Once again, regrettably, Lowder is simply reading intentions into Bright's words that simply are not there. The "careful and prayerful" paragraph does NOT say that the "overwhelmingly conclusive" evidence is found in ETDAV; it says that it will HELP THE READER MAKE a convincing presentation! What is at issue is not McDowell's "Evidence" but (in Bright's eyes) ALL "evidence" - with a lower case "e"! It is simply naive to imply that Bright is suggesting that the tiny summary presentations in ETDAV represent the full spectrum of possible evidences for the Christian faith. (This has been further demonstrated in our analysis of this passage in "Straight From the Horse's Mouth," which also includes the results of our conversation with an associate of Bill Bright.)

And yet, the misinterpretations continue - now concerning what McDowell has to say:

Much more telling than Bright’s comments about ETDAV, however, is what McDowell himself has to say. Just consider the title of his book, Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith. What is McDowell claiming with this title? That historical evidences demand a verdict for the Christian Faith.

As I pointed out elsewhere, this title only says that a verdict is demanded - NOT that a particular verdict is demanded! Naturally, McDowell himself favors a "positive" verdict, and we know he wants that kind of verdict from others; but who would put such a collection together otherwise? This again ties in to the ultimate purpose of ETDAV as a resource, rather than as an apologetic. Continuing:

Where are those evidences to be found? In ETDAV, of course. Opening McDowell’s book, we read that

For me, Christianity was not a "leap into the dark," but rather "a step into the light." I took the evidence that I could gather and put it on the scales. The scales tipped the way of Christ being the Son of God and resurrected from the dead. It was overwhelmingly leaning to Christ that when I became a Christian, it was a "step into the light" rather than a "leap into the darkness."

If I had exercised "blind faith," I would have rejected Jesus Christ and turned my back on all the evidence."

Here again, we strain for any possible reference telling us that all of these marvelous proofs that got McDowell so excited are found in ETDAV. In chronological context, McDowell is referring to his own personal experience, long before ETDAV was a gleam in his eye. Nevertheless, Lowder continues on from here, insisting that EDTAV contains "the" apologetic that McDowell believes will send all skeptics dropping to the floor like flies. And yet, this is not the least bit clear from the comments quoted.

I am not sure how Lowder knows (yet again) what McDowell has in mind: McDowell certainly doesn't agree that Lowder knows what he is thinking. (See here.) But, inasmuch as skeptics of Christianity (whether atheist, Hindu, Muslim, etc.) are the ones who usually disagree with Christianity (!), there is nothing extraordinary about this, and I have no doubt that McDowell intended for us to USE the ETDAV material versus skeptical objections. What is at issue is HOW he intended for the material to be used - not WHO against!

(c) Just because McDowell stated that you can’t argue someone into Christianity doesn’t mean that McDowell didn’t try to prove Christianity. It simply means that McDowell believes that apologetics are insufficient for conversion.

I see nothing disagreeable here; nor do I see how this counters the stated purpose, and my own view of the purpose of ETDAV. McDowell may or may not be trying to "prove" Christianity personally, but he is not doing so on the pages of ETDAV. The Resurrection Factor, yes; his "Reasons" series, to some extent; He Walked Among Us, to a larger extent - but NOT in ETDAV.

(d) ETDAV contains numerous statements and quotations that appear to have skeptics in mind. But if we accept the claim that skeptics are not an intended audience of ETDAV and that ETDAV is just a compilation of research notes, that would make McDowell appear intellectually dishonest, for he would be refuting skeptical objections in a book not intended for skeptics. By assuming that skeptics were an intended audience of ETDAV, we’re giving McDowell and his intellectual honesty the benefit of the doubt.

The difficulty here is that McDowell is NOT (as we have stated elsewhere) attempting to refute ANY skeptical objections, except in the most general sort of way that any presentation of data is a refutation of a position on the opposite end of the spectrum. It was very nice of the Jury crew to give McDowell the benefit of the doubt like that, and I am sure he will be very pleased! But that still does not change what ETDAV is written for, as evidenced in the instructional material for its use, and indeed, the very format of the book.

(e) Most of ETDAV’s "evidences" are used in other McDowell books in which skeptics are the target audience. The trilemma, as well as McDowell’s evidences for the historical reliability of the Bible and the Resurrection, can be found in McDowell’s apologetic More Than a Carpenter; McDowell’s extra-biblical "evidences" for the historicity of Jesus can be found in McDowell’s apologetic He Walked Among Us; etc. But if McDowell is presenting identical or highly similar "evidences" in other books that contain arguments designed to convince skeptics, it is unclear what purpose is served by distinguishing "evidences" in ETDAV from "evidences" in McDowell’s other apologetic books.

There is a vast, VAST difference, however, between ETDAV the other books listed! Even a simple perusal tells us as much. To use a specific example, one of my favorites: In ETDAV, McDowell devotes less than a page of text to the reference by Tacitus - and it is mostly, indeed by far, composed of the quote from Tacitus itself! But in HWAU, we find THREE AND A HALF pages of text, along with five smaller notations throughout the book, which include: 1) background data on Tacitus; 2) the quote from Tacitus; and, taking up most of the space: 3) three answers to major skeptical objections to the passage as useful (by G.A. Wells), followed by nine positive arguments! Surely Mr.Lowder can see the remarkable difference in the two presentations! Yes, McDowell uses the same "evidences" as in ETDAV, but that is because ETDAV is a FRAMEWORK - an outline, as we have pointed out! - upon which arguments may be rested! And the latter is what is being done in the other books, to varying degrees!

(f) If McDowell only intended ETDAV to be a collection of research and speaking notes, and not an apologetic for the Christian faith, then McDowell has presented only some of the relevant evidence, and a one-sided view at that. In a court of law or in a scientific examination, both sides of an argument are presented before conclusions are made. By weighing and evaluating both pro and con evidence, a verdict is reached. McDowell skipped the second half of the work and simply presented his evidence and his conclusions.

Without question, McDowell has presented a limited and one-sided view in ETDAV - he makes no pretence of doing otherwise! As for "both sides" - as we have pointed out, there is plenty of skeptical material out there, and I'll add that the public libraries are open - help yourself!

Finally, for objection #1 -

(g) It really doesn't matter what McDowell may have originally intended ETDAV to be used for. What matters is how people are currently using ETDAV, which is as an apologetic. If McDowell thinks that Evangelicals are misusing his "lecture notes" for the purpose of apologetics, then he should issue a disclaimer in the next printing. And even then, ETDAV would still be one of the most popular defenses of the Christian faith and therefore worthy of consideration, review, and scrutiny.

McDowell, as shown in the essay linked just above, does not agree that it does not matter what ETDAV is used for; and certainly the fact that he issued a book of instructions indicates otherwise! As for a disclaimer, well and good: That's the very purpose the instruction book serves! Again, it is regrettable that the instructions have not been paid attention to, but an emotional counter-response like Jury accomplishes nothing in this regard, especially when put together so clumsily. If the Jury people have a problem with ETDAV being stuffed down their throats, then perhaps they should carry a copy of the instruction manual for ETDAV with them and "shove" right back! THAT is where a REAL "refutation" of ETDAV should focus - any actuality of its "popularity" aside!

Well, that objection was a mouthful; now on to Objection #2 -

Objection #2: "McDowell is an easy target and is not a scholar."

I'll have to object here; this is a slightly incorrect representation of one of my objections, if that is indeed what is being mirrored here. What I argue is that McDowell is a RELATIVELY easy target, and LESS OF a scholar, in terms of his ETDAV presentation PARTICULARLY, where he is actually playing less of a scholarly role, and more the role of a compiler. But we can live with that; let's get to the counter - this time, it's relatively short:

Response to Objection #2: I have already addressed this objection above by pointing out that we do not portray McDowell’s works as the best which Christian scholarship has to offer. Still, it would be a mistake to suggest that ETDAV is never quoted by (Christian) scholars. For example, in his book Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland thanks "Josh McDowell for first introducing me to the joy and importance of apologetics;" moreover he endorses McDowell's tests for the historical reliability of ancient manuscripts and explicitly cites McDowell's infamous comparison of ancient manuscripts. And Moreland explicitly endorses two of McDowell's books as "highly recommended": Evidence That Demands a Verdict and The Resurrection Factor.

A bit at a time here:

• Moreland's "thank you" to Josh is in the acknowledgement to Secular City and does NOT mention ETDAV at all. I would suggest in light of the thank-yous following to Geisler, Craig, and Dallas Williard that Moreland is referring to PERSONAL contacts and encouragement - not to any particular book; though if it is a book or books he is talking about, this does not tell us which book, or how that book encouraged Moreland, or how he used it.

• Re "endorsing" McDowell's tests - these are hardly tests held by McDowell under copyright; they are rather universal! Even so, all that Moreland takes from ETDAV is a copy of a chart showing a listing of ancient documents, when they were written, earliest copy we have; etc. - this, too, is data found in any public library. So, Moreland has reproduced McDowell's data, and who can blame him? It is very convenient to do so. But here is the key: Moreland's ARGUMENTS from that data are DERIVED from the data. In other words, he is using ETDAV exactly the way McDowell tells people to! (He is also deriving material from Geisler and Nix, Yamauchi, Metzger, and Gottschalk - it is not as though he has simply reproduced the text of ETDAV verbatim!) Moreland is not stuffing ETDAV down anyone's throat. He is using the data from it for a larger, more cohesive argument!

• Finally, re "endorsing" ETDAV - this is actually under a listing of works for further study, a bibliography. It says nothing about how ETDAV is to be used.

Going beyond Moreland, Lowder now pulls in a few other scholars:

Moreover, Moreland is not the only philosopher who appears to take McDowell seriously. Ravi Zacharias, who has been a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, has McDowell endorse both of his books (A Shattered Visage and Can Man Live Without God) on their back covers. Likewise, Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks print McDowell's endorsement on the back cover of their When Skeptics Ask.

The point here is not that other people do not take McDowell seriously or do not regard him highly. Of course they do! But that has NOTHING to do with how ETDAV is supposed to be used! Nor does it say anything about what these scholars personally think of McDowell's ETDAV in particular. (In fact, Moreland puts a little (B) after the ETDAV cite - meaning a "basic" work!) Also, let me be a little cynical here, running the loop as someone who knows books: The endorsements are meant to sell books. Yes, they MIGHT be meant in sincerity, but the main idea is to get the reader to say, "Wow! Josh McDowell likes this! Maybe we should read it!" And this in turn MAY be a case of shameless pandering, sort of like the "unparalleled defense" comment of ETDAV. Either way, it tells us nothing relevant to our issue. I readily grant that McDowell is found acceptable in scholarly circles, but I daresay that the scholars in question are NOT making the same mistakes that the readers of ETDAV are!

Lowder follows with some comments about the need to address "popular" arguments, but there is really no point in addressing them. The fact remains that in ETDAV, there are NO arguments as such, and thus the Jury has chosen the easiest possible target. They are arguing with a man who has no mouth.

Now for objection #3 - which is not one of my own, but I'll look at it anyway:

Objection #3: "Why have you not debated Josh McDowell?"

And Lowder tells us:

Response to Objection #3: In the past, Farrell Till, Frank Zindler, Dan Barker, and the late Gordon Stein all challenged Josh McDowell to defend the claims he made in ETDAV in an oral debate. Yet McDowell did not answer any of these offers. We understand that McDowell has a new ministry to Russia which may well make it impossible for McDowell to debate atheists, and we have no qualms with that. What bothers us is that McDowell's fans continue to claim that skeptics are afraid to debate McDowell. On the contrary, skeptics are not afraid to debate McDowell and would happily do so given the chance.

I can sympathize here; McDowell does not answer my letters or phone calls, either. :-) I had to chase him down and wait in line at a church behind giggling schoolgirls just to get five minutes with him! And I am glad that Lowder has allowed that the Russian ministry may be a mitigating factor. As for Josh's fans, well, that's a terrible shame, but there is not much McDowell can do about it. In the meantime, keep up those debates with Craig and all the others, eh!

Objection #4 is not my own, either:

Objection #4: "There is something immoral about writing a book like Jury."

I'll tell you what...whoever is writing this one to the Jury folks, do pack it in. The only extent to which I can agree here is that I consider it unethical to post definitive conclusions before adequate research has been done, but we've been over that before.

Objection #5 - not mine either -

Objection #5: "You can accept the claims of Jury and the atheistic world view it embraces, or you can believe that Jesus is the Son of God and resurrected from the dead."

Response to Objection #5: Actually, Jury doesn’t promote an atheistic world view. It merely critiques or refutes bad arguments for an Evangelical Christian worldview. One could consistently reject atheism and still accept all of Jury’s criticisms.

No problem here that I care to address. But now to #6, which is a semblance of my own:

Objection #6: "Jury is written by a bunch of amateurs and may be dismissed as such."

And Lowder replies:

Response to Objection #6: Some of the authors are professional scholars (e.g., Robert Price, Ph.D. in New Testament and Ph.D. in Church History; Larry Taylor, M.A. in Ancient History); the others are well-informed non-experts. The fact that some of the authors do not have formal degrees in history or biblical criticism should only be an issue if their lack of academic background causes them to misrepresent or omit important trends in contemporary scholarship.

Well, let's put it this way: If any of the authors are professional scholars, they need to start WRITING like professional scholars. Price's diatribes are poorly-researched and barely worth the attention; one might find more coherent and more politely-worded arguments scribbled inside restroom stalls! If Taylor has an ancient history degree, it was not in evidence from his old Jury Chapter 3: Would the professor who helped Taylor with his Masters' thesis have accepted Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks as a resource??? My reply is the same: If you say you can do it right, put your money where your mouth is, and do it right. It may be that future editions of Jury will be more professionally done, and to some extent they have been, but I will certainly not be holding my breath in anticipation!

Finally, objection #7 -

Objection #7: "I really like book X, yet Jury doesn’t deal with book X. This is a serious omission."

Not really one of mine, although I have suggested that the Jury crew address HWAU rather than ETDAV. Lowder replies:

Response to Objection #7: This is a response to ETDAV, not book X. Unless book X is highly influential and relevant to one of the chapters of Jury, this objection is irrelevant. Where appropriate, the authors of Jury have attempted to interact with major trends in contemporary scholarship, but even then the focus shall be on ETDAV and not on book X.

So, I guess I was right: HWAU will have to be shovelled down a few more skeptical throats before it becomes a nuisance. No problem; we'll wait.