It's that time of year again! The time when proselytizing Christians break out their 'Keep Christ in Christmas' bumper stickers and decorations that remind us to 'Remember the reason for the season'. Those of us who know our history and theology might recognize how little legitimate connection Dec. 25th actually has with the birth of Christ, but for many believers it's not about getting things historically correct, it's about paying homage to the baby in the manger. This is, in a sense, what The Case for Christmas attempts to do. Not to explain away the pagan past of Dec. 25th or argue for a religiously symbolic meaning of the Christmas tree, but to contemplate the child in the manger and the stories surrounding him.

Lee Strobel is one of the best known names in Christian apologia today, and he is most famous for his books The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, The Case for Faith, and so on. Strobel is an ex-journalist, he has pastored a couple of megachurches, and recently hosted a TV program called "Faith Under Fire" [1]. The Case for Christmas, published in 2005, is a short, 96-page essay on the "evidence" for Jesus Christ, much of which is taken from The Case for Christ. Does Strobel really build a strong case for Christmas though, or for the Christ child in the bible? Well, let's see what he introduces...

I. Inspirations and Impressions

The introduction sets the tone for the rest of the book in two ways. First, there is the inspirational and emotional story of a poor family who is helped by the community after Strobel publishes a news article on their situation. Much to the author's surprise, however, the family then proceeds to pass on their newfound wealth to others, all in the name of Jesus. Anecdotes like this one introduce each new chapter, and although not all of them are so blatantly religious in nature, most (if not all of them) do have semi-suspicious undertones.

Secondly, Strobel portrays his pre-Christian self as countless other apologists do: an objective, unbiased atheist who yet had an unhappy, empty feeling in his life. This is the same characterization used in his other books, as Strobel attempts to convince us that he is the ideal skeptical journalist, dishing out the tough questions to his interviewees, and perhaps initially hoping he will expose or debunk Christianity. This persona of Strobel will not hold up well though, as there is a clear bias in the selection of interviewees, the questions that are asked, and the answers that are provided.

Of course this book is written as a persuasive piece, but Strobel certainly tries to pretend that he approached Christianity in the most objective and scholarly fashion possible, when his writings only seem to indicate otherwise.

II. Chapter One: The Eyewitness Evidence

In each of the four chapters, Strobel selects at least one main 'expert' or 'scholar' to quiz over the New Testament and Jesus Christ. For the first chapter, we meet Craig Blomberg, a New Testament scholar and the author of a book interestingly titled, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Strobel's purpose in interviewing Blomberg is to determine if any eyewitness accounts exist for Christ's life, and how reliable such records might be. Amazingly, Blomberg admits that "the gospels are anonymous" (p.15), but then goes on to argue that the traditional authorships of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John must be accurate. His argument relies almost entirely on assumptions, questioning why anyone would lie about such minor characters, noting that few competitors have been introduced to challenge authorship, etc.

The gospel of Mark, which scholars consider the earliest of the four, is only first attributed to Mark by Papias in the 2nd century (nearly 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus). Blomberg mentions that this is also the case with the gospel of John, but fails to state that it is the same situation with the gospel of Matthew too. He acts as though Papias' claim that Mark "made no mistake" carries some weight, although Papias was not an eyewitness or contemporary of Christ. To compound the problems, we do not actually have a copy of Papias' original writing, but we only know of these suggested authorships through Eusebius' various quotations of Papias [2]. Reading Papias' words quoted by Eusebius (who lived in the 3rd/4th century), it is not even clear what manuscript Papias might have considered to be the gospel of Mark or that of Matthew, for example.

Contrary to Mr. Blomberg's assertions, there is no general consensus among biblical scholars that accepts the traditional view on authorship of the four gospels. Yet even if there were, two of the alleged authors, Mark and Luke, were not contemporaries of Jesus or eyewitnesses to any of the events described in their gospels. In Colossians 4:14, the apostle Paul lets us know that Luke is a friend of his, and despite their heavy influence in the biblical canon, neither man was one of the twelve disciples of Christ and they never reportedly met him aside from visions/revelations. The issue is the same with Mark. So without even bringing up the dubious authorship of the gospels, we can see that it is extraordinarily doubtful they are all eyewitness accounts, as at least two of them appear to rely on hearsay or second-hand evidence.

Later on in the chapter, Blomberg asserts that "standard scholarly dating" puts the gospel of Mark at about 70 AD, Matthew and Luke around the 80s, and John at the 90s (p.31). While this is true, it is also important to note that of the surviving manuscripts we have found, none can reliably be dated earlier than the second century. P52, a fragment of the gospel of John, dates to 125 AD [3]. Even if most scholars agreed that the gospel authors wrote down their stories during the mid-1st century as the books themselves claim, the fact that we have found no copies any earlier than the second century - right about the time Papias wrote about the authorship of the gospels - should give one pause.

This does not give Blomberg or Strobel even the slightest pause though, as they ridiculously attempt to date the gospels even further back than 70 AD. Blomberg relies on the assumption that Acts does not include the death of Paul because it was written before the event occured. This, he speculates, would place Acts no later than about 62 AD, meaning that the gospel of Luke is even earlier, translating on up to Mark, who borrows material from Luke. When Blomberg finishes his absurd speculation, he states that the gap has been narrowed down to two years between the gospel events and the gospels themselves (p.35). Exactly where he pulls some of these connections from is unknown to me, and no evidence or sources are given in the book. Sadly, this is the way things will continue to go for much of the remaining chapter.

More Theories and Speculation

Strobel questions Blomberg on the Q or Quelle document too, which is a hypothetical earlier source that the authors of Matthew and Luke may have used in writing their gospels. This idea was formulated by comparing the texts of Matthew and Luke, and noting several strong similarities of writing in the two gospels that are not found in Mark. However, even though Blomberg recognizes that Q is merely a collection of Jesus' sayings, and that there is mostly just speculation over its contents, he acts as though it would only be further evidence for the biblical Christ. He cites Luke 7:18-23 and Matthew 11:2-6 to illustrate his opinion that Q would contain "an awareness of Jesus' ministry of miracles" (p.23).

Another claim made by Strobel and Blomberg is that the title 'son of man' is divine in its origin. Blomberg quotes Daniel 7:13-14, which tells of a vision of "one like a son of man". Is this really an indication of divinity though, or could it simply be one of self-reflection? Numerous other Old Testament passages make reference to a son of man, such as Numbers 23:19, Psalms 8:4-5, Isaiah 5:12, and Ezekiel 2:1-9, all using the term to basically mean a human being or an actual son of a man - divinity is not implied anywhere.

Perhaps one of the best questions Strobel asks is concerning the gospel of Matthew. Why would Matthew, who was an alleged eyewitness and disciple of Jesus, use material from the gospel of Mark, when Mark was not an eyewitness or a disciple? Blomberg's response is that Mark was supposedly using Peter as his source, and Peter was a special member of Christ's 'inner circle' - so special that apparently Matthew preferred to use second-hand information from Mark regarding Peter's testimony, instead of giving his own account to corroborate the other gospels. This is a perfect example of some of the imaginative thinking that apologists have to employ to defend their traditional, literal view of scripture.

Blomberg's theory assumes that Mark did use Peter's account for his gospel, although this view has come under fire recently from many critics. Robert Miller notes a few discrepancies between the geography of the Galilean area in Mark's gospel and what a native like Peter should probably have known:

It also does not seem to make much sense that Matthew, even if he had known of Peter's association with the gospel of Mark, would've preferred to use another source rather than his own personal observations. Of course, Blomberg's typical reply to this is the equivalent of saying, 'things back then weren't what they are now', yet he gives no examples of similar practices applied to other works of antiquity. So perhaps we should just take his wild assertions and speculations with a grain of salt.

III. Chapter Two: The Scientific Evidence

Chapter two focuses on archaeological evidence in support of the four gospels, and Strobel's expert for this is John McRay, a professor of New Testament and archaeology, as well as the author of a book entitled Archaeology and the New Testament (p.39). Respectably, McRay notes that archaeology can only be helpful in determining the historical context of the gospels, it cannot validate the more supernatural claims such as the resurrection or Christ's divinity, just as the historical existence of Troy does not prove that the more fantastic events in The Iliad actually took place. However, the professor does fall into a few of these traps during his interview with Strobel.

For the first bit of archaeological evidence, McRay brings up a ruler named Lysanias, a tetrarch of Abilene as Luke 3:1 says. He claims that until the discovery of a temple inscription, scholars thought Luke was incorrect about Lysanias being a tetrarch. Were scholars really so adamant about it though? Josephus' Antiquities and Wars both include reference to Lysanias as a tetrarch [5], and Josephus' works have been known to us for centuries. Why would scholars have overlooked and opposed such evidence?

Secondly, McRay mentions a reference to 'politarchs' that is made in Acts 17:6. The term appeared nowhere in any Greek literature, and so its origin was doubted until the discovery of an inscription on a second century gateway found in 1835. 1835? How much of a scientific consensus could have opposed the bible's mention of politarchs at that time? By today's standards, 19th century archaeologists were more like adventurers, treasure hunters, and grave robbers than scientists. People in that era were far more likely to be religious than they were to be skeptical or anti-religious, but McRay and Strobel might prefer you believe that there's always been an academic conspiracy against Christianity.

Nitpicking aside, what would it ultimately matter if the four gospels had some historical fact to them? As McRay already pointed out, it would not confirm that the rest of the stories are also accurate. Yet Strobel asserts that if an author like Luke could go to such "painstaking" lengths to get all the details historically correct, there is little to no reason to doubt that author's other claims, referring specifically to the divinity of Christ and his resurrection. How painstaking would it have been for Luke to achieve such accuracy though, even if a couple decades had passed since the events he depicted?

Suppose that you wrote a religious text, including details of your modern day life, about the city you live in, the leaders in your state or country, and noteworthy events in your general vicinity. You also claim, however, that a friend of yours is the son of God, and he died for our sins and was resurrected in your very area. Without assuming whether you were intentionally lying or misled by your friend, would it be reasonable for someone to conclude that you were right about your friend, simply because you accurately wrote down other things that occured in your own time? Troy was a historical place, remember, but that does not mean The Iliad is a historical work.

Nazareth and Crucifixion

As Strobel explains, the issue of Nazareth's non-existence in antiquity is not a new challenge to Christianity. Dr. McRay claims that Nazareth was a very small town, and states that there are tombs found on the outskirts of it, as well as a list in Aramaic which says that one family was relocated to Nazareth (p.49). No sources are provided though. The fact is that Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament, it is not in the list of twelve towns and six villages in Joshua 19:10-16, nor is it mentioned in the list of 63 towns in the Talmud, and although Josephus cited 45 cities in Galilee, no Nazareth made his list. Interestingly, even the Pauline epistles and other New Testament books are silent on Nazareth, with the only references to the town being made in the gospels and the book of Acts. There is also suggestion that when Jesus is called a Nazarene, it is a mistranslation or misunderstanding of the word 'Nazarite' (Numbers 6:1-21), which is a term for a Jew who takes an ascetic vow, to consecrate himself before God.

Lastly, Strobel calls on the testimony of Edwin Yamauchi and Bruce Metzger, to make bold assertions regarding the reliability of the New Testament, without providing any sources to check against their claims. Yamauchi actually states that if we look even just at non-Christian evidence, we can conclude that Christ was crucified under the reign of Pontius Pilate. The wording of his assertion is probably a reference to Tacitus' famous mention of 'Christus' in the Annals, a work that written in approximately 116 AD - and the particular passage dealing with Christus' crucifixion is not cited by any Christian scholars or historians until the 5th century (for more on this, see the article Did Jesus Really Exist?).

Metzger, the popular author and professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, argues that there is an overwhelming amount of manuscripts for the gospels and that the New Testament is "99.5 percent free of textual discrepancies, with no major Christian doctrines in doubt" (p.53). Like Yamauchi, he gives us no sources to verify, but he is partially right. There are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts for the New Testament, but some of the earliest complete copies, like the Codex Sinaiticus, do indeed omit passages that have long been important elements of the Christian faith, such as the story of the adulteress. As for the textual discrepancies, what of the glaring differences between biblical translations? In the King James bible, unicorns are referenced in several passages, such as Job 39:9-10, Psalm 22:21, and Isaiah 34:7 - yet in newer translations like the NIV, the word 'unicorn' is replaced in each passage with 'wild oxen'. Metzger probably does not consider the King James bible to be the most accurate translation, but if such mistakes (the difference between fantasy and reality!) can be made in relatively recent history, who can say they were not possible in the first century?

IV. Chapter Three: The Profile Evidence

Now Strobel moves on to arguments for the divinity of Christ, featuring D.A. Carson as the interviewee for the chapter. Carson is yet another professor of New Testament, and the author of numerous books, including The Gagging of God (p.56). When asked what he considers to be the best testament that Christ is God, Carson notes Jesus' ability to forgive sins. What evidence does he introduce in support of this monumentous ability? The bible. Yes, that same bible that we have been debating throughout this review, and which Strobel is endeavoring to establish as a reliable document. The bible is good evidence that what the bible says of Christ's divinity is true. Well done, Carson.

Following up on this, Strobel presents his interviewee with several juvenile questions about omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence (i.e., how could Jesus be omnipresent if he couldn't be in two places at once?), questions that only some of the most unimaginative biblical literalists would consider tough or theologically challenging. Carson replies with several suggestions for resolving these issues, but most are pure conjecture, elaborations of how people dealt with these questions in the past. What was human about Christ? What was divine? What did it mean for Christ to empty himself, as Philippians 2 reports? Whatever the opinion, you can be sure it is total speculation, as it has still not been sufficiently demonstrated that Christ existed at all, was crucified, or that the gospels were accurate depictions of his life.

Compared to the previous two chapters, the third one is far more theological and less concentrated on 'evidence'. Perhaps by this point Strobel felt he had adequately established the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament, and so he proceeded to focus more on connecting the historical character to the biblical view of Christ as the son of God. It is stated by Strobel that the earliest traditions about Jesus, "unquestionably safe from legendary development" (p.63), point to Christ viewing himself as God. Unquestionably safe, and yet no further explanation is given? It may be that this certainty is simply a conviction that Strobel feels, but for useful purposes, he would do well to dive into it at least a tad.

V. Chapter Four: The Fingerprint Evidence

The last chapter of The Case for Christmas centers on the proposition that Christ is the messiah of Judaism. Louis Lapides, a Californian pastor and former Jew, is the fourth and final expert Strobel consults (p.69). From the inception of the interview, Lapides makes it clear that he was taught little of the messiah or of Jesus, and he feared that Christians were nothing but an anti-Semitic sect out to destroy Jews. He claims to have turned to drugs and other religions (one of which is allegedly Satanism) after becoming disillusioned with Judaism during the Vietnam war. Then one day he is challenged by an evangelizing pastor to read 'prophecies' in the bible that, in his opinion, refer to Jesus. Long story short, Lapides winds up converting to Christianity.

The prophecies that supposedly hooked Lapides are fairly common examples given by Christians as evidence that Jesus is the messiah. Isaiah 53, the famous chapter of the suffering servant, is interpretted by Christians as reference to Jesus Christ, especially with statements like, "he was pierced for our transgressions" (verse 5). However, many Jews view the suffering servant as the nation of Israel itself, not as Jesus. This is confirmed by Isaiah 41:8, and traditionally, any reference to a servant is intended to represent Israel the nation or a prophet of God. There is little connection between the messiah and the suffering servant, and why try to pretend that scriptures like Isaiah 53 have some double-meaning, when there is nothing to suggest that they do?

Are there instances where Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies for the messiah? In Isaiah 11:12, it says the messiah will unite all Jews to return to Israel. Ezekiel 37:27-28 states that the messiah will build a third temple in Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:4 indicates that during the Messianic Era, no nations will go to war, nor will they even train for it. Isaiah 11:9 tells us that everyone will know God during the messiah's reign, "as the waters cover the sea". Ezekiel 37:24 says that all God's people will both observe and obey his commandments in those times as well. These are only a few examples of how Christ didn't quite fit the messiah mould.

Fascinatingly, Lapides practically accuses the Jews of being ignorant of their own scriptures and ignorant of the prophecies that relate to Christ. When Strobel asks him why more Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ, Lapides blames the countermissionary organizations and rabbis who attempt to strengthen the faith of Jews against Christian influence. Lapides remarks, "Do you think the rabbi just brought up an objection that Christianity has never heard before? I mean, scholars have been working on this for hundreds of years!" (p.81). I wonder if Lapides has ever thought of how many centuries Judaism has had to contemplate the claims of Christianity and the objections that Christians raise.

Probabilities and Yet More Assumptions

Next, Strobel and Lapides are so sure of themselves that they go on to calculate the odds of one person fulfilling at least eight prophecies. Apparently they have never heard of the many other men who claimed to be the messiah and each had their own followings, like Judas the Galilean, the Samaritan prophet, Herod Agrippa, and Theudas [6]. When prophecies are as vague as those found in the Old Testament, it is very easy to interpret them a number of different ways, as people tend to do today with the so-called prophecies of Nostradamus. But ultimately, even eight fulfilled prophecies is no good if the candidate does not fulfill ALL the rest of them too.

Lapides and Strobel then go on to address various other objections to their beloved prophecies. When it is suggested that the gospel authors might have fabricated some details, Lapides tries to say that other contemporary witnesses would have kept them in check. Of course, this assumes that 1) the gospel authors intended to write purely historical fact as opposed to allegory or 'historical fiction', that 2) the authors lived at the time of the events they wrote down and had contemporaries who might have proof-read their work, and 3) that the gospels themselves remained open to additional input before their finalization, and were not kept as closely guarded secrets by their authors.

The discussion then turns to the idea that the authors would not have allowed themselves to be martyred over tales they had fabricated. This assumes that the authors were in on the lie, but what if Jesus had simply misled them? Nonetheless, there is no solid information about the deaths of the gospel authors, just as there is also no solid information about their identities. The martyrdoms of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as all the other apostles, are only found in the bible, gnostic gospels, or church traditions - there is no extra-biblical evidence for any of them receiving a martyr's death.

VI. The Conclusion for Christmas

Strobel wraps up his book with a few, brief extra points on the empty tomb, the 'stolen body theory', and the holiday which you often forget he has titled this research after. Despite his insistence that the empty tomb is evidence of Christ's resurrection, Strobel does not even bother to cite non-biblical support that the tomb was ever empty to begin with. Probably because he knows, just as well as you and I, that we don't even know the location of Christ's supposed tomb, if the character ever did exist. As for the stolen body theory, Christians love to mock it as if it shows the weak nature of the arguments against Christianity, but the theory actually originates in the bible itself, in Matthew 28:13. It is true that a few books have been written on the theory that Christ's disciples stole his body from the tomb, but there is little evidence that the idea has ever been widely believed by anyone. The bible may say it was invented to fool people in the first century, but such a claim is still wanting of evidence.

In conclusion, Strobel predictably states that Christmas is "based on a historical reality" (p.90), even though he admitted earlier in the first chapter that the Dec. 25th date was decided by Pope Julius I in 385 AD to "challenge the pagan celebration of the Roman god Saturnalia, which was characterized by social disorder and immorality" (p.20). With The Case for Christmas, Strobel has made his case for keeping Christmas as a symbolic celebration of Jesus Christ, even if neither the bible nor history support the association. I do not think that any reasonable court or jury would give Strobel the verdict he desires though, as his evidence and theories are full of countless holes.

I am not going to be the one to tell you how to celebrate your Christmas, but I will tell you that everyone deserves the right to celebrate it as he/she sees fit. People like Lee Strobel protest the secularization of Christmas, in all its materialism with characters like Santa and Frosty - only so that they can push their religion into a spotlight that it never initially had any claim to. They say they are representing the "true meaning" of Christmas, while they suck out all the fun and festivities that help to make it a holiday for those of different religions or of no religion. If you want to put up a nativity scene in your front yard, go right ahead. But Christmas is a holiday that is personal to more than just Christians, and that is something that Strobel, and those like him, sadly just don't seem to understand or care about.

1. Anonymous. Lee Strobel - Biography. Wikipedia. Retrieved Dec. 18th, 2008.
2. Just, Felix. (2006) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3. Catholic Resources. Retrieved Dec. 18th, 2008.
3. Anonymous. (2004) New Testament Manuscripts. Religion Facts. Retrieved Dec. 18th, 2008.
4. Miller, Robert. (1992) Complete Gospels.
5. Josephus. Antiquities XIX. 5,1; Jewish War II, 12:8
6. Lendering, Jona. Messiah: overview of articles. Livius. Retrieved Dec. 18th, 2008.