What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins
In recent years, a number of New Testament scholars engaged in academic historical Jesus studies have concluded that such scholarship cannot yield secure and illuminating conclusions about its subject, arguing that the search for a historically "authentic" Jesus has run aground.
Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History brings together a stellar lineup of New Testament scholars who contend that historical Jesus scholarship is far from dead.
These scholars all find value in using the tools of contemporary historical methods in the study of Jesus and Christian origins. While the skeptical use of criteria to fashion a Jesus contrary to the one portrayed in the Gospels is methodologically unsound and theologically unacceptable, these criteria, properly formulated and applied, yield positive results that support the Gospel accounts and the historical narrative in Acts. This book presents a nuanced and vitally needed alternative to the skeptical extremes of revisionist Jesus scholarship that, on the one hand, uses historical methods to call into question the Jesus of the Gospels and, on the other, denies the possibility of using historical methods to learn about Jesus.
Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History brings together a stellar lineup of New Testament scholars who contend that historical Jesus scholarship is far from dead.
These scholars all find value in using the tools of contemporary historical methods in the study of Jesus and Christian origins. While the skeptical use of criteria to fashion a Jesus contrary to the one portrayed in the Gospels is methodologically unsound and theologically unacceptable, these criteria, properly formulated and applied, yield positive results that support the Gospel accounts and the historical narrative in Acts. This book presents a nuanced and vitally needed alternative to the skeptical extremes of revisionist Jesus scholarship that, on the one hand, uses historical methods to call into question the Jesus of the Gospels and, on the other, denies the possibility of using historical methods to learn about Jesus.
377 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 8, 2019
31 people are currently reading
118 people want to read
About the author
Zondervan
1,633 books96 followersZondervan is an international Christian media and publishing company. Zondervan is a founding member of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA). They are a part of HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Inc. and has multiple imprints including Zondervan Academic, Zonderkidz, Blink, and Editorial Vida. Zondervan is the commercial rights holder for the New International Version (NIV) Bible in North America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 18, 2021
Um importante e atualizado compêndio de artigos de estudiosos conservadores maximalistas sobre o Jesus Histórico. O livro, publicado originalmente em 2019, traz alguns biblistas já bem estabelecidos no campo (e.g. Darrell Bock, Craig Evans, Craig Keener), e alguns mais novos na discussão. Um eixo importante que unifica os artigos é a defesa da necessidade da revisão dos critérios históricos para determinar a possibilidade de conhecer o Jesus histórico de Nazaré do primeiro século A.D., em contrapartida a recentes tendências negativas com os recentes critérios e buscas pelo Jesus histórico (como os artigos de Scot Mcknight e o influente livro compilado por Christ Keith e Anthony LeDonne, "Jesus, Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity" de 2012). Todos os ensaios neste presente livro buscam uma tentativa de 'restaurar' os critérios e metodologias para estudar o Jesus Histórico, com uma visão receptiva às tradições dos evangelhos canônicos. Portanto, os artigos estão bastante cientes das melhores críticas contra sua própria posição, o que gera certa cautela e forte embasamento de cada ensaísta. As escritas, por consequência, são diligentes em suas notas de rodapé, estudos de caso e aplicações (com possível exceção da sugestão vaga do artigo por Blomberg e Seal, de simplesmente buscar um segundo volume para o projeto Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus).
Como uma compilação de artigos, a qualidade destes é variada. Particularmente, considerei os artigos por Bowman/Komoszewski, Wallace, McIver, Bock, Anderson e Keener os mais fascinantes, articulados e ricos em suas perguntas e propostas. Contudo, a melhor parte provavelmente vem das respostas finais de Hurtado, Mcknight e Nick Perrin. Elas são completamente distintas—o institente chamado de Mcknight ao abandono dos atuais métodos de buscas pelo Jesus histórico para um retorno a uma leitura canônica como a missão dos evangélicos é bastante impressionante— mas apontam para o importante passo e presença de evangélicos na discussão, e em como os presentes ensaístas estão mais próximos de Keith/LeDonne do que imaginam e *alguma forma* de critério, seja para analisar o Jesus canônico ou para buscar um Jesus histórico, é necessária e, portanto, precisamos articulá-los de forma responsável e cuidadosa. Veja como no marketing do livro em inglês, Zondervan deu a entender que este é um 'remédio' ao problema do 'skepticism', o que não parece ser o foco do livro, mas sim interagir com a proposta da obra de Keith/LeDonne (embora Hurtado tenha demonstrado que eles estejam muito próximos), uma linguagem bastante apologética do século XX e positivista para a discussão do Jesus Histórico, algo que não parece ser o ponto do argumento dos ensaios. Assim, o livro mantém um tom um pouco limitado quanto ao problema de critérios.
Se considerarmos apenas as observações acima, o livro bem mereceria uma nota 4/5. Entretanto, fiquei frustrado com o número de erros editoriais e de tradução. Haviam subtítulos e citações misturadas com texto principal (p.139-140). Confusões com o uso de "Quest" (em alguns momentos traduzido como 'busca' e outros como 'missão' ao longo de todo o livro, mas especialmente nas pp. 66-68) e o erro com o nome de Paula Kredriksen como 'Paul' (p.407) e com o nome de James D.G. Dunn apenas como D. G. Dunn (p.409) foram lamentáveis em um livro deste nível acadêmico. Creio que a Thomas Nelson poderá fazer melhores revisões no futuro.
Como uma compilação de artigos, a qualidade destes é variada. Particularmente, considerei os artigos por Bowman/Komoszewski, Wallace, McIver, Bock, Anderson e Keener os mais fascinantes, articulados e ricos em suas perguntas e propostas. Contudo, a melhor parte provavelmente vem das respostas finais de Hurtado, Mcknight e Nick Perrin. Elas são completamente distintas—o institente chamado de Mcknight ao abandono dos atuais métodos de buscas pelo Jesus histórico para um retorno a uma leitura canônica como a missão dos evangélicos é bastante impressionante— mas apontam para o importante passo e presença de evangélicos na discussão, e em como os presentes ensaístas estão mais próximos de Keith/LeDonne do que imaginam e *alguma forma* de critério, seja para analisar o Jesus canônico ou para buscar um Jesus histórico, é necessária e, portanto, precisamos articulá-los de forma responsável e cuidadosa. Veja como no marketing do livro em inglês, Zondervan deu a entender que este é um 'remédio' ao problema do 'skepticism', o que não parece ser o foco do livro, mas sim interagir com a proposta da obra de Keith/LeDonne (embora Hurtado tenha demonstrado que eles estejam muito próximos), uma linguagem bastante apologética do século XX e positivista para a discussão do Jesus Histórico, algo que não parece ser o ponto do argumento dos ensaios. Assim, o livro mantém um tom um pouco limitado quanto ao problema de critérios.
Se considerarmos apenas as observações acima, o livro bem mereceria uma nota 4/5. Entretanto, fiquei frustrado com o número de erros editoriais e de tradução. Haviam subtítulos e citações misturadas com texto principal (p.139-140). Confusões com o uso de "Quest" (em alguns momentos traduzido como 'busca' e outros como 'missão' ao longo de todo o livro, mas especialmente nas pp. 66-68) e o erro com o nome de Paula Kredriksen como 'Paul' (p.407) e com o nome de James D.G. Dunn apenas como D. G. Dunn (p.409) foram lamentáveis em um livro deste nível acadêmico. Creio que a Thomas Nelson poderá fazer melhores revisões no futuro.
October 30, 2019
"Jesus, Skepticism, and The Problem Of History: Criteria and Context In The Study Of Christian Origins" is a book written by a plethora of different New Testament scholars such as Darrel Bock, Craig Blomberg, Daniel B. Wallace, Craig Keener, Michael Licona, Scot Mcknight, Michael Bird, and several others. The book is a book on Historical Jesus studies and each chapter is, more or less a stand-alone essay written by each contributor of the book. The book is heavily scholarly in tone, being heavily footnoted with scholarly sources and materials which each contributor draws upon in each chapter while also opening with an abstract and closing with a conclusion. Although I consider the book to be in the scholarly category rather than the pop level category, that isn't to say that it's overly heady. If you've done at least some basic study in Historical Jesus, you should be able to understand the terms and phrases used in this book.
Some of my favorite essays were the ones that dealt with the validity of the use of the criteria of authenticity and the reliability of the oral tradition of Jesus prior to its being written down in the gospels. This is because these are important subjects for historical apologetics. I use the criteria of authenticity heavily when I defend the historicity of Jesus' divine self-understanding and resurrection from the dead (such as in my 10 part blog post series and in my own book "My Redeemer Lives: Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus"). Also, it's important that we can have confidence that what Jesus said and did was remembered and transmitted reliably until it could finally be written down. The two authors who talk about oral tradition do a good job of making the case that we can trust that the gospel authors faithfully remembered the things they talked about. It is also important for apologists to be able to defend the criteria of authenticity such as the criterion of dissimilarity and the criterion of embarrassment if they intend on using them in their apologetic for the resurrection.
Many of the essays in the book largely seem to be a response to another book called "Jesus, Criteria, and The Demise Of Authenticity" edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, but not all of them are, such as Beth Shepphard's essay on The Sermon On The Mount. I like Michael Licona's essay on how the criteria can establish some of "The Minimal Facts" such as Jesus' death by crucifixion and the disciples claim and belief that Jesus appeared to them alive after His death.
Overall, I consider this to be a VERY valuable book for those interested in studying the life of Jesus from the perspective of a historian (as opposed to a purely theological perspective), and I hope you will go over to ChristianBook.com, Amazon.com, or Barnes N' Noble and order yourself a copy.
Some of my favorite essays were the ones that dealt with the validity of the use of the criteria of authenticity and the reliability of the oral tradition of Jesus prior to its being written down in the gospels. This is because these are important subjects for historical apologetics. I use the criteria of authenticity heavily when I defend the historicity of Jesus' divine self-understanding and resurrection from the dead (such as in my 10 part blog post series and in my own book "My Redeemer Lives: Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus"). Also, it's important that we can have confidence that what Jesus said and did was remembered and transmitted reliably until it could finally be written down. The two authors who talk about oral tradition do a good job of making the case that we can trust that the gospel authors faithfully remembered the things they talked about. It is also important for apologists to be able to defend the criteria of authenticity such as the criterion of dissimilarity and the criterion of embarrassment if they intend on using them in their apologetic for the resurrection.
Many of the essays in the book largely seem to be a response to another book called "Jesus, Criteria, and The Demise Of Authenticity" edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, but not all of them are, such as Beth Shepphard's essay on The Sermon On The Mount. I like Michael Licona's essay on how the criteria can establish some of "The Minimal Facts" such as Jesus' death by crucifixion and the disciples claim and belief that Jesus appeared to them alive after His death.
Overall, I consider this to be a VERY valuable book for those interested in studying the life of Jesus from the perspective of a historian (as opposed to a purely theological perspective), and I hope you will go over to ChristianBook.com, Amazon.com, or Barnes N' Noble and order yourself a copy.
January 8, 2021
In Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History, Bock and Komoszewski have compiled an excellent collection of essays responding to those who challenge the legitimacy of historical Jesus studies. The majority of the debate centers around the criteria of authenticity that are put forth as means to identify events in the Gospels that are historically accurate. Most of the contributors to this volume are supportive of these criteria, even if only in a limited application. It should be noted at the outset that this volume largely functions as a response to another collection of essays - Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity - which contains exclusively essays that are highly critical of the criteria of authenticity.
As an anthology, there is a wide range of topics covered. Some essays get into the depths of New Testament Textual Criticism, while others focus on more readily-apparent aspects of the content in the Gospels and the book of Acts. Some contributors are more enthusiastic about the criteria of authenticity than others - providing defenses of one criterion or another from different angles - while others are in favor of the concept of such criteria but nevertheless call for a full reevaluation of what they are.
Most essays are approximately 20 pages long and can be read in 30 minutes or so. But given the nature of the book as a collection of essays by different authors, the voice and style of writing is different from one essay to the next, making it difficult to establish flow.
Another point worth noting is that the Bock and Komoszewski allowed for three scholars to contribute critical assessments of the book as the final three essays included in the volume. While the other contributors certainly aren't identical in their positions, this inclusion of critical essays allows the opportunity to hear from those who have much larger disagreements.
Overall, if you're interested in New Testament Studies, this is an essential read that provides much for consideration. This is especially true if you're interested in defending the historicity of the Gospels. Keep in mind, however, that this is a scholarly assessment and therfore it isn't a light read. But it's well worth reading.
As an anthology, there is a wide range of topics covered. Some essays get into the depths of New Testament Textual Criticism, while others focus on more readily-apparent aspects of the content in the Gospels and the book of Acts. Some contributors are more enthusiastic about the criteria of authenticity than others - providing defenses of one criterion or another from different angles - while others are in favor of the concept of such criteria but nevertheless call for a full reevaluation of what they are.
Most essays are approximately 20 pages long and can be read in 30 minutes or so. But given the nature of the book as a collection of essays by different authors, the voice and style of writing is different from one essay to the next, making it difficult to establish flow.
Another point worth noting is that the Bock and Komoszewski allowed for three scholars to contribute critical assessments of the book as the final three essays included in the volume. While the other contributors certainly aren't identical in their positions, this inclusion of critical essays allows the opportunity to hear from those who have much larger disagreements.
Overall, if you're interested in New Testament Studies, this is an essential read that provides much for consideration. This is especially true if you're interested in defending the historicity of the Gospels. Keep in mind, however, that this is a scholarly assessment and therfore it isn't a light read. But it's well worth reading.
December 12, 2019
This is a (predominately) evangelical collaborative response to the collaborative critique of the criteria of authenticity applied throughout Jesus historical/historiographical studies by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne's "Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity" (JCDA).
The shared spirit of this work by Keith and Le Donne and all the contributors to the book, essentially, is this: the cry to the historical Jesus enterprise to dispense with the criteria as we know them. The reason for this is articulated by Scot McKnight, "historical Jesus studies are useless for the church" (17). The reason being is because such authenticating endeavors through strict methodologies of criteria have only produced preconceived and self-fulfilling reconstructions of the historical (the historian's) Jesus, thus creating many Jesuses. McKnight proposes that, though historical authenticity via criteria can serve apologetical purposes for the church, the witness of Jesus must ultimately be the church, of the Jesus portrayed theologically in the Gospels and in the church's Creed.
The shared spirit (more, or less) of this collaborative work by Darrell Bock, J. Ed Komoszewski and all their contributors follow that of Lesslie Newbigin: "there is only one Jesus, and there is only one history" (21). This contribution, though acknowledging the limitations of the criteria brought up by JCDA, strives to defend the criteria as still legitimate efforts of historical inquiry and important for the ongoing broad conversation relating to faith and history. As mentioned by Beth Sheppard in her contribution, "no rule for analyzing the gospels works perfectly all the time" (189).
In his response to these contributions for the defense of the criteria of authenticity, Nicholas Perrin describes this work as "an holistic approach to the Gospels" where the contributors accept the limitations of criteria but don't discard them as useless endeavors (365). Perrin astutely describes the criteria of authenticity as such: "After all, in the final analysis, the criteria are nothing more and nothing less than certain kinds of arguments, that having been given birth in a particular context and deployed for specific purposes, have been cryogenically frozen in the form of a method, only then to be relentlessly reapplied with varying results" (370). My judgment of Perrin's comment is that this is a balanced view on the criteria. The past presuppositions in which the criteria were formed cannot be forgotten, but their past should not discredit them as useless endeavors because everything is redeemable, especially past mistakes, by Jesus Christ for the purposes of the Kingdom of God.
This contribution proves that the future of historical Jesus research is not bleak or hopeless, but that the conversation will continue with different nuance and particular attention to both the narrative in which the Jesus tradition was embedded in, and the narrative through which this historian conducts their research. This is a worthwhile book for any student of the historical Jesus discussion. I would not recommend this as a reading for lay-folk who are not technically trained or familiar with the jargon and idiomatic economy that comes with historical Jesus studies.
The shared spirit of this work by Keith and Le Donne and all the contributors to the book, essentially, is this: the cry to the historical Jesus enterprise to dispense with the criteria as we know them. The reason for this is articulated by Scot McKnight, "historical Jesus studies are useless for the church" (17). The reason being is because such authenticating endeavors through strict methodologies of criteria have only produced preconceived and self-fulfilling reconstructions of the historical (the historian's) Jesus, thus creating many Jesuses. McKnight proposes that, though historical authenticity via criteria can serve apologetical purposes for the church, the witness of Jesus must ultimately be the church, of the Jesus portrayed theologically in the Gospels and in the church's Creed.
The shared spirit (more, or less) of this collaborative work by Darrell Bock, J. Ed Komoszewski and all their contributors follow that of Lesslie Newbigin: "there is only one Jesus, and there is only one history" (21). This contribution, though acknowledging the limitations of the criteria brought up by JCDA, strives to defend the criteria as still legitimate efforts of historical inquiry and important for the ongoing broad conversation relating to faith and history. As mentioned by Beth Sheppard in her contribution, "no rule for analyzing the gospels works perfectly all the time" (189).
In his response to these contributions for the defense of the criteria of authenticity, Nicholas Perrin describes this work as "an holistic approach to the Gospels" where the contributors accept the limitations of criteria but don't discard them as useless endeavors (365). Perrin astutely describes the criteria of authenticity as such: "After all, in the final analysis, the criteria are nothing more and nothing less than certain kinds of arguments, that having been given birth in a particular context and deployed for specific purposes, have been cryogenically frozen in the form of a method, only then to be relentlessly reapplied with varying results" (370). My judgment of Perrin's comment is that this is a balanced view on the criteria. The past presuppositions in which the criteria were formed cannot be forgotten, but their past should not discredit them as useless endeavors because everything is redeemable, especially past mistakes, by Jesus Christ for the purposes of the Kingdom of God.
This contribution proves that the future of historical Jesus research is not bleak or hopeless, but that the conversation will continue with different nuance and particular attention to both the narrative in which the Jesus tradition was embedded in, and the narrative through which this historian conducts their research. This is a worthwhile book for any student of the historical Jesus discussion. I would not recommend this as a reading for lay-folk who are not technically trained or familiar with the jargon and idiomatic economy that comes with historical Jesus studies.
December 12, 2019
The book claims to respond to Keith and LeDonne’s 2012 book on the demise of the criteria of authenticity in historical Jesus studies. While some of the essays in this volume directly address the Keith and LeDonne book, many of them do not. Several of the essays appear original and present novel and helpful tools for historical Jesus research. Others appear to be reworked class essays by PhD students or distillations of scholarship published elsewhere. In general, the essays do not helpfully respond to the claims made by the authors of the Keith/LeDonne book.
Some of the essays are great, others can be skipped or sought out in fuller arguments elsewhere.
Some of the essays are great, others can be skipped or sought out in fuller arguments elsewhere.
March 21, 2020
I'm not sure what my opinion is on the "quests for a historical Jesus," but I found these essays enlightening, an encouraging look at the fact that while some things will always be hard to determine, the historical evidence shows the four Gospels and Acts are quite reliable.
April 15, 2022
Compelling case for both the ongoing relevance of historical Jesus research despite so much of it being misguided in the past. I especially found Michael Metts’s chapter interesting.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews