30 Days to Understanding the Bible - Review

I sometimes get asked for a book that would be a good basic introduction to the Bible for adults. A handbook to the Bible is sometimes useful but if the person has no background in the Bible even that can be a little intimidating. I ran across a book by Max Anders called 30 Days to Understanding the Bible and there is much here to commend its use for adults with no Bible background (though I have some cautions which I’ll explain later). It’s been out for a while but I’ve not seen it before.

Anders begins with a proposition: “If you’ll give me fifteen minutes a day for thirty days, I’ll give you an understanding of the Bible . . .” (7) During the month Anders covers “all the major men and women, all the major events, and all the major points of geography.” It presupposes no prior knowledge of the Bible on the part of the reader. It is filled with charts, graphs, diagrams and symbols it help with remembering key people, places and concepts. I especially enjoyed his emphasis on geography. I recall my first class in Biblical geography. It was such an eye opening class and I’ve since then made frequent use of my favorite Bible atlas. Anders covers eight major bodies of water and seven locations in the Old Testament. They are reinforced in the New Testament. The Bible is divided into nine major eras. Each era is then given a central figure. For example, Creation has the first man Adam, Patriarch has the first patriarch Abraham, and Exodus has Moses as the leader of the Exodus and so on. Remember, this is an overview so there is a lot of material not covered. Anders is simply trying to give a bird’s eye view of the Bible. If you use this book in a class for new believers or individually you can always supplement it as you deem necessary. After covering the Old and New Testament Anders covers ten great doctrines: Bible, God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Angels, Man, Sin, Salvation, Church and Future Things. Each of these is divided into four major subdivisions. The book concludes with a summary of the Bible, and articles on “What the Bible Teaches, in 1,000 Words” and “The Message of the Bible.” The appendix has a number of nice features including reproducible images for teaching. Overall, this is a good book to give to a new believer who wants an introduction to the basic storyline of the Bible.

A couple of concerns. Anders says “No attempt has been made to interpret the Bible. The information is presented at face value as it is found in Scripture.” (7) I appreciate what Anders is saying but “interpretation” abounds throughout. Man is dualistic (218, 236), the Bible is recorded “without error” (265), the Church begins at Pentecost (136, 244), the Christian receives his “new body” immediately at death (237), and the sin at the Tower of Babel was disobeying God’s command to fill the earth (44). It is clearly a Protestant work since it excludes the apocrypha and says “our salvation is completed at the death of the body.” (236) For a Catholic these are matters of “interpretation” made by Protestants. Anders takes all the numbers throughout the Pentateuch at “face value” even though many scholars believe these can be understood in other ways. The decision to take things at “face value” is an interpretive decision in itself. There is no discussion of the death of Christ as an atonement for our sins in the chapter on Christ (the four subdivisions are Deity, Humanity, Resurrection and Return). It is not covered under “salvation” either. I would have replaced the chapter on “Angels” with one on the atonement. This would be an area I would surely supplement.

My concerns aside I still like this book and think it can be used by a new believer to start to put the pieces together as he/she begins to read the Bible for the first time. Here’s some other good news. The book retails for $16.99 but we are offering them for only $5.00! You can’t beat that. You can see many of the charts, graphs and diagrams at Thomas Nelson’s website here.

Max Anders (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary, Th.D. Western Seminary) became the Senior Pastor of Castleview Baptist Church in January 1999. A graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and Western Seminary, Dr. Anders is the author of 22 books, including the best-selling 30 Days to Understanding the Bible, and a ten-volume series entitled What You Need to Know About. In addition, he is the original developer and general editor of The Holman New Testament Commentary. A former college professor and adjunct seminary professor, as well as instructor with Walk Thru the Bible Ministries, he is listed in Who's Who in the Midwest. Max and his wife, Margie, live in Indianapolis with their two children, Tanya and Christopher, whom they adopted from Russia.

Your Church is Too Small - A Blog Tour Review

It's an honor to be a part of this blog tour hosted by Zondervan on John Armstrong's new book Your Church is Too Small.  Thanks to Zondervan for the advanced reading copy. 

When I was at Trinity I had the pleasure of having Carl Henry for a class. One day he told us that we need to think in terms which will “move Christendom.” I thought “I’ll put that on my calendar. ‘Take final exam in Henry’s class. Move Christendom.’” Well, I passed the final exam but have not done anything that I would consider worthy enough of moving Christendom.

As I was reading John Armstrong’s book, Your Church is Too Small, it occurred to me “This guy is thinking in terms which could move Christendom!” But let’s clarify one important point: this book is not about growing church membership. John has a bigger vision than simply transforming a small church into a mega church. No. Your church is not simply the little white church with a steeple on Little Church Ave. It is part of the church which Christ prayed for in John 17 and spans the globe. This church includes Catholics, Evangelicals, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals, Reformed, Wesleyans and more. We begin with Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-23.

John notes that some have focused on what the prayer does not mean rather than on what it does mean. (42) When pressed they usually adopt an interpretation which appeals to something along the lines of the invisible church. But this can’t work since Jesus would be praying for something we already possess. The invisible church is united! Rather, Jesus is speaking of a “relational unity” or a “unity between persons that is rooted in their relationships with one another.” (43) I think John is supported here by Paul in Romans 15:5 where he prays that God will give to them “the same attitude of mind toward each other that Jesus had.” Doug Moo observes in his commentary “Paul’s concern is not, at least primarily, that the believers in Rome all hold the same opinion of these ‘matters indifferent’; but that they remain united in their devotion to the Lord Jesus and to his service in the world.” (The Epistle to the Romans, p. 871) It is this very unity which John says has been undermined by divisions and fractions in the church. “We must” he says “cultivate a holy discontent about our unholy divisions.” (63) At the root of these divisions is sectarianism. He defines sectarianism as “mutual exclusivity, an exclusivity that thrives when people and groups believe they have a superior claim to truth. Sectarians believe their church/denomination/tradition can best ‘represent the body of Christ, to the exclusion or minimization of other genuinely Christian groups.” (92) It is here I think John shows some careful thinking because he reminds us often that we should not give up what makes us distinctive. “I agree that everyone should believe that the church they embrace is the ‘right’ one. Problems often arise, though, when Christians and churches believe that their brand of Christianity is entirely right—a way of thinking rooted in the notion that I am one who believes the truth and you believe a lie.” (93) There is a tightrope which John walks and he keeps his readers aware of the dangers of going to either extreme. One example of the extremes to be avoided are between uniformity and deviance. “When uniformity goes too far, we oppress and suppress those who disagree with us; when deviance goes too far, we allow almost anything that our age deems appropriate. Unity in Christ and the truth must be our pattern.” (138) This is a big dream and John knows it will take work. He says, “I am sure on one thing: idealistic dreams of unity will not bring about unity itself.” (89)

The pattern for our unity is also seen in the Trinity. In the Trinity we see three persons in perfect union and harmony. But we are fragmented and divided. The solution John says “is for Christians to first cultivate a love for catholicity and then prayerfully reach across our divisions, challenging each other to embrace the mission of Christ together.” (104) We have to stop thinking of ourselves as simply Methodists or Baptists or Lutherans. Together we are the people of God. We could say the Methodists, Baptists and Lutherans (and others but you get the point) of Grand Rapids are the Church at Grand Rapids. (See the chart on page 109.) There is much more that ties us together than divides us. John cites the Apostle’s creed as a prime example of something which unifies us. “We find no other document in early church history, apart from the Bible, that served a greater purpose in uniting Christians in their common faith. The creed was confessed in one’s baptism, affirmed regularly by the whole gathered church, and openly used to express the kind of essential Christianity that united believers.” (78)

John’s term of preference is missional-ecumenism. The back of the book contains a helpful glossary and there we find this definition of missional-ecumenism: “I wish to stress these two truths: (1) God is both a unity in himself and as such a sending God, and (2) God’s revealed desire is that we would be (relationally) one with him in this sending and sent (mission) process—thus the term missional-ecumenism.” (203)

I resonate with a lot of what John says. His early start on this path was triggered by meeting Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Slowly his defenses came down and he realized his fears were “negatively impacting his spiritual life and bringing with it deep anxiety.” (31) Eventually he “discovered a wonderful liberty in letting go of the need to always be right!” (39) In my job here at Baker on the Church Relations Team I’ve been to dozens of wonderful churches. I’ve met Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, and plenty of Reformed folk who I’ve learned so much from and value all their friendships. John says that he still has some “misgivings about parts of the ecumenical movement.” (170) He does not elaborate much on this point. (I suppose too much of that would be counter to his intent.) I have some concerns of my own as I read the book. I’ll simply enumerate them here.

1) How is the gospel defined in an ecumenically acceptable way? John mentions the problem of the “gospel wars” which are “accompanied by huge debates, conferences, and books.” (161) But, he says, “When we reduce the gospel to manageable ideas, we demonize other Christians who do not preach the gospel as we do. A favorite text can be Galatians 1:6-9, where Paul warns about false gospels. (Rarely do those who use this text pay careful attention to the context or its social setting; instead it becomes another proof text for attacking Christians!)” (162) John says he used to engage in these kinds of debates and that it was “not totally wrong.” He says we need truth and “without truth there is no real Christianity.” (162) “But,” he says “I am now firmly convinced that without a serious commitment to missional-ecumenism, we will never get the proper balance needed for modern reformation.” (162) What does it mean to have a gospel that is not a “manageable idea?” To me a manageable idea is something that I can adequately understand enough to clearly communicate it to someone else. Clearly, this is not what John is talking about. Perhaps he has in mind that the gospel is not something which I can wield at whim or use for my own purposes (for fame or fortune?). I would certainly agree with that. But he ends this discussion with no clear definition of what the gospel is. The huge debates, conferences and books exist because people disagree about what that message is and I’m not ready to say it is all just pointless debate.

2) Questions on defining a Christian. By asking this question I open myself to being charged with being sectarian. I say this because John says when he “held tenaciously to sectarianism” he would wrestle with this question. (146) Can someone wrestle with this question and not be sectarian? I hope so because I’m wrestling with some of what John said and I don’t mean to be narrow-minded or parochial. I agree that a Christian has the Spirit of Christ. On that we agree. But why do we stop with Romans 8:9? He says he gave up asking the question because he doesn’t know who has the Spirit and who doesn’t. From here he was free to be more concerned with his own faith and attitudes. (149) He says the role of judging who is a real Christian or not is a church matter and not a private one. (150) It is a “type of ministry . . . done well by wise leaders who earnestly labor in such demanding work (see Matthew 7:1-6).” (150) But the appeal to Matthew 7 seems to indicate that there is a certain observable behavior which these wise leaders may use in their judgment. Is it only the ever-judging Christian who sits in judgment of a professing believer who shows not fruit in their life or can’t it be a sign of love, care and compassion which moves a brother or sister who is deeply troubled by what may be a self-deluded person and therefore confronts (with the appropriate grace and humility which is so often missing) the contradiction in that person's life?

3) I appreciate the appeal to the early creeds as a way of emphasizing our unity. But creeds arose not only as a formulation of what we believe but also in response to heresy. How far back and which creeds do we accept as “ecumenical?” The Reformed church does not accept all of the seven ecumenical councils in part due to some of the rulings on icons.

I don’t mean for my questions to take away from the good I see in what John is arguing for. Perhaps it is the latent sectarian in me. I would like to think it’s just some honest questions.  The book is full of sound wisdom and I often found my questions were answered as I kept reading.  There are numerous charts which help clarify parts of John's argument.  Some I found extemely helpful such as "The Dangers of Losing the Catholicity of Denominationalism" on page 142  Others I found less helpful and problematic such as "Comparison of Attractional and Incarnational Approaches" on p. 176.  John is well aware of the mine fields that surround a position like his but he shows courage in his move forward.  Indeed, he's not afraid to caution his readers with words as if from a returning troop from the front lines: "Those who recognize God's desire for unity and begin to obey his commands will also need to learn how to forgive others, since every effort at unity involves misunderstandings among sinful people.  You are guaranteed to get hurt!  We simply cannot undertake this kind of praying and teaching without the Holy Spirit's grace and power."  (83) 

We created an ecumenical calendar that we sell in the store which features the church calendar with significant dates of importance to Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and Messianic Jews. We did this to foster within our church relations team an appreciation for the larger church of which we are part. I can say that those of us who worked on this learned a lot and we developed valuable relationships with members of each of those communities as we put it together. I pray that John’s work and vision will grow. We may be witnesses to a move in Christendom. 

The Making of an Atheist - A Review 1

Before I started this book I thought I was going to get a smattering of Bible verses that were referenced but not seriously treated. Instead the emphasis would be on psychology. Perhaps I would also find a few arguments in response to the New Atheists. I was wrong. James Spiegel is very serious about what Scripture says but finds some intriguing evidence from psychology which offers additional support for what he thinks makes an atheist.

In the introduction we are greeted with some of the main characters of the New Atheism: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Thomas Nagel. Spiegel explains that there is really nothing new from these chaps “except the degree of bombast in their claims.” (10) The reason that this is nothing new is because the biblical writers have long recognized that some reject the existence of God. Psalm 19:1 says “the fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” The New Testament is equally clear. Paul says in Romans 1 that creation is a witness to God’s invisible qualities “so that men are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:20) Spiegel says the purpose of his book is “not to defend the Christian worldview nor even theism” but rather “to present a Christian account of atheism.” (14) Spiegel introduces us to Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga and a Philosopher of Science Thomas Kuhn. He briefly notes that Plantinga argues that our cognitive faculties are designed to function in a certain manner. However those faculties do not always function properly because of sin. “Immorality hampers our ability to reason correctly, especially regarding moral and spiritual matters. And the more a person indulges in sin, the more his or her mind is corrupted, sometimes event to the point that one’s awareness of God is deadened. If Plantinga is right, atheism is a product of malfunctioning cognitive faculties.” (14-15) Thomas Kuhn’s landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions demonstrates that “scientists do not observe the world objectively but always interpret what they see in light of the scientific theory to which they are committed.” (15) If Kuhn is right, Spiegel says, “then it is no surprise that hard-core atheists should be so confident in their disbelief. Their atheistic paradigm ensured that they see no trace of God, despite the fact that His fingerprints can be seen everywhere in the world.” (16)

Chapter one addresses atheistic arguments, errors, and insights. Spiegel cites two main arguments that are advanced for atheism: the problem of evil and the scientific irrelevancy of God. The former has been sufficiently answered by either the free will defense or the greater good defense. But, Spiegel contends, the problem of evil can never disprove the existence of God. At best it can only “undermine certain beliefs about the nature of God. . . evil should prompt us to reconsider what kind of God exists, not whether God exists. To give up belief in a world creator because of the existence of evil is a blatant non sequitur.” (26-27, emphasis his) Furthermore, atheists have “no grounds to call anything evil.” They have no basis for any sense of goodness apart from God’s existence. The natural end of atheism leads only to pessimism, bleakness and despair. Hardly a life worth enjoying. But Spiegel says the atheists have made some accurate complaints. Among those are the problem of hypocrisy, moral complacency, and the “pretext for shoddy scientific methodology.” (35-36) Spiegel adds two of his own observations; namely the tendency of Christians to divide over peripheral doctrinal matters and the all too common “refusal to admit mystery when it is clearly appropriate to do so.” (36-37) But even these “correct” observations do “not constitute reasonable objections to theistic belief per se” rather these “arguments accuse us of theistic malpractice.” (38 emphasis his)

Chapter two starts with the conversion of the prominent atheist Anthony Flew to deism (note: the whole issue of Flew's "conversion" is contested by some.). Spiegel outlines the reasons why Flew turned to deism. 1) Why are the laws of nature the way they are? 2) The fact of the universe. And, 3) the question of the origin of life. He notes that each of these categories of evidence for God “is immune to the evolutionary objection.” (48) With all of this evidence for God then why are there atheists? Spiegel does not think the problem is intellectual. There are many smart atheists. This suggests that something else is the cause. Here we find a Biblical diagnosis for atheism. Spiegel notes that Psalm 14:1 says the fool says there is no God. But here “fool” means someone who is “morally deficient.” (51) He continues on to the New Testament with Romans 1. We saw both of these texts in the Introduction. Here Spiegel spends a little more time fleshing out the meaning of the passages and the defense of his interpretation. He also provides anecdotal evidence from his own personal life of friends who have changed their mind about God. He says that “invariably, their ‘change of mind’ about God was precipitated by some personal rebellion.” (55) The biblical evidence suggests that the arguments of atheists are “an intellectual ruse masking their rebellion.” (56)

In a future post I’ll look at the second half of the book where Spiegel deals with the causes and obstinacy of atheism as well as the blessings of theism. It is here that psychological plays a major role in Spiegel’s thesis.

The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener - Part 2

I finally finished section 2 of Keener’s The Historical Jesus of the Gospels and I couldn’t be more impressed. Clear writing combined with detailed research and a responsible handling of the evidence are the strengths of this volume. Each chapter is replete with notes to primary and secondary sources. (Unfortunately, they are endnotes so you are constantly going back and forth.) Since many of the notes are references to primary literature most can safely be skipped unless you are interested in looking them up.

This second section is devoted to evaluating the Gospels. Keener makes a strong case to show the genre of the Gospels is best seen as biography. Unique to the Gospels is Luke-Acts. This two-volume book is unique because while the first part is obviously biography the book of Acts more appropriately falls into the category of ancient historiography. He quotes Hengel and Schwemer as saying that “those who deny Luke-Acts as acceptable first-century historiography need to read more ancient historiography ‘and less hypercritical and scholastic secondary literature.’” (86) The next two chapters deal with ancient historiography as history and secondly as rhetoric. We learn that the ancients were very concerned with accuracy and the reliability of sources and eyewitnesses. They were not blind to biases and clearly knew the difference between history and fiction. Ancient historians often found fault with others for their inaccuracies and flagrant falsehoods. But historians were not only concerned with accuracy they were also concerned with presentation. Even here we learn that the more rhetorically oriented historians were most clearly seen in their treatment of speeches. The Synoptics do not show signs of this type of history. Keener says they “are sometimes less cohesive, sometimes with more evidence of their sources, and do not develop scenes with elaborate descriptions.” (110) He directly addresses the question of whether the Gospels are distorted by rhetoric and he finds the evidence lacking for such a charge. Luke-Acts would be the closest to this type of genre but even here the evidence is not convincing. Keener then explores how ancient history handled agendas: political, national, moral and theological agendas. But even here the presence of agendas does not preclude accurate history. As he notes, “All other ancient historians and biographers, like many modern ones, had agendas they considered important; they used history to shed light on their own time, no less than did the Gospels. But had the Gospel writers wished to communicate solely later Christian doctrine and not history, they could have readily chosen simpler forms than biography for this purpose.” (122)

In the following two chapters Keener looks at the sources of the Gospels: one chapter explores the written sources and another chapter considers the oral sources. On the former Keener works from what’s known in the field as the “Two-Source Hypothesis.” This view holds that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one source and another commonly termed simply as “Q”. Given the validity of this view we can see how Matthew and Luke used their sources and that gives us an idea of how they may have used sources we don’t have access to. This is a far better assumption than that of many critical scholars who assume that the Gospel writers simply invented material where we can’t check them out. This, says Keener, is “imagination run amuck.” (132) Next we come to the oral sources of the Gospels. Keener looks at oral cultures and the testimony of ancient writers concerning the ability of some exemplary people with impressive memory capabilities. In particular, he examines the rabbinic traditions and early Jewish education habits. He recognizes the legitimate complaint brought by some that “all the rabbinic evidence is later than the first century; but”, he responds, “it is hardly likely that this evidence would be discontinuous with all the other Jewish and Greco-Roman evidence that we do have, especially given the particular focus on it in our later extant sources.” (149-150) And in the endnote he further says that “many also observe that the later rabbinic method hardly arose ex nihilo after 70 CE. (475n.150) The memorization habits of the time period offer good evidence that the oral tradition prior to the written sources would be historically accurate when it came to the “gist” of the story. He quotes E. P. Sanders: “‘The Gospel writers did not wildly invent material,’ though ‘they developed it, shaped it and directed it in the ways they wished.’” (150) Form criticism comes under close scrutiny and he finds that while “scholarship as a whole has become less impressed with some earlier form-critical criteria like the criteria of dissimilarity . . . today it often emphasizes the continuity between Jesus and his Palestinian Jewish environment.” (161)

Keener has built a persuasive case that the Gospels should be viewed as historically reliable when their genre is considered and when compared with similar writings and standards of the day. He has not argued for any special treatment to be offered to them but simply to evaluate them on the same basis as any other document of the time would be treated.

Now having examined the primary sources; the next part of the book is entitled “What We Learn about Jesus from the Best Sources.” I can’t wait to start.

The Jesus Prayer - A Review

In the past few years I've had an on-again-off-again interest in Eastern Orthodoxy. My first real exposure to Orthodoxy came when I was writing my Master's Thesis at Trinity on the topic of the Incarnation. I stumbled across a gold mine of Orthodox writers I had never heard of before. But, as I said, my interest was never sustained for long. Among the traditions of the Orthodox is the saying of "The Jesus Prayer." When I saw that one of my favorite Orthodox writers, Frederica Methewes-Green, was writing a book on this prayer my interest was renewed. For those unfamiliar with this prayer it is quite simply “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me.” (There are variations which she deals with in the book.) The Jesus Prayer: the Ancient Desert Prayer that Tunes the Heart to God is divided into two parts: Part One covers some of the history and gives a general overview of the prayer. Chapter two, of part one, is entitled "Terms, Concepts, and Context" but perhaps she should have added "Cautions." There are some in the Orthodox community who believe the Jesus Prayer should not be said by those who are not part of the Orthodox community. She says "some Orthodox elders hold that self-directed use of the Prayer is, in fact, dangerous, potentially leading to delusion, then to possible insanity or demonic possession." (28) She clarifies that the driving concern here is "mostly thinking of people who harbor prideful fantasies of being a certified mystic, able to wield supernatural powers and demonstrably superior to ordinary folks." (29) At first I was put off by this kind of thinking but then realized that here are a people who take their practices seriously and want to discourage the practice of them outside of their most fruitful contexts and purposes. The Jesus Prayer is part of a very organic context and she says that “some Orthodox find it hard to imagine how people could benefit from the Jesus Prayer if they take it out of context. You need all the elements, they would say, including participation in the Orthodox sacraments (called ‘mysteries’ in the East) and acceptance of Orthodox theology.” (27, emphasis hers) Her own thoughts are summed up with “stay humble and you will be safe” and “if you are open and humble, how could it hurt?” (29-30)

She acknowledges in the third chapter that “[y]ou can try to force your mind to keep going over and over those words, like a gerbil on a wheel, but it’s going to get pretty tedious. The hard part is to mean them.” (33, emphasis hers) The point of the prayer is to foster a relationship with God but it is also instrumental in a transformed heart and mind (an important distinction which she helps to flesh out in this chapter.)

The second part of the book is in a Q & A format which reads fairly quickly. The questions cover a wide range of topics from where do I start to how many times (and even how fast) should we say the Jesus Prayer. Frederica wisely avoids creating the impression that there is a single “correct” method of saying the prayer as she shares a wide diversity or practices she has observed by those within Orthodoxy. But she does set some parameters. For example on the question of should we “picture Christ looking at me, or anything like that? Or should I keep looking at an icon of him while I pray” she responds “No, that’s one thing on which the tradition is very firm: do not picture anything. Do not use your imagination.” (68) She notes that this may sound contradictory after she has talked about surrounding yourself with icons but here’s where we need to understand the purpose of icons. She compares icons to a collection of photos of a hero. If you had a chance to meet your hero you wouldn’t take the pictures along and stare at them. “In the Jesus Prayer, we are trying to remain in direct contact with God, and such images can lure us instead into thinking about God.” (68) She tells of her own spiritual father who “found it hard to deflect all the images that meet the eye if praying with eyes open, yet, when he closes his eyes, his mind begins supplying endless quantities of stored images. . . He found that praying with eyes almost shut helped him find a middle way, where images don’t arise.” (69)

Frederica is careful to distinguish this practice from the meditation techniques of religions like Hinduism or Buddhism. While some similarities may exist there are significant differences. One of those is that in Christianity the point of something like self renunciation is not to lose “our sense of personhood and becoming an undifferentiated part of the universe. For Christians, the ultimate reality is interpersonal relationship; personhood is healed and restored, rather than dissolved.” (124)

The further you get into the book the more Orthodox theology is incorporated in the discussion. At times there is what I might see, though she may not have intended it this way, as a “soft” apologetic for Orthodoxy. For example, when answering a question about can’t we dismiss the whole concept of the fear of God she responds, “. . . if you pick and choose from the spiritual treasury whatever seems most appealing, your highest authority is your own opinion—your personal tastes and preferences. And those are self-reinforcing; your personal inclinations will go right on confirming you to the way you already are. . . My advice is to accept the ancient spiritual disciplines as a complete, integrated healing program, rather than picking and choosing to fit. Some kind of wisdom has been worked out in them over the centuries. This net wisdom may well be smarter than you are, because your experience is limited, and also conditioned by your surrounding culture.” (89) Unless I’m misreading her here I think she is saying you either take the complete package or don’t bother with it at all.

The book ends with a bibliography for further reading and “Notes” which are never footnoted through the book so I didn’t realize they were there till I finished the book. It does give the page number and a phrase or word to which the note refers.

So, do I say the Jesus Prayer and risk going insane? On the one hand I think Frederica is encouraging its use as long as we remain humble but on the other hand it would seem that she would encourage a conversion to Orthodoxy in order to truly appreciate what the Jesus Prayer is all about. Whereas in the beginning I thought I would gain something for my spiritual growth there were enough cautions and a just a glimpse of the “full package” required to fully benefit from this practice that I’m left not knowing what to do. If you want to know more about the Jesus Prayer and why it holds such a treasured place in the heart of Orthodoxy then read this book. If you want to say the prayer—well, I won’t even venture any advice on that.

The book is a paperback with 181 pages and sells for $16.99. It is published by Paraclete Press.

In Store Now - A Sweet & Bitter Providence

For readers of this blog I doubt John Piper needs an introduction.  A Sweet & Bitter Providence: Sex, Race, and the Sovereignty of God is Piper's newest work which is about the book of Ruth.  The overall theme will be familiar to those familiar with Piper: the absolute sovereignty of God over all things--sin included.  Ruth and Boaz both are examples of people who honor sexual purity by avoiding the temptation of sex before their marriage.  But this marriage is also an example of an interracial marriage since Ruth was a Moabitess and Boaz was an Israelite.

Piper is well aware of those who have sharp words for his views.  He quotes one writer from the Wall Street Journal who said that when we "are confronted by the sheer savage immensity of worldly suffering . . . no Christian is licensed to utter odious banalities about God's inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions that all this mysteriously serves God's ends." (26)  This is precisely what Piper believes but he firmly believes that this is precisely what the book of Ruth is teaching.  The alternative is not really comforting at all.  He says, "It is not comforting or hopeful in their pain to tell them that God is not in control. . . When the world is crashing in, we need assurance that God reigns over it all." (27)  The story of Ruth shows Naomi going from despair to hope to fulfillment.  As Piper says, "In the darkest of our times, God is plotting for out glory."  (58)  As Naomi returned to Israel she was blinded by bitterness but as God continued to work she could see that his "kindness has forsaken the living or the dead."  (Ruth 2:20)  We see a turn in Naomi's disposition as hope replaces bitterness and despair which results in what Piper terms "strategic righteousness."  As hope dawns, Naomi sets a plan in action to secure a husband for Ruth.  We know how the story ends but unless we see the setbacks and obstacles we allow ourselves to have the same blindness that struck Naomi.  Setbacks, obstacles, death, and pain are all part of this life but none of that should cloud us from the knowledge that God is in control and still working.  Piper says as part of his final appeals "To know that our Father in heaven has ordained our pain is not a comfortable truth, but it is comforting."  (138) 

For many this will not sit well.  They are somehow more comforted by making God part of the plight rather than part of the solution.  It seems to me this solicits our sympathy more than our confidence in God.  As a parent who has lost a child I know the pain I could only formerly imagine.  But through it all I never lost hope that God was working.  I don't say that to boast about anything in me but to rather testify that God can sustain us through the darkest and most painful moments precisely because he can and does.  Piper does not write from ivory towers but as a pastor who has consoled his people with the truths he finds here and throughout Scripture.  The other themes of the book, sex and race, are interwoven and Piper provides helpful and wise advice in both areas.  He ends the book with seven appeals: 1) Study the Scriptures, 2) pursue sexual purity, 3) pursue mature manhood and womanhood, 4) embrace ethnic diversity, 5) trust the sovereignty of God, 6) take the risks of love, and 7) live and sing to the glory of Christ.  I enjoyed this book and wish it a wide readership. 

It is a hardcover with 160 pages (I read it in a day.) from Crossway publishers and sells for $17.99. 

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 10 - Responses to Bock

We come now to the final set of responses in our survey of The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Darrell Bock is the Evangelical of the bunch and I expected he would get a fair amount of criticism but some of it I was not prepared for. Price responds directly to Bock's claim that none of the critics of Jesus denied his historicity. He says, "Why is it not at least a natural, viable reading of Justin's Rabbi Trypho to understand him this way? 'You have invented a messiah for yourselves.' Everyone takes this to mean, 'You Christians have made the wrong man into a messiah.' which indeed it might conceivably mean, but that seems to me to bear apologetical stretch marks." (285) He then points to how some New Testament events are probably simply stories based on Old Testament events. Jesus riding in Jerusalem on a donkey is borrowed from Zechariah 9:9 and 1 Samuel 9:5-14 where "Saul and his companions are likewise looking for donkeys and enter a city." (287) Jesus' trial probably comes from 1 Kings 22:24-27.


Crossan actually turns Bock's uses of the criteria of embarrassment against him. Bock observed how Mark portrays the twelve disciples consistently in a bad light and when Jesus calls Peter Satan he asks "would the church create an event where it compares its lead apostle to the paragon of evil?" The answer would seem to be no they wouldn't. But Crossan disagrees. The church wouldn't do such a thing "but Mark would--and did." (289) "Mark created much of them precisely to 'embarrass' the (presumably, later theological heirs of the) Twelve, the Three, and especially Peter." (289) So, for Crossan the criteria of embarrassment is only when Jesus is the object of embarrassment.

But the two members of the Jesus Seminar have nothing on the cutting criticism of Luke Timothy Johnson. For him almost all of Bock's essay is "disqualif[ied]" from "serious consideration as a historical study. In effect, Bock reads the Gospels as reliable on every point and capable of revealing Jesus' inner thoughts and motivations. . . If at any point he had entertained the possibility of some passage of the Gospels not yielding real historical knowledge, his essay would have gained in credibility." (294) Bock believes the Gospels--all of them in every detail--therefore his essay has no credibility! Never mind that Bock argues time and again for the historicity of the passages he considers. For Johnson, Bock would be a serious historian if only he would find a few errors. Then, and only then, would he deserve a hearing. He ends his essay with this: "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." (296) Now don't misunderstand me--Johnson does interact and provide detailed criticism of many of Bock's points. But above them all stands the impression that Johnson is simply humoring us by even considering a response to this amateur attempt at Gospel criticism.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 9 - Essay by by Darrell Bock

Darrell Bock writes the final essay in our book and represents the Evangelical view. Bock agrees that the best place to start the quest is in a Jewish context given our “accumulating knowledge of Second Temple Judaism” but we have to remember that “the Jesus of Scripture is a Jesus remembered.” (250-51) Bock also agrees that we should use the “rules historical Jesus scholars use.” (252) He lists these rules as “multiple attestation, dissimilarity in one of its variety of forms, coherence, Aramaic substratum, embarrassment, cultural appropriateness and/or historical plausibility.” (252) Even using all the same rules Bock admits that the results of the study will vary among scholars and will, at best, give us “access to the gist of Jesus.” (252)

Bock begins by acknowledging that Jesus did, in fact, exist. He points to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and other later Jewish and Roman sources for support. He says, “There is no evidence that those who opposed the movement attributed to him denied his existence.” (253) Bock then begins a trek through Scripture noting “key themes, events and sayings that help us zero in on what Jesus about.” (253) Some of these include Jesus’ association with John the Baptist; the character of Jesus which includes his reaching out to the fringe; the call of Jesus ministry which is a call to total commitment; and the subject of Jesus’ ministry which was the kingdom of God and the promised age of God. Along the way Bock incorporates some of the rules to demonstrate the validity of a certain saying or event. For example, when Jesus rebukes Peter and calls him “Satan” Bock asks, using the criteria of embarrassment, “Would the church create an event where it compares its lead apostle to the paragon of evil?” (261) Another example is the temple incident. Bock says “virtually everyone . . . sees it as important to understanding Jesus.” (268) The church would not have created this event because it sought “to be careful about being seen as seditious, and yet the event plays right into that danger. Thus that it took place best explains its presence.” (269) Bock spends a good amount of time looking at other events or themes such as the Last Supper (271f), the Jewish examination of Jesus (273f), the examination of Jesus by Pilate and the crucifixion (276f) and the resurrection of Jesus after a certain death (278f). With each passage Bock is careful to consider the historical credibility of the event and its significance for understanding Jesus. What does Bock conclude? “A messianic Jesus who saw himself standing at the hub of God’s program and completely vindicated as Son of Man at God’s side produced a coherent, corroborated narrative for the early church. Such an account of him stands solidly rooted in what the historical Jesus actually said and did.” (281)

Next time we'll look at the responses to Bock and I'll give some final impressions of the book as a whole.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 8 - Responses to Dunn

One of Dunn's major points is that scholarship needs to take the oral tradition more seriously than it does. In light of that many of the responses responded to this very issue. Both Price and Crossan complain that the oral tradition (how ever long or short it may be) was sufficient time to allow for embellishments to develop. Price cites von Harnack's "famous" measurement of the "distance between the parable of the prodigal son and the Pauline preaching of the atonement." (229) He then asks, "If Jesus had known the conditions of salvation would have altered so drastically in a matter of a few weeks, would he have wasted his breath on a parable teaching people that simple repentance was sufficient for salvation? Hardly." Crossan says that his research shows that "the Jesus of history who proclaimed love of enemies based on the character of God (now in the Q Gospel at Matthew 4:43-45 // Luke 6:27-36) to be already perverted by the Christ of faith who will return as a transcendental killer in the book of Revelation." (234, emphasis his) He further chides Dunn for not taking into consideration "either eschatalogical Judaism or Roman imperialism in the Jewish homeland or Jesus' nonviolent resistance from the former against the latter" as "equally inadequate." (237, emphasis his) Crossan also quickly responds to Dunn's claim that we don't know how Jesus impacted others with this: "We have very clear evidence of his impact on Pilate. It is called crucifixion." (237)

Luke Timothy Johnson says that Dunn's "complaint that such oral tradition has been ignored by scholars is off base." (241) Dunn is too quick to dismiss the fruit of form criticism since it does not provide the results he's looking for: namely, the "traces of pre-Easter oral tradition deriving from Jesus' first followers." (241) Johnson says the basic criticism of all those who are after the "oral tradition" is the same: "whatever oral processes may have preceded the composition of the Gospels, only the written texts are now available to us." (242) Furthermore, all the variations of similarity or dissimilarity in the Gospels can be better explained "by the process of literary transmission and redaction than through variations in oral performance." (242) Finally, Johnson says "searching for a Jewish Jesus is not a historiographical principle or criterion but a predetermined goal" and fails to tackle the "truly difficult question" of "what constitutes 'Jewish' in first century Palestine." (243) Bock found much to agree with with minor caveats and nuances to Dunn's overall essay.

The Heresy of the Jesus Seminar

I mentioned in a previous post how much I am enjoying Douglas Harink's commentary on 2 Peter. There is quite simply no way someone can read this commentary and come away not realizing the utter seriousness of the issue of heresy. Heresy is to the church what cancer is to a body. Furthermore, Harink doesn't leave the discussion to vague generalities but gives concrete examples of heresy in the church today. The quote I give today concerns the Jesus Seminar and after reading it I've got new eyes on the other book I'm currently reading (The Historical Jesus: Five Views) which has two members of the Jesus Seminar as contributors! The quote is a long one but it almost took my breath away after I read it. It's that good.

"But, with Peter, they [Luther and Calvin] believed that the life or death of the church was at stake in the question of heresy--and so it is. . . The Church will not stand, for example, by faith in the insubstantial figure often presented to us by the Jesus Seminar, which denies his divinity and lordship and his coming again. Should we not mock the irrational and fundamentalist seriousness of this group, which markets itself as the very paradigm of scientific rationality in search of the pure facts about the historical Jesus, by which they might save gullible and hapless Christians from the church and the creeds? But 'they are waterless fountains and a fog driven by the storm' (2 Peter. 2:17 DH): their supposed rigorous rationality--in a mode discredited by most contemporary philosophy--is dry and spiritually fruitless, yielding a nonapocalyptic Jesus who is theologically insubstantial and boring as hell. Should we not expose the seminar's media publicity, public acceptance, and publication royalties for what they are--the benefits that come from finding so many eager consumers in the church as well as the world, ready to pay well for its cheap and diminished Jesus who was neither rescued from the powers of unrighteousness himself nor has the power to rescue anyone? 'They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed' (2:14). Should we not mention that where such a diminished Jesus is bought and sold in churches, those very same churches also often display and promote a moral life, particularly in matters of human sexuality, that is no different from that found in the wider society? Should we not ask about the relationship between theological heresy and immorality, between the act of 'despis[ing the] authority [kryriotetos] of Jesus Christ and 'indulg[ing the] flesh in depraved lust' (2:10)? 'For with fatuous and vacuous teaching and through lust and sexual immorality [the false teachers] lure back those who are only just escaping from their life in paganism' (2:18 DH)." (171-72)

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 7 - Responses to Johnson and Dunn's Essay

I got side tracked with all the new books coming in but I'm glad to get back to this review. This post will include just a short summary of the responses to the essay by Luke Timothy Johnson and a summary of the essay by James D. G. Dunn.

Responses to Luke Timothy Johnson

By now we should be aware that Price objects to Johnson’s essay at its most basic level. He doubts Johnson’s initial “facts” about Jesus and simply reasserts that “Jesus is an offshoot of an ancient version of Yahve depicted along the lines of Baal, Osiris, Dionysus or Attis.” (179) Price appreciates what Johnson says regarding the problems in historical methodology but thinks that when all is said and done what is left simply amounts to little more than “the sheer will to believe” and he doubts “if one has the right to make such a leap.” (180) Crossan thinks Johnson should not only recognize the limits of history but also the limits of theology. He asks, “Have historians caused more havoc by getting Jesus wrong than theologians have by getting Christ wrong?” (183) Dunn believes that Johnson is unnecessarily critical of source criticism. Since Johnson wants to focus on the Gospels as we have them he doesn’t see the need to probe behind them in search for “authentic sayings.” But Dunn thinks this restricts us “to a time forty and more years after Jesus’ own mission.” (190)

Remembering Jesus – The Essay by James D. G. Dunn

Dunn is a prolific scholar and his book Jesus Remembered is tour de force for anyone studying the historical Jesus. Dunn says that in the course of his research he became dissatisfied with three key methodological presuppositions. In light of that his essay proposes three “protests” along with three “proposals” as a better way to approach the study of the historical Jesus. Dunn’s first protest is against the notion that the “‘Christ of faith’ is a perversion of ‘the historical Jesus.’ . . . The assumption was that the real Jesus must have been different from the Christ of faith.” (200) But this is an unnecessary assumption. Dunn maintains in his first proposal that it is clear that Jesus made an impact on his disciples “in and through his mission.” The result of this impact can be seen in the Jesus tradition. Like it or not the primary sources of information we have on Jesus are the Gospels and “we cannot realistically expect to find a Jesus different from the Jesus of the Jesus tradition.” (206)

Dunn’s second protest is against the prevailing attitude to view the “Jesus tradition in literary terms.” The answer to this is in his second proposal—namely, to give increased attention and appreciation for the oral phase of the Jesus tradition. Dunn shows how the literacy level of those in Palestine at the time of Jesus would have been less than 10 percent. From this and other factors he says we have to “assume, therefore, that the great majority of Jesus’ first disciples would have been functionally illiterate.” (211) Dunn’s discussion of the oral phase of the tradition is partly indebted to Kenneth Bailey. Given the nature of this oral phase Dunn believes we shouldn’t look for anything like an “original version” of any particular story. (215)

Dunn’s third protest is similar to his first. He says the quest is wrong in trying to find a Jesus “who was distinctive or different from his environment.” (216) This assumption has “in part been a sad corollary to Christianity’s long and disgraceful history of anti-Semitism.” (217) Dunn’s proposal to this is that “we should look first of all for the Jewish Jesus rather than the non-Jewish Jesus.” (219) He points to the work of those like E. P. Sanders, James Charlesworth and N. T. Wright as luminaries in this effort. Instead of looking for something distinctive we should be looking for what is characteristic about Jesus. In this, he says, we have better guides in Birger Gerhardsson and David Aune rather than the “more prominent members of the Jesus Seminar.” (221)

What does this characteristic approach of Jesus produce? “A Galilean Jesus who called Israel to repentance and disciples to faith, one through whose ministry the blessings of God’s final reign were experienced, one who has heard as speaking for God and with the authority of God, and one who antagonized the priestly authorities and was crucified by the Romans.” (223) This is Jesus remembered.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 6 - Luke Timothy Johnson Essay

Luke Timothy Johnson is Catholic scholar who has received considerable praise from conservative Protestant scholars on his biblical commentaries and other writings. He begins his essay by observing two ways of getting to know Jesus. The first is “through the practices of faith in the church, through prayer, worship, the reading of Scripture, and encounters with saints and strangers. This premise is based on the fact that Jesus is not a dead man of the past but a living Lord of the present, and that the tradition of the church, beginning in the Gospels, got Jesus right when they viewed all of his story from the perspective of his resurrection and exaltation, for that is who he now truly is.” This Jesus, Johnson argues, is “not an object of scholarly research but the subject of obedient faith.” (155) This position “rejects the adequacy of historical study for getting at Jesus as he truly is” and is the one that Johnson holds. The second way to get to know Jesus is through historical reconstruction. “The premise here is that Christian tradition got Jesus wrong from the beginning” and that therefore the Gospels “and for that matter, all the New Testament testimony concerning Jesus of Nazareth, must be corrected by critical historiography.” (156) This position views Jesus “solely as a dead man of the past rather than as an active subject in the present.”

Johnson attempts what he considers “the most responsible way of employing the Gospels as sources for” knowing the human Jesus. Johnson clears the air that he is not, contrary to what some of his critics have alleged, an opponent to historical inquiry. Rather he says Jesus must be treated just like any other historical figure of the past. The investigator must remain within the parameters of what is potentially verifiable. As for the Gospel narratives themselves Johnson says it is “impossible to harmonize them while still remaining any credibility as a historian.” (159) Johnson provides a basic outline of what a historian may confidently believe concerning Jesus. Among these are that Jesus was a Jew in the first century, his baptism by John, he chose twelve disciples, and that a movement arose around him and spread quickly within twenty-five years of his death. The historian can also be fairly confident in some of the teachings of Jesus such as his proclamation of God’s rule.

Johnson moves on to enumerate four basic limits of history. 1) Historians “construct history rather than simply find it.” (161) 2) History is limited to knowing only a portion of the past. We simply can’t know everything that took place. 3) History is limited by “its total dependence on sources.” (162) 4) Finally, history can only describe. It can never prescribe the future. With these limitations in place Johnson feels that an event like the resurrection is not “historically verifiable.” (164) When we come to the Gospels as sources of information we find them to be far too sparse and biased. Furthermore, they “disagree on the most basic points.” (165) Based on this the scholar can only assert “the bare bones of an event.” (166) For Johnson then typical historical Jesus research is not historical research at all but rather “a theological agenda wearing the external garb of history.” (167)

Johnson suggests that the Gospels be read literarily rather than historically. We shouldn’t ask “did Jesus say or do this” but rather we should ask “‘what does attributing this saying or that deed’ do to shape the meaning of the character of Jesus within the narrative.” (168) Johnson weaves his way through the Gospels to show the similarities of their portrayal of Jesus and the disciples. In Mark the disciples are “mentally incompetent and morally deficient.” (169) In Matthew they are “intelligent” and in Luke they are “prophets-in-training.” Each of these depictions matches a corresponding picture of Jesus. Each Gospel unfolds a “literary character” of Jesus “whom the reader engages in each narrative.” In spite of the fact that the Gospel witnesses disagree on so many facts about Jesus Johnson believes they still have a remarkable witness to the character of Jesus. We see Jesus as having an obedient faith in God with a “self-disposing love toward other people.” (174)

This approach to Jesus is one which is “accessible to all who can read narratives intelligently” and yields an understanding of Jesus as richer than typical historical Jesus publications. It is the Jesus of the Gospels rather than the “historical Jesus” that “galvanized Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Mother Teresa.” (177)

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 5 - Responses to Crossan

Today we come to the responses to the essay by John Dominic Crossan. I found them to be insightful and some came with just a sting or two. More than one response critiqued Crossan for his selective use of source material especially in the Gospels. Price notes “Time and time again amid the deliberations of the Jesus Seminar, I found myself puzzled, shaking my head at the group’s decisions to vote as red (= surely authentic) sayings that Bultmann wouldn’t have touched with a ten-foot pole in his History of the Synoptic Tradition.” (135) Johnson said it was telling “that of all the details concerning Jesus’ movement near or away from the lake are drawn precisely from those narrative portions of the Gospels that Crossan’s methodological principles-established and elaborated in his earlier writings—have already removed from the historian’s available database.” (142) And remember how Crossan said Price’s treatment of Josephus was “not acceptable scholarship?” Well, here’s what Dunn says of Crossan, “The selective acceptance of one sequence of texts, and effective dismissal or denigration of others . . . is poor scholarship.” (145)

The next big common criticism was that Crossan has an over active imagination. Price complains that Crossan creates a superstructure “from first century history and sociology connected with Herod and his motives of self-advancement—exactly none of which is set forth in the text.” (136) Johnson says the juxtapositions Crossan creates between Herod and Jesus don’t stem from the ancient actors or sources by “are entirely due to Crossan himself” and his thesis of “Romanization by urbanization for commercialization” is a product of Crossan’s imagination.” (141)

Price concludes that Crossan has “fallen into the trap of creating a liberal Jesus in his own image” and, tellingly asks, though it could have been said with less sarcasm, “can we picture Herod understanding (I’m not sure I do) what some guy organizing a soup kitchen for lepers has to do with hopes of overthrowing Roman and Herodian rule?” (136 & 137) Bock asks, “why does Jesus challenge customs associated with the Sabbath or ritual cleanliness if Rome is his central concern?” Furthermore, “Jesus is less concerned about who owned the lake than who owned the heart of the people who claimed to be God’s within Israel.” (149) Dunn concludes that Crossan leaves us with a Jesus “who is far too nice to be worth crucifying.” (147)

As insightful as the comments are I sometimes found myself wanting more. For example, Johnson says “not unlike N. T. Wright, Crossan consistently commits the historical fallacy of having ancient characters act and think in virtue of realities that can be known and named only by the present-day historian.” (139) The comparison to Wright is intriguing in its own right. But unlike some of his other comments this one stands alone without further explanation. When I first read it I wrote in the margin “good observation” but as I got to thinking about what “fallacy” is being referred to and that it is something that is “consistently” done I really wished more had been said. The same is true from the other responders. So, I’m back to wondering would the book have been even better if it were only four views and allowed more space for responses.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 4 - John Dominc Crossan Essay

John Dominic Crossan is a member of Jesus Seminar, a prolific writer and an engaging speaker. I see him on almost every interview or PBS special that covers the topic of Jesus. Crossan says he begins his methodology by “trying to imagine as if Jesus had never existed—I begin with the Roman Empire and the Jewish tradition in interaction with it.” (106) He therefore begins by painting a portrait of the Roman Empire and summarizes their “theology” as “peace through violent victory.” (108) He then briefly examines Judaism and summarizes their theology as “peace through nonviolent justice.” (111) Crossan steps back into the Roman context with particular focus on Herod Antipas and asks a very particular question: “Why is Jesus so often found around the Sea of Galilee, the Lake of Tiberias, the harp-shaped Lake Kinneret.” (112) Crossan’s answer begins with an overview of the life of Herod Antipas in a “drama of acute disappointments over six sequential acts.” (113) We discover in the third act that Herod was “founding Tiberias to commercialize the lake and its fishes in the name of Rome’s empire and both John and Jesus clashed with him in the name of Israel’s God. Who owned the lake and how it was to be used was but a microcosm question to the macrocosm question of who owned the earth and how it was to be used. It was not about salted fish and fish sauce in Rome’s world but about equality and justice in God’s world.” (116)

Crossan says that John the Baptist, while he did not advocate a violent revolution, he did see the kingdom of God as involving “divine—even if exclusively divine—violence.” (117) Herod, seeing this, had John executed. Jesus, seeing John executed, “watched, learned and changed his vision of God.” (123) This change represents a paradigm shift within eschatology—from violent to nonviolent. Jesus was, however, “quite wrong and misguided” in thinking the kingdom of God was imminent and “neither special pleading nor semantic evasion can rectify that situation.” (121) Crossan says that “Jesus started accepting John’s theology of God’s imminence but, precisely because of what happened to John, he changed from that to a theology of God’s presence.” This should not be confused with the idea of an “already-present kingdom.” “The present kingdom is a collaborative or participatory eschaton, an eschatological dialectic between human and divine worlds.” (125) But this “Great Divine Clean-up” as he calls it could not happen without God and equally could not happen without believers.

Crossan ends with a discussion of Jesus as a healer. He distinguishes between a disease being cured and an illness being healed. He illustrates the distinction from the movie Philadelphia where Tom Hanks portrayed a man dying of AIDS. The “disease could not be cured but, his illness was being healed by the support of his partner, his family and his lawyer’s successful suit against his law firm’s illegal discrimination.” (128) He concludes, “The healing of illness by Jesus and his companions must be understood in a framework of a preventive social revolution, in Light’s terms, and in a framework of the kingdom of God’s Great Cosmic Clean-Up of the World, in their own even more radical terms.” (129) For Crossan then, “the first and most important discussion about the historical Jesus should be on his vision of collaborative eschatology—for then and now.” (131) The issue finally comes down to the difference between the eschatological kingdom of God and the imperial Kingdom of Rome or between “Jesus’ nonviolence and Pilate’s violence.” (132) Next time we’ll look at the responses.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 3 - Responses to Price

We now come to the four responses to Price's essay which argued that the historical Jesus did not exist.

James D. G. Dunn's first sentence summed up my initial reaction: "Gosh! So there are still serious scholars who put forward the view that the whole account of Jesus' doings and teachings are a later myth foisted on an unknown, obscure historical figure." (94) Luke Timothy Johnson hit the nail on the head by noting that "Price gets Jesus to the vanishing point by the simple expedient of denying all the evidence that makes him visible." (89) Furthermore he said it is hard to respond to Price "due to the difficulty of demonstrating the presence of an object to someone who insists that whatever you bring forward as evidence cannot count." (91) Along the same lines Dunn said he becomes irritated with Price because "he ignores what everyone else in the business regards as primary data and his readiness to offer less plausible hypotheses to explain other data that inconveniences his thesis." (96)

Both Darrell Bock and Johnson fault Price for too quickly dismissing the evidence from Josephus. Surprisingly though his harshest critic on this score comes from Crossan. He says, "Price's comment, 'Let me leapfrog the tiresome debate over whether the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic' is not an acceptable scholarly comment as far as I am concerned." (86) Crossan further argues that the hero typology that Price points to with Jesus "no more negates his historical existence than the similar investment for Augustus negates that emperor's historical identity." (85)

All the responders raised objections based on material that Price ignores or dismisses. As Bock says, "Analogy plus dissimilarity is what is commanded, but the search for other criteria was dismissed." (100) In the hands of Price, Bock argues, the criteria has the same tone: "heads I win; tails you lose." (100) Dunn says the fatal flaw with the Jesus myth boils down to this: "the improbability of the total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galilee. Price is content with the explanation that it all began 'with a more or less vague savior myth.' Sad, really." (95)

One of the most poignant points was made by Crossan. He asks, what is lost if Jesus is merely reduced to the level of a parable? He responds, "only the incarnation . . . Only, in other words, the heart of Christianity itself." But the apostle John did not say, "God so loved the world that God sent us a story." (86) Now Crossan does not understand the incarnation in the same way as evangelicals but his point his very well stated.

Each response was done within the span of five pages. The uniformity suggests this was a limit placed by the editors rather than this is all they could think of to say. But I will say they managed to make some very good points, and some came with quite a sting, in that limited amount of space. Each of them focused on different elements of Price's essay with minimal overlap. If the remaining essays and responses can maintain this level of interaction then this volume will be everything I expected and more.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 2 - Robert Price Essay

The first viewpoint presented is by Robert M. Price. He is professor of theology and scriptural studies at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, Miami Gardens, Florida. Both he and John Dominic Crossan are members of the Jesus Seminar. In a nutshell Price argues that the historical Jesus never existed. Early on he makes it clear that he is not against Christianity. He describes himself as a “happy Episcopalian” who rejoices to “take the Eucharist every week and to sing the great hymns of the faith.” For him “the Christ of faith has all the more importance since [he] think[s] it most probable that there was never any other.” (56)

Price asserts five “commandments” for historians. The first is the most important and is the principle of analogy. Basically this means that we have to judge history by our own experiences. “If in our experience it takes a whole army to defeat an army, we will judge improbable any ancient tale that has a single man defeating an army.” (56) Furthermore, if an experience does not match our own but does conform to the analogy of myth or legend we would be justified in considering it as just another myth. While many skeptics use this principle to disavow many of Jesus deeds Price goes the extra mile in using it to dismiss the sayings of Jesus. He argues that the oral transmission of Jesus’ sayings is improperly set in the context of tradition of the rabbis and their disciples which saw the disciple as not losing a word of his master. Rather, it is better seen as similar to the “transmission of the hadith of Muhammad” which saw “thousands of spurious sayings” developing “only a century after Muhammad.” (58)

Price’s second commandment is the criterion of dissimilarity. Essentially this maintains that “no saying ascribed to Jesus may be counted as probably authentic if it has parallels to Jewish or Christian sayings.” (59) Price believes scholars have rejected this criterion, not because it doesn’t work, but because “it made the game too difficult to play” and “when one objects that the criterion is too strict because it doesn’t leave us enough pieces of the puzzle, agnosticism is transforming into fideism.” (60)

The third commandment is to “remember what an ideal-type means.” This is an important point for Price because he draws a lot of parallels between Jesus and mythological figures from the mystery religions, the dying-and-rising gods and Gnosticism among others. He is also well aware that countless scholars have shown time and again why these parallels don’t hold up. Price argues that an “absolute likeness” is not required. “Rather, the idea is that if discreet phenomena possess enough common features that a yardstick may be abstracted from them, then each member may be profitably measured and better understood against the yardstick.” (61)

The fourth and fifth commandments are “consensus is no criterion” and “scholarly ‘conclusions’ must be tentative and provisional, always open to revision.” (61-62) Were Price's own position not such a minority view I doubt he would ever mention these two.

Building on these commandments Price says the “Christ-myth theory” rests on three pillars: 1) “Why no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in the secular sources?” 2) “the Epistles, earlier than the Gospels, do not evidence a recent historical Jesus” and 3) “though the Epistles name the Christian savior Jesus, it is quite possible . . . that they attest to an even earlier stage of belief in which the savior received the honorific name Jesus only as of his postmortem exaltation.” (63-64)

Price offers a lengthy survey of the Gospel of Mark as nothing more than “the product of haggadic midrash on the Old Testament.” (67-75) Finally, come all the parallels to the mythic heroes and the problems of attempting to root the Gospels in any kind of history. All hopeless endeavors as far as Price is concerned. He says, "Consider the fact that at every point where the gospel story appears to obtrude on contemporary history, there are serious difficulties in taking the narratives as historical." (79) Price follows Arthur Drews in arguing that one of the main reasons it was important to anchor Jesus in history was to provide an authoritative figurehead who had appointed successors and set policy. (81)

I’ve spent more time than I planned on Price because his essay will be the most controversial of the book and because rarely will most Christians hear a “scholarly” presentation on the non-historicity of Jesus. I had hoped to cover in one post the essay and its responses but given the length of this post already I will save the responses to Price for next time.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views - A Review 1

I linked a sneak peak at this book in an earlier post. I just started the book last night and would like to start a series of short reviews as I read along. To be honest I was half tempted to skip the introduction and jump to the first essay by Robert Price who believes that an historical Jesus never existed. I'm so glad I didn't. This is a critically important chapter especially if the topic is new to you. It will help orient you to the history, major issues and the significance of the topic.

The introduction is an excellent survey of the history and major issues of the study of the historical Jesus and is loaded with valuable bibliographic references. Theories about Jesus abound and I thought I had heard them all. I should have known better. I was stunned to read that one writer actually argues that Jesus and the apostle Paul are the same person!

Paul Rhodes Eddy and James K. Beilby highlight the four stages of scholarly research in the quest for the historical Jesus. They begin with 1) the "old quest" (from Reimarus to Schweitzer - 1778-1906); 2) the "'so-called' no quest" (from Schweitzer to Kasemann - 1906-1953); 3) The "new quest" (also called the "second quest" from 1953 - 1970s) and 4) the "third quest" (1980s - present). Each of these periods is fleshed out with the major players and rising factors that changed and shaped the prevailing views of Jesus primarily in German liberal scholarship. While this four-stage history is widely accepted there are some who question it as simply an "overly narrow, parochially German perspective." (28 n. 70) While Eddy and Beilby grant the title of "father of the quest" to Reimarus they note that, contrary to Schweitzer and many today who claim that Reimarus had no predecessors, the roots of the quest actually stem back into the seventeenth-century British and French deism. In particular they point to British deist Thomas Chubb (1679-1746) who saw Jesus as a "sort of first-century Palestinian Deist, garbed in the seamless robe of reason and natural religion." (12)

The second part of the introduction covers the "current state of the third quest." Eddy and Beilby cover a wide variety of issues and among the most important is the matter of methodology. The third quest has raised the importance of methodology to new heights. But while many can agree that methodology is important it's not long before the disagreements begin. Some suggest a return to the thought period of "no quest" arguing that the search for the historical Jesus should be abandoned since nothing good can come from it and at the end of the day it really doesn't matter since (quoting William Arnal) "the Jesus who is important to our day is not the Jesus of history, but the symbolic Jesus of contemporary discussion." (32) Others, like Luke Timothy Johnson (a contributor in the book) object to the process since "historical proposals are always contingent and open to later revision--hardly the type of thing the Christian community could base its very identity on over time." (not a quote from Johnson but their summary of his thought). (33) Though differences abound Eddy and Beilby assert that while a "consensus in Jesus studies is elusive, it is not entirely absent." (47) Chief on the consensus list is one major item--the Jewishness of Jesus. "One of the most scathing critiques that a contemporary scholar can receive today is that he has ignored or even underappreciated the Jewishness of Jesus." (49) But, again, the harmony of opinions quickly stops. What that "Jewishness" looked like is the spark of a whole new debate. They point again to Arnal who says the entire discussion is a "'red herring,' since within a radically diverse Judaism, Jesus could turn out to be just about anything and still potentially qualify as 'Jewish.'" (49) Many other issues are raised which I won't cover here. The issues are covered in brief format yet very informative.

What has the third quest produced? Here's a sample of the reconstructions the third quest has produced of Jesus: "an eschatological prophet, a Galilean holy man, an occultic magician, an innovative rabbi, a trance-inducing psychotherapist, a Jewish sage, a political revolutionary, an Essene conspirator, an itinerant exorcist, an historicized myth, a protoliberation theologian, a peasant artisan, a Torah-observant Pharisee, a Cynic-like philosopher, a self-conscious eschatological agent, a socioeconomic reformer, a paradoxical Messianic claimant and, finally, as one who saw himself as, in some sense, the very embodiment of Yahweh-God." (53)

We could ask, "Will the real Jesus please stand up?" In the remainder of the book we'll hear the case of five different scholars attempting to answer that question. Let the debate begin!

Understanding English Bible Translation - A Review

Leland Ryken has been the most prolific writer in defense of an "essentially literal" philosophy of English Bible translation. Understanding English Bible Translation is his most recent contribution. In a previous post I listed his three previous books on the subject. This book is a "shorter, more streamlined book" than his previous book called The Word of God in English. (14)

Ryken is a lively writer and his passion for the subject is engaging. Out of the gate let me just say if you are looking for a response to Mark Strauss' criticism of the ESV you won't find it here. Strauss does get an occasional jab (as when Ryken says Strauss is being "frivolous and irresponsible" in alleging that "essentially literal translators 'forget that [the process involves] translation rather than transcription.'" (27) Ryken is referring to the work co-authored by Strauss and Gordon Fee entitled How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth. There is virtually no reference to the paper read by Strauss at the ETS meeting where he argued that the ESV should not become the standard English version. Though Strauss' paper covered a lot of territory I think at least an appendix would have been appropriate to respond to answer some of the most fundamental problems as William Mounce has begun to do with his "Mondays with Mounce" on Koinonia.

In an earlier review of The Word of God in English Craig Blomberg rightly observed that Ryken lumped too many "versions" together under the rubric "dynamic equivalent." Blomberg notes "it is also a bit unfair to criticize versions at the freest end of the spectrum, most notably the old Living Bible Paraphrased (LBP) and Eugene Peterson's more recent "The Message." Neither of these versions even claims to be dynamically equivalent." On this score Blomberg is right but Ryken continues to classify The Message as "dynamic equivalent" (See the list on p. 165 where The Message is identified as "dynamic equivalent" as well as the chart on p. 106.) Ryken does refer to The Living Letters consistently as a paraphrase which was merely the beginnings of The Living Bible (i.e., 72, 80-81)

With these comments aside let me say Ryken does an admirable job of defending his topic. He clarifies a number of misconceptions especially some surrounding William Tyndale. Tyndale is often employed to show that a translation should use "plain" language. Ryken stresses caution here. He says, "The adjective plain can be 'clear,' or it can mean 'common; colloquial.' It is true that Tyndale's translation includes a few famous colloquialisms . . . But the English of Tyndale's New Testament is predominantly a dignified plain style. It is as informal or formal as the original requires." (39) Tyndale's comment about a boy driving a plough will know more Scripture than his antagonizers should be understood not as a "comment on Tyndale's English style; it is instead a comment on Tyndale's desire to see the English Bible permeate all of English society." (41) Ryken further notes that Tyndale refused to "capitulate to the linguistic and theological abilities of the least educated segments of his society." (42)

Ryken objects to the mantra of dynamic equivalent translators that the Bible should be translated "in such a way that it reads 'as we would say it.'" Or, in other words we should "reject renditions about which it can be said that 'no one speaking English in the real world would use an expression like [that].'" (81) Ryken asserts that since the Bible is an ancient book it should appropriately reflect that. To turn the Bible into a modern book is "to cut against the grain and create a false impression for readers." (81) It might seem harmless enough to change something like "tents of wickedness" into "homes of the wicked" but Ryken argues the "cumulative effect is drastic." (82)

Ryken also takes issue with the assumption that "a grade-schooler should serve as the norm for reading ability and comprehension." (94) He charges, "The dynamic equivalent movement is a massive experiment in capitulation to low levels of reading ability and comprehension." (94) Essentially literal translations educate modern readers even as Tyndale did when he "added words like intercession and atonement to the English language in an attempt to transmit the content of the Bible. (94) [NOTE: In this discussion Ryken cites the preface of the NLT as equating "the average reader" with "a junior high student." While this was true in earlier editions of the NLT this wording has been changed in current editions.]

There is much I enjoyed in this book even though Ryken's tone was, at times, harsher than it needed to be. He does paint with a broad brush and some of those generalizations open him up to criticisms that he would otherwise not be subject to. He does recognize and give credit to dynamic equivalent translations as rendering the Bible as "understandable to modern readers." (29) But this goal of readability, he says, "has been elevated to an importance it should never be accorded." (29) I agree with Ryken that the Bible "should not sound like a teenager's account of last evening's ballgame." (108) Rather it should contain a certain "formality, dignity, an appropriate strand of archaism and exaltation." (108) Maybe it's just my age speaking but I like to think that part of what counts in translating God's Word is crafting language in ways which exalt and honor the Scripture above the common and ordinary expressions I use everyday. I've heard it said countless times that the language of the New Testament was just common street language. A helpful article which counters this allegation is by Michael Marlowe, "Was the Bible Written in 'Street Language."

If you want a good introduction to the issue of Bible translation from the perspective of literal translation it is hard to do better than Ryken.