Case for Christ — My response part 2

Hello:

In my last post I set forth the eyewitness memory problems Dr. Loftus researched.  Let me be upfront about this and say I am not a psychologist.  I am an attorney and familiar with her work.  Let me also say no one should doubt that honest people can be wrong.  With that said, eyewitness testimony in both antiquity and the modern world are given the utmost credence.  The issue with eyewitnesses to these things is whether the testimony is reliable.   The US Supreme court has repeatedly upheld this type of data and in 1977 (Manson vs. Brathwaite, ET:185-186) stated that “reliability is the linchpin” in terms of admissibility of such evidence.

There are two types of eyewitnesses.  Those who are bystanders and those who actually participate in the event.  Dr. Loftus’ research was done on those who are bystanders.  There are also two main types of events.  Those of short duration and those of longer duration.  Dr. Loftus’ research was on those of short duration and unrepeated events.   In these type of events there are two major factors.  The first of these is the amount of time elapsing between the event and when the memory is recalled.   Dr. Loftus discovered the shorter the interval the better the memory.  (ET at 86).   The other factor is post event information (PEI).  This can be talking to other people, being interviewed by some one and how they phrase their questions.  Let me give you an example from my own life.  About 8 years ago, I was an eyewitness to an auto accident.  It was in Dayton Ohio on a Sunday afternoon when I was on my way home from church.  I was driving north on a street one block to the west of Main street.  I can not remember the name of the street I was on with 100% clarity though I believe it to be St. Clair Ave.  I was stopped at a red light and there was a car in front of me.  The intersection was at the corner of First Street and the street I was traveling north on.  As I was approaching the intersection and slowing down because the light was red, the light changed and the car in front of me started through the intersection when a car travelling east on First collided wit€h it on the drivers side.  As I turned right onto First street, the driver of the car that was struck  flagged me down and asked me to write a statement.   I had a pen and paper in my car because I am an attorney and my brief case was in the car.  I did not talk to anyone before I wrote the statement.  That should lead you to ask two questions.  The first of these is how did I know what I saw and the second is how do I still recall these details 8 years later?  Let me answer the first.  I had lived in Dayton for about 10 years at the time and my law offices were on First street at the 111 building.  First street is a one way street and you can not turn onto First from Main.  Main runs north and south through Dayton.  I lived north of the office and West is to the left of north.  The first recall of this memory was at the scene just minutes after the accident and I told the story without any PEI.  I also  repeated the story several times that same day.

As to the second question, having told the story several times I remember it clearly.  I also use this story as an example of how witnesses can see the same thing from different perspectives and not be wrong about what they saw.  As example is I was not the only eyewitness to this accident.  There was at least one person standing at the cross walk at the intersection who was facing south.  From my vantage point the car that hit the other car came from my left.  To the person standing at the cross walk, the car would have come from his or her right.

 While this demonstrates that eyewitness testimony can be reliable, it does not answer the question about anything other than short traumatic events.  In the case of the Gospels, Jesus’ disciples were with him for a period of three and a half years and while many things happened in that time, the disciples had an opportunity to hear him many times, watch him do miracles many times, and to spend lots of time with Him.  Therefore, most of the events they watched and participated in were not short-term traumatic events.  Hence, I do not see much relevance in Ms. Loftus’ work as applied to the Gospels. 

With that in mind, I think the testimony from the writers of the Gospels is reliable.

Chapter 2- The skeptics Speak — Part 2

Hello:

When I posted Chapter 2- the skeptics speak – part 1, I mentioned an objection about the memories of eyewitness.  The objection was that during the time between Jesus’ death and the writing of the first gospel the story was passed down orally and since modern research has shown that memory can be unreliable, the written gospels cannot be relied upon.  This objection is based upon the work of Elizabeth Loftus PhD from Harvard who has done a great deal of research into eyewitness testimony.  She published a book called “Eyewitness Testimony” in 1996.   Skeptic Jeffrey J. Lowder cites this work in his review of CFC. 

Dr. Loftus did several lab experiments in which she tested several components of memory. Some of the experiments focused on a short intense event while others focused on how questions were phrased after viewing a film of a traffic accident.   These experiments had a great effect in legal circles.  One of the effects was to expose the unreliability of recovered memories.  Another was the creation of false memories through bad interrogation techniques.  Another one was the length of time between the event and the recalling of the incident. 

These problems are supposed to have impacted the historical reliability of the gospels. 

Next time — my response to part 2.

Ron

Ch 2 — My response – Part 1.

Hello:

Here is my response to part 1 of the skeptics speak.  As I noted in a previous comment general objections only merit a general response or denial.  In Part 1 Robert makes 4 general responses and I will reply in a much detail as I need to respond.  Here is Robert’s first general objection:

“First, let us be reminded that, even granting the highly dubious claim the gospels are really authored by whom church tradition said they are, two of the so-called eyewitnesses are indisputably not (Mark and Luke). I realize you’ve argued they are like eyewitnesses, but that doesn’t change the fact they purportedly only spoke to them. To include them in a discussion which “focuses on the eyewitnesses” is a bit…well, dishonest.”

My first response is Robert’s objection is it is a strawman. The flaws in it are I said nothing about church tradition and I never said Mark and Luke were eyewitnesses.  In fact, I admitted they were not eyewitnesses.  What I did say about Mark was he became Peter’s personal secretary and wrote down what Peter preached (see My Response.)  While the name on the syllabus said Mark, the content was Peter’s.  Peter was an eyewitness.  Luke claimed to have made a careful investigation and Luke was a first-rate historian (Id.).  While Robert claims the only purportedly talked to these eyewitnesses, he again offers no proof to support his assertion.  Finally Robert makes a personal attack and even after having it pointed out to him this violated the rules of the blog Robert stood by the personal attack.  Due to his repeated violations Robert has lost his posting privilege.

“Second, these tests are applicable only to the <i>living</i>, because only the living can answer challenges to their testimony, which helps establish veracity. The farcical nature of Strobel’s attempt to set up his book akin to a courtroom proceeding really shines through here. There’s no hostile attorney cross-examining the experts or the “witnesses”. There isn’t even any opposing experts or witnesses!”

The statement that the tests are applicable only to the living is actually false and the reason given for that statement is also false.  Here is why.  First, any testimony given by any witness is presumed to be true as well as any witness meeting the rules of evidence is presumed to be a competent witness.  These presumptions are reputable.  What this means is the testimony is true until the side challenging it shows it not to be true.  This places the burden of proof squarely on the challenging party.  While a witness who is living may rehabilitate his own testimony it is not true a person must rehabilitate their own testimony.  For example, character witnesses can be called to bolster the credibility of a deceased witness.  How does this work?  In our example, A man is murdered.  However, before he dies he tells a witness “John Smith shot me”.  The man then dies.  John Smith is indicted for murder.  The victim’s out of court accusation is allowed in due to an exception in the hearsay rule known as a dying declaration.  (http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dying-declaration/).   John Smith claims he was 200 miles way when it happened attending a conference.  An investigation shows John Smith did not attend the conference and was seen in a local bar 10 minutes way from the scene 3o minutes before the murder took place. The investigator’s testimony bolsters the  victim’s  story. 

The second part of this general objection has previously been refuted.  First,  Strobel does not set his book up akin to a courtroom proceeding.  As I previously pointed out in a prior post Strobel’s book recounts his search when he was a skeptic trying to disprove  Christianity.  Assuming for the sake of argument a court room approach, the skeptic Strobel was would be the hostile attorney.   Second Strobel actually cites scholars is defense of the skeptical position.  See CFC at 369 – 375; 377.)  (He is talking to the people he is interviewing to see what they have to say in response to the skeptics position.  What has happened here is a confusion pf the author who is writing the story of himself years earlier.  I warned of this in an earlier post.  (See The Case For Christ — The beginning — Part Three (paragraph 4).)

“Third, we have indisputable evidence that the gospels have been “tampered” with. Significant material has been added (e.g., the ending of Mark). Words changed. Verses removed. Grammar modified. Since no gospel originals exist, no one can say what they first said. What’s in contemporary gospels does not mirror what’s in our earliest gospel manuscripts. So much for accuracy”

This general objection will be addressed in more detail when we get to Chapter Three.  However, I often hear people say I have indisputable proof of this or that.  The problem with that is it is very easy to say.  The funniest part of this objection is the roots of its demise is the admission that no originals exist.  Since the originals do not exist there is no way to know what they sy and to prove they have been tampered with.

“Fourth, there are many claims left unexamined which bear on the veracity of the alleged eyewitnesses. For example, Blomberg says many apparent contradictions turned out not to be contradictions. But what of those that remain unresolved, such as Jesus’ genealogy or the date of his birth? What of the people, places, and fantastic events that remain unconfirmed, such as the splitting of the temple “from top to bottom,” and the OT characters who rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem, allegedly seen by numerous people? What do these say about gospel veracity? If the gospels are unbelievable or mistaken on these matters, what others are they unbelievable or mistaken on? Is it Blomberg’s contention that the gospels accurately recorded everything? If not, where are they mistaken, and how does Blomberg determine where the mistakes are?”

There are several things to say about number four here.  First, As I have pointed out above there is Mathew and John who are eyewitnesses so those two are not alleged eyewitnesses.  Mark wrote his gospel basd upon the eyewitness of Peter.  Luke interviewed eyewitnesses and wrote his gospel after carefull examination of all things.  Second, there still are some contradictions which have not been resolved.  However,  there are fewer today than there were 50 years ago.  Let’s take a look at some of these.  First, The differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke.  There are two different options to explain it.  One is Joseph’s lineage –Matthew — by which the kingly lineage is traced.  Luke presents Mary lineage.  Since both are from David’s line they converge at some point when you go back.  (CFC  at 60.)  The other explanation is both are Joseph’s lineage.  Luke is the human lineage while Matthew is the legal lineage necessary to confirm Jesus birth as king of the Jews.  (Id at 60-61.)    The date of Jesus birth reflects a problem with the difference between the Jewish lunar Calendar and the solar calendar we use.  None of the gospels claim the temple was split from top to bottom.   Third, while some of the events have not yet been confirmed  this does not make these events contradictions.   Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School who wrote a famous treatise on evidence said the discrepancies while having substantial agreement makes them trustworthy.  (Id at 58).  Finally, at the risk of sounding a bit like a broken record, it is Robert who has the burden of proof when asserting mistakes and contradictions.  Since he made general objections and offered no proof he has failed to meet that  burden.

Next Time — The skeptics speak — Part 2.

Ron

Chapter 2 — The Skeptics Speak — Part 1

Hello Again Folks:

This is w.here the skeptics get to speak  This is a two parter and from two skeptics.  The first part is Robert’s response and the second part is from another skeptic.  I included the second part because it is a very interesting objection and Robert did not include it in his response.  Without further ado – here is Robert’s response:

Here are some general objections to this portion of Case

First, let us be reminded that, even granting the highly dubious claim the gospels are really authored by whom church tradition said they are, two of the so-called eyewitnesses are indisputably not (Mark and Luke). I realize you’ve argued they are like eyewitnesses, but that doesn’t change the fact they purportedly only spoke to them. To include them in a discussion which “focuses on the eyewitnesses” is a bit…well, dishonest.

Second, these tests are applicable only to the <i>living</i>, because only the living can answer challenges to their testimony, which helps establish veracity. The farcical nature of Strobel’s attempt to set up his book akin to a courtroom proceeding really shines through here. There’s no hostile attorney cross-examining the experts or the “witnesses”. There isn’t even any opposing experts or witnesses!

Third, we have indisputable evidence that the gospels have been “tampered” with. Significant material has been added (e.g., the ending of Mark). Words changed. Verses removed. Grammar modified. Since no gospel originals exist, no one can say what they first said. What’s in contemporary gospels does not mirror what’s in our earliest gospel manuscripts. So much for accuracy…

Fourth, there are many claims left unexamined which bear on the veracity of the alleged eyewitnesses. For example, Blomberg says many apparent contradictions turned out not to be contradictions. But what of those that remain unresolved, such as Jesus’ genealogy or the date of his birth? What of the people, places, and fantastic events that remain unconfirmed, such as the splitting of the temple “from top to bottom,” and the OT characters who rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem, allegedly seen by numerous people? What do these say about gospel veracity? If the gospels are unbelievable or mistaken on these matters, what others are they unbelievable or mistaken on? Is it Blomberg’s contention that the gospels accurately recorded everything? If not, where are they mistaken, and how does Blomberg determine where the mistakes are?
 

Part two is from Jeffrey Lowder’s review of CFC.  Mr. Lowder points out that Jesus and his disciples lived in an oral society and recent physiological evidence about memory shows it is often not reliable and this casts doubt on the oral tradition.  I shall set those forth in part 2 after responding to Robert’s objections in my next post.

Thanks for reading,

Ron

Happy Birthday America!

Folks:

224 years ago, our forefather’s put their signatures on a document declaring their intent to separate from the British Empire.  They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor and ask God’s blessing on that endeavor.  God heard their prayers and brought forth the United States of America.  I thank God I am an American and for the blessings of liberty — one of which allows me to do this blog.  While we do have problems in our country, it is still the greatest country in the world and I would not want to live anywhere else.  Happy birthday America and may God continue to bless you.

Ron

The Case for Christ — Chapter 2 — Testing the Eyewitness Evidence

Folks:

Having finished our discussion of Chapter 1, I now take up chapter 2 in CFC where Strobel takes up testing the eyewitness evidence.  This chapter is a bit misnamed in my opinion because it actually focuses on the eyewitnesses and not so much the evidence.  There are 8 tests a defence attorney uses in dealing with eyewitnesses.  While they may take different names Strobel calls them the following:

!.  The Intention Test

2.  The Ability Test

3.  The Character Test

4.  The Consistency Test

5.  The Bias Test.

6.  The Cover Up Test

7.  The corroboration Test

8.  The adverse Witness Test. (CFC at 49-62).

In these next  paragraphs I will look  at each test.  I will explain each and give Strobel’s opinion to how each one did on these tests.    So, let’s see about test 1.

The intention test is simple.  It asks the question as to whether the witness intended to be accurate.  (Id at 49.)  When asked this question Blomberg responded by pointing out Luke’s opening of his Gospel.  (Id at 49-50.  See also Luke 1:1-4.)   When asked about the other gospels, Blomberg’s response was since they were similar in genre it would seem logical they would have the same intent.  (CFC at 50).  John sates his gospel was written so you would believe Jesus was the messiah and that you would have life in his name by believing.  (John 20:31.  When Strobel says this sounds like a theological statement Blomberg agrees but adds the history need to be accurate in you are going to be convinced to believed and the gospel writers goal was to record what actually happened.  (CFC at %0 -51.) .  Strobel raised 2 objections to this.  The first is some have suggested the early Christians believed Jesu  s would return during their life times they  did not bother to record any thing. (Id.)   To this objection Blomberg responds with two points.  First, he said the majority of Jesus teaching assume a great deal of time would pass before he returned.  Second, he said Christianity arose from Judaism which recorded th words of the prophets even though they claimed the Day of the Lord was it hand and Christians continued that practice.  (Id at 50-51.)  The second objection was New Testament writers such as Paul heard from Jesus and those words carried the same authority as Jesus so these newer things became indistinguishable from what Jesus said.  (Id at 51.)  Blomberg again has 2 responses.  The first is Paul and others are very carefull to distinguish between what Jesus said on earth and what he said to them in revelations.  (Id.)  The second the ongoing questions the church asked which were answered by the New Testament writers.  According to Blomberg this shows a conscious effort to distinguish Jesus words while on earth and communication with the writers.

The ability test is even simpler.  Did the gospel writers have the ability to report accurately?  Blomberg starts his answer to this with explaining that in the Jewish culture the oral tradition required a lot of memorization as scrolls were expensive and  relatively rare.  (Id at 54.)  He cites the fact Rabbis of the day had committed the entire Old Testament to memory and the definition of memorization was more flexible and allowed flexibility as to the amount of material and its order to be recited in any one given presentation.  (Id.)  When questioned by Strobel concerning this flexibility and the game of telephone , Blomberg responded when you are carefull memorizing something you don’t pass it on until you’ve got it right and the community would have acted as a corrective.  It would be like playing telephone with a rule requiring every third person to ask the firsts person if he still had it right.  (Id at 56.) 

This leads us to the character test.  Did the gospel writers have a reputation for truthfulness.  Blomberg states there is no reasonable evidence to suggest these writers were people of great intercity.  (Id at 57.)

The consistency test.  When asked about this test Blomberg’s response was judging the gospel according to ancient standards the gospels are extremely consistent with each other.   (Id at 58.)   This does not mean they are consistent in every detail.  Attorneys get just as skeptical of stories that agree completely as they do stories that change every time you hear them.  Blomberg cites several examples of contradictions which when investigated turn out not to be contradictions.  (Id at 60.) 

The next test is the bias test.  While Blomberg concedes the gospel writers were not neutral observers he also points out it is possible to so honor and respect someone you are able to report their lives with great integrity.  (id at 62.)

The cover-up test inquires as t whether there were things in the gospels the writers would put in that would be an embarrassment to them.  Blomberg cites several examples such as the hard sayings of Jesus  which could have been left out to make the gospels less embarrassing to Jesus and the writers.  (Id at 62-64.) 

The next to last test is the corroboration test.  What this test is concerned with is whether people, places  and events mentioned in scripture turn out to be correct.  Blomberg notes the longer people explore the gospels the more of these people, places and events get confirmed.  (Id at 64-65.)

This brings us to the final test  — the adverse witness test.  The question is whether there are contemporaries of Jesus who complained the gospels were wrong  things.  According to Bomberg, we don’t see contemporaries attacking the gospels for falsehoods or distortions.  (Id at 66.)

CFC, Format Changes, And A Few New Rules

Folks:

I have some good news.  First my response to Robert is done except for final editing and citing checks.  It should be posted no later than Saturday and sooner if I can.  Once again, I want to apologize for my delay.  There were several causes for it.  First I had some health issues which caused me a weeks stay in the hospital.  There was a good deal of research I did.  My research filled a 57 page document with each page being 81/2 by 11.  I also read a 200 plus page book on a related issue.  Finally, there was a technical problem.  While doing the research, the laptop got a virus.  When our virus software could not clean it,  it became necessary to restore the laptop to its factory settings.  This removed a good deal of installed software which had to be reinstalled.  Unfortunately, one of the programs wiped out was my Microsoft Office.  I have misplaced the install disks to it and therefore, I needed to compose my response on the desktop due to the editing features in Word.  I ask you to forgive the delay and thank you for bearing with me throughout these trials and tribulations.

The second thing I need to explain is I needed to come up with a format to do two things.  The first was to make it easier to read my response.  To do this, I kept Robert’s response in a regular typeset when I quoted his response.  My Response is in bold.  The next problem was to keep the discussion moving and not get bogged down with replies to replies.  Therefore, I have decided to put into place the following discussion format.  I will post my summary of CFC as a thread post.  I will then accept responses as comments.  Based on the number of comments, I will select one or more comments and post them in the thread.  I will respond to them.  After I respond, that will end that thread and I will go on to a new one.  Most likely after CFC is done, I will have a general discussion about the book.

Lastly, when I started this blog, I really had only two rules.  The first was to be polite.  The second was no ad hominem responses.  After reviewing the discussions thus far, I think it is necessary to add a couple more.  The first one of these is there will be no more bias or agenda arguments accepted.  To make sure this is understood please do not asset a person is not to be believed or is somehow not trustworthy because he has some kind of bias or is promoting an agenda  because he or she  is affiliated with a particular group.  Every one is biased and has an agenda and every one belongs to some kind of group.  Please do not put these into your responses because if I select them to respond to I will edit out these arguments as they are a form of ad hominem.  The last rule is please do not bring up the same arguments over and over.  Pleas note these will also be removed if your comment is selected to post. 

Finally while still wishing to encourage an open and free dialogue, if anyone ignores these rules, they run the risk of having their comments rejected.

Thanks in advance,

Ron

Four Christians arrested in Dearborn Michigan at Arab Festival

Hello Folks:

On Friday June 18th, Dearborn Michigan hosted its annual Arab Festival.  Four Christians of Arabic heritage were passing out literature on a public street outside the festival area.  One of them had a video camera and was recording the event.  Dearborn Police Officers arrested  them and confiscated the camera.  They were all charged with criminal offenses.  The US Constitution’s First amendment guarantees Americans the right to free speech, freedom of religion and the freedom of assembly.  While the city of Dearborn may restrict the time place and manner of speech it must not do so if the restriction is content based.  (Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 US 589 (1987).).  In this situation, Arab Christians were engaging in protected speech on a public street outside of the festival grounds and were arrested.  No crime had been committed and the public streets are a public forum.  This conduct by the City of Dearborn is absolutely improper and reprehensible.  If you are interested in expressing your displeasure at this, you may write a polite letter to public officials at www.cityofdearborn.org/contact-us

Ron

Case For Christ — My Response

Here is my response to Robert.

Greetings again. In my last post, I said before I would follow-up on your review of CFC from the skeptic’s perspective, so allow me to say why Strobel’s arguments are not convincing.
 
To start, there is a piece of information about Dr. Blomberg you fail to disclose: he is an evangelical Christian. Therefore, he’s not a neutral expert, but one who’s trying to put the best possible spin on the evidence, by both highlighting certain things, and also not disclosing other things.

Let’s address Robert’s opening remarks.   First, I did not fail to disclose that Dr. Blomberg is an evangelical Christian.  I omitted it for the following reasons.  The first reason is that it is not relevant.  Whether Dr. Blomberg is an evangelical, a Roman Catholic, an Anglican, or a liberal is not germane to the topic.  Regardless of Dr. Blomberg’s denominational affiliation, he is an expert.  As I mentioned in a previous response almost any one can be an evangelical.  It is a non sequitur that because one is an evangelical that one is biased or has an agenda/whether an expert or not  The second reason for not mentioning it is after posting the part about agendas, I was hoping to not have that argument come up.  As I stated in that post, no one whether skeptic or Christian is neutral and all have agendas. This is the logical fallacy of a circumstantial Ad Hominem.  A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person’s circumstances (such as the person’s religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).   (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies.)   This is basic character assassination and not a valid argument.
 
The thing that’s immediately clear from Strobel’s questions is that he’s fairly ignorant of Gospel difficulties. Either that or he’s purposely not raising them, because he too is an evangelist.

In response to this, I would say the following.  First, there is another Circumstantial Ad Hominem logical fallacy since Robert implies Strobel is an evangelist and as an evangelist is not raising certain things because of his religion.   (Id.)  Second, it is not immediately clear Strobel is fairly ignorant of gospel difficulties.  This is just a baseless personal attack.

 
The biggest example? There appears to be no mention of the Synoptic Problem.  As the link states (link omitted), this problem is “the cornerstone of historical critical scholarship of the gospels.” To completely ignore it bespeaks vast ignorance or an agenda.

The first question to be addressed is what the Synoptic Problem is.  In his CRI/Voice article “The Gospels and the Synoptic Problem: The Literary Relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke”, Dennis Bratcher, PhD in Biblical studies from Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, and has served as an educator in the church for more than 25 years, states the following”:

“The Synoptic Problem is not really a “problem” in the normal sense of the term. It is simply a way to refer to questions and possible explanations about the literary relationships between the first three New Testament Gospels. The word “synoptic” means “with the same eye” or “seeing together.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke present the basic story of Jesus in similar ways, including the order of the material, the stories told, the sayings of Jesus, even using many of the same words in parallel accounts. For this reason they are called the Synoptic Gospels.” (www,crivoice.org.)

 

The Synoptic Problem really does not address whether Matthew wrote “The Gospel According to Matthew: or whether Mark or Luke wrote their respective gospels.  The Synoptic Problem looks solely at the literary relationship between the synoptic Gospels.  The Synoptic Problem in its essence addresses the following questions.  Which synoptic gospel should be given priority?  How were they constructed? 

 

The basic premise of the synoptic problem gets its best boos from the Gospel of Luke.  In the introduction, Luke says “1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”  (Luke 1,1-4 New International Version.)   This raises the question as to what Luke meant when he said “many have undertaken to draw up an account…”?  Were these accounts written or oral and who drew them up?  Since Like does not tell us and based upon a quick check of the Greek text there seems to be no indication of how or who.  In the 19^th Century, certain German Scholars began to wrestle with these questions.  These questions gave way to a number of theories base upon author priority and the number of sources scholars thought were used.  To get a handle on this, the first question to deal with is priority.

 

Priority is a technical term concerning who wrote first.  Since there are 3 synoptic gospels, there are 3 possible priorities with 2 options as who wrote second and third totaling 6 in all.  These options are Matthew, followed by Mark then Luke.  This has come to be known and the traditional priority.  This priority has as its evidence the support of the early Church Fathers of the second century.  The second priory is Matthew, followed by Luke then Mark.  Number 3 is Mark followed by Matthew then Luke.  This one is what most scholars agree upon.  Number 4 is Mark followed by Luke then Matthew.  Number 5 is Luke followed by Matthew then Mark. Bringing up the rear is number 6 –Luke followed by Mark then Matthew.  Each has its adherents.  As you can see, this is a bit of a mess and is a bit confusing.  However, it gets worse.

 

It gets worse because in addition to the priority options there are 2 basic theories.  They are the 2 source theory and the 4 source theory.  The 2 source theory is who ever wrote first wrote independently and those who wrote second and third used the first writer’s gospel and a source called Q.  Q is a collection of sayings of Jesus.  Now, there is a problem with the 2 source theory.  That problem is there is no conclusive evidence Q ever existed.  There are no extant Greek manuscripts of Q.   (www,crivoice.org. article on the Gospel of Thomas).  The question then become how did those who support Q decide what Q actually said.  The answer is simple – reverse engineering.  What they did was to take the synoptics and compare them.  Using Mark as the fist gospel, the scholars decided what ever was in all three must have come from Mark while what was in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark must have come from Q.  The problem with this is there is no way to check Q since there are no other copies.

 

Now, the other theory is the 4 source theory.  This theory says Mark, Q, and Matthew’s source M and Luke’s source L.   (www,crivoice.org. The synoptic problem.)  The 4 source theory not only suffers from the same criticism as the 2 source theory but no one knows whether  M and L were written or oral sources.  If written what did they contain.  We don’t know this because M and L did not survive in written form.  If oral, the same question remains since they were never written.  Additionally, my critic of both theories is they both fall into a logical error of  Begging the Question.   Begging the Question is a logical fallacy where the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.  Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly). Claim C (the conclusion) is true. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”

 

This to me says the Synoptic Problem has a problem.  Multiple theories based upon multiple priorities can leave one dazed, confused and breathless and asking themselves which one is right.  The simple answer is none of them.  Dr Bratcher explains

 

“On the other hand, we need honestly to concede at the beginning that there is no final answer to this “problem.” There are various perspectives, hypotheses, and theories based on the evidence of the biblical text as well as what we know about the process of writing. But there is not a “correct” answer. That simply suggests that while we need to take this issue seriously as part of what we see in the biblical text as we have it, it is not a matter of faith one way or the other. Rather, it is simply being honest with the biblical text and not trying to make it say or be what it is not. It is also acknowledging that we do not have to have all of the answers to our logical questions before we can accept the Bible as Scripture for the Church. The issue is not a matter of believing or not believing the Bible; it is a matter of believing, and then seeking to understand as best we can that which we believe (“faith seeking understanding”).” 

 

 

On to the claims about.Eyewitnesses. Blomberg makes a critical admission when he states, “strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.” How true.

While it is true the gospels are strictly  speaking anonymous, it does not logically follow we do not know who wrote them.  It was well known among the 1^st Century Church who wrote the gospels.  As the 1^st Century Church was almost entirely Jewish and the habit among the Jew was to write on scrolls, the earliest copies of the gospels were in scroll form.  Whenever a local church had more than one copy of the gospel, they followed the Roman custom of attaching a tag to the scroll.   This tag was called a sillybos.   (Thiede “Eyewitness to Jesus” P. 16  (1996)).  This is where we get our word Syllabus.  So Matthew’s Gospel would have had a tag added which would read “Kata Matthias” or as translated – according to Matthew.  The next one would have the tag of “Kata Markas’ or according to Mark.  As these scrolls were copied into codices these tags became titles of the Gospels.   It is also interesting to note that Papyroligists such as Kirstin Thiede have dated codices into the 1^st Century. (Id at 26 citing Gallo “Greek and Latin Papryology, Classical Handbook I (1986)).

Blomberg attempts to blunt the force of that fact by claiming there was near unanimous agreement among the early church about the authorship of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. “Early church” is a relative term that extends across nearly four centuries.

I have two points to raise here.  First, Blomberg does not say “near unanimous” he says:

 

“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.  But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples was the author of the first gospel in the New Testament;  that John Mark, a companion of Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul’s ‘beloved physician’, wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.”  (CFC page 26.)

 

When asked by Strobel how uniform the testimony was Blomberg replied: “There are no known competitors for these three gospels.  Apparently it was just not in dispute.”  (Id.)

 

The second point is assuming for the sake of argument, Robert’s assertion that the early church spans across nearly four centuries is correct, there was unanimous testimony as to who the authors of the synoptic gospels were.  I think this drives the final nail into the synoptic problem.

 

It wasn’t until well into the second century that the question of authorship arose, and how would anyone be able to verify at that point who the gospel authors really were? If you read the actual statements, you’d know the actual basis for ascribing authorship is very thin. As for John, there is far more dispute about its authorship than Blomberg lets on.

As noted above, there was really no dispute as to the synoptic gospels as to authorship.  Further, the tag system and very early testimony as cited above provides an answer as to why verification was not a problem.  As for John’s Gospel is concerned, Blomberg makes the following remarks concerning John’s gospel when Strobel asked about it,

 

 “He was extremely prominent; in fact, he wasn’t just one of the  twelve disciples but one of Jesus inner three, along with James and Peter.  Yes, he is the one exception, and interestingly, John is the only gospel about which there is some question about authorship.”  (Id at 27.”

 

When asked about the dispute Blomberg replied:          

 

“The name of the author is not in doubt – It’s certainly John.  The question is whether it was John the Apostle or a different John.  You see, the testimony of a Christian writer name Papias, dated about A.D. 125, refers to John the Apostle  and John the Elder, and it’s not clear from the context whether he’s talking about one person from two perspectives or two different people.  But granted that exception, the unanimous that it was John  the Apostle – the son of Zebedee – who wrote the gospel;.”  (Id.)

 

So, with the single exception of Papias, the early testimony is all four gospels were written by the traditional authors.

 
Even if Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were the authors as described, two of them–Mark and Luke–are not eyewitnesses. Their retellings would fit the definition of hearsay.

Mark and Luke were most certainly not part of the original twelve disciples.  More over, they were not eyewitnesses to Jesus.  But, would their gospels be considered hearsay?  Hearsay is defined as “information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.  (Wikipedia article on hearsay).   Another term for this is second hand information.    While it is most certainly true the gospels of Mark and Luke  are based on second hard information or hearsay, any biography – modern or ancient –not written by an eyewitness is second hand information or hearsay.  While Robert  doesn’t state any consequence to this, he seems to be implying that second hand information or hearsay should not be admitted to the conversation or is not worthy of belief.  If this is correct then the clear implication is no non-eyewitness document should be admitted into a conversation or be worthy of belief.  This is a very interesting inference since most biographies are written by non-eyewitnesses.  What I think is happening here is  a confusion of the broader definition of hearsay with its stricter legal definition.  As a legal term, “hearsay” can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of “hearsay evidence” in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.  (Id).  However, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule.  One I have already set forth in a previous post.  That is called the ancient document rule.  This rule says that a document older than 20 years old, found in a place you would expect it, and without indication of forgery will be admitted as evidence.  (See earlier post for citations.)  Now, in court statement which fit the broader definition of hearsay are allowed in evidence as long as they are not to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  You may be wondering how this works,  Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, “hearsay” can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of “hearsay evidence” in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

 

For example, a John might testify that “Susan told me Tom was in town”. Since the John did not see Tom in town, the statement would be hearsay evidence if advanced to prove Tom was in town, and not admissible.  However, it would be admissible as evidence if offered to show that Susan said Tom was in town.  This would not be hearsay in the stricter definition of the term.  Why is this important?  Well, if my purpose was to show Mark and Luke wrote biographies of Jesus then copies of their gospels would not be hearsay in the legal definition even though the information contained in them was second hand or hearsay.

 

Are these gospels valuable to what we know about Jesus even though the information is second hand or hearsay in the broadest sense of the word.  I think the answer is yes for the following reason.  Let me begin with Mark.  Who was Mark?  While we have little information, what we do have comes from the New Testament, external early church history and tradition.   The Book of Acts refers to a John Mark who went with Paul on one of his missionary journeys.  (Acts 15:37-40).   He was Barnabas cousin.  (Id).   At some point, Mark became Peter’s companion. (1 Peter 5:13).  Since Peter wrote his epistles from Rome, Mark was with him in Rome.  (Id).  As was common in those days, may authors used personal secretaries and interpreters and Papias says that Mark served that function for Peter.  (Wikipedia article on gospel of Mark).  Papias’ source for this was John.  (Id).  Others such as Iraneaus, Origin, Tertullian, and Clement concurred with this.  (Id).   This information indicates Mark wrote down Peter’s memories and sermons,  (Id).  Peter was most certainly any eyewitness.  An argument could be made Mark acted as Peter’s ghostwriter and therefore should be treated as an eyewitness account. 

 

On the other hand, various traditions have grown up around Mark though none of them can be confirmed with the New Testament.  For example, Mark is supposed to be the man who ran right out of his clothes when Jesus was arrested prior to his trial and crucifixion.  (Mark 14:51-52).   Mark was supposedly the one who carried the water to where Jesus and his disciples celebrated the last supper.  (Mark 14:13).  There are others I have omitted here for the sake of space.  However, if these traditions are correct Mark, while not being one of the twelve would have been an eyewitness.

 

This brings us to Luke.  As far as I can tell there are no traditions from which one can infer Luke was one of the twelve, or the seventy, or in any way an eyewitness to any of the events.  Luke was a doctor and most likely a gentile which would make him the only non-Jewish New Testament author.  (Wikipedia article on gospel of Luke),   Both his gospel and the Acts are addressed to Theophilus.  (Id).    There are many theories as to who Theophilus is but I won’t go down any of those rabbit trails.  Luke did a lot of detailed research for his gospel apparently interviewing the eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-5 NIV).  This is important as Luke took the time to check his sources so to get his facts straight.  It is to be noted that archeology has shown Luke to be a good and careful historian.
 
Dating Again, there is major gloss over the real debates about when the gospels were written.  Earlychristianwritings.com (link omitted)offers a far better overview of the topic than CFC.

I have just a couple of things about the dating of the gospels.  CFC devotes about three pages to the dating of the gospels.  (CFC at 40-42).  In those three pages Dr. Blomberg expresses his opinion concerning the dates.  First, he states the standard dating for the gospels from 70 AD to the 90’s AD,   (Id).  He then states his belief that an argument can be made for earlier dates and gives some of the reasons for this.  (Id).   To call this a major gloss is simply overstating things and again appears to be implying Blomberg can not be trusted.  This is simply an implied circumstantial ad Hominem,

 

As far as Earlychristianwritings.com goes, when I looked at the site here is what I found.  When you follow the link, you come to a list of documents purporting to be early Christian writing and a list of proposed dates.  These are in chronological order using the earliest date.  Each document is hyperlinked so you can get information on the document,    While the list does not give a far better overview, chasing down some of the documents gives a broad view of these documents.  However, I find a few problems with this source.  First, a number of documents such as Q and Secret Mark have no extant Greek manuscript evidence,   Second, a number of them are disputed.  For example, the passion narratives have an early date of 30 AD.  This is one of the two dates offered for the death of Jesus. This is very close to the actual events – perhaps too close. If the 33 AD date for Jesus’ death  is correct then the early date of 30 AD can not possibly be correct for this document.  Third, a number of these documents are not Christian at all.  For example the Gospel of Thomas is clearly Gnostic. – an early heresy repudiated by Paul.      

The rejoinder about “hostile witnesses” who would presumably point out the legends is a red herring. Christianity in the first century was a minor sect in a backwater portion of the Roman empire. No one cared about it, any more than they cared about the thousands of other local religions, each with their holy writings. Paul himself exhibits no interest in verifying anything about Jesus’ alleged life, such as visiting the site of his crucifixion or the alleged empty tomb.

Blomberg does make a remark about hostile eyewitness when discussing the late date.  The context of the remark is to show the dates are not all that late. (CFC at 41).   Robert calls this a red herring.  A red herring is a logical fallacy where an irrelevant topic is introduced to divert the topic away from what is the original issue.  Since the issue under discussion is the standard dating and Blomberg’s point is that those dates are really not all that late, his comment about eyewitness both positive and hostile is not irrelevant to the issue.  (Id).   Blomberg does not switch topics.  (Id).   Therefore the remark is not a red herring.

 

On the other hand, Robert’s entire argument about the hostile witnesses is a straw man.  This logical fallacy happens when a person actually ignores the person’s actual position and substitutes his own version of that position which is usually a misrepresentation of the original position.  Beginning on page 40 and continuing on page 41, the following conversation takes place during the interview:

 

  “The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles, is Mark in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80’s, and John in the 90’s.  But listen, that’s still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who could have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus had been going around.  Consequently, these late dates for the gospels aren’t really all that late,”

 

Note the phrase “hostile witnesses” is never used.  What Blomberg actually says is eyewitnesses.  Why is this important? In law, any witness who testifies for the opposition is by definition a hostile witness.  However, hostile witnesses are not necessarily eyewitness.  Blomberg is talking about people who were eyewitness at the time Jesus lived, died, and resurrected and could correct any misinterpretations or misconceptions spread during that time and time until the gospels were written.

 

Second, the assertion no one cared is not true.  The local Jewish authorities opposed Christianity from the beginning and within 30 years of the crucifixion the Roman Empire was actively persecuting Christians and put to death both Peter and Paul.   

Robert’s last assertion that Paul exhibited no interest in verifying anything about Jesus’ alleged life is another logical fallacy known as the argument from silence.  (Wikipedia article on fallacies.)  While Paul’s epistles are silent as to what Paul did when he visited Jerusalem, they do document several visits to Jerusalem by Paul.   
 
<b>Legendary development</b>. of course there was sufficient time. We have many examples in history of legends accruing to figures within a few years after their deaths. When placed in their likely historical order, Paul’s letters and the gospels demonstrate increasingly extravagant claims about Jesus. Finally, a lot of material about Jesus was simply lifted from the pre-existing Old Testament, which of course takes no time at all to do.

Robert asserts three things here.  First, there was sufficient time.  Since Robert’s

only evidence is to further assertion of legendary development cites no examples, the assertion is self serving.  Robert has the burden of proof here and fails to meet it.

 

Second, Robert’s assertion that Paul’s letters and the gospels when placed in their likely historical order demonstrate increasingly extravagant claims about Jesus is also self serving.  However, this assertion needs further comment.  As Robert himself correctly points out, there is an ongoing debate as to the dating of New Testament documents.  If you use Robert’s source of www.earlychristianwritings.com, you find a very interesting thing.  You find Philippians placed right behind 1 Thessalonians and has the same date range (Id).   This is not good for Roberts’s position as you will see shortly.  In the 2^nd chapter of Philippians you find the following passage”

 

“5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

 6Who, being in very nature God,

      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

 7but made himself nothing,

      taking the very nature of a servant,

      being made in human likeness.

 8And being found in appearance as a man,

      he humbled himself

      and became obedient to death—

         even death on a cross!

 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

      and gave him the name that is above every name,

 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

      in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

      to the glory of God the Father.”  (Philippians 2:5 -11 NIV).

 

The problem here is obvious.  Paul is claiming Jesus true nature is God.  Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.  This is very early in the chronology according to earlychristianwrtings.com.   Even worse is the fact the book of Colossians is given the same early date as Philippians but the end date is only 80 AD.  (www,earlychristianwritings.com).  There are 2 interesting passages in Colossians.  The first is:

 

“15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”  (Colossians 1:15 – 20 NIV)

  

The second is:

 

“6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

 8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.  9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.”  (Colossians 2:6 – 10 NIV).

Once again Paul asserts Jesus is God in human flesh.  This is also picked up in the gospels.  However,  given the early dates earlychristianwritings.com give  to Philippians and Colossians, this seem to contradict Robert.

Third, you have to understand what Paul’s letters were.  After Paul visited the churches he founded on his missionary trips, the churches sent him letters with issues they wanted further clarification on.  His letters were his responses to those questions.  For example, in both 1 and 2 Thessalonians Paul addressed the second coming of Christ since that was one of the questions he needed to answer.  Philippians and Colossians were responses to the Gnostic and Docetic heresies. 

 

Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis meaning knowledge.  (Article on Gnosticism at www.carm.org).  While there is a debate among scholars as to when gnosticism began, all agree gnosticism became a major problem as it infected Christianity.  (Id.)   Gnosticism’s main features are salvation comes through a special knowledge and matter is inherently evil,   (Id.) The reason Paul regarded it as a heresy was it denied the Incarnation and was inherently polytheistic.  (Id.)  In denying the Incarnation gnosticism messes with the doctrine of Atonement.  (Id.)  Gnosticism also spawned the heresy of docetism.  Docetism asserts Jesus only seemed to have a body.  (Article on Docetism at www.carm.org.)  Therefore Jesus was not really crucified and did not rise from the dead.  (Id.)

                                         

 Robert’s last assertion is New Testament Authors merely lifted stuff from the Old Testament.  While it is most certainly true New Testament authors applied Old Testament prophecies to Jesus, they did this top show how messianic prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus.  This is actually a matter of perspective.       

Hopefully, you can see why Blomberg is not convincing in the light of a fuller story.

I will respond to Robert’s conclusion with the following things.  First, I can’t see why Dr. Blomberg is not convincing.  Let me tell you why.  After reviewing and researching Robert’s response, I can not conclude it provides a fuller story.  A number of Robert’s responses are not logically sound as they suffer from a number of logical fallacies.  Several others are self serving and Robert offers no evidence in support.  For these Robert fails to carry the burden of proof.  Some, such as the “synoptic problem” while interesting as topics in themselves are theories for which there is no real evidence.   In conclusion, rather than provide a fuller picture, the result is a muddying of the waters. 

US Open — McDowell Wins

Folks:

This past Sunday the 110th US Open ended with Graeme McDowell becoming the first golfer from Northern Ireland to wind a US Open on a brutal  Pebble Beach course set to US open standards.  McDowell started the day 3 shots back of Dustin Johnson and 2 shots ahead of Tiger Woods.  He shot 3 over for the day to end at even par for  the tournament.  Gary Havret from France finished second at +1 and was in contention until he missed his birdie put on the 18th.   Dustin Johnson imploded on the front nine where he gave back his entire lead in about 5 holes.  Ernie Els briefly held the lead before Pebble rocked his world.  Phil Mickleson tried to make a move but missed putts cost him a chance to win his first Open while Tiger struggled on Sunday and remains at 14 majors.  St Andrews plays host to the next major — The British Open.

Ron