The Adverse Witness Test

8. Are there any witnesses that spoke out against the gospels?

This tests suggests two conclusions can be drawn from the evidence:

1. because enemies do not deny that Jesus performed miracles, they implicitly admit that he did
2. if critics could have asserted that the claims of Jesus' followers were false they would have

Once again, the absence of evidence does not prove anything. Indeed, if it did, then the Bible would be a lot easier to refute. We can guess as to what critics thought, and why they said or didn't say such and such. Lee Strobel's witness might be right on both counts above. However, you must also allow for the possibility in light of no concrete evidence, that his witness is wrong. We don't know.

The Corroboration Test

7. Are there other sources that corroborate with information found in the gospels?

Lee Strobel says that this argument will be further researched, but I fail to see how corroboration alone is sufficient for the majority of stories that are found in the New Testament. Take for example the story of Jesus meeting the two demonics. There are facts in this story that can be substantiated:

1. Tombs may have been found outside of a city
2. Swine were herded so that they could feed
3. Herds of swine may have been large, requiring multiple swine herders

Unfortunately there are many more claims that can not be substantiated:

1. Demons existed
2. Demons could possess people
3. Demons could communicate
4. Jesus could cast out demons

Even if you presume the current existence of these facts, there is little evidence to support that the parts of the story that attest to these facts at the time of Jesus are true, outside of the story itself. Corroboration in part does not necessitate the accuracy of the whole.

In past posts I have posited that it is the inaccurate nature of ancient documents that helps to make the corroboration of their entire contents difficult. However, for Christians ancient documents can only be judged by ancient standards, and all other standards are unfair. I did a little digging into this issue and think that there is some truth to this. It definitely deserves its own post, but you'll have to wait till the last test is responded to.

The Cover-Up Test

6. Is there evidence that there was a cover-up or scrubbing of the gospels of information?

It is true, there is no evidence that there was a cover-up or scrubbing of the gospels of information. Based on this fact, here is the conclusion that is made:

if they didn't feel free to leave out stuff when it would have been convenient and helpful to do so, is it really plausible to believe that they outright added and fabricated material with no historical basis?

How can you jump from "there is no evidence" to "so because they could have in certain places, in my opinion, they definitely didn't". The correct answer is "we don't know."

One could have just as easily concluded: if they didn't feel free to leave out stuff when it would have been convenient and helpful to do so, it is really plausible that the things they did leave out were even more helpful and convenient to remove than the things which were left in.