"There is simply so much material in the Gospels that a model - an analogous figure from the period, or...a type of socio-political-religious role...[from Jesus' day] - really helps...In fact, it is probably not possible to write the history of anything without some sort of model in mind...So long as the historian is honest about what the model is and then shows how he or she sifts the data, this is not a bad way to work, since anyone can come along later and dispute the model." -Jesus the Baptist, R. Vinson
Reading this reminded me of something Chesterton says in his book about St. Francis: (I'm paraphrasing) yes, you can view Francis as a second Jesus, but you can also view Jesus as a second Francis. Initially I was confused and scandalized by such a statement (which pleased Chesterton, I'm sure), but, he intends it as spur to understanding. We need models, and we especially love precursors. What if we spelled Jesus backwards, and consciously did what we so often unconsciously do? Work anachronistically.
A historian reading the Gospels, looking for the original "pre-Christian" words and deeds of Jesus, has to work so hard to peel back layers of Christian confession and context. I'm super grateful to all those making the effort; the results are enlightening and inspiring. But is there a way to leverage the models already present in the Gospels and Christian history? Can 2000 years of Jesus-hypotheses and experimental discipleship help the historian in any way? not as a replacement of the textual methods already developed, but as a treasure trove of psychological and sociological models?
No comments:
Post a Comment