You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
402 reviews for:
The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
Lee Strobel
3.94 AVERAGE
402 reviews for:
The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
Lee Strobel
3.94 AVERAGE
When I finished walking the Camino, one of the things my father wrote in an email was that he was 'really curious to hear about which book you read first'.
Well.
As it happened, it was this.
This was not entirely intentional—I was still in Spain, so my English-language options were limited, and...well, long story, but I ended up grabbing this one from a café that had some free books lying around (yes, I asked permission, and yes, I should have gone with Junot Díaz).
The Case for Christ has been around for quite some time, and others have pretty thoroughly eviscerated it already, but...but I took notes, so I'm going to go ahead and review it anyway.
Strobel, with a background covering court cases for the newspaper, sets himself up to be a lawyer in the 'case for Christ'. He says, I selected experts who could state their position and defend it with historical evidence that I could then test through cross-examination (266).
Fine. Sounds reasonable. Except...well, except a few things. First, for all that he claims that he was a skeptic when this project began, Strobel selects only interview subjects who agree with a specific, Evangelical-Christian worldview; he lobs them only questions that they can comfortably address. In other words, he's acting for the defense, not for the prosecution. This wouldn't stand as an actual court case because it's not a fair trial in any sense of the word. In Chapter 6, 'The Rebuttal Evidence', Strobel ostensibly covers what 'the other side' has to say, and I briefly thought I was going to have to give him some points there...but how does he do this? Does he interview scholars who do not identify as Christian? Does he interview non-scholars who do not identify as Christian? No. He interviews Evangelical Christians and asks what they think about a carefully selected soundbite or two.
Then, too...well, he makes for a pretty lousy lawyer in this book. He wrote for the Chicago Tribune, so I assume he has some skills as a journalist (and I did enjoy the real-world court examples he used at the beginning of each chapter), but...if he's a decent journalist, why not use those skills and actually investigate? See above re: this not standing up in court. It wouldn't make the cut in a reputable paper, either, because the research is so shoddy.
Meanwhile...the storytelling...well, I wish it hadn't been arranged in these farcical interviews, because aside from the part where they were biased and generally pretty useless, there was lots of description like this:
'Do you see my point?'
I nodded to indicate that I did. (32)
I nodded to let him know I was following him so far. (80)
Boyd was nodding to indicate he was tracking with me. (119)
I mean, okay, apparently I take issue with nodding—but every one of those examples would have been improved by leaving it at, say, 'I did', 'I nodded', and 'Boyd was nodding'...just as every time Strobel thinks craftily that he has a doozy of a question would have been improved by deletion.
Oh, but I digress. Back to the actual material. Some quick notes: The 'Questions for Reflection or Group Study' are biased/leading. A lot of the 'evidence' for Jesus being the son of God boils down to 'Well, the Bible says the Bible is true'; all he proves is that there is interesting historical evidence to suggest that Jesus a) existed and b) thought himself the son of God. (Meanwhile, the psychologist is going 'Oh, yeah, there's no evidence in the Bible to suggest that Jesus was anything but totes sane', and I am going 'If you think you can determine somebody's sanity or lack thereof from one book written by other people thousands of years ago, we need to talk about how you still have a licence to practise psychology'.)
Argh. Just as a reminder of how biased this is: Even if you were to throw away every last copy of the gospels, you'd still have a picture of Jesus that's extremely compelling—in fact, it's a portrait of the unique Son of God (89). Page eighty-nine. He didn't even wait to break a hundred pages before drawing his conclusions. What's that about reviewing all the evidence first, hmm?
And then...well. One last thing. I don't really care, one way or the other, about Strobel's choice of religion (or, frankly, his ideas about religion in general), but I find this kind of thing problematic: If the Jesus of faith is not also the Jesus of history, he's powerless and he's meaningless. Unless he's rooted in reality, unless he established his divinity by rising from the dead, he's just a feel-good symbol who's as irrelevant as Santa Claus (126–127). Because...setting aside the 'truth' of any given religion...I think it's safe to say that Strobel doesn't hold with non-Christian religions (or, most likely, many Christian denominations), but there's no way to deny the huge effect, and influence, that all sorts of religions have on people's lives. And isn't that power and meaning?
Was not sorry to leave this one behind. Very amused that it was the first book I read off the Camino.
Well.
As it happened, it was this.
This was not entirely intentional—I was still in Spain, so my English-language options were limited, and...well, long story, but I ended up grabbing this one from a café that had some free books lying around (yes, I asked permission, and yes, I should have gone with Junot Díaz).
The Case for Christ has been around for quite some time, and others have pretty thoroughly eviscerated it already, but...but I took notes, so I'm going to go ahead and review it anyway.
Strobel, with a background covering court cases for the newspaper, sets himself up to be a lawyer in the 'case for Christ'. He says, I selected experts who could state their position and defend it with historical evidence that I could then test through cross-examination (266).
Fine. Sounds reasonable. Except...well, except a few things. First, for all that he claims that he was a skeptic when this project began, Strobel selects only interview subjects who agree with a specific, Evangelical-Christian worldview; he lobs them only questions that they can comfortably address. In other words, he's acting for the defense, not for the prosecution. This wouldn't stand as an actual court case because it's not a fair trial in any sense of the word. In Chapter 6, 'The Rebuttal Evidence', Strobel ostensibly covers what 'the other side' has to say, and I briefly thought I was going to have to give him some points there...but how does he do this? Does he interview scholars who do not identify as Christian? Does he interview non-scholars who do not identify as Christian? No. He interviews Evangelical Christians and asks what they think about a carefully selected soundbite or two.
Then, too...well, he makes for a pretty lousy lawyer in this book. He wrote for the Chicago Tribune, so I assume he has some skills as a journalist (and I did enjoy the real-world court examples he used at the beginning of each chapter), but...if he's a decent journalist, why not use those skills and actually investigate? See above re: this not standing up in court. It wouldn't make the cut in a reputable paper, either, because the research is so shoddy.
Meanwhile...the storytelling...well, I wish it hadn't been arranged in these farcical interviews, because aside from the part where they were biased and generally pretty useless, there was lots of description like this:
'Do you see my point?'
I nodded to indicate that I did. (32)
I nodded to let him know I was following him so far. (80)
Boyd was nodding to indicate he was tracking with me. (119)
I mean, okay, apparently I take issue with nodding—but every one of those examples would have been improved by leaving it at, say, 'I did', 'I nodded', and 'Boyd was nodding'...just as every time Strobel thinks craftily that he has a doozy of a question would have been improved by deletion.
Oh, but I digress. Back to the actual material. Some quick notes: The 'Questions for Reflection or Group Study' are biased/leading. A lot of the 'evidence' for Jesus being the son of God boils down to 'Well, the Bible says the Bible is true'; all he proves is that there is interesting historical evidence to suggest that Jesus a) existed and b) thought himself the son of God. (Meanwhile, the psychologist is going 'Oh, yeah, there's no evidence in the Bible to suggest that Jesus was anything but totes sane', and I am going 'If you think you can determine somebody's sanity or lack thereof from one book written by other people thousands of years ago, we need to talk about how you still have a licence to practise psychology'.)
Argh. Just as a reminder of how biased this is: Even if you were to throw away every last copy of the gospels, you'd still have a picture of Jesus that's extremely compelling—in fact, it's a portrait of the unique Son of God (89). Page eighty-nine. He didn't even wait to break a hundred pages before drawing his conclusions. What's that about reviewing all the evidence first, hmm?
And then...well. One last thing. I don't really care, one way or the other, about Strobel's choice of religion (or, frankly, his ideas about religion in general), but I find this kind of thing problematic: If the Jesus of faith is not also the Jesus of history, he's powerless and he's meaningless. Unless he's rooted in reality, unless he established his divinity by rising from the dead, he's just a feel-good symbol who's as irrelevant as Santa Claus (126–127). Because...setting aside the 'truth' of any given religion...I think it's safe to say that Strobel doesn't hold with non-Christian religions (or, most likely, many Christian denominations), but there's no way to deny the huge effect, and influence, that all sorts of religions have on people's lives. And isn't that power and meaning?
Was not sorry to leave this one behind. Very amused that it was the first book I read off the Camino.
***AUDIO BOOK REVIEW***
An interesting, albeit biased and incomplete, overview of many of the common objections to the authenticity of the Bible and the life/resurrection of Jesus. I agree with another reviewer that the author tends to only interview proponents of Christ rather than those who disagree with those proponents, but I also understand the book can only be so big and can only cover so much. I don't have another book to recommend that interviews all sides, but I still think there were many interesting points, and as I was mainly looking to hear some points on the authenticity of the Bible, etc. rather than consider all sides, it worked for me.
One habit the author had that I didn't like is he would label certain ideas or people as "liberal" or "absurd" when they contradict his point of view. They very well could be, but I'd prefer if the author would refrain from labeling anything and let the ideas/people/facts speak for themselves.
An interesting, albeit biased and incomplete, overview of many of the common objections to the authenticity of the Bible and the life/resurrection of Jesus. I agree with another reviewer that the author tends to only interview proponents of Christ rather than those who disagree with those proponents, but I also understand the book can only be so big and can only cover so much. I don't have another book to recommend that interviews all sides, but I still think there were many interesting points, and as I was mainly looking to hear some points on the authenticity of the Bible, etc. rather than consider all sides, it worked for me.
One habit the author had that I didn't like is he would label certain ideas or people as "liberal" or "absurd" when they contradict his point of view. They very well could be, but I'd prefer if the author would refrain from labeling anything and let the ideas/people/facts speak for themselves.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I enjoyed reading and at times listening to the audio book of this, however it felt less like a skeptics "come to Jesus" moment (pun intended) and more like a reconfirmation of belief this time through evaluating secular and religious evidence. This could be that the book was originally wrote multiple years after the authors interviews and some of his now beliefs bled into the writing. I did also like that the book gave more books to read and had thought provoking questions at the end of each chapter. And the bonus interview at the end was a big plus for me as you get to see the tables turned on Lee Strobel where he now has to defend his stance. It was a solid 3.5 stars.
Now on the the things that bothered me about this book and why it wasn't a 4 star book. This book is definitely bias in the interviews that were chosen. All of the scholars are leaders in their fields yes, but they are also theologians as evidenced by the degrees that each one holds that the author provides. The one that came closest to being a skeptic was raised in the Jewish religion and already had a connection to God before. Lee Strobel definitely went to the right people if he wanted more proof given for the case that Jesus existed and that what the four gospels stated about his life and resurrection were true. I felt that this book could have benefited from more skeptics that after they found the evidence chose Christianity vs Christians that were just enhancing their faith with study.
I also felt that there were a lot of circular questioning and that irritates my soul. In the first few chapters the author asks if the gospels are credible and even after his evidence for them, he asks in later chapters can you prove that the gospels are credible again on other topics found within them (trying not to give it all away).
I don't think I would recommend this book to a skeptic to find all the answers that they are seeking, and the author says the same thing. A skeptic will have to look for the truth themselves. This is however, a good jump off as multiple sources are sited at the end of the book.
Now on the the things that bothered me about this book and why it wasn't a 4 star book. This book is definitely bias in the interviews that were chosen. All of the scholars are leaders in their fields yes, but they are also theologians as evidenced by the degrees that each one holds that the author provides. The one that came closest to being a skeptic was raised in the Jewish religion and already had a connection to God before. Lee Strobel definitely went to the right people if he wanted more proof given for the case that Jesus existed and that what the four gospels stated about his life and resurrection were true. I felt that this book could have benefited from more skeptics that after they found the evidence chose Christianity vs Christians that were just enhancing their faith with study.
I also felt that there were a lot of circular questioning and that irritates my soul. In the first few chapters the author asks if the gospels are credible and even after his evidence for them, he asks in later chapters can you prove that the gospels are credible again on other topics found within them (trying not to give it all away).
I don't think I would recommend this book to a skeptic to find all the answers that they are seeking, and the author says the same thing. A skeptic will have to look for the truth themselves. This is however, a good jump off as multiple sources are sited at the end of the book.
"If you were selected for a jury in a real trial, you would be asked to affirm up front that you haven't formed any preconceptions about the case. You would be required to vow that you would be open-minded and fair, drawing your conclusions based on the weight of the facts...I'm asking you to do the same thing while reading this book." Read after quiet times for @theunreadshelf Feburary challenge
Speedy summary: Stobel retraces his own journey from atheism to faith, cross examining experts in the field of faith
Thoughts: This book was a good mental workout. Putting up questions about faith that I didn't consider before, but also bringing up facts and validation for Christianity that I had never heard.
I was most engaged in the third section of the book "Researching the Resurrection," which I found fascinating. Definitely reccomend for believers and nonbelievers alike.
See more reviews on instagram @realreaderreallife
Speedy summary: Stobel retraces his own journey from atheism to faith, cross examining experts in the field of faith
Thoughts: This book was a good mental workout. Putting up questions about faith that I didn't consider before, but also bringing up facts and validation for Christianity that I had never heard.
I was most engaged in the third section of the book "Researching the Resurrection," which I found fascinating. Definitely reccomend for believers and nonbelievers alike.
See more reviews on instagram @realreaderreallife
(4/27/23 - Wrote this after my 2nd listen of it this year. This isn’t not analysis or proper review - just some notes.)
I appreciate the journalistic treatment about the existence of Jesus. The book is well organized and easy to listen to.
Tidbits I want to remember and ponder:
*Historical evidence of Jesus and the Gospels is as valid as other historically accepted events or people from the comparable time periods or later.
* Read the Bible and talk to God. :)
I appreciate the journalistic treatment about the existence of Jesus. The book is well organized and easy to listen to.
Tidbits I want to remember and ponder:
*Historical evidence of Jesus and the Gospels is as valid as other historically accepted events or people from the comparable time periods or later.
* Read the Bible and talk to God. :)
Fitting that I should finish this on Good Friday. It's a really good book on the evidence for Jesus, by a man who is a logical thinker, persuaded by facts and solid reasoning. Each chapter is an interview with an expert on that particular topic.
I plodded along, reading in short spurts, because while interesting and valuable to know, it didn't have that unputdownable element.
Just a few of my favorite pieces of evidence/claims/reasons/assertions:
"Son of Man" is often thought to indicate the humanity of Jesus, just as the expression "Son of God" indicates his divinity. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Son of Man was a divine figure in the Old Testament book of Daniel (Daniel 7:13-14) who would come at the end of the world to judge mankind and rule forever. Thus, the claim to be the Son of Man would be in effect a claim to divinity. p.30
"Within the last hundred years archaeology has repeatedly unearthed discoveries that have confirmed specific references in the gospels, particularly the gospel of John - ironically, the one that's supposedly so suspect!" -p.50
"The New Testament, then, has not only survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure." -p.65
"More than five thousand (New Testament Greek manuscripts) have been cataloged"... "The quantity of New Testament material is almost embarrassing in comparison with other works of antiquity," he (Bruce Metzger) said. "Next to the New Testament, the greatest amount of manuscript testimony is of Homer's Iliad, which is the bible of the ancient Greeks. There are fewer than 650 Greek manuscripts of it today. Some are quite fragmentary. They come down to us from the second and third century A.D. and following. When you consider that Homer composed his epic about 800 B.C., you can see that's a very lengthy gap." - p.60
"In addition to the Greek documents, he (Bruce Metzger) said, there are thousands of other ancient New Testament manuscripts in other languages. There are 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus a total of 8,000 in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian. In all, there are about 24,000 manuscripts in existence." - p.63
"Archaeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible," he replied with confidence. "On the contrary, as we've seen, there have been many opinions of skeptical scholars that have become codified into 'fact' over the years but that archaeology has shown to be wrong," - p.100
"The overthrowing of slavery, then, is through the transformation of men and women by the gospel rather than through merely changing the economic system. We've all seen what can happen when you merely overthrow an economic system and impose a new order. The whole communist dream was to have a 'revolutionary man' followed by the 'new man.' Trouble is, they never found the 'new man.' …"if you want lasting change, you've got to transform the hearts of human beings. And that was Jesus' mission." -p.168
"While most people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, the disciples were in a position to know without a doubt whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead. They claimed that they saw him, talked with him, and ate with him. If they weren't absolutely certain, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be tortured to death for proclaiming that the Resurrection had happened."
-p.248
I plodded along, reading in short spurts, because while interesting and valuable to know, it didn't have that unputdownable element.
Just a few of my favorite pieces of evidence/claims/reasons/assertions:
"Son of Man" is often thought to indicate the humanity of Jesus, just as the expression "Son of God" indicates his divinity. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Son of Man was a divine figure in the Old Testament book of Daniel (Daniel 7:13-14) who would come at the end of the world to judge mankind and rule forever. Thus, the claim to be the Son of Man would be in effect a claim to divinity. p.30
"Within the last hundred years archaeology has repeatedly unearthed discoveries that have confirmed specific references in the gospels, particularly the gospel of John - ironically, the one that's supposedly so suspect!" -p.50
"The New Testament, then, has not only survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure." -p.65
"More than five thousand (New Testament Greek manuscripts) have been cataloged"... "The quantity of New Testament material is almost embarrassing in comparison with other works of antiquity," he (Bruce Metzger) said. "Next to the New Testament, the greatest amount of manuscript testimony is of Homer's Iliad, which is the bible of the ancient Greeks. There are fewer than 650 Greek manuscripts of it today. Some are quite fragmentary. They come down to us from the second and third century A.D. and following. When you consider that Homer composed his epic about 800 B.C., you can see that's a very lengthy gap." - p.60
"In addition to the Greek documents, he (Bruce Metzger) said, there are thousands of other ancient New Testament manuscripts in other languages. There are 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus a total of 8,000 in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian. In all, there are about 24,000 manuscripts in existence." - p.63
"Archaeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible," he replied with confidence. "On the contrary, as we've seen, there have been many opinions of skeptical scholars that have become codified into 'fact' over the years but that archaeology has shown to be wrong," - p.100
"The overthrowing of slavery, then, is through the transformation of men and women by the gospel rather than through merely changing the economic system. We've all seen what can happen when you merely overthrow an economic system and impose a new order. The whole communist dream was to have a 'revolutionary man' followed by the 'new man.' Trouble is, they never found the 'new man.' …"if you want lasting change, you've got to transform the hearts of human beings. And that was Jesus' mission." -p.168
"While most people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, the disciples were in a position to know without a doubt whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead. They claimed that they saw him, talked with him, and ate with him. If they weren't absolutely certain, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be tortured to death for proclaiming that the Resurrection had happened."
-p.248
Compared to other books about religion, this one is very accessible. You don’t need to be a Bible scholar to understand the author’s arguments. You just need to know the story of Jesus. The author argues that the story of Jesus in the Bible is the literal truth. It’s not a legend or an exaggeration. The author presents his argument like a court case, with interviews and historical evidence. The interview structure is surprisingly quick to get through. I was able to read the book in big chunks without feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information coming at me. That’s not always possible with nonfiction books.
The author is not a good writer. Or, maybe the book isn’t supposed to be read the way I read it? Maybe it’s a reference book that you only pick up when you have a question? I don’t know, but the structure is tedious. Every chapter is laid out the same way. The author introduces an expert, asks a few questions, agrees with the expert, and then moves on to the next interview. The author claims to be skeptical of Christianity, but he doesn’t come across as a skeptic in the book. There were many times during the interviews where I wanted him to ask “Why?” or “How do you know?” or “What’s the source for that?” or “What about this other religion?” I got frustrated because the skeptic wasn’t acting skeptical!
I also got frustrated with the lack of diversity in the people interviewed. All of the interview subjects have the exact same perspective. They’re all older, male, conservative, academics. I’m sure there are other Bible scholars in the world who are just as educated as these guys, but who have come to different conclusions. Why don’t they get to present their evidence? This book is set up like a court case, but we only see part of the case! I guess we need another book with more perspectives.
Do you like opinions, giveaways, and bookish nonsense?
I have a blog for that.
The author is not a good writer. Or, maybe the book isn’t supposed to be read the way I read it? Maybe it’s a reference book that you only pick up when you have a question? I don’t know, but the structure is tedious. Every chapter is laid out the same way. The author introduces an expert, asks a few questions, agrees with the expert, and then moves on to the next interview. The author claims to be skeptical of Christianity, but he doesn’t come across as a skeptic in the book. There were many times during the interviews where I wanted him to ask “Why?” or “How do you know?” or “What’s the source for that?” or “What about this other religion?” I got frustrated because the skeptic wasn’t acting skeptical!
I also got frustrated with the lack of diversity in the people interviewed. All of the interview subjects have the exact same perspective. They’re all older, male, conservative, academics. I’m sure there are other Bible scholars in the world who are just as educated as these guys, but who have come to different conclusions. Why don’t they get to present their evidence? This book is set up like a court case, but we only see part of the case! I guess we need another book with more perspectives.
Do you like opinions, giveaways, and bookish nonsense?
I have a blog for that.
I learned a lot about the historical circumstances surrounding Christianity. I had no idea there was so much available information and how reliable it is acknowledged to be among scholarly people. Interesting and compelling.
Nothing earth-shattering, but totally solid and I’m glad I finally read it.
The amazing journey of Strobel discovering how accurate and true the gospel of Jesus is just powerful. It has strengthened my faith in the bible and faith in God. It's a great book for all believers and non-believers.