★★★★★ 5
A Case for Jesus' Divine Self-Conception
Format: Kindle
This is a very meticulously reasoned argument attempting to show that Jesus had a Divine self-conception. That is, Jesus believed, and claimed, that he was God.
Pitre begins by posing C.S. Lewis’ famous “trilemma” to the reader. If Jesus claimed to be God, we have three ways to respond – he was either a Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Pitre’s work in this book strives to bring us back, face to face, with this trilemma. To accomplish this, Pitre needs to defeat another popular notion in the modern mind – that Jesus, or at least much of the Gospel material about him, was a “Legend.” If Pitre can show that Jesus did, in fact, historically claim Divinity, we will be forced to respond to his claim and answer Jesus’ own question for ourselves – “Who do you say that I am?”
To accomplish this Pitre first attempts to show that the Gospels are historically reliable. He believes that, contrary to modern scholarly opinion, the Gospels were indeed written by the authors they have been attributed to (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), that they were intended to portray historically accurate biographical pictures of Jesus, and that they were written much more closely to the time of Jesus than liberal scholars assume (Pitre tentatively dates the synoptic Gospels all before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70). These three pieces of evidence – authorship, intent, and dating – all lead Pitre to the conclusion that the Gospels give us historically accurate information about Jesus.
After setting the stage by arguing for the accuracy of our sources, Pitre delves into the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and tries to show that although it is not always explicit (i.e. Jesus doesn’t say “I am God, worship Me.”) even the synoptics portray Jesus as claiming Divinity. Using evidence such as Jesus’ use of the titles “Son of Man” and “I Am,” prophesy from the book of Daniel, Jesus’ “stilling of the storm,” the transfiguration, the pronouncement of the forgiveness of the parlytic’s sins, the riddle about the Son of David being David’s “Lord,”, the crucifixion, and the resurrection, Pitre makes his case. In the end, he believes that not only do the Gospel authors portray Jesus as Divine, but that these claims came from Jesus himself.
Thus we are led, full circle, back to the trilemma. We can call Jesus Liar, Lunatic, or Lord, but not, according to Pitre, a Legend.
This was a really interesting read from a conservative scholar. His exegesis of many Gospel passages illuminate how the Hebrew Scriptures provide a much needed backdrop for understanding each story. The Gospels are much more nuanced than we might first think and oftentimes one saying or image may evoke whole passages or concepts from the Old Testament that would have been apparent to early Jewish readers. As Pitre argues, understanding the Jewish context of the synoptic authors helps in understanding their Christology.
In the end, I agree with Pitre that the Gospels are generally more historically accurate than “mainstream” scholars give them credit for. I think it’s plausible that the Gospel titles reveal their true authors and that they were written fairly early after Jesus’ death (before the fall of Jerusalem). I also agree that the Synoptics may implicitly ascribe Divinity to Jesus – although I don’t think that is an open and shut case. If there were more explicit cases in the synoptic Gospels where Jesus claimed Divinity, it would help his case. It still seems to me the only explicit sayings we have come from the Gospel of John, which even Pitre doesn’t seem to argue is historically reliable (at least he doesn’t focus on this in the book).
It’s probably outside the scope of this book, but I would have loved to see Pitre address the idea of Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet. He interacts with several scholars who accept this notion (EP Sanders, Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, John Meier) and it’s a viable option in the world of Historical Jesus scholarship. I think it’s a relevant topic in all discussions surrounding a Historical Jesus and can be a large factor in how one answers the question of Jesus’ identity.
This study is worth reading regardless of your theological persuasion, and Pitre’s arguments deserve serious consideration.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 3, 2016
