The Gospels can be understood as both theological and historical works. Theology examines spiritual experiences and historical records to understand concepts of the divine. The Gospels are examined theologically to derive ethical principles, but also historically using criteria such as external sources, eyewitness accounts, and multiple independent accounts to judge their reliability in reporting events. While theology and history both aim to understand the Gospels, historians also use the Gospels as historical sources to validate archeological records.

1. !
Why should the Gospels be
understood as theological and ethical,
instead of reporting of historical
events?
The Gospels are considered to be both theological and historical,
theology begins with the assumption that the divine exists in some
form, such as in physical, supernatural, mental, or social realities, and
that evidence for and about it may be found via personal spiritual
experiences and/or historical records of such experiences as
documented by others.
Tony Mariot The Historicity of the Gospels Page !1

2. !
The study of these assumptions is not part of theology proper, but is
found in the philosophy of religion, and increasingly through the
psychology of religion and neurotheology.
Theology then aims to structure and understand these experiences
and concepts, and to use them to derive normative prescriptions for
how to live our lives. Theologians use various forms of analysis and
argument (experiential, philosophical, ethnographic, historical, and
others) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote
any of myriad religious topics which the Gospels are one.
Tony Mariot The Historicity of the Gospels Page !2

3. !
As to the question of the Gospels being historical, to prove this
scholars turn to external sources, including the testimony of early
church leaders, writers outside the church (mainly Jewish and Greco-
Roman historians) who would have been more likely to have
criticized the early churches, and to archaeological evidence.
!
When judging the historical reliability of the gospels, scholars ask if
the accounts in the gospels are, when judged using normal standards
that historians use on other ancient writings, reliable or not. The
original gospel works were accurate eyewitness accounts, and
whether those original versions have been transmitted accurately
Tony Mariot The Historicity of the Gospels Page !3

4. through the ages to us. In evaluating the historical reliability of the
Gospels, scholars consider a number of factors. These include
authorship and date of composition, intention and genre, gospel
sources and oral tradition, textual criticism, and historical authenticity
of specific sayings and narrative events.
!
The criterion of dissimilarity argues that if a saying or action is
dissimilar to, or contrary to, the views of Judaism in the context of
Jesus or the views of the early church, then it can more confidently be
regarded as an authentic saying or action of Jesus.
Tony Mariot The Historicity of the Gospels Page !4

5. !
The criterion of embarrassment holds that the authors of the gospels
had no reason to invent embarrassing incidents such as the denial of
Jesus by Peter, or the fleeing of Jesus' followers after his arrest, and
therefore such details would likely not have been included unless they
were true.
!
The criterion of multiple attestation says that when two or more
independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is more
likely that the accounts are accurate reports of events or that they are
reporting a tradition which pre-dates the sources themselves.
Tony Mariot The Historicity of the Gospels Page !5

6. Deuteronomy 19:15
15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any
sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth
of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in
the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
!
The criterion of cultural and historical congruency says that a source is
less credible if the account contradicts known historical facts, or if it
conflicts with cultural practices common in the period in question. It
is, therefore, more credible if it agrees with those known facts.
Through linguistic criteria a number of conclusions can be drawn. The
criterion of "Aramaisms" as it is often referred holds that if a saying of
Jesus has Aramaic roots, reflecting Jesus' Palestinian context, the
saying is more likely to be authentic. These methods and others have
been used in order to determine the accuracy of all biblical text for
hundreds and even thousands of years.
The Bible is used today in many occasions to validate historical
records through archeological research.
Tony Mariot The Historicity of the Gospels Page !6