1. Jesus__History_vs_Testimony.mp4
1. Historical_Jesus_The_Three_Meanings.m4a
The topic explores the historical quest for Jesus and the enduring theological challenges it presents to Christian faith, which traditionally relies on the Gospels' portrayal of Christ. This scholarly pursuit, which aims to reconstruct a "real Jesus" independently of religious dogma, often treats the Gospels with methodological skepticism, viewing them as filtered accounts that obscure the historical truth. The author proposes a resolution to this dilemma by re-categorizing the Gospels as testimony, a historiographical approach rooted in the unique value of eyewitness accounts and the understanding that fact and interpretation are inherently intertwined. Ultimately, the text argues that recognizing the Gospels as embodying the direct, authoritative testimony of those involved—rather than the product of a long, anonymous oral tradition—allows history and theology to converge in the figure of Jesus.
For two centuries, a powerful fascination has driven scholars, documentarians, and the public alike: the quest for the "historical Jesus." An endless stream of books and films promises to peel back layers of faith and dogma to reveal the "real" man who lived in first-century Palestine. This effort, while compelling, creates a significant dilemma. It suggests that objective, modern historians are discovering a different Jesus—a more authentic one—than the figure presented in the Gospels.
The tension this creates is not merely academic. It forces a critical question: Must history and theology part company at this point where Christian faith's investment in history is at its most vital? We are led to believe that to be historically responsible, we must treat the Gospels with deep suspicion, as texts that obscure more than they reveal.
However, a closer look at how history was actually written in the ancient world reveals a surprising and powerful alternative. It suggests that the Gospels, rather than being flawed records to be dissected for scattered facts, represent a unique and valuable form of history in their own right. By understanding them not as suspect documents but as eyewitness testimony, we can find a way for history and theology to meet, not part ways.
The phrase "the historical Jesus" is seriously ambiguous. In modern scholarship, it rarely means "Jesus as he actually was." Instead, it refers to an alternative figure, one reconstructed by historians who begin with "methodological skepticism" toward the Gospels. This approach doesn't trust the texts; it treats them as evidence to be cross-examined and mined for data that can be independently verified.
The surprising result is not one definitive "real Jesus," but many. We are offered the Jesus of Dominic Crossan, the Jesus of Marcus Borg, the Jesus of N. T. Wright, and countless others. The historian's judgment of the Gospels may be minimal or, as in Wright's case, maximal, but in all cases the result is a Jesus reconstructed by the historian—an alternative to the Gospels' own constructions. This process is inherently interpretive.
Historical work, by its very nature, is always putting two and two together and making five — or twelve or seventeen.