Paperback: 288 pages
Many thanks to Adrianna Wright and the good folks at InterVarsity Press (IVP) for this review copy. The first 54 pages are an overview of the various questers search for the Historical Jesus over the years, as well as an introduction to the five contributors: Robert M Price, John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, James D.G. Dunn, and Darrell L. Bock—by editors James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, professors at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Each of the five contributors presents an essay on the Historical Jesus and the other four get to respond to that contributor’s essay.
1. Jesus at the Vanishing Point by Robert M. Price, Professor of Theology and Scriptual Studies at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, Miami Gardens, FL. Professor Price argues that there was never a historical Jesus (p. 55). “In fact, while taking the Eucharist every week and singing the hymns of the faith, all that matters to the professor is the Christ of faith” (p. 56). According to Price, what we have as the Gospel narratives are simply “haggadic midrash on the Old Testament” and fabrications based on “Middle Eastern religions myths of dying-and-rising gods” (p. 75). Price essay is by far the most controversial.
2. Jesus and the Challenge of Collaborative Eschatology by John Dominic Crossan, Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies, DePaul University, Chicago, IL. According to Crossan, the Historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew within Judaism within the Roman Empire (p. 105). Contra Professor Price, who is also of the Jesus Seminar, Crossan holds to a historical Jesus—a Jesus who was a nonviolent revolutionary within the eschatological kingdom program of God—God’s Great Clean-Up (p. 117). “But John promised the advent of God, for example, and all that came was Antipas’s calvary. John died and still God did not come. Jesus watched, learned and changed his vision of God” (p. 123). For Crossan much of the Gospel narratives are simply parables (p. 131).
3. Learning the Human Jesus: Historical Criticism and Literary Criticism by Luke Timothy Johnson, R.W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Chandler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlantic, GA. The gist of the essay is thus: “By no means does history’s inability to adequately know the human Jesus mean that real knowledge of him is impossible. There is in fact another approach to the human Jesus—through the careful and critical literary engagement with the Gospel narratives as narratives—that is accessible to all who are capable of such close reading” (p. 167). Professor Johnson then goes on to explore “Narrative as Interpretation” (pp. 168-72) and “Narrative as Witness” (pp. 173-76).
4. Remembering Jesus: How the Quest of the Historical Jesus Lost its Way by James D.G. Dunn, Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at Durham University, Durham, England. Professor Dunn develops his essay around “Three Protests” and “Three Proposals.” For example, Dunn protests against questers who argue that “the real Jesus” must have been different from “the Christ of faith” (p. 200). Dunn’s essay engages original questers like Strauss, Harnack, Wrede, and then the turning point in Bultmann. Of course, Dunn points the reader to his larger work, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1, Christianity in the Making, and rightfully so.
5. The Historical Jesus: An Evangelical View by Darrell L. Bock, research Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX. According to Professor Bock, “The story of Jesus is very much a story of his impact on others…. This is what the Gospels give us, and such a multiperspective impression can be as historical as the autobiographical words of the individual” (p. 251). Then Bock develops his essay around several themes, events, and sayings from Jesus’ association with John the Baptist to the Passion Week and the Empty tomb. In conclusion, Professor Bocks provides four reasons why the early church didn’t invent the Jesus of the Gospels (pp. 279-81).
The essays and responses are well-written and make for an exciting read throughout. Bu at some levels, the material presented by each contributor serves only as a primer, challenging the reader to explore further.
I got more out of Johnson and Dunn’s essays, and less so from Crossan, Bock, and Price.
Great review, TC. I’ve got to get a copy of this book soon.
Matt,
Thanks. It’s one of the most enjoyable books I’ve read for a review. I simply couldn’t put it down. I just wanted to read the arguments, esp. Johnson and Dunn’s.
To me, the Christ of faith and the Christ of history…. are one and the same. I too need to think about getting this book.
Brian,
Yes, but for a Dunn it comes down to the methodological approach to explaining the contents of the Gospels. Fair enough.
Hi TC,
Just added that book to my Amazon wishlist. I’m not sure if I really want to read the more writings of Crossan, but I will. I must admit I have strayed away from the historical Jesus topic over the past year or so. Not due to a lack of interest, but a lack of time. Looking forward to getting back into the discussion.
Martin.
Martin,
Crossan is a much better read than his Jesus Seminar fellow Price.
I know what you mean by the challenge of time. Well, I hope you can get some reading in.
TC:
If you don’t mind, can you give me an idea (even a vague one) of what Dunn argues for here? Does he just critique others, or does he actually set forth a position? I’ve been confused about it ever since I saw the blurb for this book in the IVP Academic catalog.
Of course, I could just read the book myself.
Justin,
Dunn maintains that we need to keep the Christ of faith and Jesus of Narareth together, but as I said it comes down to methological approach to the matter.
For example,
Ah, I see.
Sounds like an interesting read.
If you’re into the Historical Jesus, then yes, it’s a good read, from a critical scholarship on the matter.
I’m about halfway through Johnson’s The Real Jesus from 1996. Good stuff.
Gary,
It’s on my reading list for the new year. Good to know that I wouldn’t be disappointed.
I haven`t read much on the historical Jesus in a long time. If Jesus wasn`t even historically accurate, I`d still believe in him anyway.
Sure thing, Kevin. I mean, look at the “Woman Caught in Adultery” in John 7:53-8:11. Who doesn’t like that, even if it’s very suspect textually?
Kevin,
Prof. Price above doesn’t believe the historical Jesus ever existed yet he embraces the Christ of faith. A strange thing as I see it.
Chuck,
But a matter of salvation is wholly different.
TC: Maybe “eternal life” is a better term here. You read the cultural background, there were all sorts of being saved, salvation, saviors. You could get “saved” from illness, thank Ascelpius.
On the other hand, maybe I’ve been reading too much Ben Witherington III.
I was just listening to a Dan Wallace interview again today. He still takes the view (and he’s not alone) that no text variant affects the major tenants of the faith. Usually because any textually suspect passage has some parallel passage elsewhere.
To give you a recent example of this sort of thing, my pastor last Sunday quoted Mark 16:15. I winced upon seeing the verse in the Sunday morning bulletin, and thought, “How about using Matt. 28:19-20 instead”?
Of course, I should talk, as I ahve my cross-referenced NRSV with Apocrypha in my book bag most Sundays.;-)
But that’s no matter of eternal life, either.
Chuck,
Yes, “eternal life” seems better at times. Ah, Witherington III. I have his “Indelible Image” to read. So looking forward to it.
Well, I first learned of the Wallace approach from the likes of FF Bruce and Bruce Metzger.
Mark 16:15 can be so problematic.
Does your pastor know you carry that abominable text? But it seems like the NRSV will be with us for another 20yrs or more. I’m somewhat surprised that it remains the scholars’ text.
TC: Witherington, conservative and Arminian though he may be, is always a good second commentary, because he at least mentions some recent scholarly work and his socio-rhetoric focus often takes a different angle on the bible text.
I quote Wallace due to his work on the NET and his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Though being a top expert on the Greek definite article is nothing to sneeze at.
My pastor claims to read my blog, or that he has. I suspect “has” is the operative word. Like most pastors he’s very busy and I would think he would have left a comment like “Hey! Stop making us look bad!!” if he read more.
The NRSV reads along with the KJV quite well in the Psalms. I should start double-check Mark now, as well as how NRSV and NKJV parallel on Sundays and Wednesdays.
Chuck,
I agree that Witherington3 should be taken seriously. I think he should. I admire his approach to the matter.
Yes, Wallace Greek Grammar is second to none. I love it!
I believe your pastor doesn’t want to excommunicate you.
Well, I’ve been spending a great deal of time with NRSV. I guess because of all those scholarly works I’ve been reading lately.