05.28.09
The Case Against Lee Strobel
Answering another email question, this time about the occasional asides I’ve made here against Lee Strobel.
Let me say this: the works of Lee Strobel are one of the things that crystallized my atheism. As a Christian, as an argument for Jesus/Christianity/theism, I think he has absolutely no credibility; as a person, I think he has absolutely no scruples. Here’s my case:
Please understand that I say this because I think Christians should put their best arguments forward. I think it’s unfair, for example, to tar all Christians with having to defend Fred Phelps, and I bristle when atheists suggest that there’s no difference between Phelps and any other Christian. Of course there is.
So let me be clear: I do not think Christianity is false because Strobel is a liar. I do, however, think that Christians should be aware of the fact that Strobel is a liar, and I think that Christians should not commend his books to seekers.
Now, where’s my proof? Bear with me — this will take a while.
First, turn to page 101 of your copy of The Case For Christ (or click on this link). On that page, Strobel is attempting to answer one of the most common objections to the historicity of the Gospels — the conflict between the date of the Nativity as set forth in Luke versus Matthew. The problem is this:
Luke 2:1-2 claims that Jesus was born while Quirinus was governor of Syria, and pursuant to a census that we know from the historian Josephus could have only taken place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew 2:1-3 claims that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive — possibly two years before he died. (See also Matthew 2:7-16).
Since Quirinius was not governor until 6 CE, and Herod died in 4 BCE, these two passages seem to contradict each other. (I note also that Josephus dates the census, under Quirinius, to 6 CE.)
Here’s how Strobel attempts to resolve the problem. He posits that there was either a second Quirinius, who was proconsul in Syria from 11 BCE to the death of Herod, or that Quirinius was governor on two subsequent occasions, one of which coincided with the rule of Herod the Great.
So far, that’s pretty reasonable. But what’s Strobel’s evidence? Again, let’s quote him directly, from the bottom of page 101:
“An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call ‘micrographic’ letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod.”
The problem is that Jerry Vardaman is not an “eminent archaeologist.” He’s a complete and utter crackpot — described by other professionals as “insane” — who fabricated a story beyond all reasonable belief. Go ahead; click the link, or you can read my summary below.
Vardaman claims to have found coins from the Roman empire with teeny-tiny letters inscribed upon them that are otherwise invisible to the naked eye. In these ‘microletters’ — seen only by Vardaman — we find the reference to the second Quirinius (and all sorts of other crackpot claims).
Now, there are a few obvious problems with Vardaman’s claims:
1. Vardaman has never published any of his accounts in any peer-reviewed journal, or ever subjected his work on ‘microletters’ to any critical review of any kind by any other party.
2. Vardaman has never produced any of the coins that he claims contain micrographic letters! Nor has he produced, say, photo enlargements of the coins. Instead, he’s produced hand-written drawings of what he says the coins look like!
3. Comically, those drawings of coins dating back to the first century CE contain the letter ‘J’ — even though the ‘J’ was not invented for another nine centuries! This is like finding a painting said to be a Rembrandt but noticing that the subject is wearing a digital watch and eating a bag of Doritos!
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other obvious errors in Vardaman’s so-called “scholarship;” go read it for yourself.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: perhaps this is just sloppy work by Strobel. That would certainly serve not to commend his work, but it would not warrant my calling him a liar. I agree.
However, in late 2003, on “The Bible Answer Man” program, Lee Strobel as the guest was confronted about the Vardaman claims. In that format, Strobel said merely that he had not heard of the criticism and would check it out. (Unfortunately, I cannot find a link to that audio; Strobel has also been confronted about these claims online dating back to 2004 parse Richard Carrier.)
More than two years later, on December 10, 2005, Lee Strobel repeated the same ‘Vardaman’ claims while appearing on the John Kasich program on FOX to discuss the so-called “War on Christmas” before an obviously very friendly audience. Strobel called Vardaman’s magic-Js-microletters-invisible-two-Quirinius-coins as “the strongest example of archaeological confirmation” that the Bible is true. Seriously. Go click the link.
Now, that statement is a lie. It’s a lie that any reasonable researcher — which Strobel claims to be — would have recognized as a lie from the moment he was told about it. And it’s a lie that Strobel was aware of in fact for more than two years after he was asked about it on “The Bible Answer Man.” It’s a claim so indefensible that it arose the ire of the folks at the Real Clear Theology blog — fellow conservative Christian apologists.
And that is why I think Christians should avoid commending Lee Strobel to anyone.
Worse, Strobel’s entire schtick is that of a journalist. Take a look at how Strobel describes himself on the jacket of The Case For Christ:
As a seasoned journalist with a Yale law background, Strobel systematically tracks down his leads and asks the blunt, tough questions you would want to ask — questions that can make or break the Christian faith. He refuses contrived, simplistic answers. … The Case for Christ reads like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But, it’s not fiction. It’s a riveting journey to the truth about the most remarkable event in history: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And it’s a revealing, personal testimony to his power to transform people yet today — even the most case-hardened, cynical journalist.
(emphasis added)
And if you’ve ever heard Strobel speak, you know he milks this angle for all it’s worth. “I ask the tough questions,” claims Strobel.
My point in this post is simply that Strobel’s rhetoric does not match reality; the Vardaman example shows this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Is it conceivable, in the least, that Strobel asked even one moderately difficult question here? (Let me offer a suggestion: “Hey, can I see your magic coin with the invisible letters?” — that would have been a nice starting point!)
Of course not.
The Vardaman example shows exactly the kind of approach Strobel takes to these “interviews.” They are not the “critical” “hard-hitting” questions of a “cynical” journalist — they are the exact opposite; they’re uncritical, unquestioning, sycophantic suck-ups to people who share only the very narrow ideological point Strobel wants to advance in the first place.
Now, I guess people enjoy Strobel’s one-sided “journalism” — where he asks the easiest, most leading questions of cherry-picked experts who support (but do not oppose) his narrow view of the supposed “evidence.” Strobel is certainly a very wealthy man; he’s sold millions of books and has his own TV show. But I find him to be thoroughly disingenuous.
Are there other examples? Absolutely. The Case For A Creator is one big series of lies, from the very first pages where Strobel uncritically repeats Jonathan Wells’ utterly false claims that biology textbooks today teach that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (see pp. 20-21) to the chapter on Behe that asks no critical questions (despite the fact that Behe, under actual cross-examination in Kitzmiller v. Dover, was completely shredded), it’s all vintage Strobel. The chapter on Jonathan Wells, for example, has Strobel asking a “question” that paraphrases a Discovery Institute press release almost word-for-word!
Again, all I can say is that if you’re using Strobel as an outreach tool, you are going to get burned. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Strobel is simply not a reporter doing “interviews.” He’s a propagandist feeding leading questions to sympathetic supporters who are going to give Strobel the predetermined, agreed-upon-in-advance answers that he’s seeking. Maybe that’s useful if you want to “fire up the faithful,” but it isn’t going to convince a skeptic.
And that’s the Case Against Lee Strobel.
Barry said,
May 28, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Actually it is time to call for Strobel to produce the tapes from his interviews. They read very much like fictionalized history(meaning not journalistic) to me. Too bad there isn’t a credible, thoughtful Christianity agency to test the authenticity of the books’ interviews.
Ben said,
May 29, 2009 at 1:21 am
EC,
I don’t mean to be your keeper or anything, so I’m not going to harass you about this endlessly, but I don’t think you have a sufficient case here. If “asking the tough questions” meant exactly the same thing to every honest person, then you’d think everyone that says they do that would all agree. I’m sure you know that’s not the case. People often have their narrow of view of what constitutes critical thinking. That doesn’t make them liars. It just means they are coming from a different background than you or me and things seem different to them. To his credit, I’ve seen Strobel ask *popular* tough questions (and he ends up accepting horrible answers, but still), but I can’t help but notice you’ve picked out something rather obscure to bust him on. How many Christians even know about the Quirinius thing? The most likely scenario is that he heard the objection, but got distracted with something else before he looked into it. Who knows, maybe he didn’t really think the objection was credible. I’m sure Strobel has heard all sorts of horrible things about just about every Christian apologist he’s ever interviewed, so having yet one more source be called an insane crank is just par for the course. It seems Christian confidence snowballs into a sort of “red carpet” epistemology where they end up believing that God is laying out for them a perfect case to confirm their faith. They get enough confidence against the detractors and the objections start seeming less and less important. Whatever validation they had is so totally gold and God wants them to think just that. And they feel great spreading the joy. It’s uber confirmation bias.
Obviously Strobel has come to accept the ideology of the people he interviews and maybe he can even lift questions directly from their websites. That doesn’t really mean anything. If I interviewed an atheist, I might well ask a common tough question that’s on their website. That doesn’t make me uncritical if I ask a variety of other questions.
Perhaps you and I might think that the ID case got “shredded” in cross examination in the court battle, but obviously ID proponents don’t have to be liars to walk away with a different impression as is so often the case in just about every debate since the dawn of debate.
I’ve seen Strobel on Faith Under Fire videos and he comes across as much more honest than he does in his books. Since he actually has interviews with people that don’t agree with him and thus you can see how he interacts on those terms. I’ve been impressed. You can see his answer to why his books are one sided on the Friendly Atheist’s website (link). But, who knows. Maybe I’m wrong. I think Barry is probably on the right track to see who is more correct. Until then, at best, I would call your case against Strobel just a hypothesis.
All in all Strobel’s positions are so typical of popular Christian culture that it doesn’t make sense for them to find a different spokesperson. Just show why he is wrong. That’s all you have to do. Calling him a liar isn’t helpful in my opinion.
Ben
Chiefley said,
August 29, 2009 at 8:38 am
Ben,
I have to difffer with you on the ID problem. Jonathan Wells is no authority on any aspect of science and should not be quoted in a book that claims to be objective journalism. Furthermore, his arguments are extremely dishonest in that he uses every deceitful device one can imagine in his proposition.
There is no scientific debate on the basic notions of the modern theory of evolution. It is so evident to thinking people that the mainstream denominations that represent some 80% of Christians worldwide have social statements embracing science and particularly citing the Theory of Evolution as being the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.
I know that Christian denominations are not the authoritative sources for scientific conclusions, but even these denominations are unwilling to ‘lie for Jesus’. For example, the Episcopalians:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm
The Presbyterians, UCC, United Methodists, ELCA Lutherans, and the Roman Catholic Church are all highly critical of claims put forth by Creationists and ID Proponents such as Jonathan Wells (who is a lawyer by the way). In fact, the Methodists recently passed a resolution that goes as far as calling ID intellectually dishonest and specifically recommends teaching it in any high school curriculum.
If The Case For Creation is anything like Strobel’s other attempts at ‘journalism’, then he needs to be called out as a complete charlatan. With that book, Strobel is practicing a more measured, but no less dishonest version of Ann Coulter journalism.
Chiefley said,
August 29, 2009 at 8:44 am
Correction: I meant to say…..
In fact, the Methodists recently passed a resolution that goes as far as calling ID intellectually dishonest and specifically recommends *NOT* teaching it in any high school curriculum.
Ben said,
August 30, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Chiefley,
I believe it is a fallacy of reification to say that a “dishonest argument” makes the person who uses it dishonest themselves. Any conservative creationist who at all engages the scientific community is going to get the label “liar” in 2.1 seconds if we allow so narrow an understanding of human psychology. You’d have to call virtually ALL of them liars and I just don’t think that’s reasonable as though there’s no evidence they actually believe in what they are saying. People back themselves into many twisted justifications to defend beliefs they honestly hold and they don’t realize they are doing it no matter how bizarrely far it may go. I’m sure there are some genuine creationist liars out there, but probably no more or less than their evolutionist counter parts on average. Perhaps those ratios are not equal (I have no idea), but the bottom line is we don’t call people liars unless we can prove it. And them just using arguments we don’t approve of, or lame tactics is not good enough proof to demonstrate that conclusion. We can point out their errors easily if their arguments are so dubious while avoiding the ugly politics of the “liar, liar” game. It is lazy thinking on our part to so quickly compartmentalize people who disagree with us in this fashion and it makes us look bad when most creationists are going to know full well that they actually believe in what they are saying.
Ben
Ben said,
May 29, 2009 at 1:22 am
Oops, I guess that link didn’t work.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/01/10/lee-strobel-answers-your-questions-part-2/
James F. McGrath said,
May 29, 2009 at 3:28 pm
The attempt to find another slot for Quirinius that would harmonize Matthew and Luke doesn’t work.
Here’s a link to a page connected with my historical Jesus class, on the subject of the census under Quirinius and the contradiction between Matthew and Luke (and Luke and Luke) on the date:
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/quirinius.htm
Nathaniel said,
May 29, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Andrew,
I think you’re way, way overstating your case for Strobel’s being a liar.
Was Vardaman a crackpot? Looks like it. (He’s been dead quite some time now, so nobody can quiz him.) But Strobel, as I recall, never claimed to have interviewed Vardaman; he interviewed someone else who mentioned Vardaman. (If I’m wrong on this, please correct me.)
Now, if Strobel interviewed someone he considered to be an expert, and he got information from that expert — we can even stipulate for the sake of the argument that it was misinformation — he presumably is going to trust his expert unless he personally reads a criticism by a similarly credentialed expert.
So here’s the key question: why should you assume that Strobel believes there is serious doubt about the Vardaman claims? It can’t simply be that he’s been told about Carrier’s article. Even if someone said to him, “Some guy with a bachelor’s degree has written an article on the Internet saying that the scholar you interviewed quoted somebody else who got it badly wrong,” would it be reasonable to expect him to take it seriously? These days, “someone on the Internet disagrees with you” can’t really be all that surprising or even interesting.
That Vardaman was wrong does seem established. That Strobel is a liar requires several further assumptions that you haven’t even tried to substantiate.
Andrew said,
June 2, 2009 at 10:00 am
Nathaniel,
Did you visit the Real Clear Theology blog link? (It’s up there hyperlinked from the December 2005 FOX News story.) Strobel isn’t just quoting McRay in his book; he’s actively repeating the underlying falsehood in public fora, in such a way that makes other conservative Christians uncomfortable (to put it lightly).
Ben said,
June 2, 2009 at 10:19 am
Andrew,
That’s interesting. Are any Christians calling Strobel out on it?
Ben
Nathaniel said,
June 2, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Andrew,
Why wouldn’t he? He doesn’t know it’s false.
I do think some Christians who have access to him should tell him; in fact, given the big deal that you and others are making about it, I think that’s fairly important.
But I don’t know who does.
Do you?
DagoodS said,
May 31, 2009 at 8:34 am
Ben and Nathaniel,
O.K., you don’t like the word “liar.” What other word do you propose? What other word captures either Strobel’s misrepresentation of his own intention and process OR the gross aberration of even mentioning the coin itself?
Let’s look at “The Who,” “The What,” “The How,” and “The Result.”
The Who
Strobel is no blogger posting some entry after his daytime job of computer programming. He is no teenage You-Tube apologist. This is a guy who is SELLING A BOOK! He is making money off the production of his product. He represents it to be of a certain quality, and we rely upon that representation when we spend our money upon it. Choosing to spend on our money on him, rather than some other author.
How does he describe himself?
Lee Strobel in his Introduction: “…so I launched an all-out investigation into the facts surrounding the case for Christianity.
“Setting aside my self-interests and prejudices as best I could, I read books, interviewed experts, asked questions, analyzed history, explored archeology, studied ancient literature and for the first time in my life, picked apart the Bible verse by verse.
“I plunged into the case with more vigor than any story I had ever pursued. I applied the training I had received at Yale Law School, as well as my experience as legal affairs editor of the Chicago Tribune. …
“I have crisscrossed the country from Minnesota to Georgia, from Virginia to California to elicit their expert opinions, to challenge them with the objections I had when I was a skeptic, to force them to defend their position with solid data and cogent arguments and to test them with the very questions that you might ask if given the opportunity.” [emphasis added]
I’m expecting at least as good reporting as…say…from a reporter employed by National Enquirer. I expect at least some cursory investigation of these facts, as Strobel claims he will do. Why is it Christians have LOWER expectations from their own than they would expect the reporters in a gossip rag?
Look, if a friend offers to fix my leaky sink; I am not terribly disappointed upon failure. But if some plumber puts themselves out as thorough, competent and proficient, and I PAY THEM FOR IT—I expect my sink to be repaired! Christians, apparently hiring a Christian plumber, shrug it off as “acceptable” if they can’t even do with other plumbers would do.
Strobel sets himself up as being able to interview the experts we can’t. Look at the people he as talked to: Metzger, Wallace, Craig, Wells, Bloomberg, Mooreland. Can you get access to these people? Can I? Of course not!
So we are supposed to rely upon Strobel and his “skepticism” when asking questions we would like to ask? Then why doesn’t he ask the really hard questions?
The What
We need to be clear on these “coins.”
First, there are no coins. None. None we can look at, none we can determine Vardaman was referring to, none we can verify. No coins.
Second, there are no pictures of coins. Again, nothing for us to verify. Nothing to catalog. Nothing to do any of our research.
Nathaniel, I found it amusingly ironic when you made reference to the common occurrence of “someone on the internet disagrees with you.” You are right—this broad generalization happens all the time with little force or effect.
Yet this is EXACTLY what Strobel is doing! Why would you accept from Strobel what you wouldn’t accept from any internet hack? He says, “Some expert claims there are coins.” Nothing more. Nothing substantive. Nothing much beyond, “Someone somewhere claims something. So I am right.”
[I also found it amusing you offhandedly disparage Carrier’s credentials, yet apparently begrudgingly agree Carrier is correct over the Ph.D-qualified McRay. Apparently even “Bachelor-degreed” internet article writers can figure out what Strobel, with his “Yale Law experience” and all his years of reporting could not!]
Thirdly, Vardaman apparently never claims the coins show a second Quirinius!
So…we have no coins…and even the claim the coins (we don’t have) say something—the person doesn’t make the claim!
We have established our author claims to be a “crack reporter” far more experienced than average Joes like me. A person who will, with his access to such experts (unavailable to me) will be asking the questions and investigating for me. A person who would like me to purchase his result as it is worthy of my time and money.
And a flaming, incompetent claim about coins that is wrong, wrong, wrong. The only question left is—did he know?
The How
Again, this is no internet blog. This is a published book. Rows and Rows of “The Case For…” can be seen in Christian bookstores. (A humorous side note. At my local Christian bookstore, their overflow for Strobel’s books happened to spill into the “Fiction” section. If I had a camera-phone I could have taken a picture of “The Case for a Creator” under a sign saying “Fiction”!)
Strobel has to set up a time to interview these people, prepare his questions, travel, take notes or record it, review it, write it, edit it, send it through the editors, and offer it to the publisher. This isn’t a Sunday morning slap-together, like this comment. This is a process.
And part of the process is to weed out what parts of the interview to include. Editing. Strobel even acknowledges the process:
Lee Strobel on the Census: “…I pulled out my notes and got ready to challenge McRay on with three long-standing riddles that I thought archeology might have some trouble explaining.”
Ben, you may be right that most Christians don’t know about the Quirinius thing. We are not talking about “most Christians.” We are talking about Strobel. Our “ace reporter” in the field. The guy who is telling us, “Rely on ME to know what questions to ask.”
The first “riddle” is the Census date conflict between Matthew and Luke. [And frankly, if Strobel had enough wherewithal to know about the conflict but NOT know about the proposed solution of Two Quirinius governorships, I wonder seriously where he even learned of the conflict!]
McRay coughs out the coin atrocity as indicating Two Quiriniuses. And how does Strobel respond?
Lee Strobel after hearing Two Quiriniuses on coins: “That sounded a bit speculative to me, but rather than bog down the conversation, I decided to mentally file this issue away for further analysis later.”
Good for him. He BRAGS he is going to do more research. And does he? Let’s see:
Lee Strobel: “When I did some additional research, I found that Sir William Ramsey, the late archeologist and professor at both Oxford and Cambridge, had come up with a similar theory…
Whoops! What about the coins? They are not referred to again! Think about this process:
1. Strobel goes into interview with questions.
2. Strobel hears about coins.
3. Strobel indicates he wants to do more research.
4. Strobel does more research.
5. Stroblel later writes his book, including the claim about the coins.
Where is the research on the coins? He deliberately includes the information on the coins, to the exclusion of other things McRay said, he indicates he is questioning the facts underlying the claim (remember he said he would in his own introduction) and yet he never once bothers to…oh…I don’t know…look for a coin? Or a Picture? Or even a drawing? Or even a reference?
Either Strobel is lying about his own qualifications in doing this type of work, or he is lying about the coins. One or the other.
The Result
I would think Christians would be ashamed of Strobel. Treat him as the apologetical equivalent of Fred Phelps. But they don’t. Why not?
First, because 95% of those who read his books already believe it anyway, and will never question a single word written. Not one. (A completely made-up statistic, but I hope you get the point.) Think about if you were selling a product and the vast majority would lap it with never a complaint, never a warranty claim, never a request for a return? Rolling in the bucks!
On the rare occasion a skeptic confronts them, Christians brush off the skeptic. Maybe Strobel got one fact wrong, but golly-gee, there are so many other facts, what is one in the big picture? Besides, Christians know they are right—they have “truth”—what does one inconsistency matter?
They excuse Strobel. Poor chap, can’t be expected to get EVERYTHING right at $9.95 a pop! Can’t be expected to do the most basic research. [Yet curiously many Christians complain Darwin was wrong because he didn’t know all the things science discovered in the 150 years after he published!]
Strobel has no fear. Ben is right; Strobel talks to a sympathetic audience. An extremely sympathetic audience. The one or two complaints from skeptics are laughable. ‘Cause Amazon writes him a check every month…
Finally, a note of personal bias. Because we all have them, and it is illuminating to know where I am coming from.
When I was deconverting, I was struck by how many extremely intelligent people hold to Christianity. I thought, “If it is so wrong, how can these people (who are much smarter than I am) believe it? There MUST be something I am missing.” So I would research the Craigs, the Plantingas, the Boyds, and yes…Strobel.
And two problems continually bubbled to the surface. First, the Christian apologist would often say, “The skeptic claims ______” and after having read skeptics and interfaced with skeptics and poured over skeptical articles, my first thought was, “No, skeptics do NOT make that claim.”
But the second and far more disturbing problem was how many times I found Christian apologists to be less than complete about the truth. (Avoiding the term “liar” for a moment.) How they would refer to the Testimonium Flavianum without mentioning the huge questions regarding its authenticity. Or how the Talmud refers to Jesus without mentioning how…it doesn’t.
Or the problems with Exodus. Or the problems with Joshua’s invasion. Or this problem or that. Always only giving one side, never the opposite.
[A great example of a person who does NOT do this, in my opinion, is Dr. Daniel Wallace. At least in his commentary on the New Testament, he presents both sides of the issues regarding dating and authorship. While he is convinced of the conservative position, he does give adequate treatment to alternative positions.]
As a deconverting Christian, I struggled with this. If we hold truth…no wait…if we hold TRUTH, why should we ever have to be anything less than completely honest? If our position is correct, why would I EVER have to misrepresent the other’s position? Why would I have to make up facts? Why do apologists do this so much?
I can read through Strobel. I see this as a lie. He doesn’t care—most readers will never look it up. Most readers will drink it down and assume it to be true.
Sure, for most Christians this is no big deal. But I can tell you for a handful of Christians—deconverting Christians—these things can be some of the nails in the coffin. If this is the what Christianity has to offer to support its position of “truth”—a lie; a complete, utter and total fabrication—then it is as baseless as claims of Alien abductions.
Nathaniel said,
May 31, 2009 at 2:07 pm
DagoodS,
I take it this is your ultimate conclusion:
I think it’s clearly an overstatement, and an uncharitable one at that. The likeliest explanation is neither of these: it’s that Strobel, having by his lights done his research by interviewing numerous specialists, can’t be bothered to take notice of what the internet infidels crowd has to say about what was said by someone cited by one of those specialists, any more than Andrew would feel duty-bound to go investigate the claim that someone working for the ICR had refuted a biological claim made by someone quoted by Richard Dawkins. If that detail seems useful, he’ll still use it, because, from his point of view, the carpings of people who are hell-bent on undermining the case for Christianity by any means just don’t rise to the level of casting doubt on the claim.
Is that lazy or sloppy of him? I guess that depends on your standards. Whether it’s reasonable to take time to look into a complaint like that depends in part on your estimate of the credibility of the source and in part on the other demands on your time. Given the quality of most of what passes for atheist argumentation on the internet, Strobel probably has a justifiably low opinion of the source. And I’ll bet he’s got a busy speaking schedule.
So I think the charge of dishonesty simply won’t stick. And it makes you and Andrew sound shrill when you keep trying to press it.
Nathaniel said,
May 31, 2009 at 2:41 pm
DagoodS,
On two of your comments, in passing:
These days, among scholars with relevant expertise, the controversy has largely died down: there is a scholarly consensus that the Testimonium suffered some Christian interpolations but was present in the original in something like the Agapian version discovered by Pines around 1970. Have a look at Louis Feldman, Josephus: A Supplementary Bibliography (New York: Garland, 1986), pp. 618-19, 677.
I don’t know what Christian authors you were reading when you were in the process of losing your faith, but for competent Christian discussions of the Testimonium that give a fair state of the controversy and scholarly (as opposed to internet) opinion, you can look at any of the following works:
Boyd and Eddy, The Jesus Legend (2007), 186-90
F. F. Bruce, Jesus & Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (1974), pp. 32-41
R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (), pp. 25-32
Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus (1996), pp. 192-96
Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (2000), pp. 81-104
See Bruce, pp. 54-65, van Voorst pp. 104-22, etc. for discussion of the difficulties involved in the Talmud inquiry and the range of scholarly opinion. It’s hard to get around the reference in Sanhedrin 43a, brief and garbled though it is.
It seems that either you did not read very widely, or you were very unfortunate in your selection of apologists.
Ben said,
May 31, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Dagoods,
“The only question left is—did he know?”
I agree with Nathaniel’s responses.
If you want an accurate label for Strobel, I would say, “not all he’s cracked up to be.” Your plumber analogy struck the hardest, but all things considered, just about all Christian apologists are not on the top of my list of those I’d trust with my philosophical or epistemological plumbing. So none of them or any of their selling points are really “all that they are cracked up to be.” But then again I disagree with them all so, I would say that wouldn’t I? It’s big world filled with people who think differently than us and there’s always reasons why we don’t all come to the same conclusions about things. You have solid things to say in criticism of the quality of Strobel’s work, but your conclusion does not follow.
“First, the Christian apologist would often say, ‘The skeptic claims ______’ and after having read skeptics and interfaced with skeptics and poured over skeptical articles, my first thought was, ‘No, skeptics do NOT make that claim.’”
They do seem to do that a lot and it is a valid complaint. The culprit here though is bias and it is by no means unique to apologists. There are plenty of times in life when you say one thing to someone and they hear something entirely different based on all their misguided preconceived notions about what you must mean. We all have reality filters and it is a never ending battle to patiently do your best to actually hear someone’s position out in the way they intended it, despite the hostility and politics that might be in the air. Not everyone is as interested in that pursuit.
Ben
DagoodS said,
June 1, 2009 at 9:39 am
Nathaniel,
Your thinking I overstate the case does not make it so. You are correct; it is dependent on my standards. I tend to hold myself to a higher standard, and expect the same of others. I wouldn’t accept this sloppy claim from my son on his seventh-grade essay, let alone a person who is attempting to sell a book. If I wouldn’t accept it on…say…a paper on the American Indian—why should I accept it from Strobel?
Remember the key selling point of this book. That the author (Strobel) is doing research. It is the reason I quoted from various sections of his book. Over and over and over again, he talks about the lengths and breadths of the extent of research he does. He reiterates again and again his credentials, both in schooling and employment, as to his superior capability to perform such research. To act the part of the skeptic. To ask the “tough questions.”
It is the very reason d’existence (to sound snooty) for the book.
Strobel goes into the claim, telling us he has prior researched and prepared ahead of time. He tells us at the time of the claim he had his doubts and intended to research it further. He tells us after the claim he does further research. Again, the whole premise we are to be left with is how much research Mr. Strobel is doing for us, so we don’t have to.
And he doesn’t figure out there are no coins?
He doesn’t figure out there are no pictures?
He doesn’t figure out Vardaman never claimed this was on a coin?
How do I call that anything but lazy or sloppy?
I am not sure it helps your argument any by besmirching (even off-handedly) the critics. Remember—the critics were right. I don’t care if the expert has one, two or three Ph.D’s. I don’t care if they are from Harvard, Oxford or Brown. If a High Schooler from Carver High is right, and the expert is wrong, the degrees don’t mean anything.
We all seem to be on the same page that McRay (with his Ph.D.) was wrong. Carrier (regardless of what degree he has) is correct. “Bob the internet infidel” is right. Strobel, with all his research, schooling and employment is wrong.
Or look at it this way—if an incompetent buffoon, using only one finger and half-stoned is able to figure out the coins don’t exist—what does that say about the level of expertise of a person (Strobel) who cannot? Doesn’t it make them even MORE of an incompetent buffoon? So every time you (even slightly) disparage others who turned out to be right, it actually lessens the effectiveness of the person you are attempting to protect.
You may be attempting to save the tree of Strobel not lying, but are losing the entire forest of Strobel being a waste of time to read as he cannot perform even the most basic research. Research he…bragged…over and over…about doing….(still not sure how you get around that.)
And as to the lack of credibility of Christian apologists—I was merely giving broad examples. I was not intending to be exhaustive. I certainly did not mean to give the impression that ALL apologists misrepresent ALL claims ALL the time. Nor even that SOME apologists misrepresent ONE claim all the time. I certain recognize (and mentioned if you will recall) there are a variety of differences. Sorting through them takes a bit.
Humorously, I could point out some problems I have seen with some of the authors you mentioned, but I figure I sound “shrill” enough at this point, any more will only degrade the conversation. *wink*
DagoodS said,
June 1, 2009 at 9:41 am
Ben,
I quite agree it is difficult to remove our own reality filters. Even to the point of impossibility. We can try to be as objective as possible, but in the end some subjectivity creeps in. It is part of the human package.
And, believe it or not, I do try to be charitable towards other’s positions. And to give them the benefit of the doubt. There is a LOT of information out there, and to expect someone to know everything about anything is really too much.
But…
There comes a point where I draw the line. A point where I evaluate all the evidence I have available and make a conclusion. Here, (and reinforced by reading all of the Strobel’s works), I can come to no other conclusion than Strobel is a liar. I recognize this is a strong, divisive label. This does not foster communication.
Until I learn new information (and I haven’t seen any thus far) I will remain with my conclusion. Either Strobel knows the coins are a lie, are he doesn’t.
If he does, by failing to correct the situation with a firm declaration or retraction, he is promulgating a lie.
If this was some archaic tome over a miniscule issue, I would agree this is a useless conversation. It is not. There are millions of Christians who firmly believe these coins exist. And many of those Christians gained their information, relying upon Strobel. I have had quite a few forum conversations where a Christian pipes up about these coins (understandably relying upon Strobel) and it is pointed out the error.
In my personal opinion, I think he does know about the coin, yet is in no fear of being confronted about it. His books will sell. Christians will still believe. (And, as you and Nathaniel have adequately pointed out, even if he IS somehow confronted to the point of having to make a declaration, he can use plausible deniability by claiming he was merely quoting McRay.)
If Strobel does NOT know about the coins, I see him lying about researching the issue. How could he possibly claim he researched the issue prior to talking to McRay, was questioning it at the time of talking to McRay and researched it after talking to McRay, and NOT discover the coins don’t exist?
I am curious—would you be more satisfied if we said either Strobel is a liar OR he failed to perform the most rudimentary research and should not be trusted? Is lying worse than being completely untrustworthy?
Ben said,
June 1, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I stand by previous sentiments. Apparently Strobel thinks asking McRay is sufficient research and that the objections presented to him to look further into probably weren’t worth looking into. I’m tired of arguing this position, so why don’t you just ask Strobel himself:
https://forms.netsuite.com/app/site/crm/externalcasepage.nl?compid=ACCT121890&formid=112&h=cb48d108ff0fd0f4e215&companyname=Lee%20Strobel&email=LS&title=ASKLEEweb
Ben
atimetorend said,
June 1, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Andrew, I think you critiqued the book quite well, particularly what you said about Strobel’s “schtick” as an investigative reporter.
To chip in at a more superficial level, my personal problem with Strobel’s “critical, hard hitting questions,” was his lack of interviewing anyone with a differing opinion in his book.
Does an apologist have to interview their critics in a book? Of course not, but you do if you are marketing your book as “hard hitting investigative reporting” don’t you? That alone does not invalidate the arguments of the book, but it makes a statement that it can’t be trusted, that it is not really what it is is purported to be.
Nathaniel said,
June 2, 2009 at 9:59 am
DagoodS
Better yet, just say, “He got something wrong because he trusted McRay on a detail. It isn’t of great importance to his overall argument, and he isn’t an expert on this area himself, but it would still be better if he would get it right.”
Now let’s turn this around. Do you also call Bart Ehrman a liar? I’m thinking of his claim, in Misquoting Jesus, that his Top Ten Verses that were Not Originally in the New Testament “are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries.” I mean, he’s not even relying on secondary sources here; he’s an expert on textual criticism in his own right. So he has even less excuse than Strobel. And his books are selling quite briskly.
Barry said,
June 2, 2009 at 10:29 am
Nathan, not sure I follow you point about Ehrman. What are you asserting Ehrman got wrong? What is your evidence? ‘Originally’ to me would seem to be attested to by being missing from the earlier manuscripts.
Also, at the pragmatic level are you agreeing with the other points Ehrman makes as you assert we should with Strobel?
Barry
facilis said,
June 2, 2009 at 11:19 am
In all honsty I can see the Strobel made a gaffe on the McRay\Verdaman incident.
I guess I could indentify with him Dr. McRay vs some writer fro infidels.org but I can see the problems with it too.
But In honsty this is nothing compared to some of the distortions of fact you find among atheist writers who cite writers like Freke and Gandy, Acharya S and Kearsey Greaves and other publications hot off Prometheus press as if they were mainstream New Testament scholarship
Nathaniel said,
June 2, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Barry,
Ehrman writes, regarding his “Top Ten Verses that were Not Originally in the New Testament,”
Does it sound to you, on a straightforward reading of this sentence, like Ehrman is ruling out the idea that these verses can be found in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries?
Or take Ehrman’s claim, from his May, 2007 lecture at Stanford, that no commentaries before the 10th century mention the story of the woman caught in adultery. What would you ordinarily infer, supposing that he is right, regarding pre-10th century manuscripts and discussion of the pericope adulterae?
Try to apply here the same standards you would use in reading some pop-level Christian apologist like McDowell or Strobel.
DagoodS said,
June 2, 2009 at 12:24 pm
A few points to clarify:
1. Strobel did NOT trust McVay.
Ben, you said, “Apparently Strobel thinks asking McRay is sufficient research and that the objections presented to him to look further into probably weren’t worth looking into” and Nathaniel, you indicated, “He got something wrong because he trusted McRay on a detail.”
But this is Exactly the OPPOSITE of what Strobel writes!
It is why I quoted Strobel himself to get it accurate as possible. Strobel says he went into the interview with McVay, having performed some research. He refers to his “notes.” And “long-standing challenges.” And “difficulties archeology would have trouble explaining.”
After McVay spews out the bit about the coins, Strobel specifically says he doubts McVay! I am absolutely baffled as to how you two—Ben and Nathaniel—can say Strobel was relying upon McVay, when Stroble himself said he did not! I will repeat Strobel’s statement immediately after hearing about the coins.
“That sounded a bit speculative to me, but rather than bog down the conversation, I decided to mentally file this issue away for further analysis later.”
Where do you get from that statement Strobel was relying upon McVay? And what is the very next thing Strobel says?
“When I did some additional research…”
I puzzle as to how this could be any clearer.
1. Strobel goes in with notes, and anticipated difficulties.
2. McVay claims Quirinius was governor twice due to Vardaman’s coins.
3. Strobel says he found this speculative and wants to do further analysis.
4. Strobel says he does additional research.
How one could possibly say this demonstrates Strobel was relying on McVay, or even more precisely that Strobel was relying solely on McVay is beyond me.
2. This is edited material.
Strobel is not quoting an interview verbatim. This is a book, written after the fact. Can anyone honestly presume every single thing that every single person every interview by Strobel was 100% correct? Of course not. (In fact, in the Case for Creator, some even disagree amongst themselves, if I recall.) If Strobel found one of his experts said something that wasn’t true—would he have included in the book?
Really?
“I found this to be very speculative,” says Strobel, “so I followed up with additional research later. Turns out to be total poppycock. My expert was wrong, and turns out the skeptics were right.”
Please…I am chuckling even imagining this in a book! If Strobel did any research that proved his expert wrong, he wouldn’t included it in the book.
I stand by the same premise. Either he did NOT do the research—in which case he is misrepresenting his credentials as a researcher OR he DID do the research, in which case he is misrepresenting the coins. Oh, and in case you didn’t know—he is still babbling on about these coins in this video on his website. (If the link doesn’t work, go to leestrobel.com, under “Investigating Jesus” click “The Case for Christmas” and the first video link.)
Again, Strobel brags about his research skills in the video: “I looked at corroborative evidence that these documents are accurate. First I studied archeology…”
And then the coins:
“Jerry Vardaman found a coin with what archeologists call ‘micro-graphic letters’ that simply means very tiny writings that proved Quirinius was pro-counsel of Syria from 11 B.C. to after the death of Herod….But the point was that Luke was right. And that archeological discovery shows us how careful he was as a historian.”
You would think if he “studied archeology” he would have found archeologists would have laughed their butts off at “micro-graphic” Latin letters on Greek coins. Or even “micro-graphic” letters!
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “He relied upon McVay” AND “He did his research.” One or the other. If he relied upon McVay—he is untrustworthy and a liar about the extent of research he did. If he did even the barest research possible—he is untrustworthy and a liar about the coins.
Ben said,
June 2, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Yeah, sorry. I was getting tired of paying attention. I think I just repeated what Nathan said on that point.
You’d have to establish the nature of the before and supposed after research. His interviews are designed to “capture” his impressions of the moment to eek out innocent credibility. Maybe he looked up Vardman’s case on it afterwards and decided it was credible. So he’d be relying on McVay and Vardman. Maybe you have a case. I don’t know.
I’d just submit a question to Strobel and get it over with.
Ben
DagoodS said,
June 2, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Nathaniel,
A confession. If it gets me booted out of the “Skeptics Club”—so be it. I have only skimmed Misquoting Jesus while standing in a Library, looking for a certain quote. I read Metzger and Wallace regarding Textual Criticism, and I haven’t seen any convincing reason why Ehrman adds anything more I would need to know.
So I don’t know what the “Top Ten Verses” are—nor do I know the claim being made by Ehrman. (Beyond, of course, the general agreement by most Textual Critics that the ending of Mark, the Pericope de Adultera and the Johannine Comma were later additions. As well as each Textual Critic’s pet phrase or two in certain verses.)
I take from the quote (assuming it is accurate) that this list of verses appeared in manuscripts whereas earlier manuscripts did NOT have these verses? Are you saying the verses were in earlier manuscripts?
And I hazily recall, the issue regarding the “commentaries” was whether Ehrman said “Greek Commentaries” or just “commentaries.” If I recall, it was a quote from Metzger, where even Metzger got it wrong. Again, though, this is hazy memory from a long-ago discussion on this problem. So I may have it quite wrong.
The carnival of the vacationing blogger #1 : The Uncredible Hallq said,
June 8, 2009 at 3:26 pm
[...] at Evaluating Christianity has a nice reminder of why my “a little bit dishonest” comment may have been an understa… But I stand by what I said about Strobel’s arguments being not as awful as a lot of recent [...]
Joshua Zelinsky said,
June 18, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I don’t think any claim about Strobel relying on others holds up (aside from the fact that he asserts that he did the “research”). The first time I ever heard about micrographs I was intensely skeptical of them simply based on minimal common sense in that there would be no good reason to add these to coins and incredibly labor intensive. Five minutes of discussion with a coin-collecting friend confirmed that this was nonsense. So at minimum, Strobel is terribly lacking in basic critical thinking ability. That together with the evidence above points to someone who is either willfully dishonest or severely self-deluded.
Sensus Divinitatis News - The Case Against Lee Strobel said,
July 15, 2009 at 1:14 pm
[...] newest stories | submit new story | latest comments | give feedback Login – Signup The Case Against Lee Strobel (evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com) Let me say this: the works of Lee Strobel are one of the [...]