- Why four Gospels instead of just one? With four gospels, you get the awkwardness of parallel passages that don't agree in all of their minute details. For instance, consider the different placements in time of the episode of Jesus' clearing of the temple--at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (as in John), or at the end (as in the others). Contrary to our assumptions, however, this does not reflect an error so much as it reflects the accepted historiographical practices of the time in which the Gospels were written.
- The Gospels have proven their historical value over and over again, with many cultural and archaeological details verified by studies. This includes John, which previously had been considered the least "historical" of the four, but whose portrayal shows clear historical markers of an eyewitness account, with detailed and accurate depictions of life in first-century Palestine around 30 AD.
- Jesus as a miracle-worker? Skeptics allege that maybe he was just a magician, trickster, or illusionist who befuddled the superstitious masses. This skeptical position reflects both a deep prejudice against previous generations (writing them off as less intelligent), which does not hold up to historical scrutiny, and it misses the fact that the accounts of Jesus' miracles and healings are actually startlingly unique in the history of the ancient world. A better historical argument would acknowledge that ancient people knew a miracle when they saw it, and they saw such things happening in the ministry of Jesus.
- The Gospels claim (and give internal evidence for the claim) that they are based on eyewitness accounts. As records of historical events, they are far, far earlier relative to the events they describe than almost any other historical document from the same period. They were produced in a period in which living eyewitness testimonies were still present, and those perspectives could presumably have offered contrary accounts if the Gospels were wrong (yet no such contrary accounts from the earliest period exist). This is a strong testament to the overall reliability of the Gospels' picture of Jesus.
- If there were only one Gospel instead of four, skeptics could easily make an argument that it was a fabricated account, with no external support. With four Gospels, that kind of argument has no ground to stand on. Furthermore, having four Gospels gives us a portrait of Jesus from multiple angles, one that increases our understanding and adds theological depth to the story.