August 29, 2005
Jesus Remembered
To Purchase Click on Image
Dunn, the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham in England, is the author of several significant works, including the commentary on Colossians and Philemon in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series, the two volume commentary on the Book of Romans in the Word Biblical Commentary series, The Theology of the Apostle Paul and Christology in the Making: Jesus and the Spirit. In recent years Dunn has also become a leading advocate and apologist with E. P. Sanders and N. T. Wright of the New Perspective on Paul position. Dunn is without question one of the leading Biblical scholars of the day exercising a great deal of influence within both evangelicalism and the larger sphere of Biblical studies in the more liberal tradition. In evaluating a work such as this one must understand the foundational principles of the author as he approaches both the subject and subject matter. In addition to his New Perspective position (which we would expect to see fully fleshed out in the next volume in this series, cf. p. 6) particularly problematic, for the evangelical, is his view of Scripture. While affirming a “high” position for Scripture, he is not an inerrantist. He stated his position clearly in another work, where commenting on the historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels, he stated: We therefore can make the strong and confident affirmation that the Synoptic Gospels are a source of historical information about Jesus; the Evangelists were concerned with the historicity of what they remembered; in burden of proof terms we can start from the assumption that Synoptic tradition is a good witness to the historical Jesus unless proven otherwise (“The Historicity of the Synoptic Gospels,” in Crisis in Christology: Essays in Quest of Resolution, William D. Farmer, ed. [Livonia, MI: Dove Booksellers, 1995], 216). In the present work, Dunn, in discussing the “sources” for his studies, he places high value on the Synoptics, but tends to follow critical view that the Gospel of John was more “theological” in its construct at the expense of factual information. He states, “In what follows, therefore, we shall certainly want to cal upon John’s Gospel as a source, but mostly as a secondary source to supplement or corroborate the testimony of the Synoptic tradition” (167). One wonders how the recent discovery of the Pool of Siloam (cf. John 9:7ff) and the affirmation of no less than James H. Charlesworth (whom Dunn cites frequently in this work) that, “Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit to illustrate a point. Now we have found the Pool of Siloam … exactly where John said it was. A gospel that was thought to be "pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history” (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-siloam9aug09,1,3097577.story?coll=la-news-science accessed 8-9-2005). One of Dunn’s goals in this work is to make a more thorough examination into the “oral tradition” that underlay the Gospel accounts (the canonical Gospels, the non-canonical gospels [e.g. The Gospel of Thomas], and the supposed gospel accounts [e.g. The Q Document]). He states,
In this regard Dunn, offers the thesis that the traditional “literary dependence” model of the Synoptics, “is far too limited to explain the complexities of the Jesus tradition” (336). He affirms that he cannot offer “proof positive” of his thesis that the Synoptics find their foundational source material, not in written texts, but in the oral transmission of the material. But he also insightfully asks, “in dealing with Synoptic traditions, who can realistically hope for proof positive of any thesis?” (ibid). He requests that “the same judgment of plausibility which convinces most scholars of the priority of Mark and the existence of Q be exercised in relation to Synoptic texts where literary dependence is less obvious and is at least arguably less plausible” (ibid). Dunn falls into the category of a “maximalist” that is the text of Scripture is regarded as largely reliable in terms of historical accuracy. As such Dunn both lambastes the recent tendencies in postmodern criticism of the Bible, stating, “To conceive the hermeneutical process as an infinitely regressive intertextuality is a counsel of despair which quickly reduces all meaningful communication to impossibility and all communication to a game of ‘trivial pursuit’” (121); and also conservatives, who he claim have a “lust for certainty which leads to fundamentalism’s absolutising of its own faith claims and dismissal of all others” (105). Still he affirms, “The meaning intended by means of and through the text is still a legitimate and viable goal for the NT exegete and interpreter” (122). In this massive work Dunn has put together an impressive bibliography of over 50 pages, a Scripture (and other Ancient Writings) index (in which verses in which some exegesis or interpretation is offered are rendered in bold type), a subject and author index. The subject index is a little skimpy, only 7 pages, but with generally helpful access points. Evangelical and conservative scholars, while present in the bibliography, are a decided minority. Dunn has provided excellent footnotes and the breadth of research is impressive by any standard. The first two parts so the book, comprising the first ten chapters, lay the foundation for Dunn’s work as he discusses both the background of the gospels themselves, but also chronicles and critically interacts with the research into the “Historical Jesus” in the last 100 years. Dunn clearly carries a two-edged sword, affirming much of what German rationalism, liberal scholarship, historical critics, Jesus Seminar, and the more recent movement towards sociological investigations of Jesus and the first century world (which he correctly notes is becoming the leading discipline in current Jesus and Gospel studies), but is also piercing in his critiques of the shortcomings, inadequacies and incongruities of these different methodologies. That he really only interacts and critiques those on the non-evangelical end of the spectrum is a significant weakness in this work. He never really engages evangelical or inerrantist scholars, even though he clearly departs from those positions at several junctures. In reading this work, one would never know that a significant body of literature on the Synoptics from an inerrantist position even existed. The first ten chapters (336 pages) could easily be a stand-alone volume of immense value for the student of the New Testament and an introduction to Gospel studies and if the book stopped at this point it would be highly valued. The remaining three parts of the book deal with an actual examination of the life of Christ. It is impossible in the space of a review to detail all of the aspects and lines of thought that Dunn presents. All of the major events of Christ’s life are dealt with, both historically and more thoroughly as they inter-relate into a meaningful whole, or what Dunn refers to as “the Jesus tradition.” Some observations on the major features, commonly viewed as the “flashpoints” in the discussions between conservative and liberal (or inerrantist and non-inerrantist) Biblical scholars; (1) the Virgin Birth; (2) Miracles, (3) the Resurrection, and (4) the Deity of Christ; however, can be made. On the Virgin Birth, or “the virginal conception” as he puts it (345), Dunn spends relatively little time (339-48). He presents the material, but never either specifically affirms or denies the reality Virgin Birth. He concludes that the Gospel accounts affirm the “core conviction that Jesus was born of God’s Spirit in a special way” (348). On the miracles of Jesus, while he ridicules some “explanations” of the miracle accounts by anti-supernaturalist theologians (31), in places he seems to merely report the miracle accounts as part of the text and “Jesus tradition” without really offering a personal affirmation. He does make the strong presentation that Jesus’ healing and exorcism ministry was widely attested, even outside of the NT text (670-96). With regards to the resurrection, while he affirms the resurrection (879) and presents the textual data and proposed explanations for the resurrection accounts, he nonetheless states, “In short, ‘the resurrection of Jesus’ is not so much a criterion of faith as a paradigm for hope” (ibid). Finally, in regards to the deity of Christ, no specific affirmation of that doctrine is to be found in this volume. In brief, it is not so much what Dunn affirms or denies in his presentation so much as what he fails to specifically or forceful affirm (Is Jesus God, the Second Person of the Trinity? Was He born of a Virgin? Did He perform miracles? Did He rise on the third day and bodily ascend into Heaven in the witness of the disciples?). The reality of these doctrines are foundational to Biblical Christianity. This work is must reading for any student of the New Testament and many of the author’s insights, evaluations, and critical interaction are presented in a manner second to none of similar works currently in print. That he affirms and desires to defend the reliability of the Synoptics and the Biblical text in general is also laudable. However, while he may decry the “lust for certainty” of inerrantists, the author has, in many places, has reduced the essential doctrines of Biblical Christianity to mere “probabilities,” which is wholly unsatisfying to those who “would see Jesus.” |