In the last few decades, probably more historical Jesus scholarship has taken place than in the last 1000 years. Why is that? Why all the new interest in the identity of the Jewish prophet who proclaimed the kingdom of God? And why the backlash from the evangelical community against almost any historical claim to the church’s beloved figure?
The last question is easier to answer than those before it. Since the wave of historical Jesus study took place at a time when many were abandoning belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, many conservative evangelicals took up arms against what they believed was the work of Satan. They saw all the historians as trying to snatch away the kernel of faith in people’s hearts by thrusting upon their minds false views of the Person revered and worshipped by Christians for centuries as God in the flesh.
Although perhaps exaggerating a bit in their assessment of the situation, they had several very good reasons for thinking this way. Most of the Jesus portraits that arose during this period did in fact challenge the orthodox way of thinking about the Jesus of the church, and many of the Jesus scholars claimed boldly that the Gospels were full of errors. Yet rather than respond to the questions asked, it seemed much easier to label the entire effort to “find the historical Jesus” as a hoax to disprove the church’s claims about Christ. So, forget the old line about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Throw out the bathtub as well!
Whether you like it or not, the dichotomy between faith and history has been more detrimental to the Christian faith than the historical Jesus studies of recent time. By refusing to enter the discussion on the Person of Jesus, evangelicals unintentionally gave the impression that history truly does negate the church’s claims about Jesus. Our silence has been interpreted as an admission of defeat.
So, why the silence? Probably because the presuppositions of most of the skeptical “seekers” were wrong and unorthodox and because they often led to different portraits of Jesus than what we were used to seeing. But their questions were not worthless. And they are not today either. However wrong their conclusions may be, some very good questions have been raised that will need to be answered honestly and without fear of finding the answers to be a little different than what we learned in Sunday School.
Buffet-Style Scholars
What we did learn from all the historical Jesus buzz of the last century is what inevitably happens when the Gospel tradition comes under attack. Any scholar or theologian can paint whatever portrait of Jesus they desire. By picking and choosing from the Gospel texts like some pick and choose at a buffet-style restaurant, they succeed at totally demolishing the orthodox view of Christ and then recreate a Christ “in their own image.” However, these buffet-style historians don’t approach the Gospel texts as they would an “all-you-can-eat” buffet, in which someone feels obligated to put as much on their plate as possible, and then go back for seconds and thirds. From the way they dilly dallied around, leaving so little of the Gospel texts, you’d think they were on a major diet! By the end of their study, you’re left with virtually nothing but a peanut shell of material on which you find the newest scholar building an entire portrait of the life of Jesus, after their own presuppositions.
Read almost any historical Jesus scholar, and you will see my point proven. The more drastic the move away from the biblical Gospels’ testimony regarding Jesus, the longer the list of new “Jesuses” seems to appear. Once Jesus is divorced from His foundational Gospel biographies, the theories can abound freely like a rebellious teenager who has sneaked out of her parents’ house to frequent the most rocking party. Maybe she’s going to Thomas‘ house tonight, or Peter’s, or maybe to see her secret friend, Mark. The only snag is, the Gospels still remain the home for Jesus studies, so eventually, even the rebellious teenager comes back to her shelter and leaves the party behind. In the same way, the Jesus scholars keep coming back to big brothers Matthew, Mark, Luke, (and even that strange, hard to figure out other brother, John) not just because they have written the most historically accurate records we have of Jesus, but because they are also the most intriguing and ultimately most satisfying for members of the Quest.
The Jesus of the Gospels
Only once Jesus is placed firmly in the Gospel tradition from which He has been preached and understood for 2000 years, can one start to get a grasp on the mysterious Galilean who still remains the focus of a large amount of historical scholarship even today. Only then will His undeniably Jewish background come into full play. Only then will His apocalyptic prophecies and strange utterances begin to make sense. Only then will the theology of His cross actually matter to us now.
If we truly believe the Christ presented to us in the Gospels, we must be ready to take seriously Jesus’ question about what others are saying about Him. Why did it matter then? Why does it matter now? The fact that He asked implies that the subject was important to Him, whether or not the newest ideas were true or not.
Our faith in His God-man identity does not exist in some void, unapproachable to modern skepticism. Faith is not separated from history, and we should work to keep people from falsely drawing a line between the two. If Jesus truly is the Son of God, the One we worship as God in the flesh, as Lord of all and Savior, we must expect and be prepared for the questions that are bound to come! Can we really expect all the thinking people of the world to just blindly accept all that we claim about Jesus Christ?
We believe in the actual Person who walked the shores of Galilee 2000 years ago. Our compass lies in the God-inspired Jesus biographies written by the witnesses to His glory. And this same Jesus calls us to evaluate the other opinions regarding His life.
written by Trevin Wax © 2007 Kingdom People blog
