I really do think this might be the direction of what he needs to accept. That differences among eyewitnesses actually supports the veracity of the eyewitness accounts. Do you have any resources on this? Do you know what subject this falls under in Bible understanding, so I can look up more?
There are many decent introductions to the New Testament which might be helpful here. Luke Timothy Johnson has a rather good one. As a Catholic Biblical scholar, he’s quite conservative. Moral Theology? Not so much!
Let me take my accident eyewitness scenario to the next level.
Four people see the accident.
One is a doctor, who is immediately concerned as to who may be hurt.
One is a lawyer, who notices that the red car blew the stop sign before hitting the blue car.
One is a fireman, who notices that the blue car is leaking gasoline and is in danger of catching on fire.
One is a newspaper reporter.
Not only are the testimonies going to be similar, yet individually personal, each testimony is going to include or exclude certain facts based on their training, interests, and expertise.
Now, let’s look at the Gospels.
Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew, a tax collector by trade, indicating a certain level of education. He was Jewish and was writing to Jewish Christians, Jews interested in Christianity, and people familiar with Jewish customs.
Mark was written by John Mark, a sometime companion of Paul, and secretary to Peter in Rome. He was writing very quickly to people in Rome and its environs, quite possibly during a time of persecution. He was probably not an eyewitness to all of Jesus’ ministry, but was quite familiar with 2nd generation Christianity.
Luke was written by Luke the Beloved Physician. He was a companion of Paul, but not himself an eyewitness to Jesus. He indicated, in the prologue of his Gospel, that his intent was to provide an orderly account to interested Greeks. By all indications, he was highly educated, and the quality of his Greek approached “classical Greek”.
John was written by the Apostle John, an eyewitness, to 2nd and 3rd generation Christians who may not have known any other eyewitnesses. He relates, not so much a history, but rather numerous stories about Jesus found in no other Gospel and imbues them with theological meaning.
Is there any wonder why the Gospel accounts differ in detail?
Wouldn’t four history books written by different authors have the facts correct? My answer: Yes, but the authors of the history books would have each other as references.
Your friend is using an untenable understanding of what constitutes a “fact”.
Are the four historys book in question a one-volume, written for a generalist? Are they a multi-volume work, intended to trace the history of philosophical thought? Is it a history of World War II written by the Allies or by the Axis? Is it a religious history, a legal history, a medical history, etc.?
All of the above might share similar facts. But the meaning underlying those facts, and the understanding the various authors have about those facts might be different – even if equally accurate!
I am personally interested in this topic, because I am raising teenage boys and I have always told them to ask their questions and that the answers are there, if they just keep seeking.
Good advice! (From a father of 8, three of whom are currently teen-agers!)
Blessings,
