7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Simple Case, December 9, 2007
This review is from: The Case for Christmas: A Journalist Investigates the Identity of the Child in the Manger (Paperback)
Lee Strobel's little bitty book, The Case for Christmas, does a good job at its intended purpose, which is to evangelize to non-Christians and skeptics. Like his other books, he presents counter arguments to those skeptics who do not really know Christianity. If you have read his other books, you have read everything in this book, too. The Christmas story itself is almost a minor topic. A Christian with the most basic knowledge of the Bible will not find much here. That is the weak point of the book for me, he just barely scratched the surface when there was potential for so much more.
Brother Lee does a good job of defending an early date for the Gospels (to support their credibility as eyewitness accounts). While he makes the case for the Synoptics, he leaves John at a later date, maybe 90 AD. Yet, when he talks about historical accuracy, he rightfully shows John is reliable, and one example he made was John 5:1-15, the story of the Pool of Bethesda, that pool with five porticoes. This place was not known in modern times until it was excavated by archeologist. It was just as John described.
That much is good, but Lee could have taken the next step. John talks about these pools in the present tense. The historian Josephus mentions that this northern district, where the pools were located, was incinerated early in the revolt by Cestius, in October of 68 C.E. (Jewish Wars 2.250). He also says that in May of 70 C.E., the Romans breached the first wall in the northern part of the city and destroyed it, in the district which he said had been previously destroyed "by Cestius" (Jewish Wars 5.302). Josephus tells that the entire city of Jerusalem, by order of Caesar, was razed to the foundations when the Romans overtook the Jews (Jewish Wars 7:1).So, if the Roman army destroyed the pools and porticos along with the rest of Jerusalem, than John's use of the present tense, . . . there IS a poll . . ., requires a pre-70 C.E. dating for John.
As for his comment on selecting December 25th as the birth date of Christ, that Pope Julius I declared it so in 385 AD to challenge the pagan celebration of the Roman god Saturnalia, that old argument is just too weak. The date was celebrated much earlier. The Nativity Feast was established by the early Church. Its origin goes back to the time of the Apostles. In the Apostolic Constitutions (Section 3, 13) it says, "Brethren, observe the feastdays; and first of all the Birth of Christ, which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month." In another place it also says, "Celebrate the day of the Nativity of Christ, on which unseen grace is given man by the birth of the Word of God from the Virgin Mary for the salvation of the world." Sextus Julius Africanus also says December 25 is Christ's birthday, mentioning in his Chronographiai (221). In the second century St Clement of Alexandria also indicates that the day of the Nativity of Christ is December 25. In the third century St Hippolytus of Rome mentions the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, and appoints the Gospel readings for this day from the opening chapters of St. Matthew. I could site more, but I have made my "case."
In summary, less fluff about the people he interviewed and more historical meat would have been nice.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No