Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis ed. by Zev Garber (review)

The title of this book will likely be misleading to many readers, as it was to the present reviewer. The phrase “the historical Jesus” stands out so prominently in the title that many scholars will jump to the conclusion that the essays gathered here engage with a well-known and highly developed area of research at the intersection of ancient history, archaeology, and New Testament studies. But that area is addressed rarely if ever. The names of influential figures like Albert Schweitzer, for instance, who opened the door to the historical study of Jesus, and John P. Meier, who is consolidating the results of more than one hundred years of ongoing research, never appear. As a result, by the time some readers get to the third chapter—if they get to the third chapter—they will be wondering what in the world is going on with this book.

But it would be a great loss if, for that reason, such readers were to close the book, put it down, and walk away—for there are valuable rewards here, precisely because they have little or nothing to do with early Jewish apocalyptic eschatology or the criterion of independent attestation. A more representative title would be something along the lines of Teaching the Jewish Jesus, or perhaps, Teaching the Jewish Jesus in Various Educational Settings, since the book is in fact a wide-ranging collection of personal essays, all of which bear on the pedagogical and moral issues involved in such an endeavor. Each of the authors is interested in Jesus, but each of them approaches that topic from a different perspective. Some focus upon him as a literary or cinematic character, while others engage with the use (and abuse) of Jesus in anti-Semitic discourses, and several explore the distinctive challenges of teaching about him in particular religious contexts.

One of the most interesting contributions, for example, is by Steven L. Jacobs, on the subject of “Teaching Jesus at the University of Alabama.” Noting that his primary task at the University is “that of a generalist responsible for introducing undergraduate students to the world of Jewish studies” (p. 50), Jacobs walks the reader through the method and content of Rel 347, a seminar on Jewish-Christian relations. Within this larger framework, the topic of Jesus does not come up until after the Hebrew Bible and the rabbinic literature have already been examined. “Because it is not the first topic addressed, by the time it presents itself, an environment of trust has, ideally, been built up, and Jewish students are comfortable enough with their colleagues to explain why they do not accept the Christ, and Christian students are comfortable enough to explain why they do” (p. 53; italics his). That kind of pedagogical insight is transferable to many controversial topics of discussion on college and university campuses, and not just the topic of Jesus, and not only in departments of religion.

Another strong entry comes from Joshua Schwartz, whose article, “Teaching Jesus in a Halakhic Jewish Setting in Israel: Kosher, Treif, or Pareve?” explores the distinctive challenges of teaching a course on Christianity at a religious university. In such a setting, “nobody is teaching Christianity for the sake of teaching Christianity and/or its affinity with Judaism. Christianity, even within my department and even in my own courses, is always taught in relation to something else. In my case, the ‘something else’ is settlement history, material culture, everyday life, archaeology, etc.” (p. 159). Here again, we encounter a transferable pedagogical insight, building upon J. Z. Smith’s affirmation that “a comparison is a disciplined exaggeration in the service of knowledge” (J. Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity [Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994], p. 52). Later, Schwartz goes on to describe the complications which come up in a course...