What do you think?
Rate this book
A Quest for the Historical Christ: Scientia Christi and the Modern Study of Jesus
"A Quest for the Historical Christ brings together a collection of interrelated essays on the historical Jesus and primitive Christology. Sensitive to the diverse, but traditionally Protestant assumptions and perspectives of the "Quest" as well as to thewidely lamented disconnect between New Testament exegesis and classical dogmatic theology, an alternative approach is proposed in these pages. Ecumenical and conciliar reference points, along with non-confessional historical methods (e.g. archeology) shape the basic project, which nevertheless assumes some distinctive and important Catholic contours. The book is divided into three sections: Historical Foundations, Theological Perspectives, and Jesus and the Scriptures. While the individual chapters represent independent probes, the cumulative argument and arc of the study drives in clear and concerted directions. After a first approach to the Gospel data, attentive at once to historiographical and historical questions, a series of interventions reorienting the present scholarly discussion are suggested. These various, foundational essays lead, finally, to a sustained mediation on the mind of Christ, considered as a unique reader of the Scriptures: a meditation having its proper reflex and reflection in the way Christians themselves, as readers of the Gospels, participate in the Lord's own encounter with the living Word"
470 pages, Paperback
Published April 15, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 1, 2026
A riveting book that has helped change some of my thinking about the Gospels and historical scholarship. This work is a collection of essays by Fr. Giambrone (G.) that have been published in other academic journals or given at conferences. The book is divided into three parts, historical foundations, theological perspectives, and Jesus and the Scriptures.
Chapter 1 begins with a discussion of the different perspectives of the historicity of the Gospel material in the debates surrounding Vatican II. From this chapter, we see that Giambrone takes a higher view of historicity than other biblical scholars such as Joseph Fitzmyer.
Chapter 2 is an article published in the Journal of the Study for the Historical Jesus. This article critiques Albert Schweitzer's outsized influence on historical Jesus scholarship, especially with the idea of "questing". G. argues that Schweitzer did not necessarily accurately represent the scholars he is critical of, and has his own hidden theological agenda in a similar way to the figures he critiques. Schweitzer was very much a figure within the "radical Reformation". He compares this to some of his contemporaries such as Fr. Lagrange, who was a superior scholar yet did not have the influence Schweizer did. G. also shows that Schweizer's book did not have significant influence with his contemporaries.
Chapter 3 is an overview of historical practices and Luke's infancy narrative. I found this chapter quite interesting. G. argues that historiography in the ancient world had an ethical component so Luke would be writing with an ethical obligation to not tell falsehoods. It gives a different perspective when thinking about the infancy narratives. G. comes to a conclusion thinking that the Gospel requires us to make a decision at the end of the day, that we either believe the infancy stories or we do not.
Chapter 4 shows that sites of miracles in the ancient world in some instances were preserved in shrines. He compares the cave site preserved where the Lord was believed to be born to a location where I believe it was Augustus was born. G. argues that similar memory could be at work in giving light to a location for the Lord's birthplace, that early memory preserved the location and Luke may have had access.
Chapter 5 is an overview of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels. G. is not dismissive, and leans into Bauckham's work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. G. finds no reason to think that eyewitness testimony did not play a role in the Gospel formation.
Chapter 6 is a philosophical discussion on miracles and some of the historical debates surrounding the topic. It asks questions regarding the potential limits of historical inquiry.
Chapters 7-8 were difficult for a non-specialist reader such as myself. I have not read the works of Bauckham and Hurtado that he critiques. G. agrees with an early high Christology, but disagrees with methodology. I can sympathize with the gist in that some scholars seem to purely rely on sola Scriptura to understand the right Christology. Relying only on technical exegesis is not the only method at determining Jesus's views of himself and His relationship to God.
Chapter 9-10 were also difficult but I was fascinated by this inquiry. The argument from these chapters was that the scriptures are interrelating Greek philosophical categories and Jewish theology in the NT era. Examples used include Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews. Here, G. shows that in a way, the Church fathers were just continuing the trajectory of what was occurring in the NT writings rather than "wild anachronism" with Nicaean claims, or later theological claims.
Chapter 11 is where G. presents 3 theses, here he presents Jesus as a more rabbinic figure that believes that his life fulfills the Scriptures rather than a purely "apocalyptic prophet" figure. I had read this prior to reading Craig Evans' commentary on Matthew but similarities between rabbinic sources and Jesus are abundant, while it is not necessarily traceable, it is hard not to think that Jesus did not teach in ways that resembled what became Rabbinic Judaism.
Chapter 12 shows examples of passages that have what appears to be Johannine Christology in the synoptics. I do not remember too many details here.
Chapter 13 is a reflection on the Transfiguration. By looking at some Jewish sources, an argument is made for Jesus as an eschatological high priest.
Chapter 14 was tough for a non-specialist and I do not remember it well.
Chapter 15 was probably my favorite chapter. I agree with G. that it seems there is an overemphasis on Jesus purely as an "apocalyptic prophet" in biblical scholarship. The Gospels have clear apocalyptic and eschatological content but it feels too reductionistic in these portraits that basically make Jesus all about apocalypticism. Additionally, it seems that many of these contemporary scholars don't really reconstruct Jesus in a convincing way necessarily. They are more convincing when arguing against the scholars of the Jesus seminar who believed there was nothing apocalyptic about Jesus, so the counters are more convincing that the reconstructions. G. develops some ideas that I also found compelling in Fr. Raymond Brown's work where Brown concluded in the 60s and later in his 1994 updated Introduction to Christology, that Jesus did not know when the end would come, he just didn't know and did not claim to know. G. disagrees with some of Brown's finer points but wonders why this idea is not more common, and also explores the theological implications of Jesus not knowing the end.
I give this a 5 star review as it was game changing for me on what can be argued and what is possible in biblical scholarship. The book has the perfect blend of critical exegesis and theological study and reflection. G. takes the ideas of theologians and the fathers seriously throughout the work. Some chapters as noted are hard for a non-specialist to read due to some untranslated Greek, and also in my case, a lack of familiarity with all of the scholarship on Christology, but the main message is understandable.
Chapter 1 begins with a discussion of the different perspectives of the historicity of the Gospel material in the debates surrounding Vatican II. From this chapter, we see that Giambrone takes a higher view of historicity than other biblical scholars such as Joseph Fitzmyer.
Chapter 2 is an article published in the Journal of the Study for the Historical Jesus. This article critiques Albert Schweitzer's outsized influence on historical Jesus scholarship, especially with the idea of "questing". G. argues that Schweitzer did not necessarily accurately represent the scholars he is critical of, and has his own hidden theological agenda in a similar way to the figures he critiques. Schweitzer was very much a figure within the "radical Reformation". He compares this to some of his contemporaries such as Fr. Lagrange, who was a superior scholar yet did not have the influence Schweizer did. G. also shows that Schweizer's book did not have significant influence with his contemporaries.
Chapter 3 is an overview of historical practices and Luke's infancy narrative. I found this chapter quite interesting. G. argues that historiography in the ancient world had an ethical component so Luke would be writing with an ethical obligation to not tell falsehoods. It gives a different perspective when thinking about the infancy narratives. G. comes to a conclusion thinking that the Gospel requires us to make a decision at the end of the day, that we either believe the infancy stories or we do not.
Chapter 4 shows that sites of miracles in the ancient world in some instances were preserved in shrines. He compares the cave site preserved where the Lord was believed to be born to a location where I believe it was Augustus was born. G. argues that similar memory could be at work in giving light to a location for the Lord's birthplace, that early memory preserved the location and Luke may have had access.
Chapter 5 is an overview of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels. G. is not dismissive, and leans into Bauckham's work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. G. finds no reason to think that eyewitness testimony did not play a role in the Gospel formation.
Chapter 6 is a philosophical discussion on miracles and some of the historical debates surrounding the topic. It asks questions regarding the potential limits of historical inquiry.
Chapters 7-8 were difficult for a non-specialist reader such as myself. I have not read the works of Bauckham and Hurtado that he critiques. G. agrees with an early high Christology, but disagrees with methodology. I can sympathize with the gist in that some scholars seem to purely rely on sola Scriptura to understand the right Christology. Relying only on technical exegesis is not the only method at determining Jesus's views of himself and His relationship to God.
Chapter 9-10 were also difficult but I was fascinated by this inquiry. The argument from these chapters was that the scriptures are interrelating Greek philosophical categories and Jewish theology in the NT era. Examples used include Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews. Here, G. shows that in a way, the Church fathers were just continuing the trajectory of what was occurring in the NT writings rather than "wild anachronism" with Nicaean claims, or later theological claims.
Chapter 11 is where G. presents 3 theses, here he presents Jesus as a more rabbinic figure that believes that his life fulfills the Scriptures rather than a purely "apocalyptic prophet" figure. I had read this prior to reading Craig Evans' commentary on Matthew but similarities between rabbinic sources and Jesus are abundant, while it is not necessarily traceable, it is hard not to think that Jesus did not teach in ways that resembled what became Rabbinic Judaism.
Chapter 12 shows examples of passages that have what appears to be Johannine Christology in the synoptics. I do not remember too many details here.
Chapter 13 is a reflection on the Transfiguration. By looking at some Jewish sources, an argument is made for Jesus as an eschatological high priest.
Chapter 14 was tough for a non-specialist and I do not remember it well.
Chapter 15 was probably my favorite chapter. I agree with G. that it seems there is an overemphasis on Jesus purely as an "apocalyptic prophet" in biblical scholarship. The Gospels have clear apocalyptic and eschatological content but it feels too reductionistic in these portraits that basically make Jesus all about apocalypticism. Additionally, it seems that many of these contemporary scholars don't really reconstruct Jesus in a convincing way necessarily. They are more convincing when arguing against the scholars of the Jesus seminar who believed there was nothing apocalyptic about Jesus, so the counters are more convincing that the reconstructions. G. develops some ideas that I also found compelling in Fr. Raymond Brown's work where Brown concluded in the 60s and later in his 1994 updated Introduction to Christology, that Jesus did not know when the end would come, he just didn't know and did not claim to know. G. disagrees with some of Brown's finer points but wonders why this idea is not more common, and also explores the theological implications of Jesus not knowing the end.
I give this a 5 star review as it was game changing for me on what can be argued and what is possible in biblical scholarship. The book has the perfect blend of critical exegesis and theological study and reflection. G. takes the ideas of theologians and the fathers seriously throughout the work. Some chapters as noted are hard for a non-specialist to read due to some untranslated Greek, and also in my case, a lack of familiarity with all of the scholarship on Christology, but the main message is understandable.
Displaying 1 of 1 review