Well, there's a problem already. Jesus didn't write down anything, and the sources we do possess are
A) second-hand interpretations of primary sources (if we are VERY generous and assume that the synoptics adapt a direct eyewitness account), and
B) contradict each other.
Was the historical Jesus the cautious preacher of the synoptics, swearing people he had healed to secrecy and avoiding Jerusalem throughout his ministry up to his final days?
Or was he the Paulinist god-man from the gospel of John, who frequented Jerusalem all the time and basically not only proclaimed his messiah-status from the rooftops, but also claimed to be God Incarnate?
I'm pretty confident that at least *some* of what we find in the synoptics is based on people's memories of a real, historical person. But what exactly qualifies as historical and what is the kind of mythmaking and embellishment that *always* takes place after venerated founders pass away is hard to determine.
Consider:
"I bought some 2x4s, and was going to build a platform, but it rained.
Martha said, you know, don't assemble the floor wet if you want the paint to stick in the gaps between the boards."
Ok, does it matter to you when Martha said what she is being reported to have said? Was it before I bought the 2x4s? After?
I did write that 2nd....
If Ralph says instead a noticeably differing account -- that he saw me talking to Martha
last week, thus
before this rainy day (not during)....is that a "contradiction"?
From the writing style of the Gospel of John, from the first chapter even, we already have a feeling this is not about a chronological order, if we are paying attention to the style of writing.
It's a relational style of writing, presenting what matters to something else together in sequence. A sequence of meaning primarily, instead of primarily a chronological event sequence.
But let's consider the most interesting question -- what about when details differ between accounts?
Experiment: In a large college psychology class, someone runs on stage from a side door and grabs the professor's laptop off the table and runs away with it out the side door.
The professor immediately tells the class to all write down a description of what happened, and the appearance and clothing, etc., of the thief.
Do you already know what happens?
The accounts from the eye witnesses
differ.
If they are real accounts, they do not agree on everything.
So, when several accounts broadly report mostly the same thing, but each has some differences in details -- is that a cause to doubt the accounts?
It's a routine reality that if you have several people witness something, and later give an account of it, they will each have unique details, and some overlap, in their accounts. They will often have differing details that don't seem to agree. Some will even report entirely contradicting details, such as blond hair vs dark hair, etc.
If the accounts were just some consensus version everyone is agreeing to say, they would all align perfectly on details.
But, not real accounts.
It's the
overlap -- what various eye witness accounts mostly agree on -- that's when I know I'm hearing a fact, not a misperception. If you are as skeptical as me, then you could simply use the intersection set -- what they all agree on.
But then there is the overlap, and what it says -- does it make sense in some powerful way that is meaningful.
You tell me:
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
Does that mean anything significant to you?
It took a lot of reading in history for me to eventually come back to this famous saying and suddenly realize how important it is for any possibility of lasting peace.
An deterrence by superior force (as today), or an armistice (as often happens), is only a pause between potential new war waiting somewhere in the future.
But lasting peace is very different -- it's based on forgiving even though the other side, other nation, other group, other person hasn't fully earned forgiveness, but is only willing to try for peace, without being perfect in our eyes...