The Fourth Quest for the Historical Jesus

In a new essay at Bible and Interpretation Paul Anderson relates how he was asked

What’s the significance of drawing the Gospel of John into Jesus studies? Is it simply a matter of imagining that Jesus took several trips to Jerusalem instead of one, or might it lead to something really significant in terms of how we understand the Jesus of history?

And he begins to answer. Enjoy!

[I’ve thought for a long time that John deserves more attention in the Quests than he has gotten. Anderson et als work is exciting for that reason alone].

About Jim

I am a Pastor, and Lecturer in Church History and Biblical Studies at Ming Hua Theological College.
This entry was posted in Bible. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Fourth Quest for the Historical Jesus

  1. I have been talking and pointing to John A.T. Robinson’s works for years. Note his book: The Priority of John!


  2. steph says:

    As I look to the sky and listen to those delphic whispers in the wind, I hear a response being scratched to this piece, not far east. I look forward to reading it soon…

    Robert dear, I’m not sure if you have read the mistaken Robinson, but perhaps next you might like to read ‘Is John’s Gospel True?’ by Maurice Casey.


  3. Steph darl’in,

    Yes, I have read almost everything by old Robinson (RIP). And I would love to read your dear Casey’s book on John! Is it out yet? Did I miss it?

    BTW, you might like Robinson’s book: The Human Face of God, his work on Christology. I loved it! Though of course I don’t agree with all of it. “The mystery of “Christos” is the clue to the profoundest reality of how things are or it is nothing.” (page 23)

    Irish kisses lov,


  4. steph says:

    Tut tut my darling, Routledge, 1996.

    I have his Human Face too – almost everything he wrote. He writes very prettily too. 🙂

    Kiss kiss both cheeks and a peck on the pretty nose too.


  5. Pingback: Paul Anderson and the Future of Johannine Studies | Near Emmaus

  6. Pingback: Flotsam and jetsam (7/22) « scientia et sapientia

  7. Steph dear,

    I looked at the book on Amazon, and the Table of Contents. And, yes I remember reading Casey’s book years back. I had forgotten, sorry. I should read it again perhaps? But, I am with both Robinson and Zahn on the whole early dating of the NT. 70 AD is the key, besides the literacy of the NT Text itself. Remember, I am “presuppostional” by position of/on the Holy Scripture!

    So how goes your Ph.D.?


  8. steph says:

    Yes, honeybunch, read it again, and also his ‘From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God’. Also James Crossley, The Date of Mark, which confirmed a couple of suspicions I had had about the gospel, and dates Mark in the 40s. How’s your Aramaic? I think Matthew was pre war also for a few reasons and also he shows no sign of knowing how the war happened like Luke does. James has written more recently on John – not sure if he’s published it yet – I’ve read one for a book coming out and I forget what it is called and I read another recently too.

    Tankoo feraskin, I am now officially unemployed. I completed a successful ‘oral’ assessment with Richard Bell on Tuesday (mind you we talked about everything from nuclear phsyics (He was a nuclear physicist before a theologian!) to opera and cellos and goodness remembers much else … but mainly my work of course! Two hours slips by fast during conversation. I’m now officially FREEEEEEE to complete the write up wherever I please. Irish kisses in the wind… mwah! And mwah and well wishes to your beautiful wife.


Comments are closed.