New Testament scholar Scot McKnight says the attempts to discover the “historical” Jesus have failed—and that it’s a good thing.
In the 1980s, the central academic organization for biblical studies, the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), was energized in remarkable ways by a renewed interest in the historical Jesus, a project that had been abandoned for some decades. At that time, the Jesus Seminar, designed by former childhood preacher and fervent critic of all things orthodox Robert Funk, frequently made headlines. Noted scholars sat at tables and voted on what Jesus really said and did based on the historical evidence. Funk and others drew up their conclusions in books that supposedly revealed the real Jesus.
Some of these studies were outlandish, some much closer to orthodoxy and the canonical Gospels. The headline-grabbing names included Ben F. Meyer, E. P. Sanders, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, and N. T. (Tom) Wright. I have sat in packed lecture halls to watch Tom and Dom go at it, and I’ve listened in as two friends, Marc and Tom, bantered back and forth about who was getting it right. Paula, a Catholic convert to Judaism, continued to warn the entire discipline that too many errors were being made about Judaism. Those were heady days, and I remember giving a paper to over 500 scholars about how Jesus understood his own death. The neon-light days for the historical Jesus are now over.
[. . .]
Historical Jesus scholars reconstruct Jesus in conscious contrast with the categories of the evangelists and the beliefs of the church. Wright is the most orthodox of the well-known historical Jesus scholars; I can count on one hand the number of historical Jesus scholars who hold orthodox beliefs. The inspiration for historical Jesus scholarship is that the Gospels overdid it, and that the church more or less absorbed the Galilean prophet into Greek philosophical categories. The quest for the historical Jesus is an attempt to get behind the theology and the established faith to the Jesus who was—I must say it this way—much more like the Jesus we would like him to be.
One has to wonder if the driving force behind much historical Jesus scholarship is more an a priori disbelief in orthodoxy than a historian’s genuine (and disinterested) interest in what really happened. The theological conclusions of those who pursue the historical Jesus simply correlate too strongly with their own theological predilections to suggest otherwise.
The question that many of us in the discipline must ask is this: Can theology or Christology or, more importantly, faith itself be connected to the vicissitudes of historical research and results?
Read more. See also responses from N.T. Wright, Craig Keener, and Darrell Bock.
April 12th, 2010 | 10:20 am
What is life without vicissitudes? If the history is based on logic, science, and extant documents then what is wrong with that. As generations pass you have word of mouth history or objective science. That is why you have a search for this “historical Jzeus.” The historical, objective facts are different than the myths passed down by Xtnity over the centuries. How else does a respected Jewish judge, teacher, and leader of Torah observant Jews become Jzeus? See James Parkes, “The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue,” and Joseph Klausners, “From J-sus to Paul,” for the leading scholarly opinion about the man. People are turning to Torah and the historical real man Ribi Yehoshua ben Yoseph, the Mashiach. http://www.netzarim.co.il
April 12th, 2010 | 11:02 am
The scholars can use any context they want. I trust those who are trustworthy, who saw him risen and told the world even at the cost of their own lives. No theory can trump our hallelujah.
April 12th, 2010 | 11:47 am
“One has to wonder if the driving force behind much historical Jesus scholarship is more an a priori disbelief in orthodoxy than a historian’s genuine (and disinterested) interest in what really happened.”
Hasn’t one always not only wondered but, recalling human nature, been virtually certain?
“The theological conclusions of those who pursue the historical Jesus simply correlate too strongly with their own theological predilections to suggest otherwise.”
Marcus Borg’s Jesus the mystic magician is a pre-eminent example. Phooey.
April 12th, 2010 | 11:53 am
Actually, the “Historical Jesus” has been abandoned in favour of “The Historized Jesus”. This is actually worse.
In the “The Historized Jesus”, whether Jesus lived or not or what he taught or did are not important. His surviving teachings were important…except those that are “culturally out of date” which “bigots use”, since Jesus was this sweet guy who never went against his culture except to “modernize it”.
Since secular ethics devoid of religion has failed in postmodern relativism, a composite of the “The Historized Jesus” (see Liberal Christianty), the “The Historized Buddha” (see Sam Harris), and the “The Historized Aboriginal” (see Animal Rights Theology) mixed in with the old Kantian Ethics has emerged as the new secular ethics. This of course will go down the same path the “historized mosaic foundations” lend themselves to “cafeteria ethics”.
“The Historized Jesus” isn’t worth dying for…and he’s not worth living for. He has nothing to say about the next life, or really this one. He’s just there to be used as an example when he’s convenient and discarded when not.
April 12th, 2010 | 12:35 pm
To deny the reality of Jesus would be like denying the reality of my family. I’m with Mike. Eyewitness testimony coupled with His presence in my life renders any contrary opinions a waste of time.
April 12th, 2010 | 12:39 pm
Eliyahu,
You certainly can pour on the condescending nonsense.
April 12th, 2010 | 2:03 pm
Why don’t you all just read Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI?
April 13th, 2010 | 1:11 am
I think N.T. Wright is in a different category from many of the rest of these folks precisely because he articulates a very different (and much more comprehensive) understanding of what it means to study “history”. The problem with the Jesus Seminar folks wasn’t that they wanted to find the historical Jesus, but rather that they had a very truncated understanding of what “historical” means and consequently a fairly circular methodology that produced rather arbitrary outcomes.
But Wright is absolutely right: we cannot run away from the question of history. I recommend that anyone who rejoices over the fading of historical Jesus studies to read the first few sections of Wright’s “The New Testament and the People of God” where he delves into the problem of history and explains the Critical Realist approach that he embraces.
April 13th, 2010 | 1:18 am
Actually, I just read Wright’s response to McKnight, and he states a number of the things I just said. Definitely read his repsonse, but I still recommend reading a fuller version of his argument to get its full force.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact