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.
No comments:
Post a Comment