What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus Now and Then
Jesus Now and Then engagingly traces the changing images of Jesus in scholarship and popular culture from the time of the early church to the present day. Who did Jesus think he was? Did the early church take a man and make him into God? Was Christianity actually invented by Paul? How has Jesus been treated in the centuries since? What contemporary views are compatible with a traditional understanding of Scripture? Richard Burridge and Graham Gould leave no stone unturned in detailing Jesus' life and legacy. They start with the evidence about Jesus found in the New Testament and then go on to explore the early-church debates as a way of tackling contemporary issues. They also discuss how the figure of Jesus has been portrayed through history, how his teachings have been understood, and how he has come to be worshiped by Christians around the world. This essential historical information sets current questions and controversies about Jesus into context and helps to explain the many different views and interpretations of him now on offer.
- GenresReligion
228 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2004
1 person is currently reading
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 30, 2025
This is adapted from the authors' lectures for the Associateship course at King's College, London. King's is a Christian foundation, and the optional Associateship course aims to offer students a grounding in "Christian faith and theology, biblical studies and doctrine, ethics and moral philosophy, religious experience and other faiths", as an add-on to their main course of study. This book covers a lot of the same ground as Decoding Early Christianity, to which Gould also contributed. I think this is the better of the two books - it is more engaging for the general reader, and probably benefits from having fewer authors and a less gimmicky brief. I particularly enjoyed the refresher on heresies of the early Church.
October 15, 2015
This book succeeds remarkably well in two specific ways:
1) It brings the complex issues of current historical and theological "Jesus studies" down to a (roughly) layman's level.
2) It brings these complex issues TOGETHER. My library is filled with books about the quest for the "historical Jesus" and books about "Christology"...but very few of them treat these as connected, much less integrated, studies.
Another feature I admired was the authors' stubborn refusal to "discount" liberal or conservative approaches to these issues. Firstly, they very sensibly defined and clearly explained what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean in the context of Jesus studies, rtather than letting one or the other be a stand-in for "the view I don't agree with." Secondly, they acknowledge that both sides of this ongoing debate do have legitimate critiques of the other side's claims. A disclaimer here is necessary: the authors' commitment to value of "historical Jesus" studies leads them, especially in their conclusion, to make some hard-bitten observations about the ease of "overlaying" a theological assumption across a biblical narrative and glibly claim support for a preconceived "Jesus." From my side of the theological arena, these comments sounded decidedly "liberal," but I remain convinced that their intention was simply to enforce intellectual honesty on BOTH sides.
One final comment, as a Oneness Pentecostal, I struggled with where I stood within the authors' theological universe. On the one hand, the "theological" section (Part II) concludes with a definite claim that any non-Trinitarian view of God lies beyond the pale of Christian orthodoxy; on the other, the "biblical-historical" section (Part I) seemed to plainly acknowledge that the Trinitarian formulation is NOT automatically inherent or self-evident in Scripture and represents the impact of Greco-Roman philosophy. My hunch is that I would not be welcome at their table...but I think they've given me a few tools to argue for a seat.
Who should read this book? It's not exactly easy reading for a theological novice and yet, it's purpose is to summarize and clarify complex arguments. Perhaps I would say it this way: While it probably would not be the FIRST book I would read on the issue, I'd keep it within the first five.
1) It brings the complex issues of current historical and theological "Jesus studies" down to a (roughly) layman's level.
2) It brings these complex issues TOGETHER. My library is filled with books about the quest for the "historical Jesus" and books about "Christology"...but very few of them treat these as connected, much less integrated, studies.
Another feature I admired was the authors' stubborn refusal to "discount" liberal or conservative approaches to these issues. Firstly, they very sensibly defined and clearly explained what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean in the context of Jesus studies, rtather than letting one or the other be a stand-in for "the view I don't agree with." Secondly, they acknowledge that both sides of this ongoing debate do have legitimate critiques of the other side's claims. A disclaimer here is necessary: the authors' commitment to value of "historical Jesus" studies leads them, especially in their conclusion, to make some hard-bitten observations about the ease of "overlaying" a theological assumption across a biblical narrative and glibly claim support for a preconceived "Jesus." From my side of the theological arena, these comments sounded decidedly "liberal," but I remain convinced that their intention was simply to enforce intellectual honesty on BOTH sides.
One final comment, as a Oneness Pentecostal, I struggled with where I stood within the authors' theological universe. On the one hand, the "theological" section (Part II) concludes with a definite claim that any non-Trinitarian view of God lies beyond the pale of Christian orthodoxy; on the other, the "biblical-historical" section (Part I) seemed to plainly acknowledge that the Trinitarian formulation is NOT automatically inherent or self-evident in Scripture and represents the impact of Greco-Roman philosophy. My hunch is that I would not be welcome at their table...but I think they've given me a few tools to argue for a seat.
Who should read this book? It's not exactly easy reading for a theological novice and yet, it's purpose is to summarize and clarify complex arguments. Perhaps I would say it this way: While it probably would not be the FIRST book I would read on the issue, I'd keep it within the first five.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews