Book Review: The Case for Christ

The Case For Christ was first published in 1998 and was the first of many in a line of books by Lee Strobel using a legal methodology to assess the historical nature of Christ and His resurrection. It won the 1999 Gold Medallion Book Award from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. 



Strobel has 139k twitter followers and given Strobel's popularity and series of books based on similar methodologies, I have decided to act as an opposing attorney to his book The Case For Christ. 

Five Bullet Point Summary:

• In the quest for truth pertaining to Christ you should treat the evidence as an impartial juror. 
• The biographies of Jesus can be trusted, and is the same as the Jesus of faith
• Jesus claimed to be the son of God and fulfilled exactly the identity of the Messiah
• Jesus really died and was really resurrected. 
• After reviewing the evidence presented in this book you should conclude that the case for Christ is at least reasonable and perhaps even conclusive.

Extended Summary and Analysis:

The assumption of this book is that you should be like an open minded juror when assessing the evidence (pgs. 17-18). Almost every chapter opens with a legal analogy. In this book review I will take the role of opposing counsel. But before I officially start this role, I want to analyze the overall methodology. 

A legal methodology should not pretend to be nuanced enough to ascertain metaphysical truths. Thus, this methodology is inadequate to prove the metaphysical identity of Jesus the Christ. Similar to Lang below I object to a legal approach to settling questions of religion or metaphysics.

Second, and the main reason I am acting as opposing counsel is that Strobel has not done his job of presenting both sides. Only the case FOR Christ is presented, for instance the further reading sections almost without exception support the case for Christ and virtually every chapter ends with at least one leading question favoring the case for Christ. 

If readers are supposed to be an impartial juror, the other side should be presented. I will offer specific objections along these lines. However, I do not have enough space in a blog post present an entire defense.

I will assume the defense for a few reasons. First, Strobel uses analogies mostly from the prosecution side of American criminal trials. 10 of 14 chapters use a legal analogy from the side of the prosecution, and only one uses an analogy from the defense.  

Second, there are passages that suggests he is assuming the prosecutorial burden of proof:

Having been a legal affairs journalist who has covered scores of trials, both criminal and civil, I had to agree with the assessment of Sir Edward Clarke, a British High Court judge who conducted a thorough legal analysis of the first Easter Day: 'To me the evidence is conclusive and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. As a lawyer I accept the gospel evidence unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.' (Case for Christ pg. 320)

This seems to indicate that he is accepting 'beyond shadow of a doubt' burden of proof. Thus, I will consider it a win if I can offer only a shadow of a doubt.     

Defense:

My defense starts with specific legal objections to various quotes 
from the book.

The two main objections I use are the Best Evidence Rule and Counsel is Testifying. Both are actual objections a lawyer can use in court. 

The Best Evidence Rule means that when submitting something as evidence you need to present an original document instead of a copy when possible. 

In an actual trial, I would simply provide the evidence or the witness when making my case. However, to do that adequately would require me to write a book, instead I use this objection to note when he is not giving equal time to the other side. 

The other main objection is mostly self-explanatory. In court of law, counsel cannot testify; only witnesses can. 

These objections will form the basis of one of my counter-arguments. But except for documentation purposes these individual objections only matter in aggregate. 

Please feel free to skim the following section. 

Partial List of Objections:

Pg. 33: "That, I mused, was apparently what Matthew did with Mark--although Matthew had his own recollections as a disciple, his quest for accuracy prompted him to rely on some material directly from Peter in Jesus' inner circle.

I OBJECT: Counsel is testifying. 

Pg. 40: "Again I picked up Armstrong's popular book A History of God. "Listen to something else she wrote..."

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule. There is not enough of Armstrong's original material submitted into evidence. Nor is there an interview of Armstrong. 

Pgs 57-58: "Ironically," I pointed out, "if the gospels had been identical to each other, word for word, this would have raised charges that the authors had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance..."

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying

Pgs 87, 142-172, 188-190: References to the Jesus Seminar, a minority group of liberal Bible scholars.

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule. Rarely is their methodology discussed,  and they often summarily dismissed

Pg. 91 "Metzger had been persuasive. No serious doubts lingered concerning whether the New Testament's text had been reliably preserved for us through the centuries. 

I OBJECT: Counsel is testifying

Pg: 106, 133, 287-289, 291, 304, 312, 323, and 336: References to Michael Martin, professor and critic of The Bible. No interview, mostly casual mentions.

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule. Should submit large sections of his thought or ideally conduct an interview with Martin. 

Pg. 141: "John Marco Allegro's absurd book in which he theorized that Christianity emerged from a fertility cult in which adherents tripped out on hallucinogenic mushrooms!"

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule AND Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 185: In the context of determining whether a Messianic Jesus can be found in Gospels other than John, Strobel offers: "Immediately I thought of the famous exchange, recording in Matthew, in which Jesus asked his disciples in a private meeting, 'Who do you say I am? Peter replied with clarity, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Instead of ducking the issue, Jesus affirmed Peter for his observation. 'Blessed are you,' he said, 'for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.' " 

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 200-201: Briefly describes Ian Wilson's theory that Jesus was a master hypnotist. 

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule

Pg. 300: "In the face of the facts, they have been impotent to put Jesus' body back into the tomb."

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 305: Mentions Anthony Flew, but does not mention any of his books except the one with Habermas, who he is interviewing. 

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule

Pg. 320: "Without question, the amount of testimony and corroboration of Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances is staggering."

 I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 333: JP Moreland is 'on the stand' talking about the motivations of the disciples."For what? For good intentions? No, because they were convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that they had seen Jesus Christ alive from the dead."

I OBJECT (expecting to be overruled): Argumentative, witness is drawing a conclusion. 

Pg. 361: "After a personal investigation that spanned more than six hundred days and countless hours, my own verdict in the case for Christ was clear."

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Counter Arguments:

I only have to show that there is a reasonable doubt that Jesus was not the Christ who arose from the dead. Given the context of the debate I am restricted to historical arguments, as metaphysical or scientific arguments are precluded in this methodology.   

First let me make my concessions. I concede that Jesus existed, I concede that he was crucified, I will even concede the tomb is empty.  My arguments will center around the resurrection. 

Remember all I have to do is show reasonable doubt based on the methodology of the book.

1) People can be convinced to die for various causes true or not. There was not a significant difference enough presented between the Early Church and Jonestown.

2) Reports of his post resurrection appearances could have been fabricated.  

3) The list of objections provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the content of this book does not mimic a fair and impartial trial, thus a verdict from this book is impossible. Thus, you should side with the defense.

First, the link between people being convinced about something and its truth is emphasized in many of the later chapters. Often the argument is made that what else besides the literal resurrection could convince people to sacrifice their lives. 

But everything from Hale Bopp, Jonestown, and the Manson Cult have had their followers greatly sacrifice for the cause. None of these are believed to be true by a significant number of people. 

News of Heaven's Gate mass suicide.

The difference between these according to J.P. Moreland:

"...this [the Christian] revelation was not done in a publicly observable way. So they could be wrong about it." Pg. 333.

That's it, that's the difference. So you have to demonstrate that the revelation was done in a publicly observable way. Which is a separate argument.

Second, the post-resurrection appearances break in nature from the earlier appearances. We have reliable witnesses to the existence of Jesus before death, but fewer after his resurrection. 

A lot of emphasis is placed on corroborating evidence of Jesus' existence in the early chapters of Strobel's book (see especially chapter 4). But once we get to the post-resurrection appearances this type of evidence is minimized or not invoked.

Granted the the presentation of Gary Habermas' analysis of 1 Corinthians 15, where Jesus appears to the 500 is not a lynch pin of his argument. It is interesting that we see a mild dismissal of the type of argumentation seen in chapter 4:

"...when you have only one source, you can ask, 'Why aren't there more?' But you can't downgrade this one source that way." (Pg. 313).

Furthermore, all the appearances listed on page 316 are followers of Christ. Thomas the only potential skeptic among them. Most were either original disciples or later apostles.  

Of course that is not all that damaging. According to the Gospels he returned for approximately two weeks post-Resurrection. And non-believers could have just thought these people were crazy. 

To convince you that there is at least reasonable doubt, I will propose an alternate scenario for the resurrection.  

First, Joseph of Arimathea moves the body. Perhaps he didn't really want the trouble of having Jesus' body on his land, perhaps he was politically motivated to cause chaos in the Jewish religious order for personal gain, or perhaps he was a secret follower and wanted the prophecy to appear to be fulfilled. He was at least sympathetic agreeing to bury Jesus in the first place. 

Second, some followers of Christ find this empty tomb and report back to the other followers. After hearing about this one of the followers claim to have seen Christ. This continues until he allegedly appears in front of 500. Each perhaps not convinced that they themselves have seen Christ and bolstered by the empty tomb believe in his resurrection.  

And if historians, other than Luke, did not have time to document his reappearance the amount of this public observability should be questioned. 

My third and final argument has to do with how this trial was conducted. The objections I raised earlier point to a systematic tendency to present the evidence in a favorable light for the case that Jesus died and was resurrected. 

In addition, virtually every chapter ends with Deliberations and Further Evidence that has leading questions and books that support the main claim. There is no balance. I argue that this trial is unfair and should thrown out at least until the second half of this case is presented.  

Bottom Line: 

The Case For Christ is one sided. And if Strobel is assuming the prosecution the defense would win. If he took the defense, I would advise his client to sue for incompetency. He would still likely win, but his burden of proof would be so minimal as to be virtually meaningless in the real world.

He could have simply presented these interviews without the gimmick of mimicking a trial and I likely would not have even bothered. But this book is fundamentally dishonest, asking us to be impartial for a case that is presented very partially.  

All of his other books that use a similar methodology will necessarily have very similar issues and thus, should be summarily dismissed until the other side of the case has been presented.