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:

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

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

 

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

 
4. 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. 

 

5. 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. 

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

 

7. 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.

1. 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.

2. 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 [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, p.xiii-xiv.)

…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.)

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.

3. 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.)

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.)

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.

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

5. 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.[10] If Jesus' mother Mary was 16 years old when Jesus was born in 4 BCE, then she would have turned 100 years old in 81 CE. Mary would have been between 99 and 108 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 20 to 25 years old in the year 30 CE (about when Jesus was crucified), then they would have been 70 to 75 years old in the year 80 CE and 80 to 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.  

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

Most NT scholars believe that the author 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).[11]

About 40% of the content of the Gospel of Luke comes from the Gospel of Mark, 42% according to the article on "Synoptic Gospels" in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels): 

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.

7. 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,[12] which has been dated from between the late second century and early fourth century.[13]  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. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), pp.375-377.

11. 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.

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

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

My Divide-and-Conquer Strategy: QUALIFIED Skeptical Claims

WHERE WE ARE

I have just finished my case for the historical unreliability of the 4th Gospel, showing this skeptical claim to be true:

1. It is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

This is part of a larger case for the historical unreliability of the Gospels in general. 

THREE MORE STRONG SKEPTICAL CLAIMS 

I could continue to knock the Gospels down one at a time, arguing for these three further skeptical conclusions:

2. It is very probable that the Gospel of Luke provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

3. It is very probable that the Gospel of Matthew provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

4. It is very probable that the Gospel of Mark provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

Establishing these additional skeptical conclusions would destroy any chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

THREE QUALIFIED SKEPTICAL CLAIMS

However, that is not how I plan to proceed.  It is not necessary to establish the strong skeptical claims (2), (3), and (4) in order to destroy any chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.  Thus, it is OVERKILL to attempt to prove those three additional skeptical claims about the Gospels.

Instead, one can show that there is no chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus by establishing the following qualified skeptical claims about the Gospels:

2A. It is very probable that the events and details in the narratives in the Gospel of Luke that the Gospel of Luke adds to, or modifies, from the narratives in the Gospel of Mark, are historically unreliable.

3A. It is very probable that the events and details in the narratives in the Gospel of Matthew that the Gospel of Matthew adds to, or modifies, from the narratives in the Gospel of Mark, are historically unreliable.

4A. It is very probable that the events and details in the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable.

Establishing the skeptical claims (2A) and (3A) would eliminate the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as potential sources for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, and this would leave the Gospel of Mark as the only potential Gospel source for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus. 

It is not necessary to show that the representations of the teachings of Jesus presented in the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Matthew are historically unreliable, because it is the stories or narratives about events in those Gospels that are needed for building a case for the resurrection of Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew get most of their narrative material from the Gospel of Mark, we can reduce the scope of skepticism about those two Gospels by focusing exclusively on events and details that the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Matthew add to, or modify, from the Gospel of Mark.  In other words, we can separate out the issue of the historical reliability of the narrative events and details in the Gospel of Mark from the issue of the historical reliability of the narrative events and details that are unique to the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Matthew.

Once it has been established that the Gospel of Mark is the only potential Gospel source for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, establishing claim (4A) would be GAME OVER for Christian apologetic cases for the resurrection! This would be sufficient to eliminate any chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

It is not necessary to show that the events and details in narratives throughout the entire Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable. Skeptics only need to show that the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable, because that would be the only remaining Gospel source for most of the key historical claims needed to build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, given that the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of Matthew have been eliminated as potential sources for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 14: Summary and INDEX

WHERE WE ARE

In this series of posts, I have shown these claims to be true:

• It is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.
• It is very probable that the content of Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable.
• It is very probable that the content of Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable.
• It is very probable that the content of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable.

This means that historical claims based on passages from the Gospel of John cannot be used as part of a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

In their cases for the resurrection of Jesus, Christian apologists make a number of historical claims or assumptions that are based on passages from the Gospel of John, mostly passages from Chapter 18, Chapter 19, and Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John.

Since all, or nearly all, cases made by Christian apologists for the resurrection of Jesus make use of a number of historical claims or assumptions that are based on passages from the Gospel of John (mostly from Chapters 18, 19, and 20), all, or nearly all, cases for the resurrection of Jesus are defective, because a number of the historical claims or assumptions in those cases are historically dubious.

PHASE I: IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE

In Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this series, I argued that we have good reasons to believe that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. The main problem is that the characterization of Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the Gospel of John conflicts with the characterization of Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the Gospel of Mark, as well as the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.

The historical problems described in Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this series are sufficient to make it probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus.

PHASE II: IT IS VERY PROBABLE THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE

In Part 5, I argued that the following three alleged discourses by Jesus in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable:

• The Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:35–58)
• The Good Shepherd Discourse (John 10:1–18)
• The True Vine Discourse (John 15:1-17)

In Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9, I argued that the following five one-on-one dialogues between Jesus and some individual in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable:

• Dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3:1-21)
• Dialogue between Jesus and a Samaritan Woman (John 4:1-42)
• Dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (John 18:28-19:16)
• Dialogue between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18)
• Dialogue between Jesus and Thomas (John 20:24-29)

Since the historical problems described in Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 are sufficient to make it probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus, and since there are also significant historical problems in the Gospel of John with three alleged discourses of Jesus and with five alleged one-on-one dialogues between Jesus and some individuals, problems that make it probable that those alleged teachings or conversations of Jesus are either fictional or historically unreliable, we now have good reason to conclude that it is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus. Thus, passages from the 4th Gospel cannot be used as a part of a strong case for the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

PHASE III: KEY CHAPTERS OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN ARE HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE

In Part 11, I argue that there are several significant historical problems in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John, and that because we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable in general, the specific historical problems with Chapter 18 show that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 18 is historically unreliable.  

In Part 12, I argue that there are several significant historical problems in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, and that because we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable in general, and that because we have previously determined that it is very probable that Chapter 18 is historically unreliable, the specific historical problems with Chapter 19 show that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 19 is historically unreliable.  

In Part 13, I argue that there are several significant historical problems in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John, and that because we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable in general, and because we have previously determined that it is very probable that Chapter 18 is historically unreliable, and because we have previously determined that it is very probable that Chapter 19 is historically unreliable, the specific historical problems with Chapter 20 show that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 20 is historically unreliable. 

Because all, or nearly all, cases for the resurrection of Jesus contain a number of historical claims or assumptions that are based on passages from the Gospel of John, and because  most of the historical claims or assumptions in cases for the resurrection of Jesus that are based on passages from the Gospel of John are based on passages from Chapter 18, Chapter 19, and/or Chapter 20 of that Gospel, all, or nearly all, cases for the resurrection of Jesus are defective, because they make a number of historical claims or assumptions that are historically dubious.

ONE FINAL PROBLEM WITH CASES FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

In Part 10, I present a dilemma about the cases presented by Christian apologists for the resurrection of Jesus.  If my previous argument for the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John is correct, then some key historical claims or assumptions in cases for the resurrection of Jesus are cast into serious doubt.  However, if, for the sake of argument, we assume that the Gospel of John is historically reliable, then that also casts serious doubt on some key historical claims or assumptions in cases for the resurrection of Jesus.  Either way, there are some key historical claims or assumptions in cases for the resurrection of Jesus that are historically dubious.