Dethroning Jesusanity

Last updated on: December 13, 2007 at 8:25 am by James F. McGrath

Dethroning Jesusanity 2007-12-13T08:25:00-05:00 James F. McGrath

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I just finished reading the recent book Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ by Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace. My overall impression is that it makes some valid points, but because on the whole the book is dedicated to toeing the authors’ understanding of the conservative theological party line, most of what could have been valuable in the book is thereby undermined. It is a book that arises out of seemingly unexamined, deep-rooted presuppositions, and will thus probably have little to say to those who don’t share the authors’ assumptions about how the questions should be approached.

A major problem with the book is that it lumps together the work of scholars like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan with the Jesus tomb documentary and other such subjects, giving the impression that they are all dialogue partners of the same sort. Indeed, it is worse than that. Scholars and sensationalist filmmakers are lumped together under the subtitle’s category of “popular culture” while Bock and Wallace are presumably allied with the other category, “the Biblical Christ”. The problem with this distinction, which corresponds to their categories of “Jesusanity” vs. “Christianity”, is that the latter is assumed to be the default position in much the way supernatural creation is by young-earth creationists. The authors seem to believe that, if they can pick enough holes in their opponents’ arguments, then that demonstrates the validity of their own views. Although the authors make a fair point about there being more than two possible views (p.25), and seem willing to admit that their dialogue partners are right about many things, this certainly does not lead them to critically re-examine any significant component of the typical North American conservative Christian worldview. In other words, they at times offer valid criticisms of recent publications, but instead of offering a better, more critical examination of the subjects, they revert to their presuppositions. The book thus highlights problems, but offers no solutions.

The book starts off with a mythologized view of memory in ancient societies, a view fairly common among conservative Christians but not supported by recent research on oral cultures and oral tradition (pp.1-3). The authors then define Jesusanity as that which results from historical critical approaches to sources and historical skepticism in general (pp.4-5, 16-17), with particular “blame” being laid at the feet of universities (p.21). To be honest, such a description makes Jesusanity seem pretty appealing, since the alternative they offer is an uncritical acceptance of the Jesus in whom the early Christians placed their faith, the risen and exalted one, but without making an adequate attempt to assess how the “Christ of faith” relates to the Jesus of history, who is the focus of “Jesusanity”.

Fair points are made about textual criticism, and much is done that is positive to challenge the impression that many people get from books like Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus that we do not have a very good idea of what the originals of the New Testament documents looked like. It quotes the apologists’ numbers of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts we have (p.51), but to be fair, it also quotes the relevant number – more than four dozen from within the first two centuries (p.50). The sheer number of manuscripts is of course irrelevant – if everyone who reads this blog makes an additional copy of a Greek manuscript, the number will go up, but not in a way that impacts the accuracy or inaccuracy of the text. But the truth is that we do have very early copies, and so while Ehrman’s points about the uncertainties and problems are valid, they do not undermine our overall confidence that we have a good sense of what Paul wrote (to give one example).

The valid points are marred, however, by conservative assumptions about things like authorship. How can one have a fair discussion of the unity and diversity of earliest Christianity if one assumes that the definition given in 1 John is that of an eyewitness and member of the inner circle of apostles (p.82)? The authors seem to have a limited understanding of the nature of Gnosticism. On p.101 they write that “Jews and early Christians would not have been attracted to a creation story in which the God of Israel is a fourth-rate deity.” But this is completely wrong. It was within the matrix of Judaism and/or Christianity that Gnosticism arose, or at the very least in dialogue with it. Unless one accepts the authority of Genesis in some real sense, Gnosticism cannot arise, since the Genesis account is taken as an accurate, literal account of creation – and that is precisely the problem, namely why a good God would behave in the ways depicted in the Jewish Scriptures, and create a material world that gives grief to those that inhabit it. Apart from a close connection to Judaism and/or Christianity, Gnosticism cannot appear. (This is a point that I hope to make in a separate post in relation to Lupieri’s book The Mandaeans).

The discussion of the material in the Gospel of Thomas is marred by a focus only on the date of written documents, with no allowance for the possibility that relatively late texts may reflect independent knowledge of authentic early forms of sayings and stories (pp.114-115). The authors express their bewilderment at why Thomas is valued more highly than John by scholars interested in the historical figure of Jesus (p.119). Yet the answer is simple: the parables and aphorisms of Thomas resemble the authentic sayings of Jesus in a way John’s monologues in the unique Johannine style do not. In general it is the form of sayings found in Thomas, but are also known from the Synoptics as well, that some scholars are inclined to regard as authentic, and not (with one exception) the content unique to Thomas. This is precisely because form critical investigations had already led scholars to posit such forms as the likely more original ones even before the Gospel of Thomas was found. Nevertheless, Bock and Wallace are fair to speak of Thomas’ “wax nose” (p.130) and suggest that one reason for the popularity of Thomas is its flexibility. It is easier to find there what one is looking for. Unless one is a conservative Christian, of course – then what one is looking for is more easily found in the canonical Gospels (read through the appropriate framework and with the appropriate presuppositions), so it is not surprising that most in the latter category prefer to look there.

The most baffling statement in the book is that “the Gospels intentionally subject themselves to historical inquiry” (p.128). I’ve never seen books subject themselves to anything. This rather silly statement is connected with Paul’s reference to 500 who saw Jesus alive (1 Corinthians 15:6), which is of course a very weak hearsay argument. I’ve heard that large numbers of people, including at least some still alive today, all saw the Virgin Mary, or (in another instance) a UFO, but if I pass on that story to you now, it has no evidentiary weight. It is hearsay, which I got from others. I was neither one of the witnesses, nor did I speak directly to any of them. In Paul’s case, we have no idea whether Paul spoke directly to one of those 500 or not. The authors are engaging in apologetics when they quote such passages, and not what historians regard as historical inquiry.

I will try on some other occasion to discuss the substitutionary idea of atonement. It is not there in the Bible, yet in typical fashion Bock and Wallace manage to read it into just about every place they look. I’ll just point readers to 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, where Paul says not that one died for all, because all should have died, but Christ took our place, dying instead of us; but rather Paul says that one died for all, and therefore all died. I’ll talk on another occasion about what this does mean, but it is clearly not penal substitution, the most popular understanding of the atonement among conservative Evangelicals.

The authors show that, at the end of the book, they have altogether missed the point that authors like Borg and Crossan have made about stories as parables. They argue that Thomas would not be persuaded by a parable or story, but only by an actual historical encounter with the risen Jesus (p.165). Can you see what is in their blind spot? They are assuming that this story is a factual historical account! Yet that is the very issue, and they fail to address it adequately. Their statement that visions and spiritual experiences could not account for the “sure hope” of the early disciples after Easter just shows that they must not themselves have had such experiences. Those of us who have know their power to transform our lives – just as those of us who have reflected critically about them know that they cannot be used to circumvent the need for evidence in addressing historical questions.

The conclusion of the book shows clearly the authors’ aim: they want the exalted Jesus of early Christian sources, without the troubling matters, doubts and uncertainties connected with historical investigation. In short, if you don’t care about whether the Jesus you worship has anything to do with the actual historical figure Jesus of Nazareth (one of the twenty or so significant individuals named Jesus who lived in this period – p.203), then there is nothing stopping you from following Bock and Wallace’s understanding of Christianity. On the other hand, if you find you cannot set aside historical questions, then perhaps Jesusanity is more appealing than these authors suggest. But it is not just historical study that raises questions about Bock and Wallace’s views. The Bible itself does not fit neatly into the uniform vision of early Christianity they offer. And that being the case, the reader is left with the impression that Bock and Wallace have no anchor for their beliefs other than their own conservative Evangelical presuppositions and worldview, since their views are not connected in any fundamental either to the historical Jesus or to the New Testament in all its intriguing diversity.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 12, 2007

Quote of the Day (Stephen Moshier)

Next Post

December 13, 2007 Christians Who Hate and a Muslim Who Helps

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 1 Corinthians 1 John 1 Peter 1 Samuel 1 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Corinthians 2 Kings 2 Peter 2 Samuel 2 Thessalonians 2 Timothy academia Acts of the Apostles afterlife Akhaten Alcatraz American Academy of Religion Amos Anglican Arabic Aramaic archaeology art artificial intelligence astronomy atheism atonement Babylon 5 Baptists Battlestar Galactica Bible Biblical Studies Carnival biblioblogging Black Mirror Blade Runner Book of Job book review Buddhism Call for Papers China Christianity Christmas Christology Chronicles Coptic creation Daniel Deuteronomy Doctor Who Dune Easter Ecclesiastes economics education Eldad Keynan Enoch Seminar Ephesians eschatology Esther Evangelicals evolution Exodus Expanse Ezekiel Ezra fantasy Fringe fundamentalism Galatians games Ge'ez genealogy Genesis Gnosticism Gospel of Jesus' Wife Gospel of John Gospel of Judas Gospel of Luke Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthew Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas Greek Harry Potter Hebrew Hebrews Hinduism historical Jesus history Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Holidays horror Hosea humor incarnation India inerrancy information literacy inspirational Intelligent Design Ireland Isaiah Islam Israel Italy James Jeremiah John the Baptist Jonah Joshua Judaism Jude Judges Judith Lamentations languages Latin Leviticus libraries literature Lord of the Rings LOST Mandaeans Mandaic memes Methodism Micah monotheism morality Mormons movies music mythicism NASSCAL Nehemiah new perspective New Testament news Numbers Orthodox paganism panentheism pantheism Patheos Paul and his letters Pentecostals Philippians Philippians 2:6-11 philosophy physics Planet of the Apes podcast politics Progressive Christianity Protestantism Proverbs Psalms pseudoscience racism religion Revelation Roman Catholicism Romania Romans Ruth scams science science fiction Secret Gospel of Mark Society of Biblical Literature Song of Songs Star Trek Star Wars Stargate Swahili Syriac Taoism technology Terminator The Handmaid's Tale The Hobbit The Matrix theodicy theology theory Timeless Titus tomb Torchwood travel TRON Uncategorized United Kingdom Westworld X-Files young-earth creationism Zechariah

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 February 2007 January 2001

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz