Answers In Action, Passantinos: Appeal Denied: How = <i>Challenging the Verdict</i> Fails to Overturn <i>The Case for = Christ

Appeal Denied: How Challenging the Verdict Fails to Overturn = The=20 Case for Christ

This review = was first=20 published in the Christian Research Journal (www.equip.org). It was awarded the Evangelical = Press=20 Association=92s =93Higher Goals in Christian Journalism=94 First Place = Award for=20 Critical Review in 2002.

Challenging = the=20 Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel=92s =93The Case for=20 Christ=94

Earl=20 Doherty

(Ottawa, = Canada: Age=20 of Reason Publications, 2001)

Two features = of Earl=20 Doherty=92s Challenging the Verdict, a response to Lee = Strobel=92s runaway=20 bestseller The Case for Christ, compel a critical review. First, = it is a=20 prime example of the sort of false attacks many skeptics bring against=20 Christianity. Such a review presents a good opportunity to address = faulty=20 arguments skeptics often raise against popular Christian sources on = Christ.=20 Second, it has gained notoriety on the coattails of Strobel=92s book = because=20 skeptics have recommended it in customer reviews on The Case for = Christ=92s=20 page on Amazon.com. This marketing ploy has probably generated more = publicity=20 for the book than, for example, Drew University professor Robert = Price=92s gushing=20 review of Doherty=92s book in Free Inquiry magazine (Summer=20 2002).

&nbs= p; =20 Lee Strobel presented his interviews of scholars in The Case = for=20 Christ as though he were a legal affairs journalist (which he was) = who is=20 researching the evidence in the case for Christ. He interviews leading = scholars=20 who gave evidence for the traditional orthodox Christian view of Jesus = as the=20 Christ, the miracle-working resurrected Son of God, and he concluded = that the=20 evidence supports its truthfulness.

&nbs= p; =20 Earl Doherty, author of Challenging the Verdict, chose a = similar=20 legal motif, but this time in a courtroom. Where Strobel used this motif = sparingly and effectively, Doherty uses it mockingly and unfairly. = Doherty=20 claims that he provides his opposing side the opportunity to = =93cross-examine=94 the=20 scholars interviewed by Strobel. He neglects, however, to give the=20 cross-examined witnesses an opportunity to respond to his critical = statements.=20 What emerges is not a coherent collection of evidence and argumentation = but a=20 strange monologue by Doherty while his witnesses remain=20 silent.

&nbs= p; =20 Like Strobel=92s The Case for Christ, Doherty=92s = Challenging the=20 Verdict is divided into three main parts. Strobel=92s =93Examining = the Record=94=20 becomes Doherty=92s =93Is the Gospel Record Reliable?=94 Strobel=92s = =93Analyzing Jesus=94=20 is Doherty=92s =93What Was the Nature of Jesus?=94 and Strobel=92s = =93Researching the=20 Resurrection=94 becomes Doherty=92s =93Did Jesus Rise from the=20 Dead?=94

&nbs= p; =20 Neither Challenging the Verdict nor Doherty=92s Web site = tells us=20 the author=92s background. He was, in fact, once the president of the = Ottawa, a=20 Canadian skeptic group, and is an occasional contributor to a small = periodical=20 edited by Robert Price dedicated to denouncing the Bible, The Journal = of=20 Higher Criticism. Doherty=92s first book, The Jesus Puzzle, = argues=20 there is no credible evidence to believe Jesus existed as a historical = person, a=20 position that so contradicts the evidence that even most liberals he = quotes,=20 including the ultra-liberal members of the Jesus Seminar, disagree with=20 him. Virtually the only = current=20 view similar to his is in G. A. Wells=92s volumes discrediting Jesus=92 = existence,=20 which have been soundly refuted by, among others, Dr. Gary Habermas in = his=20 critical review in the Journal.[1]=20

&nbs= p; =20 One of the problems responding to Doherty is that, like many = skeptics, he=20 uses a shotgun approach that at first glance seems overwhelming because = there is=20 =93buckshot=94 everywhere. Only as one patiently removes one small = pellet at a time=20 is it evident that the attack has not been fatal. The =93case for = Christ,=94 in=20 fact, emerges from the smoke of Doherty=92s attack virtually unscathed = except for=20 cosmetic complaints that could be said of any book dealing with complex = issues=20 in a popular manner.

Nothing New = under the=20 Sun. Most of the = arguments=20 in Challenging the Verdict have been used before, sometimes much = better,=20 by Christianity=92s detractors. Skeptics have sought to overturn the = evidence for=20 Jesus and the Resurrection since this historic event. The nonbelieving = Jews=20 unsuccessfully tried to argue that Jesus=92 disciples must have stolen = His body=20 from the tomb while the guards were sleeping. Other arguments arose over = the=20 centuries, from the fourth-century emperor Julian the apostate to Robert = Ingersoll in the nineteenth century and Bertrand Russell in the = twentieth=20 century. All were capably answered by Christians=92 employing good = history and=20 good thinking. For example, Robert Ingersoll immortalized his disdain = for the=20 Bible in his Some Mistakes of Moses, to which leading biblical = scholars=20 of his day replied convincingly with Some Mistakes of=20 Ingersoll.

&nbs= p; =20 The unsuspecting Christian reader who first encounters criticisms = of=20 Christianity in Challenging the Verdict should be encouraged by = the=20 wealth of counterevidence published both before and after Doherty=92s = book. This=20 volume, unlike his earlier one, does not presume that Jesus never = existed. He=20 does, however, argue that the New Testament is completely unreliable in = telling=20 us anything about any historical Jesus. To support this, he presents a = variety=20 of arguments, among them: the Jews never expected a personal Messiah; = the Jesus=20 story has more in common with mystery religion myths than history; = Christians=20 changed the simple morality tale of myth into a pseudo-history; the New=20 Testament borrows motifs from Old Testament stories and weaves them into = Jesus=20 stories that never actually happened; the Jesus Savior story is no = different=20 than pagan =93savior=94 stories; the earliest Christian beliefs were = Gnostic, but=20 later Christians suppressed them; Paul=92s writings speak of a = spiritual, not=20 physical, resurrection of the mythic Christ; early Christianity was a = confusion=20 of bewildering and contradictory spiritual insights and mystical = revelations;=20 and so on.

The = interested reader=20 can find a wealth of information in books such as N. T. Wright=92s = The=20 Contemporary Quest for Jesus (Fortress, 2002), Darrell Bock=92s = Studying=20 the Historical Jesus (Baker, 2002), Paul Barnett=92s Jesus and = the Rise of=20 Early Christianity (InterVarsity, 1999), Gregory Boyd=92s Cynic = Sage or Son=20 of God? (Bridgepoint, 1995), Ben Witherington=92s The Jesus = Quest=20 (InterVarsity, 1995), and Ronald H. Nash=92s The Gospels and the = Greeks=20 (Probe, 1992). Several Internet Web sites have excellent information, = including=20 Leadership University (www.leaderu.com), the = Christian Think=20 Tank (www.Christian-thinktank.com), and = Tektonics=20 Apologetics ().

The = Skeptics=92 Mythical=20 Jesus. Doherty = embodies some=20 of the subjective interpretive methods of the Jesus Seminar. He = incredibly is=20 able intuitively to discern the =93real=94 history behind the hopelessly = corrupted=20 New Testament texts to uncover the bare myth of spiritual enlightenment = he=20 claims underlies the phony historical and supernatural claims.=20

In other = ways, his=20 interpretive methods are novel. His assumption that from myth comes the=20 erroneous belief in a real, historical character or event is exactly = opposite=20 what most scholars of mythology observe. The reader, nevertheless, is = asked to=20 accept Doherty=92s fanciful suppositions uncritically. If the Christian, = however,=20 were to invent his own interpretive system and assert his own dogmatism = of a=20 supernatural Son of God from the text, Doherty would insist on objective = proof=20 of such an indisputable nature that no figure or event of ancient = history could=20 qualify.

&nbs= p; =20 This subjectivism seems to blind its adherents, who see nothing=20 incongruous in their insistence that Christians haven=92t proved their = point while=20 at the same time they advance their own subjective theories. Jesus = Seminar=20 founder Robert Funk, for example, once told us that his interpretation = of Jesus=20 as a first-century Jewish cynic sage was based on little more than his=20 subjective "experience" of the New Testament.

&nbs= p; =20 We asked Funk, "If the New Testament text we possess led you to = discover=20 this George Carlin-type of Jesus, what kind of text would there have to = be for=20 you to discover a Son of God, resurrected Jesus Christ?" After we went = back and=20 forth asking the same question a couple of different ways, he responded, = "The=20 exact same text we have already."

&nbs= p; =20 "But," we pressed, "if the same text can give some readers a = divine=20 resurrected Christ and others a human rabbi Jesus, then you're saying = either=20 interpretation is subjective =97 based on some 'inner experience' and = not on any=20 scientific, historic, linguistic, or rational investigation or = standard." In so=20 many words, he agreed, reminding us that with the New Testament we=92re = dealing=20 with literature, not science, and therefore, strangely enough, = subjective=20 experience is valid.

Starting = with a Bias.=20 One=20 of Doherty=92s assumptions is that miracles cannot happen. Any = account of a=20 Bible miracle might be explained in a variety of ways, but not as an = actual=20 historical miraculous event. This argument is less sophisticated and = persuasive=20 than nineteenth- century philosopher David Hume=92s popular treatise but = no less=20 dogmatic. He first quotes Gregory Boyd, one of Strobel=92s experts, = concerning the=20 antisupernatural bias of the Jesus Seminar members. Doherty continues, = =93Well,=20 Dr. Boyd, I just wish we were all as biased as the Seminar in rejecting = the=20 supernatural as authentic in the Gospels any more than it is authentic = today=94=20 (80).

&nbs= p; =20 Nowhere does Doherty give a logical argument or empirical = evidence that=20 miracles can=92t happen, he just blindly pontificates.[2] He should = follow the=20 evidence wherever it logically leads him, even if it leads him to the = historical=20 fact that Christ rose from the dead.

&nbs= p; =20 Doherty=92s statement presupposes that the only legitimate = neutral approach=20 to the issue of Christ=92s resurrection is one of disbelief = rather than=20 withholding of belief. He commits the common fallacy of = neutrality,=20 assuming that one who believes a proposition cannot be objective = and that=20 only one who disbelieves is neutral and = objective.

&nbs= p; =20 On the contrary, disbelief is a belief against and = therefore not=20 neutral. Neutrality would be to withhold belief, neither = excluding the=20 supernatural nor assuming it, but allowing the evidence to support it or = contradict it. Some scholars adopt conservative positions because = of their critical standards.

&nbs= p; =20 Doherty and other skeptics assume that evidence for the = Resurrection is=20 nothing more than partisan wish fulfillment. In other words, we wish it = were the=20 case that God became man, died for our sins, rose again, and reconciled = us to=20 God; therefore, we delude ourselves into believing despite the=20 evidence.

&nbs= p; =20 What if=20 it is the case, however, that evidence for the Resurrection is the=20 foundation of belief, not a stumbling block to belief? Contrary = to=20 Doherty=92s wish fulfillment idea, it is the evidence itself that led = Lee Strobel=20 to become a Christian and write The Case for Christ: =93The = atheism I had=20 embraced for so long buckled under the weight of historical truth. It was a stunning and radical = outcome,=20 certainly not what I had anticipated when I embarked on this = investigative=20 process. But it was, in = my opinion,=20 a decision compelled by the facts=94 (266).

&nbs= p; =20 If anyone is guilty of overlooking the evidence in favor of wish=20 fulfillment, it is Doherty. In Challenging the Verdict Doherty = appears to=20 be biased, committed to a faith, and united with other skeptics in a = futile=20 attempt to promote his conviction that the Jesus Christ of the New = Testament=20 was, at best, a simple Jewish teacher with Greek Cynic pretensions, at = worst, a=20 figment of people=92s imaginations. Doherty comes to the table with a = bias=20 against the Jesus Christ of the New = Testament.

Bias-Driven=20 Vocabulary. A sentence = in the=20 opening paragraph of Challenging the Verdict is a good example of = Doherty=92s bias: =93Not only have increasing numbers of the rank and = file in the=20 established churches rejected old standards of dogma and practice, = liberal=20 circles within New Testament scholarship have been bringing modern = critical=20 standards to the study of the Gospels and found them wanting in = historical=20 reliability=94 (1). This =93loaded=94 vocabulary implies that the = beliefs held by=20 Strobel and =93established churches=94 are merely matters of dogma and = practice and=20 are not historical fact and that evangelicals have no standards, are not = critical, and are old-fashioned.

False Claims = of=20 Fairness. Doherty=92s = unfairness=20 is revealed in his refusal to consult the scholars=92 published = materials. His=20 obligation to do so is greater than Strobel=92s since Strobel allowed = them to=20 present their own material. Doherty=92s cross-examination is not merely = supposed=20 refutations of their evidence but criticisms on issues they didn=92t = even address=20 with Strobel. Doherty challenged the scholars with no acknowledgment of = their=20 other materials, which, in most cases, overturn the challenges and = affirm the=20 Christian claims for Christ.

&nbs= p; =20 A proper cross-examination seeks to overturn the testimony of the = scholars by showing that they made contrary statements elsewhere, or by=20 referring to the responses of other scholars to the exact same questions = with=20 contrary evidence and argumentation. By introducing completely new = questions and=20 challenges, Doherty launched an entirely new trial with no legal = impartiality or=20 rigorous standards of evidence. He silences the scholars, reinvents them = as=20 mutes, and then condemns them for not answering challenges never = contained in=20 their original testimony.

&nbs= p; =20 When it comes to the witness of history and evidence to the life = and=20 resurrection of Christ, Doherty argues that silence supports his = inventive=20 ideas. Because we don=92t have a full copy of the New Testament from the = first=20 century, then obviously, Doherty assumes, no New Testament existed in = the first=20 century. Because we don=92t have every early church father explicitly = quoting from=20 and affirming each book of the New Testament as God=92s Word, obviously = they must=20 have been ignorant of the New Testament or didn=92t consider it = Scripture. Because=20 we don=92t have an explicit, comprehensive record of Jesus=92 ministry, = death, and=20 resurrection in extant secular history of the time, obviously Jesus must = not=20 have existed! The Doherty-enforced silence of the scholars overturns = their=20 entire body of work, while the patchy silences of ancient history prove=20 everything for Doherty.

The Living = Line of=20 Eyewitness Testimony. Doherty = claims the gap=20 between the events of the New Testament and our earliest complete copies = contains such a discontinuity that the texts of the New Testament = documents are=20 hopelessly unreliable. There are at least two ways to approach this = claim: (1)=20 Show historical continuity, and (2) compare this gap with those of other = ancient=20 literature that Doherty does consider reliable.

&nbs= p; =20 First, we have an unbroken line from the eyewitnesses of the=20 Resurrection, through Paul and the other apostles, into the early second = century=20 with Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, and the Didache (an early = apostolic=20 teaching document).

&nbs= p; =20 Even liberal critics such as those Doherty quotes agree that some = of=20 Paul=92s letters were written well within the lifetime of the = eyewitnesses to=20 Christ, including his testimony of the bodily resurrection in 1 = Corinthians 15.=20 The apostle Peter, himself an eyewitness, commended Paul=92s letters and = includes=20 them with other Scripture (the Old Testament) as God=92s Word: =93=85our = Lord=92s=20 patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote = you with=20 the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his = letters,=20 speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that = are hard=20 to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do = the=20 other Scriptures=94 (2 Pet. 3:15=9616, emphasis = added).

&nbs= p; =20 In his Acts of the Apostles, the evangelist Luke affirmed that = the=20 teachings of Paul agree with the teachings of the apostles, who were=20 eyewitnesses of Christ=92s ministry, miracles, and resurrection. Paul = himself=20 acknowledged in his letter to the Romans that there were Christians = whose=20 conversions predated his. He pointed out that they agreed that the = gospel he=20 preached is the same gospel they believed from the same Christ they saw=20 resurrected. There is a continuity of teaching and testimony from the=20 eyewitnesses through Paul and the other apostles. Papias, Polycarp, and the = other earliest=20 church fathers claimed either to have known the apostles themselves or = to have=20 known those who knew the apostles.

&nbs= p; =20 To discount the testimony of the earliest fathers, who affirmed = the=20 apostles, who affirmed Paul, who themselves are affirmed by the liberal = critics,=20 is to discount the very critics to whom Doherty appeals! Should we = believe the=20 eyewitnesses who affirmed Paul, who was affirmed by the other apostles, = who were=20 affirmed by their immediate successors, whose words are preserved in our = earliest church writings; or should we believe Doherty, the skeptic who=20 undercuts ancient historiography by discounting the New Testament=20 texts?

Rules for = You, but Not=20 for Me. Doherty = dismisses the=20 textual evidence for the New Testament as too little, too late, and too=20 inconsistent. He claims we cannot trust them because there are not = enough copies=20 or citations that are =93early enough=94; the fragments far outnumber = the complete=20 manuscripts, and the Scripture citations in the early church fathers are = fragmentary.

&nbs= p; =20 Such wholesale dismissal flies in the face of the standard = principles=20 used by genuine experts (including those interviewed by Strobel) to date = all=20 classical literature. To dismiss or replace these standards is to = disqualify the=20 authenticity of the texts of other ancient literature, including some = Doherty=20 uses to try to dismiss the supernatural Jesus Christ of the New=20 Testament!

&nbs= p; =20 Doherty assumes when an early writer uses a particular passage = from the=20 New Testament, one can infer only that the isolated passage was known to = the=20 writer, not the book in which the passage occurs, much less the New = Testament in=20 which the book containing the passage is found. With this standard, he = could not=20 affirm most of classical literature, including the teachings of = Socrates, whose=20 work is known to us only by references and quotations by others (such as = Socrates=92 Apology). The standard approach is that when an = ancient author=20 quotes or refers to a distinctive teaching or saying of a predecessor, = and we=20 have the larger context of the quoted material in later copies, we = assume that=20 the larger context existed as the ancient writer=92s = source.

&nbs= p; =20 Doherty, furthermore, assumes that unless the early writer = specifically=20 says a specific passage is Scripture, the writer must not consider the = passage=20 as Scripture. This ignores the context in which most of the passages = occur. The=20 context regularly affirms that the writer believes what he is writing or = teaching and that he believes Scripture is God=92s revelation, of which = the=20 relevant quotation is a part.

&nbs= p; =20 Doherty argues that if there is any gap between the events = depicted in=20 the New Testament documents and our earliest citations, manuscripts, or=20 manuscript fragments, we cannot affirm any textual continuity. By = this=20 standard, Doherty should reject all the classics because the gaps = represented by=20 them are enormous compared to the New Testament.

&nbs= p; =20 The comparatively infinitesimal time gap between the New = Testament events=20 and our first copies and the overwhelming volume of manuscript evidence = we=20 possess far outweigh any similar evidence we have for other classics. = Geisler=20 and Nix list in their A General Introduction to the Bible (408), = for=20 example, that we have only 643 copies of Homer=92s Iliad, 8 of = Herodotus=92s=20 History, 8 of Thucydides=92s History, 7 of Plato=92s = works, 10 of=20 Julius Caesar=92s The Gallic Wars, and 20 of Livy=92s = History of=20 Rome. [3] Compare = those numbers=20 to 5,366 copies of fragments, portions, and complete books of the New=20 Testaments, the majority later than the seventh century but with some=20 significant copies from very early.

&nbs= p; =20 The difference in gaps is even more striking. The bulk of the = copies we=20 have for the classic authors come from the middle ages, a thousand years = or more=20 from the composition of the texts. For Herodotus it=92s 1,350 years = (eleventh⁼²⁰century a.d.), for Caesar 1,000 years = (eleventh=20 century a.d.), and for = Livy 400=20 years (fifth century a.d.) for=20 one partial manuscript and 1,000 years (eleventh century a.d.) for the other nineteen. = The New=20 Testament gap, in contrast, is only 50 years for our earliest fragment, = 100=20 years for our earliest complete books, 150 years for the majority of the = New=20 Testament, and 225 years for the complete New = Testament.

&nbs= p; =20 For Doherty to state we can have no assurance of the dating of = the New=20 Testament documents until we have the complete New Testament in = manuscript form=20 also ignores the standards used to date ancient documents. Aside from = its=20 physical characteristics and the archival setting in which the document = is=20 found, the content of ancient documents can help us date them by (1) = what it=20 claims for itself; (2) the style, vocabulary, grammar, and other = literary=20 features; and (3) the historical and geographical clues within the=20 document.

&nbs= p; =20 It would be possible to date the contents of the New Testament to = the=20 first century a.d. even = if we had=20 no citations from early church fathers and no comments from near = contemporaries=20 about when they believed the New Testament was composed. That is how = scholars=20 date the Iliad to the century of its composition even though our = earliest=20 copies of portions of it are dated nearly 1,000 years=20 later.

Doherty=92s = Dubious=20 Sources. Added to = Doherty=92s=20 woeful inadequacy as a textual critic is his wholesale acceptance of a = proposed=20 =93source document=94 for the gospels, called Q (after the German = Quelle,=20 =93source=94). Regarding Q, we have no copies of Q, no copies of = portions of Q, no=20 references to Q in any of the early Christian writings, no references to = Q in=20 any of the early non-Christian writings, no references to Q in any of = the=20 gospels or the writings of Paul or the other letters; we have, in fact, = no=20 conclusive evidence whatsoever that Q ever existed.[4]

Christianity, the=20 Witness of History. Doherty = ignores one of=20 the strongest testimonies of the trustworthiness of the New Testament = documents.=20 Christianity is, as Sir Norman Anderson termed it, =93the witness of=20 history.=94

&nbs= p; =20 We call this a variation on the great-grandfather paradox. = Let=92s say=20 we=92re discussing the existence of Earl Doherty, skeptic = extraordinair=E9. We can=92t=20 find any biographical material about him other than his stint as = president of=20 the Ottowa skeptics group, his contributions to a small periodical, and = his Web=20 site attacking Christianity. We might suspect he is a figment of some = skeptic=20 groups=92 collective imagination, an editorial ghost they have conjured = to plague=20 Christian authors such as Lee Strobel.

&nbs= p; =20 Then we meet Earl Doherty. He shows us his driver=92s license, = birth=20 certificate, and pay stubs where he works. We are confronted with the=20 real Earl Doherty. We cannot explain his existence away without a = story=20 about identity fabrication more incredible than believing there really = is=20 somebody named Earl Doherty who thinks he can overthrow the truth claims = of=20 Christianity. It would be ridiculous to argue that Earl Doherty = doesn=92t exist=20 merely because we don=92t possess his genealogical history back for = umpteen=20 generations. We would be laughed out of the academy of ideas if we were = to=20 argue, =93We can=92t verify the identity of Earl Doherty=92s = great-grandfather, so he=20 must not have had one.=94 The very fact of the existence of Earl Doherty = is proof=20 that he must have had a great-grandfather even though no evidence may = exist=20 today for that great-grandfather.

&nbs= p; =20 The existence of the Christianity of the second or third century = that has=20 as its foundation a belief in the historical verification of its=20 founder=92s miracle-working power, death-defeating resurrection, and = thus His=20 divine identity, could not have come into being from a source that = ignores=20 historical verification, conjures up a founder of mythic proportions, = and uses=20 miracle and resurrection fantasies as a mere motif of spiritual = enlightenment.=20 Today=92s history-based Christianity exists as the progeny of a=20

history-based=20 event.

&nbs= p; =20 If the founders never claimed a historical base, they could not = have=20 produced a history-based religion. Myth-propagating founders can produce = only a=20

myth-perpetuating=20 religion. There is no need for a myth religion to package itself as a = history=20 religion. The apostle Peter, in fact, declared, =93We did not follow = cleverly=20 invented stories [Greek muthos or myths] when we told you about = the power=20 and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his = majesty=94 (2=20 Pet. 1:16).

&nbs= p; =20 Even if there were no intact contemporaneous evidence of the = historical=20 facts of Christianity=92s founder, His miracles and His resurrection, = the=20 existence of Christianity as a history-based religion (not merely = a=20 religion that existed in history) argues for a historical origin. = Christianity=92s existence today argues for the existence of = Christianity=92s=20

=93great-grandfather,=94=20 the historic figure of Jesus Christ.

&nbs= p; =20 Doherty=92s challenge has fallen fatally short of its goal. The = Case for=20 Christ and the faith it examines remain the witness of history. =97 Bob and Gretchen=20 Passantino