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.
- The gospels were published anonymously[1] (Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, P. 106)
- The names line up with church doctrine, raising questions of theologically motivated reasoning.
- 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.
- Illiteracy was widespread throughout the Roman empire (Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, P. 105).
- 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.
- Mark presents a relatively simple view of Jesus.
- Matthew and Luke incorporate parts of Mark, embellishing Jesus and adding miracles.
- 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.