This book succeeds remarkably well in two specific ways:
1) It brings the complex issues of current historical and theological "Jesus studies" down to a (roughly) layman's level.
2) It brings these complex issues TOGETHER. My library is filled with books about the quest for the "historical Jesus" and books about "Christology"...but very few of them treat these as connected, much less integrated, studies.

Another feature I admired was the authors' stubborn refusal to "discount" liberal or conservative approaches to these issues. Firstly, they very sensibly defined and clearly explained what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean in the context of Jesus studies, rtather than letting one or the other be a stand-in for "the view I don't agree with." Secondly, they acknowledge that both sides of this ongoing debate do have legitimate critiques of the other side's claims. A disclaimer here is necessary: the authors' commitment to value of "historical Jesus" studies leads them, especially in their conclusion, to make some hard-bitten observations about the ease of "overlaying" a theological assumption across a biblical narrative and glibly claim support for a preconceived "Jesus." From my side of the theological arena, these comments sounded decidedly "liberal," but I remain convinced that their intention was simply to enforce intellectual honesty on BOTH sides.

One final comment, as a Oneness Pentecostal, I struggled with where I stood within the authors' theological universe. On the one hand, the "theological" section (Part II) concludes with a definition claim that any non-Trinitarian view of God lies beyond the pale of Christian orthodoxy; on the other, the "biblical-historical" section (Part I) seemed to plainly acknowledge that the Trinitarian formulation is NOT automatically inherent or self-evident in Scripture and represents the impact of Greco-Roman philosophy. My hunch is that I would not be welcome at their table...but I think they've given me a few tools to argue for a seat.

Who should read this book? It's not exactly easy reading for a theological novice and yet, it's purpose is to summarize and clarify complex arguments. Perhaps I would say it this way: While it probably would not be the FIRST book I would read on the issue, I'd keep it within the first five. ( )

introductory; subtle assertions throughout. ( )