Regarding Chapter 10, on Biblical messianic prophecy, we’re in the unusual position of finding ourselves not agreeing with one of Strobel’s interviewees (while also not agreeing with Price as a critic). To put it in a nutshell, the nature of most of the “prophecy” concerned was not so much, “Jeremiah predicted X would happen, and it did” but, “Jeremiah described X event, and what Jesus did was a re-enactment of X.” In sum, the essence of such prophecy is not future prediction but recapitulation. (See related information here.) That includes the example Price notes of Is. 53.
Price, rather surprisingly for a reputed scholar, is aware of none of this; he remains wedded to the same idea of prophecy-as-prediction-only that he had as a fundamentalist: Fair indication that apostasy is not a case of “enlightened” but rather “not enlightened enough.” In turn, his criticisms of Lapide become essentially irrelevant; he is chasing the wrong horse. It also adds irony to his dismissive remark, “If you want to be convinced of messianic prophecy, it helps to be as ignorant as possible, and to be sure to read the passages with no reference to historical or literary context.” Since the key was re-enactment, not prediction, “historical or literary context” becomes beside the point when it comes to fulfillment.
Most of Price’s points from here assume the “future prediction” model, and err on the side of clumsiness from there. For the remainder, it is mostly that which has been had before:
Other than that, Price could stand to educate himself on the nature of Biblical exegesis in the New Testament period. The Jews of the first century were not fundamentalists like Price was, either, and it is again ironic for Price to dismiss Lapide for not knowing of “momentous discoveries” when it is clear that his own scholarship is mostly stuck in the era of Baur. Who indeed is the “poor fundamentalist” in this picture?