Customer Reviews

Evidence That Demands a Verdict

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

This book (formerly called MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT) is heavier reading than MORE EVIDENCE, Vol. 1, and is more amenable to using as a resource, for selective perusal of topics, rather than reading it all the way through. (You can read it cover to cover, but it's not easy.) This second volume addresses things like archaeology, form criticism, literary criticism, and historical research into the claims of the Bible. Volume I deals more with the life of Christ and New Testament events.

If you are a truth seeking agnostic or atheist who does not categorically deny the possiblity of the supernatural you should read this book. You should also read this book if you are a Christian who does not know why you believe what you believe. This is the most comprehensive defense of Christianity that I have found.The case it makes is so convincing I was at first "certain" the evidence had to be tainted somehow. But, by using the references given in the footnotes, both for and against the argument, I verified (as can anyone else) that the evidence is presented fairly. This book is very dense and it will take perseverance to follow the argument from beginning to end. However, it is very well divided into individual criticisms which do not depend on the answers given in other areas. I recommend this book highly to everyone who is willing to spend time and thought searching for the truth. A less comprehensive, and perhaps more readable, book covering much of the same material is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

This is a good starting place for someone looking for religion or looking to increase their faith in Christianity. It is difficult reading, but the format would work well as a reference guide. I truly glory in the things in this book and I hope it can advance the Christian cause. I do consider myself a Christian believer, but putting myself on the outside looking in, I can see there is no slam dunk here. As one can readily see from previous reviews, the physical evidence can be explained away. There is some very compelling evidence in this book, but the vast majority of the evidence consists of reasoning (though I believe the reasoning for the most part to be sound) with the accounts written from within the Bible itself, or theologians commenting on it. The most credible accounts are from the Jewish historian, Josephus, though in recent decades even some of his accounts have come into question. There is reference to some lost Old Testament cities that have been recovered in recent decades.

I do not base my faith on whether or not there is physical evidence to support it, as it would truly be shaky ground to stand on, especially in this day. On the other hand, it was Austin Farrar that said, "Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." This book is a wonderful example of just such "rational argument" that at times is very convincing.

There is no doubt that there is power in evidence to advance the nurturing of faith. But this should not overshadow the fact that there is an even greater power to be had beyond physical evidence or reasoning. The Savior Jesus Christ tells us himself of a much greater, even more powerful witness that man can have in Matthew 16, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." I don't think the need for faith will ever be completely diminished in this life.

This book changed my life. It created a small seed of hope in me that eventually flourished into a life and faith that I thought was impossible to attain in this existence. It was laying around the house (actually strategically placed by my wife) and I thought it was one-sided Christian propaganda. But I picked it up one day and the most wonderful process begin. I recommend it highly if you want to start the search for something real and deep and lasting that can become the treasure of your life.

I'm an atheist and former Christian myself. A year ago I respectfully attended a Christian group meeting that I was invited to and posed lots of questions to challenge the group. Later, one of them gave me a copy of this book. I like reading opposing viewpoints so if this book was any good (at least better then Strobel's bunk or the arguments of various internet apologists) then I looked forward to being challenged. Either the introduction or the first chapter said something about how historical *evidence* says that Jesus was a teacher or religious leader, but nothing more (I'm not certain if historical evidence says even that much, or to what extent the stories are based on an actual person). This was followed by special pleading arguments on historians rejecting miracles. So much for *evidence* demanding a verdict.

I ploughed through the first third of the book or so but grew tired of the tenuous lists of verses apparently showing internal biblical consistency accompanied by quotes from theists agreeing with the writer. It may help Christians understand what Christianity says that the bible says, or help believers reaffirm their beliefs, but its not much use for making convincing arguments to outsiders.

What is the best and most highly recommended book on the market is actually in my not so humble opinion the worst book on the market! ... A HUGE problem is that McDowell seems to state his thesis, bury his readers in an advalanche of quotes, and then draws a highly questionable conclusion!

McDowell has in my opinion several pointless chapters that don't need to be included in his book! The first chapter is pointless. How is the uniqueness of the Bible evidence of it's reliability or of it's divine inspiration? ...And why a chapter on the Trilemna? Rather than try to argue that Jesus was more than just a liar or a lunatic..why not just get to the meat of the debate between the faith and it's critics and go straight to the resurrection? These chapters along with that pointless chapter on how the Bible was prepared is excess baggage and is non-essential to forming a good case for Christianity.

The chapters that I would see as essential are chapters on the reliability of the Bible ( chapter 4) and the chapter on case for the resurrection. ( What about fulfilled Bible prophecy and Christian experience? I will comment on why these are unnecessary as well)...McDowell merely quotes some of the NT authors for the internal evidence test and doesn't defend their reliability of as eye-witnesses... McDowell doesn't explain away any alleged Bible contradictions... McDowell does nothing to defend the reliability of the Bible against various attacks such as contradictions, inconsistencies, etc.
... McDowell than goes into some of the archeological findings. Here again readers are getting buried with quotes from authorities. However, there was one or two quotes I found questionble! Consider his quotes regarding the tower of Bable and the diversification of languages! ... No tests are shown, no studies are referenced, no arguments are put forth! ... Refuting alternative theories of the resurrection is helpful, but not convincing... McDowell failed miserably in the most important chapter of the book... In conclusion, McDowell's case is only slightly better than Henry Morris' case for the Christian faith. I would recommend this book only to test the effiency of a document-shedder. For Christians who think highly of McDowell's works..for crying out loud! Raise your standards! No wonder the Secular Web had a field day picking this book apart! No judge in his right mind would allow evidence like this to be presented to a jury in the first place!

McDowell's book can be highly misleading to an unwary reader. He is a "compiler": He scans the literature and picks out quotes which support or seem to support the case he is trying to make, ignoring all contrary material. He is not above lifting quotes out of context and alleging they pertain to subjects they do not. He cites from individual sources selectively, omitting what doesn't support his position. He exaggerates the degree to which his sources support his claims. Presenting only supporting material to the reader prevents any nuanced discussion of controversial issues and gives the reader the misleading impression of scholarly unanimity in support of McDowell's assertions. It is only by following up on McDowell's citations and seeking out opposing scholarly literature that an unwary reader can discover McDowell's deceptiveness. Most readers have neither the time nor the inclination for such research, and many conservative Christians are glad to see apparent scholarly support for what they already "know" is true. Unfortunately for them and the unwary they seek to influence, that support is a mirage and a deception.

Two brief examples will illustrate the kind of material the reader will find. First, in his chapter 4, McDowell cites the 'none of this has been done in a corner' passage (Acts 26:24-28) in support of his claim that '[t]he writers of the New Testament appealed to the firsthand knowledge of their readers or listeners concerning the facts and evidence about the person of Christ.' But if you actually open the Bible, you will find that in Acts 26:1-23, Paul is speaking to King Agrippa, the Roman ruler Portius Festus, and other high ranking officers and leading men of Caesarea. Paul relates how in the past he had persecuted Christians, how Jesus had appeared and spoken to him on the road to Damascus, and how he had subsequently preached repentance to the people of Damascus, Jerusalem and Judea. He does not speak directly about any happenings in the life of Jesus. So when he says 'the king knows about these matters' and 'none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner', he is speaking about his own actions, not any of the actions or events in the life of Jesus. You would never know this without reading Acts 26 yourself. McDowell's "evidence" that the writers of the New Testament appealed to their listeners' firsthand knowledge of Jesus is a transparent attempt to pull the wool over your eyes.

As a second example, McDowell makes the correct claim that the earliest extant manuscripts of the New Testament were written much closer to the date of the original writing than is the case in almost any other piece of ancient literature. For instance, our earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament were copied in the fourth century, some 250 years after the originals, and we have fragments from the second century, copied 50-100 years after the originals. Contrast this with Caesar's writings of 50 BC or so, the copies which are available to us dating to 900 AD, a 'transmission interval' 1000 years from the originals. McDowell would have us believe that 'If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity.' However, Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his Commentaries. The elapsed time between the wars and Caesar's writing is a matter of months or a few years. The fact that the transmission interval is nearly 1000 years is not highly relevant to historians' assessment of reliability. In contrast, the elapsed time for Gospel reports is probably 40 years for Mark and 60 - 70 years for the other three Gospels. Moreover, the Gospel accounts were likely not written by eyewitnesses. So based on spatial and temporal proximity alone, historians can and do give more credence to Caesar's Commentaries than to the Gospels. One would never know this by reading McDowell. These may seem minor points, but the cumulative effect of such one-sided advocacy is substantial. The reader is advised to beware.

This popular book contains a lot of scholarly information. It is written in a easy style.
For those for want some more philosophical works, I can recommend the books of Geisler, Norman; Moreland, James; Craig, William; Geivett, Douglas; Kreeft, Peter; Habermas, Gary; Blomberg, Craig; Wenham, David.

Some atheists (Internet infidels) have immoraly written many lies about this book, as they do on many other topics. Fortunately, their ignorance and lies are graciously refuted by J. P. Holding at:
ttp://www.bookshelf.jwmnet.com/arguments/toc_frame.html

McDowell's book changed my life. Upon reading it 17 years ago, I lost my faith in Christianity. Up until then, I had a strong confidence in Christianity, for I believed that Christianity had strong evidence in favor of it. I purchased McDowell's book in the hope that it would help me to become better educated and more articulate in my presentation of this evidence.

But when I read the book carefully I was shocked. For the first time I became aware of how weak and illogical the arguments in favor of Christian faith really were. What I had always been told were iron-clad arguments turned out to be, on close inspection, empty sophistry. Especially revealing were all the Old Testament prophecies that McDowell claimed were fulfilled by Jesus. If I recall correctly, McDowell listed about 70 or 80 of these. But when I saw how unpersuasive the vast majority of these really were, I saw the foundation of my faith crumble.

I realized that if this was the best evidence Christianity had to offer, my faith in Christianity was merely arbitrary, with little to offer to compel one intellectually to believe in it.

Christians often claim that they have powerful evidence on their side. If you are interested in seeing just how empty this claim really is, read McDowell's book.

I find it amazing that some of the people who have read this book become even more antagonistic toward christianity. There is more than enough evidence here prove the historical basis of the Christian faith and that Jesus was the Son of God and rose from the dead, regardless of what some of the other readers have been saying. Either people will accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, or they won't. It boggles the mind to see that those who chose not to believe will even attack the historical facts! There is obviously no objective truth for these people at all. I shouldn't really be surprised, though - in New Testament times people saw Jesus with their own eyes and still didn't believe that He was the Son of God. All this just goes to show that people will say and believe what they want, regardless of the evidence presented to them. I think that God needs to work in their hearts to enable them to believe as well. I personally found this book invaluable as a resource in answering many questions that myself and others had about Christianity. I would recommend it to anyone who honestly has an open mind and can understand the importance of scholarly and academic arguments and evidences.