John Wesley

Wesley called attention to the inward, experiential dimension of faith. This emphasis was in part a reaction to the Calvinism that permeated the social and political life of the English world in the seventeenth century. Also undergirding the movement was the “living faith” Wesley imbibed from his encounter with German Pietism. Wesley’s contact with the Moravians, Pietists within eighteenth-century Lutheranism that drew from Catholic mysticism, gave him an awareness for the emotional dimension of faith. This led to his personal conversion, during which as he described, “I felt my heart strangely warmed.”[1] Wesley understood the Christian life as consisting of two separate experiences of grace—conversion (or justification), and Christian perfection (or sanctification). The first, justifying grace, covered over all the “actual sin” one had committed. Sanctifying grace, on the other hand, was given for the “residue” of sin that remained after one became a Christian—the inherited (original sin) from Adam.[2] According to Wesley, sanctifying grace occurred subsequent to the justifying grace of conversion. Wesley refers to the reality of this subsequent sanctifying experience as “Christian perfection,” “perfect love,” and “heart purity.”[3] While this experience is gradual and works itself out over the entirety of the Christian life, as Peter Althouse explains, there is also an instantaneous dimension of sanctification for Wesley. It is this latter “crisis” sense that undergirds the Holiness view of sanctification and the Pentecostal baptism in the Spirit.[4]

In this book, Daniel Castelo’s main goal is to show how Pentecostalism “is decisively not a Protestant tradition generally” and “not part of contemporary evangelicalism particularly” (p. xiii). He moreover argues that pentecostal identity, spiritualty, and theological development are diminished when these foci are largely subsumed under Evangelicalism (p. xiv). He thus suggests that Pentecostalism “is best framed as a modern instantiation of the mystical stream of Christianity” (pp. xv-vi). Hence, “Pentecostalism is best understood as a mystical tradition of the church catholic” (p. xvi). Castelo thus argues that rather than immediately looking to contemporary Evangelicalism, Pentecostals can find far more congruent resources for articulating their identity, spirituality, and theology, in the historical Christian mystical tradition. In the Postscript, Castelo well summarises his purpose for this book: “Its aim has been to facilitate a theological exercise of rethinking Pentecostalism in light of mystical categories for the sake of deepening the connections of this movement within wider Christianity and also as a way of differentiating it from forms of reasoning typically associated with American evangelicalism” (p. 177).

Daniel Castelo

Besides the Introduction and Postscript, the book comprises five chapters. By framing the book’s thrust “within the domains of theological method and epistemology” (p. 1), in Chapter One (“The Challenge of Method”) Castelo substantiates his aims by demonstrating their resonance with past and ongoing pentecostal scholarship that has conceived Pentecostalism as a “spirituality” (pp. 1-6). Castelo devotes Chapter Two (“A Mystical Tradition?”) to identifying thematic aspects of the historic Christian mystical tradition which he believes are most congruent to pentecostal experience and spirituality. Here he argues that convergence can be seen between the pentecostal stress on “encountering God” as the aim of their liturgical practices (pp. 80-83) and the historic mystical stress on movement towards “union” with God (pp. 44, 55-57, 80-82). In Chapter 3 (“The Epistemological Form of Evangelical Theology”), Castelo argues the incongruence of contemporary Evangelicalism’s theological methodological approaches as a ready resource for pentecostal theological method, insofar that Evangelicalism continues its epistemological embedding within its fundamentalist-foundationalist heritage (p. 125).

It should be seen that in many ways, Castelo’s functions as a follow-up to themes and aims earlier pursued by Simon Chan in his book, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Sheffield, 2000). Castelo in fact devotes a section to Chan’s earlier work (pp. 154-157). What primarily differentiates Castelo’s book from Chan’s earlier work however, is the greater analytical depth he gives towards explicating incongruence between pentecostal and contemporary evangelical (particularly North American) epistemological and theological-methodologies. Unfortunately, on this topic (chapter 3), his argumentation is quite dense and seemingly over repetitive.

The Spirit, the Affections, and the Christian Tradition is a collection of essays concerning the role and understanding of emotion throughout the history of Christian thought. These essays were contributed by academics representing a variety of disciplines, including historians, philosophers, and biblical scholars. Each chapter focuses upon a different historical era or historical figure, ranging from the first century with Saint Paul to Jonathan Edwards in the eighteenth century. Space limitations prevent me from summarize all twelve chapters, but some other notable figures of focus include Augustine, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and Blaise Pascal. Each essay not only provides new insights concerning these persons of faith, particularly their theology regarding the affections, but the authors also project trajectories for future work.

Part of the volume’s goal is to contribute to renewal historiography. According to Coulter, this type of historiography “underscores the methodological import of sensitivity or orientation to the charismatic dimension of Christian existence that informs the critical reading and interpretation of texts and ideas” (1-2). Coulter points out that some of the contributors do not typically operate from this background, nonetheless their work herein contributes to renewal historiography in important ways. It is an ecumenical venture that “facilitates a sensitivity to the charismatic and ecstatic as well as the pneumatological dimensions of Christian tradition” (23). Thus, for the Church universal, these essays attempt to provide a more holistic approach to history. Amos Yong’s final chapter offers an insightful analysis of the volume’s implications. Here, he argues that a renewal perspective can illuminate areas of history that have been neglected or marginalized heretofore. He argues, “any adequate understanding of the Spirit cannot be reduced to the intellectual register” (300). For him, historical and theological investigations that do not probe the heart, or the emotions, fail to explore the work of the Spirit.

In recent years, academia has begun to recover the role and value of the emotions, and this book fills a lacuna concerning the affections in Christian thought. Obviously, the contributors were only able to examine a sample of historical views, but the depth of the insights gained here is promising. It points toward the possibility of other insights being retrieved. Along these lines, however, feminine perspectives deserve greater attention. Elizabeth A Dreyer’s chapter on emotion in the Middle Ages addresses women, such as Hadwwijch of Brrabant, Teresa of Avila, and Catherine of Sienna, but overall, I would like to see the voices of women be given a more prominent role. In sum, these essays were written with a scholarly audience in mind, so it requires some academic vigor. Although the text is principally concerned with historical views, it presents applications for the contemporary context. Readers may find it provocative and challenging, if not transformative. I found the book to be a worthwhile and fulfilling read.

Reviewed by David Bradnick

Publisher’s page: http://undpress.nd.edu/books/P03251

Preview The Spirit, the Affections, and the Christian Tradition: https://books.google.com/books?id=IlUFDgAAQBAJ

D. H. Williams (PhD, University of Toronto) is professor of religion in patristics and historical theology at Baylor University. He is the author of Evangelicals and Tradition and Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism and editor of The Free Church and the Early Church. Tradition, Scripture, and Interpretation is the second volume in the Evangelical Ressourcement series, which is grounded in the belief that there is a wealth of theological, exegetical, and spiritual resources from the patristic era that is relevant for the Christian church today, as well as the church of the future. This series aims to help church thinkers and leaders reappropriate ancient understandings of Christian belief, amid the current resurgence in interest in the early church, and apply these ancient understandings to ministerial foci in the twenty-first century. Readers of the series will see how Scripture and the early tradition were both necessary in the formulation of orthodoxy, that there is a reciprocal relationship between the life of the church and theology, and that the liberty of the Spirit in contemporary believers must be balanced by a continuity with church tradition. If these three things are done, it seems, the Protestant church could truly be considered the church catholic (i.e., universal).

In keeping with the dictum of Wesley that ‘true, genuine Christianity [directs] us to the strongest evidence of the Christian doctrine’, this sourcebook gathers key writings from the first through sixth centuries on various topics of concern to the church that illustrate the ways in which its confessions and worship were expressed during that time. The writings are arranged thematically into nine areas, including the rule of faith, baptismal formulations and instruction, creeds, and biblical interpretation. Within each theme, the writings are arranged chronologically, which reveals how the Christian tradition has developed over time. Explanatory notes by Williams provide historical background and theological context for each reading. In what follows, I shall point out some prominent points from Williams’ text.

Williams opens the proverbial anthology with an expansive introduction, entitled ‘Origins of Christian Tradition’, that examines the close interplay between Scripture and tradition in the thinking of the early church. He asserts that the early fathers would have known nothing of the contention of sola scriptura, as it was incomprehensible to isolate the bible from the tradition of the church (he recognizes that the bible is foremost a book of the church, for what the church believed was ‘canonical’ before the bible was codified). This integral association of the bible and church tradition need not be understood as a squelching of the Spirit, however, for the Spirit is present throughout both the bible and church tradition, Williams notes (18). It could be said, then, that the bible (revelation) and tradition are two sides of the same coin. Indeed, there is a co-inherence in this symbiotic (reciprocal) relationship. Scripture could be portrayed as the anchor, whereas tradition is the interpreter (cf. 27).

I just finished reading L. William Oliverio, Jr., monograph, Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account. In the first six chapters, Oliverio maps the historical development of Pentecostal theology through a taxonomy of five types of historical Pentecostal hermeneutics. Along with their illustrative exemplars, these are: 1. the “original classical pentecostal hermeneutic” (Charles F. Parham, William J. Seymour, Charles H. Mason, Garfield T. Haywood); 2. the “early evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Daniel W. Kerr, P.C. Nelson, Myer Pearlman); 3. the “contemporary evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Gordon Fee, Roger Stronstad, Robert Menzies); 4. the “contextual-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Amos Yong, James Smith, John Christopher Thomas, Kenneth Archer); and 5. the “ecumenical-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Cecil M. Robeck Jr., Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Frank Macchia, Simon Chan and Koo Dong Yun).

Oliverio concludes by proposing a theological hermeneutic he finds most congruent towards ongoing 21st century challenges to both the worldwide Pentecostal tradition and the broader Christian tradition. One weakness to his taxonomy is that he admittedly works largely from North American Classical Pentecostal historiography. However, the interdependence between globalisation and globally diverse local Pentecostalisms, would suggest that his taxonomy comprises sufficient broadness for assessing emerging and local Pentecostal hermeneutical models worldwide.

Oliverio argues that the “original classical pentecostal hermeneutic” marked the “beginning of a new Christian tradition.” He also contends that even as the early Pentecostal movement understood its apostolic calling as that of calling the whole Church back to the root of New Testament “Pentecostal” experience, it was thereby highly ecumenical in orientation and moreover— comprising a broad range of theological diversity.

The “early evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic” later emerged through the influences of fundamentalism and modern evangelicalism, which led to a new stress on the inerrancy doctrine and creation of a “pentecostal scholasticism.” The “contemporary evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic,” emerged in the 1970’s, largely via the Lukan scholarship debates. It signified a new Pentecostal reliance on Evangelical hermeneutical methodologies, for arguing Classical Pentecostal doctrines of Spirit baptism along with the evidential tongues doctrine. Hence, this era marked a newfound appreciation for historical-grammatical methods of exegetical methods, focusing on identifying authorial meanings of scriptural texts.

I find it important to note Oliverio’s observation that the “contemporary evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic’s stress on authorial meaning was itself philosophically rooted to the Hirschian (E.D. Hirsch) author-centered hermeneutic theory. Meanwhile, the “contextual-pentecostal hermeneutic,” which emerged in the latter part of the 1990’s, followed the Gadamerian school of thought (Hans-George Gadamer; fusion of the reader’s linguistic and conceptual horizon with the horizon of the text). Hence, this Pentecostal hermeneutic has stressed the reader’s contextual situation (especially the cultural-linguistic context) towards readings of Scripture, and the formative role this context plays towards theologizing. Oliverio identifies this phase as demarking the beginning of a truly authentic Pentecostal manner of theologizing. Yet Oliverio laments the historical wedge that has developed between these two hermeneutics, which he seeks to address through themes emerging from the “ecumenical-pentecostal hermeneutic” and his proposed “hermeneutical realism.

Robert W. Graves, ed., Strangers To Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture (Woodstock, GA: The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship, 2014), 604 pages, ISBN 9780996044509

A quick overview reveals that Strangers to Fire is an anthology of 35 essays edited by Robert W. Graves, President of The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship. These essays are written by 26 authors from across the spectrum of the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third Wave movements. This book represents the non-cessationist or, better, continuationist, view that the charismata (spiritual gifts) active in the New Testament Church are still authentically operative in contemporary times. Strangers to Fire is a specific response to John F. MacArthur’s (JFM) caustic polemical, Strange Fire, and a general response to cessationism (view that spiritual gifts have ceased), and the abuse of the charismata. It has a Foreword by J. Lee Grady, noted Charisma contributor. Authors include such notables as Wayne Grudem, Jack Deere, Craig Keener, Jon Ruthven, Sam Storms, Doug Oss, Mel Robeck, Paul Elbert, Randy Clark, Robert Menzies, J. P. Moreland, Gary Greig, Mark Rutland, Gary Shogren, William De Arteaga, William K. Kay, Melvin Hodges, and others.

Cover for the November 2016 re-release by Empowered Life.

I begin by noting some significant contributions of Strangers to Fire. Before getting started directly with that process, however, I want to say that I particularly appreciate its apt title. JFM drew on the depiction of Aaron’s sons in Leviticus 10:1 offering strange fire and consequently being consumed by the fire of divine judgment for their blasphemous action (cp. Numbers 3:4; 26:61). It’s difficult to escape JFM’s implication that Pentecostals and Charismatics are guilty of the same sin and will suffer the same end. However, one must not dismiss the reality of authentic divine fire in his chosen text. Therefore, the choice of Graves and his team to call their book Strangers to Fire is telling. Divine presence is often depicted in Scripture in association with holy fire, most notably in the tongues of fire in the paradigmatic Day of Pentecost event (Acts 2:1-4). Accordingly, Graves flips the quip back on JFM. Rather than Pentecostals and Charismatics offering some kind of “strange fire” offensive to God and inevitably suffering terrible consequences, perhaps cessationist strangers to the fire of God are missing an opportunity to encounter holy fire in God’s awesome presence through the Holy Spirit—and suffering the lack thereof accordingly. The subtitle is also telling. When Tradition Trumps Scripture implies that in spite of all claims by JFM et al to be the only honest representatives of biblical faith and truth in this debate, they may be allowing human traditionalism to override and undermine the scriptural witness to God’s work in our day.

Robert W. Graves, ed., Strangers To Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture (Woodstock, GA: The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship, 2014), 604 pages, ISBN 9780996044509

If you are a person who stays current with regard to books related to the work of the Holy Spirit, the first part of the title of this book may sound familiar to you. If you find this to be true, it is probably because there was a book published in 2013 that had a somewhat similar title. I am, of course, referring to John MacArthur’s book, Strange Fire. MacArthur’s book was very provocative, indeed antagonistic, toward Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians. The book attracted a lot of attention and drew responses from key Christian leaders from both inside and outside of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements. The preface of Strangers To Fire tells us that Strange Fire was the impetus that caused this current volume to be published (xxvii). Strangers To Fire was published to address and correct some of the issues that were raised in MacArthur’s book. In fact, some of the chapters were written in direct response to Strange Fire.

Cover for the November 2016 re-release by Empowered Life.

The introduction states that this volume consists of thirty-five chapters of which the first seven were written in direct response to MacArthur’s book (xxxi). These chapters make up Part One of the book. The majority of direct responses to Strange Fire were previously published online by Charisma News and PneumaReview.com. Part Two of the book, “Classic Replies to Cessationism and the Misuses of the Charismata,” consists of chapters drawn from other books and publications written between 1968 and 2013 (xxxi). While these additional chapters were not written in direct response to MacArthur’s book, they do touch on issues pertinent to his book, indeed to the cessationists’ view in general. The afterword of Strangers To Fire states the purpose of the book. “It is our fervent prayer that this anthology may aid in the release of cessationists so they might be able to pray the biblical prayer, ‘Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief’ (Mark 9:24 KJV)” (523).

The contributors to this work are: Stanley M. Burgess, Randy Clark, Ronald Cottle, William De Arteaga, Jack Deere, Paul Elbert, Andrew T. Floris, Robert W. Graves, Gary S. Greig, Wayne Grudem, James Hernando, Melvin L. Hodges, Eddie Hyatt, William K. Kay, Craig S. Keener, Robert Menzies, J. P. Moreland, Douglas A. Oss, Cecil M. Robeck Jr., Jon M. Ruthven, Mark Rutland, Omer Jaye Sharp, Gary Shogren, Sam Storms, Horace S. Ward, and David A. Womack. A quick look at their biographical information will demonstrate that they are highly educated people, many with earned doctoral degrees.

Simon Chan dares to offer an answer to a question many contemporary Pentecostals are only recently even daring to ask. How do we pass on Pentecostalism’s distinctive beliefs and experiences to subsequent generations? For apocalyptic and eschatological restorationist movements, that is not always an obvious issue. But I’m a third generation Pentecostal. My children are, and, hopefully, my grandchildren will be, fourth and fifth generation Pentecostals, respectively. Today we need to know how to pass on the faith properly. Chan is professor of systematic theology at Trinity Theological College in Singapore. In an earlier work, Spiritual Theology: A Systematic Study of the Christian Life (InterVarsity, 1998), he established a reputation as a Pentecostal analyst and sympathizer of the classic Christian spiritual tradition. In Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition he recommends a Pentecostal appreciation, and appropriation, of the rich history and experience of that tradition as a means of defending and extending the Pentecostal tradition. Scholars and students interested in the present cause and future course of Pentecostalism will wish to give his suggestion serious attention through this small but significant book.

Chan seems to have a dual purpose in writing this book. Generally, as already stated, he wishes to establish a method for Pentecostal “traditioning”. Specifically, he uses glossolalia, Spirit baptism, and ecclesiology as a kind of case study for his methodology, thus making it a means for advanced discussion of these timely topics. Consequently, readers receive both introduction into a sophisticated approach to defending and extending Pentecostal faith and values and inducement into constructive consideration of some “hot topics” among today’s Pentecostal believers and practitioners.

In the Introduction, Chan says the book “seeks to interpret the Pentecostal reality in the light of the Christian spiritual tradition, and in so doing, address the problem of Pentecostal traditioning.” Chan thinks Pentecostalism can best explain and retain the integrity of its distinctive uniqueness by “forging links with other Christian bodies”, in particular, with the classic Christian spiritual tradition. He is concerned that classical Pentecostalism as a movement is experiencing “spiritual fatigue” and that “signs of panic” among its leadership are becoming apparent. One of the major causes of this predicament is a failure of properly passing on the energy and vitality of the tradition of the early Pentecostal movement to its heirs a hundred years hence. The solution: Pentecostal traditioning. The source: the classic Christian spiritual tradition, an established tradition with which Pentecostalism shares much in common. The subjects: speaking in tongues and Spirit baptism, identifying experiences for Pentecostalism, and the Church, its weak link within the broader Christian family of faith.

Chapter 1, “The Traditioning Process,” looks at the nature of traditioning, problems of Pentecostal traditioning, need for systematization, and finally, the place for the Christian spiritual tradition. Chan expresses both hope and concern regarding the future of Pentecostalism and its tradition. Chapter 2, “Glossolalia as ‘Initial Evidence,’” defends and develops the doctrine of initial evidence in creative fashion. It primarily addresses a biblical perspective of Spirit baptism, a theological perspective of Spirit baptism, and a cultural-linguistic perspective of Spirit baptism as its accents Spirit baptism as spirituality and theological perspective. Chapter 3, “Pentecostal Asceticism,” brings insights and experiences from the traditional Three Ways (purgation, illumination, union) as repeatable patterns of spiritual growth and progress helpful in explicating Spirit baptism. Here Chan talks about ascetical tongues and offers a profile of a Pentecostal ascetic. He also discusses the doctrine of subsequence in this context. Chapter 4, “Pentecostal Ecclesiology,” wrestles with the prior existence of the Church with implications for its identity as a dynamic catholic, healing, and truth-traditioning community. It also explores eschatology and ecclesiology, and suggests explicating Pentecostal reality and everyday life under a rubric of playful worship. The book has an extensive bibliography and scripture reference and author indexes but no subject reference.

Kristina LaCelle-Peterson, Liberating Tradition: Women’s Identity and Vocation in Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 253 pages, ISBN 9780801031793.

Kristina LaCelle-Peterson proposed that the church can be faithful to scripture, to Christ-centered faith, and embracing of biblical feminism with an egalitarian perspective. The stated purpose of the book is “about listening to each other” (12). She presented her research in a multifaceted format, exegetically drawing forth the women from scripture, expounding on the role of women from American culture and history, comparing her own experience from marriage, and offering historical mooring from every century of church history. In each chapter she has provided an excellent foundation of resources by drawing the reader into current research and historical documents—her endnotes are as valuable as the body of her book.

Kristina LaCelle-Peterson is associate professor of religion at Houghton College and an ordained elder in the Free Methodist Church.

Only one chapter of the book seems out of place and it is the opinion of the reviewer that it could be eliminated without changing her contribution to the conversation on feminism. Chapter six seems to belong to a different book as it detours the reader into a marriage counseling motif. This is not to say that what is written here is wrong, it simply seems out of place, within the context of the book as a whole. A second critique notices the academic distraction of overstatements, which seem to point to the enthusiasm for the subject at hand. Several statements hang unsubstantiated. We offer two examples: first, “Many churches perpetuate the idea that male predatory behavior is somewhat inevitable…” (86); second, “many people believe that preserving gender roles will protect people’s sexuality…” (127). These statements would be strengthened by citation.

LaCelle-Peterson’s contribution to the church is not diminished by the above criticism, for her book encourages the voice of the silenced. The book is applauded for its steady description of female ministers, deacons, preachers, bishops, and apostles—throughout the centuries of church history. The book makes apt use of the example of the Houghton College community, comparing and contrasting the counter-culture of its Amish neighbors. Additionally, the reviewer mused at the steady change of the Houghton community, from the standards of the 19^th century holiness codes, to some sort of 21^st century postmodern motif.

Reviewed by John R. Miller

Publisher’s page: http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/liberating-tradition/274221

Paul Rhodes Eddy (Ph.D. Marquette University) is professor of biblical and theological studies at Bethel University, and Gregory A. Boyd (Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary) is the senior pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. These two scholars have set forth to analyze the plausibility of conceptualizing the story of Jesus of Nazareth as mere legend.

Debates about the historical reliability of the gospels are not new. However, Eddy and Boyd here look at the issue from a new perspective. In fact, they take a particular approach of investigating whether the synoptic gospels can be judged as actual history on the one hand, or fictional legend on the other. In so doing, they analyze eight commonly held contentions of those who hold to a form of the legendary Jesus hypothesis. I will elucidate these eight contentions momentarily, but first it would be helpful to elaborate on the legendary Jesus hypothesis. There are three general groups of scholars that maintain, in some form, the idea that the Jesus of faith was some sort of legend. For example, some scholars (e.g. Bauer, Drews, and Wells) maintain that the Jesus (or Christ) of faith is entirely fictional, and that there is no historical basis of belief in him, either as a person or the son of God. A second group of scholars, typified by Bultmann, hold that while a historical person named Jesus in fact lived, the reports of him are saturated with legend and myth, insomuch as we have very little accurate historical information regarding him. Third, there are numerous scholars (Funk and Crossan, e.g.) who argue that while the present form of the gospels may contain myth and/or legend, there is a historical ‘core’ of truth to them.

These various groups of scholars contend that the naturalism of the present era excludes the plausibility—and even the possibility—of the supernatural occurrences reported in the gospels. Moreover, they posit that the Hellenistic Judaism of the era in which the Jesus-legend arose was conducive to the type of fabricated myths that one finds in the gospels. Third, they note that the parallels of Jesus-like (i.e. miracle workers, etc.) people in the surrounding areas in the same time frame, undercuts the validity of the reports of Jesus of Nazareth. They also contend that the relative silence in non-biblical literature and the relative silence in the epistles of Paul of the historical (not the risen Jesus, i.e.) Jesus, make the case for the gospels’ historical reliability tall indeed. Sixth, they point out that the oral nature of the first transmission of the gospels was inherently free-form and unstable, thus possibly allowing error and myth to creep in to them. Moreover, they question whether the writers of the gospels themselves intentioned their writings to be viewed as historical. And finally, these Jesus-legend advocates generally hold that those who view the gospels as historically accurate hold the burden of proof to prove it.