What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case Against The Case for Christ
Leading New Testament scholar Robert M. Price has taken umbrage at the cavalier manner in which Rev. Lee Strobel has misrepresented the field of Bible scholarship in his book The Case for Christ. Price exposes and refutes Strobel's arguments chapter-by-chapter. In doing so he has occasion to wipe out the entire field of Christian apologetics as summarized by Strobel. This book is a must-read for anyone bewildered by the various books published by Rev. Strobel.
298 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2010
71 people are currently reading
794 people want to read
About the author
Robert M. Price
405 books239 followersRobert McNair Price is an American theologian and writer. He teaches philosophy and religion at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, is professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and the author of a number of books on theology and the historicity of Jesus, asserting the Christ myth theory.
A former Baptist minister, he was the editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism from 1994 until it ceased publication in 2003. He has also written extensively about the Cthulhu Mythos, a "shared universe" created by H.P. Lovecraft.
A former Baptist minister, he was the editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism from 1994 until it ceased publication in 2003. He has also written extensively about the Cthulhu Mythos, a "shared universe" created by H.P. Lovecraft.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
October 3, 2020
Not to sound like a total mom, but after reading this, I'm not mad, I'm disappointed. To be clear, I'm not giving this book 1 star because I disagree with it on ideological grounds. I'm giving it 1 star because it was poorly argued and lacks substance. I've listed his main argument sins here and included examples below. First, Price frequently resorts to insults and ad hominem attacks rather than actually refuting Strobel's arguments. Second, his arguments largely boil down to wild speculation about what might have happened and people's intentions. Third, he continually goes on irrelevant tangents. Fourth, he constantly contradicts himself. As if that isn't bad enough, he closed part one of the book with an apparently serious argument that (if you are male), having a "personal relationship" with Jesus is kinda gay. 🤦♀️
Ad hominem attack examples - p. 47: "if our apologists really loved the text for its own sake, enough to dig beneath the superficial sand-box leval at which they play in it;" p. 70: arguing that Christians think they're perfect; p. 71: "But suppose we were willing, as Blomberg is, to gulp this swill against our better judgment; p. 81: "He is, in short, not only a shyster but a shill"; p. 166: "It is just pathetic how they try to perfume their bigotry and make their odious views look innocent."
Wild speculation examples - p. 14: speculating about the intent of the readers of Strobel's book; p. 17: "[m]y guess is that some editor....;" p. 19: "Eusebius read into...because he wanted to deny...;" p. 28: speculating about why Mark didn't include something in his gospel; p. 32: "it may be that the Acts author..."; p. 87 "They wish...;" p. 88: admitting that his theories involve "speculative reconstructions;" p. 90: "[I]t is certainly possible that..."; p. 184: "This theoery, obviously, is speculative..."
Irrelevant tangent examples - p. 15: making fun of Strobel's narrative; p. 31: disgressing into irrelevant argument regarding the second coming; p. 70: going on a tangent about evolution, which Strobel did not discuss and most Christians do not oppose; p. 102: admitting that he got off topic.
Contradition examples - compare p. 20: arguing that the texts need to speak for themselves with p. 213: asserting interpolation hyptheses; compare p. 70: arguing that synoptic gospels are too similar with p. 75: arguing that the gospels are not similar enough; compare p. 224: condemning character assassination with all the ad hominem attacks listed above.
Ad hominem attack examples - p. 47: "if our apologists really loved the text for its own sake, enough to dig beneath the superficial sand-box leval at which they play in it;" p. 70: arguing that Christians think they're perfect; p. 71: "But suppose we were willing, as Blomberg is, to gulp this swill against our better judgment; p. 81: "He is, in short, not only a shyster but a shill"; p. 166: "It is just pathetic how they try to perfume their bigotry and make their odious views look innocent."
Wild speculation examples - p. 14: speculating about the intent of the readers of Strobel's book; p. 17: "[m]y guess is that some editor....;" p. 19: "Eusebius read into...because he wanted to deny...;" p. 28: speculating about why Mark didn't include something in his gospel; p. 32: "it may be that the Acts author..."; p. 87 "They wish...;" p. 88: admitting that his theories involve "speculative reconstructions;" p. 90: "[I]t is certainly possible that..."; p. 184: "This theoery, obviously, is speculative..."
Irrelevant tangent examples - p. 15: making fun of Strobel's narrative; p. 31: disgressing into irrelevant argument regarding the second coming; p. 70: going on a tangent about evolution, which Strobel did not discuss and most Christians do not oppose; p. 102: admitting that he got off topic.
Contradition examples - compare p. 20: arguing that the texts need to speak for themselves with p. 213: asserting interpolation hyptheses; compare p. 70: arguing that synoptic gospels are too similar with p. 75: arguing that the gospels are not similar enough; compare p. 224: condemning character assassination with all the ad hominem attacks listed above.
October 10, 2012
Lee Strobel is a decent story teller. I have yet to decide wether he's a professional liar or extremely poor critical thinker. In either case, I'm glad that Mr. Price has taken The Case for Christ to task. Not likely to sway the ardent crowd, however, this book is a good companion for skeptics with well meaning friends and family who feel compelled to gift Strobel.
October 11, 2016
Okay – Religoquest 2016 continues - and this book is obviously meant as a point-for-point rebuttal to The Case for Christ (TCFC) that I reviewed the other day (my review? It was a shit book). I can tell you right this second, all that crap that frustrated me about that one clearly frustrated Dr Robert Price as well.
It really almost needs to be read as a companion to TCFC and not something to be read after, because without having one book open right along with the other it’s easy to get lost.
I suppose this is what it’s like to piss off a scholar (and a member of the Jesus Seminar that Strobel poo-pooed all over in TCFC) and have him rip apart the arguments as presented. This is simply page after page of rebuttal to each and every point of fact or interpretation presented. As it is, reading this with the other is the only way to really get what’s going on. I think. So, any would-be reader beware – this isn’t a generic book about counter-apologetics. This is a companion to TCFC. They go together.
For me, I got this specifically because he (Price) defended the claim that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time Jesus was supposedly living there. I didn’t really have an opinion on that matter, but I heard Price bring this up in an interview elsewhere and so I decided that alone was worth diving into. I mean, I guess I technically must have heard this before, since I had read TCFC years ago, but I’ll be damned if it rang any bells.
I am aware I could have just looked it up online, the argument about Nazareth, but I wanted an introduction to Price’s writing, as I’ve listened to his Podcast before, and he’s self-identified as a mythicist (believing Jesus was not a historical figure, but a legendary one along the lines of King Arthur or Robin Hood). I’ve listened to him talk about the topic via YouTube, but haven’t read any of the formal arguments that would support such an unorthodox position. I figured that Nazareth stuff would at least be a start (this book does not address the mythicist argument at all, btw, because it’s not part of Strobel’s book either).
Anyway, the information presented here is dense, despite it being such a small book, it’s got a lot going on. Each chapter a rebuttal to the corresponding chapter in Stobel’s book. It goes on at length and covers the chapter topics and Price’s opinion of the experts Strobel interviewed (From memory, I think he said 2 or 3 were very well respected as scholars, even if he found their interpretation of Jesus in error and their arguments as Strobel presents them as ridiculous, the rest, I think, he either did not know or had somewhat negative experience with them previously).
In all, this book lays out a thought process that makes sense to me. Price occasionally badmouths his Christian counterparts, but otherwise doesn’t spend any time on rhetoric, instead gives details about why scholarship points to a different take than what Strobel expresses. TTCFC would give me a misleading half-fact and then extrapolate how Jesus must be divine. In contrast, Price works through all the evidences brought forward and puts them in context and shows how they often point to a radically different conclusion.
As for the Nazareth thing, I have to confess that is something I don’t recall ever thinking about or having any real working knowledge of. Strobel’s book points out reasons that the claim it was uninhabited at the time of the birth of Christ are wrong. Price answers and points out that the current understanding of Nazareth (based on Archeological evidence) is that it was inhabited many centuries before Christ, then was uninhabited until the middle of the first century C.E (I do plainly recall that in Strobel’s book the expert keeps saying Nazareth was inhabited during the first century, but never specifically states that it was inhabited at the BEGINNING of the first century – it seemed odd to me how this was phrased to TCFC).
Per Price, Nazareth was a decent-sized (a few hundred families) settlement by the time the Gospels were written. People starting settling there again mid-way through the first century and, I think, saw another influx after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E., The Gospel writers were likely unaware that it had been settled a few decades before they were writing.
My take (again, I know shit about this) is that it almost doesn’t matter. They may find out tomorrow that Nazareth had been resettled a hundred years earlier than previously thought, therefore invalidating the argument. I don’t think it matters in the slightest (Maybe it does – honestly, this book didn’t get as in depth as I would have preferred on the topic, I don’t really understand what the evidence is in this matter. I think Price references a lot of sources so I can go down that rabbit hole later).
In the end, I think this is a must read if you read TCFC and are curious as to why someone can read that book and still come away unconvinced, I mean, if you read TCFC is a vacuum you might come away thinking that any historian or scholar rejected Jesus as the divine savior of mankind is insane. Price’s book shows how deceptive apologists can be when presenting data.
At the same time, I don’t think this is any more than that. It’s a counter to the claims of TCFC and not a book meant to attack Christianity. It’s an attempt to look at the data provided by Strobel’s book in a more honest light.
It really almost needs to be read as a companion to TCFC and not something to be read after, because without having one book open right along with the other it’s easy to get lost.
I suppose this is what it’s like to piss off a scholar (and a member of the Jesus Seminar that Strobel poo-pooed all over in TCFC) and have him rip apart the arguments as presented. This is simply page after page of rebuttal to each and every point of fact or interpretation presented. As it is, reading this with the other is the only way to really get what’s going on. I think. So, any would-be reader beware – this isn’t a generic book about counter-apologetics. This is a companion to TCFC. They go together.
For me, I got this specifically because he (Price) defended the claim that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time Jesus was supposedly living there. I didn’t really have an opinion on that matter, but I heard Price bring this up in an interview elsewhere and so I decided that alone was worth diving into. I mean, I guess I technically must have heard this before, since I had read TCFC years ago, but I’ll be damned if it rang any bells.
I am aware I could have just looked it up online, the argument about Nazareth, but I wanted an introduction to Price’s writing, as I’ve listened to his Podcast before, and he’s self-identified as a mythicist (believing Jesus was not a historical figure, but a legendary one along the lines of King Arthur or Robin Hood). I’ve listened to him talk about the topic via YouTube, but haven’t read any of the formal arguments that would support such an unorthodox position. I figured that Nazareth stuff would at least be a start (this book does not address the mythicist argument at all, btw, because it’s not part of Strobel’s book either).
Anyway, the information presented here is dense, despite it being such a small book, it’s got a lot going on. Each chapter a rebuttal to the corresponding chapter in Stobel’s book. It goes on at length and covers the chapter topics and Price’s opinion of the experts Strobel interviewed (From memory, I think he said 2 or 3 were very well respected as scholars, even if he found their interpretation of Jesus in error and their arguments as Strobel presents them as ridiculous, the rest, I think, he either did not know or had somewhat negative experience with them previously).
In all, this book lays out a thought process that makes sense to me. Price occasionally badmouths his Christian counterparts, but otherwise doesn’t spend any time on rhetoric, instead gives details about why scholarship points to a different take than what Strobel expresses. TTCFC would give me a misleading half-fact and then extrapolate how Jesus must be divine. In contrast, Price works through all the evidences brought forward and puts them in context and shows how they often point to a radically different conclusion.
As for the Nazareth thing, I have to confess that is something I don’t recall ever thinking about or having any real working knowledge of. Strobel’s book points out reasons that the claim it was uninhabited at the time of the birth of Christ are wrong. Price answers and points out that the current understanding of Nazareth (based on Archeological evidence) is that it was inhabited many centuries before Christ, then was uninhabited until the middle of the first century C.E (I do plainly recall that in Strobel’s book the expert keeps saying Nazareth was inhabited during the first century, but never specifically states that it was inhabited at the BEGINNING of the first century – it seemed odd to me how this was phrased to TCFC).
Per Price, Nazareth was a decent-sized (a few hundred families) settlement by the time the Gospels were written. People starting settling there again mid-way through the first century and, I think, saw another influx after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E., The Gospel writers were likely unaware that it had been settled a few decades before they were writing.
My take (again, I know shit about this) is that it almost doesn’t matter. They may find out tomorrow that Nazareth had been resettled a hundred years earlier than previously thought, therefore invalidating the argument. I don’t think it matters in the slightest (Maybe it does – honestly, this book didn’t get as in depth as I would have preferred on the topic, I don’t really understand what the evidence is in this matter. I think Price references a lot of sources so I can go down that rabbit hole later).
In the end, I think this is a must read if you read TCFC and are curious as to why someone can read that book and still come away unconvinced, I mean, if you read TCFC is a vacuum you might come away thinking that any historian or scholar rejected Jesus as the divine savior of mankind is insane. Price’s book shows how deceptive apologists can be when presenting data.
At the same time, I don’t think this is any more than that. It’s a counter to the claims of TCFC and not a book meant to attack Christianity. It’s an attempt to look at the data provided by Strobel’s book in a more honest light.
December 7, 2018
Long have Christians touted Strobel's book, "The Case for Christ", as though it's the unassailable proof of Christ's divinity. In his usual humorous way, Price dismantles Strobel's fallacious arguments one at a time. Brief and to the point, this is a must-read for skeptics and believers alike who want to see both sides of the argument. Like watching a grandmaster of chess destroy a puffed-up novice who thinks he's a master. Very satisfying.
May 16, 2023
I am very sick of people who believe faith is evidence. I am sick of people who indoctrinate their children.
Religion is what is wrong in this world.
The problem is atheists read the bible and listen to those who defend their insanity, then look at the other side, while religious people only look at what they are taught or told to look at.
Religion is what is wrong in this world.
The problem is atheists read the bible and listen to those who defend their insanity, then look at the other side, while religious people only look at what they are taught or told to look at.
September 25, 2010
A nice point-by-point refutation of born-againer nonsense, focusing on the writing of Lee Strobel. My boy Bob continues to add well-written works to his scholarly discussion of the origins of christianity as well as the philosophical, historical, and literary holes in the "logic" of American conservative christian "thought."
December 17, 2025
I have of course not read "the case for Christ" and I never will. I did get the gist of the book in the refusion of it though.
Every now and then, I am drawn into discussions of early Christianity. This is perhaps the first book that refutes even the existence of Jesus. This was quite fascinating, so I went down the rabbit hole and read several books on the topic at once.
I believe in the christian faith approximately at the same level as Santa Claus and Big Foot. It's just shocking how much longer it took me to shake the christian faith, courtesy of having grown up as a missionary kid I suppose.
Every now and then, I am drawn into discussions of early Christianity. This is perhaps the first book that refutes even the existence of Jesus. This was quite fascinating, so I went down the rabbit hole and read several books on the topic at once.
I believe in the christian faith approximately at the same level as Santa Claus and Big Foot. It's just shocking how much longer it took me to shake the christian faith, courtesy of having grown up as a missionary kid I suppose.
November 26, 2023
I read this side by side The Case for Christ as I promised one of the teachers at the Christian University I went to that I would read that one and I couldn't resist the pairing. Neither of these books are going to persuade any one from the other side to change their mind, in my personal opinion, but I don't think either is designed to do so. Their short comings on so many levels are polar opposites, but neither were engaging or enduring.
I have to say Price fails on the opposite fronts of Strobel. Where Strobel is too cloying, Price is just mean. His bitterness at the repeated attacks in The Case for Christ against the Jesus Project seem to goad him into continual petty comments throughout the duration of the book. I'll admit to occasionally laughing at this remarks, but the ongoing negativity and personal attacks did little to build trust in his arguments.
Price's work feels far better researched than Strobel's, which makes sense in that Price is an expert in and of himself. He talks of reading various texts in their original languages and tracking down rare tests for evidence. He does a good job of pointing out the numerous circular arguments in the Case for Christ as well. But ultimately the sterile clinical language combined with the often tangential stories and the hostility directed at The Case for Christ made this book a bit grating to get through.
I mean when the cover to your book is a massive thumbs down? You probably lack the imagination for subtly.
If any well meaning Christian got me the Case for Christ (I would now be able to say I read it), I would not in return get them this book. I think all it could do was further alienate them and continue to paint a picture of atheists with the brush as such films as God's Not Dead.
That being said, I am glad I read these side by side as it felt like a necessity to see both sides of the case to give an investigation a thorough and valid pursuit.
I have to say Price fails on the opposite fronts of Strobel. Where Strobel is too cloying, Price is just mean. His bitterness at the repeated attacks in The Case for Christ against the Jesus Project seem to goad him into continual petty comments throughout the duration of the book. I'll admit to occasionally laughing at this remarks, but the ongoing negativity and personal attacks did little to build trust in his arguments.
Price's work feels far better researched than Strobel's, which makes sense in that Price is an expert in and of himself. He talks of reading various texts in their original languages and tracking down rare tests for evidence. He does a good job of pointing out the numerous circular arguments in the Case for Christ as well. But ultimately the sterile clinical language combined with the often tangential stories and the hostility directed at The Case for Christ made this book a bit grating to get through.
I mean when the cover to your book is a massive thumbs down? You probably lack the imagination for subtly.
If any well meaning Christian got me the Case for Christ (I would now be able to say I read it), I would not in return get them this book. I think all it could do was further alienate them and continue to paint a picture of atheists with the brush as such films as God's Not Dead.
That being said, I am glad I read these side by side as it felt like a necessity to see both sides of the case to give an investigation a thorough and valid pursuit.
May 30, 2012
I'm an atheist in a Bible study group, as strange as that is (I assure you I'm still firm an atheist). And a lady in the group suggested I read Lee Strobel's Case for Christ The Case for Christ so of course I went and read the rebuttal first. Now I will admit that aside from reading the Bible once or twice I have really analyzed it (about the only downside to living in a secular home was NOT owning a a Bible, ok it was kind of a plus, just don't tell Dawkins), so I was a little out of my depth understanding the Case for Christ which is where this book comes in. The Case Against laid out Strobel's fallacies (A few of logical fallacies I was able to pick up without the help of this book) and errors clearly and with a tad of wit to boot. Sorry for the convoluted review but words are hard.
November 19, 2019
It has been over six years since I read The Case for Christ for the first time after having been challenged by a believer to read it. Upon first read, it was obvious why believers found it convincing, although it is very easy to see how it is problematic to someone with only a small amount of critical thinking training.
What this book made clear is that to those who are almost completely unacquainted with Biblical scholarship, Reverand Strobel's book may be compelling because they won't know enough to understand why he is wrong, both on the substance of the arguments, and the ways by which that substance is communicated. This is in addition to the fact that the intended reader of Strobel's books are likely conditioned to believe whatever their parents and pastor tell them, and are ready to accept as fact whatever Strobel says. The Case for Christ is not intended to create new believers, but to crush doubts and confirm the biases of those who are already Christians.
Now, I know not everything Price says is accepted by scholars of Biblical criticism, having seen his debate with Bart Ehrman over the existence of the historical Jesus. I also know that Price is considered a fringe scholar as a champion of mythicism, and among only two in the appropriate field who hold to such belief. Nevertheless, Price does a fantastic job illustrating how complex these issues are and how a fair amount of erudition is required to understand them, something that Strobel's nerfball questions to his fellow apologists obviously lack.
What this book made clear is that to those who are almost completely unacquainted with Biblical scholarship, Reverand Strobel's book may be compelling because they won't know enough to understand why he is wrong, both on the substance of the arguments, and the ways by which that substance is communicated. This is in addition to the fact that the intended reader of Strobel's books are likely conditioned to believe whatever their parents and pastor tell them, and are ready to accept as fact whatever Strobel says. The Case for Christ is not intended to create new believers, but to crush doubts and confirm the biases of those who are already Christians.
Now, I know not everything Price says is accepted by scholars of Biblical criticism, having seen his debate with Bart Ehrman over the existence of the historical Jesus. I also know that Price is considered a fringe scholar as a champion of mythicism, and among only two in the appropriate field who hold to such belief. Nevertheless, Price does a fantastic job illustrating how complex these issues are and how a fair amount of erudition is required to understand them, something that Strobel's nerfball questions to his fellow apologists obviously lack.
July 7, 2013
I haven't read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ because I have read another book by him and couldn't bear to read another one. I find his "journalistic" style extremely irritating. So I am not in a place to determine whether Richard Price in his The Case Against THE CASE FOR CHRIST treats Strobel's book fairly. I have heard all the Christian apologetic arguments that Price critiques and they all sound accurately presented - so, along with the citations Price gives from Strobel's book which are extensive, I am happy to assume that Strobel's presentation is fair.
Price's book is a devastating critique of Strobel's book and the "scholars" Strobel's "interviews" to present an argument in favour of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian beliefs related to Jesus. Price ruthlessly demonstrates that Strobel's "journalism" is completely biased, only interviewing "scholars" that agree with him. Unless a Christian has read widely the material in this book (Price's) will be mind blowing. It's very well written with wit and rigour - but perhaps a little too sarcastic at times. Price's knowledge is remarkable and his erudition is so far ahead of Strobel's that it's embarrassing. A must read!
Price's book is a devastating critique of Strobel's book and the "scholars" Strobel's "interviews" to present an argument in favour of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian beliefs related to Jesus. Price ruthlessly demonstrates that Strobel's "journalism" is completely biased, only interviewing "scholars" that agree with him. Unless a Christian has read widely the material in this book (Price's) will be mind blowing. It's very well written with wit and rigour - but perhaps a little too sarcastic at times. Price's knowledge is remarkable and his erudition is so far ahead of Strobel's that it's embarrassing. A must read!
January 6, 2013
In my reading of this book I couldn't help but feel that it was a sarcastic review of Dr. Price's own journey of enlightenment. At times it seemed an excellent and scholarly review of biblical errancy and at times it seems rather mean spirited toward those who choose a different viewpoint. As I much prefer the scholarly view of context, facts and the application of research to ascertain truth and I would have preferred a more academic approach as opposed to the sometimes divergent sarcasm or delving into colloquialisms. These divergences confused the book and, as such took it off course as book dedicated to soberly analyzing the history of the mentioned biblical periods. That said, I largely enjoyed the book and recommend it as a work that accurately contrasts beliefs versus literal reading of biblical text.
May 19, 2020
I read this book right after reading the case for christ. I found the experience quite disappointing. On the positive side it seems like Price is very quite knowledgeable when it comes to the bible, he gives plenty of references.
On the other hand, there is almost no discussion of what approach he is following. There is very little talk of a structure, it just seems like he takes whatever standard would help make his case at any given time. I actually get the impression that if you follow his criteria, half of history would be considered poorly substantiated. He doesn't trust witnesses and doesn't have any charity when interpreting words. Honestly sounds like some guy with insecurities who just hates Christianity and has a bone to pick.
This book is an exercise in throwing smoke.
On the other hand, there is almost no discussion of what approach he is following. There is very little talk of a structure, it just seems like he takes whatever standard would help make his case at any given time. I actually get the impression that if you follow his criteria, half of history would be considered poorly substantiated. He doesn't trust witnesses and doesn't have any charity when interpreting words. Honestly sounds like some guy with insecurities who just hates Christianity and has a bone to pick.
This book is an exercise in throwing smoke.
December 20, 2018
A lot of inconsistency in his book also... Mainly based on his stand or point of interpreting Lee. Lee's book is an outstanding work. Claiming Lee is just trying to solicit opinions he want to promote is very uncalled for. Shrouded belief.
February 10, 2015
This book should be packaged and read in tandem with Strobel's book. A great read.
April 13, 2020
This book is an incredibly thorough debunking of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, which really doesn't need much debunking beyond some modest critical thinking skills. However, if you want to delve oh so deeply into church history, doctrine, theology, and numerous other subjects and obtain a graduate-level education in exactly why Strobel is an academically dishonest charlatan, this is your book.
July 3, 2012
makes strobel look like an idiot
April 4, 2022
A fundy friend inflicted "the case for christ" on me in middle school in 2002. It's a book that sidelines itself; if the guy who wrote it was really so open-minded and such a hard hitter for truth, why did he not talk to a single atheist, Jew, or Catholic? It was a book written for exactly one kind of person for exactly one reason.
So I picked this book up out of curiosity, because I didn't know who would bother refuting such a non-entity. The answer is perhaps unsurprising: an *ex* fundamentalist Protestant who has gone as radically far in the other direction as possible- this book argues, among other things, that Jesus never existed, the passion is a plagiarized psalm, and Paul's life story was Euripides fanfic. It argues these things in a very disjointed way, and while it's clear the author is a much higher quality thinker than Strobel (an extremely low bar to clear), he is not an organized one.
If you're the kind of person who thinks it's worth arguing with Uncle Scott at Thanksgiving, this book might be of interest.
So I picked this book up out of curiosity, because I didn't know who would bother refuting such a non-entity. The answer is perhaps unsurprising: an *ex* fundamentalist Protestant who has gone as radically far in the other direction as possible- this book argues, among other things, that Jesus never existed, the passion is a plagiarized psalm, and Paul's life story was Euripides fanfic. It argues these things in a very disjointed way, and while it's clear the author is a much higher quality thinker than Strobel (an extremely low bar to clear), he is not an organized one.
If you're the kind of person who thinks it's worth arguing with Uncle Scott at Thanksgiving, this book might be of interest.
September 13, 2017
Robert M. Price's "The Case Against The Case for Christ" (Lee Strobel's popular book) is both a critique of Strobel's book and its specific arguments. On the overall book Price points out the major methodological flaw, being a collection of interviews with Christian apologists rather than a diverse set of scholars on various subjects from the historicity to the divinity of Jesus. Price knows who many of these scholars are, meaning they are not inaccessible.
He cites them, others similar and his own analysis and yields alternate explanations of oddities in biblical content. He also compares the Bible to other writings of the era, noting similarities in style, content and purpose. Going further back he notes the same in much earlier writings. These draw a historical trend line as evidence of Christianity being yet another religion derived from previous supernatural beliefs, many rewriting similar elements (virgin birth, flood story, death and resurrection) while adding their own cultural spin.
Of interesting note is his observation that ancient writers often prioritized purposeful messages over historical accuracy. Their point was lesson, not history. Too, "authors" were not always those who wrote the material but attributed to those whose name would give the content more legitimacy. Similarly, named authors could be compilations of writers unified into a fictional name (ex Moses).
Moving forward to gospel times, Price points out the same pattern on a small scale--the Gospel of Mark being the earliest writing then the others being rewritten and elaborated on in a pattern consistent with mythopoeia. For more detail on this see Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus."
But Price is just one person so let's put him under the same critical microscope I previously put Strobel (see my review of "The Case for Christ," https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Price's hypotheses of this or that circumstance are rational but generally lack sufficient evidence--particularly corroborating evidence--to make them the reliable most-likely true historical conclusions. Is this a criticism? No, it's our observation of a researcher trying to put together limited pieces of a story puzzle to find a factual story beneath, if one exists. Contrast this to an apologist whose methodology is to twine together, often rationalize, puzzle pieces to a preferential storyline. Price shows himself to be more credible by following through on what he realized he must do to investigate naggingly inadequate apologetic arguments, ironically in a attempt to resolve those inadequacies:
"I knew it was a matter of basic honesty that I had to place myself, for the moment, in the shoes of the nonbeliever if I were to evaluate each argument for the historical Jesus or for Bible accuracy. I knew it would be phony for me to try to convince others by using arguments that I did not actually think were cogent. I didn't want to use any tactics, say anything that might work, as if I were used car dealer or a mere propagandist."
His journey led him to disbelief. Others with the same intention from the same starting point reach a different conclusion. The difference with "The Case Against The Case for Christ" is that there are no dissonance-inducing moments here, no extrapolations of under-justified preferences, no hypotheses miraculously elevated to Law. I cannot say the same for any apologetic book I have read. Not one.
So in the end give both men their shot. Read Strobel's book and read Price's book, one after the other. See where you land.
He cites them, others similar and his own analysis and yields alternate explanations of oddities in biblical content. He also compares the Bible to other writings of the era, noting similarities in style, content and purpose. Going further back he notes the same in much earlier writings. These draw a historical trend line as evidence of Christianity being yet another religion derived from previous supernatural beliefs, many rewriting similar elements (virgin birth, flood story, death and resurrection) while adding their own cultural spin.
Of interesting note is his observation that ancient writers often prioritized purposeful messages over historical accuracy. Their point was lesson, not history. Too, "authors" were not always those who wrote the material but attributed to those whose name would give the content more legitimacy. Similarly, named authors could be compilations of writers unified into a fictional name (ex Moses).
Moving forward to gospel times, Price points out the same pattern on a small scale--the Gospel of Mark being the earliest writing then the others being rewritten and elaborated on in a pattern consistent with mythopoeia. For more detail on this see Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus."
But Price is just one person so let's put him under the same critical microscope I previously put Strobel (see my review of "The Case for Christ," https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Price's hypotheses of this or that circumstance are rational but generally lack sufficient evidence--particularly corroborating evidence--to make them the reliable most-likely true historical conclusions. Is this a criticism? No, it's our observation of a researcher trying to put together limited pieces of a story puzzle to find a factual story beneath, if one exists. Contrast this to an apologist whose methodology is to twine together, often rationalize, puzzle pieces to a preferential storyline. Price shows himself to be more credible by following through on what he realized he must do to investigate naggingly inadequate apologetic arguments, ironically in a attempt to resolve those inadequacies:
"I knew it was a matter of basic honesty that I had to place myself, for the moment, in the shoes of the nonbeliever if I were to evaluate each argument for the historical Jesus or for Bible accuracy. I knew it would be phony for me to try to convince others by using arguments that I did not actually think were cogent. I didn't want to use any tactics, say anything that might work, as if I were used car dealer or a mere propagandist."
His journey led him to disbelief. Others with the same intention from the same starting point reach a different conclusion. The difference with "The Case Against The Case for Christ" is that there are no dissonance-inducing moments here, no extrapolations of under-justified preferences, no hypotheses miraculously elevated to Law. I cannot say the same for any apologetic book I have read. Not one.
So in the end give both men their shot. Read Strobel's book and read Price's book, one after the other. See where you land.
December 16, 2019
Originally, I doubted this book, especially because Robert M. Price believed in the Christ Myth Theory, a “fringe” theory. More so, the publisher of the book is the American Atheist Press. For the first third of the book I was lost in Price’s explanations that drove into a myriad amount of thought paths and I was annoyed that he had used Jason David BeDuhn’s “Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in Translations of the New Testament” as a source, a book I have found erroneous.
Then I listened to a podcast by Price and researched his position on New Testament topics, specifically the Christ Myth Theory. I realized that I aligned myself with his views and developed a newfound respect for him. The next sections of the book also became easier to read. Sections began to delve into detailed explanations of how the synoptic copy from each other and I instantly was enamored with this though. At the halfway mark of the book, I felt an uplifting of my conscious. I found myself to believe that the Trinity is supported through the New Testament if the entirety of it (especially John) is taken into account. However, I agree with Price that the Trinity and Christ’s divinity is a result of further additions in the book, since the New Testament books remediate each other to create a non-historical Jesus.
The book slowed down after the halfway point but I still enjoyed reading the remainder. I find that this book requires extensive knowledge of the New Testament before reading, since my knowledge of the events and individuals is scarce. I am glad that this book pointed out the logical fallacies in “A Case for Christ” and provided me with a new avenue to explore and align myself in, that being the Christ Myth Theory. I am also glad that I understood better how theologians and apologetics create arguments. I will have to pay closer attention to this, but I will most likely avoid reading any theologian books.
In rating this book, I have provided a two star rating. This is largely because of the first section of the book was hardly understandable. Apart from a moment of epiphany in my liking of Price’s views, the remainder of the book was “OK”. Specific ratings for different parts of the book are at the end of this review.
Notes
The chapter on Bruce Metzger had a decent critique of Trinitarianism.
Loved the description on nondualism. The mentioning of it led me to research it.
Lost some faith in Price when he suggests that Christ may have been taken down from the cross before dying.
Estimate of Ratings for Each Section
Zero percent to nineteen percent: one star rating.
Twenty percent to thirty-two percent: two star rating.
Thirty-three percent to fifty percent: three star rating (Could be increased to four or five star ratings. At five stars, the cumulative rating of the book is 2.39 stars).
Fifty one percent to sixty-seven percent: two star rating (the book ends at sixty-seven percent, with the remaining thirty-three percent dedicated to the bibliography and index).
Cumulative rating: 1.88 stars.
Then I listened to a podcast by Price and researched his position on New Testament topics, specifically the Christ Myth Theory. I realized that I aligned myself with his views and developed a newfound respect for him. The next sections of the book also became easier to read. Sections began to delve into detailed explanations of how the synoptic copy from each other and I instantly was enamored with this though. At the halfway mark of the book, I felt an uplifting of my conscious. I found myself to believe that the Trinity is supported through the New Testament if the entirety of it (especially John) is taken into account. However, I agree with Price that the Trinity and Christ’s divinity is a result of further additions in the book, since the New Testament books remediate each other to create a non-historical Jesus.
The book slowed down after the halfway point but I still enjoyed reading the remainder. I find that this book requires extensive knowledge of the New Testament before reading, since my knowledge of the events and individuals is scarce. I am glad that this book pointed out the logical fallacies in “A Case for Christ” and provided me with a new avenue to explore and align myself in, that being the Christ Myth Theory. I am also glad that I understood better how theologians and apologetics create arguments. I will have to pay closer attention to this, but I will most likely avoid reading any theologian books.
In rating this book, I have provided a two star rating. This is largely because of the first section of the book was hardly understandable. Apart from a moment of epiphany in my liking of Price’s views, the remainder of the book was “OK”. Specific ratings for different parts of the book are at the end of this review.
Notes
The chapter on Bruce Metzger had a decent critique of Trinitarianism.
Loved the description on nondualism. The mentioning of it led me to research it.
Lost some faith in Price when he suggests that Christ may have been taken down from the cross before dying.
Estimate of Ratings for Each Section
Zero percent to nineteen percent: one star rating.
Twenty percent to thirty-two percent: two star rating.
Thirty-three percent to fifty percent: three star rating (Could be increased to four or five star ratings. At five stars, the cumulative rating of the book is 2.39 stars).
Fifty one percent to sixty-seven percent: two star rating (the book ends at sixty-seven percent, with the remaining thirty-three percent dedicated to the bibliography and index).
Cumulative rating: 1.88 stars.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 21, 2023
A nice palate cleanser to the Case for Christ. Very sarcastic delivery that livens up the sometimes dreary subject matter, in many ways held back by the shortcomings of the progenitor book. What's readily apparent in the disingenuous nature of Strobel's book, the false dilemmas and outright preaching for a very specific evangelical christianity under the wafer thin guise of being a serious search for the truth, is revealed to be a much more sinister concoction of outright lies by people with real credentials. Price takes the time to go through the book step by step and actually check the casual remarks thrown out in Strobel's book, and a stunning amount of Bible quotes are just made up. "Lying for Jesus" is one of the most bizarre moral pretzels out there. 'Deception is okay because it's all in service of saving souls' is not just insultingly dishonest but one of the weakest conceptions of theology - you really believe in a God that would be fooled by this, from both parties?
March 7, 2018
Robert Price's book is a very pointed, polemical critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. Price does not pull any punches, and he is often rather harsh, deriding fundamentalist apologists and their arguments. His style will likely be somewhat off-putting to many readers. However, the force of his arguments remains: he shows Strobel's book to be filled with hackneyed arguments, special pleading, shallow analysis, biased arguments, and non sequiturs.
May 18, 2021
Tedious, boring book. It contributed nothing to the conversation, and was intended as nothing more than an attack on an idea Robert Price didn't like. I should have expected that from the title since he couldn't spare the time to come up with one on his own and borrowed from someone he considers an opponent, i suppose. I was curious what he might have to say and ended up wasting a lot of time.
October 27, 2025
A CRITICAL NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLAR EXAMINES STROBEL’S BOOK
Robert M. Price (born 1954) is an American theologian and writer---and former Baptist minister---who taught philosophy and religion at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, and is now a professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2010 book, “though it is obvious I disagree drastically with the Reverend Lee Strobel since I am attempting to refute him, I did not start my journey where he did, as a skeptic and an Atheist. In fact, I began where he ended up and arrived at his abandoned starting point… I remember when I first learned, with a sense of surprise and relief, of Christian apologetics… Ironically, my doubts and questions were a direct outgrowth of this interest in apologetics… For a few years in the mid-seventies, I made it my business to visit and interview evangelical writers and leaders whenever I could. I sought their wisdom, not to ease but to buttress my uneasy faith. So you see, I embarked on a series of ‘meetings with remarkable men’ not dissimilar to Lee Strobel’s… Ultimately I reached a different set of conclusions than Lee Strobel did… I have now arrived at the point where I hold no religious beliefs at all, even while cherishing the various religions as beautiful and profound products of human cultural creativity… the literalistic fundamentalism to which I believe Lee Strobel has allowed himself to be converted… is a mistaken conclusion based on a grossly slanted reading of the relevant evidence, as I hope to show in this book.” (Pg. 9-11)
He states, “The Reverend Mr. Strobel’s whole effort is predicated on the fallacy of the ‘Appeal to Authority,’ That is, being admittedly no expert himself, he lists the supposedly impeccable credentials of those whom he interviews, as if that should lend weight to their arguments… His true intention becomes clear by the choice of people he interviewed: every one of them a conservative apologist! I cannot believe he did not purposely avoid seeking the opinions of Burton L. Mack, Gerd Thiessen, John Dominic Crossan… and countless others who would certainly have been available. No, Strobel was seeking out spin doctors for the party line. He tossed them softball questions with the faux-skeptical demeanor of the ‘interviewer’ on a late-night infomercial.” (Pg. 12)
He says of Craig Blomberg [author of 'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'], “What about the very different [gospel of] John? (Blomberg admits it is quite different; it just doesn’t mean anything to him. They’re all eyewitness reporting anyway!)… Blomberg is as captive to the scribal traditions of his community as the ancient rabbis were when they named Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and the Book of Job… Blomberg’s exegesis is narrowly sectarian and insular, almost as it we were reading Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness scholarship.” (Pg. 20-21)
He points out, “it is obvious Matthew regarded Mark as in need of constant correction. If he knew better, why did he not just follow his own memories to begin with? Why build on a flawed foundation as he must have regarded Mark? Because MATTHEW WAS NO EYEWITNESS, nor close to one. So Mark was the best he could get, and he had to do what he could to improve on it.” (Pg. 24)
He argues, “The public is not said ever to have witnessed spectacular scenes such as Jesus multiplying food (it never says they knew where it came from); walking on water, being transfigured, stilling the storm, or appearing alive after his execution… But wait a second! Is this coincidence? Or are these things said to have happened in private precisely in order to explain away the lack of evidence resulting from their never having happened in the first place? It was an embarrassment to Christians that, if their man was truly the Messiah, Elijah had not appeared to prepare his way, as Malachi predicted.” (Pg. 70)
He acknowledges about the Jesus Seminar, “Two or three years before the sad passing of Bob Funk, the founder (with John Dominic Crossan) of the Jesus Seminar, it became quite overt that Bob wanted to use the Seminar to reinvent Christianity for the new millennium. Accordingly we welcomed aboard well-known Liberal and radical theologians like Bishop [John] Spong, Elaine Pagels, Don Cupitt, Lloyd Geering, and others. But as soon as the new direction became evident, a number of the oldest and most committed Fellows protested, insisting that we had always billed ourselves as historians without any theological axe to grind and ought to stay that way. As a result, the Seminar has recently restored its historical focus… The theological interest remains, fueled by the avid Associate members, many of whom are Unitarians, Unity members, or Liberal Protestants. They continue to regard the Seminar… as a means of church renewal. To put it bluntly, they have had enough of the Christianity represented by Lee Strobel… and they are delighted to find there is an alternative way of looking at Christianity. This is not my interest in the Jesus Seminar…” (Pg. 149)
He asks, “But does not Jesus refer habitually to his god as ‘my Father,’ implying a singular relationship? There are no such statements in Mark, one in Q (the Johannine thunderbolt), two in Lukan redaction… FIFTEEN in Matthew, and THIRTY-TWO in John. Obviously, the tradition became more Christological as it went along… I would say this progression… arrives at the doorstep of the oral tradition and does not cross the threshold. It does not go back to Jesus.” (Pg. 179)
After recounting contradictions in the gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances, he says, “My point… is that the differences are not mere rough edges in reporting, inconsistencies between irrelevant details, as apologists would have it. No, there is a manifest LOGIC OF REDACTION AND RETELLING, as later gospel writers would modify the work of their predecessors… Matthew, Luke, and John’s continuations of their common source, Mark’s Easter narrative, are all predicated on their discarding his ending and completely changing direction. I submit it is no ‘minor detail’ when Mark says---not emphasizes—that the women disobeyed the order to give the tidings of the resurrection to the forlorn disciples, and the other disciples have them obey!” (Pg. 225)
He observes, “[William Lane] Craig protests that ‘the site of Jesus’ tomb was known to the Jewish authorities.’ How does Craig know this? Of course it comes from Matthew 27:62-66, part of the story of the Sanhedrin asking Pilate to post guards at the tomb, which naturally means they knew where to send them. But the guards at the tomb episode is so problematical that even Craig declines to base his case on it. As an inerrantist, of course, he believes it, but he knows it is virtually indefensible while maintaining a straight face… Did the Christians even know? Remember, Mark thinks it is simply a local tomb, Luke a brand new tomb, while Matthew makes it Joseph’s own resting place… And John has the body stashed in a nearby tomb only temporarily. It sounds to me as if no one exactly knew. Craig thinks that not only did the Sanhedrists know where the tomb was, but that they even knew good and well that it was empty…. Craig somehow just does not get it: Jews were only responding to the current Christian propaganda, much too late to prove or disprove…” (Pg. 230)
He concludes, “I am usually referred to… as one of the phalanx of ‘skeptics.’ I am indeed skeptical of [Christians’] arguments… But you need to remember something… I am what should not exist according to apologists: an apologist who found himself bitterly disappointed by the defenses offered for his faith… I went on to study the broader spectrum of Christianity and of other religions. This search was very enriching… it was only subsequent to this process that I served as a pastor of a Baptist congregation, albeit a liberal one… I have found more spiritual growth to be available from questions that must remain open than from answers that can never be established with certainty anyway… that does not prove my arguments in this book are cogent. You must decide that on the basis of the arguments themselves… Just ask some of these ‘liberal professors’ how they got interested in the Bible. You will be surprised to find how many of them come from the ranks of ex-apologists. There may be a reason for that.” (Pg. 257-258)
This book will be of great interest to Atheists, skeptics, and other freethinkers who doubt Christianity.
Robert M. Price (born 1954) is an American theologian and writer---and former Baptist minister---who taught philosophy and religion at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, and is now a professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2010 book, “though it is obvious I disagree drastically with the Reverend Lee Strobel since I am attempting to refute him, I did not start my journey where he did, as a skeptic and an Atheist. In fact, I began where he ended up and arrived at his abandoned starting point… I remember when I first learned, with a sense of surprise and relief, of Christian apologetics… Ironically, my doubts and questions were a direct outgrowth of this interest in apologetics… For a few years in the mid-seventies, I made it my business to visit and interview evangelical writers and leaders whenever I could. I sought their wisdom, not to ease but to buttress my uneasy faith. So you see, I embarked on a series of ‘meetings with remarkable men’ not dissimilar to Lee Strobel’s… Ultimately I reached a different set of conclusions than Lee Strobel did… I have now arrived at the point where I hold no religious beliefs at all, even while cherishing the various religions as beautiful and profound products of human cultural creativity… the literalistic fundamentalism to which I believe Lee Strobel has allowed himself to be converted… is a mistaken conclusion based on a grossly slanted reading of the relevant evidence, as I hope to show in this book.” (Pg. 9-11)
He states, “The Reverend Mr. Strobel’s whole effort is predicated on the fallacy of the ‘Appeal to Authority,’ That is, being admittedly no expert himself, he lists the supposedly impeccable credentials of those whom he interviews, as if that should lend weight to their arguments… His true intention becomes clear by the choice of people he interviewed: every one of them a conservative apologist! I cannot believe he did not purposely avoid seeking the opinions of Burton L. Mack, Gerd Thiessen, John Dominic Crossan… and countless others who would certainly have been available. No, Strobel was seeking out spin doctors for the party line. He tossed them softball questions with the faux-skeptical demeanor of the ‘interviewer’ on a late-night infomercial.” (Pg. 12)
He says of Craig Blomberg [author of 'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'], “What about the very different [gospel of] John? (Blomberg admits it is quite different; it just doesn’t mean anything to him. They’re all eyewitness reporting anyway!)… Blomberg is as captive to the scribal traditions of his community as the ancient rabbis were when they named Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and the Book of Job… Blomberg’s exegesis is narrowly sectarian and insular, almost as it we were reading Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness scholarship.” (Pg. 20-21)
He points out, “it is obvious Matthew regarded Mark as in need of constant correction. If he knew better, why did he not just follow his own memories to begin with? Why build on a flawed foundation as he must have regarded Mark? Because MATTHEW WAS NO EYEWITNESS, nor close to one. So Mark was the best he could get, and he had to do what he could to improve on it.” (Pg. 24)
He argues, “The public is not said ever to have witnessed spectacular scenes such as Jesus multiplying food (it never says they knew where it came from); walking on water, being transfigured, stilling the storm, or appearing alive after his execution… But wait a second! Is this coincidence? Or are these things said to have happened in private precisely in order to explain away the lack of evidence resulting from their never having happened in the first place? It was an embarrassment to Christians that, if their man was truly the Messiah, Elijah had not appeared to prepare his way, as Malachi predicted.” (Pg. 70)
He acknowledges about the Jesus Seminar, “Two or three years before the sad passing of Bob Funk, the founder (with John Dominic Crossan) of the Jesus Seminar, it became quite overt that Bob wanted to use the Seminar to reinvent Christianity for the new millennium. Accordingly we welcomed aboard well-known Liberal and radical theologians like Bishop [John] Spong, Elaine Pagels, Don Cupitt, Lloyd Geering, and others. But as soon as the new direction became evident, a number of the oldest and most committed Fellows protested, insisting that we had always billed ourselves as historians without any theological axe to grind and ought to stay that way. As a result, the Seminar has recently restored its historical focus… The theological interest remains, fueled by the avid Associate members, many of whom are Unitarians, Unity members, or Liberal Protestants. They continue to regard the Seminar… as a means of church renewal. To put it bluntly, they have had enough of the Christianity represented by Lee Strobel… and they are delighted to find there is an alternative way of looking at Christianity. This is not my interest in the Jesus Seminar…” (Pg. 149)
He asks, “But does not Jesus refer habitually to his god as ‘my Father,’ implying a singular relationship? There are no such statements in Mark, one in Q (the Johannine thunderbolt), two in Lukan redaction… FIFTEEN in Matthew, and THIRTY-TWO in John. Obviously, the tradition became more Christological as it went along… I would say this progression… arrives at the doorstep of the oral tradition and does not cross the threshold. It does not go back to Jesus.” (Pg. 179)
After recounting contradictions in the gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances, he says, “My point… is that the differences are not mere rough edges in reporting, inconsistencies between irrelevant details, as apologists would have it. No, there is a manifest LOGIC OF REDACTION AND RETELLING, as later gospel writers would modify the work of their predecessors… Matthew, Luke, and John’s continuations of their common source, Mark’s Easter narrative, are all predicated on their discarding his ending and completely changing direction. I submit it is no ‘minor detail’ when Mark says---not emphasizes—that the women disobeyed the order to give the tidings of the resurrection to the forlorn disciples, and the other disciples have them obey!” (Pg. 225)
He observes, “[William Lane] Craig protests that ‘the site of Jesus’ tomb was known to the Jewish authorities.’ How does Craig know this? Of course it comes from Matthew 27:62-66, part of the story of the Sanhedrin asking Pilate to post guards at the tomb, which naturally means they knew where to send them. But the guards at the tomb episode is so problematical that even Craig declines to base his case on it. As an inerrantist, of course, he believes it, but he knows it is virtually indefensible while maintaining a straight face… Did the Christians even know? Remember, Mark thinks it is simply a local tomb, Luke a brand new tomb, while Matthew makes it Joseph’s own resting place… And John has the body stashed in a nearby tomb only temporarily. It sounds to me as if no one exactly knew. Craig thinks that not only did the Sanhedrists know where the tomb was, but that they even knew good and well that it was empty…. Craig somehow just does not get it: Jews were only responding to the current Christian propaganda, much too late to prove or disprove…” (Pg. 230)
He concludes, “I am usually referred to… as one of the phalanx of ‘skeptics.’ I am indeed skeptical of [Christians’] arguments… But you need to remember something… I am what should not exist according to apologists: an apologist who found himself bitterly disappointed by the defenses offered for his faith… I went on to study the broader spectrum of Christianity and of other religions. This search was very enriching… it was only subsequent to this process that I served as a pastor of a Baptist congregation, albeit a liberal one… I have found more spiritual growth to be available from questions that must remain open than from answers that can never be established with certainty anyway… that does not prove my arguments in this book are cogent. You must decide that on the basis of the arguments themselves… Just ask some of these ‘liberal professors’ how they got interested in the Bible. You will be surprised to find how many of them come from the ranks of ex-apologists. There may be a reason for that.” (Pg. 257-258)
This book will be of great interest to Atheists, skeptics, and other freethinkers who doubt Christianity.
July 24, 2024
Let’s be honest: this isn’t the type of book you’re likely to come across as an unconvinced party vis a vis the divinity of Jesus and the wider claims of Evangelical Christianity. You likely know about it only because you’re already an atheist, or because you’re an apologist who feels the need to respond to every argument against apologetics. If you’re in the former camp you might enjoy Price’s thorough dismantling of Lee Strobel’s The Case For Christ. If you fall into the latter camp, you’ll accuse it of being full of ad hominems and other logical fallacies.
I’m not concerned with the latter group here. If you’re already an atheist and enjoy the intellectual exercise of taking apart apologetic arguments, this book presents a different way of doing so. Price’s academic background is in New Testament scholarship rather than science or philosophy, and as such his critique of Strobel and his partners in apologetics focuses on the weaknesses in their Biblical scholarship. Frankly, this is going to bore some readers looking for another New Atheist-style takedown. Price employs some humor, but focuses mainly on textual matters like the authorship of the gospels and textual interpolations.
Then there is the matter of Price’s politics. To put it bluntly he’s a relic, a Cold Warrior conservative in the 21st century. This doesn’t have any bearing on his critique of Strobel, but the reader should be prepared for the occasional regressive aside, such as a racist (and irrelevant) remark about O.J. Simpson jurors in the introduction. Of course Price is entitled to his political beliefs, but the audience for this type of book is unlikely to be sympathetic to them even in the post-YouTube skepticism world.
The Case Against the Case For Christ is an easy recommendation for those looking for a thorough takedown of one of the most popular books of Christian apologetics out there. If you suspect that Evangelicals have a very tenuous grasp of the book they claim to be literally true and infallible, it will give you evidence to support that belief. If you’re just looking for a snappy and sarcastic anti-Christian book, you’ll probably tap out as soon as you realize that Price’s approach takes the Bible seriously even if he doesn’t believe the majority of its factual and historical claims.
I’m not concerned with the latter group here. If you’re already an atheist and enjoy the intellectual exercise of taking apart apologetic arguments, this book presents a different way of doing so. Price’s academic background is in New Testament scholarship rather than science or philosophy, and as such his critique of Strobel and his partners in apologetics focuses on the weaknesses in their Biblical scholarship. Frankly, this is going to bore some readers looking for another New Atheist-style takedown. Price employs some humor, but focuses mainly on textual matters like the authorship of the gospels and textual interpolations.
Then there is the matter of Price’s politics. To put it bluntly he’s a relic, a Cold Warrior conservative in the 21st century. This doesn’t have any bearing on his critique of Strobel, but the reader should be prepared for the occasional regressive aside, such as a racist (and irrelevant) remark about O.J. Simpson jurors in the introduction. Of course Price is entitled to his political beliefs, but the audience for this type of book is unlikely to be sympathetic to them even in the post-YouTube skepticism world.
The Case Against the Case For Christ is an easy recommendation for those looking for a thorough takedown of one of the most popular books of Christian apologetics out there. If you suspect that Evangelicals have a very tenuous grasp of the book they claim to be literally true and infallible, it will give you evidence to support that belief. If you’re just looking for a snappy and sarcastic anti-Christian book, you’ll probably tap out as soon as you realize that Price’s approach takes the Bible seriously even if he doesn’t believe the majority of its factual and historical claims.
February 28, 2024
I am put off by Price’s contemptuous tone in this book and it makes it difficult for me to pay attention to what he’s saying when he’s constantly attributing desperation and ignorance to the other side, switching it up from time to time with straight up mockery and derision. For someone who claims to want reach Christians with a truth they shouldn’t be afraid of, he doesn’t appear to care about slapping them in the face and insinuating their idiocy.
After wading five hours into this book concurrent with Strobel’s book, I come away with the overall impression that The Case for Christ makes stronger and more coherent arguments. In the first couple of chapters of The Case Against, I felt like I was promised clear and obvious rebuttals but this was not delivered. After a while, the arguments got a little more coherent but were still full of venom and bile and occasionally reminded me of the type of logical stretches that frustrated me when reading some of Paul Copan’s apologetics.
I bumped Price up to two stars for raising a few questions that are worth following up on. I wanted to grind through to the end so I could say I listened to it all (read it on Audible), but I can’t. I spent five hours on this book and I would prefer to find someone more respectful with clearer reasoning when looking for an opposing voice. Maybe Bart Ehrman, but never again Price.
After wading five hours into this book concurrent with Strobel’s book, I come away with the overall impression that The Case for Christ makes stronger and more coherent arguments. In the first couple of chapters of The Case Against, I felt like I was promised clear and obvious rebuttals but this was not delivered. After a while, the arguments got a little more coherent but were still full of venom and bile and occasionally reminded me of the type of logical stretches that frustrated me when reading some of Paul Copan’s apologetics.
I bumped Price up to two stars for raising a few questions that are worth following up on. I wanted to grind through to the end so I could say I listened to it all (read it on Audible), but I can’t. I spent five hours on this book and I would prefer to find someone more respectful with clearer reasoning when looking for an opposing voice. Maybe Bart Ehrman, but never again Price.
January 30, 2023
I’ve read Lee Strobel’s Case for Christ and I’ve listened to Lee Strobel’s apologetics. Convincing when I was a lamb and part of the flock; much less so in adulthood in the Information Age. Lee Strobel (and all the other pop apologists) make the same two dozen arguments, mostly relying on an appeal to emotion and ultimately a fear of death. It’s tiresome.
Not that I really needed Robert Price to yank me into reality - in fact I enjoy him for being a bit of an outsider in regards to historical Christianity. He’s a guy that LOVES alternative “scholarship” and is encyclopedic in his disbursement. His “Bible Geek” podcast is incredibly dense in all kinds of Biblical scholarship - Evangelical to Jesus mythicism - the man has read it all.
Which brings us to this book and Lee Strobel. Early in the book, Robert Price makes a most excellent point about Lee Strobel - for a guy on a mission to determine the truth regarding Jesus, he really didn’t venture too far from the apologists. Almost as if the Strobel’s original mission was less than honest.
By no means are Robert Prices dozens of contra-arguments the actual historical truth; they really do go to show that there is so much more to this subject then the same two dozen arguments apologists put forward
Not that I really needed Robert Price to yank me into reality - in fact I enjoy him for being a bit of an outsider in regards to historical Christianity. He’s a guy that LOVES alternative “scholarship” and is encyclopedic in his disbursement. His “Bible Geek” podcast is incredibly dense in all kinds of Biblical scholarship - Evangelical to Jesus mythicism - the man has read it all.
Which brings us to this book and Lee Strobel. Early in the book, Robert Price makes a most excellent point about Lee Strobel - for a guy on a mission to determine the truth regarding Jesus, he really didn’t venture too far from the apologists. Almost as if the Strobel’s original mission was less than honest.
By no means are Robert Prices dozens of contra-arguments the actual historical truth; they really do go to show that there is so much more to this subject then the same two dozen arguments apologists put forward
February 10, 2018
The Case Against the Case For Christ is informative in many respects, but the polemical tone is a bit too much at times. I could never hand this to a Christian and expect them to reflect on the arguments therein. They would shut down under the deluge of quips. I know that Price is directing his witticisms at the apologists themselves for what he sees as dishonesty, but I'm not sure a Christian would see that. Having said that, if you're looking for information rebutting standard apologetic lines of argument regarding Jesus and the resurrection, this is worth a read.
December 18, 2024
I had a hard time getting through this one. Not necessarily because I disagreed with Price's arguments. I think it was the way he made them. He often came across as very disrespectful towards Christians in general & Lee Strobel in particular. Maybe he was just trying to be humorous. I just wish he could have done it a bit more politely. His arguments were no doubt valid, but they could be hard to follow for the average reader who is not a biblical scholar or historian well-versed in biblical times (like me).
October 11, 2020
In this book, Price engages in some of the same assumptive reaches as Strobel but to differing conclusions. That's just the point, though... there are multiple possible conclusions to many of the questions Strobel raised, depending on your dogma and/or bias. Price's tongue-in-cheek arguments against Strobel's work were enjoyable, however, and open the layman (like me) to more avenues of study. All in all, I rather enjoyed this critique more than the work it successfully foils.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews