Sep 19 2007
Book Review-The Case for the Real Jesus
I just finished reading The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel that Zondervan asked me to review. Strobel was a former atheist who studied law at Yale and was the Legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. Then his wife became a follower of Jesus while attending Willowcreek Church in Chicago. (I’m sure someone will take a pot shot at Willowcreek and Bill Hybels) Strobel began watching how his wife changed and through that he became a Christ-follower and went on staff at Willowcreek and later Saddleback in Orange County, CA. (I’m sure another attack will come for that too) Anyway Strobel has has made a name for himself with these excellent “Case for…” series. I’ve read most of the including The Case for Christ, The Case for Easter, Case for Christmas and others.
This book was written to refute those claims that the church suppressed ancient non-biblical documents that give a more accurate picture of Jesus than the Gospels that are revered by Christians.
- He asks did the church distort the truth about Jesus by tampering with the early New Testament texts?
- Do new discoveries like the Gospel of Judas and Thomas tell us more about the “real” Jesus?
- Do some of these documents disprove the resurrection?
- Have some new discoveries proved that Jesus wasn’t really the messiah?
- Did Christianity “steal” its theology and stories form ancient mythology?
- Is it OK to believe that Jesus is just one way to heaven?
Strobel writes this book like a lawyer would make a case in court. Stobel does give both sides. He states what those who are trying to discredit the Bible are saying and then gives the Christian scholars a chance to refute. He also uses his journalistic skills to interview some of the best minds in the world to discover what the “real” Jesus was like. This is a fantastic book. It took me longer to read than many because it was like a textbook. You can’t skim through this book and really get the meaning. I recommend my friends Ask an Atheist, Francoise, and Geekwad to read this because I think you will be challenged to rethink your beliefs or lack there of.
[I edited my post to add that Strobel does give both sides]
I highly recommend The Case for the Real Jesus and give it 4.75 hockey sticks out of 5.
[BTW] Zondervan—see how much response I’m getting. You need to publish my book that I sent to you in July! 
41 responses so far
“Strobel writes this book like a lawyer would make a case in court.”
That could be taken to mean that he defends an arbitrary point of view without regard for the truth.
No,
You need to read the book. That is not how he did it.
j/k
In the American legal system the jury gets to hear from experts on both sides and the experts’ opinions are tested under cross-examination by the opposition’s lawyer, not by their own lawyer.
Vinny,
Thanks for reading. He does give both sides.
I’ve enjoyed Strobel’s books. I’ve seen lukewarm Christians transformed when they ask tough questions and find out there are intellectually satisfying answers.
I am always amused by Strobel’s claims that he was surprised by where the evidence led him. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that he only interviewed conservative Christian scholars.
Vinny,
All I can say is read the book. He does a good job of presenting both sides.
I’ve seen that book on the shelf and skimmed the table of contents but it didn’t look very interesting at the time. I’ll give it another look, given your recommendation.
In the mean time, I just finished a book a short time back that I liked a lot. Maybe you and other participants here will find it interesting too: ” Misquoting Jesus” by Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman presents a strong case for the corruption of the autographs based on the earliest known manuscripts. As examples, he presents various ancient biblical manuscripts with variant readings, and he explains the process of determining which reading is closest to the original.
Another book that I highly recommend is “The Bible Unearthed” by Finklestein and Silberman. I read this a few years back but it is still one of my favorites. Finklestein and Silberman show where the Bible and archaeology agree and where they differ. They not only present the findings of archaeology but they also present detailed arguments both for and against their findings. It’s a must read.
A3,
Funny you should mention Misquoting Jesusâ by Bart D. Ehrman. His argument is refuted in this book.
Kevin,
I have requested “The Case for the Real Jesus” from the local library, but I am third in line so I don’t expect to get it for awhile. From the reviews I have read, it sounds like it follows the same approach as “The Case for Christ” which I did read.
Just out of curiosity, what is your basis for concluding that Strobel does a good job of presenting both sides? I have read books by Bart Ehrman, Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong, and Geza Vermes. Do you think Strobel asks his experts the kind of question they would ask? I don’t.
Vinny,
He states what these authors have said in their books and gives the renown Christian scholars opportunities to address their claims.
Strobel has been in debates with several of these people. Antony Flew actually stopped being an atheist after a debate with Gary R. Habermas. He hasn’t become a believer yet, but he realizes that he can’t justify being an atheist anymore.
Kevin,
Have you read their books? Do you have a basis for believing that Strobel is fairly presenting their claims other than Strobel’s assertion that he is doing so?
I have read that Flew has embraced Intelligent Design, but isn’t that outside the scope of Habermas’ work? I thought their debate concerned the Resurrection, about which Flew has not change his mind as far as I know.
Vinny,
I have no reason to read them. They are not reputable. Strobel isn’t the only one who pokes holes in these books. Even liberal scholars don’t think the Gospel of Judas, Thomas and Mary are dated early enough to be credible.
I’m more into leadership books anyway. I read this one because the publisher asked me to. I’m glad I did. I have reviewed probably 20 books and have never gotten this many responses from a book I’ve read.
Kevin,
Which of Erman’s arguments did Strobel refute? (I just mean ones you can recall - so I can watch for it when I’m looking at the book)
A3,
His claims about new explanations that have refuted Jesus resurrection.
What is sad is Ehrman went to college where my parents graduated–Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.
Kevin,
Since when is Ehrman disreputable? I have not seen conservative scholars question his expertise when it comes to factual knowledge about early manuscripts. I don’t think that Strobel and his experts do. They do disagree with the conclusions he draws from the facts.
I am not suggesting that you have any obligation to read any particular books. I am simply noting that you do not have an adequate basis to say that Strobel has done a good job of presenting both sides if you are not personally familiar with both sides.
Ehrman claims that a “miracle of the resurrection is highly impossible”
History points:
1. Jesus was killed in a crucifixion
2. Jesus disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them–
-No one would die for a lie!
-all of the disciples couldn’t have the same dream
3. The biggest persecutor of church “Saul” was converted and said he saw Jesus.
-why would he subject himself to the same persecution he was giving if he didn’t have that experience?
4. Jesus own skeptic half-brother converted.
5. Jesus tomb was empty
Kevin,
Not all of the points are necessarily historical.
1. It’s not clear that Jesus existed. I lean toward thinking that He did, but there’s good reason to think He didn’t. Robert Price presents a very cogent case that He did not exist in “Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”
2. I haven’t seen any good reason to believe the Mark’s account, much less Matthew or Luke who borrowed heavily from Mark, or John who wrote much much later. Mark’s ending (the text after the empty tomb) is especially suspect since there is evidence that it was added later. People die all the time for beliefs that you would agree are a lie. Look at suicide bombers or Marshall Herff Applewhite for example. Willingness to die is no guarantor of truth.
3. Who knows what Paul’s reasons were? We do know that people subject themselves to persecution for other reasons all the time, then they often claim they are doing it because of a divine experience. Look at Jim Jones and Joseph Smith for example. Inviting persecution is no guarantor of divine experience.
4 & 5: it needs to be shown that the gospel accounts are reliable in order to accept these points as historical fact.
A3,
There is a lot of evidence that Jeshu existed.
I’ll agree with you about the end of Mark and most scholars do. Look at most Bibles and it says this is not in the most reliable and oldest manuscripts.
You can’t believe that Paul would give up all of his prestige and power to be martyred if he didn’t have a real experience.
Kevin,
There is a lot of evidence that Jeshu existed.
I think He probably existed too.
You canât believe that Paul would give up all of his prestige and power to be martyred if he didnât have a real experience.
We have many examples of people choosing martyrdom for reasons you and I would agree are false. That doesn’t mean necessarily that Paul didn’t have an experience, but it means that martyrdom is no guarantor of divine experience.
Do we have any evidence that Paul foresaw his martyrdom? If he gave up his power and prestige in anticipation of the second coming within his lifetime, he may have thought it a very small sacrifice.
One of the points that you guys are overlooking, and one which Habermas raises, is that if the resurrection were a lie, then the disciples would have to have known it was a lie. Yes, people do die for things that we believe are false, but I don’t know of anyone that is willing to die for a lie that they fabricated.
As for the case that Jesus never existed, that’s a really, really weak argument. The documentation of Christ’s existence is better than that of many other historical figures. I mean, what about Julius Caesar for instance? Isn’t his account of the Gallic war the only written account of such an event, how can we prove it really happened? To continue down that road just undermines everyone’s intelligence.
I’ve not read any of Strobel’s works, but now I’ll have to look into this one. Thanks for the tip Kevin. BTW I love your book reviews, you’re filling up my shelf for “after seminary” reading.
I generally haven’t cared for Strobel’s work in the past, but will check this book out.
I am afraid if my faith in the Resurrection had to rest on this guy’s methodology, I would be a bit shaky on the topic.
You might consider His Grace, the Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright’s book “The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God)”
MIT,
Thanks for that reference! Wright looks like a good scholar and I’m interested in checking out some of his works.
Other Christian scholars I like are Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer for biblical criticism and commentary, and Thomas Merton for an experiential view. I also like Roland Murphy’s contributions to the New Jerome Commentary. Do you read any of these guys? Though I wouldn’t consider his works scholarly per se, I somewhat like C.S. Lewis for his gut-feel point of view. Do you like any other critical scholars that you think I might like too?
Vinny,
I don’t think it matters what he saw ahead of time. Although in Acts 9:16 God told Ananias, “I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
If Paul didn’t really believe in it why would he put up with all of the beatings and ultimately his own death?
I think Paul believed in the divinity of Jesus. I’m not sure he believed in the revelation he claims to have had. He only mentions it once to prove his credentials as a bona fide apostle and to put himself on even footing with the other disciples (which he also refers to as apostles). He doesn’t really make that much of the experience itself in his epistles. That is, he doesn’t use it to prove the divinity of Jesus and it’s not a pervasive theme when he tries to inspire faith in the various churches.
A3,
Surely your kidding? You don’t think he believed the revelations he had?
Why would anyone give up their privileged life to endure suffering for something they didn’t believe they had seen? His Damascus road experience changed his whole life!
A3 (if I may be so informal)
I don’t know of a scholar to reccomend more than Bp. Wright, other than ones that you have already mentioned above.
Fr. Thomas Merton and Fr. Thomas Keating are both profound influences on my monastic Vocation, I am pleased you are familar with that genre.
Could you unpack that statement about St. Paul not believing in his own revelations? I agree with Kevin on this one, it seems illogical to profess a revelation of this nature that would get you smacked around regularly, unless of course your a masochist.
MIT,
Could you unpack that statement …
I don’t think it was uncommon to make that sort of claim in Paul’s day. Paul’s own account of his vision makes me suspicious since Paul sees no need to convince anyone that he really saw the vision. He just expects his readers to believe it as if it were common place. We see a tradition of vision claims in the later Enochic material, other New Testament writings, and in the greek mystery traditions that were extant in Paul’s time. So maybe visions were common place in Paul’s day, or perhaps it was only the claim that was common place.
I do think Paul believed in Jesus’ divinity, but I’m not so sure that the vision, at least as he describes it, was more than a literary device that was common during his time.
Kevin,
Why would anyone give up their privileged life to endure suffering for something they didnât believe they had seen?
Is this a new question or the same one? Or if there is a part of your question that I didn’t respond to, would you please tell me what I missed?
A3,
If I was living a lie and it was about to cost me my life or fess up, I’m going to fess up and tell the truth. Paul was either crazy or telling the truth. You may think he was crazy. I believe that his life was radically changed just like mine was.
Kevin,
If I was living a lie and it was about to cost me my life or fess up,
Me too. I don’t think Paul was living a lie. I don’t think he was crazy either. I also think his life was radically changed by his belief in Jesus.
A3,
Do you live in Atlanta? I will be there in 2 weeks and would love to meet you.
Yea, Kevin. That would be great! I’ll send you my phone # by email.
A3,
Just like our political spectrum–Left/Liberal——-Right/Traditional
that spectrum exists in the theological/historical realm as well
I’m teaching an introduction to World Religions class at a community college and just informed the class of that. The text we’re using (not my choice) is very much on the theo left end while I let them know I’m closer to the r/t end.
With that said, each side can find someone to bolster their own ideas. I’m just more uncomfortable with the foundational assumptions that are made on the left (ex.–anti-supernatural bias)
As to your ideas about Paul and his testimony. I’m not surprised he didn’t mention it in most of his letters. That’s the kind of testimony usually reserved for a face to face. He only mentioned it in Acts 22 b/c of the riot he was the center of–a face to face if you will. He mentions his “abnormal birth” in 1 Cor. 15 as if his readers already know the account. He refers to the events immediately following his conversion in Damascus in 2 Cor. 11:32-33 with those who question his apostleship. He referred to it again in Galatians 1:13-24. I feel like I’m leaving one out but I think you get the point. Specific challenges get a specific response but he doesn’t have to rehash the same things over and over again. People knew who he was and his story–even he thinks it’s silly when he starts touting his credentials. At least he didn’t go 3rd person!!!
As to the ending in Mark, I agree with you that what appears in most Bibles is not the original ending. It’s out of character, uses different words and is just a different style. Mine notes that (NIV Study Bible). I’m more and more convince that the “they were afraid” ending was the original ending, for a specific reason. It’s a perfect cliffhanger ending.
I always hated Season Finales of shows b/c they always did something to make you wait and anticipate next season. Star Trek–NG’s Borg ending drove me nuts b/c I knew I would have to wait a couple months to see the resolve.
I’m of the mind that Mark was written especially to a Greek audience that wanted to hear a faster and exciting story, which is why it uses so many words like “immediately” and stories of power, while including the mystery and “secret” that the audience gets to hear but the characters don’t know . This also explains why it’s shorter. So the reader would have created a great tension in his audience who wants to know the resolve, how it ends, do they figure it out, etc.
When it ends there, with the cliffhanger ending, it is the perfect opening for an eyewitness to stand up and tell them exactly what they saw and heard–tell them the resolve, tell them that they did figure it out. Considering that Mark is generally understood to be the companion of Peter, it would be a perfect intro for Peter to then stand up and speak and reveal the Resurrection.
If that is true, then I surmise that someone later was uncomfortable with the ending and tagged a resolve on the end.
Your thoughts on this?
Kelly,
(I think Acts 9 is what you were looking for)
With that said, each side can find someone to bolster their own ideas. Iâm just more uncomfortable with the foundational assumptions that are made on the left
Rather than having to end class discussions with an agreement of what the correct view is, what about ending them with arguments for and against all views? In other words, rather than making the conclusion the lesson, make the methods of inquiry the lesson: how to read critically and ask the right (i.e., meaningful) questions. Sort of an intro to hermeneutics. Just a thought…
Interesting perspectives about Paul and Mark!
Regarding Paul’s experience, I’m more inclined to go with Paul’s own account and less inclined to go with Luke’s account as historical; that is, historical in the sense that it accurately portrays the original events. I do think that Luke’s account portrays the tradition that had evolved by the time of his writing though. I don’t think he just made it up.
When I think of Paul’s vision, I think of his account in 1Ga 1:12: “I neither received [the gospel] of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The revelation could be as mundane as simply a realization or an enlightenment (as Christians in our day often use the term), or something more supernatural. Paul doesn’t say. I think that it was an epiphany for him in any case. Luke’s account, on the other hand, is much more extraordinary and is only believable if the tradition already exists and is generally accepted.
I think you are right that Paul is most often writing to churches that already know him personally. Much of what he writes is in response to letters that they must have written to him. So his responses are not necessarily all new ideas that he would have to explain in full.
Regarding Mark’s short ending, we can speculate about literary reasons for it to end the way it did, and your explanation is certainly possible. But I don’t see any reason to prefer that explanation. To me, when taking Mark in the context of other early writings, I see the resurrection story evolve from a rudimentary to an elaborated story.
The virgin birth story is another example of this type of elaboration that happens over time. Paul never mentions Jesus’ mother at all. Mark, written after Paul’s epistles, mentions Jesus’ mother only once directly (Mar 6:3) and once indirectly (as the mother of James, presumably brother of Jesus - Mar 15:40). Still there is no mention of a virgin birth. Not until Matthew, written after Mark, do we see the first mention of a virgin birth (Mat 1:23) but no description of it - just a quote from the Septuagint. Finally, Luke, written after Matthew, tells the elaborate birth story with detailed dialogs of Mary’s virgin birth.
I think we see the same thing happen to the resurrection story when we read the texts in the order in which they were written. Paul’s writings claim that Jesus was resurrected, but the details are only added as the story is embellished over time. If we read Mark with the original short ending, without presuming how later writings will interpret and embellish it (and that’s mighty hard to do), I think we get a better understanding of how earlier Christians understood the resurrection.
I’m a little late on jumping into this whole thing, but Historical documentation of Jesus and his followers is evident.
Suetonius, Life of Claudius xxv 4 (Cf. Acts 18.2)
… since the Jews were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome.
Suetonius, Life of Nero xvi
In his reign many abuses were severely punished and repressed, and as many new laws were instituted; a limit was set upon spending; public banquets were reduced; the sale of cooked food in taverns was forbidden, except for vegetables and greens, while formerly every kind of food was available; punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a set of men adhering to a novel and mischievous superstition; he put a stop to the wild activities of the charioteers, who for a long time had assumed the right of ranging at large and cheating and robbing for amusement; the actors and their companies were banished.
Tacitus, Annales, xv. 44
But all human efforts, all the emperor’s gifts and propitiations of the gods, were not enough to remove the scandal or banish the belief that the fire [summer, 64 C.E.] had been ordered. And so, to get rid of this rumor Nero set up as culprits and punished with the utmost cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment this pernicious superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome, the place where everything that is sordid and degrading from every quarter of the globe finds a following. Thus those who confessed (i.e.. to being Christians) were first arrested, then on evidence from them a large multitude was convicted, not so much for the charge of arson as for their hatred of the human race. Besides being put to death they were made objects of amusement; they were clothed in hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others were set on fire to illuminate the night after sunset. Nero threw open his grounds for the display and put on a show at the circus where he mingled with the people dressed like a charioteer and driving about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, evens towards these men who deserved the most exemplary punishment since it was felt they were being killed, not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual.
So there is plenty of credible, non Christian, academic sources that point to Christ during that era. The question of whether Jesus existed or not is not a credible religious studies debate, it has already been identified that he did. The debate stems around the deity of Christ…which I think most people then come back to the conversation of the ressurection
I think Strobel reinforces and examines that Christ did exist, great book!
Strobel’s apologetics are excellent, factual, and difficult to refute, which is why he gets the criticism he does.
Why other Christians would criticize Willow Creek or Saddleback Valley is beyond me. Mega churches may not be to your liking, but these two have done an excellent job of reaching into lost communities and evangelizing, unlike some of our Southern Baptist brethren who accumulate gigantic piles of letter transfers.
I’m getting a double blessing here within a month of each other. I’m going to Willow Creek next week for the small groups conference, and I’m going to the Baptist General Convention of Texas meeting at the end of October, where Rick Warren is speaking and leading a couple of workshops.
M,
I tend to think the Jesus was a historical figure too. There are difficulties with the theory that we should recognise though.
For example, Suetonius was born some 35 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and would have written long after that (60 years or so after the crucifixion?). He may have been writing about Jesus but it is as likely that Christus referred to any number of other messiahs that were around during the uprisings. Or he may have been drawing on earlier Christian writings. And of course his writing in Life of Nero only serves as evidence that Christians existed.
Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when they write about Nero’s persecution of Christian. Some scholars argue that this is evidence that Tacitus’ reference to Chrestus was introduced later by scribes.
While I agree that there is evidence that Jesus existed, I have to admit that the evidence is not strong enough to discredit the debate. But the evidence is strong enough for me to believe that He probably existed.
While I don’t believe that the silence about Jesus is evidence that He didn’t exist, I do think that the silence is evidence that the early Jesus movement was small, generally unheard of, and insignificant (to all but its members, of course), which stands in stark contrast to some of the stories in the Gospels and Acts.
My objection to Strobel is his repeated references to himself as an “investigative journalist” who is just following the evidence. He leads his readers to believe that he is conducting an unbiased inquiry, when in fact, he interviews only conservative Christian scholars and the conclusion he is going to reach is never in doubt.