I would not have guessed that I would have found such a compelling challenge to Historical Jesus studies in a book on the Historical Jesu
s:
What is clear is that for the person who is committed to the canonical Gospels, or creeds as the church’s definitive narrative about Jesus, another narrative about Jesus will not play a faith-determining role. It will not because it cannot. Why? Because as Robert
Morgan says, “The task of this theological discipline is to interpret the canonical witnesses theologically, and so inform the life and thought of the Christian Church.” (Jesus and His Death, Scot McKnight, pp. 41)
I am an amateur Biblical scholar (and a fool prone to overstatement), but first and foremost, I am a disciple of Jesus – I am a student of the Apostolic Tradition.
While I certainly enjoy historical study, especially when related to Jesus and earliest Christianity, I am forced to rethink its place in the life of the Church. The more one understands historiography, the more one understands the importance of interpretation. Now, don’t toss me away with the post-moderns, but their acknowledgement of the role that the historian has in historical (re)construction is undeniable. This is no detriment to history, it is simply a feature of it.
Once one realizes the importance of interpretation, a concern quickly arises regarding historical Jesus studies. The Gospels are examples of early Christian histories. They don’t consist of a simply list of discrete, brute facts. They are narratives with flow and direction. They are stories and commentaries on the life of Jesus. And for those within the Christian tradition, for those subject to the Apostle’s teaching – such as myself – they are authoritative interpretations of Jesus life.
If this is so, where does this leave modern interpretations of Jesus life (ie: historical Jesus writings)? If the four-fold gospels are the Church’s definitive witness to the life of Jesus, the measure against which all others are judged, what role is left for today’s Jesus scholars?
Whatever their role, it is certainly a limited one. And it is necessarily subordinate to the Gospels themselves. Creedal Christians, those who claim allegiance to the Apostolic faith, are to illuminate and explicate the Jesus of the Gospels. They are not to provide alternative narratives of Jesus life – trying to peal back the interpretive layers of the Church to get back to the non-Christian Jesus. For Creedal Christians, the Christian Jesus is the historical Jesus. We do not contend with the four-fold witness, supposing that we, twenty centuries removed, can provide a better, more faithful portrait of Jesus for the Church today. No, rather, as humble students, we subject ourselves to the Church’s ancient witness and seek to understand and embody the Evangelists’ testimonies.
We are not innovators. We are tradents. We receive the Tradition, and then we pass it on to the next generation. Nothing more, nothing less. It may not provide the golden road to fame, but it will provide the the road to faithfulness. And on that road you will be covered by the dust of your Rabbi. There is no calling more noble.
For More Articles on Christian Origins, Theology, and Philosophy, Subscribe to Freedom in Orthodoxy!
RELATED POSTS:
Christian Origins 