Book Review: The Historical Jesus - Five Views

"The Historical Jesus: Five Views" is a great book engaging with a range of scholars, edited by well-known multi-volume chaps James Beilby and Paul Eddy. This book is in a similar vein to one I previously reviewed - though on a different topic, obviously - "Justification: Five Views", which was a superb look at the way different people and streams of the church approach this critical doctrine. This volume, on the Historical Jesus, is different, but as important. As I discussed in my recent critical of "Doubting Jesus' Resurrection", an understanding of the historicity of Jesus, and the vast scholarly and critical array of resources relating to him, is vital in making judgements about the truth or otherwise of the Christian Gospel.

This volume, then, is another 'giant seminar', with some of the worlds leading scholars each writing a summarising essay about their view on the historical Jesus. For scholars such as James Dunn, this is no small feat - even one of Dunn's books, "Christology in the Making" is a good two inches thick - as they must summarise a lifetime of work. Each of the five contributors writes a response to each essay, critiquing and comparing them. The book is helpfully enriched by a helpful introduction to "The Quest for the Historical Jesus", by Beilby and Eddy, and an index of Scripture/further reading at the end of the volume.

The five perspectives flow through from the Jesus' Seminar's Robert M. Price, through John Dominic Crossan (Whose book on Parable I reviewed recently), via noted scholar Luke Timothy Johnson, aforementioned legend James D. G. Dunn, and closing with the evangelical view of Darrell L. Bock. This breadth and depth of contributory opinion is good to have, and gives the book a really comprehensive feel - rendering it an excellent introduction to the topic.

Opening introductions aside, the first essay comes from the pen of Robert M. Price. It is intriguingly named "Jesus at the Vanishing Point", and Price is quick to state that "I will argue that it is quite likely there never was any historical Jesus". Price is also keen to share where he has come from - he was once an apologist - and where he has been: he remains, in his mind, a Christian. I personally found his chapter the least convincing - you may see this as being symptomatic of my own bias - but it is helpful to see the position of a scholar like Price stated concisely. The feedback in the responses of the other scholars is interesting. Crossan affirms much of what Price says, "with a few important negatives". Crossan states that he believes there was a historical Jesus. Luke Timothy Johnson cuts to the chase; "Robert M. Price gets Jesus to the vanishing point by the simple expedient of denying all the evidence that makes him visible". He is kind enough to say that "his writing lacks nothing in clarity or colour", but Johnson feels that "it does lack the capacity to convince". James Dunn is rather more scathing of both Price's approach and methods, let alone his conclusions. Dunn closes his steely response thus; "His essay would be better retitled "The Jesus Myth - a Thesis at Vanishing Point", echoing the flaws in Price's methodology, including the fact that, according to Dunn, "when it comes to the Gospels, Price's argument is really quite unbalanced". From the evangelical critical perspective, Darrell Bock is quite kind! Bock echoes the controversy that Price is himself aware of - but ultimately I agree with Bock's conclusion here; "these problems in Price's presentation show that the path of the other essays is far more helpful in thinking about who Jesus is and how to discuss him historically". It was almost shocking, to be blunt, how much unity there was in the other four scholars regarding the weakness of Price's approach, which typifies that of the Jesus Seminar.

John Dominic Crossan's essay, on the other hand, opens straight into context. I am grateful to Crossan for framing his entire essay (even if I, and some of the other contributors to the book, thankfully, disagree with his conclusions) with the statement that "The historical Jesus was a Galielean Jew within Judaism within the Roman empire". This statement is vital - and is often forgotten by Western Christians who try to turn Jesus into a blond superman. Crossan's essay is about eschatology - and specifically the compatibility and incompatibility of the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. The responses to Crossan are interesting. Price, after noting similarities and the respect he has for Crossan, observes that "he does not seem to find any particular avenue unfruitful. Jesus will always be waiting for him at the end", and ultimately that "I cannot help thinking that [he] has fallen into the trap of creating a liberal Jesus in his own image". Luke Timothy Johnson is more critical, especially regarding historical fallacies, and making certain contemporary ideas more strong than "the explicit evidence provided by the ancient sources". James Dunn is grateful for Crossan's contribution, particularly the wide context in which his work is set. He is however critical of Crossan's interpretation of Jesus' kingdom preaching - pointing out that we are left "with a Jesus who is far too nice to be worth crucifying". Darrell Bock is quick, too, to emphasise the impact that Crossan has had on Jesus studies, and on his relative celebrity. Bock's fundamental criticism is quite serious - and of a salvation nature - "Crossan's portrait of Jesus seems to lack an appropriate focus on Jesus' view of God and his promised people's relationship to him". I personally found Crossan's chapter very readable, and offering of some superb points, but overall I found myself agreeing with many of the criticisms.

Luke Timothy Johnson's chapter is a bit of a theology nerd's dream; "Learning the Human Jesus: Historical Criticism and Literary Criticism". Johnson makes the key point for this debate, the relevance that means that discussion about the historical Jesus is for everyone; "Simply as the pivotal figure in the shaping of Western culture, the human being Jesus must be engaged". This human Jesus, for Johnson, is the historical Jesus, but this gives a limited picture, as Johnson affirms. This is where we can engage in "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". Johnson's closing remarks serve as a valuable reminder of what is the core of this debate: "Historically, Christianity has never been renewed or reformed by a historical Jesus, but it has always been renewed and reformed by closer attention to the Jesus of the Gospels". The responses of the other contributors to this volume is interesting, and quite revealing. Basically, each echoes his own position in relation to Johnson's essay - Price is critical, regarding the history. Crossan muses about whether "historians have caused more havoc by getting Jesus wrong than theologians have by getting Christ wrong?", which is an excellent question! Dunn is appreciative of the form of Johnson's essay, but critical of his method of sweeping characterisations  Bock is graceful, a model of critical engagement, but would rather a more balanced approach than Johnson's. I enjoyed this chapter - and the responses.

We now come to the essay by the legendary New Testament Scholar James Dunn. My NT lecturer at university used to refer to him as "Jimmy", and Dunn's essay opens with an honest statement of the fact that his most recent book is "the product and climax of some thirty years engagement with what is almost universally known as 'the quest for the historical Jesus'". Dunn is a serious scholar - and whilst we don't have to agree with everything he says, his work is always worth reading. His essay, titled "Remembering Jesus", is built on a trilogy of protests and proposals. This made it very readable and coherent. Dunn is keen to draw us back to the very beginning of the Jesus tradition. Price's response reads rather unfortunately compared to what has gone before, as he attacks most of what Dunn writes. Crossan is incredibly gracious, and critiques Dunn based on his own theological themes, Crossan's interpretation of kingdom eschatology that he wrote about in his own essay. Johnson is similarly respectful, though interestingly he states that "the closer I look at Dunn's proposals, however, the more I find cause for disagreement than agreement, or perhaps better, reasons for extremely strong qualifications". Johnson does, however, utterly affirm Dunn's engagement with the Jewishness of Jesus. Bock, as ever the final respondent, usefully echoes Dunn's Protest/Proposal layout in his response - making it a very readable and useful response. Bock closes with the observation that he would have liked to have known what Dunn thinks about Jesus rather than how. I agree - I suppose I will have to go away and read Dunn's newest book!

The final chapter here comes from Darrell L. Bock, and is simply titled "The Historical Jesus: An Evangelical View". Bock opens with an observation of the potential difficulty of him writing; "for many people, the idea of an evangelical engaging in a historical Jesus discussion is an oxymoron". Fortunately, Bock is quick to prove that he can engage with the best of them, as scholars seek to understand Jesus. This essay is a dense, clear overview of the field, with an orthodox Evangelical conclusion; "a messianic Jesus who saw himself standing at the hub of God's program and completely vindicated as Son of Man at God's side produced a coherent, corroborated narrative for the early church. Such an account of him stands solidly rooted in what the historical Jesus actually said and did". The responses to Bock's essay are intriguing. Price attacks pretty much everything that Bock says, echoing the scepticism of the Jesus Seminar regarding any and all sayings of Jesus. Crossan takes more issue with methodology than conclusions in Bock's essay, stating that "First, and most important, I agree with Bock that the ancient antagonism between "Jesus of history" and "Christ of faith" should be given a respectful burial". Johnson observes that, on the most part, Bock writes an able summary. He challenges Bock with committing historiographical fallacy. I, personally, was unconvinced by that charge, but it is a valid one. Dunn broadly agrees with Bock, and closes with a great hope that "evangelical (not to mention Christian) can again become a label that men and women of integrity and good will can respect and hope to learn from more than most seem to do today". As an evangelical, I found Bock's essay helpful, though it did seem less argumentative than the others. I personally would have liked a chapter from N. T. Wright.

In conclusion, this is a seriously good book. As with the previous one on Justification, this is both a valuable resource and introduction to a huge area of study. The choice of contributors was interesting - with Price's chapter coming under sustained attack, and a lack of heavyweights such as N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg. This lack is likely to be rectified (at least for the purposes of this blog) by reading and reviewing "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions", a similar multi-perspective book. Another name notable by absence was that of Richard Bauckham, whose "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" is on my reading list. Ultimately, though, this book is helpful for understanding the historicity of Jesus, and is a compelling riposte, with no agenda, to scepticism regarding Jesus. I'd thoroughly recommend it to everyone.

Pictured here: "Two Visions" and "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", waiting to be read...