What do you think?
Rate this book
The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition
Christianity Today 2008 Book Award (Biblical Studies)
Even mature Christians have trouble defending the person and divinity of Christ. The Jesus Legend builds a convincing interdisciplinary case for the unique and plausible position of Jesus in human history. He was real and his presence on the planet has been well-documented.
The authors of the New Testament didn't plant evidence, though each writer did tell the truth from a unique perspective. This book carefully investigates the Gospel portraits of Jesus--particularly the Synoptic Gospels--assessing what is reliable history and fictional legend. The authors contend that a cumulative case for the general reliability of the Synoptic Gospels can be made and boldly challenge those who question the veracity of the Jesus found there.
Even mature Christians have trouble defending the person and divinity of Christ. The Jesus Legend builds a convincing interdisciplinary case for the unique and plausible position of Jesus in human history. He was real and his presence on the planet has been well-documented.
The authors of the New Testament didn't plant evidence, though each writer did tell the truth from a unique perspective. This book carefully investigates the Gospel portraits of Jesus--particularly the Synoptic Gospels--assessing what is reliable history and fictional legend. The authors contend that a cumulative case for the general reliability of the Synoptic Gospels can be made and boldly challenge those who question the veracity of the Jesus found there.
480 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2007
41 people are currently reading
438 people want to read
About the author
Paul Rhodes Eddy
12 books6 followersPaul Rhodes Eddy (PhD, Marquette University) is professor of biblical and theological studies at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
March 9, 2017
Boyd and Eddy set out to refute the charge of the hyperskeptical community that Jesus never existed. Though the majority of their arguments are solid, the broad scope of their aim greatly limits their punch, as they often have to leave out critical details.
This is especially evident in their defense of the legitimacy of the Josephus' testimony about Jesus: having read J.P. Meier's arguments for its legitimacy, I know that the position that Robert Price and Earl Doherty take against it is borderline absurd; but Boyd and Eddy do not go much deeper than saying "J.P. Meier, in his 'A Marginal Jew,' argues convincingly for its authenticity." For the reader who does not wish to spend much more time researching, this turns the question of Jesus' existence into "J.P. Meier says yes-huh, Robert Price says nuh-uh," and the skeptics that Boyd and Eddy are trying to convince will unfailingly take Price's opinion over that of any Christian scholar.
The authors have clearly done their research; unfortunately, there are many places where they effectively resort to saying "this is wrong because our research says so." I recommend this book as an introductory reply to the Jesus mythicists, and in places as a very effective reply in itself, but the arguments are more complicated (and I'd say more compelling) than Boyd and Eddy's presentation of them.
This is especially evident in their defense of the legitimacy of the Josephus' testimony about Jesus: having read J.P. Meier's arguments for its legitimacy, I know that the position that Robert Price and Earl Doherty take against it is borderline absurd; but Boyd and Eddy do not go much deeper than saying "J.P. Meier, in his 'A Marginal Jew,' argues convincingly for its authenticity." For the reader who does not wish to spend much more time researching, this turns the question of Jesus' existence into "J.P. Meier says yes-huh, Robert Price says nuh-uh," and the skeptics that Boyd and Eddy are trying to convince will unfailingly take Price's opinion over that of any Christian scholar.
The authors have clearly done their research; unfortunately, there are many places where they effectively resort to saying "this is wrong because our research says so." I recommend this book as an introductory reply to the Jesus mythicists, and in places as a very effective reply in itself, but the arguments are more complicated (and I'd say more compelling) than Boyd and Eddy's presentation of them.
August 12, 2014
In this excellent work, the authors covered so much; touching on the Jewishness of first century Palestine, whether Jesus was just one among the legends, myths and divine men. They took a look at the extra-biblical references to Christ and whether or not Paul was concerned with the Historical Jesus. They spent a lot of time writing about the new discoveries made concerning oral traditions and how modern biblical scholarship is often done from a post-Gutenberg perspective that doesn't take into account the oral origins of the gospels. They show how a proper understanding of the oral nature of the synoptics has great explanatory power and I think this really is Eddy and Boyd's main contribution to the Jesus conversation. The authors shared many problems with form-criticism, extreme redactive-criticism and other methodologies that some biblical scholars employ. They discussed the genre of the gospels, whether it be like an ancient biography, history, fiction, travel epic, Midrash, etc... The last chapter made some excellent points concerning historical reliability of Mark, Matthew and Luke, though I must say it was far to brief. I do wish they made mention to the "accidental coincidences" that fill the gospels, Timothy McGrew is bringing some of these to light and they indeed are an important part of a cumulative case for the reliability of the gospels.
One interesting side effect from reading this book was my losing the respect I formerly had for liberal scholars, this of course wasn't the intention of Boyd and Eddy, but yeah, as I went through the Jesus Legend, Again and again I saw the lengths and the lows scholars must go to cram a square peg into a triangular hole because their a priori commitments to naturalistic assumptions. The Parallelomania, double-standards, mental-gymnastics, forced harmonization with extra-biblical works, hypocrisy, wild-speculations and their obvious biases is rather eye-opening. The secular fundamentalism, smug bigotry, cognitive in-breeding, arrogance, circular reasoning and the absurd methodology of this small stuck-up group of elitist was sometimes just appalling to me. It is tragic how influential these polemical scholars are and how people place blind-faith in their extreme claims about Jesus, that have little or no basis in evidence or historical facts. I now have extremely good reasons to be highly skeptical of these skeptics and to never just take as true their claims without seriously looking into the matter myself. Indeed they now have about as much credibility as the writers for the Enquirer or the Sun who mix small amounts of truth with copious amounts of fiction.
One interesting side effect from reading this book was my losing the respect I formerly had for liberal scholars, this of course wasn't the intention of Boyd and Eddy, but yeah, as I went through the Jesus Legend, Again and again I saw the lengths and the lows scholars must go to cram a square peg into a triangular hole because their a priori commitments to naturalistic assumptions. The Parallelomania, double-standards, mental-gymnastics, forced harmonization with extra-biblical works, hypocrisy, wild-speculations and their obvious biases is rather eye-opening. The secular fundamentalism, smug bigotry, cognitive in-breeding, arrogance, circular reasoning and the absurd methodology of this small stuck-up group of elitist was sometimes just appalling to me. It is tragic how influential these polemical scholars are and how people place blind-faith in their extreme claims about Jesus, that have little or no basis in evidence or historical facts. I now have extremely good reasons to be highly skeptical of these skeptics and to never just take as true their claims without seriously looking into the matter myself. Indeed they now have about as much credibility as the writers for the Enquirer or the Sun who mix small amounts of truth with copious amounts of fiction.
December 12, 2017
The Jesus Legend - Paul Eddy & Gregory Boyd
I did it. I finished the book and enjoyed a small sense of accomplishment as this was a significant effort. The Jesus Legend is a sometimes tedious and always humorless polemic against New Testament scholars who discount literal readings of the Synoptics. Eddy/Boyd identify, categorize and then dismiss every argument they encounter for a less historical interpretation of Matthew, Mark and Luke. As the subtitle makes clear, this is a polemic, not a weighing of the evidence.
The authors begin by urging an open mind to the miracles described in these (the synoptic gospels) books. They urge what they term an “open” historical-critical methodology that does not reject the supernatural out of hand. That the authors are open to claims of miracles as described in the synoptics should not be surprising. Most mainstream American protestants probably don’t question the many miracles mentioned in the NT.
However it is interesting to see what lengths the authors go to to make the case for these miracles. In taking up Humes argument against the supernatural based on probabilities, Eddy/Boyd clearly are not of mathematical inclination. They argue that just as it would be a mistake to doubt the accomplishments of a Napoleon because they seem so unlikely, one should not discount miracle accounts of the gospels . After all, unlikely events sometimes occur, the authors point out. Unlikeliness alone does not disqualify.
Well there is unlikely, and there is unlikely. Apparently Eddy/Boyd are not familiar with Occam’s Razor. This is why I found this book so tiresome. The authors are well read in NT theology. From their descriptions of scholars NT literature, it is clear that the range of interpretations of the synoptics are wide ranging. E/B categorize these arguments and come to dismiss them based on their implications more than actual evidence. They draw conclusions about plausibility and likelihood that don’t reflect a modern post-Enlightenment mind set.
Overall themes: Bultmannian forms critiques misses the mark as it doesn't recognize the aural register the synoptics were composed from. First century AD Jewish culture was isolated from Greek thinking and the concept of a miracle working savior too removed from Jewish theology to be anything but an actual historical event.
E&B describe the slippery slope of their argument:
got to be “open” to be objective
some events are described in synoptics which cannot be explained by natural laws alone
various depictions from the Jesus Seminar are wrong, wrong, wrong
the synoptics force reassessment of our commitment to Western naturalistic assumptions
the 1st century authors of Mark and the aural tradition that proceeded it were concerned with historical accuracy and transmission
the burden of proof lies with ones who dispute NT accounts, not the synoptics' defenders
the textual variants of the synoptics generally agree and famous interpolations (Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11) can be ignored (page 388).
burden of proof is largely a function of religious and philosophic assumptions (and E/B make theirs clear, an obligation of all scholars)
inconsistencies in the synoptics simply reflect their oral origins and the presence of inconsistencies actually supports their overall reliability (from what E/B term a reasonably sympathetic interpretation)
Harmonization efforts do not undercut synoptic reliability as these same efforts are required in modern reporting efforts
scholars who clam to “know” how to recognize impossible claims (virgin birth, raising of the dead, lepers instantaneously cured) are simply making “a priori naturalistic” assumptions, accepted on faith. No compelling philosophical, logical or historical arguments support this practice. (I guess we ignore biological and medical arguments)
Modern western thinking rejects miracle claims yet many people in the modern world accept and report miracles.
Western naturalistic assumptions stem from an European, academic, post-Enlightenment mindset. These beliefs are actually held only by a relatively few and are both ethnocentric and chronocentric.
So the read was a bit of a slog. 454 pages of NT criticism in support of your childhood’s reading of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Miracle stories should be accepted at face value. Modern critiques of the bible often miss the forest for the trees.
You get the sense from The Jesus Legend that the authors, well read in NT criticism, are more interested in categorizing than weighing various theological arguments. They seem content to find a path that holds to their preconceived (and explicitly stated) fundamentalistic Christian beliefs. This is the work of biblical apologists.
E/B suggest that western, naturalistic bounded explanations are simply based on a set of assumptions. They merely reflect our times and a specific (call it Enlightened) perspective. But, they caution, these assumptions betray a certain narrowness of the modern mind. I find this line of reasoning unconvincing.
I suspect E/B do not relax their dependance on Western naturalistic thinking in any other areas of their lives. Surely when E/B are in need of medical, legal, professional expertise, they do not gravitate to those who put high stake in the supernatural explanations. I bet their auto mechanic is thoroughly grounded in naturalistic solutions. So too their plumbers, electricians, builders and repairman of all stripes. Only in theology (and apparently per E/B, enthography) can the achievement of 500 years ago, the Enlightenment, be dismissed so breezily.
I did it. I finished the book and enjoyed a small sense of accomplishment as this was a significant effort. The Jesus Legend is a sometimes tedious and always humorless polemic against New Testament scholars who discount literal readings of the Synoptics. Eddy/Boyd identify, categorize and then dismiss every argument they encounter for a less historical interpretation of Matthew, Mark and Luke. As the subtitle makes clear, this is a polemic, not a weighing of the evidence.
The authors begin by urging an open mind to the miracles described in these (the synoptic gospels) books. They urge what they term an “open” historical-critical methodology that does not reject the supernatural out of hand. That the authors are open to claims of miracles as described in the synoptics should not be surprising. Most mainstream American protestants probably don’t question the many miracles mentioned in the NT.
However it is interesting to see what lengths the authors go to to make the case for these miracles. In taking up Humes argument against the supernatural based on probabilities, Eddy/Boyd clearly are not of mathematical inclination. They argue that just as it would be a mistake to doubt the accomplishments of a Napoleon because they seem so unlikely, one should not discount miracle accounts of the gospels . After all, unlikely events sometimes occur, the authors point out. Unlikeliness alone does not disqualify.
Well there is unlikely, and there is unlikely. Apparently Eddy/Boyd are not familiar with Occam’s Razor. This is why I found this book so tiresome. The authors are well read in NT theology. From their descriptions of scholars NT literature, it is clear that the range of interpretations of the synoptics are wide ranging. E/B categorize these arguments and come to dismiss them based on their implications more than actual evidence. They draw conclusions about plausibility and likelihood that don’t reflect a modern post-Enlightenment mind set.
Overall themes: Bultmannian forms critiques misses the mark as it doesn't recognize the aural register the synoptics were composed from. First century AD Jewish culture was isolated from Greek thinking and the concept of a miracle working savior too removed from Jewish theology to be anything but an actual historical event.
E&B describe the slippery slope of their argument:
got to be “open” to be objective
some events are described in synoptics which cannot be explained by natural laws alone
various depictions from the Jesus Seminar are wrong, wrong, wrong
the synoptics force reassessment of our commitment to Western naturalistic assumptions
the 1st century authors of Mark and the aural tradition that proceeded it were concerned with historical accuracy and transmission
the burden of proof lies with ones who dispute NT accounts, not the synoptics' defenders
the textual variants of the synoptics generally agree and famous interpolations (Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11) can be ignored (page 388).
burden of proof is largely a function of religious and philosophic assumptions (and E/B make theirs clear, an obligation of all scholars)
inconsistencies in the synoptics simply reflect their oral origins and the presence of inconsistencies actually supports their overall reliability (from what E/B term a reasonably sympathetic interpretation)
Harmonization efforts do not undercut synoptic reliability as these same efforts are required in modern reporting efforts
scholars who clam to “know” how to recognize impossible claims (virgin birth, raising of the dead, lepers instantaneously cured) are simply making “a priori naturalistic” assumptions, accepted on faith. No compelling philosophical, logical or historical arguments support this practice. (I guess we ignore biological and medical arguments)
Modern western thinking rejects miracle claims yet many people in the modern world accept and report miracles.
Western naturalistic assumptions stem from an European, academic, post-Enlightenment mindset. These beliefs are actually held only by a relatively few and are both ethnocentric and chronocentric.
So the read was a bit of a slog. 454 pages of NT criticism in support of your childhood’s reading of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Miracle stories should be accepted at face value. Modern critiques of the bible often miss the forest for the trees.
You get the sense from The Jesus Legend that the authors, well read in NT criticism, are more interested in categorizing than weighing various theological arguments. They seem content to find a path that holds to their preconceived (and explicitly stated) fundamentalistic Christian beliefs. This is the work of biblical apologists.
E/B suggest that western, naturalistic bounded explanations are simply based on a set of assumptions. They merely reflect our times and a specific (call it Enlightened) perspective. But, they caution, these assumptions betray a certain narrowness of the modern mind. I find this line of reasoning unconvincing.
I suspect E/B do not relax their dependance on Western naturalistic thinking in any other areas of their lives. Surely when E/B are in need of medical, legal, professional expertise, they do not gravitate to those who put high stake in the supernatural explanations. I bet their auto mechanic is thoroughly grounded in naturalistic solutions. So too their plumbers, electricians, builders and repairman of all stripes. Only in theology (and apparently per E/B, enthography) can the achievement of 500 years ago, the Enlightenment, be dismissed so breezily.
July 13, 2017
The best and worst thing about The Jesus Legend is that it's an academic work. Best, because it isn't just a popular work of apologetics-- it really engages with scholarly debate on its own terms, making a clear case without sacrificing either seriousness or readability. Worst, because it makes a ton of points that would be valuable in a more popular context, but they're lost in the ultra-structured, jargonistic academic discourse that Boyd and Eddy adopt. The authors are just a bit too aggressive with their academic style, and seem at times to be uncomfortable adopting it. As a result, however intellectually compelling their case may be, the prose itself can come off as stilted, repetitive, half-hearted, and even a bit obsessive.
Probably the most important take-away from the book is the fact that it exists at all: that a couple of (reasonably) orthodox Christian scholars can engage so thoroughly with a tradition of "critical" scholarship that inclines strongly to anti-Christian views, and end up not just unconvinced but persuasively so. Beyond that, actually reading through their thorough argument can be a bit of a slog. Do we really need to be walked through eight different, page-long considerations on the burden of proof in critical methodology ? Do we really need to be reminded several dozen times in a few chapters that the Gospels are "orally oriented" documents? Considering the arguments Boyd and Eddy are refuting, the answer for critical scholars may well be "yes"-- but for the innocent reader it all feels like a bit much.
It can also be a bit much for the believing Christian who hasn't been exposed to New Testament criticism before; the authors are forthright in adopting a view of the Gospels that's much less reassuring than the average Christian might naively expect, and opens a massive can of theological and scriptural worms. I get the impression that the authors aren't greatly bothered by this and have good reasons for still affirming traditional teaching; but that's not in the scope of this book. All in all, for me book this was an illuminating, challenging, and surprisingly confidence-building read. It just wasn't a particularly compelling one.
Probably the most important take-away from the book is the fact that it exists at all: that a couple of (reasonably) orthodox Christian scholars can engage so thoroughly with a tradition of "critical" scholarship that inclines strongly to anti-Christian views, and end up not just unconvinced but persuasively so. Beyond that, actually reading through their thorough argument can be a bit of a slog. Do we really need to be walked through eight different, page-long considerations on the burden of proof in critical methodology ? Do we really need to be reminded several dozen times in a few chapters that the Gospels are "orally oriented" documents? Considering the arguments Boyd and Eddy are refuting, the answer for critical scholars may well be "yes"-- but for the innocent reader it all feels like a bit much.
It can also be a bit much for the believing Christian who hasn't been exposed to New Testament criticism before; the authors are forthright in adopting a view of the Gospels that's much less reassuring than the average Christian might naively expect, and opens a massive can of theological and scriptural worms. I get the impression that the authors aren't greatly bothered by this and have good reasons for still affirming traditional teaching; but that's not in the scope of this book. All in all, for me book this was an illuminating, challenging, and surprisingly confidence-building read. It just wasn't a particularly compelling one.
March 2, 2018
Finally put in the 3.5 hours of reading the footnotes (at a very fast speed) to finish this up. I had Paul Rhodes Eddy as a professor in college, and I remember him showing me his text documents full of bibliographies that he keeps, so it makes sense that the footnotes would be so extensive. It'll be cool to see if they update this great resource soon to include more from Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" (a book that they say was in the final stages of publication when they published this book).
August 1, 2025
This was by far one of the most difficult books I have ever read. I was constantly looking up phrases and words. I guess I have to admit it was above my pay grade, but I stuck with it and read the entire thing. I actually liked it because it was incredibly in-depth. I'm not sure who I could recommend this to, but good luck if you decide to try it.
January 16, 2019
An intriguing look at the criticisms of the historicity of the synoptic Gospels m, and the Jesus within them, as well as rebuttals of each. Not all convincing but some thought-provoking research on orally-transmitted history/stories and the use of non-Christian sources.
August 10, 2011
In this "Christianity Today" book of the year (Biblical Studies category), Eddy and Boyd provide a rigorous and scholarly defense for the historical reliability of the synoptic gospels.
After setting the ground rules by describing an "open historical-critical method" for examining the evidence, they address eight major lines of argument that are commonly used by those who argue that the Jesus we read of in the New Testament is either fully or mostly a legend:
Naturalism -- the argument that supernatural aspects of the gospel stories must be interpreted as legendary
Hellenistic Judaism -- an argument that first century Jews were sufficiently hellenized so that the idea of a "divine man" was conducive to the creation of a myth such as that espoused in the Jesus tradition
Legendary Parallels to the Jesus Story -- the idea that there are plenty of similarities to the Jesus tradition in earlier stories. These earlier elements became parts of the Jesus myth.
Silence in Non-Christian Sources -- the argument that there is no credible early mention of a historical Jesus, and that this points to a legendary Jesus
Silence of Paul -- the claim that Paul makes little or no reference to a historical Jesus
Free-Form Fabrication of the Oral Jesus Tradition -- since oral transmission is historically unreliable, this process led to the development of a Jesus myth
The Historical Unreliability of the Gospels -- arguments that the gospels were not intended to be read as historically true, or that if they were it makes no difference because ancient works of this genre are unreliable.
The Burden of Proof -- a look at where the burden of proof lies in determining the reliability of ancient documents (and the gospels in particular).
In my opinion, the authors have successfully made their case that "if one remains open to the genuine historical possibility that the Synoptic portrait(s) of Jesus is substantially rooted in history, one will find there are compelling grounds for concluding that this portrait is historically plausible -- that it is more probable than not that this general portrait is rooted in history"
After setting the ground rules by describing an "open historical-critical method" for examining the evidence, they address eight major lines of argument that are commonly used by those who argue that the Jesus we read of in the New Testament is either fully or mostly a legend:
Naturalism -- the argument that supernatural aspects of the gospel stories must be interpreted as legendary
Hellenistic Judaism -- an argument that first century Jews were sufficiently hellenized so that the idea of a "divine man" was conducive to the creation of a myth such as that espoused in the Jesus tradition
Legendary Parallels to the Jesus Story -- the idea that there are plenty of similarities to the Jesus tradition in earlier stories. These earlier elements became parts of the Jesus myth.
Silence in Non-Christian Sources -- the argument that there is no credible early mention of a historical Jesus, and that this points to a legendary Jesus
Silence of Paul -- the claim that Paul makes little or no reference to a historical Jesus
Free-Form Fabrication of the Oral Jesus Tradition -- since oral transmission is historically unreliable, this process led to the development of a Jesus myth
The Historical Unreliability of the Gospels -- arguments that the gospels were not intended to be read as historically true, or that if they were it makes no difference because ancient works of this genre are unreliable.
The Burden of Proof -- a look at where the burden of proof lies in determining the reliability of ancient documents (and the gospels in particular).
In my opinion, the authors have successfully made their case that "if one remains open to the genuine historical possibility that the Synoptic portrait(s) of Jesus is substantially rooted in history, one will find there are compelling grounds for concluding that this portrait is historically plausible -- that it is more probable than not that this general portrait is rooted in history"
August 2, 2011
This was an excellent book for those interested in the study of the historical Jesus. It tackles the issues for those who postulate that Jesus is nothing more than a myth and the gospels are filled with glaring historical inaccuracies. It is fairly comprhensive in its treatment of the issues.
It relies heavily on theories of oral transmission and debunks form criticism and radical redation criticism. It deals with the theories that Jesus is a legend, Paul was silent on Jesus, deals with external evidence for Jesus, and defends the composition of the gospels.
This book is fairly technical and has detailed footnotes. The authors argue their case clearly and persausively. There weighing of historical facts and arguments is careful and judicious. They take on the major areas where the Synoptic Tradition has been attacked. It is well worth a careful read.
It relies heavily on theories of oral transmission and debunks form criticism and radical redation criticism. It deals with the theories that Jesus is a legend, Paul was silent on Jesus, deals with external evidence for Jesus, and defends the composition of the gospels.
This book is fairly technical and has detailed footnotes. The authors argue their case clearly and persausively. There weighing of historical facts and arguments is careful and judicious. They take on the major areas where the Synoptic Tradition has been attacked. It is well worth a careful read.
August 23, 2010
The Jesus Legend considers the arguments of how accurate the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are using primarily high-criticisim with some use of low-criticisim. It also engages arguments from the moderns, post-moderns and naturalists concerning the reliability of the ancient texts in general. In addition, the text asks the reader to recognize that first century societies were oral-based. In addition, early Christianity developed in a Jewish Torah-centered monotheistic mind set. Overall I would recommend this text to anyone who is interested in how early Christian traditions and texts developed.
August 23, 2014
Finally found a book that actually engages with the "Jesus legend" hypothesis. It's not surprising that authors don't engage with it as it is an extremely weak position, but nevertheless it is good to have a full book length engagement with the theory. The authors in this work engage in worldview presuppositions, parallels between rising/dying Gods and Hellenization of Galilee, corroboration in Paul, Josephus, Tacitus and others, oral transmission phase (on of my favorite sections along with Paul), and a defense of the general reliability of the gospels. A very helpful book that engages with history and is written in an apologetic frame. Recommended.
May 18, 2015
Very thorough and clearly written. This book responds, one by one, to major arguments against the historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels -- by explaining first those arguments "con" and then the authors' responses and their affirmative case for reliability. The book addresses everything from metaphysical/philosophical presuppositions to specific arguments about particular Gospel and secondary texts and archaeological findings. The book has an abundance of citations to source materials. Very well done, with lots of food for thought. Highly recommended.
August 11, 2013
Interesting read. Not entirely what I expected, but I think that is a good thing. They focus on the bigger picture of how modern scholars tend to do history rather than nitpicking over specific passages in detail, which is both good and bed. It got a bit repetitive at times as they continually explain and re-explain the idea of the oral tradition. It is a good and powerful point, but it didn't need to be reiterated as often as it was.
March 15, 2012
A spirited if somewhat prolix defense against the claim that the Gospels are fictitious. The authors, however, choose to defend only the Synoptic Gospels with very little mention of the Fourth Gospel. By failing to defend the Fourth Gospel, have they made a tacit admission that it lacks historical value?
October 11, 2009
There's a lot about orality studies. How stories are passed on by recitations. It is proposed that the written gospels are based on forms of oral narratives.
September 11, 2016
A bit heady, but good. Quite thorough.
July 23, 2016
This is one of the best books I've ever read on the Jesus tradition, the synoptic problem, and the philosophical baggage that people bring to the table when developing their own theories.
October 13, 2016
Not sure how much information I retained... but it was very informative I'll have to reread sometime in the near future.
June 3, 2024
I enjoyed this one. It explored a lot of reasons why the stories of Jesus ultimately recorded in the gospels was the tradition of the apostles.
Read
July 27, 2011An excellent treatment of the historical Jesus.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews