Month: August 2020

This chapter opens with the thrilling tales of how an FBI agent can profile people based on evidence from a crime scene. Strobel then asks if we can do profiling of who Jesus was based on what we have about him. Given that, by this point, Strobel has already bought wholeheartedly into the idea that the gospels are historically accurate, is there really any need to write this chapter?

Strobel interviews Dr. Ben Witherington in this chapter. Dr. Witherington mentions mentions that “[Dr. Witherington:] …there were already a host of expectations about what the messiah would look like…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 146) when talking about the difficulty of the Jewish people at the time to accept that Jesus is the Messiah. This is because Jesus does not meet the criteria^[1] of being the Jewish messiah. Christians will claim that the Jews are being pedantic and ignoring what Jesus said, but the Jews can point to the written works in the bible (rather, their holy books, but bible is close enough for most people) that describe what the messiah will be like.

Exploring the Earliest Traditions

This section does nothing to add to or strengthen the case Strobel is trying to make. Strobel claims that Dr. Witherington has gone back to “[Strobel:] …the most primitive material, unquestionably safe from legendary development…” (Strobel, CFC, p. 146). As we’ve seen from the gospels, legendary development can happen quickly. Especially if the writers are intending this to be the foundation for a new religion.

Rather than telling us what documents Strobel refers to so we can cross reference their reliability ourselves, all that Dr. Witherington brings up in this is some references in the gospels. Dr. Witherington points to how Jesus is continually depicted as being in positions of godhood throughout the gospels. As shown in the problems with chapters 2 and 3, the gospels are, at best, unreliable when it comes to the narrative about Jesus. At best, we can get the impression that the gospel writers considered Jesus to be very important.

By the Finger of god

Dr. Witherington draws again from the gospels here to prove his points. Just reread the last paragraph of the section above for my reply. We still haven’t been referred to any new material.

John’s Portrait of Jesus

Interestingly, Dr. Witherington tells us that he believes “[Dr. Witherington] When you’re dealing with the gospel of John, you’re dealing with a somewhat interpreted picture of Jesus…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 151). While Dr. Witherington gives no reasons to indicate why this is so, this means he has to have some doubts about the accuracy of John. Why, then, would he not have similar reservations about other gospels? Because they agree on most points more? Because Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source to draw from whereas John drew on the other 3?

I and the Father are one

Strobel cites the book “Reasonable Faith” by Williman Lane Craig for justification that Christology started up soon after Jesus is held to have died. A quick read of the book reveals that the book is making the same claim that anyone who reads the gospels would: That Jesus claimed to be god and the messiah. There’s no doubt that the gospels, written several decades after Jesus’s death, would have the same claims as the mythology at the time. Pointing to the gospels and claiming that it’s obvious that Jesus viewed himself as god only tells us what the writers of the gospels believed Jesus was and what they believed he said.

Dr. Witherington wonders towards the end of the section “[Dr. Witherington:] Why is there no other first century Jew who has millions of followers today?” (Strobel, CFC, P. 154). He concludes the only explanation is “[Dr. Witherington:] It’s because this Jesus – the historical Jesus – is also the living Lord.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 154). There are alternate theories that would provide an explanation far better.

First, one could theorize that religions tend to propagate through societies in a manner similar to a virus. Read through this brief essay^[2] if you’re curious about this position. If we take this position to be a good enough explanation, then it appears that Christianity has created some very strong controls over the people who believe in it. While these controls were still in their initial development when they religion began, they were suitably strong enough to motivate early believers in Christianity to stick to their guns… er…. spears?… when pressed to recant their beliefs. These controls were refined throughout the centuries to the point where they are incredibly effective methods to control large swaths of the population.

Alternatively, we could look at decisions that changed how Christians reacted to the events around them. The bible taught that the savior of the world suffered and died terribly, and many Christians themselves took this to mean that they should persevere through persecution. This gave the early Christians, and many today, a persecution complex where they believe being persecuted is a sign that their beliefs are right (hint: It’s not).

Because of this, the early persecution of the Christians had the opposite effect intended. In 313BCE, the roman emperors signed the Edict of Milan^[3], making religious tolerance the default stance of the roman empire. Because the Christians were no longer being persecuted as heavily, this was viewed as a massive victory, and many started to convert to Christianity due to the extreme evangelizing efforts to recruit more followers. This continual recruitment effort despite persecution has brought us to where we are today.

In the Very Place of god

This chapter tries to put together a narrative that people claim Jesus never believed he was divine. This chapter then uses the gospels, which were written to prove Jesus’s divine status to the world, to make the case that Jesus believed he was. At no point does Strobel give any questions or counterexamples that could prompt further discussion. Overall, this chapter seemed to be pretty forced into the book.

Citations

1. https://jewsforjudaism.ca/why-jesus-is-not-the-jewish-messiah/
2. http://www.bidstrup.com/virus.htm
3. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan

In this chapter, Strobel is seeking for rebuttal evidence for the Jesus Seminar and interviews Dr. Gregory Boyd. In other words, Strobel is seeking for evidence that agrees with his views and the views of those who agree with him by interviewing one of the most outspoken critics of the Jesus Seminar. Let’s hope he watches out for confirmation bias.

Amusingly, Strobel notes that “[Strobel:] The Jesus Seminar paints itself as being on an unbiased quest for truth, as compared with religiously committed people…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 125) as though to paint the seminar in a negative light. As someone who values an honest attempt to find the truth in an unbiased manner, I don’t believe Strobel’s work shows an unbiased quest compared to those who are not religiously committed.

Writings From the Radical Fringe

Dr. Boyd scoffs at the idea of the 7 pillars of scholarly wisdom, as though anyone who would consider following them is just wrong. He states “[Boyd:] …a lot of scholars, from a wide spectrum of backgrounds, would have serious reservations about one or even most of these pillars.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 124). This presumes that his viewpoint is right while everyone else is wrong.

While I personally disagree with one of the pillars (number 5) because I’ve not seen evidence for it yet (I might just need to do more research), they seem very well thought out to me. Strobel never asks what these 7 pillars are. Because they’re not in the book, let’s examine these things that Boyd scoffs. Below is a copy of them as they were on Wikipedia on 2020-06-26.

1. Distinguishing between the historical Jesus and the stories that the gospels tell about him. Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768) started the historical Jesus project and David Friedrich Strauss established it as part of biblical criticism with his book Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1835).
2. Distinguishing between the Synoptics and John. Since the 1800s, Bible scholars have distinguished between the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels ( Mark, Matthew, and Luke) and the Jesus in John, generally favoring the synoptics as more historical and seeing John as more spiritual.
3. Identifying Mark as the first gospel. By 1900, critical scholars had largely concluded that Mark came before Matthew and Luke and served as a source for each.
4. Identifying the hypothetical Q document. By 1900, scholars had hypothesized this lost collection of Jesus’ sayings, thought to be the source of material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.
5. Questioning eschatological (apocalyptic) Jesus. In 1906, Albert Schweitzer portrayed Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet, and this analysis virtually put an end to historical inquiry into Jesus. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, critical historians returned to the topic of historical Jesus. Some of these scholars identified the apocalyptic imagery in the gospels as originating with John the Baptist, and not authentic to Jesus.
6. Distinguishing between oral and print cultures. Since Jesus lived and preached in an oral culture, scholars expect that short, memorable stories or phrases are more likely to be historical.
7. Reversing the burden of proof. In his day, Strauss had to offer evidence to question the historicity of any part of the gospels because his audience assumed that the gospels were historical. Today, the assumption is nearly the opposite, with the gospels understood to be so thoroughly embellished that one needs evidence to suppose that anything in them is historical.

Overall, these are very reasonable things to hold to if you are going to try make any claim about a historical Jesus.

Discovering the “Real” Jesus

Dr. Boyd critiques the Jesus Seminar as finding exactly “[Boyd:] what they set out to find…. …there’s a lot of diversity.”(Strobel, CFC, P. 124-125). Amusingly, we could make the exact same claims about this book and the gospels. Let’s look at what the gospels show us.

Mark saw a miracle worker, a man who was divine who healed the sick, raised the dead, and then died (if we ignore later Christian interpolations). Matthew saw a guy who fulfilled Jewish prophecy after Jewish prophecy, no matter how much he had to twist the old testament to show it. Luke saw a man who performed miracle after miracle, filling up pages of all the miracles Jesus did. And John saw the literal manifestation of god on earth, here to save everyone.

Given that we know the gospel writers had different views of Jesus, we could pose a similar question to Dr. Boyd’s statement. Did the gospel writers also find exactly what they set out to find? If so, doesn’t that cast doubt on their reliability? I’ve already gone over that, though, so check the problems with chapters 2 and 3.

Giving Evidence a Fair Hearing

Dr. Boyd does not agree with the Jesus Seminar, stating “[Dr. Boyd:] Their major assumption… …is that the gospels are not even generally reliable” (Strobel, CFC, P. 125). Unfortunately, Strobel does not press Dr. Boyd to furnish evidence that the gospels are reliable in the events that they recount. Research does show the gospels to be highly modified throughout history to suit church doctrine¹ and, even still, contradictory on that doctrine² just to name a few problems. Without Dr. Boyd furnishing evidence for the gospel’s historical reliability, we have no reason to believe the gospels are reliable.

Dr. Boyd further complains about the naturalistic assumptions Jesus Seminar saying “[Boyd:] …the gospels include things that seem historically unlikely, like miracles… … These things, they say, don’t just happen.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 125). We find out shortly after that Dr. Boyd is not a fan of Naturalism when he states “[Dr. Boyd:] …what I can’t grant is the tremendous presumption that we know enough about the universe to say that God – if there is a God-can never break into our world in a supernatural way…”(Strobel, CFC, P. 126). In other words, Dr. Boyd wants to take the assumption that god is real and believes that we will find evidence of that.

Unfortunately for Dr. Boyd, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, he has provided no evidence for his claims that the new testament is reliable. Naturalists have provided plenty of evidence for their unreliability which is precisely why the 7th pillar of scholarly wisdom from above is so important. There are many reasons to doubt the claims made in the gospels, and they need supporting evidence if they are to be believed.

When asked how Dr. Boyd would proceed, he states “I would grant that you shouldn’t appeal to the supernatural until you have to.”(Strobel, CFC, P. 126). Coming from Dr. Boyd, the man who appears to think we should start with a supernatural explanation for Jesus and then then look at history, this is a startling statement. Starting with a supernatural explanation for Jesus and immediately applying that to any history is starting with an appeal to the supernatural before it is needed.

Why, then, does he believe the new testament to be reliable? Arguing that Jesus is supernatural is a tremendous assumption. Why shouldn’t we believe that a naturalistic Jesus is the best explanation until we receive definite evidence for a supernatural one? Strobel does not question Dr. Boyd on this, nor does Dr. Boyd provide any evidence for a supernatural Jesus.

Critiquing the Criteria

Dr. Boyd starts by critiquing the assumption that “[Dr. Boyd:] …the latter church put these sayings into the mouth of Jesus, unless they have good evidence to believe otherwise” (Strobel, CFC, P. 127). Unfortunately for Dr. Boyd, the “latter church” has both a motivation for, and a history of, doing just that. This is precisely why we should argue for double dissimilarity instead of believing that the gospel tales “[Dr. Boyd:] …should be considered credible, even if it can’t be confirmed by other sources.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 127).

As an example of why we can’t take the gospel’s reliability as fact, the tale of Jesus and the women taken in adultery is not found in the earliest texts of John³. This was probably added in later to enhance the narrative of forgiveness throughout John. This is but a single example, but many others do exist. Therefore, two questions that should be asked are:

• How do we separate what Jesus said from later interpolations?
• If Dr. Boyd disagrees with a need for “good evidence” to determine what Jesus said, then what do we use to determine what Jesus said?

Despite Strobel never raising these with Dr. Boyd, but it’s very likely that Dr. Boyd would skip answering. If he accepts the answer to the first to be “find sources as close to the time of Jesus as possible”, then he is arguing for good evidence because the church has modified the gospels over time. If he says he bases his views of Jesus as shown in the gospels, then he must furnish proof that the gospels are historically accurate, that is to say, he has good evidence for the gospels as they are today. Either way, we require good evidence to accept the gospels at all.

Another odd turn of phrase used by Dr. Boyd is “[Dr. Boyd:] Historians usually operate with the burden of proof on the historian to prove falsity or unreliability since people are generally not compulsive liars. Without that assumption, we would know very little about ancient history.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 127). This seems to imply that Dr. Boyd believes we should proceed forward by assuming what Jesus said is true because people “[Dr. Boyd:] …are generally not compulsive liars.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 127). In other words, he wants to treat the gospels like historical records. Again, the gospels are not historical records. Rather then repeat my arguments against this yet again, refer back to the problems with chapters 2, and 3.

Strobel finishes this section stating how the Jesus seminars used “[Strobel:] …loaded criteria, like weighted dice, inevitably bring the results that were desired from the beginning.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 128). This accusation of loaded criteria is hilarious in this context. It’s apparent that rather than accepting the most likely conclusion, that the gospels are full of myth and legend, Strobel has created his own loaded criteria by accepting Jesus is as the gospels say he is, and then looking at history with that assumption in mind.

Jesus the Wonder Worker

Dr. Boyd wows Strobel with examples of how Jesus is greater than any other miracle worker. “[Dr. Boyd:] …the sheer centrality of the supernatural in the life of Jesus has
no parallel whatsoever in Jewish history…. …the radical nature of his miracles distinguishes him…. ….Jesus’ biggest distinctive is how he did miracles on his own authority…”(Strobel, CFC, P. 128-129).

This statement is utterly meaningless and actually contradicts the narrative Strobel has been trying to deliver since chapter 2. The strong supernatural presence, radical nature of his miracles, and having his own authority to perform miracles sounds very familiar. Is this what Dr. Blomberg claims doesn’t exist when he said “[Dr. Blomberg: ]You don’t find the outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing that you see in a lot of other ancient writings…” (CFC P. 43)?

Rather than go over the other problems in this yet again, check out the problems with chapters 2, and 3. Dr. Boyd and Strobel are, once again, presupposing that the gospels are historically accurate.

Jesus and the Amazing Apollonius

Strobel states “[Strobel:] I wasn’t going to let Boyd’s debating skills intimidate me.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 129). It’s clear that he is not intimidated, rather, Strobel is playing along by this point. He feeds Dr. Boyd a leading question about Apollonius, someone who has some parallels to Jesus. Dr. Boyd claims that “[Dr. Boyd:] …if you do the historical work calmly and objectively, you find that the alleged parallels just don’t stand up.”(Strobel, CFC, P. 129).

As proof of this, Dr. Boyd states about Apollonius “[Dr. Boyd:] Philostratus, was writing a century and a half after Apollonius lived… …The closer the proximity to the event, the less chance there is for legendary development… …With Apollonius we’re dealing with one source…. …On top of that, Philostratus was commissioned by an empress to write a biography in order to dedicate a temple to Apollonius” (Strobel, CFC, P. 129-130).

Dr. Boyd’s first point can be countered with the gospels themselves. The gospels have blatant mythologizing in them, which makes it apparent that even being in close temporal proximity to the event does not guarantee we won’t get legendary development.

Dr. Boyd’s second point is strange when he claims that we shouldn’t argue against a source merely because it’s the only source. In a sense, the bible gospels are all based off the same source of mark. Doesn’t that mean we should discount them as well? What makes the bible so special that we should accept single source information in a gospel, such as Herod’s infanticide, as fact?

Finally, he seems unable to think of any other motivations that could cause someone to mythologize someone. While financial motivations are reasonable, there are many others. To name just two, the writer(s) could want to spread a religion and write some propaganda for it, or the writers could be recording things based off of second hand tales believing them to be fact.

In comparing Appolonius to the gospels, Dr. Boyd says “[Dr. Boyd:] we have four gospels, corroborated with Paul, that can be cross-checked to some degree with non-biblical authors, like Josephus and others.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 130). Sadly, most of the non-biblical authors had their works modified by Christian scholars later on to push a pro-Christian view into works that never had them. As mentioned problems with the Case for Christ chapters 3 and 4, the references to extra-biblical works to Christ should be discounted.

Dr. Boyd further states “[Dr. Boyd:] …the gospels pass the standard tests used to assess historical reliability…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 130). I would like to know what tests Dr. Boyd is using here because my research, and apparently the research of the Jesus Seminar, shows the gospels to be lacking in historical reliability and riddled with myths and legends inserted at later dates.

In another comparison to Appolonius and the gospels, Dr. Boyd states “[Dr. Boyd] …the writers of the gospel had nothing to gain-and much to lose-by writing Jesus’ story, and they didn’t have ulterior motives such as financial gain.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 130). The former statement, as I’ve covered before, does not lend any credence to the gospels as a reliable source. Just because they had much to lose doesn’t mean they had nothing to gain, and people can be honestly mistaken about something they believe. Dr. Boyd’s latter statement is false given the blatant mythologizing the gospel writers did in creating a document for their new religion.

In a final comparison to the gospels, Dr. Boyd states “[Dr. Boyd:] The gospels have a very confident eyewitness perspective, as if they had a camera there.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 130). To me, given the structure and narrative of the gospels, this sounds like something that should raise a bigger red flag over the historical reliability of the gospels. Writing in an authoritative voice about miracles and magic would only serve the gospel writer’s agenda of driving recruits to their new religion. If you are creating a mythology, of course you can project yourself as an authority.

Despite no one making the claim that Jesus was adapted from Appolonius, Dr. Boyd feels it necessary to ensure us that “[Dr Boyd:] …any borrowing would have been done by him, not by Christians.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 130). This seems pretty obvious when one considers that tales of Christianity predate Appolonius by a few centuries. Whether or not they were borrowed would still need some supporting evidence though.

Jesus and the “Mystery Religions”

Dr. Boyd tries to argue that any parallels between Christianity and other religions should be “[Dr. Boyd:] …from the direction of Christianity to the Mystery Religions…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 131). This makes the terrible assumption that Christianity, which came to be in the mid to late first century, is the influence for religions that came before it. He then goes on to cite a few specifics such as differences between baptism and the Mithra cult’s parallel to communion. This is problematic because not only is the ritual so different, it completely misses the actual originator of baptism: Judaism and the Essene cult.

Dr. Boyd also claims that parallels such as gods dying and rising agricultural societies are not truly parallels because “[Dr. Boyd:] Christianity has nothing to do with life cycles or the harvest. It has to do with a very Jewish belief… …about the resurrection of the dead and about life eternal and reconciliation with god.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 131). The point that Dr. Boyd misses is that gods, such as those dealing with agriculture, have the common theme of gods dying and coming back to life. Comparing Christianity to the gods who came before it has nothing to do with what those gods were used to represent. The way Dr. Boyd compares this is like getting into a debate about whether toasters and ovens heat things up and saying “a toaster is nothing like an oven because ovens don’t have anything to do with making toast”. It completely misses the point.

Unfortunately, Strobel does not press Dr. Boyd on themes rather than specifics. Many of the Mystery Religions have themes that are running through them that Judaism, and by proxy Christianity, may or may not have borrowed. While complaining that Christianity has nothing to do with life cycles or the harvest is very good, it is hard to deny that the central theme of the gods in those religions, death and rebirth, is seen prominently in Christianity. The story of Jesus’s death and resurrection, which is a primary example of these sorts of stories that are seen as mythical, should be seen as another of these stories.

Some themes from the epic of Gilgamesh and Zoroastrianism, which both predate Christianity, could be used as examples. For example

• (Zoroastrian): A Good god with an adversary⁴
• (Epic of Gilgamesh): A great flood⁵
• (Zoroastrian): Extreme punishments for “unnatural intercourse”⁶
• (Zoroastrian): Heaven and Hell⁷
• (Zoroastrian): Apocalyptic end times⁷
• (Zoroastrian): Virgin birth of a savior⁷

There are more, but they can be found with a quick search. I would be willing to bet that there is little in Christianity that can’t be traced back to earlier religions.

Secret Gospels and Talking Crosses

Strobel asks Dr. Boyd about the “Cross gospel”, which Dr. Boyd shoots down “[Dr. Boyd:] …because it includes such outlandishly legendary material.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 133). This “outlandishly legendary material” does not sound much more outlandish than other claims made in what Dr. Boyd refers to as “…the much more sober gospels.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 133). Specific instances that Dr. Boyd references as “Outlandishly legendary” are

• Jesus comes out of his tomb and he’s huge (Strobel, CFC, P. 133)
• The cross comes out of the tomb and actually talks (Strobel, CFC, P. 133)

These two scenes sound no more outlandish to me than

• Virgin impregnation by god
• Miracles being worked
• Voices from the sky proclaiming Jesus to be the son of god
• Jesus dying and coming back to life
• Jesus being in the desert for 40 days without food or water
• Jesus being able to see the entire world by being brought high up by the devil

It seems quite clear that the “sober” gospels have plenty in them that are “outlandishly legendary”. If the cross gospel was codified in the gospel many years ago, I believe Dr. Boyd would be just as convinced by it as he is the other gospels.

History Versus Faith

Dr. Boyd argues that “[Dr. Boyd:] …Jesus is not a symbol of anything unless he is rooted in history” (Strobel, CFC, P. 135). To try back up his claims that the Jesus people believe in is historical, he cites the Nicene creed, saying “[Dr. Boyd:] The Nicene Creed doesn’t say, ‘We wish these things were true’.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 135).

Unfortunately for Dr. Boyd, the Nicene Creed is even less of an argument for Jesus of the bible existing historically than the gospel of Thomas that he so quickly dismissed. The Nicene creed wasn’t written until 325⁸, was later amended in 381, and it starts with the statement “We believe” rather than “We know”. The Nicene creed does not show that Jesus as shown in the bible existed anymore than the book The Case for Christ does.

Dr. Boyd cites Paul as saying “[Dr. Boyd:] …if Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, our faith is futile, it’s useless, it’s empty” (Strobel, CFC, P. 135). Dr. Boyd does not furnish any additional proof that this claim is so. Instead, he simply states “[Dr. Boyd:] I want reality, and the Christian faith has always been rooted in reality” (Strobel, CFC, P. 135). These statements show some hypocrisy. He appears to want reality only if it conforms to the gospels, and he’s done a great job of forcing the gospels to conform to his views of history.

Combining History and Faith

Dr. Boyd claims “[Dr. Boyd:] I believe in Jesus on the basis of the historical evidence…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 136). If Dr. Boyd has any actual historical evidence to base this assertion on, it would be prudent of him to furnish such evidence now. As it is, the only evidence we will ever see from Dr. Boyd is the gospels. There are good reasons to doubt the myths in the gospels. Dr. Boyd is making the circular argument of “I believe in Jesus because the gospels tell me these things. I can trust these things because the gospels are reliable. The gospels told me they are reliable, therefore things these are true!” This is not good reasoning.

Dr. Boyd states that “[Dr. Boyd:] There’s no competition” (Strobel, CFC, P. 136) for attributing the “evidence” of what Jesus did to any other person. There are many other explanations, especially if one starts with the idea that any mythic claims in the gospels need proof to be believed. Given that that gospels lack proof for the mythic claims it contains, it seems far more likely that the reason there is “no competition” is because the tales told are greatly exaggerated or the person it tells the tale about did not exist.

The overall narrative that Dr. Boyd in this section comes down to “Believe in what you love because you love to believe in it”. That is a perfect combination to give confirmation bias in everything you see when it is tied to history and the gospels. Love of a belief without evidence for that belief is a fools errand, and Dr. Boyd has shown that he has large amounts of love towards his belief in the gospels.

Presumably, Strobel assumes the reader has been wowed over by how “accurate” the gospels have been shown to be. Because of this, any attempts to reconcile the gospels with any historical accuracy seem to have been dropped. I would like to think that presume any thinking reader would recognize the problems pointed out since chapters 2 and 3 have not yet been resolved, but that may not be the case.

A Chorus of Criticism

Strobel ends the chapter with a couple “feel good” phrases and continues throwing doubt on the Jesus Seminar by citing more people who disagree with the outcome. Because so much of this chapter is aimed at attacking the Jesus seminar, let’s look at what the Jesus Seminar truly was and add some criticism of my own about the Case for Christ.

The Jesus seminar was made up of about 50 bible scholars and 100 laymen that was founded in 1985.⁹ It rigorously attempted to find evidence for an accurate picture of a historical Jesus and used the seven pillars to keep them from starting with a biased picture of the past. Rather than being the view of a “radical fringe” group, it’s a well establish group that used scholarly methods to research the past.

Throughout the entire chapter, Dr. Boyd lays ad hominem attacks and criticism on the group, calling them “left-wing” and “liberal”. Many of the views expressed by the group, however, are not very liberal in the grand scheme of things. What about others who argue very persuasively and with much supporting evidence that a historical Jesus never existed? Why were their claims never covered? Wouldn’t that be further out into the “radical fringe” that Strobel was trying to depict the Jesus Seminar as being? It seems likely to me that Strobel highlighted a single group that dared to make their views public, and attempted to use this book as a means to try slander their methodology…. and that Dr. Boyd was all to willing to join in.

Citations

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20200626185200/https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation
2. https://web.archive.org/web/20200626185355/https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions#Faith_vs._works
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history
4. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Theological_Aspects_of_Avesta
5. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Gilgamesh,_Epic_of
6. http://www.avesta.org/mp/saddar.html#chapter9
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Eschatology:_Renovation_and_judgment
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

This chapter opens with the narrative of a conviction that had to rely on science and hard evidence to sentence a killer to death. Strobel wants us to believe that he is going to follow a hard scientific method to determine if there truly is a case for Christ. In this case, he’s going to rely on the scientific discipline of archaeology.

This chapter is an interview with Dr. John McRay. Like the others, Strobel spends a large amount of time ensuring we are awed with credentials and books that have been written. An important fact mentioned by Dr. McRay, which Strobel should have paid attention to, is “[Dr. McRay:] Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 102). Strobel appears to ignore that sentiment throughout this chapter and the rest of the book though, so why did he leave it in the book?

Digging for the Truth

Strobel spends an inordinate amount of time explaining why having facts line up is important in order to sell us on the idea that archaeology may provide some evidence here. While Dr. McRay is certain the “[Dr. McRay:] …credibility of the New Testament is enhanced” (Strobel, CFC, P. 104) due to archaeological evidence, he does not provide any examples just yet.

Luke’s Accuracy as a Historian

I just want to mention here that, based on the arguments presented in Chapter 1 and 2, it’s very likely that Luke did not author the gospel of Luke OR the book of Acts. Check the problems with chapters 1 and 2 to see why. Rather, someone published works anonymously claiming to be Luke. Strobel has already begun to parrot Luke’s authorship as a fact.

Strobel leads Dr. McRay with a few easy questions to get things started. The sorts of things that Dr. McRay mentions here are mostly trivialities such as roman titles of officials. One piece that bears examining is Dr. McRay trying to resolve a contradiction between Mark and Luke where Mark claims Jesus was leaving Jerico while Luke claims Jesus entered Jericho.

Putting aside the fact that this contradiction is very minor, Dr. McRay says”[Dr. McRay:] The city was destroyed and resettled… …The point is, you can be coming out of one site where Jericho existed and be going into another one” (Strobel, CFC, P. 105-106). While this could be an explanation, it does not explain why, without warning, one gospel would refer to what I’ll call the “contemporary” site while another would refer to an older one.

The Reliability of Mark and John

Strobel makes the claim that some incidental archaeological evidence “[Strobel:] …challenges the allegation that the gospel of John was written so long after Jesus that it can’t possibly be accurate” (Strobel, CFC, P. 107). This appears to be based on the fallacious belief that early writing must be free from legendary development.

Evidence points to the gospel of John being written sometime around 90-110CE. In terms of geography and archaeology, not much would have changed in the 60-80 years since Jesus is held to have died. Just because we find archaeological evidence that some buildings mentioned in the text do exist does not prove that the writer was accurate on other matters. It could simply be that these buildings were commonly known at the time and the writer drew on his own knowledge of these locations when writing or went to visit them.

Even if we grant the new testament the benefit of the doubt for all archaeological and geographical statements in it, it still does not bolster any supernatural claims. Just because someone goes to great lengths to keep their geography straight does not mean they can be relied upon for other claims. For example, I know several locations in my hometown well and can reliably tell my friends and family about these locations. If I tell my friends that I developed magic powers overnight and these parts in town have huge spiritual significance, should my friends believe me? The answer is clearly no. My past track record of keeping facts about locations straight should not lead my friends to believe me for sudden supernatural claims.

Strobel repeats the dating of a scrap from the gospel of John here. See the problems with chapter 3 for the discussion on that.

Examine minor issue from mark

Puzzle 1: The Census

Strobel brings up the questions of “[Strobel] How could the government possibly force all of it’s citizens to return to their birthplace?” (Strobel, CFC, P. 108). The document cited by Dr. McRay says “…it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are living outside their provinces to return to their own homes.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 108). This does not provide any evidence for returning to the homes of your ancestors. To paraphrase the quote, it merely makes the statement that “If you’re not at home, please go home. It’s time for a census”.

Additionally, returning to your “ancestral home” would present great problems. How does one define their ancestral home? How far back would one go? If, as according to Genesis, Abram is the father of the Jews, shouldn’t the Jews go to the ancestral lands of Canaan, which were given to Abram? Or how about to the lands where Noah first landed his fairy tale ark? Or all the way back to wherever Adam and Eve first stepped out of the magic garden?

The story of the census has other problems with it as well. To get the story happening as according to Luke, you would have to

• Go to the ancestral home as shown in Luke
  • In order to fulfill a misinterpreted prophecy from Micah
  • Done by torturing poor genealogies and creating an artificial need to travel to the location some guy supposedly lived thousands of years prior.
• Shut down the economy for weeks to months to have thousands of people travelling the roads causing delays as people inevitably deal with other people
• Coordinate with everyone to have a census taker in different towns for months to ensure everyone is counted
• Get a Census that is in no way accurate to how many people live in which city
• Throw out the results and take a census a second time to figure out who lives in what city.

Dr. McRay references Jerry Vardman in an attempt to reconcile problems with Herod dying in 4BCE while Quirnius wasn’t governor until 6CE. “[McRay:] He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call ‘micrographic’ letters. This Places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 109). There are, however, problems with Jerry Vardman’s work.

First and foremost, Jerry did not submit his work to the scientific community for peer review, which leaves cross examination of his claims mostly uncontested. Because he did not submit his findings, nor bring forth any evidence for his findings, it seems more likely that his religious convictions as a Baptist influenced him to find results that are not there.

Some “micrographic letters” that Jerry “found” on the coin show the name “Jesus” very prominently. Unfortunately, the letter “J” was not added into the Greek or Latin alphabet until 1524 by an Italian man named Gian Giorgio Trissino who wanted to reform the Italian alphabet^[1] (Trissino, Ɛpistola del Trissino de le lettere nuωvamente aggiunte ne la lingua Italiana, 1524).

Jerry was known to have regarded the scriptures as infallible, and the well known problem of Herod’s death and Quirnius’s governorship must not have sat well with him. In addition, he has shown himself to act in an unscholarly and deceptive manner that involved criminal behaviour to try push through an expedition that could have jeopardized relationships with Israel and Jordan^[2].

In conclusion on the census problem, the fact that Luke states the census happened during Herod’s reign (up to 4BCE) but while Quirnius was the governer (6BCE) is still a problem. Strobel ends this section without offering additional challenges to to Dr. McRay.

Puzzle 2: The existence of Nazareth

Strobel seems to be building a narrative that tells us that we can trust the gospels as being historically accurate because they had accurate geography. That is roughly the same as saying the Iliad is a historically accurate document because it mentions cities that used to exist or that Spider Man is accurate because New York exists.

Whether or not Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus is not particularly important. If it didn’t, it would merely be one more piece of evidence that the gospel writers were not as accurate as biblical scholars would like us to believe. Strobel accepts the word of Dr. McRay without question to show us that Nazareth exists as stated in the bible. That said, here are some opposing reasons, mostly from the new testament, to suspect Nazareth as depicted in the new testament is more fiction more than fact.

• Matthew, Luke, and John all refer to Nazareth as a city
• According to John, the city of Nazareth is well known (John 1:45-46)
• It’s well known enough that Matthew invents a prophecy about it (Matthew 2:22-23)
• Matthew 2:23 claims people from there are called “Nazarenes”
  • This is based on a misunderstanding of the word Nazarite.
  • “Prophecy Fulfillment Matthew” misunderstood a “prophecy” from Judges 13:5
• Archaeologists (such as Jerry Vardman) with a pro-Christian bent have not only interpreted findings in accordance with their beliefs, but have also planted evidence to “prove” their beliefs.
• Christian historians have a history of adding to the bible and older written works.

Based on the points above, concluding that “[McRay:] Nazareth as being a very small place” (Strobel, CFC, P. 112) is wrong. Clearly, Nazareth was supposed to have been a large city that was known well enough that people from the city were identified by a particular name.

Puzzle 3: Slaughter at Bethlehem

To start off, the gospel of Matthew is the only gospel to mention this slaughter. If this slaughter was such a big deal, you would expect to see mention of it in the other gospels as well, Luke in particular. Also, Matthew states that the slaughter was far more widespread than just Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16) as Strobel claims (Strobel, CFC, P. 113). Something of that magnitude would have attracted the eye of scholars including Josephus.

Drawing the conclusion that this event happened requires the apriori assumption that the gospels are accurate. Without trying to map a foregone conclusion onto history, the lack of references anywhere draws it’s own conclusion of this event never having happened.

Amusingly enough, Dr. McRay claims that there is no reference to this event because it wasn’t very important. He tries to support that view saying “[Dr. McRay:] Bethlehem was probably no bigger than Nazareth” (Strobel, CFC, P. 114). This comes a section after Dr. McRay argues that we should expect to see nothing Nazareth precisely because it was so small. If Nazareth was so small that we should expect to find nothing in the historical record of it, and Bethlehem was “no bigger”, then why would we expect to find anything related to Bethlehem in the historical record?

Finally, Strobel does not mention the fact that similar stories of slaughtering babies to stave off a prophecy exist in other religions as well. For example, the story of Krishna from Hindu mythology starts off with a baby massacre as well. In fact, examining the account of Krishna’s birth shows additional similarities as well.

• Both scare a king because he thinks the baby will remove him from power
• Once born, both kings start a massacre of babies in the land
• A messenger appears telling someone to flee with the baby
• Everyone rejoices at the birth
• People bring gifts to the baby

We see one additional piece common to religious fiction in Krishna’s story as well, the prison doors opening up for the person leaving. That sounds very similar to Paul’s miraculous escape from prison.

Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The only argument made in this section is that the dead sea scrolls show that scribes didn’t copy things accurately throughout the ages. Something that was missing from modern texts for the book of Isiah was found in the dead sea scrolls. Because Jesus references it in the gospels, Strobel and Dr. McRay draw the conclusion that archaeology has “[Strobel:] …finally unlock[ed] the significance of a statement in which Jesus boldly asserted nearly two thousand years ago…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 116).

Unfortunately for Strobel, this section does nothing to do with build the case for christ or lend any credibility to him. Just because the gospels mention something that we had missing from texts today does not mean there is any special significance that should be added to finding out that the reference did exist.

A far more likely explanation is that the writer of the gospel of “Prophecy Fulfillment” Matthew knew the scriptures to a certain degree. When he wrote his gospel, the copies of Isiah available to him still had that phrase in it. It is not unreasonable to think that Matthew read Isiah, found the reference, and inserted it to lend credibility to his story. Some time later, a scribe accidentally omitted a small phrase from Isiah, and that phrase was found in the dead sea scrolls because the scribes who wrote them did not make the error.

A Remarkably Accurate Source Book

Strobel sets up another straw man and compares the bible to the book or mormon as a book that has no archaeological evidence for it. This is problematic because the accepted authors of the gospels DID live closer to the events that they write about. They lived in the area that they wrote about, and they even traveled through the areas they wrote about. Of course the bible would have some archaeological evidence for it.

It would be far more surprising for the book or mormon to be shown as accurate. The book of mormon was written by a farm lad in the 1800’s who was separated by thousands of years and miles from the place it purports to document.

Citations

1. Trissino, Gian Giorgio, Ɛpistola del Trissino de le lettere nuωvamente aggiunte ne la lingua Italiana, 1524
   Read about Gian on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gian_Giorgio_Trissino
   
2. Wright, Ernest G, Letter to Dean William E. Hull about Jerry Vardman, 1972
   View online: https://web.archive.org/web/20200626145822/http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2013/08/25/vardaman-6/

This chapter opens with a brief narrative about the importance of corroborating evidence when it comes to trials. If you have good corroborating evidence for the story someone is giving, the likelihood they are veracious is higher. Clearly, Strobel wants us to think we will be presented extra-biblical evidence of Jesus’s existence and teachings.

The rest of the chapter is an interview with Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi. As always, Strobel spends an inordinate amount of time describing Dr. Yamauchi.

Strobel attempts to sell the narrative here through a lack of fact checking, not challenging viewpoints that are shaky, and presenting the narrative with an obvious agenda in mind. Again, this book is clearly not an objective attempt to make a Case for Christ. To be frank, I’m really starting to dislike this book, and by extension, Strobel. I’ll do my best to keep ad hominem attacks out of the critique though.

Affirming the Gospels

Interestingly, for a chapter dedicated to extra-biblical sources, Strobel has Dr. Yamauchi reaffirm that the new-testament is the best source material we have. If that’s the case, I’m surprised the chapter doesn’t just end at this point. Dr. Yamauchi mentions evidence for Jesus in the writing of Tacitus and Josephus (Strobel, CFC, P.82). There are reasons to doubt that each source is a positive affirmation for Jesus and more an affirmation that Christians were present in Rome at the time period or Christians adding to texts after the fact.

Tacitus mentions very briefly in the Annals that there is a group of people “…called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus”(Tacitus, Annals, 116AD). Check the quote #3 in the quotes section below to read the full quote.

Given that the writings of Tacitus are even further removed, and that Tacitus was born many years after the accepted date of Jesus’s death, it’s possible that he was drawing upon his own knowledge of Christianity. It’s also entirely possible that later Christians added to his writings.

In the works of Josephus, we get a short bit of narrative that is known to have been altered by later Christian scholars to provide a pro-Christian point of view. Given how the passage breaks the narrative and the way it is phrased, it appears to be an interpolation based off the gospel of Luke. Additionally, the lack of ancient sources citing this passage is notable in it’s silence, and the structure and details of the passage is far removed from Josephus’s writing on other would-be messiahs. Check the citations for a full quote of the section (quote #1) and a link to the chapter in question.

Testimony by a Traitor

The passage cited by Dr. Yamauchi is likely authentic. Unfortunately, probably by design, the entire passage is not included in the book. View the Citations (quote 2) for the full passage and a link to the quote. Strobel ask Dr. Yamauchi for any answers for the following questions based off the full passage.

• Why does Josephus provide such a large amount of background to what Christ means? This appears to have been written for non-Judean readers (aka: gentiles).
• Why are the Jews angered over the stoning of a Christian, who were viewed as heathens?
• The end of the passage clearly states that the Jesus referred to is Jesus of Damneus, who was made a high priest. Why does Dr. Yamauchi believe this refers to Jesus from the gospels?
• Given the points above, doesn’t it seem more likely that references to Christ are later Christian interpolations?

All references to Jesus as Christ appear to have been interpolated into the text by later Christians. There is evidence of this from manuscripts of Josephus dating to the 16th century. Within these manuscripts, there is no mention of Jesus (Drews, McCabe, The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, P. 9).

There Lived Jesus

The quote from book 13 (Quote 1 in the Quotes section) can be seen in it’s entirely along with a link the the chapter it appears in. As stated earlier, there are more problems with this quote than simple interpolations which lead to the conclusion that most of it, if not all of it, is an interpolation.

• Scholarly consensus is that the section is an interpolation
• The paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter which is talking about Pilate
• Lack of ancient writers citing this passage
• The structure of the passage
• Lack of details about this person
• Similarity to the bible (Seems like the Gospel of Luke is the inspiration)
• The term “Christ” only appears here and in the passage about Ananus

Strobel does not bring up any of these points with Dr. Yamauchi. Instead, he moves on to the next section with Dr. Yamauchi’s conclusion being uncontested

The Importance of Josephus

As shown in “The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus”, it remains very unlikely that any references to Jesus in Josephus predate the 16th century manuscripts. As further shown, the quotes used in The Case for Christ do not give the complete context for them. Drawing the conclusion that the significance of these quotes in the works of Josephus are “[Dr. Yamauchi:] Highly significant” (Strobel, CFC, P. 87) is highly misleading.

Dismissing claims that some scholars portray Jesus as a zealot because “[Dr. Yamauchi:] That is a position the gospels themselves do not support” (Strobel, CFC, P. 87) requires proof that the gospels themselves are historically accurate. As shown in previous chapters, we have great reason to suspect the gospels to have been based on second hand recollections, if not having been written about an entirely fabricated character or mashup of various people who were named Jesus. The name Jesus (Actually Yeshua) was not that uncommon for the time.

A Most Mischievous Superstition

Dr. Yamauchi brings up the Annals of Tacitus next, mentioning the passage I went over earlier. While many of Tacitus’s works are are fairly accurate, there is evidence against some of the things mentioned in this section. I’ll explore some of those a little further here.

Josephus, who was visiting Rome in 64CE, has no mention of Nero blaming the Christians for a fire. This omissions is significant due to Josephus chronicling Nero in addition to other historical figures. In fact, Josephus goes out of his way to mention that many things about Nero were blatant fantasies in book 20, chapter 8, section 3 of his Antiquities. The section, along with a link to the chapter, is in the quotes below.

Early Christian writers of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter show that early Christians were unaware of any persecution by Nero in retaliation for the fire. There is some mention of potential persecution due to Paul claiming that his people would “overthrow all nations”, but the sources conflict in what actually happened.

Furthermore, the word used here is “Christus” rather than a secular name such as “Jesus of Nazareth”. While a Christian scribe would have no issue with placing “Christ” in the text, a non-Christian Pagan historian would have been far more likely to use the secular name, especially because “Christus” would mean nothing to a pagan gentile.

A large list of additional issues with this particular passage can be found in the book “The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence” starting on page 40. A list of several of these follows. A link to the book for online viewing is provided in the Citations.

• It is not quoted by christian Fathers
• It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the 15th century
• This story, in nearly the same words but omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the 5th century
• At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium

Chanting “as if to a god”

Dr. Yamauchi references Book 10b, letter 96 of Pliny the Younger as evidence that many Christians were not easily swayed in their beliefs. Had Strobel given more of the letter, however, it becomes clear that many who were claiming to be Christian were recanting their position and returning to Judiasm (Pliny the Younger, Book 10b, Letter 96). As always, check the citations for a link to the letter.

Whether or not someone is willing to die for a belief is no indicator whether or not that belief is true. It is very easy to be honestly deceived and believe things that are false so strongly that you are willing to go through torture or be killed for it. It’s also possible that recanting the position could also lead to the same consequence, and if so, why recant? If we are to take strength of belief and willingness to die for those beliefs as a justification for “rightness”, then there are a large class of beliefs we must consider as possibly true. To name just a few as an example, the beliefs deluded people who believe they are Jesus, Islam, and Jehovah’s Witnesses would have to be given just as much truth consideration as the beliefs of Christianity.

The Day the Earth Went Dark

Dr. Yamauchi references a historian named Thallus who lived in 100CE for evidence on an eclipse during the crucifixion of Jesus. Unfortunately, to get this conclusion requires some jumps from corrupted numerals in an Armenian text (Carrier, Thallus and the Darkness at Christ’s Death). Unsurprisingly, Strobel leaves out the corruption in text and the fact that when Thallus wrote is held to be very hotly debated. Christian scholars, with obvious bias, tend to place the date to a time convenient to themselves rather than when makes sense based on the text.

A Portrait of Pilate

Putting aside the fact that no evidence for the supposed “Release of a prisoner at Passover” exists, this chapter once again presupposes the veracity of the bible. A far more likely explanation is that the story as told in the bible is an outright fabrication. If Pilate was truly viewed as “[Strobel:] …being obstinate and inflexible…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 91, then it seems just as likely that his attitude caused him to slowly lose political support.

The tale as told in the bible would have led directly to Pilates’ head being examined after an expedient separation from his body for releasing a prisoner who was an enemy of Rome. Being “[Dr. Yamauchi:] …reluctant to offend the Jews at that time…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 91) makes no sense either. Rather than gaining support, his wavering demeanor would have shown him to be weak and vulnerable to political enemies. Pilate would have had strong motivations to simply execute Jesus without fuss because to do otherwise was suicide, both politically and literally.

Other Jewish Accounts

Strobel and Dr. Yamauchi agree about the Talmud that, “[Strobel:] In a negative way, these Jewish references do corroborate some things about Jesus.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 92). The fact that the Talmud, compiled around 200CE, mentions “[Dr. Yamauchi:] Jesus, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic and who was justly condemned to death…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 92) corroborates nothing.

The Talmud was written many years after Jesus is believed to have lived, and is most likely referring to the Jewish view of Jesus was based on what they know of Christianity. The fact that it refers to Jesus as a magic user who was put to death is how the Jews viewed the Christian personification of Jesus, not that Jesus actually existed or truly had any powers. The fact that it repeats a rumor about how Jesus was born sounds mostly like an attempt to explain Christain claims of virgin birth, which makes sense. Rather than taking this as proof of Jesus existing, the Talmud could be taken as proof of Jewish leaders giving an explanation for how they viewed the Christian claims of Jesus.

Evidence Apart From the Bible

Strobel reviews how impressive he finds the extra-biblical evidence for Jesus and Dr. Yamauchi outlines seven points below (Strobel, CFC, P. 93).

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher
2. Many people believed he [Jesus] performed healing and exorcisms
3. Some people believed he [Jesus] was the messiah
4. He [Jesus] was rejected by the Jewish leaders
5. He [Jesus] was crucified under Pontius Pilate
6. Despite this shameful death, his [Jesus’s] followers… …spread beyond Palestine
7. All kinds of people from the cities and countryside… …worshiped him[Jesus] as god

In other words, even if we were to accept the extra biblical information as true, and there is good reason to suspect most if not all of it comes from Christian interpolations, we would only know the most basic facts about the early cult of Jesus. Given that Christian interpolations in the bible exist as well, it would be interesting to analyze how much of this truly would be apparent from extra-biblical sources.

Corroborating the Early Details

Strobel claims that Paul “[Strobel:] …encounter[ed] the resurrected Christ and later consulted with some of the eyewitnesses to make sure he was preaching the same message they were…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 94). He also claims that Paul’s letters refute any “[Strobel: ] …claim that they had been seriously distorted by legendary development.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 94)

Given what we know, Paul’s personal worship of Jesus brought about more changes in the early church than the early church brought about in Paul. For example, Paul was an outspoken advocate that Christianity should be brought to those outside of the Christian/Jewish community, a stance the church still holds today. Rather the claiming that Paul corroborated with others to ensure that he was preaching the same as they were, it seems more likely that he began preaching what he believed on the assumption it was true.

Additionally, claiming that Pauls works disprove any legendary development is to ignore how Paul viewed Jesus. It could be argued that Paul was part of the push to enhance the legendary development, status, and mythologizing into godhood. Paul is often referring to Jesus as “The son of god” and being in “the image of god”. Paul never even met Jesus. Everything he wrote is based on a vision that he had one day. Paul should not be considered a reliable source.

Truly Raised From the Dead

Citing Ignatius as believing that Jesus was both Divine and Human almost a century after the fact provides us with no evidence and proves nothing. The fact that someone who is in the church could hold beliefs about Jesus that show him to be special is hardly shocking. The way Dr. Yamauchi explains it, it sounds like Ignatius was swayed by the gospels to believe what he did rather than any additional evidence. If that’s the case, then the propaganda that is the gospels accomplished their intended purpose.

If, as Dr. Yamauchi claims, evidence apart from the bible is powerful enough that it could cause someone to write what Ignatius did, then Ignatius is a terrible example. If we were to “[Dr. Yamauchi:] …pretend we didn’t have any of the new testament or other Christian writings…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 93), we would not be left with a “[Dr. Yamauchi:] …picture of Jesus that’s extremely compelling…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 93). Instead, we’d be left with rumors of a cult that probably would have dropped out of existence because it had nothing to create a solid unique identity out of.

Strobel ends the section by asking how research has affected Dr. Yamauchi’s faith. Unsurprisingly with the narrative Strobel is telling, Dr. Yamauchi has seen great strengthening of his faith. Dr. Yamauchi mentions something I’d like to touch on when he talks about it though.

Dr. Yamauchi says “[Dr. Yamauchi:] This doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize that there are some issues that still remain; within this lifetime we will not have full knowledge. But these issues don’t even begin to undermine my faith…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 96). These are the words of someone who would not be convinced of anything other than Christianity, even if evidence of Christianity being a total fabrication were to come to light. Stating that you’re putting your faith in something that you are convinced has many issues only underscores how willfully you will bend any information to fit that narrative. This is not a good academic stance to take on any subject.

Truth That Sets us Free

The chapter ends with Strobel basking in the satisfaction of his personal quest so far, clearly attempting to evoke similar feelings within the reader. He pulls in some sources about early Christianity and the divinity of Jesus to try prove that “[Habermas:] The best explanation for these creeds is that they properly represent Jesus’ own teachings…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 97). Because I’d like to bring them up, there are a couple other methods that could account for these creeds being there are

• Paul made them a thing based on his visions
  • Paul believed fully in Jesus as god
• The ideas originated from a cult based around Mithras
  • Or any other religion that has gods walking around in human form

Strobel also does not acknowledge the fact that the divinity of Jesus was contested heavily at the time. So heavily, in fact, that it led to the creation of several different sects (and fights among popes) later down the line.

Citations

Books Cited

Drews, Arthur; McCabe, Joseph; The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, 1912.
View Online: https://archive.org/details/witnessestohisto00drewiala/page/8/mode/2up

Remsburg, John E., The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence, 1909
View online: https://archive.org/details/christcriticalre00rems/page/40/mode/2up

Pliny the Younger, book 10b, Letter 96.
View online: https://web.archive.org/web/20200625153235/http://www.attalus.org/old/pliny10b.html#96

Carrier, Richard, Thallus and the Darkness at Christ’s death
View online: https://web.archive.org/web/20190325135719/http://www.jgrchj.net/volume8/JGRChJ8-8_Carrier.pdf

Full Quotes

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Josephus, Antiquities, book 13, chapter 3, section 3
The interpolated Christian reference often cited as proof of Jesus. Not accepted as authentic by modern scholars. Believed to be a Christian interpolation based off of the gospel of Luke.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3

…Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he [Ananus, the Jewish high priest] assembled the [S]anhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, him called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1.
The “Jamesian” reference cited as proof for Jesus in “Testimony by a Traitor”
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XX#Chapter_9

But I omit any further discourse about these affairs; for there have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero; some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favor, as having received benefits from him; while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bare him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies, that they justly deserve to be condemned. Nor do I wonder at such as have told lies of Nero, since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history as to those facts that were earlier than his time, even when the actors could have no way incurred their hatred, since those writers lived a long time after them. But as to those that have no regard to truth, they may write as they please; for in that they take delight: but as to ourselves, who have made truth our direct aim, we shall briefly touch upon what only belongs remotely to this undertaking, but shall relate what hath happened to us Jews with great accuracy, and shall not grudge our pains in giving an account both of the calamities we have suffered, and of the crimes we have been guilty of. I will now therefore return to the relation of our own affairs.

Josephus, Antiquities, book 20, Chapter 8, Section 3
Mentioning that many have told lies about Nero
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XX#Chapter_8

Chapter 3: The Documentary Evidence

The chapter opens with an account of Strobel’s time as a journalist looking though documents to find stories for a news agency. It then walks through questions that must be taken to ensure that the documents found are truly authentic. Clearly, Strobel is wanting us to believe that he will take as much care verifying the authenticity of biblical documents as he would verifying the authenticity of documents for a news story.

Chapter 3 is an interview with Dr. Bruce Metzger. Strobel spends a lot of time showing why he believes Dr. Metzger is a reliable authority.

Strobel continues to provide leading questions to the person he’s interviewing. He also interjects quotes from additional sources to provide additional evidence for his points. He also spends a lot of exclamation marks on phrases intended to lead the reader to a Christian viewpoint, and many of his section headings would bias the reader towards his views as well. If the you still thought that Strobel was trying to be an objective writer, you will probably ave trouble maintaining that view from here on out.

Throughout this chapter, Strobel conflates the idea that accurately transcribed documents are the same as historically accurate documents. Accurately transcribed documents are not necessarily accurate historical documents. Whether or not documents are accurately copied is not the only important thing that should be considered when evaluating a document.

Copies of Copies of Copies

If all we have are copies of copies of copies, how can I have any confidence that the New Testament we have today bears any resemblance whatsoever to what was originally written?

Strobel, CFC, P. 62

The amount of copies that have been made of the bible throughout the ages, and the agreement that they may share between each other, does provide a strong indicator that the copies are fairly accurate to the originals. This does nothing to diminish doubts about the historical factuality of the gospel writings themselves. If the gospel writers, despite their best intentions, recorded something that was inaccurate, then we have copies of inaccuracies. Just because those inaccuracies all agree with each other doesn’t mean the inaccuracies are correct.

A Mountain of Manuscripts

“When you talk about a great multiplicity of manuscripts, … how does that contrast with other ancient books that are routinely accepted by scholars as being reliable?”

Strobel, CFC, P. 63

Despite what Strobel portrays, having many copies of the gospels from early sources only helps to show that other documents have reliably copied the source. Having a large amount of documents is not a case for or against the gospels being historically accurate. It only makes a case for the gospels we read today having a high likelihood of containing the same information as when they were first written.

Additionally, Strobel does not ask any questions about why we may have so many copies of the gospels. This could lead to some interesting conclusions. For example, do we have so many copies because the gospels endorse evangelizing? Evangelizing generally instills an obsession with telling many people about the subject. That seems like it would cause an explosion of materials, which could be one explanation for why we have so many copies.

The Scrap the Changed History

Stating that the earliest fragment we have of the gospels can be dated to about 100AD changes nothing. The gospel of John, commonly accepted to be the last of the 4 gospels recorded in the bible, has been held to be originally written in the time frame of 90-110AD. This scrap lines up perfectly with that estimate. If the date for the gospel of John was the only reason to doubt the gospel of John, this could be a compelling case.

Even still, this means the gospel of John was have been written 60 years after Jesus had died and have had plenty of time to be mythologized. Coincidentally enough, the gospel of John does the most mythology building of the 4 accepted gospels. This heavy mythologizing is the primary reason to doubt the gospel of John, not the time frame in which it was written. The time frame may be worth raising an eyebrow over, but the claims require evidence.

This section does nothing to provide evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels. Merely that we have dated them accurately.

A Wealth of Evidence

This section continues to imply the large amount of surviving writings we have of the new testament gives proof for their factual accuracy. Again, this only proves that we can accept that the translations we have today accurately represent the originals.

Examining the Errors

“With the similarities in the way Greek letters are written and with the primitive conditions under which the scribes worked, it would seem inevitable that copying errors would creep into the text”

Strobel, CFC, P. 68

Dr. Metzger states that in greek, “[Metzger:] the meaning of the sentence isn’t distorted if the words are out of what we consider to be the right order [for English]” (Strobel, CFC, P. ). A quick search through courses that teach Greek and Greek grammar backs Dr. Metzger up for this. This means that Greek would be a good language choice for scribes to transfer information down in. Mistakes in word order wouldn’t render the sentence completely unintelligible.

Still, this does not say anything about the historicity of the gospels themselves. It merely tells us that the gospels we have in the bible today could accurately represent the originals again. That’s the 5th time it’s happened if anyone is counting.

Dr. Metzger does not mention, or perhaps Strobel omits, that when substantive differences occur, they can change how the gospels are interpreted or cause extreme doctrinal problems. This is especially a problem when simple copying errors can not be attributed to the differences.

For example, the oldest copies of the gospel of Mark simply stop at Mark 16:8 with no mention of Jesus casting out demons, the women who found him missing telling anyone that he was gone, the appearance to the disciples, the command to proclaim the news to everyone, etc etc. Without the longer ending, which is held to be a later addition to Mark, the ending of Mark takes on a different meaning.

For another example, doctrine such as Jesus being fully human while being fully divine is missing from earlier works.The common go to for proof of Jesus being fully human is Luke 22:43-44 where Jesus is suffering and sweating blood. The earliest manuscripts lack this detail, indicating that it was added in for some purpose later on, most likely doctrinal.

A High Degree of Unanimity

“How did the early church leaders determine which books would be considered authoritative and which would be discarded?”

Strobel, CFC, P. 70

Dr. Metzger states that the gospels were chosen by using three criteria. Let’s examine them individually.

1. “[Dr. Metzger: ] First, the books must have … been written either by apostles themselves… or by followers of apostles.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 70)
2. “[Dr. Metzger:] Second, there was the criterion of conformity … with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative” (Strobel, CFC, P. 70)
3. “[Dr. Metzger:] …third, there was the criterion of whether a document had had continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 70)

First, Given that we have no credible sources for who truly authored the gospels, point number one appears to have been largely ignored by the church when codifying the new testament. For example, Mark appears to have been written based on hearsay and ended up being a source for Matthew and Luke.

Second, point two may have been followed when selecting the gospels, but it does not provide for a measure of historical reliability. It would rather create a desire to create a codified body that church mythology agreed with rather than something that lines up with historical evidence. Church tradition and doctrine has conflicted with historical evidence often, and it continues to do so today.

Third, point three merely shows an acceptance of traditionally used materials. This seems more like a popularity contest rather than a good standard to use for selecting what is supposed to be your religious canon.

If, as Dr. Metzger says, “[Dr. Metzger:] When one studies the early history of the canon, one
walks away convinced that the New Testament contains the best sources for the history of Jesus” (Strobel, CFC, P. 71), then we must wonder about the existence of Jesus. We have 4 gospels of unknown authorship, several of which are likely secondhand tales recorded from memory. They were selected because they agreed with the church on some doctrinal issues, and all that show signs of having been edited or added to by later authors.

The “Secret Words” of Jesus

A far more reasonable explanation for the acceptance of the new testament as we see it is a codification of doctrine. It may or may not have been a series of political, inter-church struggles that caused the codification. Either way, it is clear that the gospels, along with the rest of the new testament, are written to push a particular view.

Accepting that Jesus in the gospel of Thomas “[Metzger:] …is not the Jesus we know from the four canonical gospels…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 72) only makes sense if you assume the codified canon is correct and compare from there. This is problematic because, if you examine them separately, you will find a different depiction of Jesus in each one. Much like the gospels that were left out, these contain information that is similar to each other along with information that is not.

Left out from the discussion on the gospel of Thomas is any indication that it’s date and reliability are under just as much debate as any of the accepted gospels. Some scholars would hold the gospel of Thomas to 60AD, which would make it older than the gospel of John. Does that mean it’s more reliable? Of course, I would answer no, but probably for different reasons than Dr. Metzger or Strobel would. Being early to the party does not mean it is free of legendary development and reliable.

The “Unrivaled” New Testament

Strobel closes out by talking about how persuaded he is that the New Testament has been transmitted to us through the centuries accurately. Strangely missing is any mention that this chapter has only hammered in that the new testament as read today should closely represent what was written many years ago. While that in itself is impressive, it tells us nothing about whether the gospels show an accurate historical picture of what happened.

Chapter 2: Testing the Eyewitness Evidence

This chapter opens with a continuation of the tale from the start of chapter 1. Clearly, Strobel is drawing parallels between Defense attorneys who must ask hard questions and try find vulnerabilities in a witness’s testimony and himself. Unfortunately, Strobel does not act in such a manner.

Strobel points out the most superficial of problems in Dr. Blomberg’s arguments, and only in places where he can help sell the narrative more by pointing it out. In instances where questions that could provide good counterpoints to Dr. Blomberg could be brought forth, none are brought up. Strobel often moves on from the section hurriedly to hide this fact and keep the reader hooked on the narrative.

This chapter continues the interview from chapter 1. This post, like chapter 2 itself, is long.

The Intention Test

“Were these first-century writers even interested in recording what actually happened?”

Strobel. CFC P. 42

Dr. Blomberg offers the preface of Luke as evidence that Luke wanted to record events as accurately as possible (Strobel, CFC, P. 42). Putting aside the problems with Herod’s death in 4BCE and Quirnius’s census not taking place until 6CE, we’re left with the question of whether a document can be trusted merely because it’s preface is similar to other generally trusted historical and biographical works. While it may be true that Luke intended to write things that were as true as he could get them, it is just as likely that he could have used such a preface to lend the appearance of credibility to his this work.

The preface of the Gospel of Luke claims that the writer investigated everything and has written an orderly account. Given that the orderly account of the Gospel of Luke contains fantastical elements of magic, has history that doesn’t line up with what is known, goes to great lengths to try reconcile how it is that a person from one town ended up being born in another (wouldn’t that just make Jesus a citizen of Bethlehem?), etc, we have many reasons to doubt the accuracy of the account. Because of this, the introduction appears to be an attempt to lend credence to the document rather than an honest admission that the author will tell the truth.

Dr. Blomberg further states that we can trust the other gospel works as well because they follow a similar format to Luke, although they lack the preface of Luke (Strobel, CFC, P. 42). This has the same problem that the first point does. Just because something is written in the style of something that we presume is historically accurate does not mean that thing is historically accurate.

According to Dr. Blomberg, another reason to accept their veracity is because “You don’t find the outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing that you see in a lot of other ancient writings” (CFC P. 43). A quick read through the gospels shows this to be false. Some things, off the top of my head an in no particular order that mythologize the narrative, are

1. Virgin Birth (As in literally never had sex)
2. Prophecy Fulfillment
3. Miracle working
4. Jesus literally being the son of god
5. Resurrection from death

Mythologizing arises from each of these, but this is not the place to discuss that. Suffice it to say that these points show a clear desire to mythologize the character of Jesus rather than an honest “[Blomberg:]…attempt to record what had actually occurred” (Strobel , CFC P. 43). Many similar types of mythologizing can be seen if one examines Krishna from the Hindu religion (Virgin birth, prophecy fulfillment, works miracles, is the son of a god, etc).

Answering Objections

Strobel “challenges” Dr. Blomberg with 2 questions. To paraphrase these questions,

1. Wouldn’t the early Christians lack writings about Jesus if they assumed he’d return soon?
2. Early Christians believed Christ was communicating with them through the church after his death. Wouldn’t this imply we don’t know what Jesus may or may not have said?

I do agree with Dr. Blomberg here that, if Jesus existed, there would be written works about him even if they assumed the return was imminent. At the time period, documentation events seems to have been a respected profession.

Despite this potential for documentation to exist, the most recent writing that I know about that catalogs Jesus is the gospel of Mark around 65CE. Due to that, a better question could be made. Isn’t more likely that the gospels were simply invented far after the fact to preserve the Christian mythology that had been built up? What about many New Testament scholars who believe that this type of invention is exactly what happened?

Dr. Blomberg tries to cast doubt on the claim that Jesus’ followers would believe he’d return soon too, saying “…the majority of Jesus’ teachings presuppose a significant span of time before the end of the world…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 44. There are, however, many statements from Jesus in the bible that show that the followers would have reason to believe the return would happen soon, and Jesus always taught that the second coming was imminent (verses taken from the NIV version).

1. Matt. 10:23 – “…you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes….”
2. Matt. 16:28 – “…some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom…”
3. Matt. 24:34 – “…This generation will not pass away until all these things have happened…”
4. Luke 21:28 – “…When these things begin to take place… …your redemption is drawing near”
5. Luke 21:31 – “…when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near…”

This is by no means an exhaustive list, just a few that found with a quick search. Clearly, the early church would have believed that God’s kingdom would have come soon. Within the lifetime of several of the people in the room according to Matthew 16:28. Within 100 years at best if one of them lived particularly long. However, the world didn’t end in their lifetime^{[Citation NOT needed]}. It’s been over a thousand years since this happened. Jesus was clearly incorrect.

Question 2 is neatly tied up in Strobel’s mind by Dr. Blomberg saying “[Blomberg:] There are occasions when early Christian prophecy is referred to, but it’s always distinguished from what the Lord has said” (Strobel, CFC, P. 44). All that this proves is that the writers in the bible usually took care to separate what they believed to have come from Jesus when alive rather than god. Because the gospels were written several decades after the death of Jesus, it seems more likely that those who were not so careful, or those that truly believed Jesus had spoken to them, would relay their prophecies or visions as coming from Jesus.

For an example of this, look at the book of Revelations, which is supposedly a book of prophecy sent by god through a vision. The writer, whom churches claim is John, portrays his vision of Jesus in Revelation as being Jesus, even though it is all a hallucination that the writer is experiencing. If, as Dr. Blomberg said, Jesus and prophecies/visions from the Lord are always distinguished from each other, then the book of Revelation should be taken to be a vision from the Lord with references to Jesus being replaced with references to “The Lord.”

If the early Christians were supposed to keep visions separate from what the lord has said, then the book of Revelation should be written completely differently. Given that the author clearly didn’t keep such a separation and instead claimed the vision was literally Jesus, then we have a clear example of exactly what Dr. Blomberg claims we shouldn’t see within the very book he wants to take as authoritative. And this author is supposed to be one of the more important/better believers according to Church propaganda. How many others have done the same as the author here, and how many other places in the bible do the same?

The Ability Test

Strobel calls info question whether or not the authors of the gospels would have been able to write reliable history if they even wanted to. Dr. Blomberg replies with an example of “[Blomberg]…Rabbis having the entire Old Testament committed to memory.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 45) and then mentions that “[Blomberg]…anywhere from ten to forty percent of any given retelling of sacred tradition could vary from one occasion to the next. However, there were always fixed points that were unalterable…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 45).

The implication of these is that for the time, memorization of information was extremely common, and that retellings of sacred texts/stories always have certain points that remain constant. However, that 10-40% fixed point amount is nowhere near as impressive when you consider that, if you want accurate information about things that happened, 60-90% of the information you are receiving is incorrect or changed. Even if we grant that the gospels have a similar ratio of 10-40% fixed points, how do we determine if those fixed points are true and how do we determine which points may have been added in later to fit a narrative? Interpolations in the bible have been found.

To try bolster his point, Dr. Blomberg says, “[Blomberg] When you’re carefully memorizing something and taking care not to pass it along until you’re sure you’ve got it right, you’re doing something very different from plating the game of telephone.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 46). While this may be true, it doesn’t account for human error, death of someone who had the knowledge memorized without being able to pass it on, and hundreds of other variations that may be made up on the fly to try make the information more palatable to different audiences.

No matter how well someone memorizes information, they will eventually start to forget it (including people with eidetic memory as well, there IS a limit to how much they can retain). In the case of Jewish scholars, there may have been a large enough community to introduce error correction into the retelling process to prevent mistakes from being propagated. Early Christianity, however, would not have had such a large community to prevent these mistakes. The details of what the religion meant and stood for were still being hashed out and tales could very easily have been changed on the fly to try lend credence to a viewpoint.

The Character Test

Was there any evidence of dishonesty or immorality that might taint their ability or willingness to transmit history accurately?

Strobel, CFC, P. 47

Dr. Blomberg states “We simply do not have any reasonable evidence to suggest they were anything but people of great integrity” (Strobel, CFC, P. 47). Conversely, we also have no evidence to suggest that the writers WERE people of great integrity. An absence of evidence for or against his position does not give Dr. Blomberg any reason to claim with certainty that the authors were people of integrity. Even granting that the writers were noble in character, we have no evidence for this other than the bible implies (never actually states) that they must be.

This does nothing to dissuade arguments that the writers were motivated to write their gospels as religious propaganda than historically accurate writings. Writing religious propaganda rather than an accurate account would bring in more followers quickly. Even a person of great integrity would be hard pressed to put aside biases if they truly believed an alteration here or there would bring more people to believe what they believe to be true.

The Consistency Test

After all, aren’t they hopelessly contradictory with each other? Aren’t there irreconcilable discrepancies among the various gospel accounts? And if there are, how can anyone trust anything they say?

Strobel, CFC, P. 48

Dr. Blomberg explains away contradictions in the gospels as being “[Dr. Blomberg:] …apparent contradictions…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 48) rather than actual contradictions. Strobel helps Dr. Blomberg out by adding “[Strobel:] …if the gospels had been identical to each other, word for word… …that would have cast doubt on them.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 48).

No reason to accept these contradictions in the narrative are given other than Dr. Blomberg believes it to be correct. This includes contradictions or discrepancies such as

1. Genealogies not matching up in Matthew and Luke
2. Errors in geography
3. Legal and cultural problems
4. Salvation through works (Mark/Matthew/Luke) vs. Salvation through faith (John)
5. The last words of Jesus on the cross being different between all 4 gospels

There are many more. If the link for the second no longer works, you can try this archive.org link. Otherwise, a quick google search will turn up plenty for the curious.

Strobel points out that if the gospels were exactly the same, word for word, this would cast doubt on the authenticity of the gospels more than having great contradictions in them (Strobel, CFC, P. 48). This is not necessarily so. Currently, the primary problem with how the gospels currently read is due to differences that can cause doctrinal issues, directly conflicting timelines, and conflicting tales of who Jesus is. Having the gospels in greater agreement and not having so many details be completely contradictory would actually bolster the claims of credibility for the new testament rather than lower it. The amount of times the gospels show things out of order in regards to the other gospels, conflicting, or just not corroborated speaks to the unreliability of the gospels.

This also sets up a straw man argument where Strobel seems to be implying that those who are not Christian expect the gospels to be 100% the same and then he knocks that straw man down. This is false. As an atheist myself, I would merely like the gospels to be less of a contradictory mess. For example, if all 4 gospels were able to show the same sequence of events, geography, and events of Jesus’s early and adult life, that would be a good start. As it is, each gospel emphasizes different things and ends up creating an account of Jesus that is completely different from the Jesus (in character) from the other gospels.

Coping with Contridictions

Strobel mentions several minor contradictions in the bible that Dr. Blomberg glosses over quickly.

1. Matthew vs. Luke: Tale of the centurion needing healing
2. Mark and Luke vs. Matthew: Jesus sending demons into swine
3. Matthew vs. Luke: Genealogies

In the centurion story, Jesus is approached by either a centurion or the elders of the jewish community on behalf of a centurion. Dr. Blomberg says “[Blomberg] …actions were often attributed to people when in fact they occurred through their subordinates or emissaries…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 49). While this is certainly as true today as it likely was then, the fact that the Jewish elders are specifically called out in one implies that the request would have been seen as surprising. Matthew’s lack of inclusion of that detail remains surprising if it is true, and Luke’s inclusion of it seems deceitful and intended to give more weight to the story if false.

In the story where Jesus sends demons from one man (Mark and Luke) or two men (Matthew) into a herd of swine, the authors differ on the name of the town. The name of the town can be significant as is a town nowhere near the sea of galilee while the other is. It seems most likely that there was either a translation error OR the author just got it wrong. Either way, it doesn’t bode well for Christians who like to claim that the bible has no errors and has always been translated perfectly.

The inclusion of Genealogies at the start of Matthew and Luke is perplexing, and their differences don’t help the confusion. If, as Dr. Blomberg says, one follows Joseph’s lineage while the other follows Mary’s, then why do both explicitly mention the father of Joseph (Jacob in Matthew, Heli in Luke)? Even if you pretend it shows Mary’s lineage, lineages were traditionally followed on the father’s side, not the mother’s.

1. Matthew 1:15-16 – “…Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary…”
2. Luke 3:23 – “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli….

Additionally, such genealogies pointless to try create anyways if the virgin birth myth is to be believed. The fact that god suddenly coerces a lady into pregnancy (we have a word for that…) means any lineages are not worth following. The lineage would literally be God followed by Jesus with Mary playing no role in the lineage.

Finally, the fact that Strobel only chooses a few superficial problems and doesn’t dig into the issues raised by his last is a prime example of how he conducts all parts of his interviews. Rather than choosing such superficial issues, I’d rather that he look into issues that truly matter in the Christian/Jewish worldview. For example, here are 3 that I’d have preferred Strobel show because they raise problems with the biblical inerrancy viewpoint, show doctrinal issues, and shows how other prophecies in the bible were misused to try lay the narrative for Jesus:

1. Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 creation myths (many in this, but one example: How many people are there in the world?)
2. Mark/Matthew/Luke vs. John. Salvation through works vs. salvation through belief
   • Matthew 16:27 – “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.“
   • John 5:24 – “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life…”
3. Matthew 1:22 misquotes Isaiah. Also, despite this entry, Jesus is never called Immanuel.

The Bias Test

Did they have any vested interest in skewing the material they were reporting on?

Strobel, CFC, p. 51

Dr. Blomberg make the claim that “[Blomberg:] …people can so honor and respect someone that it prompts them to record his life with great integrity…” (Strobel, CFC, P.51). This is certainly possibly, but we need some reason to believe that this is true in the case of the gospel writers. We need evidence of them recording accurate history rather than claims that they possibly did. If we merely hold to the fact that it’s possible that it is, then why not believe in Mohammad instead? His followers certainly honored and respected him a great deal.

Dr. Blomberg also claims that “[Blomberg:] …these disciples had nothing to gain except criticism, ostracism, and martyrdom. (…) they proclaimed what they saw even when it meant suffering and death…” (Strobel, CFC, p. 51).

The root of this argument is a very common one, it even has it’s own webpage^[1]. Why would the disciples have stuck to their guns if they made everything up? This overlooks the fact that people can be genuinely, unknowingly mistaken and believe things that are false wholeheartedly. To use an example outside of Christianity, many young men have been convinced to blow themselves up in terrorist acts because they have been promised a great reward is waiting for them after death. Should we convert to the Muslim faith because these young men were willing to die for their religion? It’s gotta be true if they are willing to die for it, right?

The Cover Up Test

Did the gospel writers include any material that might be embarrassing, or did they cover it up to make themselves look good? Did they report on anything that would be uncomfortable or difficult for them to explain?

Strobel, CFC, P. 52

To give an objection to Strobel’s question, propaganda often contains some embarrassing or difficult material in order to maintain it’s “objective” viewpoint. This allows the propaganda to sway readers far more effectively because they let down their guard and assume the writing is not trying to sway them. If the gospels are read as religious propaganda, having embarrassing or difficult things remaining in the gospels makes perfect sense.

In addition, just because we have examples of things in the gospels that would be embarrassing or difficult to explain does not prove there is no intent to cover up. It is just as likely that there were many things the gospel writers chose not to add in because it was even more difficult or embarrassing to explain. The things kept in the gospels that are embarrassing or difficult become easy enough to explain away after one buys into the religion.

Strobel finishes the section with an unchallenged quote by Dr. Blomberg that really needs to be challenged. “[Blomberg:] But here’s the point: if they didn’t feel free to leave out stuff when it would have been convenient and helpful to do so, is it really plausible to believe that they outright added and fabricated material with no historical basis? … I’d say not.”(Strobel, CFC, P. 53). Based on this, Dr. Blomberg appears to believe that information was not left out, and that the only way for material with no factual basis to appear in the gospels is through willful inclusion and fabrication.

First, Dr. Blomberg provides no evidence that “[Dr. Blomberg:] …they [the gospel writers] didn’t feel free to leave out stuff when it would have been convenient…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 53). We have no way of knowing whether or not the gospel writers left anything out of the texts. One way we could learn if something was left out would be to discover additional texts that offer more information into Jesus’s life than the gospels do. If such texts happen to exist, they’ve eluded my attempts to find them so far.

There are other explanations that could account for fabricated material appearing the gospels other than willful inclusion too. For example, what would happen over time as legend and folklore builds up around a character who accomplished something incredible? Especially if that character is the central figure to a religion? It seems to me that such a character would be necessarily mythologized. As an example, take a look at the catholic views of Mary, Peter, etc. They have a large mythology built up around them now.

This problem isn’t limited just to ancient times. Even today with more accurate and reliable methods of recording information, we are susceptible to problems arising from different copies, later revisions, and different accounts of events happening. Without even intending to include information that isn’t factual, the writers could have included blatant mythology because it fit in with the narrative they believed in (looking at you in particular, gospel of John).

The Corroboration Test

When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they check out to be correct in cases in which they can be independently verified?

Strobel, CFC, P. 53

Interestingly, despite Dr. Blomberg’s claims that archaeology and historical evidence back up the claims in the gospels, he doesn’t cite any. That strikes me as very odd, especially with his willingness to make assertions about other details before.

Dr. Blomberg glosses over the many times that history has proven the gospels to be incorrect rather than correct. As always, more can be found if you google, but to give a few examples

1. The Roman census in Luke can’t be found in Roman records
   • Herod was dead 4BCE. Quirnius was governor in 6CE.
   • No requirement to travel to ancestral homes for censuses has been found
2. Herod’s infant massacre has never been found in external sources
   • Seems most likely to be an attempted political smear on Herod’s character.
3. No contemporary accounts of the earthquake that shook Jerusalem when Jesus died
4. No mention of Jewish saints rising and walking the city after Jesus died
5. No mention of Jesus’s trial in Roman records by Pontius Pilate

I’d like to know which non-Christian sources Dr. Blomberg is citing that corroborate key teachings and events in Jesus’s life. So far, all the sources he has mentioned are at least 35-100 years after the held date of Jesus’s death. These sources report on hearsay and describe things that Christians would have believed from a Christina viewpoint.

The Romans, who would have been very interested in a fellow performing miracles, especially when crowds of 5000 gathered, have no mention of any of the miracles performed. There is only a brief mention by Tacitus within his final work “The Annals” nearly a century after Jesus is held to have died. All the little bit in question says is “… called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin …” (Tacitus, Annals, 116AD). Based on textual analysis, however, this reference seems most likely to be a later Christian interpolation as well. Further exploration of this passage in Tacitus happens in chapter 4.

The Adverse Eyewitness Test

“…do we see examples of contemporaries of Jesus complaining that the gospel accounts were just plain wrong?”

Strobel, CFC, P. 54

Dr. Blomberg’s claim that “[Blomberg:] In later Jewish writings Jesus is called a sorcerer who led Israel astray – which acknowledges that he really did work marvelous wonders…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 54) is problematic. Given that these later writing necessarily were late to the party, they would have no basis to know whether or not the claims to Jesus performing miracles held any merit other than Christian lore. They are not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, nor should their opinions matter.

A Faith Buttressed by Facts

Strobel finishes off the chapter talking about how convincing he finds the arguments presented by Dr. Blomberg. There are many reasons to disagree with Dr. Blomberg’s assertions, however.

What Dr. Blomberg seems to do throughout most of his interview is continuously throw more unnecessary information at us in the hopes we don’t notice the problems with it. This is known as “Gish Gallop” in debate circles. The idea is to throw as many examples, ideas, and random information at your opponent as possible without any regard for the strength of the arguments and information being used. This creates the illusion of a superior position in the minds of many following he debate without having to do any of the hard work to get to a strong position. For more information on Gish Galloping, check out wikipedia.

Citations

1. https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2006/05/die-for-lie-wont-fly.html

Chapter Overview

This chapter is the first half of an interview with Dr. Craig Blomgerg, PhD, Doctorate in New Testament from Aberdeen University, Scotland.

The sections are ordered and titled the same as in CFC. I provide page numbers and citations where necessary. This convention applies to all future chapters.

Problems With the CFC: Chapter 1

Testimony from Distant Time

Strobel briefly touches on some problems with eyewitness testimony, such as bias, motives, and truthfulness. Then he claims we have reliable eyewitness testimony for Jesus in the Gospels. He asks a good question: “…how well would these accounts withstand the scrutiny of skeptics?” (Strobel, CFC, P. 20). In a word? Badly.

There are multiple issues—narrative inconsistencies, mythologizing, and more—which I’ll expand on later. Such texts are not historically reliable.

Eyewitnesses to History

Dr. Blomberg asserts the gospels were written by their traditional authors (Strobel, CFC, P. 23), but this attribution is a point of contention among scholars.

1. The gospels were published anonymously^[1] (Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, P. 106)
2. The names line up with church doctrine, raising questions of theologically motivated reasoning.
3. Scholars estimate the gospels were written between 65-120AD^[2], more than 30 years after Jesus is believed to have died.

Dr. Blomberg claims “…there are no known competitors…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 23) for the authorship of the gospels. Even if true, this does not confirm the traditional authorship; it only highlights our lack of certainty. Despite this, we can refer to Dr. Bart Ehrman to contrast Jesus’ disciples and the gospel writers to show it could not be a disciple.

Dr. Bart Ehrman describes Jesus’ disciples as “Lower-class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee.” (Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, P. 106). Contrast that with the anonymous authors of the gospels, who were “…highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians who probably lived outside of Palestine.” (Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, P. 106). The inference of education and language comes from two facts.

1. Illiteracy was widespread throughout the Roman empire (Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, P. 105).
2. Scholars believe the original gospels to have been written in Greek (Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, P. 106)

To summarize, Jesus’ disciples would not have had the education or language knowledge to write the original gospels. Their authorship remains a subject of academic debate.

Delving Into Specifics

In the previous section, Dr. Blomberg cites Papias for the authorship of John. In this section, he cites Iranaeus for the traditional gospel authors. He also quotes Papias saying that Mark was a reliable transcriber and had “made no mistakes” (Strobel, CFC, P. 23-24). These assertions are unsupported by evidence.

Dr. Blomberg provides no source for Papias, just a date: 125AD. John is estimated to have been written between 90-110AD^[2], which is a 15-35 year gap between the authorship of John and Papias’ writings.That is ample time for distortion of facts.

Next, Dr. Blomberg quotes Iraneus from 180AD. Iraneus is further removed from his subjects, and can provide no direct evidence of Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. He is a questionable source; for example, he claims Matthew was published first—and in Hebrew—contradicting accepted scholarship^[2].

If we assume Papias and Iraneus to be true, here is what follows.

Matthew is published first based on stories from Peter and Paul. Mark is published next containing a secondhand retelling of Peter’s stories. Then Luke is published, a secondhand retelling of Paul’s stories. John, a disciple, published his book last. Unfortunately, these are not eyewitnesses—as Strobel likes to claim—and this timeline conflicts with scholars today.

Mark was clearly published first between 65-73AD^[2]. Matthew and Luke were published after in 80-90AD^[2], and it is unclear which was published first. John was published last between 90-110AD^[2]. Each gospel describes events decades later—John 60 years after the fact. Assuming the authors were 20 when Jesus was killed, the youngest author is 55, and the oldest is 80; plenty of time to forget facts.

Dr. Blomberg asserts John was finalized by an unknown editor (Strobel, CFC, P. 24). If this is true, then John contains material from another author. How much do these finalizations constitute John? We know of many Christian Interpolations^[3] in the bible, especially John. The gospel of John is unreliable whether or not John is the author.

Ancient Versus Modern Biographies

Dr. Blomberg accepts Mark as “probably the earliest gospel” (Strobel CFC, P. 26). This contradicts his source, Iraneus, who asserts Matthew was published first. Dr. Blomberg also asserts Mark ends by “culminating in Christ’s death and resurrection” (Strobel, CFC, P. 26), but the earliest manuscripts of Mark do not support this assertion; they end at Mark 16:8. Scholars recognize later additions as Christian interpolations[4].

Neither Dr. Blomberg nor Strobel address contradictory biographical details in the gospels. For example, Matthew and Luke disagree on Jesus’ lineage and the length of his ministry. A different style for ancient biographies does not excuse direct contradiction.

The Mystery of Q

Dr. Blomberg explains the Q document concept well, and then he gives an example from Matthew and Luke to illustrate what this document may have contained. He asserts “…even in Q… there is clearly an awareness of Jesus’ ministry and miracles.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 27). The existence of the Q document, however, remains uncertain^[5].

Even if it existed, this does not validate its miraculous claims. Extraordinary claims require evidence, not faith. If both Matthew and Luke relied on Q as well as Mark to write their gospels, they are not independent testimonies. They are interpretations of an unknown document and Mark’s secondhand retelling of Peter’s teachings. Is this documentation, or is this theological plagiarism?

The Unique Perspective of John

Strobel asks about the differences between the synoptic gospels and John. Dr. Blomberg offers two possibilities: either John sought to provide new information about Jesus, or was independently developed (Strobel, CFC, P. 28-29). This leaves out a convincing explanation: the legendary development hypothesis. The evolution of Jesus’ myth becomes clear when examining the gospels in their accepted order of publication.

1. Mark presents a relatively simple view of Jesus.
2. Matthew and Luke incorporate parts of Mark, embellishing Jesus and adding miracles.
3. John describes a legendary figure based on Matthew and Luke.

It amuses me that, in the next chapter, Dr. Blomberg casts aspersions at the non-canon gospels for having “…outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing that you see in a lot of other ancient writings” (Strobel, CFC, P. 40). John claims the Son of God was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died, came back from the dead, and went to heaven. That suits my definition of “outlandish”.

Jesus’s Most Audacious Claim

Strobel observes that John is more explicit about Jesus’ divinity. Dr. Blomberg asserts the synoptic gospels hide Jesus’ divine nature by having Jesus refer to himself as “I Am”. He further asserts English translations say “It is I” instead of “I Am” to further obfuscate this (Strobel, CFC, P. 29).

Independent translators, such as Richard Lattimore, render these passages as “It is I” rather than “I Am”. A conspiracy to obscure Jesus’ divinity is unlikely. Moreover, Jesus’ divine status is already well established. For example, Jesus forgives sins and performs mind-reading in Matthew 9:3-4.

Jesus’ divinity is apparent regardless of the existence of John. This makes me ask, why do Dr. Blomberg and Strobel find this convincing?

The Gospels’ Theological Agenda

Strobel asks whether the gospel writer’s theological motivations cast doubt on their credibility. To highlight how motivation can strengthen the desire to record faithfully, Dr. Blomberg refers to Jewish scholars recording the holocaust who “…created museums, written books, preserved artifacts, and documented eyewitness testimony concerning the Holocaust” (Strobel, CFC, P. 32). While this is a strong point, it fails to address why theological motivations are concerning and highlights a lack of evidence.

Ironically, the concerns Strobel raises apply to CFC itself. Theologically motivated writers attempt to persuade rather than present facts, shaping narratives to fit their conclusions. This influence is clear in CFC, a book with a structured narrative of Atheist to Christian. The problem is less significant when evidence is provided—such as with the Jewish scholars who record the Holocaust—but remains problematic in unsupported religious texts.

Evidence collection for the Holocaust began soon after the end of World War II, and the Holocaust Museum alone houses thousands of artifacts, contemporary interviews, and photographic records. Beyond that, we have memoirs, diaries, and historical sites corroborate events, with sources agree on key details: when it began, where it happened, and its duration. In contrast, we have no contemporary sources for Jesus’ life outside the bible. As Ehrman notes, the gospels “…were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by people who did not know him” (Ehrnam, Jesus Interrupted, P. 144). Unlike the Holocaust, Jesus still requires more evidence.

Hot News from History

Strobel asks whether a legendary Jesus could have arisen between his death and the Gospel accounts, to which Dr. Blomberg responds that it is unlikely. He mentions that Alexander the Great’s biography was written by Plutarch 400 years after he died. “In other words”, he says, “the first 500 years kept Alexander’s story pretty much intact…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 33). While true, there are important differences between Alexander and Jesus.

Alexander the Great is a historical figure, and we have surviving works based on his contemporaries’ writings, Greek records, and dedications to gods^[6]. Plutarch’s biography was based on these sources. In contrast, no comparable historical records exist for Jesus. The scant references in Tacitus or Josephus are widely regarded by scholars as later Christian interpolations (see chapter 4 for more details). Dr. Blomberg does not address this and focuses on the time gap.

Dr. Blomberg asserts Acts was written in 60-65AD, leading him to conclude the synoptic gospels were written in 55-60AD (Strobel, CFC, P. 34). By his reasoning, this shorter gap should decrease contradictions and minimize mythologizing, especially the synoptic gospels. Yet contradictions between the gospels persist—such as Matthew and Luke disagreeing about Jesus’ lineage—and mythologizing is evident, particularly in John, the final accepted gospel. Lessening the time gap does not lessen the problems within the gospels.

Citations

1. Jesus Interrupted, Bart Ehrman, 2009
2. Wikipedia: Dating the Bible
3. Rationalwiki: Biblical Interpolations
4. Wikipedia: Gospel of Mark Endings
5. Wikipedia: Q Source Hypothesis
6. Wikipedia: Alexander the Great Historiography