Eye's have not seen
Rebuttal to chapter 1 of
Lee Strobel's 'The Case for Christ'
Occasionally updated and edited. Copyright © 2008
The following is a commentary on the first chapter of 'The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus' by Lee Strobel
Find someone who has never heard of Christianity, doesn't know the Bible exists, and has never heard of Jesus. In short, find a person who is a religious blank slate. Hand this person a copy of the four gospels and ask this person to read them. Then, quiz the person about the gospels' content and meaning.
The first question: Tell us about Jesus. What did he do? Why did he do what he did? And more importantly, who was he?
The person being quizzed would understand that Jesus was a good man who did good things and, unfortunately, was executed by his opponents.
When asked if the gospels were true, the reader would likely insist that they are not. Turning water into wine is silly and walking on water is even sillier. Feeding five thousand with five loaves and two fishes could not have happened. Raising the dead -- and being raised from thfe dead -- is sheer nonsense.
We understand, then, that Christian apologists are arguing against human reason. There is nothing about the gospels that intrinsically lend themselves to believability. Believers, therefore, are compelled to make their case in the defense of the absurdities of the gospels. Most significantly is the need to make a case for gospels' version of the life of Jesus Christ.
The godless gospels
Most disturbing is the reasonable answer to the question, "Who was Jesus?"
After reading the gospels with an open mind, no thinking person could conclude that Jesus was God. In fact, no reasonable reader would conclude that Jesus ever claimed to be God. The statements simply aren't there.
Apologists, of course, disagree. They see the deity of Christ tucked neatly away in symbolism and coded in covert phrases. Jesus forgave sins, they note. Only God can do that. Jesus declared himself to be "I am." That, they say, is a sobriquet for God. All it takes is a little imagination and the deity of Christ bursts from the gospels like the morning sun.
One needs to be mindful that the deity of Christ is vitally important to the traditional Christian paradigm. If Jesus were not God, the entire sphere of Christianity crumbles, the plan of salvation becomes invalid and eternal life in heaven becomes nothing more than a fanciful myth.
It is imperative that apologists defend the deity of Christ.
Chapter one of Lee Strobel's The Case of Christ confronts this vital issue by relating a supposed interview with expert Craig Blomberg. In so doing it sidesteps a most critical question: If Jesus were God, why did he not plainly --- and frequently -- say so? Why the symbolism? After all, the eternity of billions of souls is at stake.
If the writers of the gospels believed Jesus were God -- and if they understood his deity to be essential to eternal salvation --- they would have certainly made such claims boldly. But on no occasion did any of the gospel writers quote Jesus as saying, "I am God." Never did the gospel writers say, themselves, "Jesus is God." These facts argue strongly against the deity of Christ.
My Lord and my God
Some believe the earliest adherents of the Jesus cult did not view their dead leader as God. Belief in the deificatiion of Jesus came later as the religion sought legitimacy for its existence. That progression towards deification is reflected in the Gospels. Mark's Gospel, the first written, makes no reference to the deity of Jesus. John's Gospel, the last written, flirts with the notion on several occasions.
John begins his gospel by declaring that ". . . the Word was God." Evangelicals create a scenario in which the term "Word" (Koine Greek term "logos") is understood to be a metaphor for Jesus.
In chapter 10 John quotes Jesus as declaring, "I and my father are one," then records his Jewish antagonizers as responding with the accusation, ". . . thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (See verses 30 through 31.)
The closest John comes to identifying Jesus as God is seen in John 20. In this chapter we find the story of the resurrected Jesus appearing to his disciples. One of those disciples, Thomas, is presented as being highly skeptical regarding the resurrection. Having been presented with the indubitable evidence of seeing and touching Jesus, the doubts of the disciples evaporate. He declares, "My Lord and my God."
Relying solely on confirmation bias, evangelicals cling to these citations as evidence that Jesus was considered God from the onset of the Jesus movement. Objective analysis draws a different conclusion. Rather than cherry-pick bits of evidence to support a preclusion, objectivists place all the information on the table for consideration.
In each occasion John stops short of forthrightly declaring the deity of Jesus. He merely reports the opinions of Jesus' opponents and one of his adherents.
While Thomas reacted to the resurrected Jesus by seemingly acknowledging his deity, others reacted differently. Peter didn't respond to the incarnate resurrected Jesus by declaring, "My Lord and my God," but by announcing, "I go a fishing." Six other disciples, including Thomas, replied, "We also go with thee." (See John 21:1-3.)
The tempered response of the disciples is not surprising when we consider their response to Jesus' earlier question, ". . . whom say ye that I am?"
Peter's response was not, "Thou art God," but rather, "Thou art the . . . Son of the living God." (See Matthew 16.) Not only did Peter recognize Jesus as the Son of God rather than God the Son, he was commended by Jesus for his spiritual insight.
Jesus could not be, at once, both the Son of God (Peter) and God the Son (Thomas). Evangelicals attempt to reconcile this dilemma by imagining an unsubstantiated scenario in which the Father and Son are one and, at the same time different. By adding a third person, the Holy Spirit, they derive the Trinity, a concept that is both incomprehensible and inexplicable. Rather than admit the notion of the Trinity is silly, evangelicals consign it to a higher plain of understanding that transcends our mortal comprehension. Once we get to heaven, they say, we'll understand.
Some sects, such as the Unitarians and the unorthodox Jehovah's Witnesses, take a different approach: They cling to the God concept, but reject the deity of Christ and the concept of the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostalism attempts to resolve the Father-Son dilemma by merging the two personalities into one individual. Objectivists, however, take a more honest approach: The Father-Son dilemma is a nonsensical conflict that serves as evidence for the incredulity of the Bible and the non-existence of God.
It is possible that John didn't imagine Thomas as declaring Jesus to be God. Thomas' expression may have attributed the survival of Jesus to God; an abbreviated form of "Thank God, my Lord, you're alive!"
Fundamentalists are fond of quoting John 10:30 in which Jesus reportedly said, "I and my Father are one," to reinforce their belief that Thomas identified Jesus as "my God." They fail, however, to acknowledge the quotation in John 14:28 in which John attributes the words, "my Father is greater than I" to Jesus. If Jesus and God were one and the same, one could not be greater than the other. (Note that Paul's statement he who plants and he who waters are one refers to two different individuals, Paul and Apollos, who shared a common objective; not the same personality.)
While it is plausible that John didn't intend to suggest that Thomas recognized the deity of Jesus, it is also possible that Thomas' statement was not included in the original manuscript(s), but added later as Christian theology developed.
This process is not surprising considering that ancient cultures commonly considered supreme leaders to be gods.
More on "God the Son"
The title "Son of God" aptly describes the perceived relationship between Jesus and God. While it is not exclusively ascribed to Jesus, the phrase "the Son of God" strongly suggests that it had unique meaning. Specifically, the phrase tends to point to the messianic claim. In that sense he is the "only begotten Son of God."
In a broader sense, all Christians view themselves to be children of God and, on several occasion, the New Testament uses the the phrase "sons of God" to describe that concept. Never does "Son of God" or "sons of God" proclaim one's deity.
The fundamentalist paradigm adds a divine dimension that is not expressly conveyed in the gospels. Consider three of the 46 instances where the phrase "Son of God" is used.
• In Matthew 14 the disciples worshiped Jesus, saying, "Of a truth thou art the Son of God." The point being made is that the disciples believed Jesus to truly be the messiah. That claim was made evident when he defied nature and walked on the stormy sea. By portraying Jesus with supernatural, God-gvien abilities, the writers were confirming his messianic calling, but not that he was God.
In John 4 a Samaritan woman expressed similar enthusiasm upon the discovery that Jesus is the Christ; that is, the messiah.
• When tempted in the wilderness, the writers have Satan wonder, "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread."
If the writers believed Jesus to be God, they would have had Satan address him as such. They did not. But when understanding "the Son of God" to be the equivalent of "the messiah," the phrase makes sense: "If thou be the messiah, command that these stones be made bread."
• In John 19 Jesus' accusers argued in favor of his execution; not because he claimed to be God, but because he claimed to be the messiah. "The Jews answered him [Pilot], We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."
How many Gods?
To make their case for the deity of Christ, fundamentalists go beyond the gospels. Specifically, they point to a phrase in Hebrews 1:8 which reads, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." The context makes it evident that "the Son" refers to Jesus. This, they conclude, is evidence that first century Christians embraced the deity of Christ.
Fundamentalists often fail to notice (or at least mention) that this passage is a quotation from Psalm 45 which was written to the King of Judah. Verse 6 of that Psalm says of the king, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever."
If the fundamentalists' view is to be accepted, then Jesus and the King of Judah were both God. No one, of course, believes that. So what is the solution?
Fundamentalists resolve the problem by insisting the passage in Psalm to be messianic and, therefore, refers to Jesus. They ignore the fact that the Psalm makes no reference to the messiah. They also ignore the context of Psalm 45. The reference to God is as clearly ascribed to the king as it is to the Son in Hebrews 11. But common sense and reason matter little to fundamentalists. Otherwise, they would alter their views.
Pragmatists have a more practical solution. They say the phrase "Your throne, O God" is mistranslation. They point to the eminent 19th century scholar, Brooke Foss Westcott who, along with colleague Fenton John Anthony Hort, were considered the fathers of modern Bible translations. Westcott was convinced that the proper translation of Hebrews 1:8 simply consigned God's throne to the Son but was never intended to indicate his deity. After a lengthy discussion on the intricacies of the Greek text, Wescott makes his case. "Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering," which is "God is Thy throne" or "Thy throne is God [rather than "Thy throne, O God."] (See Brooke F. Wescott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1892, pp. 25, 26)
Why eyewitness evidence
To make their case, apologists must dismiss a commonly held theory that the the resurrection of Jesus and other super-natural events were concocted over time and added to the gospels long after the death of Christ. They offer the following syllogism to accomplish their objective:
1. The gospels were written by eyewitnesses who would not lie.
2. Consequently the gospels could not have been mere folklore.
3. Therefore, the gospels can be trusted as authentic.
The Case for Christ applies that syllogism. It is first seen on page 23 where Blomberg boldly declares that Matthew, Mark and Luke must have authored the gospels that bear their names. Why? "Because there are no known competitors."
The possibility that the gospels were compiled from bits of folklore -- and therefore bogus -- is addressed: Faux gospels would have been attributed to respectable authors to give them an air of importance. Speaking of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Blomberg says "there would not have been any reason to attribute authorship to these three less respected people." Because the gospels are attributed to religious lightweights, he concludes, they must be the authentic authors. Authentic authorship removes the possibility of a later compilation.
But were Mathew, Mark and Luke lacking in respect?
Matthew is dismissed because he was a "former hated tax collector." Exactly why that qualifies Matthew as a spiritual lightweight is uncertain. After all, Lee Strobel is a former atheist. That fact lends credibility to his authorship rather than diminishes it.
Mark may have been the disciple who bears that name. If so, he would have been an respected eyewitness to the events described. Strobel's book deals with Mark by denying he was Jesus' disciple.
Luke was a respected physician.
The notion that the compiled gospels would have been attributed to more familiar Christian writers is, in itself, suspect. The compilers may have intentionally avoided borrowing names of more notorious Christians, fearing famous names would solicit suspicion.
In reality, Matthew, Mark and Luke may well have written the synoptic gospels, just as Strobel's book claims. If any or all of them were companions of Jesus, they would have qualified as eyewitnesses. Either way their descriptions of supernatural events were embellishments. There is no evidence to the contrary.
More likely the gospels were compilations of oral and written traditions; their assigned authorship a speculative after thought.
Second hand observations
This chapter of Strobel's book makes much ado about the importance of eyewitness authors. That is an enigma. Here's why.
First, Luke was almost certainly not an eyewitness.
Second, it is interesting that Strobel says that "everybody agrees that [Mark] was not an eyewitness." [page 27]
Third, Blomberg adds to the confusion by noting that Matthew relied on Mark for information who, in turn, relied on Peter. That means that Matthew was not writing from the perspective of an eyewitness and that much of his account was three generations removed.
Fourth, it is odd that Blomberg concedes to the existence of the infamous Q document. Q, which represents the German term Quelle, or "source," was originally assumed by Bible critics to explain the similarities of the synoptic gospels. The authors used Q as a source document, hence the similarities in their content.
Fundamentalists have traditionally believed that the Holy Spirit was the writers' source. Q is thought to be an excuse to deny the inspiration of the gospels.
If, in fact, the authors of the synoptics based their writings on this mysterious document, their gospels were not eyewitness accounts. Blomberg attempts to solve this problem by declaring that "even in Q there is clearly an awareness of Jesus' ministry of miracles." Strobel views Q as some kind of a memory jogger.
Let's recap. Eyewitness accounts are essential to the credibility of the gospels. What's more the authorship of the gospels is equally essential because it dismisses the prospect of a compiled folklore infused with embellishments. However, the true eyewitnesses were Peter and a mysterious document called "Q" whose authenticity is uncertain, authorship is unknown and is, therefore (evoking Blomberg's fear), loaded with embellishments.
Incredulous creed
To bolster his notion that the gospels were not bogus folklore, Blomberg evokes a scenario in which the resurrection story could not have been contrived over a period of decades, but was dearly held by Christians from the very onset of the Jesus cult. To make his point he offers an astonishing leap over logic. It would cause even the most rigid fundamentalist to cringe.
The yarn is spun thusly:
Blomberg notes that Paul's first letter to the Corinthians contains reference to the resurrection. The letter's late authorship seems to bother Bromberg because it allows nearly 25 years for the resurrection myth to foment. The letter was written from Ephesus during Paul's third missionary journey. It can be reasonably dated between 55 and 57, a quarter century after the crucifixion of Jesus.
Blomberg then attempts to solve the problem of Paul's late mention of the resurrection. He does this by declaring Paul's statement a "creed." This is apparent, he notes, because of the "technical language" that proves it was "an oral tradition in relatively fixed form." In other words, Blomberg admits the problem with the late date of Paul's writing and must rely on a concocted a scenario that would offer an alternative explanation.
Blomberg accomplishes this by insisting that Paul learned his gospel creed "within two to five years" after the resurrection. This was the time shortly after Paul's conversion when he was mentored by the disciples in Antioch.
Blomberg conveniently ignores the fact that Paul bluntly stated, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (See Galatians 1:11-12.)
In other words, the apostle, himself, blows off the creed theory as nonsense.
Blomberg also ignores that critics credit the "technical" language to a later interpolation. That is, Paul's creed was not in the original letter. It was added by others.
Blomberg is not deterred. By creating a scenario in which the resurrection creed was learned shortly after the crucifixion, he makes the case that early Christians believed the resurrection. That, in turn, dismisses the notion that the resurrection was a concoction added decades after the death of Jesus.
Although there is no internal nor external evidence to support Blomberg's yarn, it cannot be disproved and, therefore, could have happened. But his scenario intrinsically stands on its own merit, nothing more.
Spinning more yarn
Perhaps we could spin a fanciful yarn of our own then challenge the fundamentalists to disprove it.
We begin by reviewing the biblical version of Paul's conversion. According to the Acts account, he saw a bright light while en route to persecute Christians. Finding himself face to face with the resurrected Jesus, Paul heard a voice from heaven instructing him to stop kicking against the pricks. Paul conceded and, being blinded by the light, was led away to be indoctrinated by disciples in the fineries of the new Christian faith.
Here's the spin. While Paul was enroute to persecute Christians he was whopped on the head by thieves (a perennial problem in those days; see Luke 10:30-37.) The blunt force resulted in an unconscious state during which time Paul was, in fact, confronted by the voice of Jesus emanating from a bright light. But it was a dream-like hallucination that Paul believed he actually "saw." It was, in fact, the first near-death experience ever recorded.
Paul thought he was blinded by the light, but in reality he experienced a medical phenomenon called "cortical blindness." It is defined as "acute loss of vision following head trauma" and it typically resolves within 24 hours. Thus blinded by the force of the blow, Paul was fortunate to be found by a compassionate Christian who -- unaware of his ward's true identity -- led him off to disciples in Antioch. Paul remained in Anitoch for a three-year stint of mentoring, then scurried off on a series of three missionary tours that helped establish the Jesus cult as a bona-fide heavyweight religion. Ultimately Paul became the most effective progenitor of Christianity, a religion whose success can ultimately be traced to a bad guy with a big stick. And with that, we run out of yarn.
While the above story was manufactured on site within this author's mind, it makes more sense than the biblical account. Again, I challenge any fundamentalist to prove it wrong.
Essential flaw
Apologists who buy into the theory that authentic authorship somehow proves the resurrection are simply mistaken. They also are wrong to presume that early belief in the resurrection somehow proves it actually happened. The reason? Mass denial.
In the past hundred years many prominent personalities have met untimely deaths, only to be resurrected immediately and simultaneously in the minds of thousands. Beloved entertainers are thought to have faked their deaths to escape the limelight and are living incognito. Hated dictators are said to have done the same. It did not require decades of myth-making to circulate such rumors. They were immediate reactions concocted and believed in the minds of those who retreated into denial.
The death of Jesus was no different, except that his death was a painful and public fact. Unlike the fans of popular entertainers, the followers of Jesus could not presume their leader had snuck off into self-imposed exile. Considering his compassionate nature, such a scenario would be unthinkable. Instead, they admitted Jesus truly died. Then, drawing on common folklore, they manufactured the resurrection myth.
Many believed the resurrection story, just as many today believe wild conspiracy theories or urban legends. But unlike today, first century converts to the new Jesus cult did not have the advantage of rapid communication. The resurrection myth grew by word of mouth.
Many believed. Most didn't. And that is a problem worth considering.
Rejection of the resurrection
While Christian apologists point to the vast number of early converts to support their case for a resurrected Christ, they completely ignore the flip side of the coin. The overwhelming majority rejected the resurrection story. That is remarkable.
If, in fact, Jesus had resurrected from the dead, such news would have flooded Jerusalem and rapidly spread throughout Judea, Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth. A verifiable vacated tomb would have provided a mute witness; any and all could have visited the site to confirm the resurrection story. They obviously didn't. Why? Because there was no vacated tomb.
There are presently an untold number of empty tombs throughout the world. Their state of emptiness does not prove mass resurrections. Rather, clear-thinking people view them as previously unoccupied. The empty tomb described by the gospels would have lent no more evidence to a resurrected Jesus than any other empty tomb; even with a story attached.
Suppose, for illustration purposes, the grave of a famous entertainer were to be exhumed. Investigators are astonished to discover an empty coffin. Would this discovery necessitate the suspected deceased had, in reality, been resurrected? Would it vindicate fans who insist the entertainer is still alive? Could it be the body was stolen and held for ransom? Could it be that loved ones had the remains buried elsewhere to avoid theft or desecration? Could their be other plausible explanations?
No longer seeking and saving
The reluctance of the resurrected Jesus to appear to tens of thousands, as he did during his preaching ministry, is an enigma. Considering the eternal destiny of billions of souls was at stake, certainly a resurrected Jesus would have revealed himself to the multitudes. The gospels tell a much different story; that Jesus appeared to very few and most of those were a part of his inner circle. Twenty five years after the crucifixion, the Apostle Paul -- who was not an eyewitness -- offers a highly suspect testimony that the resurrected Jesus appeared to a crowd exceeding 500. Again, why did the resurrected Jesus not appear to tens of thousands?
The fact that the resurrected Jesus made himself known only to a few is unconscionable. It is evidence that the resurrection story was concocted — perhaps by his inner circle; perhaps by others at a later date. It is a case against Christ.
Immediate response
Apologists also argue that there was no immediate denial of the resurrection. Their conclusion? Everyone knew it happened. This is a shallow argument at best. Here's why.
First, as already mentioned, the vast majority of people living in the Jerusalem area did not convert to Christianity. Had the resurrection been verifiable, we would expect tens of thousands to have immediately converted. If the absence of denial is evidence of belief, then we would have expected mass conversions. Had all known the resurrection story were accurate, almost all would have immediately become dedicated disciples. They did not. The slow, progressive growth of the Jesus cult follows a trend set by an urban legend.
Second, if the resurrection story were commonly known to be true, local post-resurrection preaching on the topic would have been unnecessary. There would have been no need to convince others of that which they already believed. Those who heard the disciples preaching in Jerusalem during Pentecost — days after the resurrection — would not have been astonished at the peculiar story. They would have already heard it.
Third, the absence of denial does not lend itself as evidence. Immediately upon hearing Orson Wells' famous War of the Worlds radio broadcast, rumors began to circulate concerning the extent of the attack. Once the attack was clearly known to be a hoax, no one bothered to deny that it happened. The hoax was common knowledge. Further denial was not needed. Likewise, no one challenged the resurrection story because there was no resurrection to deny. Only after the resurrection myth emerged did it meet opposition.
Mute testimony
Apologists often claim that ten of the original twelve disciples died as martyrs. The disciples, they say, would not have given their lives if they knew the resurrection was a lie. This raises two questions:
First question: Did the disciples die as martyrs?
Consider that most of the disciples simply vanished from history after the crucifixion. It should not be surprising that early adherents to Christianity would believe urban legends concerning the deaths of Jesus' closest allies. If Thomas, for example, had died of natural causes, his death would have soon been forgotten. But the story of the disciple being viciously speared to death found its way into a thousand motivational sermons, embedded itself deep into the psyche of the early church and was passed down from generation to generation.
Stories of martyrdom simply makes good propaganda and cannot be trusted as accurate, particularly when there are conflicting reports.
The death of James, the brother of Jesus, provides a classic example. According to Josephus, James was executed by order of the Sanhedrin. Hegesipus, a Jew and early church Christian historian, says James was killed in a riot. His version of James death is corroborated by Eusebius who cites Clement.
Second question: If some disciples died as martyrs, does this prove their belief in the resurrection?
The disciples would not have died in defense of the resurrection had they known it was a hoax. While that presumption is self-evident it evades a broader question: If they disciples were martyred, did they die for the resurrection or for some other set of deeply held religious and moral convictions. Presuming martyrdom is always tied to the resurrection myth is an exceptional leap of faith; a leap that some, no doubt, would willingly die for.
Son of man
Theologians have long held that the phrase "Son of man" found throughout the gospels points to the humanity of Christ. The phrase "Son of God" attests to his divinity, they say. To make the case for Christ, Blomberg parts way with 2,000 years of theological tradition and decides that the title "Son of Man" points to the deity of Christ.
How so?
He refers to a passage in Daniel that ascribes the name, "Ancient of Days" to God. Here we read that God is accompanied by one identified as "like the Son of man." Blomberg apparently believes this passage to be a messianic reference and, believing Jesus is the messiah, jumps to the conclusion that Jesus is the "one like the Son of man." Blomberg's conclusion is hardly unique. Even the translators of the King James Bible found it prudent to capitalize the word "Son" believing the reference to applied to Jesus.
Let's cross examine
First, not all Bible scholars agree that Daniel is referring to a messiah. Some believe the "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" given to Daniel's son of man simply described an ideal Jewish nation. In fact, the passage says nothing of a messiah.
Second, even if the passage is messianic, it should be noted that the Jewish tradition of a messiah does not include deity. The Jews did not believe the messiah would be God. In fact, the passage says nothing of the son of man being God.
Third, even if the passage were a messianic reference to Jesus, the title "Son of man" could be understood to denote his human nature.
Fourth, Daniel also uses the term "son of man" to describe himself. If the phrase denoted deity, then Daniel was declaring himself to be God.
Fifth, the phrase "son of man" is used 108 times in the Old Testament (King James Version). Apart from the supposed messianic passage in Daniel, the phrase always refers to humans.
Sixth, Jesus used the phrase "son of man" to describe his humanity. In Matthew 16 Jesus asked, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" His disciples noted that others viewed him as a great prophet, but nothing more. Certainly they did not view him as God. When asked, "But whom say ye that I am?" Peter identified him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus commended Peter for getting it right. Blomberg got it wrong. "Son of man" denoted the ordinary humanity of Jesus. "Son of God" credited him with a viable relationship with God and lent credibility to his messianic mission. Neither describe him as God.
It should be noted that the term "sons of God" is used six times in the New Testament to describe believers. If the phrase implied deity, then all believers should be considered God.
The Amazing Alexander
Reverting back to the argument favoring early authorship, Blomberg notes that the biographies of Alexander the Great were penned some four centuries after the emperors exploits. In spite of the time gap, the credibility of Alexander's biographers are virtually unquestioned. His point is that the gospels are more credible that Alexander's biographies because the extant texts are closer to the events they describe.
But what if Alexander's biographies had included bizarre tales of supernatural acts? What if Alexander had been credited with raising the dead, healing the lame, calming a storm with a simple phrase, ascending into heaven? They would be discredited by any reasonable person.
Likewise, thinking persons reject the authenticity of the gospels. Their relative early date lend nothing to their credibility but attest to the reality that urban legends thrived then as they do today.
Let's review the evidence.
• Dependable eyewitnesses are essential to make the case for Christ. The writers of the synoptic gospels were not credible eyewitnesses, but were dependent on third generation information from Peter and the mysterious Q document that may not have even existed.
• The writer of John's gospel is unknown.
• The deity of Christ is an essential to the Christian paradigm. Yet the gospels never refer to Jesus as God; Jesus never claims to be God. The Hebrews reference to the deity of Christ was refuted by history's most influential New Testament Greek scholar, Brooke Foss Westcott.
• Early rumors argue against the resurrection of Jesus. Similar urban legends have circulated in recent years.
• The resurrected Jesus did not appear to thousands of witnesses.
2008
