The Jesus Quest: The Danger from Within

by Norman L. Geisler (Editor), F. David Farnell (Editor)

This work examines the historical and philosophical strengths and/or weaknesses of current evangelical approaches espousing some forms of post-modernistic historiography and its resultant search for the "historical Jesus." It demonstrates the marked undermining impact these efforts have had on the biblical text, especially the Gospels, as well inerrancy issues. It compares the Jesus Seminar's approach with current evangelical practices of searching in terms of their evidential apologetic impact on the trustworthiness of the Gospels. A number of well-known, contemporary evangelical scholars are involved in the so-called "Third Quest" for the historical Jesus. This book raises serious questions about such an endeavor. Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D., Chancellor, Veritas Evangelical Seminary; Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Theology F. David Farnell, Ph.D., Senior Professor of New Testament, The Master's Seminary Richard G. Howe, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics, Southern Evangelical Seminary Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D., Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages, Southern Evangelical Seminary William E. Nix, Ph.D., Professor of Historical and Theological Studies, Veritas Evangelical Seminary William C. Roach, Ph.D. candidate, Co-Author of Defending Inerrancy Dennis M. Swanson, D.Min., Vice President for Library and Educational Assessment Norman L. Geisler is a world-renown Christian apologist who has written over 80 books. He is Chancellor of Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. Dr. Geisler was a key founder of the historic International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) as well as the International Council on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982). F. David Farnell is Senior Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary. He was co-editor of The Jesus Crisis (1998) as well as contributor to other books (e.g. Three Views on Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, 2002). He specializes in the impact of historical-critical philosophical ideologies in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation.

722 pages, Paperback

First published March 7, 2014

About the author

Norman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Reviews

[Jonathan Klimek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent Work! Exposing the grave dangers of historical criticism, Jesus Seminar's approach, the Third Quest for the historical Jesus; and defends the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of Scripture.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A PASSIONATE REJECTION OF “NEO-EVANGELICALS” WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE “THIRD QUEST”

The Prologue of this 2014 book states, “This work examines the historical and philosophical strengths and/or weaknesses of current neo-evangelical approaches espousing some forms of post-modernistic historiography and its resultant search for the ‘historical’ Jesus. It will also demonstrate the impact these efforts have and on the biblical text, especially the Gospels, as well [as] inerrancy issues that surround the Chicago Statements of 1978 and 1982. It will also compare the Jesus Seminar’s approach with current evangelical practices pf searching in terms of their evidential apologetic impact on the trustworthiness of the Gospels for the Christian. The controlling thesis of [this book] is that a bad methodology will ALWAYS produce a bad theology. The end result will be that the Scriptures are undermined when a bad methodology governs their interpretation and understanding. [The Editors] have assembled a group of well-known and highly competent scholars to evaluate this current trend among neo-evangelicals who are now mirroring critical British and critical European scholarship in their approach to the Gospels.” (Pg. 26-27)

Geisler and William Roach argue that “Nowhere [in 'The Resurrection of Jesus'] has [Michael] Licona (or any other Bible critic) actually proven there were any real contradictions in the Gospels. The one Licona mentions about the day of Christ’s crucifixion has several possible explanations. First, there could have been two different Passovers, one following the Pharisees and the other the Sadducees. Second, the Gospel writer could have been referring to two different days, one the Passover day itself and the other the beginning of the feast following the Passover. Third, John could have been using Roman time, not Jewish time. If so, there is no contradiction as to the time of day.” (Pg. 191)

In another essay, Geisler observes, “The case of Robert Gundry is interesting and more crucial to ETS [Evangelical Theological Society] because he not only confesses to inerrancy but he also belonged to ETS. Yet… he held a methodology that seems inconsistent with the ETS doctrine of inerrancy… So while Gundry confesses to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, he denied that these events reported by Matthew [27:52-53] are literally and historically true… Gundry’s method is a de facto denial of the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture… In fact, as far as ETS is concerned, this is the only explicitly stated doctrine by which one is tested for membership. So Gundry’s denial of the occurrence of some events reported in the gospel of Matthew is a denial of the ETS doctrine that all Scripture is true… the similarities between Robert Gundry’s views and those of Mike Licona are striking. Both confess to believe in inerrancy… Yet there is a striking difference. Gundry was asked to leave ETS by a 70% vote, but to date no such rejection of Licona by ETS leadership or membership has occurred.” (Pg. 351-352)

Farnell states, “evangelicals who participate now in the ‘third’ quest are far less candid [than theological liberals] as to its design. These searches started with the rise in dominance of the ideology of historical criticism over two hundred years ago and are a natural consequence of the innate historical skepticism replete in them. Now some of the same scholars who have inspired the New Perspective on Paul have also been largely influential in stimulating the ‘third search for the historical Jesus’… All three [quests] are unified by sharing, to some degree, the unifying characteristics of significant degrees of suspicion regarding the Gospels, similar ideological approaches in utilizing historical criticism, a refusal to accept the biblical accounts as truly depicting Jesus as He actually was in history, and a marked preference for developing a view of Jesus that is acceptable to scholarship.” (Pg. 361-362)

In another essay, Farnell recounts, “in 1988, Norman Geisler… warned evangelicals regarding the negative presuppositions of historical-critical ideologies… citing lessons from history as demonstrating their negative consequences… Geisler’s address as well as his praise for ['The Jesus Crisis'] revealed a significant cleavage within evangelicalism that had developed… In 2004, Geisler, a world-renowned Christian apologist and long-time member of ETS, decried the society’s acceptance of open theists among its ranks and withdrew his membership, perceiving a drift in the wrong direction for the [ETS] of which he was a founding member.” (Pg. 429)

Thomas Howe observes, “Interpreters who hold conflicting views make claims and counter claims, appeal to Scripture as evidence against contrary appeals, but little headway toward a solution seems to be made. Everyone appeals to the same body of Scripture, and everyone seems to propose that his own interpretation is superior to the interpretations of his opponents… Factors such as [these]… have caused many theorists to question whether objectivity in interpretation is possible or even desirable. The possibility of objectivity in interpretation has been called into question by both non-Evangelical and Evangelical interpreters… Both Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals attribute the fact of conflicting interpretations to the preconditional framework of the interpreter. Of course this preconditional framework includes the hermeneutic principles and methodology an interpreter adopts.” (Pg. 545-546)

The book concludes, “many of the evangelicals referenced in this work … say that they support the doctrine of inerrancy… What they say, however, often appears to be directly contradicted by what they practice. Their participation in the adoption of these questing efforts… undermines not only the ICBI documents but, even more tragically, the historical integrity of the Gospels… these new evangelicals practice historical-critical approaches that directly caused the last crisis that led to the creation of the ICBI statements themselves. Academic prestige and scholarly fads often rule the day rather than submission to the Lordship of Christ and the divine authority of His Word… Furthermore, many of these scholars leave the impression that they somehow are wiser, more intelligent, more careful, or even ‘more skilled exegetes’ than other generations of evangelicals who either fought the battle for inerrancy or perhaps will be better able to surmount the challenges than other evangelicals who eventually compromised the Scriptures with adoption of historical-critical ideologies. They arrogantly believe that they might succeed where others have failed, but church history stands as a stark testimony against any such claim.” (Pg. 675)

This book is obviously controversial, but it will be “must reading” for anyone studying the debate among Evangelicals about Inerrancy, the Historical Jesus “quest,” or related areas.

[Michael Dionne]

Eye-opening reading for conservative evangelicals considering higher scholarship, as well as for pastors and teachers dealing with the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" and similar semi-evangelical questions.
While the self-published nature of this work results in some editing issues, the content is well argued and crucial for our consideration.