Scripture, Culture, and Missions
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 55, No. 1 – Fall 2012
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. 307 pages. Softcover, $35.00.
The Princeton-Prague Symposia on Jesus Research met in Prague in the spring of 2005 and Princeton in April of 2007 (ix). The international scholars invited to participate in the symposia are well known in Jesus Research. This review will examine the volume containing the papers presented at the first symposium, which focused primarily on methodology, a matter with which scholars are concerned and amateurs usually are not (xxi, 6). The presenters were searching for a hidden consensus in Jesus Research (4). The contributors to this volume are James H. Charlesworth, Stanley E. Porter, Jens Schröter, Carsten Claussen, Gerd Theissen, Michael Wolter, Klaus Haacker, Rudolf Hoppe, Petr Pokorný, Craig Evans, Tom Holmén, Ulrich Luz, and Brian Rea. Interestingly, the participants prefer the term “Jesus Research” over the more traditional term “study of the historical Jesus” (xxii). This is because they find the Jesus of history and subsequent confessions about him and adoration of him hopelessly entangled and impossible to separate. Their biased perception is unfortunate.
This book is not for the novice in Jesus Research. Nor does it approach the subject from a traditional perspective. For that purpose, one is better served by Craig Keener’s The Historical Jesus of the Gospels or Darrell Bock’s trilogy on the historical Jesus. By contrast, the writers of this present volume “do not imagine that they can find the ‘real’ Jesus behind the perceptions and theologies of the Evangelists” (14, 37). Instead, they take the typical clinical historical view that deals with probabilities and possibilities of who Jesus was (14, 79, 97). Surprisingly, though, they actually discover some positive findings. For instance, in one of the better chapters, James Charlesworth shows the old critical paradigm of viewing John’s Gospel as non-Jewish, non-historical, and ignorant of ancient Palestine is no longer viable. Charlesworth posits not only the Jewishness of this Gospel but also the accurate description of pre-AD 70 Jerusalem architecture and topography by citing five fairly recent archeological corroborations (61-66). However, the last part of the essay is not as helpful. Charlesworth claims that term “Palestinian Jesus Movement” is better than the allegedly anachronistic term “Christian” since first-century believers still considered themselves to be Jews (68-69). Yet, there are at least three problems with this claim. First, the movement was no longer just Palestinian by the time of Paul’s first missionary journey in Acts 13. Second, this claim minimizes Acts 11:26. Third, by the early 50s many believers were Gentiles.
The strengths of this volume are that it (1) incorporates early Jewish writings, such as the pseudepigrapha and Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeological findings, and socio-rhetorical studies in Jesus research, (2) uses top-notch scholars, and (3) reflects fairly recent historical Jesus research, although from the moderate-to-liberal perspective. Thus, one expects to see nontraditional interpretations, such as (1) Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist in the desert (52, 171), (2) Jesus sometimes thought the eschatonwould begin either in his or his followers’ lifetimes (57), (3) Cana was Jesus’ base of operations from John’s perspective (96), and (4) Gospel contexts can be inaccurate constructs (191, 198). One should contrast these views with those of more conservative scholars such as Keener and Bock.
A weakness throughout the book is that the authors only implicitly reach their goal of focusing on methodology and finding a consensus. Were it not for Charlesworth’s summary of what was to follow (4-13), one might have missed the methodology. Most of the articles focus on the application of a methodology rather than the description of that methodology. More methodological explanation by each author would have improved this book. Another weakness is the lack of theological balance, although the choice of authors has a commendable international balance. The conservative view is mostly missing, except when criticized in or relegated to a footnote (e.g., 29n45, 78n28; 92n91; and 220n96). The least helpful chapter is by Ulrich Luz, in which he compares Jesus and the founding of Christianity with two leaders who founded religions in Japan in the last two hundred years. His purpose is to cause one to re-think what is allegedly unique about Jesus and Christianity by examining seven areas of correspondence (243-51), but his summary is very short (254), and his application is lacking.
For a reader who believes in the historical veracity of the canonical Gospels, such as this reviewer, what is the value in reading a book written by scholars who doubt this truthfulness (78)? One must be aware of and follow these scholarly conversations in Jesus Research in order to dialogue effectively with these scholars. Then, one can add to the conversation based on the perspective of the inerrancy of God’s Word. This reviewer looks forward to the next two volumes in this series. They are from the 2005 symposium, and they are not yet in print. They will include research from an even wider number of disciplines than the present volume, such as numismatics, canonical criticism, onomastics, orality in Gospel transmission, and time perspective (15).
