Bock begins by noting the provisional nature of historical study, and connects the study of Jesus as a historical figure with the Enlightenment and the aim of stripping Jesus of doctrinal layers imposed on him by the early church (p.250). Bock explains that the bar for historical evidence is “raised to a level of significant demonstration” – a phrase that is unfortunately not particularly clear, but Bock provides examples such as the need for corroborating evidence, and mentions the “criteria of authenticity.” In a footnote he speaks with regret that, in order to play by these rules, the Gospel of John will have to be set aside for the most part (p.252 n.3).
Bock next dedicates a brief section to the question of whether Jesus existed, and he appeals to Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, mentioning as well that later Jewish sources also assume that Jesus existed. All of this takes up less than a page (p.253).
Bock then turns to offering “an Evangelical take on Jesus.” It could be described as “maximalist,” as Bock never actually seems to question the reliability of any major piece of information in the Gospels. Several times Bock emphasizes that Jesus understood himself to be, and was understood to be, “more than a prophet.” Bock mentions that miracles are “controversial” in our time (p.263) but sidesteps both the issue that historical methods cannot be used to make the case for the historicity of miracle accounts in ancient texts, and the question of whether, given the previous point, there is any reason why anyone today ought to accept such claims that miracles occurred.
Bock’s treatment of the trial illustrates his overly credulous approach to the sources. The Jewish “trial” of Jesus, Bock claims, is a subject about which the “Jerusalem grapevine” would have circulated details (pp.273-274). His appeal to Nicodemus, only known from the Gospel of John, and Joseph of Arimathea, only turned into a disciple relatively late, as potential sources does not inspire confidence. But even if information circulated through other chains of transmission, would it not most likely have been rumors of dubious value to a historian? Bock never seems to ask such basic historical critical questions. His assumption that the motives of the major players are as suggested in the Gospels is also never confronted with alternative scenarios which suggest that the Gospels may reflect a concern to obscure the actual state of affairs, as for instance in the case of the traceable trajectory that sought to shift the blame for Jesus’ death away from the Romans to as great an extent as possible.
The culmination of Bock’s “Evangelical approach” is found in his discussion of the resurrection, about which he says “In one sense to come to the resurrection is to move outside of historical study…normal historical means can hardly confirm such a claim” (p.278). It isn’t clear why he qualifies his statements as he does. Why only in one sense? Can “abnormal” historical means confirm such a claim, in Bock’s opinion?
The respondents offer a number of important criticisms of Bock’s chapter. Robert Price is first, and he suggests that conservatives and apologists tend to cite Hengel’s work about Judaism and Hellenism selectively, appealing to him when they want to posit a Jewish background for something attributed to Jesus (and thus argue for its authenticity) while ignoring it when it comes to possible influences from Hellenistic sources such as Gnosticism or “divine man” Christology (p.282). Of course, much recent research suggests that Gnosticism itself may have its origins in Judaism, and my work on the Mandaeans (who get a mention by Price on p.283) will probably add further support to that conclusion. Price also takes Bock to task for his dismissal of the Messianic secret idea. In the process, he appeals to the parallel of the Lubavitcher Rebbe who preached the soon-to-come kingdom of the Messiah, never confirming or denying that it was him. His disciples speculated and hoped, and after he died, the Messianic view of the Rebbe burst forth and spread quickly. This, Price notes, was Bultmann’s view, and Price says, “I do not believe his reconstruction can so easily be brushed aside” (p.285). This is a good point, but I was struck once again that Price was failing to maintain a consistently mythicist stance. It is as though he instinctively sees that some good arguments and parallels require a historical figure to make them plausible. Alas, all too soon the mythicist agenda kicks in once again, and mainstream historical criteria are swept aside in favor of the criterion “If there is a parallel or similar detail however slim in the Old Testament somewhere, then the early Christians invented the story from there.” No argument is ever offered as to why anyone should adopt this criterion, much less prefer it to those of mainstream historiography.
John Dominic Crossan’s response was interesting because of his statement, “The person that I – as a historian – call ‘the historical Jesus’ is exactly the same one that I – as a Christian – call ‘the incarnate Word.’ But I never, ever, confuse those twin visions of that same person” (p.288). Whether Crossan is as consistent as he believes himself to be has been challenged, including earlier in this volume, but it is arguable that all historians contribute something of themselves to the historical reconstructions they make, rather than this being something limited to historical Jesus studies (although the degree or extent may perhaps differ). Crossan disagrees with Bock in particular with respect to his discussion of political power.
Luke Timothy Johnson’s criticisms are the most pointed. In Johnson’s view, “Bock regards the Gospels as giving historians privileged access to Jesus’ intentions, and even his very thoughts,” and this premise “disqualifies the essay from serious consideration as historical scholarship” (p.294). While some may be surprised at the harshness of the criticism, given Johnson’s own form of “maximalism,” in fact it is precisely because Johnson finds that historical study leaves us with too little, and the discrepancies between the Gospels are too great, that he embraces a literary approach that encompasses all this material – but not in a way that either claims it is all historical (as Bock seems to, at least implicitly) or even tries to harmonize them on a narrative level. Slightly later, after noting that Bock seems more than once to claim to know what Jesus was thinking and intending, Johnson accuses him of “committing historiographical fallacy” (p.295). Presumably this is as much a matter of conviction for Bock as it is a matter of knowing what his conservative Evangelical audience expects him to say. Johnson’s response ends harshly: “Bock has not yet really engaged the Gospels critically as sources. Despite the statements that open his essay, he has not yet grasped what historical analysis requires” (p.296).
Dunn’s response concludes the book (apart from the list of contributors and indexes). Dunn notes imprecision in Bock’s use of the terminology of “historical” as applied to the resurrection as well as in the phrase “historical Jesus” (p.298). He also discusses the difference between data and facts: “[T]he events to which the Gospels refer are not themselves ‘hard facts’; they are facts only in the sense that we interpret the text, together with such other data as we have, to reach a conclusion regarding the events as best we are able. They are facts in the same way that the verdict of a jury establishes the facts of the case, the interpretation of the evidence that results in the verdict delivered. Here it is best to remember that historical methodology can only produce probabilities, the probability that some event took place in such circumstances being greater or smaller, depending on the quality of the data and the perspective of the historical enquirer” (p.299). Dunn’s final page advocates the need for genuinely critical investigation – one that takes seriously the possibility that later faith may indeed have “covered over that historical actuality” to some degree. He suggests that this is the only way that labels like “evangelical” and “Christian” can become once again terms that deserve and receive respect (p.300).
A book of this sort does not lend itself to summarization, but readers will benefit from the fact that this volume offers not merely a variety of views, but also interaction between the scholars that hold them. I highly recommend it, although I am sure that all of the contributors will agree that it is not a substitute either for detailed scholarly monographs focused on specific questions, or longer attempts at providing an extensive treatment of the historical figure of Jesus. But for those seeking to familiarize themselves with scholarship and some diverse stances on this topic, condensed into a brief presentation, this volume will offer a very useful and readable introduction.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In