This was one of the first books by a Christian apologists that I ever read, and now that I've read it for a second time I have a better sense of how the book measures up. As an overall comment, I think the value of this book is comprised solely of the fact that it is a quick, easy read which presents some of the basic arguments for Christianity. If you are a complete novice when it comes to Christian apologetics, this book will at least acquaint you with the kinds of claims that are made and the basic structure of arguments for Christianity. And you'll be able to read the book in a few hours at most. Those two positive factors are the only thing that keep this book from being one or one and a half stars.
For starters, McDowell has this somewhat annoying tendency to quote other authors at length. You'll read a chapter and rather than McDowell making his own points, you'll find that often times he punts to other historians and apologists to let them explain in a paragraph-length quote the point that is being made. This gives the impression that the author is too lazy to write his own book; of course, it also gives the impression that there are plenty of good scholars who agree with him.
But the main problems with the book are deeper than that general flaw. The arguments themselves are clearly flawed, so much so that it's a wonder that anybody would put so much stock into them as to subsequently dedicate their life to Christianity. Starting in chapter one you know that something is amiss. The argument there is simply that Jesus claimed to be God, and that's what makes Jesus so much different from other major religious figures. What proof does McDowell offer in support of this claim? He simply quotes the Gospels! Most of these quotes come from the Gospel of John, which was the latest Gospel to be written and was intentionally crafted to make Jesus out to be knowingly divine. Some other passages are offered as well, but not as many, suggesting that Jesus claimed he was God in the other Gospels. For example, in the Gospel of Mark there are a few relevant passages (such as the one where Jesus claims to forgive sins--which is something only God can do). The major problem with this chapter is that McDowell just assumes that if the Gospels record Jesus as having said something, then the actual historical Jesus (if there ever was one) said those things. No attempt is made to show that what the Gospels record Jesus as saying is probably, in fact, what Jesus said. But without such an argument, the main premise of this chapter falls flat rather quickly.
This carries on into the next chapter, which builds upon the previous conclusion that Jesus claimed to be God. McDowell takes a page from famed Christian apologist C.S. Lewis: If Jesus claimed to be God, then there are only three possibilities. He was either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. There are no other options, says Lewis (and McDowell). And since it is unreasonable to conclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, we must conclude that he was Lord! If you're wondering what convincing evidence there is that Jesus was not a liar, or that he was not a lunatic, you'd be hard pressed to find that evidence in this book. How much evidence does one need that somebody is *not* a liar in order to conclude that the person must be the creator of the universe after all? Most people who claim to be God are either liars or lunatics, so the general trend counts against Jesus, if he indeed claimed such a thing in the first place. But this infamous "trilemma" doesn't capture all of the possibilities anyway. At least two possible scenarios are missing: (1) Legend, or (2) Literature. The former possibility should have been quite obvious to McDowell. It is distinctly possible that a Jewish prophet named Jesus garnered a following without ever claiming to be God himself, and then decades later stories were recorded (by anonymous authors, who don't tell us where they got their information or what historical methods they use when deciding what to record) where Jesus claimed to be God. Sounds like such claims could have been legendary embellishment. But even supposing that we don't accept that, it's at least possible that Jesus was never even a flesh and blood Jewish prophet, but instead a literary religious character like Hercules or Romulus. Admittedly, the "mythicist" position (which claims there was no historical Jesus) is a minority viewpoint, so the legend option seems more attractive. But it is at least possible that the best explanation of the evidence is that Jesus was a mythical character, and people like Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price have made at least somewhat plausible (even if not probable) attempts at making such an argument. In any case, the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic schtick fails to convince.
In the next chapter McDowell argues that the New Testament documents are reliable. In particular, the Gospels are reliable records of history. But Luke is the only one who ever claims to be writing history at all, and how good is a historian who doesn't tell you who he got his information from, and what methods he used to decide between conflicting accounts? Well, according to McDowell and Sir William Ramsay, who is quoted, "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians." Such a claim is refuted in Richard Carrier's "Not the Impossible Faith." Part of McDowell's argument for reliability rests on a dubious historical method which seems to claim, essentially, that we should accept what a document says "unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies." Or maybe McDowell doesn't want to claim that we should believe what the documents say, only that we should not assume fraud or error. In either case, one wonders what justification there is for this method. McDowell never says, he just seems to take it for granted. Regardless, since the Gospels do contradict one another, there is already justification to distrust them. Just read the crucifixion-burial-resurrection-postmortem appearances accounts in the four Gospels side-by-side. The kind of acrobatics that apologists do to harmonize these accounts is fit for a circus. Yet McDowell doesn't even try to harmonize the accounts. In fact, he doesn't even reveal that there are known contradictions here at all! When he finally discusses what happened (in a later chapter) he simply chooses an account of events and states that this is what happened. Never mind the fact that the earliest Gospel (Mark) says otherwise! Most of the time in the present chapter McDowell is simply quoting historians who have come to the conclusion that the NT documents are reliable. He also resorts to such arguments as this: "The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so." This assumes that there were people who would care enough to go on a fact-checking expedition, and it assumes that claims of inaccuracies would have changed the minds of already fervent believers. Moreover, it assumes that the claims in question were made by the disciples, but there is no known eyewitness testimony by disciples. The Gospels were written several decades after the fact by anonymous individuals. The latter part of this chapter serves as McDowell's damage control on this issue.
In chapter five he asks: "who would die for a lie?" The implication is that if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then the disciples knew it was a lie. And who would die for such a thing (like the disciples did) if they knew it was a lie? It is more reasonable, says the apologist, to conclude that Jesus really was raised from the dead. I've blogged about this claim before under the title "David Marshall on Christian Martyrs," so here I'll just briefly raise some objections. First, McDowell presents no reliable historical evidence that any of the disciples died for their belief in Jesus' resurrection. He does provide a list of individuals followed by their alleged fates, writing that "They were tortured and flogged, and they finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods then known." But where is the evidence that the list accurately reflects history? McDowell doesn't say! And anyway, even if the disciples did die in the manners described, why assume that either Jesus was raised from the dead or it was all a big hoax? Quite possibly some series of events occurred which convinced the disciples that Jesus had been vindicated and had conquered death, but in reality Jesus had remained as dead as any other animal that's ever died. Isn't it possible that the disciples were just mistaken? People claim to see ghosts all the time, and most of the time I conclude that they are just mistaken. It's not: Either they really saw a ghost or they are a liar.
In chapter six McDowell argues that Jews were expecting a messiah who would be a great military and political ruler, not some guy who would suffer and die at the hands of unjust leaders. "What good is a dead messiah?" he asks. But he partly answers this question himself in a later chapter. The fact is, there are prophecies in the Old Testament that suggest that the messiah would have to suffer a humiliating death and be vindicated by God. This is argued in detail in one of the early chapters of "Not the Impossible Faith," mentioned earlier. McDowell himself claims that Jesus uniquely fulfilled the prophecies from the Old Testament. He and other apologists want to have their cake and eat it too. The idea is that nobody would have accepted a crucified messiah, because that's not what the prophecies said. But at the same time Jesus fulfilled the prophecies from the Old Testament. Well, which is it? If the prophecies said he wouldn't be killed unjustly, then it follows automatically that Jesus was not the messiah (or else the prophecies were just wrong). It looks like apologists want to claim that Jews universally expected a certain kind of messiah, apparently not paying attention to the prophecies that he would be killed unjustly, yet as it turned out Jesus' death confirmed the prophecies nobody ever thought about, which serves as even more confirmation for Christianity. Such special pleading is not at all convincing.
Next it is argued that Saul's conversion is remarkable confirmation for Christianity. But sometimes an opponent of a religion converts; how can that count as good evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? Apparently Saul had an experience where he saw a light and heard a voice, and that helped convince him that Christianity was true after all. Maybe Jesus really appeared to him in the form of a light and a voice, or maybe it was a hallucination. The mere fact that he changed his mind and became a leading Christian does not entail that Jesus rose from the dead. As Richard Carrier points out in response to the question "why did Saul convert?": why *only* Saul? Why not all of the persecutors of the church? Why not the Roman elite? Why not everybody on earth? Why did Jesus only appear to one persecuting outsider? The fact that it only happened to Saul suggests that it was probably some natural event like a hallucination. And even if we can't make this inference, neither can we make the inference that it *wasn't* a hallucination.
The chapter on the resurrection is again pretty lame. "How do you explain the empty tomb?" asks McDowell. Well, for starters, we don't have an empty tomb. What we have are stories of an empty tomb written several decades later. So the real question is, how do you explain the fact that there are stories of an empty tomb? This is not the same as explaining the actual presence of an empty tomb. But even if the empty tomb were a fact in need of explanation, since when do we conclude resurrection when a body goes missing? And isn't it possible that an empty tomb was found, but that it wasn't Jesus' tomb? That Jesus was still in the tomb he was buried in? McDowell argues that this couldn't have happened, because there were soldiers posted at the *real* tomb. But only a single Gospel says such a thing--the Gospel of Matthew. And this Gospel also seems to make up a bunch of other details anyway, so how much trust can we place in his claim that the tomb was guarded? (Just read his account of the crucifixion and resurrection and compare what he says to what everybody else says.) McDowell also trots out the old argument that if Jesus' tomb wasn't really empty, then his body would have been wheeled out by the authorities and dragged around town to prove that he was still dead. No evidence is given that this would have been ordinary protocol in such a situation, and no evidence is given that the authorities would have cared enough to do such a thing once they heard rumors that some fanatical group of individuals was claiming that Jesus was alive. But more importantly, no evidence is offered to show that the early Christians were even spreading this rumor shortly after Jesus' death. And after less than a week sitting in a tomb and decomposing, the body would have already been beyond recognition, so that Christians could always claim that any body that was brought out to prove that Jesus was still dead was somebody else's body! The Jews did not have forensic testing and DNA analysis to prove otherwise.
The last main argumentative chapter suggests that there are so many fulfilled prophecies in the life of Jesus that it is extremely improbable that he isn't the true messiah. This argument suffers from a flaw we discussed earlier: it assumes that what the Gospels say happened actually happened. Sam Harris, in "Letter to a Christian Nation", summarizes the counter-argument rather nicely:
"It is often said that it is reasonable to believe that the Bible is the word of God because many of the events recounted in the New Testament confirm Old Testament prophecy. But ask yourself, how difficult would it have been for the Gospel writers to tell the story of Jesus' life so as to make it conform to Old Testament prophecy? Wouldn't it have been within the power of any mortal to write a book that confirms the predictions of a previous book?"
And so dies the argument from McDowell's chapter, since he never seems to consider this obvious possibility.
Overall, the arguments in this book are weak and suffer many major shortcomings, but they're good to at least be familiar with, since so many apologists use them (or variants of them). If you're looking for a better-quality book on Christian apologetics that is still relatively easy to read and understand, go with Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ." But never underestimate the apologist's ability to present half-truths, straw man objections, and seemingly slam-dunk counter arguments. Read that book alongside Earl Doherty's "Challenging the Verdict" or Robert Price's "The Case Against The Case for Christ" (or both).