8. Are the Witnesses Honest? (3)

Internal criteria	External criteria
(1) Did he know what he was talking about?	(1) Motive for falsification?
(2) Are there specific irrelevant details?	(2) Confirmation from other sources?
(3) Self-damaging information?	(3) Confirmation from archaeology?
(4) Are the document consistent?	(4) Could contemporaries verify the testimonies?
(5) Is there evidence of exaggeration?

 

In order for an account to be trustworthy we must have some solid confirmation that the author of the document is able to provide qualified testimony. The author needs to be either an eyewitness or someone who had access to sources who were eyewitnesses.

As we have seen, the gospels are technically anonymous, but as discussed earlier, there are compelling evidences verifying the names associated with the gospels. As the Gospels of Matthew and John are written by disciples of Jesus who were eyewitnesses themselves, these authors are surely qualified to give testimony. John Mark was not a disciple, but it is likely that he was present at a number of events during Jesus’ ministry when he was a young man. He spent considerable time with the other disciples after Jesus’ resurrection, traveled with Paul and Barnabas, and later spent serious time in Rome with Peter while writing his gospel. Many even claim that Mark’s gospel was written in behalf of Peter. Therefore the Gospel of Mark is written by a qualified witness beyond any serious dispute.

The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by Luke, the Gentile travel companion of Paul. Luke was not an eyewitness to any events of Jesus’ ministry nor the resurrection. It is well possible that he was a convert of Paul in Antioch . However, his gospel reveals many evidences of detailed resources and use of qualified sources. He even makes that statement himself at the beginning of his account: “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 1:1-2). His claim of “careful investigation” is backed up by many details of people, their titles and positions, events and locations that have been verified through historical, non-Biblical references and archaeology. Luke is certainly a qualified author.

How about Paul’s epistles? As we have discussed earlier[1]– from an evidence perspective – in all his letters, Paul claims to be the author in the first verses of his writings. Also, all these letters are from the 49-55 AD period and are not under dispute.

Start reading about the next criterion: (2) Are there specific irrelevant details?

 

Internal criteria	External criteria
(1) Did he know what he was talking about?	(1) Motive for falsification?
(2) Are there specific irrelevant details?	(2) Confirmation from other sources?
(3) Self-damaging information?	(3) Confirmation from archaeology?
(4) Are the document consistent?	(4) Could contemporaries verify the testimonies?
(5) Is there evidence of exaggeration?