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:
- In the first chapter did Lee Strobel ask a critical question that surprised you?
- 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?
- Do you believe that the Gospels are synonymous to modern eyewitness accounts? Why or why not?
- 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?
- 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?
- Does it bother you that the inspired word of God was written using the historical techniques of those times? Why or why not?
- If a written account of a supernatural event were presented in a court case from a source you trusted, would you believe it?
- 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?
- If Lee Strobel is not a reliable skeptic, can you trust his conclusions and evaluations of the evidence? Why or why not?
8 comments:
Hi, AtheistReader,
You bring up some interesting points. I will give my opinion on a few of them.
First, about the way historians wrote in those times: I agree that Lee should have emphasized the means they used a bit more. And his courtroom analogy is a bit misleading. But, this doesn't mean that the gospels are therefore unreliable. To draw on other sources, the "Germania" of Tacitus was written the same way, yet we accept it as reliable. The way it was written causes us to examine it very closely, but not doubt that it is reliable.
The second point, that Lee doesn't seem to be writing for a skeptic, I tend to agree with. His presentation seems to be more for someone who is "straddling the fence", not knowing which way to turn, than someone who is out-and-out skeptical.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this with you! Its nice to not have to "fight" with someone who doesn't believe as I do, and have a nice, rational discussion!
You are right, of course, the analogy being wrong, or Lee Strobel not playing the skeptic to my liking has nothing to do with the Gospels being reliable or unreliable.
Note that I would not argue that the Gospels are unreliable, or that ancient methods of recording history are 100% unreliable. My argument is that they are less reliable... whether or not they are reliable enough is a conclusion I am not going to reach until the end of the book, after all the evidence has been examined. I'm curious if I have given the impression that they are unreliable, rather than less reliable? Just curious.
Also just as Lee's analogy, or the ancient levels of his skepticism have nothing to do with the content of Gospels being reliable, neither do Tacitus' writings, except to say that they give us an ancient historical document that has some acceptable level of reliability. The bible in my mind goes into the less reliable category because of its accounts of supernatural events, and the motivations of those who wrote it. However, lets leave that discussion for a future blog post, since Strobel has not yet addressed the supernatural.
I'm curious, the way Lee Strobel handled explaining why the Gospels can be considered reliable despite the motivations of the authors, was that sufficient for you?
However, Lee's analogy not being as strong as it should, and his skepticism being somewhat lacking does change how the evidence was presented in the first chapter, and makes me being able to follow his challenge and come to the conclusion that he claims the reader will come to, less likely.
I'm not sure I follow,
'less reliable'.
Less reliable than what? what is the standard you are using for reliability?
I didn't quite follow your thoughts there.
Good point... I wasn't clear. Less reliable than I was expecting them to be, I suppose. However, I think I can be a little more specific.
If you take the legal analogy, then less reliable than testimony that allows for cross examination.
If you take them as a compiled history, then less reliable than something that clearly denotes where one source starts and another one stops, who the sources are, how source information was aquired, the dates of those sources, as well as what was added by the editor, and what is attributed to a source.
If you take the angle of bias, then less reliable than a document that attempts to address more than one side of an issue or a claim.
These are the primary Chapter One items that in my mind affect the reliability of the evidence.
So for now the question remains: are the Gospels reliable enough?
Thanks for your insights AR. I agree w/Todd, it is nice not to talk to someone who disagrees yet is not combative which is usually the norm.
Couple points:
- latching on to what Nathan said, what comparable source do you consider reliable? To make a "less reliable" claim, you have to have a bar. At the very least, is there another religious source that is as reliable? Even a close second? Strobel is making the claim that there is no more reliable source from antiquity than the Bible. He makes several references to those that might take second place, although quite distant (i apologize if it isn't in Ch1 though, they all sort of blur together). Granted, the info presented in Ch1 alone would not be enough to back such a claim.
- your implication as to the authors having something to write what they wrote is a bit misleading. You must consider that at the time there was some deep hostility towards the followers of Christ. I would contend, and Strobel makes the case as well (sorry, i again forget what chapter) that they had everything to loose. They would have led a much happier life had they just moved on after the crucifixion. His disciples were Jews, the very people who wanted to stomp out everything that would challenge their beliefs and power. They undoublably lost family and friends over such a choice, not to mention their lives. Unlikely that they would thrust themselves into such a mess and likely towards death, knowing that what they believed was a lie.
my 2 cents.
Thanks for your honest comments, very interesting.
Anonymous, thank you for your comments! Let me address them in reverse order. I think your second claim, if I understand you correctly, is that most people are not willing to die for a lie? There are other possibilities to consider: the person may not know that what they believe is false, the liar may prefer death than to have the truth disclosed, the consequences of either disclosing the truth or maintaining the lie are equivalent, or some combination. In any event, someone enduring unspeakable hardships because of their professed beliefs does not necessitate the validity of those beliefs. Since you can find religious people of other faiths being persecuted terribly for their beliefs, I think you may find yourself agreeing with that statement.
The "less reliable" question: When viewing evidence we can ask ourselves how reliable the evidence is. Suppose that an elephant stampede happened in Africa killing several people. If you saw the event yourself that is quite reliable. If you heard about it from an eyewitness that is some degree less reliable... and so on. However, I think your point may be that given the fact that the Gospels were written in ancient times, I can't expect them to be far more reliable than other documents of equal antiquity? One wouldn't expect to find a bible on microfiche dated around the second century AD, for example. Nathan, was that your point as well?
The baby has started sleeping at night now, so life is returning to normal. :)
I do have another bit to clarify for the courtroom issue: to me, each of the points made by Strobel (throughout the book, not just chapter 1)are fairly weak and easily dismissed by themselves. It is, however, the cumulative weight of these points that is telling, in my opinion.
So I've thought a long time about that statement "each of the points made by Strobel (throughout the book, not just chapter 1)are fairly weak and easily dismissed by themselves. It is, however, the cumulative weight of these points that is telling, in my opinion.", having finished reading the book. But I think it needs to wait till the last post, and then after further reflection.
Chapter two is so different from Chapter one that I wasn't really sure what direction to take with it. However, its really so simple: it's the evidence, that is the direction to take.
Post a Comment