A Historical Record for Validating Religious Writings

Luke 1:1-4

Several months ago, I read an article in which the author commented that the gospels would be a lot more believable if there were not so many discrepancies between the different accounts. About the same time I watched a program about interviewing witnesses to an accident or crime to obtain evidence.

In the program, various demonstrations were made of how differently people saw a series of events. In one instance, a man in a gorilla suit walked through a group of basketball players while one team was trying to get a shot. The majority of the spectators were so focused on the game they didn’t even see him, and some of those who did didn’t register the gorilla suit.

In other demonstrations, people remembered things as being in different sequences, and gave conflicting descriptions of the events just seconds before. When they were allowed to hear another person describing a completely different events account as if it was theirs, they tended to accept that persons version, if it included some of the details they remembered. The conclusion was that people do not remember every detail, but a series of snapshots of an event. Later they organize and fill in the gaps from their logic to make sense of the snapshots.

Even the way the questions are asked can affect how people remember an event, so the interview process greatly affects the testimony of the witness. It explains why we have so many innocent people convicted of crimes, because the interviewer questions in manner that leads to a certain conclusion. Experience has shown that testimony that agrees too completely has been compromised by other opinions, and is not to be trusted.

Since only the snapshots are real, it is necessary to examine testimony for the facts that agree, and recognize that the differences indicate that the points of agreement are the facts. The points they disagree on are the results of their attempts to make sense of the snapshots.

As a result, we find that the Gospels are a series of eyewitness accounts, based on their memories. The fact of the differences indicates that they are in fact real experiences, not a result of collaboration to make a story sound more convincing. The events they describe actually took place, although perhaps in slightly different order than the witnesses remembered them.

As Apostles. Matthew and John could write most of their Gospels from their own memories. Matthew was focused on a historical record of the events, while John focused on what Christ taught. None of the disciples were present for every event. Luke was not one of the twelve, and would not have been present for a lot of the events, supplying them by interviewing the other apostles. Mark was considerably younger, and we can only assume his presence in Mark 14:51-52. As a result, his account is almost totally a compilation of interviews with others. It is one occurrence that none of the others record, and was probably noted because it happened to him or a personal friend. The very differences make it apparent that these were actual personal memories. Luke explains his purpose in writing the book.

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke 1:1-4)

Because many had written books about Jesus’ life, and some were not factual, Luke wrote the book of Luke to present the most complete and accurate record he could develop, based on both his own observation, as a participant in some of the events, and by interviewing others about the parts he did not observe himself. As a result, he wanted to provide a basis by which Theophilus could judge the claims of other writers.

Luke has written a frame work laying out the basic principles and doctrines that Jesus taught, as well as historical background to enable us to judge the validity of books purporting to be from God. A genuine eye witness should record mostly the same major events and teachings. The differences should be found in the details. If the differences are with major teachings or events, it implies that the author is not who he claimed to be. Even in that day spurious documents were being presented, and Paul warned the Thessalonians not to be taken in by fake letters. II Thessalonians 2:1-2 implores, “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.”

In Acts 1:1-2, Luke describes what he covered in the book of Luke as comprising Jesus’ ministry here on earth, from the beginning until his ascension into heaven. “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.” As an eyewitness and participant in much of what happened, and through close association with the apostles throughout the time, Luke was singularly fitted to know and explain what actually happened.

Luke makes no pretense of revealing every thing Jesus did. As John 21:25 says, he couldn’t describe every detail. “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” The other gospels contribute a lot of detail, but Luke gives a way to verify the accuracy of details. Books which don’t agree on the main events are of doubtful value.