Read The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus & the Truth of the Traditional Gospels by Luke Timothy Johnson Online

the-real-jesus-the-misguided-quest-for-the-historical-jesus-the-truth-of-the-traditional-gospels

The Real Jesus—the first book to challenge the findings of the Jesus Seminar, the controversial group of two hundred scholars who claim Jesus only said 18 percent of what the Gospels attribute to him—"is at the center of the newest round in what has been called the Jesus Wars" (Peter Steinfels, New York Times). Drawing on the best biblical and historical scholarship, respeThe Real Jesus—the first book to challenge the findings of the Jesus Seminar, the controversial group of two hundred scholars who claim Jesus only said 18 percent of what the Gospels attribute to him—"is at the center of the newest round in what has been called the Jesus Wars" (Peter Steinfels, New York Times). Drawing on the best biblical and historical scholarship, respected New Testament scholar Luke Timothy Johnson demonstrates that the "real Jesus" is the one experienced in the present through faith rather than the one found in speculative historical reconstructions. A new preface by the author presents his point of view on the most recent rounds of this lively debate....

Title : The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus & the Truth of the Traditional Gospels
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780060641665
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 182 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus & the Truth of the Traditional Gospels Reviews

  • Skylar Burris
    2018-10-06 01:28

    The primary point Luke Timothy Johnson seems to be making in this book is that the "real Jesus" is not the "historical Jesus" at all – for the "historical Jesus" is impossible to reliably reconstruct and has influenced absolutely no one living today. The "real Jesus" is, rather, the living Jesus, Jesus as actually experienced and understood by those whose lives and communities His presence transforms. The author makes a convincing argument against the Jesus Seminar, highlighting its spurious methods of scholarship. While he skewers the Seminar's methods, he also questions its motives: "Is what is claimed to be a pursuit of the historical Jesus not in truth a kind of flight from the image of Jesus and of discipleship inexorably ingrained" in the New Testament? "Instead of an effort to rectify the distorting effect of the Gospel narratives, the effort to reconstruct Jesus according to some other pattern" than the Gospels "appears increasingly as an attempt to flee the" countercultural "scandal of the Gospel." The gospels are an interpretation of Jesus's historical life, but it is those gospels that, through interpretation, reveal the "real Jesus." The living Jesus, Jesus as understood by those who experienced transformed lives and transformed communities, and who wrote the New Testament, IS the "real Jesus." This is so simplistic, and yet I have to confess that I have quite overlooked this simple concept whenever I am caught up in discussions with people over this or that minor biblical inconsistency, or this or that historical likelihood. How easily Christians allow themselves to be caught up in this "historical proof" of Christ mindset, forgetting, sometimes, that if Christ is truly living, as we Christians claim Him to be, then He cannot be "really" known as a figure in history, anymore than I can be fully understood as a person on the basis of only my first fifteen years of life. History, the author argues, is a limited mode of knowing, and historical analysis cannot reveal all truth. It is pointless to chop up the gospels into little pieces in an attempt to reconstruct historical truth, because the gospels are written as literary units and are only useful if approached with respect for their literary integrity as interpretive works. Alternative historical theories of who Jesus "really" was are simply not what the earliest Christians (based on the oldest available Christian writings) perceived him to be. Ultimately, any Christian's claim to experience the real Jesus "can be challenged" on moral or religious grounds, "but not historically"—because historical knowledge cannot get at experience (which is necessarily interpretive). The author is not touting some anti-intellectual line; far from it; rather, he is simply insisting that there are limits to historical and material modes of knowing. This about sums it up: "The claims of the gospel cannot be demonstrated logically. They cannot be proved historically. They can be validated only existentially by the witness of the authentic Christian discipleship." And this authentic discipleship--rather than constantly striving to prove the improvable to skeptical minds—ought to be the Christian's focus. "The more the church has sought to ground itself in something other than the transforming work of the Spirit, the more it has sought to buttress its claims by philosophy or history, the more it has sought to defend itself against its cultured despisers by means of sophisticated apology, the more also it has missed the point of its existence, which is not to take a place within worldly wisdom but to bear witness to the reality of a God who transforms suffering and death with the power of new life." This was a book that enabled me to think about and appreciate things I already believe from a different and, at the moment at least, more satisfying angle. I recommend the book to any Christian who questions or has ever questioned the value of the gospels for revealing the "real Jesus." The book has its flaws, and it is not precisely quick or poetic reading, but I gave it five stars because it is rare for me to find a book these days that I really feel does something for me both intellectually and spiritually—and this did.

  • Adam Ross
    2018-09-26 17:20

    I read this book in a single day. One might say I devoured it. Johnson is a New Testament scholar in the Roman Catholic tradition, and he is a well-respected one as well. In this book, he takes on the Jesus Seminar for being insufficiently historical and much too confident in their claims about discovering the "historical Jesus."Principally the book is about the limits of historical research, a matter handled ably by Johnson. The thing about Johnson that is so confounding is that he opposes fundamentalists as well as the progressive Jesus Seminar for completely missing the point of religion. Ultimately, he says, the historical Jesus is lost to us. There are a couple of vague references by Roman and Jewish sources, but the rest come from the post-resurrection documents that make up the New Testament. It is impossible to "get behind" these texts to the real Jesus and any historian claiming with certainty to have unlocked this mystery is a huckster and probably selling a book. His critique in this vein is completely devastating to the Jesus Seminar claims. The central claim of Christianity, he says, is that Jesus is a person in the present, living somehow right now in and around us by way of the Spirit, a claim which is simply beyond the ability of historical research to make any claims about. This is a mystery and beyond human explanation, accessible only by mystical inward experience. He is also not a fundamentalist, carefully distinguishing resurrection (what happened to Jesus) from resuscitation (a dead body returning to human life), and goes to some lengths to show how the New Testament actually treads very lightly on the matter of Jesus's human body, because the point of resurrection is that Jesus is translated and elevated to God and becomes something beyond human comprehension or explanation.In short, it is a good book worthy of attention. I think he is too hard at times on scholars like Borg, Crossan, and Spong. As Johnson shows, their historical reconstructions of Jesus are spurious, but having read some of their work I find theologically they are not actually very far from Johnson's own views in certain respects.

  • Daniel
    2018-10-06 21:30

    An excellent book from Luke Johnson, professor New Testament at Emory University. In this short work, Johnson does an excellent job of explaining how misguided understandings of history, contemporary culture, and poor scholarship has guided the "search for the historical Jesus". He also has an excellent chapter on the limitations of historical study - bringing a solid understanding of what historical study can and cannot do to our understanding of what the limited collection of documents in the New Testament can and cannot tell us. Finally, he provides a much needed call for Christian intellectuals to acknowledge and embrace that the "real Jesus" is the Jesus that did live and die in Palestine in the early 1st century, but is also the Jesus that is still alive and moving in His Church. This perspective is transformative in understanding Jesus. An excellent and well worthwhile read! A bit of a slow read, due to the academic nature, but very well done.

  • Tim Soper
    2018-10-07 20:19

    I enjoyed "The Real Jesus" but unless you are an active observer of the debate over the Jesus Seminar from 20 years ago, I suspect that this book might bore you. Additionally, even though it is a relatively short book at 178 pages, it is not a light or easy read. Based on this being a couple decade old debate and the scholarly quality of writing, I suspect the layman to run out of steam mid-book. The unfortunate consequence of bailing early is that the final chapter reads at breakneck pace and the words rush from the page with the passion of the author. I'm glad my research into the Gospels forced me to stick with this, but know that you'll have to be just as committed to gain the payoff at the end.

  • Zachary
    2018-09-30 17:45

    This is a good book for a quick introduction to and (somewhat) conservative appraisal of historical Jesus scholarship. Johnson quickly and effectively deflates some of the buzz surrounding the Jesus Seminar (though the Seminar has been repeatedly deflated since the publication of this book), narrates in broad strokes the history of critical biblical scholarship, debunks a number of would-be historical reconstructions of Jesus, and presents in sketch form the consensus reconstruction of most New Testament scholars. These are all good and necessary achievements, but the most important contribution Johnson makes to the discussion is to insist that Christian faith is not in any historical reconstruction but rather in the living and "real Jesus" as he is made known and experienced in the present. This is not an apologetic work, and Johnson spends little or no time defending the Christian faith as such; this argument is intended to remind Jesus scholars that if they attempt to shake Christian faith through (yet another) iconoclastic reconstruction of the historical Jesus, they have got off on the wrong foot because Christians are not foolish enough to bet their lives on the tenuous probability claims of historians. But Johnson is also careful not to say that historical reconstruction is entirely irrelevant to the church or that Christian faith is merely a matter of private individual experience. In fact, Johnson spends much of his last chapter on constructive proposals for reordering the relationship between church and academy, but this is where I found his argument to drop off. There simply isn't space in a work of this kind to propose meaningful solutions to such a complex problem; there are philosophical, theological, political, and yes, historical questions that need to be addressed in order to suggest ways forward in reconciling critical scholarship and traditional faith. So, for that reason, I gave four stars to this little book. Yet I would highly recommend it to, for example, a non-specialist interested in learning about the major discussion points in historical Jesus scholarship from a relatively conservative perspective.

  • Benjamin Sauers
    2018-09-18 17:43

    I very much enjoyed this book. LTJ dishes out criticism to both the conservative evangelical and liberal understanding of "the real Jesus". For me, LTJ's perspectives were refreshing and freeing. His argument, that the Bible and Jesus can only be properly understood theologically through the community of the Church, is quite convincing. Highly recommended!

  • Rocky Woolery
    2018-10-05 21:20

    Although this is an older book, much of the material is still pertinent tos scholarship of today. Johnson is not afraid to point out where scholarship has come up short in trying to paint a picture of the real Jesus.

  • Rose Anderson
    2018-10-05 00:20

    A book that disputes much of the research on the historical Jesus and advises a more realistic approach for research. The author's arguments are well laid out.

  • Michael Havens
    2018-10-06 01:22

    Luke Timothy Johnson, former Benedictine monk and priest, and now Biblical scholar, takes on a critical analysis of the assumptions and scholarship of the Jesus Seminar.Who or what is the Jesus Seminar? If you are not familiar with them or the media frenzy their research elicited surprise by many and serious questions and disdain by many within the Biblical scholarship world. The sad fact was, as Professor Johnson points out in this book, that the media not only did not make critical questions as to their claims, such as the majority of scholars in Biblical Studies were in agreement with their findings (see the whole of "The Good News and the Nightly News” for claims by Jesus seminar head, Robert Funk and his connections with the media), such as; looking at the number of Jesus Seminar members as opposed to the total number of scholars worldwide, making this claim more than dubious); the “beaded rating system” in which scholars “voted” through a system of colored beads, what sayings of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels are authentic and which are not. Here is how the system works:red: That’s Jesus!pink: Sure sounds like Jesus.gray: Well, maybe. Black: There’s been some mistake. (The Real Jesus, 5)and ignoring the synoptic gospels in favor of non canonical writingsMuch of Professor Johnson’s argument lies here, namely, that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar attempt to trump the Synoptic Gospels in favor of Gnostic gospels in order to weight the balance of their argument and supporting it not with the main text of their objection (the New Testament) as well as using, as seen above, methodology which becomes a self fulfilling argument, never dealing with the New Testament directly, effectively placing the argument ahead of significant evidence, like the proverbial cart before the horse.Johnson also argues that the Gospels need to be treated as the main or center text, because it is the text that is the heart of Christian belief. Any criticism has to be delivered on the basis of internal evidence. The bias slant that the Jesus Seminar presents is not one of healthy and vigorous debate, one which Professor Johnson believes is important, but is a slant in which the cards are stacked against any claims by the New Testament on the basis that a “historical” Jesus would be devoid of any of the cultural, religious, or social underpinnings that were in existence via 33 C.E. Such a position allows those involved in the Historical Jesus movement to claim that they are really rescuing Jesus from “the Church” and bringing the Church to a healthier appraisal of their faith, one that leaves the “historical” Jesus with no real spiritual referent and no religious connections, in a sense, ignoring Israel’s real religious presence.Johnson presents a totally opposite perspective. He reasons that all the trappings of scripture, with all the thorny parts be looked at seriously, because it reflects attitudes and a social viewpoint that is unique to ancient Israel. He also argues that the Gnostics, while helpful in a limited way, could not be used as texts par excellence, in the way the Seminar would like to utilize, to the fact that much of the Gnostic Gospels are not only contradicting Jewish tradition and perspective (one of the things many people, even Christians fail to recognize is that Jesus was a Jew) as well as Christian views on the nature of man, but more importantly, the reasons for the Gnostics not included was because many of those texts are fragmentations, sayings (37-39, see also 149-158 for Johnson’s critique of the comparisons between the Gnostics and the Synoptics, in particular, how the Gnostics treat Jesus theologically, what critical things are left out of the Gnostics, and how the Synoptics relate to each other as a whole). Professor Johnson begins the first half of his position with an impressive Preface/Thesis and builds on his argument, making point by point, the errors found in the Jesus Seminar’s findings and methodology (Chapters ,2,and 3). Chapters 4, 5, and 6 make up his answer to the problem of not only the problematical issues dealing with the findings of the Jesus Seminar, but gives the reasoning from recognized historical methodology in the treatment of the Gospels, ending with his position of how one can find the historical Jesus within the confines of the Synoptic Gospels as well as the rest of Scripture.Professor Johnson’s scholarship and argument is concise and to the point. It is a small book of only 177 pages, but it would be worth reading it in increments of a chapter a day to really think about what he is presenting. While individuals who like Apologetics would enjoy this work, it ‘s focus is not theological apologia, but rather a defense of biblical scholarship and methodology as opposed to hype and media overselling.

  • Corbin
    2018-10-09 20:46

    Concise, and easy to read. This book can be divided into two sections. The first looks at the development and the cultural impact of the Historical Jesus controversy, in particular the Jesus Seminar. The next section is really the argument LT Johnson wishes to make concerning the "real Jesus" and that is the divide between history and faith.For the rest of the review I will focus on the latter half of LT's book rather then discuss the first. LT's argument is simple. The real Jesus is not to be found in history books. He is the risen Lord, and as that he is living today, and exists for us to experience. The Historical Jesus controversy is mainly a distraction to the real Jesus, and shifts focus from the bedrock which Christian faith is established. The reality that the real Jesus is an experience of God's redeeming power.I confess that for the most part there is not too much separating LT from other liberal theologians, except that LT takes a very conservative view in regards to history, and by conservative I do not mean fundamentalist or evangelical. His methodology is conservative, which is refreshing in a certain way. LT sees all historical reconstructions of Jesus as being mere imitations of the real Jesus experienced in faith. But LT accepts most of what the Jesus Seminar has to say, in that, the Gospels are not accurate sources of history into understanding what "really happened" two thousand years ago, because of this there are only a handful of events recorded in the NT which can really be considered "historical", and for the most part events of a supernatural nature are not given much historical foundation. This includes the resurrection, which LT also doubts the literal events of empty tomb and women witnesses. The mastery of LT Johnson's approach is that it attacks the liberal and the fundamentalist. The liberal who incorporates extra-Biblical gospels and writings into the historical framework of interpreting the real Jesus is just as guilty as the fundamentalist who incorporates rigid theological principles in deciding the early dates of the gospel writings to interpret some "harmonized" real Jesus. How does LT escape both traps? By accepting the witness given to us of Christ in the New Testament. It's simple. LT's approach really does clear out most of the clutter being generated by liberals and fundamentalists in modern theological friction. For LT the multiplicity of the Gospels demonstrates for us that Christian faith was born in religious diversity and that one single representation of Christ is not needed in order to establish genuine or authentic faith. Unity is not conformity, and the early church had a diverse and perhaps even conflicting view of Christ, but they were still united. For all its diversity, the New Testament is united in the view of Christ as the suffering Son of Man/Son of God. Through our suffering for others we participate in the suffering of Christ, and it was Christ's suffering that was his glory. It is this teaching which is the fundamental teaching of the New Testament, and is the fundamental truth of faith that leads to an experience of Jesus.LT does not reject historical study or Biblical scholarship. He promotes it. In fact, he can be seen as a champion of scholarship in this regard. What he rejects is the highly dubious claim that simply because scholars can reconstruct this image of Jesus that means that somehow the Christian faith needs to be reinterpreted after two thousand years of wrong ideas. LT enables scholarship to go in one direction while faith remains on the steady course it has been, for such a long time. The two are related to one another, and Christianity is a religion of re-interpretation in general. But what modern scholarship is calling for is such a drastic re-interpretation that what it stands to loose is the real Jesus of traditional faith.

  • Christopher
    2018-10-04 23:29

    THE REAL JESUS is scholar Luke Timothy Johnson's critical response to several writers in the historical Jesus fad that grew quite large in the late 1980s and 1990s. Generously published in 1996 by HarperSanFrancisco, the same publisher of so many of the books Johnson criticises, the work is a necessary counterpoint to any book asserting to reach a historical understanding of Jesus.Johnson does not stand against works exploring the historic nature of Jesus. He himself has worked in that field, and he praises John P. Meier's A MARGINAL JEW series. What draws Johnson's ire are those writers, most notably of the Jesus Seminar, who do not respect academic norms, inappropriately chase public attention, and generally present a serious enterprise as a sensationalistic pursuit.Johnson's attack on the Jesus Seminar is sensible and will leave the reader with no doubt that theirs is not the way to approach history. Johnson uses writings from the Jesus Seminar's own leaders to show that they don't merely wish to approach Jesus as a person to shed better light on such a seminal personality, but rather in order to expressly convince orthodox Christians to leave their faith. Instead of carrying on the conversation in serious academic journals, the Seminar sends its findings to provincial newspapers, whose editors on religion lack the training to critically understand their press releases. The Jesus Seminar relies entirely on the Gospels for reconstructing a historical Jesus and give little attention to the earlier writings of Paul, which in several places give tantalising mention of Jesus' life.Johnson examines the works of other writers as well. He criticises John Shelby Spong for entering the field with no specialised training and for seeking, just like the Jesus Seminar, more to "free" people from orthodox Christianity than to dispassionately explore the past. Similarly A.N. Wilson is condemned for his amateur book JESUS. Johnson laments the unfortunate popularity of Barbara Thiering's work in which an obscure and hardly-qualfied scholar sees a giant conspiracy (a la the DA VINCI CODE) within the gospels which no one for the previous two millennia has seen.After looking at the sorely wanting techniques of the popularly-known writers, Johnson takes the reader through what can really be known about Jesus. Unlike the Jesus Seminar, he shows that reconstruction is not limited to Gospel material, but that supporting material from the writings of Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus must be taken into account. Johnson also attempts to show how orthodox Christianity has never really been about a historical Jesus, but rather a risen Lord whose power is manifest here and now. Because orthodox Christianity is not dependant on history, though it sees the Church as a continuation of some historical events, these books claiming to help orthodox Christians better understand their faith are missing the point.My only complaint about the book is that Johnson's coverage of the Jesus Seminar is angry. This is somewhat understandable, the Seminar breaks many of the vital rules of academic discourse, but Johnson himself could have been more faithful to his ideals by rewriting certain passages in a more sober tone. Nonetheless, THE REAL JESUS is a useful book, a small voice of reason in a crowd of sensationalism.

  • Drew
    2018-09-24 00:48

    An excellent takedown of the Jesus Seminar sham and a valuable exploration on the uses and limits of history in reading Scripture and exploring Jesus. Accessible to non-scholars, this is intended for a broad audience.

  • Mmetevelis
    2018-09-18 17:45

    Excellent work from a top flight New Testament scholar that came out in the hey-day of the Jesus seminar and the what has now become continuous ebb of works on the historical Jesus. Johnson's book is an excellent primer on the popular histories of Jesus that came before him (though extremely polemical) and the reasons in media, academy, and church that create a climate that not only spawns so many so-called historical reconstructions of Jesus but also such loud fanfare and acclaim. Johnson's antidote for this craze makes excellent points about the Biblical record and the Christian faith - namely that the scriptures are not as much fudged historical documents trying to make claims for certain power groups in the church, but instead theological (rather than historical) treatises trying to understand not Jesus in himself but the content of his preaching of the life of cruciform selfless service.It is funny that Johnson mentions that in his earlier career that he considered as a Catholic scholar that the historical Jesus was merely a Protestant problem. His proscriptive strategy for the way to deal with the historical Jesus deluge is to propose instead of so-called scholarly historicism is to use the hermeneutical keys of canon, church, and creed. After accusing Luther of subjectivizing the texts of scripture and unwittingly releasing the slippery slope that led to the historical Jesus movement, he merely urges a return to Catholic tradition and dogma which he outlines in terms of the New Testament texts. Though I agree with his analysis of the New Testament in the later chapters it would have been nice for him to give a nod to particular Protestant problems of viewing the texts as the Word of God which are distinctly self interpreting. Instead he imposes Catholic hermeneutics against the writers he opposes without giving Protestant concerns a proper due. Maybe this is outside the scope of the book. But still an incredibly valuable read.

  • Brett
    2018-09-17 19:39

    This is a really great book. He actually ends up dealing more with methodology than with Jesus specifically. I can see many inerrantists squirming in their seats as they read his arguments, but it would be a shame if that caused them to miss the thrust of this book. He does an excellent job, first, of dismantling the Jesus Seminar and exposing their agenda. He also shows how their (re)visions of Jesus are predetermined by their presuppositions and values. In other words, they find the Jesus they want to find. And they usually want to find a Jesus that undermines the traditional convictions of the church. But secondly, Johnson challenges the quest for the historical Jesus as a legitimate quest in the first place. Because the historical Jesus can only ever be a reconstruction based upon probabilities, it is an impossible goal. Rather the real Jesus is not the one who lived a long time ago, but the one who is alive and active in the midst of his people today. It is a good read. I think his chapters on the cultural dynamics and the limitations of history alone are worth the price of this book.

  • Gary
    2018-09-26 20:19

    Revelatory analysis of where the Historical Jesus studies of the Jesus Seminar goes wrong; the Gospels and the New Testament writings were never about history (in the sense of what really happened) or story the facts about Jesus. They were written to convey an experience of a living presence felt by a community of people. Cutting up the Gospels and letters that make up the New Testament to try to determine which really happened not only strips them of all meaning, but putting the "real" parts back together becomes a process that says more about the editors beliefs and biases than about anything historic. Recommended for any who have found the Jesus Seminar books interesting but ultimately unsatisfying.

  • Brian Maiers
    2018-10-06 00:37

    This great little book serves three purposes. It gives a good rebuttal to the excesses of the claims of the Jesus Seminar (This part of the book is a bit out dated because the JS isn't really taken seriously--partially because of books like this; however, habits like their still exist in the academy). The book also gives a good introduction to critical issues and what can be known as historical bedrock about Jesus and the New Testament. The most important part of the book, however, is the call to scholars to see their vocation as educators rather than publishers of new ideas.

  • Nathan
    2018-10-12 17:44

    A wonderful book challenging assertions on liberal and conservative fronts that unfortunately stumbles in the final chapter. His proposal to return to a literary model of interpretation is somewhat troublesome and is an attempt to circumvent what he feels uncomfortable with. His thoughts are perfectly legitimate but the literary interpretation has some troubling underbellies which he fails to adequately address. While he fails in the final chapter, his thoughts and methodologies until that point are fantastic and well worth engaging.

  • Tom
    2018-10-04 22:22

    A look at the Historical Jesus movement and it's attempt to fashion Christ and the New Testament by the Historically Critical method. Johnson is scholarly in his approach and as such a bit heavy. He does an effective job of examining the criticism in light of the scriptures and refutes their "modern" conclusions. At some points it was difficult to stay with, but overall worth the read.

  • Christine Sunderland
    2018-09-22 18:21

    A readable and excellent review of the poor scholarship shown by the Jesus Seminar and others intent on sensational debunking and high sales. Also, and more importantly, Johnson spends equal time analyzing the limits of what we can "know" about those first centuries, the limits to history, and an understanding what Christianity can and does validly claim.

  • Atchisson
    2018-10-15 18:39

    A scholarly refutation of the long-unchallenged "findings" of the Jesus Seminar. Point by point, Johnson descimates the oft-heralded "truths" trumpeted by the Seminar and their media allies. It is little surprise he didn't get asked to appear in an eighth of the print and electronic media as the Seminar members, but his book speaks for itself.

  • Brent Wilson
    2018-10-14 18:34

    A needed rebuttal/response to the Jesus Seminar. Quickly dated however, since the Jesus Seminar has died out. Johnson's anti-historical Jesus stance is difficult to sustain. I prefer a traditional scholar like N T Wright, who connects the best historical Jesus scholarship to our current demands on faith and church.

  • Mom
    2018-09-28 21:26

    I did the teaching comapny audioCDs. 32 lectures by this benedictine monk. Excellent lecture series. Each lecture 30mins. Written text included. Can do the paperback instead. I chose the audiotapes, i spend a lot of time in my car.

  • Tom
    2018-10-15 17:31

    Excellent refutation of the excesses of the Jesus Seminar.

  • Aaron Carlberg
    2018-10-13 17:23

    There is has a lot of books out lately about what the REAL JESUS was like, did he exists, etc. This is a good book to read to get another historical perspective.

  • Jeff
    2018-09-27 00:38

    http://thatjeffcarterwashere.blogspot...

  • Kevin de Ataíde
    2018-10-03 18:22

    Repudiating the Jesus Seminar and the plague of books trying to create their own individual Jesus to suit their requirements.

  • Rae
    2018-10-05 23:25

    A timely response to the Jesus Seminar folks from an established Biblical scholar. It was so good to read something scholarly that defended the Christ and his divinity.

  • Mary Grey
    2018-09-20 19:47

    This is a fantastic scholarlt work on the academic attempt to marginalize and recreate Jesus. Written by a world renowned scholar, it's also onlt 100 and some pages, so it's great for a lay person!

  • Anne
    2018-09-29 19:19

    Johnson is not afraid to air his unpopular opinions, and his incisive writing style and sharp mind make his points actually compelling. Probably the best book on the historical Jesus I've read.

  • Cray Allred
    2018-10-18 01:39

    nice try