Descripciones mejoradas de Syndetics:

The intellectual power of this book presents a challenge to unthinking piety; its deep Christian devotion, with no loss of scholarly precision, challenges unthinking reductionism, not least that of the Jesus Seminar.--N.T. Wright,

Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

Library Journal Review

Finally, a passionately argued but fair response to the Jesus Seminar (The Five Gospels, LJ 2/15/94) from an established scholar. Johnson has a double purpose: to provide an outspoken but courteous critique of the output of this small minority of mostly second-line scholars and to address the confusion in the church over the relationship between history and faith. These scholars are joined by a large number of amateurs using the same clearly defective methodology to bypass the scholarly process for a highly effective public relations "culture war" in the news media and publishing industry. They commonly claim to have previously unknown or suppressed data, usually a nonliteral or symbolic interpretation of the Gospels to produce "history" and promote provocative conclusions that would force radical reinterpretation or rejection of traditional Christianity. This book should be in any religious collection to help provide balance to the current historical Jesus literature. It could well be supplemented by The Jesus Quest (InterVarsity, 1995), an excellent survey of the full range of "historical Jesus" literature. Highly recommended.‘Eugene O. Bowser, Univ. of Northern Colorado, Greeley (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Booklist Review

Though Johnson insists that he is a quiet scholar reluctant to engage in public polemic, his entrance into this battle is anything but reticent. He launches an attack on presentation of recent historical Jesus research in the popular press directed more at the Jesus Seminar (a group of scholars that has been at the forefront of such research for more than a decade) than at the press itself (pictured as manipulated rather than manipulator). Behind Johnson's dismissive attitude toward the media and his ad hominem attack on Seminar founder Robert Funk lurk three serious questions for readers familiar with the work of Seminar participants, including Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and Burton Mack. The first concerns the place of scholarly debate on issues of public interest; the second, the limitations of history and historical method; and the third, the interrelationship of faith, history, and institution. Despite Johnson's protestations, scholarly work is most often a war of words, a battle of interpretations--and whether in classrooms, scholarly journals, or the popular press, scholars (like preachers) know that massaging the medium is more than half the battle. --Steve Schroeder