From Luke_Johnson@info.harpercollins.comMon Mar 11 17:10:54 1996 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:07:33 -0500 (EST) From: Luke Johnson To: Jesus2000@info.harpercollins.com Subject: Week Four (Johnson Response) My main emotion as I begin this note is one of pity for the folks who have signed up to "overhear" this exchange between Crossan, Borg, and myself. A three-participant "debate" in which two parties are in fundamental agreement on the legitimacy of a discussion and much of its contents and the third is in agreement on neither is a bit like a three-person see-saw experience: two people go up and down vigorously, and the third must either get off or jump lightly from one side to other other, even as he protests that maybe going down the slide might be more fun. Not a pretty sight. OK, to Crossan's main statement, which in several ways in mainly addressed to me: 1. The opening characterization of my position is misleading on two counts. First, I have never equated a theological position concerning the incarnation with the "historical Jesus." Dom's suggestion that I agreed that one must choose between being gnostic and holding to "the historical Jesus" is not based on my of the statements I have made, nor is it my position. The second way in which it is misleading is in its suggestion that I have actually been engaged in a historical reconstruction of Jesus. In my book, my sketch of what the historian can responsibly say about Jesus falls well short of any such attempt, as my conversation partners well know. My use of Tacitus and Josephus was in service of a search for controls from "converging lines of evidence" that could provide a basis for reliable historical determinations. I insisted there that these lines of convergence, while valuable, do not get us to a "historical Jesus." And I proposed that attempts to go beyond this line of the suggestive led to a distortion both of the methods of history and of the subject being sought. My use of Paul was consistent with this. I thought it important, if we are looking for some controls outside the gospel narratives themselves, to use the other earliest Christian writings. I was puzzled that Paul figured so little, even at the "factual" level, for this purpose. Finally, I suggested that the narrative image of Jesus that dominates the canonical Gospels is also one found in Paul. And because it is found in Paul in an oblique and non-thematized fashion, its presence is all the more interesting as a very early "memory" of Jesus' character (in distinction from his specific sayings or deeds) that can legitimately be dated within twenty years of Jesus' death. 2. I am grateful that my mistake in spelling Lenski's name was noted. I cannot promise I won't do it again (in the last sentence, I had to go back and correct three words). But I also cheerfully confess that I have not read Lenski. I have relied on the faithful reporting of the people I am reading to accurately report his theory; and because of my confidence in their reportage, I think I have a fair grasp of what Lenski says. But I would like to clarify a point that Dom's proof-reading of my submission may have obscured. My reference to Lenski was made, not with regard to Borg's book (which I was addressing) nor to Crossan's book, but with regard to still a third book. Nor did I "dismiss" Lenski or his theory, either in my review of that third book, or in my review of Crossan's book. My only point was that not everyone agrees about the validity of the use of cross-cultural models, and even people, like myself, who agree with their usse in general, sometimes find problems with the specific application, especially when the model seems to conflict with specific data. I think, Dom, if you re-read my last posting, I did not "dismiss" Lenski. On the other hand, I stand by my general statement that in the case of the books written by you and Marcus, the three points I said Marcus was vulnerable on apply also to your work: a) the validity of using/choosing cross-cultural models; b) the use of evidence from antiquity within that model; c) whether the model distorts or suppresses evidence in the texts under consideration. 3. Concerning the complaint that my "narrative image" of Jesus as derived from Paul and the Gospels is, let's see, "dangerously vague" because it could be applied to (according to Borg) mothers saving their children from fires, or (according to Crossan) a "christian terrorist in a suicide car bomb." Heavens. And you worry, Dom, that such a vague "historical Jesus" could be turned and twisted in just such horrific ways, whereas your presentation of Jesus as a preacher of an egalitarian ideal would offer assured protection against any distortion by deranged readers. We both know that it wouldn't, and that egalitarian dreams ---based on Jesus or not--- have often led to sad and even murderous consequences for their adherents. But more to the point, you again insist on reading what I am saying through the lens of your own project. By no means do I restrict my understanding of the human person Jesus to the sketch of "obedient unto death, loving others in service." I can fill out my portrait of Jesus with all of the material that you and Marcus also find in the precious pages of the Gospel: Jesus' opposition to religious oppression, call to the marginalized, table-fellowship with the sinners and tax-collectors. But I can also add: Jesus' devotion to God as his father, Jesus' prayer in the wilderness, Jesus' preaching in parables, Jesus' healing of the sick, Jesus' forgiveness of sins, Jesus' judgment on those who refuse God's visitation. All these images of Jesus are found in the canonical Gospels, as well as the image of the one who comes from God and returns to God, who reveals what he has heard from the father, who works in the father's name. I find these images, this Jesus, this incredibly rich and evocative human character, in the pages of the canonical Gospels. BUT I DO NOT CALL IT HISTORY. These are images shaped by memories of Jesus in the believing church. Do I think that they are true? You bet. But I cannot verify them historically. So I find the framework that I can determine with strict historical method NOT DISCONFIRMED by the portrait in the Gospels and Paul (and other NT writings). But I do not call the portrait historical. Contrast this to the method sketched in your essay, Dom. You are, of course, concerned to provide a historical portrait that is as complete as possible. in contrast to my reluctance to move, in historical terms, beyond much more than a formal sketch, you seek a full portrait by historical terms alone. I am, by the way, pleased that you find my summary of your procedure not unfair. You establish the grid by the use of models drawn from anthropology, fill it out with lots and lots of historical and archeological data ---you will recall that in my first review, I praised highly the effectiveness of all this. Then, you test Jesus traditions to see which ones are earliest. Now, here is where I and other critics have trouble. As I said in the book, your procedure appears even-handed:all materials are equally in competition. But in practice, I find considerable circularity involved. Many scholars agree with me, as you know, in doubting whether we can determine stages of redaction as precisely as you claim, especially across such a range of material. So this is a major difficulty. But next, as you say, "it is such materiasl as those that I juxtapose most immediately to ther situation of Antipas' Galilee and ask whether and how do they fit." Your reconstruction of Jesus, as you say, uses what from the Gospels fits the model you have chosen. This seems to be what I have been trying to point out all along. The question needs to be asked whether the model can accomodate all the historical materials in the Gospels --- how, for example, did you get, in last week's comment, from Jesus' conflicts with Jewish authorities to the programmatic "God says Caesar sucks"?