Books on the historical Jesus?

[Dr. Rat]

All the more reason to drink the wine while it is warm.

←

Have they found the wine that goes with chocolate?

--eric

[couw]

bloody warm that is

[JSngry]

Indeed, like a striped pair of pants.

[JSngry]

All the more reason to drink the wine while it is warm.

←

Have they found the wine that goes with chocolate?

--eric

←

You'd have to ask the old men playing checkers by the trees.

[couw]

All the more reason to drink the wine while it is warm.

←

Have they found the wine that goes with chocolate?

--eric

←

You'd have to ask the old men playing checkers by the trees.

←

they all grew up as altar boys and had to drink the yucky sweet stuff and by now they have developed a taste for it.

[JSngry]

But they will take their life into their hands, and they will use it.

[couw]

well, did they think Chess was just a game, or something?

[JSngry]

Chess is a game, and Dunhill is a cigarette.

[Big Al]

All the more reason to drink the wine while it is warm.

←

Have they found the wine that goes with chocolate?

--eric

←

"I waaaaant chocolaaaaaaaate......"

[Adam]

Two books, both by N.T. Wright, offer a good "traditional" look at the historical Jesus:  Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God) & The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God)

I was about to recommend N.T. Wright (particularly Jesus and the Victory of God) but looks like you beat me to it. Wright's knowledge of 1st century Palestine, second temple Judaism, and pretty much all extant texts and documents relating to Jesus is extremely thorough. That work is large but a must-read for a serious study. In it he spends 100 pages just explaining his historical method explicitly and why it should hold to offer serious conclusions. Wright has dialogued frequently with the more liberal side of contemporary Jesus scholarship (Marcus Borg and Wright even co-authored a two-views book).

For a smaller work to handle basic questions on historical method and textual criticisms, Paul Barnett's Jesus and the Logic of History is the one to get. Too many scholars are logically sloppy in their methodology, likely due to prior commitments, so Barnett lays some groundwork for a level-headed (read: logical) approach to the matter.

The notion of Jesus never actually existing is not taken seriously in any serious scholarly circles that I know of, but unfortunately it still gets a lot of mileage in pop-media scholarship specials and publications. It is provocative and attention-getting enough to gain an audience; to not only completely isolate the "Jesus of History" from the "Christ of faith" (because the Enlightenment taught us that history and faith are necessarily in opposition, right?), but even to boldly conclude there actually was no Jesus of history behind the early Christian movement in the first place.

Other common problems:

- So many new books painting new pictures of the historical Jesus, and we end up getting Jesuses who resemble the author's own life and times, social ethical and theological preferences, or based on seeming arbitrary thematic emphasis extracted from the same source texts everyone else is using. It's Rorscharch scholarship.

- Many scholars labor under the assumption that a successful reconstruction of the socio-political climate of early first century Palestine is enough to reconstruct the person of Jesus as to his psychological make-up and self-awareness. It is ruled out then that Jesus could have (A) brought something new to the table and/or (B) reached back to more traditional, pre-Hellenistic Jewish themes (though he spoke in contemporary terms) and self-consciously appropriated them for his own unique mission.

j

←

Wow, lots to respond to there. First, thank you for correcting my error on Borg's last name, and for mentioning Wright. I forget Wright's exact position, but he has a high position in the Church of England, I believe, and is an excellent scholar. He is often placed in debates as joeface mentions, to give a more "conservative" reponse to the liberal interpretations.

In response to your last two points (I'm staying out of the "Did Jesus exist? debate). First, on Rorshach scholarship. I would argue that every book ever written on Jesus (and on many other topics) are more portraits of the times in which the author lives. "author's own life and times, social ethical and theological preferences" Even the Bible. The original selection of which books would go into the Bible was historically a decision made by men who were picking the chapters based on which served their individual "theological preferences." In an alternate time, some of the Apocrypha could be in the official Bible. And of course if Constantine hadn't converted, then most of the books of the New Testament might be lost. So I think you're right, in that the varying interpretations over time definitely reflect the author's views & times. That's why they are interesting to read. If there was only one true view, then why would anyone need to write any interpretation of anything. But even a Bible literalist has to choose a translation, and translations differ by period. So I would go on to say that while a problem with various accounts of Jesus might be along the lines you describe, I believe that is what is also good about them.

As to your second point. I don't agree with the second part of it, but that might be a question of which books we've read. The books that I have read that do the reconstruction of the socio-political climate of the time use it to help interpret some of the teachings of Jesus, or show his sources. I haven't found any that rule out "that Jesus could have (A) brought something new to the table and/or (B) reached back to more traditional, pre-Hellenistic Jewish themes (though he spoke in contemporary terms) and self-consciously appropriated them for his own unique mission." In fact, several go to lengths to show what new things he did bring to the table, and trace him to the "Jewish" themes. I think it's always important to remember that Jesus was a Jew who never renounced his Judaism. But that's another debate.

[Jazzmoose]

I would argue that every book ever written on Jesus (and on many other topics) are more portraits of the times in which the author lives. 

←

I'll agree if you change that to ANY other topics. There's nothing like reading a history book from the past; that 'double history' feeling is amazing...