Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Angrillori · 02-21-2005, 10:41 AM

Hiya guys!

I've been talking with a fellow who has put a lot of credence in Strobel's The Case for Christ, especially the chapter entitled "The Documentary Evidence."

I re-read the book over the weekend, and the propagandistic nature just overwhelmed me. Is there a good critical anaylsis available somewhere, or have any of you done some research on a lot of the claims he makes in there.

(It irks me I have to post from work, where it would be rather inappropriate for me to sit at my desk with a copy open in front of me.)

Thanks in advance!

Toto · 02-21-2005, 10:50 AM

Jeffery Jay Lowder's review - the URL has a link to Earl Doherty's comprehensive refutation.

Angrillori · 02-21-2005, 11:07 AM

Thanks!

dannyh44 · 02-21-2005, 07:41 PM

You should also read "The Case for Faith" by Lee "Strawman" Strobel. It is really dishonest in it's approach. He claims to be a seasoned reporter who "puts his subjects to task" and "asks the hard questions". If that what he's doing in his books, it is easy to see why he's no longer employed as a mainstream journalist.

badger3k · 02-21-2005, 08:14 PM

Reading Lowder's review, at least this struck me:

Quote:

Strobel also asked Metzger why some books were included in the New Testament and others (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) were not. As Strobel puts it, "What about allegations that church councils squelched equally legitimate documents because they didn't like the picture of Jesus they portrayed?" (p. 85). Metzger's answer was that "the New Testament contains the best sources for the historicity of Jesus" (p. 87). He stated that the early church adopted three criteria in evaluating documents for inclusion in the New Testament:

(i) Was the book written by an apostle or by a follower of an apostle?
(ii) Did the book conform with what Christians already believed?
(iii) Had the book been continuously accepted and used by the church at large? (p. 86)

In other words, Metzger admits that "church councils squelched equally legitimate documents because they didn't like the picture of Jesus they portrayed!" After all, consider the implications of these three criteria: (i) excludes a priori the testimony of non-Christian historians; (ii) rules out the possibility of books that did not conform to what Christians already believed; and (iii) ensures that only books popular with the Church were accepted. The implications of this are obvious. We have already seen why there is no reason to expect that first century non-Christians would have taken critical notice of Christianity. But suppose that assumption is entirely incorrect. If, say, the first-century Roman historian Suetonius had written a book entitled, "The Full Grave of Jesus," documenting in intricate detail that the Resurrection was a hoax, the early church would have excluded such a book from the New Testament. Therefore, the criteria for Canonicity identified by Metzger do not support his claims of historical reliability. To paraphrase a comment made by Strobel, these criteria were "loaded from the outset, like dice that are weighted so they yield the result that was desired all along" (p. 156).

The third point also ignores the various schisms and heresies that pervaded the early Church. There was no unified body that accepted all the books and ignored others - many of the books that were accepted by large populations were banned because they didn't fit the proto-orthodox views.

Ah well, the links there give me still more to read.

Llyricist · 02-21-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyh44

If that what he's doing in his books, it is easy to see why he's no longer employed as a mainstream journalist.

Sadly, if one considers the actual state of mainstream journalism in the US, It is NOT so easy to see that.

dannyh44 · 02-21-2005, 09:13 PM

Good point! Maybe he'll become the Fox News Religion Correspondent. :-)

badger3k · 02-21-2005, 09:21 PM

I prefer Stephen Colbert and This Week in God

dannyh44 · 02-21-2005, 09:38 PM

The best news on cable! ( and sometimes the truest).

andrewcriddle · 02-22-2005, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Reading Lowder's review, at least this struck me:

The third point also ignores the various schisms and heresies that pervaded the early Church. There was no unified body that accepted all the books and ignored others - many of the books that were accepted by large populations were banned because they didn't fit the proto-orthodox views.

Ah well, the links there give me still more to read.

On the whole most schisms and heresies broadly agreed with the 'orthodox' as to the content of the NT but disagreed as to how the NT books should be interpreted.

This certainly appears true of most of the Valentinians and probably the Basilideans.

Marcion is certainly an exception but he rejected widely accepted NT books, rather than accepting widely rejected ones.

(Similar considerations would apply to the Alogoi who rejected the Johannine material and were anyway basically orthodox).

The major non-orthodox group to accept books not generally recognised were probably the Jewish-Christians (Nazareenes Ebionites etc) and it seems probable that most of the Jewish-Christian gospels involved were based on the canonical gospels. (The 'Gospel of the Hebrewa' used in Egypt is an exception here.)

Andrew Criddle

02-21-2005, 10:41 AM	#1
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Strobel's "The Case for Christ" Hiya guys! I've been talking with a fellow who has put a lot of credence in Strobel's The Case for Christ, especially the chapter entitled "The Documentary Evidence." I re-read the book over the weekend, and the propagandistic nature just overwhelmed me. Is there a good critical anaylsis available somewhere, or have any of you done some research on a lot of the claims he makes in there. (It irks me I have to post from work, where it would be rather inappropriate for me to sit at my desk with a copy open in front of me.) Thanks in advance!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-21-2005, 10:50 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Jeffery Jay Lowder's review - the URL has a link to Earl Doherty's comprehensive refutation.

02-21-2005, 11:07 AM	#3
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Thanks!

02-21-2005, 07:41 PM	#4
dannyh44 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 30	You should also read "The Case for Faith" by Lee "Strawman" Strobel. It is really dishonest in it's approach. He claims to be a seasoned reporter who "puts his subjects to task" and "asks the hard questions". If that what he's doing in his books, it is easy to see why he's no longer employed as a mainstream journalist.

02-21-2005, 09:13 PM	#7
dannyh44 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 30	Good point! Maybe he'll become the Fox News Religion Correspondent. :-)

02-21-2005, 09:21 PM	#8
badger3k Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Killeen, TX Posts: 1,388	I prefer Stephen Colbert and This Week in God

02-21-2005, 09:38 PM	#9
dannyh44 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 30	The best news on cable! ( and sometimes the truest).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.