You might be wondering why I'm telling a personal story that is seemingly irrelevant to the nature of this ministry. The truth is, I just wanted to brag.
I'm joking. The reason this story matters is because I can use it to illustrate historical investigation.
First, allow me to tell you the story in my own words.
"I've always loved snakes. When I was 4, my mother took me to a Zoo. There was a corn snake there, and one of the zookeepers offered to let people hold it. The teenagers were all scared, but I was not. I held the corn snake."
To go with this account, I asked my mother to send me her own version so I could copy and paste it. She did not read my account to write hers, neither did I read hers to write mine. As she used real names, I have slightly altered the content, but only to protect identities:
"(Brian) was about four when this story happened. We had all gone to the zoo - my husband, myself, (Brian), and his younger brother, (Brian's brother). (Brian) had an almost obsessive interest in all animals, and was often described as a gentle soul as he was never “rough and tumble” like the other boys. We entered the reptile house, and after wandering for a while, encountered a staff member with a corn snake. There were multiple children all around her, wide eyed with interest, but all recoiling in horror when offered a chance to hold the snake. Most were older than (Brian). He was mesmerised from the start, and confidently stepped forward to accept the snake, seeming to know how to handle it without even being told. It was quite a sight, my young son with this snake wrapped coolly around him, surrounded by the rest of the group, now totally in awe of this child’s bravery. (Brian) had a huge smile on his face for the rest of the day, and so did we."
We can identify the following common elements from these two accounts:
- It was at a zoo.
- It was a corn snake.
- I was 4.
- The option to hold the snake was available.
- There were older children, who were scared.
- I wasn't even remotely scared.
- I held the snake.
These common elements are sufficient to establish a high chance that this story is true, at least in part. The specificity of some of these elements further testifies to its accuracy. For example, one common element is that this occurred at a zoo. One could accept that I held a snake at some point, but why would both of us mention a zoo, unless the event genuinely happened at a zoo? Why specifically a corn snake? There are several snake species that would be safe for a child to hold. A ball python, for example. The specificity of the corn snake suggests it really was a corn snake. The common elements between both accounts suggest that both describe an actual reality.
Now notice the different way in which my mother told the story. Because she was older, her memory of the event is stronger. I don't remember whether or not my dad or brother were there, so when I tell the story, I typically leave them out. But mum remembers their presence, and in this case specifically mentioned them, even mentioning my brother by name. She mentioned my obsessive interest in all animals, though I specifically focused on the snakes. She specifically referred to the staff member as "she", whereas this is an element I intentionally left out of my account, because although I vaguely remember a blonde woman with a baseball cap, I wasn't 100% sure this part of the memory was accurate. Thus, she confirmed my own memory aside from the account I have presented to you. I was also hoping she'd name the zoo, but alas, she did not.
Let's suppose I become famous, and in the next 2,000 years, people want to analyse the historicity of this story. How would they do so? With these two accounts, they have everything they need to say that yes, this is a true story.
Let us first refer back to the similarities. The common elements are to be expected. As I said, neither of us used the other's account to write our own. I wrote mine, and as I was writing it, I phoned mum and asked her to write one for me. She did not read my account until this article was originally published on God Squad Apologetics. The real reason for the similarities is that they are a description of the same reality. In the same way, the similarities between the gospels are both to be expected, and confirm the historicity of the events they described.
On the other hand, many point to the differences between the gospels to suggest that the authors were making things up and didn't pay attention to each other. For example, Matthew, Mark and Luke all describe the women's response to the empty tomb differently. Yet the accounts are not contradictory. They contain common elements, yet just as my mother's account includes different details to my account, so also do the three gospels. This is not because they're made up accounts, but because they are true accounts delivered by different people. Matthew was a disciple of Jesus, directly involved with the events described. Mark was a disciple of Peter, likely having his influence on his account. Luke sought to investigate the events and write an orderly account for Theophilus, likely interviewing multiple witnesses to produce his gospel (and possibly referring to other gospels). Of course the accounts are going to have some differences. A difference is not the same as a contradiction.
Compared to the gospels, my snake story is pitiful. Using the exact same principles that show my snake story is true, however, we can deduce that the gospels are also true. Furthermore, as much as my snake story is dear to my heart, I wouldn't be especially willing to die for it. Yet the Apostles went through Hell to spread the Gospel far and wide. The Apostles' story not only holds up, but their actions show they believed that to be the case also. If you believe a 4 year old Brian held a corn snake, there isn't much reason to doubt the New Testament.