Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

When It's Futile to Argue about the Historical Jesus: A Response to Bock, Keener, and Webb

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

This brief response to the essays by Darrell Bock, Craig Keener, and Robert Webb unfolds in three parts. First, I maintain that arguments about the historical Jesus can be productive only among those who already agree on a number of contested questions about historiographical method and the nature of the Gospels. Therefore, debates about the historical Jesus that occur between the 'evangelical' camp (which sees the canonical Gospels as fully reliable historically) and the 'traditional' camp (which sees the Gospels as blends of fact and fiction) are futile. Second, I propose a thought experiment designed to test our historical assessment of ancient biographies that portray their hero like the Gospels portray Jesus. I argue that the results of this experiment undermine Keener's conclusion that the historical reliability of the Gospels should be regarded as equal to that of ancient biographies of Roman emperors. Third, I pose the question of whether the methodological naturalism proposed by Webb allows us to conclude that events reported in the Gospels are unhistorical. I argue that either answer to that question reduces the appeal of methodological naturalism for historical-Jesus scholars.


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation