"Living Jesus" Review Question 1

 
My Christology class is reading this very insightful book entitled "Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel" by Luke Timothy Johnson.  Our class then gives a review of each chapter by answering a question proposed by our professor, Fr. Guy Mansini. OSB.  Throughout the semester, I hope to share with you my insights on this book as we work through the text.  Maybe it will peek an interest in reading this very approachable and thought-provoking book.

·         Question 1: Why is it difficult for critical historians to come to a genuine historical knowledge of Jesus?

According to Johnson, critical historians have difficulty coming to an historical understanding of Jesus because they seek to obtain knowledge of a strictly historical person, who lived and died in history, and nothing more.  As the very first sentence of the book states: “It makes a big difference whether we think someone is dead or alive.” (pg 3) 

The way in which Jesus is viewed either limits or frees his impact on history.  If considered to be dead, Jesus’ personal influence stops with his death.  He may have been influential in life, and subsequently may have spawned a movement to perpetuate his cause.  But with his demise comes the “passing of the baton” of his ideals, thereby allowing his influence to diminish with time.  His “echo from the past”(Ibid.) becomes exactly that.

If considered to be alive, however, Jesus’ personal impact throughout history is not only preserved but radically empowered.  One’s ability to learn about Jesus becomes intrinsically linked to learning from Him, because He is not simply an historical figure, but a present and active agent (pg 5).  Again, Johnson says it wonderfully: “If Jesus is dead, then his story is completed.  If he is alive, then his story continues” (Ibid.)

The primary source material by which there is knowledge of Jesus is another aspect that creates difficulty for critical historians.  Although historical documents are known to show biases, a unique phenomenon of Christian historical documentation is the persistence in the belief that Jesus was not dead (pg 7).  Techniques have been used to try to circumvent this in order to get at the historical substance of Jesus but have failed, in part because the claim – that Jesus is immortal -- is ultimately a theological one.

In the end, the problem of the critical historian lies in his inability to see the resurrection as a defining characteristic of the Christian claim (pg 10).  Attempts are made to justify the “Christian movement” by relegating it to a movement of “ideals or social principals” while ignoring or rationalizing the seemingly impossible idea of a man’s resurrection and persistence through history.