While the author has clearly performed his research and exerted great effort in formulating his arguments, the book, at times, lacks drama and appeal. The methodology omits the vitality of court with objections to arguments and evidence, thereby, making parts of the work laborious rather than intellectually stimulating.
Foster uses attorneys X and Y as the central figures of the analysis. X prosecutes and Y defends. Unfortunately, the lawyers fail to match each other in vigorous support of their positions. In several instances, Y appears to be more of a court-appointed pauper’s defender rather than a fully committed believer in Christology. For instance, on page 128, Y abandons the idea of an empty tomb (and/or resurrection) when he concedes: “We can’t rule out, of course, that Jesus’ bones were put in an ossuary at some stage.” If Jesus, in fact, did rise from the grave, then His bones could not have been deposited into any jar for burial; yet, Y missed this flaw in his argument.
I do, however, believe Foster failed to complete his court motif because he did not provide final arguments by X and Y. He missed a tremendous opportunity to summarize the prominent positions in a short, cogent analysis. Instead, he attempts to hold a neutral position on page 286: “Whether or not that belief was right is something about which you’ll have to make up your own mind.”
While this book is comprehensive, it failed to meet my expectations. For that reason alone, I consider it a decent read but do not deem it worthy to permanently remain on my shelf.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze.com
Oh dear! Sorry you didn't find the book useful.
ReplyDeleteI don't really see how I could have put in the arguments that you'd have liked about the admissibility of evidence. If we'd been applying the rules of evidence in criminal proceedings, X would have objected successfully that all of the canonical gospel accounts could not be admitted because they were all hearsay. And it wouldn't have been much of a book without the 4 gospels.
The p. 128 ref that concerned you was a reference to the standard of proof, which is dealt with in the early chapters.
Conventional closing submissions by counsel would be impossible. I explain why in the book: it is because, to ensure that all the arguments are covered, X has to raise arguments that are inconsistent with one another - eg that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but survived and went to India; and that he did die but was slung to the jackals.
Anyway: so sorry again that the book wasn't to your taste.
All best wishes.
Charles Foster
Mr. Foster,
ReplyDeleteI did not say that I did not find the book useful! It certainly stretched me; and in my closing statement, I did indicate that it was a decent read. It's just not the type that will remain on my shelf. I can, however, think of a good seminary that will benefit from it.
There is not need to apologize because you can never write a book to please everyone. You produced the book that you believed best suited to accomplish your purpose; therefore, you succeeded. Leaders provide direction. In doing so, that choice places them at the front, thereby, making them a target. However, I do appreciate the deliberation here because those discussions shape and polish our understanding!!
The objections by X to the canonical Gospel accounts, in my opinion, was needed for full disclosure (maybe this could have been a "discussion" between the two as an addition in the appendices). That argument, although settled in my mind, would have fleshed out the positions of X and Y to the core. Ultimately, driving to the realization that as much as we may try to argue on the facts, faith (either way) is intimately involved.
I do look forward to reading other books of yours....
Many thanks for your response. It is much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteWith all best wishes.
Charles