2. Testing the Eyewitness Evidence
Do the Biographies of Jesus Stand Up to Scrutiny?"Defense attorneys have a challenging job: to raise questions, to generate doubts, to probe the soft and vulnerable spots of a witness's story. They do this by subjecting the testimony to a variety of tests. The idea is that honest and accurate testimony will withstand scrutiny, while false, exaggerated, or misleading testimony will be exposed... The time [has] come to subject Dr. Blomberg's testimony to tests that [will] either reveal its weaknesses or underscore its strengths."
~Lee Strobel A. The Intention Test
Were these first-century writers interested in recording what actually happened?Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those wh from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seems good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
~Luke 1:1-4
"As you can see, Luke is clearly saying he intended to write accurately about the things he investigated and found to be well-supported by witnesses... It's true that Mark and Matthew don't have this kind of explicit statement. However, they are close to Luke in terms of genre, and it seems reasonable that Luke's historical intent would closely mirror theirs.
"The only other statement of purpose in the gospels comes in John 20:31: 'These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'
"I'll grant you that [this sounds more like a theological statement than a historical statement]. But if you're going to be convinced enough to believe, the theology has to flow from accurate history. Besides, there's an important piece of implicit evidence that can't be overlooked. Consider the way the gospels are written - in a sober and responsible fashion, with accurate and incidental details, with obvious care and exactitude. You don't find the outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing that you see in a lot of other ancient writings.
"It seems quite apparent that the goal of the gospel writers was to attempt to record what had actually occurred."
~Dr. Craig Blomberg, Ph.D.B. The Ability Test
Even if the writers intended to reliably record history, were they able to do so? How can we be sure that the material about Jesus’ life and teachings was well preserved for thirty years before it was finally written down in the gospels?"We have to remember that we're in a foreign land in a distant time and place and in a culture that has not yet invented computers or even the printing press. Books – or actually, scrolls of papyrus - were relatively rare. Therefore education, learning, worship, teaching in religious communities - all this was done by word of mouth.
"Rabbis became famous for having the entire Old Testament committed to memory. So it would have been well with the capability of Jesus' disciples to have committed much more to memory than appears in all four gospels put together - and to have passed it along accurately.
"It is difficult for us to imagine today, but this was an oral culture, in which there was great emphasis placed on memorization. And remember that eighty to ninety percent of Jesus' words were originally in poetic form. This doesn't mean stuff that rhymes, but it has a meter, balanced lines, parallelism, and so forth - and this would have created a great memory help.
"The other thing that needs to be said is that the definition of memorization was more flexible back then. In studies of culture with oral traditions, there was freedom to vary how much of the story was told on any given occasion - what was included, what was left out, what was explained, and so forth... However, there were always fixed points that were unalterable, and the community had the right to intervene and correct the storyteller if he erred on these important aspects of the story."
~Dr. Craig BlombergC. The Character Test
Was it in the character of those writers to be truthful? Was there any evidence of dishonesty or immorality that might taint their ability or willingness to transmit history accurately?"We simply do not have any reasonable evidence to suggest they were anything but people of great integrity. We see them reporting the words and actions of a man who called to as exacting a level of integrity as any religion has ever known. They were willing to live out their beliefs even to the point of ten of the eleven remaining disciples being put to grisly deaths, which shows great character. In terms of honesty, in terms of truthfulness, in terms of virtue and morality, these people had a track record that should be envied."
~Dr. Craig BlombergD. The Consistency Test
This is a test that skeptics often charge the gospels with failing. After all, aren't they hopelessly contradictory with each other? Aren't there irreconcilable discrepancies among the various gospel accounts? And if there are, how can anyone trust anything they have to say?"[There are numerous points at which the gospels appear to disagree.] These range all the way from very minor variations in wording to the most famous apparent contradictions. My own conviction is, once you allow for the elements I've talked about earlier - of paraphrase' of abridgment, of explanatory additions, of selection, of omission - the gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them...
"If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting.
"[In Matthew it says a centurion came to ask Jesus to heal his servant. However, Luke says the centurion sent the elders to do this.] Think about it this way: in our world today, we may hear a news report that says, 'The president today announced that...' when in fact the speech was actually written by a speechwriter and delivered by the press secretary - and with a little luck, the president might have glanced at it somewhere in between. Yet nobody accuses that broadcast of being in error.
"In a similar way, in the ancient world it was perfectly understood and accepted that actions were often attribute to people when in fact they occurred through their subordinates or emissaries."
~Dr. Craig BlombergE. The Bias Test
Did the gospel writers have any biases that might have colored their work? Did they have any vested interest in skewing the material they were reporting on?"I'll concede [that the gospel writers loved Jesus]. It creates the potential for this to happen. But on the other hand, people can so honor and respect someone that it prompts them to record his life with great integrity. That's the way they show their love for him. And I think that’s what happened here.
"Besides, the disciples had nothing to gain except criticism, ostracism, and martyrdom. They certainly had nothing to win financially. If anything, this would have provided pressure to keep quiet, to deny Jesus, to downplay him, even to forget they ever met him - yet because of their integrity, they proclaimed what they saw, even when it meant suffering and death."
~Dr. Craig BlombergF. The Cover-Up Test
When people testify about events they saw, they will often try to protect themselves or others by conveniently forgetting to mention details that are embarrassing or hard to explain. As a result, this raises uncertainty about the veracity of their entire testimony."There's a large body of Jesus' teaching called the hard sayings of Jesus. Some of it is very ethically demanding. If I were inventing a religion to suit my fancy, I probably wouldn't tell myself to be as perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect, or define adultery to include lust in my heart.
"Jesus' baptism is another example. You can explain why Jesus, who was without sin, allowed himself to be baptized, but why not make things easier by leaving it out altogether? On the cross Jesus cried out, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' It would have been in the self-interest of the writers to omit that because it raises too many questions.
"Mark's perspective of Peter (the disciple) is pretty consistently unflattering. And he's the ringleader! The disciples repeatedly misunderstand Jesus. James and John want the places as Jesus right and left hand, and he has to teach them hard lessons about servant leadership instead. They look like a bunch of self-serving, self-seeking, dull-witted people a lot of the time.
"Now, we already know that the gospel writers were selective; John's gospel ends by saying, somewhat hyperbolically, that the whole world couldn't contain all the information that could have been written about Jesus. So had they left some of this out, that in and of itself wouldn't necessarily have been seen as falsifying the story.
"But here's the point: if they didn't feel free to leave out stuff when it would have been convenient and helpful to do so, is it really plausible to believe that they outright added and fabricated material with no historical basis?
"I'd think not."
~Dr. Craig Blomberg, Ph.D.G. The Corroboration Test
When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they check out to be correct in cases in which they can be independently verified?"Yes, they do, and the longer people explore this, the more the details get confirmed. Within the last hundred years archaeology has repeatedly unearthed discoveries that have confirmed specific references in the gospels, particularly in the gospel of John - ironically, the one that's supposedly so suspect!
"Now, yes, there are still some unresolved issues, and there have been times when archeology has created new problems, but those are a tiny minority compared with the number of examples of corroboration.
"In addition, we can learn through non-Christian sources a lot of facts about Jesus that corroborate key teachings and events in his life. And when you stop to think that ancient historians for the most part dealt only with political rulers, emperors, kings, military battles, official religious people, and major philosophical movements, it's remarkable how much we can learn about Jesus and his followers even though they fit none of those categories at the time these historians were writing."
~Dr. Craig Blomberg, Ph.D.H. The Adverse Witness Test
Were others present who would have contradicted or corrected the gospels if they had been distorted or false? In other words, do we see examples of contemporaries of Jesus complaining that the gospel accounts were just plain wrong?"Many people had reasons for wanting to discredit this movement and would have done so if they could have simply told history better. Yet look what his opponents did say. In later Jewish writings Jesus is called a sorcerer who led Israel astray - which acknowledges that he really did work marvelous wonders, although the writers dispute the source of his power.
"This would have been the perfect opportunity to say something like, 'The Christians will tell you he worked miracles, but we're here to tell you he didn't.' Yet that's the one thing we never see his opponents saying. Instead they implicitly acknowledge that what the gospels wrote - that Jesus performed miracles - is true.
"We have a picture of what was initially a very vulnerable and fragile movement that was being subjected to persecution. If critics could have attacked it on the basis that it was full of falsehoods or distortions, they would have.
"But that's exactly what we don't see."
~Dr. Craig Blomberg
