Book Club Questions for More Than a Carpenter

1.McDowell describes himself as a college student who actively argued against Christianity and put down Christians. What was his original motivation for investigating the claims of Jesus? What did he expect to find?

2.He credits a small group of Christian students — and particularly one young woman — with sparking his investigation. What was it about their lives, not just their arguments, that got his attention? What does that suggest about the relationship between evidence and witness?

3.McDowell says he 'didn't want to become a Christian.' What fears or resistances do you think he was protecting? Can you identify any similar resistances — intellectual, emotional, or social — in your own approach to questions about Jesus?

1.McDowell opens by noting that Jesus is unique in the way he made himself the central focus of his own teaching — unlike Moses, Muhammad, or Buddha, who pointed away from themselves to a law, a path, or a god. What is the significance of that difference? Why does it matter for how we evaluate Jesus's claims?

2.What specific claims does Jesus make about himself in the Gospels that go far beyond what any ordinary moral teacher would say? Which of these claims do you find most striking or most difficult to explain away?

3.McDowell distinguishes Jesus from the founders of other world religions. Without dismissing those traditions, what makes the Christian claim about Jesus categorically different from claims made about other religious founders?

1.Explain the 'Lord, Liar, or Lunatic' trilemma in your own words. What logical work is it designed to do, and why does McDowell (following C. S. Lewis) consider it a decisive framing of the question?

2.McDowell argues that someone who made the claims Jesus made — 'I am the way, the truth, and the life,' 'Before Abraham was, I am,' 'I and the Father are one' — could not simply be a good moral teacher unless those claims are true. Do you find that argument convincing? Why or why not?

3.Consider the 'liar' option. McDowell notes that if Jesus was deliberately deceiving his followers about his identity, this would make him profoundly evil — someone who sent people to their deaths on the basis of a lie. What evidence does he offer against the liar hypothesis?

1.What is the core objection McDowell is responding to in this chapter? How does the rise of 'new atheism' (referenced in the book's subject listing) sharpen that objection in the contemporary context?

2.McDowell argues that science and faith are not necessarily in conflict. What distinction does he draw between questions science can answer and questions it cannot? Do you find that distinction convincing, or does it feel like a convenient retreat?

3.Many people assume that believing in miracles — including the Resurrection — is simply incompatible with a scientific worldview. How does McDowell respond to that assumption? What does he say about the relationship between the laws of nature and the possibility of miraculous intervention?

1.McDowell uses three standard tests of historical document reliability: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. Briefly explain each in your own words. Which did you find most persuasive?

2.The bibliographical test compares the New Testament manuscript tradition to other ancient documents we consider reliable, such as the works of Caesar or Plato. What did you find most surprising about that comparison? How does the New Testament fare?

3.McDowell quotes scholar F. F. Bruce and others to establish that the New Testament documents were written close enough to the events they describe to be held accountable by eyewitnesses. Why does the time gap between event and written account matter so much for establishing reliability?

1.McDowell draws a sharp distinction between dying for a belief you hold sincerely (even if it is wrong) and dying for something you know to be a lie. Why is that distinction so important for evaluating the disciples' testimony about the Resurrection?

2.The disciples were in a position to know whether the Resurrection was real — they were either eyewitnesses or in close contact with those who were. What options are available to explain their willingness to suffer and die for their testimony?

3.McDowell notes the dramatic transformation of the disciples between Good Friday and Pentecost — from terrified fugitives hiding behind locked doors to bold public proclaimers willing to face imprisonment and death. What explanation does he offer for that transformation? What other explanations are available?

1.McDowell surveys the alternative theories that skeptics have offered to explain the empty tomb: the swoon theory, the theft theory, the wrong tomb theory, and the hallucination theory. Briefly summarize each. Which do you think is the most plausible alternative to the Resurrection, and what are its weaknesses?

2.The 'swoon theory' suggests Jesus never really died — he merely fainted on the cross and later revived. McDowell responds with evidence both from Roman crucifixion practice and from the medical details in the Gospel accounts. What does that evidence say?

3.The 'theft theory' — that the disciples stole the body — was the first counter-explanation offered (Matthew 28:11–15). McDowell notes it was put forward by the authorities who had the most to gain from disproving the Resurrection. What are the logical problems with the theft theory?

1.McDowell presents a series of Old Testament prophecies that he argues were fulfilled specifically and verifiably in the life of Jesus — including the place of his birth, the manner of his entry into Jerusalem, the price of his betrayal, and details of his crucifixion. List two or three of these that struck you as most specific or surprising.

2.McDowell employs a probability argument — drawing on the work of mathematician Peter Stoner — to calculate the odds of any one person fulfilling even a small selection of these prophecies by chance. What is the purpose of this kind of probabilistic argument? Does it persuade you, or does it feel like it oversimplifies a complex issue?

3.A common objection is that Jesus (or the Gospel writers) deliberately arranged events to match Old Testament prophecy. McDowell responds that many of the prophecies involve events Jesus could not have controlled — such as his birthplace, the manner of his death, and the casting of lots for his clothing. How does this response address the objection?

1.What does McDowell mean when he distinguishes between 'myth' and 'history'? Why does the distinction matter so much for evaluating the Gospel accounts of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection?

2.McDowell appeals to the testimony of New Testament scholar C. S. Lewis (who was also a professor of medieval literature and mythology) that the Gospels do not read like myths — they read like eyewitness accounts. What features of the Gospel narratives support that judgment?

3.The 'legend hypothesis' argues that stories about Jesus grew and were embellished over decades, eventually producing the divine figure we see in the Gospels. McDowell's chapter on manuscript reliability (Week 5) already addressed the time-gap problem. How does the evidence for early dating of the Gospel texts undermine the legend hypothesis?

1.McDowell closes the book's argument not with more historical data but with the evidence of changed lives — including his own. Why does he consider this a legitimate and important category of evidence, rather than mere anecdote?

2.McDowell describes his own transformation — from hostile skeptic to convinced believer and campus speaker — as the result of encountering the risen Christ. What specific changes did he describe in his life? What was different about him after his conversion?

3.A critic might say that many religions and ideologies produce changed lives — that transformation is not unique to Christianity. How does McDowell address that objection? What is distinctive about the kind of change associated with a personal relationship with Jesus?

1.Looking back across the whole book, which chapter or argument had the greatest impact on you — intellectually, spiritually, or personally? What made it land so powerfully?

2.McDowell's book is organized around a single driving question: Who is Jesus, really? How has your answer to that question shifted, deepened, or become more complicated over the past ten weeks?

3.The Lord/Liar/Lunatic trilemma from Chapter 3 is the book's most famous contribution. Having now seen how McDowell fills in the historical, textual, and experiential evidence around it, do you find the trilemma more or less persuasive than you did in Week 3? Why?