Are the Gospels a Myth?
There is some belief in the great, wide world that the Gospels and the Book of Acts are largely fiction or myth (it is necessary to include the Book of Acts with the Gospels for reasons that will be discussed later).
American biblical scholar and Episcopal priest Richard Pervo wrote, “Luke was well-intentioned but dumb”; “Luke was . . . a bad historian, but he was full of good intentions.” (1) Pervo’s skeptical view of Luke, the traditional author of Luke-Acts, is not popular per se, but the very idea that the Gospels or Acts might be considered merely fiction warrants a response.
It is important to understand that historians and scholars in the past century have been obsessed with ‘proving’ the Scriptures. This makes sense when one considers that the New Testament records events that occurred two millennia ago. That’s a long time for any piece of literature to have endured.
The dominant question of the 19th and 20th centuries was, “How do we know that the Bible is true?” It’s known that, as the Scriptures were copied from scholar to scholar, mistakes were made, typos added, and sometimes chunks were left out. Over decades, centuries, and millennia, is it possible that the Bible we have is an embellished version of the original?
The question remains for us today: How do we know that the Bible that we have before us is the ‘right’ Bible?
This question has arguably decreased in importance in the last few decades. In the ‘postmodern' age, the main question isn’t so much, “How do we know it is true?” as “Why does the Bible matter to me today?” (4) However, it is still important to consider the original question for today’s curious students.
Therefore, I’d like to delve deeper into the critical issues surrounding the Gospels and Acts. Who wrote them? How do we know? What are their historical and literary criticisms? What is the evidence that suggests that the Gospels and Acts are in fact trustworthy and reliable in today’s Bibles? And lastly, what difference does it make to the Christian faith if the Gospels and Acts are fiction or myth?
Who wrote the Gospels and Acts?
The Gospel of Matthew
Traditionally, the Gospel of Matthew is thought to have been written by Jesus’ disciple and apostle Matthew the tax collector. (2) This belief stretches back to the earliest church fathers. Papias, a bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia in the second century AD wrote, “Matthew compiled the oracles [of the Gospel of Matthew] in the Hebrew dialect/language.” (3) Is this Matthew the same one as the tax collector, the disciple of Jesus? It is presumed so because we don’t hear of another prominent Matthew in the early church. Thus, as early as a generation after the writing of the Gospel of Matthew, we see a bishop of the early believers confirm Matthew as its author.
The Gospel of Mark
This Gospel is also anonymous, but early church tradition strongly attributes authorship to John Mark who was closely associated with the apostle Peter. Eusebius, a fourth-century historian, quoted Papias in his Church History, “‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord, but not however in order.’” (5)
Thus, the suggestion is that 1) Mark wrote the Gospel on the authority of Peter, 2) he did not write his account in chronological sequence, and 3) what Mark wrote down was nonetheless accurate. (6) Second-century theologians Irenaeus and Marcion also attribute the Gospel of Mark to Mark’s authorship via the words of Peter. (7)
The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts
It is commonly held that the books of Luke and Acts are a two-volume work written by Luke, the companion of Paul (Col 4:14, 2 Tim. 4:11). The introductions of both books address an individual named Theophilus (Luke 3:1, Acts 1:1), thus pointing to a common author and common purpose for both volumes, that is, the investigation of the traditions surrounding the man known as Jesus of Nazareth.
Both Marcion and Irenaeus acknowledge Luke as the author of the third gospel. (8) In addition, the internal evidence of Paul’s letters and the ‘we’ sections of the book of Acts (Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, 27:1-28:16) indicate strong support for Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, as the author.
The Gospel of John
The fourth gospel is traditionally attributed to John the son of Zebedee, one of Jesus’ first disciples, who is known as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” (John 21:20-24) Irenaeus and Eusebius both attribute the gospel’s authorship to John. (9) The internal evidence of the book also supports authorship by someone close to Jesus, since many private discourses are recorded in this Gospel that are not recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. John 12-17). Also, the author was obviously a Jew due to the many references to Jewish festivals and feasts throughout the Gospel and familiarity with Jerusalem’s topography (e.g. “the Sheep Gate,” (5:2) and “the pool of Siloam” (9:7).
Eyewitness reports increase historical reliability
The Gospels of Matthew and John are reported to have been written by Jesus’ own disciples, Matthew and John. Thus, they saw with their own eyes the miracles that Jesus did and they heard with their own ears the sayings of Jesus. The things they wrote down are eyewitness reports and firsthand accounts. They were not written down centuries after Jesus lived and walked on the earth. This emphasizes their burden of proof — they are legitimate, historical works testifying to a historical Jesus who lived, breathed, and walked on this earth.
The Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Book of Acts were written by secondhand witnesses; they heard the stories told to them by those who were firsthand witnesses. Mark heard Peter’s accounts; Luke heard Paul’s accounts and likely talked with many other disciples who were still living at the time. Tradition holds that Mark is the young man who fled naked from the garden (Mark 14:51-52), which would strengthen Mark’s position an eyewitness to the events of Jesus.
The closer a witness is to an event, the stronger the evidence for its truth. Thus, the proximity of the writing of the Gospels and Acts emphasizes its proof of historical fact. Not enough time has passed for the stories and teachings of Jesus to have passed into myth.
The historical and literary criticisms of the Gospels and Acts
Modernist scholars (i.e. 19th and 20th century) have spent an inordinate amount of time examining the history, literature, and redactions (fancy term for ‘editing’) of the biblical works. I could spend a lot of time here, but I’ll be brief.
Which Gospel was written first?
The primary criticism levelled against the Gospel of Matthew is that for centuries it was assumed that it was the first to be written. It was thought that Mark was an abbreviated version of Matthew, and that Luke obtained much of its material from Matthew. Today, however, most scholars agree that Mark was already in circulation when the Gospel of Matthew was written and that Luke and Matthew used the Gospel of Mark (as well as another unknown source commonly known as Q) to write their Gospels. (10)
The Jewish flavour of the Gospel of Matthew
Apparently, the Gospel of Matthew was the most popular New Testament Gospel among the ancient church. (11) Portions of it, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, remain popular in Anabaptist traditions.
Today’s readers have more difficulty with the Matthew’s Gospel due to its distinct ancient-Jewish flavour. It is this Jewishness that lends further credibility to the Gospel of Matthew. For example, Matthew quotes heavily from the Old Testament Scriptures, bridging the gap between the Prophets and the coming of Jesus with the often-repeated statement, “this took place so that what the prophets spoke would be fulfilled.” (Matthew 1:22–23; 2:15; 2:17–18; 2:23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35; 27:9–10)
Additionally, Matthew draws on familiar Old Testament imagery, including a flight to and return from Egypt (Ex. 1-3, Matt. 2:19-23), temptations in the wilderness (Ex. 16-17, Matt. 4:1-11), a prophet wearing camel’s hair and eating locusts and honey (2 Kings 1:8, Matt. 3:1-4), and the giving of the Law from a mountaintop (Ex. 19-20, Matt. 5:1-2). To the Jewish listeners of the first century, Matthew was a convincing ‘continuation’ of the Old Testament story of God and his people.
Of course, this simply highlights the purpose of Matthew’s writing, which was to show how Jesus of Nazareth connects to and fulfills the Old Testament Scriptures. Mark’s lack of detail surrounding Jewish customs and John’s Jewish festivals imply familiarity with a Jewish way of life, while Luke’s explicit commentary on Jewish customs (e.g. Luke 2:23) and emphasis on the unclean and outcasts suggests that he may be a Gentile writing to predominantly Gentile readers. (12)
To the first-century Jews living in conquered Judea and across Rome, the Jewishness of the Gospels provides a link to their sacred Scriptures. Luke’s more Gentile-flavoured Gospel also echoes the Prophets' words concerning the welcome of the Gentiles (Ps. 86:9; Is. 9:2, 49:6). Whether the Gospel writers were consciously aware of it or not, they were writing works that would later be seen as part of the grand narrative of God’s relationship with his people — all people.
How have the Gospels and Acts been preserved to today?
Inititally, the Gospels and Acts were orally transmitted, as was popular in the ancient world where the majority were illiterate. It is supposed that the stories and teachings of Jesus circulated in small pieces before they were finally compiled into a written work, first by Mark and then by the others. (13)
As eyewitness testimonies linked to the Jewish history, the Gospels became well-known as sacred Scriptures themselves within a few generations of their writing, circulating among the believers and becoming ‘canonized’ as Scripture between 200 and 400 AD. Due to the Gospels’ proximity to Jesus, the early patristic scholars took pains to copy and preserve the Gospels with extra care, first in scrolls and then in codexes (more or less like the modern book). (14)
The topic of the transmission of Scripture is a large and complex one; suffice it to say, there are thousands of New Testament fragments that have been preserved to the modern day from as early as the late second-century. (15) The sheer volume of fragments allows for rigorous cross-analysis of texts, verifying that the Scriptures as we have them today are reliably and accurately transmitted from their earliest sources.
Why are there differences in the content of the Gospels?
This is a question that has puzzled scholars for centuries. If the Gospels were recorded as a biography of the life of Jesus, then why are there differences in their arrangement of events? For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus doesn’t enter Jerusalem until the climax of the book at the Passover and crucifixion, but in the Gospel of John, Jesus enters Jerusalem as early as chapter 3 when he cleanses the temple (an event that doesn’t occur until Matt. 21).
Furthermore, the Gospel of John is ‘missing’ most of the material that the Synoptic Gospels record. Whereas the first three Gospels focus heavily on the parables and miracles of Jesus and his teachings on the kingdom of God, the Gospel of John seems to ignore these in favour of a select few miracles and teachings, most of which are not found in the Synoptics.
The answer is simpler than we might think.
While the Gospels are recording history, they are also writing theology.
Therein lies the difference between historical biographies and the biblical texts.
The purpose of each writer is not simply to record history; it is to record the theological importance of the coming of Jesus of Nazareth.
For modern-day readers, this can be difficult to grasp. We are familiar with history as ‘fact,’ as something that is ‘proven’ by biographies, chronological timelines, and archeology. But history is never objective; it is written with a bias in order to tell a specific story. For example, the battles of World War II will be told very differently depending on whether one interviews a Canadian veteran or a German veteran.
In the case of Scripture, history is written with a theological bent — it tells us something about God.
For Matthew, this meant emphasizing the connection of Jesus’ lineage to Abraham and David, and explaining how Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets as the long-awaited Messianic king bringing God’s kingdom to earth.
For Mark, this meant explaining that Jesus is the ‘Christ, the Son of God.’ (Mark 1:1) Mark meant to explain that Jesus is not merely human, but is the Son of God crowned on the cross in suffering as the servant-king.
For Luke, this meant focusing on Jesus’ care for the downtrodden and marginalized, including women, as he proclaimed the kingdom of God as available to all people, including the Gentiles. In Acts, Luke emphasizes the work of the Spirit and the spread of the Jesus-movement known popularly as ‘the Way’ throughout Rome (Acts 24:14).
For John, this meant proclaiming Jesus as the very Word of God, connecting Jesus to the breath of God at creation (John 1:1-3). Written later than the Synoptic Gospels, it is thought that John wrote in response to Gnostic teachings. Instead of rehashing information already well-known in the Synoptics, John deliberately focuses on Jesus’ deity — he is God, the I AM — and write evangelistically: “so that you might believe... and that by believing, have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31) (16)
All of written history is biased toward the perspective of its author.
The biblical books are no different. Does this alter the validity of the Gospels and Acts? Absolutely not.
For today’s readers, it simply means asking different questions. Instead of, “Did it really happen? How did it happen?” we might ask, “Why was it written like this? Why did the author choose to include or eliminate elements of the story? What are the Gospels telling us about Jesus and why does that matter to us today?”
For Christians, the Gospels and Acts hold a special place in Scripture.
All of Scripture is important, for it all tells the redemptive story of God and his creation. But the Gospels are extraordinary because they tell us about Jesus, the in-flesh revelation of God. In Jesus, we meet God face to face. Acts is also extraordinary because it tells us why Jesus’ coming matters — to transform the world by bringing God’s kingdom to earth through the radical transformation of his people.
So why does it matter whether we believe the Gospels and Acts are fact or fiction?
In the words of St. Paul, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless.” (1 Cor. 15:17)
If the story of Jesus is untrue, if it is merely fiction, then everything believed by the followers of Jesus is built on a lie.
Jesus’ commands to care for the poor, the widowed, and the orphan are empty.
The coming of the Holy Spirit empowering the early believers is meaningless.
The patient, hopeful waiting for the world’s restoration through the deeds of Jesus’ faithful followers and at his second coming is senseless.
For that matter, any good that is done in the name of Jesus is worthless.
Think of hospitals, scientific research, vaccines, advances in agriculture in the attempt to feed the starving, education in places where illiteracy abounds, and movements to stop sex trafficking and provide clean water. Jesus-followers are at the forefront of all of these, proclaiming freedom and justice to dark places in the name of Jesus.
If Jesus is a myth, if the Gospels and Acts are merely fiction, and if we can’t trust that the words of Scripture have been reliably passed down to us by the faithful saints who have come before us, then the Christian’s entire worldview and missional purpose are foundationless.
The historical and theological trustworthiness of the Gospels and Acts provide a ground for us to stand on. On this rock — the cornerstone, Jesus Christ — we are built, “and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” (1 Peter 2:6)
Notes
Pervo, Richard I. Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Abridged: New Testament, “Matthew: Introduction, The Criticism of Matthew.” ebook, Logos.
As cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 3.39.16.
Wilson, Jonathan R. “Toward a New Evangelical Paradigm of Biblical Authority.”
As cited in Eusebius, Church History 2.29.15.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Abridged: New Testament, “Mark: Introduction, 3. Authorship, a. Early tradition.” ebook, Logos.
Buckwalter, Doug H. “Lesson 4a: Mark as Sermon,” lecture notes. Evangelical Seminary, 2023.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Abridged: New Testament, “Luke: Introduction, 1. Authorship.” ebook, Logos.
Buckwalter, Doug H. “Lesson 7a: John as Legal Testimony,” lecture notes. Evangelical Seminary, 2023.
Buckwalter, Doug H. “Lesson 2a: Matthew as Apology,” lecture notes. Evangelical Seminary, 2023.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2014, 45.
Carson, D.A. and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2009, 204.
Carson and Moo, 80.
Carson and Moo, 24.
Carson and Moo, 25.
Carson and Moo, 269-270.
