The book was more than a theological treatise, with the inclusion of historical research to help understand time and place. Most of the book uses LDS Scripture and prophetic teachings to help interpret the New Testament record. Along with them is added information about 1st Century history and culture. This helps bring Jesus into context instead of allowing for a completely decontextualized amorphous figure. A few non-Mormon sources were used, including Life and Words of Christ by John Cunningham Geikie, Life of Christ by Frederic Farrar, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim, and William Smith’s A Dictionary of the Bible with other lesser Bible commentaries. Ancient works of Josephus and the Talmud were quoted or consulted in lengthy notes at the end of chapters.
Major problems complicated Talmage’s theological and historical study. Much of the modern sources used were already outdated even during his life time. Currently none of them are consulted outside of religious devotional material. Those that he did use were of a particular viewpoint that didn’t engage in other studies (even ones that wouldn’t be harmful to his own thesis). By the time Jesus The Christ was written, what is known as the first quest for the historical Jesus had already ended as did the “quest” idea. It wouldn’t be until the 1950s that historical studies of Jesus would once again be of academic interest. Still, no other major LDS work on Jesus before or after Talmage followed his example until very recently. Even the multi-volume Bruce R. McConkie tome was a wordy re-hash more than imitation.
Despite the mostly religious devotional aspect of the book, one lesson learned is to go beyond the text of the Bible (gospels in particular) to explore other avenues of research for a better understanding of the Savior. This might sound counterintuitive to the book’s spiritual purpose, but history can enlighten some things that are obscured by time or culture. Outside of the LDS Church, there are many people who are equally interested in who Jesus was and what his life and words mean. The problem is that there are an equal number of these academics that reject the Jesus of Faith while presenting a lot of great insights. It can become frustrating to discover so many new ways of understanding the life of Christ, only to have those same writers dismiss things most dear and important to believers. Personally, I wanted to glean what I could from them and then fill in my religious understandings where they departed. Strangely enough, it is possible even if sometimes difficult.
Historical Jesus research is not universally accepted, especially among those who believe the Divine nature of Christ makes him outside of history. As an example, Catholic theologian Luke Timothy Johnson argues in his The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels that it is impossible to accept them both without harming the truth of his person. He of course believes that only the Divinity of Faith is of any value:
Christians direct their faith not to this historical figure of Jesus but to the living Lord Jesus. Yes, they assert continuity between that Jesus and this. But their faith is confirmed, not by the establishment of facts about the past, but by the reality of Christ’s power in the present. Christian faith is not directed to a human construction about the past; that would be a form of idolatry. Authentic Christian faith is a response to the living God, whom Christians declare is powerfully at work among them through the resurrected Jesus. (p. 142-43)
Despite some truth with Johnson’s critique of “Historical Jesus” researchers, there are serious issues with his final opinion on the subject. Even if Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is ultimately beyond time and history, it still has much of its roots in history. Paraphrasing Johnson, “On this view, history becomes the written record we make (selective, based on available evidence rather than an omnipotent knowledge of all past events), not the underlying events themselves.” Knowing this, all Scripture is related to history and you must understand that history in order to interpret the text as intended. Perhaps this is what Joseph Smith meant when he said he believed the Bible as written by the original authors. Not that the authentic autograph text was best, but that the intended meanings of the authors was closest to the truth. And that is tied to the cultural and historical backgrounds behind their words. Readers are often stuck with studies by doubters who have researched Jewish/Christian connections, or believers who reject the whole idea of the connection between them.
With some hope, it is possible to find small lists of scholars in the LDS community taking both historical and devotional positions seriously. There are a select few authors now introducing years of worthwhile reading to Scripture study not caught up in the so-called dichotomy of faith and history as inseparable. Rather, they find it more illuminating than scandalous. The work of Talmage is starting to come full circle once again; returning and even going beyond what his classic book started. Some of the examples include Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament with multiple editors, Between the Testaments: Between Malachi and Matthew by S. Kent Brown and Richard N. Holzapfel, and the three volume The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ collection of essays. There is still a long way to go before these are more than anomalies in discourse, but they are helpful.
A few non-Mormon works might be of interest to those who would like to learn more about the historical and cultural background of Jesus, but don’t know where to start. One of the best and most renowned researchers is the retired Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright who who doesn’t ignore or reject the religious implications of Jesus as Christ. His best works are The Challenge of Jesus, and the three volume Christian Origins and the Question of God series. Catholic Fr. Raymond E. Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah and The Death of the Messiah have become classics on the subjects they cover. For something more concrete there is Archaeology and the New Testament by John McCray that looks at the material information available. The simply titled Jesus by David Flusser is a smaller work with a lot to say about Jewish historical background.
There is still, however, a concern the history will take over the theology. At least one reviewer of a recent LDS book seemed happy there were less quotes from General Authorities (can’t remember where I found it). Going that direction would be a disaster and make any positive steps rather pointless. Of all the Christian denominations, Mormonism is most able to accept the possibility that history and faith in Jesus as the Savior can work together. Questions of faith and history are fundamental to Mormon theology and beliefs.