Case for Christ Chapter 3: Documentary "Evidence"

1. Having read the interview with Dr. Metzger, how would you rate the reliability of the process by which the New Testament was transmitted to us?

Not very highly.

What are some reasons you find this process trustworthy or not?

The process seems highly subjective and riddled with opportunity for errors, censorship of dissent and addition of later insertions.

2. Scan a copy of the New Testament and examine some of the notes in the margins that talk about variant readings.  What are some examples you find?

“The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not contain Mark 16:9-20”

“The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not contain John 7:53-8:11.”

How does the presence of these notations affect your understanding of the passages?

It only raises more questions.  Who added these passages? When were they added (they were not included in the first compiled copies of the New Testament: the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, which Metzger dates at 350 AD)?

3. Does the criteria for determining whether a document should be included in the New Testament seem reasonable?

The criteria:

1. Apostolic authority. Must have been written by an apostle or a follower of an apostle.  We have already established that this is damn near impossible to determine empirically, and is therefore ultimately determined by Church tradition.

2. Conformity to the rule of faith: congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.  Second verse, same as the first.  Basically, Church tradition formally  recognized as Church tradition.

3. Continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.  So, basically an argumentum ad populum.

Based on these three criteria, it seems that Church tradition and the “vox populi” basically determined what became the New Testament.  This is not an objective process where we are interested in finding the truth of the matter.  The fact that neither Strobel nor Metzger addresses any critiques or alternative arguments other than a passive dismissal shows a blatant dishonesty on the part of both men.

Taking on Lee Strobel: Chapter 2

Continuing on in Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"

1. Overall, how have Blomberg’s responses to these eight evidential tests affected your confidence in the reliability of the gospels? Why?

Blomberg's responses have done absolutely nothing to give me confidence that the gospels are reliable, just as he did nothing to convince me that they are even eyewitness accounts.

2. Which of these tests do you consider to be the most persuasive and why?

The corroboration test. If the facts don’t match the story that is a huge red flag.  Blomberg doesn't seem interested in it and his answers are weak and unconvincing. He admits that archaeology has "presented some problems" but quickly shrugs it off without elaborating.

3. When people you trust give slightly different details of the same event, do you automatically doubt their credibility or do you see if there is a reasonable way to reconcile their accounts?

This is a loaded question, but I'll play along and say that when two reliable sources give contradictory accounts and we do not have enough evidence outside of these two sources, we acknowledge this fact and revert to the default position which is "we don't know for sure."

How convincing did you find Blomberg’s analysis of the apparent contradictions among the gospels?

Not very. Blomberg fails to provide any good reasons for why we should accept the validity of the gospels other than suppositions and excuses, much like the reasons he gave for how we can know the gospels are "eyewitness" accounts.

In answering if it was the stated or implied intention of the writers to preserve history, Blomberg says we should take Luke and John's word for it because they say so and there are no “outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing” like those found in other ancient writings. I wonder if he means the crazy shit you find in other myths like being born of a virgin, being the offspring of a god, miraculously healing the sick, raising the dead, and coming back to life after dying. Maybe he is referring to some other kind of "blatant mythologizing" like having to go through some big long struggle or vision quest like ... Oh, I don't know, having to live in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights while being tormented by an arch-nemesis.

When answering if the writers were able to reliably record history, Blomberg says in oral traditions, much had to be committed to memory and was via poetry and songs, with a 10-40% variance of incidental details.  I’ll come back to this.

As far as whether or not it was it in the character of these writers to be truthful,

Blomberg says yes. We have no reason to believe that the gospel writers weren't truthful (except for some glaring contradictions and all that non-blatant mythologizing) and they were willing to die for what they believed.  The willingness to die for what you believe to be true does not verify the truthfulness of your claim.  If it did, we could believe in the veracity of more claims than just the Christians’.

Now when it comes to whether or not there are irreconcilable discrepancies that undermine the trustworthiness of the accounts Blomberg says that once you allow for a 10-40% margin of error, they are consistent.  Oh, and too much consistency would be suspicious.  Strobel brings up inconsistencies like “Gadara” and “Gerasa” and Joseph’s genealogy, which Blomberg buries under excuses like “mistranslations,” “Mary’s genealogy in disguise,” “Legal vs. biological parentage,” etc.

Of course, the “hard-hitting” Strobel helpfully pitches him softballs.  He does not bring up:

-That only Matthew and Luke seem to know that Jesus was born of a virgin. Shouldn’t that warrant mention in the other two?  If, as Blomberg suggests, there were “fixed points that were unalterable” in oral accounts, shouldn’t “born of a virgin” be one of them? Considering how many mythological figures were born of a virgin, maybe they felt that sort of thing was just mundane.

-Where and when did the Ascension take place? I can understand getting names like “Gerasa” and “Gadara” mixed up (hell I’ve gotten them mixed up in this post), but what about “Bethany” and “Mount Olivet”? In Luke, the Ascension takes place in Bethany the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:50-51).  In Acts (supposedly written by Luke!) it takes place at Mount Olivet 40 days later (Acts 1:9-12).  Is this just an “incidental detail” that we should expect Luke to disagree with himself about?

Did Jesus go to Egypt after his birth? Matthew says yes, (Matthew 2:13), Luke says no (Luke 2:39). The prophecy (according to Matthew) called for the messiah to be called out of Egypt. Why did Luke get this wrong? Or did Matthew get it wrong? Or is whether or not Jesus fulfilled a messianic prophecy by coming out of Egypt “incidental?”

Did Herod order the death of all boys under the age of 2? Matthew says yes, Luke makes no mention of it.  That seems to be a crucial part of the story and the reason for Jesus coming out of Egypt. So who was wrong, Luke or Matthew?

Did Jesus go to Galilee after his resurrection (Matthew) or Jerusalem (Luke)?

Where and to whom does Jesus first appear after coming back to life? To Mary Magdalene (and possibly other women, two accounts seem to be at odds) at or near the tomb (Matthew, John), or to Cleopas and an anonymous companion on the road to Emmaus (Luke)?

Why don’t the oldest manuscripts of Mark (the ones without 16:9-20) mention Jesus appearing to the disciples after his death? Who added Chapter 16:9-20 and when?

Why weren't these contradictions addressed as opposed to Strobel;s batting practice fastballs?

When addressing if the gospel writers had any biases that would have colored their work,

Blomberg basically says that they were too biased to be biased and so biased that that they were unbiased.  

Roger that.

In addressing if the people, places and events mentioned corroborated historically, Blomberg essentially says “yes, because I say so.”

In writing about this question, Strobel writes a note to himself:

“Get expert opinions from archaeologist and historian.”

Apparently he didn’t think too much of Blomberg’s answer to that question either.

Coming Out/Taking on Lee Strobel

So  I recently came out and told my wife that I no longer accepted the existence of a deity.


She did not believe me and used the extremely emotional episode as yet another opportunity to psycho-analyze (berate) me.  Apparently, I am "thinking about it too much," as opposed to just "following the heart" and apparently atheism is the new hip thing to do and that's why i'm doing it. 

Because i'm such a follower...apparently

I am "taking the easy way out" because "society has made it difficult for people who believe in the Bible." She also went off on a rant about homosexuality, coincidences that can't be coincidental and "Cosmos" is why I quit believing in god.

Yeah.

So anyway, the discussion actually went very civil despite her 8th grade understanding of pretty much everything I was talking about.  As far as the psychoanalysis, hell i've been married to her for nearly 20 years.  That was mild compared to what i've gone through before. And in the interests of domestic tranquility I agreed to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

Incidentally, Steve Shives over at YouTube does a great video series where he reads and reviews "The Case for Christ" from the skeptical perspective  Great, great stuff. Here is the first video.

Now, let me back up and say that I have been in a writing funk lately and it shows from previous posts.

Fortunately, Lee Strobel asks questions for study and reflection at the end of each chapter.

Here are my answers to the first chapter, which deals with the gospels, or as Strobel calls them, "the eyewitness evidence."  He interviews Dr. Craig Blomberg, PhD. and asks him a series of softball questions which Blomberg responds to with a mix of excuse-making, bad logic and faulty analogies.  Strobel, a former section editor for the Chicago Tribune and a Yale Law School graduate, displays none of the skills you would associate with a person with those credentials.

1. How have your opinions been influenced by someone’s eyewitness account of an event?
As a teacher, I rely on eyewitness testimony quite a bit. There is one incident that stands out, though. A boy had been accused of a misdeed. He and his father had set up a conference the next day to clarify what happened as the accused boy was insisting that he was not the only one who should have gotten in trouble. One of his cohorts had sold him out to avoid trouble himself and a third boy, not involved in the situation at all, confirmed that the second boy was involved as well and the second boy was immediately punished.

2. What are some factors you routinely use to evaluate whether someone’s story is honest and accurate?
First and foremost, I look to see if it is in fact "eyewitness" testimony. If Susie comes to tell me that Joey saw Jessica cheating, that is merely hearsay, and I need to talk to Joey directly. Then, I look at whether or not it fits with the corroborating evidence. Does the eyewitness account fit the other facts of the case? Does Jessica’s test show any signs of cheating? Sometimes, people don’t see or hear what they think they see or hear. I know my students (and some parents) have a tendency to jump to conclusions and are prone to flights of fancy, so what they see and hear may be colored by that. I also know that sometimes, people lie. Next, I look at whether or not it fits into how I know the world works. If Joey tells me that Jessica was cheating using the powers of mind control or a magic talisman, I am immediately suspicious of the claim. Last, I look at the witnesses themselves and their vested interests. What are they getting out of this? What do they have to gain by lying? What do they have to lose by being honest? In my first answer, the boy who came in and straightened everything out at the end “didn’t have a dawg in the hunt.” He wasn’t friends with either of the other boys, didn’t really have a lot of regard for either of their opinions of him, and quite frankly could have pummeled either one or both of them if they'd tried to come after him. He did not have a vested interest either way.

3. How do you think the gospels would stand up to that type of scrutiny?
Well, the problem is Dr Blomberg flat-out admits that “strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.” Then he quickly retreats and assures us that “the uniform testimony of the early church” was that the Gospels were written by who they are named after, but he states no source for this “uniform testimony.” Despite his retreat, the cat is out of the bag.

Second, he admits that Mark is based on the recollections of Peter (hearsay), Matthew draws from Mark (hearsay OF hearsay), that Luke wasn’t even in the 12 disciples, and that John’s gospel has “some question about authorship” and “may have finalized by an editor.” In any other context, these are HUGE red flags. But for some reason, the gospels get a pass.


Third, his “proof” that these gospels are written by who they are attributed to consists of

1. His word that the “uniform testimony of the early church” said so.

2. Papias, a church bishop who wrote 90 years after Jesus’ alleged death and resurrection that the authors were the people they are attributed to because he said so and so did the people he talked to.

3. Irenaeus, another church bishop who wrote 50 years after Papias what amounts to “Yeah, what he said!”

All that being said, I do not see how the gospels can even be called “eyewitness accounts” at all.

But for the sake of argument, i’ll play along and grant that all four were written by the men they are attributed to.

Why should I believe them?

Why should I believe stories of a man about whom numerous spectacular claims were made
when we know that these claims run contrary to our understanding of how the world works?

I can more than likely find four people who claim to have done just about anything you could imagine who aren’t being intentionally dishonest and won’t deny it on pain of death.. Why should I believe the gospels over them?

50 Shades of Belief

"In every ... community there are varying shades of ... opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. Here, then, is a lesson in safe logic."

-Phil Ochs











Say what you will about fundamentalists, they are at least intellectually consistent.  One of the shadiest groups of religious types are the liberals.  I concluded this after reading Michael Robbins' review of Nick Spencer's Atheists: The Origin of the Species on Slate.

Two things jumped out at me.  First of all, Robbins scoffs at the notion that religion is (as Richard Dawkins has suggested) "a competing explanation for facts about the universe and life," calling the notion "bullshit."  Robbins points out:

To be sure, several scriptures offer, for instance, their own accounts of creation. But Christians have recognized the allegorical nature of these accounts since the very beginnings of Christianity.

"How con-VEEEE-nient," as Dana Carvey's Church Lady used to say.

"Sure that Genesis stuff may sound like complete unscientific balderdash, but it's all just an allegory! And TRUE Christians have known that all along." 

I'll table the question about which version of the Bible with its Genesis account is THE Bible with THE Genesis account and focus on the little problem that we have now.

How much of the Bible (or THE Bible, if you can produce it) is to be taken as allegory and how much is not?

Follow-up question: Who gets to decide this?

Either the Bible (or the Quran, or the Baghavad Gita or the Tripitaka or the Book of Shadows) is to be taken literally and at face-value, or it is not.  If it is not (as Robbins suggests) then he has created the problem of how much (if any) of the scriptures are to be taken literally.  If none of them are to be taken literally, then I am curious as to what kind of religion this "Christianity" of his actually is that would treat allegedly holy writ as fundamentally no different than any other piece of literature.

He has also created the problem of why one should choose his religion over the myriad of others ... unless he is suggesting that all religions are essentially the same, which is pretty much what "New Atheists" suggest.

My second issue is that Robbins asserts that the "New Atheists" just don't understand what religion is and what it does.  Nor do they understand "God."  He praises a commenter called "Saint Cecilia" who noted:

The “pitch” of Christianity, she points out, has “nothing to do with the Big Bang or evolution or anything like that at all.” Nor is the existence of God a scientific proposition: “Christians aren’t talking about a math problem, they’re talking about a Person. And in the vast experience of people who claim to have had a genuine encounter with the Personality called Christ, there are certain things that are involved, such as willingness [and] humility.”

"Saint Cecilia" also adds:

"If someone is really interested in whether or not God exists, I’d say the best way is to have a little humility and experiment, with an open mind and heart, with the paths that Christians have claimed take you directly to him, in the ways that have worked." 

"So basically, just forget about all that mumbo-jumbo and science stuff and focus on how there's all these people who have had an encounter with this guy Jesus."

Yeah, so...these "encounters"...were they real-world encounters like the time I met Waylon Thibodeaux, or were they "virtual" encounters that took place in the mind, like the time I dreamed that I met Knute Rockne? 

How much of this Jesus personality is real and how much is an invention of your own mind?

Did the Jesus you worship actually exist or have you given him features that he didn't and couldn't have had?

How do you know this?

So we come now to the crux of the whole problem with religion:

How can your claim of a divine encounter be fundamentally different than anyone else's? 

How is your claim any different from the figment of an active imagination, a drug-induced hallucination, a hysterical delusion or an outright fabrication?

Until you can answer those questions with something other than "You just gotta have faith" or "Open your mind and your heart," then I cannot take your claim seriously.

For all of Robbins' disdain for "New Atheists" and "Evangelical Atheism," in the shadow of his many words, is very little substance.

The Theist Challenge.

Picture a devoutly religious man.  He follows another man who is considered to be a prophet.  This prophet talks to a particular god on a daily basis and (more importantly) this god talks back, relaying instructions for the other man (and his fellow believers) to follow.

On a typical morning, the devoutly religious man gets out of bed and receives an order from the prophet.  According to the prophet, the god has ordered the devoutly religious man to go kill another man who may or may not be equally religious but who definitely does not believe in the same god or follow the same prophet.  Aside from this difference of opinion, the devoutly religious man has no quarrel with the man he is ordered to kill.  But all that aside, the devoutly religious man goes and kills the man he is ordered to kill by his god who ordered him to do so by way of the prophet.  The other man was one of “them,” and had to die.

Why didn’t the god not just tell the first man to kill the other man himself? Why not just speak to him directly.  Why was a prophet necessary? Better yet, the god is a god. Why not just kill the other man himself and cut out the middle men altogether? But I digress.

The devoutly religious man has killed another man of more or less the same level of devotion to a different god for no other reason than he was just following orders, and the other guy was one of “them.”.

So now that we’ve seen the wind-up, here’s the pitch:

Is the devoutly religious man:

A.) A jihadi terrorist on September 11, 2001?

B.) A member of the Waffen SS in 1944?

C.) A Christian Crusader outside of a Turkish village in 1100?

D.) An Israelite outside of Jericho as described in the Book of Joshua?

E.) A member of the Manson Family in 1969?

Let’s be honest: without a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics, special pleading, “yeah, but”s and other excuse making, you can’t tell the difference.  Neither can I, which is why I am an atheist.

Now, some of you will try to say that I am oversimplifying and taking things out of context.

From where I am sitting, I have provided all the context necessary to make the point. 

But, I don’t claim to have a monopoly on truth, so if you can provide the right "context," be my guest.