It is often objected that the gospels contain variations, that every variation is a "contradiction", and that such "contradictions" mean the gospels are historically worthless. Some people even say Jesus never existed.
Here’s the thing: eyewitnesses of extraordinary events tend to give varying accounts of those events. When not engaged in the special project of trying to disprove the gospel, we recognize this as both true and unremarkable. Did the Titanic pop its rivets or tear a hole in her side? Did she split in two at the surface as some witnesses said or did it happen just as she sank? What about the "mystery ship" that was nearby? Was Mr. Ismay a coward for getting in a lifeboat? Why did nearby ships not come to the rescue? The list of curiosities and "discrepancies" in the record surrounding the Titanic is a much-loved pastime for disaster buffs.
But only a fool would conclude from this, even after 2000 years, that there was no Titanic and that she did not strike an iceberg and sink on April 15, 1912. These are the main lines of the story on which everybody agrees. In the same way, what impresses anybody who reads the New Testament without a set determination to look for loopholes is how the whole body of witnesses to the story of Christ all agree on the main lines of their story. Indeed, what is truly remarkable is that one does not even need the gospels to reconstruct the essential events to which the community bears witness. It's all there in the epistles long before the gospels are written.
Consider: Paul quotes and alludes to historical sayings of Christ (Acts 20:35), as well as basic facts about his life, trial, death, resurrection and ascension. Paul knows Jesus is a Jew of David's line (Romans 1:3); that John the Baptist was His forerunner and had disavowed any claim to his own Messiahship (Acts 13:24-25); that Jesus' chief disciples were Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9); that He had predicted His return "like a thief" (1 Thessalonians 5:4); that He had instituted the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:23-25); that He had been rejected by the Jewish leaders (1 Thessalonians 2:15), tried under Pontius Pilate (1 Timothy 5:13), crucified for us (Galatians 3:1); laid in a tomb (Acts 13:29); raised from the dead and seen by many witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8); and that He had ascended to Heaven (Ephesians 4:9-10).
Indeed, it is worth noting that the earliest account of the Last Supper we possess is from Paul, not the gospels. And Paul is obviously speaking to people who already know that story and are not waiting around for the gospels (or even him) to tell it to them. Paul's Last Supper narrative is, in all the essentials, the same thing the gospels report, despite the fact that Paul, Matthew, Mark and Luke are writing at different times, in widely diverse places for radically different audiences of Palestinian Jews, educated Greeks, and Romans. Why the extreme similarity between such widely diverse writers and readers? Because all four writers are quoting a liturgical source that antedates the whole New Testament.
The point is this: Paul is writing his Last Supper account in the early 50s. This means the memories of the community he is drawing on have been set in liturgical concrete very quickly after the events they commemorate (barely 20 years prior). That's the same amount of time that separates us from the Challenger Disaster, Iran-Contra, Back to the Future, Max Headroom, Michael Jackson's Thriller and the second term of Ronald Reagan. Are these impossible to recall accurately?
Even if we double or triple this and say the gospels were written forty to sixty years after the events they describe, we are still talking about an event as near in time as the assassination of JFK or Truman's election is to us. If the witnesses to these events went on to lives of persecution, poverty, exile, wandering, opprobrium and martyrdom for their testimony, normal people would not object, "Well, the record is unclear if there were two shots or three at Dealey Plaza. And newspapers of the period clearly said Dewey won. So clearly 'JFK' and 'Truman' never existed." If I was going to be a skeptic I would try a stronger argument than "Witnesses are not in mathematically perfect agreement" as my escape hatch.
Bottom line: the same standards we apply to any other testimony apply to the gospels. If witnesses substantially agree that the Titanic sank, or JFK was shot, or that we landed on the moon, or that Jesus existed, then discrepancies between them only serve to show that people are people, not that the whole thing never happened.
(This piece was first published in the National Catholic Register.)
November 7th, 2007 at 4:59 am
I agree with what Mark Shea is saying about the variances in eye witness testimony, but the recording of the Titanic disaster, the landing on the moon, and the murder of JFK were not inspiried by the Holy Spirit. We hold Scripture to a higher standard because it is inspried by the Holy Spirit.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:27 am
WE do, Danny, but Mark is writing this for the education, edification, and benefit of atheists and others who claim that there is no evidence for Christ and/or His divinity — and those of us who witness to them.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I'm very appreciative of articles such as this as they become part of my religion lessons for my homeschooled teens. This is the type of comments they hear from peers who aren't Catholic, and sadly sometimes, from some who are.
Mark has a great way in putting in references (such as the Titanic) that make sense in public arenas and makes it easier for my kids to share something about their faith and not sound too geeky.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Speaking as a lawyer, a story can actually be more believable when the witnesses don't totally agree on every single tiny detail. If you get a bunch of eyewitnesses to an event that corroborate each other 100%, it's suspicious, since it looks like they've all been coached. When you get a group of honest human beings together, and ask them to recall something that happened, their answers are naturally bound to vary a little bit. But it's only when they vary on the most basic points–"yes, it happened," vs. "no, it didn't"–that the event is called into question.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Catholics make 2 passes at scripture when they try and provide the rational basis for their faith. The first pass just requires scripture to be generally historically accurate. Then you can conclude that Jesus lived. That he taught certain things. He did miracles. He died. He rose again. He established His church.
Then once you have all those historical events established you can look at the church as the body of Christ and conclude that it must be right when it defined the cannon of scripture. So Mark is right. At this point in the argument you don't need to show scripture is inerrant. You just need to show it provides solid reasons for believing the events described.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I would humbly suggest we don;t hold Scripture or God to any standard. We place ourselves in an attitude of attentive listening before the Scriptures and allow the variances in the testimony allowed by the Spirit to speak to us about the various nuances and depth of Christ's Word and Work which are much richer than a simple history account.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Has anyone ever had the experience of witnessing a disaster or even just a traffic accident? If so, you'll know that the police who respond question everybody who witnessed the event. Why? I asked, once. The answer was that everybody who saw what happened saw it from a different angle, and with differing levels of attention. The job of the policeman is to take down all the stories and then evaluate them to see where they agree. Then that's what probably actually happened. Among the divergent memories may be clues to solve the mystery of why it happened.
(Makes you wonder, doesn't it, if they deliberately train according to the disciplines of theological investigation!)
November 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Oh the iron-y! The steel of the Titanic was of too poor a quality to tear. Tests on samples brought back up (chilled to North Atlantic water temperatur) broke, instead of bent, when subjected to hammer blows. There was too much sulphur contamination (bad coal?). The other fun fact is that while the stern did start to rise up out of the water, it would have required a miracle for the hull not to break before the propellers rose out.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Ankabar: The article by Mark is great, but I can't resist responding to your post.
If, as you claim, Mark wrote this for the education and edification of Atheists and others that do not believe there is evidence for Christ ….then Mark published it in the wrong place. I would guess that the readership of CE must be around 98% Catholic believers of one sort or another. Those Atheists do not read the Catholic Exchange. He should have published it in the New York Times if he wanted to reach that group. Mark strikes me as being pretty smart. He knew where he was publishing, and he knew which audience he was trying to reach.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
kc
well, Danny, considering all the atheists beating down the Catholic gates to hear the Good News, maybe Mark is doing his best by writing for that 2%, or maybe that huge percent of marginally-at-best-catechized post-Vatican II "Catholics." That might be a higher percentage hereabouts. Though, methinks, still not too high a number…probably more are linked onto National Catholic Reporter.
Ah, well, Hope IS a virtue and a gift. Good luck, Mark
November 7th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
kc
oops, I think I meant Ankabar..
November 7th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Or…here's a possibility…
It was posted on Catholic Exchange so that the rest of us, reading it, can incorporate some of it when we are discussing with non-believers.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Ipioch: I am certain that was Mark's purpose, and that was the point of my first post. Mark begins by acknowledging the discrepancies in Scripture, but diminishes their importance by comparing them to the discrepancies among witnesses that occur all the time in newspaper reports of major modern events. He is not using a simile or metaphor, Mark is comparing same to same (discrepancies in A compare equally to discrepancies in B) . But, they aren't the same - one is inspired and one is not - and that is a substantive difference. An unbleliver might be quick to spot the difference and turn the argument against the beliver (I thought you said Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and now you are putting inspired Scripture in the same category as a newspaper story with the same credibility).
I do not have any problem with discrepancies in Scripture. The proofs for the authenticity and inspiration of Scripture are mind-boggling. Mark Shea is an excellent writer and I look forward to his reading his stuff. I doubt if he feels threatened by comments from the peanut gallery.