Precognition - Science Says: NOPE

In 2011, A major scientific study supporting precognition was published by Daryl Bem:

Professor Daryl Bem of Cornell University is a well-respected psychologist. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is a well-respected journal, published by the American Psychological Association. It has a high impact factor and a high rejection rate for submissions. It is clearly one of the top journals in the field. It was not surprising, therefore, that when Bem last year published the results of a series of nine experiments appearing to suggest that precognition– or the ability to "feel the future" – is real, the story received a great deal of coverage from mainstream science media around the world. ("Precognition studies and the curse of the failed replications" by Chris French in The Guardian, March 15th, 2012) 

 

Here is the published article "Feeling the Future" by Daryl Bem:

 

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/psp-a0021524.pdf

In July of 2011, Eric Robinson published a paper "Not Feeling the Future" about his attempt to replicate one of Bem's experiments (Robinson failed to find evidence of "retroactive facilitation of recall" when he replicated Bem's experiment 9):

In March of 2012, an article was published about three different attempts to replicate one of Bem's experiments (experiment 9).  These experiments failed to show any significant evidence for precognition:

    Bem used a variety of techniques but the general approach was to "time reverse" established psychological effects. For example, the experiment that produced the largest effect size (experiment 9) took as its starting point the trivial observation that memory for words is better if one is allowed to rehearse the words as opposed to being exposed to them just once. Of course, this usually involves rehearsing the words before one's memory for them is tested.

    The astonishing claim made by Bem – apparently supported by his experimental data – was that memory for words is improved even if the rehearsal does not take place until after recall has been tested. The effect was dubbed the "retroactive facilitation of recall".

    To his credit, in his paper Bem encouraged other psychologists to attempt replications of his findings and even offered to provide appropriate software to run the studies. In collaboration with Stuart Ritchie at the University of Edinburgh, Professor Richard Wiseman at the University of Hertfordshire, and members of my own group at the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths, University of London, decided to do just that.

    It was agreed that a replication attempt would take place at each of the three institutions. All three attempts would follow the same procedures as those used by Bem, including using the same number of participants, and the experiments would be pre-registered. Regardless of outcome, we would write up our results and submit them for publication.

    As can be seen from our published report in PLoS ONE, none of us produced results that supported the effect reported by Bem (neither did Eric Robinson in a paper published in July 2011 in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research). ("Precognition studies and the curse of the failed replications" by Chris French in The Guardian, March 15th, 2012)

Here is the article (about the three attempts to replicate Bem's experiment 9) published in PLoS ONE:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221724589_Failing_the_Future_Three_Unsuccessful_Attempts_to_Replicate_Bem's_'Retroactive_Facilitation_of_Recall'_Effect

In October of 2015, a meta-analysis of 90 experiments supported Bem's original findings:

Here is the published article (this is a revised version of the paper that was published in January of 2016):

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4706048/pdf/f1000research-4-8494.pdf

In 2023, a large and very rigorous study was published that focused on replications of Bem's Experiment 1, and this study found no evidence of precognition:

Here are the results of the above Transparent Psi Project study:

Here is a copy of the Transparent Psi Project study:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9890107/

The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 2: Birth, Infancy, & Childhood Stories

WHERE WE ARE

The author of the Gospel of Luke made some changes to the stories about Jesus that came from the Gospel of Mark, and added some stories or events to what is found in the Gospel of Mark. 

The changes and additions by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark could either be historically reliable or not. If those changes and additions are historically unreliable, then in terms of stories about Jesus, the Gospel of Luke would have very little historical information to offer about Jesus beyond what we already find in the Gospel of Mark.

In Part 1 of this series, I argued that it is probable that the changes and additions by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable on this basis:

REASON #1: There are several general considerations about the Gospel of Luke that suggest that its additions and changes to stories from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable.  

A SECOND REASON FOR THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

In this post, I am going to provide more specific evidence that the changes and additions to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark made by the author of the Gospel of Luke are dubious and historically unreliable. 

Here is the second reason that supports this conclusion:

REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about the birth, infancy, or childhood of Jesus, but the Gospel of Luke adds stories of eight such events, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of those stories in the Gospel of Luke. 

In the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke we find eight different events about the birth, infancy, and childhood of Jesus that are not found in the Gospel of Mark:[1]

• Miraculous Conception of John (Luke 1:7-25)
• Miraculous Conception of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38)
• Mary Visits Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56)
• Birth and Naming of John (Luke 1:57-80]
• Birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-7)
• Visit of the Shepherds (Luke 2:8-20)
• Dedication of Jesus (Luke 2:21-40)
• The Young Jesus in Jerusalem (Luke 2:41-52)

Also related to the birth of Jesus, the Gospel of Luke provides an alleged genealogy of Jesus:

• Jesus' Genealogy (Luke 3:23-38)

If this genealogy is historically dubious, then that would cast doubt on the historical reliability of the eight alleged events in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke.

SCHOLARS USUALLY VIEW THE BIRTH STORIES AS LEGENDS 

Most mainline Jesus and NT scholars view the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as unhistorical legends:

Historians are usually convinced that if a case can be made for Jesus' birthplace, the most likely site is Nazareth in Galilee.[2]  - Jesus scholar James Charlesworth

 

Most critics doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.[3]  - Jesus scholar Craig A. Evans

During the reign of Herod the Great, and probably toward its end (ca. 7-4 B.C.),  Jesus was born in the hill town of Nazareth in Lower Galilee.[4] - Jesus scholar John P. Meier   

He [Jesus] was probably born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem.[5] - Jesus scholar Marcus Borg

The precise date of the birth of Jesus is still unknown. It occured, it would seem, before the spring of 4 BC, and most likely in 5, or a little earlier.

...His birthplace is equally uncertain. Whilst Bethlehem cannot be absolutely excluded, it remains highly questionable.[6] - Jesus scholar Geza Vermes

Most disturbing for Christian pilgrim piety is the outcome that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem has to be left in question. Was the story to that effect contrived simply because of the Micah prophecy: 'And you Bethlehem, ... from you shall come forth a ruler, who will shepherd my people Israel' (Mic. 5.2, cited by Matt. 2.5-6)?[7] - Jesus scholar James Dunn  

According to the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (in southern Palestine).  If Jesus was not actually born in Bethlehem, but was born in Nazareth (in northern Palestine), as "Historians are usually convinced," then the birth stories in those two Gospels are unhistorical legends. 

There are three primary reasons why I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories [the stories of Jesus' birth in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew] as historically factual.[8] - Jesus scholar Marcus Borg

We will look at the three primary reasons later in this post.  For now, the key point is that Borg's skeptical view of these birth stories is shared by "most mainline scholars".

The prominent New Testament and Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders argues that the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew are unhistorical:

The authors of the gospels offer this kind of information about Jesus, information that is based on the assumption that he fulfilled biblical statements. This does not prove that they were dishonest historians. They were not historians at all, except accidentally (though Luke had some of the attributes of a hellenistic historian). Nor were they dishonest.  They believed that Jesus really did fulfil the promises of Hebrew scripture. 

[...]

This way of seeing history was of great assistance to the authors of the gospels. It allowed them to fill in some of the blank spaces in the story of Jesus. They were probably set on this course by genuine parallels between John the Baptist and Jesus, on the one hand, and biblical characters or predictions on the other. ...

The more parallels between Jesus and characters or prophecies in Hebrew scripture, the more likely Matthew, Mark, and Luke were to invent still more. ...The clearest cases of invention are in the birth narratives. Matthew and Luke write that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth. This probably reflects two sorts of 'facts': in ordinary history, Jesus was from Nazareth; according to salvation history, the redeemer of Israel should have been born in Bethlehem, David's city. The two Gospels have completely different and irreconcilable ways of moving Jesus and his family from one place to the other.[9]

The birth narratives constitute an extreme case. Matthew and Luke used them to place Jesus in salvation history. It seems that they had very little historical information about Jesus' birth (historical in our sense), and so they went to one of their other sources, Jewish scripture.[10]

In addition to general considerations (presented in my previous post) that provide a good reason to doubt the historical reliability of the additions and changes made by the author of Gospel of Luke to the alleged events described in the Gospel of Mark, we now have a more specific reason to doubt the historical reliability of those aspects of the Gospel of Luke: most mainstream scholars view the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as unhistorical legends. That is a good reason to believe that it is probable that those birth stories are unhistorical legends.

THE TRADITION OF A REMARKABLE BIRTH IS LATE 

Jesus scholar Marcus Borg mentions three reasons why many scholars doubt the historical reliability of these stories. Here is one reason that he gives:

First, the tradition that Jesus had a remarkable birth is relatively late. The stories of his birth are found only in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, both written near the end of the first century.  Earlier writers (as well as the rest of the New Testament) do not refer to a special birth.[11]

The Jesus scholar John Meier reinforces this point with an explanation:

 ...unlike the public ministry of Jesus, where certain eyewitnesses were also prominent leaders in the early Church, almost all the witnesses to the events surrounding Jesus' birth were dead or otherwise unavailable to the early Church when it formulated the infancy traditions that lie behind Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2.[12]

Jesus' twelve disciples were probably about Jesus' age (in their 30s) or younger (in their 20s), so none of them would have been present when Jesus was born. 

Jesus' father Joseph disappears from the Gospel accounts before Jesus began his ministry:

Joseph is gone from the scene when the Gospels describe Jesus' adult life, though he was apparently remembered by those around Jesus as his father...and as a carpenter (Matt. 13:55). The gospel of Mark makes no mention of Jesus' father, and calls him instead "Mary's son" (Mark 6.3).[13] - The Oxford Companion to the Bible

 

So, Jesus' father was probably dead before any of the Gospels were written.  

Jesus' mother, Mary, was allegedly still alive during his ministry and crucifixion, but if she was 16 years old when Jesus was born, and if Jesus was born about 5 BCE, then Mary was about 20 years old in the year 1 BCE. So, in the 80s CE (when the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew were probably written), Mary would have been between 100 and 109 years old when the birth stories were composed! 

But very few people in first-century Palestine lived to be 90 years old. Only about one in a thousand women who were 20 years old in 1 BCE would have lived to be 90 years old.[14] 

Furthermore, even if Mary had lived to be 100 years old, she would likely be experiencing dementia at that age, and even if her mind was still functioning well, her memories of what had happened to her more than eight decades in the past (around 5 BCE) would be unreliable. Thus, if the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew were composed in the 80s, as most NT scholars believe, then it is very unlikely that their birth stories came directly from a reliable eyewitness to those alleged events.  Therefore, it is very likely that the birth stories are, at best, second-hand or third-hand stories.  

STRIKING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO BIRTH STORIES

The Jesus scholar Marcus Borg gives a second reason for doubting the historical reliability of the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew:

The second reason is the striking differences between Matthew's birth story and Luke's birth story. ...

1. The genealogy of Jesus.  Both Matthew and Luke trace the genealogy of Jesus back through Joseph to King David and beyond.  But the genealogies differ significantly. ...

2. The home of Mary and Joseph. In Luke, Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth but because of the census travel back to Bethlehem, where the birth occurs in a stable.  They go back home to Nazareth after the birth.  In Matthew, Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem and the birth occurs at home (not in a stable).  The family then moves to Nazareth after spending time in Egypt.  Matthew has no trip to Bethlehem. 

3. Birth visitors. In Matthew, "wise men from the East" follow a special star to the place of Jesus' birth.  Luke has neither wise men nor star but instead angels singing in the night sky to shepherds who then come to the manger. 

4. Herod's plot. In Matthew, Herod the Great orders the killing of all male infants under the age of two in Bethlehem. The family of Jesus escapes by fleeing to Egypt.  Luke's story has neither Herod's plot nor a trip to Egypt. 

5. Use of the Hebrew Bible. Both Matthew and Luke use the Hebrew Bible extensively, but they use it differently. Matthew uses a prediction-fulfilment formula five times in his birth story: "This took place to fulfill that which was spoken by the prophet." Luke, on the other hand, echoes language from the Hebrew Bible without treating it as fulfilment of prophecy, especially in the great hymns that he attributes to Mary (the "Magnificat") and Zechariah (the "Benedictus").

There are other differences as well.  But these are enough to make the point that we have two very different stories.  Though some of the differences can perhaps be harmonized, some seem irreconcilable.[15]

Many NT and Jesus scholars agree with Borg that it is very difficult to reconcile these two very different birth stories with each other:

• John P. Meier[16]  
• Raymond Brown[17]  
• E.P. Sanders[18]  
• Geza Vermes[19]  
• John Crossan[20] 
• James Charlesworth[21]  
• Jürgen Becker[22]  
• Bart Ehrman[23]  
• Paula Fredriksen[24]  
• Robert Funk[25]

In view of the conflicts between the two birth stories, the Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders draws this conclusion:

It is not possible for both these stories to be accurate. It is improbable that either is.[26] 

                                                                                                                             

THE STORIES LOOK LIKE LITERARY CREATIONS

The Jesus scholar Marcus Borg gives a third reason for doubting the historical reliability of the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew: 

The stories look like they have been composed to be overtures to each Gospel. That is, the central themes of each birth story reflect the central themes of the gospel of which they are a part. For example, for Matthew Jesus is "the king of the Jews," and so his ancestry is traced through the kings of Judah.  For Luke, Jesus is a Spirit-anointed social prophet, and so his ancestry includes prophets.  For Matthew, Jesus is "one like unto Moses," and the story of Herod's plot calls to mind the story of Pharaoh ordering the death of all newborn Hebrew boys in the time of Moses.  Luke emphasizes the spread of the gospel into the Gentile world (especially in the book of Acts), and so the ancestry of Jesus is traced back not simply to Abraham the father of the Jewish people, but to Adam, the father of Jew and Gentile alike.  In short, the stories look like the literary creation of each author.[27]

The events and details contained in both birth stories fit too neatly with the themes and theology of the authors of those stories, suggesting that the stories were not based on historical facts but, rather, on the imaginations of the authors of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew. 

CONCLUSION

Based on various general considerations, we previously concluded that the changes and additions made by the author of the Gospel of Luke to the stories found in the Gospel of Mark are probably historically unreliable. 

Given this reasonable assumption, and given that most mainstream scholars view the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as unhistorical legends, and given the three reasons presented by the Jesus scholar Marcus Borg for viewing the birth stories as unhistorical, we may conclude that it is probable that the birth story in the Gospel of Luke is a historically unreliable addition to the stories found in the Gospel of Mark.

END NOTES

1. Robert Funk and The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998), see the list of "Birth & Infancy Stories", p.564.

2. James Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008), p.67.

3. Craig A. Evans, "Context, Family, and Formation" in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, edited by Markus Bockmuehl (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001), footnote #7, p.22. 

4. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume 1 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), p.350. 

5. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), p.182.  

6. James D.G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), pp.344-345. 

7. Geza Vermes, The Nativity (London: Peguin Books Ltd., 2006), p.97.

8. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, p.179. 

9. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993), pp.83-86.

10. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.88.

11. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, pp.179-180. 

12. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume 1, p.209.

13. Philip Sellew, "Joseph (Husband of Mary)." in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), p.382. 

14. See my post "The Life Expectancy of the Eleven Disciples" for more information about life expectancy in first-century Palestine.

15. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, pp.180-181. 

16. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume 1, pp.211-213.

17. Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1973), pp.52-54. 

18. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pp.83-90.

19. Geza Vermes, The Nativity, pp. 17-19.

20. John Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), pp.4-23.

21. James Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide, pp.63-68.

22. Jürgen Becker, Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1988), pp.20-24. 

23. Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp.36-38. 

24. Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999), pp.18-27. 

25. Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers,1996), pp.292-294.

26. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.86.

27. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, p.181.          

The Life Expectancy of the Eleven Disciples

TWO PROBLEMS WITH THE GOSPEL OF LUKE AND THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

There are at least two significant problems with using the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as sources of historical information about the ministry, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus, especially in attempting to make a case for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead. 

First, neither Gospel was written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus.[1]  So, these Gospels are, at best, secondhand sources of historical information.  

Second, it is unlikely that the authors of either of those Gospels had direct access to eyewitnesses to the ministry, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus.  

In the case of the Gospel of Luke, for example, most of the specific events in the ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus are taken from the previous Gospel of Mark.  But the author of the Gospel of Mark was not an eyewitness to the ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, or burial of Jesus. Since most of the specific events concerning the ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke are based on a book written by a non-eyewitness, this is a strong indication that the author of the Gospel of Luke did not have direct access to eyewitnesses to those events.

THE UNAVAILABILITY OF EYEWITNESS SOURCES

Furthermore, the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew were both written about 80-90 CE.[2]  So, these Gospels were composed five or six decades after Jesus was crucified.  By that point in time, most of the eyewitnesses to the ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus would either be dead or would be senile.

Here is a Life Expectancy Table for the Roman Empire[3]:

Because the disciples were all men, I will use the data from the right-hand column in the above chart.  Note that most people died before they turned 10.  Infant mortality and childhood diseases killed off many infants and children, so that out of 100,000 births of males, only about 48,000 survived to the age of 10.  About 52% of people died before reaching that age. But if a man survived to the age of 25, his life expectancy at that point would be about 27 more years, so he could reasonably expect to live to be about 52 years old.  

Jesus was probably in his thirties when he was crucified, and his disciples were probably younger than Jesus, so his disciples were probably in their twenties when Jesus was crucified. Let's suppose that the disciples were around 25 years old when Jesus was crucified, and let's suppose that Jesus was crucified in 30 CE. In that case, the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (the Twelve disciples minus Judas Iscariot) would have been about 25 years old in 30 CE, and they could reasonably expect to survive another 27 more years, until about 57 CE.

The problem is that the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew were both written around 80-90 CE.  We would expect the eleven disciples to have all died sometime between 40 CE and 70 CE, based on their life expectancy when Jesus was crucified.

Furthermore, Christian apologists claim that most of the eleven disciples were killed as martyrs for their faith.  If that is the case, then the disciples of Jesus would have a significantly lower life expectancy than the average man in the Roman Empire.  It would thus be reasonable to infer that the eleven disciples would all have died by about 60 CE, two or three decades before the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew were composed.

The expectation that a 25 year-old disciple would survive to about age 52 is, of course, an average.  Some of the eleven disciples probably died in their twenties, some in their thirties, some in their forties, and so on.  So, it is not just the average life expectancy at age 25 that matters.  We also need to have some idea about the likely range and distribution of their deaths over the decades following Jesus' crucifixion.  The above Life Expectancy Table includes information about the likely distribution of deaths over the decades following Jesus' crucifixion.

Out of the 100,000 male births, an estimated 40,201 would have survived to age 25.  Let's make that cohort the baseline, so that 40,201 men constitute 100% of the cohort of which we are interested.  In the following chart, I have calculated the % of this cohort that survives to various ages, based on the above Life Expectancy chart:

This chart indicates that we would expect one or two of the eleven disciples to survive to age 70, and that one of the eleven disciples would survive to age 75, and that it is unlikely that any of them would survive to age 80.  

Furthermore, if most of the eleven disciples died as martyrs, then their life expectancy would be significantly lower than the average male. Thus, it would be unlikely for any of the eleven to survive until age 75, and it would be likely that all eleven would die before age 75, which would be about 80 CE.

Since the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew were written between 80 CE and 90 CE, it is unlikely that any of the eleven disciples were still alive at the time those two Gospels were composed.  Thus, it is not surprising that the primary source of information about specific events in the ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus used by the author of the Gospel of Luke was a book written by a non-eyewitness (the Gospel of Mark). 

CONCLUSION

Not only were the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew written by authors who were not eyewitnesses to the ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus, but it is unlikely that any of the eleven disciples of Jesus were still alive when those two Gospels were being composed.

END NOTES

1. For Gospel of Luke, see my post "The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 1: General Considerations"; specifically, read the section called: "2. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY AN EYEWITNESS".

For the Gospel of Matthew, here are comments by some leading NT scholars:

...the gospels as we have them were not written by eyewitnesses on the basis of first-hand knowledge of Jesus.

The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993 ) p.63. 

For more than two hundred years most New Testament experts have concluded that the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels] did not know the historical Jesus; moreover, they wrote decades after his death.

The Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels] were not eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and thought.

The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008), pp.xiii-xiv.

AUTHOR [of the Gospel of Matthew] DETECTABLE FROM CONTENTS: a Greek-speaker who knew Aramaic or Hebrew or both and was not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry, drew on Mark, and a collection of the sayings of the Lord (Q), as well as on other available traditions, oral or written. Probably a Jewish Christian.

An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1997), p.172. 

The bottom line is that very few scholars believe this Gospel was written or compiled by Matthew the disciple of Jesus. ...Most scholars think this Gospel uses Mark as a principle source. If its author had the advantage of actually having been an eyewitness to the events Mark reports, we would expect him to offer greater detail, filling in the blanks left by Mark's sketchy accounts. But this is not the case. The Gospel of Matthew adds very little of a historical nature to Mark's report of Jesus' ministry. What it does do is develop theologically the reports found in Mark in ways that would render them more meaningful to Christians of a later era. Thus, most scholars believe this Gospel reflects the concerns of second-generation Christianity, coming from a time when all of the original disciples were probably dead. 

Fortress Introduction to the Gospels by Mark Allan Powell (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), pp.71-72. 

Practically all critical scholars consider the evidence against apostolic authorship to be overwhelming: (1) The Gospel itself is anonymous.  Apostolic authorship is a claim made for the book, not a claim made by the book itself. ...(2) The use of Mark and Q as sources undercuts its claim to eyewitness testimony.  (3) The Greek language in which the Gospel was composed was the native language of the author and is of higher quality than the relatively unpolished Greek of Mark. Given the author's setting and background, he may have known enough Hebrew and Aramaic to work with texts, but there is no evidence that he was fluent in these languages.

"The Gospel of Matthew" by M. Eugene Boring in The New Interpreter's Bible, Vol. VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), pp.106-107.

2. For the Gospel of Luke, see my post, "The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 1: General Considerations"; specifically, read the section called: "3. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WAS WRITTEN ABOUT FIVE OR SIX DECADES AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION".

For the Gospel of Matthew, here are comments by some leading NT scholars:

Both Matthew and Luke, working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 period (most likely between 80 and 90) by combining and editing Mark, a collection of Jesus' sayings that scholars arbitrarily label Q, and special traditions peculiar to Matthew and Luke. 

 A Marginal Jew, Vol. I by John P. Meier (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), pp.43-44.

As already noted, both Gospels [Matthew and Luke] are usually dated in the period of 80-95... 

Christianity in the Making, Volume I by James D.G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), footnote #98 on page 160.

...the great majority of Matthean scholars place the work within the decade of 80-90 C.E.

Fortress Introduction to the Gospels by Mark Allan Powell (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), p.74.

All this makes AD 80-90 the most plausible dating [for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew]; but the arguments are not precise, and so at least a decade in either direction must be allowed.

 An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1997), p.217.

Thus it seems that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the period 80-100, for which 90 may serve as a good symbolic figure.

"The Gospel of Matthew" by M. Eugene Boring in The New Interpreter's Bible, Vol. VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.106. 

3. "Demography of the Roman Empire" in Wikipedia, viewed 12-03-25. Based on data in Frier, Bruce W. (2000). "Demography". In Bowman, Alan K.; Garnsey, Peter; Rathbone, Dominic (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History XI: The High Empire, A.D. 70–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 789, table 1. 

The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 1: General Considerations

SAYINGS OF JESUS VS. STORIES ABOUT JESUS

The Gospel of Luke has something significant to offer scholars who study the historical Jesus, at least in terms of the sayings, parables, and teachings of Jesus. The main reason for this is that whenever a saying, parable, or teaching of Jesus is found in both the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark, that saying, parable, or teaching probably came from an early source of the words and teachings of Jesus known as Q.[1] Without the Gospel of Luke, it would be very difficult to determine the content of this early source of the sayings, parables, and teachings of Jesus.

However, the stories about Jesus found in the Gospel of Luke might not provide historically reliable information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. For example, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable, then most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke are also historically unreliable, because most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke came from the Gospel of Mark.[2] 

On the other hand, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically reliable, then most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke would also be historically reliable, because most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke came from the Gospel of Mark.

CHANGES & ADDITIONS TO STORIES FROM THE GOSPEL OF MARK

However, the author of the Gospel of Luke did make some changes to the stories about Jesus that came from the Gospel of Mark, and did add some stories or events to what is found in the Gospel of Mark. The changes and additions by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark could either be historically reliable or not. If those changes and additions are historically unreliable, then in terms of stories about Jesus, the Gospel of Luke would have very little historical information to offer about Jesus beyond what we already find in the Gospel of Mark.

REASONS FOR THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

In this post (and future posts in this series), I am going to argue that the changes and additions to the stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark made by the author of the Gospel of Luke are dubious and historically unreliable. There are at least five reasons that support this conclusion:

REASON #1: There are several general considerations about the Gospel of Luke that suggest that its additions and changes to stories from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable. (I will present such general considerations later in this post.) 

REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about the birth, infancy, or childhood of Jesus, but the Gospel of Luke adds stories of eight such events, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of those stories in the Gospel of Luke. 

REASON #3: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his followers, but the Gospel of Luke adds stories about three different events involving alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of these additional stories in the Gospel of Luke.

 REASON #4: In Chapters 3 through 21, the Gospel of Luke adds twenty-four events that are not found in the Gospel of Mark, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of those accounts of additional events.

REASON #5: The various additions and changes that the author of the Gospel of Luke makes to the Passion Narrative (about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus) in the Gospel of Mark are consistently dubious and are thus historically unreliable.

The above five reasons are sufficient to show it is very probable that changes and additions made by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable, and thus in terms of stories about Jesus, the Gospel of Luke has very little historical information about Jesus to offer us beyond what we find in the Gospel of Mark.

REASON #1: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS INDICATING THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

The Gospel of Luke is an ancient work of history/biography.  Such works are usually unreliable for these reasons[3]:

• Author Bias and Agenda: Ancient historians, like modern ones, brought their own perspectives and goals to their writing. Some works served as political propaganda to glorify rulers (e.g., Velleius Paterculus in the Roman Empire) or defend a particular group.
• Time gap: Many accounts were written long after the events occurred, meaning they were based on memory or secondary sources rather than direct experience.
• Distance in Time and Geography: Accounts written long after or far from the events they describe are often less accurate than eyewitness records.
• Lack of Modern Historical Standards: Ancient writers did not use modern historical methodologies, such as fact-checking or seeking external verification, as standard practice. Their goal was often to write compelling literature, not just present a neutral record of facts.
• Copying and translation: Ancient texts were copied by hand, and errors, omissions, or deliberate changes could be introduced over time.
• Incorporation of Mythology or Folklore: Some ancient historical works blend factual events with mythological or metaphysical explanations, which historians cannot verify with their tools. 

There are at least seven general considerations about the Gospel of Luke that give us good reason to expect its additions and changes to stories from the Gospel of Mark to be historically unreliable:

GC1. The Gospel of Luke is Christian propaganda: it was written by a Christian believer to promote Christian beliefs about Jesus and God. 

 
GC2. The Gospel of Luke was not written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, or the burial of Jesus. 

 

GC3. The Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. 

 
GC4. There are significant cultural gaps between the author of the Gospel of Luke on the one hand, and Jesus and his disciples on the other hand. 

 

GC5. There are no details given in the Gospel of Luke about the specific sources that were used by the author as the basis for any of its stories about Jesus. 

 
GC6. Most of the specific historical events in the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark. 

 

GC7. The written sources used by the author of the Gospel of Luke were probably copies of copies, and our earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Luke is likely a copy of a copy of a copy.

Based on these general considerations, we may reasonably conclude that it is probable that the Gospel of Luke is historically unreliable when it makes changes or additions to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark.

GC1. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE IS CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA

The Gospel of Luke is Christian propaganda: it was written by a Christian believer to promote Christian beliefs about Jesus and God:

The unusual nature of the gospels…arises in part from the fact of their being written by people who were not neutral about the person they were describing and whose life they were purportedly reporting. The gospel writers were all “supporters” of Jesus; they were all Christians. Indeed, we have very little literature anywhere near contemporary with Jesus from someone who was either neutral or hostile towards Jesus. (“Jesus and the Gospels” by Christopher Tuckett in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII, p.72-73.)

Recognition of the essentially religious character of these works [the Gospels] raises questions for how they are best approached within an academic setting. On the one hand, such a setting demands that these books be studied like any other, with rigorous objectivity that does not exempt them from critical scrutiny. On the other hand, to ignore the religious dimension would represent a failure to engage them on their own terms. … An objective dispassionate reception is the last thing the Gospel writers would have wanted their books to receive. We are free to accept or reject, belittle or embrace, but whatever our response, we ought to understand what these books intend to do: they intend to convert us. (Fortress Introduction to The Gospels by Mark Allan Powell, p.9.) 

The authors of our canonical gospels were Evangelists. That means they were primarily focused on proclaiming Jesus. For them, he was the Son of God, the Good Shepherd, and, especially, the long-awaited Messiah. … They knew it was necessary to focus solely on Jesus and to proclaim Jesus’ relation to God and his place within God’s final plan of salvation. (The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth, p.xv.)

The Gospels are not primarily works of history in the modern sense of the word. They aim first of all at proclaiming and strengthening faith in Jesus as Son of God, Lord, and Messiah. Their presentation from start to finish is formed by their faith that the crucified Jesus was raised from the dead and will come in glory to judge the world. (John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, p.41.)

Because the Gospels in general, and the Gospel of Luke in particular, are instances of Christian propaganda, it is reasonable to anticipate that the authors of the Gospels are more interested in promoting Christian beliefs about Jesus and God than in providing accurate and reliable historical information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.

GC2. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY AN EYEWITNESS

The Gospel of Luke was not written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, crucifixion, or burial of Jesus:

[The author of the Gospel of Luke was] An educated Greek-speaker and skilled writer who knew the Jewish scriptures in Greek and who was not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. (An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown, p.226.)

Luke does not number himself among the eyewitnesses, however, but among those who came later and learned the tradition "handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (1:2-3).  (“The Gospel of Luke” by R. Alan Culpepper in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX, p.7.) 

...we may discern from the Gospel's preface (1:1-4) that the evangelist [the author of the Gospel of Luke] was not an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus but relied on accounts of others. (Fortress Introduction to The Gospels by Mark Allan Powell, p.97.) 

For more than two hundred years most New Testament experts have concluded that the Evangelists [i.e., the authors of the Gospels] did not know the historical Jesus; moreover, they wrote decades after his death.         The Evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and thought. … (The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth, p.xiii-xiv.)

...even though we might desperately want to know the identities of the authors of the earliest Gospels [i.e., Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John], we simply don't have sufficient evidence. The books were written anonymously and evidently not by eyewitnesses. (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman, pp. 44-45.)

 …the gospels as we have them were not written by eyewitnesses on the basis of first-hand knowledge of Jesus. (The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders, p.63.)

None of the four authors [of the Gospels] seems to have been an eyewitness of the events chronicled in the Gospels. They ... transmitted traditions which they had inherited from various churches. (The Passion by Geza Vermes, p.12.)

Because the author of the Gospel of Luke was not an eyewitness to the alleged events described in that Gospel, all of the information in the Gospel of Luke is hearsay. The Gospel of Luke is at best a secondhand account of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.

GC3. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WAS WRITTEN ABOUT FIVE OR SIX DECADES AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION

The Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus (80-90 C.E.):

DATE [when the Gospel of Luke was composed]: 85 give or take five to ten years. (An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown, p.226.)

Both Matthew and Luke, working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 period (most likely between 80 and 90) by combining and editing Mark, a collection of Jesus' sayings that scholars arbitrarily label Q, and special traditions peculiar to Matthew and Luke. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. I by John P. Meier, p.43-44.)

As already noted, both Gospels [Matthew and Luke] are usually dated in the period of 80-95... (Christianity in the Making, Volume I by James D.G. Dunn, footnote #98 on page 160.) 

Since the Gospel according to Mark is usually dated about the year 70, a date for Luke in the mid-eighties appears likely. ... A date for the composition of the Gospel [of Luke] in the mid-eighties is based, therefore, on Luke's use of Mark, the absence of references to Paul's letters in Acts, and the Lukan form of Jesus' predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. (“The Gospel of Luke” by R. Alan Culpepper, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX, p.8-9.)

Most scholars guess that both Luke and Acts were composed in the decade between 80 and 90, around the same time as Matthew's Gospel but, apparently, in a different sector. (Fortress Introduction to The Gospels by Mark Allan Powell, p.97.)

While certainty on the date of composition for Acts may not be achieved, the preceding considerations indicate that is is reasonable to place it sometime after Luke's Gospel, which may be dated ca. 80-85 C.E. ("Acts of the Apostles" by Christopher R. Matthews in Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, p.16.) 

The composition of Luke-Acts is usually dated around 80-90, though some experts now suggest perhaps between 90 and 110. (The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth, p.42.)

In any case, it is widely held that the Lucan gospel was composed ca. 80-85 CE, even though one cannot maintain this dating with certainty.  ("Luke, The Gospel According To" by Joseph A. Fitzmyer in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.472.)

Luke probably wrote his gospel around 80-85 CE, not far from the time Matthew produced his work. ("Luke" by Eric Franklin in The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.925.)

Mark is probably one Lukan source, so that the date [of the composition of the Gospel of Luke] is post-70, indicated also by 19:43 and 21:20. ...The irenic view of the Roman government and the author's failure to cite Paul's epistles, which had been collected by the early second century, indicate a first-century date, probably in the 80s. ("Luke" by David L. Balch in The Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, p.1104.)

But it may be possible to narrow the range between 70 and 140 if we assume that the differences between the picture of Paul in Acts and that in Pauls' Letters may be partially explained by the fact that the Letters were not available to Luke at the time he wrote [the Gospel of Luke and Acts].  It is likely that Paul's Letters were not collected, copied, and distributed before ca. 90.  If Luke wrote before this time, he probably would not have known about the Letters.  Thus , the outside chronological range would be ca. 70-90, and the dates 80-85 would probably be close to correct. ("Luke, the Gospel According to" by Joseph B. Tyson in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, revised edition, p.630.)

Many have reasonably argued that Luke's record of the fall of Jerusalem..., more detailed than that of Matthew and Mark, seems to accord with the known facts of the Roman siege, and therefore Luke must be dated after A.D. 70. ... Luke seems not to have known the collected letters of Paul, which perhaps were circulating as early as the end of the first Christian century. Hence, most scholars settle for a time between A.D. 80 and 90. ("Luke" by Fred B. Craddock in The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, revised edition, p.926.)

Because the Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, nearly all of the eyewitnesses to the arrest, trials, crucifixion, burial, and alleged appearances of the risen Jesus would have been dead or senile by the time this Gospel was composed.[4] Thus, there probably were no competent eyewitnesses available to review or correct the stories in this Gospel when it was being written and when the first copies of it began to circulate.

GC4. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL GAPS BETWEEN LUKE AND JESUS

The Gospel of Luke was written in Greek, but Jesus and his disciples probably spoke primarily Aramaic, and it is very probable that Jesus' public teachings were delivered in Aramaic.[5]  So, there is a significant language gap between the author of the Gospel of Luke and Jesus. This is on top of the previously mentioned significant time gap between the author of the Gospel of Luke and Jesus. 

Furthermore, Jesus and his disciples were probably not educated enough to write in any language[6], but the author of the Gospel of Luke was not only a skilled writer in Greek, but he was also familiar with Greco-Roman literature and philosophy.[7] Also, Luke is probably the only gentile author of a book (actually, 2 books) in the New Testament.[8] Finally, because Luke's knowledge of Palestine is imprecise, he probably lived and wrote somewhere outside of Palestine.[9]

There are thus a number of significant cultural and contextual gaps between the author of the Gospel of Luke and Jesus, as pointed out by Jesus scholar Paula Fredriksen:

In brief, where Jesus' teaching was oral and his setting Jewish, Aramaic, rural, and Palestinian, the evangelists' [i.e., the authors of the Gospels] is written, mixed (that is, Jewish and Gentile both), linguistically Greek, and probably within the matrix of the Diaspora city. Flung out over the gap between these distinctions, across time, space, culture, and ethnicity, are the human filaments of oral tradition.[10] 

These various cultural and contextual gaps between Luke and Jesus make it less likely that the Gospel of Luke accurately captured the life and teachings of Jesus. 

GC5. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE DOES NOT PROVIDE DETAILS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC SOURCES IT USED

Modern historical and biographical books usually provide evidence in support of their claims and stories. This is often done with footnotes or endnotes that specify particular documents, books, or interviews that were used as sources of information about the person or event under discussion. 

The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, has no footnotes and no endnotes, and it does not provide names or details about the specific sources used by the author as the basis of the stories it contains about the life, ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus. This is an indication of a lack of concern and a lack of effort by the author of the Gospel of Luke about objectivity, historical accuracy, and historical reliability.

The author of the Gospel of Luke does not tell us that most of his stories about events in the life of Jesus were borrowed from the Gospel of Mark.  But it is clear, for example, that the Passion story (about Jesus' arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial) in the Gospel of Luke is almost entirely taken from the Passion story in the Gospel of Mark.

However, there is no birth story about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, nor are there any stories about appearances of the risen Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.  So, where did the author of the Gospel of Luke get this information or these stories?  The author of the Gospel of Luke does not tell us who gave him information or stories about the birth of Jesus or what books or documents he consulted on this matter.  The author of the Gospel of Luke does not tell us who gave him information or stories about the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus or what books or documents the author consulted on this matter.  

Did some of the stories about Jesus' birth come directly from an alleged eyewitness to an alleged event?  If so, who was this person, and why should we believe that person's story? If the storyteller was not an alleged eyewitness, did the storyteller claim to have learned the information from an alleged eyewitness? The author of the Gospel of Luke fails to provide answers to any of these important questions. 

It is highly unlikely that the author of the Gospel of Luke spoke with an eyewitness to the birth or infancy of Jesus. This Gospel was probably composed in the 80s CE, and Jesus was probably born during the reign of King Herod the Great, which means Jesus was born no later than 4 BCE.[11] If Jesus' mother Mary was 16 years old when Jesus was born in 5 BCE, then she would have turned 100 years old in 80 CE. Mary would have been between 100 and 109 years old when the Gospel of Luke was being composed. It is very unlikely that Mary would have lived that long, and if she had, she would probably have been senile, and if she were still alive and her mind was still sharp at that age, her memories of events that took place nine decades in the past would have been very unreliable.

Did some of the stories about appearances of the risen Jesus come from an eyewitness to these alleged events? If so, who was this person, and why should we believe that person? If the storyteller who told the author of the Gospel of Luke about these events was not an alleged eyewitness, did the storyteller claim to have learned the information from an alleged eyewitness? The author of the Gospel of Luke does not say.

Jesus was probably in his thirties when he was crucified, and his disciples might well have been younger than Jesus, probably in their twenties. If the disciples were about 25 years old in the year 30 CE (about when Jesus was crucified), then they would have been about 75 years old in the year 80 CE and about 85 years old in the year 90 CE.  People living in Palestine two thousand years ago usually did not live to be that old.[4]  So, it is unlikely that Jesus' disciples were still alive when the author of the Gospel of Luke composed this Gospel. 

The author of the Gospel of Luke does not answer any of these important questions about his sources of information, so NT scholars have had to construct theories about what sources the author used in composing the Gospel of Luke.  

Because the Gospel of Luke was probably composed between five and six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, it is unlikely that the author of this Gospel learned about the life, ministry, or death of Jesus from an actual and competent eyewitness to the alleged events described in the Gospel of Luke.  

GC6. MOST HISTORICAL EVENTS IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE ARE FROM THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Most NT scholars believe that the author of the Gospel of Luke used three main sources: the Gospel of Mark, Q (an early collection of sayings and teachings of Jesus), and L (various traditions about Jesus that were maintained by the Christian community to which the author of Luke belonged).[12]

About 40% of the content of the Gospel of Luke comes from the Gospel of Mark, 42% (see the article on "Synoptic Gospels" in Wikipedia):  

However, a large portion of the Gospel of Luke contains sayings, parables, or teachings of Jesus, and our focus here is on stories about Jesus or descriptions of alleged events in Jesus' life. If we just focus on the specific events described in the Gospel of Luke, most of those events are based on the Gospel of Mark.  

In the Acts of Jesus by Robert Funk and The Jesus Seminar, the contents of the Gospels are analyzed in terms of specific events, and in the back of that book, there is a numbered list of the alleged specific events in the life of Jesus (on pages 558-564). In the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), the Jesus Seminar identified 142 specific events, and 106 of those events are found in the Gospel of Luke:

Of the 106 specific alleged events in the Gospel of Luke, 64 of those events were based on the Gospel of Mark.  So, about 60% of the specific alleged events in the Gospel of Luke are from the Gospel of Mark. If we set aside the Birth, Infancy, & Childhood events in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke and only consider the events in Chapters 3 through 24 of the Gospel of Luke, then 64 out of 98 events, or about 65% of the events in those chapters, are from the Gospel of Mark. 
Furthermore, if we focus on just the alleged events in the Passion Story of the Gospel of Luke (Chapters 22 and 23), about 95% (18 out of 19) of those events are based on the Gospel of Mark.

The author of the Gospel of Mark, however, was not an eyewitness to the life, ministry, death or burial of Jesus, so most of the stories in the Gospel of Luke about specific alleged events were, at best, stories from a non-eyewitness source.  

The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek, but Jesus and his disciples probably spoke Aramaic, especially when teaching or preaching to the general public.  Also, the Gospel of Mark was composed about four decades after the crucifixion of Jesus.  

The author of the Gospel of Mark was not an eyewitness of the events described in that Gospel, and, like Luke, there was a significant gap in time between Jesus and Mark, and there was a language gap between Jesus and Mark as well.

The fact that the main source of information used by the author of the Gospel of Luke about specific events in the life, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus was a non-eyewitness source (the Gospel of Mark) indicates that the author of the Gospel of Luke did not have direct access to an eyewitness source of information about specific events in the life, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus, which is what we would reasonably expect, given that the Gospel of Luke was composed five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus.

GC7. THE SOURCES BEHIND THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WERE COPIES OF COPIES, AND THE  EARLIEST MANUSCRIPT OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE IS A COPY OF A COPY OF A COPY

Because the Gospel of Luke was probably composed about two decades after the Gospel of Mark, the author of the Gospel of Luke probably used a handwritten copy, or a handwritten copy of a handwritten copy, of the Gospel of Mark.  And because the Gospel of Luke was probably composed three or four decades after Q, the author of the Gospel of Luke probably used a handwritten copy of a handwritten copy of Q.  The handcopying of these source documents probably introduced some changes/errors into those documents.

Furthermore, our earliest copy of the Gospel of Luke is Papyrus 75,[13] which has been dated from between the late second century and early fourth century.[14]  If P75 was made late in the second century, then it is probably a copy of a copy.  If P75 was made early in the fourth century, then it is probably a copy of a copy of a copy. Thus, our earliest copy of the Gospel of Luke probably contains changes/errors introduced by the process of being handcopied multiple times. 

CONCLUSION FROM GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The above general considerations cast significant doubt on the historical reliability of the changes and additions that the author of the Gospel of Luke made to stories about Jesus that were borrowed from the Gospel of Mark. Based on these general considerations, we may reasonably conclude that it is probable that the changes and additions in the Gospel of Luke to the stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable.

COMING UP

In the next post of this series, I will discuss a second reason for believing that the additions and changes made to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark by the author of the Gospel of Luke are historically unreliable:

REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no story about the birth of Jesus, but the Gospel of Luke adds a birth story about Jesus to the stories about Jesus found in the Gospel of Mark, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the birth story in the Gospel of Luke. 

END NOTES

1. Marcus Borg, "The Study of Jesus and Christian Origins" in Jesus at 2000 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), see pages 132-134. See also: John P. Meier, Chapter 1, in A Marginal Jew, Vol. I (referenced in End Note #3 below), especially pages 41-45, and the helpful essay "Jesus and the Gospels" by Christopher Tuckett in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), pages 71-86.

2. I will cover this point later in this post, in my discussion of general considerations that indicate the unreliability of the Gospel of Luke, specifically general consideration #6. 

3. These issues are from a Google AI Overview, returned from the input phrase: "unreliability of ancient historical works” - viewed 11-23-25.

4. See my blog post on "The Life Expectancy of the Eleven Disciples".

5. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), pp.266-267.

6. Very few people in Palestine during Jesus' lifetime could read and write:

...literacy in first-century Palestine (i.e., in the days of Jesus) was almost certainly lower than in the empire at large.  This has been shown in an influential article by Meir Bar-Ilan and in the full and authoritative study Literacy in Roman Palestine by Catherine Hezser.  Anyone who wants to engage in this topic needs to read this book.   Bar-Ilan and Hezser both argue that in the Roman period, probably only 3% of the population of Palestine was literate.  And again, those who were were primarily the rich and well-off folk living in the cities (Bart Ehrman, "Could Jesus Read?" on The Bart Ehrman Blog, viewed 12/2/25). 

Since Jesus and his disciples were not wealthy and were not from cities, it is very unlikely that Jesus or his disciples could both read and write.

7. Mark Allan Powell, Fortress Introduction to the Gospels (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), p.97.

8. R. Alan Culpepper, “The Gospel of Luke” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX, p.9.

9. Mark Allan Powell, Fortress Introduction to the Gospels (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), p.98. 

10. Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999), p.19. 

11. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), pp.375-377.

12. Mark Allan Powell, Fortress Introduction to the Gospels, pp.85-87, and Christopher M. Tuckett, "Jesus and the Gospels", in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII, pp.75-77.

13. R. Alan Culpepper, “The Gospel of Luke” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX, p.4.

14. "Papyrus 75" article in Wikipedia, viewed 12/2/25: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75