On the “Historical Jesus”

When one begins to study the question of the historical Jesus (as I did some 40 years ago) one finds that the task involves learning in multiple disciplines. These include

~ the philosophy of history
~ the philosophy of science
~ the study of second Temple Judaism
~ learning Greek and Aramaic
~ studies in oral tradition (folklore, memory etc)
~ studies in post Exilic history
~ studies in Greek and Roman history and literature
~ Jewish practices in the transmission of tradition
~ studies in the formation of the Gospel tradition (form and redaction criticism)
~ studies in biography in antiquity
~ studies on historiography in antiquity
~ textual criticism
~ literary criticism
~ rhetorical criticism
~ studies in hermeneutics (and philosophy)
~ studies in the relationship between or among the Gospels (including non-canonical gospels)
~ and more, much more.

Further, one must become acquainted with the significant landmarks in Jesus studies from Reimarus and Strauss to Schweitzer and Weiss, Jeremias and Bultmann, Bornkamm, Kasemann, Meier, Borg, Wright, Flusser, Thiessen, Charlesworth, Meyer, Manson, Chilton, and scores of others, not to mention the work of many members of The Jesus Seminar (some of whom are named here).

The historical Jesus is a complex phenomenon with lots of margin for error. And plenty of errors there are in this research! All researchers to the Jesus question bring their own sets of presuppositions, Christian, Jewish and atheist. Even the so-called ‘disinterested’ [sic] scholar brings any number of (often) unexamined presuppositions to their work.

Facebook is NOT the place to have these debates on the historicity of Jesus. Long arguments and extended exegesis of passages do not fare well in this form of social media. We are used to sound bites here and sound bites are not conducive to framing arguments. And all too often we meet those in this medium who have dabbled in this area only to find that they have engaged in reading ‘speculative’ reconstructions that do not seem to take into account so much of the research that has previously been generated. Too many are taken by superficial arguments from ‘scholars’ whose books are loaded with speculation, not grounded in extensive exegesis. Such a book is Reza Aslan’s Zealot. I have on my shelf some thirty or forty such books.

My suggestion is this: if you are not able to be conversant in all of the aforementioned disciplines then stay away from proffering conclusions that are only supported by one or two marginal authors.

In my work on the historical Jesus I look for patterns in the research, areas where insights from several disciplines seem to coalesce. So in The Jesus Driven Life I have set forth my view of Jesus, both the historical Jesus but more so the Jesus borne witness to in the canonical Gospel tradition. For in the long run, while I am persuaded that not only was Jesus a historical figure but that a good part of his teaching is recoverable, my faith is not in “the historical Jesus” but in the risen Lord.

If I have to choose between the fideist stance of Karl Barth and the critical realist stance of Wolfhart Pannenberg, I will always opt for the latter.  History is somehow still important to me and, for me, faith seeks a rational ground, even if the form of that ‘rationality’ changes over time (as it has done). Otherwise I would just be done with scientific research in the Gospels and become some sort of pure Barthian devotee.

In the long run, however, for me, I take all of this research I have done, as well as that work in Paul and the development of apostolic Christianity as well as second century Christianity and read all of this, not from a theological perspective but from an anthropological one, a perspective from below as Bonhoeffer would say. This is where the hermeneutic of the mimetic theory is an essential component for me in my interpretation of the scriptures and of the Jesus tradition.

I understand the atheistic impulse to denigrate the Jesus tradition and to revision early Christianity. In my opinion, much of the animus of this work is directed at the Janus-faced god of Christianity. This god needs to be toppled and in that I share the concerns of modern atheism. On the other hand, as one who has come to see the revelatory power of a ‘reading from below’ I am neither constrained by the church’s Janus-Faced god nor am I motivated by animus against it for I see through the long stretch of church history how the gospel came to be caged, how it has time and again broken free and how in our own time, because of academic research for 350 years, the Gospel has ‘gone public’, it is no longer the property of The Church.

We will have debates on the historical Jesus for years to come. It is essential to learn the difference between speculation and solid exegesis. It is essential for us to be aware of our own presuppositions. So, do read as much as you want to or can, just know that the “air quotes” in the use of the phrase “historical Jesus” are there for a reason. And for heaven’s sake stay totally away from cheap Christian apologetics.

Most of all, ask yourself: if evidence should appear that would cause me to change my opinion and become a Christian (if I were an atheist) or to become an atheist (if I were a Christian) am I open enough to let the evidence speak?

For many, if not most on this page of mine, all of this may seem like a bunch of intellectuals bantering on about nonessential things. Let me assure you that such is not the case.  Were it not for scholars this past 400 years who labored hard, the Gospel would still be caged in the church.