The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series) by Paul Rhodes Eddy (PDF)

Description

2011 Christianity Today Book Award winnerThe scholarly quest for the historical Jesus has a distinguished pedigree in modern Western religious and historical scholarship, with names such as Strauss, Schweitzer and Bultmann highlighting the story. Since the early 1990s, when the Jesus quest was reawakened for a third run, numerous significant books have emerged. And the public’s attention has been regularly arrested by media coverage, with the Jesus Seminar or the James ossuary headlining the marquee.The Historical Jesus: Five Views provides a venue for readers to sit in on a virtual seminar on the historical Jesus. Beginning with a scene-setting historical introduction by the editors, prominent figures in the Jesus quest set forth their views and respond to their fellow scholars.On the one end Robert M. Price lucidly maintains that the probability of Jesus’ existence has reached the “vanishing point,” and on the other Darrell Bock ably argues that while critical method yields only a “gist” of Jesus, it takes us in the direction of the Gospel portraits. In between there are numerous avenues to explore, questions to be asked and “assured results” to be weighed. And John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson and James D. G. Dunn probe these issues with formidable knowledge and honed insight, filling out a further range of options.The Historical Jesus: Five Views offers a unique entry into the Jesus quest. For both the classroom and personal study, this is a book that fascinates, probes and engages.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Not considering the introductory essay by Beilby and Eddy, which is the most valuable part of the book in my opinion,this represents a fair spectrum of views on the ‘historical Jesus’, straight from left to right. In short:Price thinks the Jesus tradition is crap.Crossan thinks the pure waters of the tradition have been heavily crapped on.Johnson thinks to view it in terms of crap and not-crap is a misunderstanding.Dunn’s view is similar to Johnson’s, but even if there is just the little bit of crap he allows, we can’t know because the lid on the toilet bowl is effectively sealed shut.Finally, Bock thinks anything one thinks of as crap is actually solid gold.I realize that seems a bit satirical and facetious, but the metaphor understood as a simplification (albeit in jest) is surprisingly apt for the views of these scholars.I find my own view reflected in a mixture of the views of Price, Crossan, and Johnson.I cannot agree with Price that Jesus didn’t exist, and many of his individual points are rather strained, but his emotional and existential detachment from the sources and characters in the sources brings an element of realisticness to the study of Jesus. It’s a corrective to the tendency of Jesus scholars (most of whom are religious in some way) to let their personal reverence for Jesus and the texts seep its way into their scholarship.Thus we have Dunn still invoking the ‘impact’ of Jesus on his disciples, although I’m not quite sure how to assess ‘impact’ as a useful analytical category. We also have Crossan referring to Jesus’s ‘authority’. Yet, Crossan, agrees with Price that much of what is claimed in the gospels is wrong; for example, that a Jesus who predicted the imminent end would be wrong; but as a professed Christian, Crossan needs some legitimation for that label, and finds it in the Jesus who didn’t actually make any of those predictions. Why call yourself a Christian if Jesus was a false prophet? Well, being a Christian still makes sense if that’s a later layer of interpretation and not the property of the ‘historical Jesus’.I find Johnson and evangelicals like Bock to at least be more candid and obvious about what they are doing. Johnson finds that history (in accord with his view, right or wrong, as to how that is conducted) can only yield a certain minimum of conclusions about Jesus, while Christian faith is separate from the provisional conclusions of scholarship. Bock actively tries to ground the metaphysical commitments of Christians in the truth of certain historical features of the gospels.This volume also caused me to rethink the whole historical ‘debate’ concerning the ‘Jesus of history’ and the ‘Christ of faith’, noted many times throughout the book (Beilby & Eddy, 32-6, Dunn, 200-7, Bock, 250, Crossan, 233f., 288, Johnson’s whole essay essentially).When I think of that dichotomy, I think of: 1) An approach to the sources about Jesus that does not carry out its project by presupposing Christian doctrines as true but according to neutral, non-sectarian, conventional historical methods (‘Jesus of history’) versus 2) The theologically normative view of Jesus in Christian doctrine, with all that that entails in a specifically Christian worldview (‘Christ of faith’).I think that dichotomy holds. But some apparently seem to think differently. Dunn, for example, thinks that the dichotomy is false because Jesus’s aforementioned ‘impact’ certainly ‘evoked faith’ from the very beginning. There is no non-layered construal of Jesus that didn’t involve faith anywhere in the sources (see 200-7). So there are no sources that assess Jesus without ‘faith’.Likewise, Bock quips that, ‘The first quest [of the historical Jesus] was flawed, arguing that dogmatics can have no place in studying Jesus (as if Jesus did not engage in theology)’ (250).Both of these responses to the dichotomy seem to entirely miss the point. Reinterpreting Bock’s misleading suggestion that Jesus ‘engaged in theology’ to mean he was a religious fellow with religious beliefs (I would not call that ‘engaging in theology’), the true nature of the dichotomy as I understand it is in whether we let prepackaged dogmatic commitments guide our handling of the material and determine what kind of conclusions we derive.As a non-Christian, I wouldn’t deny the religious character of the sources. If I’m trying to write historically about Jesus, I’m not looking for a discrete, non-religious ‘source’ at the base of piles of ‘faith’ perspectives stacked on top of it. But I can reject both the religious interpretation of those sources and the dogma of contemporary Christian theology. When I’m reading the infancy narratives, I’m not constrained by a creedal dogma that states Jesus was ‘born of a virgin’. I don’t have to think he was the son of God, that he had supernatural powers, that he will judge people at the end of the world, or that his ethical teaching is relevant or true. I don’t let those presuppositions govern my thinking.I don’t have to search for a modern, non-religious Jesus. I can fully acknowledge Jesus was religious, that his followers had ‘faith’ from ‘the beginning’, and that all sources worth considering are permeated by religious interpretation. But I don’t have to interpret his historical significance, or determine what he said or did in terms of any of the categories imposed upon Jesus thereby. That’s the difference. I don’t share the dogmas of Christians, early or contemporary, and I don’t have to when I’m seeking the ‘historical Jesus’.The ‘Joseph Smith of faith’ may be the one who spoke with the angel Moroni and translated the golden plates, but the ‘Joseph Smith of history’ (that about whom we may ascribe true past propositions) may just have been a fraud or highly deluded man who deluded others. Whichever is true, the point is I’m not limited by Mormon faith when articulating and defending my historical descriptions.The fact that Dunn, et al, don’t seem to understand this leads me to believe the debate over the dichotomy is just one huge, farcical, internecine Christian theological squabble, or at least has been construed as that by some of the contributors both in this book and throughout the history of ‘historical Jesus’ scholarship.I have not given full attention to all aspects of this work. But it is a worthwhile read for those beginning to study the ‘historical Jesus’.

⭐Published in 2009 by InterVarsity Press, “The Historical Jesus: Five Views provides a broad and helpful introduction to the area of historic Jesus Studies. The book is formatted in the standard manner for these types of texts; an introduction followed by essays from the respective authors with short responses from the other contributors. Overall, I found this to be one of the best books of its type that I have come across.I offer a couple of broad points as well as a few specific comments on the different contributions. With regard to general points, the editors’ introduction is particularly good; it provides a helpful and balanced overview of historic Jesus studies, context that may be particularly valuable for readers new to this subject. Additionally, the book’s wide range of perspectives is a strength. Often these texts while possessing high quality scholarship are restricted in scope, resulting in a well informed but, internecine debate amongst evangelical scholars; kudos to InterVarsity for including such a diverse range of viewpoints.A few comments on the different contributions. First, Robert Price, arguably the most credible proponent of what is known as the `Jesus Myth’. A view which posits that there was no historic Jesus and that Christianity is the result of an amalgamation of accidental and intentional myth making. While an enjoyable addition to the discussion, the `Jesus Myth’ does not stand up well to informed and sober criticism. This should not be surprising given that its key tenants have been considered and dismissed by scholars (Christian and non-Christian alike) over the last 150 years. Regardless of whether Jesus was the second person of the trinity, a failed eschatological prophet or something in between the attempt to deny his historic existence is speculative in the extreme. You wonder what these folks could do with the Kennedy assassination or the moon landing. All joking aside, despite it obvious weaknesses it was nice to see the Jesus Myth included in the discussion.Second, Dominic Crossan a well-known and prolific Liberal scholar. Crossan’s essay was the weakest of the contributions. I say this not because I disagree with many of his views (I do), but, rather, on stylistic grounds. Crossan clearly enjoys the art of writing and has received no small amount of acclaim for his ability to turn a phrase and tell a story. Unfortunately, in the present context while Crossan is an informed and reflective thinker his speculative reconstructions of Jewish and Roman history add little to the discussion.Third was Luke Timothy Johnson a well known Catholic scholar. Somewhat to my surprise I found Johnson’s essay to be the best of the collection. In particular he does a nice job of articulating many of the assumptions and limitations associated with historical reconstructions. As Johnson rightfully notes the attempt to get behind historic texts and traditions is a speculative endeavour (e.g. take the currently popular attempts to determine chronological and redactional layers within the hypothetical Q document). Johnson cautions that when approaching the historic Jesus, it is important to be aware that what is sometimes pasted of as history is in fact theology in disguise, theistic or atheistic.Next was James Dunn perhaps the world’s leading contemporary New Testament scholar. Dunn’s essay is excellent; it distils many of the ideas articulated in his detailed study, `Jesus Remembered’. Dunn identifies and challenges some of the classic assumptions of the Jesus Quest, for instance the assumed dichotomy between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith as well as the Quest’s literary focus (documents, redactions etc).Finally, Darrell Bock a well known conservative scholar. Having significant agreement with Johnson and Dunn on many broad points, Bock makes a case for the general reliability of the New Testament depiction of Jesus. While his essay was solid, I was particularly impressed by Bock’s responses to the other contributions. Often in these texts scholarly rivalries can get the best of civility; Bock’s tone was refreshingly cordial and respectful throughout.Overall this is an excellent introduction to the historic Jesus. Kudos to IVP for the broad approach. Highly recommended.

⭐I’ve recently been engaging in a certain degree of self education about the historical figure of Jesus. After reading John Romer’s Testament AN Wilson,and Ian Wilson, I felt it was time to widen my reading from populist texts to a more academic engagement with the hugely complicated subject. I teach English and am passionately if amateurishly well read in history of all periods. Surely the act of reading the figure of Jesus of Nazareth is the ultimate expression and challenge of these two disciplines?I was delighted to read this book which was exactly what I was looking for. Quite simply, five academics, of highly significant reputation in the field, take it in turns to present an essay on their view of the quest for the historical Jesus of Nazareth. In virtually every case, each short but stimulating essay draws on a lifetime of academic engagement and debate with the subject. After each essay, the other for contributors provide a short but academically challenging engagement with the argument. This gives a real sense of being involved in a high level seminar on the subject, but I found their presentation and arguments very clear and accessible to a general reader.The real delight is that all five academics taken together, provide a broad spectrum of postures on the topic, ranging from a denial that the historical Jesus existed at all, right the way through to an acceptance that the Jesus of the Gospels provides the “gist” of the historical Jesus. A particularly strong element of these discussions, is the constant questioning and redefinition of methodology and terminology, which makes the quality of the argument very precise.While reading, I underlined any of the texts mentioned in the ample footnotes and bibliography that might provide me with further reading. To my combined horror and delight, I discovered that this was in excess of 30 books! I think this is a lot about the quality of the introduction to the subject that this book provides.

⭐Eine breite Übersicht von sehr liberal bis sehr konservativ über wer Jesus war und was wir über ihn wissen können.I have rated this book with 4 stars, not because I was gripped with its contents or editorial skills but because it confirmed for me the kind of thinking behind academic theologians and evangelists. I will admit, as a layman, I was able to read and digest only a few pages at a time, and I had to persist to finish it. I found massive quotes of chapter and verse of the Bible unhelpful and distressing as I should have had a Bible next to me to know to what the authors were referring to. Otherwise those references would be meaningless to most readers.I was hoping to gain an insight into the ‘historical Jesus’ but instead I found that like most evangelists, these academics and theologians were seeking ‘historical Jesus’ “within the limited boundaries of the Gospels and Biblical literature,” never once exceeding these ‘boundaries of evangelicalism,’ nor were there any suggestions that Jesus in the Bible could have been an allegorical Jesus. Yet none of the authors ever questioned the historical authenticity of the Gospels or their authorship nor the possibilities that such literature written hundreds of years after the event were not historical but simply a collection of allegorical stories plagiarised from one another, edited and re-edited by numerous scribes, Pharisees, and theologians until the stories were sanitised and harmonised to suit their objectives. Or even suggested that there could have been possible corruption or cosmetically dressed versions of the original events presented for popular consumption. Thus I was rather disappointed with the uncritical manner of the examination by these theologians in their search for historical Jesus. I was disappointed with the findings of the ‘historical Jesus’ as the search was very limited in scope.I do not believe that the historical events as stated in the Bible have yet been fully verified historically or archaeologically. There have been recent archaeological findings that are now being analysed that could reveal a different aspect to Biblical history.

Keywords

Free Download The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series) in PDF format
The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series) PDF Free Download
Download The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series) 2009 PDF Free
The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series) 2009 PDF Free Download
Download The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series) PDF
Free Download Ebook The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series)