Are the eyewitnesses who wrote the New Testament reliable?

Answer 1

Another answer from our community:

Absolutely, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in different ways -from their knowledge of customs and topography, to things which have been verified by non-Christian historians. The natural variations which occur between their accounts, say, in the Gospels, only serve to enhance the reputation of a document which looks at Jesus' life from different perspectives, with differences and similarities adding to the overall credibility of the documents.

Answer 2

The reliability of eyewitnesses who wrote the New Testament is a topic of debate among scholars. Some argue that the authors were credible witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events they described, while others raise concerns about bias, the passage of time, and the potential for embellishment in the retelling of stories. Ultimately, the trustworthiness of these accounts can vary depending on one's perspective and interpretation of the historical evidence.

Answer 3

The most important part of the New Testament is the gospels, which were originally anonymous until attributed by the Church Fathers to the apostles whose names they now bear, in the second century. By means of parallel readings in the original Greek language, the Church Fathers soon came to realise that there was a literary dependency among the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). They decided that Matthew's Gospel had been written first and that Mark andLuke had been copied from it.

Biblical scholars agree that there is a literary dependency, but say that it was Mark's Gospel that was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke depended on it for their own gospels, often copyingMark word for word in the Greek language. John's Gospel was also loosely based on Luke's Gospel. For this and other reasons, scholars recognise that none of the gospels could have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed.

Since the gospels were not really written by eyewitnesses, there must be some doubt as to the authenticity of their accounts. Where they differ from Mark, those differences could reasonably be open to challenge. Since it is universally agreed that Mark was not written by an eyewitness, even this original account can not be regarded as truly reliable.

John's Gospel has been regarded as historically doubtful since earliest times, even as it was supported for its Christian message. Origen, in defending John's Gospel (Commentary on John), said "Although he does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells it spiritually."