What do you think?
Rate this book
The Historical Jesus of the Gospels
The earliest substantive sources available for historical Jesus research are in the Gospels themselves; when interpreted in their early Jewish setting, their picture of Jesus is more coherent and plausible than are the competing theories offered by many modern scholars. So argues Craig Keener in The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. In exploring the depth and riches of the material found in the Synoptic Gospels, Keener shows how many works on the historical Jesus emphasize just one aspect of the Jesus tradition against others, but a much wider range of material in the Jesus tradition makes sense in an ancient Jewish setting. Keener masterfully uses a broad range of evidence from the early Jesus traditions and early Judaism to reconstruct a fuller portrait of the Jesus who lived in history.
870 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
37 people are currently reading
361 people want to read
About the author
Craig S. Keener
146 books248 followersCraig S. Keener (PhD, Duke University) is professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of many books, including Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, the bestseller The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, Gift and Giver, and commentaries on Matthew, John, Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, and Revelation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
September 14, 2019
Vast and epic in scope, keener has produced a superb and weighty trawl through the specifically historical questions that surround every detail of Jesus’s life as the gospels present it. He very usefully accounts for all the major schools of thought in the so called ‘quests’ for the historical Jesus and then methodically works through the individual events.
Though it won’t convince every sceptic by any means, not least because after everything he takes a maximalist approach (ie the accounts are predominantly reliable). But it will always challenge and provoke the reader to see the evidence is invariably stronger than often credited. In particular, it will force an examination of underlying worldviews and assumptions because he shows how these can alter conclusions quite radically.
Superb and thorough.
Though it won’t convince every sceptic by any means, not least because after everything he takes a maximalist approach (ie the accounts are predominantly reliable). But it will always challenge and provoke the reader to see the evidence is invariably stronger than often credited. In particular, it will force an examination of underlying worldviews and assumptions because he shows how these can alter conclusions quite radically.
Superb and thorough.
June 3, 2024
A FINE EVANGELICAL PRESENTATION OF THE GOSPEL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS
Craig S. Keener is Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary. He wrote in the Preface to this 2009 book, “The central and most important part of this book thus focuses especially on the… potential reliability of our earliest sources. Beyond that, this book samples some key themes, sayings, and actions that we can attribute to Jesus with a high degree of probability.” (Pg. xxvii) He adds, “My primary goal in this book is … to investigate how much we can know from the best sources available, and to offer examples of how these sources provide us more adequate information about Jesus than many scholars think we have.” (Pg. xxxvii)
He states, “In the end, our most complete sources are the traditional ones, though we must approach them with critical acumen. How historically reliable are these ‘best’ sources? That question is the primary subject of this book… the Gospel writers both draw on a common pool of information at many points, and also exercise literary freedoms uncharacteristic of modern … writers on historical topics… I will argue that such adaptations appear within the acceptable bounds of ancient biography, historiography, and oral tradition.” (Pg. xxxii)
He also notes, “although I have elsewhere defended the likelihood of substantial historical information in the Fourth Gospel, I draw on that argument very rarely here… John’s Gospel is different from the others and poses special problems, and there are enough issues of controversy involved in the present discussion that it seemed superfluous to add another one.” (Pg. xxxiv)
He suggests, “I believe… that [E.P.] Sanders and other like-minded scholars have a solid case for viewing Jesus as an eschatological prophet… Elijah and Moses were both miracle-working prophets expected to return at the time of the end… it appears that even from an early point in the tradition Jesus’ followers envisioned him at least in some way along such lines. Indeed, he may be the source of their perception on this point.” (Pg. 41)
He explains, “I will draw on ‘Q’ in my own reconstruction of sources about Jesus, but in doing so, I am clear that we know nothing about ‘Q’ other than what we can reconstruct from Matthew and Luke…” (Pg. 61) Later, he adds, “Luke and Matthew probably followed one main source at a time, incorporating a large block of Q material in Mark; both Luke and Matthew make Mark the backbone and supplement this form other sources.” (Pg. 74)
He states, “Ancient biography differed from modern biography in some respects, including how it treated historical information… ancient biographers also did not need to follow a chronological sequence; most felt free to rearrange their material topically… Luke seems to … [be] following the order of Mark virtually exactly except for a few… very significant exceptions, whereas Matthew follows the more common topical format… Lack of chronological sequence posed no problems for readers of ancient biographies… Ancient biographers were also often less embarrassed by their biases than are their modern counterparts… Biographers may in fact have felt a special obligation to provide such moral lessons… At the same time, the particular perspectives of such documents do not destroy their historical value for us.” (Pg. 82-83)
Of the “we” narratives in Acts, he observes, “Luke does not name himself, and his first audience seems … aware of his identity… like third-person narration naming the narrator, this narration nearly always indicates the actual presence of the author on the occasions noted... For such reasons a majority of Lukan scholars concur that Luke here uses his own notes; that he indicates his presence on the occasions marked by ‘we,’ and/or that this section includes the narrator’s genuine personal reminiscences. We would grant the accuracy of this claim to almost any other ancient historian who made it…” (Pg. 90-91)
He states, “Most scholars believe that Galileans followed Jesus as a prophet, even if scholars continued to debate which sort of prophetic models are most relevant. Many people in Jesus’ day undoubtedly followed charismatic leaders… [scholars] dispute whether he was ‘… a charismatic healer like Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle-Drawer or… a charismatic prophet.’ … Observers probably approached him in terms of whichever role they needed him to fill, although this probably meant in practice that most people approached him as a charismatic signs-prophet.” (Pg. 239)
He points out, “The evidence for Jesus as a miracle-worker is stronger for this claim than for most other specific historical claims we could make about earliest Christianity; miracles characterized Jesus’ historical activity no less than his teaching and prophetic activities did… The emphasis on healings and exorcisms seems fairly distinctive to Jesus … By way of contrast, most types of miracles reported in Josephus’ accounts show little interest in healings.” (Pg. 241-242)
He asserts, “Golgotha, the site of Jesus’ execution… was undoubtedly near the current site of the Holy Sepulchre… All available historical evidence favors the premise that the earliest Christians preserved the accurate site of the tomb. That Jesus’ followers would forget the site of the tomb… is extremely improbable… The modern Protestant ‘Garden Tomb’ is a much later site and cannot represent the site of Jesus’ burial.” (Pg. 327)
Of the resurrection narratives, he explains, “Some scholars are convinced that one can completely harmonize the stories of the women at the tomb if we grant that the Gospel writers reported only data essential to their distinctive accounts; others… doubt that our current Easter stories belong to the earliest stratum of tradition… Whatever the merits of seeking to explain plausibly in such ways some differences among accounts, our approach here will not be to harmonize details but to look for common elements behind the diverse claims… testimonies may vary on details due to memories and perspectives. The substance, however, is normally what is most important.” (Pg. 331-332)
He argues, “Of course, one could doubt all the resurrection narratives’ claims that Jesus spent time with the disciples, and did not simply appear in their visionary trances. But how would they have known that they were experiencing a RESURRECTION appearance and not an apparition?... Would the group as a whole stake their lives on a mere dream of apparition no different in kind from those commonly claimed by those who thought they dreamed about someone deceased? The nature of Jesus’ ‘body’ is another question… Whatever its character, though, it must have been somehow ‘bodily’ to qualify as ‘resurrection’ and to distinguish it from other forms of apparitions. Again, whatever it was, it was understood as transformative, and not supposed to leave a corpse behind… one can hardly imagine that the disciples would have proclaimed the ‘resurrection’ without consulting the tomb. One can imagine even less that their detractors would not have done so to silence them… I personally believe that Jesus’ resurrection provides the most plausible explanation… for the disciples’ faith… It fits Jesus’ teachings about a role for himself after his martyrdom…” (Pg. 345-346)
He suggests, “Calendrical differences may allow us to harmonize John and the Synoptics, but most likely, John has simply provided a theological interpretation of Jesus’ death… however, Mark’s and John’s approaches at least imply (perhaps for theological reasons) the Passover on different days, yet derive from it the same theology: Jesus’ death as a new Passover, a new act of redemption.” (Pg. 374)
He concludes, “In this book we have worked to establish especially that the basic portrayal of Jesus in the first-century Gospels, dependent on eyewitnesses, is more plausible than the alternative hypotheses of its modern detractors. (The detractors tend to explain away genuine evidence selectively to fit theories rather than to construct theories coherent with the bulk of the evidence)… [We] focused on the nature of the Gospels’ sources, both written and oral, including the character of oral tradition from eyewitnesses in Mediterranean antiquity… The elements surveyed included many of his teachings (e.g., about the coming kingdom and faith in God), his exalted self-identity, his conflict with the Jerusalem authorities, and his apparently voluntary martyrdom in Jerusalem, probably believing that he as inaugurating salvation for his people.” (Pg. 349)
This is a well-balanced, very interesting contemporary interpretation of the Gospel evidence, that will be of great interest to anyone seriously studying the life of Jesus, or the Gospels.
Craig S. Keener is Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary. He wrote in the Preface to this 2009 book, “The central and most important part of this book thus focuses especially on the… potential reliability of our earliest sources. Beyond that, this book samples some key themes, sayings, and actions that we can attribute to Jesus with a high degree of probability.” (Pg. xxvii) He adds, “My primary goal in this book is … to investigate how much we can know from the best sources available, and to offer examples of how these sources provide us more adequate information about Jesus than many scholars think we have.” (Pg. xxxvii)
He states, “In the end, our most complete sources are the traditional ones, though we must approach them with critical acumen. How historically reliable are these ‘best’ sources? That question is the primary subject of this book… the Gospel writers both draw on a common pool of information at many points, and also exercise literary freedoms uncharacteristic of modern … writers on historical topics… I will argue that such adaptations appear within the acceptable bounds of ancient biography, historiography, and oral tradition.” (Pg. xxxii)
He also notes, “although I have elsewhere defended the likelihood of substantial historical information in the Fourth Gospel, I draw on that argument very rarely here… John’s Gospel is different from the others and poses special problems, and there are enough issues of controversy involved in the present discussion that it seemed superfluous to add another one.” (Pg. xxxiv)
He suggests, “I believe… that [E.P.] Sanders and other like-minded scholars have a solid case for viewing Jesus as an eschatological prophet… Elijah and Moses were both miracle-working prophets expected to return at the time of the end… it appears that even from an early point in the tradition Jesus’ followers envisioned him at least in some way along such lines. Indeed, he may be the source of their perception on this point.” (Pg. 41)
He explains, “I will draw on ‘Q’ in my own reconstruction of sources about Jesus, but in doing so, I am clear that we know nothing about ‘Q’ other than what we can reconstruct from Matthew and Luke…” (Pg. 61) Later, he adds, “Luke and Matthew probably followed one main source at a time, incorporating a large block of Q material in Mark; both Luke and Matthew make Mark the backbone and supplement this form other sources.” (Pg. 74)
He states, “Ancient biography differed from modern biography in some respects, including how it treated historical information… ancient biographers also did not need to follow a chronological sequence; most felt free to rearrange their material topically… Luke seems to … [be] following the order of Mark virtually exactly except for a few… very significant exceptions, whereas Matthew follows the more common topical format… Lack of chronological sequence posed no problems for readers of ancient biographies… Ancient biographers were also often less embarrassed by their biases than are their modern counterparts… Biographers may in fact have felt a special obligation to provide such moral lessons… At the same time, the particular perspectives of such documents do not destroy their historical value for us.” (Pg. 82-83)
Of the “we” narratives in Acts, he observes, “Luke does not name himself, and his first audience seems … aware of his identity… like third-person narration naming the narrator, this narration nearly always indicates the actual presence of the author on the occasions noted... For such reasons a majority of Lukan scholars concur that Luke here uses his own notes; that he indicates his presence on the occasions marked by ‘we,’ and/or that this section includes the narrator’s genuine personal reminiscences. We would grant the accuracy of this claim to almost any other ancient historian who made it…” (Pg. 90-91)
He states, “Most scholars believe that Galileans followed Jesus as a prophet, even if scholars continued to debate which sort of prophetic models are most relevant. Many people in Jesus’ day undoubtedly followed charismatic leaders… [scholars] dispute whether he was ‘… a charismatic healer like Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle-Drawer or… a charismatic prophet.’ … Observers probably approached him in terms of whichever role they needed him to fill, although this probably meant in practice that most people approached him as a charismatic signs-prophet.” (Pg. 239)
He points out, “The evidence for Jesus as a miracle-worker is stronger for this claim than for most other specific historical claims we could make about earliest Christianity; miracles characterized Jesus’ historical activity no less than his teaching and prophetic activities did… The emphasis on healings and exorcisms seems fairly distinctive to Jesus … By way of contrast, most types of miracles reported in Josephus’ accounts show little interest in healings.” (Pg. 241-242)
He asserts, “Golgotha, the site of Jesus’ execution… was undoubtedly near the current site of the Holy Sepulchre… All available historical evidence favors the premise that the earliest Christians preserved the accurate site of the tomb. That Jesus’ followers would forget the site of the tomb… is extremely improbable… The modern Protestant ‘Garden Tomb’ is a much later site and cannot represent the site of Jesus’ burial.” (Pg. 327)
Of the resurrection narratives, he explains, “Some scholars are convinced that one can completely harmonize the stories of the women at the tomb if we grant that the Gospel writers reported only data essential to their distinctive accounts; others… doubt that our current Easter stories belong to the earliest stratum of tradition… Whatever the merits of seeking to explain plausibly in such ways some differences among accounts, our approach here will not be to harmonize details but to look for common elements behind the diverse claims… testimonies may vary on details due to memories and perspectives. The substance, however, is normally what is most important.” (Pg. 331-332)
He argues, “Of course, one could doubt all the resurrection narratives’ claims that Jesus spent time with the disciples, and did not simply appear in their visionary trances. But how would they have known that they were experiencing a RESURRECTION appearance and not an apparition?... Would the group as a whole stake their lives on a mere dream of apparition no different in kind from those commonly claimed by those who thought they dreamed about someone deceased? The nature of Jesus’ ‘body’ is another question… Whatever its character, though, it must have been somehow ‘bodily’ to qualify as ‘resurrection’ and to distinguish it from other forms of apparitions. Again, whatever it was, it was understood as transformative, and not supposed to leave a corpse behind… one can hardly imagine that the disciples would have proclaimed the ‘resurrection’ without consulting the tomb. One can imagine even less that their detractors would not have done so to silence them… I personally believe that Jesus’ resurrection provides the most plausible explanation… for the disciples’ faith… It fits Jesus’ teachings about a role for himself after his martyrdom…” (Pg. 345-346)
He suggests, “Calendrical differences may allow us to harmonize John and the Synoptics, but most likely, John has simply provided a theological interpretation of Jesus’ death… however, Mark’s and John’s approaches at least imply (perhaps for theological reasons) the Passover on different days, yet derive from it the same theology: Jesus’ death as a new Passover, a new act of redemption.” (Pg. 374)
He concludes, “In this book we have worked to establish especially that the basic portrayal of Jesus in the first-century Gospels, dependent on eyewitnesses, is more plausible than the alternative hypotheses of its modern detractors. (The detractors tend to explain away genuine evidence selectively to fit theories rather than to construct theories coherent with the bulk of the evidence)… [We] focused on the nature of the Gospels’ sources, both written and oral, including the character of oral tradition from eyewitnesses in Mediterranean antiquity… The elements surveyed included many of his teachings (e.g., about the coming kingdom and faith in God), his exalted self-identity, his conflict with the Jerusalem authorities, and his apparently voluntary martyrdom in Jerusalem, probably believing that he as inaugurating salvation for his people.” (Pg. 349)
This is a well-balanced, very interesting contemporary interpretation of the Gospel evidence, that will be of great interest to anyone seriously studying the life of Jesus, or the Gospels.
March 17, 2018
A detailed look at the issues surrounding the historical Jesus. Keener is characteristically strong with his early sources in this text. If you want to study Jesus in light of ancient writers and Jewish ideas this is a great place to start. Don't let the page numbers intimidate you. The book is really only 400 pages long (including 9 appendixes) with literally 400 pages of footnotes and indexes.
Keener is examining the historical Jesus with a mostly minimalist perspective. He wants to examine what we can infer about the Gospel text from the best sources. Keener is a conservative scholar and it will be illustrated in his conclusions, but he is by no means uncritical of the text. He sees where the narrative has possibly been altered and will consider what that means in light of ancient biographical writers and the conventions they held. Overall, this is a great read for someone familiar with historically Jesus research and could be a great starting point for those who want a little more of a challenge as they enter into historical Jesus research.
Keener is examining the historical Jesus with a mostly minimalist perspective. He wants to examine what we can infer about the Gospel text from the best sources. Keener is a conservative scholar and it will be illustrated in his conclusions, but he is by no means uncritical of the text. He sees where the narrative has possibly been altered and will consider what that means in light of ancient biographical writers and the conventions they held. Overall, this is a great read for someone familiar with historically Jesus research and could be a great starting point for those who want a little more of a challenge as they enter into historical Jesus research.
May 21, 2022
EXCELLENT resource for apologetics. I love how Keener plays by the strictest academic rules, and still proves the authenticity of the gospel accounts beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s like reading a procedural court document, where the gospels themselves are on trial. Keener mostly restricts himself to Mark, “Q” (hypothetical common source material for Matthew and Luke), and Paul’s early epistles, since even the most antagonistic skeptics must acknowledge their authenticity.
My favorite chapter was on the crucifixion material, where he lays out the cultural context surrounding the priesthood, Sanhedrin, trial procedures, and Pilate’s motives. He shows how the gospels are extraordinarily accurate in their depiction of these things.
Only real complaint is the use of endnotes instead of footnotes. There are something like 300 pages of references, and that’s just far too much to justify flipping back and forth. I’m sure they’ll be useful if I study one of these concepts in more detail.
My favorite chapter was on the crucifixion material, where he lays out the cultural context surrounding the priesthood, Sanhedrin, trial procedures, and Pilate’s motives. He shows how the gospels are extraordinarily accurate in their depiction of these things.
Only real complaint is the use of endnotes instead of footnotes. There are something like 300 pages of references, and that’s just far too much to justify flipping back and forth. I’m sure they’ll be useful if I study one of these concepts in more detail.
June 12, 2018
A sound historiography on the concrete sources of the Gospels in understanding a historical Jesus. Fit for any heavy reading historical nerd searching for rich arguements with sound evidence.
October 19, 2018
This is an excellent read and a treasure trove of resource information that one will want to have at hand.
May 12, 2019
A pretty easy read considering the topic and very thorough. Academic, but accessible
August 3, 2022
400 pages of references. Need I say more?
August 25, 2015
This is a 5-star book for writing a research paper. Mr. Keener has put a tremendous amount of research into this book, with something around 4,000 footnotes and citations, hundreds of books listed in the bibliography, and an extensive index of contents and authors. If ever you want to research something about Jesus, this book functions as a one-stop shop.
I, however, did not use this book to write a research paper. I read it because I love Jesus and want to know more about His life. Apologetically and historically, this book approaches air-tightness if ever air-tightness existed, but just to sit down and read through this book like you are reading a biography is not the easiest. There were parts of the book I had to force myself to sit down and read just to get through. It's all very interesting and fascinating, but with an extreme level of research (10-20 citations per page) it reads like a journal article or an academic thesis.
There is a wealth of information in this book, and Mr. Keener does a thorough treatment of the historical life of Jesus. Mr. Keener's appendix essay on the Resurrection is top-notch and a must-read for everyone who has any interest whatsoever in the study of Jesus, whatever their faith or non-faith background may be. This is a great book to reference but it is just not the easiest to read through. Though I give it three stars, I cannot say enough good things about this book for its research and apologetic value.
I, however, did not use this book to write a research paper. I read it because I love Jesus and want to know more about His life. Apologetically and historically, this book approaches air-tightness if ever air-tightness existed, but just to sit down and read through this book like you are reading a biography is not the easiest. There were parts of the book I had to force myself to sit down and read just to get through. It's all very interesting and fascinating, but with an extreme level of research (10-20 citations per page) it reads like a journal article or an academic thesis.
There is a wealth of information in this book, and Mr. Keener does a thorough treatment of the historical life of Jesus. Mr. Keener's appendix essay on the Resurrection is top-notch and a must-read for everyone who has any interest whatsoever in the study of Jesus, whatever their faith or non-faith background may be. This is a great book to reference but it is just not the easiest to read through. Though I give it three stars, I cannot say enough good things about this book for its research and apologetic value.
Want to read
December 2, 201334.00
August 26, 2016
A brief review of the history and sources of the historical Jesus quest from a conservative scholar.
December 23, 2014
Ponderous and meticulous...but in a good way. I will return to this particular tome often. Thanks for the recommendation, Randy!
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews