What do you think?
Rate this book
This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah
Looks at Jesus as a historical figure and describes the times in which he lived
242 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
About the author
Markus Bockmuehl
35 books13 followersMarkus Bockmuehl (PhD, University of Cambridge) is a Fellow of Keble College and professor of biblical and early Christian studies at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England. He previously taught at the University of Cambridge and the University of St. Andrews. Bockmuehl is the author or editor of numerous books, including Seeing the Word, Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible, Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views, and Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 7, 2025
First, I think it is important to state at the outset that if you are considering reading this book you should read this book. In content, it is only about 160 actual pages and is very accessible. The prose is intelligent without being pretentious, giving the book a veneer of intellectual prowess without looking down on the reader. However, I think it is important that you do not only read this book, especially in the modern day. The book was written in 1996, but its arguments are lasting enough that they warrant comparison and contrast with modern scholarship.
First, there are (to me) clear epistemological problems with the book. It begins by criticizing historical-critical analysis techniques like the criterion of dissimilarity (the idea that we can be reasonably sure a statement is true if we can conclude the speaker is harmed by the utterance of it) or the anonymous sources (such as Q.) However, he acts as though this is the primary tool employed and that it alone is considered enough to believe something wholeheartedly. At the time, maybe this was true. I doubt it and it certainly does not seem to be the case today.
So, if we cannot trust scholarly tools like the criterion of dissimilarity, where do we get our information on the historical Jesus?
Bockmuehl believes we will find the answer in the Gospels of the New Testament, his argument is that extra-canonical gospels such as that of Timothy or Peter are too legendary, and likely too late, to serve as true historical sources. Thus, we must rely on the accounts of the 4 Gospels and some words by Flavius Josephus, the famous (and highly cited) ancient historian of Judaism. I think it may be beneficial to quote Bockmuehl at length. On page 20, discussing his epistemology, Bockmuehl says
"The Gospels were not written as novels, with the primary purpose of entertainment, but as evangels: that is to say, they are didactic and persuasive or apologetic works about events which transpired in their own time. This makes it even more likely that questions about the reliability and truth value of their sources were a prominent concern for the authors. All self-respecting Christian catechesis had to keep an eye on public credibility (cf. also C o l. 4.5f.; 1 Pet. 3.15f.). This is not to say that the Gospels do not contain elements which may strike the modem literary critic, and even the historian of ancient Judaism, as literary or theological embellishment. Nor is it to claim that they were intended as dispassionate historiography, even to the limited extent that Josephus's Jewish War was. But it is to assert as an appropriate rule of thumb that, unless there is good reason to think otherwise, the gospel accounts interpreted in their first-century contexts may be read as broadly reliable in what they do affirm about the life and teaching of Jesus."
I am not completely opposed to this and actually view the NT as an incredibly important primary source that passes many important tests on certain claims (multiple independent attestation and, yes, the criterion of dissimilarity, to name two) and I am even sympathetic to the idea that the authors would have some fidelity to accuracy as making claims of Jesus' being a 50 foot mech fighting a 50 foot mega Satan in the arena of Pontius Pilate would be so obviously fabricated as to harm the prospect of any converts. That said, I think Bockmuehl puts more stock in them than any historian has any reasonable right to. His faith is openly stated and I have no issue with him stating he takes the Gospels as mostly true but this is a huge claim that really begs the question.
Certain assumptions are baked into the text. No Gospel claiming Jesus was not the Son Of God and outright denying his resurrection, or otherwise in direct contradiction to the canon, would make the cut.
It is no historical secret that heterodox views are often destroyed. Thus, the Gospels should be used cautiously. I think Bockmuehl is a bit haphazard with his use of them and rarely deeply analyzes the reliability of the Gospels in and of themselves, only in relation to clearly inferior documents.
This book is actually something I read to balance out another book I recently revisited, "How Jesus Became God" by Bart Ehrman (another essential reading). A bible scholar I recently met said he thought Ehrman was "sloppy" and specifically recommended this book. While it was not explicitly stated this book would serve as a foil to Ehrman (in general, the conversation was not about "How Jesus became God" specifically) it was implied, and I think its true. Both books are concerned very much with the historical Jesus. Both are presented as a scholarly work, and neither should be denied this title. However, unlike Ehrman who critically analyzes the text for the most likely truth (at least as he sees it), Bockmuehl treats the canonical Gospels as presumptively reliable—not because they are demonstrably accurate, but because alternative sources are weaker.
In other words, Bockmuehl sees the gospels as relatively reliable and that's good enough. While others are interested in an absolute reliability, which I find at least the attempt—even if you want to say Ehrman or others failed to make compelling cases—to be more intellectually honest.
Just to give a concrete example of where I think this laxity causes problems is on page 53 where Bockmuehl says "Matthew and other early Christians identified Jesus with this Son of Man - a disputed identification but one which, I would argue, is implicit in Jesus' own words." However, we get Jesus "own words" from the Gospels and of course the authors of the Gospel accounts would make this at least implicit because early Christians would absolutely want to make this up. They would absolutely be motivated to insert polemical quotes with Messianic undertones. The fact that it isn't until John that we see clear indications of Jesus recognizing his own divinity is telling in itself, making quite the opposite conclusion stronger, in my opinion, but let's not get to far away from the review.
It is certainly true that we cannot really disprove the Gospels like we can prove scientific laws. So, as an intellectual work, I reiterate I still find it an important and worthwhile read. These weaknesses are not insurmountable. It is an upfront and clear epistemological belief. I find it incorrect, but it is not based on nothing. My real issue is actually with something else: the author’s conclusions.
In many of Bockmuehl's conclusions (and I mean some of the arguments he lays out and the claims based on them, not just the sections literally titled "Conclusion") the author eloquently blurs the lines of history and theology. I don't think this is nefarious or a sleight of hand, the author’s faith is stated at the outset as the opening chapter states that his job is to present a Jesus that is "historically probable and in plausible continuity with the faith of his first followers." (p.g. 8) The text ends (sans the epilogue and further reading) with the statement "[m]y argument in these pages has been that orthodox Christian faith, properly understood, is indeed a plausible and legitimate interpretation of that person. In other words, it is possible to join with integrity in the early church's conviction that "God has made this Jesus both Lord and Messiah" (p.g 167). So, his thesis is that Christianity is at least possible given the historical record.
Because this is his goal, I think he makes some strange statements. For example, in "Chapter One: Where Did Jesus Come From?" Bockmuehl says "Thus, the virginal conception of Jesus can be neither proved nor disproved. For those who do not reject the possibility of miracle, Christian belief in the virgin birth is certainly compatible with what can be known from history." In other words, this means a virginal birth is possible. I do not wish to restate the authors arguments, as you can read them for yourself and evaluate them, but I was certainly surprised by the content of them as I felt he was making a compelling case against a virginal birth and then settled on basically a 50/50 'who can say?' style conclusion while implying, in my view fairly heavily, the miracle version should be given preference
Another example is given on page 59 (which, actually, is in a "Conclusion" section.) Bockmuehl asks "Was Jesus the Messiah?" and goes on to say "The argument of this chapter has been to suggest that it is possible to answer with a qualified but unambiguous yes."
With statements like "Although the descendants of David were still being traced after the Exile, no Davidic ruler was ever to govern a sovereign Israel again" (p.g 45) and "it does not clearly describe one particular coming Messiah, but instead uses different metaphors to speak about human agents whom God will appoint (and "anoint') to bring about the coming redemption" (p.g 46), to show two examples I thought were compelling points against messianism and in fact, in many places, Bockmuehl makes concessions on the likelihood of messianism, I was very surprised by this clunkily worded "qualified but unambiguous yes." The contention I see between "qualified" and “unambiguous’ (though not literally mutually exclusive) notwithstanding, this is a much too powerful conclusion based on the evidence that feels like it really does not come out of anywhere. It is not even a 50/50 like the virginal birth, just a resounding yes! In these sections it does not feel like a scholar guided by a framework of faith, but a polemic grasping at straws to strain a conclusion that "might be" rather than one that "probably is."
In essence, this work is a quick sketch/overview of scholarship surrounding the historical Jesus sandwiched between a problematic epistemology and what I view as erroneous conclusions.
So, it is worthwhile as an introduction, compellingly written, but flawed as any book (especially one so short relative to the breadth of the topic) would be.
As a mini epilogue after a conclusion, I do want to say this review has been incredibly critical. That is because Bockmuehl is a compelling author that challenges the reader. Too many scholars put forth bland arguments in search of some unattainable neutrality. This book has a clear goal and identity, that should be commended and the arguments should be seriously dealt with. If this were a bad book, it would not warrant the time it took me to voice these concerns and that is why, despite my critiques, I have said throughout that you should read this book.
First, there are (to me) clear epistemological problems with the book. It begins by criticizing historical-critical analysis techniques like the criterion of dissimilarity (the idea that we can be reasonably sure a statement is true if we can conclude the speaker is harmed by the utterance of it) or the anonymous sources (such as Q.) However, he acts as though this is the primary tool employed and that it alone is considered enough to believe something wholeheartedly. At the time, maybe this was true. I doubt it and it certainly does not seem to be the case today.
So, if we cannot trust scholarly tools like the criterion of dissimilarity, where do we get our information on the historical Jesus?
Bockmuehl believes we will find the answer in the Gospels of the New Testament, his argument is that extra-canonical gospels such as that of Timothy or Peter are too legendary, and likely too late, to serve as true historical sources. Thus, we must rely on the accounts of the 4 Gospels and some words by Flavius Josephus, the famous (and highly cited) ancient historian of Judaism. I think it may be beneficial to quote Bockmuehl at length. On page 20, discussing his epistemology, Bockmuehl says
"The Gospels were not written as novels, with the primary purpose of entertainment, but as evangels: that is to say, they are didactic and persuasive or apologetic works about events which transpired in their own time. This makes it even more likely that questions about the reliability and truth value of their sources were a prominent concern for the authors. All self-respecting Christian catechesis had to keep an eye on public credibility (cf. also C o l. 4.5f.; 1 Pet. 3.15f.). This is not to say that the Gospels do not contain elements which may strike the modem literary critic, and even the historian of ancient Judaism, as literary or theological embellishment. Nor is it to claim that they were intended as dispassionate historiography, even to the limited extent that Josephus's Jewish War was. But it is to assert as an appropriate rule of thumb that, unless there is good reason to think otherwise, the gospel accounts interpreted in their first-century contexts may be read as broadly reliable in what they do affirm about the life and teaching of Jesus."
I am not completely opposed to this and actually view the NT as an incredibly important primary source that passes many important tests on certain claims (multiple independent attestation and, yes, the criterion of dissimilarity, to name two) and I am even sympathetic to the idea that the authors would have some fidelity to accuracy as making claims of Jesus' being a 50 foot mech fighting a 50 foot mega Satan in the arena of Pontius Pilate would be so obviously fabricated as to harm the prospect of any converts. That said, I think Bockmuehl puts more stock in them than any historian has any reasonable right to. His faith is openly stated and I have no issue with him stating he takes the Gospels as mostly true but this is a huge claim that really begs the question.
Certain assumptions are baked into the text. No Gospel claiming Jesus was not the Son Of God and outright denying his resurrection, or otherwise in direct contradiction to the canon, would make the cut.
It is no historical secret that heterodox views are often destroyed. Thus, the Gospels should be used cautiously. I think Bockmuehl is a bit haphazard with his use of them and rarely deeply analyzes the reliability of the Gospels in and of themselves, only in relation to clearly inferior documents.
This book is actually something I read to balance out another book I recently revisited, "How Jesus Became God" by Bart Ehrman (another essential reading). A bible scholar I recently met said he thought Ehrman was "sloppy" and specifically recommended this book. While it was not explicitly stated this book would serve as a foil to Ehrman (in general, the conversation was not about "How Jesus became God" specifically) it was implied, and I think its true. Both books are concerned very much with the historical Jesus. Both are presented as a scholarly work, and neither should be denied this title. However, unlike Ehrman who critically analyzes the text for the most likely truth (at least as he sees it), Bockmuehl treats the canonical Gospels as presumptively reliable—not because they are demonstrably accurate, but because alternative sources are weaker.
In other words, Bockmuehl sees the gospels as relatively reliable and that's good enough. While others are interested in an absolute reliability, which I find at least the attempt—even if you want to say Ehrman or others failed to make compelling cases—to be more intellectually honest.
Just to give a concrete example of where I think this laxity causes problems is on page 53 where Bockmuehl says "Matthew and other early Christians identified Jesus with this Son of Man - a disputed identification but one which, I would argue, is implicit in Jesus' own words." However, we get Jesus "own words" from the Gospels and of course the authors of the Gospel accounts would make this at least implicit because early Christians would absolutely want to make this up. They would absolutely be motivated to insert polemical quotes with Messianic undertones. The fact that it isn't until John that we see clear indications of Jesus recognizing his own divinity is telling in itself, making quite the opposite conclusion stronger, in my opinion, but let's not get to far away from the review.
It is certainly true that we cannot really disprove the Gospels like we can prove scientific laws. So, as an intellectual work, I reiterate I still find it an important and worthwhile read. These weaknesses are not insurmountable. It is an upfront and clear epistemological belief. I find it incorrect, but it is not based on nothing. My real issue is actually with something else: the author’s conclusions.
In many of Bockmuehl's conclusions (and I mean some of the arguments he lays out and the claims based on them, not just the sections literally titled "Conclusion") the author eloquently blurs the lines of history and theology. I don't think this is nefarious or a sleight of hand, the author’s faith is stated at the outset as the opening chapter states that his job is to present a Jesus that is "historically probable and in plausible continuity with the faith of his first followers." (p.g. 8) The text ends (sans the epilogue and further reading) with the statement "[m]y argument in these pages has been that orthodox Christian faith, properly understood, is indeed a plausible and legitimate interpretation of that person. In other words, it is possible to join with integrity in the early church's conviction that "God has made this Jesus both Lord and Messiah" (p.g 167). So, his thesis is that Christianity is at least possible given the historical record.
Because this is his goal, I think he makes some strange statements. For example, in "Chapter One: Where Did Jesus Come From?" Bockmuehl says "Thus, the virginal conception of Jesus can be neither proved nor disproved. For those who do not reject the possibility of miracle, Christian belief in the virgin birth is certainly compatible with what can be known from history." In other words, this means a virginal birth is possible. I do not wish to restate the authors arguments, as you can read them for yourself and evaluate them, but I was certainly surprised by the content of them as I felt he was making a compelling case against a virginal birth and then settled on basically a 50/50 'who can say?' style conclusion while implying, in my view fairly heavily, the miracle version should be given preference
Another example is given on page 59 (which, actually, is in a "Conclusion" section.) Bockmuehl asks "Was Jesus the Messiah?" and goes on to say "The argument of this chapter has been to suggest that it is possible to answer with a qualified but unambiguous yes."
With statements like "Although the descendants of David were still being traced after the Exile, no Davidic ruler was ever to govern a sovereign Israel again" (p.g 45) and "it does not clearly describe one particular coming Messiah, but instead uses different metaphors to speak about human agents whom God will appoint (and "anoint') to bring about the coming redemption" (p.g 46), to show two examples I thought were compelling points against messianism and in fact, in many places, Bockmuehl makes concessions on the likelihood of messianism, I was very surprised by this clunkily worded "qualified but unambiguous yes." The contention I see between "qualified" and “unambiguous’ (though not literally mutually exclusive) notwithstanding, this is a much too powerful conclusion based on the evidence that feels like it really does not come out of anywhere. It is not even a 50/50 like the virginal birth, just a resounding yes! In these sections it does not feel like a scholar guided by a framework of faith, but a polemic grasping at straws to strain a conclusion that "might be" rather than one that "probably is."
In essence, this work is a quick sketch/overview of scholarship surrounding the historical Jesus sandwiched between a problematic epistemology and what I view as erroneous conclusions.
So, it is worthwhile as an introduction, compellingly written, but flawed as any book (especially one so short relative to the breadth of the topic) would be.
As a mini epilogue after a conclusion, I do want to say this review has been incredibly critical. That is because Bockmuehl is a compelling author that challenges the reader. Too many scholars put forth bland arguments in search of some unattainable neutrality. This book has a clear goal and identity, that should be commended and the arguments should be seriously dealt with. If this were a bad book, it would not warrant the time it took me to voice these concerns and that is why, despite my critiques, I have said throughout that you should read this book.
August 23, 2024
AN "ORTHODOX" INTERPRETATION OF THE WORK AND WORK OF JESUS
Markus Bockmuehl is Professor of Biblical and Early Christian Studies at Keble College, Oxford University; he has also written 'Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory,' 'Jewish Law in Gentile Churches,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1994 book, "I happened to pick up a copy of A.N. Wilson's ... ['Jesus: A Life'] from a bookstore's best-seller shelf... [I] decided to abandon my intended research project and to write instead a small book on [whether]... At the end of the 20th century, is it possible to affirm a view of Jesus of Nazareth that relates with integrity both to historical scholarship and to orthodox Christian faith?" (Pg. ix)
He begins by stating, "It is the central condition of this book that the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth can be plausibly and credibly interpreted as standing in a relationship of vital continuity with the emerging orthodox Christianity that finds expression in the New Testament and the creeds. This argument as such is not new. But ... it is here being advanced afresh in deliberate contrast to a climate of both popular and scholarly contemporary Jesus studies which object to precisely this conclusion." (Pg. 1) He asserts, "unless there is good reason to think otherwise, the gospel accounts interpreted in their first-century contexts may be read as broadly reliable in that they DO affirm about the life and teaching of Jesus." (Pg. 20)
He admits, "it is significant that the Jesus at least of the Synoptic Gospels never purely and simply stands up to claim, 'I am the Messiah.' He comes close on one or two occasions... but he never actually volunteers this information, or ever refers to himself as 'the Son of David.' ... the original reasons for Jesus' hesitancy on this subject may well have to do with his reluctance to endorse the strongly political, violent Messianism of a growing Jewish resistance movement." (Pg. 51-52)
He contends, "Some have argued on the strength of Mark 14:12-16 that [the Last Supper] was a regular Passover meal. That suggestion, however, can only be sustained by discounting the Fourth Gospel's unambiguous assertion that Jesus was crucified BEFORE the day of Passover (Jn 13;1; 18:28; 19:14, etc.)... So the 'passover' which Jesus held with his disciples on the night of his arrest was most likely an unofficial meal, whether or not a lamb was eaten... In any case, even the Synoptic Gospels contain some evidence that Jesus was executed before the official Passover... Jesus' own words in Luke 22:15-16 may suggest a treasured but UNFULFILLED desire to eat the Passover with his disciples before his passion. Could it be that this meal was held IN ANTICIPATION of the celebration which he knew he would not live to see?" (Pg. 93)
This book will be of interest to Christians looking for a "popular"-level approach to the life of Jesus.
Markus Bockmuehl is Professor of Biblical and Early Christian Studies at Keble College, Oxford University; he has also written 'Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory,' 'Jewish Law in Gentile Churches,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1994 book, "I happened to pick up a copy of A.N. Wilson's ... ['Jesus: A Life'] from a bookstore's best-seller shelf... [I] decided to abandon my intended research project and to write instead a small book on [whether]... At the end of the 20th century, is it possible to affirm a view of Jesus of Nazareth that relates with integrity both to historical scholarship and to orthodox Christian faith?" (Pg. ix)
He begins by stating, "It is the central condition of this book that the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth can be plausibly and credibly interpreted as standing in a relationship of vital continuity with the emerging orthodox Christianity that finds expression in the New Testament and the creeds. This argument as such is not new. But ... it is here being advanced afresh in deliberate contrast to a climate of both popular and scholarly contemporary Jesus studies which object to precisely this conclusion." (Pg. 1) He asserts, "unless there is good reason to think otherwise, the gospel accounts interpreted in their first-century contexts may be read as broadly reliable in that they DO affirm about the life and teaching of Jesus." (Pg. 20)
He admits, "it is significant that the Jesus at least of the Synoptic Gospels never purely and simply stands up to claim, 'I am the Messiah.' He comes close on one or two occasions... but he never actually volunteers this information, or ever refers to himself as 'the Son of David.' ... the original reasons for Jesus' hesitancy on this subject may well have to do with his reluctance to endorse the strongly political, violent Messianism of a growing Jewish resistance movement." (Pg. 51-52)
He contends, "Some have argued on the strength of Mark 14:12-16 that [the Last Supper] was a regular Passover meal. That suggestion, however, can only be sustained by discounting the Fourth Gospel's unambiguous assertion that Jesus was crucified BEFORE the day of Passover (Jn 13;1; 18:28; 19:14, etc.)... So the 'passover' which Jesus held with his disciples on the night of his arrest was most likely an unofficial meal, whether or not a lamb was eaten... In any case, even the Synoptic Gospels contain some evidence that Jesus was executed before the official Passover... Jesus' own words in Luke 22:15-16 may suggest a treasured but UNFULFILLED desire to eat the Passover with his disciples before his passion. Could it be that this meal was held IN ANTICIPATION of the celebration which he knew he would not live to see?" (Pg. 93)
This book will be of interest to Christians looking for a "popular"-level approach to the life of Jesus.
January 27, 2024
This is one of my favorites authors. She write so real. Some people might not understand a chaotic family while others like myself have lived and are living that life. She captures that chaotic life with perfection and choas. The last girl of the family has finally come to set upon her adventure. Making it town with only 1 stray animal and in record time. She is determined to find her poet. Whether he has money or not. But along the way she find that something else is a foot. I was so relieved and excited to see who was interested in her because he was such a wonderful guy in the previous book! I was saddened during the book because I thought it might be the last. But take heart their adoring brother has the next book! Hoorah Hoorah!
I received a complimentary copy of this book. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with guidelines.
I received a complimentary copy of this book. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with guidelines.
February 5, 2024
Kate Archer's books are so funny. This fifth book in the Very Fine Muddle series follows Juliet Bennington, the poetess. It's finally time for her season and she is looking for a poet. So of course on her first foray in to society she meets the Marquess of Hamill... heir to a dukedom, 100% Corinthian, always on the go, not the foggiest idea what a 'blazing orb' is. Not quite the poet she was after. Luckily (!) a poet appears in the form of Mr Roundbat. So if it's a poet she wants... he's her option. Unfortunately, despite his mastery of the 'Japanese style' there isn't much more to recommend him.
Cue chaos which involves, in no particular order: a rescued rooster, Mr Wordsworth, an enterprising young eavesdropper, a cabal of moneylenders, a highly entertained Duke & Duchess and of course, a Gentle Governess.
This series is so funny. I have enjoyed all of them and I am waiting with anticipation for Darden to get the blunt end of his family's shenanigans in the next book!
Cue chaos which involves, in no particular order: a rescued rooster, Mr Wordsworth, an enterprising young eavesdropper, a cabal of moneylenders, a highly entertained Duke & Duchess and of course, a Gentle Governess.
This series is so funny. I have enjoyed all of them and I am waiting with anticipation for Darden to get the blunt end of his family's shenanigans in the next book!
March 5, 2024
Loved this (hopefully not final) book in the Bennington series. Each of the Bennington sisters has had a specific type of spouse in mind all their lives and up to this point each have wound up with their polar opposites! Enter Lady Juliet, youngest of the Bennington sisters and last to make her Debut. She is looking for a literary type and couldn't have found the complete opposite if she tried. Rupert, Marquess of Hamill, has been actively on the go his whole life. He had been a spousal possibility for her older sister who was looking for a sporting type of man but married another. These two should not work, but the attraction has been there since meeting, and they somehow do. Loved this one as much as the previous books. Hope we'll be seeing the only Bennington brother find his match soon.
Thank you Kate Archer, Dragonblade Publishing and NetGalley for allowing me an advance copy for my honest feedback.
Thank you Kate Archer, Dragonblade Publishing and NetGalley for allowing me an advance copy for my honest feedback.
February 11, 2024
The fifth book in this series is all about Juliet, the youngest daughter. Juliet has made up her mind on the type of man she will marry and no one is going to change her determination. Being the youngest and most stubborn, this story is fun, amusing and offers lots of giggles. The characters are engaging, the family members full of love and advice. But Juliet must grow into her own and see the world a bit wider around her. When she does, is it a still the same desire or has it changed? Reading this engaging story will be the only way to find out.
February 9, 2024
Dreamer and the athlete, Regency style...
Juliet is a dreamer, a poet, who lives in her head and is determined to wed a fellow like her. A poet.
Rupert is an athlete, active, all brawn, no brain.
She digs his physicality but because he's all muscle, they are opposites and she can't figure out how they would match up.
I liked the clueless Rupert.
Juliet is a dreamer, a poet, who lives in her head and is determined to wed a fellow like her. A poet.
Rupert is an athlete, active, all brawn, no brain.
She digs his physicality but because he's all muscle, they are opposites and she can't figure out how they would match up.
I liked the clueless Rupert.
August 24, 2013
Bockmuehl's thesis is that the Jesus discovered by rigorous history--the "historical Jesus"--can legitimately be interpreted along the lines of traditional, orthodox Christian theology. This cautious thesis reflects his conviction that the historical data on Jesus can be interpreted in numerous ways (a case of the "underdetermination of theory by data," as it were). Nevertheless, Bockmuehl arguments are subtle, and demonstrate impressive learning. Together, this care and subtlety represent a pleasant change from the dogmatic claims made by many popular presentations on the historical Jesus, both by apologists seeking to "prove the divinity of Christ," and revisionists offering "the straight historical facts," which often conveniently dove-tails with their prescriptions for a new spirituality. There is much to learn from this thoughtful, mature book.
However, two weaknesses must be noted, one dealing with biblical studies, the other with theology. First, Bockmuehl gives very scant attention to issues of methodology, and also to source criticism and issues of reliability. The result is that he'll often argue that the historical Jesus did something significant on the basis of passages from the Synoptics (for instance, the pre-Easter Jesus interpreted his mission increasingly in terms of a martyr, and that this sacrifice was intimately tied to his view of the Kingdom being inaugurated in his person) without discussing the source of this, and whether it's likely its an early church creation or is authentic to Jesus. Bockmuehl has a very common-sense, moderate position regarding these issues, it seems, but one cannot really take that for granted given the radical skepticism the is prominent in some circles. Second, his thesis is that the historical Jesus is compatible with the Christ of orthodoxy, but his discussion of the theology is rather weak. He frequently seems to dodge the big question, what was Jesus' status vis-a-vis the divine (was he God incarnate?). He seems to waffle on this at some points. Issues of the Trinity are also discussed in disappointing ways. He rightly argues the Trinitarian theology affirms the oneness of the God of Israel; nevertheless he seems surprisingly uninformed of, or at least unwilling to engage with, the philosophical theology developed by the Fathers. His cavalier request for a moratorium on language of "substance and natures" in Trinitarian theology is strikingly naive; the difference between Christ being "the same" or "of like" substance as the Father would seem to matter a lot, especially if we worship him--as Bockmuehl notes the earliest Christians did. That language matters if you're going to attempt to make sense of the claims about Jesus the early Christians make, and orthodox theology cannot be understood without it. It's unfortunate Bockmuehl, like many NT scholars, is so unwilling to engage with it, especially since his thesis is that orthodoxy is defensible.
However, two weaknesses must be noted, one dealing with biblical studies, the other with theology. First, Bockmuehl gives very scant attention to issues of methodology, and also to source criticism and issues of reliability. The result is that he'll often argue that the historical Jesus did something significant on the basis of passages from the Synoptics (for instance, the pre-Easter Jesus interpreted his mission increasingly in terms of a martyr, and that this sacrifice was intimately tied to his view of the Kingdom being inaugurated in his person) without discussing the source of this, and whether it's likely its an early church creation or is authentic to Jesus. Bockmuehl has a very common-sense, moderate position regarding these issues, it seems, but one cannot really take that for granted given the radical skepticism the is prominent in some circles. Second, his thesis is that the historical Jesus is compatible with the Christ of orthodoxy, but his discussion of the theology is rather weak. He frequently seems to dodge the big question, what was Jesus' status vis-a-vis the divine (was he God incarnate?). He seems to waffle on this at some points. Issues of the Trinity are also discussed in disappointing ways. He rightly argues the Trinitarian theology affirms the oneness of the God of Israel; nevertheless he seems surprisingly uninformed of, or at least unwilling to engage with, the philosophical theology developed by the Fathers. His cavalier request for a moratorium on language of "substance and natures" in Trinitarian theology is strikingly naive; the difference between Christ being "the same" or "of like" substance as the Father would seem to matter a lot, especially if we worship him--as Bockmuehl notes the earliest Christians did. That language matters if you're going to attempt to make sense of the claims about Jesus the early Christians make, and orthodox theology cannot be understood without it. It's unfortunate Bockmuehl, like many NT scholars, is so unwilling to engage with it, especially since his thesis is that orthodoxy is defensible.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews