Theology Today - Vol 49, No.1 - April 1992 - BOOK REVIEW

The Christology of Jesus
By Ben Witherington, III
Minneapolis, Fortress, 1990. 310 pp. $24.95.

The opening line of this book by Ben Witherington, III, Associate Professor of Biblical and Wesleyan Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary, is: "Strange as it may seem, the question whether Jesus himself has a Christology has not been explored in a systematic way." To understand more precisely the aims of Witherington's study one may transpose this initial observation into two questions: Did Jesus have a christology? If so, what was it? These questions are necessarily accompanied by, even preceded by, another: How does one go about the investigation of the sources available to answer these questions? Attempting to answer these three queries is the agenda of Witherington's work.

Before turning to Witherington's monograph, however, it is important to recall that over the course of the past 250 years of biblical studies many scholars have concluded, through scrutiny of the sources available, that very limited answers, or no answers at all, may be given to the questions about Jesus' own christology. Witherington, however, draws different conclusions. So, at the outset, one should recognize that he is often swimming in a conservative stream against the flow of scholarship, specifically the currents of German and German-influenced research.

Witherington opens his study with a chapter on "Methodology and Historical Considerations." He faults the assumptions of many form critics, who understand that the resurrection faith of the early disciples and the manner of handling the Jesus traditions in the early church developed the materials so that, ultimately, a gap existed between the historical Jesus and the subsequent understanding of him in the church. Rather, Witherington insists, it is more likely there would be continuity between Jesus' self-understanding and the way the later church interpreted him. One should recognize that both Witherington and the form critics he faults are forming assumptions that direct the course and manner of their overall investigations: The form critics tended toward skepticism, whereas Witherington inclines toward acceptance; the form critics drew few or negative conclusions, whereas Witherington deduces more and positive results.

Furthermore, while acknowledging earlier studies that have fostered his own, Witherington explains his intention to fish with a big net. Unlike most scholars, he will not simply examine one strand of the Gospel materials, nor will he form his interpretation of Jesus "almost solely in light of either his Jewish background or a certain religionge-schichtliche approach" or simply examine passages where Jesus may or may not have used a title in reference to himself. Instead, he sets out to do some of all of this in order "to analyze the relationships, deeds, and

112 - The Christology of Jesus

words of Jesus in their historical context," using the tools of historical criticism, sociological study, and literary analysis.

The bulk of the book falls into three chapters with major and minor sub-parts. The work concludes in a fifth chapter: "Afterword and Conclusions." There is a helpful bibliography, and indices list Scripture references, modern authors, and subjects. Unfortunately, there is no index of Witherington's frequent references to extrabiblical literature. As is always the case, the book has both strengths and weaknesses. I shall list five pairs of these, and the elaboration and illustration of the weaknesses rather than the strengths should be taken as a token of my appreciation of the strengths of this work.

(1) The work is well-informed and shows clear signs of wide reading, sure comprehension, and eager engagement with the overwhelming range of New Testament studies, but this sophistication results in a dialogue with the secondary literature rather than a conversation with the New Testament documents themselves. There is too much citing, too much fighting, and too little exegesis. The positions of scholars are dealt with at length, whereas the New Testament pericopes are given rapid (not necessarily superficial) treatment.

(2) The study brings a wealth of parallel ancient literature, especially from Judaism, into its reflection, but, in this book about Jesus, there is little or no consideration of extrabiblical early Christian literature. For example, in reflecting on "the Son of Man" as a part of Jesus' language that may yield information concerning Jesus' self-understanding, Witherington works, at one point, in relation to 1 Enoch 62:5 and brings Mark 13:8,17 and Luke 23:29 into the discussion. There is, however, no consideration of the parallel passage in the Gospel of Thomas logion 79, although some scholars contend the passage in Thomas is the earliest preserved form of this word of Jesus.

(3) This study is admirably concerned with the relationship between history and theology or christology, but the work is flawed by a pronounced tendency to avoid passages that do not readily yield to an interpretation that will support Witherington's line of argumentation. Where, for example, is a discussion of the Gospels' account(s) of Jesus' walking on the water (Mark 6:45-52; Luke 14:22-33; John 6:16-21)? No story more clearly points to the early church's continued reflection and creative insight into the identity of Jesus. While one should not draw a general conclusion from this single story about the whole relationship of the historical Jesus to the christology of the church, one also should not draw conclusions about Jesus' christology without taking this difficult story into account.

(4) The multi-faceted approach of this investigation corrects the lopsided conclusions of many narrow past works, but, at points, the particular and general logic of this study is questionable. In particular, analyzing the baptism of Jesus in Mark 1:9-11 and parallels, Witherington makes formal comparisons between elements of the scene in Mark

114 - The Christology of Jesus

and the apocalyptic visions in Revelation 1, 4, 10, and 21. He concludes, "This should be sufficient to show that what we have in Mark is a summary of an apocalyptic vision." In making this claim, however, he does not take into account the real differences between a scene in essentially biographical narrative(s) and scenes in a piece of apocalyptic literature. That aside, he goes on to argue "that Mark 1:9-11 is a very primitive summary about the decisive turning point in Jesus' life, which goes back to Jesus himself." Witherington moves from his observations of apocalyptic elements in Mark's story to his conclusion that Jesus uttered this report (in some form), but his logic is merely speculative argument. Observing these apocalyptic elements in Mark, one could easily argue, in nine or ninety-nine steps, that Mark knew that Jesus was baptized and that shortly thereafter he began his ministry (or, better, that Mark knew merely that Jesus told his disciples that it was at his baptism that he clearly perceived God's will concerning the necessity of his ministry), and, then, Mark (or an earlier Christian) composed this account to dramatize the significance of this moment-not an unreasonable conclusion when this story is viewed through the lens of Gospel parallels. Witherington's reasoning here is typical of a general assumption underlying this study: For a story to be true, it has, somehow, to be historical, even in its details.

(5) This book is a bold attempt to address and to fill a lacuna in New Testament studies, but having faulted (perhaps correctly) the work of earlier form critics, Witherington seems unaware that he operates with significant assumptions himself. For example, after referring with approval to the work of others that suggests that "Greek was widely known in first-century Palestine, especially in Galilee," he writes, "Thus, it is possible Jesus' disciples, even before Easter, began to translate Jesus' sayings into Greek. . . . Jesus himself may have spoken publicly in Greek. . . ." In the Gospels themselves, there is not a single concrete datum in support of these contentions about what is "possible" and what "may have" occurred. Too often, assumptions, rather than exegesis, guide the work to its conclusions.

In the end, Witherington can conclude: (1) Attempts to fit Jesus into any one category fail because of the inadequacy of any one category to define him; (2) All the evidence points to Jesus' understanding himself to be God's Messiah/Christ, God's royal Son who was endowed with the Spirit for a mission to Israel; (3) Jesus referred to himself as "the Son of Man," that is, Israel's representative in final judgment and suffering; (4) the church's later high christology is built on Jesus' own words and deeds; and (5) while he affirmed monotheism, ". . . Jesus had a transcendent self-image amounting to more than a unique awareness of the Divine." In short, in the Gospels and in orthodox theology, there is a lot of Jesus and very little of the church.

In general, this is an admirable contribution to scholarly studies of Jesus and his self-understanding. The work is a fresh approach in several ways, but like other Jesus books, it reflects the author's biases

116 - The Christology of Jesus

as much, or more, than the demonstrable facts. Thus, one still hopes for a balanced study from the conservative side.

Marion L. Soards
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Louisville, Kentucky