As the saying goes, “there's more than one way to skin a cat”.  In the field of apologetics, especially in this day and age, there is a wealth of information to sift through, and the avid reader of apologetic materials has to decide and discern which material to use at which time.  There really isn't a “one size fits all” method for fulfilling the mandate of 1 Peter 3:15, to give a reason for the hope we have as Christians.  Added to this, one of the best ways to self test in apologetic disciplines is by developing our own method or formula to fulfil our mandate.  The following acronym was sent to us by a dear brother living abroad in hopes of giving some encouragement and getting some feedback.  It serves as a perfect example of taking ownership of, and developing a personalized method for, defending the faith once for all time entrusted to the saints.

- Arron Bergeron

The Authenticity and Accuracy of the Gospels

“LACE” - Acronym for lacing together a defence of the Gospels

by Devon Rempel

L ack of theological elaboration

A pparently eye-witness accounts

C onsistency between all four

E mbarrassment factor

1. Lack of theological elaboration

Except for the beginning of John, the four Gospels lack the sort of theological elaboration which we would expect to find in a hoax.  The respective narrators in most cases don't explain or interpret the actions of Jesus, His death, or His Resurrection, bur rather state them merely as though they are events that simply happened.

2. Apparently eye-witness accounts¹

To the one who reads with an open mind, the Gospels appear to be eye-witness accounts, and not elaborately-fabricated documents designed to deceive.  Why doubt that they are what they appear to be, without good reason?

3. Consistency between all four Gospels

While there are small apparent discrepancies between them, the agreement on so many events the Gospels mutually contain is truly remarkable.  This speaks not only to the meticulous documentation of the writers, but also to their being divine documents.

4. Embarrassment factor

The Gospels contain embarrassing details which would not plausibly have been included, had the Gospels been contrived for the sake of deceiving by embellishing the actions of Jesus and the twelve.  Here are a few of those details:

(a) The utter failure of the disciples, on numerous counts (the many rebukes from Jesus, all forsake Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter's betrayal of Jesus, etc.). Unity within a group is very important, especially at an early stage, and especially if that group is in as hostile an environment as was the early church; it's therefore unlikely that such disunifying details would be included in a hoax.

(b) The offence to the Jews²: Christianity began in Jerusalem, including only Jews at its early stages.  Were the Gospel accounts hoaxes, we could expect to find nice and comfortable words to and about the Jews within them.  However, what we do find are sharp words of rebuke toward the Jews, which actually resulted in their killing Christ.  In documents contrived in order to deceive and proselytize Jews, among the last of things one would expect to find are words telling the Jews how wicked they are, and calling their leaders children of the Devil, which is exactly what we have recorded in the Gospel accounts.

(c)  James' initial distrust of Jesus' claims:  it is recorded that James, the half-brother of Jesus, at first did not believe in Him (John 7:5, “For neither did His [Jesus'] brethren believe in Him”). Since James was later to become a leader of the early church, that this was recorded in the Gospel of John counts as evidence of it's being authentic.  Admittance that an important leader in the church didn't at first have enough faith is indeed an embarrassing detail.

(d)  The testimony of the women: the Gospels faithfully record how women were the first to discover the empty tomb, and how Jesus first appeared unto these women (Matt. 28, Mk. 16, Lk. 24, Jn. 20).  Were the Gospels forgeries, it's seems that these details would have been omitted or altered, since such a low value was placed on the testimony of women at this point in time in Jewish culture.

1. It is important to note that while Luke himself was not an eye-witness, he claims to have used eye-witness sources for his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4).  Mark also received his information second-hand from an eye-witness, having been a disciple of the apostle Peter (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.).  For more on Mark, see John Feakes' "Is the Gospel of Mark Reliable History?" on this site.

2. Against those who would claim that the stern rebukes of Christ count as anti-Semitism and thus indicate a later date for the Gospels, I would argue that Christ's rebukes to the Jews should not be interpreted as being anti-Semitic.  In Matt. 15:24, Christ declares that He was sent unto “...the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, and in Jn. 4:22 states that “...salvation is of the Jews.”  Christ loved (and loves) his people Israel, and grieved over their unrepentant heart, desiring that they would return to Him (Matt. 23:37, Lk. 13:34).