Beilby, James K., and Paul Rhodes Eddy. Editors. The Historical Jesus: Five
Views. Downers Glove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.
The study of Jesus as a historical figure is not math or science where an exact single right answer must be concluded. Amazingly, different authors with wildly different views have come together to report on their studies in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. These men have studied the same Jesus from different angles and arrived at extremely different understandings of Jesus. How can this be? For the same reason we different denominations within Christianity: God has revealed only a particular amount which is necessary for us to begin our relationship with Him. Relationships are not math but rather a process of development by seeking more answers to know someone.
In Robert M. Price’s essay, “Jesus at the Vanishing Point,” he dares to say that there was no historical Jesus. The Jesus that Christians know is only in a matter of faith (56). This is difficult to grasp for a conservative and traditional Christian who believes the Christ of my faith to be deeply rooted and closely tied to a real historical figure. Price goes on to compare Jesus to legends and myths (57). Comparing the central figure of a dominating and lasting world wide religion to a dead religion such as the Greek and Roman gods is near outrageous. Another irriatating question that sticks out is, “Why no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources?” as well as no mention of Jesus in the Episltes (62 – 630> Understandably, Price is looking for more sources of information about Jesus. However, he fails to mention the purpose of these other writings. The purpose of the Episles was not to recount again the life of Christ with which first century Christians were likely already familiar. Prices goes on to discuss the life of Jesus in which he has no belief, as it mirrors Old Testament stories (71). He seems to say that some stories may be fabricated instead of fulfilling scripture completely. One last point worth mentioning is Price’s comparison of the life of Jesus to the “Mythic Hero Archetype” (77). Could it not also be viewed as God being the originator and author of the plot line and Hero’s Journey in preparation for what Christ would do? Instead Price suggests that because the life of Jesus follows this pattern, instead of setting the pattern, he is more likely a myth. Obviously, these radical views will not be well received by the majority of Christians holding tightly to the Bible as a valid source.
Second, John Dominic Crosson arrives at a historical Jesus by evaluating His role in relation to kingdoms past, present, earthly, and spiritually. Crosson appears to believe in a real, physical, andhistorical Jesus except where he makes a contradictory comment like, “even if Jesus never existed,” (109). Crosson goes into detail of earthly kingdoms affecting the Jews before finally arriving at a discussion of God’s kingdom and whether it is closely imminent or not, as well as the present presence of God’s kingdom in the middle of this history he has been describing (120). The idea of a present kingdom is reasonable with Price’s description of God waiting for us to join Him in the Clean-up (125). This idea of the kingdom as already present shows that it is not of this world but can be accepted and enjoyed in this world. Crossan’s focus is not “if” Jesus lived, but the presence of God’s kingdom that Jesus focused on during His ministry to demonstrate. This view of the historical Jesus makes reasonable and acceptable statements concerning the truth of the historical Jesus.
Sandwiched in the middle of the discussion is Luke Timothy Johnson’s “Learning the Human Jesus” (153). Johnson spends an enormous amount of time discussing the historical methods to research and support Jesus as a person to then finally say that another way of knowing Him is by a study of the Gospels with literary criticism (167). How refreshing that Johnson wants to go back to the Bible to discuss the person of Jesus! After all, isn’t that why Christians have the Bible? Johnson does not completely disregard historical study, but he rather admits the limitations it has because some details about the life of Jesus do not work within the historical methods (159). Johnson points out that the gospels are available to everyone for the purpose of knowing Jesus buy using literary analysis (167). Any student awake even in a high school freshman English class can begin this approach. Johnson’s ideas and promotions to know “the Human Jesus” by returning simply to the Gospels is well received and open to all who can get their hands on a copy of the Bible.
Fourth in the line up is James D. G. Dunn’s “Remembering Jesus: How the Quest of the Historical Jesus lost Its Way,” (199). Dunn puts a positive spin on the complaining discussion of the Historical Jesus. First, Dunn explains one of the problems with the study. Then He offers a solution or alternate view of the subject to bring it back to a situation of more positive discussion. His attitude alone commands respect and attention to his ideas. Dunn does not begin by engaging in whether or not Jesus existed as Price does, but rather says that the purpose of Jesus was to build faith (203). This purpose was achieved. Dunn’s second purpose is to not discount oral tradition in the time of Jesus (211). If oral transmission is a community event, then the records found in the Gospels show us the response to what early Palestinians heard (213). Dunn’s third purpose is to reconnect Jesus with his Jewish background (219). This is essential in the understanding of Jesus as a person in the first century. A character cannot be separated from the setting. Finally, Dunn’s focus on the tradition of Jesus, the oral retelling of the events of His ministry, and the characteristics found concerning Him dictated in the Gospels must be a respected way of knowing Him.
Finally, after an exhausting journey through strange views, Darrell L. Bock offers “The Historical Jesus: An Evangelical View,” (249). Although Bock says it seems strange to study Jesus according to these historical methods, he points out the goal is to “show to be most likely about Jesus,” (249). In other words, students of this study must remain true to the original purpose. The point of studying the Jesus of history is to get back to the original before the church began any unintentional changes that became part of theology (250). Bock understands and admits that this historical study will result in different opinions or views based on limited resources. However, he still believes “the discussion is worth having,” (253). A positive characteristic of Bock seems to be his openness to discussion even though he clearly has his own opinions that Jesus did live. Bock suggests that the most important parts of the historical Jesus are his recorded teachings, his purposeful plan to disrupt the distorted Jewish traditions, and the impact He had on people of that time period as well as the lasting impact for generations to come.
The Historical Jesus: Five Views is good for the purposes of engaging conversation about different theories of Jesus as a historical figure. The five contributors to this book have laid out some serious beef jerky, so to speak, that demands close reading and rereading for understanding. Each one backed up his points with history, examples, and Biblical text. Christians ought to be familiar with different views and be able to defend what they believe. Do we know if we believe a myth, a tradition, or a real person of past history and present as a living Lord?
