Ted Hoffman

Introduction

It is typical of New Testament (NT) scholars involved in the quest for the historical Jesus to crown the years spent in historical Jesus research with a book presenting their personal reconstruction of who the historical Jesus was. Because of the way the gospels were written, this effort involves painstaking separation of fact from myth and fiction. Whereas they have assiduously attempted to prevent their confessional interests from intruding upon their research, their religious beliefs have doggedly militated against their best efforts, forcing them to question the objectivity their own scholarship. One of the notable figures in the third quest, J.D. Crossan, lamented that the “historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke” while his compatriot, J.P. Meier, who believes that Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected, openly admits in an interview that “it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history.”

Lacking a reliable methodology and dogged by confessional interests, the result of their efforts has been a confusing profusion of divergent portraits of who the putative historical Jesus was, a competitive affair that Peter Steinfel of the New York Times has named “the Jesus wars”. It is in this backdrop that we review Professor Ed Parish Sanders’ The Historical Figure of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) (hereafter known as HFoJ). In HFoJ, Sanders presents the historical Jesus as a radical eschatological prophet, a portrait that has increasingly gained acceptance amongst those that believe a historical Jesus existed, hence the need to scrutinize HFoJ.

Sanders retired in 2005 as Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, North Carolina where he had been since 1990. He holds a Doctor of Theology degree from the University of Helsinki and a Theology degree from Union Seminary in NYC. His specialty is Judaism and Christianity and he has authored or co-edited over a dozen books and taught in several universities.

Because Sanders avoids technical jargon in HFoJ and provides substantial introductory material before getting down to an exegesis of the New Testament one can infer that it is intended for laymen. But as a final product marking the end of Sanders intellectual trajectory in historical Jesus studies, and bracketing his perspective in the quest for the historical Jesus, it is of great interest to those interested in the origins of Christianity.

Conclusion

There are five main weaknesses of Sander’s approach which have been demonstrated in this review. The first one is treating the existence of a historical Jesus as an axiom. Second is approaching the gospels with a preconception that Jesus was an eschatological prophet and not a revolutionary, nor a reformer nor an itinerant teacher nor a cynic. His preoccupation with supporting his portrait and refuting the other portraits of Jesus limits his perspective and undermines his objectivity. Third is his failure to give due regard to redaction, tendenz and literary criticism and relying largely on historical criticism. The fourth one is his failure to consider the Pauline Christ which anteceded the gospel Jesus which is embellished through historicization and scripturalization. Fifth is lack of a reliable methodology. “Common sense” and “good feel for sources” are not methods and are purely subjective approaches that are doomed to yield invalid results.

As noted earlier, it is otherwise a useful book for anyone interested in NT scholarship but must be approached carefully with the above weaknesses in mind.
Read the whole review here.

Malachi151

Great review, thanks for this.

BTW, does anyone know how to contact Jacob, the reviewer?

S.C.Carlson

Just click on the link for Ted Hoffman above...

Malachi151

LOL, since Ted Hoffman is a real name I figured that it was not the same person :blush:

S.C.Carlson

There's also a TV character with the name of Ted Hoffman.

Ben C Smith

It seems fitting that a lawyer should be providing this particular link for us.

Would you link to Liar, Liar if the time came?

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

Now that you ladies are done chitchatting about my moniker - any substantive comments?

Peter Kirby

Yes, I have a comment.

Why bother with pulp junk? Even if by distinguished authors.

The book to review from Sanders is Jesus and Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Malachi151

Why not? These books are still read by large numbers of people and need to be addressed.

In fact, these types of books have a larger impact on the public than more scholarly ones.

Peter Kirby

Seen that way, there is a noble purpose in correcting it.

Seen as scholarship, though, to address the popular book by Sanders without considering his real work is something of a miscarriage. It would be like reviewing a 100-page Wright tract while avoiding his trilogy (thus far--more tomes are promised) on studying Jesus and his background, life, and supposed resurrection. Or, for an example that might get more sympathy, reviewing Crossan's "baby Jesus" book and ignoring The Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk).

So, for a synthesis of these viewpoints, I would say that Jacob did a good thing but could do a better one by incorporating a review of Sander's scholarly work.