During the first 17 centuries of our Common Era, the reliability of the Gospels was never seriously questioned. In the 19th century and beyond, some academics have questioned the traditional view of the Gospels as being inspired by God and have instead suggested that they were written by human authors who were attempting to convey their own perspectives and interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus.
Who Wrote the Gospels Found in the New Testament of Our Bibles, and How Do We Know?
The Double Standard from Skeptics When we are looking at secular history, historians come across balanced, fair, reasonable but when it comes to the gospels, there is a tremendous double standard. The Gospels, for example, are presumed to be guilty of being frauds, authors unknowable until they are proven innocent, and the bar is raised when it comes to the level of evidence needed. The normal way of investigating historical events, peoples, and places ostensibly are thrown out the window.
What Is the Synoptic Problem of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and What is the Hypothetical So-Called Q Document?
The reliability of the Gospels has long been questioned because of pseudo-scholarship. Were the Gospel writers plagiarists? Did the synoptic Gospel (Matthew, Mark & Luke) writers merely copy from one another? Is there a document called Q? Was the Gospel of Mark written first? Are the Gospels authentic and reliable?
The Synoptic Gospels In Early Christianity: Why Is the Preferred Choice the Testimony to the Priority of the Gospel of Matthew?
The Enlightenment and its spawning of historical-critical methodologies—particularly that aspect of the system called "Source Criticism"—marked the beginning of the end of the priority of the Gospel of Matthew.