My wife took me to see The Case for Christ. As a movie, it was engaging and enjoyable. But as far as making a case for the reliability of the gospels, it was horrible. Mainly, because it didn't really address the issue at hand. Are the gospels really eye-witness accounts? Are they reliable in terms of historical content? The movie assumes they are eye-witness accounts and calls them that. But are they? The greatest evidence against this view, in my opinion, is the synoptic problem. And a big problem it is. Forget the gospel of John for a moment, and focus on the three synoptics --Matthew, Mark and Luke. Luke says his gospel is not an eye-witness account, but that he compiled his account from others (whom he claims are eye-witnesses). So where did he get his information and what about Matthew and Mark? Scholars in New Testament studies have pointed out that Matthew, Mark and Luke share information. They do not just appear similar, the passages in question are so similar that it is accurate to say they were copied (almost verbatim), one from another. So who copied who? Scholars further point out that if you lay the three accounts side by side and compare the texts, a pattern emerges. Mark was written in poor Greek (even though it is claimed that it was written first in Hebrew, though no copies of that exist and where Mark does borrow from sources they are always Greek sources, such as the Septuagint and not Hebrew sources). It appears, to scholars, that Matthew and Luke, used Mark as a source because where they agree with Mark (almost verbatim), they also seem to have corrected his poor Greek, each in the writers own unique way. This would make Mark the first gospel. But it also discounts Luke and Matthew from being eye-witness accounts. Almost 90% of Mark can be found in Matthew's gospel, and almost 50% in Luke's. Matthew and Luke also appear to have borrowed from another (not Mark) similar source, because Material found in the two gospels, that is not found in Mark, is, again, almost verbatim. This source is what they call Q. And where Matthew and Luke disagree, on original content, they completely disagree. For example, the birth narratives could not be more different. So that pretty much leaves us with Mark and John. Could Mark and John be eye-witness accounts? Because Matthew and Luke are most certainly not. Neither do they agree, except when they agree with Mark or Q. They even re-arrange the material in order to make the work appealing to a specific group of people. Matthew to Jews, Luke to educated Romans. So neither can they be reliable historically, leaving us with only two gospels.