Do Jesus-worshipers have any interest

[Elijah John]

Do those who consider Jesus to be God, and the worthy object of worship and devotion, have any interest in historical Jesus research and scholarship?

1) After all, how can one prove that Jesus is God by historical critical methodology?

2) And isn't it possible, even likely that the findings of HJ scholars would provide evidence that:

-Jesus never claimed to be God.
-People in his own day did not ever call him God or refer to him as "God".

3) Wouldn't findings such as this threaten orthodoxy, and the desire to worship Jesus as God? And standing to preach Jesus as God?

4) In light of all this, don't Evangelicals and other orthodox Trinitarian Christians have an interest in ignoring, attacking or suppressing historical Jesus scholarship findings or positions?

5) Or conversely, if you take the position that historical Jesus scholarship upholds the position that "Jesus is God", how so? Please explain.

[Overcomer]

There are a lot of us who are interested in scholarly research with regard to the historical Jesus. That's why we read the work of experts in the field, including Darrell Bock, Michael Bird, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Richard Bauckham, Craig Keener, Larry Hurtado, Robert Bowman, Daniel Wallace, Craig Evans, Paul Maier, Michael Kruger, F.F. Bruce, John Dickson, Craig Blomberg, etc.

I have read works by all of those and more. Darrell Bock was the lecturer for my courses in Luke and Acts. I refer to the Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus edited by Craig Evans a lot.

Here are some web sites from a few of the above:

https://blogs.bible.org/bock

https://www.michaeljkruger.com/

http://www.richardbauckham.co.uk/

http://www.garyhabermas.com/

There is an international scholarly journal (The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus) devoted to the study of the historical Jesus:

https://brill.com/view/journals/jshj/jshj-overview.xml

I know of quite a few pastors who have preached on the historical Jesus, including the pastor at my own local church. Therefore, it isn't just academics who are interested in talking about what history has to say about Jesus. The subject is discussed at the lay level as well.

Here is a list of articles on a variety of topics that have to do with the historical Jesus:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?s=historical+jesus

And there are plenty of sites for lay people, too:

https://www.neverthirsty.org/about-chri ... al-quotes/

http://coldcasechristianity.com/tag/historical-jesus/

And what scholars have found is that Jesus did indeed consider himself God and those around him knew it. If you exegete the Bible properly, it's obvious. And the early church fathers saw Jesus as divine as well. Read the writings of Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, etc., and see for yourself. Their works are all online.

There really is no way that any serious Christian can study the Bible without engaging in some study of history. One of the keys of proper Bible exegesis is determining how the original audience of the various books would have understood their contents. If we are going to understand God's Word, we have to understand the society and culture in which the books were written. So we study history. And we encourage others to study history so that they can find the truth for themselves.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Overcomer]

Ah, you missed a few, suprised you didn't mention Luke Timothy Johnson, or David Limbaugh.

How many of your scholars are Evangelicals, Roman Catholics. or other Trinitarians?

Was it their scholarly research that led them to become Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Trinitarian, or do they approach their research through the lens of orthodoxy and come up whith findings that reinforce their inherent bias, or indoctrination?

How about scholars like Karen Armstrong, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrmann, John Shelby Spong, or Marcus Borg? Why aren't they on your list? How about Reza Aslan?

And most importantly, Geza Vermes? Albert Schweitzer?

Or some Jewish scholars who could really provide a fresh contextual perspective?

[polonius]

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."


Note that Jesus was considered the Messiah by his followers. Nowhere in the Old Testament was the Messiah said to be divine.

Following the death of Jesus, the Jewish Christians remained orthodox members of the Jewish Temple called "the Way"

About 85 AD, they began to claim the Jesus himself was divine resulting in a split with Judaism and their being declared apostates by the Jews. See the 12 Benediction or "the minim."

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Overcomer]

I did glance though a couple of the links you provided. And some of the Trinitarian biased advocates for what they see as the "historical Jesus" seem to hold the position only that previous "historical Jesus movements" have failed. The 19th century "wave" and others, for example.

But they don't really seem to define what "success" would look like. Convincing Evangelicals perhaps? Or coming to the conclusion that "Jesus is God"

Traditional HJ scholars have convinced me, after I discovered them after having first discovered Matthew 16.28 on my own, verses which shook my faith in the infallibility of the Bible, or in the perfection of Jesus.

But from what I could tell at first glance, the sources you provide seem to suggest that unless HJ scholars come to the conclusion that "Jesus is God" then they have failed or that they are guilty of the "confimantion bias" of remaking Jesus in their own image.

But who is guilty of "confirmation bias"? And who are the revisionists?

Perhaps the original revisionists are the NT authors themselves?

So yes, I am willing to revise the assumption behind the OP. Some Evangelicals and Trinitariiansdo have in intrest in the "historical Jesus" or HJ scholarship. But it seems that interest is only (or mostly) for he purpose of refuting them, and upholding the image of the "Christ of Faith" AS their (the orthodox believer's) own "historical" Jesus.

Is the "Christ of Faith" in fact the historical, real Jesus?

[bjs]

Do those who consider Jesus to be God, and the worthy object of worship and devotion, have any interest in historical Jesus research and scholarship?

1) After all, how can one prove that Jesus is God by historical critical methodology?

This cannot be done. There is no possible evidence that would prove that Jesus is God, be it from historical critical methodology or for any other methodology. No matter what evidence there is, someone can always say, “Yeah, but that doesn’t prove that Jesus is God.�

2) And isn't it possible, even likely that the findings of HJ scholars would provide evidence that:

-Jesus never claimed to be God.
-People in his own day did not ever call him God or refer to him as "God".

This would certainly be important, but it does not seem likely to happen.

My personal view of historical Jesus scholarship is that it is interesting but of limited value because the views of Jesus put forth are not measurably more historical than other views of Jesus. The documents say what they say. Essentially every hypotheses I have seen from HJS was built on exaggerating the importance of some passages while suppressing the importance of other passages. Since I don’t consider a shift of emphasis to be the same thing as evidence, I find that HJS is filled with hypotheses about Jesus but lacking in evidence to back them up.

3) Wouldn't findings such as this threaten orthodoxy, and the desire to worship Jesus as God? And standing to preach Jesus as God?

4) In light of all this, don't Evangelicals and other orthodox Trinitarian Christians have an interest in ignoring, attacking or suppressing historical Jesus scholarship findings or positions?

No, I would be very interested in well evidenced theories about the historical Jesus. My interests in the study waned for two reasons. One was the persistent lack of evidence for the hypotheses put forward by HJS. The other was how often it seemed that the Jesus of historical Jesus scholarship ended up looking a lot like the historical Jesus scholar.

5) Or conversely, if you take the position that historical Jesus scholarship upholds the position that "Jesus is God", how so? Please explain.

I know of no HJ scholar who claims this. Some say that Jesus claimed to be God, but to say that Jesus actually was God goes beyond what can critically be established.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

When I was a Catholic Christian, the historical Jesus was, and had to be, identical to the NT Jesus.

Although Catholic critical scholars such as the late Raymond E. Brown were of inestimable value toward my understanding of Jesus, of course, these writers never doubted 1) Jesus's deity and 2) Jesus's historicity. The divine Jesus was the historical Jesus, and vice-versa. A non-historical Jesus would be an absurdity and a stumbling-block. A non-divine Jesus would be a lesser "god", but not the Trinitarian Son. Those two concepts are worse than useless - they are toxic to established dogma, and threatening to one's salvation.

So the historical Jesus - upon whom the entire Christian conception of the Incarnation was and is based - is crucial to mainstream Christianity. I never attributed to scholars the notion that their research could establish that Jesus said he was God, or that his peers said that of him, or denied it to him. In order to know that, access to time travel technology would be required. The best that scholarship would offer was to decide what the texts really say about Jesus, and the consensus was that Jesus, not even in John's Gospel, claimed to be God. He claimed to be God's "Son", he claimed to have pre-existence, he claimed identity with the heavenly Son of Man, he claimed to be "One" with the Father - but he never claimed to be ontological God.

Then I became a fan of the Christ Myth Theory. Having eliminated Jesus from history, but without erasing his potential reality as a celestial angel, led me to favor Christianity in its "Gnostic" and "Docetic" forms as being the original kind of Christianity.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

When I was a Catholic Christian, the historical Jesus was, and had to be, identical to the NT Jesus.

Although Catholic critical scholars such as the late Raymond E. Brown were of inestimable value toward my understanding of Jesus, of course, these writers never doubted 1) Jesus's deity and 2) Jesus's historicity. The divine Jesus was the historical Jesus, and vice-versa. A non-historical Jesus would be an absurdity and a stumbling-block. A non-divine Jesus would be a lesser "god", but not the Trinitarian Son. Those two concepts are worse than useless - they are toxic to established dogma, and threatening to one's salvation.

So the historical Jesus - upon whom the entire Christian conception of the Incarnation was and is based - is crucial to mainstream Christianity. I never attributed to scholars the notion that their research could establish that Jesus said he was God, or that his peers said that of him, or denied it to him. In order to know that, access to time travel technology would be required. The best that scholarship would offer was to decide what the texts really say about Jesus, and the consensus was that Jesus, not even in John's Gospel, claimed to be God. He claimed to be God's "Son", he claimed to have pre-existence, he claimed identity with the heavenly Son of Man, he claimed to be "One" with the Father - but he never claimed to be ontological God.

Then I became a fan of the Christ Myth Theory. Having eliminated Jesus from history, but without erasing his potential reality as a celestial angel, led me to favor Christianity in its "Gnostic" and "Docetic" forms as being the original kind of Christianity.

It is my understanding that Raymond Brown agreed that there is no evidence that Jesus actually called himself "God" nor did anyone of his contemporaries refer to him as "God", Being a good Catholic, he never actually took the next step and came to the logical conclusion where his research seem to be leading, concluding that there is no reason to believe that Jesus is actually "God". Brown's reason for believing seemed to have been simply that Mother Church, the RCC, taught that Jesus was, indeed "God the Son". For Brown, it seemed to have been a matter of Faith, not logic.

Good points about Catholic and other Trinarians scholars equating the "Christ of Faith" with the historical Jesus, and making no disctinction between them.

Luke Timothy Johnson seems to hold that position.

Your view of a completely mythic Christ is facinating, (and even plausible), but so far I am not convinced by the evidence. That is a topic unto itself.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]

Yeah, Brown was, imo, mostly an outstanding scholar, but with some issues, his faith-commitments prevented him, as you said, from taking his research to its logical conclusion. That's one area in which I agree with the Mythers - that most historicists have in the past been affiliated with Christian or Christian-based teaching institutions, and even signed contracts that stipulate that they not cross the Faith Line.

Also, thanks for your insightful comment about L. T. Johnson - yes, he certainly identifies the Gospel Jesus with the Jesus of history. And gets upset with less historicist scholars such as Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, when they separate the pre-Easter Jesus from the post-Easter Jesus and point out the NT's parabolic and mythical aspects.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]

Yeah, Brown was, imo, mostly an outstanding scholar, but with some issues, his faith-commitments prevented him, as you said, from taking his research to its logical conclusion. That's one area in which I agree with the Mythers - that most historicists have in the past been affiliated with Christian or Christian-based teaching institutions, and even signed contracts that stipulate that they not cross the Faith Line.

Also, thanks for your insightful comment about L. T. Johnson - yes, he certainly identifies the Gospel Jesus with the Jesus of history. And gets upset with less historicist scholars such as Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, when they separate the pre-Easter Jesus from the post-Easter Jesus and point out the NT's parabolic and mythical aspects.

I side with Borg and Crossan on this. I believe in the historical Jesus, and try to keep and open mind about the "Christ of Faith", though I have my doubts.