Chapter 1 – thoughts.need.management

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.

Citations

June 17, 2020June 15, 2021

Genesis Annotated: Chapter 1

Why Annotation?

Genesis Annotated: Chapter 2

Overview of chapter

Genesis 1 is an attempt to explain how the world came to be. God starts existing in an infinite plane of water, nips down to where he wants the earth to be, and then gets creating. This chapter contains the traditional creation myth that creationists and Christian fundamentalists believe to be true.

Additional Thoughts

This chapter alone contains many old and dis-proven ideas about how the world is structured. Coming from a bible that is supposed to be 100% accurate, this is a blow. For example, there are multiple references to outdated models of how the earth is structured (glass dome/firmament with stars/moon on it), complete ignorance of other planets, ignorance of the sun being a star, ignorance on what stars actually are, ignorance of the earth as a spheroid, and many many more.

Also damaging is the explanation of animals all being created at once, even if the “days” here are longer than a single day as apologists like to claim. The fossil record shown a slow and gradual speciation from a common ancestor to be a good explanation for how species came to be. If creation were true as creationists would like it to be, the fossil record would be a horrible mess.

Additionally, the order in which the planets and stars are created is directly counter to what science has shown to have happened. Stars came first, then planets. Not planets then stars.

The Scientific/logic/sequence mistakes in this chapter

Is the universe empty, or made out of water? (Genesis 1:1)
Light without a light source (Genesis 1:3)
Darkness considered it’s own form of “matter” (Genesis 1:4)
Just because it’s light doesn’t mean it’s day (Genesis 1:5)
The sun does not exist yet. What constitutes a day? (Genesis 1:5)
Iron age view of a flat world (table/glass dome/firmament model) (Genesis 1:6-9)
Firmament created 2 times (Genesis 1:6, Genesis 1:7)
That water requires somewhere to go (Genesis 1:9)
Plants require sunlight to survive. There is no sun. (Genesis 1:11)
Unscientific classification system (Genesis 1:12, 1:21)
Endorses disproven Pseudoscience (Astrology) (Genesis 1:14)
Contradicts later books (Genesis 1:14, Deuteronomy 18:10-14)
Claims stars are merely small points of light on a dome (Genesis 1:14)
Expressly geocentric (Genesis 1:15)
The sun is not created with all the other stars (Genesis 1:16)
Sometimes god creates with words, other times cannot
- No explanation for why is ever provided
Humans are animals and should already be created in 1:21 (Genesis 1:26)
Anthropocentric bias (Genesis 1:26-28)
Claims ALL animals are vegans (Genesis 1:30)
Order of animal creation does not match fossil record
Magic/Mythology (Genesis 1:1-31)

For bonus confusion, try read chapter 2 and then tell me whether man was made before or after the beasts were.

Explanations of selected mistakes

A consistency error: Genesis 11:14 expressly endorses astrology. Interpreting the signs which these lights are supposed to give is forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:10-14. So which should we follow?

Chapter 1: God does stuff

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Takes a God as a given… always begs the question “Where did god come from?”
The writers of this myth think that everything not earth is an infinite plane of water. Where did this water (that doesn’t exist) come from?
Light requires a source. The sun/stars weren’t made until day 4
Darkness is the absence of light, not it’s own thing that can be moved around like this.
If I have a lamp on, is it day? If I hide in a closet with the door closed, is it night? Also, saying this is a “day” here is ridiculous.
Where did this water come from? This firmament model is an ancient, glass dome, flat earth model.
So, this firmament thing…. that wasn’t created last verse when god said “let there be a firmament”? The light was created immediately, why make this twice?
Christians used to think the Firmament was a glass dome covering a flat earth. Look it up!
How? If I have a bottle that’s full of water and put a little divider in it, how would I get less water in the bottom to make “land” appear?
If we believe this, then there’s some magical way to make less water in an infinite plane of water.
Plants require sunlight to survive. Light may have been “made” first, but light still requires a source. The sun isn’t made till later. These plants should be dead pretty soon.
The ancient authors have no clue how to classify things. These “kinds” are not categories. According to this, blueberries and apples are the same “kinds”, which is nonsense.
This better be a literal day, those plants need sun!
The stars are literally nothing but little points of light placed on the firmament?These “lights on the firmament” are also for signs which implies astrology is real.
So the ONLY purpose everything in the sky has is to give light to the earth. Really? Other galaxies would like a word.
I thought stars were made in 1:14. At least the poor plants have sunlight to keep them from dying.
Just repeats the information from 11:15, although a little clearer.
Despite god having already divided light and dark (1:4), he brings in a sun and a moon to do it again.
Day 4 completed, time for a bathroom break!
Why are the birds created from the water? Are they sea creatures? Does this also imply that birds can literally fly into heaven (above the firmament)?
The authors again show that they do not know how to classify the immense diversity of life on this planet. A “Kind” is not a valid classification. Christians need to stop pretending that it is.
In short: Animals should have sex and have it often so you can have lots of little babies. Does this apply to humans?
Day 5 completed. Apparently a pretty short workday.
Birds and sea creatures: Made of water. Land animals: Made of land. Again, even though it’s in the bible, a “kind” is not a valid classification of an animal.
God seems to create things by speaking about them at the beginning. Here it seems like he actually has to make them. Why? What makes animals so immensely complex?
I thought all land based animals were already made? Also, see rationalwiki’s annotated bible for a great explanation of the “us” in this verse. Briefly, there was some polytheistic leaning in the early phase of Judaism.
Ah, so humans are special. Both male AND female were created, no bone stealing required. Implies many humans too.
Humans having sex a lot are just fulfilling genesis 1:28. Given how many people are on the planet, I think it’s time religious fundamentalists stop trying to follow this one. Also, claims we’re better than everything else
Not entirely sure why a tree would be yielding meat from a fruit. Sounds kinda disgusting. I know, it really means the meat of the fruit, but a literal reading required pointing that out.
Animals only eat green herbs? What about predators who require the flesh of other animals in order to survive? Humans can’t get enough vitamin B12 on a vegan diet either.
End of day 6. Apparently everything is good. Did god not know that he’d regret making the world in just a few chapters from now?

Additional notes on chapter 1

Everything in this seems to be as accurate as someone making wild guesses about what things are really like would be. For a “divinely inspired” work, I’d expect some actual truths about what things are like. For example, why not mention a heliocentric solar system model that would have predated any current knowledge of how the solar system works? That would be enough to add some authenticity to this. Alternatively, why not explicitly mention that life arose through a process that took millions and millions of years? Why not have amphibians, reptiles, and land mammals created before birds in order to match the fossil record?

There are many points that show this is limited to old understandings about how the universe works. Here are a few of them.

The firmament, from Latin “Firmamentum” meaning “something which strengthens or supports”, references an outdated astronomical model. The firmament is a solid structure on which all the stars, the sun, and the moon are placed. For more information, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament
The writers of genesis did not think the sun was a star. Otherwise, the sun would have been made right along side the stars with everything else.
Thanks to the fossil record, we know that amphibians, reptiles, and land mammals predate birds and marine mammals. In this account, everything is brought in at once.

Tag: Chapter 1

Problems With The Case for Christ: Chapter 1