On Jesus
(From the
Authored by Douglas Groothuis
Review by Mark McFall
Hidden within the voluminous secular set of the Wadsworth Philosopher Series, On Jesus seeks to empower the reader to better understand the philosophies of Jesus while simultaneously encouraging those involved in academia to reconsider Jesus’ place as an influential thinker. Its author, Douglas Groothuis, whose background involves being the associate professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary where he directs the master's program in philosophy of religion, argues Jesus’ philosophical outlook deserves a more serious consideration than what it has been getting in the academic community.
In chapter one, "Was Jesus a Philosopher?", Groothuis points out there is not an entry given to Jesus in the long standing reference work, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967); nor is there an entry given to Jesus in the more recent and well-respected Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998) where an entry on "Buddha" is included. To extend that point of criticism with a minor upshot, I’ll add that although the hefty reference work of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy also does not have an entry on Jesus, it does however place His name at the back of the book within a time-line chart of influential thinkers (O.C.P., pg. 947). Nevertheless, due to resources generally omitting any reference to Jesus, Groothuis sets out to define what it means to be a philosopher (while considering various views) and why he believes Jesus meets the criteria.
In Groothuis’ view, "the sufficient conditions for being a philosopher are a strong and lived-out inclination to pursue truth about philosophical matters through the rigorous use of human reasoning, and to do so with some intellectual facility" (pg. 5). True, while philosophers like Epicurus, Epictetus, Musonius, and Seneca, are known to have had that capacity, they tended to compound their outlook by employing system-building techniques which often (but not always) appeared complex to the general public. Groothuis observes, however, that although Jesus had this capacity as well, His methods were less complex; insisting system-building techniques needn’t be a necessity to be considered a good philosopher. After all, Socrates, or more recently, Wittgenstein, philosophized without system-building techniques and are considered great philosophers. In fact, Groothuis writes, the twentieth century German philosopher Friedrich Nietsche employed methods of philosophizing that were comparable to Jesus’ technique by way of parables, stories, and aphorisms: methods all deemed to have philosophizing value in the eyes of "nearly everyone" (pg. 4). Yet Jesus is omitted by reference works of a philosophical nature when Nietsche himself is often included [?]. Groothuis definitely gives us something to think about here.
Nevertheless, I think it would have been instructive for Groothuis to mention that unlike the detailed models and regulation which come from many philosophers (e.g. Buddha scriptures have 30 rules to curb creed, 75 rules on the processes to become a monk, 227 rules for male monks, and 311 rules for female monks), Jesus’ method of teaching encompassed uses of sharp maxims to create perimeters of interpretation. For instance, Jesus’ command: "Stop judging others, and you will not be judged" (Matt. 7:1), must not be understood in the sense of withholding personal moral judgments; after all, in the same context Jesus presupposes the necessity of forming judgments: "Don't give what is holy to unholy people" (Matt. 7:6). Similarly, Jesus’ comment: "But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other, too" (Matt. 5:39), must not be understood in the sense of resisting evil on matters relating to malicious wrongs (as opposed to retaliatory responses). Jesus exemplified that balance by forcing the money-changers from the temple. The point of consideration being: Jesus often set perimeters of interpretation so the hearer could act in the spirit in which he heard (i.e. "Go and do likewise" {Lk. 10:39}) rather than causing a person to look for identical situations in order to obey instruction. Unfortunately, as Groothuis observes, Jesus’ controversial identity and theistic interests often overshadow the notion that He caused or causes people to think in ways which qualify Him as a philosopher. In my opinion, chapter one was of considerable interest in this regard.
In chapter two, "Jesus in History," Groothuis sets out to uphold the reliability of the Gospels that communicate Jesus’ teaching. On this, Groothuis informs readers that Socrates and Jesus are on equal ground since neither left us any writings: the ideas of both philosophers have been preserved through the interpretation of authors. For Socrates, it was Plato who expressed his thoughts; for Jesus, it was four documents that emerged from what appears to be independent communities. While most people are less concerned on whether or not Plato got Socrates ideas correct (due to the fact that Socrates didn’t found a religion), efforts have been made by skeptics to undermine the Gospels which express Jesus’ thoughts.
In response, Groothuis mounts a standard apologetic defense which includes various arguments that give rise to Gospel reliability. Groothuis makes readers aware of significant gaps in classical recorded events in relation to first known manuscript copies. On that, Groothuis states, "Ceasar’s The Gallic Wars dates from 100-44 BC," and writes, "the earliest copy is from AD 900, with a gap of 1,000 years," and "only ten ancient copies of this document exist" (pg. 13). In comparison, because many very early Church Fathers either refer or allude to the Gospels in their writings, all the Gospels are seen (in academic circles) as being composed likely before the end of the 1st century. Further, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament, Groothuis tells us, not only numbers well "over 5,000 partial or complete" Greek manuscripts but that at least one of these fragments "dates to the early second century" (debatably within 100 years of Jesus’ death {pg. 13}). Other fragments soon follow in dating; and full complete present forms start appearing in the middle of 4th century. In that light, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament when compared to its nearest competitor (i.e. Homer’s Iliad or Tacitus’s Annals) is simply overwhelming. Hardcore skeptic, Jeffery Lowder (co-founder of Secular Web), once remarked that since he is not aware of any classical scholar who seriously questions the textual reliability of secular/classical works from antiquity he’s "willing to accept the textual reliability of the New Testament" though not its "empirical accuracy" (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html). While the manuscript evidence is certainly overwhelming, however, it must be tempered against the lack of motivation to laboriously copy documents not associated with religious significance.
Moving on to external sources on Jesus, Groothuis writes:
"Several historically credible sources corroborate some Gospel claims about Jesus. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his Antiquities (AD 90-95), one in reference to James ‘the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,’ and once in a longer and disputed passage. But at a minimum it can be plausibly argued that Josephus writes that Jesus existed, was known as virtuous, was crucified, attracted many followers, worked wonders, and was believed to be risen from the dead" (pg. 14).
Here, Groothuis correctly observes the Josephan passage referring to James "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" (Ant. Bk. 20) as being considered authentic (and I might add: by a landside of informed scholars). He then mentions there is also a "disputed" passage (i.e. known as the Testimonium Flavianum {
Further, Groothuis states, "several decades after Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus, Thallus, Pliny the Young, and Suetonius, also note the existence of Jesus," and even wrote "pertinent facts about his life, and the beliefs of his followers" (pg. 14). These "pertinent facts," however, seem to be a bit of an over-step. According to respected historian Paul Meier, "Josephus is our only independent non-Christian source of information about the historical Jesus in the first century," and comments, "there is just the bare possibility that Tacitus may represent another independent source at the beginning of the second century; but if so, he adds nothing really new" (Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1. pg. 92). Concerning Pliny, Meier states he is in effect "simply reporting something about what early Christians say or do," and "cannot be said to supply us with independent witness to Jesus himself" (Ibid, pg. 91). Beyond that, I’m not sure why Groothuis referenced Thallus who simply mentioned the darkness associated with the tradition surrounding Jesus’ death (whose report comes to us by way of surrounding suspicion; see: www.infidels.org/ library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus. html). These concerns aside, most skeptics accept the notion Jesus really lived anyway; and even a few of them, such as Jeffery Lowder, have written works on the reasons they accept that idea based on the New Testament documents alone (see: www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html).
On page 15, we see Groothuis correctly note that while the "Gospels are not biographies in the modern sense because they lack material that would be included today," they do however represent "focused accounts of the significance of Jesus’ life and teachings." As many skeptics seem to forget, the Gospels are not "news reports or exhaustive biographies." Rather, the Gospels reflect the finished product of a "few decades" of gathered information. By way of comparison, Groothuis writes, if we were to look at "the Buddhist Scriptures," we would see they "were not written down for about five hundred years after the life of Buddha" (pg.17).
Concerning the authorship of the Gospels, Groothuis leans in the direction of traditional authorship (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John); and if it holds up, Groothuis asserts: "the Gospel material is based on eyewitness accounts." Though Groothuis admits the Gospels would not be rendered unreliable if proven anonymous (a case that’s impossible to prove anyway because the texts themselves make no claim to authorship), he does little in the way of letting readers know that just because the Gospels may be anonymous it doesn’t mean they don’t contain embedded eyewitness materials. In other words, anonymous collectors don’t have to be eyewitnesses to report eyewitness observances.
On Gospel matters relating to differing chronological detail, Groothuis argues that differences "demonstrate an absence of a flat uniformity that would indicate collusion" (pg. 18). By implication, that argument also suggests Gospel materials circulated orally and in separate units before they were written down in documented form. So when skeptics point out the writer of John reports the driving of the money-changers from the
Groothuis then makes readers aware of Gnostic texts that reflect statements not necessarily known to have originated with Jesus, but nonetheless attributed to Him. On that, he correctly observes that the Gospel of Thomas has the closest point of contact with the synoptic Gospels but falls "short of the historical frameworks provided" therein; an insight that implies Groothuis is aware scholars generally see about 68 parallelisms out of a total of 114 reported sayings in the Gospel of Thomas (for specific verse parallels see: www.gospelthomas.com/).
Though Groothuis touched on other aspects of apologetic interest: in all, I thought chapter 2 was well written and on a level above popular apologetics. Because Groothuis used temperate language, I see nothing that would cause those informed on issues to lose interest in reading his book due to exaggerated hyperbole statements. Sometimes (skeptics would probably argue more often than not), the use of evidence by apologists to undergird strong held beliefs are over-asserted to make that belief appear more credible. To exemplify the point, Norman Geisler (Professor of "Theology and Apologetics" at Southern Evangelical Seminary) claims in his Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics that:
"Historical evidence that Jesus was supernaturally conceived of a virgin is more than substantial. Indeed, there are more eyewitness contemporary records of the virgin birth than for most events from the ancient world" (Geisler, pg. 764).
Other than the obvious, it must be admitted that we as Christians accept the virgin conception by way of unverified reports circulated through traditions Matthew and Luke preserve. [On: How did Matthew and Luke come to the knowledge that Jesus was conceived by divine means? See #13 On
In chapter three, "Jesus’ Use of Argument," Groothuis discusses methods Jesus used. He comments that the Gospels "contain argumentative encounters that reveal a strong concern for logic and argument" (pg. 23). Unsurprisingly, Groothuis cites atheist philosopher Michael Martin as asserting the contrary. According to Martin, Jesus’ "words and actions seem to indicate that he does not value reason and learning": after all, Jesus taught we must become like children "to enter the kingdom of heaven" (pg. 24). In response, Groothuis rightly points out in scripture that Martin has misconstrued humbleness for critical thinking:
And [Jesus] said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. (Matt. 18:3-5)
In Groothuis words, "the meaning of ‘become like little children’ is not ‘become uncritical and unthinking,’ but ‘become humble’" (pg. 25). If Jesus really meant for us to "become uncritical and unthinking," as Martin argues, Jesus certainly left bad examples. As the writer of Luke recalls, Jesus engaged Jewish theologians at age twelve and was able to leave them "amazed at His understanding and answers" (Lk. 2:46-47). While later in life we get a sense of His intellectual capacity for ritual law (Matt. 12:1-8), Jesus was also able to effectively respond to the Sadducees’ challenges on the Jewish sense of resurrection (Lk. 20:27:40). Here, as on other occasions, Jesus often left his challengers dumb founded (Lk. 20:40; Matt. 22:46; Mk. 12:24b). Since Groothuis touched on intellectual encounters (see pages: 26-35) which demonstrate that Jesus did not "praise uncritical faith over reasoning," chapter three was of considerable interest since so few resources cover this ground.
In chapter four, "Jesus’ Metaphysics," Groothuis brings our attention to the underlying principles behind Jesus’ philosophy. Unlike Buddha and Confucius, writes Groothuis, "Jesus articulated clear ideas about the reality of God, and He made that reality the core of his teaching" (pg. 36). To the masses, Jesus’ combined emphasis on the reality of God with pithy moral teachings was very appealing. Buddha and Confucius, on the other hand, though they held to similar moral principles, had no interest for godly orientation. Hence, in the case of Buddha, whose ideas and interests are voluminously recorded in the Theravada scriptures (a work 11 times the size of the entire Bible) and the Mahayana scriptures (5,000 Volumes), the appealing value is superseded by the simplicity of Jesus.
"In Jesus’ milieu, unlike our own," Groothuis writes, "there were few atheists, skeptics, relativists, or agnostics. In the Gospels, Jesus is never questioned about the existence of God. The main controversies for Jews pertained to the nature of true religion as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, and how to understand God’s dealing with his people" (pg. 37). Granted, while the Atheist community is certainly more outspoken these days, their current presence of 14% worldwide is still relatively few in number when the whole is considered. Nevertheless, there are echoes from our distant past that do have a skeptical bend. Take for instance Polybius’, Siculus’, and Seneca’s comments:
"Since the masses of the people are inconsistent, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death" (Polybius, c. 204 - c.122 BC).
"The myths about Hades and the gods, though they are pure invention, help to make men virtuous" (Diodorus Siculus, c. 20 BC).
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" (Seneca the Younger, c. 4 BC - 65 AD).
Further, though similar secular philosophers like Xenophanes, Parmenides, Lucretius, Democritus, Epicurus, Protagoras, and Aristophanes, never explicitly denied the existence of God, they were however skeptical of His existence: a root concern that goes back to the Academic and Pyrrhonian schools of ancient skepticism. In any event, Groothuis argues "Jesus believed in a personal God who was transcendent in being, immanent, and personal" (pg. 38). Regardless of God’s existence and nature, however, Jesus expressed ideas that continue to influence hearers on a massive scale.
On Jesus’ view of humanity, Groothuis comments, the worth of humans is presumed in Jesus’ statement of the Golden Rule: "We ought to treat others as we would have them treat us, since all people are worthy of respect and love" (Matt. 7:12). Though I will cover more of the Golden Rule later, Groothuis referenced it here to show that Jesus was interested in how humans ought to relate (pg. 40). Like the Chinese, Hindu, and Greek philosophers who touched on this ethic prior to Jesus’ day, Jesus was calling for a higher level of human relations.
Groothuis then discusses in the remaining pages of this chapter Jesus’ views on supernatural beings, the afterlife, and Hell. Many readers will probably see this section as covering ground they’ve all heard before, to some degree. However, the more knowledgeable readers (whose interests are prone to point out problems in technical matters) may wonder how well read Groothuis is on textual issues. For instance, while attempting to demonstrate that Jesus was "compassionate and forgiving," Groothuis states, "while dying on the cross, Jesus prays concerning those responsible for his crucifixion, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’" (Lk. 23:34; pg. 48). Skeptics are more likely than not going to point out that textual mainline scholars believe this verse was later interpolated into the existing text of Luke by Gospel-editors (e.g. Wescott/Hort, Metzger, and Comfort, etc.). While many skeptics like to make much of this, the verse is certainly compatible with the spirit of Jesus and therefore represents an expression in-line with His known philosophical outlook. To some, that might appear as a liberal judgment; but on historiographical grounds we find the same type of reporting by Plato on Socrates.
Moreover, even on matters relating to historical interests we find that ancient historians thought it was ok to express thoughts the original commenter would have likely said even though in actuality the commenter may have not said them. It was the historian, Thucydides (c. 500 B.C.), who disclosed the methodical approach of his day:
"As to speeches that were made by different men, either when they were about to begin the war or when they were already engaged therein, it has been difficult to recall with strict accuracy the words actually spoken, both for me as regards that which I myself heard, and for those who from various other sources have brought to me reports. Therefore the speeches are given in the language in which, as it seemed to me, several speakers would express, on the subject under consideration, the sentiments most befitting to the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said" (tr. Smith; Loeb).
True, other ancient historians weren’t so forthcoming about this, but Livy, Tacitus and Josephus (to name but a few) are known to have employed the same method of reporting. The point being, though Jesus may have not actually said those particular words (in Lk. 23:34), early Gospel-editors were unconcerned with adding a comment compatible with the spirit of Jesus’ known character.
While chapter four more or less serves to remind readers of ideas Jesus is known to have emphasized and taught, the context in which Groothuis discussed that reveals the underlining metaphysics involved in Jesus’ communication skills. For that reason, I thought this chapter was good in the sense it served.
In chapter five, "Jesus’ Epistemology," Groothuis argues that Jesus often used "factual evidence" to support "many of his affirmations" (pg. 51). These evidences include scripture fulfillments as well as miracle working that helped establish His authority in the eyes of company. On this, Groothuis states, "Jesus predicted that he would be executed and would rise from the dead ‘on the third day’" (pg. 52). This comment, however, in the context of "factual evidence" is concerning. Why? Well, many skeptics are aware that "critical [mainline] scholarship regards the predictions by Jesus of his own resurrection (Mk. 8:31, etc.) as creations of the post-Easter community after the event" (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, pg. 647). Skeptics are likely to jump all over Christians who use this argument in the way Groothuis asserts. Nevertheless, Groothuis proceeds to show Jesus did in fact make use of "empirical dimension[s]" elsewhere; in particular: post-resurrection demonstrations (Lk. 24:39).
From there, Groothuis reminds readers of situations where Jesus was able to handle intellectual dilemmas posed by theologians in such a way that re-focused the direction of argument back on them. Concerning less hostile settings, Groothuis comments that "like the Hebrew prophets before Him, much of Jesus’ teachings were parabolic, as opposed to discursive" (pg. 54). This methodical approach, which most scholars regard as an authentic technique of Jesus, reveals Him tapping into known and effective ways to communicate ideas. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), Groothuis observes the Gospels lack a record of Jesus engaging "atheists or skeptics" in confrontations: "He was never pressed to justify theism per se" (pg. 62).
In chapter conclusion, I thought Groothuis did a good job at outlining Jesus’ epistemology. After reading this chapter one is able to get a better handle on Jesus’ way of communicating as it relates to encounters with theists who tend to make the way to God complex.
In chapter six, "The Ethics of Jesus," Groothuis shows that Jesus emphasized good morals along with the notion of being interested in the philosophical outlook of God’s kingdom. While most skeptics are more willing to debate the idea of God’s kingdom, far fewer skeptics are willing to debate the ethics Jesus taught. In fact, believe it or not, there are atheists who actually encourage other atheists to heed Jesus’ teachings (Atheists for Jesus: www.atheists-for-jesus.com/index.htm), while some of the more hardcore skeptics will argue Jesus’ teachings were simply marginal, or rehearsed. Regardless, to reiterate, Jesus is known for upholding high ethical standards that were influential.
Turning again to the Golden Rule, Groothuis makes a remark I’ve seen other apologists make:
"Jesus presents what came to be called ‘the golden rule’ as another broad and affirmative ethical principle. ‘In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 7:12). This imperative is similar to the command found in the Jewish law to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:18). Negative formulations of a similar universal principle—don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you---appear in the literature of antiquity, but Jesus’ construction is positive and altruistic, rather than cautious or restrictive; it is outgoing instead of defensive" (pg. 70).
The implication here is that positive formulations of The Golden Rule don’t occur in antiquity. However, the secular Athenian Orator, Isocrates (436-338 B.C.), stated it using a positive formula: "You should be such in your dealings with others as you expect me to be in my dealings with you" (Nicoles 61). Similarly, the pseudepigraphical book of Second Enoch (c. 1st BC-3d AD) has it as: "Just as a man asks (something) for his own soul from God, so let him do to every living soul" (II Enoch, 61:1). Further still, the Jewish book of rabbinical thought known as the Mishnah states: "Let the honor of thy fellow be dear to thee as thine own" is attributed to R. Eliezer (m. ‘Abot 2: 10). Though it is true that The Golden Rule is more often than not communicated in a negative way outside of biblical usage, there are instances where positive formulas occur in antiquity.
On the recognition of sin, Groothuis brings to our attention that "one of Jesus’ parable reveals that those who admit their shortcomings before God are in the right and those who think they are right before God because of their good works are in the wrong" (see: Lk. 18:9-14; pg. 73); and states based on that implication, "the reverent and trusting attitude displayed by one of the two criminals crucified with Jesus warranted this response from Jesus: ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise’ (Lk. 23:32-43; pg. 74)." For that particular thief, the only belief he had was that Jesus was going to His kingdom, and he wasn’t, due to the life he led up to his condemnation. In Jesus’ mind, that belief was enough to alter the thief’s destiny and align it with His own. For many skeptics, that seems too simple. To them, one must readily accept
In chapter conclusion, I thought Groothuis beautifully communicated the ethical principles Jesus stood for and the influence He had on people. For that reason, it is difficult to understand why most philosophical resources pass over Jesus as if He was some two-bit obscure wonderer.
In chapter seven, "Jesus’ View of Women," Groothuis begins by enlightening readers of ancient cultural contexts surrounding women. In that era, states Groothuis, "women typically had little social or cultural influence" and they were often "limited to domestic life" (pg. 77). Non-religious records tell us women not only lacked political rights, but they also lacked credibility in the public domain. Even on legal matters, women were "disqualified from giving evidence" (Jewish Talmud, Baba Kamma 88a; Josephus,
In contrast to cultural norms, however, Groothuis points out that the "Hebrew Scriptures present several women as leaders worthy of respect" (i.e. Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Jael, Esther, and Abigail {pg. 77}). Here, skeptics are likely to point out specific verses where the Bible contains instances of degrading cultural scenes of women. However a reflection on the way in which the biblical writers handle those scenes suggests care in how they were telling the story as personal degrading expressions that reflect the attitudes of biblical writers are simply foreign in the text. Instead, you find biblical writers recording degrading scenes in their own cultural environment as they happened without emphasizing or imposing their particular views regarding women.
Concerning the New Testament, Groothuis informs us that some critics "often assail [it] for being sexist and patriarchal," but then notes that "it fares far better than other ancient documents" (pg. 77). On that, Groothuis brings our attention to a reported saying of Jesus found in the Gnostic text of The Gospel of Thomas:
"Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’" (
GOT, 114).
Though some atheists, namely biblical scholar Gerd Ludemann (yes, there are a few atheists who hold credentials that qualify them as a biblical scholar), suggest this passage was added at a later date (Ludemann, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 644), the basic point regardless of authenticity is that "women were held in low esteem" (pg. 78) around that general time. The Gospels, however, record Jesus overturning this type of ideology. Jesus not only taught women, but he even went so far as to commend women for their learning over and above those women who were only interested in carrying out traditional tasks (pg.81; see: Lk. 10:38-42). It is by that attitude that Jesus not only caused a stir outside of His circle but He also caused a stir within. Groothuis, in my opinion, does a good job at showing Jesus to be a revolutionary philosopher in the way he viewed and respected women (see also the present author’s essay: Women in Biblical Times ). At that time, only handful of philosophers (most notably: Gaius Musonius Rufus, Discourses 3 & 4. See: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/musonius.html ) stood on the threshold of reforming patriarchal society in that respect.
The only criticism I have of this chapter is that Groothuis didn’t mention the controversy surrounding the gender of the Apostle named Junia/Junias in Roman 16:7 (instead Groothuis simply explained why there were no women apostles). On that, not only do important Greek manuscripts differ on the gender, but many early Christians understood the person named here to be the wife of Andronicus. Nevertheless, to reiterate, Groothuis mounts a strong argument that shows Jesus to have a general concern for women that was out of the social norm.
Turning to the final chapter, "Who Do You Say That I Am," we read about Jesus identity. According to Groothuis:
"Many scholars have deconstructed the traditional Christian view of Jesus as the divine Messiah and reconstructed a host of various alternatives based on what they take to be factual in the Gospels. The Jesus Seminar finds very little in the Gospels that is rooted in the historical Jesus, and the few sayings it certifies tend to be pithy aphorisms and not the more theologically involved teachings. I addressed some of this debate in chapter two, where I argued for the essential reliability of the Gospels. Here I will present the Gospels materials and other New Testament writings that relate to Jesus’ identity. I will then take up a few of the philosophical questions raised by the Gospel portrait of Jesus." (pg. 86)
Groothuis goes on to present Jesus’ view of His relationship with God. He comments: "in a passage widely regarded as authentic even by many generally skeptical of much in the Gospels," Jesus stated: "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" (Matt. 11:27). Similarly, Jesus is reported as saying: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him" (Jn. 14:5-7).
Though we see Groothuis does have an interest for technical matters, we are more importantly reminded of the relationship Jesus believes he has with God: to many, this self-consciousnesses appears to promote an exclusive approach to encountering God; but if God exists, and if Jesus is really His Son, then it should come as no surprise that Jesus would see Himself as the link between man and God. Whether or not one is able to see Jesus in that same light, however, is entirely dependent on personal choice and/or God’s extended grace given individual circumstances. Further, one need not take Jesus’ statement to mean one has to also become religious in the sense of ceremonial rites or regulatory instruction (as implied by various church hierarchies); rather, Jesus’ statement revolves around the notion of His identity as it relates to God. In that light, Groothuis writes: "Without tentativeness or qualification, Jesus summons people to give themselves to his cause"; and quotes Jesus as saying:
"Those who would come after me must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their lives will lose them, but those who lose their lives for me will find them" (Matt. 16:24; 10:38).
According to Groothuis, "Jesus’ sense of certainty also extends to claims about himself, which carry with them—if true—profound consequences" (pg. 88). But the sense of certainty Groothuis is attempting to emphasize is softened at this particular verse (cf. Jn. 12:26 {as discussed in the next paragraph}) when one takes into consideration that scholars have grappled over the idea of Gospel authors over-stating what Jesus actually said by means of retrospect: if Jesus did utter those words (in the manner above), His immediate hearers wouldn’t have understood the significance of the "cross." After all, Jesus had not yet been crucified. To them, the cross was viewed as a torturous form of capital punishment of the worse kind (
Having said that, it is also true, Jesus as the Son of God had the ability to foresee events that would soon unfold; and hence, speak from the perspective of divine knowledge. However, while that is certainly possible, it’s my opinion we ought to first seek out more naturalistic explanations before we so readily accept Jesus’ use of divine knowledge at this juncture. For instance, the writer of John appears unaware of that particular doctrinal emphasis: "If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there shall My servant also be" (Jn. 12:26). Here, the basic idea that "Jesus summon[ed] people to give themselves to his cause" is still conveyed to the community in which John wrote; and to those (both then and now) who embrace many of the reports that surround His identity as it relates to God (i.e. Jn. 10:36-38): the motivation to follow Jesus is easily generated. For me, the knowledge of Jesus being the Son of God is given credible rise when one takes into consideration the social, academic, and Governmental hostility that led to His execution for publicly being considered as such.
Groothuis, in attempting to firmly establish Jesus’ identity, touches on passages viewed in many circles as clear and certain references to Jesus asserting both divinity and identity as the very God of the Old Testament. On that, Groothuis cites a number of deity verses (Jn. 8:58 as it relates to Ex. 3:14; and Jn. 20:28) that appear controversial in the eyes of those who either hold to a lower Christology or none at all. However, we would do well to remember that Jesus aligned the thief’s destiny with His own based not on any theological assent, but rather solely on the sincere thoughts of a condemned man with no foreseeable hope: "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" (Lk. 23:42). The condemned thief, who addressed Jesus without additional modifiers of religious significance (i.e. Christ, or Lord), received a surprising response from Jesus: "today you shall be with me in paradise" (Lk. 23.43). For me, like the thief, the very notion of thinking I’m headed in the direction of Jesus’ kingdom in light of what I know of myself is unfathomable: and no theological/religious assents are going to alter that destiny without some type of inward reflection and personal realization. The idea that Jesus would alter my destiny simply because I am aware that it is not aligned with His due to the nature of my being – would be a welcome surprise – of which I neither deserve nor expect – but gratuitously accept.
In evaluating Jesus’ statements, Groothuis invokes the argument popularized by C. S. Lewis’ dubbed the "trilemma" –liar, lunatic, Lord. Here, it’s asserted: Jesus either was a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. In Lewis’ words, "You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse" (pg. 90). Many skeptics over the years have dismissed this argument because it insists there are only three possible scenarios when in reality there are more, such as the possibility of the Gospels being unreliable. But Groothuis responds to that by prefacing Lewis’ argument with the idea of starting from the assumption that the Gospels are historically accurate. But we must ask: what skeptic is really going to start from that assumption? Beyond that, there are other possibilities that Groothuis didn’t head off, such as Jesus being honestly mistaken (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard _carrier/resurrection/4b.html). For those reasons, I don’t recommend using this particular argument. Perhaps, in the back of Groothuis mind, there is also a hint of concern. I only mention that because immediately after the "trilemma" argument Groothuis referenced a more sophisticated version (though problematic as well) by philosopher Stephen Davis (i.e. "Was Jesus Mad, Bad, or God?") to "leave" readers to ponder on.
On Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, Groothuis emphasizes the importance of resurrection belief and notes that every sermon by the early Jesus movement recorded in Acts would simply "collapse with out it" (1Cornth. 15:14). "Without the resurrection," Groothuis states, "the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament lose their vital center of reality, faith, hope, and love," and writes, "it is rational to believe that the Gospels were written by credible authors who would not likely manufacture falsehoods, particularly titanic falsehoods such as the resurrection of their founder" (pg. 93-94). On that, some skeptics argue the accounts where shaped by traumatized (due His death) and delusional people who started to tell stories of seeing Him alive out of their strong desire for that to be true (deception not being part of their agenda); but Groothuis brings to light apologist William Craig’s counter argument that successfully deflects that notion by presenting four "facts" scholars across the board generally agree upon:
1) Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea.
2) His tomb was discovered empty by women.
3) The disciples experienced postmortem appearances of Jesus.
4) The disciples suddenly came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead.
Pondering the idea of a legendary story in light of these facts, we must ask ourselves: How does one best explain these facts if the resurrection is purportedly legendary? A difficult question to explain, for sure, if you’re a hardcore skeptic (See: Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann's Hallucination Hypothesis: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/visions.html).
Other critics, writes Groothuis, "point out that there are inconsistencies in the details of the resurrection appearances," and that critics "use this as evidence for the falsity of the resurrection." Groothuis’ response: "one finds a difference of perspective—not a collection of differing fictions—that indicates authenticity instead of collusion" (pg. 95). Indeed, the fact that the resurrection accounts have been left unreconciled without any attempt to produce a single stereotyped connivance lends credibility to the fundamental honesty of those who transmitted the evidence: divergencies in the details of the resurrection narratives are such as one would expect from independent and excited witnesses (see: Resurrection Narratives (Fabrication, Contradiction, Or Reliable Core?))
In any case, though I too believe the resurrection of Jesus to be the most important factor of belief within Christianity, the incident with the thief leaves opens the question of whether or not ones passport to Jesus’ kingdom is dependant (as a prerequisite) on belief in the Gospel-fact of the resurrection of the Son of God. According to Luke by way of implication, the thief had no prior belief that Jesus would soon rise from the dead. With these things in mind, though I thought this chapter was good for purposes related to expressing the orthodox view of Jesus’ identity, Groothuis seemed to stay away from Gospel-reports that place question marks on orthodox theological correctness. In other words, there seems to be extended grace here.
Further, contemporary readers who are more skeptically orientated than previous thinkers are likely to be more interested in the literary evidences supporting the resurrection notion than on hair splitting theological debates surrounding His identity. Informed skeptics are aware resurrected saviors were a dime a dozen in the era when Jesus lived. For skeptics, the names: Jesus, Inannan, Zalmoxis in Herodotus, Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, Attis, Mithras, Adonis, and the Dioscuri brothers (to name but a few), are all synonymous because they revolved around various resurrection concepts. However, if we isolate individual characters and the evidences surrounding their particular resurrection we would see that Jesus’ has the greatest potential for realism. In that regard, most skeptics will reluctantly admit the strata of evidence supporting the claims surrounding Jesus are the best attested, "but cannot be rationally believed." In my opinion, this chapter could have benefited from taking this route so readers could see that the evidences supporting Jesus’ resurrection are of a kind that offer much greater credibility and realism than other resurrection claims, and that ultimately skeptical rejection of Jesus’ resurrection hinges more on one’s personal philosophical outlook than it does on evidential arguments of historical significance. (Also, see my debate with Farrell Till: OH-SIGH-RIS ).
By way of book concluding, structurally Groothuis’ book could have used an index to aid readers; in substance, the down fall of Groothuis book is that it lacks an interminglement of ideas between Jesus and other philosophers as well as a brief comparative look at why Christians embrace the resurrection claims of Jesus over other figures of similar (but not identical) report. If space was an issue, Groothuis could have accommodated for it by avoiding discussing issues more than once (I noticed that on several occasions). Had Groothuis incorporated these elements the likelihood of the academic community taking a second look at Jesus would have been increased. Further, since the book was published within a secular academic series, most of Groothuis’ audience will likely be familiar with many of the concerns I’ve pointed out herein. These deterring elements however could have been easily avoided had Groothuis first tested his ideas for weakness within an opposing context. Objectively speaking, familiarity with secular concerns increases written value.
Despite these shortfalls, every chapter of Groothuis’ book presents Jesus as an intelligent and persuasive philosopher worthy of academic acceptance. In that, I can see no fault. Unlike other great philosophers who spent many years formulating their system-building ideas, Jesus’ career as a philosopher lasted about three years and His impact as an influential thinker given that short time period is unsurpassed. On the other hand, though many of Jesus’ teachings were not unique, He certainly tapped into a higher level of moral excellence that few have been known to uphold with such strong and lived-out inclinations. Further, the demarcation that sets Jesus apart from Buddha, Confucius, Epicurus, Epictetus, Musonius, Seneca, and Muhammad (to name but a few), is that He alone, as reported through Gospel documents embedded with postmortem eyewitness observances of historical orientation, broke the barrier of death. Unlike the bones of buried and forgotten or enshrined philosophers (e.g. Buddha’s bones are reportedly enshrined in different countries; Muhammad’s bones are reportedly in
Though there is great value to be gleaned from other philosophers, philosophical resources of secular orientation are simply incomplete without fitting Jesus between the covers. My hope is that more books of this nature will hit the press and in time the various densities of religious fog that have a tendency to over-envelop the significance of Jesus the philosopher will dissipate enough to get Him deservingly noticed as a bona fide and expressive thinker.
------Postscript------
Other reviews:
http://www.cstone.tv/features/2003/January/books.htm#Jesus
-----------------
Other essays of interest by Douglas Groothuis:
Publications by Douglas Groothuis (offsite) http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/groothuis/pubs-DG/
--------------------
See also a debate that followed this particular review on Groothuis' book:
Some Godless Comments on McFall's Review of On Jesus - by Richard Carrier
A Look at Carrier’s Godless Comments in Review - by Mark McFall