From Luke_Johnson@info.harpercollins.comMon Apr  1 16:29:03 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:19:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Luke Johnson <Luke_Johnson@info.harpercollins.com>
To: Jesus2000@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Jesus Debate Week Seven: Final Message (Johnson)


Dear Colleagues:

	In this final message, I will offer only some summary comments. 
The exchange of messages that we have dignified with the designation 
"debate" has served to sharpen some of my original perceptions.
		1. Although the NT (and other early Christian literature) 
provides a not insignificant amount of real historical information 
concerning Jesus and Christian origins, our sources are insufficient for 
the sort of full reconstructions historians most desire.
		2. Attempts to move past the limitations imposed by the 
sources leads ---both for Jesus and for Christian origins--- to 
distortion of historical method, of the subjects under analysis, and to 
the literature itself, which, by being reduced to the level of historical 
source material, cannot be heard in its literary and religious integrity. 
Finally, the proposal that Christian faith ought to be grounded in and 
normed by such historical reconstructions is a distortion of the 
religious claims of the Christian tradition.
		3. Recent efforts at historical reconstruction have been 
driven less by the demands of historiography (the discovery of new 
sources, the use of new methods) than by a reformist program directed at 
Christian faith. Given the eroded state of discourse within Christian 
churches and theology, such efforts can actually pass as a form of 
Christian reflection, even though their starting points --- the 
bracketing [to use a neutral term] of the resurrection, and the 
deconstruction of the canonical Gospels in their literary integrity --- 
would not have been recognized as orthodox in any age before our own. To 
return to Dom's opening contrast between orthodox and gnostic forms of 
christianity, we remember that Irenaeus objected precisely to the gnostic 
practice of moving pieces and sayings about at will, and redefining the 
resurrection according to the gnostic understanding.
		4. I remain unsatisfied on the following questions: a) If 
the reconstruction of Jesus begins with the dismantling of the canonical 
Gospels, how can this be read except as implying that the Gospels are not 
only inadequate but also wrong? b) If the reconstructed Jesus is proposed 
as the norm for christian identity and practice, how can this be 
understood except as the suppression of the richer set of images of Jesus 
in the Gospels, and its replacement by the reconstruction? c) If the 
historical reconstruction of Jesus is to function for Christian faith as 
the new norm, what distinguishes such efforts from that of the 
evangelists? d) If the authority for such substitution of norms does not 
derive from the church or from the Holy Spirit, from where does it come?


	Finally, I summarize my own position:

		1. Since Christianity is a historical religion, it is 
appropriate and necessary to study it historically. The earliest stages 
of the movement, and the figure of Jesus, are also legitimate subjects of 
historical inquiry.
		2. With respect to such historiography, however, two 
important limitations must be observed. The first I have already 
mentioned: the inability of our sources to provide anything like a full 
historical reconstruction. The second is even more important, namely the 
realization that history is intrinsically a limited mode of human 
cognition, and cannot simply be equated with "reality." From the bottom 
of human existence to the top, much of what is most interesting escapes 
the net of historical investigation.
		3. The Christian claim concerning the resurrection of 
Jesus is the supreme example of a reality that can be asserted as "real" 
or "true" without being capable of historical verification. But since 
this claim is absolutely pivotal to the Christian understanding of Jesus 
---even in his earthly life--- this means that what is most critical to 
apprehending the "real Jesus" (in the view of Christians) cannot be 
fitted within "the historical Jesus."
		4. Finally, I have argued that Christian scholarship must 
begin with loyalty to the church and its canon and creed. Irenaeus 
already recognized that the diversity of sources concerning Jesus could 
yield any number of portraits. It was precisely for that reason that 
Irenaeus proposed the tripod of self-definition that has structured 
Christian discourse from his day until very recently: the rule of faith, 
the canon of scripture, and the apostolic succession. The Jesus of the 
Gospels is read --- has been read---- by Christians within that 
framework. I remain unconvinced that specifically Christian discourse has 
any compelling reason to abandon its tradition of reading, particularly 
when the versions of Jesus offered are so silent on the truths so deeply 
etched in the hearts of believers by their own experience of the risen 
Lord, and are so redolent of contemporary cultural preoccupations.

	Best wishes to you both.