What have they done with Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History - why we can trust the Bible is a book by Ben Witherington III. I've just finished reading it; it is worth a look if you are interested in the authority of the New Testament.
This book could have been written from a conservative perspective, as its aim is to defend the authenticity of scripture. Witherington argues those closest to Jesus (his mother, his brothers, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the beloved disciple and Paul), knew him well and the New Testament can be traced to their witness. They are the texts written closest to Jesus' time and so our most reliable sources. Witherington uses modern critical approaches and I think he makes a persuasive case.
Certainly, I have grown impatient with much modern critical work on Scripture, not because I disagree with it particularly bu it seems too often to start with presuppositions that themselves need examination.
So, Witherington argues there are no grounds for the distinction between the Jesus of History and Christ of Faith, many claim to find in the New Testament. These early witnesses experienced both. They saw no distinction between them. Jesus was both a man they had known and the Son of God.
This of course does not apply to Paul, who never knew Jesus the man. But Witherington shows there is no significant difference between Paul and the others. Where there were differences they were over incidental matters, such as circumcision. James was not one of those who insisted on the Gentiles adhering fully to the Torah and agreed with Paul, the relatively mild injunctions to have nothing to do with pagan temples.
(I suspect these injunctions to keep away from pagan temples are an unfortunate source of Christian homophobia. What seem to be condemnations of homosexuality are actually condemnations of pagan religion.)
One last thing, Witherington presents a fascinating theory as to the identity of the beloved disciple. I've no idea whether he is right but it is an interesting proposal and there seems to be substantial evidence in its favour.
Comments