Customer Reviews

The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels

5 star:		(35)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

As a former Biblical studies student (M. Div. from Yale Divinity School) turned philosopher, I read this book with the greatest of interest. The primary reason I forsook my OT and NT studies was a despair at how irrelevant and superficial and sceptical the entire discipline had become. Despite the constant hawking of new discoveries and new breakthroughs in Biblical studies, I felt myself as both a human being and a Christian completely alienated from the vast majority of scholars working on the Biblical materials. (I should add that I gave up Biblical studies before arriving at Yale, but I do believe that Brevard Childs is an exception to all of this. Had I not already been burned out, I would have profitted from having studied with him.)

Timothy Luke Johnson does an absolutely marvelous job of analyzing how and where things went wrong in NT studies. Had he just set out to criticize the Jesus Seminar (and easy undertaking--the vast majority of important NT scholars on both the left and right of the theological spectrum look askance at their efforts), it would have been an entertaining exercise in debunking. But what I didn't expect was a balanced and incisive analysis of where things went wrong in Biblical scholarship.

I do recommend this book as an important corrective to the misguided and rather silly efforts of Robert Funk and his cohorts, but even more I recommend it as an analysis of where things went wrong and as a guide to how we might get ourselves back on track. After having plowed through tedious and uninsightful works by Funk, Crossan, and Pagels in recent months, I found this book to be a complete breath of fresh air.

"The Real Jesus" is a book by Luke Timothy Johnson, a former Benedictine monk who currently teaches New Testament studies at Emory University. Although the author is a scholar, the book is strictly speaking not scholarly. Rather, the purpose of "The Real Jesus" is to stimulate debate about various topics, including the Jesus Seminar, the current state of Biblical studies, the mass media, and, of course, the figure of Jesus.

The main bulk of the book contains a criticism of the Jesus Seminar, a group representing the ultra-liberal portion of the scholarly (and theological) spectrum. The Seminar, led by John Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk, believes that most of the sayings attributed to Jesus weren't really spoken by him. Thus, the real Jesus was very different from the one we meet in the Gospels. The members of the Seminar also take a positive view of apocryphal texts, such as "the Gospel of Thomas" and "the Gospel of Peter", speculating that they might contain a more authentic picture of Jesus.

Apart from criticizing the ideas of the Jesus Seminar, Johnson also takes exception to their way of using the mass media. To Johnson, the Seminar is more a media phenomenon and less a scholarly enterprise. It's task is to change the perceptions of the public, not to influence their academic peers. (Ironically, this is the same kind of criticism natural scientists level at Christian creationists!)

Since Johnson is attacking the liberals regrouped around the Jesus Seminar, it's easy to assume that he is a conservative, even a fundamentalist. Actually, he is much more flexible. Thus he admits that the "historical" or "real" Jesus is very difficult to reconstruct. Extra-Biblical sources are scanty, and the New Testament itself is primarily a document of faith, rather than a strictly historical source. Any reconstruction will be on the level of probabilities rather than certainties.

Johnson believes that this doesn't threaten the Christian faith. But if the historical Jesus is impossible to fully grasp, why believe in the Christian message at all? Why not turn agnostic? This is a question Johnson cannot really answer. He seems to be saying that Jesus can be approached only through the tradition of the Church that canonized the Gospels in the first place. The historical Jesus isn't important. The resurrected, heavenly Jesus is. And he is experienced every day by the believers. The Gospels reflect this experience and are hence "real".

But are they? Isn't this really a form of Docetism, where the real Jesus doesn't matter, only the Christ of faith as he is described in later Church traditions? But if these traditions aren't real, aren't historically true, why believe them rather than the Gnostic message, or any other competing religious or non-religious message? What Johnson brushes aside as a typical "Protestant" problem - the attempts to prove that the Gospel narratives really happened - is a problem for Catholics as well, unless you want to end up with a completely irrational faith in some subjective experience or unattested dogma.

I give this book four stars since its thought-provoking, both when criticizing the Jesus Seminar for sloppy scholarship and when presenting its own theological alternative.

But is it true? That still remains the question.

I had the privilege of having Luke Timothy Johnson as my professor in various Christian-themed courses when I was an undergraduate at Indiana University, and hope that I am counted among the 'wonderfully responsive classes of undergraduates at Indiana University' to which he refers in his preface. (p. xiii)

-The Jesus Seminar and Other Charlatans-
As the word 'charlatan' derives from the Italian cerretano, meaning an inhabitant of Cerreto, a village near Spoleto, Italy, famous for quacks, perhaps Johnson would not object to using the word in connection with the Jesus Seminar, a 'village' as it were of historical Jesus research quackery. Johnson finds the Jesus Seminar lacking in integrity in both method and conclusion -- he finds irritating 'its indulgence in cute and casual discourse'. (p. 15) He finds their hunger for media exposure damaging to the overall enterprise of scholarship, and is deeply distrustful of the intention of their research and conclusions. The manner of determining historicity (the use of a coloured-ball voting mechanism, etc.), the exaggeration of prominence of the group of scholars who comprise the Jesus Seminar (a small amount given the large number of scholars in the world), and the tendency to depart from the stated purposes of finding an historical Jesus without theological taint and bias make the project a dubious enterprise for Johnson. 'The Seminar has not consistently followed the very criteria it established.' (p. 26) Their tendency toward rejecting anything canonical (and often completely ignoring Pauline and other epistolary sources), and instead elevating non-canonical sources to prominence, strikes Johnson as being as non-objective as the Seminar's members tend to make accusation of the canon.

Following his discussion of the Jesus Seminar, Johnson illustrates several recent offerings in the field of the historical Jesus (not necessarily by members of the Jesus Seminar) who illustrate current and popular trends. These authors include Barbara Thiering, Bishop Spong, A.N. Wilson, Stephen Mitchell, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Burton Mack. Johnson identifies patterns in each of these, many appearing as subtle trends rather than direct statements made on the part of the authors, such as rejection of the canonical Gospels and other scriptural sources as the most reliable source of information, as well as each seeming to have a theological agenda behind the 'historical' development. Because these are not explicit, the average reader in schools and pews will likely not notice, or only slowly notice, the bias in these so-called more objective works.

-Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up-
At the beginning of the year 2000, John Maclaughlin held on one of his broadcasts the 'Awards for the Faux Millennium'. Without getting into the debate over when the millennium really begins (or indeed if that is truly important), it was an interesting look back at the history of the millennium. However, I was intrigued by the award for the most influential religious figure of the past 1000 years. After several people on the panel offered opinions, the last person said that, in fact, the winner of the award should be Jesus Christ, who is just as real and alive today as 2000 years ago. And Maclaughlin agreed.

Johnson would have found this discussion edifying and consistent with his view of Jesus. Johnson throughout his career has devoted much effort toward defining what the word 'real' means. It simply is not the case that a Jesus that can be portrayed by a group of scholars as undiluted and well-researched by methods of historical criticism can in a definitive way be considered more 'real' than that Jesus who has been of influence and guidance to the church and world for the past 2000 years through scripture, creed, and inspiration. When the whole enterprise of finding the 'real' Jesus began in earnest in the scholarly sense, 'both the attackers and the defenders had accepted the same definition of truth...that empirically verifiable truth, in this case historical truth, was the only sort of truth worth considering'. (p. 60) Much of what is real escapes historical knowledge, Johnson argues, and much of what we consider to be the most important aspects of a person, event, etc. are those intangible qualities that can in no way survive into historical quantifiability.

-One Problem-
This having been said, there becomes a problem for those of us with a more modern, scientific/verification-driven sensibility, to think that if the resurrection is not a verifiable event, in what sense is it 'real'? Indeed, can it be 'unreal' in the historically-verifiable sense and still be 'real' in the faith-ful sense? And, is this faith something of real value even if it is tied to something 'unreal'? While there is a diversity in the text of images of Jesus both before and after resurrection, and this diversity should not be flattened but rather embraced and explored to make Jesus and Christianity a much more universal an all-encompassing possibility for all, this does not in the end answer the very basic question -- How can I believe this? -- that drives, and will continue to drive, people (scholars, clerics, and lay persons) who want to know how to reconcile something that is seemingly untrue with that which one must take on faith to be true.

-A Disclaimer-
I have never been offended or as off-put by the Jesus Seminar as has been Johnson, or indeed as have been many others. But then, I don't look to them for confirmation of my faith. Some Jesus Seminarians are good scholars and good writers, and I can find useful and valuable information from them regardless of whether or not I agree with their analyses or conclusions. Indeed, if my faith is such that it would be shaken by the Jesus Seminar or any such, then perhaps it deserves to be tested and shaken!

Luke Timothy Johnson is no fundamentalist. Johnson works in the milieu of critical scholarship while still maintaining a vibrant faith, much like the late Raymond Brown. Therefore, his observations in this book should not be dismissed as the rantings of rabid anti-scholar. There is much more to this book than criticism of the Jesus Seminar. The issues involved in contemporary biblical scholarship in general are articulated well. The main point of the book is that there are such severe limitations in historical research that any historical reconstruction of Jesus, i.e. "the historical Jesus" cannot be "the real Jesus" that is worshipped and followed by the church. The real Jesus is the one presented by the Gospels, and indeed by other sections of the New Testament (the letters of Paul, James, I Peter, etc.) Although the Jesus Seminar takes the brunt of the criticism here, Johnson also points out some of the methodological missteps of less radical scholars such as John P. Meier. This book makes some valid points and is essential reading to get another view in the lively area of contemporary Jesus scholarship.

THE REAL JESUS is scholar Luke Timothy Johnson's critical response to several writers in the historical Jesus fad that grew quite large in the late 1980s and 1990s. Generously published in 1996 by HarperSanFrancisco, the same publisher of so many of the books Johnson criticises, the work is a necessary counterpoint to any book asserting to reach a historical understanding of Jesus.

Johnson does not stand against works exploring the historic nature of Jesus. He himself has worked in that field, and he praises John P. Meier's A MARGINAL JEW series. What draws Johnson's ire are those writers, most notably of the Jesus Seminar, who do not respect academic norms, inappropriately chase public attention, and generally present a serious enterprise as a sensationalistic pursuit.

Johnson's attack on the Jesus Seminar is sensible and will leave the reader with no doubt that theirs is not the way to approach history. Johnson uses writings from the Jesus Seminar's own leaders to show that they don't merely wish to approach Jesus as a person to shed better light on such a seminal personality, but rather in order to expressly convince orthodox Christians to leave their faith. Instead of carrying on the conversation in serious academic journals, the Seminar sends its findings to provincial newspapers, whose editors on religion lack the training to critically understand their press releases. The Jesus Seminar relies entirely on the Gospels for reconstructing a historical Jesus and give little attention to the earlier writings of Paul, which in several places give tantalising mention of Jesus' life.

Johnson examines the works of other writers as well. He criticises John Shelby Spong for entering the field with no specialised training and for seeking, just like the Jesus Seminar, more to "free" people from orthodox Christianity than to dispassionately explore the past. Similarly A.N. Wilson is condemned for his amateur book JESUS. Johnson laments the unfortunate popularity of Barbara Thiering's work in which an obscure and hardly-qualfied scholar sees a giant conspiracy (a la the DA VINCI CODE) within the gospels which no one for the previous two millennia has seen.

After looking at the sorely wanting techniques of the popularly-known writers, Johnson takes the reader through what can really be known about Jesus. Unlike the Jesus Seminar, he shows that reconstruction is not limited to Gospel material, but that supporting material from the writings of Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus must be taken into account. Johnson also attempts to show how orthodox Christianity has never really been about a historical Jesus, but rather a risen Lord whose power is manifest here and now. Because orthodox Christianity is not dependant on history, though it sees the Church as a continuation of some historical events, these books claiming to help orthodox Christians better understand their faith are missing the point.

My only complaint about the book is that Johnson's coverage of the Jesus Seminar is angry. This is somewhat understandable, the Seminar breaks many of the vital rules of academic discourse, but Johnson himself could have been more faithful to his ideals by rewriting certain passages in a more sober tone. Nonetheless, THE REAL JESUS is a useful book, a small voice of reason in a crowd of sensationalism.

For readers who only have a passing awareness of the current group of modern skeptical scholars such as Crossan, Mack, Borg, etc. need to read this book. Mr Johnson briefly summarizes the viewpoints of the skeptical critics and then proceeds to demonstrate their frequent inconsistencies. I've read a great deal of traditional scholarship and some of the more radical (Crossan, etc.).

This book was written 3-4 years ago and the skeptics have yet to answer Johnson's charges. If you want to know why you should be wary of swallowing this new school of Jesus research, then you should read this book. I challenge any supporter of Crossan, Borg, or Mack to read this book and then to honestly answer Luke Johnson's questions that he poses to the radicals. The silence is still deafening.

In the mid-1990's, the popular media was paying great attention to the work of the so called "Jesus Seminar." This group offered new and often controversial interpretations of the gospels. Headlines of major magazines would often read "Did Jesus Really Teach the Our Father?" or "Is the Resurrection True?" Sometimes the magazines would have articles about these issues and devote front covers to them, often at Christmas or Easter. Some of the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar were interesting and enlightening, but in many cases were misleading. The Jesus Seminar needed a careful and critical response from those who did not agree with their positions, and this response came from noted Biblical scholar Luke Timothy Johnson.

Johnson looks at the major players in the historical Jesus debate, and refutes many of them, though he also acknowledges their contributions. Johnson's major critique is that the Jesus Seminar looks only at certain phrases of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, while discounting much of the other portions of the New Testament, especially St. Paul. Johnson acknowledges the critical role that the sayings of Jesus play in understanding Jesus Christ, but believes that we cannot possibly understand Jesus if we do not look at the other writings of the New Testament and how early Christians understood Jesus. He further details this position in his book LIVING JESUS.

Johnson's view is more holistic than that of the Jesus Seminar, and fits how many non-Fundamentalist Christian groups see Jesus Christ. It should also be noted that Johnson is not a conservative scholar. He is somewhat progressive and not all of his views are consistent with some traditional Christian thinkers. Johnson is not a conservative attacking liberals but one progressive defending traditional beliefs about Jesus Christ.

The book is easy to read, and Johnson fairly represents all sides of the debate. Even those who may not agree with all of his positions will find the book helpful simply because he is able to analyze the debate as he offers his position.

I have used Johnson's book as one of the textbooks in my "Life and Teachings of Jesus" course this past year. Students have found it stimulating and provocative. They are initially put off by Johnson's elitist, arrogant attack on the Jesus Seminar, but because of the book's lively style (and with my assurance that Johnson is actually a qualified New Testament scholar) they persist and discover his elegantly developed explanation of the relationship between history and faith. Johnson's attack on the Jesus Seminar is not entirely fair. Of course, his slamming of writers like Spong and Thiering is much deserved. On the other hand, he primarily attacks Borg for making a name for himself and advancing his career doing historical Jesus research. I thought choosing an area of specialization, becoming a productive writer, and advancing in the profession was what all academics seek to do. Johnson first criticizes Jesus Seminar members for not teaching at Harvard, Yale, Duke, Emory, etc. (as if everyone could) then criticizes many of them for doing their graduate work at those same institutions. He needs to make up his mind. Johnson's critique of Crossan is valid at many points, but he dismisses Crossan's work much too easily. It is not fair to lump him together with Spong and Thiering. I suppose Johnson needed to get all of that venom out of his system before he could write productively, and that is why I consider his book to be worth the battle of getting through the first couple of chapters. In the end it serves as a great reassurance that the best way to discover Jesus is to read the canonical gospels, which is what I still spend most of the course doing.

...but not right away. The first couple of chapters seemed too strongly written against the Jesus Seminar and the media for me to take it seriously. It felt like he was a little too passionate to present a fair argument. I think it's important to write more objectively about such a sensitive subject. I was glad, however, when he ripped into some of the so-called "Amateurs." Popular books written by people like Bishop John Spong are dangerous to the Church because of the attention they receive...and people read them and assume that the writer is telling the absolute truth. I do certainly have more respect for "Academicians" Borg and Crossan. They seem to be making a reasonable, scholarly attempt at finding the Truth. Yet Johnson made several good points against their work, too.

Deeper into the book, Johnson gives a great discussion of history and its limits, and is probably the most honest and convincing take on the subject I've read in a long time.

Chapter 5 ("What's historical about Jesus?") is worth the price of the book by itself. Johnson's methodology is the most logical for reconstructing the historical Jesus that I've come across, and he doesn't seem to get ahead of the data and make false assumptions. He actually starts with non-biblical sources for information on the historical Jesus, and then moves to the earliest writings we have in the New Testament (Paul's letters), whereas the Jesus Seminar gives little-if any-value to these early writings that we have.

I do think it is important to realize that each and every one of us comes to the table with thoughts and ideas so embedded in our minds that it's practically (if not literally) impossible to approach the Historical Jesus subject objectively. Borg does, Crossan does, and even the author, Johnson does. That's why I think it's best to get books from several perspectives. Don't just limit yourself to what you believe. Let some other works stretch you.

Peace.

Luke Timothy Johnson is a heavyweight in Christian scholarship and in this clear and concise book, he exposes the "misguided quest" of the Jesus Seminar. This book strengths lie in that Johnson, a first rate scholar, explains why the quest for a historical Jesus often fails.

The book introduces the Jesus Seminar and some of their most popular teachers and scholars. One reviewer clamims that Johnson is Polemic, but I am curious what he considers polemic. Johnson is not polemic, but honest in his assesments of this group. He informs the reader which Seminar folk are actual scholars and which ones are not.

Johnson then reminds the reader the "limitations of history" in trying to develop a historical Jesus. This area examines the limtations of this social science. He then develops what is "historical about Jesus" and the "Real Jesus." This book is an easy read, yet has enough depth that it adequately deals with such an important topic. While I cannot completely agree with Johnson on every detail, he has produced a great work which is neeeded as a counter-balance to the media circus that surrounds the Jesus Seminar and the often lack of serious scholastic response by "litarlist Bible Christians."