The Case for Christ — Chapter 2 — Testing the Eyewitness Evidence
June 26, 2010
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.)
Ron,
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 living, 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?
There are a number of other problems with Blomberg’s claims and how he suggests the “eyewitnesses” pass the tests, but the above should suffice to spark a rebuttal.
Robert:
Thanks for your response. As you are well aware, my treatment of this response will be the same as your previous response. I will post it and then post my response. However, There are three things I must point out to you. The first if these is while I appreciate and value your opinions, I do not appeicate personal attacts on my character and the characters of others. In fact, they, like ad hominem argumements, are not permitted here. Thereore, I would point you to the rules for posting here and kindly request you policew your posts.
Second, you are most likely aware gereal objections only merit general denails or responses. A general oljection is simply a bald assertion and can easily to make.
Finally, while you are free to voice your objections in a general form it would be nice if you did moe than make general bald assertions. As I have previously pointed out to you once I have summaraized Mr. Stoblel’s portion of the book, you may make your comments but the burden of proof is on you.
Finally,
What about the science test?
It seems that every month or so I hear some story about a man being released from prison because he has been exonerated by a DNA test that wasn’t available at the time of his conviction. Sometimes these convictions were based on eyewitness testimony, but the man is still released if the scientific tests say that things could not have happened the way the witness says they happened.
If science can be trusted over direct eyewitness testimony given under oath and subject to cross examination, why shouldn’t science be trusted over ancient stories about whose authorship and mode of transmission there is considerable uncertainty?
Vinny:
Thanks for your comment and your readership. I have few things to say in response. First, there have been a number of cases where convictions were overturned on DNA evidence. However, the convictions were most likely reached in circumstantial evidence cases. Let me give you an example of a cricumstantial case. Witness comes upon a scene where he sees the accussed standing over a body of a murder victim. The accussed rans away. At trail the witness testifies as to what he saw. No one else was seen at the crime scene. The police find blood at the scene. The blood is gathered and logged. The prosecution argues the accused was at the scene and asks the jury to reach a verdict by reasonbly infering the only person at the scene around th time of the murder was the accused so therefore he must have committed it. The accused did not testify. However in his statement to the police, the accused mentioned hearing a struggle and seeing a man run away. This case took place prior to DNA testing. Later DNA tests were run on the blood and the accused was exopnerated when the tests excluded him from being the killer. Does it logically follow that the witness did not see what he saw? No. In this case the witness actually saw the accused standing over the body and running away. Did the science show that things could not have happened the way the witness saw them. Again the answer is no. Second, DNA testing is not 100% fool proof. The lab could have messed up the test or tested a mislabled sample. The DNA evidence could have been plnated. Therefore it does not logically follow that science such as DNA can be trusted over eyewitness evidence as a general rule. Finally, in the realm of ancient documents science can only take us so far. If you will reread some of my posts you will see there is not considerable uncertanty over the authorship of the gospels and in this next segment we will deal with the mode of transmission.
Keep reading
Ron
Ron,
The propensity for eyewitnesses to make mistakes about what they have seen and to reinterpret what they have seen as time passes is well established in psychological studies. The circumstancess of every case are different, but the one constant is that the defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Science is always sufficient to create a reasonable doubt about a story that contradicts it.
I have read your discussion of Blomberg’s defense of the traditional authorship of the gospels and I can still see that there is considerable uncertainty. I don’t think that even Blomberg would pretend that his position is not in the minority of scholars.