I picked up this book because I thought it would be a great follow-up to the Islamic Survey class I just completed. I was right in my assumption. The book is well-written and a quick read. Essentially, the author creates a fictional debate regarding the resurrection of Christ between the Apostle Paul and Muhammad (regarded as The Prophet in the Islamic faith). I thought this was a great idea, unfortunately, the author felt the need to create an inane little back story that involves scientists creating exact holographic replicas of historic figures ... it should be noted that Mr. Licona will never be an award winning science fiction author. I would of preferred the author just simply ask me to suspend reality for the duration of his book. Once the content of the book delved into the actual debate, however, it was quite entertaining.
Paul basically frames an argument supporting the resurrection based on historical information rather than scripture. His argument seems to be that scripture will better serve the unbeliever if first set in the proper historical context. Muhammad counters with the Quran's view that the resurrection never ocurred. According to Islam, Jesus was either substituted for on the cross by another (thus creating an illusion later that He has been resurrected) or never died on the cross to begin with (this theory asserts that God the Father intervened and prevented Jesus from dying).
The book does a great job of clearly presenting both sides of the debate (Licona, a Christian, consulted Muslim friends to properly present their side). The arguments are "fair and balanced" and Licona makes no attempt to "bully" his readers to believe one way or another. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions from the debate. I am not entirely sure Licona did justice to the great oratory skills of either Paul or Muhammad, but I did enjoy his effort.
In this book, the author frames a debate between the Apostle Paul and the Prophet Muhammad on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. To accomplish this, he chooses the fictional setting of a debate between two holograms, using arguments created using artificial intelligence drawn from an extensive database of the writings of the two participants. The idea is, with a complete set of their writings, their debate styles, theologies, and responses to questions can be analyzed and replicated using AI, with holograms delivering those arguments in a simulated debate. The fictional debate takes place as part of demonstration of new cutting edge technology developed by MIT.
On one hand, I would much rather have seen the debate take place in a fictional meeting between the two men out in the desert or some other poetic location. On the other hand, this is a creative literary device that drives home the point that the arguments in the book are comprehensive, based on a full analysis of the writings of these men, so that debate is not biased or slanted toward one position or another. The evidence simply is what it is.
Indeed, although the author is a Christian, he went out of his way to not only be fair to the arguments from Islam, but to solicit input from Muslim friends to help strengthen "Muhammad's" arguments. The result, I believe, is a fair, well-balanced debate between the two sides that will be refreshing and informative. It is interesting to note that most of the Muslim arguments are not unique to Islam. They are the same arguments used against Jesus' resurrection by skeptics at large, so the relevance of this debate extends far beyond Christians and Muslims to anyone of any faith (or no faith).
Although the material will be freshest for readers who are not familiar with the evidence for the resurrection, for those who are Licona takes an unusual approach that presents much of this material in a fresh way. Typically, Muslims point to perceived flaws in the gospel accounts to bolster their case against the resurrection. In this debate, however, Licona chose to base the strength of the Christian argument on evidence outside the gospels. Rather than appearing to sidestep potential problem areas, "Paul" seeks to show that the Christian position is not dependent upon the gospel accounts and stands as firm without them. It is an interesting approach that changes the debate from many perspectives and is well worth reading.
If I will be allowed a nit, it is that, by taking this approach, Licona narrows the focus of the evidence to such an extent that, in my mind, much of the equally powerful evidence for the resurrection is excluded. While attempting to keep the focus on empirical evidence accepted by most, if not all, biblical scholars (regardless of their position on this issue), in my mind, the author's choice makes the arguments between the two debaters appear more equal than they really are.
Still, this is an excellent introduction to the issues on both sides of the resurrection debate. If the debate piques readers' interest, I recommend that they follow up with additional books, starting with "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," which Licona co-wrote with Gary Habermas, which provides the kind of detail not possible in this format.
