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?