Testing the Eyewitness Evidence: Do the biographies of Jesus stand up to scrutiny?

(continued interview with Craig L. Blomberg)

1.         Intention Test – to determine whether it was the stated or implied intention of the writers to accurately preserve history.

The gospel of Luke:

            Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled

            among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were

            eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully

            investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an

            orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the

            certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke clearly stated that he intended to write accurately about the things he investigated and found to be well-supported by witnesses.

2.         Ability Test – to be able to reliably record history.

In the early days, rabbis became famous for having the entire Old Testament committed to memory. In a setting without computers and press printing; books or scrolls of papyrus were rare enough, education, learning, worship, teaching in religious communities were all done by word of mouth. So it would have been well within the capability of Jesus’ disciples to memorize the details of the events as well as the teachings and miracles of Jesus himself.

In maintaining the integrity of the message being passed on, the community would constantly be monitoring what was said and intervening to make corrections along the way.

3.         Character Test – to look at whether it was in the character of these writers to be truthful; evidence or possibility of dishonesty or immorality.

For a group of people who were put to grisly deaths for their beliefs despite renouncing their faith, their honesty, truthfulness, virtue and morality were never in dispute.

4.         Consistency Test – to test for dead contradictions that nullify the gospels’ credibility.

Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School, one of history’s most important legal figures and author of an influential treatise on evidence; upon studying the consistency among the four gospel writers, said:

            There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous

            concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement to show

            that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction.

German scholar / classical historian Hans Stier has concurred that agreement over basic data and divergence of details suggest credibility, because fabricated accounts tend to be fully consistent and harmonized.

Contradictions

1. In Matthew it says a centurion himself came to ask Jesus to heal his servant. Luke says the centurion sent the elders to do this. In the ancient world it was perfectly understood and accepted that actions were often attributed to people when in fact they occurred through their subordinates or emissaries. Similarly, we hear a news report that says, “The president today announced that…” when in fact the speech was written by a speechwriter and delivered by the press secretary.
2. The discrepancies between the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. 2 options of explanations: first being that Matthew reflects Joseph’s lineage (most of his opening chapter is told from Joseph’s perspective and Joseph, as the adoptive father, would have been the legal ancestor through whom Jesus’ royal lineage would have been traced – important themes for Matthew ) while Luke, then, would have traced the genealogy through Mary’s lineage. Since both are from the ancestry from David, the lines converge then. Second option is that both genealogies reflect Joseph’s lineage; one is Joseph’s human lineage (gospel of Luke) and the other is his legal lineage, with the two diverging at points where somebody in the line did not have a direct offspring. They had to raise up legal heirs through OT practices.

5.                  Bias Test – to analyze whether the gospel writers had any biases that would have colored their work.

6.                  Cover-up Test – to test whether the gospel writers made up stories to make themselves look good, conveniently forgetting embarrassing / inexplicable details.

7.                  Corroboration Test – to corroborate / identify / assess accuracy of testimonies through other sources.

8.                  Adverse Witness Test – to check for contemporaries of Jesus of complains that the gospel accounts were just plain wrong.

To avoid the post from going too absurdly long and uninteresting, I decided to leave out the details of the 5^th to 8^th tests, but assuredly the gospels passed. With high distinction, undoubtedly.