Jesus Research: An International Perspective

Jesus Research: An International Perspective Ed. by James Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny Reviewed by Jim West

The papers here collected all were originally delivered at the First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, which met in Prague in 2005. Contents include Introduction: Why Evaluate Twenty-Five Years of Jesus Research? (James Charlesworth) A Dead End or a New Beginning: Examining the Criteria for Authenticity in Light of Albert Schweitzer (Stanley Porter) Jesus of Galilee: The Role of Location in Understanding Jesus (Jens Schroeter) From Old To New: Paradigm Shifts concerning Judaism, the Gospel of John, Jesus, and the Advent of Christianity (James Charlesworth) Turning Water to Wine: Re-Reading the Miracle at the Wedding in Cana (Carsten Claussen) Jesus as an Itinerant Teacher: Relfections from Social History on Jesus' Roles (Gerd Theissen) Jesus as a Teller of Parables: On Jesus' Self-Interpretation in His Parables (Michael Wolter) What Must I do To Inherit Eternal Life?: Implicit Christology in Jesus' Sayings about Life and the Kingdom (Klaus Haacker) How Did Jesus Understand His Death?: The Parables in Eschatological Prospect (Rudolf Hoppe) Demoniac and Drunkard: John the Baptist and Jesus According to Q 7:33-34 (Petr Pokorny) Have You Not Read?: Jesus' Subversive Interpretation of Scripture (Craig Evans) A Contagious Purity: Jesus' Inverse Strategy for Eschatological Cleanliness ( Tom Holmen) Founding Christianity: Comparing Jesus and Japanese 'New Religions' (Ulrich Luz) What all these essays have in common, besides the use of subtitles, is their usefulness. Catering to a wide range of interests, the collection has something for everyone. For example, if you're interested in the miracle at Cana, Claussen's essay fusing the horizons '… of historical context and Johannine theology' (p. 97) will engage you. Curious about Jesus' use of Scripture? Craig Evans will tell you that '… the subversive, challenging use of scripture that we find here and there in the dominical tradition authentically reflects, it seems to me, the creative, authoritative mind of Jesus. One might say that Jesus was informed by scripture, but was not confined by it' (p. 198). Myself, I'm interested in demoniacs and drunkards so naturally Petr Pokorny's essay caught my eye. After surveying the landscape in which the topic lives, P. expends a great deal of effort to describe

Q 7:33-34 as a source of information about John and Jesus. This because his purpose is to understand why John and Jesus parted company. This 'parting of the ways' P. attributes to the differing strategies of Jesus and John. 'John's ascetic life was obviously a prophetic sign for the society of his time' (p. 175). P. is probably correct here but the word 'obviously' always makes me uncomfortable, for obvious reasons. P. continues, 'John's obvious intention was to change the life of his Jewish contemporaries by shocking them' (p. 176). Really? How is John's behavior, sermonizing, or lifestyle any more shocking than Isaiah's or Jeremiah's or Ezekiel's? None of them were effective in turning Israel back to God. Why would John choose as his strategy one which failed for them? 'Unlike John, Jesus is described as one who eats and drinks too much' (p. 176). True enough of course, but for the Pharisees this sort of behavior was shocking in and of itself- especially given the fact of who Jesus did these things with! So, if P. is suggesting that John's strategy was to shock and Jesus' was to eat and make merry – with both hoping that their method would awaken Israel, he may be a bit off the mark. But, then again, P. does seem to be on to something. It is in fact true that John was a caller-torepentance and Jesus was a caller-to-banquet-joy. 'Instead of stressing the catastrophe at the end of This Age, Jesus concentrated on the Kingdom of God as the Age to Come' (p. 179). John focuses on the here and now and Jesus focuses on the then and there. That's why, evidently, they parted ways. It's an intriguing idea, isn't it? Until one asks- but if they were talking about two different things why not just continue to minister together, each focusing on their particular viewpoint in tandem. It isn't the case that they were contradictory approaches, after all. In any event, in spite of the questions raised by P's essay, it's extremely thought provoking and for that reason alone worth pondering. And that's true of the entire volume. Insights are offered, questions are raised, answers are given that are both satisfactory and unsatisfactory. But through it all, one is challenged to think. No book can be asked to do more than that.