Rating: 
Summary: Not afraid to ask difficult questions. A must-read.
Review: I have been wanting to expand my understanding of Christian apologetics for many years by reading Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Thumbing through the book in bookstores showed it to be in a rather dry outline form that discouraged me from actually following through. I was introduced to Lee Strobel a couple years ago when a pastor at my church was teaching my Bible study class from Strobel's God's Outrageous Claims. I recently discovered that Strobel wrote a book investigating the claims of Christianity and was eager to read it. That book is The Case for Christ. It proved to be more readable than Evidence, but still convicingly makes the case for Christ.Strobel, a lawyer and journalist, who covered the topsy-turvy world of Chicago crime, applied his training to verify or discount the claims of Christianity. An admitted atheist, he took up this task after his wife accepted Christ as Lord and Savior. He studied all of the information he could find from both supporters and detractors of Christianity and then set out on a several year voyage of research and interviews with experts in various fields. The Case for Christ is a history of this voyage. Strobel applies the various legal evidences that would be required for a conviction in the courts: eyewitness accounts, documents, corroboration, science, rebuttals, psychology, profiles, "fingerprints," medical evidences and circumstantial evidence. There are 14 chapters in all, and in each, he examines a different type of evidence and interviews an acknowledged expert in the field, travelling all over the US to do so. Each chapter addresses a question such as: Do historical accounts outside of the Bible confirm the life of Jesus? Were the eyewitnesses reliable? Was there credible evidence of the empty tomb? Could Jesus have survived the flogging and crucifixion? The list goes on an on, and I can't imagine that it leaves many stones unturned for someone verifying the claims of the church. All in all, he verifies the claims of Christianity most convincingly, and does so in a very academic manner. Even though this book is fairly easy to read, it is appropriately referenced. These can be very complex subjects, and about the only complaint that might be levied on this book is that it does not go deep enough. To do so would require volumes, though, and Strobel gives references for someone wanting to investigate further. I was trying to complete another book when I picked this one up. A mistake. I had trouble putting it back down. I certainly recommend this book to all Christians. It is not afraid to ask difficult questions, and is a welcome change from the fluffy, feel-good books that flood Christian book stores. Although this is information with which every Christian should be familiar, I also recommend the book for anyone investigating the claims of Christianity. We all probably suspect the end: Strobel, facing the undeniable mountain of evidence, accepts Christ himself, concluding, "it would require much more faith for me to maintain my atheism that to trust in Jesus of Nazareth!"
Rating:
Summary: Most definently *not* one-sided.
Review: "The Case for Christ" had few weak points, in my opinion- it was exceedingly thorough, well-organized, highly informative, and quite interesting. Perhaps it could have had even more information, but to include everything, Strobel would have had to write an entire series. He kept it interesting and informative enough without being tedious, and for those who want to learn more, he included a very thorough bibliography. Despite what others have said, I do not believe it was one-sided at all. The interviews were taped while Strobel was still an athiest. Of what interest would it have been to the reader if an athiest interviewed an athiest? It would simply be a "what do you think" question-and-answer, with no one to play devil's advocate. Reading about two people just agreeing with each other on the same opinion the entire conversation is dull, and the interview goes nowhere. Strobel showed both sides - he represented the athiests/skeptics, giving common (and sometimes uncommon) arguments against Christianity, the Resurrection, etc, while the Christian scholars and experts he interviewed represented the Christians. What purpose did Strobel have to interview athiests and skeptics? He performed these interviews while he was an athiest! He stated that the purpose of the interviews was to determine for himself whether or not Christianity had any basis in fact. He researched the athiest and skeptics' opinions, then challenged Christian experts and scholars with those opinions and arguments. That's most certainly not one-sided, even if the book was organized and published *after* Strobel became a Christian. The interviews themselves- the most important parts of "Case for Christ"- had both sides well-represented. I thorougly enjoyed "The Case for Christ," and recommend it to anyone who's curious about the New Testament and wants to know the facts.
Rating: 
Summary: The Good, The Bad, and the Somewhat Biased!
Review: The theme of the book is not only its strongest asset, but it is also the reason for its downfall. Strobel is obviously a gifted journalist and law student. The idea of presenting "trial evidence" for Christ backfires on him for the very reasons he put forth in the first place. A trial lawyer, pleading the defense of the historicity, legitimacy, and divinity of Jesus will trump up the strengths of the case, and downplay, delay, or put spin on the weaknesses. Such tactics used for the purpose of legitimizing one's faith in a particular religion don't do well in convincing those who don't already believe. It's a weak theme for a book on Jesus simply because by definition it will not be even-handed from the onset. The attempts here to disprove skeptic's arguments are superficial at best. I'm sure they are satisfying for the faithful, but seasoned skeptics, atheists, agnostics, and the like will easily see the paper thin presentation of their arguments, points and objections. Strobel does present each scholar with "questions" a skeptic might ask, but more importantly, rarely asks the many follow-up questions that would have made the interviews a nightmare! The fallacy that an atheist requires just as much if not more "faith" than a believer is a tired argument and founded upon a misunderstanding of the term "faith". I doubt Strobel was ever an "atheist"- he never really expands upon this - he only mentions in the introduction how he wanted to justify his sinful lifestyle. People who are immoral or spiritually lazy are not, by default, "atheists". That's a hasty and ill-conceived assumption at best! Since this book was written after Strobel's conversion to Christianity, his presentation of the skeptic in the first interview (Blomberg) misrepresents the case, since he's writing after-the-fact. In other words, his Christianity clouds his ability to present himself as a true skeptic in the re-telling of these interviews, inevitably reshaping what might have a been a deep grilling of an "expert". Just to dispell the occasional reader's tendency to attempt to assasinate my character, I had a similar problem with Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith" (though to a lesser extent). Since the interview is told through Christian eyes, questions that intelligent skeptics might ask and points they might make are virtually nonexistent. As one example: during the first interview, Strobel asks Blomberg about the authenticity of the gospel authorship. Blomberg points to Papias and Iraneous as outside sources for authenticity. I was shocked that a purported journalist, digging for the truth, would gloss over these names as though they were "Cher" or "Madonna", as though everyone knew who they were! He didn't ask Blomberg who they were, why they wrote about Jesus, what their affiliations were, where they lived, if they had any alliegances that might bias them, etc. etc. etc. Oy vey! I thought, well perhaps this is covered later in the book. Flipping to the index, I found that the ONLY mention of these two characters was on that page. This isn't very detailed investigative journalism, folks! More like omission in favor of a predestined conclusion. The only detail given is that of Papias- Blomberg calls him a "Christian writer". Uh-oh. If one of the only early writers he cites is a Christian in 125 A.D., of course there would be no bias, no possiblity of manipulation! The fact that Papias' identity and leanings is ignored doesn't help in any argument other than to a believer. Also, Blomberg laughably claims that Papias "specifically affirmed that Mark had carefully and accurately reported Peter's eyewitness observations." Are you following this reasoning? If this were a real trial, the lawyer for the prosecution would say, "I object, your honor. This is third-hand information. How could Papias possibly testify as to the original authenticity of another author's testimony about someone else's eyewitness account? His opinion on the truth of the statements someone made about what someone else saw is irrelevant." "Sustained". And yet Blomberg points to this as "one of the most significant." Uh, okay! How many trials did Strobel say he sat through again? The book has its ups and downs, but glaring problems like this severely detract from what Strobel is trying to accomplish. Also, in his introduction, Strobel states that in his superficial skepticism, he pointed to university professors who corroborated his doubt of Christianity and sarcastically writes, "...certainly they could be trusted, couldn't they?" insinuating that perhaps they could not entirely. This isn't the smartest thing to say in a book that relies only on the testimony of "experts"! A few paragraphs later, he says he interviewed "thirteen leading scholars and authorities who have impeccable academic credentials." But in condemning the skeptic academics, isn't he belittling credentials in general? Already in the first few pages, Strobel shoots himself in the foot, and gives away his bias! Obviously this book is written for the cursory skeptic and the true believer; neither would look beyond the superficial. I did enjoy the stories that are mixed in with the interviews. They seem to be added to the book as modern parallels from his experience in journalism. Strobel should write a book about these experiences- they are very interesting in a true-to-life "Law and Order" kind of way! Interestingly, the case of Dixon, which Strobel opens his book with, is the best part of the book. It's supposed parallel the skeptic's view of Christianity- that despite the evidence, archeology, history, the slew of experts, the theories, perhaps Christianity is true after all. Dixon's conviction on the evidence, and his later acquittal propose to the reader that just because the evidence may point to guilt doesn't mean it is so; just because some evidence may point to Jesus being fictional doesn't mean it is so. The crux of the matter is that this analogy could easily be turned on its head to mean exactly the opposite. Once again Strobel shoots himself in the foot by lodging in the reader's mind the possibility that despite reading the entire book that lies down the testimony of experts, and oodles of evidence, it might end up that Jesus is in fact a fabrication! The analogy was not well though out. An interesting read, but does little for those who don't already believe!
Rating: 
Summary: totally one-sided reporting
Review: Since Strobel claims to be writing from a balanced, journalistic perspective, I was surprised and very disappointed that he interviews only Christian apologists and conservative Biblical scholars -- and not a *single* scholar with conclusions that vary from those of Evangelical Christians (he is now a pastor at an Evangelical mega-church). For example, he interviews an avowed enemy of the Jesus Seminar, Greg Boyd, without interviewing a single member of the Seminar. He presents the Seminar's position and findings only through someone who presupposes their innacuracy. How balanced is that? He also spends some time rebutting arguments that skeptics or "liberal" Bible scholars don't even try to make -- such as, Jesus was clinically crazy. He interviews a psychiatrist in order to prove that Jesus was not mentally disturbed. Now tell me, how could a man from the 20th century, based on copies of documents 2,000 years old written by men who had no training in psychiatry and only limited (or no) direct experience with the events of which they are writing, diagnose the mental status of one first-century Jew? This is just silly. Presenting one side of the issue is not balanced journalistic reporting. This book is a thorough presentation of contemporary conservative Christian scholarship and apologetics, and I do give him credit for his extensive research in this area -- thus the two stars. But his "evidence" and arguments are totally one-sided. Obviously, the book is aimed at Christians with little knowledge of other scholarship who already believe in what Strobel is arguing and aren't going to be too critical (or even notice) the fallacies contained within. If you're looking for balanced journalistic reporting on the subject, move on.
Rating: 
Summary: Stop debating with yourself!
Review: We live in a time when we are taught and encouraged to doubt until proof is concrete. "Innocent until proven guilty." "I will believe it when I see it." To have true faith is difficult. We have moments when our heart says "I believe", but then our brains say "How could that possibly have happened". This book provides our brain with the historical evidence and intellectual arguments regarding the life of Jesus, that we need to say, "I believe" in our hearts and in our minds. An excellent journey for anyone. The reading is sometimes a bit dry with facts, but overall this book is a great investment in spirit.
Rating:
Summary: Admirable research, hindered by awful writing.
Review: First, I'll get it out in the open that I am a Christian, so please don't take my negative review as some sort of anti-Christian diatribe. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a former atheist myself, I consider apologetics something of a hobby. It reaffirms my faith, and also prepares me to witness effectively. So I *wanted* to like Mr. Strobel's book, but couldn't. There were other reviews that mentioned Mr. Strobel's poor journalism, insofar as he presents a one-sided view of Christianity and never interviews members of the Jesus Seminar (or any other skeptics, save the firmly converted Louis Lapides), which is a true observation. In defense of Strobel, his book is written from the perspective of an atheist (albeit a converted one), so his questions come from within. He is recounting his own journey to Christianity, answering his own doubts, so his chosen path here is decidedly personal, and therefore not subject to formulaic rules of "good" journalism. Perhaps Strobel's mistake was his repeated and overt brandishing of his journalistic experience, which leads the reader to believe that this book will be an example of unbiased reporting (when have you ever known *any* journalist to be unbiased?), which it clearly is not. Strobel has certainly done his homework in his investigation, having crisscrossed the nation in an effort to prove his point. I cannot find fault in his effort and applaud his work. He presents his points in an ordered fashion, not unlike a prosecutor building a case, which was obviously his intention. He succeeds admirably here. But this book chokes on Strobel's amateurish prose. A skilled editor could have done wonders for this book, which has so much extraneous illustration that it gives the reader a headache. Here is but one arbitrarily chosen example: "Words gush from him like water from a ruptured water pipe." p112. Strobel also tries to paint his interviews like a screenplay: ""Really?" I said, shifting in my chair, which was perpendicular to his, in order to face him more directly." p157. It's incredibly obnoxious reading. One cannot help but wonder how his handwritten notes or tape recordings of the interviews were so detailed as to include the subject's position in his chair. And even if they were this detailed, who honestly cares? This book could have been a real winner, but the writing itself provides the main obstacle to its success.
Rating:
Summary: Convincing Argument for the Divinity of Christ
Review: As a lifelong Catholic, I always accepted the divinity of Christ at face value as a matter of simple faith. However, this book by Mr. Strobel revealed that there is solid evidence to support my faith. By establishing the Gospels as accurate historical documents, proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus did die on the cross and that his resurrection is confirmed by multiple eyewitness accounts, this book allows any Christian to come away with a renewed sense of conviction in their beliefs. I also believe that it may even be powerful enough to challenge any non-Christians to re-evaluate their own beliefs.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent apologetics but horrible journalism
Review: I wish Amazon.com didn't force reviewers to rate all books with 1-5 stars. Since I was forced to rate Lee Strobel's book _Case for Christ_ I gave it 3 stars, but that's not really how I feel. As an introductory apologetics book I would give it 5 stars, but as a work by a journalist I would give it 1 star. Read on to find out why. Lee Strobel is an ex-investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who describes himself as a "former spiritual skeptic." Using his skills as a former legal affairs journalist, Strobel set out to "retrace and expand upon the spiritual journey ... [he] took for nearly two years." The Case for Christ is a summary of Strobel's interviews with thirteen leading Evangelical apologists, including Craig Blomberg, Bruze Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, Ben Witherington III, and William Lane Craig. In light of Strobel's frequent reminders that he used to be a hard-nosed, skeptical journalist, I skimmed the table of contents and index to see which critics of Christianity he interviewed. In so doing, I discovered a glaring deficiency in Strobel's journalism: Strobel did not interview any critics of Christian apologetics, even though he attacks such individuals in his book. For example, Strobel devotes an entire chapter to his interview of Greg Boyd (an outspoken faultfinder of the Jesus Seminar), yet Strobel never interviewed a single member of the Jesus Seminar itself! Likewise, he repeatedly criticizes Michael Martin, author of Case Against Christianity, but he never bothered to get Martin's responses to those attacks. This hardly constitutes balanced reporting on Strobel's part; indeed, on this basis, one is tempted to dismiss the entire book. Nonetheless, I was compelled to review _The Case for Christ_, for two reasons. First, it comes with a number of endorsements from high-profile Evangelicals. Second, Strobel interviewed a number of high-caliber Evangelical apologists, many of whom are worthy of consideration in and of themselves. Thus _The Case for Christ_ constitutes a pseudo-anthology of Evangelical scholarship. I have reviewed Strobel's book in detail on my website, but here I will summarize its major strengths and weaknesses. _Case for Christ_ is a creative, well-written contribution to Christian apologetics. Moreover, Strobel is to be commended for summarizing the work of so many leading apologists for Evangelical Christianity in such a compact and easy-to-read format. Yet Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections
not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story.
Rating:
Summary: Not really an investigation
Review: Although subtitled "A Journalist's Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus", the author, who is an Evangelical Christian, presents only "evidence" which supports his own biases. All of those interviewed by the author in search of "evidence" are Evangelical apologists such as Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Gary Collins, Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland who have a very narrow, literalist interpretation of the Bible. Others, outside this realm, are not interviewed, but receive negative criticism by those interviewed. Much of what is presented is highly speculative, and would not be supported by more traditional scholarship. For example, Craig Blomberg claims, with little question, that Matthew was an eyewitness to Jesus but sort of checked with Mark before writing his gospel. You're not going to find many historians who agree with this interpretation. An interview with Donald Carson, a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concerning the issue of why Jesus or Paul was not critical of slavery is a real insult to the memory of those who may have lived under such oppression. This book would be of little interest, except in a critical sense, to outside the framework of Evangelical Christianity. The book is, however, an easy read, and for this I give it 2 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: weak and deceptive
Review: A blatant apologetic presented under the guise of unbiased reporting. Not one person on the "other side of the argument" is asked a single question.
The author and publisher should be both be criticized for pitching this book as "investigative journalism"...it is anything but....
An insult to any thinking person's intelligence.
|
