I've not used the blog before to have a book review discussion but I thought I would give it a try on Beverly Gaventa and Richard Hays' new (edited) book: Seeking the Identity of Jesus (Eerdmans, 2009). As you'll see from the Eerdmans site, it has a terrific list of contributors.
The book also gives me a chance to make some connections with our ongoing lecture series here in Kristiansand on the world's sacred texts. In the case of my own religious tradition, how does the way we "hold on" to our sacred texts shape our own identity and our ability to relate compassionately to religious others?
Here are the points on which the contributors came to agree during their three-year interaction (as noted in the introduction).
1. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew.
2. The identity of Jesus is reliably attested and known in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
3. The entirety of the canonical witness is indispensable to a faithful rendering of the figure of Jesus.
4. In order to understand the identity of Jesus rightly, the church must constatly engage in in the practice of deep, sustained reading of these texts.
5. To come to grips with the identity of Jesus, we must know him as he is presented to us through the medium of narrative.
6. The trajectory begun with the the NT of interpreting Jesus' identity in and for the church has continued through Christian history.
7. Because Jesus remains a living presence, he can be encounterd in the community of his people,the body of Christ.
8. Jesus is a disturbing, destabilizing figure.
9. The identity of Jesus is something that must be learned through long-term discipline.
Some of these are not very shocking, while others appear quite contentious and contestable. It would take too much space to summarize the essays themselves, but perhaps these nine points of convergence can open up the conversation.
It was not the purpose of these essays to ask how various understandings of the identity of Jesus shape the way Christians engage religious others, and some of the authors, especially those who were students of Lindbeck, might reject such a question outright.
Nevertheless, let's explore these questions. What are the presuppositions about the holy texts of Christianity that lay behind these nine assertions? How might accepting these assertions shape the way in which Christians interpret their own identity and the identity of religious others?
(Please indicate the number of the assertion in question if you comment)
Number (8) is probably the root of all other attributes. Radicals and revolutionaries are born social de-stablizers.
It's not a higher level generalization, but missing from the list is the centrality of the cross, for w/o it the remaining NT narrative and associations ("deep, sustained reading of these texts," etc.) would not have survived the tests of time.
Not a cross of certainty, but one that de-stablizes our cherished religious answers and opinions, keeps us seeking better questions, and calls us to its heart.
Posted by: John L | 23 February 2009 at 15:48
I think you forgot #10: Jesus of Nazareth was God in the Flesh (must of overlooked that one, thought a reminder was in order...)
Posted by: Tony Arens | 23 February 2009 at 20:46
Jesus remains a living presence? Does he walk with you and talk with you along life's narrow way? I'd like to see how they came up with the proof of that.
The identity of Jesus is known in the Hebrew scriptures? I'm sure the authors would be shocked to know that. They would have called down God's wrath on anyone who dared spout the idea of YHWH "incarnate" or human sacrifice.
Jesus can be encountered in Christians? I guess he now loves war and torture? No more of that "love your enemies" crap for him.
The canonical witness gives an accurate picture of him? Which one? The one in which his parents lived in Nazareth or Bethlehem? The one in which they slunk to Egypt to hide after his birth or the one in which they showed him off in the temple to much publicity? The one in which he was silent before Pilate or the one in which he gave the snappy responses? The one in which he was a apocalyptic Jewish prophet calling for the end of the age or the mysterious zen-like sage who spoke in riddles about existential personal beliefs?
Posted by: pf | 23 February 2009 at 21:40
Oho, this is going to be more fun than I thought! ;)
John,
Actually, #8 was my favorite too. I like it for personal reasons, but also it probably has the best chance of historical accuracy.
Tony,
I don't think that was on the author's list... maybe I missed it. I'll check again tomorrow. On the other hand, perhaps you are being sarcastic... that is how I first read your response... you believe that it ought to be on the list?
pf,
To be honest, my initial reaction was quite similar to yours. To be fair to the authors, they do acknowledge many of the difficulties you hint at, referring to the many unanswered questions, and indicating that the way in which several of these assertions are true is "mysterious."
If you have read any of my own work, you'll know why I don't like this approach - for theological reasons, not biblical exegetical ones.
To all,
What I find most interesting is how the way in which one responds to the questions suggests something about how one's way of holding on (emotionally, hermeneutically) to the sacred texts of Christianity shapes your attitude toward religious others... even Christian religious others.
LeRon
Posted by: LeRon | 23 February 2009 at 21:55
#5?
a What is the intended meaning of the ideomatic expression "To come to grips"?
b What does 'identity' mean in context?
c What does 'know' mean in context?
Study the story of Jesus to see what he was/is like. (Is that what #5 is saying?)
#4?
a Identity?
b rightly?
Is this the same as #5 with broader emphasis? like...
The Church must study the story of Jesus to see what he was/is like?
#4 & #5 cont...
Is the phrase 'constantly engaged' (see #4) a prescription for 'rightlyness' (whatever that is)?
#4,#5,#6,#7,#9 all reek of the presupposition that with time our understanding of the gospels change. Why not just state that simply?
#6 feels misplaced. Like a statement swimming in the middle of prescriptions.
#8 should switch seats with #9 IMO b/c it does not contain the w/time = change presupposition and really throws me..
...
Posted by: dan | 24 February 2009 at 00:17
Let me make my questions more accessible...
1. Can you give a definition of identity?
2. What is the intended meaning of the ideomatic expression "To come to grips"?
3. What does 'rightly' mean?
4. What does 'know' mean in #2 & #5.
5. What purpose does 'medium' serve in #5?
5.1 Why not simply, '... presented through narrative(s).
5.1a The plural option is presented because the purpose of medium is unknown. Like, is it through The Medium, i.e. saying that through scripture, or is it through small-t the and small-m medium, viz. that through the medium of narrative that one might understand and know this thing called identity of Jesus (more appropriately in the small-case scenario narrative should be pluralized because the small-case leaves one to conclude that authority can come from outside scripture)
Posted by: dan | 24 February 2009 at 03:11
--1. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew.--
Does you mean this racially and/or religiously? Or does mean "Merely a Jew", as in "Merely a man"?
--2. The identity of Jesus is reliably attested and known in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.--
Is this saying the OT and NT are totally reliable? Kind of reliable? A decent source with some iffy-ness?
--3. The entirety of the canonical witness is indispensable to a faithful rendering of the figure of Jesus.--
See no. 2.
--4. In order to understand the identity of Jesus rightly, the church must constatly engage in in the practice of deep, sustained reading of these texts.--
Not sure if this suppose to earth-shattering or not. Seems rather like saying "One must open ones eyes to see the light".
It still raises the question from no. 2.
--5. To come to grips with the identity of Jesus, we must know him as he is presented to us through the medium of narrative.--
Ah, now, this gets a bit more obviously pomo, with the whole "love of narrative" thingy.
Ok, so, what do you mean by narrative? More questions may follow after that one is answered.
--6. The trajectory begun with the the NT of interpreting Jesus' identity in and for the church has continued through Christian history.--
What do you mean by trajectory? What is that trajectory? Did the NT writers record Jesus' life as it actually was, or were their records tainted by their own biases?
--7. Because Jesus remains a living presence, he can be encounterd in the community of his people,the body of Christ.--
By "living presence", do you mean Jesus resurrected from the dead, or something else? But as He Himself said, He has gone away, and the Spirit has come to us.
--8. Jesus is a disturbing, destabilizing figure.--
I see here two essentially empty and meaningless descriptors. What do you mean by this?
--9. The identity of Jesus is something that must be learned through long-term discipline.--
Why do you say that? Is a child unable to know Jesus in any meaningful way? What kinds of disciplines must one practice for a long time in order to know the identity of Jesus?
Posted by: emergent pillage | 24 February 2009 at 07:22
Dear Dan and Emergent Pillage,
Please keep in mind this is not my book. The contributing authors do try to address several of your questions, and these are serious scholars so I'm sure you'd learn from reading them.
If you're interested in my take on the identity of Jesus, see chapter 2 of my "Christology and Science," Part II of "Faces of Forgiveness," Part I of "Transforming Spirituality," and Part III of "Reforming the Doctrine of God."
As usual, I'd be happy to respond to questions about my work on the blog.
By the way, I would still love to see someone bite on the bigger (deeper?) question: how does one's WAY of psychologically holding on to "sacred" texts shape one's OWN sense of identity in relation to religious others (including, of course, Jesus). ;)
LeRon
Posted by: LeRon | 24 February 2009 at 08:19
"how does one's WAY of psychologically holding on to "sacred" texts shape one's OWN sense of identity in relation to religious others (including, of course, Jesus)."
Can you please ask the question again and in a way that someone lacking a college education can understand? :) Like dumb it down as much as you are able. :)
Posted by: dan | 24 February 2009 at 08:38
"how does one's WAY of psychologically holding on to "sacred" texts shape one's OWN sense of identity in relation to religious others (including, of course, Jesus)."
Leron,
The first thought that comes to mind stems from the end of the question. If I think of Jesus (and the texts where I learn from/about Jesus) as MINE (something/someone that I possess or own in some way), I am going to have a hard time when anything challenges my assumptions. My identity is wrapped up in my possession of Jesus.
But if I see Jesus as a 'religious other' instead of as my own possession, I am forced to approach him as a humble listener and learner. I do not have the right to dictate what or who he is or make assumptions, only to allow him to reveal himself which will naturally shake my imperfect understanding of him.
Posted by: corey | 24 February 2009 at 17:21
The nine points seem important, yet arbitrary. Another group of scholars would be able to pick a different nine shared beliefs. However, I find it interesting that each and every point rubs against mainstream belief. In other words, if taken seriously, each of the points upsets the sort of disembodied Christology that dominates Protestantism. Each of them pushes us towards embodiment.
Posted by: Mark Van Steenwyk | 25 February 2009 at 02:05
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Elaina
http://www.craigslistpostingtools.info
Posted by: Elaina | 25 February 2009 at 15:28
Hello there good sir,
"how does one's WAY of psychologically holding on to "sacred" texts shape one's OWN sense of identity in relation to religious others (including, of course, Jesus"
Actually, this has been a critical question swimming around in my mind over the past several years. As one who came out of both Christian fundamentalism and American evangelicalism, I have begun to suffer from a form of “reverse racism.” In a manner of speaking, I have begun to fear and find contempt with my own tradition and “sacred” text (i.e. the bible)… I find that in my hands, it so quickly becomes a source of guilt, shame, boredom and exclusion. On the other hand, many of the Buddhist texts, that I hold onto much more loosely and without a sense of exegetical authority, have given me hope, faith, and a reason to love… in a real way, they have helped me to “see” Jesus more clearly.
It occurs to me that my problem with my own “sacred” texts may be one of psychological enmeshment, as it were. Whereas, I can appreciate and be encouraged/challenged by the Buddhist “other’s” perspective more freely and with more joy/surprise because it isn’t, in a way, something that I own or was taught to possess. Psychologically speaking, it seems impossible for something “sacred” to really shape me, or (re)describe me, and allow be to become more whole as a Person when I am “holding” it so tightly and have already made it merely apart of myself... in the words of Joe, from Joe vs. the Volcano, "I've done a lot of soul searching lately. I've been asking myself some tough questions. You know what I've found out? …I have no interest in myself. I think about myself, I get bored out of my mind." ;)
…hope that makes sense.
dan
Posted by: dan | 25 February 2009 at 20:26
the above is dan eller... not the other dan...
Posted by: dan | 25 February 2009 at 20:32
--how does one's WAY of psychologically holding on to "sacred" texts shape one's OWN sense of identity in relation to religious others (including, of course, Jesus). --
Meaning, I suppose, if I believe the Bible is write, how does that effect how I see the so-called sacred texts of other religions?
Well, I suppose one clue to it is in the use of the phrase "so-called" above. As I believe the Bible to be true, I must say that any other "sacred text", so-called, must be wrong. And not just wrong, but misleading in regards to keeping people from the one true God.
If you think that is a new situation, please review history. Christian grew early on in a multi-religious setting, and early on had confrontation with other religions. The book Acts records a few of those confrontations.
And the church stood fast. It did not compromise or "play nice". It was attacked on all sides by all manner of beliefs and permutations of it's own beliefs, and it stood fast.
Posted by: emergent pillage | 25 February 2009 at 22:20
Corey,
I like your use of the term "possession" here... it makes me thing of object relations psychology, which talks about how our relations to specific objects (or other persons) shape our identity, or relation to self, and vice versa.
Hi Dan (Eller),
Yes, I've had a very similar experience, reacting to the texts of Christianity... and Buddhism. I think we could apply the idea of religious "family of origin" here... it is hardest to stay emotionally calm when we are confronted with texts that were enmeshed (good word!) in our earlier spiritual developmental phases. The hard part is staying emotionally attached without being fused.
LeRon
Posted by: LeRon | 26 February 2009 at 08:56