Rating: 
Summary: McDowell's "Evidence" is a mirage and a deception
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent compilation
Review: This book is primarily a compilation of the works of earlier critics of the documentary hypothesis and New Testament form criticism, glued together with McDowell's own thoughts and investigations. The format is excellent: every category and subcategory is easily divided for quick reference, and there is a concise summary at the close of each chapter. Solid arguments are presented against the hackneyed liberal assertions of the nineteenth century, which attempted to disclaim the authenticity of the Bible. After reading this book, I do not see how anyone could still cling to the outdated JEDP theory or NT form criticism. Such interpretations of the Bible are shown to be misunderstandings of the text--hopes to show not only that the Bible is contradictory and inconsistent, but also that there are historical antecedents to these inconsistencies. McDowell does a commendable job in reaffirming the monolithic integrity of the most influential book to date.
Rating:
Summary: utter crap
Review: Read the rebuttal to it on (...)
Rating:
Summary: Little Evidence, just hearsay.
Review: Josh McDowell's book is wirtten by Christians for Christians. The "Evidence" consists of Bible quotations, excerpts from other Christian books and testimonials by fellow followers. I would expect Christians to support Christianity. I purchased the book looking for "Evidence" - I got a book of religious quotations. "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder is a far superior book.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Apologetic Scholarship
Review: Josh McDowell has produced a fine volume of Christian apologetic research, which has been (and will continue to be) a persuasive argument for the veracity of the Bible and it's teachings. Secondary proof of this is the great degree of opposition that "scholars" like the "Jesus Seminar" falsly attack it with. If these critical unbelievers despise it, it must be good!
Rating: 
Summary: Pick and choose method counterproductive
Review: In the hope of finding useful information in this book, I was sorely disappointed. The author uses a "pick and choose" technique, only supplying the reader with information which will back the cause of the author. He uses some teachings of the Early Fathers, councils, etc. to back the his cause. But when those same people or councils contradict what the author was trying to sell you into believing, they were obviously not given any credibility. How can a council be credible in one area, and ignored in another? As a Christian, I find this "pick and choose" method counterproductive for the person who is searching for the truth. There are better books on the market for those who are truly searching. I have also read briefly Jeff Lowder's page (address is given in a previous review) and there are some good points there. I suggest you all to give it a check before you decide whether or not to purchase this book.
Rating:
Summary: An Ill-concieved joke on Christianity and truth.
Review: When i first picked up this book (at the urging of one of my Christian acquaintances) I thought for sure that my question about the objective truth of Christianity would be answered. About halfway through the book, i threw it down in disgust. Without the intimidating abundance of misinformation that frightens many people into accepting McDowell's thesis and his flagrant use of logical travesties, this book would be laughed at by everybody; not just atheists and the more well-informed Christians.
Rating: 
Summary: This verses others...
Review: This book is very thorough... it will definitely come in handy to the student of the bible and to those seeking the truth. Please ignore any previous comments made about the book from The Jesus Seminar... it was a panel of pseudo-intellectuals that had already decided before hand what they were going to find out: That anything Jesus said about His divinity wasn't true. They basically drew straws to come to their conclusions. At least Josh Mcdowell did research!
Rating:
Summary: Unconvincing and quite uninformed
Review: This book is quite a joke in learned circles. It's shallow arguments based on nonexistent or little supported facts are clearly designed for those who want "good" reasons to believe but who aren't looking for crticism. That McDowell was an atheist as most would understand it is debatable; and that he was going to find answers to prove Christianity wrong at the library of the religious school he attended is unlikely. Any book that quotes Napoleon's belief in Jesus as a proof of Christianity (by way of "intelligent people sure believe it so it must be true") is suspect. If anyone is interested in more thorough arguments, search the web for "A Verdict that Demands some Evidence." This is a point-by-point refutation of volume 1.
Rating:
Summary: Provides Solid Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Review: This is a sequal to Josh McDowell's earlier book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. The author presents more historical evidence that Christ's Resurrection dates back to the earliest time of the church and so cannot be a mythological invention of the church. Christ's Resurrection is compelling proof that He is God and Savior. One can either reject Him or else come to Him for salvation.
| 
