Week 4.5 - the historical Jesus in my heart

   What happened to January? It's been a busy month, and a good month, here at Richmond Hill. I've really enjoyed the Jesus read-a-thon so far and hope I can stay motivated. Many thanks to family and friends for feedback! I just wanted to take a minute to think out loud...or, on paper, about next month - "historical Jesus." (I use "quotes" a lot, don't I?)
  "Historical Jesus"...as opposed to what? Ahistorical Jesus? Super-historical Jesus? Religious Jesus? Eternal Jesus? Isn't religion and spirituality as much a part of history as, well, history? Yes, yes, I'm missing the point. "Historical Jesus" is the process and result of studying Jesus using modern historical methods, right? Is "modern" code for "me and other white guys tell you how it is?"
   If I want to study Alexander the Great, I can read ancient stories about him; I can look for old stuff from his day and age; I can try to learn his language, at least in it's written form; I can try to compare him to other kings and conquerors; I can study people or writers or places that he impacted. What else? 
   Maybe I can get enough information to write an event-based narrative of his life - he was involved in this thing that happened, then this crazy thing happened. Maybe I can attempt to recreate his psychological life - he wanted this, he believed that, he was really silly as a kid but grew out of it. Maybe I could understand his social role - in his family, in Macedonia, in government, in the army, in relationships, in foreign lands - how all that worked. What other angles could I take?
   When I think about studying Jesus this way, my first reaction is - that's crazy! There's way too much material! We've got 2000 years of people writing and singing and building and fighting about Jesus. Wouldn't all of that be relevant to understanding the history of Jesus - the big events in his life, his psychological development, how he impacted others and continues to impact others, what roles he filled and continues to fill? I guess I'm skirting a question that's way over my head - what is an individual person's history? where does the person end and the society begin? warning, warning, rabbit hole.
   Plus, except for a few side-notes from Roman and Jewish authors, all the early information about Jesus - the New Testament and some non-canonical stuff - comes from people who thought Jesus was the best thing since pita bread. How do you know that they thought that? Well, at least, they said Jesus was awesome. How could a historian rely only on material as biased as that?
   Double plus, the majority of Christians today and almost all the Christians of the past have believed that the New Testament is historically reliable - that most, if not all, the stuff in the Gospels happened as written. Narrative discrepancies and historical missteps are neither here nor there. Yes, earnest preachers and over-eager liberals like me get worked up about inerrancy and whatnot, but at the end of the day, most Christians have more important things to worry about - work, kids, life, death. The Bible was written; it is True, in some form or another; that is enough. (Is there an apocalyptic flavor to Christian trust in the Bible? "Some parts may seem confusing now, but in the end, it will all become clear.") Why would a historian want rock that boat, especially a historian that is Christian?
   Well, I'm hoping to find that out! From the little I've read so far I'd say the "historical Jesus" movement combines commitment to historical methods and textual criticism, deep desire to understand Jesus, and frankly, an evangelist's call to share a "message." 
   The only things I've read that might fall under the "historical Jesus" umbrella are Jesus and the Disinherited, by Howard Thurman, in which he describes Jesus' message to a Jewish peasantry ruled and exploited by Roman conquerors and their local clients.  
   Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, by John Dominic Crossan, which is a summary of some of his other books, I think: if I'm remembering correctly his end result is like a cross between Jewish prophet of justice and Cynic philosopher of world-denial. Maybe I can read that one again this month.
   There are a few great chapters in Erhman's textbook about historical Jesus work; he explains his criteria clearly (multiple attestation, dissimilarity, contextual credibility), and then he demonstrates how to use them. He concludes that it is highly probable that (I'm forgetting some) Jesus was baptized by John, Jesus preached about the imminent kingdom of God (apocalypse - out with the old world, in with the new), he had twelve disciples, he was betrayed, he was crucified by Pilate (this is the most definite of all the "facts"), his own disciples claimed that Jesus came back to life. He also used an interesting argument to claim that Jesus' was primarily an apocalyptic prophet. He called it "the book-ends" thesis: if John the Baptist preached the end is near (prepare the way of the Lord; God's about to show up in a big way), and Paul and other early Christian writers preached the end is near (keep awake, stay strong, the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night), what's the most reasonable reconstruction of Jesus' message? The end is near.
   The Five Gospels, by the Jesus Seminar, in its commentary on the text uses similar criteria to Erhman, but for some unexplained reason disavows all apocalyptic sayings. The book also is propagandish, splashy, not necessarily in a bad way. They definitely wanted to shake things up. It's fun. The resulting portrait of Jesus bears a striking resemblance to the Dude from The Big Lebowski. One of their methods, which they don't really spell out at first, is the use of "pole star" sayings. They agreed early on (before they started voting?) that certain sayings were very likely "authentic," and so they used those sayings to guide them in debates and disagreements about other sayings. This early agreement created a bias toward consistency (all the other sayings need to agree with the "pole star" sayings) and tended to override multiple attestation and other criteria.
   I'm looking forward to February, the "quest" for my very own historical Jesus!