Customer Reviews

The Historical Jesus: Five Views

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"The Historical Jesus: Five Views" is a very nice overview of a number of perspectives in modern biblical scholarship. Obviously, five scholars cannot cover every single perspective. However, the contributors are all well known in their fields and often have divergent opinions. For those just wanting a basic overview of some different perspectives on the Historical Jesus in research, I would recommend this book. The book could also be useful for those who want to exprole the issues in depth as other scholars and more detailed works are mentioned in the text or footnotes.

The book itself is divided as follows (please forgive anything I miss):

I. Introduction: A concise but useful section on the progression of Jesus research from the 1700s until the contemporary situation. The sections mentions some of the major players and developments in each "Jesus Quest."

II. Contributing scholars sections (each of the other scholars is provided a brief comment/rebuttal section following the longer contributions).

A. Robert Price: This professor is one of the very, very few well-known scholars who still harbor the idea that Jesus was likely entirely a myth. However, a whole number of "internet atheists" (certainly not all) seem to hold many views in common with Price. While I found Price the least credible of all views expressed in the volume and I found some of his personal tones more than a little too falsely triumphant, his contribution was still interesting (primarily I must confess the rebuttals from other contributors to his material were what I found the most enjoyable).

B. John Crossan: Crossan is a noted liberal New Testament scholar. While I strongly disagree with many of his views, he was generally quite polite when disagreeing with other contributors. His own views center on a Jesus putting himself in peaceful opposition to Rome/power elites in general.

C. Luke Timothy Johnson: A Catholic scholar argues a more moderate poition trying to balance faith with what he considers to be solid facts about the historical Jesus.

D. James D. G. Dunn: This scholar brought up some very interesting points about the oral culture within early Christianity. In particular, I seem to remember that Johnson and Dunn came to disagreement over written materials vs. oral traditional influences. Dunn strongly objected to Price.

E. Darrell Bock: Bock is a theologically conservative evangelical scholar from dallas theological seminary. I will go ahead and admit my own biases favoring his position on Jesus closer than any of the other four from what I perceived. Bock takes a more thematic overview of Jesus's life and tries to examine the "big picture" rather than getting bogged down in disputes over specific verses.

Overall an interesting book presenting differeng perspectives.

This book serves as a forum for a group of esteemed historical Jesus scholars to debate their views with one another in a popular level, accessible format.

This review will contain a summary of the book's contents and the reasons for my five star rating and recommendation. I will attempt to be objective whilst summarising the book's contents, however after reading the book I do find some of the author's arguments more plausible than others and some of the points more worthy of mention than other points made, and this may become apparent as you read this. Nonetheless, I hope this review helps you understand the nature of the book and whether or not it's something you'd like to read for yourself.

The book begins with an introduction to the history of the quest for the Historical Jesus, written by the editors Eddy and Beilby. They summarise the various issues and debates which have shaped the quest by moving through history and showing the effects of the major issues on the direction of the quest. The introduction runs to around 50 pages or so, but this includes extensive footnotes and references. This section of the book was absolutely fantastic, simply because it is an introduction in the true sense of the word. Someone who'd never read any material on the Historical Jesus Quest in their life could pick up this book, read the introduction and quickly be up to speed with all the historical context and have a basic idea of the methodological issues. On the other hand, even a well-educated reader would benefit from the succinct historical summary. Alternatively you could just skip this section of the book and move onto the presentations by the scholars. This section of the book could be seen as a bonus, and a good one at that.

The first essay was by Robert Price, who argues that the evidence for Jesus is best explained by appeal to the invention of copied ancient hero myths combined with a rewriting of Old Testament stories to create a historical figure. He does this by making several arguments and combining them together. The key ones are: the epistles are silent about Jesus, secular sources don't mention Jesus, the principle of analogy compels us to see comparisons between Jesus and other ancient hero myths, much of the New Testament is the Old Testament rehashed but constructed around a supposed historical figure. The other scholars were highly critical of Price's arguments, especially Dunn who was particularly scathing. His was the most effective critique, and the most entertaining- he finished his response by writing that Price's thesis is "at vanishing point", the same claim Price's essay title makes about Jesus. Even the highly sceptical Crossan- who claimed to agree with much of Price's essay- brought such a devastating critique that it rendered Price's position bankrupt, by arguing that Price had ignored the strong evidence from secular sources (Tacitus, Josephus) that makes the existence of Jesus historically certain and establishes four key facts about him.

JD Crossan was next, and he argued that Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet. He bases his approach largely on his understanding of a clash between the Roman and Jewish worldviews, and then places Jesus in the midst of this struggle. He suggests that Jesus started with a worldview similar to that of John the Baptist but then adjusted his theological views after John died. Surprisingly, the criticisms of Crossan were nearly as scathing as the criticisms of Price had been! Virtually all of the other four scholars chide Crossan for creating a Jesus in his own image. They argue that he plays fast and loose with the historical evidence by reading things into the evidence that aren't there (particularly about Jesus's status as a social revolutionary and his fitting into the political clash where Crossan depicts him). There are suggestions that Crossan overplays certain aspects of Jesus and understates or ignores others- for example, where are the calls to repentance from Crossan's Jesus?

Personally, I found Crossan's essay kind of peculiar, his methodology odd, and his approach the most difficult to follow. He spends a fair chunk of his essay going through Roman history, a page or two talking about John the Baptist and Jesus's supposed theology, and a page or two critiquing J P Meier's argument that an eschatological contradiction is acceptable, and then voila- you have Crossan's Jesus. I found the connections he made along the way weren't strong enough, and he often speculated by adding in all kinds of things to his story without really providing solid evidence that they came from anywhere other than his own imagination. But most importantly he didn't mention why kinds of evidence would refute his Jesus, and thus one strongly got the impression that he was only giving us one side of Jesus. Not surprisingly (to me) these ended up being the kinds of criticisms given by the other scholars.

Third up was Luke Timothy Johnson. Johnson begins by contrasting two positions on "the best way of getting to know Jesus" - That of faith and that of historical study. The first "holds that Jesus is best learned through the practice of faith in the church" while the second position claims that "the human Jesus is knowable only through historical reconstructions". The first position holds the "conviction that faith itself is a mode of cognition that makes contact with what is real even if empirically unverifiable" and it "rejects the adequacy of historical study for getting at Jesus as he truly is", while the second position holds that "The Gospel accounts, and for that matter, all New Testament testimony concerning Jesus of Nazareth, must be corrected by critical historiography". The position of faith holds that Jesus is a figure alive in the present, while history holds that he must be "regarded solely as a dead man of the past". The contrast could not be more clear.

Before giving us his proposal for how to actually get to know Jesus, Johnson goes into the next part of his essay where he strongly emphasises the limitations of historical enquiry and how it relates to the Quest for the Historical Jesus. He claims there are a few assertions the historian can make with the "highest degree of probability"- for example, that Jesus existed as a Jew in the first century- another handful of assertions that can be made with a "very high degree of probability"- for example, that he chose twelve followers- and a few more than can be affirmed with "considerable" probability- like his baptism by John the Baptist. But for Johnson this is where the buck stops. Those historical facts are basically all that we can say about Jesus using pure historical analysis, he claims. He then discusses the limits of history and concludes that "the consequences of pushing beyond such limitations in order to construct a historical Jesus are evident in many contemporary publications that regularly distort historical methods and as a result distort the sources as well".

Does this leave us in a state of perpetual despair? At this juncture of his essay, it would appear that Johnson believes that whatever we say about the Historical Jesus, we're saying too much. This certainly appears to be his view of well known questers like Crossan and N.T Wright. However, Johnson claims that "By no means does history's inability to know the human Jesus mean that real knowledge of him is impossible". Johnson finishes his essay by proposing a narrative approach for getting to know Jesus, and using it to understand the character of Jesus. He claims that the essence of character is something that "narrative is distinctly capable of addressing" and that the four gospels, despite their factual differences, show "remarkable convergence when discussing Jesus character".

The criticisms levelled at Johnson focused, not surprisingly on his methodology.

James Dunn and Darrell Bock agreed on the majority of their portrait of Jesus, despite having quite different methodologies. Dunn's emphasis is a strong focus on oral tradition, which was a stark contract to Johnson's emphasis on the narrative, or the written sources. Whereas Bock seems to take somewhat of an apologetic approach to the task- he basically goes about showing that the Jesus story of the gospels are reliable by focusing on several different specific events and arguing for their historical accuracy. Bock copped heavy criticism for his approach from Johnson, who more or less said "Bock isn't even a true historian!" (paraphrase...). Nonetheless, I found most of Bock's argument's very plausible, regardless of the backwards approach he might've taken (ie: Start with: The Jesus tradition is reliable and work backwards to prove it, rather than ask what history can teach us and move forward).

My only real criticism of the book is the inclusion of Robert Price. Price's arguments were very much implausible, in fact that description is probably generous. As I was reading through his essay I regularly found myself wondering how he could write those things with a straight face. Not only did he make implausible arguments but he regularly ignored evidence which would render his line of thinking dead. One is forced to consider whether Price is simply a sensationalist contrarian who doesn't actually believe what he writes, but rather is after the attention and infamous appeal associated with holding his controversial position. The book would've benefited from giving the serious scholars more space to debate their arguments in the marketplace of ideas. For example it'd be great to read Dunn going into a more detailed defense of the reliability of oral tradition, and Crossan's essay could've benefited from more space, to allow him to draw stronger connections between the political scene and Jesus' place within it. Alas, instead we got 25 pages of Price peddling his utter stupidity and then the ensuing responses.

Although admittedly there's one good thing about Price's presence- the bankruptcy of his thesis has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt from multiple critics, all within the pages of a single book. Almost all of his major lines of argumentation were effectively refuted, and I doubt anyone could read his essay and the responses with half an open mind and then still honestly hold that his central claim- Jesus is unlikely to have existed- has any merit whatsoever.

In conclusion, this book was a pleasure to read. The interaction between scholars of expert knowledge and experience makes for a truly special read, simply because it's difficult to find such direct clashes of ideas, in such an accessible format anywhere else. I considered taking off one star for the inclusion of Price who, to put it bluntly, wasted space which could've been used more effectively by handing it to the serious scholars, however I erred on the side of retaining a 5 star rating. I would expect that complete novice readers would be able to read this book and gain and a good degree of understanding about historical Jesus studies, and that more learned readers would be able to develop their knowledge by closely following the clashes of methodology employed by each of the scholars, or by scouring the sources provided in each essay.

This book is the latest product of a brilliant, long-running intellectual enterprise known as 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus'. It aims simply to answer the question how much can really be known about Jesus the man, as an historical figure.
The 'Quest' tradition of scholarship has attracted some of the best minds of the past two hundred years. However it tends to be sceptical. It asks questions but often gives no answers. Many of its great participants, such as Albert Schweitzer, who gave the 'Quest' its name, have been Christians. But the Quest is not faith-based, and this book is not a devotional tome.
Rather,The Historical Jesus: Five Views is an intellectual tour de force. The five contributors are stellar. There is a wide range of opinion represented. The authors even critique each others' views. Readers with an established interest in the field should buy this book. Others could read about the 'Quest' on Wikipedia before making a decision. The book is a good introduction to contemporary thinking in the field, but not one for the faint-hearted!

"Who do people say that I am?"

It's interesting that Jesus didn't start off by asking the disciples the personal question that would follow ("Who do you say that I am?"). He first asked them what other people were saying.

The views of Jesus were varied in the first century. They are even more so today.

C.S. Lewis gave us an apologetic device called the "Trilemma", in which he argued that Jesus must be a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. He could not be simply a "nice teacher." A brilliant piece of apologetics in Lewis' day, it is less effective now. Why? Because the Trilemma only works if you accept the authority and authenticity of the original documents about Jesus' life. Today, by questioning the sources, picking and choosing which parts fit their overall portrait, scholars can wiggle out of Lewis' three options and offer a number of other views.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views (IVP, 2009) brings together some of the major players in "Historical Jesus" research today. The only thing these contributors have in common is the source material that we find in the Gospels. And even on the source materials, they are divided as to what parts should be considered as historical evidence.

The book begins with an overview of "the quest for the historical Jesus". There are three major phases to this quest, culminating in recent research which emphasizes the Jewishness of Jesus. But even within the third quest, scholarly views of Jesus have fragmented to the point that no consensus is possible.

The first contribution is Robert M. Price's essay, "Jesus at the Vanishing Point". Price makes the case that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth. (If you wonder how anyone can actually make the case for Jesus' non-existence, you will get a good dose of conspiracy theory here.) Price's view is effectively shot down by each of the other contributors. James Dunn suggests that Price's essay should be retitled: "The Jesus Myth - a Thesis at Vanishing Point".

Next, John Dominic Crossan fashions Jesus as a prophet who taught non-violent resistance to Roman imperialism. Crossan is perhaps most known in evangelical circles for his statement that after Jesus' crucifixion, his body was probably thrown into a shallow grave and eaten by wild dogs. It's easy for evangelicals like myself to write off Crossan from the start. But I am challenged by his knowledge of Scripture, which I dare say exceeds that of a good many evangelicals, even some evangelical pastors. Unfortunately, his knowledge is like the scribes of old, always searching the Scriptures, but never coming to the true Jesus revealed therein.

Luke Timothy Johnson's essay argues that historical study is not the best way to understand Jesus. Johnson clears up misunderstandings about previous statements which seemed to imply that no historical study is necessary. Instead, Johnson wants to shine light on the limitations of historical research, which "all too frequently turns out to be not historical research at all, but a theological agenda wearing the external garb of history." (167)

James D. G. Dunn writes a brilliant essay on how the Quest for the Historical Jesus has lost its way. He launches a series of protests against the naturalistic presuppositions of those in the Jesus Seminar, and then he makes proposals. Dunn's essay starts out by taking a wrecking ball to certain pictures of the "historical Jesus" and then finishes by putting down a new foundation for his own approach.

The final essay comes from Darrell Bock. As an evangelical, Bock understands the limits of historical Jesus research. But he still sees value in this conversation because it "can give us a start and can open doors for discussion between people of distinct approaches to Jesus." (253) Bock makes the case that Jesus' intentions can best be seen in the symbolism of his actions within a Jewish context of expectation. His essay makes the case for the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Jesus.

I didn't think that this book could make a serious contribution to the discussion about the historical Jesus. The views are so different that there is very little common ground between the authors, except for the fact they agreed to contribute essays. But surprisingly, the book does succeed at giving an informative look at the current scholarly proposals. The responses of the authors are lively and engaging. If you are looking for a book that lays out some of the historical proposals, The Historical Jesus is a good place to start.

There are many multiple-view books produced by evangelical publishing houses. As a rule they are quite useful in providing the reader with various options with evangelical theology.

This book on the historical Jesus contains five contributions, only one of which is by an evangelical (Darrell Bock's). The views presented range from Robert Price's nutty claim that Jesus likely didn't exist to Bock's defense of the historicity of the Gospels, with three positions in the middle (John Crossan, Luke Johnson, and James Dunn). The book also contains an excellent introduction by the editors concerning the various quests for the historical Jesus.

The one drawback is with so many contributors the amount of space for each essay and the responses is rather limited.

Published in 2009 by InterVarsity Press, "The Historical Jesus: Five Views provides a broad and helpful introduction to the area of historic Jesus Studies. The book is formatted in the standard manner for these types of texts; an introduction followed by essays from the respective authors with short responses from the other contributors. Overall, I found this to be one of the best books of its type that I have come across.

I offer a couple of broad points as well as a few specific comments on the different contributions. With regard to general points, the editors' introduction is particularly good; it provides a helpful and balanced overview of historic Jesus studies, context that may be particularly valuable for readers new to this subject. Additionally, the book's wide range of perspectives is a strength. Often these texts while possessing high quality scholarship are restricted in scope, resulting in a well informed but, internecine debate amongst evangelical scholars; kudos to InterVarsity for including such a diverse range of viewpoints.

A few comments on the different contributions. First, Robert Price, arguably the most credible proponent of what is known as the `Jesus Myth'. A view which posits that there was no historic Jesus and that Christianity is the result of an amalgamation of accidental and intentional myth making. While an enjoyable addition to the discussion, the `Jesus Myth' does not stand up well to informed and sober criticism. This should not be surprising given that its key tenants have been considered and dismissed by scholars (Christian and non-Christian alike) over the last 150 years. Regardless of whether Jesus was the second person of the trinity, a failed eschatological prophet or something in between the attempt to deny his historic existence is speculative in the extreme. You wonder what these folks could do with the Kennedy assassination or the moon landing. All joking aside, despite it obvious weaknesses it was nice to see the Jesus Myth included in the discussion.

Second, Dominic Crossan a well-known and prolific Liberal scholar. Crossan's essay was the weakest of the contributions. I say this not because I disagree with many of his views (I do), but, rather, on stylistic grounds. Crossan clearly enjoys the art of writing and has received no small amount of acclaim for his ability to turn a phrase and tell a story. Unfortunately, in the present context while Crossan is an informed and reflective thinker his speculative reconstructions of Jewish and Roman history add little to the discussion.

Third was Luke Timothy Johnson a well known Catholic scholar. Somewhat to my surprise I found Johnson's essay to be the best of the collection. In particular he does a nice job of articulating many of the assumptions and limitations associated with historical reconstructions. As Johnson rightfully notes the attempt to get behind historic texts and traditions is a speculative endeavour (e.g. take the currently popular attempts to determine chronological and redactional layers within the hypothetical Q document). Johnson cautions that when approaching the historic Jesus, it is important to be aware that what is sometimes pasted of as history is in fact theology in disguise, theistic or atheistic.

Next was James Dunn perhaps the world's leading contemporary New Testament scholar. Dunn's essay is excellent; it distils many of the ideas articulated in his detailed study, `Jesus Remembered'. Dunn identifies and challenges some of the classic assumptions of the Jesus Quest, for instance the assumed dichotomy between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith as well as the Quest's literary focus (documents, redactions etc).

Finally, Darrell Bock a well known conservative scholar. Having significant agreement with Johnson and Dunn on many broad points, Bock makes a case for the general reliability of the New Testament depiction of Jesus. While his essay was solid, I was particularly impressed by Bock's responses to the other contributions. Often in these texts scholarly rivalries can get the best of civility; Bock's tone was refreshingly cordial and respectful throughout.

Overall this is an excellent introduction to the historic Jesus. Kudos to IVP for the broad approach. Highly recommended.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views is a compilation of five contributors - Robert M. Price, John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, James D.G. Dunn, and Darrell L. Bock. Their positions and responses cover 300 pages of theological diversity on the person and historicity of Jesus Christ.

Price would be the far left view here suggesting that "quite likely there never was any historical Jesus ." (pg. 55). Crossan will respond with "I simply agree with vast swaths" of Prices' argument. Johnson, Dunn, and Bock will take a much more conservative position affirming the existence of the historical Jesus. In fact, Johnson says, "Price gets Jesus to the vanishing point by the simple expedient of denying all the evidence that makes him visible." (pg. 89) Dunn acts surprised that "there are still serious scholars who put forward the view that the whole account of Jesus' doing and teaches are a later myth..." Bock notes that "even the Jesus Seminar saw around 20 percent of the Jesus material as going back to Jesus, using a very skeptical employment of such principles." (pg. 100) The mythological view is a complete failure because it reads later literature and concepts back into 1st Century culture. The life of Jesus and the Gospels must be interpreted in light of being a 1st Century Jewish male.

Crossan says we must go back to the Jesus who is "a Galilean Jew within Judaism within the Roman Empire" (pg. 105) before we could ever know if he existed or not. This is true and the historical background data is pivotal. It seems as though Crossan himself fails to remove his presuppositions and ideals in the 21st Century. For example, Johnson commends Crossan but goes on to point out the modernized conception of Jesus emerging in such statements as, "John had a monopoly but Jesus had a franchise."(See pg. 118; 126) Dunn suggests that Crossan is characterizing the setting in order to provide a backdrop for what he really wants to say. Dunn points out Crossan's selective motif's such as the dominating them of kingdom presence as well.

Johnson challenges us to learn the human Jesus. He calls us to examine the historical reading of the Gospels and Jesus. He sees the Gospel's as excellent evidence to the humanity, and therefore existence, of Jesus. The Jesus "whom we engage and come to know as a human character in the canonical Gospels is also the historic Christ." (pg. 177)

Dunn begins with "Remembering Jesus" and how the historical quest for Jesus has lost its way. He points out that the error in the historical quest has had three flaws since its inception. He puts these into three protests followed by a proposal. Protest one is against the "assumption that `the Christ of Faith' is a perversion of the `historical Jesus'". Protest two is against the assumption that "the only way to understand both the relation of the traditions in the Synoptic Gospels and the earliest transmission of the Jesus tradition is in literary terms" and proposing we give more attention and seriousness to the oral phase of the Jesus tradition. He concludes that it is "probably that the earliest transmission of the Jesus tradition was by word of mouth." (pg. 211)

Bock writes about the Historical Jesus. He says that the study for the historical Jesus quest "began as a project of the Enlightenment to strip Jesus of the doctrinal layers allegedly said to be tied to him by the early church, so that only a historical Jesus should remain." (pg. 250) Bock does a great job of laying down facts about the historical knowledge of Jesus as well as the way he and others viewed him in the text of Scripture itself. Bock and Dunn's arguments differ since one stressed oral tradition and the other the historical literature and data. The believer should bear in mind however that both are valid forms of understanding the historical Jesus and the early formation of the Gospels themselves.

IVP Academics has done a great job in providing this book as a valuable resource. It was edited by J.K. Beilby and P.R. Eddy. Reading this book is a great way to jump right into the quest for the Historical Jesus. I recommend it for any bookshelf.

Five noted scholars discuss what we can determine about the historical Jesus: Robert Price, Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, James Dunn, and Darrell Bock. It's a wide range, from confirmed believers to one who argues that no historical Jesus existed at all.

Jesus scholarship continues to evolve, but it seems to me to be spiraling the target instead of zeroing in. For example, virtually all scholars now accept that Jesus was recognized by his contemporaries as a miracle worker and healer, while less trust is being placed in the "embarrassment criteria" that has prompted scholars to trust the Gospel of Mark above others.

The book is presented in debate style, and the contributors pull no punches. Each presents a short argument, maybe 30 pages long, and then each of the other four write a few pages of critique in response.

Like any good debate, it may leave you more confused than when you began, but if I must choose a "winner," this time I pick the conservatives. (Please understand that, by "conservative," I mean relatively so; Christianity within reason--rejection of critical scholarship is not a prerequisite to believing.) I've gained a new respect for Bock, and I was especially impressed by Dunn's discussion of oral tradition. Dunn argues that it's reasonable, once we capture in our minds the faith of the first followers of Jesus, to trace the Gospel writings back through normal oral transmission to Jesus himself, and suggests that the Gospels are not taken seriously enough by Jesus scholars. It is those who were so greatly impressed by Jesus that can give us the best glimpse of why they were impressed. He closes with this provocative conclusion: "Those who still experience the Jesus tradition as living tradition may well be best placed to appreciate the initial stages of the traditioning process, that it is the ear of faith which is likely to hear the Gospels most effectively, and that the living quality of the Jesus tradition is most likely to be experienced by those who in effect sit with these early assemblies in sharing their memories of Jesus and in seeking to live by them."

The Historical Jesus: Five Views offers a scholarly survey of Jesus and is a pick for readers who want to have detailed insights on the history of Jesus. Here figures in the Jesus research quest provide their views and respond to fellow scholars in a dialogue suitable for advanced spirituality collections.

Just finished this worthy addition to the decades long composed sets of "views of..." published by various publishing houses (one is tempted, after this book, to compare earlier editions to later ones, and to ones by the differing publish...but, no...). I can see why CT gave it such a shining star. The introduction is one of the best ones I have seen on the various "Jesus Quests," for decades. As a lifelong student of the quest and of the Gospels, it was good to review, catch up, and re-position myself. I would highly recommend the book just for the introduction alone! The editor has compiled an enormous group of texts in the footnotes, and has done a masterful job of summarizing several positions.
As to the various "views" and their respective authors. I found each to be helpful, but to also be speculative at various points. It is a good thing that the responses pointed out the speculations for other readers and me (some of which I missed)! Presentation and response which does not always yield happy results was THE approach for this debated topic.
And each author had some good things to add. I found Price's conclusions to be troubling (as did each reviewer here and each other author in the collection), but I think the point was missed. If I understand Price correctly, he is saying, in a radical fashion ala Bultmann, that we can know nothing of Jesus from the viewpoint of reductionistic, HISTORIOGRAPHY. I realize he develops an even more radical agenda beyond that, but it is bracing to stop and consider the point (I believe that Johnson, in his own way, is making some of the same points). His idea that the Gospel was composed from the Hebrew and early Talmudic traditions is helpful, but only if one inverts the ideas: that the composition of both traditions and gospels were in an overwhelming Judaic atmosphere. Good to be reminded of such.
With Crossan, nothing new, really, and I appreciate the other writers' (well, excepting Price)holding him to account about some of the more "fabulous" aspects of his reconstructions, but I still find the idea of a present Kingdom embodied in an alternative "Kingdom community" to be a great and true challenge.
With Dunn, the reminder that the gospel was truly shaped in an oral fashion and that there appear to be some sections that are not "deformed" by an Easter Faith are..well, just inspiring. As for Johnson and Bock,I will not repeat what others have said. Just...good read. good Lord.