jesus and history.

Jesus may be one of the most misconceived historical figures of all time. For too long in America the study of the gospels was done with a total lack of historical context. Now, however, there is an abundance of scholarship on the historical Jesus, so that even if a careful student of the gospels does their homework, he (or she) finds the conflicting information overwhelming. I found myself in the midst of this crisis about two or three years ago. It brought me to the office of the famous (at least, famous in my little world) professor of history, Dr. Linder, with a desperate plea for some guidance. Since then, I have found that the study of the gospels, in their historical context, is not only absolutely essential to being a disciple, but refreshingly possible.

... ... ...

Jesus was a Jew. Jesus lived within the culture of first-century Judaism. Jesus spoke the language of his culture, used imagery from his culture, and made historical and geographical references that were specific to his culture. Jesus never rode a carnivorous dinosaur that was preserved by Noah on his ark. I don't expect any of this is a surprise.

Though, just a little over sixty or seventy years ago, much of this could have been seen as a scandal. Due to the liberal, naturalistic work of several late nineteenth-century German scholars, American fundamentalists became extremely skeptical of any talk of a historical perspective of Jesus. These German scholars stripped Jesus of all of his supernatural qualities--healing, prophecy, Godhood. It was definitely cause for alarm. Yet it should not have led to the kind of skepticism that would reject any historical supplement to the reading of the gospels. It should not have swung the pendulum to the extreme conclusion that Jesus transcended time and culture completely--that Jesus should only be understood through a simple reading of the biblical text.

This pendulum swing forced us to cram our western, enlightenment culture into a first-century Jewish text. This left Jesus with incomprehensible comments and uncomfortably strange behavior. This pendulum swing forced us to gloss over all of Jesus' ministry and emphasize the stuff we could make sense of... Jesus was born in a manger, died for our sins, and was raised from the dead. Never mind all the stuff in between... the words about the Jewish law handed down for centuries, the prophets and their hope for a messiah, the rabbinical debates of the day, the oppressive Roman empire, the misguided violent revolutions, the disgraceful temple built by Herod, the economic injustices that haunted the land, and most confusing of all, the reoccuring theme of the Kingdom of God.

But perhaps we have moved past this strict fundamentalism and are prepared for a serious study of the gospels within their historical context. Unfortunately, we move forward only to find a new block in the road. Which books do we read? Which scholars do we trust? Where do we start in this massive sea of conflicting information?

This is precisely where I found myself a few years ago. I had read any and every thing I could find on the historical Jesus (my first mistake) and entered into a minor crisis of faith. On one hand, I found what I had considered heroes of the Christian faith offering flimsy, uninformed defenses of Jesus as the son of God (the Bible says it, I believe it--cause if you don't you will have hell to pay). And on the other hand, I found very academic presentations of a historical Jesus that looked nothing like the one I found in the Bible.

This latter group, the seemingly academic presentations of a historical Jesus, turned out to be scholars with heavy agendas. Of course, any study of Jesus is motivated by an agenda from the start, but this group claims to be the untainted, honest look at the whole subject. I am talking about the Jesus Seminar--a closed group of authors and scholars who get together and vote on what is true about Jesus (John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg are just couple of names you might find at Borders). They vote on which documents suit their perspective of Jesus and which documents are contaminated with the power-hungry, mind-controlling church hierarchy. These men have set out to liberate humanity from the evils of the oppressive 'Christian Jesus' by revealing the true, historical Jesus. This is, of course, a Jesus who is anything but biblical. If it is contrary to scripture, it seems to have an automatic credibility.

I do not mean to say that everything they publish is wrong, it simply means they do not have the right to claim an objective study of the historical Jesus that overrules any biblical conclusions one makes about Jesus. Much can be learned from the Jesus Seminar if one accurately understands their approach to history from the start--they begin with the naturalistic assumption that Jesus cannot possibly be God. They continue the tradition of those nineteenth-century German scholars with new energy.

The lack of scholarship in my life, followed by the abundance of it, finally shook me enough to seek some help on this essential part of my faith. I went to my professor in desperation, "How can I make sense of this historical perspective of Jesus?" He handed me a book by N.T. Wright called, "Jesus and the Victory of God." It was massive, intimidating, and promising... so I read it. It explained all of the approaches to the historical Jesus, made sense of the books I read, and lead me to books I should read. It laid out a historical approach to Jesus that also respected scripture... in fact, it gave tremendous credibility to the bible as a historical document, not just a book of religion. It began to make some sense out of all the stuff in between the birth and the death of Jesus. It gave a profound explanation to the core of Jesus' teaching, the Kingdom of God (a subject I had already become curious about). It opened up a door for me to begin a relationship with Jesus that I had not been able to grasp with the stripped-down, fundamentalist approach that I had grown up with. It gave me courage in my studies--I finally felt like there is more to my faith than flimsy apologetics, tight-fisted dogmatism, and a hearty fear of Hell.

So the point of all of this babbling is to say this: my personal experience as a disciple of Jesus has led me to the conclusion that I must maintain the posture of a student--a student of Judaism, a student of the gospel, a student of theology, a student of history, a student of science, and a humble student of Jesus himself--if I want to understand the message that has already been transforming the world.