1) This book is not devotional reading for Christians who are mostly focused on living a godly life. It requires some thought and a genuine interest in Jesus history.

2) Bruce Chilton says he is associated with the Jesus Seminar. I've read a little from others associated with the Jesus seminar, like Crossan and Funk. This is NOTHING like the other Jesus Seminar writers. He clearly places Jesus within (the variegated) Second Temple Judaism, and credits him with thorough knowledge of Hebrew Scripture.

3) I was impressed with how carefully Chilton develops his arguments throughout the book, along the way making some very enlightening observations.

4) His book changed my understanding of the Kingdom of God, and how Jesus delivered it to those to whom he ministered.

5) I'm not good enough a reader or well trained enough in history or theology to know whether I truly agree with everything Chilton wrote, but he wrote many things in this book that I found worthy to ponder and to recommend to others.

6) I have now purchased other books of his because I liked this one so well.

A book which focuses on the Kingdom of God is a great way to launch a fresh series on the historical Jesus. To date, the subsequent volumes are: "The Immerser" by Joan Taylor, "God's Final Envoy" by Marinus de Jonge, and "Jesus Outside the New Testament" by Robert Van Voorst.

With that said, I was frankly disappointed with the first chapter of the book, in which Van Voorst spends ten pages refuting the Christ-myth hypothesis. To his credit, Van Voorst is very familiar with the various books and essays which deny the existence of Jesus. He writes, "Some readers may be surprised or shocked that many books and essays--by my count, over one hundred--in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus" (p. 6). Nevertheless, he says, the Christ-myth hypothesis is not only rejected by virtually all New Testament scholars, but that the hypothesis has been almost completely ignored within the guild of New Testament scholarship since the 1940s. However, Van Voorst acknowledges that there is tremendous interest in the historicity of Jesus.

He has a very interesting and educational history of the Christ-myth movement. However, he apparently does not know that G.A. Wells, in his latest book THE JESUS MYTH, in which Wells *accepts* the historicity of Jesus based on the arguments of Burton Mack concerning Q. Van Voorst then, briefly, has occasion to criticize Michael Martin's defense of the mythicist hypothesis, given Martin's reliance on Wells.

Van Voorst then summarizes seven objections against Wells's (former) position that Jesus never existed. Many of these objections are downright comical.

1. "Wells misinterprets Paul's relative silence about some details in the life of Jesus: the exact time of his life; the exact places of his ministry, that Pontius Pilate condemned him, and so forth. As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist. Arguments from silence about ancient times, here about the supposed lack of biblical or extrabiblical references to Jesus, are especially perilous."

Lowder's comment: it seems to me there is a double-standard on the part of conservative Christians. When discussing the historicity of Jesus, Christians will tell us that no historian takes arguments from silence seriously. But when defending the empty tomb, Christians will conveniently engage in arguments from silence (e.g., "The tomb was empty because there is no evidence of the Jewish authorities denying it.") Yet the same facts appealed to by Christians in their arguments from silence for the empty tomb--like the lame argument that the Jews never denied the empty tomb--can itself be dismissed on the grounds that 'first-century Jews typically viewed the empty tomb story as so weak or bizarre that they ignored it completely." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

2. Wells dates the gospels around 100, which is too late. Mark was written around 70 while Matthew and Luke were probably written in the 80s. Van Voorst may well be right about his dating. But so, too, might Wells. What I find objectionable about Van Voorst's objection is that he gives no argument for it. *Why* should we accept Van Voorst's dating scheme for the gospels? Van Voorst never says.

3. The development of the Gospel traditions and the historical difficulties within them "do not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence." But, to the best of my knowledge, Wells never argues that development of traditions and historical difficulties *necessarily proves* the mythicist hypothesis.

4. This one is a real howler: "Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it." This is an argument from silence! I agree that there is no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first century. But that fact does not, by itself, make it probable that Jesus existed. Even on the assumption that Jesus never existed, Christianity was a minority religion viewed as a cult by outsiders. Had Jesus never existed, there is no reason to suppose that anyone would have made an effort to show that. Indeed, I think it is even doubtful that it would have occurred to anyone to question the historicity of Jesus!

5. Despite Wells' objections to the contrary, non-Christian witnesses to Jesus, especially Tacitus and Josephus, are basically trustworthy because there is a "strong consensus" saying so. Does this mean that from now on that evolutionists can argue that evolution is true simply because a "strong consensus" of biologists says it's true? This is a really lame argument.

6. Another howler: "Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes."

7. "Wells and his predecessors have failed to advance other, credible hypotheses to account for the birth of Christianity and the fashioning of a historical Christ." I think this objection has some force.

In conclusion, while I think Van Voorst's book is useful as a comprehensive overview of extra-Biblical references to Jesus, his direct attacks on the mythicist hypothesis are mainly ineffective. His best objection to the mythicist hypothesis is that some of the extra-Biblical sources *do* provide independent confirmation of Jesus, an issue which he deals with ably in the remainder of the book.

The author starts with an overview of some classical writings including "Pliny the Younger", "Celsus", and "Tacitus". The second chapter goes into some of the classic Jewish literature that also refers to Jesus including the well-known Josephus passages. While some of this was new material for me, there were no real surprises. The information is presented well, with several commentary opinions regarding the passages. The author presents the information in a mostly neutral fashion and will often present both supporting and opposing views on the writings and their significance.

The sections on the Canonical Gospels were excellent. The focus is on the missing "source material" for the core Gospels. The Luke source, identified as "L", the "M" source which is reasoned to be part of the source for the unique material in the Gospel of Matthew, and the "Q" source for the sayings in Matthew and Luke. In Luke this source material is referred to directly in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke: "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the things that have been fulfilled among us...I too decided, after investing carefully from the first, to write an orderly account for you...". This implies that there were "many" others who wrote down information about the life of Jesus and the Gospel message. The other sources. "M" and "Q" are not as directly implied in the Gospels. The chapter is well done, and is mostly speculative, as the alleged source materials obviously are not available to us. Again, the information is presented well, and arguments and theories are postulated on both sides of the debate about their authenticity and relevance.

The last chapter focuses on the writings of mostly Gnostic origin, including the discovery of the Nag Hammadi writings. The book examines the authenticity and relevance of these writings and compares and contrasts them to the Gospels. The Gospel of Thomas is reprinted in full which is fascinating, as are parts of the Gospel of Peter, Secret Mark, the Ascent of James. A writing conspicuously absent from the book is the Barnabas text, although this writing is widely regarded as a fraud in most Biblical scholarly circles.

Overall, a very interesting read. The material was presented well, and was not dry but moved quickly and kept my attention throughout. A great start to this study of the wealth of information and writings about Jesus outside the New Testament.

Van Voorst covers the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in the work of Josephus (and the lesser known "James, the brother of Jesus" reference) and concludes that there is a core statement originally written by Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum which has been tampered with by Christian scribes. This is the predominant view in scholarly circles today and Van Voorst does a fine job of giving the reasoning behind such a conclusion. The references to Jesus in other non-Christian writers such as Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, Mara Bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, the Talmud, and others are covered on an individual basis to determine the background behind each one. Van Voorst makes an attempt to examine the intent of the writer and possible sources utilized by them to gather their information.

The book also covers mentions of Jesus made in the Gospel of Thomas and various sayings attributed to Jesus by the early church fathers that are not found in the New Testament. Van Voorst gives a good, basic overview of Q and its contents which a beginner would find very helpful.

Overall, this book is highly recommended to those seeking information on the references to Jesus found outside the New Testament in non-Christian writings. At the very least, this book demonstrates far beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth truly existed and that he was simply not some sort of mythical figure created by early Christians. It doesn't prove Christianity is true, but it lays the foundation for further investigation into who this Jesus of Nazareth was.

Jacob Neusner opens with a discussion of the different types of 1st century Judaisms. His findings lead him to conclude that there are four traits foundational to all types of Judaism: the privileged status of ancient Israelite Scripture, an identification with the "Israel" of which Scripture speaks, an insistence upon the priority of that system over all competing accounts of an "Israel" in context, and the certainty that all who live by that system constitute "Israelites".

John Painter provides the longest chapter of the book and he gives an overview of the primary historical questions surrounding James. These include: the meaning of the title "brother of the Lord", the question of whether he was an "unbeliever" during the ministry of Jesus, his alleged conversion following the resurrection of Jesus, his status as leader of the Jerusalem church, his martyrdom, and his view of the Law.

Peter Davids discusses the message of the letter of James, but leaves the question of authorship open. Wiard Popkes follows with a closely related piece on the mission of the author of James, again leaving unanswered the question of authorship.

Richard Bauckham does argue for James, the brother of Jesus, as the actual author of the letter. He then proceeds to compare and contrast the wisdom sayings of Jesus with those found in James. He argues that both saw themselves as following in the tradition of Jewish wisdom teachers such as Ben Sira, etc.

Bruce Chilton addresses the question of James' relationship to Peter and Paul. His methodology is curious at times, as he seems inconsistent in his handling of issues of historicity. For example, he often treats Acts as being historically reliable, but then he will dismiss evidence from it when it does not suit his thesis. This would be understandable if he were to provide reasons for rejecting these items, but he does not do so.

Craig Evans closes with a chapter in which he compares Qumranic, Rabbinic, and Jacobean (that of James) Judaisms. He uses Chilton's four distinguishing traits as the framework for his discussion.

The appendix consists of a review of Robert Eisenman's, "James, the Brother of Jesus" written by Robert Price. This review seemed out of place in this work due to the fact that both Eisenman and Price are on the fringe of NT scholarship and prone to highly speculative theses. Needless to say, Price raves about Eisenman's work with comments like, "Eisenman is like the Renaissance scientists who had to handcraft all the intricate parts of a planned invention." What is most ironic is that nearly the entire scholarly community views Eisenman's work as just that: a handcrafted fabrication lacking a basis in historical reality. Unfortunately, neither Price nor Eisenman recognize it as such.

Buy this book if you want to learn more about James and early Christianity. The scholars are not monolithic in their views, which means you'll find some with whom you'll agree and others with whom you'll be challenged.

As an example, Mr. Chilton points out that, whatever our beliefs about the virgin birth, it is highly unlikely that the villagers he grew up amongst believed any such thing. They would have thought of him as a "mamzer" - a person conceived out of wedlock. That status would have placed him in the status of outsider in many activities of village life, including the synagogue. Viewed in that context, his concern for the oppressed and weak throughout his ministry are clearly rooted in his own, human, childhood experiences.

This single small concept alone has profoundly deepened my understanding of Jesus and his teachings. There are many other such "epiphanies" in this book. Read it and grow.

This work is fine, for what it is... What it is NOT (and I assume the entire series is not), is an Aramaic Bible.

Note the category "Religion and Spirituality": Unlike the misleading series _title_, the ... _category_ doesn't say anything about the Aramaic language. When I bought this book, I was looking for an actual Aramaic Targum of Isaiah. Not here, folks.

I may eventually find a use for this volume anyway -- Chilton is a first-rate scholar -- but I was VERY disappointed to find that there was NO ARAMAIC TEXT OF THE ISAIAH TARGUM in it; it is ONLY a translation and notes. If you're looking for the genuine article, you're going to pay hundreds of dollars for it (probably directly to the publisher).