A Taste of Apologetics

Journal #7

Apologetics: having an explanation for what we believe. Over the weekend, I went to one of the most renowned apologetics conferences in the nation. The speaker lineup included Josh McDowell, Dinesh D’Souza, Hank Hanegraaff, JP Moreland, Gary Habermas, and many other highly intelligent Christian leaders. In just two days, I was able to watch as teachers presented rational explanations for topics such as faith, the resurrection, the existence of the soul, the accuracy of the Gospels, and the divine inspiration of scripture. It was comforting and challenging to hear these arguments spelled out. Comforting, because questions I had pondered for a long time were finally resolved. Challenging, because the truth has been revealed, yet our culture does not believe. Learning about the rational arguments for our faith does the Kingdom very little good if we don’t take the truth into the world and use it to share the love of Christ. 

I will briefly explain one of the most profound evidences I encountered. In one session, Michael Licona answered the question “Do the Gospels Contradict?” The simplest answer is “no.” There are differences, he explained, but not contradictions. Contradictions are incompatible, but differences are compatible. Often, Licona stated, witnesses state simultaneously true aspects of the same story. Take, for example, the women at the tomb. Mathew, Mark, and Luke, clearly explain that multiple women went down to the tomb on the third day. John, however, only specifically mentions Mary Magdalene. While this is a difference, it is not an incompatible difference. Importantly, the next verse records that Mary said “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put Him!” Licona points out that she said “we don’t know where they have put Him!” In this passage, Mary is implying that there were in fact others with her when she discovered that Jesus’s tomb was empty. 
So why are these differences there? Licona goes on to describe the literary genre of the gospels; they are Greco-Roman biographies. Unlike the biographies of modern times, ancient Greco-Roman biographies were not as focused on details. Yes, they had “some intent” to report history, but there was not a heavy emphasis on minute details. Instead, writers of the 1st century AD were more concerned with conveying the character and nature of their subjects. In other words, the person was more important than the event. This does not mean, however, that the Gospels (or other Greco-Roman biographies of the time) are inaccurate or unhistorical. Instead, it means that 1st Century writers were allowed to employ techniques such as time compression and narrative flow. Time compression allowed for stories to be condensed, and narrative flow is the rearranging of events out of chronological order. Both of these literary techniques were used so that the overall story flows smoothly and more effectively presents the character of the individual being described. 
Through the Gospels, the character of Jesus Christ the Messiah is presented to the world. There are differences between Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, but they are literary differences resulting from their nature as Greco-Roman biographies. They are still inspired, accurate works which present the truth of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.