In his book, The Consciousness of the Historical Jesus, Austin Stevenson explores the intriguing question of whether Jesus was aware of his divinity. By engaging with two competing traditions, Stevenson offers a balanced and resolute answer: Jesus had an awareness of his divine nature. The two schools of thought on which the author centers his attention are the Historical Jesus research tradition and the Thomistic tradition. Stevenson contends that numerous scholars belonging to the former camp maintain unquestioned metaphysical biases that hinder their ability to fully comprehend the theological aspects of Jesus’s life and identity. In contrast, the author notes, classical Chalcedonian Christology offers a more robust foundation for understanding the true nature of the Son. Stevenson supports his argument by examining the theological theologoumena within the tradition. More significantly, he delves deeper into the “Concepts of Knowledge” through chapters 4–7. Furthermore, Stevenson’s involvement with modern cognitive theory showcases his adeptness and capacity to produce interdisciplinary work that exceeds superficial examination.

In chapter 2, Stevenson navigates what has been labeled “The Metaphysics of Participation” (pp. 41–57). The author’s work resembles the writings of theologian Matthew Levering. In this framework, the divine does not overpower or negate the natural but rather elevates and perfects it. Similarly, Stevenson argues for what he calls “noncompetitive” relationships between divine and human realities (p. 41). Like in Thomas Aquinas’s christological metaphysics, the noncompetitive, mixed relation between creator and creature is expounded to protect the divine life from being subsumed into the human and vice versa. Therefore, “we can only speak with any coherence about the hypostatic union of divinity and humanity in the person of Christ if we avoid collapsing these two natures into one another in a competitive fashion” (p. 57). Chapter 3 presents a reinterpretation of classical Christology, highlighting Aquinas’s distinction between person and nature, in order to counter arguments made by N. T. Wright regarding the “de-Judaizing of the Gospels” in the doctrine of incarnation (p. 87). The work here is meticulous and nuanced. Although Aquinas’s thought may come across as purely abstract, Stevenson demonstrates that the medieval theologian is entirely focused on upholding the distinction between the creator and the creature, all while remaining devoted to the story of Scripture (p. 95).

The second part of the book is an overture in cognitive theory and modern psychological anthropology. In this portion, Stevenson evidences the insufficiency of the Historical Jesus research school. The absence of metaphysical grounding leads to knowing being solely dependent on associative relationships. In contrast, Stevenson seeks an anthropology that can comprehend the true nature of things. In chapter 5, the author delves into an engrossing section that explores the patristic context of interpreting Mark 13:32. This verse elicits inquiries arising from the apparent disparity in the extent of knowledge possessed by Jesus and the Father. In an effort to address the charge against the church fathers and their classical Christology of “de-Judaizing the Gospels” (pp. 87, 95), Stevenson offers extensive evidence to show that “there is nothing inherently ahistorical, let alone Docetic, about this approach [Patristic exegesis]. By comparison, the arguments of Ehrman and Allison belie Monophysite or Ebionite dogmatic assumptions” (p. 141).

Stevenson’s book is technical and learned, demanding careful engagement with Thomistic metaphysics. Nevertheless, the clarity of the presentation and its enjoyable nature make the material worth reading. For those with an interest in classical Christology, this book proves to be a great resource. The Consciousness of the Historical Jesus goes beyond the platitudes seen in other attempts of theological retrieval. Stevenson’s engagement with the tradition centers on a specific Christology indebted to a lineage of Thomistic metaphysics. The book’s main strength is Stevenson’s ability to illustrate that such metaphysics is not only a preferred option but also a source of epistemological stability. How can we ascertain Jesus’s awareness of his divinity? The naivety of the Historical Jesus school in their naturalistic metaphysics is found to be lacking both in its cognitive theory and in its philosophical underpinnings. By not isolating Christology from the notion of God, Aquinas offers a more reliable answer. As Stevenson concludes in chapter 3, “the doctrine of the hypostatic union is a sophisticated way of holding together these claims while insisting on the reality and integrity of Jesus’ humanity…. The Chalcedonian picture of Christ is fully compatible with historical study of Jesus” (p. 95). For those interested in exploring Thomistic scholarship from multiple perspectives, ranging from virtue theory to Thomas’s classical metaphysics, Stevenson’s book is an exceptional guide.