Review of The Historical Jesus: Five Views. The Historical Jesus: An Evangelical View by Darrell L. Bock

Last updated on: July 14, 2010 at 12:01 am by James F. McGrath

Review of The Historical Jesus: Five Views. The Historical Jesus: An Evangelical View by Darrell L. Bock 2010-07-14T00:01:00-04:00 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.

The final chapter in The Historical Jesus: Five Views is by Darrell Bock and represents a conservative Evangelical perspective on the topic of the historical Jesus. Bock begins by noting that some would regard this as an oxymoron. From the one side, the Evangelical view of Scripture might be argued to be incompatible with critical historical inquiry, while from the other, historical skepticism seems incompatible with the Evangelical view of the Bible as the Word of God. Bock’s aim in the chapter is to argue that there can indeed be an Evangelical approach to the historical Jesus.

Bock begins by noting the provisional nature of historical study, and connects the study of Jesus as a historical figure with the Enlightenment and the aim of stripping Jesus of doctrinal layers imposed on him by the early church (p.250). Bock explains that the bar for historical evidence is “raised to a level of significant demonstration” – a phrase that is unfortunately not particularly clear, but Bock provides examples such as the need for corroborating evidence, and mentions the “criteria of authenticity.” In a footnote he speaks with regret that, in order to play by these rules, the Gospel of John will have to be set aside for the most part (p.252 n.3).

Bock next dedicates a brief section to the question of whether Jesus existed, and he appeals to Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, mentioning as well that later Jewish sources also assume that Jesus existed. All of this takes up less than a page (p.253).

Bock then turns to offering “an Evangelical take on Jesus.” It could be described as “maximalist,” as Bock never actually seems to question the reliability of any major piece of information in the Gospels. Several times Bock emphasizes that Jesus understood himself to be, and was understood to be, “more than a prophet.” Bock mentions that miracles are “controversial” in our time (p.263) but sidesteps both the issue that historical methods cannot be used to make the case for the historicity of miracle accounts in ancient texts, and the question of whether, given the previous point, there is any reason why anyone today ought to accept such claims that miracles occurred.

Bock’s treatment of the trial illustrates his overly credulous approach to the sources. The Jewish “trial” of Jesus, Bock claims, is a subject about which the “Jerusalem grapevine” would have circulated details (pp.273-274). His appeal to Nicodemus, only known from the Gospel of John, and Joseph of Arimathea, only turned into a disciple relatively late, as potential sources does not inspire confidence. But even if information circulated through other chains of transmission, would it not most likely have been rumors of dubious value to a historian? Bock never seems to ask such basic historical critical questions. His assumption that the motives of the major players are as suggested in the Gospels is also never confronted with alternative scenarios which suggest that the Gospels may reflect a concern to obscure the actual state of affairs, as for instance in the case of the traceable trajectory that sought to shift the blame for Jesus’ death away from the Romans to as great an extent as possible.

The culmination of Bock’s “Evangelical approach” is found in his discussion of the resurrection, about which he says “In one sense to come to the resurrection is to move outside of historical study…normal historical means can hardly confirm such a claim” (p.278). It isn’t clear why he qualifies his statements as he does. Why only in one sense? Can “abnormal” historical means confirm such a claim, in Bock’s opinion?

The respondents offer a number of important criticisms of Bock’s chapter. Robert Price is first, and he suggests that conservatives and apologists tend to cite Hengel’s work about Judaism and Hellenism selectively, appealing to him when they want to posit a Jewish background for something attributed to Jesus (and thus argue for its authenticity) while ignoring it when it comes to possible influences from Hellenistic sources such as Gnosticism or “divine man” Christology (p.282). Of course, much recent research suggests that Gnosticism itself may have its origins in Judaism, and my work on the Mandaeans (who get a mention by Price on p.283) will probably add further support to that conclusion. Price also takes Bock to task for his dismissal of the Messianic secret idea. In the process, he appeals to the parallel of the Lubavitcher Rebbe who preached the soon-to-come kingdom of the Messiah, never confirming or denying that it was him. His disciples speculated and hoped, and after he died, the Messianic view of the Rebbe burst forth and spread quickly. This, Price notes, was Bultmann’s view, and Price says, “I do not believe his reconstruction can so easily be brushed aside” (p.285). This is a good point, but I was struck once again that Price was failing to maintain a consistently mythicist stance. It is as though he instinctively sees that some good arguments and parallels require a historical figure to make them plausible. Alas, all too soon the mythicist agenda kicks in once again, and mainstream historical criteria are swept aside in favor of the criterion “If there is a parallel or similar detail however slim in the Old Testament somewhere, then the early Christians invented the story from there.” No argument is ever offered as to why anyone should adopt this criterion, much less prefer it to those of mainstream historiography.

John Dominic Crossan’s response was interesting because of his statement, “The person that I – as a historian – call ‘the historical Jesus’ is exactly the same one that I – as a Christian – call ‘the incarnate Word.’ But I never, ever, confuse those twin visions of that same person” (p.288). Whether Crossan is as consistent as he believes himself to be has been challenged, including earlier in this volume, but it is arguable that all historians contribute something of themselves to the historical reconstructions they make, rather than this being something limited to historical Jesus studies (although the degree or extent may perhaps differ). Crossan disagrees with Bock in particular with respect to his discussion of political power.

Luke Timothy Johnson’s criticisms are the most pointed. In Johnson’s view, “Bock regards the Gospels as giving historians privileged access to Jesus’ intentions, and even his very thoughts,” and this premise “disqualifies the essay from serious consideration as historical scholarship” (p.294). While some may be surprised at the harshness of the criticism, given Johnson’s own form of “maximalism,” in fact it is precisely because Johnson finds that historical study leaves us with too little, and the discrepancies between the Gospels are too great, that he embraces a literary approach that encompasses all this material – but not in a way that either claims it is all historical (as Bock seems to, at least implicitly) or even tries to harmonize them on a narrative level. Slightly later, after noting that Bock seems more than once to claim to know what Jesus was thinking and intending, Johnson accuses him of “committing historiographical fallacy” (p.295). Presumably this is as much a matter of conviction for Bock as it is a matter of knowing what his conservative Evangelical audience expects him to say. Johnson’s response ends harshly: “Bock has not yet really engaged the Gospels critically as sources. Despite the statements that open his essay, he has not yet grasped what historical analysis requires” (p.296).

Dunn’s response concludes the book (apart from the list of contributors and indexes). Dunn notes imprecision in Bock’s use of the terminology of “historical” as applied to the resurrection as well as in the phrase “historical Jesus” (p.298). He also discusses the difference between data and facts: “[T]he events to which the Gospels refer are not themselves ‘hard facts’; they are facts only in the sense that we interpret the text, together with such other data as we have, to reach a conclusion regarding the events as best we are able. They are facts in the same way that the verdict of a jury establishes the facts of the case, the interpretation of the evidence that results in the verdict delivered. Here it is best to remember that historical methodology can only produce probabilities, the probability that some event took place in such circumstances being greater or smaller, depending on the quality of the data and the perspective of the historical enquirer” (p.299). Dunn’s final page advocates the need for genuinely critical investigation – one that takes seriously the possibility that later faith may indeed have “covered over that historical actuality” to some degree. He suggests that this is the only way that labels like “evangelical” and “Christian” can become once again terms that deserve and receive respect (p.300).

A book of this sort does not lend itself to summarization, but readers will benefit from the fact that this volume offers not merely a variety of views, but also interaction between the scholars that hold them. I highly recommend it, although I am sure that all of the contributors will agree that it is not a substitute either for detailed scholarly monographs focused on specific questions, or longer attempts at providing an extensive treatment of the historical figure of Jesus. But for those seeking to familiarize themselves with scholarship and some diverse stances on this topic, condensed into a brief presentation, this volume will offer a very useful and readable introduction.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 13, 2010

Kyrie Eleison

Next Post

July 14, 2010 Review of The Historical Jesus: Five Views

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