Another Important Commentary From RMJ

THE ALWAYS WORTH READING RMJ wrote a critique of the passages from Luke Timothy Johnson that comes to some conclusions different from mine.   Certainly there are many such critiques that could be written and read for a good reason.  

Somewhere in my computer there's a piece I started pointing out that we don't even read the same stories on the same page of the same Gospel the same way Matthew 25:31-46, one of the passages I constantly come back to and Matthew 25:14-30, which, perhaps due to it concerning the investment of money,  has always left me somewhat cold.   And I never think of 31-46 in terms of "The Judgement Of The Nations" but the consequential commandment to do to the least among us what we would do to God.  

I'm not at all upset or concerned or annoyed that there are such radically different readings of Scripture or even the assumptions we base our readings on - even the same person reading the same Book will inevitably vary all of the factors in their reading, even the same passages at different times.  There are many things to be learned from reading those I wouldn't agree with and from having to think about those, sometimes coming to agree with them.  I think I mentioned that when I first read Johnson's book I didn't like it because I was still under the influence of John Dominic Crossan.  

I knew that Luke Timothy Johnson, and especially that non-scholarly critique of  other such popular and semi-popular books of a quarter of a century ago (how time flies!) would be an invitation for disagreement.  Much of what Johnson said and which I've typed out to post I don't know what I think of it in a developed way.   I certainly don't either disagree with everything John Dominic Crossan says - I've written positive things about him and, now, some negative things - and I would say the same about Johnson.  The series is opening things up, such as the questioning of the historical-critical method, even what we think of as the authority of history as determining essence of Christianity.  It should be clear that my thinking on that is preliminary,  I have admitted that I am so stuck in the general habit of thinking about that that having the possibility that there are other ways to think of it is really mind blowing.  

I will point out again that the book I've been excerpting, The Real Jesus isn't a book of Johnson's scholarship, I'm just beginning to look into that - wishing I could find an affordable used copy of his enormous first book on Paul.   His take on things is not the same as Walter Brueggemann's though both of them have been critical of the Jesus Seminar and J.D. Crossan.   Brueggemann's critique had a far stronger effect on me.

An irony that might have been pointed out in this is my admission that Hans Kung has had a huge influence on me when one of his defenses against his Vatican and hierarchical enemies was that he was looking at what the New Testament said as opposed to medieval theology to find what was authentic.  Certainly his view of authenticity is far different from others who claim the sole authority of Scripture.