This book is an apologetic debate with a difference as both sides are argued by the same guy! Charles Foster says he read ,The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel and didn't like the approach Strobel uses, interviewing lots of smart guys who are Christians without letting smart non-believers make their case. He believes both cases should be made, that the evidence should be presented for both sides. Charles Foster claims that he has argued both sides so the book could be more comprehensive as he has read widely on the area of Jesus' resurrection. He believes as a lawyer he can argue both sides without letting his bias get in the way. It's quite a claim, does he pull it off? Well no, as his bias comes out, in terms of comprehensiveness the answer is yes and no! Yes, if by comprehensive he means that he has read every book on the shelf of his local secular bookstall on this issue. No, if he means he has gone to a good theological college and read all the books on the issue in their library. The book itself takes on some of the arguments made popular by Dan Brown, the Jesus family Tomb etc. These arguments themselves are weak and are not taken seriously by those who have taken the time to investigate. However since I started reading this book the conversations I have had with non-believers relate to these issues. If they have heard anything it is via Dan Brown or Simcha Jacobovici's Jesus family tomb and the arguments that they go for are precisely the ones made popular by them in their books and TV programmes. It's a shame that he took these arguments seriously and yet takes a superior tone over arguments that are equally ridiculous. That said, Foster's book could be a useful book and for the most part it is very readable. However I struggled with the book precisely because Foster is one man. He calls himself x when he takes the non-Christian argument, and Y when arguing as a Christian. I found it silly that there was a joint statement between X and Y and frustrating when X and Y attacked "each others" intellectual honesty or abilities. If you can get over that then it might be worth reading, but I couldn't.
God Bless
Stephen <><
7 comments:
Dont think its one for the summer reading list Stephen
Happy Easter
A
Thank you for your comments on my book.
I'm genuinely interested to know what books from 'a decent theological college' you think would have materially added to The Jesus Inquest. This is not a theology book, of course: it deals only with the historicity of the resurrection. The only theological passages (those relating to 1 Cor 15) were thought by the theological referees (at very decent theological faculities in major universities) to be up to date.But I'd be grateful for your help.
As to my own bias: I wonder if you've guessed it right?
All best wishes.
Charles Foster
Hi Charles,
The historicity of the resurrection is a theological subject. I have no problem with the "debate" with regard to 1 Cor 15. It would be with the lack of interaction with modern Jesus/gospel studies, the form critism we were taught at school is no longer popular. Even some liberals would argue for an early date and no or little oral tradition. I commend to your attention James Crossley and Mike Bird's the origins of early Christianity and Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. I may be wrong about your bias but I believe your a Christian who is English, Anglican and would identify yourself as evangelical but having no time for inerrancy. I didn't really understand how you could critise believers who (unwisely)like Ron Wyatt whilst interacting with The naked archeologist and Dan Brown. I don't dislike your book I am just on the fence about it. Thanks for taking time to stop by my poor attempt at reviewing your book!
Hi Andrea,
I hope you had a good Resurrection Sunday. I should imagine that during summer after completing your disseration you shall be curled up in a ball. If you tackle a book at all it will probably be a ladybird book about Peter and Jane. When you recover you could give this book a try! :-) God Bless, Stephen <><
Many thanks for your comments.
I've read Bauckham and Crossley/Bird.
Re my biases: well, yes, I'm English.
All best wishes.
Charles
And would you consider yourself an evangelical anglican?
Absolutely not!
Post a Comment