Tweet

Comments (4)

Related articles and links |  1 of 2

I enjoyed Scot McKnight's piece on the Historical Jesus, because much of it is important to say. Historical Jesus work is often deconstructive (the key word here is often). History at its best is reconstructive work, based in probability and working in a discipline that is severely limited in what it can deliver.

There are many historical Jesuses out there, and many have the face of the scholar who studies them in terms of his or her own desires for Jesus. Historical Jesus work cannot take the place of faith. The Jesus that the church and world deals with is the Jesus of the gospels. All fair points. But historical Jesus work matters, and it matters a lot. Here is why.

Contrary to what Scot suggested, no one claims that historical Jesus work gives us or seeks to give us an uninterpreted Jesus. Anyone who demands to be taken seriously as one sent from God (as Jesus did in his mission and work) comes with an interpretive package wrapped up in his actions. Historical work helps us get the context of those actions. How can one fully appreciate what the temple act (the "cleansing of the temple") meant without understanding Second Temple Jewish expectation that the new era would purge the temple and call people to a renewed righteousness? People who work only with the text of the Bible might miss this backdrop. It is precisely this kind of context that historical work gives us, or at least can alert us to, so we read our gospels more carefully.

As both Tom and Craig alluded to but I wish to highlight, there are different kinds of historical Jesus work. Some seek to reduce the data base of Jesus (and challenge the sources), but others seek to illuminate the sources and help to explain what is going on. Yes, we cannot "prove" it all, but we can make a compelling case for much of it, even key parts of it. When a compelling case is made, and when the burden of proof is high, that is impressive.

This is why the key criteria in this other type of more constructive work is not double dissimilarity (whether Jesus' sayings or actions are different from both Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity). Instead, emphasis is placed on multiple attestation (how many sources say it happened), embarrassment, and other features that reveal the source depth of our Jesus material or place it in cultural context.

Source depth means we can show how certain teachings and themes reach deep into the Jesus tradition (for example, the Son of Man theme is deeply rooted in the tradition). When a theme runs across various strands, a compelling case can be made that the attested event should not be easily set aside—even among those who are skeptical about the gospels.

The criterion of embarrassment attacks skeptical claims that the early church has made up scenes, events, or sayings by showing it is very unlikely the church would create an event that could leave a misimpression, bad impression, or no impression. Examples here abound. Why would the church invent the story of John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, where Jesus is baptized for forgiveness of sins and is for a time subordinate to John, unless it really happened? Why record Jesus calling Peter unless it really happened? Shaming Peter is not the best way to promote your leadership after the fact! Would the church have made up women as the first witnesses to whom the resurrection was announced in a time when women were not seen as credible witnesses? The more skeptical model claims we have created a posthumous story that tries to sell an unpopular idea (physical resurrection) using witnesses that do not culturally count. Not likely. The women are in the story because they were a part of the original, counter-cultural story. Now all of this is "historical Jesus" logic, using criteria Scot did not mention. These examples matter, because these kinds of discussions apply well to key parts of the Jesus story.

next page... |  1 of 2

April (Web-only) 2010, Vol. 54