On “Recent” Books and Tendentious Authorial Remarks

A while back our good friend Nick Norelli asked at what point does a book cease to be recent, and his inquiry generated some thoughtful answers (particularly from Steph Fisher and James Spinti). His interesting question came to mind the other day as I thumbed through a brand new book by one L. Michael White, Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite (New York: HarperOne, 2010), at the Religion section of the local Borders. White’s preface begins as follows:

“Jesus is under fire.” So says a recent book by evangelical [sic] apologists in reaction to most, if not all, forms of New Testament scholarship. At stake, they argue, are the grounds of all Christian belief, the “truth” of the Gospel. So it seems that the battle lines are clear and unmistakable: those who believe versus those who don’t. Those who question historical points in the Christian Gospels or propose a different vision of what Jesus said on a particular occasion or meant on a given topic are summarily lumped together in a vast and godless army, the enemies of Christ and Christianity.

There is much to object to in this one short paragraph (more on that below), but I immediately recognized the “recent book” in question to be Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, edited by Michael Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, and published by Zondervan in 1995. Am I alone in wanting to know which criteria, exactly, qualify a 15-year-old book as recent? In February of 1995, when Jesus Under Fire was published, I was still a junior in high school!

But this is the least problematic of White’s baffling comments. For a start, the reader can immediately sense that the designation “Evangelical apologists” is here a blanket term of opprobrium, clearly implying that a commitment to the historical reliability of the Gospels (which is what the “apologists” are defending in this case) necessarily betrays a rabid anti-intellectual streak. Indeed, we are given to understand that only a blind ideological opposition “to most, if not all, forms of New Testament scholarship” can account for the acceptance of such an obscurantist view.

These protestations of fundamentalistic opposition to Biblical scholarship are all the more remarkable when one considers that the first four chapters of Jesus Under Fire were written by four New Testament scholars of considerable gifts and superior training: Craig Blomberg, Scot McKnight, Darrell Bock, and Craig Evans. These scholars have all published widely on Jesus and the Gospels, and it is surely a stretch to suggest that they oppose “most, if not all, forms of New Testament scholarship” simply on account of their Evangelical commitments. I doubt that White would deliberately engage in blatant misrepresentation, so I must conclude that this is a case of judging a book by its cover, without regard to its actual contents.

Now it is clear that Jesus Under Fire was written by Evangelical authors with apologetic aims. It is equally clear, however, that the book’s main target is not some apocalyptic “vast and godless army” of “enemies of Christ and Christianity,” but rather the sensationalistic stunts of the Jesus Seminar. (Readers will recall that, a decade and a half ago, the Jesus Seminar attracted wide media attention by regularly cranking out saucy headlines ready for the newswire.) I happen to believe that the authors succeeded in their aim of providing a cogent, popular-level counterargument to the dubious methodology and exaggerated claims of the Seminar from an Evangelical perspective. But, as has been often noted, it was not Evangelicals alone who found the Seminar’s  pontifications problematic: again, readers will doubtless recall that perhaps the finest rebuttal of their methodology and claims came from the pen of New Testament scholar extraordinaire Luke Timothy Johnson in his 1996 book The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. And indeed, White himself dedicates the next two paragraphs of his preface to the sensationalism, media hype, and conspiracy theories that he opposes to “real scholarship.”

Of course, White also opposes “real scholarship” to “conservative apologists.” By this he means the same sort of zealously anti-intellectual verbal dictationists of which he speaks in the first paragraph. But had he paid some attention to the contributions of Blomberg, McKnight, Bock, and Evans in Jesus Under Fire, he would have found scholars committed to the historical reliability of the Gospels with concerns not unlike his own. In fact, in his excellent and memorably titled chapter (“The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?”), Bock is at pains to discount the same two extremes that White rejects: that of the Jesus Seminar (which treats the Gospels as “jive”) and that of the dictationists (which treats them as a “memorex” tape). Perhaps they disagree considerably as to the historical reliability of the words and deeds recorded in the Gospels, but both seek to do justice to the literary artistry of Gospel composition by avoiding the very same extremesand therefore, whether White likes it or not, they merely live in different neighborhoods of the of the “live” district.

P.S.: I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the title Scripting Jesus is, to my mind, a thinly veiled marketing gimmick meant to capitalize on Bart Ehrman’s similarly titled (and enormously successful) Misquoting Jesus, also published by HarperOne. Since, as we know, the title of Ehrman’s book was the doing of HarperOne’s marketing department, I think it safe to say that we may lay this bit of chicanery at their feet as well.


4 responses to “On “Recent” Books and Tendentious Authorial Remarks

  1. I was a freshman in high school when that book was published! That’s far from recent! I don’t know that I want to give him the same benefit of the doubt that you do. Jesus Under Fire was quite popular and given his teaching post I have to imagine that he would have read it at some point throughout his researching career. I personally suspect that we have a blatant case of intentional misrepresentation, but then again, it’s quite common (as can be seen on any number of blogs in which the authors consider themselves ‘critical’ scholars) to label any/all conservative Evangelical scholars as ‘apologists.’


  2. Well, I doubt that he would’ve had to read it in the course of his research. I didn’t notice any meaningful interaction with good Evangelical scholarship while browsing the endnotes, and for the very same reasons you mention, the book would have been all too easy to ignore — except, of course, for use as a failed illustration in the first paragraph of the preface to his book.


  3. I wouldn’t fault him too much for the “recent” remark. I’m sure 15 years was a reasonable amount of time for the most eminent scholars of Evangelical apology to vote on how much of the book was really written by its purported authors. Besides, in the end, they probably concluded that most of it was not really written in 1995 anyway, but much later as a product of 21st c. oral traditions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s