Rating: 
Summary: Reveals More Vengeful Passion than Scholarship
Review: Luke Timothy Johnson's reaction to the Jesus Seminar is only natural, and should be expected when a great number of scholars put forth conclusions that undermine the very basis of popular, Hellenistic Christian faith. Johnson put's forth some valid criticism of the J.S.'s methodology, however very little of it is actually uncontestable. The basic argumentation is offered through a conveniently engineered dialectic based on his own idiosyncratic standards. In the end, it is apparent that Luke Timothy is not arguing scholarship but philosophy. He simply believes that historical Jesus research is an indication of a weakness of faith; that a true Christian is one whose faith is not dependant upon Christology. Luke Timothy should realize that this view is just one of many, and a rapidly diminishing one at that.
Rating: 
Summary: Critique of Historical-Critical Scholarship
Review: Luke Timothy Johnson's work The Real Jesus focuses on certain twentieth century attempts to locate Jesus of Nazareth in human history via critical methodologies. While Johnson primarily takes the Jesus Seminar to task for its "ersatz" scholarship, he also refuses to tread lightly on the erudite discussions produced by Catholics John Meier and Raymond Brown. Overall, Johnson's book is an authentic thought provoking page-turner. His comments on the current state of biblical scholarship in the academy are insightful and revealing. For instance, those who strike out in a quest for the "historical Jesus, who is distinguished from the "Christ of faith" seem to assume that there is a metaphysical dichotomy between objective "facts" and subjective "values." History supposedly fits into the former category. It is putatively value-free and objective. Johnson, however, argues that "History is . . . the product of human intelligence and imagination" (page 81). The upshot of Johnson's analysis is that one can no more find the "real Jesus" by employing the tools of historical criticism than one can find the "real Socrates" by examining so-called historical accounts of his life. History is not simply the objective recounting of events.
Rating: 
Summary: Reply to spinoza100 and oinkboy. . .
Review: Of course everyone has an opinion and of course Christianity is not magically exempt from the questions of historians since its principle ideas about Jesus hinge on certain putative historical events(unlike Buddhism or Hinduism). Johnson's (well-founded) complaints are 1)J.S. methods are often inconsistent-Crossan, for example, insists on the principle of multiple attestation yet is not completely averse to making cases built on single sources. 2)J.S. methods are very often unhistorical, in that they do not operate within the constraints of the available evidence. An example of this is the presumption that almost any of Paul's assertions are at the same time a negation of some systemized theology which conflicts with Paul's own. No independent sources are adduced to support such rampant speculations and on the basis of these the Pauline Epistles are dissected into arbitrary little pieces. 3)J.S. methodology is just as polemical, tendentious, and meretricious as any fundamentalist's. Johnson's discussions of historical method are actually quite salutary and reasonable. He does not call for the end of any historical speculation, he simply insists that it be constrained by the available evidences and not based upon suppositions about people/events/ideas for which their is no possitive documentary evidence. Johnson's final point: Christian faith is grounded in history but history is not theology and vice-versa. They work best together when each recognizes the legitimate boundaries of the other.
Rating: 
Summary: Worthy of Consideration!
Review: Over all I enjoyed Johnson's book, and recommend it as a must have. Johnson begins his book with very good coverage of the Jesus Seminar, and the Seminar's popular authors. It's rather easy to point out the short comings, and pitfalls of such work by Mack, Funk, Borg, and Crossen, since they do venture on extreme conclusions, and technics, and most sensible readers of their books would not accept most of their conclusions even without the aid of Johnson. Where Johnson looses credibilty is in his rather harsh review of Meier's work. A Marginal Jew (Vols 1 & 2). Here he treats Meier almost at the same level of the Jesus Seminar, just marginally better. When the fact is that no one has given a more accurate, and fair treatment of the Historical Jesus then Meier. Here is where Johnson really looses credibilty, and it becomes clear that only Johnson is able to understand, and construct a Historic Jesus, at least in Johnson's mind. Unforunately Johnson falls victim of the same madness he accuses everyone else of. Nevertheless this book is worthy of reading despite Johnson's ego problem. He does provide great insight in to this field. Albeit the majority of is critisim of others, and a very small percetage is his own work. After you read his little book of 177 pages, go out and get Meiers two volume set Marginal Jew, and discover what REAL scholarship is like
Rating: 
Summary: You Have Got To Be Kidding
Review: Robert J. Miller (a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar) wrote a book entitled "The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics". It is available through Amazon.com. In this book, which has been around for five years, Miller responds to criticism of the seminar.
(Prof. Miller, as well as other fellows of the Seminar, have also responded to critics on the Jesus Seminar website.) It saddens me that Luke Johnson and his ilk, despite good intentions, attempt to prevent Christianity from being open to new possibilities and ultimately endanger it with increased irrelevance and possible extinction. They remind me of flat-earthers at a geography conference! Thanks to The Jesus Seminar! It has allowed me to have faith and be a citizen of the 21st century!
Rating:
Summary: A strong challenge to topical "Jesus" literature
Review: Sensationalized accounts of the "true" Jesus have inundated bookshelves for over a decade and have rarely been challenged. From Thierings preposterous "wicked priest" to Funks counterculture, first century hippie, the public has been exposed to Jesus in such ways as some would find provocative or downright offensive. Luke Johnson's book however, challenges, exposes and ultimately debunks these "historically proven" depictions. We cannot know with any real certainty about the life that Jesus the man led. I am not one to interpret the bible as history remembered, or as complete literal truth. But it is clear to me that the Christ of faith was more than simply a man who challenged established social structures. Absent from the accounts of the historical Jesus are the spiritual and religious forces that he undoubtedly demonstrated and that proved as the catalysts of the powerful Christian movement. Johnson does not dismiss these, but rather shows them, clearly and concisely.
Rating:
Summary: why be so defensive?
Review: The Jesus Seminar is at least trying to break new ground andnot present the same old worn out dogmas as the church has handed downthrough the years. What is wrong with acknowleding that Jusus was a historical person and that Chist was a mythological caricature given to Jesus? The value of modern research is wonderful and all endevors need to be used to help us to explor the ancient world. History and faith go together, but you need to know which are which. Faith if based on mythology. There is nothing wrong with mythology. All religons have there bases on myth, and Christianity is no exception. The church has been very misleading and dishonest, and this is the reason I no longer attend. I do enjoy my persuit of scholarly Christian history and the Jeus Seminar offers a new perspective of many. END
Rating:
Summary: The Real Great Pumpkin
Review: The Real Jesus is a vicious ad hominem attack on the 200 scholars of the Jesus Seminar for daring to investigate whether the Christian gospels contain inaccuracies, and an irrational and incompetent rejection (I cannot dignify it with the designation of a rebuttal) of the Seminar's finding that only eighteen percent of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels were actually spoken by him.
Johnson is a theologian, meaning a practitioner of a discipline that starts from predetermined conclusions and then forces the evidence to fit. He takes the position that every word in the gospels is literal truth, presumably including Matthew's nativity myths that could be true only if Jesus was born during the lifetime of King Herod, and Luke's birth tales that could be true only if Jesus was born precisely ten years after Herod's death, as well as Matthew's account of Satan taking Jesus to the top of a mountain so high that he could see the entire surface of the earth - a physical impossibility on a sphere. In other words, to Johnson and his fellow literalists, the earth really is as flat as the anonymous author of Matthew believed, and Jesus was born ten years before he was conceived.
A biblical scholar might conceivably read this drivel to reassure himself that he is not ignoring the evidence that the earth really is flat. Having done so, he would certainly not cite it in his bibliography. The conclusions of The Jesus Seminar might not be one hundred percent accurate, but at least they are based on a competent evaluation of the evidence, as The Real Jesus assuredly is not.
Rating:
Summary: Subtle distinctions often overlooked
Review: There are at least three issues regarding historical Jesus scholarship and its relationship to Christian faith: 1)What was the historical Jesus like? and 2)What is the relevance of history to faith? 3)What is the relative value of the canonical Gospels to no. 1 and/or no. 2? The beauty of Johnson's book is that he is more careful about these distinctions than many people. The frustrating aspect about Johnson's book is that he does not always make that clear. His emphasis is on the mediating power of the canonical texts in the believing community's experience of the transforming power of Jesus Christ as the Risen Lord. This is good. Unfortunately, Johnson seems to feel that attacking the work of historical Jesus scholars is *per se* necessary to his position. It is not. Historical Jesus studies take as their broader context the process of text formation; this in turn invokes the history of believers' responses to Jesus. Understanding this process of text formation provides an historical understanding of the way the experience of Jesus came to be articulated as belief in him as God's Word become flesh. This is good for faith, and keeps history in its rightful place. It is not necessary to convict historical Jesus scholars of bad scholarship in order to maintain the priority of the canonical text for contemporary faith experience. Unfortunately, some reader/reviewers of Johnson seem to have fallen into the trap against which his book attempts to warn us: stressing the priority of the canonical texts butresses their historical accuracy against the work of the historical Jesus scholars. This is to miss his point, and the workings of Christian faith, almost completely.
Rating:
Summary: For the love of God...
Review: There are serious serious problems with Christianity as it stands today. Divergences in understanding and interpretation of the original events occurred right in the beginning of the tradition--2000 years ago. Most of what survived was a consequence of constant historical revision. It is impossible to understand Western History without studying the history of Christian thought. This is a history that underwent constant development and evolution. But here is the problem. Its the problem of signal to noise ratio. Slight differences in linguistic interpretation can lead to totally different conclusions. Was the prophecy of Elijah that the Messiah would be born to a young maiden, or to a Virgin? It seems to depend on the version of the Old Testament you read. If the Truth shall set you free then the Truth is Supreme. Did Christ say: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you", or "The Kingdom of Heaven is among you"? It makes a HUGE difference. It depends on how you read the Greek. There are serious problems with the scriptural tradition as inherited. If you base your understanding of salvation on misinformation--it's a false salvation. It is not healing and liberation at all. Its delusion. Faith is neither intellectualistic nor emotionalistic. The Saints have described it as infinite passion. If Christ is the Truth, then Doubt IS infinite passion for the Truth. Great doubt, great awakening. Little doubt, little awakening. No doubt, no awakening. This is cutting through spiritual materialism. There is very little in the scriptures that can be known, in an absolute, historical sense. But does that matter? In terms of signal and noise, it is Christ's teachings about the Kingdom of Heaven that is the signal. All this business about miracles and prophecies is noise. They are nothing but credentials. What does it matter where the Doctor attended school if he heals you? The teachings of Christ is news you can use. Use it. Do I care if Christ was virgin born? No. Do I care if he fulfilled the prophecies of Elijah? No. Do I believe he rasied Lazarus? I don't know--and I don't need to. All I know is that what he taught about the Kingdom of Heaven being at hand--the reality of the Divine, and the human predicament--has the ring of truth about it and is apprehensible. It is a message of spiritual transformation, for them that have ears. The Buddha said it, but I think Christ would have approved: The only important question is, how do I get enlightened? Are the teachings of Christ healing and liberating? How so? If you think it has something to do with a belief system, then you have missed the point of his insistance that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Healing and liberation have to do with the mysteries of your perception of the Divine Reality in the eternal here and now. Why waste your time in debate? Your bonds are lying broken on the ground. Walk away. You are free.
|
