Readers familiar with the work of the late John P. Meier on the historical Jesus have long appreciated the clarity of his arguments and how those arguments were always grounded in an expansive reading of counterarguments, amply documented in robust footnotes that were almost as important and engaging as the body of the text. Similarly, readers of Brant Pitre’s latest work on the Christology of Jesus, dedicated to Meier, will be equally impressed and edified. Readers should also be forewarned: although Pitre pays homage to Meier by mirroring his attention to detail, his clear argumentation, and his open invitation to engage the evidence under consideration, Pitre nevertheless aims to supply a kind of supplement to Meier’s massive project by pivoting to a thoroughgoing high Christology, one that is rooted in Jesus’s self-understanding as evidenced in a historical reconstruction of key aspects of his life and teaching. Thus, Pitre advances the argument for an early high Christology to what many would see as its logical conclusion: “Jesus himself spoke and acted as if he were divine during his lifetime…. He claimed to be divine in a very Jewish way” through scriptural allusions and riddles that produced “a [singular?] christology” that is simultaneously high and low (250).

Following E. P. Sanders rather than Meier on the question of methodology, Pitre prioritizes narrative coherence through an appeal to a criterion of triple coherence: plausibility within Judaism, coherence with other evidence about Jesus, and coherence with the life and thought of the early Christian church. In other words, Pitre consistently asks, Does this passage fit into a coherent narrative? Although this move represents a clear pivot toward the post-liberal turn in theology and biblical studies, it does not move Pitre away from his Meier-inspired detailed argumentation regarding the authenticity of various passages under consideration. Yet, Pitre also seems to set aside questions about the nature of the biblical material and its relationship to the history of Jesus’s ministry—questions that have animated historical Jesus research since the time of Reimarus.

In this approach, Pitre joins the chorus of Catholic theologians and biblical scholars who view Rudolf Bultmann as the bête noir of modern exegesis, and his ghost haunts Pitre’s project. A recurring mantra for Pitre, along with many other proponents of early high Christology, is ex nihilo nihil fit (“nothing comes from nothing”). In other words, the high Christology of the Christian church must not only have its roots in the self-understanding of Jesus, but this self-understanding seems to provide the basis from which to obviate any concerns about the role the resurrection of Jesus played in the apprehension and articulation of divine identity.

For Pitre, the divine Christology of Jesus is explicitly revealed in several passages, the authenticity of which is widely contested. Such passages include the so-called epiphany miracles of “Stilling the Storm” (Matt 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25), “Walking on the Sea” (Matt 14:22-27; Mark 6:45-51; John 6:16-21), and the “Transfiguration” (Matt 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-9; Luke 9:28-36). Rather than interpreting these narratives in light of post-resurrection Christologies, what Raymond Brown famously called “christological moments,” Pitre reads these stories as part of his sketch of the Christology of Jesus himself. And this is perhaps the most significant aspect of Piter’s effort because it concerns how he downplays any alleged disruption between the life and ministry of Jesus and the worship given to the risen Christ in the earliest church. Rather than characterize the resurrection of Jesus as “necessary but not sufficient” as Piters does, one might argue instead that the resurrection is the sine qua non for Christian faith claims (cf. 1 Cor 15:17). He demonstrates that divine Christology is part of the New Testament tradition across the board, including the Synoptic Gospels, but that these are events that can be judged authentic, his arguments fall short given that the standard he is using seems to be that of contextual “plausibility,” so long as certain philosophical assumptions about the supernatural are set aside. With this methodological move, the entire project of a quest for the historical Jesus collapses into Christian apologetics, one that telescopes the development of Christological doctrine and obviates the critical function of historical investigation.

The book’s most persuasive arguments are found in chapters 3 and 4, where the author explores the implications and riddles of Jesus’s divine identity in the context of his teaching and practice. It is precisely here that Pitre excels, aligning closely with Meier’s approach to christological issues. The identity and mission of Jesus are so interconnected that one cannot rightly interpret one without the other. At the same time, from a historical perspective, this interconnection allows for the full revelation and articulation of this identity and mission within the Christian community following the resurrection experience. Pitre, however, takes a different approach.

To his credit, Pitre admits that his argument for rooting a Nicene-like Christology in the historical reconstruction of Jesus’s ministry and self-consciousness stands against much twentieth-century New Testament scholarship, and he is careful to acknowledge the fragility of the tree limbs on which his argument stands. Yet, the drive of his approach to divine Christology telescopes the development of Christology by minimizing the place of the resurrection and the struggle to articulate a coherent Christology in the first centuries of the Christian church. This experience of struggle suggests one aspect of Meier’s imperfect methodology that Pitre seems to eschew: that of Meier’s image of the diverse group of scholars locked in the Harvard Divinity School Library, put on a Spartan diet, and held captive until they developed a consensus sketch of the historical Jesus. It is precisely here that Pitre’s project stumbles. His arguments are unlikely to persuade; rather, they will confirm a certain segment of the faithful to see the gospels simply as historical documents that affirm Christians in their theological assumptions, thus stifling the critical, frequently intractable, but often fruitful questions raised by historical research.

Pitre’s book deserves a wide readership. His careful presentation, inclusive and annotated notes, and his bold thesis will reward the reader who approaches the book with an open mind and some knowledge of the debates at hand. Even if one does not find Pitre’s arguments ultimately persuasive regarding specific passages he deems authentic, one will be well served by attending to his arguments. He is certainly correct to point to the fundamental continuity among Jesus’s ministry, the proclamation of the early Christian church, and the doctrinal affirmations of the early christological councils, and his work stands as an earnest and worthy effort to demonstrate this continuity.