Jesus : The Great Debate

Rating:
Summary: Great Starter for Historical Jesus Research
Review: Dr. Jeffery's book is a great beginning book for anyone who is interested in understanding the historical Jesus controversy. Unlike most authors who are trying to support the under-informed Jesus Seminar, Dr. Jeffery's writes from an evangelical perspective which is inviting and encouraging. If you are searching for a book to intrigue you while also educate you, this is the book for you. May the Holy Spirit use his book for the ultimate glory of God and the furtherance of the Kingdom.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best Christian apologetics I have read!
Review: First off, I have to refute an earlier review from CL8 on 11-11-2000. If I understood his review, he gave this book a poor rating because it was not consistent with the Jesus Seminar. I say, of course it isn't consistent with the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar is a huge joke! Basically, the "theologians" of the Jesus Seminar vote on whether or not Jesus actually did what the Gospels state He did. They VOTE on it! When they vote, they have 4 different selections: definitely, maybe, not likely, and not at all. And, the majority rules. So, if 5 people vote that Jesus definitely did something, and 6 other people vote that Jesus didn't do it at all, then, according to the rules of the Seminar, Jesus didn't do it at all. What a joke!

Forgive me, I digress.... Back to the book.... This book covers everything from the writing and dating of the gospels, to the Dead Sea scrolls, to the Shroud of Turin. I find the evidence given by Jeffrey to be very compelling. I have been truly rewarded by reading this book. I still find myself somewhat skeptical about the Shroud of Turin, but Jeffrey does paint a very interesting picture of the shroud. Jeffrey does remain Biblical in his reasoning, so if he doesn't agree with some other scholars, that might be why. I have loaned out my copy of this book several times, and each time my friends found it insightful and a rewarding read. I would recommend this book to anyone.

Rating:
Summary: What about the Tombs
Review: Hey all you people that say that Jesus did not claim to be God what about the tombs dated to no later than 42 A.D. One of them says Yeshua and right next to it says Yhwh which would be the name of God. Another example is the one that was translated that said (Jesus the Redeemer) sounds like a divinity claim to me. Check the site out Jerusalem Christian Review for more on these tombs.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable reading for Christians
Review: Jeffrey does a good job going over the historical and archaeological evidence in order to prove Jesus existed. I found the evidence presented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient Jewish sources, and Christian tombs, to be both enlightening and accurate. Once again, Grant R. Jeffrey gives Christians a book that can only strengthen their faith.

Rating:
Summary: The Debate Simplied
Review: Jesus the Great Debate, by Grant Jeffrey

With this book, Grant Jeffery has attempted to fill a critical void in Historical Jesus Debate. While liberal, skeptical scholarship (for example, the Jesus Seminar), which often rejects the historical credibility of Jesus, has done a good job of presenting their case to the non-scholarly community, typically through sensationalistic books and articles, the other side is poorly represented. The best of the conservative scholarship in the Debate has been directed to other scholars, and is largely inaccessible to interested lay people. I admire Grant's intentions with this book, but I was very disappointed with the delivery. With the first ¾ of the book, he does try to present the case for the historical Jesus, using "archeological, and historical information that supports the claims of the Gospel writers," but with an over-simplification of the facts and often misrepresentation of the alternate viewpoints (the last ¼ of the book is largely unrelated to the Debate). I found many disappointments throughout the book. His frequent appeal to 19th and early 20th century biblical scholars is frustrating, considering all the recent, up to date, scholarship that is available. His scriptural references are typically drawn from the KJV, and at times this archaic language makes his argument annoyingly difficult to follow. The NKJV, or better yet, NRSV, would have been better. In Grant's tautological argument for the accuracy of Scripture, because it is the inspiration of God, he quotes 2 Tim 3:16, and John 10:35 (page 38). I believe the context of these texts refers to the newly forming (at that time) canon of what Christians call the Old Testament; the New Testament did not exist when these statements were made. Grant argues, without question, that the Pierced (or Piercing) Messiah scroll (4Q285) from Qumran refers to Jesus (p. 61), but even conservative scholars only agree the text refers to a messianic figure, possibly the Teacher of Righteousness, the leader of the Qumran community. The evidence for Jose O'Callaghan 1972 suggestion that NT books are represented among the Scrolls (p. 66) is too fragmentary and not taken seriously by many scholars today. On Golgotha and the Tomb of Jesus, Grant argues against the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and for Gordon's Calvary and Garden Tomb. Key to the argument against the Holy Scepulchre is the fact is was located inside the city walls. He dismisses Second Wall theory (allowing the site to be outside the wall) because "there is no conclusive archaeological evidence to prove this assertion." Grant completely ignores here the excavations of Kenyon and her case indicating the site was outside the first century wall. Yet, when Grant defends Gordon's Garden Tomb, he appeals to K. Kenyon and her support of the early dates of the tomb (thus, he obviously is aware of her work). If one looks at Gordon's fanciful vision of a skeleton superimposed on a map of Jerusalem, the reader could easily see silliness behind Gordon's approach to his selection of this site. There are better alternates if one does not accept the Holy Sepulchre (for example, see Ernest Martin's Secrets of Golgotha). In Grants challenge to the C14 dating of the Shroud of Turin, he talks about a case involving Mayan jade, a Itzamna Tun (p. 144) - but can jade be C14 dated? I feel Grant's interesting material on medieval Jewish messianic expectations (p. 191) should have little pertinence to the messianic expectations of pre-70 CE Palestine. In my opinion, the important Genealogy of Jesus (p. 221) is far too brief, and over half the chapter is devoted to an unrelated discussion of whether Jesus' Hebrew name was Yeshu or Yeshua. The useful points in this book include a good summary of the Shroud of Turin, excellent chapter on the evidence from ancient Christian tombs, and an interesting introduction to the complex Moses Maimonides. This book is much needed, but, for me, it disappointed. I hope Grant will work on a second edition, next time with better scholarship.

Rating:
Summary: Why was this book written?
Review: JESUS: THE GREAT DEBATE (Frontier Research Publications, Inc., 1999) by a man named Grant R. Jeffrey is one of the worst Christian apologetic books I have read in recent memory. Though we find the name "Jesus Seminar" and liberal scholars' names brought up, I get the inference that Jeffrey has never actually read their works and publications, as Jeffrey simply spews out the old arguments that liberals have responded to for two decades. Recall the title of this book is that it is a "debate" yet Grant almost never responds to opposing views. I conclude that this book is simply another Josh McDowell type by an author who has lost touch with the fast-moving world of biblical scholarship.

While the first chapter starts off well, giving an extremely basic overview of current liberal scholarship, chapter two (concerning when the gospels were written) is terribly unimpressive. John Wenham's book ("Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke") was excellent, and presented many argument for early dating of the gospels. Grant mainly gives the argument for authority -- basically, "Well [insert conservative scholar's name here] finds the evidence for early dating overwhelming," that's fine, but there are also world renowned scholars such as Burton Mack who date the gospels very late.

Jeffrey continues by giving his arguments for the specific dating of Jesus' birth and death. The question is: who cares? That is such an unimportant "debate" compared to other such issues as Jesus' deeds, words, miracles, resurrection, etc. Also entire chapters are devoted to the Jewish perspective on the future messiah, the shroud of turin, and the "search for the real tomb of Jesus," unless you're going to Israel soon I doubt that issue will be of any interest.

Perhaps Jeffrey's worst chapter is where he presents the standard defense of the secular references to Jesus. While this book presents itself to be examining opposing views (hence a "debate"), Grant NEVER looks at the criticism of the secular references by the works of G.A. Wells (notably) and others such as Micael Martin. While I feel it is almost ridiculous to conclude Jesus never existed, since Grant is arguing the secular references to Jesus are reliable, he should give a solid defense -- when in turn we find almost no defense.

Grant then continues to devote much space to the issue of what the Jews expected the messiah to be like. This hardly proves anything though. Jeffrey's then gives a chapter to the "probability" of the fulfilled prophecy of Christ. Grant fails to see the "debate" of this issue. Jews, in particular, have put of many defenses against what they feel are false uses of many passages Grant cites (such as Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9, Psalm 22), whether they be solid or specious, Grant ignores them. Also, the similar question comes up as to if they NT writers simply made up the stories to correlate to OT prophecies. Since the NT writers were very aware of the prophecies, it is a possibility that they were made up. Maybe that isn't a possibility, but since Grant never brings up this common response, we are simply left to ponder.

Grant continues to state his case that, "Jesus Christ Declared That He Was Truly God" (pg. 246). While the synoptics and John's gospel all portrey Jesus to have a christology, Grant never examines the historical-ness of these passages which he so freely quotes. The Jesus Seminar rejects that Jesus said almost all of the statements that Grant cites, yet Grant pretends that they are widely accepted. FOr a much better treatement of Jesus' Christology see (an actual scholar's) book "The Christology of Jesus" by the masterful Ben Witherington III.

Grant concludes by giving "the evidence of transformed lives," while Protestants, many actually, do have lives which are "transformed," so do Mormons, JW, etc. etc.

I conclude that Grant Jeffrey has a book that contributes NOTHING to the "debate" concerning Jesus. This books should probably be placed next to your dusty Josh McDowell "More than a Carpenter" as it has about the same level of apologetics. Recomended instead of this book is John Meier's "A Marginal Jew" which is one of the best treatements of the "Jesus Debate" of all time.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best Christian apologetics I have read!
Review: Not a bad book. It's, in fact, very good for someone who's just beginning to read about Jesus scholarship or lack thereof in some cases (READ: Jesus Seminar). Jeffery also discusses some subtle nuances that are often overlooked (i.e., the possible significances of the Shroud of Turin, the Jewish Expectations of Messiah (anyone who thinks this part is a waste of time needs to think about their Christianity a little harder) and evidence of Gospel accuracy). To be frank, I liked it, though I've come to see that the arguments are a little weak when compared to other conservative scholars and their work. A good read would also be Gary Habermas' THE HISTORICAL JESUS. Though I haven't finished it yet, it does look promising. I'll let you know how it goes. However, in closing, let me recommend this book for some thoughts and ideas that you won't find anywhere else, but don't expect it to be the end all, do all book on Jesus research.

Rating:
Summary: interesting but not definitive
Review: the author has attempted to prove definitively that Jesus was (and presumably still is) the Messiah. While he tries to write from a historian's perspective in the beginning, and presents much interesting information, his argument ultimately falls into the typical pattern of an apologetic. I found his chapter attempting to quantify the statistical odds of predicting certain events in the life and death of Jesus unconvincing as he assumed absolute historical accuracy of the Gospels. At the very least, that is highly debatable. The author also devotes a whole chapter to the inscriptions of early tombs in Jerusalem, some of which are Christian. That doesn't contribute to the argument. The book is very readable, unlike some other theological material.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book, well worth its price!
Review: This book read like a novel. I found the evidence presented in the book both valid and interesting. Jeffrey goes over historical, archaeological, and logical arguments for and against the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels and asks you to make an educated decision based on the facts.