Implications for historical Jesus scholarship.

[Elijah John]

The consensus among historical Jesus scholars seems to be that the real, historical Jesus never claimed to be God, and portions of the New Testament which seem to indicate that he is God are ambiguous at best.

For debate,

-What should the Church do with the HJ conclusion that real, historical Jesus is not God, and that he never actually claimed to be God? Should the Church rework it's Creeds and/or it's liturgy? How would you envision this to be done?

-If you are a believing Christian, how do you integrate this conclusion with your own belief system? Do you dismiss the findings of HJ scholars out of hand? Or do you consider their arguments? Do you continue to worship Jesus as "God" despite evidence to the contrary, or with no real evidence that he is?

-If you wanted to remain a Christian, would you refocus the object of your devotion, from Jesus to the God of Jesus, namely the Father? And concentrate on love of God and neighbor, (as Jesus seems to have taught) instead of worshiping Jesus and attempting to convince others that he is "God" and that he died in order to "pay for" our sins?

[bjs]

Personally, I do not dismiss HJ scholarship out of hand. However, I think its methodology is ultimately flawed. Its historical Jesus is not particularly historical.

The documents say what they say. Nearly from time the phrase was coined, the criticism historical Jesus scholarship is that it arrives at its conclusion by exaggerating the importance of certain passages while suppressing the importance of other passages.

For instance, there is the claim in opening post that HJ scholarship provides evidence that Jesus is not God. That is not true. HJ scholarship has provided hypotheses which ignore or downplay the passages where Jesus claimed Divinity while propping up passages that focused on Jesus’ humanity.

I am also put off by how often the “historical Jesus� ends up looking a lot like modern historical Jesus scholars. There is a common tendency to peer down the long, dark well of history and see one’s own reflection at the bottom. I have noticed that over the past 20 years the historical Jesus has looked a lot like the ideal of a 21st century college professor. There is a human tendency to make Jesus’ life look like ours, which is far easier than making our lives look like his.

[bluethread]

I am also put off by how often the “historical Jesus� ends up looking a lot like modern historical Jesus scholars. There is a common tendency to peer down the long, dark well of history and see one’s own reflection at the bottom. I have noticed that over the past 20 years the historical Jesus has looked a lot like the ideal of a 21st century college professor. There is a human tendency to make Jesus’ life look like ours, which is far easier than making our lives look like his.

I agree with this view. It is my opinion that the “historical Jesus� movement is flawed by confirmation bias. It is my understanding that it's original purpose was to verify whether Yeshua was an actual historical figure, without regard to any theistic claims. After examinations concluded that Yeshua's existence was as least as verifiable as that of Alexander the Great, who's history is derived from second hand accounts by people who did not know or serve Alexander, the focus shifted to the importance of Yeshua's life. The problem with this shift is that the movement maintains it's assertion of being fact based history, while engaging subjective analysis. There is nothing wrong with subjective analysis. It is just not entirely fact based, as is required of supporters of Yeshua. This analysis is, as you have stated, dependent on the assumptions one makes about language and culture.

Detractors generally make one of two assumptions. They either take a "common sense" approach, based on current language and culture, or they look at the languages and cultures of the ancient world. The first makes one dependent on the analysis of others, since the manuscripts or events recorded therein are only associated with current language and culture in that some modern practices have been derived from them. So, at best, this approach is equivalent to reverse engineering. The second approach is more valuable in providing context, but the detractors use it for more than context. They argue absolute cultural evolution. That is to say no culture is unique and all cultures are natural outgrowths of previous cultures. This is not fact, but a modern humanistic bias, that presumes that human nature has been progressively improving. If one removes this bias and entertains the view that human nature has not really changed that much, even though the human experience has become more complex, one can better examine the nature of ancient cultures.

So, to the OP, I believe that Trinitarianism, Modalism, Psilanthropism, etc. are attempts to definitively categorize the nature of Adonai and Yeshua. I do not think this is possible. Adonai is beyond our understanding and the practical value of Yeshua is that he lived as a human, confirming that living a Torah submissive life is, as Moshe' states, "not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." By the same token, the nature of salvation, which is tied up in the relationship between Adonai and Yeshua, is also something that can not be easily categorized. I do not believe that it is a matter of working one's way into heaven, or a get out of judgement free card. It is woven into HaTorah and not directly stated. That is why Paul's letters about salvation are so verbose. There are a lot of dots to connect to properly explain it's nature and secular history can not explain it outside of the context of HaTorah.

[Elijah John]

Shortcomings of HJ scholarship duly noted. And I agree somewhat, but not entirely. It is true that HJ scholars do tend to view Jesus through their own present day bias, in this case they seem to want to see him as a political liberal, a social justice warrior. Evangelicals, by contrast, often want to paint Jesus as a political conservative, Seems to me the truth is somewhere in between. Jesus seems to have been a theological radical (seeing the holiness code as an artificial barrier to God's love), but apolitical. (render unto Caesar, etc.)

But I think they have a point in their contention that Jesus never claimed to be "God". Only passages in the GoJ seem to have Jesus doing so, and even in that most recent Gospel, there are passages where Jesus seems to refute that claim. (John 17.3 for example).

Nowhere in the Synoptics does Jesus claim to be God, only the "Son of God", and that title means different things to different people. In the context of first century Judaism, it is doubtful that the title was understood to have meant the unique incarnation of YHVH God Himself. More likely it was a Messianic claim, and not a supernatural one.

In the earliest Gospel Mark Jesus does not even claim to have a pre-existance. There is no birth narrative, and it seems that Mark's Jesus only becomes the "Son of God" at his baptism.

Matthew and Luke make the claim that it was at his birth, Paul, at his resurrection, and only John has Jesus as pre-existent and "begotten".

Yet it is the Church with it's creeds, catechisms and liturgies which emphasize certain passages at the expense of others. Namely giving pre-eminence to the GoJ and the letters of Paul. Historical Jesus scholars have only really attempted to restore the balance, mining the Synoptics and restoring Jesus to his Jewish context.

So if HJ scholars are guilty of "confirmation bias" and are being subjective, couldn't the same be said of the Church and it's creeds, which go well beyond the teachings of the Bible? Remember, not all HJ scholars are "detractors", atheists or agnostics. Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong are two who seem to be attempting to come to terms with their own findings and the findings of other HJ scholars, while at the same time attempting to remain within their Episcopal tradition. (Spong is even a Bishop, the last time I checked). So I don't think it's fair to call them "detractors".

And remember, Jesus was, after all, a Jew, and no good Jew would claim to be God. The Messiah? Perhaps, but not God. And yes, Jesus seems to have demonstrated the way of salvation via Torah observance. It was Paul who seems to have deviated, and seems to have considered those attempting live by the Torah as under a "curse".

[Elijah John]

Personally, I do not dismiss HJ scholarship out of hand..

Which conclusions of HJ scholarship do you accept? Any that differ with the Creeds of the Church and conventional Trinitarianism?

[bluethread]

So if HJ scholars are guilty of "confirmation bias" and are being subjective, couldn't the same be said of the Church and it's creeds, which go well beyond the teachings of the Bible? Remember, not all HJ scholars are "detractors", atheists or agnostics. Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong are two who seem to be attempting to come to terms with their own findings and the findings of other HJ scholars, while at the same time attempting to remain within their Episcopal tradition. (Spong is even a Bishop, the last time I checked). So I don't think it's fair to call them "detractors".

Yes, confirmation bias is not limited to detractors. The RCC and Protestant traditions do introduce similar biases. Modern cultural bias, previously referred to a Hellenization, has played a big role in Christian interpretation of the Scriptures. It is only due to the archeological evidence of the last 100 years or so, regarding ancient cultures, that the historical grammatical cultural approach to hermeneutics has gained acceptance.

And remember, Jesus was, after all, a Jew, and no good Jew would claim to be God. The Messiah? Perhaps, but not God. And yes, Jesus seems to have demonstrated the way of salvation via Torah observance. It was Paul who seems to have deviated, and seems to have considered those attempting live by the Torah as under a "curse".

I understand that Yeshua was careful in that regard. However, I think that is mainly due to the that proclaiming to be of Adonai was not His purpose. I also think that attempts to put Adonai in a box are not appropriate. In addition, I think you might be conflating salvation with halachah.

[bjs]

Nowhere in the Synoptics does Jesus claim to be God, only the "Son of God", and that title means different things to different people. In the context of first century Judaism, it is doubtful that the title was understood to have meant the unique incarnation of YHVH God Himself. More likely it was a Messianic claim, and not a supernatural one.

It is true that “Son of God� means different things to different people, but I disagree with your assessment of first century Judaism in the strongest possible terms.

Jewish thought at the time gave no credence to the Greek idea of demigods or the like. Jewish thought allowed for the people as a whole to think of themselves as the sons of God, or more commonly to think of angelic beings as the sons of God. However, for an individual to claim to be the Son of God would be seen as claiming equality with YHVH. (It would be like saying that if a man had a son, then that son would be a man. Hence if God had a Son, that Son would be God.)

In the synoptics, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God those who heard him called that blasphemy. That word has lost some of its punch in modern English, but in the Hebrew context blasphemy meant claiming to be equal with God. (See Mark 14:61)

First century Jews would not have had words like “unique incarnation of YHVH,� but they would have had no need for that kind of language. Claiming to be the son of God would absolutely be putting oneself on equal footing with YHVH, and they would not have needed to explore that level of blasphemy any deeper.

[Tart]

Well you guys seem to be more knowledgeable then I am on this subject, that I don't even think I understand fully... Historical Jesus (I assume this is what "HJ" means) scholars say Jesus never claimed to be God... Is that true? I don't know, I'm going off on what you guys say... Would that change how I worship God? Perhaps, I'm not sure...

However, is this leading into a more naturalistic explanation of the Gospels? Becuase what would surely make me question my faith, and how I worship, isn't so much if Jesus was the Son of God, or God, but if Jesus was really the Messiah of God. Which if Jesus really wasn't the Messiah of God, that would be huge... But is that not the question here?

I also want to point out that there is prophecy of Jesus from God, in first person... "they pierced "my" hands and feet" ... I find that kind of interesting, like Jesus was the one to reveal the prophecy himself... so whatever that might mean...

[brianbbs67]

I don't think anyone is arguing Jesus isn't the Messiah.

But, there is an argument for whether he is God or not. It goes all the way back to Arius and Athenasues and Augustine. About, 325 AD. The Romans won the argument , scripture may have been altered and the Trinity was fully accepted by the RCC. This period of time is when the followers of the Way of Christ's (as they called themselves) customs changed greatly. I don't think that was an entirely good thing.

[brianbbs67]

I also want to point out that there is prophecy of Jesus from God, in first person... "they pierced "my" hands and feet" ... I find that kind of interesting, like Jesus was the one to reveal the prophecy himself... so whatever that might mean...

That was Davids dream put into Psalm, was it not?