Boyd begins with a helpful overview of the “quest“ for the historical Jesus—a quest that began as early as 1778 with Reimarus’ “political Jesus” whose disciples stole the body and proclaimed a resurrection. The modern quest finds itself in two basic divisions:

1. The “third quest” party, in which many conservative commentators find a home; and,
2. The “post-Bultmannian“ quest—from which we have the Jesus Seminar. Naturally, this is also where the “Cynic sage” theory finds its roots.

The chapters following offer strong critiques of the post-Bultmannian assumptions required for the Cynic sage theory—which turns out to be far too reliant on questionable research and premisses. Most notably, the series of assumptions required about HOW Jesus was transformed from a simple Cynic sage to the Son of God is of particular concern; as we have noted, even Mack comments on how astonishing the speed of this “transformation” was! Included are helpful discussions concerning anti-supernatural bias, Jewish oral tradition, diversity in the early church, relevance of non-canonical Gospels (notably Thomas and Q), and the stripping of eschatology from the historical Jesus. Boyd then focuses more closely on the central arguments of the Cynic thesis, with particular concern for the influence of Hellenism in Galilee (a strongly “hellenized” Galilee is quite essential to the Cynic thesis) and a study of the parallels offered between Jesus, Paul, and the Cynics.

The last several chapters address the works of Paul, Mark, and Luke in terms of defending their historicity and veracity and showing how the Cynic thesis deals with them (mostly, by either a) ignoring them or b) putting them off as wholesale fabrications, which is what Mack particularly does with the works of Mark and Luke). Included are discussions of the church’s kerygma, and Paul’s links with Jesus; defended also are the traditional assignments, accuracy, dating and authority of the Gospel of Mark and the Book of Acts. The last chapter critiques Crossan’s and Mack’s view of the resurrection. (Crossan proposes “the dog ate it” theory—see our essay, “Squalling to Raise the Dead”; Mack simply puts the resurrection accounts down to imagination.) Included are defenses of some necessary components of the traditional view, and a summary of how Crossan and Mack treat the evidence of the Gospels and Paul. (They give almost as much short shrift to 1 Corinthians 15 as Robert Price!)

While not as detailed as some might like, Boyd’s work offers an excellent starting point and provides an accessible set of discussions for understanding (and refuting) one of the more prominent, latest editions of the “Who Was Jesus?” question to emerge from the post-Bultmannian camp. Ample notes and an impressive bibliography give direction for further study. This work is highly recommended for those with an interest in contemporary issues in apologetics.