The Divine Jesus

In the section of chapter one entitled "Going Back to the Beginning" Lee Strobel's expert, Blomberg, explains that

To find the earliest information, one goes to Paul's epistles and then asks, 'Are there signs that even earlier sources were used in writing them?'

Blomberg uses Paul for the existence of early evidence for

1. the divinity of Jesus
2. the death of Christ for our sins
3. the resurrection of Jesus
4. sightings of Jesus after his death

Blomberg makes his point that

That's not later mythology from forty or more years down the road, as Armstrong suggested. A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, through not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of that very event.

Lee Strobel ends the chapter with his own view of the significance of the evidence:

It certainly seemed to take the wind out of the charge that the Resurection--which is cited by Christians as the crowning confirmation of Jesus' divinity--was merely a mythological concept that developed over long periods of time as legends corrupted the eyewitness accounts of Christ's life. For me, this struck especially close to home--as a skeptic, that was one of my biggest objections to Christianity.

Let us assume that the letters of Paul are as old as Blomberg claims they are, are not invented, and that they accurately portray the beliefs of their author, Paul. To trust Paul's belief in the resurrection as fact, one has to accept that there were multiple witnesses to a supernatural event. This is my personal greatest objection-- not the disputed authorship of the bible, the potential interference of personal religious idealism on supposed facts, nor the weakness of Blomberg's comparison arguments. Those are all objections, but not the greatest objection. To be clear my greatest objection is a belief in events that are proven impossible by science. In the case of the resurrection: someone who has died a violent death and whose corpse has been laid up for three days, does not gain back all of the blood they lost, heal dead muscle tissue so that blood can flow, establish a pulse, resume brain activity, push a stone aside, walk, and start talking to people.

Supernatural belief is not unique to Christianity, but is common to most religion. If the supernatural is not possible, then Jesus could not have risen from the dead, and no matter how fervent the testimony of Paul, it just didn't happen. Perhaps people (more than 500) "saw" Jesus as a mirage in the distance, or a reflection in a pool, and the later Gospels made the story to be a more credible one. Although we will never know how the legend was established, if you don't accept the supernatural then Paul is wrong, no matter how honest and fervent his beliefs are.

Is it really so impossible that legends about the supernatural Jesus were created a few years after Christ's death, or for that matter while he was still alive (which I personally think is more likely)? I believe that such legends can be created in a short amount of time. I hope that Strobel and those he interviews will shed more light as to why they made the rational choice to accept the irrational as fact. In my opinion this is where the faith of the believer has a significant role to play, a topic that Lee Strobel has to mention, and the discussion of which I look forward to. But what do you the Christian reader think? If supernatural evidence was presented in a courtroom, which after all is the analogy that Strobel uses in The Case for Christ, would you entertain it as probable? Why or why not?

Degrees of Confidence

I'm disappointed by the ambiguity that Lee Strobel allows to go unquestioned.

Even so, I wanted to test the issue further. "Excuse my skepticism," I said, "but would anyone have had a motivation to lie claiming these people wrote these gospels, when they really didn't?"Blomberg shook his head. "Probably not. Remember, these were unlikely characters," he said...

Blomberg goes on a bit on his theory that fake documents are produced with the names of prominent people to give them more weight. This just seems backwards to me... if I wanted to perpetrate a written lie I'd pick an author who would be questioned less, rather than pick someone prominent that lots of people may have known personally. Also there is the possibility that there were earlier gospels already circulating so perhaps those names were not available. But that isn't really why I mention this passage, since such a discussion just leads to arguments over unknowns. What is interesting to me is that the story as Mr. Strobel tells it doesn't have the tone of a skeptic, though he says that he is being skeptical.

I'm quite sure Lee Strobel seen the following exchange:

Expert: "It's Possible."
Lawyer: "But you are not certain, so its also possible that xyz didn't happen."
Expert: "Yes, that's true".

However Strobel gives no indication (at least not in this part of the book) that he pursued such a line of inquiry with his witness whenever Mr. Blomberg said something was "probable" or "possible". It is possible that an intelligent, critically thinking person may believe the Gospels are written by someone other than the authors (p22). It is possible that someone made up or embellished parts of the Gospels and had a motivation to do so (p23). It is possible that the Gospel of John may not be John the apostle (p23). It is possible that we will never know the authors of the works that some of the Gospels are based on (p26). It is possible that a theological agenda could cause the compilers of the Gospels to twist and color the record (p31). Acts may not have been written before Paul was put to death (which is very key to his version of dating the Gospels, important because it has the potential to place the Gospels outside of the lifespans of those who are reported to have compiled them) (p33). It maybe that Lee Strobel did follow this line of questioning, and dug much deeper into just how possible something was or wasn't. If this is a book written for skeptics then it is a wonder that he does not present these further inquiries! Ruling out beyond a doubt the obvious questions that arise every time his expert says something is only probable makes this book seem to be written more for the believer, rather the unbeliever. Perhaps this can be addressed in a future edition? I wonder if he had an atheist review his book critically before it was published?

Lee Strobel gives us some interesting historical evidence and other comparisons to increase the degree of confidence in conclusions based on probabilities. These also are not treated as a skeptic treats something, which Lee Strobel identifies himself as being at the time these interviews were conducted.

"Again, the oldest and probably most significant testimony comes from Papias, who in about A.D. 125 specifically affirmed that Mark had carefully and accurately recorded Peter's eyewitness observations. In fact, he said Mark 'made no mistake' and did not include 'any false statement.'

Critical thinking begs the questions: "What facts do you have to support the claim that they were Peter's observations?" "Did you have access to Peter's writings?" "How do you know nothing was added?" There is nothing to backup this historical assertion whatsoever. We are left no option but to take his claim as fact.

Blomberg gives us an analogy to show how something motivated by ideological purpose may still be accurate. He chooses the Jewish Holocaust documentation as an example of one such event. (p32) This kind of logic is puzzling to me. Not only is the nature of the documentation very different, but so are the number of eyewitnesses, the duration of time between the documentation and the event, the number of people affected, the number of non Jewish documents corroborating events, and the documents and testimony by the people who committed the crimes. It would be as if Jesus himself wrote down everything he wrote. However, lets assume that it is a good comparison. How can a comparison provide us with evidence as to whether or not something written with an ideological purpose is accurate? Does this mean that all I need to refute the argument is a modern comparison of something written with an ideological intent that is proven to be false? I don't think that any Christian would stand for such a weak argument. Lee Strobel should consider removing this analogy, because far from convincing, it cheapens his entire claim to appealing to logic.

Unfortunately Lee Strobel's expert, Blomberg, likes such comparison arguments, because he uses another one when considering the issue of the time expired between Jesus's death and when the Gospels were compiled. Because a well known biography of Alexander the Great was written much later than the Gospels were and is found to be accurate, therefore the Gospels, which by comparison are like a news flash should not be doubted because of when they were written. Once again, I'm sure that this comparison argument can be proven the other way around. Of course that argument would also be refuted. Christians would point out, and rightly so, that my comparison is completely different. This is the point: most comparison arguments serve only illustrate a point of view, and not tools for persuasion unless the subjects being compared are identical.

So what do my Christian friends think? Did Lee Strobel act the skeptic during his interviews, or could he have been more skeptical? Why wasn't he more skeptical, with regard to what he chose to include in his book? Are comparison arguments fair game when trying to determine your degree of confidence, and did they really add something to the book in your opinion? If I use such an argument someone please jump up and down and wave your arms widely (or the commenting equivalent). The most likely product of such an argument will be fighting over the qualities of the comparison. This can only detract from the heart of the matter: did Christ live, perform miracles, die for my sins, and rise from the dead so that I might have eternal life? I for one am looking forward to finding out what in particular tipped the scales for Mr. Strobel. Hopefully his book includes all the details of his personal conversion.

Who Are The Eyewitnesses?

I have to say that the first chapter of the book really surprised me. I wasn't expecting to learn anything new.

Expert testimony in the first chapter is provided by Craig L. Blomberg, PH.D., who has impressive credentials, and knows both sides of every issue: though he is not a skeptic of Christianity by any stretch of the imagination. His obvious bias aside he does a fair job of presenting the main characters in the Bible.

The biggest surprise of this chapter was how few eyewitnesses there are. Here is the Gospel pedigree mixed with other bible events as presented by Blomberg.

• 30-33 AD Crucifixion


• 32-35 AD Paul's Conversion


• 50s AD Paul's major letters


• 60 (70s) AD Mark


• Q ?


• 61 (80s) AD Gospel of Luke (draws from Mark)


• 62 (80s) AD Acts (Luke)


• 80s Matthew (draws from Mark)


• (90s) John (was John aware of Matthew Mark Luke?) - Mostly from the apostle but perhaps some editorial changes at the end and "creating the stylistic uniformity of the entire document" (p 24).

The dates in parenthesis are dates which Dr. Blomberg calls "the standard scholary dating, even in very liberal circles." (p 33) The other dates are Dr. Blomberg's revised dates based on the theory that the completion of Acts is tied to the death of Paul (p 33-34), and that the Gospel of Luke precedes Acts, and Mark precedes Luke. The order is supported by Irenaeus on page 24, with the exception of Matthew and Mark. Or am I reading this wrong?

Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding he church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching.

Does this mean that Irenaeus puts Matthew, which is reportedly based on Mark, as being written before Mark? I was confused by this. Hopefully someone can explain it.

But the real confusion is that the case that opens the chapter speaks of eyewitness testimony, yet there seems to be no complete consistent eyewitness testimony. Instead what we have is mostly hearsay mixed with possible eyewitness testimony when it comes to the events of Christ's life, and especially Christ's words.

• Matthew - based on Mark, who reported preaching from Peter who was reportedly a witness to Christ, possibly other eyewitness testimony, and possible personal eyewitness testimony
• Mark based on Peter who was reportedly a witness to Christ
• Luke - based on Mark, who reported preaching from Peter who was reportedly a witness to Christ, and possible other eyewitness testimony
• John - "based on eyewitness material" (pg 24, though it isn't completely clear in the text to what degree and how much) and possible personal eyewitness testimony

This means that we have at best some of eyewitness testimony, hearsay, and reports based on hearsay all mixed together. In fact the way that Lee Strobel describes it, and this I must say was a complete surprise to me, the Gospels are more like paintings, with other Gospels, material we haven't even identified, personal observation, and other possible oral tradition all mixed together to paint a cohesive narrative and picture.

Blomberg stroked his beard and stared at the ceiling for a moment as he pondered the question. "Well, you have to keep in mind that Q was a collection of sayings, and therefore it didn't have the narrative material that would have given us a more fully orbed picture of Jesus," he replied, speaking slowly as he chose each word with care.

I'm not understanding (though perhaps it will be explained more fully in subsequent chapters) how this view is to instill confidence in the Gospels as eyewitness evidence of the kind that was related at the beginning of the chapter? There we had the report from a man concerning a series of events that he saw with his own eyes, devoid of any hearsay, or for that matter reports of hearsay. If eyewitness testimony is yellow, hearsay red, and reports based on hearsay purple, and these are all mixed together, you get quite a different picture than if all you are reporting on is pure eyewitness testimony.

There is a large difference for a juror when judging the validity of direct eyewitness testimony, and indirect eyewitness testimony. So even if the following statement is valid

If we can have confidence that the gospels were written by the disciples Matthew and John, by Mark, the companion of the disciple Peter, and by Luke, the historian, companion of Paul, and sort of a first-century journalist, we can be assured that the events they record are based on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony.

the juror is not helped much by knowing who wrote the material if the source cannot be trusted, and if it is not clearly presented which parts are personal eyewitness accounts (preferably from more than one witness) and which is hearsay. For now I assume that Mr. Strobel will clear this question up in future chapters.

Finally, on the subject of the identity of the eye witnesses, Lee Strobel mentions a discredited collection of documents called the apocrypha (p 23). It is mentioned that these documents were written much later. However there is a definite lack of detail to support that these may not also be based on hearsay, or reports of hearsay. Once again, I do recognize that it is early in the book, and that as the case progresses some of my questions will be answered.

Not to worry, this isn't everything I've learned from chapter one :-). But I thought it would be a good start. Hopefully someone can help clear up some of the questions I have before proceeding to other information Lee Strobel shares in the chapter? Also I thought it may make things more easy to comment on and discuss if I didn't bite off the entire chapter in one post.

Eyewitness Testimony

The first section of Lee Strobel's book The Case For Christ deals with Eyewitness testimony. In the first chapter he relates a legal case where eyewitness testimony played an integral role in proving the guilt of a defendant.

Whenever one talks about eyewitness testimony it is also important to mention hearsay, the second hand account of eyewitness testimony, and it is interesting to me that Lee Strobel does not make this distinction in the first chapter of his book? But perhaps he makes this distinction later in his book.

The case that Lee Strobel presents is of an eyewitness testifying against several criminals. It is a case of a credible eyewitness who not only witnessed a crime, but then a second crime as the perpetrator in the first crime attempted to murder the eyewitness. This is an incredibly strong case. It is no wonder then that

his word was good enough to land the trio in prison for the rest of their lives

It is this case that is used as a backdrop for presenting eyewitnesses of Jesus.

Introduction

UPDATE:

I've added the jury quote to the margin of the blog, to remind myself of the challenge that Lee Strobel makes in the introduction. Also as people follow along and read each post, I want them to be reminded of the challenge as well. I happen to believe that Lee Strobel's claims are sincere, and so I wish to limit discussion to what is his book. If there is other information in other books, lets tackle those books after this one has been read. For the present time I'm interested in Lee Strobel's case for Christ, and not the case of another author.

More over I'm not interested in refuting minute details of his expert's testimony with competing evidence from a source other than Lee Strobel's book. Where the experts leave room for questioning, we might question. However where experts are 100% sure of something we'll give Lee Strobel the benefit of the doubt. For example, in chapter one on page 23 Mr Strobel's expert says "There are no known competitors for these three gospels." There are other sites that have argued that this statement is wrong. However, since Lee Strobel has not mentioned them, I'm not interested in delving into the details of this one statement. To do so would lead down an endless rabbit hole, the end of which is doubtful to ever be reached. Like wise I'm sure it will happen that someone will think Lee Strobel's case can be strengthened with supplemental information. I would ask though the same principle be applied when this happens. If more information is required to make Lee Strobel's case stronger, I hope he will include it in a future edition of the book.

With all of that in mind... lets jump in.

The introduction gives me great hope for this book. Hopefully there will be evidence from multiple sources, the veracity of which is beyond question. Lee Strobel uses a judicial case from his days as a reporter to illustrate how evidence can point someone to certain conclusions, but upon closer inspection fits a different conclusion much more precisely.

But the key questions were these: Had the collection of evidence really been thorough? And which explanation beset fit the totality of the facts?

More over it would appear that I have a better starting point than Strobel does, who at the beginning of his investigation described himself as an Atheist but admits that

Sure, I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus.

I don't see my life that way. In fact, I even go to church with my family now and then. While some atheists feel that religion poisons everything, and that religion is evil, I'm not certain of either of those statements. I've seen religion do some terrible things, but I've also heard first hand of people being motivated to do some very wonderful things.

Towards the end of the introduction Strobel encourages the reader to play the role of a juror. While I'm skeptical that this book will change my life and cause me to become a Christian, I'm more than happy to put aside that bias and treat it as though it were evidence presented in a courtroom. Hopefully my Christian friends who are following along can let me know when I stray from this goal. I also hope that Christians who may happen across this blog who are not my friends (those who know me only as atheistreader) will do the same---in the same Christian manner.

Welcome!

Welcome to the atheist reader. The current book that is being read is The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. My goal is to dissect each book that I read down to its main points. Who knows, maybe if this catches on we'll have to vote on the next book that is covered.