On the Self-Styled ‘Refutation’ of the ‘Seditious Jesus Hypothesis’
Or Jesse Nickel’s – and Others’ – Wishful Thinking
In: Journal for the Study of the Historical JesusSearch for other papers by Fernando Bermejo-Rubio in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The hypothesis according to which Jesus and his group were somehow involved in anti-Roman resistance has been systematically opposed by some quarters through the centuries. One of the most recent examples is Jesse P. Nickel’s The Things that Make for Peace: Jesus and Eschatological Violence, a book whose author boldly claims to have ‘refuted’ that hypothesis. The present article surveys this volume, concluding that it contains several misunderstandings of the field and method, as well as serious misrepresentations of the hypothesis under discussion, to the extent that everything indicates that it is influenced by theological presuppositions. These conclusions are not limited because Nickel’s book is representative of a much wider trend within the field.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 178 | 178 | 21 |
| Full Text Views | 16 | 16 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 150 | 150 | 37 |
On the Self-Styled ‘Refutation’ of the ‘Seditious Jesus Hypothesis’
Or Jesse Nickel’s – and Others’ – Wishful Thinking
In: Journal for the Study of the Historical JesusSearch for other papers by Fernando Bermejo-Rubio in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The hypothesis according to which Jesus and his group were somehow involved in anti-Roman resistance has been systematically opposed by some quarters through the centuries. One of the most recent examples is Jesse P. Nickel’s The Things that Make for Peace: Jesus and Eschatological Violence, a book whose author boldly claims to have ‘refuted’ that hypothesis. The present article surveys this volume, concluding that it contains several misunderstandings of the field and method, as well as serious misrepresentations of the hypothesis under discussion, to the extent that everything indicates that it is influenced by theological presuppositions. These conclusions are not limited because Nickel’s book is representative of a much wider trend within the field.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 178 | 178 | 21 |
| Full Text Views | 16 | 16 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 150 | 150 | 37 |