Let me define historical Jesus studies as the attempt to get behind the canonical Gospels to discover what the real Jesus was like. Inherent to the historical Jesus discipline is the belief that the canonical Gospels and the Church got Jesus wrong or are biased -- or should I say that the Church believes too much about Jesus and that the real Jesus was less than the Church's Christ. In other words, historical Jesus studies attempt to construct an image of Jesus in distinction from the canonical Gospels and the Church's beliefs. Example: Is that what you think Jesus looks like? This is what a BBC program sketched for what a 1st Century Jewish male looked like. The jolt of this image with your image is what historical Jesus studies attempt to do.
I participated in this discussion for the better part of 15 years. Much fruit has come of historical Jesus studies, most notably the sharper profile of Jesus in his Jewish context. But the enterprise makes no sense until we see it as the attempt to construct an image of Jesus more accurate than what we find in the Gospels.
Let me say this one more way: Yes, historical Jesus studies try to get back to what Jesus was really like but involved in that is the belief that the real Jesus and the canonical Gospel Jesus are not the same. I know some conservatives conclude that virtually everything is authentic and conclude that the canonical Gospel Jesus is the same as the historical Jesus. But I don't think such studies really are historical Jesus studies. Critique of the Church's belief about Jesus is inherent to historical Jesus studies.
This introduces what I think is the most significant, even if thoroughly skeptical, study on the historical Jesus discipline in the last fifty years: Dale Allison's new book The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus
. There's a melancholy to this volume, almost a looking back at the hopes of a former era when some thought they'd find the real Jesus behind the Gospels, and that melancholy comes into words with this: "I do not long for that old-time religion, nor do I wish to believe in my own belief but, as quaint as this may sound to some, I want to know the truth, even if I cannot cheer it" (4). The book therefore is Allison's "personal testimony to doubt seeking understanding." He's skeptical we have tools that let us get back to what Jesus was like behind the Gospels. "When we read [the Gospels], we should think not that Jesus said this or did that but rather: Jesus did things like this, and he said things like that" (66).
I like this book, not because I agree with Allison's own conclusions about specifics, but because I came to some similar conclusions when I wrote Jesus and His Death. When I was done I wrote an introductory chp that sketches historical method and I concluded that the historical Jesus has very little use for the Church and that, essentially, we face a choice: we either believe the Church's construal (the Gospels Jesus) or we make up a Jesus for ourselves with the methods that cannot prove certainty. The historical method can only do so much -- and I tried my best in that book -- and the one thing it cannot do is get us back to a Jesus before the Gospels. Every construction always looks like the one who writes the history.
A dark cloud looms over the attempt; the attempt is worth it, Allison thinks. We don't know he seems to be saying, and he doesn't mind the ambiguity. Historical Jesus studies has light to shed, and more light to shed, but the conclusions are not terribly encouraging -- that's how I read Allison.
Allison's book brings the quest for the historical Jesus to a new dead-end. We can't do what we thought we were going to do. The Third Quest is, at least for me, officially over. Questions remain; passions for historical probings still remain -- but Allison's book is the new fiery brook over which each scholar must cross.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Your Name,
As RJS has pointed out, my name is Kyle. I assumed that you did it originally as a mistake, but you continue to do it.
I don't understand how you've read such a negative tone into my earlier comment. My point was that those sitting in Jeff's seminar would have known exactly what Jeff meant. I still believe that is true.
There was no ill will involved, and the phrase wasn't "unnecessary" at all. You had said that you were confused by the question (which you later said that you weren't), and I was pointing out that those in the seminar wouldn't have been. That's not condescension, but setting his question in context and attempting to show that his audience would have understood him.
I'm done here. Have a great week.
Excuse me RJS and Kyle - intentionally?!! You have only just made me aware of my error. I am sorry Kyle - I have not come across your spelling before but I actually have a good friend called Kylie so I read your name as the same. Nobody brought it to my attention before that the 'i' wasn't there. I assumed I was correct in my spelling as you assumed I was intentional in my misspelling. I still find "anyone working on a Ph.D would "clearly know"" quite unnecessary. I know you intended no ill will. It must be a cultural thing. I certainly did not "intentionally" spell your name wrong!! Why on earth didn't you correct me at first?!
A friend informs me that Kyle is a male name and Kylie is a woman so perhaps I understand your offence. I wasn't to know that though was I. Sorry.
It's no big deal. I didn't clarify in my initial response because I assumed it was a mistake and not worth correcting. Since you did it again after that response I clarified it in my last comment. I didn't think it was intentional, but since it continued after I responded I thought it might be...but wasn't sure.
Mistaking me to be a woman isn't demeaning in the least...what's demeaning is that my mother used to call me "Kylie-poo," so I more associated it with accusing me of being childish!
Sorry for the confusion throughout this discussion. I never intended to argue with anyone (that's not my kind of thing), but was honestly just trying to help since I originally assumed you were confused by his question and needed clarification. As I've already said, my reference about "clearly knowing" was in order to show that those in his context would have understood him, and was not meant to come across as condescending. I'm sorry for the confusion and any part I played in it.
Thank you for that. I am steph short for stephanie and have been confused on the internet with a male steph short for stephan, which I didn't mind - I was amused - so I thought it was strange you might be offended at being mistaken for a female, but now your childhood memories explain it! I'm sorry for the confusion too. I hate the internet for that! My preferred medium for converation is the voice and preferably facing the person I am addressing as alot of meaning is facial expression and tone of voice :-) Have a nice day!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.