What do you think?
Rate this book
What Have They Done with Jesus?
This book is a strong response to the many strange current theories about Jesus, from Dan Brown and others, most based on the flimsiest evidence. Witherington highlights the core Christian claims by investigating figures such as Mary the mother of Jesus; Mary Magdalene; Thomes, Peter, James, Paul and others. In each chapter he addresses the full range of questions about these figures and what each of them can teach us about the historical Jesus. This is a necessary corrective to the wild theorists who build castles upon fragments such as "The Gospel of Judas". The main "New Testament" figures are our best sources by far.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
Ben Witherington III
117 books158 followersBen Witherington III (PhD, University of Durham) is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, and is on the doctoral faculty at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. He is the author or coauthor of more than thirty books, including The Jesus Quest, The Paul Quest, and The New York Times bestseller The Brother of Jesus. He has appeared on the History Channel, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
December 1, 2007
The scholarship is generally sound, but BW is obviously very enamored of his own intellect. Many if not most of the footnotes (of which there are dozens) refer the reader to BW's other books! While some of his observations were helpful or interesting, after a while I got bored with his style. It seemed a little incongruous that Witherington was challenging persons who make suppositions or theological statements about Jesus not based on Scripture; yet he himself does this while exploring possibilites that the Scriptures leave open or "suggest."
August 1, 2007
This would have been more interesting and made more sense if I were more familiar with the New Testament. As it was, I was completely lost during discussions of how writing styles differed or were the same among different books. I was also lost when it referenced chapters and verses, as they were often only cited with a John 1:3 or something and not actually quoted. It was interesting, but I'm sure I missed or misunderstood much of what the author was trying to get across because of my ignorance.
May 27, 2014
I thought this was a very interesting book. There was a lot of information about myths surrounding the New Testament, which I was unfamiliar with. It was informative, but also engaging. Sometimes, books that are purely informational end up being rather dull. I thought the author did a good job of making the material approachable and in a sense, entertaining. I think those who enjoy learning and thinking about new things will like this book. I would recommend it for junior high and up.
July 6, 2026
THE 'HISTORICAL JESUS' SCHOLAR REFUTES MANY CONTEMPORARY DEPICTIONS OF HIM
Author Ben Witherington III is Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. He wrote in the Introduction to this 2006 book, “Readers should beware of shocking new claims about Jesus or his earliest followers based on flimsy evidence… are there really ‘lost Christianities’ that can trace their pedigree all the way back to the first century, communities of faith that were suppressed by the church and only now are getting their proper due?... The news media are all abuzz with these sorts of questions… Perhaps a better set of questions might be, What is it about our culture that makes us prone to listen to sensational claims about Jesus and this earliest followers, even when there is little or no hard evidence so support such conjectures? Why are we especially prone to this when it comes to the origins of Christianity?” (Pg. 1-2)
He suggests, “No little ink has been spilled on Luke 2:1-2, which is generally read to say that Quirinius was governor of the Syrian province (which included Judea at that point) when Jesus was born. Since Jesus was born somewhere between 1 and 4 B.C., not long before the death of Herod, and since we know that Quirinius took a famous census at about A.D. 6, various scholars have suggested that Luke made a chronological blunder. This depends on a particular kind of reading of the grammar of Luke 2:2, however. It is equally feasible to translate the passage as ‘This registration happened first, [before] Quirinius was governor of Syria.” (Pg. 101)
He notes, “Contrary to some current interpretations, the Cana wedding account is not about Mary being the mother of the bridegroom and Jesus getting married… one doesn’t talk about the bridegroom being ‘invited’ to the wedding, as John does in 2:2, and after a Jewish wedding the groom does not go home with his mother, as Jesus does in John 2:12! No, this is a story about Jesus being the emergency backup caterer at a wedding in a small town called Cana.” (Pg. 115)
He observes, “There are many Johns in the New Testament… But which John is the one associated with the Fourth Gospel? And if that John is the same as the Beloved Disciple, why doesn’t the text of the Fourth Gospel indicate this directly?... the only New Testament document that specifically mentions a John being involved with it is the book of Revelation. Depicted as a prophet or seer, this John… is never called an apostle or identified with John, son of Zebedee. In fact, the majority of scholars who have studied Revelation have concluded with good reason that its language and style are so different from the other Johannine documents that it is unlikely that John of Patmos wrote those other texts.” (Pg. 141)
He continues, “Second, though this will come as a surprise to some, both the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles are formally anonymous---that is, no author is named within their texts… In fact, the Fourth Gospel suggests that it may have penned by the Beloved Disciple, who is not mentioned until John 11 or perhaps 13… There are a variety of good reasons to think that this author is not John son of Zebedee…" (Pg. 141-142)
He states, “There was an urgency on the part of the orthodox to connect the Fourth Gospel to one of the twelve or an eyewitness, especially because the Gnostics liked this Gospel so much.” (Pg. 143)
He explains, “It seems unlikely that the Beloved Disciple is the same person as John son of Zebedee. I come to this conclusion because the Fourth Gospel has all sorts of unique traditions about what Jesus did in Jerusalem and its environs; and yet it has none of the special Zebedee Galilee traditions we find in the synoptic gospels… nor does it have the synoptics’ Galilean miracle tales.” (Pg. 145) He continues, “we have to know more about the Beloved Disciple. Most scholars will say that he is first mentioned directly in John 13:23, where he’s depicted as reclining next to Jesus at the meal … Prior to this meal, the last meal mentioned that Jesus took was at the house of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha in Bethany…
“There is another important connection between the meal at that household and the meal in John 13. The latter account refers to ‘the one whom Jesus loved.’ It is incorrect to say that this is the first time in this gospel that such a phrase has come up. We in fact find it on the lips of Mary and Martha in John 11:3 … ‘the one whom you love is ill.’ Can this be mere coincidence?... it seems more than reasonable to conclude that our author indirectly tips his hand here: when he refers to ‘the Beloved Disciple,’ he means Lazarus, a Judean disciple… This conclusion also explains why it is that this gospel is bereft of so many of the Galilean miracle accounts… This person had access to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, so that he could follow Jesus in after his arrest… Would a Galilean fisherman have had such access[?]… Consider as well the fact that the synoptics are quite clear that while the Twelve had deserted Jesus and were not present at his crucifixion, the Beloved Disciple is clearly there near the cross. If those accounts are right, then the Beloved Disciple cannot be one of the Twelve.
“Or again consider the tradition suggested in John 21:22-23 that the Beloved Disciple would not die until Jesus returned. Surely such a tradition would be MORE likely to arise about a person who both had been raised from the dead by Jesus and had lived to a considerable old age. On the basis of cumulative evidence, I conclude that it is likely that the Beloved Disciple was a Judean eyewitness and disciple of the ministry of Jesus… and the most likely candidate to be this disciple is the one whom John 11:2 says Jesus especially loved---Lazarus.” (Pg. 146-147)
He goes on, “One of the objections… to seeing Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple is that John 13:23 does not mention him by name. This is not a very compelling objection … [because] we know not only that the Beloved Disciple is the one whose memoirs are enshrined in this eyewitness gospel testimony but also that he was NOT responsible for the final compiling and editing of his memoirs… Notice, for example, how the Beloved Disciple is spoken of in the third person in John 19:35… This would be a strange way for Lazarus to speak of himself. Or again in John 21:24 … Who is the ‘we’ here? Clearly it is someone or some ones distinguishable from the Beloved Disciple. The most reasonable conjecture is that ‘we’ is the community of which this man was later a part and that it assembled his testimony after he died.” (Pg. 152)
Of the reference in Josephus to James, Jesus’ brother, he comments, “First of all, James is called by Josephus the brother of Jesus… The term used here is ‘adelphos,’ not the Greek word for cousin… Josephus is prepared to call Jesus the so-called Christ, but is not prepared to call James the so-called brother of Jesus.” (Pg. 212)
He states, “Another thing that supports an early dating of the letter of Jude is the fact that it has to have been written prior to 2 Peter: the vast majority of scholars now recognize that 2 Peter 2:1-18 and 3:1-3 are dependent on Jude verses 4-13 and 16-18. That means this document must have circulated in Jewish Christian circles in the first century prior to the writing of 2 Peter near the end of that century.” (Pg. 220)
He concludes, “it is a matter of trusting the very earliest witnesses of the historical Jesus, some of those who knew him best. It is true enough that we do not have the ‘Jesus papers,’ a literary residue that Jesus himself wrote down and left behind. What we do have, however, is … a living legacy, glimpses of the real Jesus in the lives of each of the members of Jesus’ inner circle… The Jesus these persons remembered is the real Jesus, and there is no other historical Jesus to be found…” (Pg. 291)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying the Historical Jesus, or any of the many “alternative” theories about him currently circulating.
Author Ben Witherington III is Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. He wrote in the Introduction to this 2006 book, “Readers should beware of shocking new claims about Jesus or his earliest followers based on flimsy evidence… are there really ‘lost Christianities’ that can trace their pedigree all the way back to the first century, communities of faith that were suppressed by the church and only now are getting their proper due?... The news media are all abuzz with these sorts of questions… Perhaps a better set of questions might be, What is it about our culture that makes us prone to listen to sensational claims about Jesus and this earliest followers, even when there is little or no hard evidence so support such conjectures? Why are we especially prone to this when it comes to the origins of Christianity?” (Pg. 1-2)
He suggests, “No little ink has been spilled on Luke 2:1-2, which is generally read to say that Quirinius was governor of the Syrian province (which included Judea at that point) when Jesus was born. Since Jesus was born somewhere between 1 and 4 B.C., not long before the death of Herod, and since we know that Quirinius took a famous census at about A.D. 6, various scholars have suggested that Luke made a chronological blunder. This depends on a particular kind of reading of the grammar of Luke 2:2, however. It is equally feasible to translate the passage as ‘This registration happened first, [before] Quirinius was governor of Syria.” (Pg. 101)
He notes, “Contrary to some current interpretations, the Cana wedding account is not about Mary being the mother of the bridegroom and Jesus getting married… one doesn’t talk about the bridegroom being ‘invited’ to the wedding, as John does in 2:2, and after a Jewish wedding the groom does not go home with his mother, as Jesus does in John 2:12! No, this is a story about Jesus being the emergency backup caterer at a wedding in a small town called Cana.” (Pg. 115)
He observes, “There are many Johns in the New Testament… But which John is the one associated with the Fourth Gospel? And if that John is the same as the Beloved Disciple, why doesn’t the text of the Fourth Gospel indicate this directly?... the only New Testament document that specifically mentions a John being involved with it is the book of Revelation. Depicted as a prophet or seer, this John… is never called an apostle or identified with John, son of Zebedee. In fact, the majority of scholars who have studied Revelation have concluded with good reason that its language and style are so different from the other Johannine documents that it is unlikely that John of Patmos wrote those other texts.” (Pg. 141)
He continues, “Second, though this will come as a surprise to some, both the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles are formally anonymous---that is, no author is named within their texts… In fact, the Fourth Gospel suggests that it may have penned by the Beloved Disciple, who is not mentioned until John 11 or perhaps 13… There are a variety of good reasons to think that this author is not John son of Zebedee…" (Pg. 141-142)
He states, “There was an urgency on the part of the orthodox to connect the Fourth Gospel to one of the twelve or an eyewitness, especially because the Gnostics liked this Gospel so much.” (Pg. 143)
He explains, “It seems unlikely that the Beloved Disciple is the same person as John son of Zebedee. I come to this conclusion because the Fourth Gospel has all sorts of unique traditions about what Jesus did in Jerusalem and its environs; and yet it has none of the special Zebedee Galilee traditions we find in the synoptic gospels… nor does it have the synoptics’ Galilean miracle tales.” (Pg. 145) He continues, “we have to know more about the Beloved Disciple. Most scholars will say that he is first mentioned directly in John 13:23, where he’s depicted as reclining next to Jesus at the meal … Prior to this meal, the last meal mentioned that Jesus took was at the house of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha in Bethany…
“There is another important connection between the meal at that household and the meal in John 13. The latter account refers to ‘the one whom Jesus loved.’ It is incorrect to say that this is the first time in this gospel that such a phrase has come up. We in fact find it on the lips of Mary and Martha in John 11:3 … ‘the one whom you love is ill.’ Can this be mere coincidence?... it seems more than reasonable to conclude that our author indirectly tips his hand here: when he refers to ‘the Beloved Disciple,’ he means Lazarus, a Judean disciple… This conclusion also explains why it is that this gospel is bereft of so many of the Galilean miracle accounts… This person had access to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, so that he could follow Jesus in after his arrest… Would a Galilean fisherman have had such access[?]… Consider as well the fact that the synoptics are quite clear that while the Twelve had deserted Jesus and were not present at his crucifixion, the Beloved Disciple is clearly there near the cross. If those accounts are right, then the Beloved Disciple cannot be one of the Twelve.
“Or again consider the tradition suggested in John 21:22-23 that the Beloved Disciple would not die until Jesus returned. Surely such a tradition would be MORE likely to arise about a person who both had been raised from the dead by Jesus and had lived to a considerable old age. On the basis of cumulative evidence, I conclude that it is likely that the Beloved Disciple was a Judean eyewitness and disciple of the ministry of Jesus… and the most likely candidate to be this disciple is the one whom John 11:2 says Jesus especially loved---Lazarus.” (Pg. 146-147)
He goes on, “One of the objections… to seeing Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple is that John 13:23 does not mention him by name. This is not a very compelling objection … [because] we know not only that the Beloved Disciple is the one whose memoirs are enshrined in this eyewitness gospel testimony but also that he was NOT responsible for the final compiling and editing of his memoirs… Notice, for example, how the Beloved Disciple is spoken of in the third person in John 19:35… This would be a strange way for Lazarus to speak of himself. Or again in John 21:24 … Who is the ‘we’ here? Clearly it is someone or some ones distinguishable from the Beloved Disciple. The most reasonable conjecture is that ‘we’ is the community of which this man was later a part and that it assembled his testimony after he died.” (Pg. 152)
Of the reference in Josephus to James, Jesus’ brother, he comments, “First of all, James is called by Josephus the brother of Jesus… The term used here is ‘adelphos,’ not the Greek word for cousin… Josephus is prepared to call Jesus the so-called Christ, but is not prepared to call James the so-called brother of Jesus.” (Pg. 212)
He states, “Another thing that supports an early dating of the letter of Jude is the fact that it has to have been written prior to 2 Peter: the vast majority of scholars now recognize that 2 Peter 2:1-18 and 3:1-3 are dependent on Jude verses 4-13 and 16-18. That means this document must have circulated in Jewish Christian circles in the first century prior to the writing of 2 Peter near the end of that century.” (Pg. 220)
He concludes, “it is a matter of trusting the very earliest witnesses of the historical Jesus, some of those who knew him best. It is true enough that we do not have the ‘Jesus papers,’ a literary residue that Jesus himself wrote down and left behind. What we do have, however, is … a living legacy, glimpses of the real Jesus in the lives of each of the members of Jesus’ inner circle… The Jesus these persons remembered is the real Jesus, and there is no other historical Jesus to be found…” (Pg. 291)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying the Historical Jesus, or any of the many “alternative” theories about him currently circulating.
July 22, 2022
Ben Witherington has written a marvellous work about those closest to Jesus while he pursued his time on earth, and how they saw him. He shows how the gnostic views of several modern books are false, and guides us back to the real Jesus as shown in the Bible.
The Appendix takes us through the work "The Jesus Dynasty" by James Tabor, and shows how an author skilled in History and Archaeology, but not Theology can go so wrong, and far from the truth of the Bible.
This book would be a valuable guide after reading Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code" which also strays far from the Biblical orthodoxy.
The Appendix takes us through the work "The Jesus Dynasty" by James Tabor, and shows how an author skilled in History and Archaeology, but not Theology can go so wrong, and far from the truth of the Bible.
This book would be a valuable guide after reading Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code" which also strays far from the Biblical orthodoxy.
December 2, 2018
Had some very good insights, but he kept referring to gospel writers as leaving out details that were in other writings (Gospels) for their own reasons, I decided to end early. Will hold on to the book for study reference though.
August 12, 2014
This is a very useful, informative, and well-written text, which seeks to counter some of the spurious, specious, and foolish "reconstructions" of Jesus which have hit the bookshelves in the last ten to fifteen years or so. To accomplish his goal, Dr. Witherington considers what we can know about, and learn from, the "inner circle" of Jesus' closest disciples (for example, Peter, James, Paul, Mary Magdalene, the Beloved Disciple, etc.) Witherington gives us a very close and penetrating examination of the pertinent biblical texts, along with assorted secondary sources, including the works of Josephus and some of the earliest church Fathers. The result is a work which sheds much light on some heretofore "under the radar" aspects of Jesus' life and ministry. As a pastor and teacher, I found this effort to be quite helpful and illuminating.
Dr. Witherington proposes some novel, but biblically defensible, ways of considering the gospel narratives. A good and very intriguing example is his well-reasoned argument that the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John is none other than Jesus' dear friend, Lazarus. Witherington goes even farther, and contends that this same Lazarus may well be the primary witness behind the Johanine gospel; either as the actual writer, or the source of information which was written down and later edited by someone else. It's a very interesting idea, and Witherington does a good job of making his case for it.
This is a helpful book for pastors and biblical teachers, and educated laypeople who would like to have a more in-depth understand of some key Scriptural material. Dr. Witherington writes in a very engaging and easy to comprehend way, keeping the theological mumbo-jumbo to a minimum. I happily recommend this book!
Dr. Witherington proposes some novel, but biblically defensible, ways of considering the gospel narratives. A good and very intriguing example is his well-reasoned argument that the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John is none other than Jesus' dear friend, Lazarus. Witherington goes even farther, and contends that this same Lazarus may well be the primary witness behind the Johanine gospel; either as the actual writer, or the source of information which was written down and later edited by someone else. It's a very interesting idea, and Witherington does a good job of making his case for it.
This is a helpful book for pastors and biblical teachers, and educated laypeople who would like to have a more in-depth understand of some key Scriptural material. Dr. Witherington writes in a very engaging and easy to comprehend way, keeping the theological mumbo-jumbo to a minimum. I happily recommend this book!
January 26, 2009
Loved this book. Witherington is a legitimate scholar in every sense - very prolific as well as an author of popular books like this one.
I gained lots of insights and understandings - how Jesus related to his familyl and friends. He speculates whether Lazarus could be the author of the Gospel of John. Interesting ideas like that! Witherington is - how would you say it - conservative scholar? He takes very seriously Christian truth claims and historical claims, while using critical tools for understanding them. Nice combination of critical and faithful tools.
This could be a good place to start for those interested in an intro to Jesus scholarship.
I gained lots of insights and understandings - how Jesus related to his familyl and friends. He speculates whether Lazarus could be the author of the Gospel of John. Interesting ideas like that! Witherington is - how would you say it - conservative scholar? He takes very seriously Christian truth claims and historical claims, while using critical tools for understanding them. Nice combination of critical and faithful tools.
This could be a good place to start for those interested in an intro to Jesus scholarship.
July 31, 2011
This is a solid work of New Testament scholarship and insight. Witherington has some startling ideas (the role of Johanna in the early church and the true identity of The Beloved Disciple, to name two). But his use of solid, scholarship and Biblical backing really makes a case. I recommend this book for all those who are trying to broaden their knowledge of the New Testament, along with the context of the 1st-century world in which it was written.
April 16, 2020
Uneven. Moments of brilliance badly tainted by errors in basic Biblical facts, arguments from silence and other annoying issues. Also, this book could have been half as long....lots of repetition, unnecessary material, and arguments that would have been better left out. Nonetheless, there were frequently insights that were so excellent that it was worth wading through to get there.
May 30, 2014
Though much of it is long, stretched speculation, Witherington fascinated me in his creativity and willingness to explore the humanity of those that fill the pages of Scripture. Really enjoyed this one.
September 11, 2016
BW3 is smart. This book is...............good, and smart.
September 28, 2015
Entahlah~ ada beberapa teori Mr. Witherington yang aku kurang sreg ╮(￣ω￣;)╭ entah juga kalo aku-nya yang gak paham (^^;)>
Read
September 15, 2015Fascinating
Really enjoyed this. Well written. I learned a lot. Not exactly a page turner though. If you are at all interested in New Testament background read it.
Really enjoyed this. Well written. I learned a lot. Not exactly a page turner though. If you are at all interested in New Testament background read it.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews