I've decided to read (or read again carefully) almost exclusively books on the Historical Jesus this December. This includes (mostly) scholarly books from a broad spectrum of Jesus scholars (liberal, jewish, conservative, etc.), but also a few of non-scholarly, popular literature or sources about Jesus.
In a previous post, I reviewed a particular aspect of the book "The Last Week" by of two liberal and self-proclamed "Christian" scholars (Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan), specially the point about the meaning of Jesus' death.
In another post, I discussed popular, non-scholarly sources of the historical Jesus (e.g. New Age sources about Jesus), which I argued were mostly motivated by what I've called the FEELS GOOD SPIRITUALITY, a kind of emotional, intellectually "soft" and "weak", wishful thinking approach to the historical Jesus, which is at variance with the best historical evidence about who Jesus was, what he taught and the religious-theological-historical context in which he lived.
Recently, I've just read philosopher Peter Williams' book "Understanding Jesus: Five Ways to Spiritual Enlightenment", which I've found very original and interesting.
In a previous post, I reviewed Williams's previous book "A sceptic's guide to Atheism", which in my opinion is the most powerful and best currently available critique of the New Atheism. Now, Williams focuses his investigation on the life and spiritual importance of Jesus of Nazareth with his lastest book on Jesus.
Williams is a Christian philosopher of great philosophical acumen, excellent erudition and fine communications skills and, as showed in this book, he has also an excellent command of the relevant scholarly literature about the historical Jesus.
In contrast to many authors who write about Jesus, Williams's book is tightly argued and his arguments are clear and straightforward (allowing each of the readers to fully understand his points and know if they agree or not with Williams' contentions). No misleading sophisms and rhetoric about "metaphors", "meanings of words" and so forth (like seen in Marcus Borg or Crossan's works) is found in William's book. You'll know exactly what he means in each case and the arguments supporting his conclusions.
Williams also seems to know the most common and best objections that others could pose against his arguments. So, apparently realizing that such objections could appear in the reader's mind, he often anticipates such objections and refutes them.
Williams' erudition is also very impressive. Citations and quotes of primary and secondary sources are often in his books, and in this book in particular, his arguments are supported by citations of some of the best literature in analytic philosophy of religion, theology and New Testament studies. Personally, I think such a multi-disciplinary methodology is essential to research the life and teachings of Jesus.
The extensive bibliography and references for each chapter include books, online resources (audios, videos, papers), etc., which I have found very helpful in my own research about the historical Jesus.
The extensive bibliography and references for each chapter include books, online resources (audios, videos, papers), etc., which I have found very helpful in my own research about the historical Jesus.
Williams' approach to Jesus is also original.: As the title of his book suggests, he present "5 ways" to understanding Jesus and a Jesus-centered spirituality. These 5 ways are:
1-Jesus' self-centered teaching
2-Jesus' dynamic deeds
3-Jesus' resurrection
4-Jesus' fullfilled prophecies
5-Contemporary experience of Jesus
Regarding point 1, for traditional Christians, Jesus' teachings are centered around himself, because Jesus (and only Jesus) is the exclusive intermediary between God and human beings. At least, this is as Jesus probably perceived himself according to the best evidence that we.have about his life.
Liberal scholars seem to have a problem with it. Constantly, they complain that traditional Christianity focuses in a person (Jesus), not in his teachings (e.g. the God's kingdom). So, for liberals, the message is most important than the person.
The problem that I see with such liberal opinion is that it is simply false that tradional Christianity focuses more in Jesus than in his teachings. Actually, Christians focus in BOTH.
But perhaps the liberal objection is that traditional Christians have made a religion centered around a person, instead of a religion centered a message. This objection is very common in the liberal literature. The problem that I see with this objection is that it assumes (in a question-begging way against Christianity, very common among "liberals") that Jesus' message is disconnected of Jesus' self-perception, identity and personal function in God's kingdom.
As Williams shows in his book, and as I've argued here, Jesus claimed to be the only way to know God. Jesus asked people to follow him (not merely to accept his words), and he performed miracles as signs that God's kingdom has arrived.
So, it is not merely a bunch of doctrines, teachings, exercices or statements which are determinant for spiritual evolution, but it is Jesus himself, his identity, his deeds, his resurrection, his condition as the only intermediary between humans and God. The person of Jesus is directly connected with his teachings, because his teachings refer to a kingdom of God in which Jesus's person is absolutely essential and crucial.
The liberal's complain derives from the atheistic and religious pluralistic assumption that the person of the spiritual teacher is irrelevant to his teachings. What is relevant is the message itself (therefore, if the same message comes from different sources, it cannot be claimed that just one source is privileged or unique among the others and hence exclusivism is undermined). This assumption makes the person irrelevant or, at best, secondary, because in atheism, and in religious pluralism too, no spiritual teacher has a special divine status, because God doesn't exist (atheism), or if He exists he has not revealed himself in one of them in particular (religious pluralism).
Once you have strongly undermined the person of the spiritual teacher himself, the only that remains is the message itself, independently of the person who transmitted such message. In atheism and religious pluralism, spiritual teachers are mere "transmitters" or "messengers", and the only the message itself counts.
But this is not what Jesus claimed. In a saying of Jesus which passes the criterion of dissimilarity (and hence it is likely to be authentic), he says: "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him" (Matthew 11.27).
No hint of religious pluralism is available there. On the contrary, strong religious exclusivism is asserted and implied. Moreover, the "to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him", suggests an active, selective and exclusive function of the Son (=Jesus) in revelation, not a matter of simply providing a bunch of messages, doctrines or stories which any other teacher could have provided too.
The message could come from any source that you want (Sai Baba, Wayne Dyer, Ophra, Osho, Shirley McLane, A Course in Miracles, the Urantia Book, etc.), but if it doesn't comes from the Son, it lacks the authority and credibility to reveal authentically and reliably the Father, because only the Son knows the Father. (Note that exclusivistic word "only" cannot be misrepresented as meaning "every spiritual teacher", because in such a case the exclusivity in question would be false and misleading, and Jesus would be guilty of a monumental deception and misdirection).
In a "Son of Man" saying (Jesus' preferred self-designation was "Son of Man") (Luke 12: 8-9), Jesus said "I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God"
Read again the above passage. If Jesus' self-perception were pluralistic, then there is no reason to think that "disowning" him will affect your spiritual fate, provided you fully acknowledge OTHER spiritual teachers (e.g. Sai Baba or Krishna). It is precisely Jesus' self-perception as the ONLY way to God which explains why your rejection of him will affect your spiritual fate, because in rejecting him you're rejecting the only way to God too.
So, it is not surprising to find in a Q saying (Mattew 7:21-23 and Luke 13:24-27), which being in "Q" is early and likely to be authentic, another very disturbing teaching of Jesus, namely, that only a FEW will enter God's kingdom: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"
Compare with Luke 13:24-27: Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!
Or in Matthew 7: 13-14:
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
If Jesus was a religious pluralist, then such sayings about "narrow doors or gates" for salvation make no sense, since most people on Earth are religious believers and so could be saved simply following the teachings of their corresponding religion (some of which are atheistic or agnostic, e.g. some versions of Buddhism). But according to Jesus, only the one who does the will of God (The Father), which is revealed exclusively by the Son (Jesus), because only the Son knows the Father, will be saved. And these are a FEW, because the gate which leads to salvation is SMALL.
Note that Jesus alerts about the of wide gates which lead to destruction and the fact that "many enter through" them. So, most people follow the gates which lead to destruction.
This evidence for Jesus' exclusivism is at variance with the pluralistic view of liberals and, above all, with the New Age distortions of the historical Jesus, which provide extremely misleading views of his teachings and function as savior and are (if Jesus was right) precisely the most egregious examples of "wide gates" which lead to destruction, because they seduce people telling them what they want to hear in order to persuade them into the broad, wrong ways against which Jesus alerted.
Like it or not, the evidence suggests that Jesus' self-perception was exclusivistic, non-pluralistic.
No plausible religious pluralistic interpretation of such passages exists, and the liberal or religious pluralist is forced to deny the authenticity of such passages, or to misrepresent them with fallacies, sophisms and anti-Christian "assumptions".
You can find Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception to be very disturbing or distressing, but it cannot affect your objective, rigurous assesment of the evidence. You have to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and adapt your worldview to it, even if what you find is very disturbing.
If Jesus is right, then the response given to the person of Jesus is directly connected with the spiritual fate of the believer. Jesus' person is NOT disconnected of his teachings about God's will, because (in Jesus' self-perception), like it or not, each person's response to Jesus is a necessary condition to entering God's Kingdom.
In a "Son of Man" saying (Jesus' preferred self-designation was "Son of Man") (Luke 12: 8-9), Jesus said "I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God"
Read again the above passage. If Jesus' self-perception were pluralistic, then there is no reason to think that "disowning" him will affect your spiritual fate, provided you fully acknowledge OTHER spiritual teachers (e.g. Sai Baba or Krishna). It is precisely Jesus' self-perception as the ONLY way to God which explains why your rejection of him will affect your spiritual fate, because in rejecting him you're rejecting the only way to God too.
So, it is not surprising to find in a Q saying (Mattew 7:21-23 and Luke 13:24-27), which being in "Q" is early and likely to be authentic, another very disturbing teaching of Jesus, namely, that only a FEW will enter God's kingdom: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"
Compare with Luke 13:24-27: Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!
Or in Matthew 7: 13-14:
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
If Jesus was a religious pluralist, then such sayings about "narrow doors or gates" for salvation make no sense, since most people on Earth are religious believers and so could be saved simply following the teachings of their corresponding religion (some of which are atheistic or agnostic, e.g. some versions of Buddhism). But according to Jesus, only the one who does the will of God (The Father), which is revealed exclusively by the Son (Jesus), because only the Son knows the Father, will be saved. And these are a FEW, because the gate which leads to salvation is SMALL.
Note that Jesus alerts about the of wide gates which lead to destruction and the fact that "many enter through" them. So, most people follow the gates which lead to destruction.
This evidence for Jesus' exclusivism is at variance with the pluralistic view of liberals and, above all, with the New Age distortions of the historical Jesus, which provide extremely misleading views of his teachings and function as savior and are (if Jesus was right) precisely the most egregious examples of "wide gates" which lead to destruction, because they seduce people telling them what they want to hear in order to persuade them into the broad, wrong ways against which Jesus alerted.
Like it or not, the evidence suggests that Jesus' self-perception was exclusivistic, non-pluralistic.
No plausible religious pluralistic interpretation of such passages exists, and the liberal or religious pluralist is forced to deny the authenticity of such passages, or to misrepresent them with fallacies, sophisms and anti-Christian "assumptions".
You can find Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception to be very disturbing or distressing, but it cannot affect your objective, rigurous assesment of the evidence. You have to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and adapt your worldview to it, even if what you find is very disturbing.
If Jesus is right, then the response given to the person of Jesus is directly connected with the spiritual fate of the believer. Jesus' person is NOT disconnected of his teachings about God's will, because (in Jesus' self-perception), like it or not, each person's response to Jesus is a necessary condition to entering God's Kingdom.
And this is what liberals, anti-Christians, New Age revisionists of Jesus cannot accept. They don't want to hear that. They're emotionaly and ideologically driven to create a Jesus more appealing to them, a Jesus whose person is secondary or even irrelevant to his message, in order to make possible to accepting the message without accepting Jesus' special status, role and function for entering God's kingdom. This is what religious pluralists want to believe about Jesus, but it is at variance with the evidence.
Can you see now why liberals' typical complain is question begging against Christianity, and is based on atheism and/or religious pluralism, and a reading of the evidence based on these assumptions?
Jesus had to convince his fellows human beings that he was unique among spiritual teachers or prophets (obviously, if Jesus perceived himself as "the Son of God", and the "Son of Man", he had to make sure that his special condition, authority and identity be fully known. Otherwise, his status wouldn't fully understood nor recognized as the means of salvation). This explains his largely self-centered teachings and his deeds as inbreaking of God's kingdom. His bodily resurrection would be the last, most dramatic and ultimate proof of his exclusivistic message and his unique spiritual position above and beyond any other spiritual teacher, leader, sage or prophet. (In Jesus' time, there were many Jewish holy-men and spiritual teachers, so Jesus had to provide a distintively radical message and dramatic deeds in order to cause an impact on his followeres which set him apart from the others and that couldn't be matched by them).
Regarding point 3, Williams discusses some of the evidence for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection and its spiritual meaning.
A contributing factor in my favourable conclusion regarding the historicity of resurrection are the silly objections, fallacies and criticisms against the case for it. When opponents of a position are forced to argue like that, one tends to suspect that the case for such position is not so weak or easily refutable as critics pretend it to be.
For example, atheist philosopher Jimmy Licon wrote a recent paper in which he accepts the evidence for Jesus' resurrection (and the fact what Jesus rose from the dead), but argues that Jesus was raised as a "zombie" (and hence, that God had nothing to with that). Obviously, if you're an atheist, God couldn't have nothing with it since you don't believe that God exists. But a theist has reasons to think that such event is caused by God, since such event is not a natural one (it is not a product of the natural laws of biology, e.g. natural mechanisms of cell regeneration, or the laws of physics or physiology, which predict physical decay, cell apoptosis, and eventual mortality of biological organisms, not their physical resurrection, let alone the transformation of the risen body into a spiritual, immortal body), and specially given Jesus' teachings about God's Kingdom and his self-centered perception as the only "Son of God" (i.e. as a person with a special and exclusive connection with God).
That in order to undermine the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", a trained philosopher be forced to argue for an alternative "zombie theory" (specially when the same philosopher, in another paper, explicitly argues for the view that zombies are inconceivable) is telling not only of the strengh of the case for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, but of the strong weaknesses of the criticisms against it.
Williams summarizes pretty well the case for Jesus' resurrection and its theological meaning (its meaning in the theistic context of Jesus' exclusivistic teachings).
Also, he addresses briefly Hume's argument against miracles which is the main objection posed by skeptics against Jesus' resurrection and other putative supernatural and paranormal phenomena. See my discussion of Hume's argument in terms of Bayes' Theorem, using as example the cases of remote viewing and the resurrection.
In conclusion, I strongly recommend to read carefully Williams' book. I think this book is recommended specially to open-minded atheists, agnostics, religious pluralists and people from other religions who want to have a well-balanced and the same time sophisticated introduction to the historical Jesus from a traditional Christian perspective (just compare with the books of Marcus Borg or Jonh Dominic Crossan, and you will understand what I mean).
Regardless of your final assesment of William's book, you can be sure you're reading a well-balanced, well-documented, well-argued and pretty original book about the historical Jesus.
I enjoyed and learned a lot from this book.
0 comments:
Post a Comment