuances that make them such are unlikely to be duplicated by someone who was separated from or unfamiliar with the Jewish culture and language. They include Hebrew-style genealogies, and dozens of quotations from the Hebrew Bible spanning across the Torah, Prophets, and Wisdom literature,¹⁴ demonstrating a great degree of familiarity with the texts.  They also include various teachings, discussions, and debates, which relate solely to Jewish customs and practices (e.g., debates about fasting, the Sabbath, what is considered clean and unclean, etc.). The parabolic and apocalyptic genres utilized often by the Hebrews are also used throughout. Laws, rites, and traditions such as ritual cleansing, sacrificial offerings for childbirth and leprosy, priestly courses, and the order of a service in a synagogue are found. In addition, we find words or phrases used that are characteristically Hebrew or Aramaic¹⁵.

​

Other examples include historical figures and events that are corroborated by external sources, such as Josephus, which document the history of the Jewish people in the 1st century. For instance, the procurators Felix and Festus are both mentioned several times¹⁶. Felix’s death is recorded (Ac. 24:27) and his replacement, Porcius Festus, was sent from Nero Caesar to replace Felix ca. 58 AD¹⁷. Festus died approximately four years after he became procurator, ca. 61-62 AD, and was succeeded by Albinus¹⁸. These historical facts will help us to set down a relatively certain timeline for the authorship of Acts further below.

​

Arguments from Silence

Arguments from Silence are valid forms of argumentation so long as they meet certain, specific criteria. Simply put, the definition of an “Argument from Silence” is “Silence as to any fact in a document in which it would naturally be mentioned”. The two criteria are as follows¹⁹:

​

1. The author of the document in which the fact is not mentioned had the intention of systematically recording all the facts of the same class and must have been acquainted with all of them.

2. The fact, if it was such, must have affected the author’s imagination so forcibly as necessarily to enter into his conceptions.

In other words, if an event happened the author must have known of it, and if he did, we would fully expect to find mention of it in the document in question. The author of Acts was very systematic in his compiling of facts, often including tertiary details that are largely irrelevant to the overall subject in context.²⁰ Consequently, if an event of great significance had occurred in the author’s lifetime and was in some way related to the work he was writing, we should expect him to both know about it and find it in his work.²¹

​

Given the above, what facts would we expect to find mentioned in the Gospels and Acts which are notably absent? Arguments from silence come in varying strengths. The following examples are outlined in order from what we believe to be the weakest to the strongest.

​

First is the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem, the temple, and the land of Israel. The Gospels and Acts are written as though the temple still stood in the authors’ day.²² Their destruction would have been very significant to them and any other author documenting their lives and teachings. Jerusalem was the capital of their beloved and covenant nation.  It, along with the temple, was the center of worship for their God, Yahweh, as well as the site where all gathered for their annual holy days and brought their sacrifices and offerings. Consequently, the absence of even a passing comment about the profound atrocities and events that led up to and accompanied their destruction is virtually inexplicable.

​

For example, all the trees were cut down in Judaea²³. The rivers and seas were full of blood and dead bodies²⁴. The wickedness of those days was said to exceed all others in previous generations²⁵. There was a famine so great that women abstained from feeding their children, the young and the old, men, women, and children, were beaten, killed, and/or tortured for a morsel of food²⁶. There was a great pestilence²⁷. Blood and corpses covered the floors within the temple itself²⁸. The destruction was so complete that “there was nothing left to make those that came there believe it had ever been inhabited”²⁹. And the number of those who either died or were taken captive exceeded 11,000,000³⁰. No mention of these events that were so impactful to the Jewish nation and culture are found, despite being recorded in the writings of much more disinterested historians, such as Tacitus and Cassius Dio³¹.

​

In addition, the Jews, which the first Christians were, historically provided great detail when it came to the construction, destruction, desecration, reconstruction, and rededication of their temples and/or city (1 & 2 Ki., Ez., Neh., 1 Macc., et. al.). Josephus’ detailed account of the first Jewish-Roman war is a perfect example. The mention of the destruction of the temple would also have bolstered the claim of the first followers of Yeshua that he was, at the very least, a true prophet. Excluding it would have been a missed opportunity unless, of course, it hadn’t happened yet.

​

The second silent event is the great persecution of the Christians under the reign of Nero Caesar. The Christians were blamed for the great fire of Rome in July, 64 AD. To shift it away from himself, Nero cast blame for the fire upon the Christians, which resulted in the torturous deaths of many of them³². Some of the tortures are hard to even imagine, such as being covered with the skins of animals to be torn apart by beasts, crucifixion, and even being lit on fire to serve as lights illuminating the streets of Rome at night.

​

Third, the deaths of Jacob [James] the brother of Yeshua and Peter aren’t recorded. Both are not only key figures within Acts but also foundational members of the earliest Christian movement. History and tradition tell us that both were indeed martyred³³. The deaths of two other disciples/apostles of lesser significance are recorded in Acts: Stephen (Ac. 7) and Jacob [James] the son of Zebedee (Ac. 12:1-2). The martyrdom of Jacob [James] the brother of Yeshua is found in Josephus’ writings³⁴, who, unlike the author of Acts, was largely disinterested in the early Christian movement.

​

Fourth and most importantly, we find no record of Paul’s trial before Caesar and his subsequent martyrdom³⁵. The author of Acts seems to have been accompanying Paul in his journeys starting from around chapter 16³⁶. Despite the systematic recording of the ministry of Paul in Acts, the account of his life ends with his imprisonment in Rome, with no mention of the outcome of his trial before Caesar or his death. This is by far the most powerful of all the arguments from silence.

​

Conclusion

No single argument can provide conclusive proof for the early dating schema for the Gospels and Acts (or for the modern dating schema, for that matter). But the accumulation of all the evidence above provides a very strong case for it. What best explains the location and time-specific data? What best explains the usage of Hebraisms? What best explains the absence of the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple? What best explains the absence of the accounts of the martyrdoms of Jacob [James] Yeshua’s brother, Peter, and Paul? The early dating schema most easily and comprehensively provides answers for each of those questions.

​

Timeline

Given the facts just laid out, we can now examine the information related to Felix and Festus above to establish a timeline for the authorship of Acts and the Gospels.

As previously stated, Festus arrived in Judaea to replace Felix ca. 58 AD. Assuming an entire year passed from Festus’ arrival in Judaea and the beginning of Paul’s journey to Rome, we are brought to ca. 59 AD. Later in Acts we read that Festus is still alive before Paul’s embarkment (Ac. 26:32). From the time of Paul’s pleading before King Agrippa and Festus (Ac. 26) until his arrival in Rome (Ac. 28:16) approximately seven months would have passed. That brings us to ca. 60 AD. Paul then remained imprisoned in Rome for two years preaching the kingdom of God, thus ending the account of Acts (Ac. 28:30-31) and bringing us to ca. 62 AD.

​

It is important to emphasize that no details of any event later than ca. 62 AD are found recorded in Acts. This includes the death of Festus, the persecution under Nero, the martyrdoms of Jacob [James] Yeshua’s brother, Peter, and Paul, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. This places the latest date for the authorship of Acts ca. 62 AD³⁹. If the modern dating of ca. 80-90 AD were accurate, it begs the question: If the author stopped writing in ca. 62 AD, why would he wait well over a decade to send it to his devotee Theophilus? Acts is the second of two treatises written for Theophilus, the first being the Gospel of Luke (Lk. 1:1-4). Consequently, the Gospel must have been written and published before 62 AD.

​

In support of the above, there are a few verses within Acts and Paul’s letters that may have been quoted from the written Gospels. At the very least they provide evidence that an early, oral tradition existed which aligns with and formed the foundation of the Gospel accounts. The passage below (1 Cor. 11:23-25) is almost a direct quote from Lk. 22:19-20.

​

“For I received of the Master that which also I delivered unto you, that the Master Yeshua in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’”

— 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

​​

Though the verb tenses differ slightly, the Greek text between the two, relating to the actual ceremonial portions, are very similar. Paul was certainly aware of both the tradition and the verbiage coupled with it. He also appears to quote Luke’s Gospel in his first pastoral letter to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:17-18), specifically the portion about the laborers (Lk. 10:7). More compelling is a quote from Paul found in Acts.

​

“And as John was fulfilling his course, he said, ‘What suppose you that I am? I am not he. But behold, there comes one after me the shoes of whose feet I am not worthy to unloose.’”

— Acts 13:25

Paul either had access to a written Gospel that he memorized and quoted from. Or a very early oral tradition was already in place during his time, which stayed consistent until it was later written down in the independent Gospel accounts. Regardless, the Gospels and the message therein are again shown to be reliable. If the quote above in Ac. 13 is from a written Gospel, that would place the authorship of one or all the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John prior to ca. 48 AD. If the verse in Acts is based in oral tradition, but the verse in 1 Corinthians is from the Gospel of Luke, then Luke would have had to have been written prior to ca. 53 AD (the date 1 Corinthians was published). If both are from oral tradition, or neither are quotes or tradition, then the authorship of Luke would be ca. 61 AD at the latest based on the dating of Acts to ca. 62 AD.

​

If Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source while writing theirs, then Mark must have been written earlier. That would place its authorship around 52–54 AD at the latest—or around 60 AD if Paul’s reference in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 isn’t drawn from Luke’s Gospel. The Gospel of Matthew’s inclusion of traditions, events, and teachings that would have no relevance after the temple’s destruction and its reliance upon Mark, sets the date of its authorship ca. 53-61 AD.

​

John’s Gospel also contains many elements specific to the beliefs and practices of the Jews in the 1st century AD. However, there are other time-related passages that aid us in estimating the date of its authorship. In Jn. 2:21-22 clarification on the “temple” that Yeshua was to raise is given – that of his body. This clarification may indicate a post-70 AD dating supplied to respond to critics who questioned Yeshua’s prophethood after the temple’s destruction. However, that post-70 AD dating would only apply to that small insertion, not the entirety of the Gospel.

​

Similarly, Jn. 21:18-19 seem to allude to the death of Peter having already taken place. Yeshua never said to Peter, “You will be crucified,” even though that is what happened. So, the author of John may have written that as a point of clarification to show the fulfillment of the prophecy. Though not agreed upon by most, the arguments supplied by preterists for the early authorship of the book of Revelation ca. 66 AD could place the authorship of John even earlier, assuming the Gospel was written first. Given the above, we assign a wider timeframe for the dating of the authorship of John to ca. 66-95 AD.

​​

Footnotes

1. Hengel M., and Schwemer, A. M., Paul between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1997, pp. 6-7.

2. “Gospel According to Matthew”, “Holy Gospel According to Matthew”, “Divine Beginning of the Gospel According to Matthew”, or simply “According to Matthew.” Similarly, for the other Gospels – “According to Mark”, “The Holy Gospel According to Mark”, “According to Luke”, “The Gospel According to Luke”, “The Holy Gospel According to Luke”, “The Beginning of the Gospel of Luke”, “According to John”, “The Holy Gospel According to John the Evangelist”, and “The Holy Gospel According to John”. Though the titles themselves vary, the author attributions themselves never do.

3. Papias (ca.125 CE; Hierapolis, Asia Minor; Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15-16); Irenaeus (ca. 130-200 CE; Lyons, France; Heresies 3.1.1); Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215CE; Alexandria/Israel; Sketches on 1 Peter 5:13); Tertullian (ca. 150-220 CE; Carthage, North Africa; Against Marcion, 4.2)

4. Reply to Fautus the Manichaen, 33.6.

5. Josephus, Antiquities 20.1.3-20.2.5; Suetonius, Life of Claudius, 18; Tacitus, Annals 11.4.

6. C.f. Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25. The dating of this event is rather certain based on the mention of Gallio in Ac. 18:14 and the relative certainty of Gallio’s tenure based on the Delphi Inscription, which contains nine fragments of a letter written by Claudius Caesar in 52 CE, one of which mentions Gallio as proconsul.

7. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25.4-8. Eusebius quotes Dionysius of Corinth who was born ca. late 1st/early 2nd CE and served as bishop of Corinth ca. 170 CE.

8. One of the apostles would have been familiar with the temple, its structure, and its various details. Luke, who testified that he consulted eyewitnesses (Lk. 1:1-4), even if he hadn’t visited the temple himself, would have gotten testimony directly from those who had. In contrast, if an author was writing from Rome after its destruction, one who had never seen the temple himself and had no access to those who had, we wouldn’t expect small details and descriptions to be found given that there were no publicly accessible sources of information for such things.

9. See Edersheim, Alfred, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Book 3, Chapter 5 for a detailed exposition of this. C.f. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shekalim, 1.

10. Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.7.

11. Possibly that which “greatly excelled” in beauty per Josephus, Wars 5.5.3.

12. Josephus, Wars 7.6.6; Cassius Dio, Roman History 65.7; Suetonius, Life of Domitian 12.

13. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shekalim 8.8.

14. E.g. Isa. 7:14; Mic. 5:2; Jer. 31:15; Ps. 91:11-12; Dt. 6:4-5, 13, 16; Ex. 20:7; Isa. 53:4; Mal. 3:1; et. al.

15. “Abba” (Mk. 14:36). “Eli eli lama sabachthani” (Mt. 27:46). “Talitha cumi” (Mk. 5:41).

16. Ac. 23:24-26, 24:22, 25:14, et. al. C.f. Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.

17. Ac. 24:27. C.f. Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.9.

18. Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1.

19. C. V. Langlois and C. Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, Translated by G. G. Berry, p. 256.

20. See Colin Hemer’s The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History for an extensive evaluation of this. He presents a list of dozens of details the author of Acts provides that have been proven via history or archaeology.

21. For simplicity, we are not including a third consideration: If the author knew of the event and wrote it down, how likely is it that the document in question would still exist today?

22. Mt. 21:12, 24:1, 26:55; Mk. 11:15-16, 13:3, 15:38; Lk. 1:9, 20:1, 21:38; Jn. 2:20, 7:14, 11:56; Ac. 2:46, 21:26, 26:21.

23. Josephus, Wars 6.1.1.

24. Josephus, Wars 3.9.3, 3.10.7-9, 4.7.6.

25. Josephus, Wars 5.10.5, 5.13.6.

26. Josephus, Wars 5.10.3-4.

27. Josephus, Wars 6.9.3.

28. Josephus, Wars 5.1.3, 6.4.6, 6.5.1, 6.8.5.

29. Josephus, Wars 7.7.1.

30. Josephus, Wars 6.9.3.

31. Josephus, Wars 6.4.5-8, 7.1.1; Tacitus, Histories 2.4, 5.11-13; Cassius Dio, Roman History 65.4-7.

32. Tacitus, Annals 15.44. Suetonius, Life of Nero 16.

33. The testimony concerning Simon Peter’s martyrdom is found in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians 5, Tertullian’s Scorpiace 15 and Against Heretics 36, and Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 3.1.2.

34. Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1. Many consider the martyrdom of James to have taken place in 62 CE, at the time Albinus was sent by the Caesar to replace Festus. However, the text nowhere says that James actually was stoned, only that he was “delivered” to be stoned. See Whiston, Primitive Christianity Reviv’d, Vol. III p. 43-46 for a detailed analysis. Consequently, the date assigned to James’ martyrdom here is 68 CE.

35. The testimony concerning Paul’s martyrdom is found in Clement of Rome’s first Epistle to the Corinthians 5, Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians 12, and Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 2.25.8.

36. Beginning with this chapter the author begins to include himself in the events which transpire by using the first-person plural pronoun “we”, hence these being known as the “we passages”. See also Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.4.6 where he mentions that Acts was written “from what he had seen himself.”

37. An entire year is a very high estimate. Contextually speaking, the author of Acts consistently used the words “year” or “years” when periods of at least that length were referred to. From Festus’ arrival in Ac. 24:27 until Paul’s embarkment in Ac. 27:1 only the words “day” or “days” are used.

38. Assuming “the Fast” of Ac. 27:9 was, as it is most commonly understood, the Day of Atonement, which takes place in the Fall between September and October. Counting from there and including the three months they wintered on the island of Melita (a/k/a Malta) would most likely bring us to the following Spring.

39. See also Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.22, where he concludes the same.

40. The temple tax, swearing by the temple, offerings at the altar, the presence of moneychangers, etc.

41. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25.5.