![\"The](\"http:\/\/ws.amazon.com\/widgets\/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=0830838686&tag=jamefmcgrshom-20\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0830838686\")
The final chapter in The Historical Jesus: Five Views<\/em><\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0830838686\")
\u00a0is by Darrell Bock and represents a conservative Evangelical perspective on the topic of the historical Jesus. Bock begins by noting that some would regard this as an oxymoron. From the one side, the Evangelical view of Scripture\u00a0might be argued to be incompatible with critical historical inquiry, while from the other, historical skepticism seems incompatible with the Evangelical\u00a0view of the Bible as the Word of God. Bock\u2019s aim in the chapter is to argue that there can indeed be an Evangelical approach to the historical Jesus.<\/p>\nBock 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 \u201craised to a level of significant demonstration\u201d \u2013 a phrase that is unfortunately not particularly clear, but Bock provides examples such as the need for corroborating evidence, and mentions the \u201ccriteria of authenticity.\u201d 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). <\/p>\n
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).<\/p>\n
Bock then turns to offering \u201can Evangelical take on Jesus.\u201d It could be described as \u201cmaximalist,\u201d 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, \u201cmore than a prophet.\u201d Bock mentions that miracles are \u201ccontroversial\u201d 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<\/em> to accept such claims that miracles occurred.<\/p>\n Bock\u2019s treatment of the trial illustrates his overly credulous approach to the sources. The Jewish \u201ctrial\u201d of Jesus, Bock claims, is a subject about which the \u201cJerusalem grapevine\u201d 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\u00a0trajectory that sought to shift the blame for Jesus\u2019 death away from the Romans to as great an extent as possible.<\/p>\n The culmination of Bock\u2019s \u201cEvangelical approach\u201d is found in his discussion of the resurrection, about which he says \u201cIn one sense to come to the resurrection is to move outside of historical study\u2026normal historical means can hardly confirm such a claim\u201d (p.278). It isn\u2019t clear why he qualifies his statements as he does. Why only in one sense? Can \u201cabnormal\u201d historical means confirm such a claim, in Bock\u2019s opinion? <\/p>\n The respondents offer a number of\u00a0important criticisms of Bock\u2019s chapter. Robert Price is first,\u00a0and he suggests\u00a0that conservatives and apologists tend to cite Hengel\u2019s 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 \u201cdivine man\u201d 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\u2019s view, and Price says, \u201cI do not believe his reconstruction can so easily be brushed aside\u201d (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.\u00a0Alas, all too soon the mythicist agenda kicks in once again, and mainstream historical criteria are swept aside in favor of the criterion \u201cIf there is a parallel or similar detail however slim in the Old Testament somewhere, then the early Christians invented the story from there.\u201d No argument is ever offered as to why anyone should adopt this criterion, much less prefer it to those of mainstream historiography.<\/p>\n John Dominic Crossan\u2019s response was interesting because of his statement, \u201cThe person that I \u2013 as a historian \u2013 call \u2018the historical Jesus\u2019 is exactly the same one that I \u2013 as a Christian \u2013 call \u2018the incarnate Word.\u2019 But I never, ever, confuse those twin visions of that same person\u201d (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<\/em>.<\/p>\n Luke Timothy Johnson\u2019s criticisms are the most pointed. In Johnson\u2019s view, \u201cBock regards the Gospels as giving historians privileged access to Jesus\u2019 intentions, and even his very thoughts,\u201d and this premise \u201cdisqualifies the essay from serious consideration as historical scholarship\u201d (p.294). While some may be surprised at the harshness of the criticism, given Johnson\u2019s own form of \u201cmaximalism,\u201d in fact it is precisely because\u00a0Johnson finds that historical study leaves us with too little, and the discrepancies between the Gospels are too great, that\u00a0he embraces a literary approach that encompasses all this material \u2013\u00a0but not<\/em> 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 \u201ccommitting historiographical fallacy\u201d (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\u2019s\u00a0response ends harshly: \u201cBock 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\u201d (p.296).<\/p>\n Dunn\u2019s response concludes the book (apart from the list of contributors and indexes). Dunn notes imprecision in Bock\u2019s use of the terminology of \u201chistorical\u201d as applied to the resurrection\u00a0as well as in the phrase \u201chistorical Jesus\u201d\u00a0(p.298). He also discusses the difference between data and facts: \u201c[T]he events to which the Gospels refer are not themselves \u2018hard facts\u2019; 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\u201d (p.299). Dunn\u2019s final page advocates the need for genuinely critical investigation \u2013 one that takes seriously the possibility that later faith may indeed have \u201ccovered over that historical actuality\u201d to some degree. He suggests that this is the only way that labels like \u201cevangelical\u201d and \u201cChristian\u201d can become once again terms that deserve and receive respect (p.300).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The final chapter in The Historical Jesus: Five Views\u00a0is by Darrell Bock and represents a conservative Evangelical perspective on the topic of the historical Jesus. Bock begins by noting that some would regard this as an oxymoron. From the one side, the Evangelical view of Scripture\u00a0might be argued to be incompatible with critical historical inquiry, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-1381784347558610039?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")