The two-fold purpose of the first edition of Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels [1] is to “provide answers to questions of historicity which will stand up to serious academic scrutiny and ... provide some help for those who are perplexed by scholarly disagreement" (p. xii). Blomberg's book describes the academic debates concerning the gospel record and seeks to present the “substantial body of literature which supports the historicity of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" (p. 258). He does not assume the gospels are unreliable by definition (the majority report among critical biblical scholars) and then tries to prove them reliable, nor does he automatically subscribe to the well-known C.S. Lewis apologetic of “liar, lunatic, or Lord" and assumes the gospel record is accurate by definition. Instead, using the tools of academic historical research, the author examines the gospels and comes to the conclusion that they faithfully record the life and deeds of Jesus. Blomberg commends to the critical scholarly community the reliability of the gospel tradition, and in so doing, extends Jesus' “invitation to discipleship" to those within the ivory tower.

Blomberg begins by explaining the “traditional" view of the historicity of the gospels, which were considered reliable precisely because the Scriptures were assumed to be inspired and infallible. The author notes that some of the early church fathers recognized the theological emphases of the evangelists, believed the gospel accounts were extracted from larger sources, and noticed the general lack of interest in chronology of the part of the evangelists (ideas “rediscovered" centuries later by critical scholars). Blomberg discusses the “Synoptic problem" and believes the three gospel writers depended on Mark, “Q", and extra-biblical oral and written sources. Apparent contradictions among the Synoptics are examined, and Blomberg argues that many of the variations “are no greater, and often much more trivial, than those which characterize any two independent historical accounts of the same events" (p. 114). The case for the reliability of the Synoptics cannot automatically apply to the Gospel of John because of the latter's distinctiveness, but Blomberg ultimately concludes that John records accurate information about Jesus' life. He denies that “modern" approaches to gospel research (form, redaction, midrash, and reader-response criticism; the “new hermeneutic") have overthrown our traditional confidence in the reliability of the gospels, refuting the scientific, philosophical, and historical objections to the miracle accounts in the gospels, and tackling objections to the greatest miracle of all, arguing that if the Resurrection is historical, then the other miracles performed by Jesus must also be considered authentic.

Blomberg states in another essay, “[d]espite widespread skepticism in radical biblical criticism, a powerful case can be mounted for the general historical trustworthiness of the Synoptic Gospels, when measured by the standards of accurate history writing of their day, even when one does not begin by presupposing some theory of inspiration or inerrancy." [2] He approves of the approach taken by the eighteenth century German theologian J.D. Michaelis, who rejected the traditional definition of the canon as his starting point and maintained one could demonstrate in a purely historical manner the trustworthiness of the gospels (p. 6). Blomberg appeals to the evidentialist position when he states that “an a priori rejection of the inspiration of Scripture is a valid approach even for commentators who believe in that doctrine" (p. 9). This is the major weakness in Blomberg's book, his refusal to assume the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture when applying the “standard methods of historical enquiry" (p. 256) to argue for the reliability of the gospels. He maintains that the writer of the Gospel of John “believed that the Spirit had superintended the process by which the traditions of Jesus and the memories of the eyewitnesses of his life were preserved so as to safeguard their accuracy," (p. 184) but does not appear give the Spirit the credit He deserves, insisting that “even if a few contradictions genuinely existed, this would not necessarily jeopardize the reliability of the rest of call into question the entire basis for belief" (p. 11, cf. p. 152). In his discussion of gospel genres, Blomberg again states that

even if some of the apparent contradictions proved to be genuine this would not necessarily discredit the rest of the narratives. The view held by some Bible students that admission of one error in a book makes all the rest of it equally suspect presupposes a method which no reputable historian would adopt (p. 236).

But God is no mere historian and He does not contradict Himself.

Notes

1. ^ Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downer's Grove: IVP, 1987).
2. ^ Craig Blomberg, “Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels for Preaching," Faith & Mission, 12/1, (Fall 1994), p. 25.