If you want to read this book because you think you'll see John Dominic Crossan get pasted, you won't be disappointed. He does get pasted, but I still found the book disappointing as a whole. Now let me explain why.

It is a peculiarity of our culture to think that sound bites solve problems and give answers. Only in a society that thinks 20 minutes of Mike Wallace rattling his dentures equates with "complete, unbiased" coverage of any given issue can we think that a debate solves anything. Unless the topic is very, very narrow, it seldom does. That's why I will never take up the live stage with the likes of Skeptic X. The debate format favors he with the largest soundbite, regardless of who is actually right, and no one ends up being any better informed. (Evaluations of the debate between Crossan and Craig, given by Craig Blomberg and Ben Witherington, make exactly the same point, and Craig himself admits to these shortcomings in the format in a closing essay! As Witherington puts it: The debate "had some interesting moments but often failed to grasp the nettle.")

So as to content. We start with opening statements by Craig and Crossan, with Craig offering the usual outline of arguments he has presented in several places (and in some cases, as Blomberg points out, overstating scholarly support for his position -- another hindrance of the "sound bite" debate format). Crossan does -- nothing in response. He almost completely ignores Craig's arguments; he fudges with terminolgy; he plays the harp strings prettily about respecting the faith of others and being a poster child for Bultmann; and nothing is accomplished. By this virtue alone does Craig win the debate, since it seems Crossan showed up for a different one. The metaphor of trying to nail jello to a wall applies well when reading what Crossan has to say in response to Craig.

From here there is a discussion moderated by Bill Buckley, and again little is accomplished. Then there are comments from four folks who read the debate. Robert Miller, a Jesus Seminar fellow, plays the part of a milder Robert Price and prefers to ignore the debate in favor of a lengthy comparison of apologetics to the spread of kerygma, along with some of the usual psychoanalytic saws for explaining the differences in the Resurrection accounts. Marcus Borg parrots the usual line promoting Bultmaniann faith and displays the usual lack of comprehension regarding the nature of the resurrection body. Craig Blomberg's entry, along with Ben Witherington's, fill in the many gaps we wish had been in Craig's arguments -- in fact, one wishes that either of them had been on stage that night rather than Craig, although perhaps time constraints would have turned either of them into less-impressive beings as well. Finally, Crossan and Craig offer some final thoughts, with Crossan mostly (irrelevantly) offering a laundry list of his motivations (Apparently, he understood his instruction to reflect on the debate to mean, "Tell how you got involved and why" as opposed to "Reflect upon your position.") and rehashing his stance, and Craig focussing on the issues and tearing Borg and especially Miller to bits logically. In other words, just as in the debate, Craig pressed the case, and Crossan greased the rails. And thereby nothing new was accomplished (although we did see some fine intellectual fisticuffs).

So, then -- pick up this slim, inexpensive tome if you like, but except for the last entires by Blomberg, Witherington, and Craig, expect more flash than bang. And stay away from debates and sound bites.