“The Gospel accounts tell an accurate history of events in the life of Jesus.” To what extent, if at all, can this fundamentalist interpretation of the Gospels be defended?
Fundamentalists think that the gospel accounts tell an accurate history of events in the life of Jesus. In this essay, I will be looking at how far this fundamentalist interpretation of the Gospels can be defended.
I think that this interpretation cannot be defended very far. First of all, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (the 4 people who wrote the gospels) didn’t write the exact same history of events in the life of Jesus. They all had some events in common, but some events were only in one account. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not live at the same time. They all lived after Jesus died. I think that the reason why some events were in common were because the ones that lived later copied the accounts of the ones who lived earlier, and that’s why the accounts were similar.
Another reason why the Gospel accounts probably don’t tell an accurate history of the events in the life of Jesus is that in the life of Jesus, there were a lot of miracles that seem impossible, such as turning water to wine, or miraculously healing sick people. Such events would be highly unlikely to happen nowadays. The events could be made up to make Jesus seem more special.
On the other hand, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s accounts of the life of Jesus have quite a lot of similar events, so these events were most likely to have it, if they all wrote that it happened. Later on, many people also wrote about these events in the Gospel, which supported that these events actually happened.
In conclusion, I think that this fundamentalist interpretation cannot be supported, as the sources are not reliable enough and the against arguments are far more convincing than the for arguments.
By Maria Sipols 8C
Please join StudyMode to read the full document