Q: IS LUKE’S ACCOUNT OF JESUS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE? uncover.org.au/reliable Is what we have in Luke’s account a historical record? Let’s work backwards – do we have what Luke wrote or has it been changed. The reported eyewitness accounts may have been distorted over the last 2000 years. The oldest discovered manuscripts with major sections of Luke, when compared to todays versions show very little change. Why would we infer, given the presence of remaining witnesses and the devotional seriousness of copyists, that the first accounts were changed? if there have been no real changes to Luke over 1900 years of copying on what basis do we attribute critical distortions in the first 100 years? in contrast with all other writings of antiquity, New Testament textual critics have a greater wealth of manuscripts to work with and a much shorter gap between the original document and the earliest existing copy. But what about that intervening period between the eyewitness accounts and the earliest written manuscripts. Her we need to recognise that Luke writes in a culture of an oral tradition. In an era where literacy was not high the most common, acceptable and reliable means of transmitting information was orally, through memorization and recitation, not in writing. It is important to realise that within an oral tradition while the core truth and meaning of a story would remain fixed and protected by Page 1 of 3 | © 2015 AFES Uncover guardian eyewitness teachers certain elements could be flexible in their retelling. This accounts for some of the differences we see between the different gospel accounts of Jesus’ life. The authors felt free to shorten or paraphrase a particular event without evacuating the fixed central meaning What about other non-biblical evidence for the details we see in Luke’s account? Apart from the New Testament there are a mix of Jewish and Roman documents that mention Jesus that coheres with Luke’s account. There are a number of facts about the life of Jesus from these sources that independently corroborate the evidence in Luke’s account. These include: Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar. His mothers name was Mary His conception was irregular He lived a virtuous life. He was a renowned teacher He was thought to be a wonder-worker. He had a brother named James. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died. His disciples believed he rose from the dead. His disciples were willing to die for their belief. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God. When did Luke write his account of Jesus? Many scholars think somewhere about the early 60’s AD. This is within a generation of the Page 2 of 3 | © 2015 AFES Uncover eyewitness who could have confirmed or denied what was being claimed. It was written sometime after his second volume, the book of Acts, and before some significant world events like the persecution of Christians by Nero (around AD64) and the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans in AD 70. What were Luke’s sources? Luke is not someone who is far removed from the time and places he describes. He possesses a keen eye for historical detail and has access to those who saw and heard Jesus. Luke’s account is based on eye witnesses – those who had walked with, talked to, and lived with Jesus. These are fresh memories from the original disciples of Jesus. In addition Luke had access to some written accounts of Jesus life – scholars think that this would be Mark’s account of Jesus. What then can be said of Luke’s account? His opening statement orients us to the nature and purpose of his account. He follows the historical conventions of antiquity. He intends his work to be taken seriously. His account also contains marks of authenticity – details that would have been unacceptable to an original audience. The inclusion of these lends weight to Luke’s trustworthiness, for they pass the test of ‘the criterion of embarrassment’ used in accessing the authenticity of historical documents. As an example, the inclusion of the women are presented as the first witnesses of Jesus resurrection. This is striking in a culture that held women as unsuitable to bear witness or testimony in court. Why present women as the initial and key witnesses to the climactic and crucial event of the narrative, when in the wider culture a woman’s testimony was discredited? Unless it actually happened that way, Luke probably wouldn’t have recorded it. Page 3 of 3 | © 2015 AFES Uncover