The Reliability of the Gospels by Dr Peter J. Williams

This is the shorter version of a lecture given by Dr Peter J. Williams for bibleandchurch.com in which he discusses details in the Gospels which serve as additional proof of the reliability of the Gospel accounts
Dr Williams is the Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge

[@salt1956]

Excellent talk.

[@eduard7624]

Jesus is Lord

[@mkaimo]

This DVD set also offers a Study Guide that may cover the material you're looking for, JC The Authentic Gospels: New Evidence (New DVD from Tyndale House)

[@whatevernephilim]

can i get some links to the study about common names and how they show up in the gospels and Apocrypha?

[@whatevernephilim]

actually any of the information he refers to

[@andrewshanks8737]

Search on amazon.co.uk for the book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" Perfect Paperback - 22 Sep 2008 by Richard Bauckham. or just click here:- www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 There might be something available which is even better now in 2017. I think Peter did not speak more of Richard Bauckham's work because, as I understand it, (- I haven't yet read the book myself -) RB writes a fair bit about how he believes the eye witnesses waited a few decades before writing the Gospels. Maybe Peter Williams doesn't agree with RB on this; I know I don't: I cannot see any good reason why there would be any lengthy delay after Pentecost, except for research such as into the genealogy of our Lord from the Jewish public records as recorded by Matthew (genealogy of stepfather Joseph) and Luke (genealogy of actual mother, Mary). Best wishes

[@anobleroman8906]

@@andrewshanks8737 I do think there was a decent gap between the events and when they were written about. You have to keep in mind that it was a very different time and that writing something down wasn't always cheap or practical, and I don't think it was their culture to do so. However, I don't agree that they were written as late as many "historians" suggest. John Chrysostom explains why the gospels were written and why they were written when they were in the first chapter of his commentary on Matthew. Worth reading. He goes into the motives of each one.

[@mkaimo]

I did a very quick Google search, JC, but couldn't find anything. You could try contacting Dr Williams directly: www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=peter-williams

[@billyjackthestrong1604]

So according to you and your opinion because that's all this seems to be is an opinion you feel as though the gospels are extremely accurate if this is correct please answer this question if the New Testament is reliable does that also mean that the Old Testament is extremely reliable? Also there is no way that the governor of that region would have been calling someone Christ that word was reserved for all of their demigods their gods and their Caesars but of course I'm sure that you know this whereas in Hebrew the term that is maliciously translated into Christ actually means anointed one which implies there have been many anointed ones such as the priests the prophets the Kings of Israel including Israel as a whole but you guys probably believe in what's called replacement theology

[@jonson856]

I had a classmate whos name was vicktoria, well she was a down right goth girl. Doesnt fit at all, but she was cute haha

[@sauniz1]

All this is poweful, powerful evidence that God sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself so that mankind might be saved from his hate through his love!!!HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUYEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[@sauniz1]

***** Exactly. Pity - for those billions of people on this planet who believe the bat shit crazy, disgusting, satanic mockery of the christian scheme of salvation.

[@valentincolasMangeon]

*I hope that you know it is actually a straw man.*

[@ryanmariner]

Terrible argument for a couple of reasons. How do you know the names are right? Simply because they're in the same proportion as the population of that time? That doesn't necessarily mean they're correct. Also, even assuming they are correct then that doesn't necessarily conclude that every other claim made within the story is true too.

[@andrewshanks8737]

Ryan, you are of course entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that it is an excellent argument. Can you tell me when you think the Gospels were written and suggest a plausible theory of how the Gospel authors managed to get the frequency of the names in their Gospels in the same proportion to the frequency of the names archaeologists have now found on the ossuaries for the New Testament land of Judah/Galilee etc. Do you think the authors could have been writing a hundred years or so after the events?

[@michaelbabbitt3837]

Here we see an example of how people can make extraordinary efforts to deny the truthfulness and reliability of the Gospels. Without bias, this would so clearly be seen as a great discovery. No forger would know this information. And any objective historian would be so excited for this type of confirming data that even a genius could not have planned at that time.

[@valentincolasMangeon]

He doesn't say that it is the right names, he said that it is highly improbable that the gospel are not from eyewitness testimonies.

[@ello_verity7667]

I know this is a really, really old comment but... For the people like me who trawl old comments :P You’re completely right, it doesn’t prove the facts given by the authors are correct at all. It’s a tertiary test aimed at seeing how reliable the authors were in the details we can actually check: if they got the small things wrong, we could definitely discount what they said. If they got the small things right, it increases the likelihood that they were accurate about what else they reported :)