Witnesses

Did you hear? There’s a car crash right in front of the house with the white picket fence down on Maple Street. Little Billy Johnson wasn’t paying attention and rode his bike right out into the road. Mr. Davis, on his way to his hardware shop, swerved to avoid the boy, went up on the curb, and plowed his Ford right through that fence and into the great big elm that sits plum in the middle of Mrs. Baker’s front yard.

Aside from the participants, there are three witnesses to the accident. One, Charlie Taylor, is a reporter for the local Gazette. Another, Mrs. Samuels, is married to a young novelist. The third is old Mr. Wells, out for his daily stroll and pipe smoke.

The next day Charlie Taylor writes up a small article for the paper. Mrs. Samuel’s husband, interested in small town life, includes his wife’s report as a pivotal scene in the novel he’s writing. Mr. Wells, closest to the accident, speaks at length to the investigating officer, and his account is the primary source for the police report. And Mr. Davis, garrulous Mr. Davis, enthralls his children with colorful re-enactments of the event, and his oldest daughter writes a term paper on it for her social studies class.

There. One event, and four written versions of it.

Here’s the all-important, all-encompassing question:

Did the accident happen?

Of course it did, you say. There are at least four reputable witnesses to it.

But maybe, the skeptic says, and hear me out, maybe the accident didn’t happen.

What do you mean? you ask.

Surely something as dramatic as Mr. Davis plowing his Ford into a giant elm would be remembered accurately, if it really happened. I mean, just read these reports. Charlie Taylor’s article says Billy Johnson rode out between two parked cars, and Mrs. Samuels said (or her husband wrote) that the little kid swerved out of a driveway. And neither Mr. Wells nor Mr. Davis, the driver of the car, even report a boy at all!

So what’s your point? you respond. It’s fairly common knowledge that witnesses of traffic accidents will report wild discrepancies at later recollection of the event. Trial lawyers make their bread and butter off of such discrepancies.

Yes, the skeptic retorts. There are traffic accidents. And there are also ... world shattering events. Surely something that changes the world, changes the way we think about life, the universe, and everything, surely something as weighty as that would be reported by those closest to it with more accuracy than some random citizens jolted out of their daily haze by the crash of metal on wood.

You see now where this is going. You sigh. So, you say, you’re going to deny the Resurrection. Or the miracles of Christ. Or the words of Christ, specifically, Who He said He is. Or you’re going to deny that He even existed, walked the earth, and taught a select group of followers.

The skeptic acts offended. No such thing! he cries. I merely wonder why there are so many items that don’t match up in the gospels. I mean, the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are entirely different, and Mark doesn’t even include one! The miracles and parables don’t add up. Once I made a list of every miracle and a separate one for every parable and checked off which gospels they appear in, and they don’t match! And surely you Christians view the Crucifixion as one of the supreme events in the life of Christ, right? Yet rarely do the gospel writers agree on the words Christ spoke from the Cross! And if the Crucifixion is important, what do you make of the Resurrection? A man rising from the dead! Each gospel writer gives a different account of this monumental event in the history of mankind.

You hold up a hand. Fortunately, as an apologist, you’ve dealt with these amateur arguments before. There’s nothing new under the sun.

The gospels were not written in our times, you begin. They should not be read as a piece of 21st century journalism. They don’t purport to answer the five w’s - who, what, where, when, and why - with objective, scientific, Aristotelian accuracy. That’s a fairly common mistake so many of the ‘learned’ make thinking, writing, and speaking of the gospels. In actuality, the gospels are designed to tell a story about a man, an incredible Man, Who was and is the Son of God, Who walked among us and taught us and gave His life for our salvation. And the purpose of these stories is to define a relationship with a real, living person.

And yes, you continue, the law of traffic accidents applies to the gospel writers, too. Matthew and John were apostles, part of Christ’s inner circle, though they differed in age and occupation. Further, John was a member of the innermost circle, present at many events in Christ’s life that Matthew wasn’t, and, presumably, experienced many things different from Matthew. Mark was Peter’s assistant, so-to-speak, and as so learned all about Christ from yet another angle. Finally, Luke was a companion of Paul, and heard of the Christ from a man who never met the non-risen Jesus.

Different backgrounds, different perspectives, different aims, different styles, different emphases.

Got it?

But your friend, the skeptic, scoffing, has left long ago.