The following is an essay I wrote for my "Who is Jesus?" class.
Historical Scholarship and the
Church
Tim Wenger
BTS-4150
04/11/2013
Historical
Jesus study has provided a lot of benefit for the church. It has given us a
better picture of who our first century Lord really was. However, in the
process, scholars sometimes claim that certain stories, or teachings (or even
whole aspects of his life) do not actually originate from Jesus but are
themselves fabrications of the early church. This incongruity between history
and the gospels could be seen as troubling for our faiths. Through primary
research as well as through review of the use of secondary literature this
essay will explore the benefits and problems of using historical Jesus Scholarship
within the church and the impact it has on faith formation. And show that a well-rounded biblical faith is not dependent on
authenticity of the individual pericopes but dependent on an understanding of
the scriptures which takes into account the dynamic traditions that make up
scripture, and yet is deeply rooted in the overarching message of the Bible.
Introduction of Primary Sources
Marla
Langelotz is the lead pastor at Sargent Avenue Mennonite Church in Winnipeg,
Manitoba. Through an exchange of e-mails she told me that whenever she prepares
preaching or teaching, she always tries to do some historical research.
Sometimes this is just using a bible commentary, but when time permits she also
tries to use other sources as well. She writes that if she uses “enough
resources, there is usually some difference in opinion regarding some aspect of
most Biblical texts.”[1][2]
Dan
Epp-Tiessen is Associate Professor of Bible at Canadian Mennonite University,
also located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. While his focus is Bible, he has also
taught practical theology classes such as Preaching. Dan also has experience as
a pastor. I sat down with Dan and we talked about Historical-Critical analysis
and the church. He too has noticed that depending on the topics and scholars he
is reading that there are differences between a biblical story and what
scholars say actually happened. He also notes that this occurs within the
biblical narrative itself. Within the Gospels, “there are tensions in terms of
how they portray Jesus, and how they portray specific incidences in his life.”[3]
As I work
with this topic, I will return to Marla and Dan as they provide insight to how
Historical Jesus studies impact the church.
The Benefits of Historical Jesus Study
While I have noted that there Historical Jesus studies might be challenging for Christian faith, it is also important to note the gift that Historical Biblical studies, in general and Historic Jesus studies specifically has been for the church.
While I have noted that there Historical Jesus studies might be challenging for Christian faith, it is also important to note the gift that Historical Biblical studies, in general and Historic Jesus studies specifically has been for the church.
Biblical
studies have done a lot in terms of opening up the biblical narrative for
studying. Because of the historic view of biblical inerrancy, as pastors came
across sections of the bible that were not easily reconcilable with each other,
they would often feel as though they couldn't talk about these passages, so
while the official canon remained the same, the parts of the bible that were used
consistently got smaller. With the introduction of critical biblical studies in
the modern era, the possibility of mistakes in the bible, and the attempt to
reconcile these passages, texts previously inaccessible became open to use
within the church.[4]
Included in
these previously inaccessible texts were the Synoptic
Gospels. According to William E. Hull, their incongruities and lack of overt
theology, meant that preachers saw them on as “historical sources for the life
of Jesus” and little more. Instead they focused
on the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles. It was scholars who
slowly retaught the church that the synoptic gospels were primarily made out of
preaching materials about Jesus' life which were fashioned into a profoundly
theological form.
If there
wasn't debate within the Quest for the Historical Jesus, about which parts of
the Gospels interpretation of Jesus were accurate, and which were not, then we
wouldn't have any of the new information about Jesus that we have discovered in
recent years.[5]
The quest
for the Historical Jesus has opened up his world. There are now quests for the
historical Galilee, and for the historical Judaisms of Jesus' time.[6]
Scholars are constantly trying to better understand the world Jesus lived in.
For Marla, it is important to give her congregants a sense of what it was like
to hear and see Jesus. She writes “This, then becomes a window for me and them
to view more fully the wisdom and teaching about the mystery of God and how
that impacts us today”[7]
According
to Francis Watson, while it may question specifics about who the Historical
Jesus was, it is also important to note that the empirical evidence the Quest
for the Historical Jesus has uncovered demonstrates that at a very limited
level, the Gospel is rooted in “empirical historical reality”. It is comforting
to know that the Gospel is based on some empirical knowledge. There was someone
named Jesus who lived in Judea and Galilee. It acts as a control as the church
“seeks to portray Jesus” while Jesus is more than just an “empirical figure of history”
he is “not less than” one.[8]
It acts,
according to Schwietzer, to keep us accountable to who Jesus was. As we try to
interpret what the faithful response to our current contexts would be,
Historical Jesus studies remind us that our response is rooted in concrete
forms. If we do not pay attention to the truth about who Jesus was, and what he
taught, then he becomes empty of meaning, and will only serve to justify our own actions. Historical Jesus studies
keep us rooted in the historical record.[9]
As one
anonymous editorial writes “to deny the importance of history to faith is to
deny divine activity within the arena of history.”[10] If
we don't believe that our faith is rooted in history, then we are denying that
we believe God can be at work in the real, historical world.
On a very
pragmatic note, controversy in biblical scholarship can be good for us purely
based on the scandal it creates. Even the highly controversial claims about who
Jesus was, or was not, serve a purpose. The high-profile claims about the bible
being wrong result in increased attention to the bible. The old adage “all
publicity is good publicity”[11]
comes into effect. People are interested in the claims of Christianity and have
become willing to read the bible “with new eyes.”[12]
Limitations of Historical Jesus Studies
The
benefits of Historical Jesus studies aside, there are also significant
challenges that they cause as well. The fact of the matter is that Historic Jesus Scholarship often says that many events did not occur as the Bible says they did.
Often the claim is that the early church added them in to give authoritative
answers to problems they were facing.
However, it
is very hard to determine which is which. According to Dale C. Allison Junior,
there are only a few passages which could be claimed to obviously be secondary
because they address post-Easter issues, and only a few that certainly go back
to Jesus because it would be against the Church's self interest to write about
them. The rest of the gospels are being debated about back and forth. One
criteria of authenticity used by one scholar to authenticate some stories and
disprove other stories, but then another scholar uses another just as
legitimate criteria to disprove the first and the debate continues on.[13]
This
would be a concern if the writers had been trying to write modern biographies,
however, as Dan says, “they're not, they are not first and foremost historians,
they are first and foremost theologians, they are trying to inviting us to have
faith in Jesus. They are not first and foremost trying to inform us about the
minute details of Jesus life and so sometimes I know they tell stories in
certain ways.” [14]
Another
concern that Allison brings up is that the criteria for authenticity used in
Historical Jesus studies only authenticate (if it can even do that) individual
pericopes. Human memory is much more general. We remember impressions, themes
and motifs rather than the exact words or actions that occurred. As such we
should be more concerned about whether or not the general principles of the
gospel have been faithfully preserved rather than the individual stories. If
the “big picture” is "wrong” then the details doesn't actually matter. Therefore
if we deem the aspects of Jesus that would make him a“secular sage” as
authentic, but deny that the major theme of eschatology (arguably one of the
biggest themes in the gospels) is, then the Gospels do not accurately portray who
Jesus was, and we can't use it to prove that he actually was a secular sage.[15]
Dan
says that we should not base our faith on the latest scholarly theories. Part
of this is because they do not seem to have much longevity. “I'm old enough
have seen a lot of them come and go”. And even when they stay, there “are
multiple portrayals of Jesus, so which portrayal of Jesus are we going to base
our faith on?”
According
to Watson, one of the biggest limitations of the quest for the historical Jesus
is that it considers its own “interpretive paradigm” with reality itself. For
them the only Jesus that matters is the one that is historically verifiable,
and anything else is a “pious fantasy” that doesn't actually matter. It ignores
the impression that Jesus'
community of believers have of him since it is no longer verifiable.
There
therefore becomes a division between faith and history, often distinguished as
the difference between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History. However,
according to James D.G. Dunn it is important to distinguish between fact and
data. All historical knowledge we have is data interpreted. The data may
reflect the facts, but not necessarily the past is inaccessible to us today and
so the closest we can do is interpret
and infer from the knowledge that we have. This means that we really don't have
any access to who Jesus really was, we just have the Historian's Jesus, what
they have reconstructed from data. This is why there are so many different
“Jesuses” derived from the Quest for the Historical Jesus. In Fact, the
historian who claims that they have found the true Jesus has in fact made a
faith claim from their own interpretation of the data, it is therefore less
consequential that there is a Christ of Faith and a Jesus of History, because
the Jesus of History is in fact a Jesus of faith.[16]
Truth
This leads us to the question is the bible true? Most
Christians would like the bible to be true, that things happen the way the
bible depicts them as happening. As John Rogeson says, the fundamentalist
argument, that you “have to accept the whole of the Bible as accurate or reject
it entirely” does seem to have some
merit. Choosing certain parts over the other to be accurate does seem to be
eisegesis, or putting your own meaning into the text.[17]
However, As I mentioned before, the
importance is not whether or not the individual passages reflect historic fact,
but rather it is important that they represent Jesus properly.
Dan has two
simple questions we need to ask as we read the biblical story “what are the
biblical writers trying to say? Why did they tell the story this way and what
are they trying to say with it?”[18] If
those are the questions we are asking ourselves then we don't need to be
worried about whether or not an individual passage is authentic because we
understand that the biblical writers are working with literature.
Can We trust the bible's description of who Jesus is?
From the
impression Jesus left on the disciples, Dunn argues, we can “discern the
'shape' of the one who made that impression”. Even with the church adding
content, we can trust that this content is in line with the impression that
Jesus left on them. This impression is not objective, it is based on faith. It
is the impression that was left on the fisherman and tax collectors that turned
them into disciples and apostles. It left a mark on them and it is to them we
trust to learn about the Jesus of faith.[19]
Dan recognizes that “the church in it's wisdom has
decided these are the books of the bible that it will regard as it's testimony
to Jesus...
so
that's the stuff that I will work with”.
As we
examine the Gospels, we realize that the evangelists were willing to modify the
text to their own needs.[20] This
shows that the tradition was a “living tradition”. On the one hand the
impression that Jesus left on them is still discernible, on the other hand it
spoke in different ways to different people depending on the situation.[21]
Rogeson writes how we probably have authentic
teachings of Jesus within the Gospels, but that over time they have been added and expanded
to, not because the biblical writers are falsifying the historical record, but
because they are trying to help the reader understand who Jesus was. They were
adding interpretive comments to clear up some of the aspects of Jesus where
their impression of him add to what Jesus said.[22]
Allison
argues that we find “certain themes, motifs, and rhetorical strategies”
attributed to Jesus on a wide variety
sources. It is here where we find who Jesus really is.[23] For
him, any image we create for Jesus has to be derivative of the Synoptic image
of Jesus. Matthew, Mark and Luke's image of Jesus is the most accurate image
because they are the source in which everyone else's images of Jesus derive
from[24]
The
Pastoral Challenge
When
Marla began serious Scriptural study, she too was surprised to learn some of
the historical-critical research's findings.
For her, the scholastic research has challenged her concept of truth she
learned that it was okay to not have all of the answers. And that she and
others “could be wrong”. She describes her view of scripture as being “a story
of how people have experienced God. This is a very comprehensive, but not
complete picture. It is 'spirit breathed' in that God's spirit is in the
lives of those whose stories are told and those who do the telling.”[25]
This
lead her into considering whether or not she was “leading people astray” by
challenging their deep-rooted beliefs. Because her congregation has an older
population, it seemed “almost cruel” to introduce them to a lot of her findings
at such a late point in their lives. Instead she has “erred on the side of
gentleness”.[26]
This
doesn't mean that she is not keen in helping her congregation ask deep-rooted
questions about faith. This can be seen in her sermons where she tries to ask
questions that provoke thought and yet maintain faith in others.
She
takes a different approach within a Bible Study context where she is able to
offer alternative view points. This is because it is a context of conversation
where people can argue with what she says, and has resulted in very positive
conversations even with older members of her congregation.
Whenever
she teaches, she has to make a decision about how much to share. For her, the
historical “truth” (read Dunn's “Fact”), doesn't change the importance of the
story, or the reasons why it is being shared. The meaning of the story can be
far more important then the mere details of the story.[27]
Dan
similarly argues that when he is preaching, his goal is to how can he “preach
in such a way that God changes the lives of the hearers,” he still uses historical
critical methodology as he prepares his sermon, but it is not the focus of said
sermon. Instead he is trying to “create and shape faith and to foster both a
hearing and an experiencing of the Gospel”.[28]
When
Dan teaches adult Sunday school, again he uses the biblical-critical
scholarship to shape his content, but he is not outright saying “these texts
are inaccurate” instead he draws the class into a discussion about the writer's
context, what they are trying to accomplish, and in doing so he teaches them to
think critically about what they are reading.[29]
When
I talk to students taking first year bible courses where they are first
introduced to Historical Critical Scholarship, they often talk about the class
challenging their “Sunday School faith”. Both Marla and Dan suggest that best
way to work with this is to use age appropriate content.
When
children are younger and unable to It is important that we teach children them
the basic biblical story, some of the
implications and to encourage their faith. As they develop more refined senses
of right and wrong truth, it then becomes possible to encourage them to
consider a “bigger understanding of faith” that goes beyond the literalistic
readings of scripture.[30]
Marla
notes that we do not give children enough credit, and that they can actually
handle questions better than adults can, and so we should allow ensure that
teachers know that they don't have to give them “clear answers”.[31]
Dan
places the onus on Sunday school teachers as models of “respect for the
biblical text” and to subtly model “that we don't read all biblical texts
literally” but he is “not critical of Sunday School teachers for not teaching
our children historical-critical methodology. That's not what Sunday School
should do.”[32]
Marla,
agrees that it is high school age that we can teach youths to engage critically
with the text. The problem, in her experience is that it is exactly the same
time that these children no longer attend church regularly. It is hard to build
relationships, and encourage thoughtful reading of scripture when they are not
attending.[33]
Conclusion
As
a pastor it is important to ensure an integrity of the biblical text. To ignore
the fact that there are legitimate questions about the veracity of the biblical
narrative would be a great disservice. By ignoring the questions that scholars
and congregants have about whether or not the stories really happened, we would
only be increasing the gap between the doubt in the mind of the believer, and
the mystery that is living as part of God's kingdom. By engaging these
questions, we free ourselves from the traps that arise when we limit our
understanding of God.
Biblical
Scholarship pushes us to ask questions, but we need to be careful to ensure
that we are also asking the right questions. Instead of asking about whether or
not an individual story happened, we
begin to ask questions about why the biblical author is telling the
story the way he does, what is the major lesson from the story, what does it
tell us about the Christ of faith.
And
yet we must take the critical lens that biblical scholarship gives us and turn
it back on itself. It works well for individual pericopes, but it misses
broader themes and motifs that are perhaps more integral to the authenticity of
the bible than the veracity of individual stories.
It
would not do to hide these findings from the church, but both Marla and Dan
show a sophistication in their delivery of it. By getting congregants to think
critically, the congregants themselves become the catalyst for creating
stronger faiths that are not bound to the black and white thinking of
modernity. It is no longer the all or none of fundamentalist thinking, but
rather a more dynamic view of understanding what is important and what is not.
It is a redirecting of priorities from liberalism to seeing the Jesus as the
early church saw him, alive and Dynamic.
People's
faiths are developed at an early age, if it is one built on a rigid structure
of either/or thinking, then it will continue to be so through to their old age.
If however, a dynamic faith is modeled from a young age, and it is possible to
engage them through their youth, then it is possible for Biblical Scholarship
to become an important aspect of your faith, informing it, but not becoming the
foundation of it.
Reference
List
Allison
Jr. Dale C.. “The Historians’ Jesus and
the Church” in
Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, edited by
Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, 79-95. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eeerdmans, 2008.
Dunn, James D G. "On faith and
history, and living tradition in response to Robert Morgan and Andrew
Gregory." Expository Times 116, no. 1
(October 1, 2004): 13-19. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed November 2, 2013).
"Editorial." Interpretation 57.2 (2003): 115. ProQuest. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
Rogerson, John. “The Gifts and challenges of Historical and
Literary Criticism” in The Bible in
Pastoral Practice, edited by Paul Ballard and Stephen R. Holmes, 121-134.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2005.
Schweitzer, Don. "A theological significance of the
quest for the historical Jesus." Touchstone 25, no. 2
(May 1, 2007): 23-34. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
November 2, 2013).
Watson, Francis. “Veritas Christi: How to get from the
Jesus of History to the Christ of Faith without Losing One’s Way” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage,
edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, 96-116. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eeerdmans, 2008.
Bibliography
Hull,
William. E. “Preaching on the Synoptic Gospels” in Biblical Preaching, edited by James W. Cox, 169-194. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1983.
[1]Marla
Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.
[2]
See Appendix A
[3]Dan
Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23rd, 2013.
[4]John
Rogerson, “The Gifts and challenges of Historical and literary criticism” in The Bible in Pastoral Practice, ed. Paul
Ballard and Stephen R. Holmes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2005), 129.
[5]Don
Schweitzer, “A Theological Significance of the Quest for the Historical Jesus.”
Touchstone 25, no. 2 (2007), 26 ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.
[6]Ibid.,
25.
[7]Marla
Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.
[8]Francis
Watson, “Veritas Christi: How to get from the Jesus of History to the Christ of Faith
without Losing One’s Way” in Seeking the
Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B.
Hays, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2008), 108.
[9]Schweitzer,
“A Theological Significance, 29-30.
[10]“Editorial”
in Interpretation 57.2 (2003): 115.
ProQuest. Web.
[11]Source
Unknown
[12]“Editorial,”
115.
[13]Dale
C. Allison Jr., “The Historians’ Jesus and the Church” in ”
in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage,
ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, (Grand Rapids: William
B. Eeerdmans, 2008), 81.
[14]Dan
Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23rd, 2013.
[15]Allison,
“The Historians’ Jesus,” 84.
[16]James
DG Dunn, “On Faith and History, and living tradition in response to Robert
Morgan and Andrew Gregory.” Expository
Times 116, no. 1 (2004), 14. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.
[17]Rogerson,
“The Gifts and challenges,” 127.
[18]Dan
Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23rd, 2013.
[19]Dunn,
“On Faith and History,” 15.
[20]Ibid.,
18.
[21]Ibid.,
19.
[22]Rogerson,
“The Gifts and challenges,” 126.
[23]Allison,
“The Historians’ Jesus,” 85-86.
[24]Ibid.,
88.
[25]
Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.
[26]
Ibid.
[27]
Ibid.
[28]
Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23rd, 2013
[31]Marla
Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.
[32]Dan
Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23rd, 2013
[33]Marla
Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.
