Customer Reviews

Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"

5 star:		(42)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(40)

 

 

I've read and reviewed here Strobel's books. (See more about me.)

Okay, much has been said about Doherty's style of using a courtroom setting. Yes, I understand it is a literary device. And yes, I know, he's poking some fun at Strobel's self-portrail of being a "tough, investigative reporter". Okay, I understand it, but I still don't care for it. But while I don't care for the style, what is more important, to me anyway, is the material. And the material is good.

Since I'm very poor at history, there is much here that I can't really honestly say whether Strobel's version or Doherty's is more accurate. I wish I could, but I can't. But when Doherty is able to demonstrate logic errors and circular reasoning in Strobel's work that I didn't catch myself when reading it, that to me lends credence to his work. One good example of this is where Doherty points out that Dr. Craig used the Gospel of Matthew's account of the guards at the tomb as an alternate-source verification of, well, Matthew's account of the guards at the tomb!

Another interesting point that Doherty makes is in the discussion of the medical evidence. In Strobel, Dr. Metherell portrays crucifixion being a form of torture to which even breathing is difficult due to the way the victim is hung. And yet the gospels portray Jesus as carrying on conversations, including with the bandits that were also being crucified. And Doherty also points out how the scene gets embellished from one gospel to the next.

There's a lot more than these couple of items I've pointed out. Get the book. If you read the other reviews of the book, you'll find that the negative reviews usually call Doherty "outlandish" or some such, but few seem to have any actual evidence to dispute him.

The negative reviews also harp on Doherty's belief that Jesus may not have existed at all. Though Doherty does discuss this opinion of his, it is not central to this work. I'm not sure I buy that theory myself. But even if Doherty is all wet on that theory, it is not significant to this work.

Finally, the negative reviews also condemn the literary style, which as I said, I agree with the criticism to some extent. But ignoring the style, there is a lot of good stuff here. Don't let the positive or negative opinions here sway you, read the book and make up your own mind.

As a Christian apologist, I have dealt with skeptics and their arguments over the years. However, it is not my intent to refute Doherty in this review. Instead, I want to make the point that there is no definitive argument or evidence which would convince both skeptics and believers. If there was, then the issue of Jesus would have been resolved centuries ago. Even so, Doherty's book demonstrates how a thoughtful skeptic can address many of the arguments made by believers like Strobel. From that perspective, I found this to be a valuable book.

All these religionist reviews on here attack everything but Doherty's arguments. Gimme a break you guys, I am seeing all these 1-star ratings without any of Doherty's points actually challenged. You guys keep claiming that Doherty did not interview any of Strobel's witnesses yet Strobel never interviewed any unbelievers in his own book. The book is a response and I have yet to see works that respond to his specific arguments.

Doherty does a great job of doing a book length review and critique of the arguments that Lee Strobel uses in "The Case for Christ". Doherty effectively shows that Strobel is only speaking for one end of the religous spectrum. Doherty shows that Strobel gives his experts easy questions, avoids follow-ups and that Strobel stacks the deck in his own favor. Doherty points out that Strobel does a poor job of being a "skeptic" by only consulting with experts from the fundamentalist end of the spectrum, rather than asking experts from other traditions. Strobel is even billed as a "journalist" rather than a preacher for a church. While Strobel's "Case for Christ" is a good summary of concervative, evangelical Christianity's apologetic's, Doherty easily shows the short comings of that approach as well a a proper skeptic's approach.

It was 'luck' that I found this book. I believed I was a Christian. Of course, to a current Christian, anyone who "turns" couldn't have been much of a Christian to start with. But anyway, I was challenged by a non-believer to show that Jesus *Christ* was a true historical figure and that the gospels can be trusted as literally true. So I began my own research with the attitude that I had to be open to all the information in order to come to an honest conclusion...and Lee Strobel's book was recommended to me by a church official/friend as a logical, practical, argument for the historicity of Jesus *Christ*. When I searched for the Strobel book on Amazon.com, I also found Earl Doherty's book...so I bought them both and I studied them both. It became very clear with further research that Lee Strobel was not completely honest and forthright in his book. Lee Strobel only makes sense if you don't expose yourself to anything that challenges Strobel's assumptions and his approach. After a personal 2 year search, I was forced by the facts to accept that both Jesus *Christ* (son of God) and the Christian God are fictions created by man. And Earl Doherty's book laid the groundwork for me to follow. It wasn't an easy conclusion to come to, but it's the honest conclusion to make based on the whole of the evidence. If you're looking for the truth about Jesus as *Christ*, Earl Doherty's book is a good place to start.

My encounter with Earl Doherty's first book, The Jesus Puzzle, bent the rudder on my high-flying belief system causing it to flip over and crash. Naturally my Christian brothers and sisters were scandalized at the demise of a fellow true believer and let me know just how they felt about such wicked apostasy. However, I'm still intact, and grateful, that old friends at least decided to merely cut me off rather than resort to medieval torture-unto-death. But, darn it, truth will out! I do feel a depressive burden has been lifted and would invite any thinking Christian made uneasy by suspicious orthodox dogmas to re-examine the validity of pre-suppositions supporting such. However, be warned and on guard concerning the following Catch 22: You cannot by logical reasoning correct a person of an ill opinion never originally acquired through reasoning. (apologies to Sir Francis Bacon)

Earl's second book, Challenging the Verdict, zips like Robin Hood's arrow to split apart the orthodox party line expressed in Lee Strobel's best selling book, The Case for Christ. Mr. Strobel's work is widely touted in Christian bookstores as THE ANSWER to hostile critics. Indeed, it has become the believer's spiritual sword of choice for delivering death thrusts to nasty naysayers. But now, with widening circulation of Earl's 'Challenge' this particular sword may be found more often stuck in the scabbard than protruding from any victim's black heart.

However, as an aside, my admiration for Earl Doherty's scholarship and penetrating insight does not encompass his espoused atheism. Alas, human rationalism elevated to de facto deity will eventually confront its own self-generated nemesis lurking downstream. But determining ultimate spiritual realty is not the object here. Earl's purpose is to examine the logical structure of the biblical account, as defended by some of its leading apologists, to determine whether or not it all "hangs together." Earl's searing examination has convinced me that the gospel does lack the qualities expected from a work guided by a divine hand. (that is, if wobbling unsteadily on soggy feet of clay is any indication.)

Unlike many atheists -- as irritatingly strident and arrogant in their ranting as their Christian fundamental counterparts -- Earl has the welcome facility of being a rather "nice guy." He doesn't gloat and maniacally whack away with literary two by fours. In fact an irony observed by commentators is that 'pagan' Earl is more the perfect gentlemanly role model -- acting in the manner a Christian is supposedly expected to act --than opponents who treat him in an utterly contemptuous and uncivil manner. Hard to believe? Please check out the ad hominem negative reviews. Other gruesome examples of just how counterproductive "Christians" can be at their worst in 'defending' the faith are found stuffed away in a secret closet at Acharya's home site: explore, "emails I have loved"

Unlike Earl, Acharya S. doesn't suffer fools gladly (possibly leftover training effect from her youthful days as a "Born Again Believer") Incidentally, Acharya's heroic compilation, The Christ Conspiracy, is also a must read to experience a startling, eye-opening introduction to a studiously ignored but long standing theory as to the REAL ORIGINS of humanities' major religious themes. Once the ancient, seminal astrotheological roots are laid bare the many-branched flowering religious tree, so devoutly nurtured by countless naive believers down through the centuries, is disclosed to be bearing contaminated, off-tasting fruit. Acharya's wide cast net having pulled together vast evidential material for this mind-blowing expose indirectly gives a rocket-like boost to the odds-on probability that Earl's Challenging the Verdict is indeed squarely hitting the right target. I am now convinced -- by the sheer overpowering weight of evidence from so many quarters -- that my once cherished orthodox theological guide lines were not grafted onto a living vine but rather depended from diseased and rotting branches -- outgrowths reflective of human manipulations rather than that of any heavenly ordination.

I would suggest that you get both (heck, get 'em all!) books so as to facilitate comparing the dissimilar findings ... side by side, upside down, whatever. No matter on which side you eventually align yourself your base of knowledge will be enriched. However, I can't imagine any honest reader not experiencing flash bulbs firing off in their brain as one after another new insight trashes old, taken-for-granted religious party line "givens." So, please, indulge your intellect. Read. Think.

A grateful reader, finally pried out -- kicking and screaming -- from his squeaky-tight, counter-productive orthodox rut. (Thanks be to God!)

With all the rubbish being shoveled into innocent and uneducated minds, the human race sorely needs "Challenging the Verdict."

It seems as if the critics have not read Doherty's book but are relying on a critique by the irrational and dishonest "tektonics" cult, which instantly damages their credibility. No reasonable person will concur with these critics, who keep repeating the same nonsense about the poor apologists not being able to respond to Doherty's remarks. The fact is that these apologists and many others have practically free rule of the media, with many radio and TV programs, where they can and do air their views, constantly, 24-7. Doherty's small voice is being heard by a tiny minority, but still these whiners want to silence even that. Are they so insecure in their beliefs? They should be, as the more reasonable people should speak up more loudly concerning the rampant fraud committed in the name of religion, which goes unchecked day in and day out. Since when is it a sign of intelligence to blindly believe every fish story that comes along? Yet, with religion, it seems to be a virtue to just accept outrageous claims! Actually, it's up to the person making claims like those of Christianity to prove them, not up to people like Earl Doherty to disprove them. But they can't, so he must. And he does it well, despite all the vitriol and hatred tossed at him.

Despite the typically disparaging remarks concerning his credentials--and just what are the credentials of these unaccomplished armchair critics that make them so qualified to judge Doherty's work?--Earl Doherty is a scholar, and a very good one. His previous book "The Jesus Puzzle" will prove that. One critic claims that Doherty's work concerning Paul not knowing any historical Jesus ignores 1 Corinthians 15, which discusses Jesus's resurrection and appearance before "500 brethren." It is obvious that Paul's experience and that of the "500 brethren," if it is even true, represents a mystical initiation into a mystery school, and was a common experience. It certainly does not prove any historical Jesus, but it will apparently suffice for the simple-minded. Fortunately, more people are becoming encouraged and emboldened to challenge the fairytale in the New Testament--those who do not are the ones who should look ridiculous, in a sane society. Don't go by "faith"--someone trying to get somebody else to believe something that goes against natural laws needs to PROVE it. Ask for proof! In this case, there is none! So, who has more integrity and honesty? Those who are defending the attempts to get everyone to believe these extraordinary claims without any proof, or those who are questioning it, like Doherty? It's really time for human beings to stop being so credulous and to become more intelligent about their religions. Questioning whether or not Jesus is a historical figure is no more ridiculous than questioning whether or not Hercules is a historical figure. For centuries people thought Hercules was a real person, but he's really a myth, as common sense should have revealed. The same is the case with Jesus, which means that the arguments attempting to make Doherty look foolish for doubting are idiotic. What, you don't believe in Hercules? You are then to be subjected to endless ridicule, have your credentials and integrity impugned, and your intelligence and sanity questioned. Is this the backwards planet?

As concerns Strobel, as a journalist he is basically trained to aim for a sixth-grade educational level, and his book shows it! His "proofs" are childish in the extreme. Strobel's experts appear fatuous, as they pontificate upon what is obviously a fairytale. Doherty is taking them to task and chiding them for their beliefs and behavior, since it is obvious they should know better, especially after all the scholarship in the past centuries that has shown Jesus to be a myth. In this regard, Doherty is clearly in the right--and well within his rights in writing this book. Nobody else seems motivated to take on these folks in their wild contentions, and for that we should be grateful to Doherty. He's taking a lot of flak for his self-motivated critiques of these deceptive practices and concepts. I doubt any of his critics, hiding behind their "majority rules" safety net, tossing rocks and then running away, have the courage and passion to do anything so important and hazardous as what Doherty does. Also, the fact that a majority believes something rarely proves much except that the majority will believe just about anything. Yet, the critics keep trying to use this fallacious argument! Which shows their lack of intelligence and integrity.

In addition to Doherty's excellent arguments in "Challenging the Verdict" are his insightful commentaries concerning the deplorable mentality behind Christianity. For example, in regard to Christ's crucifixion, so vividly and brutally described by apologist Dr. Metherell, Doherty remarks:

"How can we think of the God of the universe, a God of love--if such a being exists--operating in this fashion, requiring that such a depraved death be inflicted on even a human being, let alone a divine one, choosing blood sacrifice as the means of our salvation? How can we envision a plan for the redemption of humanity that must entail the performance of such a hideous deed?" (p. 160)

It is quite clear that Earl Doherty is a wiser and deeper thinker than the Christian apologists and detractors. These grown men, who appear to be at least somewhat intelligent, yet keep beating this dead horse of Christianity and its myth of the "historical" Jesus, should really be embarrassed at their imbecility and infantilism. Fighting off these pathetic and deluded ignoramuses is exhausting work--thank goodness for Doherty's tirelessness!

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that a review of a book should actually give the reader some idea of what's inside. Hence, unlike with some other reviewers, I have read the book but will not attempt to argue for or against Doherty's conclusions. In fact, the best way to decide for yourself whether this book is worth buying or at least reading is by reading an excerpt from Doherty's website. (Just Google "The Jesus Puzzle" to find the site - it's listed first as of this moment -, enter the site, and look near the bottom of the main menu for his "book review" of "The Case for Christ.") The excerpt is extensive, covering dozens of pages, which is more than enough to give you a very good impression of the book's contents and style. (The rest of the book isn't any different.)

This book is essentially a rebuttal of Strobel's "The Case for Christ," so it would probably be more interesting to the reader if you have some familiarity with that book first. Strobel is an evangelist Christian who attempted to present the evidence for the truth of the Biblical picture of Jesus as if he were presenting a legal case. Naturally, when one presents a case in court, one brings to the stand only experts who will support one's conclusions and asks them questions designed to elicit answers in support of one's case, so it's no surprise that Strobel didn't interview (or least record an interview with) anyone who disagrees with his perspective. Doherty, on the other hand, is an atheist, who holds to the radical idea that Jesus didn't even exist, although for the most part he doesn't base his arguments in this book on this premise. Since in a true court of law there would be the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, Doherty decided to present his answer in the form of a legal proceeding as well, by interspersing his own point-by-point responses to Strobel's expert's opinions with quotes from Strobel's book to expose the interviewee's biases.

Both authors have somewhat extreme views, at odds with most critical NT scholars (even with one of the interviewees of this book). Strobel does not really focus too much on Jesus' existence, which he probably regards as too obvious to challenge, but instead tries to establish the inerrancy of the Biblical accounts and divinity of Jesus. Consequently, his interviewees profess beliefs in miracles, angels, demonic possession, etc., and this Doherty pounces on with relish. Doherty also goes to great lengths to burst the inerrancy bubble by presenting well-known evidence for contradictions among the Gospels, but for those with a more liberal view of Christianity (or a non-theist view of Jesus), these kinds of arguments will not matter that much. Ultimately, the question of the true nature of Jesus, or even his existence, is not conclusively resolved, but then, Doherty is, as he states, merely trying to cast "reasonable doubt" on Strobel's case.

Some have argued that Doherty doesn't present a clear alternative to Strobel's view, and while I do not entirely agree with that characterization, it is not too surprising that he would approach a book with this purpose in that way. Also, Doherty doesn't document his claims as well as he should, although he does cite other scholars and books. For these reasons, I would recommend his other work, "The Jesus Puzzle," as being a far better (more systematic, at least) presentation of his argument.

Earl Doherty's CHALLENGING THE VERDICT is a solid chapter-by-chapter counterpoint to Lee Strobel's THE CASE FOR CHRIST. One may disagree with Doherty on a number of points: sometimes he seems to me to go too far, as when he pushes the notion of an entirely mythical Jesus (although this is not by any means central to the case he builds, and his reasons are interesting to read); at other times, he does not go far enough, as with his failure to respond to Vardiman's absurd "micrographic letters" (against which one should see Richard Carrier's Secular Web article "The Date of the Nativity in Luke"). However, all in all, Doherty's book is compelling, providing the other side of the story for those who are not satisfied with Strobel's one-sided pretence of objective journalism.

Though this book certainly makes for an interesting read, I have some serious concerns regarding its arguments and language. First of all, the book is largely accusatory, rather than persuasive. Doherty, though usually maintaining a civil tongue, slips several times with sarcastic retorts towards Strobel and his "witnesses." Also, a great deal of Doherty's arguments are based on proving that Strobel's account is biased.

Certainly this is true to a point, but I believe there are some misunderstandings. First of all, we all are biased in our views. Doherty is biased in his attack on Strobel, considering the evidence against, rather than the evidence for. I am biased, writing this review. But Strobel, I believe, is less biased than Doherty accuses him of being. I, like many others, was disappointed by his limited selection of witnesses, but it must be taken into consideration that Strobel was an Atheist at the time of his research. He was actively seeking to disprove Christianity. It was after the fact that he collected his evidence and placed it all in one place, so that others could see what he had found.

From this understanding of Strobel, I reach my other disagreement with Doherty. I don't believe that Strobel intended Case For Christ to be an air-tight, fool proof guide to Christianity. Instead, he was a man seeking knowledge. As a Christian, he wanted to share his findings with others. What is presented, then, is merely the evidence required to convince him. For some it is enough. For others, it might be lacking. It is merely a stepping stone for those interested. If you are looking for a more concrete and logical view of Christianity and its claims, I'd suggest C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, and Miracles, also by Lewis. Neither are perfect, but they offer more arguments for Christianity. It is also worth noting that Lewis was very opposed to Christianity until very late in his life. He was a professor at Cambridge, and is well respected in both secular and Christian eyes as a talented writer.

Finally, I believe Doherty missed a great opportunity to prove his arguments when he didn't make an effort to contact authorities and interview them, as Strobel does. He could offer that secular viewpoint that is lacking in Strobel's case, as well as questioning the original "witnesses" themselves. As for the argument that these authorities would not be willing to accept an interview that would paint them in a negative light, I would like to dispute that thought. If they were so unwilling, they would never have spoken with Strobel. And, though it is not applicable to every individual, most Christians are happy to share their views with others, no matter how they will look afterwards. Not that they like being painted in a negative view, but that's one of the key tennants of the Christianity that Doherty seeks to disprove. We have been called to witness. That means to unbelievers, those who will call us names and seek to discredit us, not those who will nod agreeably and smile at every word we say.