Before reading this book I would have never questioned anything in the Bible, especially the Gospels, like we have in this class. Growing up and going to church every Sunday this isn’t the type of stuff that you will hear about at a typical church service. I really enjoyed how the book questioned everything and how Norm made me feel like I was taking this quest with him. It was definitely a rewarding experience to step outside of my beliefs and look at how things might not be the way we think they are. We are generally always taught to see the very caring and loving Jesus and rarely taught about his rebel side.  Through this historical Jesus study I have learned that the way Jesus is portrayed by present Christianity is very different than the way he would be portrayed by earlier Christians.
      I have learned that with the historical Jesus studies and the Gospels that there is no clear answer about some of the things that happened in Jesus’ lifetime. With that being said, for everything written in the Gospels I have learned two things. The first being that the passages could have been shaped to earlier writings in the Old Testament, or they could have been completely made up to try and reach out and gain new followers for Jesus. Through this book I was introduced to intertextuality, and the criteria of embarrassment and multiple attestation. Knowing more about these ideas it really made it easier to be able and compare the different Gospels to one another. The topics that I enjoyed looking at most to try to understand the different ideas were Jesus’ resurrection and the virgin birth.
     Overall I took from this book that we all form our own image of Jesus and that we have to understand that each Gospel writer was doing the same thing. So when we read the Gospels we need to understand that they each formed their own ideas, just like we do. To sum this all up, the Man who traversed the land and the One who strides the Gospels has many faces (266).

Thinking of Jesus as a historical being as well as a spiritual being is a frustrating idea for a person who has only looked at the Bible as fact for their entire life. For someone how was taught that the Bible was fact and that you shouldn’t really question the content, studying the historical Jesus is a discouraging experience. This, perhaps, is why C.S. Lewis said (in the Screwtape Letters) that the study of historical Jesus was a tool to throw Christians from their walk with Christ. I was becoming rather unnerved while reading this book, just because, not that I had been taught not to question (my parents were very into me learning and deciding things for myself), but I hadn’t really thought to, outside of expanding on the story. Because this topic is very frustrating for some people, myself included, I’m glad that Fisk chose the direction that he did, with the book. He makes it very clear that while the gospels are not 100% historically accurate, no matter how spiritually accurate they are, the reader needs to make the decision on what they believed happened.

                However the study of the historical Jesus should not be taken lightly. Anyone who wants an ever basic understanding of the historical Jesus needs to be able to look at the gospels objectively, and as literary sources, and not take them literally. I found this part particularly hard, especially coming from a Christian background. I found it very helpful that Fisk chose to look at both the spiritual and historical aspects of Jesus, and to explain why the gospel stories don’t always match up. As Dr. Reis pointed out, it’s how the reader looks at the stories of Jesus (if you see them as thick or thin, 2d or 3d) that determines how the reader views history that shapes their perception of Jesus.

After finishing A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Jesus, I left with many new ideas that I had never even thought about considering previously. Growing up going to Church and hearing about Jesus and his life and role in one way my entire life, I’ll admit at times reading this book was challenging and bothersome. However there are many ideas that this book helped me look at in different ways. I had never even considered intertextuality between books of the Bible; I just simply thought they had similar ideas because that was the truth. Although I still believe that the gospels are true, it makes me consider that some of the details may have become fuzzy over time, and that the gospel writers may have used other documents in order to clarify what they were trying to say, or fill in gaps within the story. I really liked how Fisk set up the Bible verses from each gospel in order to show the similarities and differences a lot more easily, it helped with understanding the intertextuality. Another idea that Norm introduced to me was the embarrassment theory. It makes a lot of sense that the stories in the Bible that were the most embarrassing or in a sense, nonrealistic to what the son of God should be feeling or going through, were the ones that are most likely to be true and without embellishment. The gospel writers main purpose and goal was to try and make the general public believe in Jesus and his divinity, if this were the case they would not make up stories that would make Jesus look inferior to other humans.

            This book also brought up many topics that were disturbing to me and I had a hard time wanting to finish some of the chapters. Fisk questioning Mary’s virginity, and whether or not Jesus really did rise from the dead were the two most challenging topics for me to read about. Although my views had not changed on these topics, it was interesting to see what other people thought about what I have believed without question my whole life. Over all the book opened my eyes and mind and has given me some insight I would have never otherwise gotten. 

        Reading A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Jesus by Bruce N. Fisk has really been an eye-opening experience for me. Before I started reading it, I was somewhat worried about how it would affect me and if it would challenge my faith. C.S. Lewis summed up my feelings exactly in the passage from The Screwtape Letters (40-41). I thought that studying the Historical Jesus would inspire doubts within me that would cause me to lose faith in God, Jesus, and Christianity altogether. I will admit that during parts of this book I did begin to doubt everything that I thought I knew. However, instead of weakening my faith, as I progressed through the book, my faith actually became stronger. Being able to personally study the historical aspect of the life of Jesus was a really rewarding experience. It is so much more meaningful to learn something on your own than to sit in a pew and listen to some person tell you the “truth” and what you should believe.
        Even as a “Sunday School Graduate,” I learned so many things from this book that I never heard of growing up in church. In a world of endless uncertainty, Christians want Christianity to be a firm and unchanging source of confidence. However, as I learned from this book, we must always keep in mind that the books in the Bible were written and compiled by humans. Therefore, there will be imperfections and disagreements among the Gospels. Often, Christianity tries to cover up these differences by creating some elaborate story that makes all the different Gospel accounts true or by just ignoring it all together. Norm argues that “sometimes we show the Gospels more respect by letting tensions stand or by suspending judgment than by hiding behind sketchy harmonization” (221).  We must also remember when reading the Gospels that each author had a different perspective, motive, and therefore interpretation of the events that took place. Each Gospel writer had a different intention while writing and portrayed Jesus in an entirely different light. As a result, it is to be expected that there would be differences among them.
        Overall what I gained from reading this book is that the Gospels are interpretations so we shouldn’t just view them as pure fact. The Gospel writers didn’t necessarily have the intention of giving us a “historical Jesus.” Rather, they wanted the readers to believe what they believed and see Jesus in the same light that they saw him in.

 

After the conclusion of A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Jesus, I found the book to be full of new ideas and interpretations that I had previously not heard of as a Christian.  I feel as if keeping an open mind is a key thing to remember while reading the book.  Norm is pursuing an academic, historical study of who Jesus was as a person.  Surprisingly, this tends to stray from what many think of as who Jesus really was.  The way Norm does so is by looking at the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and pointing out any differences he sees by using intertextuality, embarrassment, dissimilarity, etc.  When Norm recognized these differences, it allowed him to better identify how each writer “embellished” his own interpretation of Jesus and his life.  Through years of Christianity, people have drawn conclusions about Jesus and what he did.  Norm tries to peel back these “false” ideas and discovers that Jesus may not have been the man people think of.  Norm proposes things like his birth narrative may be false, his miracles just embellishment of psychological disorders, and that he may have been more of a political leader than anything.  Because of the hardships due to the Roman power, people could have looked to Jesus as an outlet for the oppression.  Because of his political image going against the grain, Norm believes that this was most likely the reason for his quick and brutal death.  The Romans treated him like every other criminal but because of embellishment from writers, he was conformed into a leader who rose from the dead to overcome. 
            Although many of these ideas cause conflict with faith, it is the byproduct of academic study.  Fisk uses the book to make faith into more of a science: meaning studying the data (gospels) to give realistic, plausible answers to the gospel stories of who Jesus really was as a person.  Although many may not agree with Fisk’s proposed ideas, (much like Fisk not agreeing with the Gospels) the book gives new ideas and interpretations worth studying.

A Hitchhikers Guide to Jesus, by Bruce Fisk was probably the most rewarding book I have ever read.  I have never really looked into reading the Gospels like Norm does, so when reading this book it is almost like I am reading them with him.  This adventure to follow the Gospels relies solely on the word of the authors.  Unfortunately we realize early on that there is a little “pro-Jesus propaganda”, especially when reading about Josephus.  Josephus apparently wrote about Jesus as the Messiah who rose from the dead in fulfillment of the prophecy, but we know that Josephus is not a Christian, so it presents a little bit of suspicion (32).  Another example is when Norm has the idea that John the Baptist gets Christianized by the Gospels.  The writers are so worried that when John baptizes Jesus, it looks like Jesus is NOT free from sins; therefore they have to make Jesus look better by demoting John (46).  Before Norm ventures to Bethlehem, he wants to review a little more on the actual birth narrative of Jesus.  He organizes the story into a table in which he depicts events that happen in both Matthew and Luke including Joseph as descendent of King David, Mary is a virgin, and Jesus is born in Bethlehem (77-78).  Then Norm goes through to see where the gospels are different.  A major difference he sees in these is the towns Mary and Joseph travel to and who is the central character (79).  Another huge difference that Guilder points out is that in Mark, Joseph is not present. The story of Jesus walking on water is found in Matthew, Mark, and John.  They all tell the story of Jesus walking on water but in completely different ways (128).  Mark is one of the sources of Matthew and John, but when the gospels bring about the story that Jesus’ ministry is going to end, Matthew and Luke take Marks story and go completely different ways with it (154).  And lastly the Gospel story that really got my attention was the carrying of the cross.  Mark is really the only gospel that depicts Jesus as a terrified and troubled person.  Matthew, Luke and John depict Jesus as this leader who is strong and courageous, and not afraid to die (234-236).  The gospels are all from different people who write to different people in different places, so it is obvious that they are going to hear different stories and portray Jesus in their own way (27).  It is the academic method to read each Gospel separately that way there is no controversy.  It is when the gospels are compared that Lewis makes the statement, Christianity began going wrong and departing from the doctrine at an early age.”      

Reis on Fisk on Norm: Concluding Reflections on Hitchhiking for Jesus

A. The Academic Study of the Gospels
The historical study of Jesus employs rigorous academic methods to analyze the gospels (29, 43). These methods examine Jesus’ life in its specific context and seek to disentangle the historical data from theological interpretation and Christian tradition (54, 72, 170-178, 219-220, 249-250, 264-265). As a result, the work of historical Jesus scholars often questions and challenges views about Jesus’ life presented in the gospels (15-18). Thus, as Norm states, “Jesus-questing isn’t for sissies” (18). Yet historians look for probability rather than certainty, and their conclusions are always provisional (106, 256-257, 265). Moreover, it is important that scholars recognize how their own ideologies may influence their interpretations (131-132).

B. Harmonization and Variation
Integrating the variations of the gospels into a single harmonious story is routinely done by communities of faith but rejected by academic scholarship. The academic method insists that each gospel should be read individually, and that tensions between them are important for discovering historical data (92).

C. Objectivity and Perspective
The notion of objectivity in literature is an illusion. Understanding the gospels as transparent windows into Jesus’ life is problematic because each gospel writer 1) occupies a distinct social location and subject position and, as a result, 2) imagines Jesus differently (27, 182).

D. The Historical Jesus in the Academy and the Church
The academic approach to historical Jesus study means that Jesus ends up looking very different from images of him found in current Christian communities. Jesus’ contemporaries often perceived his teachings and actions as radical and subversive, with social and political overtones that challenged conventional ideals and values (219).

E. “Thin” and “Thick” Reading Strategies
Reading the gospels in “two dimensions,” in a strictly literal manner, represents a “thin” reading strategy (Reis). It fails to cover the artistry of the gospel writers (72, 179, 221, 265) and the intertextual associations they invited their readers to engage. Reading in “three dimensions,” however, is a “thick” reading strategy: it unveils the “depth” of the gospel message (189, 249- 250) and allows the reader to (re)imagine Jesus in light of the ancient Jewish tradition (98, 146, 167). A historical quest is thus always a literary quest (17, 102).

F. History and Faith
Historical and faith-based approaches to gospel studies have different starting points and goals. Although many people think the historical study of Jesus will threaten a person’s faith (40-41, 249), there is nothing wrong with curiosity, questioning, and doubt (27, 132, 208). Academic study can (and does) often enrich the faith commitments of Christians who appreciate the gospel writers’ theological intentions and their social, religious, historical, and political contexts (221). Jesus-questing is thus not solely for scholars (18). To understand this is to appreciate the power of the gospels to transform lives and reorient people to God (Reis).

G. Experiential Education
Questing for the historical Jesus requires both researching and walking. Historical Jesus scholars guide Norm’s experiences, but by retracing Jesus’ life and immersing himself in the culture of Israel he infused these scholarly judgments with new insights. Placing contemporary events (e.g., disabled students swimming and miracle tradition; Jesus at the temple and Jewish-Christian-Muslim tensions; Jesus’ death and contemporary martyrdom) alongside the gospel accounts enables Norm to develop a more nuanced understanding of the life of Jesus as told through his faithful followers.

     My overall feelings about this book were good; I enjoyed the book because it gave me some insight about Jesus as a human rather than a spiritual messiah without making my conclusions for me. I feel that I learned a lot about the intertextuality of the Gospels and also about Old Testament writings. After class discussion today I was left with many thoughts and questions that Fisk did not mention in his writings. One thing I wondered about was why he only emphasized the Gospels. There are many other important books in the New Testament that were not mentioned. Can we learn anything about the historical Jesus through these unmentioned books? Another major idea that came to my mind was how and when Jesus began to be thought of in a more spiritual sense. I understand that some saw him as a new world messiah that was “sent” to fulfill a prophecy from the Old Testament, but beside the fact that he may or may not be the fulfillment of a prophecy, why is he studied spiritually rather than historically? If what some stories and traditions say about him is true: that he is just a man that did some radical things, why is he not studied in that way? There are many historical figures throughout history that compelled people to believe their teachings such as, Martin Luther King or Benjamin Franklin. So why is Jesus not seen in the same light as these figures in history? There is no way to prove that Jesus performed miracles or that God spoke to him through the clouds or that he was resurrected from the tomb, so why not look at him from the angle of the things that can be proven. Can’t Jesus just be a man that moved nations to faith in God and aided people in their (possibly psychological) recovery from illness? I would say that is still pretty remarkable even without all the stories of miracles and metaphysical possibilities.