7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 1/16

David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the

Gospels 

By

 

Bassam Zawadi

 

This is a response to some of the comments that David Wood made over here.

 

David Wood said: 

Like or not, we know who wrote the Gospels. But let's assume that we didn't. We know,

for a fact, that the early hristian community, in association with !esus' apostles, held the

Gospels we have to "e relia"le records. That's evidence we have to deal with.

David's #ypothesis$ The early hristian community treated the Gospels as relia"le

 "ecause they knew they were relia"le.

Bassam's #ypothesis$ %ven thou&h the early hristian community treated the Gospels as

relia"le, they didn't really know if they were relia"le.

 

My Response: 

We need to define what we mean "y early hristian community. Which precise time period is

 "ein& spoken a"out(

 

)f Wood has the first century in mind, then we do not know much a"out hristian awareness of 

the &ospels in this period. )t is, however, unlikely that all hristians everywhere in this period

were aware, let alone familiar, with the canonical &ospels. * more realistic scenario would "e as

follows$ initially some would have known one or some &ospels +this would include non

canonical material as well- and as time went "y people in different places "ecame aware a"out

the presence of more &ospels, some of which they "e&an to cherish and freuently use. Thus, one

may have known, say, the &ospel of /ark, "ut known nothin& a"out the rest. 0thers may have

known one or more of the canonical &ospels as well as noncanonical &ospel narratives "ut not

the rest. *s tine went "y, however, people in different places increasin&ly "ecame aware a"out

the presence of additional &ospel narratives.

 

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 2/16

But from the first century itself, we cannot say much a"out which hristians pro"a"ly knew

some, one, or all of the &ospels. lement of 1ome, for e2ample, writin& in 34 *.D. is widely

 "elieved not to "etray the use of any of the canonical &ospels. * little earlier, /atthew and Luke,

on the other hand, are "elieved to have used and adapted the &ospel of /ark in various ways to

compose their own &ospel narratives. )f /arcan priority is accepted, then that would su&&est that

while /ark was deemed important enou&h to "e heavily utilised, /atthew and Luke did notre&ard it to "e so authoritative or relia"le so as to "e "orrowed without chan&es. 0n the contrary,

they made all sorts of chan&es to /ark. Luke, from his openin& words, reveals his dissatisfaction

with earlier &ospel narratives. We read$

 

Luke 1:1-4

 5/any have undertaken to draw up an account of the thin&s that have "een fulfilled amon&

us, 6 7ust as they were handed down to us "y those who from the first were eyewitnesses

and servants of the word. 8Therefore, since ) myself have carefully investi&ated everythin&from the "e&innin&, it seemed &ood also to me to write an orderly account for you, most

e2cellent Theophilus, 9so that you may know the certainty of the thin&s you have "een

tau&ht.

 

Thus, here we may well have a criticism levelled at the &ospel of /ark +and other &ospel

narratives-.

 

onservative %van&elical :ew Testament scholar Donald Guthrie writes$

Lukes preface is illu!inatin" in re"ard to his o#n approach to his task$ He clai!s

to have !ade a co!prehensive and accurate survey over a considerable period%

#hich thro#s a "ood deal of li"ht on his seriousness of purpose$ Moreover% Luke

ad!its that others had previously atte!pted the sa!e task% but his #ords i!ply that

he found the! unsatisfactory $ $ $ &Donald Guthrie% '$D$% M$ (h$% New Testament 

 Introduction. The Gospels and Acts, 1)**% +nter-,arsity ress% p$ ./0

 

hristian scholar David Laird Dun&an a&rees and writes$

 

)2 3$$$ in order that you !i"ht kno# the truth$$$3 ends the preface #ith an i!plied

criticis! of the rival narratives - another characteristic of Hellenistic prefaces$ (he

author !ust eplain% in vie# of the eistence of other possibly #ell-kno#n

narratives% #hy his should be bothered #ith$ 3Mine is !ore accurate3 and 3!ine is

both co!plete and entertainin"3 #ere typical 5ustifications$ &David Laird

Dun"an% A History of the Synoptic Problem: The anon, the Te!t, the omposition,

and the Interpretation of the Gospels &(he 6nchor 'ible Reference Library0% 1)))%

Doubleday% p$ 170

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 3/16

 

;urthermore$

 

The &eneral ar&ument consists of two parallels, with the author at the receivin& end of

each one$

+a- /any have tried to create narratives so ) will do the same. This is especially

appropriate since they weren't as ualified, while ) ...

+"- like the authoritative cadre of eyewitnesses who personally saw everythin& from the

 "e&innin& and who maintained the accuracy of the tradition they handed on to us, so

also ), who have for a lon& time accurately studied all these thin&s, in contrast to

many, will write a narrative havin& the correct order, which you, Theophilus, can "e

certain is the truth. 8+bid$% p$ 149

 

)f the early hristian community treated the &ospels as relia"le, then Wood needs to presentevidence showin& this. *nd, likewise, if the early hristian community knew the &ospels

were relia"le, then Wood needs to name some and cite some from the first century +assumin& if 

 "y early he means the first century-.

 

<econdly, to treat somethin& as relia"le does not follow that it is relia"le. Likewise, treatin& it as

unrelia"le does not mean it is unrelia"le. We can mistakenly accept somethin& as relia"le or 

unrelia"le. The contents of the writin&s need to "e e2amined "y ourselves in order to determine

the worth of any &iven document.

 

Third, Wood constructs a straw man$ ) never said that the earliest hristians deemed the &ospelsas relia"le$

 

irst%  it is not a fact that we know who wrote the Gospels. The ma7ority of modern Bi"lical

scholarship today re7ects the traditional authorship view. /any also accept the traditional claims

 partially. ;or e2ample, they may accept the claim that the apostle !ohn in some capacity was

responsi"le for the &ospel of !ohn, "ut would dou"t the traditional authorship claim for the

&ospel of /atthew and /ark. They may "e open to Lucan authorship of the &ospel of Luke and

*cts, "ut "e sceptical re&ardin& the traditional authorship claims for the remainin& canonical

&ospels. /any conservative scholars partially accept the traditional authorship claims for the&ospels, however they are sceptical a"out some of the claims and accept as pro"a"ly accurate

some other authorship claims.

 

Thus, to say that we know who wrote the &ospels is nothin& more than a distortion of the

scholarly stance on the su"7ect.

 

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 4/16

When Wood says that we know who wrote the &ospels, he means inerranists such as himself

know who wrote the &ospels even thou&h Wood does not say it in so many words.

 

We now present a num"er of citations to "ackup the a"ove discussion.

 

!ohn Barton =>rofessor of the )nterpretation of #oly <cripture, ?niversity of 02ford@ states$ 

(he author of ;ohns "ospel is% as #e have noted already% unlikely to have been an

i!!ediate disciple of ;esus, if only "ecause so much of the material in the synoptic

&ospels is missin& from !ohn. The likelihood is therefore that all the historical books of 

the <e# (esta!ent are not eye#itness accounts of the events described . They are all

written "y people some time after the events, a fact that must affect one's assessment of 

the "ooks concerned. (he authorship of the letters is also disputed . <everal are written

in the name of the apostle >aul. #owever, it seems clear that not all the letters attri"uted

to >aul are "y >aul himself. <i&nificant differences of style, lan&ua&e and at times

important ideas make this e2tremely likely. ...(he authorship of other letters in the<e# (esta!ent is also disputed. The letter to the #e"rews +traditionally ascri"ed to

>aul- is anonymous. ... The letters ascri"ed to >eter may also "e pseudonymous. ... *ll in

all, lar"e parts of the <e# (esta!ent are not #ritten by people directly connected

#ith ;esus or the very earliest period of the =hristian =hurch$ +This could apply even

to >aul$ >aul was 'converted' after the death of !esus-. 1ather, many :ew Testament

 "ooks stem from second or third&eneration hristians, writin& a little time after the

foundational events of the hristian church and reflectin& on them. <ome of the authors

would clearly like to "e seen as earlier authoritative fi&ures in that they write in the name

of such fi&ures. 'ut the fact re!ains that lar"e parts of the <e# (esta!ent #ere

#ritten by =hristians after the initial period &;ohn 'arton% 3The "iblical #orld 3&Routled"e >??>0 pp$ @?-@10$ 

Bart %hrman, summin& up the stance of critical scholars, writes$

 

>rotoorthodo2 hristians of the second century, some decades after most of the :ew

Testament "ooks had "een written, claimed that their favorite Gospels had "een penned

 "y two of !esus' disciples /atthew, the ta2 collector, and !ohn, the "eloved disciple

and "y two friends of the apostles /ark, the secretary of >eter, and Luke, the travellin&companion of >aul. Acholars today% ho#ever% find it difficult to accept this tradition

for several reasons$ $$$ none of these Gospels !akes any such clai! about itself$ 6ll

four authors chose to keep their identities anony!ous &'art D$ Bhr!an% The New

Testament: A Historical Introduction to the $arly hristian #ritin%s % >???% Aecond

Bdition% Cford niversity ress% p$ 7>0$

 

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 5/16

Lee /artin /cDonald and <tanley >orter accept traditional Lucan authorship "ut not

wholeheartedly. They write +p. 63A-$

 

We are inclined to accept Lucan authorship, but not #ithout so!e reservation &Lee

Martin McDonald%Atanley B$ orter% $arly hristianity And Its Sacred &iterature%

>???% Hendrickson ublishers0$ 

;or a more critical assessment, see Gerd Theissen and *nnette /er, who dismiss the traditional

authorship claims a"out the &ospels in their The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, 533C,

</ >ress Ltd.

 

We also hi&hly recommend that one reads pa&es A to 69 from %> <anders and his wife /ar&aret

Davies's "ook Studying the Synoptic Gospels, which could "e found here. These pa&es easily put

David's assertions and claims to rest.

 

To know the details of the ar&uments a&ainst the traditional authorship view we recommend our readers to refer tothese set of articles.

 

David Wood speaks falsehood when he says$

 

We know, or a act, that the early Christian community, in association with Jesus! 

apostles, held the Gospels we have to "e relia"le records#

 

This is a fact which not many are willin& to &o""le, includin& many conservative scholars.

 

Who are these apostles with whose association the early hristians held the &ospels asalle&edly relia"le records( ?nderstanda"ly, Wood is silent.

 

Briefly, there is no trace of the canonical &ospels from the era of the apostles. We know of no

apostle someone who witnessed the earthly !esus' ministry who knew a"out our canonical

+and noncanonical- &ospels. #ence the uestion of their view on the worth of written &ospels

does not arise. They may well have not known a"out the canonical &ospels. We are not

su&&estin& as a matter of fact that they did not know a"out canonical andor noncanonical

&ospel narrativesE it is 7ust that we do not know due to a lack of evidence.

 

)n the writin&s of the apostolic fathers, most scholars "elieve that mostly the &ospel of /atthew

was pro"a"ly known to many of the fathers such as )&natius, the Didachist, >olycarp and others.

/ost do not find a trace of the &ospel of /ark and Luke in the apostolic fathers and the

awareness of the &ospel of !ohn remains disputed. The nature of the evidence is such that we

cannot say that these fathers held the &ospels as relia"le records. )n fact, often we do not

know how many documents they used or if they were even knew a sin&le canonical &ospel

document +lement of 1ome, for e2ample-F

 

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 6/16

<econdly, from the evidence furnished "y >apias, it appears that the &ospel documents were not

 "ein& treated as inerrant sources, let alone as the sole relia"le sources. >apias said$

)f anyone ever came who had followed the pres"yters, ) inuired a"out the words of the

 pres"yters, what *ndrew or >eter or >hilip or Thomas or !ames or !ohn or /atthew, or

any other of the Lord's disciples, had said, and what *riston and the pres"yter !ohn, theLord's disciples, were sayin&. or + did not suppose that infor!ation fro! books

#ould help !e so !uch as the #ord of a livin" and survivin" voice$ &apias &H$B$

@$@)$40 cited in Harry E$ Ga!ble% The New Testament anon. Its 'a(in% and

 'eanin% % 1).7% Wipf and Atock ublishers% p$ >*0

learly, >apias did not consider the written &ospels inviola"le, inerrant, the final authority, full or 

complete. The purpose of the writin&s was to record the message. >apias preferred firsthand

information. *t this sta&e, hristians did not consider themselves limited or o"li&ed to follow

specific written te2ts. This is also clear from the writin&s of lement, Barna"as, )&natius,

#ermas etc. *ny tradition could "e written downE there was no o"li&ation to follow a particular writin& in a mechanical fashion since it was merely a written echo of the preachin&, inadeuate

 "y its very nature. This is simply the attitude of most hristian writers of the 6nd century. <o

while >apias considered the written records useful, he felt no o"li&ation to limit himself to them

 "ut &ave preference to oral traditions. :o canonical &ospel writin& was final authority for the

earliest hristians.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the apostles held the Gospels as we have them today to "e

authoritative documents. We challen&e David to provide evidence for this. David is only

assumin& that the traditional authorship view is correct, "ut cannot actually prove it.

 Thirdly, when David says the early hristian community he is only speakin& a"out those

hristians that actually held the Gospels to "e relia"le. )f there happened to "e a &roup of people

who re7ected the Gospels, he wouldn't consider them to "e part of the hristian community. )t

is like me sayin& We challen&e David to show us a /uslim who re7ects the five pillars of )slam

while he o"viously cannot do so since one cannot "e a /uslim unless he accepts the five pillars.

 

David cannot actually prove that there was a consensus amon&st all hristians in the first century

re&ardin& the relia"ility of the Gospels. To say that there was a consensus reuires evidence and

David has provided none.1e&ardin& specifically the first century, we learn nothin& a"out the

status and use of the canonical &ospels from this period. We know of no writer who refers to

them, uotes them, or talks a"out their relia"ility and authorship. There is silence. >eriod.

#owever, if we accept /arcan priority, then we may say that the authors of /atthew and Luke

used /ark and made various chan&es to it to suit their needs and a&enda. While they deemed

/ark important enou&h to "e heavily utilied, they appear not to have deemed it authoritative

enou&h to respect its te2t.

 

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 7/16

;urthermore, if there truly were a consensus then why did hristians in the second century

dispute the authorship of the Gospels($

 

;urthermore there is no evidence of any tradition attri"utin& the authorship of the &ospel

to !ohn the apostle "efore )reneaus' assertion. Bven so!e of +reneaus conte!poraries

do not share his opinion$ The 1oman pres"yter, auis, writin& a few years after )reneaus, attri"uted the "ook to the Gnostic erinthus. We have evidence that this &ospel

was not universally accepted in 1ome durin& the end of the second or "e&innin& of the

third century "ecause the pres"yter #ippolytus +c5Hc684- had to defend the !ohanine

authorship.&Davidson F Leaney% "iblical riticism% p$ >*.0

 

;urthermore, even if we were to &rant that the early hristians did hold the &ospels to "e relia"le,

David erroneously assumes that 7ust "ecause the early hristians claimed that the Gospels were

relia"le then that means that they actually are.

 %> <anders and /ar&aret Davies said on pa&e 58 of their "ook Studying the Synoptic Gospels$

 

(he early =hristians see! "enuinely not to have cared #ho #rote the "ospels% and it

is difficult to com"ine a theory of carefully maintained tradition with the fact of literary

silence.

 

#ow interestin&F We are supposed to trust the 7ud&ment of the early hristians who did not care

a"out who wrote the Gospels( ;or all we know, a "unch of lyin& hypocrites could have written

the &ospels without us havin& any idea. #ow can we trust the testimony of witnesses + WBDC<( B,B< <CW WHC (HB W+(<BAABA 6RBI

 

David Wood said: 

0nce a&ain, your hypothesis immediately &ives rise to all sorts of pro"lems. ;irst, you have

a"solutely no evidence to support it.

 

My Response: 

The "urden of proof is not on me, "ut on David. ) am not here to prove a ne&ative.

 

David Wood said: 

<econd, how in the name of common sense can you say that people in the first century wouldn't

have "een a"le to determine which records were true, when they could easily contact the apostles

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 8/16

or the disciples of the apostles, who often travelled from city to city, makin& sure people knew

the truth a"out !esus(

 

My Response: 

David presumes too much here. #e presumes that hristians in the first century could distin&uish

true and false &ospel narratives and they could easily contact apostles and disciples. Iou cannot

&o far with the could have approach. Let's consider the data. We do not know if !esus' very

disciples were even aware a"out the canonical &ospels. :or do we know of early hristians

approachin& them to ascertain the worth of written canonical &ospel narratives. This may have

happened, "ut we 7ust do not know if it did as there is no evidence to say whether it did or not.

 

<econdly, while the early hristians could have approached the very disciples of !esus and while

they could haveattempted to determine the truth of written &ospel narratives, we can "e

reasona"ly sure that their efforts did not render the canonical &ospels fully trustworthy, let alone

to the level of inerrancy. That is "ecause when we compare the same stories in the canonical

&ospels, we notice many differences "etween them, "oth minor and ma7or. Therefore, while the

earliest hristians could have approached !esus' disciples and could have determined which

written narratives were true, it remains that, somehow, the canonical &ospels contain "oth

relia"le and unrelia"le details and we can "e very sure, "y comparin& their contents, that stories

were chan&ed and adapted in various ways. That is why :ew Testament scholars have had to

construct criteria to make sense of its data and determine, as "est they can, the relia"le and

historically unrelia"le details therein. To cite >rof. hristopher /. Tuckett$

 

<evertheless the nature of the Gospel tradition !eans that #e cannot si!ply take

everythin" recorded in all the Gospels as unJuestionably "enuine reports about

#hat ;esus said or did in a pre-Baster situation$ &=hristopher

M$ (uckett% hristolo%y and the New Testament: )esus and His $arliest 

*ollowers, >??1% West!inster ;ohn no ress% p$ >?@$0

 

We cannot rest any ar&ument on what we think  the people in the first century would have done.

1ather, we must e2amine the evidence for what they actually did . *nd we have no evidence that

any hristian in the first hundred years did any serious kind of investi&ation re&ardin& the

authorship of the Gospels and checked the facts and still accepted the traditional authorshipclaims. )t could very well "e that the people who did do any sort of serious investi&ation actually

ended up re7ectin& the Gospels.

 

<econdly, as %> <anders noted there is no evidence of any attri"ution of the Gospels to any

respective authors in the first century. Thus, why would people want to confirm whether the

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 9/16

Gospels have "een written "y the disciples if the claim that the disciples wrote them wasn't even

there(

 

1ichard arrier comments on the difficulty of conductin& any serious kind of investi&ation "ack 

in the first century$

 #ow would potential converts check hristianity's claims, even if they adopted a

skeptical research paradi&m availa"le at the time(

 

•  irst% travel #as too epensive% ti!e-consu!in"% and dan"erous for !ost

people$ :o one would "other with it who was not already convinced the trip was worth it.

Iet skeptics wouldn't have the motive to en&a&e such risk and e2pense +and we have no

evidence any did-, while "elievers would have little reason to check what they no

lon&er dou"ted +and, a&ain, we have no evidence of anyone in the first century makin&

such a trip in order to check evidence, even ater  convertin&, much less "efore-.

•  Aecond% as there #as no post office% !ail #as very i!practical--nearly

i!possible% in fact% unless you kne# so!eone #ho both kne# the person you #anted

to correspond #ith and #as travelin" there and thus could carry your letter$  *nd

even then, few were in the ha"it of writin& "ack to stran&ers, and even when they mi&ht

have, the whole e2chan&e could take several months, &iven the inordinate len&th of time

reuired to make the 7ourney and to await the convenience of someone makin& the trip.

0fficials would "e much easier to reach, "ut even less likely to respond to someone

outside their 7urisdiction or on a matter not relevant to their very "usy 7o"s, and the &reat

len&th of time remained. *ccordin&ly, we have no evidence of any investi&ative letters

 "ein& sent "y anyone, "efore or after convertin& to hristianity, in its first hundredyearsmuch less thousands of such letters, as #oldin&'s ar&ument reuires,

since numerous converts are supposed to have done this.

•  (hird% access to libraries #as "reatly li!ited% and not very useful to a

potential =hristian any#ay$ Li"raries were rare, hardly comprehensive, and useful only

to the hi&hly literate. Government archives would have "een off limits to all "ut permitted

officials +see <ote 4 a&ain-, and would "e unlikely to contain any information that would

confirm any evidence that !esus rose from the dead. *nd li"raries open to the pu"lic

would in turn contain even less alon& those lines, since hristian "ooks would not appear 

in them for at least another century, and we have no evidence any other literature

mentioned any facts su&&estin& !esus really rose from the dead.

 

(hat leaves only one other option: askin" nei"hbors and visitors . Which pro"a"ly

meant askin& those who had already converted to hristianity, since few others would

know any relevant information, much less "elieve it. Thus, all a dou"ter pro"a"ly had to

&o on was his or her perception of another convert's sincerity.Auch sincerity could be

fei"ned% but even !ore i!portantly% testi!ony could be sincere but based on

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 10/16

insufficient evidence% a proble! difficult for a doubter to evaluate$ The "est a skilled

dou"ter could do was en&a&e in a carefully crafted interro&ation to e2plore the actual

details known to the reporter, which would not "e very welcome +it usually indicated a

despised scale of hostility7ust as modernday :ew *&ers respond to such uestionin&

with nearviolent indi&nation- and somewhat limited in what it could accomplish. *nd

even then, such skills of interro&ation were not widely learned, nor is there any evidenceof any hristian convert in the first century employin& such skills "efore convertin&, or 

after. &Richard =arrier% #as hristianity Too Improbable to be *alse+ &>??*0% =hapter

/: Was =hristianity Hi"hly ,ulnerable to +nspection and Disproof% Aource0

 

1ichard arrier &oes on further to demonstrate that the early hristians were not the type of 

 people who practiced or encoura&ed critical inuiry$

 

1ead the %pistles and see. >aul and his audience do not seem very impressed "y rational,historical, scientific, or dialectical evidence +check out 5 orinthians 6-, so these &et no

si&nificant mention in his letters. +nstead% aul al#ays proves the truth by appealin"

to the efficacy of apostolic !iracle-#orkin"% to sub5ective revelation% to scripture%

and to his upstandin" behavior or sufferin" as proof of his sincerity$=>@ That's pretty

much it. *fter all, >aul and his flock "elieved 'truth' had to "e &rasped spiritually, on faith

+5 orinthians 6$5A54-, not throu&h skeptical investi&ation. onsider the ar&ument of 

Galatians$

) am amaed that you are so uickly a"andonin& the one who called you in the

&race of hrist, for a different &ospel, which isn't really another &ospel, e2ceptthere are some people who trou"le you, and would pervert the &ospel of hrist.

But even if we, or an an&el from heaven, should preach to you any &ospel other 

than what we preached to you, let him "e anathemaF *s we have said "efore, so

say ) now a&ain, i any man preaches to you any gospel other than that which you

received, let him "e anathema. +Galatians 5$5, emphasis mine-

Here #e have a serious situation: =hristians are abandonin" the faith for so!e alien

"ospel$ Aurely here% of all places% aul #ould pull out all the stops in e!phasiKin" the

proper e!pirical !ethods for checkin" the truth of #hat ;esus really said and did%

and hence #hat the true "ospel really #as$ Eet #hat do #e "et 6 Juestion-be""in"

criterion of blind do"!atis!: anythin" you hear that contradicts #hat #e told you

is false$ eriod$ <o fact-checkin" reJuired$ Bven a vision fro! heaven #ont cut itI

aul is so ada!ant about this criterion that he repeats it t#ice$ (his is

clearly the criterion of truth he and his con"re"ation should and do e!ploy. Iet it is

e2actly the opposite of the empirical standards #oldin& wants to pretend >aul advocated.

>aul continues +emphasis mine-$

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 11/16

;or ) make known to you, "rethren, re&ardin& the &ospel which was preached "y

me, that it is not accordin& to a man, neither did ) receive it from a man, nor was )

tau&ht it. 1ather, it came to me throu&h a revelation of !esus hrist. ;or you have

heard of my manner of life in time past in the !ews' reli&ion, how that "eyond

measure ) persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it$ and ) advanced in

the !ews' reli&ion "eyond many of my own a&e amon& my countrymen, "ein&more e2ceedin&ly ealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when it was the

&ood pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother's wom", and

called me throu&h his &race, to reveal his <on inside me, that ) mi&ht preach him

amon& the Gentiles, ri&ht away ) did not  consult with flesh and "lood, nor did ) &o

over to !erusalem to those who were apostles "efore me.

Think a"out this ar&ument for a minute. >aul is surely usin& the "est ar&ument he knows

will persuade his audience, and &et them "ack into the foldso we can say his audience

must have found this line of reasonin& more persuasive than anythin& else he could think 

to say. But his line of reasonin& is the e2act flipside of empirical standards$ whereas a&ood critical thinker would only trust a man who immediately went and checked all the

facts "efore "elievin&, aul not only eplicitly declares he did not do that at all% but

the fact that he didnt is actually his very ar"u!entI +n other #ords% he epects his

audience to beimpressed by the fact that he didnt fact-checkI <o important is this

 point that he actually &oes out of his way to insist, )'m not lyin&F +Galatians 6$6H-.

Thus, Galatians 6 e2presses values e2actly the opposite of what #oldin& wants. >aul and

his audience are thorou&hly uninterested in #oldin&'s idea of factcheckin&. To the

contrary, the testimony of men, indeed even of an&els, is inherently suspectso suspect,

in fact, that they can do&matically re7ect it a priori. What is persuasive is simply and onlythis$ that God spoke to >aul in a private revelation. That is the only kind of evidence his

audience will acceptindeed, even so much as a hint  that >aul checked the facts "efore

 "elievin& the vision would destroy >aul's credi"ility entirely. ;or if he showed any dou"t

at all that the vision was true, if the vision was so insufficient that he had to seek 

reinforcement or additional instruction from mortal men, then this would cast dou"t on

the vision "ein& an authentic communication from God. *fter all, his audience were the

sort of people who thou&ht God punished Zacharias +"y strikin& him mute- for 

merelyasking  for evidence +Luke 5$5C6H-. That's how hostile the hristian mind was to

#oldin&'s dream of factcheckin&. The hristian moral was that Zacharias, and hence

all of us, should simply trust a visionno uestions asked, and no facts checked. The

same twisted lo&ic also makes sense of >aul's tactic of pointin& out how he did a total 5CH

from enemy to friend, as proof that his vision must really have "een from God. The

fallacious lo&ic here would impress many people "ack then. But we have no &ood reason

to "uy it today.

 

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 12/16

1/$@$ Aurvey of assa"es Relatin" to Method

>aul's "iarre antiempirical assumptions reflect the fact that hristian epistemolo&y was

fundamentally centered on faith over evidence. ;or the ri&hteous shall live "y faith

+1omans 5$5, uotin& #a"akkuk 6$9- and so we walk "y faith and not "y si&ht + 6

orinthians A$-. This is an attitude that offers little encoura&ement to checkin& the factsfirst. To the contrary, when uestions arise, far from "ein& encoura&ed to factcheck, the

hristian is told to ask in faith without any dou"tin&, for the one who dou"ts is like the

surf of the sea, driven and tossed "y the wind, and such a man cannot e2pect to receive

anythin& from the Lord, since he is a man of two minds, unsta"le in all his ways +!ames

5$4C-. *sk in aith. *sk without dou"ting . The man who dou"ts is aimless, unsta"le, and

worthy of no help from God. This is e2actly the opposite of encoura&in& critical inuiry.

)t uite clearly discourages it.

;ar from "ein& told to check thin&s out, the hristian is told you have no need for 

anyone to teach you "ecause hrist teaches you a"out all thin&s and is true and is not alie, and 7ust as this has tau&ht you, you a"ide in him + 5 !ohn 6$6-. )n fact, don't even

 pay attention to what anyone else says, 7ust what we tell you, for we are of God, and he

who knows God understands us, while he who is not of God doesn't understand. That is

our criterion of truthE "y this we know the spirit of truth and can distin&uish it from the

spirit of error +5 !ohn 9$4-. This is do&matism, not empiricism. ;actcheckin& is

 portrayed here as all "ut un&odly. )nstead, "elieve what we say. %nd of story. That's

indeed the only criterion implied in 5 orinthians 5A$55$ after recitin& the claims

&roundin& the faith, >aul does not mention any facts havin& "een checked or needin& to

 "e checkedE all he says is so we preach, and so you "elieved. That's considered enou&h.

*t the same time, the principles of philosophy, science, lo&ic, and forensics are lam"asted

as foolish. >eople who rely on them "ecome futile in their speculations, and thou&h

professin& to "e wise, they are really 7ust fools +1omans 5$6566-. hristians are

openly discoura&ed from learnin&, developin&, and employin& skills of interro&ation,

investi&ation, and e2amination. *nyone who attempts to do that merely deceives

himself, for all those thin&s are foolishness "efore God. )n fact, it is written that the

reasonin& of the wise is useless, that God will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and

=that God will@ "rin& the discernment of the discernin& to nothin&makin& fools of the

wise man, the scri"e, and the skilled uestioner +5 orinthians 5$5C6H J 8$5C6H-.

This isn't e2actly an encoura&ement to follow in the footsteps of philosophers, scholars,

and skilled inuirers.

)ndeed, hristians are specifically told to re7ect lo&ical analysis, since wran&lin& over 

words is useless and "rin&s only ruin +6 Timothy 6$59-, and it's all fruitless

discussion anyway. Whoever entan&le themselves in it neither understand what they are

sayin& nor &rasp the matters a"out which they make confident assertions +5 Timothy

5$4-. %2aminin& alternative accounts and claims is discoura&ed, too$

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 13/16

)f anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not a&ree with the sound words of our 

Lord !esus hrist, and with the doctrine conformin& to &odliness, he is conceited and

understands nothin&, havin& a mor"id interest in controversial uestions and disputes

a"out words, out of which arise envy, strife, a"usive lan&ua&e, evil suspicions, and

constant friction "etween men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose

that &odliness is a means of &ain. +5 Timothy 4$89-

Thus, the very sort of person who asks uestions, seeks precision in description and

terminolo&y, or even su&&ests the truth is other than what the hristian leaders say it is, is

 7ust plain evil. #ow can you check any facts, when any fact contrary to do&ma is

automatically a lie, "orn only of evil, arro&ance, i&norance, and &reed(

<o factcheckin& is practically ruled out a priori. *nythin& contrary to the knowled&e of 

God and o"edience to hrist must "e destroyed +6 orinthians 5H$84-. :ot checked.

 :ot looked into. !ust destroyed. *ll mundane knowled&e is suspect$ if anyone supposes

that he knows anythin&, he has not yet known as he ou&ht to know +5 orinthians C$6-.*nd the cure is not employin& some critical method to &ain relia"le knowled&e, "ut to

simply re7ect everythin& contrary to do&ma. The hristian is simply told to make sure no

one makes a captive of you throu&h philosophy and senseless deception accordin& to the

tradition of men, accordin& to the "asic principles of the natural world, and not accordin&

to hrist +olossians 6$C-.

)n fact, the earliest hristians conveniently constructed an epistemolo&y where"y any

evidence or testimony that contradicts their do&matic "eliefs could "e re7ected out of 

hand. *nyone who says anythin& contrary to the claims of the apostles is surely deluded,

for God has sent upon them a deludin& influence so they would "elieve what is false + 6Thessalonians 6$55-, and they are all hypocrites, liars, victims of deludin& spirits, and the

 puppets of demons +5 Timothy 9$5-. hristians are even told, point "lank$ don't de"ate

+Galatians A$6H64-, even thou&h de"ate is the life"lood of critical inuiry. Likewise,

instead of checkin& out the facts and developin& wellresearched refutations, false

teachers are simply to "e shunned +6 Timothy 8$A-, and so anythin& contrary to do&ma

won't even "e heardmuch less looked into. *s Timothy is instructed, &uard what has

 "een entrusted to you, avoidin& worldly and empty chatter and the opposin& ar&uments of 

what is falsely called knowled&e, which some have professed and thus &one astray from

the faith +5 Timothy 4$6H65-. )n other words, trust what you were told. Don't even listen

to anyone else. 1ather than "ein& told to investi&ate them, hristians are instructed to

simply re7ect what stories they may hear +5 Timothy 9$-.

0ne can certainly try to su&arcoat all this, spin it to one's likin&, make e2cuses, and

ultimately ar&ue that these declarations only apply to certain conte2ts, or whatever. )t still

won't chan&e the fact that these are theonly encoura&ements re&ardin& method to "e

found in the %pistles. *nd not a one encoura&es anyone to check the facts. )nstead,

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 14/16

when we catch &limpses of the actual methods that hristians respected, we find

mysticism trumpin& empiricism every time. onsider >aul's movin& appeal$

When ) came to you, "rethren, ) did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom

when ) proclaimed to you the testimony of God.... /y messa&e and my preachin& were

not in persuasive words of wisdom, "ut in a demonstration of the spirit and of power, thatyour faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, "ut on the power of God. + 5 orinthians

6$5A-

Thus, >aul openly disavows the esta"lished rhetorical principles of evidence and

ar&ument, and says instead that the miracles of the #oly <pirit are all he came with, and

all that God wants hristians to trust as evidence. /iracles and revelations and the

apostle's word were always sufficient. :o research was necessary, for the Lord will &ive

you understandin& in everythin& +6 Timothy 6$E   e.&. /ark 58$55E Luke 56$5556,

65$585A-. Like modern :ew *&ers +see =hapter 1@-, hristians are e2horted to i&nore

the evidence of their senses, and trust instead in the invisi"le certainties of their heart + 6orinthians 9$5C-, since that is where God speaks to you. )ndeed, >aul &ives away the

&ame when he says what shall ) profit you unless ) speak to you either "y way of 

revelation or of knowled&e or of prophecy or of teachin&( +5 orinthians 59$4- ;unny

how evidence and lo&ic don't make the list. >aul is sayin& outri&ht that if a claim

doesn't come "y revelation, prophecy, inspiration + gn$sis-, or tradition, it is profitless and

not even worth mentionin&. <o much for factcheckin&.

*part from <cripture, the #oly <pirit is their only source"ook$

;or to one God &rants the word of wisdom throu&h the <pirit, and to another the word of 

knowled&e + gn$sis- accordin& to the same <pirit, to another faith "y the same spirit, and

to another &ifts of healin& "y the one <pirit, and to another workin&s of power, and to

another prophecy, and to another interpretations of spirits, to another different kinds of 

utterances, and to another the interpretation of these utterances. +5 orinthians 56$C5H-

Wisdom. Knowled&e. ;aith. *ll come from the #oly <pirit. :ot from research. :ot from

makin& inuiries. :ot from uestionin& witnesses accurately and wei&hin& different

kinds of testimony. )ndeed, when >aul declares the hierarchy of reverence, the list &oes$

first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then &ifts of healin&,

then the a"ility to help, then to administer, then varieties of speakin& in ton&ues +5

orinthians 56$6C-. *&ain, factcheckers don't even make the list.

hristianity's earliest critic certainly noticed the pro"lem, and it is well worth lookin& at

what he said on this matter, and what the hristian apolo&ist 0ri&in had to say in reply,

even thou&h this comes two hundred years late. When elsus attempted to investi&ate the

claims and doctrines of hristians, he kept runnin& into this same wall$ hristians would

simply e2claim do not uestion, 7ust "elieveF They e2pected converts to simply trust in

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 15/16

!esuswithout evidence or demonstration. *nd 0ri&en does not deny it. To the contrary,

he defends itF #e says, point "lank$ we admit that we teach those men to "elieve without

reasons. <o much for the supposed encoura&ement to check the facts first.

0ri&en does claim that hristians "elieve in inuiry into the meanin& of their prophetical

writin&s, the para"les of the Gospels, and other thin&s narrated or enacted with asym"olical si&nification, "ut mentions nothin& a"out checkin& witnesses, documents,

 physical evidence, histories, or anythin& empirical at all. *nd what's worse, not only is

study of scripture the only inuiry hristians en&a&e in, 0ri&en declares that most

 people don't even have the time for that  +since people worked lon& hours in antiuity 7ust

to &et "y-, and therefore the hristian e2hortation to simply "elieve is actually a &ood

 policyF <o rather than refute or even challen&e elsus on this point, 0ri&in deends the

very antiempirical policy we have found throu&hout the %pistles, on the dismal ar&ument

that faith is &ood for people.

By wastin& no time on factcheckin& "efore committin& to the faith +or evenafterwardF-, people can &ain salvation and moral improvement. )sn't it "etter for them,

0ri&en insists, to "elieve without a reason, and then "ecome reformed and improved,

rather than not to have allowed themselves to "e converted on the stren&th of mere faith,

 "ut to have waited until they could &ive themselves to a thorou&h e2amination of the

reasons( 0ri&en says it is indeed "etter to 7ust "elieve, "ecause most people could

never complete such an e2amination, and therefore would remain wicked and die

unsaved. <o it is "etter they simply have faith, and not waste time checkin& the facts.= @@

<o much for #oldin&'s ar&ument. &Richard =arrier% #as hristianity Too Improbable

to be *alse+ &>??*0% =hapter /: Did the Barliest =hristians Bncoura"e =ritical

+nJuiry% Aource0

 

Thus, we see that the earliest hristians were not the type of people that "othered to do their 

homework and critically e2amine the sources of the te2ts that they deemed to "e holy. ontrast

this with the early /uslims who did their utmost to ensure where everythin& came from.

 

Thus, David's appeal to the early hristians +whoever they are- cannot "e taken seriously. We

have no reason to trust the early hristians for utiliin& any sort of scientifically relia"le

methodolo&y of e2aminin& the sources of the information that they have o"tained.

David Wood said: 

Third, why do we know of a"solutely no one in the first century who uestioned the relia"ility of 

the Gospels( #ere you would have to come up with some conspiracy theories.

 

7/23/2019 David Wood on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-wood-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels 16/16

My Response: 

Well, neither do we know anyone from the first century who did not uestion the relia"ility of 

the canonical &ospelsF )n fact, we do not know of anyone from the first century +pro"a"le

e2ceptions, /atthew and Luke, who knew /ark- who knew a"out the canonical &ospels let

alone was intimately familiar with their contents. The "est &uess we can make is that some knew

one or some &ospel narratives initially, "ecomin& aware of additional narratives over time. )t was

not that from the start all canonical &ospels were instantly accepted everywhere. )nstead, the

early period is a fluid one. There were pro"a"ly traditions around which ultimately did not

survive, and more written &ospel writin&s which have not survived. * lot was "ein& said and

written a"out !esus and his activities, with differences "etween the accounts as these circulated

and moved alon& to more people. *ll sorts of chan&es were made to the stories and sayin&s

attri"uted to !esus, minor, small and some were also invented.

 

*lso is David seriously tryin& to ar&ue that <C C<B in the first century uestioned the

relia"ility of the Gospels( What a"out all the skeptics and !ews who re7ected the Gospels( )s

David tryin& to say that even thou&h they re7ected the Gospels they still "elieved in its

relia"ility( )s David tryin& to say that everyone in the first century who read the Gospel of 

/atthew which spoke a"out the resurrection of dead saints durin& !esus' crucifi2ion actually

 "elieved in that story and trusted the relia"ility of the Gospel, yet still re7ected it and refused to

 "ecome a hristian(

 

)n conclusion, David Wood has failed misera"ly to convince us of the relia"ility of the Gospels.