Then there's Jesus' miracles. Each Gospel relates a number of supernatural events. But how do they present the miracles? There is no build up, no fanfare, they are merely stated as facts. John claims he could have listed more miracles if he really wanted to impress us. "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

What strikes you as Jesus' most impressive miracle? (Let's leave the resurrection out of it for the moment.) Healing the sick? Giving sight to the blind? Walking on water? Or raising the dead? My guess is, after the resurrection, raising the dead would be number one on everybody's list. Notice modern day faith healers shy away from raising dead people. It wouldn't be an easy act to fake.

Now if you or I were concocting a myth about a god coming to earth in human form, wouldn't we want him to do something spectacular? Why not raise the dead, the more the merrier, preferably with a great deal of drama and fanfare? By all means we should include some who have been dead for weeks, maybe even months or years. Why? So critics won't question the "miracle" saying that the deceased was never dead in the first place. "Nothing but a coma!" they might cry.

All that makes perfectly good sense if you are making up the story. But look at the way the Gospels handle it. In all four books, Jesus only raises three dead people

Gospel of John

The Gospel of John has a number of personal eyewitness touches such as recalling the fragrance of Mary's pure nard perfume which she poured on Jesus' feet in the house at Bethany. And then there is the episode of Jesus writing in the dust with his finger when they brought him the woman caught in adultery. Those realistic accounts go hand in hand with the natural sounding conversations John sprinkles throughout his narrative.

Here is a challenge: Read the Gospel. That's right, get a Bible, preferably a modern translation, and check out John's method of writing for yourself. Pay close attention to the dialogues. See how the conversation went on between Jesus and the woman at the well. (John 4:4-26) Next take a look at what follows the healing of the man born blind. (John 9:1-41) Then read the understated drama following Jesus' pronouncement: "One of you is going to betray me." (John 13:21-30)

What do we have here? In his essay Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism, C.S. Lewis muses over the possibility that " . . . some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative."

Probably not. But then, the only reasonable alternative is that John is recording what he saw and heard. Conceivably it could still contain errors, but as Lewis points out, John is close to the facts, about as close as Boswell was to Johnson. John's realism leads us to believe his Gospel is by and large a written report on events and conversations he witnessed himself.

Gospel of Luke

Luke writes his account like a historian. In his two books, the Gospel of Luke and Acts, we find some of the most powerful descriptive writing in the New Testament. This doctor turned historian left modern historians and archaeologists a bonanza of first century details to investigate.

From Luke's Gospel we know the approximate date of Jesus' birth (5 or 6 B.C.) and when John the Baptist began his mission (A.D. 25 or 26). Luke provides us with names and titles of numerous public officials. He identifies first century cities and villages and tells us where they are located. And he informs us of major events of the period such as Augustus' census and the riot in Ephesus. These were well-known episodes. If Luke didn't get his facts straight, he would have lost all credibility with his readers.

Legends and myths of ancient civilizations tend to have vague and somewhat hazy settings. Whoever composed them didn't consider such details relevant. The important thing was the story and that alone. Luke, on the other hand, knows details are important.

He takes an historian's interest in getting all his facts straight. That should inspire confidence. All the more so because the historical novel (a blending of historical personalities and settings with fictitious events) was an unknown form of literature until the eighteenth century. To paraphrase Lewis: "Did some unknown second century writer, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipate the whole technique of the modern historical novel?"

Luke wasn't spinning a yarn. He gives us every indication of doing just what he said he would do. Luke took down eyewitness accounts, checked their accuracy, put them in order, and told us what they told him.

In my two previous articles: Was Jesus a Historical Figure? and How Reliable Are the Gospels? we concluded that Jesus was definitely a real historical character. Furthermore, the first three Gospels were in their final form twenty to thirty years after Jesus' death. That's not enough time for myth makers to turn a man into God. Besides too many people, friends and foes alike, were still alive who could remember the "real" Jesus.

And the oral tradition was not the first century equivalent of a rumor mill. Just the opposite. Men with excellent memories prided themselves on accurately passing on long narratives word-for-word just as they had received them.

Textual critics tell us that the Gospel stories are essentially the same today as they were when the authors composed them. The reliability of the New Testament text compares favorably with that of other ancient writings. Moreover, the Gospels of John and Luke read like reports of actual events. But there is more to consider.

What Skeptics Believe

It's a mistake to think skeptics have no faith. They do believe in one thing, and it is a myth. Here is the skeptic's Great Myth: Take a primitive society (by that they mean any society without television, radio, daily newspapers, the internet, and news reporters); let an important religious leader die; give those people a hundred years or so to build up the story; and they will turn the man into God.

Then the skeptics will point to their prime example -- Jesus Christ, and say, "See what we mean?" But if you ask them for another example, they start to look sheepish. They haven't got one.

The Jews, more than any other ancient people, firmly believed in the concept of one God. And no rumor mill ever promoted a dead prophet into God. A prophet is a prophet and God is God. They knew the difference. Outside of Israel, the story is pretty much the same.

Socrates was a Greek philosopher. He never claimed to be God. As far as I can tell, no one else thought he was either. Buddha was called the Enlightened One. He never pretended to be God. And he ordered his followers not to venerate him. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher. He taught his followers ethics not religion. He certainly didn't think of himself as God. Mohammad was a prophet. If you asked him if he were God, he would be quick to tell you, "Allah is God. I am just his humble servant."

All of these teachers and philosophers say something to the effect, "This is the truth about God, man, and the universe. And in light of that knowledge, here is how we ought to conduct ourselves."

Then Jesus comes along and says right up front: I am the Son of God. (John 10:36) "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) That makes him a minority of one in history. No one else ever made claims of that sort. Christ backed up his claims with the authority of his teachings, his miracles, and his resurrection from death.

The rumor mills were not to blame for manufacturing the man-to-God story. That story was there from the start. The Gospels just reported it.

Gospels are not Legends.

C.S. Lewis said it's obvious the Gospels aren't legends. They are not good enough to be legends. Doesn't he have a point here? Take Jesus' childhood for instance. "What childhood?" you say. That's the point. The Gospels tell us practically nothing of Jesus' life from early infancy to age thirty.

No myth maker worth his salt would let a golden opportunity like that slip through his fingers. He would have the young Jesus doing all kinds of fanciful things. But Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John refrain from that sort of embellishment.

Then there's Jesus' miracles. Each Gospel relates a number of supernatural events. But how do they present the miracles? There is no build up, no fanfare, they are merely stated as facts. John claims he could have listed more miracles if he really wanted to impress us. "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

What strikes you as Jesus' most impressive miracle? (Let's leave the resurrection out of it for the moment.) Healing the sick? Giving sight to the blind? Walking on water? Or raising the dead? My guess is, after the resurrection, raising the dead would be number one on everybody's list. Notice modern day faith healers shy away from raising dead people. It wouldn't be an easy act to fake.

Now if you or I were concocting a myth about a god coming to earth in human form, wouldn't we want him to do something spectacular? Why not raise the dead, the more the merrier, preferably with a great deal of drama and fanfare? By all means we should include some who have been dead for weeks, maybe even months or years. Why? So critics won't question the "miracle" saying that the deceased was never dead in the first place. "Nothing but a coma!" they might cry.

All that makes perfectly good sense if you are making up the story. But look at the way the Gospels handle it. In all four books, Jesus only raises three dead people.

Gospel of Luke

Luke writes his account like a historian. In his two books, the Gospel of Luke and Acts, we find some of the most powerful descriptive writing in the New Testament. This doctor turned historian left modern historians and archaeologists a bonanza of first century details to investigate.

From Luke's Gospel we know the approximate date of Jesus' birth (5 or 6 B.C.) and when John the Baptist began his mission (A.D. 25 or 26). Luke provides us with names and titles of numerous public officials. He identifies first century cities and villages and tells us where they are located. And he informs us of major events of the period such as Augustus' census and the riot in Ephesus. These were well-known episodes. If Luke didn't get his facts straight, he would have lost all credibility with his readers.

Legends and myths of ancient civilizations tend to have vague and somewhat hazy settings. Whoever composed them didn't consider such details relevant. The important thing was the story and that alone. Luke, on the other hand, knows details are important.

He takes an historian's interest in getting all his facts straight. That should inspire confidence. All the more so because the historical novel (a blending of historical personalities and settings with fictitious events) was an unknown form of literature until the eighteenth century. To paraphrase Lewis: "Did some unknown second century writer, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipate the whole technique of the modern historical novel?"

Luke wasn't spinning a yarn. He gives us every indication of doing just what he said he would do. Luke took down eyewitness accounts, checked their accuracy, put them in order, and told us what they told him.

In my two previous articles: Was Jesus a Historical Figure? and How Reliable Are the Gospels? we concluded that Jesus was definitely a real historical character. Furthermore, the first three Gospels were in their final form twenty to thirty years after Jesus' death. That's not enough time for myth makers to turn a man into God. Besides too many people, friends and foes alike, were still alive who could remember the "real" Jesus.

And the oral tradition was not the first century equivalent of a rumor mill. Just the opposite. Men with excellent memories prided themselves on accurately passing on long narratives word-for-word just as they had received them.

Textual critics tell us that the Gospel stories are essentially the same today as they were when the authors composed them. The reliability of the New Testament text compares favorably with that of other ancient writings. Moreover, the Gospels of John and Luke read like reports of actual events. But there is more to consider.

What Skeptics Believe

It's a mistake to think skeptics have no faith. They do believe in one thing, and it is a myth. Here is the skeptic's Great Myth: Take a primitive society (by that they mean any society without television, radio, daily newspapers, the internet, and news reporters); let an important religious leader die; give those people a hundred years or so to build up the story; and they will turn the man into God.

Then the skeptics will point to their prime example -- Jesus Christ, and say, "See what we mean?" But if you ask them for another example, they start to look sheepish. They haven't got one.

The Jews, more than any other ancient people, firmly believed in the concept of one God. And no rumor mill ever promoted a dead prophet into God. A prophet is a prophet and God is God. They knew the difference. Outside of Israel, the story is pretty much the same.

Socrates was a Greek philosopher. He never claimed to be God. As far as I can tell, no one else thought he was either. Buddha was called the Enlightened One. He never pretended to be God. And he ordered his followers not to venerate him. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher. He taught his followers ethics not religion. He certainly didn't think of himself as God. Mohammad was a prophet. If you asked him if he were God, he would be quick to tell you, "Allah is God. I am just his humble servant."

All of these teachers and philosophers say something to the effect, "This is the truth about God, man, and the universe. And in light of that knowledge, here is how we ought to conduct ourselves."

Then Jesus comes along and says right up front: I am the Son of God. (John 10:36) "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) That makes him a minority of one in history. No one else ever made claims of that sort. Christ backed up his claims with the authority of his teachings, his miracles, and his resurrection from death.

The rumor mills were not to blame for manufacturing the man-to-God story. That story was there from the start. The Gospels just reported it.

Gospels are not Legends.

C.S. Lewis said it's obvious the Gospels aren't legends. They are not good enough to be legends. Doesn't he have a point here? Take Jesus' childhood for instance. "What childhood?" you say. That's the point. The Gospels tell us practically nothing of Jesus' life from early infancy to age thirty.

No myth maker worth his salt would let a golden opportunity like that slip through his fingers. He would have the young Jesus doing all kinds of fanciful things. But Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John refrain from that sort of embellishment.

Then there's Jesus' miracles. Each Gospel relates a number of supernatural events. But how do they present the miracles? There is no build up, no fanfare, they are merely stated as facts. John claims he could have listed more miracles if he really wanted to impress us. "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

What strikes you as Jesus' most impressive miracle? (Let's leave the resurrection out of it for the moment.) Healing the sick? Giving sight to the blind? Walking on water? Or raising the dead? My guess is, after the resurrection, raising the dead would be number one on everybody's list. Notice modern day faith healers shy away from raising dead people. It wouldn't be an easy act to fake.

Now if you or I were concocting a myth about a god coming to earth in human form, wouldn't we want him to do something spectacular? Why not raise the dead, the more the merrier, preferably with a great deal of drama and fanfare? By all means we should include some who have been dead for weeks, maybe even months or years. Why? So critics won't question the "miracle" saying that the deceased was never dead in the first place. "Nothing but a coma!" they might cry.

All that makes perfectly good sense if you are making up the story. But look at the way the Gospels handle it. In all four books, Jesus only raises three dead people

In my two previous articles: Was Jesus a Historical Figure? and How Reliable Are the Gospels? we concluded that Jesus was definitely a real historical character. Furthermore, the first three Gospels were in their final form twenty to thirty years after Jesus' death. That's not enough time for myth makers to turn a man into God. Besides too many people, friends and foes alike, were still alive who could remember the "real" Jesus.

And the oral tradition was not the first century equivalent of a rumor mill. Just the opposite. Men with excellent memories prided themselves on accurately passing on long narratives word-for-word just as they had received them.

Textual critics tell us that the Gospel stories are essentially the same today as they were when the authors composed them. The reliability of the New Testament text compares favorably with that of other ancient writings. Moreover, the Gospels of John and Luke read like reports of actual events. But there is more to consider.

What Skeptics Believe

It's a mistake to think skeptics have no faith. They do believe in one thing, and it is a myth. Here is the skeptic's Great Myth: Take a primitive society (by that they mean any society without television, radio, daily newspapers, the internet, and news reporters); let an important religious leader die; give those people a hundred years or so to build up the story; and they will turn the man into God.

Then the skeptics will point to their prime example -- Jesus Christ, and say, "See what we mean?" But if you ask them for another example, they start to look sheepish. They haven't got one.

The Jews, more than any other ancient people, firmly believed in the concept of one God. And no rumor mill ever promoted a dead prophet into God. A prophet is a prophet and God is God. They knew the difference. Outside of Israel, the story is pretty much the same.

Socrates was a Greek philosopher. He never claimed to be God. As far as I can tell, no one else thought he was either. Buddha was called the Enlightened One. He never pretended to be God. And he ordered his followers not to venerate him. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher. He taught his followers ethics not religion. He certainly didn't think of himself as God. Mohammad was a prophet. If you asked him if he were God, he would be quick to tell you, "Allah is God. I am just his humble servant."

All of these teachers and philosophers say something to the effect, "This is the truth about God, man, and the universe. And in light of that knowledge, here is how we ought to conduct ourselves."

Then Jesus comes along and says right up front: I am the Son of God. (John 10:36) "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) That makes him a minority of one in history. No one else ever made claims of that sort. Christ backed up his claims with the authority of his teachings, his miracles, and his resurrection from death.

The rumor mills were not to blame for manufacturing the man-to-God story. That story was there from the start. The Gospels just reported it.

Gospels are not Legends.

C.S. Lewis said it's obvious the Gospels aren't legends. They are not good enough to be legends. Doesn't he have a point here? Take Jesus' childhood for instance. "What childhood?" you say. That's the point. The Gospels tell us practically nothing of Jesus' life from early infancy to age thirty.

No myth maker worth his salt would let a golden opportunity like that slip through his fingers. He would have the young Jesus doing all kinds of fanciful things. But Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John refrain from that sort of embellishment.

Then there's Jesus' miracles. Each Gospel relates a number of supernatural events. But how do they present the miracles? There is no build up, no fanfare, they are merely stated as facts. John claims he could have listed more miracles if he really wanted to impress us. "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

What strikes you as Jesus' most impressive miracle? (Let's leave the resurrection out of it for the moment.) Healing the sick? Giving sight to the blind? Walking on water? Or raising the dead? My guess is, after the resurrection, raising the dead would be number one on everybody's list. Notice modern day faith healers shy away from raising dead people. It wouldn't be an easy act to fake.

Now if you or I were concocting a myth about a god coming to earth in human form, wouldn't we want him to do something spectacular? Why not raise the dead, the more the merrier, preferably with a great deal of drama and fanfare? By all means we should include some who have been dead for weeks, maybe even months or years. Why? So critics won't question the "miracle" saying that the deceased was never dead in the first place. "Nothing but a coma!" they might cry.

All that makes perfectly good sense if you are making up the story. But look at the way the Gospels handle it. In all four books, Jesus only raises three dead people

Socrates was a Greek philosopher. He never claimed to be God. As far as I can tell, no one else thought he was either. Buddha was called the Enlightened One. He never pretended to be God. And he ordered his followers not to venerate him. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher. He taught his followers ethics not religion. He certainly didn't think of himself as God. Mohammad was a prophet. If you asked him if he were God, he would be quick to tell you, "Allah is God. I am just his humble servant."

All of these teachers and philosophers say something to the effect, "This is the truth about God, man, and the universe. And in light of that knowledge, here is how we ought to conduct ourselves."

Then Jesus comes along and says right up front: I am the Son of God. (John 10:36) "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) That makes him a minority of one in history. No one else ever made claims of that sort. Christ backed up his claims with the authority of his teachings, his miracles, and his resurrection from death.

The rumor mills were not to blame for manufacturing the man-to-God story. That story was there from the start. The Gospels just reported it.

Gospels are not Legends.

C.S. Lewis said it's obvious the Gospels aren't legends. They are not good enough to be legends. Doesn't he have a point here? Take Jesus' childhood for instance. "What childhood?" you say. That's the point. The Gospels tell us practically nothing of Jesus' life from early infancy to age thirty.

No myth maker worth his salt would let a golden opportunity like that slip through his fingers. He would have the young Jesus doing all kinds of fanciful things. But Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John refrain from that sort of embellishment.

Then there's Jesus' miracles. Each Gospel relates a number of supernatural events. But how do they present the miracles? There is no build up, no fanfare, they are merely stated as facts. John claims he could have listed more miracles if he really wanted to impress us. "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

What strikes you as Jesus' most impressive miracle? (Let's leave the resurrection out of it for the moment.) Healing the sick? Giving sight to the blind? Walking on water? Or raising the dead? My guess is, after the resurrection, raising the dead would be number one on everybody's list. Notice modern day faith healers shy away from raising dead people. It wouldn't be an easy act to fake.

Now if you or I were concocting a myth about a god coming to earth in human form, wouldn't we want him to do something spectacular? Why not raise the dead, the more the merrier, preferably with a great deal of drama and fanfare? By all means we should include some who have been dead for weeks, maybe even months or years. Why? So critics won't question the "miracle" saying that the deceased was never dead in the first place. "Nothing but a coma!" they might cry.

All that makes perfectly good sense if you are making up the story. But look at the way the Gospels handle it. In all four books, Jesus only raises three dead people

Then there's Jesus' miracles. Each Gospel relates a number of supernatural events. But how do they present the miracles? There is no build up, no fanfare, they are merely stated as facts. John claims he could have listed more miracles if he really wanted to impress us. "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

What strikes you as Jesus' most impressive miracle? (Let's leave the resurrection out of it for the moment.) Healing the sick? Giving sight to the blind? Walking on water? Or raising the dead? My guess is, after the resurrection, raising the dead would be number one on everybody's list. Notice modern day faith healers shy away from raising dead people. It wouldn't be an easy act to fake.

Now if you or I were concocting a myth about a god coming to earth in human form, wouldn't we want him to do something spectacular? Why not raise the dead, the more the merrier, preferably with a great deal of drama and fanfare? By all means we should include some who have been dead for weeks, maybe even months or years. Why? So critics won't question the "miracle" saying that the deceased was never dead in the first place. "Nothing but a coma!" they might cry.

All that makes perfectly good sense if you are making up the story. But look at the way the Gospels handle it. In all four books, Jesus only raises three dead people. Matthew and Mark relate only one event -- Jairus' daughter. Likewise, John tells us of just one back-to-life story -- Lazarus. Luke is the only writer to give us two raising-the-dead miracles -- Jairus' daughter and the widow's son at Nain.

Surprisingly enough, it appears that the Gospels actually understate this type of miracle. Also observe that Jairus' daughter had just died within an hour or so before Jesus brought her back to life. And from what we know of Jewish burial customs, the widow's son probably died sometime during the same day Jesus raised him from the dead. Of the three, Lazarus was the only one Jesus brought back who had been dead for more that a day. Lazarus was in his grave for four days.

If the Gospel writers were myth makers, we would expect plenty of these dramatic back-to-life stories. The sparse mention of these miracles lends credibility to their narratives. Evidently, these writers were not embellishing, they were just telling us what they knew of the events. Or is there more to it than that?

Narrative Christology

Brad T. Bromling, the Director of Biblical Research at Apologetics press writes:

"The view that the Gospels were exercises in 'Narrative Christology' is gaining great respect among scholars. According to this school, the Gospels are artfully constructed narratives that serve as vehicles for conveying important truths about Jesus Christ. They answer the question: 'Who is Jesus Christ?' for the specific (and diverse) communities of the Gospel writers. Gospels are thus a combination of theological reflection and artistic construction, That does not mean that the events or discourses are fictional (as in a historical novel), nor does it mean that each Gospel writer simply recorded the 'bare facts' (whatever that means.) Instead, this school sees the narratives as entirely true, but acknowledges that artistry was employed in the construction of the narratives."

Mr. Bromling is telling us in so many words that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not fall from the sky, signed and dated by the Holy Spirit. Of course, he's right. The Gospels are obviously different views and "artistic reconstructions" of the same story. These writers were a varied group of individuals.

Matthew, to be sure, wrote for a Jewish audience. His goal was to prove to his fellow Jews that Jesus is their Messiah. His basic theme is: Jesus is the fulfillment of biblical prophecies of the Messiah. Matthew crafted his Gospel into an introduction, five discourses by Jesus, and an inspiring epilogue.

Mark's Gospel is a simple but vivid account of Jesus. Unlike Matthew, Mark explains Jewish customs and Aramaic words which leads us to believe his work was intended for gentiles. He emphasizes persecution, the cross, and martyrdom.

When we read the Gospel according to Luke, we find an educated gentile physician with a flair for details and a knowledge of sailing. Luke emphasizes prayer, women, the poor, concern for sinners, and the Holy Spirit. His work was intended for Theophilus.

John's Gospel is noted for its eyewitness details. His work is designed to be evangelistic with emphasis on love and salvation. It has been said that John wrote his Gospel with the Greeks in mind; probably, he meant it for everybody.

These four Gospel writers can be compared to four reporters who are sent out to cover a story. They do their research and write up their accounts. What would you expect to find? Four different slants on the same story? Sounds reasonable. And that is just what we find in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Their different personalities, writing skills, sources of information, prospective audiences, and purposes for writing the story all lead to four separate accounts.

But here is the important point: All four writers give ample evidence they are telling us the truth from their own perspective. They show no signs of embellishing their accounts, and they certainly don't cover up their blemishes.