Roberts Four Gospels
Roberts as a pastor and author has provided a us with an outline of his journey to understanding the reliability of the four gospels. His main focus in this book was on the “historical dimension” (pg. 13) in discovering if we truly can trust the gospels. Roberts brief overview of many topics on the reliability of the gospels has us, the reader asking ourselves dose the gospels hold up to critical scrutiny, scrutiny of the authorship of the gospels, the trustworthiness of the scholarly methodology, and discovering what the original manuscripts say vs. what the (Bible) gospels says today. Roberts makes a strong case for trusting the gospels while including opposing thoughts which included contradictions, personal agendas in the writing of the
…show more content…
gospels, and early church influence. Roberts explains the legitimacy of the four gospels, therefore we can trust the gospels.
Roberts has given us, the lay person the tools needed to reason and understand why we can trust the gospels as reliable. He asked the question, since we don’t have an original manuscript of the gospel how could we know or trust what our gospels say today? His point was our gospels today are copies of copies, copies that had been translated into Greek, was it translated accurately as it was handed down through generations?
Roberts explained even though we don’t have the original manuscripts we can trust our gospel today because of the authorship.
He explained the case for the author having had personal knowledge of Jesus’s ministry, know Jesus personally or having had investigated, interview persons who had the knowledge. Roberts points out that we know the writer of Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus’s ministry, but had interviewed “close followers of Jesus” (pg. 46-47). Knowing the original had been handed down by eyewitnesses should help us trust the gospels. Roberts does make a concession the trustworthiness of the gospels is not about who wrote them but about the message of the gospels. He explains by “having many manuscripts” (pg. 33), we’re able to know what the original manuscripts said, understanding the meaning of the gospels and therefore we’re able to trust the gospels for what is written and not who wrote …show more content…
them.
Roberts had proven his case for the trustworthiness of the gospels showing through research of the dates of the manuscripts and what sources the writers had used provide a truly trustworthy foundation for our gospels of today. Roberts contends while scholars believe many of the manuscripts having been dated some 30 to 70 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. When we compare the dates of noncanonical gospels to the dates of the canonical gospels we’ll see the dates of the gospels as a much earlier date. Roberts explains we’re able to do this due to many papyrus manuscripts containing the biblical gospels to the 2nd century dating to around A.D. 125, showing the originals had been written earlier, closer to the death of Christ.
Roberts further explains how we can know who, when, and where they wrote the gospels. He shows how many scholars believe Matthew was written first while others claim Mark was written first. He points to how all the gospels have taken from one another. Roberts show how the gospel of John could stand alone due to the writing style and content, however showed while disputed some believe “John knew Mark’s gospel account and had wrote to supplement it” (pg. 66), evidences to date doesn’t fully support this theory.
While many has placed the trustworthiness of the gospels on the dates and authors, we have to understand that many of the writings we have started out as nothing more than Oral sources, stories and traditions pass down from eyewitnesses of Jesus’s ministry. Roberts makes the claim the early Christians believed all they heard about Jesus to be true, therefore they would have wanted to pass along the stories and says of Jesus. The would have wanted to have given an accurate account of Jesus’s ministry and many writers would have relied upon these first-hand accounts. Robert explains many are skeptic of the oral stories passed down, saying anyone could have said anything whether true or not, but through research little evidence of this this happening has been found.
Roberts explains how the modern gospels genre closely resembles the Hellenistic writing, writing that used a biography and history approach. Robert points out we’re to look at the gospels in this manner and should not apply today’s standards when we’re interpreting the gospels.
Roberts answers many of the questions the opposition has when it comes to the trustworthiness of the gospels.
When Roberts discussed the issues of the contradiction of the gospels, he referred to them nothing more than “variation” (pg. 101) meaning they did not go against one another but it was from a different view point the stories where being told. Roberts explains how many writes would arrange events by themes rather than chronology order. Robert shows how the “Hellenistic world often preferred thematic to chronological” (pg. 103) when recording of events. Roberts goes on to show our trust and theology should be based on history. He showing many of the contradictions and problem with the miracles are nothing more than how or what a person believes; Robert calls all to be more open in our faith when it comes to trusting the
gospels.
Roberts points out how the trustworthiness of the gospels can be seen through archeological and history. Evidence to support the gospels writers has been unearthed in many archeological digs. Roberts points out this evidence along with many noncanonical gospels writing, support the gospels as written. These writings have given evidence that our gospels accurately portrayed the meaning of the original writer and what they were trying to purvey.
Robert confronts the question whether or not the early church had an influence on the content of the gospels. While modern day movies would have us to believe just that, through research and studies Roberts feels the early church wouldn’t have that influence. Roberts point out the early Christians from whom the writing and sayings where passed down from, would have passed the truth no matter how embarrassing it may have been. The writers of the original manuscripts wanted the truth of Jesus known.
Robert has made his case clear for the reliability of the gospels. He has shown how we can know what the original manuscripts said through the canonical and noncanonical gospels, as well as archeological and historical evidences. How we can have confidence the Greek translation truly reflexes the original manuscripts. Robert has shown the reliability should and doesn’t rely on who wrote them but the nature and purpose of the writings. Roberts has shown through research, archeological and history evidences, the gospels we have today can be trusted as accurate and reliable. Roberts through this book has made the case that we’re able to trust the gospels as Reliable, historical record of Jesus and trustworthy facet of divine revelation.
gospels, and early church influence. Roberts explains the legitimacy of the four gospels, therefore we can trust the gospels.
Roberts has given us, the lay person the tools needed to reason and understand why we can trust the gospels as reliable. He asked the question, since we don’t have an original manuscript of the gospel how could we know or trust what our gospels say today? His point was our gospels today are copies of copies, copies that had been translated into Greek, was it translated accurately as it was handed down through generations?
Roberts explained even though we don’t have the original manuscripts we can trust our gospel today because of the authorship.
He explained the case for the author having had personal knowledge of Jesus’s ministry, know Jesus personally or having had investigated, interview persons who had the knowledge. Roberts points out that we know the writer of Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus’s ministry, but had interviewed “close followers of Jesus” (pg. 46-47). Knowing the original had been handed down by eyewitnesses should help us trust the gospels. Roberts does make a concession the trustworthiness of the gospels is not about who wrote them but about the message of the gospels. He explains by “having many manuscripts” (pg. 33), we’re able to know what the original manuscripts said, understanding the meaning of the gospels and therefore we’re able to trust the gospels for what is written and not who wrote …show more content…
them.
Roberts had proven his case for the trustworthiness of the gospels showing through research of the dates of the manuscripts and what sources the writers had used provide a truly trustworthy foundation for our gospels of today. Roberts contends while scholars believe many of the manuscripts having been dated some 30 to 70 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. When we compare the dates of noncanonical gospels to the dates of the canonical gospels we’ll see the dates of the gospels as a much earlier date. Roberts explains we’re able to do this due to many papyrus manuscripts containing the biblical gospels to the 2nd century dating to around A.D. 125, showing the originals had been written earlier, closer to the death of Christ.
Roberts further explains how we can know who, when, and where they wrote the gospels. He shows how many scholars believe Matthew was written first while others claim Mark was written first. He points to how all the gospels have taken from one another. Roberts show how the gospel of John could stand alone due to the writing style and content, however showed while disputed some believe “John knew Mark’s gospel account and had wrote to supplement it” (pg. 66), evidences to date doesn’t fully support this theory.
While many has placed the trustworthiness of the gospels on the dates and authors, we have to understand that many of the writings we have started out as nothing more than Oral sources, stories and traditions pass down from eyewitnesses of Jesus’s ministry. Roberts makes the claim the early Christians believed all they heard about Jesus to be true, therefore they would have wanted to pass along the stories and says of Jesus. The would have wanted to have given an accurate account of Jesus’s ministry and many writers would have relied upon these first-hand accounts. Robert explains many are skeptic of the oral stories passed down, saying anyone could have said anything whether true or not, but through research little evidence of this this happening has been found.
Roberts explains how the modern gospels genre closely resembles the Hellenistic writing, writing that used a biography and history approach. Robert points out we’re to look at the gospels in this manner and should not apply today’s standards when we’re interpreting the gospels.
Roberts answers many of the questions the opposition has when it comes to the trustworthiness of the gospels.
When Roberts discussed the issues of the contradiction of the gospels, he referred to them nothing more than “variation” (pg. 101) meaning they did not go against one another but it was from a different view point the stories where being told. Roberts explains how many writes would arrange events by themes rather than chronology order. Robert shows how the “Hellenistic world often preferred thematic to chronological” (pg. 103) when recording of events. Roberts goes on to show our trust and theology should be based on history. He showing many of the contradictions and problem with the miracles are nothing more than how or what a person believes; Robert calls all to be more open in our faith when it comes to trusting the
gospels.
Roberts points out how the trustworthiness of the gospels can be seen through archeological and history. Evidence to support the gospels writers has been unearthed in many archeological digs. Roberts points out this evidence along with many noncanonical gospels writing, support the gospels as written. These writings have given evidence that our gospels accurately portrayed the meaning of the original writer and what they were trying to purvey.
Robert confronts the question whether or not the early church had an influence on the content of the gospels. While modern day movies would have us to believe just that, through research and studies Roberts feels the early church wouldn’t have that influence. Roberts point out the early Christians from whom the writing and sayings where passed down from, would have passed the truth no matter how embarrassing it may have been. The writers of the original manuscripts wanted the truth of Jesus known.
Robert has made his case clear for the reliability of the gospels. He has shown how we can know what the original manuscripts said through the canonical and noncanonical gospels, as well as archeological and historical evidences. How we can have confidence the Greek translation truly reflexes the original manuscripts. Robert has shown the reliability should and doesn’t rely on who wrote them but the nature and purpose of the writings. Roberts has shown through research, archeological and history evidences, the gospels we have today can be trusted as accurate and reliable. Roberts through this book has made the case that we’re able to trust the gospels as Reliable, historical record of Jesus and trustworthy facet of divine revelation.