Journal for the Study of the New Testament http://jnt.sagepub.

com/

The Jesus of Orthodoxy and the Jesuses of the Gospels: a Critique of Luke Timothy Johnson's the Real Jesus
Robert J. Miller Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1998 20: 101 DOI: 10.1177/0142064X9802006806 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/20/68/101

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the New Testament can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1998 What is This?

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

THE JESUS OF ORTHODOXY AND THE JESUSES OF THE GOSPELS: A CRITIQUE OF LUKE TIMOTHY JOHNSONS THE REAL JESUS

Robert J. Miller

Midway College, Midway,

KY 40347, USA

The debate about the historical Jesus shows no sign of letting up. A noteworthy development in this debate is the increase in scholars willing to write for a lay audience. The Jesus Seminar has been especially ambitious about communicating its collective views about the historical Jesus to the general public. Those who follow the historical Jesus debate from the sidelines may find it fascinating but also a bit bewildering. Many Christians are disconcerted, to say the least, when some of their cherished beliefs about Jesus, long considered non-negotiable in orthodox Christianity, are publicly called into question by credentialed biblical scholars, many of them on the faculties of Christian colleges and seminaries. Several theologically conservative scholars have weighed in with books that criticize the work of more liberal scholars and present portraits of the historical Jesus that leave orthodox beliefs unchallenged. Prominent among these apologetic studies is Luke Timothy Johnsons The Real Jesus. Vigorously attacking scholars who (in the jargon of the Catholic magisterium) disturb the faithful&dquo; and taking an unqualified stand on
1. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. 2. Johnson criticizes a number of scholars but concentrates on three authors he considers particularly dangerous (Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack) and on the Jesus Seminar and Robert Funk, its magister ludi (his term), for whom he saves his most contemptuous remarks. Indeed, the Jesus Seminar is what prompted Johnson to write this book, for he sees the Seminar as a symptom of a The Real Jesus, p. v). (Readers deeper and more disturbing institutional collapse ( should note that I am a member of the Jesus Seminar and must judge the objectivity of my response accordingly.)

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

102
the
canon

arly

and the creed, Johnsons book has been hailed as the scholresponse to the troubling claims emerging from the historical

Jesus debate.3 Johnson does not present himself as a participant in the debate, but rather as the adjudicator of it. So although his book deals with the discussion about the historical Jesus, it is not really intended to contribute to it. Johnsons goal is much more ambitious. He hopes his book will put an end to the debate once and for all. The books subtitle, The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, summarizes the books twopronged thesis: that all attempts at historical reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus are doomed to failure, and that the canonical gospels convey the true meaning of Jesus life and death. Johnson argues that the New Testament writings cannot yield reliable historical information about Jesus beyond a few biographical facts and so the historical Jesus is irrelevant to Christian belief and practice. Johnson further argues that Christian faith is grounded, not in the historical Jesus, but in the resurrected Jesus experienced by his followers (the real Jesus). The early Christian understanding of this real Jesus is communicated in the traditional gospels. According to Johnson, then, Christian life should be modeled after the meaning of Jesus existence revealed by the pattern of his life found in the canonical gospels. This essay is a critique of Johnsons distinctive construal of the truth of the traditional gospels. My response is in three parts. First, I examine Johnsons position on the relationship of faith to history. Then, in the major portion of this essay, I criticize Johnsons theory that the canonical gospels all present the meaning of Jesus life according to a
3. For example, Wayne Meekss endorsement on the books dust jacket cheers that Johnson effectively and deliciously skewers a lot of half-baked scholarship. N.T. Wrights blurb is especially enthusiastic: every sentence in the book possesses scholarly rigor, the book has intellectual power and scholarly precision. Wright recanted his endorsement of Johnsons book shortly after it was published. In an interview with Time magazine, Wright concluded that Johnsons approach is fundamentally mistaken. Johnson kicks the ball back into his own net by mistake. Hes putting the clocks back to the 1890s, when the Germans said that all this historical Jesus nonsense shows we shouldnt be trying to find the Jesus behind the Time [April 8, 1996], p. 58). Wright offered no explanation for his Gospels at all ( startling turnabout. The most charitable explanation is that he read the book after he had written the blurb for it.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

103

single pattern.

I go about this

poses to the evidence we

testing the particular gospels.

by comparing the pattern Johnson profind in the synoptic gospels. I conclude by conkind of truth Johnson claims for the traditional

1. Faith and History in the

Gospels

of his book, The Real Jesus and the Gospels, Johnson argues that a pattern of Jesus life (an interpretive framework within which his life has meaning) was embedded in the earliest Christian experience and memory faithfully mirrored in the Gospel narrative. Johnson is careful not to claim that this pattern is accurate historically, lest he be on a misguided quest for the historical Jesus. Nonetheless, his use of the word memory constitutes an implicit attempt to do just that. To imply that this pattern, forged out of Christian religious experience, is also rooted in memories of what Jesus said and did prior to the cross is to harvest the fruit of history without doing the hard work of historical reconstruction. Johnson tries to have his cake and eat it too. He can focus on belief in the resurrection as something that makes all the difference in how Jesus followers interpreted the meaning of his life and person and assert with equal conviction that it makes no real difference at all because the pattern of Jesus life that emerges in light of belief in his resurrection is embedded in memories about the historical Jesus. This obviously begs the central question of whether the historical construct known as Jesus as he was during his life in Palestine is the same as the religious construct known as Jesus as experienced by those who believe in his resurrection . To discern the first we hunt for memory. To discern the second we analyze religious experience. By claiming that the pattern of Jesus life that he describes is based on the earliest Christian experience and memory, Johnson elides the two. The phrase and memory, even if it is a careless slip rather than a strategic insinuation, is more important than its incidental placement may indicate. It shows that even Johnson wants a portrait of Jesus that he can consider historically accurate. My even reflects the fact that Johnson carefully argues that historical portraits of Jesus should be irrelevant to Christian belief and that the essential character of Christian life is determined by the response to the risen (real) Jesus, not to

Chapter 6

4.

Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 152 (emphasis added).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

104 the historical Jesus (the unreal Jesus?). Johnson is thus in the position to leave unanswered the whole question of memory (the historical accuracy of reports about the words and deeds of Jesus). He can leave it unanswered because he argues that it is unanswerable (except in extremely general terms). And yet, in a crucial sentence setting out an important thesis we find memory anchoring the issue in the historical Jesus. Whether Johnson deliberately smuggles the phrase into his thesis or drops it inadvertently does not matter. Why is historicity important, even to someone who eloquently claims that it isnt? Johnsons personal motivation is irrelevant; what is important is the structural issue of the relationship of faith to history. The sentence immediately prior to the one with and memory in it is this one: The really critical issue is this: are the pattern and meaning that the Gospels give to Jesus due simply to the artistry of one writer whom everyone else copied? The blatant way Johnson sets up the straw man here (simply) highlights what is at stake in his question. What assurance is there that the Gospel pattern-and it is crucial for Johnson that there be only one-is based on the way Jesus really was and not on early Christian mythmaking or the creative imagination of a religious genius like Mark? At the end of the paragraph Johnson is arguing only that the pattern faithfully reflects post-Calvary Christian experience. But even if we grant this, the question of its connection to the historical Jesus remains unanswered. That is why it so important for Johnson to close the gap by asserting that the pattern is more than a distillation of religious experience or religious imagination; it is a reflection of history accessed through memory. At the bottom line it still matters very much whether the way early Christians experienced the risen Jesus has some identifiable continuity with the way Jesus was historically. Inescapably, for Christianity it very much matters what really

happened.
What does Johnson mean by this pattern? It is an interpretive framework communicated in the gospel narratives. Johnson describes it as a pattern of radical obedience to God and selfless love toward other people.6 For Johnson this pattern concerns both the identity of Jesus and the character of discipleship. That is, it has two interlinked functions. (1) It conveys the meaning of Jesus life and death. (2) It establishes a
5. 6. 7.

Johnson, The Real Jesus, pp. 151-52. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 158. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 155.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

105

for Christians to imitate. Johnson argues that this pattern is found in all four canonical gospels, and among the gospels, only in the canonical ones. He also maintains that this pattern is the only one common to all four New Testament gospels. We need to scrutinize Johnsons thesis by testing the adequacy of the pattern he proposes against a careful reading of the gospels. My analysis of the gospels will be more detailed than Johnsons because I aim to compare the very general terms in which he describes his pattern with the particularities of the individual gospels. The following analysis demonstrates that if we allow the gospels to speak on their own terms, they do not manifest a single pattern. Though they reflect aspects of Johnsons pattern, they do so in very different configurations, and s no one gospel actually contains the pattern Johnson describes. Johnsons pattern is not actually derived from the gospels, but rather is imposed on them.

paradigm

2. The Jesuses

of the Gospels

The Markan Jesus Johnson rightly maintains that Mark deliberately shapes his image of Jesus according to a pattern of suffering in service to others, and shows that discipleship means following in that same pattern . What is noteworthy is a small but significant difference in the way Johnson describes the pattern when he has four gospels in mind (radical obedience to God and selfless love toward other people )&dquo; and how he describes it specifically in reference to Mark (suffering in service to others. Between the and in the first description and the in in the second there is a crucial difference: the first puts equal weight on both Jesus death (radical obedience) and his selfless service to others, whereas the second subsumes service into death (in effect, a death interpreted as

service).
This last point is not stated explicitly, but is the clear upshot of The Real Jesus, pp. 154-57. 9. I analyze Mark, Matthew and Luke. These three gospels are more than sufficient for our purpose. Since Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, and since their patterns are quite different from Marks, there is no need to belabor the point by analyzing John. 10. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 154. 11. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 158. 12. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 154. 8.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

106

slippage is intentional on Johnsons part, his larger argument depends on gliding back and forth between these two notions as if they were equivalent. However, the difference between
Whether
or

not this

them makes a difference. The first describes obedience to God (but without mentioning the only referent this obedience has in Johnsons analysis, i.e., Jesus submission to the death that God has decreed for him) and a life lived in selfless love. On the other hand, the second describes only a willing martyrdom (i.e., an obedient death that expresses selfless service) that is not necessarily preceded by a life of loving service to others. I focus on this difference because, while it is beyond question that Marks Jesus accepts his martyrdom in obedience to God, it is far from clear that Mark portrays Jesus life as one of selfless love. One problem is that if we try to identify stories in Mark that show Jesus acting out of love for others, it is surprisingly difficult to find any. The exorcisms and healings in Mark can be taken as acts of love, but that is not how Mark seems to see them. We expect to find references to Jesus love, or at least his compassion, in these stories (and we can find them in several of Lukes adaptations of them), but they simply are not in evidence in Mark.3 (The only occurrences of love in Mark are in 10.21, where Jesus loves the rich man, and in 10.2931, where Jesus quotes the commandments to love God and neighbor.) Mark interprets Jesus healings and exorcisms as eschatological acts (3.23-27) and uses them to focus attention on Jesus extraordinary power, not his love. Let me be clear. The issue here is not what Jesus may have intended by his healings. According to the terms in which Johnson frames the problem, the issue is how Mark deliberately shapes the stories about Jesushealings. 14 Let us assume that if we could somehow ask Mark personally, he would not deny that Jesus miracles were deeds of loving mercy. But that is beside the point. The question here is into what pattern Mark has pressed this tradition of Jesus the wonder worker. My answer is the same as Johnsons: the pattern of Jesus the suffering Son of Man.
13. The textual variants in Mk 1.41 are a curious anomaly: is Jesus reaction to the leper one of pity or anger? The UBS third edition prints pity (σπλα&gam a;χην&iacgr;σ&thetas;ϵ&iacgr;&sfgr;) but gives it a D rating. But anger (&Oacgr;ρ&gam a;&iacgr;σ&thetas;ϵ&iacgr;&sfgr;) is surely the more difficult reading, and hence probably the more original. 14. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 154.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

107

might say that Jesus miracles count as acts of selfless love because he performs them on behalf of others even though they put his life in danger. But this is not how Mark tells the story. It is not the exasperation of his enemies at his miracles that leads to his death. On
One
the surface of Marks
cause

narrative, Jesus enemies decide to kill him beof his extravagant claims about himself and his deliberate flaunting of Jewish traditions like the sabbath law (Mk 2.1-3.6). At a more fundamental level, however, Jesus death for Mark is simply and mys teriously the fate God has decreed for him. Another problem with describing the Markan Jesus as a man of selfless love are the disturbing indications to the contrary, such as Jesus disowning of his family (3.31-35), his declaration that those who accuse him of having an unclean spirit cannot ever be forgiven (3.28-30), and his strategy of teaching in parables so as to deliberately hide the meaning of his teaching from outsiders and thus deny them the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness (4.10-12). Not only are very few of Jesus deeds characterized by Mark as acts of selfless love, but very little of Jesus teaching has to do with loving or serving others. Johnson cites only two passages (9.35 and 10.43-45) that deal with service, and it is difficult to come up with any more than these.&dquo; When Jesus refers to his own service, it is in the context of his death ( 10.45). For Mark, Jesus death is his sen~ice: his blood is poured out for many (14.24) and he gives his life as a ransom for many (10.45). Johnson is thus correct that Marks portrait of Jesus is shaped by the pattern of suffering in service to others. Johnson is mistaken, however, when he later describes a pattern of suffering in obedience to God and selfless love toward others, because this implies that there is a pattern of selfless love in addition to one of martyrdom. The difference between suffering in service and suffering and service is crucial because the whole point of Johnsons characterization of this pattern is that it sets up a paradigm for discipleship: being a Christian entails imitating the pattern of Jesus life. This is exactly how Mark proceeds and it is unquestionably true that he defines discipleship in terms of ones willingness to suffer martyrdom for the sake of
15. This theme is played out in John (see Jn 11.45-53), but not in Mark. 16. See, for example, the δϵ&iacgr; of Mk 8.31 and Jesus prayer in Gethsemane. 17. Mk 10.21 should probably be added. Here Jesus speaks to a rich man: Sell what you own, give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then, come, follow me.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

108
Jesus and the gospel (8.34-35). Marks Jesus lays down other non-negotiable demands, such as becoming the slave of others (which Johnson also recommends), hating and abandoning ones family, and selling everything and giving it to the poor (about which Johnson is silent). Still, martyrdom is the primary aspect of discipleship for Mark. The exhortations to become the slave of others are quite general and lack reference to any specific incidents in the life of Jesus. (Which example in Mark of Jesus enslavement to others is a disciple supposed to

imitate?)

According to Mark one is a true follower of Jesus only to the extent one is prepared to be martyred in his name. For Marks audience martyrdom was a real, if unlikely, possibility and so we can appreciate the uncompromising vision of discipleship with which Mark challenged his audience. The problem comes when Johnson claims that this pattern is still normative today. Contemporary governments (at least the ones under which most of Johnsons readers live) are not particularly interested in executing Christians. So if martyrdom is the measure of discipleship, what do you do when no one wants to kill you? The Markan pattern, horrifically relevant to Marks situation, is now, thank
that

God, obsolete.
All this helps us see the logic by which Johnsons initial suffering in service to others (the pattern perceived in Mark) turns into radical obedience to God and selfless love toward other people (the pattern claimed to be common to all four canonical gospels).~ If we take Marks pattern in the terms in which Mark expresses it, there is little if anything for contemporary First World Christians to imitate. They can, of course, do what homiletic practice has done to Mark for centuries : make the pattern usable by redefining its terms of reference, treating the cross as a cipher for all manner of difficulties (from terminal diseases to annoying co-workers) rather than an unambiguously literal reference to death by crucifixion. But Johnsons transformation of the pattern is more subtle and more sweeping. He alters the Markan pattern in two ways, both of which are crucial if the pattern is to speak to a contemporary audience. (1) Marks martyrdom in obedience to God becomes Johnsons radical obedience to God. Readers can forget (and Johnson does not remind them) that the Markan Jesus obedience to God is hammered out on the anvil of the cross. Not my will but yours be done is not a generic expression of obedience but an anguished
18.

Again, whether Johnson makes this move intentionally is irrelevant.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

109

acceptance of a horrifying death. Johnsons radical obedience

to God is thus abstracted from the specificity of Marks narrative. (2) As analyzed above, Marks suffering in service to others becomes Johnsons selfless love toward other people. Johnson abandons the specifically Markan manner in which Jesus service is portrayed in favor of a generic formulation of a universal human ideal. Both of these modifications work in the same way: they remove the pattern from its Markan martyrological context. Johnsons final formulation of the pattern requires cutting it free from its roots in Marks peculiar narrative. The irony in this is striking: Johnsons pattern no longer reflects what may be called the historical Mark. It is a pattern that originates in Mark, but is given its concrete formulation, not by the specific contours of Marks narrative, but by the context of the New Testament canon and the sensibilities of a modern audience. It is not Mark on Marks own terms, but Mark as harmonized with three other gospels and adapted to a contemporary context. The result, though probably not the intent, of Johnsons harmonization and modernization of Mark is to render the historical Mark functionally irrelevant for Christian belief and practice. Another irony has to do with Johnsons authorial stance within the scholarly debate. He roundly criticizes others for interpreting the meaning of Jesus within patterns not directly derived from the literary designs of the gospels.&dquo; Yet what Johnson does is no different from what he criticizes others for doing. He derives a pattern from Mark, but after he has traced it through Matthew, Luke, John and other New Testament texts, it emerges with its Markan martyrological coloring bleached out. Given Johnsons project of describing a pattern that is attested in all four gospels, a result like this is inevitable, for the only kind of pattern that could be common to all four would have to be formulated at a high level of abstraction. Obedience to God and selfless love for others is such a generic pattern that it is difficult to think of religious heroes from any theistic tradition to whom it would not apply. Johnsons inability to sustain a sharply focused pattern through the four gospels points to a deeper problem in his procedure. He begins with Mark and finds a pattern focused on Jesus as martyr. So far, so good. He then turns to Matthew and Luke to see if they retain Marks pattern or if they eliminate it in favor of other patterns they impose.

19. Johnson, The Real Jesus, pp. 54-55, for

example.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

110
He correctly concludes that they take over Marks pattern. But Johnson implies that Matthew and Luke do more than simply take it over-he gives the impression that the Markan pattern is somehow determinative for Matthew and Luke. Here is where the trouble begins. The pattern of Jesus as suffering Son of Man and the paradigm of discipleship as following the way of the martyr is the one that provides the literary structure and thematic unity of Mark, but this is not the case for Matthew and Luke.

The Matthean Jesus Johnson claims that Matthew not only assimilates Marks pattern into his own gospel, but also that he amplifies key elements in it. Given the brevity with which Johnson states his case (half a page), it is unrealistic to expect a comprehensive argument. Nevertheless, the evidence he presents is both selective and ambiguous. For example, he claims that Matthew intensifies the picture of Jesus as suffering servant: he adds specific quotations from Torah [sic] that identify Jesus as the Isaian servant (Matt. 8:17; 12:18-21). These quotations (which are from Isaiah, not the Torah) relate Jesus status as suffering servant to his exorcisms and healings, not to his death. Thus, Matthews use of these biblical texts shows him altering Marks distinctive emphasis on Jesus martyrdom. That is, the evidence Johnson cites actually reveals how Matthew takes over Marks basic concept only to reconfigure it. In fact, Matthew modifies Marks pattern to such an extent that Matthews version of this pattern can be harmonized with Marks only by ignoring what is most recognizably Markan about it. Johnsons assertion that Matthew takes up Marks pattern and amplifies parts of it is, at some level of generality, correct. However, the impression created by Johnson that Matthews portrait of Jesus is a more emphatic version of Marks suffering Son of Man is quite wrong. If we consider the whole of Matthews gospel, we see that the few passages Johnson selects from it to support his case are not well integrated into Matthews overarching portrait of Jesus or his distinctive understanding of discipleship. Matthews Jesus repeats the words of Marks Jesus about his coming crucifixion and about the need for his followers to prepare for martyrdom. But the important difference is that for Mark this is the essence of Jesus mission and the essence of discipleship, whereas for Matthew it is only part of the picture, and
20. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 154.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

111
even the most important part. When we examine the places where Matthew develops his own understanding of the meaning of discipleship we find no mention either of martyrdom or the metaphor of slavery/ service. Let us consider three passages, all of them unique to Matthew and all of them located at crucial junctures in Matthews literary structure: (1) at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus first and greatest discourse; (2) at the midpoint of the gospel, as Jesus concludes his middle discourse; (3) at the conclusion of the gospel as a whole. First, the Sermon on the Mount concludes with an exhortation about the need to put the teachings of Jesus into practice.

not

then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell-and great was its fall (Mt. 7.24-27).

Everyone

Second, the pivotal discourse in Matthew (the third out of five) is the collection of parables in ch. 13, all of them dealing with various aspects
of the spreading of the Jesus asks,

gospel.

At the conclusion of these

parables,

Have you understood all this? They answered, Yes. And he said to them, Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old (Mt. 13.51-52).

Third, in the final passage in the gospel Jesus commissions the eleven

disciples.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you (Mt. 28.19-20).

comprehensive description of Matthews pattern of discipleship would need to consider much more material, but these three passages are Matthews own summary-conclusions. They thus reveal what he wants to emphasize about the meaning of following Jesus: understanding Jesus teaching, putting it into practice and teaching others to do the same. The final words of the gospel are especially important and perfectly clear: Jesus sends out his disciples, not to serve and suffer, but to baptize and teach.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

112

Yes, Matthew does reproduce Marks material about disciples folJesus on the way to the cross, but he neither emphasizes nor elaborates this aspect of discipleship and does not mention it at all in those passages that are distinctly Matthean. Matthew repeats this Markan material, but his real interest is in a different pattern of imitating Jesus. What is true of Matthews pattern of discipleship is also true of his portrait of Jesus. Matthew takes over Marks pattern of Jesus as martyr, but goes on to develop his own pattern of Jesus as teacher-like-Moses. So I do not deny what Johnson asserts: that we can find Marks pattern replicated in Matthew. But we find it there altered and marginalized. If we respect the integrity of Matthews gospel (i.e., if we take Matthew on his own terms) rather than selecting only those elements that harmonize with Marks agenda, we discover a complex and nuanced pattern, not all of the elements of which are easily integrated with each other .21 Johnson does Matthew an injustice by his facile implication that Matthew is essentially an improved version of Mark.

lowing

The Lukan Jesus Johnson makes a stronger claim about Lukes appropriation of Marks pattern than he does about Matthews. The pattern of the suffering Messiah is, if anything, even more central to the plot of the two-volume work called Luke-Acts.22 Johnsons brief treatment of Luke suffers from the same problem as his treatment of Matthew. He identifies similarities between the Lukan and Markan patterns of Jesus, but ignores the differences, as if the differences make no real difference. However, if we look at the way Luke reshapes the Markan pattern, the differences are as important as the similarities. The major difference has to do with the most fundamental aspect of Marks configuration: the equation of suffering with service, for as I argued above, Jesus death is his service according to Mark. The most important Markan passage on this is Mk 10.45, which comes as the climactic pronouncement of the third passion prediction, where Jesus teaches that his death is a ransom for many. So it is highly significant that Luke deletes just this phrase. That Luke objects to this specific verse is unmistakable because he

elegant analysis of how Matthew combines several soteriological that resist harmonization, see David Seeley, Deconstructing the New perspectives Testament (Biblical Interpretation, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 21-52, esp. pp. 48-52. 22. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 155.
an

21. For

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

113
the rest of the story to which it is the concluding statement (compare Mk 10.41-45 to Lk. 22.24-27). If we ask why Luke declines to echo Marks notion that Jesus death was a ransom, we discover that Luke portrays Jesus not as a servant-martyr (as in Mark) but as a

reproduces

prophet-martyr
fine distinction, the difference it makes is important: a martyred servant dies ,for his people, but a martyred prophet is killed bv his people. The death of a servant-martyr can be understood in some mysterious way (which, unfortunately, Mark never explains) to benefit others. But the murder of a prophet is a different matter, for it is a sign of the stubborn unrepentance of the people to whom the prophet is sent. Such a death benefits no one. On the contrary, it dooms those who do the killing, not so much because it is a murder, but because it is a rejection of Gods message in the person of Gods messenger. In Lukes view, Israel rejects Jesus just as it rejected all of Gods messengers, but it is this final and definitive rejection that brings catastrophe on Israel (see Lk. 13.34-35). In his oospel, Luke is careful not to lay blame for Jesus death on Israel as a whole 2 but it is the nation, especially Jerusalem, that suffers the consequences (see Jesus warning to the daughters of Jerusalem in Lk. 23.27-31 ). For Luke this is tragedy on a grand scale; hence all the weeping, both by Jesus ( 19.41-44) and the women (23.27), and the sober and shaken reaction of the crowd that witnesses the crucifixion (23.48). So Luke disagrees with Mark on the fundamental significance of the death of Jesus. According to Mark, Jesus dies because of his obedience to God; according to Luke, Jesus dies because of the disobedience of the people. The Markan Jesus comes to die; that is his mission. The Lukan Jesus comes to preach the prophets message of repentance and ends up suffering the prophets fate. For Mark the cross signals the success of Jesus mission.&dquo; For Luke Jesus death marks the failure of
While this may
seem a

23. See Robert J. Miller, Prophecy and Persecution in Luke-Acts (PhD dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1985), pp. 268-72. 24. Note, for example, the careful distinction in Lk. 24.20: our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. However, in the speeches in Acts, Christian spokesmen repeatedly identify all the people of Israel as the killers of Jesus (e.g., Acts 1.22-23, 36; 3.14-15; 4.27; 7.51-52; 10.39). 25. See Marks fascinating juxtaposition of the moment of Jesus death with the portentous ripping of the temple curtain and the public recognition of Jesus supernatural

identity (Mk 15.37-39).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

114

his mission and Israels refusal of its last chance to repent, with tragic consequences for Gods people.26 Johnson points out that in Luke-Acts the disciples suffer just like Jesus,&dquo; by which he implies that Luke promotes the same understanding of discipleship as Mark. But here also the differences are as interesting as the similarities. True, Luke reproduces Marks demand that disciples carry their crosses just as Jesus carried his. However, Luke subverts the martyrological connotation of this grisly demand: Jesus followers are to carry their crosses daily (Lk. 9.23). Here the cross is no longer the literal instrument of imperial execution, but a symbol for all manner of hardship. You can be put to death but once, whereas you can suffer rejection repeatedly. For Luke, disciples carry on Jesus mission and, like him, are rejected by those to whom they preach. Yet in Acts only two disciples (Stephen and James) are actually put to death, and neither of them on a cross. Those in Acts who work to spread the gospel suffer rejection, verbal abuse, denunciations, stonings, beatings, jailings and expulsions. Such is the prophets fate. When they are rejected in one place they move on to another, but always leaving behind the seeds of a Christian community. Thus Luke structures the plot of Acts to demonstrate that God uses rejection of these Christian prophets as the prime mechanism for the geographic spread of the gospel. 21 As for the other side of the disciple paradigm that Johnson finds in the gospels, loving service to others, Luke shows very little interest in it. More than the other evangelists, Luke draws attention to Jesus compassion and love, primarily through the way he relates Jesus healings. However, when he narrates the model behavior of the apostles in Acts, we see little of this. Yes, they occasionally heal; but the primary emphasis is on spreading the gospel through preaching, not on selfless
love for others.

Tradition and Innovation in the Gospel Patterrzs Both Matthew and Luke use Marks narrative structure as the outline for their own narratives. Both use much more of Marks content than

explication of Lukes presentation of Jesus death as a national tragedy interpreted against the background of Jewish prophecy, see David L. Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 65-96.
a

26. For

lucid

27. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 155. 28. See Miller, Prophecy and Persecution, pp. 257-86.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

115 omit. So it is not particularly surprising that they both make use of Marks pattern of Jesus as the suffering Son of Man and of Marks notion that disciples must be willing to endure persecution. However, Johnsons claim is far stronger than this. He maintains that Matthew and Luke do much more than simply make use of Marks pattern: he claims that they make it fundamental to their own gospels.

they

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke develop the image of Jesus in a distinctive way. Yet each keeps this same fundamental image of Jesus as the suffering Son of man. Each retains the Markan passion account and develops it even further. Each maintains the threefold prediction of the passion. By this means, they place Jesus ministry of teaching and wonder-working within the framework of rejection and suffering. Something more than respect for a source is at work here. Matthew and Luke feel free to alter virtually every other aspect of Mark, but thi.s inuye of the su/ferin,y One they do not alter in the least. Luke and Matthew accept the Markan interpretation of Jesus as religiously true. Their expansions and elaborations confirm rather than suppress this aspect of Jesus

identity

Johnsons position here is half true. It is true that Matthew and Luke build on Marks passion narrative and reproduce Marks passion predictions. It is true that they do not suppress Jesus suffering.30 But the other half of the truth that Johnson does not state is that they both subsume Marks pattern into their own distinctive ones. The basic point I am arguing is that both Matthew and Luke adapt, supplement and modify Marks pattern to such an extent that it is inaccurate and misleading to give the impression that they reaffirm and reinforce Marks pattern. Johnson creates just this impression and cites a few Matthean and Lukan verses to make it seem plausible. However, the passages and thematic elements Johnson refers to do not represent distinctively Matthean or Lukan configurations of Jesus or discipleship, if these gospels are taken as a whole and understood on their own terms. Johnson has to work very selectively in order to derive the same pattern from all four gospels. There is nothing objectionable about selectivity per se. It is, in fact, unavoidable and necessary inasmuch as
29. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 154 (emphasis added). 30. It is not true that Matthew and Luke do not alter in the least Marks image of the suffering One. A crucial notion in Mark is that Jesus death was somehow a ransom for others, a notion that Luke carefully excises. This is a major alteration. Lukes change of Marks demand that disciples carry the cross to his own requirement that they carry the cross daily is also a major modification in the pattern of

discipleship.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

116

interpretation highlights certain elements of something ignoring others. Selectivity only becomes a problem when it suppresses contrary evidence or silences countervailing voices. The gospels are built largely out of traditional materials that had lives of their own prior to their inclusion in a gospel. In those previous lives these materials were formulated and held together according to interpretive patterns that the evangelists may or may not agree with or choose to reinforce. The evangelists often make use of traditional material but configure it according to their own patterns, thus endowing it with new
every act of

while

and different its

meanings.31

Evangelists can thus incorporate earlier material without taking over meaning. Still, some pieces of the earlier patterns remain as unintegrated elements in their new literary settings, which enables us to discern (usually only partially) what meanings these materials had in their earlier lives. This is what makes possible the search for the historical Jesus. It is also what makes it possible for Johnson to find in Matthew and Luke pieces of Marks pattern. However, Johnson proceeds selectively, locating elements of the Markan pattern in Matthew and Luke while not adverting to the abundant evidence that they use Marks material to create new and distinct patterns. Any biblical scholar allowed the same degree of selectivity that Johnson grants himself could dip into these gospels, come up with a different set of passages, and on this basis describe patterns quite different from the one Johnson finds.
3. What Kind of

Reality is the Real Jesus?

At the heart of Johnsons rejection of the quest for the historical Jesus is his belief that it cannot sustain religious commitment. He argues that the historical Jesus is an artifact of intellectual labor and so is not a fit object of Christian faith, which is only properly centered on the risen Christ. This distinction, Johnson insists, is of absolutely fundamental

importance .

31. An obvious example of this process is how Mark uses traditional material about the disciples and arranges it into an unflattering pattern in which they fail to grasp what Jesus tries to teach them. Matthew was aware of this pattern and systematically altered it to make the disciples into intelligent followers who understand what Jesus teaches.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

117
Christians direct their faith not to the historical figure of Jesus but to the living Lord Jesus. Yes, they assert continuity between that Jesus and this. But their faith is confirmed, not by the establishment of facts about the past, but by the reality of Christs power in the present. Christian faith is not directed to a human construction about the past; that would be a form of idolatry. Authentic Christian faith is a response to the living God. whom Christians declare is powerfully at work among them through the resurrected Jesus.32

If taken out of the context of Johnsons larger argument, this declaration could seem a flirtation with Docetism. Only the point about the continuity between the risen Jesus and the historical Jesus keeps it from being a denial of his full humanity. If this continuity is to be more than purely formal, it has to include concrete content about the historical Jesus. Commitment to the risen Christ that is not fleshed out with some notion of the specifics of Jesus historical life would be an evasion of belief in Incarnation. Johnson argues that this content is available neither in the gospel narratives nor in reconstructions of the historical Jesus but in two other sources: the very few facts about Jesus that are beyond any reasonable doubt (primarily that he was a Jew who was crucified around 30 CE) and the gospel pattern that communicates the meaning of his life (a life of obedience to God and love of others). In Johnsons schema then, belief in the risen Christ entails belief in this pattern. And the truth of this pattern is confirmed in the same way that belief in the risen Christ is confirmed: not by the establishment of facts about the past,33 but by the reality of Christs power in the present .34 In the case of a reality that allegedly can confirm a belief, it is important that we clarify its ontological status. This reality is the reality of religious experience, in the same class as other realities testified to by religious believers, such as the reality of the infinite compassion of the Buddha, the reality of the loving protection of Lord Krishna, the reality of the divine authority of the Quran, the reality of the stillness of the Tao, the reality of help from Catholic saints, the
32. Johnson, The Real Jesus, pp. 142-43. 33. I presume that Johnson expresses himself somewhat loosely here, since he argues earlier in the book for the historicity of some very basic facts, such as the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion ( The Real Jesus, pp. 112-17). More precisely, then, Johnson maintains that Christian faith depends on the establishment of some facts about the past, but only on those that Johnson himself establishes. 34. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 143.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

118
maternal care, and many other similar realities. When we consider the evidence from the ancient world, nothing allows us to assume that the saving power of deities such as Isis, Asclepius and Mithras was any less real to those who experienced it than the saving power of Christ was to early Christians. Christians should have no difficulty recognizing that these other realities are interpretations of experiences that are mediated and supported by communities of belief. These interpretations are attempts to name and understand experiences that would otherwise be ineffable.;5 They are, in short, human constructions. If that is true of these other realities, it is difficult to see why it is not also true of the reality Johnson calls Christs power in the present. Johnson denies that Christian faith is a response to a human construction; it is rather a response to the living God whom Christians declare is powerfully at work among them through the resurrected Jesus.36 This can only mean that for Johnson this Christian declaration is somehow not a human interpretation, for if it was, Christian belief would be a form of idolatry. 37 Johnson thus stakes out a standard position in religious apologetics: the claim that ones beliefs (unlike those of others) are not human interpretations and thus not encumbered by the frailty and fallibility of human knowing; rather, ones beliefs reflect some privileged revelation of God. Johnson maintains that all four canonical gospels present the life and death of Jesus in exactly the same pattern of meaning. I have argued that when we take the individual gospels on their own terms, no single pattern is evident, but rather an irreducible diversity of patterns.&dquo; Johnson does not claim that all the gospels say the same thing. In fact, he acknowledges the diversity of their narrative presentation of the

reality of Gaias

35. This is not the place to argue this well-known position in the philosophy of religion. Those who are interested in a full treatment of this understanding of religious experience can study the brilliant An Interpretation of Religion by John Hick (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). 36. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 143. 37. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 143. 38. Johnson acknowledges that some traditional material used by the evangelists contains other patterns, but holds that these patterns are not endowed with the authoritative status of the one dominant pattern. These elements of the Jesus tradition are not made normative in the way that the pattern of obedient suffering and The Real Jesus, p. 166). loving service is (

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

119
life and teachings of Jesus.39 There are several gospel narratives about Jesus because there were several interpretations of his life, death and teachings. If we recognize that these gospels present the meaning of Jesus existence in a diversity of patterns, we must likewise acknowledge that these different patterns are themselves interpretations. Since, for Johnson, Christian faith entails belief in the uniform pattern he describes and since he asserts that Christian faith is not directed to a human construction ,40 Johnson cannot allow that the gospel pattern he champions is a human construction. It is therefore crucial for him to argue that the gospels contain only one authoritative pattern, for if we think there is only one pattern, its status as an interpretive artifact is less transparent to us than if we recognize several of them. The thesis that all the canonical sources manifest a single pattern thus makes it easier not to notice that this pattern is an interpretation, that is, a human construction. Having several patterns forces us to realize that different Christians interpreted the meaning of Jesus in different ways. Having only one pattern leaves undisturbed the uncritical assumption that such a pattern is not an interpretation of Jesus but rather a description of how he really was. This assumption is all the more plausible if one believes that this allegedly sole pattern was based on peoples memories about Jesus, a claim Johnson reiterates in his analysis of Paul.4 The appeal to memory is an appeal to history. And an appeal to history is a powerful claim to authority. The persuasiveness of Johnsons claim to authority depends very much on the impression he creates that the history he appeals to is not some reconstruction based on imperfect evidence, but rather a straightforward and uncomplicated account of what really happened. The final irony in Johnsons apology for what he calls the classical [Christian] tradition is that the historical

39. He refers to the establishment of the four-gospel canon as the churchs affirmation of the fourfold Gospels in all their factual diversity and disagreement ( The Real Jesus, p. 148). 40. Johnson, The Real Jesus, p. 143. 41. This pattern was not a late invention but rather an early memory, perhaps the earliest of formative memories, concerning "the real Jesus" ( The Real Jesus, p. 162, emphasis added). The reference to memories concerning "the real Jesus" is confusing inasmuch as Johnsons real Jesus is a figure of the present, not the past.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

120
Jesus matters very much to Christian belief, claims that he does not. 42
even

for

someone

who

ABSTRACT
A central thesis of L.T. Johnsons The Real Jesus is that the gospels manifest a uniform pattern that discloses the meaning of Jesus life and death and the paradigm of discipleship. This pattern, Johnson claims, is the same in all four gospels. This essay demonstrates that Johnsons thesis is wrong. I argue that the gospels have distinctive patterns that differ significantly from one another. Furthermore, no one gospel actually contains the pattern Johnson describes. Johnsons uniform pattern depends on a selectivity that suppresses contrary evidence and ignores the integrity and distinctiveness of the individual gospels. Johnson also contends that the historical Jesus is irrelevant to Christian faith, which must be directed toward the risen Christ. However, by asserting that the gospel pattern he proposes is embedded in the earliest Christian experience and memory, Johnson covertly appeals to the historical Jesus as the authoritative grounding for the object of Christian faith.

42. I wish to thank Roy Hoover for his careful attention to an earlier draft of this essay and his judicious suggestions that have improved it. For a critical analysis of several aspects of Johnsons book not discussed here, see Robert F. Miller, History is Not Optional: a Response to The Real Jesus by Luke Timothy Johnson, BTB 28.1 (February 1998), forthcoming.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013