Category: Historical Jesus

Book Review: The Stories of Jesus’ Birth by Edwin D. Freed.

Edwin D. Freed. The Stories of Jesus’ Birth: A Critical Introduction. New York: T&T Clark, 2001. (Amazon.com)

E.W. Freed, 'The Stories of Jesus' Birth'

Edwin D. Freed’s book on the Infancy Narratives of the Gospels is intended to function as an introduction to the subject. The author approaches the subject critically. It is a work that takes historiographical methodology seriously, though Freed doesn’t outlines his approach or premise other than the designation “critical”, which we can juxtapose with “confessional”. In other words, there is no apologetic element to this book. Freed is not aiming to defend the concept of a virgin conception or any other the other elements of the Infancy Narratives that seem abnormal (e.g. angelic annunciations).

Freed addresses some great topics. He investigates the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. He gives special attention to the women included in Matthew’s genealogy and the apologetic purpose they served against those who may have questioned the legitimacy of Mary’s pregnancy. He compares Matthew and Luke. He examines how the Evangelist use the Hebrew Bible. Finally, he gives several chapters to the unique contributions of Matthew and Luke.

While reading this work I found myself thinking critically and widely about the approaches taken by the Evangelists. Freed does not try to harmonize the Gospels. If Matthew and Luke seem concerned to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and John’s Gospel does not, so be it. He examines the possible motivations for decisions of inclusion and exclusion. In doing so, the reader is forced to think about the individual vantage points offered by the four canonical Gospels.

Freed does not address works like the Protevangelium of James. He limits his discussion to the four Gospels giving the most attention to Matthew and Luke. As an introduction he does not seem concerned with interacting with too many other authors. When he does it is with modern, critical scholarship. Most of his focus is on the most primary of primary sources.

This book’s great strength is introducing students to a critical historiographical approach to Jesus’ birth narratives. It allows them to ask the hard questions while wrestling with the consequences of the data. This is for whom it was written. It was not written as an interaction with other authors in the academy, but as a gateway into the subject for those who lack familiarity.

Another strength is that it gives the reader the opportunity to think through the various portions of the Gospels in relation to one another and as stand alone works. One will have the opportunity to ask why Matthew says something one way while Luke says it another or why Mark excludes content and John approaches it from a different angle. Likewise, Matthew and  Luke as a singular literary units are given the opportunity to speak for themselves. It is not the church’s doctrine of the virgin conception in the spotlight but the Matthean or Lukan presentations of the narrative.

It is hard to say there is a weakness. All “weaknesses” in my eyes would be the very things the author did not try to accomplish and it is hard to judge a book by goals it never claims to be reaching. So I don’t expect interaction with Christian thought and creeds. I don’t expect it to give the “other side” from confessing Christians. It doesn’t need to be full of footnotes interacting with other scholars. Actually, for that one may read Raymond Brown’s work on this subject since Freed interacts with Brown quite often. While it is not a popularization of Brown’s work, Freed does take his cue from Brown.

Overall it is a solid, shorter work (less than one hundred and seventy pages of content) and a fine introduction. Freed has provided a wonderful, short introduction to the critical study of Infancy Narratives. If one uses it for this purpose it is a great tool.

Anthony Le Donne’s historical Jesus.

Anthony Le Donne. Notice, his last name begins with "Le". Does this remind you of anyone?!

I am grateful to Nick Norelli who was adamant that I read Anthony Le Donne‘s Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? These are some excerpts from the early part of the book that have caught my attention:

“…it must be said that there is no need to draw a line between the text as a document of faith and the same text as a document of history. Those who attempt to arrive at a non-religious historical Jesus do not follow the advice of any contemporary philosophy of history. These interpreters do not strip away religious elements from the gospels because they are hostile to Christianity; they do so because they are poor historians.”

(p. 8). Kindle Edition.

“We can study Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John as literary units and also use these books as sources for the historical Jesus. One does not preclude the other.”

(p. 9). Kindle Edition.

“…even before Jesus became a historical figure, he was the object of people’s perceptions. In other words, people saw his actions, heard his words, felt his touch. Therefore it will be necessary to have some understanding of how perception functions. It is perception that shapes the nature of Jesus’ impact from the very beginning.”

(p. 15). Kindle Edition.

“My point is that every thought, conscious or subconscious, is the result of interpretation and has some relationship with the external world – other people, things, ideas.”

 (pp. 18-19). Kindle Edition.

“What is often overlooked is the fact that the NT was composed, for the most part, by deeply religious Jews. There are a few exceptions, but most of the books in the NT were composed by Jews, for Jews, about matters of Jewish theology. This is because Jesus’first followers, his first audiences, his first adversaries, and his first believers and skeptics were Jewish folk. So in order to understand Jesus’words, we must try to hear him as his contemporaries heard him.”

(p. 19). Kindle Edition.

“Perception is filtered through familiar thought categories. Indeed, interpretation requires that certain patterns of mental categorization are in place.”

(pp. 22-23). Kindle Edition.

As I continue to read this book I am sure I will share more. One thing is for sure, I regret not attending some sessions where Le Donne was a participant as SBL. Maybe next year!

 

Book Notice: The World of Jesus and the Early Church edited by Craig Evans.

I received word that a new book edited by Craig A. Evans titled The World of Jesus and the Early Church: Identity and Interpretation in the Early Communities of Faith is set to release next month. The blurb from the back of the book is as follows:

Religious communities that possess sacred documents define themselves, at least in part, by how they understand and interpret their sacred tests and how those sacred texts inform the community. Craig Evans has brought together thirteen outstanding contributors to The World of Jesus and the Early Church in order to explore recent understanding of the ways in which the early Jewish and Christian communities of faith functioned and how they defined themselves, as well as how they interpreted their scriptures.

The contributors’ work encompasses archaeological, sociological, economic, ritual, and textual discoveries. They shed light on these communities of faith and draw out implications for both the academy and the church today.

Whether revealing new understandings of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, the rituals surrounding the execution and burial of criminals, or the problems with the dating of ancient manuscripts, this work draws the reader into the world of the early Christian and Jewish communities in fresh and insightful ways.

The book is divided into two parts: (1) Identity in Jewish and Christian Communities of Faith and (2) Interpreting the Scriptures in Jewish and Christian Communities. The list of contributors includes the likes of J.J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, Larry Hurtado, Margaret Y. MacDonald, Dorothy M. Peters, and others. You can see any additional blurb and the full chapters list on the Hendrickson.com book page here.

Interview with Craig Evans.

Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 has interviewed Dr. Craig A. Evans on a wide array of subjects related to historical Jesus scholarship here. This is part of the blurb:

“He talks about his background and how he got into this area of scholarship (Jesus, the Gospels and Biblical manuscripts), what impresses him most about the Bible, handling manuscripts, the quest for the historical Jesus (and its overall timeline), the scholarly opinion on the “Jesus never existed” claim, the consensus of scholarship (and why scholarship is important), the contemporary distortion of Jesus, the demonstrable flaws in the thinking of particular scholars, evaluating presuppositions, a case for the reliability of the Gospels, the contrasting view of the “other” gospels, how to investigate the miracle claims within the Gospels, responding to the “failed apocalyptic prophet” objection, the faults in Bart Ehrman’s reasoning, advice for those taking their Biblical studies seriously, the do’s and don’ts of arguing for Bible reliability, and more.”

Enjoy!

Despite what Zeitgeist said, Jesus really did exist.

Guest Post: Greg Monette, Ph.D. student at the University of Wales/Oxford Centre for Mission Studies

Did Jesus exist?  At first blush this might seem a silly question.  “Of course he existed,” you might say.  However, movies like Zeitgeist, as well as authors Tom Harpur [1] and Robert Price, [2] seem to think that a minimalist position on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is the most historically responsible position to hold.

In a recent interview published in the United Church Observer, Canadian author Tom Harpur, a lapsed Christian, said the following about conservative and liberal New Testament scholars who “take the historical Jesus pretty seriously”: “Yeah, but they don’t offer a shred of historical evidence. Since my book was published, there has not been one scholar come forth with solid evidence from the first century, apart for [sic] a dubious reference in Josephus that they love to hurl around, a reference that is clearly, clearly, clearly false. I’ve been waiting for the evidence to show up” [3] Is Harpur right? Is there not “a shred of historical evidence” that Jesus of Nazareth existed?  Is Christianity based on a myth?

For economy of space and time, I will not reproduce every early source that attests to Jesus’ existence from antiquity. However, I will list some of the major references where you can find the exact quotations relating to Jesus if you are interested in looking further: 1. Roman: Pliny the Younger (AD 62-113) Epistles 10.96;  2. Roman: Tacitus (AD 60-120) Annals 15.44; 3. Roman: Suetonius (AD 75-160) Life of Claudius 25.4; 4.  Roman: Mara Bar Serapion (2nd or 3rd Cent.) in a letter; 5. Jewish: Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100), a disputed passage most historians feel was interpolated: The Antiquities of the Jewish People 18.3.3 [18.63-64], and one undisputed passage: Antiquities of the Jewish People 20.9.1 [20.200-203]. 6. Jewish: Various Rabbis (2nd-5th Cent.) The Talmud: b. Sanhedrin 43a (Babylonian Talmud).

There are also many other references to Jesus in Gospels not located in the New Testament due to their late dating (mid to late 2nd Century composition). There are too many to list here, the following book would be helpful to consult for some of these ancient texts: J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009).

However, despite this mountain of supporting evidence to the existence of Jesus in these non-Christian sources, the best evidence is found in the New Testament.  The New Testament is made up of twenty-seven different documents (ancient biographies, letters, apocalyptic writings), all written in the 1st Century.  Yes, the New Testament is biased because Christians composed it, but every text is biased.  Bias does not necessarily equal unhistorical; if this were the case, every text from antiquity would be unhistorical. Historians agree that what we have in the New Testament alone is good enough to solidify the historical position that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

Why do historians feel this way? The strongest argument is that before and during the time of Jesus, Jews did not believe that the Messiah (or Christ) was going to die.  They believed that the Messiah was going to rise up and conquer the Romans, taking back Jerusalem, where the Messiah would replace Caesar as king.  There is no way that the early Christians (a group of 1st Century Jews) would have made up a fictional story about a Messiah who dies. Even the skeptical New Testament scholar and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan wrote “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” [4]

In fact, New Testament historians use the historical fact of the death of Jesus (attested throughout the New Testament as well as outside the New Testament in many of the non-Christian sources referenced above) as a criterion for determining historically authentic material (sayings and deeds of Jesus) in the New Testament Gospels. There must have been a reason Jesus was put to death by the authorities. He must have said and did certain things to infuriate the establishment. He did not get crucified by telling people to love one another.  He said a few other things too and scholars look to find these in the New Testament Gospels. University of Notre Dame New Testament Scholar John P. Meier is famous for saying: “A tweedy poetaster who spent his time spinning out parables and Japanese koans, a literary aesthete who toyed with 1st-century deconstructionism, or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field—such a Jesus would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one.” [5]

So far we have laid out the literary evidence for Jesus’ existence.  This alone is more than enough to convince serious historians that Jesus of Nazareth existed.  However, it may surprise some to know that we may actually possess genuine archaeological evidence for Jesus’ existence, namely a 1st Century burial box or ossuary with the following inscription: Ya’akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”). If genuine and not forged, it may be hard non-literary evidence for the existence of Jesus.  The burial boxes discovery was announced at a meeting on October 21, 2002 in Washington co-hosted by the Discovery Channel and the Biblical Archaeology Society. The Israeli Antiquities Authority took the owner of the ossuary (Oded Golan) to court accusing him of forging the box.  However, most experts called to testify during the court proceedings have supported Oded Golan in claiming the authenticity of the box and its antiquity.  The Israeli judge is deliberating at this moment in order to decide whether or not the burial box was forged or not. After more than 5000 pages of testimony and 75 witnesses who gave expert testimony, the judge advised the prosecution in open court to highly consider dropping the case as their evidence against the boxes authenticity was weak.  We will see in the coming months what the verdict is on this potentially very important artifact from antiquity which may provide hard evidence for the existence of Jesus. [6]

One final argument for the existence of Jesus is, quite simply, the existence of Christianity.  It is a historical fact that Christianity exploded in growth in the second-half of the 1st Century and has continued to grow until today. [7]  The minimalist needs to give a convincing argument to explain all of this away, and so far it has not been done.

All in all, I have yet to hear an intellectually plausible reason why one should believe Jesus never existed.  Can you imagine if people started writing books about Caesar Augustus never existing, Alexander the Great or Muhammad? No serious historian doubts that any of these famous men from the past existed.  It has been said that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than any person from antiquity; this is probably true.  Historians in other fields would love to have the embarrassment of riches that New Testament historians have to work with when they reconstruct historical portraits of Jesus of Nazareth. So, did Jesus exist? What do you think?

[1] Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ (Walker & Company, 2005);

[2] Robert Price, “Jesus at the vanishing point” in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (eds.), The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009) 55–103)

[3] Tom Harpur: as quoted in Ken Gallinger’s, “A Truly Spiritual Person Never Stops Thinking about the Implications of the Christos,” United Church Observer 74/11 (2011) 30–31, with quotation from p. 31).

[4] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994),145.

[5] See: John P. Meier, “The Criterion of Rejection and Execution,” in A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Vol. 1, New York: Doubleday, 1991), 177.

[6] For more see: http://www.bib-arch.org/press-james-ossuary.asp).

[7] See: Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (Princeton: HarperCollins, 1997).

Christian origins from a Cuban.

I’d like to point you to a blog written by a good friend of mine named Jesse Luke Richards. He has been blogging at “Christian Origins from a Cuban” which he tells me focuses upon what “the implications of Christian Origins means for the Cuban people and situation.” Soon he will begin doctoral work through OCMS/University of Wales under the supervision of Dr. Craig A. Evans. I think readers of this blog will appreciate what he is writing there.

Was Jesus an original thinker?

Guest Post: Dr. Craig A. Evans

Read Question 1 here and Question 2 here.

Question 3: Was Jesus an original thinker? How did he personally rework the cultural features that he inherited? What are the most original elements of his thought?

Most of what Jesus proclaimed and did have precedent and was hardly controversial, from a pious Jewish perspective. What Jesus proclaimed was rooted in the Scriptures of Israel. Jesus did not appeal to any authority other than Israel’s God and what Israel’s God has revealed in the Scriptures. But Jesus did rework, even subvert some of Israel’s sacred tradition.

In his well known “antitheses” Jesus challenged several points of the Oral Torah, as taught by the scribes and Pharisees of his day. Jesus did not challenge Moses, but the interpretation of Moses. But in some cases Jesus seems to have subverted Scripture itself. For example, whereas Daniel thanks God for revealing his insights to the wise and learned (Dan 2:21, 23), Jesus thanks God for withholding his revelation from the wise, disclosing it, instead, to mere “babes” (Matt 11:25–26). Or, for another example, whereas in Daniel the Son of Man figure will be served by the nations (Dan 7:13–14), Jesus says that the “Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Jesus’ surprising interpretations of Scripture sometimes grow out of a conflation of texts. In the last example, the inversion of Dan 7:14 is accommodated (or necessitated?) by allusion to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, who suffered and “bore the sin of many” (Isa 53:12).

Sometimes Jesus tempered judgmental aspects of the Law of Moses with appeals to the prophets or other Scriptures. Mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation figured prominently in Jesus’ teachings. The temple and sacrifice are important, but love and mercy are more important. Similarly, the Sabbath was not to be given priority over human needs. “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Nor were purity concerns to be given priority over human needs. Hence Jesus was willing to eat with tax collectors and sinners.

One of the most surprising elements in Jesus’ thought was his teaching that “sinners” and outsiders (Samaritans and Gentiles) would be included among the righteous. Gentiles, like the centurion of Capernaum or the woman of Syro-Phoenicia, can possess more faith than Israelites themselves. Indeed, even a Samaritan can fulfill the Great Commandments of love of God and of neighbor (as in the parable of the Good Samaritan).

But perhaps the most original element of all is seen in the words of institution, where Jesus, faced with the grim reality of his approaching death, spoke of his death as in some sense bringing about the promised new covenant. We have in Jewish thought the idea that through the death or suffering of the righteous divine judgment upon Israel is ended or averted, but the idea that through the shedding of his blood (and here we have an allusion to the language of Exod 24:8) Jesus himself brings about the prophesied new covenant is truly remarkable. This teaching, in combination with the resurrection, is what gave rise to the distinctive essence of the Christian movement.

 

Jesus’ beatitudes: blessed are the merciful.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. (Mt 5.7)

μακάριοι οἱ ἐλεήμονες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται.
__________

Blessed are the merciful, because they shall receive mercy. When I read this something leaps out of the text at me. What about those who are not merciful. Will they receive mercy? Is this similar to forgiving if you want the Father to forgive you (see v. 14) or not judging lest you want to be judge (Mt 7.1)? It seems that for this evangelist there is much that is contingent upon our actions.

Is God merciful to the unmerciful? In some sense we may say yes. God is gracious to us even when we are not being gracious ourselves. Yet these sayings have an eschatological bent thus far, so it makes me think we must understand this in terms of a whole life lived. Those who live continually unmerciful lives will not find mercy from God.

If one lives a life intentionally oppressing the poor, the orphan, the widow, and any other person or group in need it seems that Jesus is saying when they stand before God they will not find his mercy toward them. God is not a God who overlooks the merciless abuse of others. God will judge those who lack mercy.

I know some Christians don’t like to hear this type of thing. It sounds like “works righteousness” (a cute Protestant slander used when something doesn’t fit a particular reading of the Pauline corpus). In some sense we may say that it is. In the First Gospel the evangelist is very, very clear that disciples must follow  the Master. The Master is graceful, but if we are disobedient and evil toward others it is apparent that we are not his disciples. For the sake of discussion with those who have been burnt by legalism in the past, and who cannot hear it this way, let me reframe it. If one lacks mercy toward others they likely lack the basic faith in Christ necessary to be the people of God.

If we are cruel to those in need, if we take advantage of others on every occasion, if we step on those who are low, how can we say we have faith in Christ? If we trust Christ we will trust his Father to be our Father which means we will trust the Father to sort out injustices toward us. If the Spirit is working in our lives we will be more and more aware of our own faults and failures. This will cause us to realize the humanity of the other. In this we find grounds for mercy.

I think the Spirit empowers us to be merciful. If we trust Christ we trust that his Spirit will make us into merciful people. When we stand before the Father on that great day he will see that through his Son by his Spirit we were becoming people of mercy. God will recognize us as his children and we will receive mercy for all our short comings.

What can we say about Jesus’ Jewish background?

Guest Post: Dr. Craig A. Evans

Read Question 1 from last week here.

Question 2: What can we say about Jesus’ Jewish background? In what kind of Judaism did Jesus grow up? To what ideological stream did he belong? What kind of Jew was Jesus?

There is nothing in the teaching and activities of Jesus that suggests that Jesus stood outside of or in someway over against the Jewish people. Jesus accepted all of the major tenets of the Jewish faith. These tenets include the unity and sovereignty of God, the value and sanctity of the temple of Jerusalem, the authority of the Jewish Scriptures, the election of the people of Israel, and the hope of Israel’s redemption. Jesus, moreover, observed many of the practices associated with Jewish piety of his day: alms, prayer, and fasting (Matt 6:1–18). Jesus fasted in the wilderness during his period of temptation (Mark 1:12–13); he prayed and taught his disciples to pray (Matt 6:7–15; Luke 11:1–13; 22:39–46); he and his disciples gave alms, and he taught others to do likewise (Luke 11:41; 12:33; John 13:29). Jesus presupposed the validity of the temple, the sacrifices, and Israel’s holy days (Matt 5:23–24; Mark 14:14). He read and quoted from the Jewish Scriptures and clearly regarded them as authoritative (Luke 4:16–22; 10:25–28; Mark 10:19; 12:24–34). Apparently he attended synagogue services regularly (Luke 4:16); his style and interpretation of Scripture reflect at many points the style and interpretation that emerged within the synagogue.

Jesus may very well have believed that his own authority, which derived from God’s Spirit, with which he had been anointed (Mark 1:10; Luke 4:18), equaled that of Torah. But his authority did not undermine the authority of Torah; it explained it and applied it in new ways conditioned by his strong sense of the dawning of the kingdom (rule) of God and the changes that it would bring. Jesus’ innovative interpretation is consistent with parallel innovations expressed by Israel’s classical prophets. As did theirs, Jesus’ interpretation challenged conventional interpretations and applications of Israel’s sacred tradition.

Jesus was criticized by some Pharisees, mostly for failing to hold fast to the Oral Torah as it was understood in his time. These “failings” largely centered on questions of Sabbath and purity. Healing, as well as other activities, on the Sabbath and eating and associating with “sinners” were the principal points of debate. Jesus was also criticized by Sadducees and ruling priests, who  probably viewed Jesus and his enthusiastic following as dangerous. There is no evidence that Jesus had any encounter with Essenes. In all probability, these men would have ignored Jesus.

There is no indication that Jesus was aligned with any sect. His interpretation of Scripture and his manner of teaching at points overlap with the sages of his time, but at many points Jesus’ teaching and behavior are distinctive. So what kind of Jew was Jesus? He was a pious, charismatic Jew, who believed himself to be anointed and enabled by the Spirit of God to proclaim the arrival of God’s rule “on earth, as it is in heaven.” But there are also important indications that Jesus saw himself and his mission in a very unique way and not simply as one more prophet and one more ministry in an unending succession.

 

Craig Evans on Jesus’ pedagogy.

Tomorrow we will have another post from Dr. Craig A. Evans available on this blog (read last week’s “The future of historical Jesus studies”). Today I thought I’d share a small excerpt from a paper that he presented at New Orleans Baptist Seminary in February titled “Can We Trust the NT?” In context, Evans is challenging the view of the gospels that they either must be word for word accounts of what Jesus said without any adaption by the evangelist and the equal and opposite error that if there are any adaptions the historical Jesus is forever lost. This is a paragraph of note that I think is worth pondering:

“The stories and teachings of Jesus have been edited and contextualized in ways that lead to clarity. The teaching of Jesus has been applied in new ways and new insights have been discovered as his followers encounter fresh challenges. All of this reflects the way Jesus taught his disciples. It reflects the pedagogy of the time. The disciples were not tape-recorders, mere reciters of the Jesus tradition. They were disciples, trained to understand the teaching of Jesus, not simply to repeat it word for word. They were trained to apply it as they gave leadership to the following of Jesus, a following that in time became known as the church.” (p. 26)

In other words, Evans is giving permission to more conservative readers to be OK with the fact that the four evangelist were not modern journalist. They did not write down the words of Jesus in order to have a good story for the sake of a long career with their local newspaper. Rather, they were disciples teaching other disciples what had been taught either to them by Jesus or to them by Jesus’ more direct disciples.

Book Review: The Resurrection of Jesus by Michael R. Licona

Licona, Michael R. (2010) The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. (Buy from IVPress.com here)

Note: I was going to attempt to blog through this book in multiple parts, but it became apparent that this was distracting and disinteresting to readers. Therefore, I have decided to provide one large overview. If you want to read the notes that I provided on the book thus far you can find them listed here. 

I would like to say thank you to IVP Academic for sending me a copy of Michael R. Licona’s massive tome titled The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. This book has been an excellent read and it functions as an even better resource. At approximately six hundred and seventeen pages of content this book matches the investigative work found in N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God.

What makes this book distinct? Well, it is not that it contains an outlined historiographical method. Wright did this in The New Testament and the People of God when he discussed critical realism. Unlike Wright’s series on Christian origins (wherein we find his book on the resurrection) this book gives much, much more attention to the topic of historiography. Licona goes over both the theory and method of historiographical investigation. He discusses the horizons of the author and the reader (or the event-sources and the historian). He asks whether or not scholarly consensus is meaningful and useful. He addresses the postmodern criticism that we cannot know history and that all history is our own construct (acknowledging where this is true and criticizing where it is misleading).

This book delves deeply into epistemology. How can we know the past? What is knowledge of the past? As you may see this is a different starting point that many works on early Christianity that assume we can know something but that do not define basic perimeters for this type of investigation.

Licona thinks historians need to be forthright with their methodology. They shouldn’t assume a universal method and they shouldn’t assume that their own method is objective. While there is a science to history, it is not pure science. Licona admits and outlines his own presuppositions while being careful to argue that this doesn’t mean he can’t do good research, only that he admits what others may not be willing to confess. This seems to be a tip of the hat to the postmoderns who ruined the myth of objectivity.

If Jesus was raised from the dead this would be what we may call a “miracle”. Can historians factor in miracles? Licona gives this question much attention while surveying the response of many other historians of early Christianity. This section is an important read since I think this topic will continue to be hotly debated. If I understand it correctly Craig Keener will soon be releasing a book on the very topic of historiography and miracles.

Licona concludes that the resurrection is worth investigating (obviously, lest there would be no book). But how should one go about doing this? Licona begins with the sources. The obvious items are the canonical gospels, the Pauline corpus, works that may have existed before the composition of the NT yet which are found embedded within the texts, and then other non-Christian sources ranging from Josephus to Celsus to the Apostolic Fathers to later Christian literature like the Gospels of Thomas and Judas.

Once the sources are selected one must determine what basic knowledge can be excavation from them. Licona argues that Jesus was well-known as an exorcist and miracle worker, an eschatological agent, and maybe (this one is more contested) someone who predicted his own death and vindication (though not necessarily resurrection). Other areas worth noting are the realities that Jesus was crucified (death is a prerequisite to resurrection!), that his disciples believed they saw him post-mortum (not necessarily that they interpreted their data correctly, but that they did believe this), as well as the important conversions of figures like Saul of Tarsus and Jesus’ brother James.

Licona comes across as very fair with the evidence. He is an apologist to some extent, but this doesn’t come across as an apologetic in the classical sense. Licona doesn’t leap from the data that says Peter and Paul were willing to die for the gospel because they really believed that Jesus rose from the dead to the claim that it must be obvious that Jesus did rise from the dead, though it is apparent he is a believer.

What we have is data at this point. We have a Jesus who was crucified and buried. We have a Jesus whom many claim to have seen after his death. We have writings were people like the Apostle Paul explain what they believe it means for Jesus to be raised from the dead (i.e. his actual corpse was given new life and morphed). After this we have to interpret this data.

Licona examines the interpretations of other scholars whose views range from hallucinations to seeing a disembodied Jesus. This section is not new for those who have read Habermas, Craig, and others who investigate the possible ways we can understand the claim of the disciples. At the end of the day Licona rejects these views asserting that the resurrection is the best explanation. He writes,

“I am contending that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the best historical explanation of the relevant historical bedrock. Since it fulfills all five criteriafor the best explanations and outdistances the competing hypothesis by a significant margin in their ability to fulfill the same criteria, the historian is warranted in regarding Jesus’ resurrection as an event that occurred in the past. Questions pertaining to the cause behind the event (i.e., who or what raised Jesus), the mechanism behind the event (i.e., how precisely it was accomplished) and the precise nature of Jesus’ resurrected state are beyond the reach of historians.” (p. 610).

So Licona denies that historiographical method can tell us what we must known theologically, but he does find that Jesus rose from the dead to be the best possible interpretation of the evidence. For believer and skeptic alike this is a good read. It is a great resource to have on your shelf (I have been reading through it forever, and it is not an easy, weekend-in-the-sun read). Skeptics may find the path to be a worn out apologetic, but I think even fair skeptics will note that there are very important methodological differences, so it should not be so easily dismissed.

What is Licona’s great contribution? I don’t think it is the second half of the book which I did not find all that new or novel. Rather, it is the challenge for all scholars who write on the resurrection to consider their historiographical theory and method. It will challenge writers on the resurrection to make this evident up front. It will ask that we are forthright about presuppositions when studying this subject. So even if the second half of the book is not your fancy you should consider reading the first half.

Jesus’ beatitudes: blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. (Mt 5.6)

ακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται.

Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. (Lk 6.21a)

μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν, ὅτι χορτασθήσεσθε.
__________

Much like when the First Gospel says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” and the Third Gospel shortens it to “Blessed are the poor” so we have here the Matthean “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness” being shortened to the Lukan “Blessed are you who hunger now”. The First Gospel seems to focus on the transcendent aspect of Jesus’ words (for lack of a better words) while the Third Gospel focuses on the earthy aspect of Jesus’ words.

For the Matthean perspective it is more than hungering and thirsting for food and drink. One must seek righteousness before God. According to Benno Przybylski righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew is connected with obedience to the Law, but for Christians it is obedience to the Law as taught by Christ (Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought, p. 103). This is a higher calling than the Law as taught by the Pharisees and Scribes.

If this is correct then this beatitude, in the context of this gospel, calls people to seek a righteousness that is displayed by obeying Christ’s commands. To use language like “hunger and thirst” would indicate that they should desire to obey Christ as much as they desire those very things that sustain us in food and drink.

The Lukan rendering is focused on the food itself. Those who are actually hungry. Those who go to sleep tonight with rumbling stomachs. The Lukan answer to theodicy is not that no human will suffer the pains of hunger, but when the Kingdom comes they will be filled. In the Kingdom there will be no hunger. All will be fed in the Kingdom.

The diverse interpretations presented by these evangelist give the reader much to ponder. We should seek to obey Christ like we seek food and drink. If this is done that person is promised that they will be filled. They will find what they sought. We who hunger for actual food must know that when the Father’s will is done “on earth as it is in heaven” there will be no empty stomachs. All mouths will be fed. We have that to anticipate.

Rembrandt and the Jewish Jesus

Rembrandt, Supper at Emmaus

I just came across an interesting article written by Lloyd Dewitt on the Huffington Post (07.25.2011) about the art of Rembrandt van Rijn. It is titled “Rembrandt and the Jewish Jesus”. The gist of the article is that Rembrandt showed great innovation in painting a Jesus that he thought was more like the Jewish Jesus of history than the “the Christ with the high forehead, shallow feminine features, long nose and narrow mouth familiar from early Christian and Byzantine icons”. It is worth reading if you are interested in art and/or historical Jesus studies?

Why historical Jesus studies?

Well, Dr. Craig A. Evans wrote his first guest post for this blog earlier today (see here) and one of the more prominent points that he made was that the great contribution of the Third Quest was “a recovery of the Jewishness of Jesus and his world.”

What is it about the Jewishness of Jesus that we find so important? Obviously, we regret that the Quest for the Historical Jesus and the New Quest both yanked Jesus away from first century Palestine into a variety of other contexts. I think this is problematic for Christians whose views of Jesus have been shaped as much if not more by places like Alexandria, Rome, Nicaea, Constantinople, Paris, or Moscow than Nazareth, Bethany, or Jerusalem. We are beginning to notice that while the continual evolution of our understanding of Jesus may not be bad, it is incomplete unless we recognize, as the Apostle Paul wrote, that “when the fullness of time had came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law”. (Gal 4.4) Even as we develop a Christology we must remember like the great Apostle that it is based on Jesus of Nazareth who came to us in real humanity, through a real birth, into a real world, at a real point in history. Even if we meditate deeply on Jesus being the Logos of God who has always been with God, and one with God, he is still made known to us first through a kenosis so real that to ignore the historical Jesus seems to be the first misstep in forming any Christology.

As I think about the various gospels that are read today one thing that greatly differentiates Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from “gospels” like Peter, James, Judas, and even Thomas is the Jewishness of the narrative, the interaction with the Jewish Scriptures, and the Jewish earth on which it all takes place.

So whether one is describing Jesus through paint like Rembrandt, or historical research like Evans, one should never make a Jesus who is not a child of Abraham, a child of David, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, preaching in Galilee and Jerusalem, and crucified in the land before his people. This is the Jesus of history and faith. It is the Jesus who was the “word made flesh” who “tabernacles in our midst” who “existed in the form of God” yet who did not “regard equality with God a thing to be grasped”.

See also: Mark Goodacre, NT POD 49: What is the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus?