Every book has it's Apocalypse, so here we are at the finish line. Strobel recaps the preceding chapters.
1. Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted? Strobel says they are so close in time to the gospel events that they must be trustworthy. As we saw in Chapter 1, the actual oldest account of the events of the gospels traces back to Paul and his visions, not eyewitnesses. other than that, all bios of Jesus were, like most legends, written well after the fact.
2. Do the biographies of Jesus hold up to scrutiny? Strobel presents eight evidence tests to argue that they do. But we saw that the 'evidence' was too sketchy to do anything but fail them all.
3. Were the biographies reliably preserved? Strobel repeats the 99.5% accuracy claim for the consistency of gospel manuscripts; in Chapter 3 we saw that this figure is biased by the large number of texts dating to the early Middle Ages when reliable means of copying came into existence--prior to that there is considerable variation in the small percentage of manuscripts that actually date form closer in time to the gospel events. And the criterion of apostolicity for inclusion in the canon had more to do with correct doctrine than authorship.
4. Is there evidence for Jesus outside of the gospels? We saw that most of the external evidence tells us more about Christian beliefs and not factual information about Jesus himself. And what little evidence exists that may refer to Jesus is both inconclusive, and bare of details. Also, the earliest source is that visionary, Paul, not some impartial historian. The contradictions in the gospels do not inspire confidence either.
5. Does archaeology support the existence of Jesus? Some of the people and places in the NT have been shown to exist. That no more proves the existence of Jesus than the ruins of Troy prove the existence of Zeus. Luke's accuracy is touted, neglecting the fact that there are contradictions between Luke and the other gospels. And we saw that fraudulent archaeology is an important part of the "case" for Christ.
6. Does the historical Jesus match the Jesus of faith? The claim that the Jesus myth did not arise from earlier stories about resurrecting gods is debunked by the similarity of agricultural imagery in both the NT and other myths. The rest of this chapter is a political screed against the liberal Jesus seminar that tells us nothing about the reality of Jesus but lots about the pettiness of evangelical 'scholarship'.
7. Did Jesus think he was the son of God? Depends on what you read about him--the NT runs the gamut from adopted human to divine entity. Evolution extends to the Bible itself it would seem. The straight answer is that there is none.
8. Was Jesus insane? By modern standards, yes. And according to his detractors, by ancient standards too. Some of his modern defenders aren't too mentally healthy either. Perhaps this is why Strobel here takes the miracle stories of the gospels as literal evidence.
9. Was Jesus godlike? Strobel's expert tries to show he was, and instead spends a lot of time handwaving. Nothing is proven at all in this chapter.
10. Did Jesus fit the profile of the messiah? Only if one stretches the profile completely out of shape to fit him. Some people are fearful enough to make the attempt. But no, he really doesn't match the OT messianic profile, which is why those who created the messiah in the first place do not accept Jesus as the real deal. The absurd claim that a probability can be calculated for a match of Jesus to the messiah, totally groundless, is repeated here. Exhibit A in the low quality of evidence for the divinity of Jesus.
11. Was the resurrection a hoax? Not if he was really crucified--that kind of death cannot be faked. This is the only chapter that comes close to proving what it sets out to prove. But it doesn't prove a man named Jesus really existed to be crucified in the first place--at this point in the book that ship has sailed.
12. Was there an empty tomb? Who knows? All we have is an 'implication' of one from a visionary who denigrated his possible sources. And a lot of speculation about . What do implications and speculation prove? Nothing.
13. Was Jesus seen alive after his death? According to Paul, yes--as a ghost. Luke's Acts are also offered as evidence. That Acts contradicts Paul is not mentioned. This is how mistrials are declared.
14. Are there any supporting facts for the reality of the resurrection? Strobel lists some more red herrings--that no one would die for a lie (but they might die for a false belief--if they died in the first place); that only a resurrection would convert skeptics (but was it real or visionary--Paul says it was the latter); that only a resurrection would cause Jews to change their ritual behavior (despite the fact they had already done so numerous times prior to Jesus); that communion and baptism affirmed his resurrection (and were either made up by Paul or evolved out of Jewish practice); and that only a resurrection would allow the Christian church to survive persecution (but the persecution was not strong or steady enough to kill the faith, although it came close--turning it up a notch would have done the trick). In reality, no resurrection is needed to explain the development of a religion that evolved in a very natural fashion, like all others.
Strobel is amazed at the strength of the case--as you can see, his amazement has no basis in actual facts, but in the authority of his guests (all of whom were on one side of the debate only) and his ignorance of history, scripture, and critical thinking (which he seems to have had as a journalist). The claim that the elements of belief in Jesus evolved too fast to be mere legend is made, and the challenge of a German Bible scholar to find a comparable legend that developed as fast (in twenty years at most, the earliest date of Paul's epistles) is thrown down. As you could see from the link to the Angel of Mons story, legends based on total and deliberate fiction can grow full-fledged in months, let alone years--legends based on pre-existing material, like the OT, can grow even faster, as the many legends in Christianity's own history can testify. And given the loss of many ancient manuscripts of non-Christian beliefs and religions 9admitted in the book), we have no way of honestly comparing the growth of the Christian myth to others (although the example of Apollonius of Tyana shows that again, Christianity was far from unique in this respect).
Strobel asks if the evidence collected for Jesus (again from one side of the argument) has been thorough, and answers himself with a yes. Since this evidence has demonstrably fallen flat, it may be thorough, but is obviously not adequate. Strobel then decides that the evidence points only to the conclusion that Jesus was the son of God, even God himself. He ponders the implications of accepting this, which of course are that he should worship Jesus as Lord and build his life around his teachings. That's an awfully big decision to make on evidence that has been shown to be almost nonexistent. What is really behind the commitment to Jesus that Strobel's about to make here, if not evidence (despite his claims to the contrary)?
Look closely at the next section of the chapter, as he prepares to make his decision for Christ. Strobel drops the mask (and I mean that) of journalist and opens up to the reader. He's been a selfish person, a shitty husband and father, a corrupt journalist, an immoral person who has hurt others. He has sought personal fulfillment at the expense of others. He lists these as sins, and by Christian standards they are, but what we are really seeing is a man who has lost the ability to relate to others as people and whose life is suffering as a result. Go back to the beginning of the book--his quest for a case was triggered by his wife becoming a believer--and thereby moving away from the Lee Strobel wrapped in his own little bubble-world. And he clearly wants to remedy this situation. She has gone to a new place in her life (perhaps because of his lifestyle?) and he must join her there to keep his family whole. Men have taken bullets for their families--what's one's sense of self and intellect next to that? The "case for Christ" then is nothing more than window dressing to rationalize (in every sense of the word) a man making an emotional commitment to keep what matters most to his life. Underneath the "investigation" is a need to appear reasonable, made by a once-reasonable man who still maintains the appearances of reason. Twenty years later, Strobel looks back and judges his decision as the right one. Whether it was is not for your host to judge, as the secrets inside a man's heart are know only to him and his God--and the first is a fool, the second is a myth.
But is his decision for Christ one you, Constant Reader, should make for yourself? Again, I cannot make that determination; in fact I must soon fade into the shadows of the sunset at our journey's end. But I will gladly echo Strobel's advice to consider the evidence in the case for Christ--I would only ask that you consider the evidence objectively, honestly, and thoroughly, as I myself once did in another time. In doing so, I have no doubt where your decision will fall. And perhaps you will find who it is that reason, honesty, and yes, love for others, suggest is the best person to truly place your faith in.
It's been a fun ride, and I hope with utmost sincerity that you've enjoyed it. Please help yourself to any of the conclusions I've drawn here for any uses that you see fit--they are for you, after all--and don't spare the criticism or suggestions if you have them. And always keep your lights on and your candles lit; and the darkness will eventually give quarter. Finis!