Because I think this book has more pros than cons I’ll begin with the cons and then the pros. I’m feeling lazy so I’ll just do bullet points.
Cons:
1. The author has classical theological presuppositions (timelessness, predestination, inerrancy) that detract from his interpretation of the data.
2. After the first 5 chapters two things happen. First The book starts sounding very evangelical and second, the author starts to “prove Jesus.” He does not do a bad job at this, it’s just not what I expected or wanted (so this con is very subjective).
3. There are times when he does word studies in a very sloppy way. He makes cross references to other places where words appear, which works in many cases, except for when it does not. The theological meaning is not always simply behind the word but behind the syntax.
4. The author is not a Hebrew scholar, so he gets a pass on this one. But it is clear that he is not. When speaking about Jesus title as “son of man” he makes a reference to the name “Adam” to which he infers comes from the word for “man”. This is just flat out incorrect. The Hebrew word for man is “ish”. “Adam” more accurately is “dirt person” or “humanity”. The gender of Adam is not mentioned in his creation. It is not until that “isha” (Woman) it’s pulled from his ribs that they are called man and woman.
Pros:
1. He does a fantastic job at exploring the ancient world. In fact, I learned a lot from him. His insights were very complementary to many of the ancient near east resources I have already read and have in my collection.
2. For just a footnote, this book is worth all the money.
3. As a white man, he does a great job at exploring the Jewishness and Brown of Jesus and exposing western misconceptions of a “white” or “American” Jesus.
4. He speaks as a scholar but also as a pastor. He speaks to the heart into the mind.