Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus

This is a good book to “restore one’s faith” i.e. for those who desparately want to hold on the the truth of Christian doctrines fabricated by the Church in aid of Empire. That is the faith of orthodox Christian belief drummed into the heads of “believers” for centuries through institutional power.

A spiritual practise that requires belief in historic events that happened two thousand years rests on a very weak basis. Historical reconstruction is prone to error … and much of the received documentation prone to manipulation. No one really knows what happened two thousand years ago .. but if you are desparately wishing to believe it is true no doubt you will be able to find enough “facts” to lull you back to sleep.
Rating: 2 / 5

I have to admit up front that I stopped reading this book after the first 100 pages or so (the first three essays). Despite the claims of this book that the Jesus Seminar’s research starts with the assumption that the Jesus in the Gospels could not be the true Jesus, this book starts with the equally arguable assumption that everything in the New Testament is true (despite serious inconsistencies between the four Gospels) unless proven otherwise. Furthermore, the book contains a serious misrepresentation, never explicitly stated. That is, that the Jesus Seminar rejected most of the words of the Jesus, as stated in the New Testament, as inauthentic. The fact is (as is stated, but never really commented on, within the text of Jesus Under Fire) ONLY those statements in black are described by the Jesus Seminar as basically having nothing to do with Jesus. Red, pink, and gray text all are described as based to various degrees on the words, acts, or spirit of Jesus’ teachings. This is particularly grating in the third chapter (which was the last chapter I could tolerate), which points out that while the Gospels may not necessarily contain direct quotes from Jesus, the “gist” of Jesus’ teachings are present; this is presented as the standard for Greek historical writing of the period. But the author seems to miss the point that this would fall within the Jesus Seminars “gray” category, i.e., the statements are consistent with Jesus’ general teachings.

The Jesus Seminar attempted to ascertain the historical accuracy of the Gospels. However, if one is required to start from the premise that all the internally inconsistent writings within the Gospels must be proven false, there is simply no point in doing the research. There is no real point in a refutation of the findings of the Jesus Seminar by persons who believe the Bible is literal truth. The two points of view are simply too disparate to make the comparison worth the time to read.
Rating: 1 / 5

It’s no surprise that the contributors (and most reviewers) of JESUS UNDER FIRE have done their hardest to undermine the extensive research and scholarship of The Jesus Seminar. Their attacks on the seminar read as if no one involved in the Seminar ever believed that Jesus was the Son of God. But that method fits quite well into the Christian Right’s “kill the messenger” common tactic when they can’t accept reasonable disagreement – - even when we all want the same thing. Rather than acknowledging the possibility that the true message of Jesus Christ is found in the value of a modern interpretation of His words and deeds that would truly resonante with all Christians, they prefer to accept every word in the Gospel as His, notwithstanding the obvious inconsistencies in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Isn’t it about time we all start getting back to what the Sermon on the Mount means to each of us in our lives today? And I’m sure the negative comments, if not threats, I’ll receive for this review from many readers will demonstrate their magnanimous “Christian” attitudes. The book is still worthwhile reading, however, to explore the well-reasoned and critical responses to The Jesus Seminar findings. Whichever view you adopt, you can’t be wrong; each one adequately establishes sufficient reasons to have faith in Jesus.
Rating: 2 / 5

Another criticism of Geivett’s chapter is that “the Jesus question” involves more than just historical reconstruction, and delves into a more complicated form of theology. Geivett’s understanding of “Jesus as the only way” can be critisized and understood in different terms. Should Jesus be thought of only in terms of a person communicated only through the speech and deeds of other humans? It’s much too important of a topic and deep of a question to be tackled in his short chapter.

For instance, what about the millions of people living in countries that have never brrn evangalized? To say (not that Geivett alludes to it), “everyone, at some point in their lives, has the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus” doesn’t illuminate the solution.

Until the European explorers started exploring in the 1500s, most of the world never knew such a man existed, let alone that he was the only way to salvation. To argue it depends completely upon the choice (which predestinerians, such as myself, might contest) of either accepting the name of Jesus or rejecting him opens up a confusing situation he makes no attempt to address. If one has never heard the name, then how is he to have the opportunity? Of course we can say they’re all damned (perhaps offensive, but the truth can be offesnive), or propose another solution. Either way, this chapter wasn’t very helpful.
Rating: 4 / 5

This book is a series of articles on the issues surrounding Jesus. It rebutes the Jesus Seminar point by point. It goes to issues like the studies of Jesus, the reliablity of the Gospels. Also the Resurrection of Jesus etc. It’s great book from some great scholars in this area. My copy of the book is a bad edition, because it’s missing some pages and the index. I email zondervan 2x but got no response. So I called and their going to replace ot for free. Thanks!

Update: I got my free copy, thanks Zondervan!

Rating: 5 / 5