Book Review: Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History edited by Darrell Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski

• 

Introduction 

In Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History, Darrell Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski have compiled a collection of essays responding to those who challenge the legitimacy of historical Jesus studies. The majority of the debate centers around the criteria of authenticity that are put forth as means to identify events in the Gospels that are historically accurate. Most of the contributors to this volume are supportive of these criteria, though some only in limited application. With that said, it should be noted at the outset that this volume largely functions as a response to another collection of essays – Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity – which contains exclusively essays that are highly critical of criteria of authenticity.

Part 1: The Value of New Testament Historical Studies

The first section introduces the field of New Testament historical studies. Scholars across the board have commented on what, if anything, may be known about Jesus from the New Testament. The church, in particular, has a vested interest in any scholarly endeavor that can elucidate who Jesus was, and therefore the church ought to be involved in New Testament historical studies.

So what does the scholarship say? It depends on where you look. The second essay maps the landscape of the historical Jesus in recent scholarship. If you want to know who’s who in this field, what they believe, and where to go to read more, then this essay is exactly what you’re looking for.

As with any field, however, New Testament historical studies is changing. Specifically, it is changing in its methods for identifying which parts of the New Testament are historically authentic. The first part of this book is wrapped up by a discussion of how scholarship has progressed form being more skeptical of the possibility of identifying historically authentic information about Jesus to adopting some criteria that legitimately help toward that end.

Part 2: The Gospels and the Historical Jesus

The second section focuses on the Gospels and historical Jesus, and to kick off the section is a detailed overview of how textual criticism demonstrates the legitimacy of the criterion of embarrassment as a means to determine historical authenticity. While some challenges have been raised against this criterion, myriad examples are provided of scribes altering the text in attempts to correct material contained within. This proves the reality of embarrassing details within the text.

Moving on, the next essay argues that the content in the Gospels regarding Jesus are collective memory and likely provide accurate information about what Jesus said and did. While memory is far from perfect, research into false memories reveals that false memories are at least consistent with reality when they occur. Furthermore, the historical context of the apostles indicates that they had optimal opportunities to develop strong collective memories that accurately preserve what took place.

The Gospels existed as oral traditions prior to being written down. To this point, the next essay outlines two major approaches to oral traditions: pessimistic and optimistic. While the former is commonly defended, it is based on faulty understandings of how oral traditions work. Field work of modern oral cultures – as well as historical investigations – reveal that cultures are highly capable of retaining accurate information in oral traditions. Furthermore, strong retention is expected when traditions are significant to a group’s identity. It is also likely that tradition-bearers were selected in virtue of an aptitude for memorization. When all factors are considered, one ought to expect a high degree of historical accuracy from the oral traditions underpinning the Gospels.

Next, it is argued that the book of Matthew provides significant historical insights into the Pharisees. Through an analysis of Jesus’ engagements with the Pharisees in the book of Matthew, this essay highlights how Matthew displays the priorities of the Pharisees. In each case the presentation in Matthew accords with how other sources describe the priorities of the Pharisees. This indicates that Matthew itself provides valid contributions to the knowledge of the Pharisees.

Whenever the historical Jesus is discussed, it is important to understand the feasibility of what Jesus is described as doing. The next essay highlights how cultural analysis in the form of alternative histories helps provide clarity on what Jesus’ life might have looked like. Specifically, this essay demonstrates how alternative histories identify key logistical questions that might inform our understanding of the life of Jesus.

Further contextual analysis is provided in the following essay. By zeroing in on Jesus’ comments before the Sanhedrin – the comments ultimately leading to him being turned over to Pilate – the criteria of historical authenticity are shown to lead to valid insight regarding what may have taken place.

When looking for historical information about Jesus, scholars often omit John from consideration. Among several reasons for this, any of the criteria of authenticity that reveal historically valuable insights in the Synoptics also cast doubt upon the historicity of John. But this ignores the importance of John. Through a new approach using a revised set of criteria, John is understood to be read as a complement to Mark, thus providing supplementary information that helps clarify the memory of Jesus.

Two of the most commonly referenced criteria of authenticity – multiple attestation and embarrassment – receive frequent criticism. The next essay responds to these criticisms, and in doing so, demonstrates that when employed correctly they can be fruitful. A case study is presented showing that these criteria can solidify the historicity of the burial account of Jesus as presented in the Gospels.

The core of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, scholars have taken aim at the resurrection by arguing the following: that such an event is not within the scope of history to determine, history in general lacks the level of certainty required for such a conclusion, and the criteria of authenticity are useless in that endeavor. Each of these challenges is assessed and responded to, leaving the reader with an approach to history that concludes – based on the evidence – that Jesus rose from the dead.

Part 3: The Book of Acts and Christian Origins

In contrast to the critical historical method, an alternative approach is put forth which emphasizes social memory. The focus of the discussion is the book of Acts. The key is to no longer view the text as either literary or historical, but rather to look at how literary components work to preserve historical information in social memories.

Focusing on Acts is helpful because, as the second volume in Luke’s two-part history, if Acts can be demonstrated to be historically reliable then it should be assumed that Luke is as well. For this reason, myriad examples of where Acts aligns with other documents – both internal and external to the Bible – are provided to support the conclusion that Luke is an historian of high quality.

Part 4: Responses and Reflections

The book is brought to a close with three response essays. The first two responses are direct challenges to the arguments made in the earlier essays. The first challenge encourages scholars to refocus the approach to the historical Jesus away from criteria-based history and more toward making sense of Jesus’ crucifixion. The second challenge is that building a foundation for faith on historical Jesus studies makes the Christian dependent on whatever historians say – an approach which is antithetical to the traditions of the Christian faith. The final response highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of each essay in the book, and ultimately encourages a continuation of the dialogue when it comes to historical Jesus studies.

In Conclusion

Overall, if you’re interested in New Testament Studies this is an essential read that provides much for consideration. This is especially true if you value providing a defense for the historicity of the Gospels. It is worth emphasizing that Bock and Komoszewski allowed for contributions from scholars who are ultimately critical of the view being defended in the remaining essays. This demonstrates a high degree of integrity on the part of the editors. This book is not an easy read, however. It is a scholarly assessment and therefore takes time to digest. But in the end, it is well worth reading.