Customer Reviews

Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If it's a hefty and richly probing expert scholarly study into the subject you want, here it is. This is a heavy duty volume on studying what may be known, and how it may be known, about the actual historical Jesus. The author, James Dunn, is a hugely respected new testament/biblical scholar, immensely learned. At 900+ pages of content, this book dives into what can be known about Jesus historically. Gets into sources, methods, past historical "Jesus Quests", literary issues and also examines the events and meanings of most aspects of Jesus' life, actions and significance. A tremendous amount of research and learning undergirds the author's work in this book. Provides a richly detailed and intense exploration of Jesus studies as mentioned above. Clearly written, chapters are well laid out. Contains immense footnotes and a rich bibliography. The author is very realistic in his approach and conclusions. He doesn't come at it from a liberal stance or a conservative one. He really seems to be striving to let the evidence and sound historical investigation do the leading, which is the value of this book, whatever agreements one may or may not have with any of the specifics.

Dunn's approach is really simply that of an historian, and as such, he approaches what may be known of Jesus, by recognizing that what we have in the written gospel accounts, is the rememberances of Jesus' earliest followers. He approaches the whole subject with an historian's spade, and executes very sober spadework all along the way. With this being the case, Dunn probes the content of what they left behind in their writings, and just makes a whole lot of historical sense as to the content, and the compilation of that content. In other words, since Jesus left no writings himself, the closest we can get to him historically is through the memoirs of his earliest followers. But these memoirs are composites of oral tradition, having made their way into written form, and they are compacted versions of that as well. The memoirs of Jesus that made their way into written form, come to us from a development of the initial impact Jesus made on many of his contemporaries, and on through to the forms and modes those memoirs took on as they settled into writings. With a truly masters hand, Dunn treats this subject with historical sobriety, showing the layers of what most likely lay behind the rememberances of the Jesus memoirs.

In my opinion, after reading many Jesus study books, I think Dunn's work is one of the most realistic treatments of what may be known about the Jesus of history, the Jesus of whom his impact has left its stamp on history in the new testament gospel accounts.

I should like to add that Dunn's work will possibly strike a nerve here or there with conservatives/fundamentalists and also with liberals as well. Dunn just doesn't seem to be interested in pedaling either side. He doesn't even seem interested in simply playing a middle ground. He really seems to be a keen historian of the Jesus from history past. At any rate, Dunn's work must be reckoned with by anyone wanting to be well informed on Jesus studies. Serious study by a serious scholar for serious inquirers.

For a much much smaller dose of Dunn's thinking see his little work: The Evidence For Jesus, and also: A New Perspective on Jesus. Some other top notch Jesus study books of high caliber are: Who Is Jesus by Thomas Rausch; Familiar Stranger: An Introduction To Jesus of Nazareth by Michael McClymond, The Christology of Jesus by Ben Witherington; The Original Jesus by Tom Wright; Jesus and His World by Peter Walker; Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry Hurtado; and Especially the chapters on Jesus in Stanley Porter and Lee Martin McDonald's excellent textbook, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature; and Jesus,Symbol of God by Roger Haight.

James Dunn's massively documented "Jesus Remembered" is the first of a planned trilogy on the first 120 years of Christianity. He starts off with of his discussion of the Jesus tradition, and what we can know about the historical Jesus. After his discussion of the past two centuries of Jesus research Dunn gets down to his new approach to the question. Much of the study of the historical Jesus has dealt with texts; Mark, Q, Matthew and Luke and their own unique sources. Dunn argues that the differences between these sources cannot simply be viewed as theological redactions. Instead they often relied on oral tradition. Dunn has looked at how oral traditions develop and notices that while stories passed orally often change in details ("performance variations") the essential core of the story often remains unchanged for a long time. Although Dunn says several times that the best we can hope for is what Jesus' followers remembered about him, he often believes that if a tradition fits his oral history paradigm given above it is most likely to have originated with Jesus himself.

So what does Dunn conclude from his approach? First off, Dunn himself is a Christian and on page 879 affirms the resurrection. So it is important to point out how much of Christian belief Dunn has to leave by the wayside. The Gospel of John's narrative is not reliable, nor the claims it makes for his quasi-divine status. There is little to support the infancy narratives. There is little evidence that Jesus supported a mission to the gentiles. Contrary to the gospels, there is no evidence that Jesus saw himself as any kind of messiah. (The term does not even appear in Q.) Nor is there much left of the "Son of Man," except for a few uncertain eschatological allusions. Indeed, Dunn argues, Jesus did not claim any title for himself. Jesus may have believed that he was going to die, but he did not believe he was dying to redeem the sins of the world. "If Jesus hoped for resurrection it was presumably to share in the general and final resurrection of the dead." There is astonishingly little support for what Jesus' last words were. At the same time, Dunn is sceptical of the historical value of the Gospel of Thomas and his frequent comparisons with the synoptic materials strongly suggest that it followed, not preceded them. Dunn is also properly sceptical of the Kloppenborgs' belief that one can separate Q into convenient layers. There is an especially good section that shows that the Hellenistic background of first century Galilee has been much exaggerated. There is little evidence that Sepphoris had many gentiles and plenty of evidence of the four indication of Jewish religious identity (stone vessels, absence of pork remains, Jewish burial customs and Jewish bathing customs).

There are problems with Dunn's oral tradition model. As one proceeds one wonders whether such incidents as contradictory traditions about Capernaum, the parable of the wicked tenants, Jesus' quarrels with Pharisees over eating grain on the Sabbath, the triumphant entry into Jerusalem or the claim that Jesus spoke of destroying the temple really do go back to Jesus. The possibility of a parti pris, on both the gospel authors and of Dunn himself, has to be considered. Looking back at Dunn's model of an oral tradition one notes a flawed analogy. Dunn gave an example of an Arabian peasant village, where once the community agreed on a story they stick to it. But the early Christian community were not (simply) isolated peasants. They were actively trying to convert their fellow countrymen, and ultimately with little success. In other words, unlike the Arab villagers, their story faced constant challenge from non-believers and this had to affect its development.

There are other weaknesses. There is a certain squirming as Dunn admits that Jesus believed in an imminent eschatological climax that, of course, did not happen. "Putting it bluntly, Jesus was proved wrong by the course of events." Then he goes on for four pages trying to argue that we shouldn't be too concerned about his. This is not so much a "consistent eschatology" or a "realized eschatology" as a neutered eschatology. Dunn's account of the resurrection is better in discussing the weaknesses of Christian tradition that in defending them. He argues that Jewish traditions agree on an empty tomb, without pointing out that such traditions were composed centuries afterwards, were clearly a response to the gospels, and have no independent value in themselves. Dunn also argues that the fact that Jesus' tomb was not venerated is proof that the Christians knew it was empty. But this is not convincing. Aside from the fact that there is some evidence of veneration, if Christians could honor the cross Jesus died on, they could venerate the place he was resurrected. Unless, of course, they didn't know where he was buried. Trying to argue that Jesus received a proper burial, Dunn notes that there is an example of a crucified body receiving proper burial, but forgets to add that it is the only such body found in all of Palestine. On the other hand Dunn notes all of the weaknesses of the tradition: the link of Jesus' resurrection to a falsely imminent general resurrection, confusion as to what sort of Jesus the witnesses were seeing, a persistent theme of failure of the witnesses to recognize Jesus (in Matthew 28:17 the disciples are seeing him in Galilee yet "some doubted," not just Thomas), confusion as to where they were seeing Jesus (in Jerusalem and Galilee? On earth or in heaven?) But on the whole the research is thorough, the bibliography voluminous and there is much in this book that will provoke and stimulate the reader. This is a book one should take the trouble to read.

James D.G Dunn reminds me of the apostle Paul in that he writes some things that are hard to understand. His books are almost always heavy, weighty, academic tomes.

And even though he has made his mark in recent years in Pauline scholarship, I thought he did a nice job with this study of Jesus' life. He comes through as a moderately conservative scholar. He is doubtful about the historicity of the stories surrounding the Nativity and Birth of Jesus, but he holds that most of the sayings and deeds of Jesus go back to him.

At the end of the book, he affirms his belief in the resurrection of Jesus as well.

This book is not as interesting as Ben Witherington's book "The Christology of Jesus," nor is it as engrossing as Craig Blomberg's "Jesus and the Gospels." But the book is more detailed than either of these and it gives a concentrated look at Jesus from the moderately conservative British camp. Recommended.

James 'Jimmy' DG Dunn's contribution to the field of Biblical studies has already been notable and considerable. Characteristically, his writings are generally very accessible to specialist and lay folk alike, whilst ticking most of the scholarly and critical boxes.

For many years, Jimmy Dunn was the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham and is now Professor Emeritus there. His previous works include studies in Paul,and he edited The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (2003). 'Jesus Remembered' is the first volume in what promises to be something of a definitive three-volume epic history of the first 100+ years of the 'Christian' faith.

This first volume focuses the majority of its attention upon Jesus himself, and it boasts a number of interesting and novel features. Whilst utilising, quite effectively and certainly interestingly, the findings of the various "quests for the historical Jesus" it also strives to address hermeneutical and expositional matters and, thus, attempts to provide both a critical and a theological perspective of Christology and, indeed, upon the traditions pertaining to Jesus the man.

This work also sets out to assess and quantify the impact made by Jesus and examines the question of oral reports and traditions in particular. This is still a rather amorphous strand of New Testament enquiry and this work will serve well as a referential starting point for many. One feature of this section of the work is that it does spend more wordage focusing upon the principal characteristic features of the traditions rather than the divergences. Whether or not this will be seen as a whim to the conservative school, remains to be seen.

This vast endeavour promises to be something of a milestone in Biblical and theological history and this first offering contends well, even favourably, with many of the other works available at the time of writing. This reviewer is happy to recommend it.

Michael Calum Jacques

I would rank James Dunn with the best New Testament scholars I have read to include John Meier, Richard Bauckham, E. P. Sanders, and Albert Schweitzer. Dunn is a secular scholar. This is not the kind of fluff you would find in an evangelical bookstore. Yet he challenges the theories of modern liberal Jesus questers who want to transform the historical person of Jesus into a non-apocalyptic moral sage or a political revolutionary.

Dunn rightly claims that the idea of Jesus as a Mediterranean peasant or a wandering cynic philosopher fails to place him within first century Palestinian Judaism. The idea of Jesus as a political revolutionary also lacks merit. The Zealot party and the events leading up to the Jewish War ocurred decades after Jesus was crucified.

Dunn also challenges the theory of a separate "Q" gospel and the so-called "Q" community. The "Q" verses makes no mention of Jesus' resurrection which is an event too critical to have been glossed over by any of his followers. The most likely explanation for these verses is that that Luke's gospel borrowed them from Matthew.

Dunn claims that the historical Jesus is enshrined in the gospels. Even though the gospels were written in light of the resurrection, they are still the only real sources we have in regard to the historical person of Jesus. The traditions preserved in the synoptic gospels reflect a time when the day of judgemnet and the full manifestation of God's Kingdom were expected to occur in the near future. The apocryphal or so called gnostic gospels, including the highly touted Gospel of Thomas, lack this apocalyptic element and were therefore most likely written long after the fervor of Jesus' imminent return died down.

Dunn goes to great length in articulating Jesus' self understanding using three role models: Davidic messiah, Son of Man, and eschatological prophet. Jesus was crucified by the Romans on charges of claiming to be the king of the Jews and was often hailed as the Son of David. His prophetic demonstration of riding a donkey into Jerusalem and his use of Psalm 110 indicates that he accepted this role.

The identification of Jesus as Daniel's apocalyptic Son of Man was certainly given to him by his disciples after the resurrection. However, it is unclear if Jesus ever really assigned this role too himself in light of Luke 12:8 in which he assigns this role to someone other than himself. Dunn concludes, along with Schweitzer, that this may have been a future role Jesus saw himself fulfilling.

Dunn makes the convincing argument that it was the role of an apocalyptic prophet which most clearly defined Jesus and his ministry. Jesus emerged from the circle of John the Baptist and was motivated by the conviction that the day of judgement or baptism by fire as articulated by the prophet Daniel was soon to come. Dunn suggests that the gospel portrayal of John the Baptist is far more accurate than Josephus who wrote to a Roman audience. Josephus had to tone down John's role as an apocalyptic prophet and transformed him into a teacher of moral and virtue. It is unlikely that Herod would have been overly concerned with a moral philosopher.

It is unclear if John identified Jesus as the one who was to come because Jesus failed to enact the fiery judgement which John expected. Although Jesus continued John's gospel of the coming kingdom and fiery judgement, his message placed a greater stress on grace and forgiveness. Jesus was unique in his open table fellowship and inclusion of sinners and those considered unclean into the kingdom. This definitely separates him from the Qumran community.

As a teacher, Jesus did not expound upon the Torah but used his own authority based upon the unique father-son relationship he felt he had with God. The ethics which Jesus taught were best described as prophetic ethics in light of the coming kingdom. This explains the radical nature of some his ethics which often exceeded the requiremants of the Torah. Jesus was greatly influenced by Isaiah who stressed purity of heart and love of God and neighbor over the ritual requirements of the law.

Dunn suggests that Jesus more than likely saw himself fulfilling the role of Isaiah's "suffering servant" toward the end of his ministry. After his prophetic demonstration against the Temple money changers, Jesus would have been extraordinarily naive not to believe that it would lead to his suffering and death. The idea of the vindication of the righteous martyr whose suffering and death would act as an atonement can be found in the Maccabean writings as well.

Dunn effectively argues that the gospels were not likely to have been fabricated long after Jesus' death. The betrayal of Judas Iscariot, the wavering at Gethsemane, the flight of the disciples, and Mary Magdalene being the first witness to the empty tomb, could hardly have been fabricated by the church. In addition, there is no mention of any veneration of Jesus' tomb by his disciples which blows away any theories about a "Jesus family tomb".

The events that Jesus predicted which his disciples would witness never happened. The earthquake, the opening of
the tombs, the resurrection of the righteous dead, and the rending of the Temple veil, which occured when Jesus
gave up the ghost, probably were events that were expected to happen and inserted into the gospels later. However, the resurrection of Jesus convinced the disciples that the Son of Man did indeed come on the clouds to The Ancient of Days and received His kingdom. In that respect, Jesus' hope for the Kingdom of God had been realized.

`Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making' is the first volume in a planned three volume series on the origins and early years of Christianity by noted New Testament (NT) scholar James Dunn. The series is an ambitious undertaking and upon completion promises to be Dunn's Magnum Opus. In a broad sense the series, and especially this first volume, is situated in what is often referred to the `Third Quest' for the historical Jesus. Dunn attempts to distinguish his approach by focusing on how Jesus impacted and was remembered those who encountered him, rather, than attempting to get to an objective Jesus behind these remembrances. While I appreciate Dunn's effort to nuance his case, it feels very much like the standard Jesus Quest approach, he makes assumptions, examines data and makes conjectures about the historic Jesus.

The book has much strength. With regard to more general issues Dunn does an excellent job of highlighting the difficulties and potential pitfalls associated with this type of scholarship, e.g. translations, cultural context, textual archaeology, theological presuppositions etc. All of which are handled with Dunn`s characteristic insight and clarity. It is a helpful reminder to experts and novices alike. In addition Dunn makes a good case for a move away from a rigid literary-textual approach to the gospels. He argues that even if one supposes that ancient Israel was a comparatively literate society many of the gospel stories were likely well known and frequently recounted in public oral performances prior to the being captured in their present form. An environment, Dunn argues, would have allowed for the core messages to have been preserved despite some variability in performances. With respect to specific issues the text also has much to offer, I particularly enjoyed Dunn's overview of the `son of man' debate, - the question as to how this expression is best understood, is it a broad generic term, as in `one', or a titular designator as in the Daniel's tradition.

With regards to drawbacks, I offer a couple of thoughts. First, the text is physically too large for a single volume at over a thousand pages (approx. 300-400 of notes and references!). This form of contemporary biblical scholarship is at once both impressive; engagement with such an enormous range of scholars, and frustrating, more concerned compilations of scholarly opinion with limited value-added analysis. Second, while a fascinating and interesting field it is important to remain mindful that NT scholarship is highly speculative. It is its own type of historic fiction, where scholar and layman alike see what they believe, giving credence to interpretations and information they support while dismissing that which they oppose. As with others in the field Dunn falls prey to the classic problem of Historic Jesus study - creating a Jesus in the scholar's image - It seems unavoidable. While I greatly admire Dunn, he seems to be trying to fashion a Christian story which is acceptable to modern Western intellectuals, affirming the feasibility of belief in an historic resurrection yet positing a deflated Jesus largely devoid of the miraculous - it is difficult to see how such a Jesus could attract followers or inspire a religion?

Ultimately, this is an impressive work by one of today's leading NT scholars. I enjoy Dunn and will likely read the subsequent two volumes in the series. I recommend the book to students of the NT and the historic Jesus.

Let's put heavyweight books in proper perspective.

Academics are competing to proudly fill up scholarly bookshelves with multiple and weighty volumes. The "Publish or Perish" university motto is obviously contaminating the world of Religion, pushing authors into printing texts that are inspired by varying degrees of liberal Christianity, less stringent than the fundamentalist's orthodoxy. Handled as other academic topics, each volume is to be consulted rather than read and bears the marks of both author and university. Campus identity is engaged and all teams are asked to occupy the field. Here, the number of printed pages and the extent of footnotes are markers of excellence. Any University without its own bindings is as Narcissus deprived of the water surface to reflect pride.

Competing academic authorities are building their personal and institutional reputation. Marking their imprint on religion, they propose slight variations around a central theme that satisfies the University standards. Each tome contains a generous ladle full of the "historical man", a Judean background, a pinch of "sources" and oral traditions, and a scoop of miracles with a final resurrection seasoning. These are the exciting ingredients they have at disposal. The result will be generously praised and criticized, leading to the conclusion that here is a "must" for any serious home or institutional library.

Academics may extensively write almost anything on Jesus, as long as they do not scratch the historicity and resurrection dogma. These are the limits of the politically correct beyond which trespassers receive thunder and lightening from the ivory tower of Knowledge.

All these publications are obviously very important as handbooks we readily consult. But having been shaped by and chosen by their elected universities, it is difficult to imagine that anything fundamentally new will ever come out of such respectable minds. The New Testament is a field where a bit more "historical imagination" is welcome. All these greatly learned teachers are however forgetting that erudition is no more than an accumulation of knowledge, whereas intelligence is the way you assemble and release it. There is no "eureka" to be found here.

The author of 1 Peter writes in chapter 2 that the governors are appointed by God to punish those who do wrong.

In the very same chapter, the author talks about how Jesus suffered and was insulted.

The cognitive dissonance to claim that the earthly governors are sent by God to punish those who do wrong and then immediately claim that Jesus was punished must have been huge.

How could the author of 1 Peter have believed Jesus was mocked, stripped, whipped, beaten, and crucified by Romans and write what he did in chapter 2 about the governors punishing those who do wrong?

Dunn, of course, simply ignores this elephant in the room. If he allowed himself to read the text, and see that these early letters have no knowledge of the Romans crucifying Jesus, then he would have to rethink his entire lifes work.

So he just ignores whatever he cannot fit into his paradigm of the Gospels being historical.