Introduction
In a recent video, YouTuber Jeff4Truth presents several arguments challenging the reliability of the Gospels. His claims cover a wide range of topics, from the dating of the Gospels to the anonymity of their authors and supposed contradictions within the text. While these objections are not new, they misunderstand both the nature of historical evidence and the scholarly consensus on these matters. In this post, I will critically evaluate his claims and demonstrate how they fail to withstand academic scrutiny.
“Knowledge is Superior to Faith”
Right from the beginning of the video, Jeff4Truth asserts that "knowledge is superior to faith." While this statement sounds appealing, it reflects a profound misunderstanding of what biblical faith entails. Contrary to the implication that faith is irrational, Scripture portrays faith as deeply intertwined with knowledge and reason.
Jeff seems unaware of the philosophical and theological traditions that have engaged with the concept of faith. Figures like Augustine and Aquinas emphasized that faith is not contrary to reason but works in harmony with it. See the video linked below for an in depth look at what the proper understanding of the word faith means.
Dating the Gospels: Pre- or Post-70 AD?
Jeff argues that the Gospels must be dated after 70 AD because they contain references to the destruction of the Temple, which occurred in 70 CE. This assumption is problematic for several reasons. First, he seems to assume that the mere mention of this event necessitates a post-70 AD composition. But if we take this logic seriously, we would have to dismiss any ancient text containing predictive elements, even though historians like Josephus documented individuals who predicted the destruction of Jerusalem well before it happened.
For example, Josephus recounts the case of Jesus ben Ananias, who predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple long before it occurred (Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.3). If someone like Jesus ben Ananias could foresee the destruction of the Temple, there is no reason to assume that Jesus of Nazareth could not have done the same, particularly given his prophetic role within Judaism.
More compelling evidence for a pre-70 AD dating of the Gospels comes from the book of Acts. Scholars generally date Acts between 62-90 AD, and the fact that Acts ends abruptly without mentioning significant events like the death of Paul or the destruction of the Temple suggests it was written around 62 AD. Since the same author wrote both Luke and Acts, and Luke pre-dates Acts, this places the composition of Luke somewhere before 62 AD. Therefore, the argument that the Gospels must be dated post-70 AD simply does not hold up.
Lack of First-Century Manuscripts: A Red Herring
Jeff also claims that the absence of first-century manuscripts of the Gospels is evidence against their early composition. However, this argument from silence overlooks several important factors. Manuscripts from the first century are rare across the board due to the fragility of papyrus and the tumultuous events of that era. It is not surprising that we do not possess intact first-century manuscripts, given the time elapsed and the destructive events of the period, including the Jewish-Roman War.
Our earliest manuscript fragments of the New Testament date to the second century, and our earliest intact manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the fourth century. This does not mean that earlier manuscripts never existed—only that they have not survived. To imply otherwise is a misunderstanding of how ancient texts have been preserved.
Paul’s Citations of the Gospels
Another significant oversight in Jeff’s argument is his dismissal of evidence from Paul’s letters. Contrary to his claim that "there are no citations of the Gospels anywhere in the first century," we find clear examples of Paul quoting Gospel material. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, Paul recounts the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, which align closely with the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels, particularly Luke. Paul was writing this letter around 55 AD, and since he died in 62 AD, this demonstrates that Gospel traditions were in circulation well before 70 AD.
Additionally, in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes a saying of Jesus: “The laborer deserves to be paid.” This exact phrase appears in Luke 10:7, indicating that Paul regarded this Gospel material as authoritative. Importantly, Paul refers to this saying as “Scripture,” showing that by the time he wrote, these teachings of Jesus were already considered sacred and binding. Therefore, Jeff’s claim that there is no early evidence for the Gospels is clearly false.
Anonymity of the Gospels: A Misinterpretation
Jeff frequently brings up the fact that the Gospels are anonymous, implying that this undermines their reliability and the hypothesis that the authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However, this argument misunderstands both the literary practices of the time and the function of anonymity in ancient historiography. As Armin D. Baum explains in his 2008 article, "The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books," it was common for historical works in both the Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions to be published anonymously. Authors sought to disappear behind the material they presented, focusing the reader’s attention on the events rather than themselves (Baum, 2008, p. 120-142).
Furthermore, the anonymity of the Gospels does not mean they were circulated without any attribution. Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Papias attributed the Gospels to specific authors—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—based on long-standing tradition. This attribution was not the result of later theological invention but reflects early testimony from those closest to the events in question. As Richard Bauckham argues in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, the Gospels are rooted in eyewitness testimony, even if the texts themselves do not name the authors.
Furthermore, the Gospels are not unique in this regard. Several significant works from Greco-Roman antiquity are also anonymous, yet they are widely accepted as reliable historical accounts. Some notable examples include:
Philo omitted his name from his biographical works on Abraham, Joseph, and Moses.
Plutarch, in his Parallel Lives, makes no mention of himself in his accounts of various historical figures.
Porphyry does not identify himself in any of his surviving works.
Philostratus, in his biographical work Life of Apollonius of Tyana, omits his own identity as the author.
Nepos does not mention himself in his biographic works.
Tacitus leaves out his own name in his biography of his father-in-law, Agricola.
Lucian, in works such as Alexander the False Prophet and The Toxaris, avoids self-references.
These examples demonstrate that anonymity was a common stylistic device in ancient historiography, not an indicator of unreliability. The practice allowed authors to focus on the subject matter, following the conventions of their time, where the author’s identity was secondary to the events they recorded.
Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels
Jeff also spends a significant amount of time pointing out what he believes are contradictions in the Gospel accounts. For instance, he highlights differences between Matthew and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth. However, differences in detail do not equate to contradictions. Historians dealing with ancient texts frequently encounter variations in reports, yet this does not lead them to dismiss the texts as unreliable.
In the case of the Gospels, many of these supposed contradictions can be harmonized. Even if we grant that minor discrepancies exist, this does not undermine the overall historical reliability of the documents. For the purpose of this article, I will not engage in offering any of the harmonizations. You can look forward to that in future articles to come.
Arguments from Silence: A Faulty Method
One of the most troubling aspects of Jeff’s video is his reliance on arguments from silence, a method that assumes that if something is not mentioned in historical records, it must not have occurred. For example, Jeff argues that the Massacre of the Innocents, as described in Matthew 2, must not have happened because it is not corroborated by other historical sources. However, this is a poor argument for several reasons.
First, we must consider the scale of the event. Bethlehem was a small town, with an estimated population of about 1,200–1,500 people at the time. Given that the order was to kill male infants under the age of two, the number of infants killed may have been very small—likely no more than a dozen. To us, in the modern age of constant media cycles, such an event would be horrifying and widely reported. However, in the context of the ancient world, especially in light of the far more significant atrocities and political upheavals of the time, this would not have warranted much attention.
The historian Josephus, who often serves as a point of reference for critics like Jeff, was primarily concerned with documenting major political events and military campaigns, particularly those affecting the larger Jewish community and its relation to Rome. The death of a small number of infants in a relatively insignificant town might not have merited inclusion in his works. Moreover, we know that Josephus himself often omitted significant events from his records. For example, he fails to mention the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Emperor Claudius—a well-documented event that is recorded by both the book of Acts (18:2) and the Roman historian Suetonius.
As Dr. Tim McGrew explains in his 2014 paper, The Argument from Silence, arguments based on what we expect ancient authors to mention are deeply flawed. Our intuitions about what ancient authors "should have" written are often unreliable, as we are far removed from their cultural and political priorities. Ancient historians were selective in their writings, and their omissions do not necessarily indicate that events did not occur.
Here are just a few notable examples where significant events in history were omitted by major sources:
Neither Herodotus nor Thucydides mention the Romans in their histories of ancient Greece, even though Rome was rising in power during that time.
In Thucydides’ History, Socrates, one of the most prominent figures in Athens, is never mentioned despite being highly influential during the 20-year span that Thucydides covers.
Tacitus, in his biography of his father-in-law Agricola, omits his own name from the work entirely.
In Pliny the Younger’s two letters describing the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, he never mentions the destruction of the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum, even though 60,000 people died. Despite this glaring omission, historians still accept the eruption as fact.
Suetonius, Hadrian’s secretary, also fails to mention the destruction of Pompeii in his writings.
The biography of Constantine written by Eusebius, a key historian of early Christianity, does not mention Constantine’s execution of his son Crispus and his wife Fausta, even though these events are well-attested elsewhere.
In 41 AD, Claudius expelled Jews from Rome, an event recorded only by Luke in Acts 18:2 and by Suetonius. Josephus, a Jewish historian who meticulously recorded Jewish history, does not mention it.
These examples demonstrate that silence in historical sources does not equate to non-existence. Many significant events are missing from primary historical accounts, yet we do not doubt their occurrence based on the available evidence. Applying Jeff’s standard would lead to the absurd conclusion that many well-documented events did not happen simply because they were not mentioned by a specific historian.
In the case of the Massacre of the Innocents, it is important to remember that Bethlehem was not a major urban center. The population of the town was small, and the massacre, though tragic, likely resulted in the death of perhaps a dozen infants. Given the high infant mortality rates of the time and the Roman indifference to the deaths of children, the event may have seemed relatively insignificant to contemporaries. This explains why Josephus or other ancient sources might have omitted it from their writings.
Finally, arguments from silence are especially weak when they are used to support a broader thesis, like the idea that the Gospels are unreliable. As McGrew points out, an argument from silence is only as strong as the expectation that the writer in question would have mentioned the event. Since we have no reason to expect Josephus or others to have recorded every small-scale atrocity, the absence of corroboration for the Massacre of the Innocents does not undermine Matthew’s account.
Thus, Jeff’s reliance on arguments from silence reveals a lack of understanding of historical methodology. Historians must work with the evidence they have, not the evidence they wish they had. The absence of a specific detail in one historian’s work is not sufficient to disprove the occurrence of an event, especially when that event is consistent with the cultural and political context of the time.
Conclusion: The Evidence Points to Early and Reliable Gospels
In conclusion, Jeff4Truth’s criticisms of the Gospels are based on a series of misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the evidence. The dating of the Gospels, the anonymity of the authors, and the alleged contradictions are all areas where his arguments fall short when examined through the lens of historical and textual scholarship.
The Gospels are not only early but also deeply rooted in eyewitness testimony, as the writings of Paul and the Church Fathers attest. While Jeff may claim otherwise, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional view that the Gospels were written within the first century and that their accounts are historically reliable.
As Christians, it is important to engage with these criticisms critically and to examine the evidence for ourselves. When we do so, we find that the Gospels stand up to scrutiny and remain a trustworthy record of the life and teachings of Jesus.
Commenti