Their gospel accounts can be sufficiently corroborated and have been accurately delivered to us through the centuries. The authors lacked motive to lie to us about their observations and died rather than recant their testimony. Would the Gospels withstand the scrutiny of a cold-case investigation? Yes.

The case for the reliability of the New Testament Gospel eyewitness accounts is dependent on the trustworthiness of its authors. In cold-case criminal trials, eyewitness accounts are typically evaluated through the lens four critical questions: Were the witnesses really present at the time of the crime? Can the witnesses’ accounts be corroborated in some way? Have the witnesses changed their story over time? Do the witnesses have biases causing them to lie, exaggerate or misinterpret what was seen? We can examine the Gospels and their authors by asking similar questions:

Question One: Were the authors really present at the time of their claims?

It’s much harder to tell an elaborate lie when people are still alive to test the claims. The best inference from evidence is that the New Testament claims about Jesus were penned early enough to have been cross-examined by those who were still alive and would have known if they were lies:

(a) The missing information in the Book of Acts (i.e. the destruction of the Temple, the siege of Jerusalem, the deaths of Peter, Paul and James) is best explained by dating Acts prior to 61AD

(b) Luke wrote his Gospel prior to the Book of Acts

(c) Paul’s referencing of Luke 10:6-7 (1 Timothy 5:17-18, written in 63-64AD) and Luke 22:19-20 (1 Corinthians 11:23-26, written in 53-57AD) is best explained by dating the Gospel of Luke prior to 53-57AD

(d) Luke’s reference to his Gospel as “orderly” in Luke 1:3 (as compared to Bishop Papias’ 1^st Century description of Mark’s account as “not, indeed, in order”) and Luke’s repeated references of Mark’s Gospels are best explained by dating Mark’s Gospel prior to Luke’s (from 45-50AD).

Read More