What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus? (What Are They Saying About...?)

Gowler is a genial writer, and this short book is a pleasant and interesting read. For such a complex topic it's also quite short--not even 200 pages. That's because he doesn't try to cover everything. The search for the historical Jesus has held scholars in a thrall for well over two hundred years, starting with Reimarus and Strauss. The theory held that the actual historical Jesus needed to be teased out of layers of faith. "Foundational to the Liberal Quest was the belief that one could establish through historical-critical methodology the authentic teaching and historical person of Jesus" (p 9). Gowler only briefly sketches the early part of the historical quest. Most of his book deals only with the major, and most recent scholarship. There is a very long section on the Jesus Seminar, whom Gowler appears to admire. And then there is a section on the critics of the Jesus Seminar. This is where the book gets especially entertaining and personal. Luke Timothy Johnson, a foe of the Jesus Seminar, points out that Funk is best known for his "'grandiosity and hucksterism" (p 43) and he also "questions the academic credentials" (p 43) of some members of the Seminar. I had to take off a star because Gowler insists, against massive evidence to the contrary, that looking into the historical Jesus will "lead to a more authentic, robust and mature faith" (p144). Oh, come on. How will reading Crossan state that Jesus was never resurrected strengthen faith? Besides, the search for the historical Jesus looks like it is finally coming to a close, with every one of the major tenets refuted. Time and again, the historical method has only revealed...the critics themselves. Otherwise, why did the liberal von Harnack supposedly historical Jesus look like exactly like the liberal gentleman von Harnack and why did Crossan's Jesus, in the midst of social revolution and hippies, look like yet another social revolutionary hippie?