Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Historical Jesus

  • Was Jesus Really a Healer?

    9781938434136sBy this question, I meant to ask whether Jesus actually cured people of illnesses, not whether he accomplished spiritual healing. I asked the question of Dr. Bruce Epperly, author of the book Healing Marks, when I interviewed him last night in an excursus to my series of studies on the gospel According to John. Here’s the video:

    I’ve found it quite interesting to discuss Bruce’s views on this with other Christians. His theology, as a process theologian, is different from what you will hear in most churches, especially those which hold healing services. Yet the actions are similar. He describes a different spiritual process (no pun intended), shunning the word “supernatural,” and yet he is describing something very similar to what I hear from charismatic believers.

    I have been called “liberal charismatic,” because I take a fairly open view of doctrine (though I don’t think it is unimportant), and also believe that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are as available today as they were to the early church.

    So what do you think? Was Jesus a healer? Can healing take place in churches today?

     

  • Link: Did Jesus Perform Miracles?

    I’d like to call attention to a discussion on the blog Across the Atlantic regarding whether Jesus actually performed miracles. This blog features point/counterpoint between Antonio Piñero and Thomas Hudgins. We have thus far Part 1a, Part 1b, and Part 2a. I’ll leave it to you to follow if you wish.

  • Craig Blomberg, Reviewed by Louis Markos, Commented by Mike Licona

    … or On the Meaning of Words, Particularly Inerrancy

    There’s a post on First Things titled Ehrman Errant. Now criticizing Ehrman is apparently great sport, and Blomberg has replied to some of the types of criticisms Ehrman presents in a book, which Louis Markos reviews. The reason I mention Mike Licona, a colleague of Markos, is that he makes a comment on precisely the section that led me back around in a circle to the beginning of the piece. As a quick note, I previously reviewed Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus, but  have not read either The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture or Blomberg’s book that is reviewed here. I’m basing my comments strictly on the review and the comments to it.

    The problem, as I see it, is one of language and communication. How do you communicate a message to a particular person in particular circumstances? When we are communicating in a way that might later be read by others, how do we accomplish this. As a simple example, if I want a two-year-old not to fall off the porch, I might try explaining gravity, acceleration rates, and probabilities of various injuries based on the height of the porch and the nature of the ground below. Or, more intelligently, I might just close the door, or say no (and enforce it). In fact, preparing to write this led me to write a humorous (I hope) short story for my fiction blog titled Genesis Wasn’t Written This Way.

    When we start talking about biblical inerrancy, however, we are by nature talking about language. What does the word “inerrancy” mean? How are people going to perceive me if I say I believe in inerrancy? What if I say I don’t? And that, in turn, depends on who you are. If you’re a professor in an evangelical seminary, it seems to me that you understand this term differently than the people in the pews of the United Methodist church I attend. So the question is this: Who am I talking to?

    Let me start from the end. Louis Markos complains about Blomberg’s chapter on gender-neutral language. He says:

    Blomberg, along with the translators of the NRSV, NLT, CEV, and NIV 2011, take it for granted that the convention of using “man” or “mankind” to designate the human race is merely cultural. It is not. It is God himself who originally made the designation: “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created” (Genesis 5:1-2; ESV).

    To which his colleague, Mike Licona objects in the comments:

    … There are some passages that call for a gender neutral translation….

    And the reason, I think, that there are passages that call for a gender neutral translation is that language changes. It is not that we have new discoveries in Hebrew and Greek that mean that we should translate gender references differently. Rather, our usage in English has changed. Markos can quote the ESV, “God created man,” but the word used was not the English “man,” but, of course, the Hebrew adam. That word refers to humanity (in this case), not just the male persons within that broader designation. So the question in translation would be how we refer to humanity today.

    Similarly, consider the Greek adlephoi. It’s a plural and at one time would have been translated “brethren.” For some time, it was translated in that way and it was often understood to refer to the whole congregation, male and female together. But does it mean that to audiences now?

    Some years ago I tested this with a couple of classes I was teaching on translation. The classes broke somewhere between 30 and 40 years of age. Those older than that thought “brethren” referred to the guys. Those younger thought it referred to everyone. I suspect the break point would be younger now as the culture moves.

    Now you can complain about the culture, but nonetheless in those mythical “good old days” people were understanding verses that used the Greek adelphoi, translated as “brethren” to refer to both genders. If you translate that way now, you introduce an inaccuracy, because your audience doesn’t understand it the same way as their ancestors did. You can complain all day that they should. You can wish they would spend more time reading older literature and thus understand this important (to you) point. But they aren’t going to. Now if you want a scriptural admonition to refer to the whole congregation, you need to use something like “brothers and sisters.” Not all instances of adelphoi should be so translated. That depends on the intent of the writer. Who was he referring to?

    I recall a pastor, a good friend, who complained to me about the NRSV because it used “brothers and sisters.” He preferred the RSV, because it kept the traditional language. The next Sunday he was preaching and read a verse from the RSV that included “brothers.” He immediately looked up and said to the congregation, “And that means you sisters too!” His pastoral instinct was better than his translation theory.

    But how does this relate to inerrancy? Inerrancy is, of course, a word, and it has meaning—to people. Meaning apart from meaning to some person or group is meaningless. Somebody understands a meaning. Blomberg is arguing that there are errors in transmission, but they are not critical, they don’t damage the message or the value of the whole. But that is not the same as the absence of errors. It is an absence of important errors. Blomberg’s position isn’t some new thing. It’s pretty standard evangelical theology. If preachers, teachers, and other church leaders made this point from the pulpit or the lectern somewhat more often, we’d probably have less problems with a critic such as Ehrman. But people out there in the pews pretty generally think that “without error” means there are no errors, not that there are no errors that theologians deem important.

    The same thing applies when we criticize others for using “verification system that has only existed for some 250 years” (1st paragraph). This is the verification system and the level of factual and numerical accuracy that people expect these days. If I say, “_____ is without error” they generally assume it is without error as they perceive errors. Yes, there are variations in this, but we actually tend to put words on them. It might not be precisely inaccurate for me to say it’s 80 degrees outside if it’s 78 or 79 degrees. But I’d normally be expected to say “about” if I were to mess with numbers in this way.

    Well, the Bible doesn’t use numbers in the way we moderns expect them to be used, and it’s inappropriate to expect it to. Biblical literature has genre and literary standards and they are those of the time and place when those texts were written. But if you’re going to then label the Bible inerrant, a term that is itself new, you have to specify the standard by which that is measured. (I’m not claiming that the concept, depending on which concept of inerrancy is involved, is new.) So if we’re going to expect people to apply a different standard when determining whether something in the Bible is an error, then we need to make sure they understand the standard.

    There is a tendency amongst scholars now to use words that mean definite things to most hearers, but then to back off and ask to be judged by a different standard. The gospels are not histories in the modern sense. Just so! They aren’t. But if they aren’t histories in the modern sense, then don’t expect to use them as such without having them judged as such. If I claim that Jesus performed miracles (and I do), I can’t say that the reason is simply that they were recorded in inerrant gospels. Why? Because I’ve also just said that those gospels don’t meet modern historical standards. Personally, I think it’s a good thing that they don’t. I think they are much more important than any document that met modern historical standards would be. Not that a modern style history wouldn’t have it’s uses, it just wouldn’t have the same uses as a gospel.

    But I think that we play sleight of hand with the terminology. “The gospels aren’t modern history so you can pretty much accept their view of Jesus without judging them by modern historical standards,” is a philosophical and historical way of having your cake and eating it too. I believe in Jesus, but I do not do so because the gospels demonstrate this in a sense a modern historian could accept.

    One more thing. Someone is bound to suggest to me that I should always apply the definitions used by qualified theologians. Those are the definitions that matter. I think that’s wrong. I don’t communicate with very many trained theologians. I don’t write for them, I’m never invited to speak to them (probably for good reason), so I’m not going to use words that communicate with them but not with the audience I’m actually addressing. For me, because I teach Sunday School classes in a United Methodist church and occasionally speak as a guest at various churches, the appropriate meaning of inerrancy is the one they’re going to hear when I use the term.

     

  • John Byron on O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus

    Finally there is a review of Killing Jesus from someone I trust. John Byron pretty much tells the story. You’ve gotta love this:

    On a recent 60 Minutes interview Bill claims that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the book (see below). If this is true, it’s too bad the Holy Spirit didn’t help him to do a better job of it.

    Ouch!

    Now I can not read the book with a clear conscience.

  • In Which I Discover that I Am Not a Thinking Person

    I just made this discovery this morning.

    I mentioned Jerry Coyne’s site in an earlier post Five Sites I read Because I Disagree, and I still read it. I get some good information about evolutionary science and great cat pictures and videos. But Jerry Coyne is not particularly friendly to believers.

    Now I want to be clear. I’m not one to be terribly upset by vigorously expressed viewpoints, so I’m not offended by the new atheists. I’m more concerned with Christians who use excessive rhetoric. After all, we’re supposed to be on the same team. So the new atheists are proud and open about their atheism and their objections to religion, and I have no objection.

    So today I read Coyne’s latest on Bart Ehrman’s new book in which he presents evidence that Jesus existed. Now one has to be careful in stating Ehrman’s thesis. Ehrman doesn’t mean that the divine savior of the world of Christian doctrine existed. He means that there was a man Jesus who existed in history and about which certain things can be said with reasonable historical validity. (I haven’t yet read the book, but I think this much is clear from the reviews. Further, it’s an unsurprising thesis.)

    Coyne is concerned that people will misunderstand Ehrman, and that Christian believers will take comfort from the book. Coyne says, “I’m hoping he isn’t being deliberately ambiguous to cater to believers.” Probably not. Ehrman hasn’t really been known to cater to believers, though his book jackets seem to be designed to annoy them. Compared to the relatively tame content, the jackets manage to stand out as shocking. (I previously blogged through Misquoting Jesus [link to the summary and conclusion with links to the parts].)

    Then his penultimate sentence:

    But what is important, and all those Christians who buy the book should know this, is that both Ehrman and atheists see not a scintilla of evidence that Jesus was the son of God or divine in any way, was born of a virgin or resurrected, or is the way to salvation.

    Really? I would have thought that the important issue was whether Ehrman had done his historical work with any accuracy. Not having read the book yet, I can’t comment in detail, but I suspect he has. I can certainly understand his annoyance with the mythicists who use very poor historical methodology. I see the annoyance that Ehrman seems to be expressing as the the annoyance of a scholar at the use of unscholarly methods and approaches. Coyne would doubtless be quite annoyed were the methods of mythicists used in science. (See James McGrath on this issue–for example, Creationists, Mythicists, and Schroedinger’s Scholar Fallacy.)

    But then there’s the last sentence:

    That remains fiction to all thinking people.

    I am, of course, aware that Coyne regards this as fiction. I’m aware that Ehrman does as well. But that wasn’t the point of Ehrman’s book.

    It’s an interesting form of attack. If you think Jesus was divine in any way, then you are not a thinking person. Not You are a person whose thinking is faulty. Not even You are a thinking person who is mistaken on this point. If you disagree, you are just not a thinking person.

    I think Christians should be forthright and open about what they believe. But when I hear a Christian say something like “You have to be stupid to see the universe, and not believe in God,” I will tend to point out that there are definitely very intelligent atheists, those who are able to think clearly on issues about which we agree. Why would one assume they are suddenly stupid because they disagree on one point? My preference would be for one to simply say, “It is not sensible to assume that something came from nothing.” That may simply push the issue back a level, but it is an attack on the idea, and by implication on the person’s thinking in that particular area, but not an attack upon the person.

    But since I confess that I regard Jesus as divine, not to mention savior of the world, something that is not really an historical question as such, I guess I am not a thinking person.

    Oh well!

     

  • Coloring Outside the Lines

    I’m borrowing my title from Dave Black’s latest essay, because I’m talking about the same subject and I’m about to publish the second edition of his book, Why Four Gospels?. (I suggest reading Dave’s essay first. It’s short!)

    I just spent a weekend with Dave as he spoke at First United Methodist Church here in Pensacola and Chumuckla Community Church a ways to the northeast of here. For some, having a Southern Baptist (Southeastern Baptist)seminary professor (though “missionary” is his preferred title) preach at a United Methodist church might be considered coloring outside the lines. If so, I think it’s a kind of coloring that we need to do more of.

    Why Four Gospels? Front Cover
    Almost Complete Front Cover

    Now in case you haven’t caught on, this is one of my blog posts meditating on books I’m about to publish, in this case, of course, Why Four Gospels?. It’s a little book that is out of the mainstream of New Testament scholarship these days. It challenges the priority of Mark, and proposes that the gospels were written in the order of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John.

    But that isn’t the most important thing that it does. It challenges the methods used, and in fact takes a completely different approach to what is usual in looking at the reliability and the context in which the gospels were written.

    One of the problems I’ve noted with historical Jesus studies (in which theories regarding gospel authorship are obviously important), is that especially in the popular literature too little time is spent discussing and justifying the basic methodology used. For example, is the best way to discover the historical record of an individual to divide what is recorded of him into small parts and then look for criteria to decided on which of these are probable and which are not?

    I’m not saying one cannot discover the reasoning behind these various choices. One can. But one often has to be very diligent in doing so, because they are often glossed over. I went through a course in gospels in college without every really understanding the nuts and bolts of things like form or redaction criticism, yet I was learning “facts” about the gospels which were derived from those disciplines.

    On the other hand many more conservative handbooks and commentaries poke a few holes in some critical views and then regard their task as complete. Obviously not every commentary can cover every issue in full detail, but I think it should be better covered than it is. (If I might recommend one book, I think Dr. David DeSilva’s An Introduction to the New Testament [link is to my notes] is very commendable on this issue.)

    Robert H. Stein, in Jesus the Messiah [link again to my review] commendably tried to address the criteria and how they should apply. I would note that I’ve changed my mind on a couple of points since I wrote that review, but I would still say that Stein makes a valiant effort but fails to reach his goal. If I may push an analogy, he colors with different colors, but stays inside the lines.

    Along with Bauckham and a few others, Dave Black is not only coloring outside the lines, but switching coloring books as well. How successful this effort will be remains to be seen, in my opinion. But it is much more likely that one can provide support for a more orthodox view of the historical Jesus in this way than simply by trying to alter the criteria one at a time.

    So there’s a much more important goal that Dave Black has in mind here. He’s not just looking at a different order for the writing of the four gospels; he’s examining the way in which we determine that order and in turn attempting to place the gospels in the context of the life of the early Christian church. In a way we could call this historically anchoring the sources as well.

    His effort is commendable in another way: It is concise. In about 120 pages (we may lengthen this mildly with larger type in the Energion edition), he lays out a case that is both broad and strong. I’m not saying he has convinced me on all points; I’m a stubborn character, and not easily convinced. What he has convinced me of in those few pages is that this is a book that you need to read and answer if you think you have a good grasp of gospel or historical Jesus studies.

    And that leads me to the inevitable questions. I’m always asked why I publish books I disagree with. This isn’t a really good example of that, in that I don’t have all that firmly held positions on this topic, general stubbornness aside. But I really like that question. I aim to publish a range of books that tend to push the boundaries within orthodox Christianity. I hope these will make us rethink our ideas, no matter what our present position is.

    Charismatics have questioned my publication of Holy Smoke! Unholy Fire!, which addresses abuses in the charismatic movement and particularly in some revival movements. Recently I’ve been questioned over the just released (and not yet available even on all major online retail sites) Finding My Way in Christianity, which leans to the liberal side. On the other hand, my own book Identifying Your Gifts and Service assumes the continuation of spiritual gifts and includes a prayer language, or speaking in tongues, among them.

    So I’m delighted to add Why Four Gospels? to the mix. Of this book in particular I would say it’s a must read in its subject area. I know I’m the publisher and I’m biased, but remember that I’m also somewhat of a defender of historical-critical methodologies (though the Jesus Seminar criteria are not amongst the things I defend), and thus my bias may not all be one way.

    One amazing feature of this book is the bibliography, which is the size of a chapter in itself. The conciseness and brevity of the book mean it will lead to further study, or so I hope, and the means of that study are provided here along with the questions.

  • On Mythicist Views of Jesus

    For those who may not watch all these things the term “mythicists” refers to those who believe Jesus never existed, that the stories about him were made up at some point and were not even centered on a minimal historical figure. There is a near alternative which holds that there were so few valid words of actions of the historical figure that he might as well have just been some random figure. But that’s a different argument.

    James McGrath has an excellent short post on this, which will go into my library of links to use in response to such questions. I think he makes his case well and does so in easily understood language. He gets us away from “proof arguments” which dominate so much amateur discussion of history. Very little, if anything, can be absolutely proven about history even if it happened yesterday. One deals with probabilities. Sometimes these probabilities are overwhelming, but even so we should remember they are probabilities so as to deal reasonably with the less probable events.

    In any case, read the whole post at Exploring Our Matrix.

  • Evidently the Jesus Seminar is too Religious

    The Christian Post reports on a new effort to study the historical Jesus, known as the Jesus Project. Since I don’t always trust the objectivity of the Christian Post (or anyone else including myself, for that matter), I looked for additional information.

    According to both that source (and others):

    . . . Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Project and the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, said that the “The Jesus Seminar had difficulty separating itself from the faith commitments of its members. Its agenda was not exclusively, but in large measure theologically driven. Its conclusions and methods raised more questions than they answered.”

    Many people questioned whether the members of the Jesus Seminar actually had faith commitments, though I know personally that many did and do. Nonetheless, the Seminar remains a relatively radical consensus when the whole of historical Jesus scholarship is examined.

    The new effort is sponsored by the Center for the Scientific Examination of Religion, a “a research division of the Center for Inquiry” [source].

    Simply from the list of names, this looks pretty radical in nature, and the sponsorship is largely skeptical. I have no problem with such a project, though I think that any relatively narrow inquiry is going to, to paraphrase Dr. Hoffmann, “. . .raise more questions than it answers.”

    Note the following as well:

    During the closing conference round-table, Tabor was quick to emphasize that “the Jesus Project repudiates any theological agendas, special pleading, or dogmatic presuppositions.” All members of the project share a common commitment to the importance of applying scientific methodologies to the sources used to construct the Jesus tradition.

    [found in both sources cited]

    I personally am very skeptical of the possibility of repudiating “all theological agendas, special pleading, or dogmatic presuppositions.” In fact, the very claim generates more questions than answers in my case.

    I wish any scholarly group that studies the historical Jesus well, but I’m not setting my expectations very high for this one.

  • What Have They Done with Jesus – Roundup

    I have delayed the final post in my notes on Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus? for quite some time. In the meantime I have read Backham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses [my review].

    Bauckham provides a much more coherent account of the principles that it appears Witherington is using, partially because he writes for a somewhat more scholarly audience. His purpose is to lay out the nuts and bolts. As I read it, Witherington’s purpose is to use those principles to paint a portrait of Jesus. For an extended discussion of Bauckham, see my review above. In summary, however, while I believe there is some point to the method, I don’t think it accomplishes what Bauckham (or Witherington) think it does.

    Frequently when I’m discussing the historical Jesus I suggest that the best antidote to any portrait painted by a scholar is to read another scholar. They tend to do a pretty good job of critiquing one another. In general, however, someone else can do the same to them in turn. This has resulted in a certain amount of agnosticism on my part regarding our ability to perceive the historical Jesus, and I also question the need for any level of precision.

    Witherington is a good writer, and I confess to enjoying a great deal of this book even when I was disagreeing. He does not lay out the principles as clearly as does Bauckham, but that is not his purpose. There are elements of the book that I found very helpful, others not so convincing, and a few annoying.

    What is most helpful in the book is the very thorough examination of the evidence that we have regarding very early figures in the church. Whether one agrees with conclusions or not, the information is quite good for a book aimed at non-scholars (though at educated non-scholars!). I found the two chapters on Paul and those on James most helpful in their combined look at the major divisions (factions? groups?) in early Christianity. I found those chapters generally sensible and balanced, probably meaning no more than that they suited my prejudices.

    I do think that Witherington paints a more unified view of the early church than was most likely the case, and was more critical of those who date non-canonical gospels early than I would find justified. Nonetheless, most early dates for those gospels are unjustified in my view, and some serious critical examination is called for.

    The “not so convincing” part is what appears to be the intent of the book–presenting a historically probable picture of Jesus. The subtitle suggests the goal: “BEYOND STRANGE THEORIES AND BAD HISTORY–WHY WE CAN TRUST THE BIBLE.” As a matter of history, I remain unconvinced. I trust the Bible with my faith, but I question historical details. For more details on this, find the links to earlier posts at the end of this one.

    For what I find slightly annoying, let me simply quote a paragraph from the Appendix:

    It is not a good historical principle to rule out causes of events in advance of examining the evidence, especially when none of us has an exhaustive knowledge of either historical or natural causation. The proverbial anti-supernatural bias is no more a good historical presupposition than the naive assumption some people make that everything requires a miraculous explanation, as when someone talks about a demon or spirit causing him to catch a cold, and so on. All data needs to be critically analyzed, of course, but no one should rule out the miraculous from the outset.

    On its face this sounds so objective, but I believe it presents some grave difficulties. The first sentence reminds us that we do not know all natural causes. But that should suggest that we might hold out for a natural cause that we don’t know before we resort to a supernatural explanation. Witherington instead uses this excellent principle to suggest that we should be open to supernatural causes.

    Now I believe that we should leave open the possibility of supernatural occurrences, as long as we do not possess exhaustive knowledge of the natural world. But at the same time miraculous causes simply can never be the most probable explanation for an event. If a miracle were probable, it would cease to be a miracle.

    The assumption that no miracles are possible is not the equivalent of the reverse–the assumption that everything requires a miracle. We do know the causes of colds (Witherington’s example) and thus we know that no specific miracle is required. We know of many other things that are naturally caused (at least in a contingent sense, but that’s way beyond the scope of this post).

    But even if I do not rule out the miraculous from the outset, it seems difficult to make it the most probable explanation. I recall a conversation of the virgin birth in which one of the participants was a OB-GYN specialist. He made an off-hand remark that in his office there were a couple of virgin conceptions reported each week. The point here is that out of these many reports even those of us who are believing Christians would reject every one out of hand–except one.

    Would we suggest that the OB-GYN consider seriously the option of a miracle every time a pregnant young patient suggests she has never had sex? Probably not. But in one case we make an exception. And while I am willing as a matter of faith to make an exception, there is no way that I will claim that is either history or science. In fact, I see no merit in making such a claim.

    I believe that Jesus rose from the dead (to move on to another big one!) not because I believe that missing bodies are best explained miraculously, but rather because my prior faith and spiritual experience inclines me to that belief. I don’t call this rational. I’d prefer it not be called irrational, but rather non-rational, but I understand that many who don’t share my faith won’t be that kind!

    I think Witherington is doing much the same thing. I don’t think he would be as kind to claims of the miraculous in other ancient cultures. But in the case of Jesus, miracles get a higher probability rating.

    Irrespective of any other factor, this one fact would mean that I would find it difficult to produce a picture of Jesus that was both historically probably as a whole, and also in accord with orthodox Christology. Face it, the idea of God in the form of a human is inherently improbable, extremely improbable, and the orthodox picture of Jesus simply doesn’t make sense unless one believes that picture is true even though it is improbable.

    Thus from an historical perspective I remain skeptical, while at the same time remaining a believer. It is faith and the witness of the Holy Spirit, not any sort of historical reconstruction that convinces me. History convinces me that there is room for the physical events such miracles provide (the body of Jesus was not there, the disciples did indeed change their character as they might had they encountered the risen Jesus), but history cannot make the impossible probable.

    Previous posts on What Have They Done with Jesus? in reverse order:

  • Book Notes: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

    Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006. 538 pp. ISBN: 0-8028-3162-1.

    I would remind my readers again that I am writing some notes on my experience of reading this book and not a formal review.

    I requested this book via interlibrary loan because it was recommended by a reader who commented on one of my posts blogging through What Have They Done with Jesus?. I objected to the idea that one could improve on the picture of Jesus by first building a picture of the eyewitnesses and then discussing what those eyewitnesses could tell us about Jesus. Since there is much less documentation on each of the eyewitnesses than there is on Jesus, any picture we create of them will be much less certain than even what we can say about Jesus himself, so just how does this procedure help us in getting a true picture of Jesus?

    Reading Bauckham on this topic has enlightened me somewhat on the intentions, if Witherington is indeed working on the same basis as Bauckham, but I remain essentially unimpressed with the final result. Bauckham is much plainer in expressing his procedure, and his book is more academic in style. (This isn’t particularly a criticism of Witherington who was intentionally writing a popular book.)

    If I can summarize in the briefest possible time, Bauckham is arguing that the gospel story was passed on by a form of controlled informal tradition, and that those who controlled this were the eyewitnesses sprinkled through the church.

    He finds evidence for this in a number of lines of argument including the use of names in the gospels, the shape of the stories, the level of divergence that is tolerated, and what is not tolerated, and even some cases of anonymity in the passion narrative of Mark. Why, for example, is it “one of the men with Jesus” who draws a sword in Mark 14:47, but the man is identified with Simon Peter in John 18:10? Bauckham argues that at the time Mark was written, this person’s identity needed to be protected because the authorities would be after him, while by the time John was written he (Simon Peter) was already dead.

    That is only one in many arguments for the survival of the eyewitnesses and their role in preservation of the story. I’m not going to make a real attempt to summarize all of these, as it would be impossible to do justice to the arguments. The book is only a bit over 500 pages; read it for yourself!

    While I have never been convinced by the argument that there were no eyewitnesses remaining by the time the gospel text was written, I am also unconvinced of the value of eyewitness testimony in and of itself. You may rightly ask what this leaves me.

    In the third quest the emphasis has been on evaluating sayings and incidents according to a set of criteria. This results generally in a very minimalistic Jesus, because some of the criteria, even necessary and good ones, tend to weed out a great deal that is quite possibly true, but which simply cannot be demonstrated well enough. This result seems surprising given the large amount of written material about Jesus, more than we have on many figures of history that we nonetheless feel free to characterize in more detail.

    It is no wonder that Christians seek something that will work a bit better. Perhaps they need look no further than how modern writing about ancient history is actually done. In essence, historians take the pieces that they have, sift them as they make sense, and attempt to fill in the blanks. I may simply be missing something in my reading, as I have only read a tiny fraction of what’s available on the historical Jesus, but I think Jesus is the only historical figure concerning whom we are barely willing to speculate. He becomes a very uninteresting figure.

    Part of this results from scholars who seem to want a Jesus who could occupy the office down the hall in the ivory tower. I think the argument over wisdom teacher vs. eschatological prophet is just such an issue. Many people of that time combined aspects of both. Why is this not possible for Jesus to do? He doesn’t have to fit our notions of consistency and a coherent philosophy.

    If we take this kind of approach, then I think we can also give serious consideration to the idea that the earliest generations of Christians might have had some idea of what they were talking about. They just may have had some idea of the character of Jesus. We would prefer a Jesus who perhaps never made the seemingly grandiose claim to be the Messiah. Let the early Christians do that for him. But somehow he made such an impression on them that a fairly substantial movement was able to get the idea that he thought he was the Messiah.

    Even if we view the tradition as an imperfect mirror, with the real Jesus dimly reflected therein, it seems a bit hasty to discard the mirror and start from scratch. In this sense I’m in tune with Bauckham, though that is saying much less than he is.

    On the other hand, it seems to me that many orthodox Christian writers are trying to combat the historical Jesus scholars by finding a way to say that Jesus is just as portrayed in the canonical gospels and that this is history, every bit as sound as any other form of history. Thus we have Bauckham arguing at great length that eyewitness testimony was important to ancient people, and finally in his conclusion that perhaps we should take it more seriously as well. “Trusting the eyewitnesses” is to replace “applying criteria” and result in a more complete and substantially accurate picture of Jesus.

    Here is where I part company. In trying to establish the eyewitnesses, Bauckham has made a number of arguments that are quite possibly true, but are nonetheless often no better established than the reasoning behind various criteria for historicity. This doesn’t mean he’s wrong; it simply means that when all is said and done we don’t know. My suggestion is that we go ahead and get comfortable with that.

    In my view, there is one problem with bringing orthodox theology in line with good historical methodology. In general, historical methodology is based on probability; not generally calculated probability, but a sort of common sense decision as to what is more likely. If two kings claim a great victory, we know they can’t both be right, so we look for more evidence, or we draw some common sense conclusions.

    In the case of Jesus, however, orthodox theology claims that he is unique, God in the flesh living amongst us. What does common sense say about a claim to virgin birth? Not likely. So if the options are either illegitimate birth by natural means or virgin birth, historical probability suggests the former. What does common sense say about people who die? They don’t come back. So if the claim is that somebody rose from the dead, historical probability suggests it’s not true.

    In practically every case of virgin birth claims (all that I know of) and all but a very small number of resurrection claims, neither believers nor unbelievers would decide differently. Yet I, an otherwise rational person (I think!), believe that Jesus rose from the dead. This is not an historical event that can be made probable. Even assuming miracles are possible, which I do, I am not going to assume that they are the most probable explanation. This can be tested by presenting the miraculous claims of another religion, and seeing how likely one is to accept them.

    In addition, I know my own experience. I did not come to believe in Jesus by historical methods. I came to believe in Jesus through contemporary testimony. I find the Jesus of orthodox faith fits that. I believe there is historical evidence for such a Jesus, but that this evidence falls far short of proof, and even short of probability. It must be so, because the Jesus of my faith is inherently improbable, unique in fact.

    Now you may be thinking that I’m not all that far from Bauckham, even if I got there afterward. And indeed the picture of Jesus in my head goes well with what Bauckham (and Witherington, for that matter) have written. That is indeed the case. But I sense in both writers the intention to make this more historically firm, to suggest that this is an historian’s conclusion. The jacket blurbs and advertising text tend to suggest this as well, though heaven knows many writers are badly served by their book covers! Thus far, I just don’t think they have done so successfully.

    I nonetheless strongly recommend this book for anyone interested in historical Jesus research. As I have repeatedly noted, each book on this topic is extremely good at critiquing the views of others, even if you find that their own pictures of Jesus are no more probable. In addition, Bauckham documents well and examines arguments in detail, so that you can profit no matter where you stand on the final result.

    Addendum:

    Here’s an overview of the chapters so you can get a better idea of the course of the argument. I have left the notes in an abbreviated form as I wrote them immediately after reading.

    1: From the Historical Jesus to the Jesus of Testimony
    General overview of the idea – going to the Jesus of testimony, specifically eyewitness testimony
    2: Papias on the Eyewitnesses
    Rehabilitating Papias

    3: Names in the Gospel Tradition
    Studying use of names. Why are certain characters named and others not.
    4: Palestinian Jewish Names
    Palestinian Jewish names – an exceedingly useful chapter even if you wind up disagreeing with the thesis of the book.
    5: The Twelve
    Looking at the lists of the apostles; reconciling most, error in Levi=Matthew equation.
    6: Eyewitnesses “from the Beginning”
    What constituted an eyewitness?
    7: The Petrine Perspective in the Gospel of Mark
    Looking at indicators that Mark is based on someone’s testimony, and that this testimony is that of Peter the apostle.
    8: Anonymous Persons in Mark’s Passion Narrative
    Arguing they are not named so as to protect the guilty.
    9: Papias on Mark and Matthew
    Deals with the differences in how the two gospels are put together and how their sources are to be understood.
    10: Models of Oral Tradition
    We get to one of the big questions-what does oral tradition preserve and how?
    11: Transmitting the Jesus Tradition
    Bauckham now argues that we have a “controlled informal” transmission, with the “controllers” being the eyewitnesses surviving in the community.
    12: Anonymous Tradition or Eyewitness Testimony
    Looking at the reasons why we should see the gospels as eyewitness testimony rather than a tradition of the community without named sources.
    13: Eyewitness Memory
    One of my own key questions, and one that I don’t think Baukham manages to deal with adequately, but nonetheless he does look at it more carefully than most.
    14: The Gospel of John as Eyewitness Testimony
    I think this will easily be the most controversial chapter, though I think Bauckham makes the best case possible.
    15: The Witness of the Beloved Disciple
    Identifying who this person was, and then assigning him as author of the gospel of John.
    16: Papias on John
    A very difficult search for reflections of the views of Papias on the gospel of John. His (possible) references could be to John the Elder, whom Bauckham identifies as the author rather than John son of Zebedee.
    17: Polycrates and Irenaeus on John
    Looking for more patristic evidence and judging whether it can apply to John the elder, and just how did the identification of the author with John son of Zebedee occur?
    18: The Jesus of Testimony
    Summary of the case.