The Historical Jesus

“…it is surely evident that the early Christians had an interest in the historical story [of Jesus] for it’s own sake…” – Bishop John A.T. Robinson

In glancing over the progression of scholarship regarding the role of the historical Jesus in relationship to broader Christology, it is interesting to me that it has consistently been at the hands of those who would claim to be most concerned with gaining an accurate picture of the Jesus of history that, in their inability to recognize and detach themselves from their own philosophical aims, the context, audience, evidence and aim of the Gospel has suffered the most violence. How is it that, again and again, those who seek to take up the ‘Quest’ for the historical Jesus have lead us instead into the arms of a timeless Christ, a disembodied moral exemplar, a universal human principle; the furthest thing possible from that concrete, frustratingly particular and purposed reality that is the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the 1st century Jewish Rabbi and self-proclaimed messiah? Indeed, while this incongruous universalizing of Jesus seems surprising when considered in it’s own right, its origin becomes clear when we recognize that the aim of this quest has never been to genuinely clarify the reality of this inescapably important historical figure, but rather to seek to find a way out of a scriptural understanding of Christ that is simply too uncomfortable to bear. Too influential to dismiss, yet too dangerous in his own right, our ‘quest’ begins with a simple presupposition: he must not have really been/done/said those things. Rooted in distrust of the best available sources, these scholars have repeatedly opted for the authority of their own conjecture and imagination; creating sensible ‘christs’ in their own image, a neutered and confused figure, deeply tragic, but somehow still universally inspiring.

It is further fascinating to me that it is these same scholars who continually miss the radical significance of the historical story, even as they claim deep concern for it. Attempting to fit the gospel into their pre-existing religious paradigms of polemic and instruction, they miss the revolutionary uniqueness of the moment. They fail to appreciate that the reason the evangelists of the early church recorded the life and teachings of Jesus in the form of narrative, in the shape of a historical moment, is that it is precisely the fact that it IS a story, and a true one, that makes it unique, profound, and the foundation of hope itself

Every religious text on earth can basically be boiled down to a series of instructions: live this way, and achieve your proper end. They are essentially compilations of instruction, sprinkled with stories to illustrate that instruction. The Gospel, on the other hand is ESSENTIALLY a story; it is not an instruction manual to tell us what to do, rather it is the good news – the joyful report – about what God has already done on our behalf. While there is a good deal of excellent instruction to be found in scripture, that instruction is MEANINGLESS if the STORY isn’t true. This is why the apostle Paul could so adamantly assert, “…if Christ is not raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith.” (1 Cor. 15:14) It is precisely the fact that these things actually and historically happened that is the cornerstone of faith. As such, it is both amazing and tragic that such a ‘quest’ for the Jesus of history would lead to such a spiritualized, universalized, mythologized and disembodied figure. It is as if we have decided that the news readily before us in scripture is just too good to be true, and therefore simply cannot be.