Chapter One Evidence

Before continuing with chapter two, here is the evidence from chapter one:

1. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus and so would have been able to add eyewitness testimony
2. Mark was a companion of Peter
3. Luke was a companion of Paul
4. The Gospels are anonymous
5. 2nd century Christian testimony indicates the identity of the authors of the Gospels
6. Ancient histories are a compilations of varied sources mixed with narration
7. Ancient Greek and Hebrew didn't have quotation marks
8. There are significant portions of Matthew and Luke similar enough to bring about the idea of a common source for those portions
9. It has been tradition to believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark when composing their own Gospels
10. Irenaeus, an early christian writer says the order was: first Matthew and then Mark followed by Luke and John.
11. Standard scholarly dating puts the earliest Gospel, Mark, around 40 years after Christ's death.
12. The Gospels and Christian tradition claim that Jesus is God
13. Paul began writing within a decade of Jesus death, during which time he received a creed that included testimony of Jesus' death for sins and resurrection.

Before I begin a discussion of chapter two, I'm wondering if someone could point out if there is any significant evidence from chapter one missing from this list, or if I'm wrong on anything?

Chapter One Summary

The first chapter was somewhat disappointing because evidence was not as clearly presented as I expected it to be, Lee Strobel was not as skeptical as I was expecting, and some of the arguments his expert made were weak. However, the history of the Gospels was interesting, and I still see potential for the book, especially on the topics of faith and the supernatural, which I hope Lee Strobel will address address in later chapters.

When I read the introduction I got the impression that this book was written for me, the skeptic. However, the first chapter made me think that Lee Strobel wrote this book for the believer. I realize that Strobel wrote the book after his conversion, but his recordings of interviews were allegedly a part of his conversion process, and so presumably took place before his conversion. Several times in the first chapter when Lee Strobel took a weak argument on face value I just wanted to yell: "No! No, that does NOT make sense." At this point Lee Strobel doesn't seem to be a very thorough skeptic. Still, its early in the book, and he may become more skeptical later. I now know that if I ever write a book to convince Atheists, I will pay Atheists to criticize the book as I'm writing it.

Although chapter one gave me a much better understanding of the Gospels, it was also a little disappointing that Lee Strobel was not more upfront regarding the composition of the Gospels. A close reading of Strobel's first chapter reveals that the authors of the Gospels use a mix of eyewitness testimony, previous accounts, tradition, and oral history, woven together with added narration. According to Strobel's expert, Blomberg, that is the way histories were written in ancient times (pg 31). But there is a good reason that modern courtroom evidence does not follow this format: it is not a reliable way to present evidence. It's disappointing then that such a narrative is presented next to modern courtroom testimony, without acknowledging and explaining the difference to us. This gives us the impression that the two are synonymous, which they are not. Imagine how confusing it would be to a juror to have hearsay, eyewitness testimony, and oral tradition seamlessly presented from a single witness. Perhaps Lee Strobel does not point out the difference between the two because he truely does see a Gospel written in the traditional historical format of its day and a modern eyewitness testimony as synonymous?

Finally, I was surprised by what was missing from the first chapter. There is no discussion regarding the supernatural (does it exist), nor of supernatural evidence (is it reliable). Yet Lee Strobel includes supernatural hearsay testimony as evidence (pg 35). If Mr. Strobel is to continue his courtroom analogy, then at some point he must address these issues. I have not yet lost hope that he will. But if he doesn't, then it may be because Strobel already had a belief in the supernatural when he began his investigation, which calls into question his credentials as a skeptic.

Questions for Discussion:

1. In the first chapter did Lee Strobel ask a critical question that surprised you?


2. How good do you think Blomberg's arguments were, and which arguments did you find to be the most convincing? Which did you find to be the least convincing?


3. Do you believe that the Gospels are synonymous to modern eyewitness accounts? Why or why not?


4. When might you accept written testimony containing a mix of eyewitness accounts, hearsay accounts, tradition, and oral history, woven together with added narration as reliable courtroom evidence?


5. If you were Luke writing the Gospel of Luke, what might you include that isn't there, without changing the actual content of the Gospel? Why do you think Luke didn't include such things?


6. Does it bother you that the inspired word of God was written using the historical techniques of those times? Why or why not?


7. If a written account of a supernatural event were presented in a court case from a source you trusted, would you believe it?


8. Why do you think that Lee Strobel presented supernatural evidence, but did not engage his expert in any discussion as to the validity of the supernatural?


9. If Lee Strobel is not a reliable skeptic, can you trust his conclusions and evaluations of the evidence? Why or why not?