Rafael Rodríguez

Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method

In this essay I analyse the usual (mis)use(s) of the criteria of historical authenticity in historical Jesus research. Whereas the general appeal to the criteria has pursued at least a semblance of objectivity in historical-critical research, in practice the criteria have provided useful and clearly identifiable windows into how scholars have conceived the task(s) of historical reconstruction (i.e., their particular subjectivity). After surveying the relevant literature, I question the analytical concepts authentic and inauthentic as schemata orientating historical reconstruction. We should recognize and employ the criteria as tools that facilitate and affect the interpretation of historical traditions rather than (merely) their authenticity .

What is History? Reading John 1 as Historical Representation

As Pontius Pilate nearly asked, What is history? This article draws upon memory and media studies to question the notion that we find history within the text of the Fourth Gospel. Rather than trying to identify and isolate history within John’s Gospel, our discussion aims to recover how the Gospel works as a set of historical claims , joining with or competing against other historical claims within the social sphere of its author, redactor, and/or audience. After a precis of memory’s and media’s significance for our question (What is history?), we will localize these abstract issues by turning to the Johannine portrayal of John the Baptist and his testimony for Jesus. This approach respects the Fourth Gospel as a written text that developed and was compiled/redacted in the late first century without imposing a rigidly atemporal conception of Johannine theology onto John’s claims about events six or seven decades earlier.

Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe

This is a review essay of Alan Kirk’s LNTS monograph, Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016).

Jesus as his Friends Remembered Him: A Review of Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus

Despite considerable variation in its details, historical Jesus scholarship has largely depended on refining and employing the criteria of authenticity in order to differentiate authentic from secondary material in the Jesus tradition. Dale Allison has expressed doubts concerning the criteria and their usefulness for producing knowledge of the historical figure of Jesus. His recent volume, Constructing Jesus, sets out to explore a different route for discussing the historical Jesus, one that accounts for recent psychological and sociological discussions of memory. This essay briefly describes the new shape of historical Jesus scholarship and then summarizes Allison’s central arguments and asks some questions raised by those arguments.

Book Review: The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media CultureThe Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture. Edited by Le DonneAnthonyThatcherTom. European Studies on Christian Origins. Library of New Testament Studies 426. London, UK: T&T Clark International, 2011. Pp. x + 283. Cloth,

107 tures: Texts, Versions, Canons” (Eugene Ulrich), “Early Jewish Biblical Interpretation” (James L. Kugel), “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha” (Loren T. Stuckenbruck), “The Dead Sea Scrolls” (Eibert Tigchelaar), “Early Jewish Literature Written in Greek” (Katell Berthelot), “Archaeology, Papyri, and Inscriptions” (Jürgen K. Zangenberg), “Jews among Greeks and Romans” (Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev), “Early Judaism and Early Christianity” (Daniel C. Harlow), and “Early Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism” (Lawrence H. Schiffman). Each article is well-written, laid out in a logical manner, contains a wealth of information, and concludes with a helpful bibliography. The second section has 520 dictionarytype entries in 1067 pages. These entries, ranging from “Aaron” to “Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism,” to “Zerubbabel,” are more substantial in content and length than articles found in similar dictionaries and have pertinent information on the topics. Many of these articles are subdivided by headings, cross-referenced, and contain a selected bibliography. Readers will find the Topical List of Entries on pages xxiv-xxix very helpful for locating articles within their interests. The topics cover areas one would expect to find in such a work, such as Dead Sea Scrolls, Literary Genres, Religious Beliefs and Influences, Historical Figures, Biblical Figures in Early Jewish Interpretation, Archaeology, Religious Institutions, Languages, Jewish Revolts, Groups and Dynasties, and Mythological and Primordial Figures, Places, and Events. In addition to the Dead Sea Scrolls, it also includes articles on various types of literature such as Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Pseudepigrapha and Hellenistic Jewish Texts, Apocrypha, Rabbinic Literature, and the writings of Philo and Josephus. The editors even included twelve articles in a section on Modern Interpreters of Early Judaism (Emil Schürer, George Foot Moore, and others), which is a nice touch. Overall, the work is user-friendly and contains a lot of information, especially for a one-volume dictionary. In addition to the topical essays and dictionary entries, the work has 130 illustrations, 24 maps, and a chronological chart giving dates for significant events, ranging from the beginning of Persian rule in 538 Bce to when Rabbi Judah the Patriarch edits the Mishnah in 200 ce. I believe scholars, students, ministers, and informed readers will find this volume a great and useful addition to their library. I highly recommend it. Terry W. Eddinger Carolina Graduate School of Divinity Greensboro, NC 27417

120.00.

58 pel of Luke nor to legitimate the Pauline corpus. Rather the portrayal of Paul in Acts seeks to provide a smooth transition from the apostolic to the post-apostolic age (e.g. Acts 20:17–38). (7) Although Hebrews was not written by Paul, it was connected to the Pauline community (see Heb 13:23) and shares Paul’s high Christology. Thus Hebrews was placed as a bookend to the Pauline corpus in order to suggest a model for how to relate the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament when reading Paul. Although I am quite sympathetic to Childs’s canonical proposal in theoretical terms, his actual treatment of the Pauline corpus leaves much to be desired. Most of the intentional canonical shaping that Childs identifies is poorly substantiated or downright illusory. For example, there is no evidence that Romans was intentionally placed first in the corpus because it universalizes the historical particularities of the other letters; on the contrary, placing the longest letter first was quite simply the standard contemporary practice. Additionally, even if it is granted that the textual histories of Ephesians and the end of Romans do in fact reflect the universalizing tendencies of a few tradents, the vast majority of the tradents did not accept this universalization (many more manuscripts retain the particularizing elements than exclude them); so why should the position of the minority be valorized? Moreover, Childs’s belief that post-Pauline communities would glibly accept a pseudonymous re-actualization of Paul lacks any credible historical parallel within the early church. Finally, not only is Childs’s position on the canonical function of Acts and Hebrews highly conjectural, the entire edifice which Childs has constructed is grounded on numerous hypotheses which more than a few readers will find objectionable, such as the late dating of Acts and the inauthenticity of Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastorals. Although Childs helpfully raises canonical awareness, The Church’s Guide is built upon slender foundations, and this reviewer doubts that the building can stand. Matthew W. Bates University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46656

Book Review: John and Empire: Initial Explorations. By Warren Carter. New York & London: T&T Clark, 2008. Pp. xii + 423. Paper,

182 handwashing or the difference between clean and unclean foods (pp. 411, 414), and he never revoked food purity laws (e.g., Mark 7:15 is from the early church; pp. 391–93). Ritual purity was not a burning issue for Jesus (p. 414). The word “love” rarely appears on Jesus’ lips in the Synoptic Gospels; when it does, Jesus is usually alluding to a Hebrew Bible text. The “double command to love” (Mark 12:28–34) was Jesus’ call to his listeners first to love God and then to love their fellow Jews (pp. 493, 527, 572). The command to love one’s enemies is also authentic, but Meier leans toward the view that the Golden Rule is not from Jesus (p. 557). The evidence for Jesus’ legal positions is sparse and fragmentary, perhaps because Jesus’ discussions of Jewish Law were mostly not relevant to the later, largely Gentile, church (pp. 651–52). In addition, Meier finds no coherent, systematic organizing principle (e.g., “love”) for Jesus’ legal pronouncements. Jesus did not build a coherent system of thought, because he was proclaiming the imminent coming of the kingdom (pp. 415, 653–54). Jesus’ pronouncements were ad hoc, and they stemmed from Jesus’ selfidentification as the authoritative eschatological prophet (pp. 655–56). Meier’s book is in many ways painstakingly comprehensive. This “long, dusty road” (Meier’s phrase) is well worth the trip, although there are some bumps along the way. For example, Meier sometimes sarcastically denigrates—or ignores—the work of some (usually American) scholars. Having said that, I must admit that his judgments usually are correct when he decries common domestications of Jesus by those scholars. Although Meier states that he does not want to engage in “formal sociological exegesis” (p. 349), greater use of socialscientific insights would have improved this study. Meier does occasionally mention such social aspects as honor and shame (pp. 79, 277), but more is needed (e.g., p. 261). He is correct that social-scientific theories change and develop (pp. 426–27), but this critique of mutability is also true of the historical-critical method, which Meier employs. One heartening aspect of this volume is that Meier shows greater appreciation for the bare-subsistence lives of first-century Jewish peasants (e.g., p. 267). Although it is more difficult to understand “their pinched and fragile existence” in Meier’s primarily text-based approach, he does grapple with those implications, and it bears fruit, for example, in his description of Jesus’ “commonsense approach” to legal issues (pp. 266–67). The historical Jesus is indeed the halakic Jesus, and Meier’s efforts to aid us in that realization are to be complimented. Meier ably leaves very few historical-critical stones unturned. In the end, however, we must admit the inherent limitations of the historical-critical method. As Meier himself notes, our sources and methods will permit us to go only so far, but this volume takes us a few decisive steps further down that still uncertain path. David B. Gowler Oxford College of Emory University Oxford, GA 30054

39.95

144 Jesus (such as permitting the picking of grain on the Sabbath or not requiring the washing of hands before meals) contradict Pharisaic/rabbinic halakhah. Finally, the accompanying illustrations depicting episodes from the life of Jesus are caricatures of shtetl Jews that only detract from the text. Surely we have enough archaeological information about Palestine in the time of Jesus to provide more accurate (and less offensive) illustrations. These criticisms are relatively minor. All in all this is an informative and highly readable volume that will serve its target audience well. Jodi Magness University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC