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).
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
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.
2 comments:
I think that Strobel completely undermines his pretensions to asking tough skeptical questions right here in the first chapter. As evidence for the authorship of the gospels, he accepts without challenge an unsourced report written a century or more after the gospels themselves. As a long time subscriber to the Chicago Tribune, I hope that these are not the journalistic skills he applied there.
Irenaeous was writing in 180 A.D. and he does not give us his basis for believing that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the books that he attributes to them. He simply asserts it as a fact. Papias was writing in 125 A.D., but he does not quote anything from the books he described so it is impossible to be sure that these were the same books Irenaeous was talking about or even that Papias ever saw the books. Papias may simply have heard about these books from unidentified sources. The idea that this can give us confidence that the books are based on eyewitness testimony is pretty far fetched.
You bring up a good point, but I do not label Lee Strobel's claims to skepticism as pretention. I've read a little farther and the book and think that I have good evidence that Lee Strobel did not write his chapters in order (which is common). Although there are things in chapter one he didn't question enough, I also found one thing that he accepts in that chapter, but questions in a later chapter.
When I finish the book I'd like to order the chapters by the level of skepticism demonstrated and try to determine which chapters came first, and the point at which Lee Strobel surrendered his skepticism because he began to believe the line of reasoning that was being presented to him. Most likely it was a gradual process, but there must be a tipping point. It would be nice if Lee Strobel shared the dates and times of his interviews.
You also have to give some room for the argument that he simply couldn't fit all of the material he gathered into a book as concise as TCFC. We all place different amounts of importance on different arguments. Lee Strobel includes some arguments that are not that pivitol for me personally, but were major sticking points for himself, and omits others. It may be that Lee did ask the questions you raise, but chose not to include them or the answers into the book for some reason he has not shared with us.
Post a Comment