7 Reasons the Gospels Can be Trusted (w/ Lydia McGrew)

Can we really trust the Gospels as reliable? Do the Gospels embellish facts, or do they get locations, customs, and cultural details right? My guest today, Dr. Lydia McGrew, has written an excellent new book called Testimonies to the Truth. We look at her 7 pieces of evidence for the trustworthiness of the Gospels and then take LIVE questions.

Make sure to subscribe and check out some of my other videos for more on Christianity, Theology and other aspects of culture!

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell

[williambillycraig]

Lydia McGrew is a bright lite, a gift from God to the Church in the dark world we live in.

[TopicalBibleStudiesKJV]

I just finished watching Sean's interview on Mike Wingers channel 2 years ago, at the end, he says Mike encouraged him to start putting work into YouTube. I want to remind Sean of that encouragement, and end by saying run the race, and fight the good fight, and keep going! Never stop!

[brieannatyler]

This was an excellent conversation. Very compelling and also easy to understand. I love your interviews and the guests that you bring on to dialogue with! Thank you Dr. McDowell and Dr. McGrew

[gdavischick]

This discussion was fascinating. That Lady is knowledgeable and interesting. I'll say a prayer for her back. 😊

[BibleSongs]

The Princess and the Pea! What a great analogy regarding Biblical skepticism and complaints about belief in general.

[kimalonzo]

I love her voice and how she talks! Plus she's very intelligent.

[selahr.]

Lydia, thank you for coming on despite your pain. As someone with chronic pain that was cool to see. I had also just laid down to watch so you looked perfectly normal in orientation for me :).

Very cool to see a fresh take on looking at the gospels for patterns of veracity.

[renatafnedab]

I have the blue Bible app amd I have really been using that lately to investigate in the historical facts more now than ever. I have always been Christian but now I am recognizing more of the Historical facts and evidence of events and times in the biblical accounts and accountability.❤💯

[BibleSongs]

Awesome! Historical imagination is invaluable. If you take the time, and really settle into the thought process, placing yourself in the time of the Apostles, the giving of the canon, and the building of the Church, the truth of the events to explain these is almost inescapable.

[nicktancordo]

Lydia, I think you're wonderful!

[jeffreywp]

Yay, you moved your Biola sign! Well done, Sean. Now everything comes together so well.

Great interview! So looking forward to reading this book.

[theresurrectionexpert]

If undesigned coincidences enhance historical reliability then what about when the author contradicts or deliberately rewrites the story? Does that detract from historical reliability? Here I will focus on Luke since a lot of people like to claim he depicted things accurately in his gospel and Acts.

When did the women buy/prepare the spices? Mark 16:1 says they bought them "when the Sabbath was over" while Luke 23:54-56 and Lk. 24:1 say this:

"It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. 24:1 - On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb."

When did the Sanhedrin trial take place?

Mk. 14:17 says "when evening came" then narrates his arrest and trial occurring the same night.

Luke 22:66 says it happened "when day came."

Mark 9:2 says the Transfiguration happened "After six days" while Luke 9:28 says "About eight days after."

Now for the appearance tradition - we know from the evidence for Markan priority that Luke copied Mark. In other words, when Luke was composing his gospel, he had a copy of Mark in front of him. We can tell Luke is deliberately altering the tradition because he changes the angels prediction at the tomb.

Here's what the angel says at the tomb in Mark and Matthew:

Mark 16:7
But go, tell his disciples and Peter, *‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee.* There you will see him, just as he told you.”

Matthew 28:7
Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and *is going ahead of you into Galilee.* There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Now watch how Luke deliberately alters the prediction. At the exact same part in the story, Luke has the (now 2) angels say this:

Luke 24:6-8
He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then they remembered his words.

Luke changes the prediction of an appearance in Galilee to a *remembrance of Jesus' past teaching in Galilee.* This is in order to setup all the appearances happening in or around Jerusalem. Further supporting the hypothesis that Luke intentionally rewrote the story is that he also removes the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from the prediction of Peter's denial - Mk. 14:28 cf. Mt. 26:32. The phrase *"But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee”* has been omitted from Luke 22:54-62.

In fact, Luke leaves no room for any appearances in Galilee because he has the disciples "stay in the city" (Jerusalem) until Pentecost - Lk. 24:49, "do not leave Jerusalem" - Acts 1:4.

So if you ask yourself "what would we expect *if* Luke intended to write out the Galilean appearance tradition?" then the data fits perfectly. Whereas if you ask yourself "what would we expect if Luke was presenting an honest version of events as he knew them?" the data does not fit as well. It would seem to follow, then, that Luke's appearance report simply cannot be trusted. If you only had Luke/Acts you'd never think Jesus appeared to anyone in Galilee. Even though Acts has the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared for "40 days" there is still no evidence in Luke/Acts Jesus actually did appear in Galilee - that's because the evidence points to Luke erasing the Galilean appearance tradition.

Luke was also writing at a time period when Jesus original imminent apocalyptic message was wearing out. Throughout Luke we can see the Parousia being delayed. Luke mutes/alters Jesus' imminent predictions from Mark and by the time of John they are almost completely non-existent.

Luke rewrites Mark 14:62 in Lk. 22.69. Mark says "You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" to the High Priest while Luke alters this to "From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God."

So the prediction of a witnessed parousia in the near future has been replaced by a statement about the present state of Jesus.

Luke also has to explain the delay by adding to the verse 19:11 that the parable was told because the disciples "thought that the kingdom of God was about to appear immediately."

Mk. 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Lk. 9:27 "But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

By omitting "come with power" Luke alters the meaning of the prediction of a witnessed cosmic event to something more ambiguous that is open to alternative interpretations.

Luke 21:8 adds the warning "And he said, “Beware that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is near!’ Do not go after them."

which is an addition to Mark 13:5-6 which does not have the warning of some claiming "the time is near!" This contradicts Jesus' own words from Mark 1:15!

[Jusbale]

This seems like an awesome thing to listen while driving

[Chazd]

I read Dr. Lydia's book, , several years ago and taught a series of Bible lessons from it. I look forward to getting her latest book. Thank you Dr. Lydia and husband Dr. Tim for all you have done to strengthen the body of Christ through your scholarly articles, books, and lectures. My God soon grant you relief from your back pain issues.

[Gutslinger]

33:58 That's what I've recently been saying. If some people believe pr claim that the Gospel writers were using each other's writings as reference, how can they also claim thwt there are discrepancies or contradictions?

[les]

Reading the book, and it's really good so far.

[HolyTerminator]

Lydia's always great! Hope you can have her on again and maybe Tim as well! Thanks Sean!

[mugglescakesniffer]

I think there is a pressure for Christians to put the Gospels together as like one huge narrative rather than 4 separate books from 4 separate authors that have 4 separate things they wish to convey to the audience that get lost when you mash them all together with a Christian interpretation bias that is required with "statement of faith" scholarship.

[PicturingOurPast]

Always an engaging dialogue with Dr. McGrew! This was another pitch perfect interview, Sean, you have a gift and a talent for this! Thanks to both for sharing! ✝️🧎

[BigIdeaSeeker]

Sean, how awesome would it be if you could dialogue with Bart Campolo. Just two guys, the sons of former apologist/preachers talking about their paths. We need more peaceful interaction between believers and non-. You two would be great models of genuine friendly dialogue. As an atheist, I have to say the likes of Frank Turek is ripping up the broader community of those of us interested in spiritual things.