I am preparing these guide questions for both the graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in the biblical anthropology, biblical Christology, and biblical soteriology courses. Preparing these questions, I utilize PeakD's Reading Preparation tool. I just selected a few from the suggested questions, and here is the final outcome:
What is your current understanding of the “historical Jesus," and how does it relate to belief about the Christ of faith?
What do you expect to gain from reading Warfield, Bavinck, and The Historical Jesus: Five Views? Are you looking for convergence, critique, or a robust comparison of methods?
If the historical Jesus is framed within an “empirico-scientific worldview” that excludes the supernatural, how should a reader who believes in the supernatural engage with the data?
In what ways do worldview and presuppositions influence scholarly conclusions about Jesus, and how aware am I of my own presuppositions as I read?
How do I assess the reliability of secondary summaries (like this post) versus primary sources (the Beilby and Eddy book) when forming my understanding?
- How does the post characterize rationalist interpretations of miracles? What are the strengths and weaknesses of explaining miracles as natural or symbolic rather than historical events?
- If the historical Jesus is deemed inaccessible or uncertain, what implications does that have for preaching, catechesis, and personal belief?
- What would you identify as a valuable takeaway or lesson from this period for readers engaging with any historical-religious inquiry?
How do synchronistic (timing-focused) versus diachronic (evolution-focused) approaches shape our interpretation of the Third Quest?
Do you find the distinction between “synchronically” and “diachronically” useful, or does it obscure more than it clarifies?
How has the role of non-canonical or debated sources (e.g., Q, sayings of Jesus, apocryphal material) shaped Third Quest conclusions?
How has the Third Quest influenced contemporary Christian thought, preaching, or interfaith dialogue?
What is the scholarly value of continuing to debate the historical Jesus in light of religious belief and faith commitments?
What are the strongest reasons for and against continuing the quest in today’s scholarly and religious landscape?
How do epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions influence your view of historical reconstruction, including miracles and supernatural events?
How does interdisciplinary collaboration (archaeology, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, etc.) change your expectations about what can be known about Jesus? Do you see risks or benefits to this approach?
Among the diverse portraits of Jesus listed (e.g., eschatological prophet, Galilean holy man, political revolutionary, rabbi, exorcist, proto-liberation theologian, etc.), which portraits resonate with you or challenge your prior beliefs? What evidence would make you revise your view of Jesus in one of these roles?
How should Christian faith relate to historical inquiry? Is it possible to separate faith commitments from historical analysis, or is some level of integration inevitable? -
The post mentions concerns about docetism and fideism as potential distortions. How would you define and recognize these distortions in both scholarship and faith communities?
What is your reaction to the claim that the apocalyptic dimension of Jesus’s thought is debated (e.g., Schweitzer, Wright, “already-not yet” interpretations)? How does this affect your view of Jesus’s mission and message?
What methodological or interpretive risks arise when one equates “the historical Jesus” with “the real Christ,” as suggested by some historical-critical approaches?
What is the significance of the kenosis notion in modern Christology, and why does it matter for how we understand Jesus’ attributes during the incarnation?
In what ways do Kant, Schleiermacher, and Ritschl revive old heresies under new names, and what are the practical or pastoral risks of such rebranding?
How might one assess the claim that “divinity” in Ritschl is more about office than ontology? What are the tensions or dangers this raises for doctrine and devotion?
If you were to write a brief critique of Bavinck’s treatment of these modern Christologies, what strengths and blind spots would you identify?
Why does Lagarde’s fourfold critique of Paul’s depiction of Jesus matter for modern Christology, according to Bavinck?
In what ways does Harnack’s twofold universalism (God the Father and the universal brotherhood of men) challenge or complement traditional confessional Christology?
How does the claim that “the Christ of Paul and John is no other than the Christ of the early church” impact debates about the independence of Pauline and Johannine Christology from the Synoptics?
If you hold to a traditional Christology, where do you see opportunities or tensions in engaging with historical-critical insights without compromising doctrinal integrity?
What questions would you pose to a fellow reader who argues that the historical Jesus can be separated from the Christ of faith?
What does Warfield mean by “desupernaturalizing” Jesus, and why does the author see this as dangerous or “precarious”? Do you find this critique persuasive?
If the historical Jesus relies on the supernatural character of Christ as a factor in historical development, what are the implications for critical historical methodology?
Is Warfield’s approach to “one Jesus” (historical and apostolic unity) compatible with the diversity of Gospel portrayals, or does it risk harmonizing too much?
The post references Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls as later developments. How might discoveries beyond the canonical New Testament affect or challenge Warfield’s position?
How would you assess the claim that “the greatest miracle” is the Jesus of the NT? Does this idea challenge or reinforce your view of miracles in history?
0 comments