The Consistency Test

4. Are the gospels consistent enough with one another to be believable?

There is disagreement between the gospels, and Christians themselves do not agree on how best to resolve disagreements. Disagreements do not indicate that the gospels are wholly false, but certainly they do not provide evidence as to their accuracy either. What is most interesting to me is the Christian obsession to explain away inaccuracies saying it MAY have been because of such and such, with little if any evidence that such and such was indeed the cause. If your belief is independent of coming up with these explanations that are based mostly on conjecture, why waste the time?

For example, take the difference between Mark and Luke saying that demons were driven into swine at Gerasa, while Matthew says that this even occurred in Gadara. Blomberg's first explanation was that it was "possible" that one was a town and the other a province. Lee Strobel, who I must say at that very moment appears quite the skeptic for the first time in the book, points out to Dr. Blomberg that Gerasa the town isn't anywhere close to the Sea of Galilee, which is where supposedly the event took place. Here is Dr. Blomberg's response:

"But there have been ruins of a town that have been excavated at exactly the right point on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The English form of the town's name often gets pronounced 'Khersa,' but as a Hebrew word translated or transliterated into Greek, it could have come out sounding something very much like 'Gerasa.' So it may very well have been in Khersa--whose spelling in Greek was rendered as Gerasa--in the province of Gadara."

Dr. Blomberg may be right. However, if there is a possibility that he may be right, or as he says if it "may very well have been," then there is also a possibility that one of the accounts, or possibly both are wrong. Does this prove that Jesus didn't throw out demons and place them into a herd of swine? Of course not! Yet it doesn't give us any increased confidence in the three different accounts, either.

Blomberg also tackles the lineage of Jesus which differs greatly between Matthew and Luke. Once again, he can only deal in possibilities. No one knows for sure why the lineage of Jesus is different in Matthew and Luke. Blomberg gives two possible explanations, but then has this added advice:

"...there are occasions when we may need to hold judgement in abeyance and simply say that since we've made sense out of the vast majority of the texts and determined them to be trustworthy, we can give them the benefit of the doubt when we're not sure on some of the other details."

Why does Lee Strobel include advice like this given his challenge? To me this sounds like I'm being asked to set aside my commonsense and logic. It seems to say "if something doesn't fit the picture, don't worry about it, because most of it does." Finding possible ways to have multiple accounts be consistent with one another does not prove the validity of the stories and beliefs that they contain. I can see how such advice can calm doubts in the believer when examining inconsistencies between in-errant texts, but it does not provide much help to me, the skeptic.

The Character Test

Where the gospel writers truthful?

Dr. Blomberg implies that the honesty of the gospel writers is supported because they are not shown to be dishonest. Were it a formal argument this would be a logical fallacy. It may be that the gospel writers were honest people, but it may also be that they were not. Could they have perpetrated a great hoax, or perhaps a small hoax of embellishing history? It may be unlikely, but it is possible. For example there is no historical reference of Jesus that Lee Strobel mentions that was written while Jesus was alive. All writings regarding Jesus were written after his death. Why is it impossible that later references refer to an established hoax? However, I'm willing assume that Dr. Blomberg mentions the lack of negative information about the gospel writers not to convince us of their honesty, but only as fact.

So perhaps it is because Jesus' followers were willing to die for their beliefs? 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, perhaps the Christian may agree that the willingness to endure suffering and death due to firmly held beliefs does not necessitate the truth of those beliefs.

So once again, this test gives us no more or less information than we had before as to the validity of the beliefs held by the writers of the gospels, nor their written word. Some parts may be true, some parts may be false, some may be a mix.

The Ability Test

Is it possible that information in the gospels was accurately preserved before it was recorded?

Lee Strobel's expert, Dr Blomberg, makes one primary argument in defense of this test.

A. Jewish scholars were used to memorizing huge amounts of scripture
B. Jewish scholars could accurately retell scripture from memory
C. ancient middle eastern retellings differ one from another by about forty percent
D. the gospels differ one from another on any given passage by about forty percent

Therefore, it is likely that early Christians engaged in the same kind of retelling practices.

Even if you ignore the admission of doubt signaled by the use of the word "likely," such an argument is almost impossible to defend. There is so much that we don't know. We don't know how many of the pre-gospel early christians were Jewish scholars and could have participated in accurate memorization, or been available to check the accuracy of other's retelling of scripture. More over, even if this practice was done, and we had concrete proof, we wouldn't know for which parts of the gospels it was used, and to what rate of success.

We know that there are chiasms in the New Testament, but we don't know if these are there because the material was passed orally and then written, or written to facilitate oral tradition, or both. We are left with the same dilemma, some parts of the gospels may go on a fact pile, and other parts may not. However, I still see no way to determine one from the other. In any event this test and accompanying argument do not convince me that accurate oral traditions were used to communicate facts about Jesus from the time the occurred to the point when they were related in the Gospels. But does it convince you?

The Intention Test

Was the intent of the gospel writers to accurately preserve history?

In the case of the gospel of Luke Blomberg, Lee Strobel's expert, uses Luke's own words. However, in the case of Mark and Matthew Blomberg's evidence is a little sketchy: "they are close to Luke in terms of genre, and it seems reasonable that Luke's historical intent would closely mirror theirs." Perhaps it is reasonable, but it is also reasonable that their investigation efforts were not as careful. There is no way of knowing for sure, is there?

For John there is also a weak conjecture argument that if theology is to be believed it is important that the history is accurate. I really don't believe that this is a tautology. If it is meant to be, then it certainly needs to be supported much better than to simply state it.

So what do we know of the intent of the authors of the Gospels? We know that at least one of them, Luke, has stated a clear intent to be accurate. A careful reading shows Luke's concern in context: "an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down." His aim therefore is not to play the sceptic: to determine whether or not events happened based on the supposition that they didn't happen. Rather his writing arises from the view that these things did happen, and to be accurate to the story as it was handed down.

Unfortunately, careful presentation of a case does not guaranty its accuracy. For example, it is the intent of prosecutors and the judicial system in which prosecutors play a role not to put innocent people behind bars, which is why our judicial system is founded on a innocent until proven guilty premise. However, unintended mistakes can happen. Often the more careful a prosecutor was in preparing and presenting a case, the more difficult it has been to identify and reverse mistakes. How does this happen? It happens because the prosecutor, like Luke has to rely on other people to make his case, whose intent may be unknown, or who may not be as careful as the prosecutor. In the case of a well established myth the origin may be impossible to determine, and hence the original motivation equally as impossible to know. Luke did not have the benefit of a snopes.com.

So it may be that the things that Luke writes about did happen, or it may be that they did not happen. Since bible accuracy is not an either or proposition, both may also be the case.

Chapter Two: Eight Tests

I wonder if Lee Strobel maybe didn't make a mistake in the title of this chapter. Most of his tests deal more with the question "do the writers of the gospels stand up to scrutiny," and do not answer the question: do the gospels themselves stand up to scrutiny? While it is true that the background of witnesses in a courtroom is often used judge the credibility of the witness, the fact that a witness is credible does not equate the story the witness tells being credible. Also, the accuracy of a testimony is not a dichotomy. There may be some parts of the testimony that are accurate, and there may other parts that are not. Moreover, we learned in chapter one that the gospels are bias motivated compilations of stories, history, and eyewitness accounts from multiple sources, with little indication as to the original sources nor where one story stops and an eyewitness account starts. This is the way histories were written in ancient times we learned. Such methods of writing complicate the tasks of determining the accuracy of an account, which is why lawyers don't write briefs in the same manner, nor are modern histories written that way.

In modern times we vet information through multiple sources. For example: I hear a story from someone that they know of a public pool that contains a special chemical which turns red when a child urinates in it. I also hear the same story from several other people, and happen to read about an encounter with such a chemical in an Orson Wells biography . I can believe it, or I can question and do still further research. Perhaps I can contact my friends and get more details such as: which municipalities installed the wonder pee discovering chemical? Or, thanks to Al Gore, I can check the web.

Whenever Lee Strobel or one of his experts uses words such as believable, plausible, probable, or likely, I always think of a multitude of possibilities that seem equally plausible to me. Lee Strobel does not provide me anything in this chapter that can helps me dissect the New Testament into facts and myths. Instead I'm still left with big piles of "unlikely," "maybe" and "I don't know." Hopefully future chapters will be of more value.

However, maybe I'm missing something, maybe there is evidence that I overlooked, that is right in front of me. So in case the reader is interested, what will follow are explanations for why these tests didn't work well for me.

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?