People whose foremost desire is to
disqualify the word of God from application to the human experience start with a set of
baseline assumptions that cannot help being wrong.
One is that the world has always operated
exactly the way they have personally experienced it to operate. Another is that
every difference in eyewitness testimony amounts to a contradiction.
Neither is remotely true.
A hypothetical: A man is looking for John
Smith, who lives next door. Depending on who answers the doorbell, he may hear
any of the following:
“He’s out.”
“He’s with his girlfriend.”
“He’s at work.”
“He’s at 225 Vanderly Road, Suite 417.”
As it happens, all these statements may be
simultaneously true, but they are very different from one another. To someone
who is unaware of the details of John Smith’s life, they may even appear
contradictory.
A little perplexed, the visitor asks, “When
do you expect him home?”
“Don’t know.”
“Lunchtime, probably.”
“At the end of his shift.”
“Around 3:30.”
Again, every one of these statements may be
the gospel truth. John’s shift ends around 3:00 p.m., it takes about
half an hour for him to get home, and his mother serves lunch around 3:30. The
Smiths tend to eat late. But some of these answers could appear contradictory if
your own family eats lunch at noon every day and you’ve never encountered
people who don’t, or if in your very limited experience everyone works from
nine to five.
Living
In the Real World
But in the real world, nobody is necessarily lying just because they don’t use exactly the same words in the same order.
Nobody is necessarily trying to manipulate anyone or copy anyone. The sort of statement you
hear may be more precise or less precise. Certain people who answer the doorbell when you ring may not offer an opinion at all.
You can see that numerous things may cause
witnesses to give different but not contradictory testimony.
One may be lack of information. John’s younger sibling didn’t see his brother leave
and doesn’t know where he went. So he says, “He’s out. Don’t know”. It’s a
perfectly truthful response, though it lacks content.
Another may be personal experience. John’s sister has relationships on the brain
currently, so she replies, “He’s with his girlfriend. Lunchtime, probably”. That
her brother and his girlfriend work in the same office is information she
simply takes for granted, so she doesn’t include it. Her response is
incomplete and potentially misleading if you don’t have certain information, but
completely truthful all the same.
Yet another may be interest. John’s mother is delighted he is at his brand new job because
he’s just gone through six months of unemployment. She’s thrilled to have him
out of the house. So she responds, “He’s at work. At the end of his shift”. Her
response is truthful, but unhelpful if the only thing that matters to you is
what time you can find him home.
Another thing that may cause testimony to
differ is a mature witnesses’ comprehension of the concerns of his audience. Seeing a courier in a uniform holding an
urgent package, John’s father wants to help him deliver it to John. So he
replies, “He’s at 225 Vanderly Road, Suite 417. Around 3:30”. He’s
covering all the bases just in case the courier wants to stop at John’s office,
and giving him accurate information in case he simply wants to return to the
house once John arrives home. So the father’s testimony is tailored to his
perception of what the moment requires.
Factoring
in the Baseline Assumptions
These are just four possibilities with four
very particular witnesses, but you can see how easily accounts of the simplest story may differ —
even when told by people who all live under the same roof — without any
dishonesty, and without any contradiction at all. And, as already
mentioned, the experience of the person asking the question factors into his
interpretation of the words he hears, even if his baseline assumptions are entirely incorrect: Not everyone works
nine to five like the courier. Not everyone has lunch at noon.
But if your object is to DISQUALIFY, any excuse
will do. It doesn’t have to be legitimate.
Laying
the Gospels Side By Side
You know where I’m going with this, right?
People who have already decided Jesus Christ cannot possibly be God look at the
four gospels and their first inclination is to lay the four of them side by side
in the hope that statements made in one may conveniently contradict another.
Yet these critics completely fail to take into account all these very normal
factors of human psychology that I’ve attempted to bring out in the example
above.
The writers of the gospels were inspired,
but they were not robots. They were not automatons to whom the Holy Spirit
dictated the word of God line by line. If they had been, their testimony would
be identical. And it’s already too close for the comfort of those who object to
it. Let’s hear from our friends at Wikipedia:
“[The] strong parallelism among the three gospels [Matthew, Mark and Luke] in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence. The question of the precise nature of their literary relationship — the ‘synoptic problem’ — has been a topic of lively debate for centuries and has been described as ‘the most fascinating literary enigma of all time’. The longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called Q.”
Ah yes, the hypothetical but entirely ahistorical “Q”, If you ever find me a copy, I’d be grateful for a peek.
To sum it up, in the minds of the critics, the
similarity of three of the gospels constitutes a “synoptic problem” (or more
colloquially, the accusation of collaboration). And yet wherever the gospels differ, that is
taken as evidence of inconsistency.
In other words, the writers of the gospels cannot
win. The critics screech “DISQUALIFY!!” no matter the evidence.
The
Gospels vs. the Smiths
But if we assess the truthfulness of
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John exactly as we would assess the truthfulness of the
hypothetical Smith family, we might come to a very different conclusion. Lots
of people have done this before, and you’re welcome to Google them. But here
are the four gospel accounts of Peter’s betrayal of the Lord Jesus.
There is nothing here that seems to me
remotely fishy, but I’m not starting from the assumption that these four men owe
me evidence on the level of a science experiment. I just want their four
accounts to make sense if you put them together.
And lo and behold, they do:
1. Matthew
26:69-75 Now Peter was sitting outside in
the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, “You also were with
Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you mean.” And
when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to
the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And
again he denied it with an oath: “I do
not know the man.” After a little while the bystanders came up
and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent
betrays you.” Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And
immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of
Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And
he went out and wept bitterly.
2. Mark
14:66-72 And as Peter was below in the
courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came, and
seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were
with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you
mean.” And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed. And
the servant girl saw him and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is
one of them.” But again he
denied it. And after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter,
“Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” But he
began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” And
immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how
Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny
me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
3. Luke
22:54-62 Then they seized him and led him away,
bringing him into the high priest's house, and Peter was following at a
distance. And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the
courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. Then a
servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him,
said, “This man also was with him.” But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” And
a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But
Peter said, “Man, I am not.” And
after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying,
“Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” But
Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you
are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the
rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And
Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before
the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” And
he went out and wept bitterly.
4. John
18:15-18; 25-27 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so
did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he
entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter
stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high
priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and
brought Peter in. The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also
are not one of this man's disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” Now the servants and officers had
made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming
themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
Now Simon Peter was standing and
warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples,
are you?” He denied it and said, “I am
not.” One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the
man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden
with him?” Peter again
denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.
Comparing
the Denials
First
Denial
Where?
Matthew: “sitting outside in the courtyard”
Mark: “below in the courtyard”
Luke: “Peter sat down … in the middle of
the courtyard” (there were others there)
John: in “the courtyard of the high priest”
(servants and officers standing warming)
To
Whom?
Matthew: “a servant girl”
Mark: “one of the servant girls of the high
priest”
Luke: “a servant girl”
John: “the servant girl who kept watch at
the door”
Doing
What?
Mark: “warming himself”
Luke: “they had kindled a fire”
John: “the servants and officers had made a
charcoal fire because it was cold”
Accusation
Matthew: “You also were with Jesus the
Galilean.”
Mark: “You also were with the Nazarene,
Jesus.”
Luke: “This man also was with him.”
John: “You also are not one of this man's
disciples, are you?”
Denial
Matthew: before them all, saying, “I do not
know what you mean.”
Mark: “I neither know nor understand what
you mean.”
Luke: “Woman, I do not know him.”
John: “I am not.”
Rooster
Mark: Crows once as he goes “out into the
gateway”
Second
Denial
Where?
Matthew: “when he went out to the entrance”
Mark: “he went out into the gateway”
Luke: “a little later”
John: [does not say]
To
Whom?
Matthew: “another servant girl”
Mark: “[the] servant girl … began [again]
to say”
Luke: “someone else saw him”
John: “they said to him”
Doing
What?
John: “standing and warming himself”
Accusation
Matthew: [to the bystanders] “This man was
with Jesus of Nazareth.”
Mark: [to the bystanders] “This man is one
of them.”
Luke: “You also are one of them.”
John: “You also are not one of his
disciples, are you?”
Denial
Matthew: [with an oath] “I do not know the
man.”
Mark: “again he denied it”
Luke: “[Man], I am not.” [but she had
accused him to bystanders]
John: “I am not.”
Third
Denial
Where?
Matthew: “after a little while”
Mark: “after a little while”
Luke: “after an interval of about an hour”
John: [does not say]
To
Whom?
Matthew: “the bystanders”
Mark: “the bystanders”
Luke: “still another insisted”
John: “One of the servants of the high
priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off”
Doing
What?
John: Probably still “standing and warming
himself”, but it is not explicit
Accusation
Matthew: “Certainly you too are one of
them, for your accent betrays you.”
Mark: “Certainly you are one of them, for
you are a Galilean.”
Luke: “Certainly this man also was with
him, for he too is a Galilean.”
John: “Did I not see you in the garden
with him?”
Denial
Matthew: [invoked curse on self/swore] “I
do not know the man.”
Mark: [invoked curse on self/swore] “I do
not know this man of whom you speak.”
Luke: “Man, I do not know what you are
talking about.”
John: “Peter again denied it.”
Rooster
Matthew: “immediately the rooster crowed.”
Mark: “immediately the rooster crowed a
second time.”
Luke: “immediately, while he was still
speaking”
John: “at once a rooster crowed”.
Conclusion
Can you see how all of this looks remarkably similar to the testimony of the hypothetical Smiths?
If you have the slightest interest in allowing the benefit of the doubt here, all you see are similarities. It is a series of eyewitness accounts with so much in common as to be arresting in its authenticity. There are minor differences here and there, sure, but every “inconsistency” can be plausibly accounted for and no account is clearly and demonstrably false.
The disciples did not produce for our
benefit high-definition video evidence of the things to which they testified.
We should not expect something that did not exist until two millennia
later. They also did not produce word-for-word transcription of what was said in
their hearing, anymore than an unaided witness might be able to produce today. Instead, they did exactly what was consistent with the times in which they lived. What they said accurately reflected the substance and the content of what they heard, though it might differ in a word here or there, as every reasonable person would expect.
That doesn’t mean they were untruthful, any
more than the family members in my example were untruthful just because their
testimony did not align word for word. They gave us everything they knew, and
they told the truth.
So believe if you wish. The benefits of
believing are tremendous.
Or you can just DISQUALIFY!! But you do yourself
a major disservice if you do.
No comments :
Post a Comment