Evidence that Demands a Verdict ... Or Not
The book I just finished is "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. To be perfectly honest, I started this book as a skeptic, and ended it just as unconvinced.
In the opening chapters the author writes at some length about the various committees that, over the centuries, waded through piles of texts to determine the Biblical canon as it exits today. The fact that they discarded so much material as being superfluous, inaccurate, or just plain false is supposed to convince the reader that what they left in is plainly true.
He engages heavily in the "science is right but it's wrong" line of reasoning that is so characteristic of modern Christianity. To prove the story of the Tower of Babel, he cites Alfred Trombetti and Max Muller's "Common Language" theory while ignoring the fact that they both placed the origin some 100,000 years ago and believed that it diverged gradually some 70,000 years ago. As proof of the Jericho story, he cites John Garstang's excavations of 1930-36 and his notation that sections of the walls had fallen outward nearly intact. According to McDowell, city walls always fall inward, apparently in accordance with some obscure law of physics unknown to the rest of us. He ignores more recent studies that date that particular event to c.1500 BCE during a well-attested Egyptian campaign of that period, and indicate that Jericho had been deserted throughout the mid-late 13th century, the supposed time period of the Israelite campaign.
McDowell offers as proof of authenticity the fact that the Bible mentions various places and societies that actually existed, as though fiction writers were somehow enjoined from doing so, and that the stories contained therein "fit in" with the customs and cultures of the Fertile Crescent some 4,000 years ago. He freely admit that there are no historical or archaeological records verifying the events of the OT. The only historical records he offers for the NT are 3 or 4 regarding the supposed crucifixion, and the earliest of those are dated 30 years after the fact. He also cites the fact that OT prophecies regarding the Messiah are fulfilled in the NT, as though continuity is something unique to the Bible.
Among those he offers as "witnesses" is Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who was born in 70 AD and "knew all the Apostles", despite the fact that according to tradition, most of them died long before he was born. He quotes a passage from Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian, who gives a description of the life and death of John the Baptist which directly contradicts the Biblical version, and offers it as "proof" that the Biblical version is in fact the correct one.
McDowell acknowledges that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to the events they describe, but since their accounts jibe with one of the other accepted versions he judges them to be true. Again he fails to mention the 15 or 20 other versions that don't agree and weren't included in the canon.
Regarding the remarkable aspects of Jesus' life, the godhood, the virgin birth, the sinless life, the miracles, and the resurrection, his logic is mind-boggling; it's in the Bible and people believed it early on, therefore it must be true.
He proposes 3 alternatives for Jesus referring to himself as God; either he actually was God, he was a con artist, or he was delusional. (McDowell uses the term "lunatic".) Since he spent his life doing and preaching good, we can discard the second as unlikely. McDowell reasons that if he'd been delusional he wouldn't have seemed reasonable or intelligent in other aspects of behavior, a theory not borne out in psychiatric practice. He overlooks the quite reasonable possibility that, seeing himself as a god, he would have behaved and preached in a manner befitting the god he saw himself to be. What is significant is that he did not assume the character of the angry and vengeful god he claimed as parent, but rather one which was tolerant and forgiving.
Regarding the virgin birth, He cites 1st century writings referring to Jesus among other things, as the bastard son of an adulteress, and a particular Roman centurion is mentioned several times. It was commonly accepted that Joseph was not the father, and McDowell reasons, if we don't know for sure who the father was, it must have been God.
The only proof he offers for the many alleged miracles is a mocking reference from a Jewish historian written some 300 years later. The only 1st century non-Biblical references he cites refer to Jesus as a magician, a sorcerer or a performer of magic tricks. He quotes Paul Little as saying, "Science cannot forbid miracles because natural laws do not cause, and therefore cannot forbid." The problem is that natural laws cause everything, and nothing can occur in violation of natural laws. As to the "sinless life", he can only offer the Bible as proof.
Regarding the crucifixion, he again offers evidence that such things actually took place, and for the subsequent resurrection, only the Bible. Over and over he assures us that if so many people have believed it, it must be true.
Another section of the book is devoted to various prophecies and their supposed fulfillment in historical records. He cherry-picks those he believes are most provable and ticks off point by point how they were fulfilled. 90% of the events he cites can be divided into 4 categories:
1: Had already happened at the time of the prophecy 2: Were in the process of occurring 3: Were highly likely to happen in any case 4: Never happened at all
He glosses over the ones that had already occurred, and offers inflated odds for the ones that were likely to happen. In an area as historically volatile as the Middle East, predicting what kingdoms will fall and which cities will be destroyed is more handicapping and less prophecy. In the case of those that never happened at all, he either ignores them or irrationally insists that they could still happen. As if any day now the ancient Moabites and Ammonites will materialize in Palestine and demand their promised heritage. He even distorts the English language to make it seem as if a prophecy was fulfilled which in realty was not. That leaves a few predictions which in reality are just lucky guesses.
The final section is devoted to personal testimony, as if the fact that someone was moved by the message or went on to lead a better life is proof that the message is divinely inspire. I could cite any number of books, both recent and historical that have moved, inspired, and influenced people and don't claim to be anything other than what they are; good books with a worthwhile message. That's what the Bible is. That and nothing more.
