An interview with Luke Timothy Johnson

Fortress Press: Your widely respected Writings of the New Testament was first published more than twenty years ago and is now in a handsome third edition. How would you describe the appeal that has helped this book stand the test of time?

Luke Timothy Johnson: There are several features of Writings that have made it useful to students—and therefore survive. First, I deliberately set out to write a “classic,” and classics age well. What do I mean by the term classic? I mean that my interpretation of the New Testament is determined not by the passing fads of scholarship but by the perennial questions posed by the texts themselves: why were they written, why do they look the way they do, why were these writings and not others read as Scripture? Such questions arise for any serious reader of the New Testament, and my interpretation takes those questions seriously.

Second, I have written a book for grown-ups. I hope that my language is clear and relatively free of jargon. But I am unapologetic about using a rich vocabulary or engaging serious issues. I think that even college undergraduates who use a book as a text grow impatient and bored with the implicit condescension of so many textbooks. In this new edition, Fortress Press has done everything it can to be user friendly and visually attractive, but it has retained the challenging character of the prose.

Third, the book takes seriously the religious experience of those who wrote the New Testament, and this emphasis makes good sense to most readers.

FP: A genuine respect for the New Testament as the church’s book is clear throughout your work. How would you contrast that approach to the approach of other New Testament textbooks? What is at stake for you in approaching these writings in the way you do?

LTJ: There has sometimes been a tendency in critical New Testament scholarship to stand apart from the faith commitments of the church and even of the New Testament writers—and this attitude unfortunately appears in texts whose goal appears to be the demystification of Christianity. Simply in the name of good scholarship, I have always felt that an attitude of empathy or even affection toward a subject-matter yields more and better knowledge than an air of superior detachment. So part of what is at stake for me is good scholarship. One does not have to be personally committed to the risen Lord to see that such a commitment grounds the life and literature of the early Christians. It is even bad history to omit religious experience from consideration. At a personal level, these writings provide the lens through which I examine my own existence.

FP: In the third edition you take the unusual step of inviting professors who read the New Testament very differently to “teach against” your book. What do you expect that might look like, and why do you think it is important for teachers to have that option?

LTJ: I can easily understand that fine scholars and teachers can disagree with my analysis, conclusions, and even perspective on a wide range of issues. The value I offer such teachers is a consistent and coherent account against which they can position themselves. It also enhances the atmosphere of intellectual freedom and inquiry in a classroom when the New Testament is exposed as an area of contestation more than a secure harbor. Both teachers and students’ minds are sharpened when they struggle with a contrary voice that commands some degree of respect simply because of its own intellectual integrity. I would hope that my book offers that sort of foil.

FP: One of the most distinctive features of your work—compared to “introductions” to the New Testament (which is not what you call Writings)—is that you reserve a brief discussion of “the historical Jesus” for an appendix at the back of the book. Obviously, that shouldn’t be read as an indication of your lack of interest in Jesus! What do you want your reader to understand about the various “quests for the historical Jesus”?

LTJ: You are right! I have written quite a bit about the importance of the human Jesus. My choice in the book is based on two convictions. First, the New Testament is a collection of writings. The point of interpretation is to better understand that literature. Thus, I have long chapters on the Gospels as interpretations of Jesus. But a separate consideration of a “historical Jesus” is simply inconsistent with the goal of the book. Second, when introductions start with a treatment of the human ministry of Jesus (or as they term it, “the historical Jesus”), they lead students to miss the truly dramatic gap between Jesus’ ministry and the birth of the church and its literature. It is much better—and historically also more responsible—to begin with the resurrection experience as the catalyst to faith and as impetus to the interpretation of life before God in light of a crucified and exalted Messiah—an experience and standpoint that shapes as well the interpretation of the story of Jesus!