I’ve finally gotten around to reading Craig
Evans’s Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence, published here in the UK by SPCK and in the USA by
WJK. If you’re looking for a
supplementary textbook for a Jesus course next Spring, this has got to be a
contender. I’m not aware of a textbook
exactly like it and highly recommend it.
Evans covers the archaeological evidence from first-century Palestine as
it relates to the Gospels and so this is not an introduction to Jesus per se or
even the Gospels (though there’s plenty of both) but an introduction to the
socio-historical context as revealed by the realia
of that time period . . . with pictures in tow!
For example, one chapter covers the archaeological evidence for
synagogues and synagogue practices and another covers reading, writing, and
literacy. A final chapter covers Jewish
burial traditions. As far as I can tell,
the book is aimed at students, but I found myself really enjoying the
read. The chapter on the synagogue, with
all its pictures (especially of the Capernaum synagogue), was the best in my
opinion. The chapter I found least
helpful was the one on literacy, etc., where Evans agrees with literacy
estimates of 5 to 10 percent for Jesus’ world, but then goes on to argue that
Jesus most likely could have read. He
cites considerable evidence of literate activity, and this alone is worth reading
and interesting, but he ultimately mixes textuality (knowledge and
appreciation of texts) and literacy (ability to access texts for oneself) in an unhelpful manner given the complexity of the issues, in my opinion. But this is a minor quibble with
an otherwise really great book. I’m not
teaching a course on Jesus or the Gospels this coming semester, but if I was, I
wouldn’t hesitate to put this resource into my students’ hands.
You are doubtless the first to find a "minor quibble" about another's work in handling an issue in one's own area of expertise!
ReplyDeleteYes, certainly so. I learned how to understate differences of opinion from an undergrad professor of mine. :)
DeleteAnd I'll be the second :) I thought Evans' appeal to authority of "a number of careful, respected scholars" on p. 9 to demonstrate the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum "minus a few obvious interpolations" was an inadequate treatment of the issue.
ReplyDelete