Brian63

Over at the Ann Coulter forum (---yes, I know; please do not bother with the insults---) I have been discussing religious issues with one particular evangelist who has taken to recommending Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" to me because it supposedly presents a really strong case for the historical soundness of Christian beliefs. I had responded back that I had already read that book (a few times, as it is) along with Earl Doherty's rebuttal book, "Challenging the Verdict" and that I found the latter to be more thorough and compelling.

After some further back-and-forth, it has come to this:

I am looking for an example of a very specific error or flaw in Strobel's book to highlight, and it would be preferable if that error was also identified and thoroughly smashed by Doherty's book.

Not just any error will do. I have a strong suspicion that the other guy, being the evangelist he is, will find it extremely difficult to admit that Strobel is wrong on any fact or argument, and even moreso to admit that Doherty is right about it.

So this particular error needs to be, to the greatest extent possible:

1. Extremely obvious and undeniable
2. Very, very simple. It should not rest on debating different interpretations of the meaning of a text. It should just be a straightforward, direct factual error that is not open to interpretation.
3. Not rely heavily on analysis of OT history (I am largely ignorant of, and uninterested in, the OT).
4. Something that is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of relevant scholars, and demonstrably so.

This guy I have been talking with is pretty much your standard beginner-fundamentalist, who also thinks that C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" is a strong apologetic. He has a strong tendency to misread arguments, chase down red herrings, and focus on completely irrelevant details while missing the actually-important points. Whatever example I use needs to be *especially* clear.




For the past couple of weeks, I have been re-reading both books side-by-side, but am not finished with them yet. I do recall Doherty pointing out an instance where Strobel and his interviewee simply misstate what the Bible says on some issue (whether the OT prophecies that someone "greater than Moses" or someone "like Moses" would arrive in the future, or something to that effect). I will want to check different translations to see what they have to say on that verse. If a better (for me, anyway) suggestion does not appear here, I will probably go with that one.

All help is appreciated.

Thanks,

Brian

Toto

Strobel and his expert apologists tend not to make that sort of simple mistake. But you might look at these points:

From Jeff Lowder's review

Gullwind

How about the logical fallacy in claiming that the "thousands" of copies of the Gospels has anything to do with whether the events described actually happened.

There are millions of copies of The Lord of the Rings. That doesn't mean Gandalf was a real person.

Antipope Innocent II

Attempts to reconcile the census/Herod stories in gMatt and gLuke are a major problem with fundamentalist apologists like Strobel. Taylor is right - all attempts to do so range from the contrived to the downright silly. The "Massacre of the Innocents" is less of a thorny issue, since any argument that it "should" have been recorded outside the gospels is an argument from silence, which is difficult to construct in a way that has any real weight. The existence of Nazareth one is best avoided, since actual archaeologists (Jewish ones included) accept it existed and the people who don't are fringe non-experts of no credibility.

So the census/Herod stories problem is the best contender, but since I've never bothered reading any of his books, I'm not sure if Strobel has tried to tackle that issue.

exmormon

You might try the strategy of pointing out a more reputable book than Strobel's and say it does a better job of making the case for Jesus' historicity, and then say you don't even agree with that. A Christian friend of mine on another forum recommended Darrell Bock's "Studying the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)" to read alongside Doherty, and said he wasn't a fan of Strobel. I haven't looked into this book yet, but I have a hard time believing that Strobel is the best Christians can do.

eheffa

To me, one of the most obvious examples of Strobel's unethical use of data to prop up an unsupportable position is his use of "authorities in the field" referring to other authorities as if the case is closed.

A good example of this is when he asks John McRay (p. 101 in The Case for Christ) about the problem of Luke's scenario around the birth of Jesus in which Quirinius is Governor of Syria when Herod the Great is supposed to be still alive. McRay dismisses the problem by quoting from Jerry Vardamap ("an eminent archeaologist") who supposedly has found an ancient coin in the British Museum with microscopic writing on it that contrary to all other recognized records proves that Quirinius was governor of Syria from 11 BC until after Herod's death. This mysterious coin has never been produced for peer review but is accepted at face value (pardon the pun) by McRay & Strobel to handily eliminate the apparent difficulties arising from a recognition that Luke's history does not stand up as accurate...i.e. it is not inerrant & could even be a fiction.

Richard Carrier does a great job of investigating Vardamap's claim & shows it to be unsupported & quite unbelievable. See: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode....html#Vardaman


That Strobel would allow this sort of rubbish to be included in his book demonstrates to me that he is not an investigative skeptic as he portrays himself, but is either a credulous wishful thinker or a slick and unethical huckster attempting to keep Christians (his primary audience) from confronting the glaring deficiencies in the historicity of the Bible & New Testament. I am personally convinced that he is actually the latter of the two.

I hope this might be something useful for you.

-evan

itsamysteryhuh

Of course, we are all dumb intelligent enough to know that the Gospels are equal to something as simple as "The Lord of the Rings." Gullwind, I guess you've never heard of the fallacy of false analogy?

Brian63, should you actually find such an error, what then? Do you think you will (somehow) have/provide the answers you need to disprove the existence of God or Jesus Christ? Let's be honest here. You'll likely just feel superior (somehow) to the evangelist knowing how it will "look" to (at least partially) prove him wrong and (at least partially) prove yourself right. Source: vanity. :wave:


Talk about a fallacy (opinion-based arguments). But thanks for your opinions anyway.

Antipope Innocent II

Excellent point. And if Strobel does try to tackle the contradiction between gLuke and gMatthew on the date of Jesus' birth then that is a good point on which to fight the evangelist on the Coulter forum.

Umm, it's not a false analogy. The analogy regards the number of copies and nothing else. Arguing that there are a lot of copies of the NT texts therefore they must be true IS as false as arguing that there are lots of copies of LOTR so it must be true. The only point on which the two works have to correspond for this analogy to be valid is the large number of copies.

Gullwind

It's not a false analogy. The number of copies in existence has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of what those copies say. There could be millions of copies of the gospels, all dated to the day after Easter, 33 A.D., and it wouldn't prove anything about what actually happened. All it proves is that the copies were (relatively) well done.

eheffa

[/QUOTE]

Excuse me for using personal references in my statements in a vain (apparently) attempt to humanize this discussion.

Here is a Revised statement in the third person voice to avoid in impression that I am merely spouting unsupported opinion...


"An obvious example of Strobel's unethical use of data to to prop up an unsupportable position is his use of "authorities in the field" referring to other authorities as if the case is closed.

A good example of this is when he asks John McRay (p. 101 in The Case for Christ) about the problem of Luke's scenario around the birth of Jesus in which Quirinius is Governor of Syria when Herod the Great is supposed to be still alive. McRay dismisses the problem by quoting from Jerry Vardamap ("an eminent archeaologist") who supposedly has found an ancient coin in the British Museum with microscopic writing on it that contrary to all other recognized records proves that Quirinius was governor of Syria from 11 BC until after Herod's death. This mysterious coin has never been produced for peer review but is accepted at face value (pardon the pun) by McRay & Strobel to handily eliminate the apparent difficulties arising from a recognition that Luke's history does not stand up as accurate...i.e. it is not inerrant & could even be a fiction.

Richard Carrier does a great job of investigating has written about his attempt to verify Vardamap's claim & shows it to be unsupported & quite unbelievable. See: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode....html#Vardaman



That Strobel would allow this sort of rubbish to be included in his book demonstrates to me that he is not an investigative skeptic as he portrays himself, but is either a credulous wishful thinker or a slick and unethical huckster attempting to keep Christians (his primary audience) from confronting the glaring deficiencies in the historicity of the Bible & New Testament. I am personally convinced that he is actually the latter of the two.

My use of a first person voice in the previous (unrevised) statements do not make them fallacious or mere opinion. Read the material if you will (or dare). Strobel's conclusions are based on fallacious data & are quite unsupportable and are simply illogical in many cases. The example cited speaks for itself. This is not conjecture or mere opinion on my part. How would you explain his apparent disregard for the the most basic need to verify such important claims?

As to why Strobel is so laughably popular? It's not a mystery - it's simple propaganda.



-evan