We put our trust in the hands of others every day. We trust restaurants to serve us non-contaminated foods, cars to get us safely to our next destination, and banks to keep our money secure. Trust, however, is never given without good reasons — it’s based on credibility. The moment the restaurants, cars, and banks lose credibility, we lose trust and take our business elsewhere.

Building off this theme, Peter Williams (PhD, University of Cambridge) has written a short book titled Can We Trust the Gospels? He asks if the Gospels are credible sources we can rely on, or wonders if they’re unreliable. Do they contain accurate history, or are they littered with problems? Should we trust them, he asks, or take our proverbial business elsewhere?

SUMMARY

Williams’ purpose in writing is “to present a case for the reliability of the Gospels to those who are thinking about the subject for the first time” (13). As Williams notes, “I have cut out everything unnecessary” (13). Thus, those looking for plenty of footnotes must temper their expectations before they pick up this book. After all, the target audience isn’t the expert, but the average person.

While Williams aims to assist the non-scholar, his work is based on scholarly research. It’s simple without being simplistic. It’s accessible without being too watered-down. In total, Williams puts forth eight key arguments in favor of the Gospels’ reliability. I’ll highlight three of them briefly.

1. NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Skeptics often accuse the Gospel writers of bias. They can’t, however, accuse non-Christian writers of the same thing. Why? Because non-Christians don’t have anything to gain by reporting the story of Jesus. Williams, therefore, examines three different sources — all written by non-Christians within ninety years of Jesus — to see if they corroborate the Gospel accounts. One such source is Cornelius Tacitus.

Tacitus is considered by many to be the greatest Roman historian of antiquity. While documenting the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, he writes about the early Christians and Christ himself. One small section reports:

Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself (20).

From this brief quote alone, we learn these corroborating details:

1. Jesus Christ is the founder of Christianity.
2. Christianity originated in Judaea.
3. Jesus was crucified while Tiberius was emperor of Rome.
4. Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death.
5. Jesus’ crucifixion didn’t stop the Christian movement.

Not bad considering I’ve only mentioned a small paragraph from one of the sources. Williams mentions three, but in reality, a lot more exist.

2. FAMILIARITY WITH PALESTINE

Skeptics often argue that non-Jewish writers with no connection to Palestine authored the four Gospels we have today. They argue that Greek authors across the Roman Empire in places like Antioch, Asia Minor, and Rome itself penned the Gospels after they heard these stories passed down to them from others who heard the stories passed down to them — a lot like the game of telephone.

If it’s as the skeptic claims, one would expect to find all kinds mistakes with respect to Palestinian geography, names, and local customs. After all, resources like the internet, encyclopedias, and detailed maps didn’t exist back then. Imagine trying to write a story about a small country across the globe you’ve never been to, and you don’t have access to resources. Chances are you’d make a lot of mistakes.

GEOGRAPHY

But the Gospels are meticulously accurate with respect to these details. The authors, for example, mention twenty-six towns — many of which were small and insignificant (55). Williams argues that no known sources listed some of these towns, and thus, “it seems that the authors received the information either from their experience or from detailed hearing” (55).

Later gnostic Gospels — which we have good reasons to reject — only mention popular Christian places like Jerusalem, Judaea, Nazareth, and Jordan (63). One could easily write about those towns from a distance. But to write about small villages such as Cana, Bethany, and Salim, one would have to have either been there or received reliable eye-witness testimony (55).

NAMES

In addition to geography, the authors demonstrate familiarity with Palestinian names. That is, the names in the Gospels reflect an accurate representation of the names in the secular Palestinian record. For example, the most popular name on Jewish record during the first century was Simon. The most popular name in the Gospels? You guessed it. It’s Simon (65). Furthermore, the second most popular name in the Palestinian record and the Gospels is also the same — Joseph (65).

By contrast, the Gospel of Judas, written late in the second century, lists names such as Adamas, Adonis, Barbelo, Eve, Galila, Harmothoth, Sophia, and Yobel (69). None of these names are found in any first-century Palestinian record.

Based on this data, Williams deduces, “The resulting Gospels are not what we would expect from people who made up stories at a geographical distance” (62).

3. UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES

Drawing on the recent work of Lydia McGrew, Williams argues that undesigned coincidences strengthen the case for the reliability of the Gospels. “In an undesigned coincidence”, Williams explains, “writers show agreement of a kind that it is hard to imagine as deliberately contrived by either author to make the story look authentic” (87). Allow me to illustrate.

All four Gospels report the miracle of Jesus feeding the five thousand. Since most of Palestine was rural, it’s hard to imagine why a crowd of about twenty thousand people was wandering with Jesus in the countryside. None of the synoptic Gospels explain this phenomenon. John, however, “coincidently” tells us the Passover was approaching (Jn. 6:4). As was customary, large crowds flocked to Jerusalem for their annual festival, thus explaining the massive crowd. John’s explanation of the coming Passover fills in the gap — or is an undesigned coincidence — and explains the large crowds found in the other Gospels.

Also, in the same miracle story, John tells us that Jesus asks Philip where they can buy bread to feed everyone (Jn. 6:5). One wonders why Jesus asked him since he wasn’t one of the leading disciples. Again, an undesigned coincidence fills in the blanks. Luke 9:10 tells us that this miracle took place near Bethsaida. That detail is important because John 1:44 tells us Philip’s hometown just happens to be Bethsaida. You see, when we piece these seemingly insignificant details together — the undesigned coincidences — we see that Jesus asked Philip where they could buy food because he would have known the area better than anyone else.

It’s hard to imagine how four different Greek authors, with no direct relation to Jesus, could have pieced together all the details like this.

CAN WE TRUST THE GOSPELS?

Space permits me from expounding on other chapters that address important issues such as authorship, dating, and textual criticism. You’ll simply have to read the book for yourself, but I hope this brief synopsis gives you a little taste of what to expect from it.

As I reflect on the book, its strength is in its accessibility and brevity (140 pages). Several have taken up the task of writing books on the reliability of the Gospels, and several have been excellent, but none have been this brief. There’s something nice about being able to read a book of this nature in a sitting or two.

Also, his chapter on the Gospel writers’ familiarity with Palestine (chapter 3) was by far the strongest part of the book. Williams is certain to teach you something new about Palestine that will bolster your confidence in the Gospels. For example, Williams calls attention to the fact that sycamore trees were common in Jericho — the town where Zacchaeus climbed one to see Jesus (Lk. 19:4) — but they weren’t common across the Roman Empire (82). How would someone writing from a distant land know this botanical detail? It must have come from eye-witness testimony. He gives several examples like this.

I’m so impressed that Can We Trust the Gospels? has now become my go-to recommended resource for others interested in this topic. Williams avoids getting bogged down in details like form and redaction criticism or Midrash arguments — something most other books of this nature don’t avoid. As Williams mentioned in the preface, he left out everything unnecessary. But despite its brevity, the book is still comprehensive in scope, covering the Gospels from a wide array of angles.

So, can we trust the Gospels? Williams’ answer is a resounding yes. And I happen to agree with him.