Tag: Chapter 3

Posted on

Problems With The Case for Christ: Chapter 3

PWTCFC: Chapter 2

PWTCFC: Chapter 4

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 Accurately transcribed documents are not necessarily accurate historical documents.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.

Posted on

Genesis Annotated: Chapter 3

Genesis Annotated: Chapter 2

Genesis Annotated: Chapter 4

Overview of chapter

This chapter contains the tale of the tempting of Eve and the fall into temptation. This chapter continues the story from chapter 2 and ignores the creation story from chapter 1.

Examined literally, as I am doing here due to claims of this being literally true, causes things to fall apart. Like the chapters before this, this chapter has references to outdated ideas about how the world works. See the additional notes for further details. This further reinforces the idea that this was not written with any divine insights and is more likely a myth.

Additional thoughts

I thought I disliked the first 2 chapters, but chapter 3 is quickly becoming my most disliked because it sets up a justification to blame, dominate, and discriminate against women. Oh, and serpents. Serpents have feelings too!

Does the Serpent really represent Satan?

Despite the common interpretation that the serpent represents Satan in this myth, there is no indication that the serpent is anything other than a serpent. Some make the case that the serpent represents a female figure (Satan is traditionally male). For example, many early artist renditions of the garden scene show a snake with a female head. These artists’s weren’t small, unknown artists either. Michelangelo’s paintings on the Sistine chapel, the relevant part which is shown below, shows a female serpent lady (also known as a Naga) handing the fruit to Eve.

Given that Satan is male throughout the bible, the presence of female serpent figures is curious and raises some questions to today’s audience. If the serpent doesn’t represent Satan, then who does it represent?

If it’s the case that the the serpent DOES represent Satan, God’s punishment of the snake is overblown and completely misses the actual perpetrator. This is like having someone hand you a bag of money and having the police tackle and beat you a few moments later for robbing a bank while you watch the criminal walk down the street away from you.

Also, if the serpent represents Satan, then why, in all places of the bible, is he not moving around on his belly and eating dirt? God was very explicit in how long the curse would last: all the days of it’s life. Clearly all the days of Satan’s life haven’t happened yet (if Christians are to be believed), so why, in the book of Job, is Satan not on his belly? Why is there no instance of Satan eating dirt?

Finally, if the serpent here IS Satan, and Satan can’t tempt someone without god’s consent (see the book of Job), this was a huge setup for our first man and woman. What was the thought process? As the literal creator of humanity, does God not understand human nature and curiosity? Did God not realize that setting 2 humans loose in his garden who have the critical thinking skills of a toddler would end any differently?

The Scientific/logic/sequence mistakes in this chapter

  1. Serpents don’t talk[citation NOT needed] (Genesis 3:1)
  2. Fruit does not confer knowledge (Genesis 3:7)
  3. Eating the fruit did not kill them like God said (Genesis 3:7)
  4. God, commonly held to be omniscient, isn’t (Genesis 3:8-9, 3:11)
  5. Cruel and unusual punishment (God’s favorite kind) (Genesis 3:14-24)
  6. Incorrect ideas about pregnancy (Genesis 3:15)
  7. Anachronism: Swords weren’t a thing yet (Genesis 3:24)
  8. Magic (Genesis 3:1-24)

Chapter 3: Biblical Justification for Sexism.
AKA: It’s All Woman’s Fault
AKA: Cruel and Unusual Punishments

  1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
  2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
  3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
  4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
  5. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
  6. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
  7. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
  8. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
  9. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
  10. And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
  11. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
  12. And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
  13. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
  14. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
  15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
  16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
  17. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
  18. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
  19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


  20. And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
  21. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
  22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
  23. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
  24. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
  1. Weren’t all animals created equally and perfect by god? Why would a serpent by more anything? I suspect the original author just hated snakes for some reason. This is speciests!
  2. aka: Yes….
    I like how she doesn’t care that a snake is talking. #DisneyPrincessConfirmed.
  3. But actually no. Also, she has literally no concept of what death is. She can’t make an informed choice here! She has no knowledge to draw on.
  4. How is this considered tempting? Eve has no critical thinking skills.
  5. Sounds like this would be a good thing in the end. Teach some critical thinking and reasoning skills to Eve so she can make informed choices.
  6. And this starts the moment of “It’s all woman’s fault”. You’d think an omniscient god would have known all this would happen and thus not made the woman or the serpent. Or put the tree or serpent in the garden.
  7. Because nudity is bad? Seriously… why is this writer so ashamed of nudity? This sounds like someone projection: “I’m not ashamed, you’re ashamed!”
  8. Mr. Omniscient should know where they are anyways, right?



  9. Apparently not. Maybe he didn’t want to give away the fact that he’s omniscient?
  10. Afraid, sure, but why because of nudity specifically? Nudity is no big deal NOR anything to be ashamed of.
  11. Not acting very omniscient if you ask me.



  12. AKA: “It’s not me, it’s your fault for giving me someone so wonderful that she wanted to feed me.”
  13. AKA: “It’s not my fault either! It’s really the serpent that you created! It’s smarter than I am because you didn’t give us any critical thinking skills!”
  14. Yeah… this author really doesn’t like snakes. They are well adapted to their lifestyle. Their ancestors had legs as evidenced by fossil records. Their lack of legs makes them a more effective predator in undergrowth. Also: They don’t eat dust.
  15. Everyone is supposed to hate snakes. This seed concept references an outdated idea of how impregnation works. See the notes below.
  16. This god fellow really isn’t very nice. He already “punished” the snake, now he’s causing untold pain and suffering unto billions of women. Probably accounts for deaths during childbirth too.
  17. It really doesn’t seem like the punishments are fitting the crime here. An omniscient and omnipotent god should be able to find a better way to punish everything here without causing suffering to untold billions of creatures.

  18. Cruel and Unusual Punishments, part 5. If you believe this verse, it appears that humans are supposed to be vegan.
  19. References the second creation story in the bible… does this mean the first is inconsequential or wrong? Also… did god create human death as a punishment here? Why do other animals still die if they never sinned?
  20. Weird name, but sure. Might make sense in the original language.
  21. AKA: God kills animals to make clothes


  22. Again, see rationalwiki for an explanation on the “us” mentioned here. God apparently doesn’t want people living forever and thinks death is the way to go. Good job causing even more suffering.
  23. So we are all supposed to be farmers now? Also note: No mentions of afterlife or punishments/rewards after death
  24. Is this “flaming sword” somehow sentient? Also, man and woman would have no idea what a sword is. Further reinforcing the idea that this is a myth intended for people of the time, not an actual account of what happened.

Additional Notes on Chapter 3

The “seed” referenced in verse 15 references an outdated concept of how women become pregnant. The idea is more akin to how plants are grown than humans. Men have seed that they carry around, and they drop that seed into a woman. The woman is viewed as having a field in which the seeds are planted and children begin growing.

For information on fossils showing shakes with legs: https://web.archive.org/web/20200618154613/http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Snakes/Wild-Snakes/Snake-Leg-Origins-Legless/

It seems weird that god would also put a tree of life in the garden. Why was it there if everything was immortal already? Was he just looking for an excuse to toss them out of the garden?

As always, check out the rationalwiki’s annotated version of Genesis for more points. These are just the points I feel are important to point out when I read through this.

Privacy Policy Proudly powered by WordPress