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
- Virgin Birth (As in literally never had sex)
- Prophecy Fulfillment
- Miracle working
- Jesus literally being the son of god
- 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,
- Wouldn’t the early Christians lack writings about Jesus if they assumed he’d return soon?
- 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).
- Matt. 10:23 – “…you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes….”
- Matt. 16:28 – “…some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom…”
- Matt. 24:34 – “…This generation will not pass away until all these things have happened…”
- Luke 21:28 – “…When these things begin to take place… …your redemption is drawing near”
- 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
- Genealogies not matching up in Matthew and Luke
- Errors in geography
- Legal and cultural problems
- Salvation through works (Mark/Matthew/Luke) vs. Salvation through faith (John)
- 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.
- Matthew vs. Luke: Tale of the centurion needing healing
- Mark and Luke vs. Matthew: Jesus sending demons into swine
- 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.
- Matthew 1:15-16 – “…Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary…”
- 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:
- Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 creation myths (many in this, but one example: How many people are there in the world?)
- 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…”
- 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
- 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
- Herod’s infant massacre has never been found in external sources
- Seems most likely to be an attempted political smear on Herod’s character.
- No contemporary accounts of the earthquake that shook Jerusalem when Jesus died
- No mention of Jewish saints rising and walking the city after Jesus died
- 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.