Jesus Sem Notes

	Rodney J. Decker M.Div., Th.M., Th.D., Assoc. Professor of New Testament Baptist Bible Seminary, 538 Venard Rd. Clarks Summit, PA 18411 USA
P21 (Matthew 12.24-26) More...
NOTE: This site has moved to <www.NTResources.com>; the pages here are no longer maintained. Please visit the new site and change your bookmarks and links accordingly.

Footnotes for: Preaching Jesus to Skeptics

Note: The footnotes for this paper (all 120 of them) have been formatted in this separate document to keep file size down. You can probably use the Back and Forward buttons in your browser to toggle between them. (I didn't have the time to hand code bookmarks for all of them. Sorry!)

{1}The page has been compiled by the writer of this paper: <http://faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/TJS.htm>. A few representative links of the two-dozen plus included there are noted in this paper.

{5}The 1996 Easter season yielded these articles: Jeffery L. Sheler, "In Search of Jesus," US News and World Report, 8 April 1996, 46-50, 52-53; David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" Time, 8 April 1996, 52-59; and Kenneth L. Woodward, "Rethinking the Resurrection," Newsweek, 8 April 1996, 60-66, 68, 70.

Relevant articles from previous years include: Nancy Gibbs, "The Message of Miracles," Time, 10 April 1995, 64-68, 70, 72-73; Ostling, Richard N., "Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple," Time, 10 January 1994, 38-39; Jeffery L. Sheler, "Who Was Jesus?" US News and World Report, 20 December 1993, 58-59, 62-66; Russell Watson, "A Lesser Child of God," Newsweek, 4 April 1994, 53-54; and Kenneth L. Woodward, "The Death of Jesus," Newsweek, 4 April 1994, 48-53.

{12}Luke Timothy Johnson cites from a large number of newspaper articles in this regard (The Real Jesus [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996], ch. 1). A number are also linked on the web page referred to above. There have also been several (a number of?) television specials devoted to this matter. Since this writer remains one of those relics who has not yet found any redeeming value in owing a television (and has seen indications to the contrary), he is not able to document the matter first hand.

{13}Despite the press releases and the references in TJS publications to the plethora of scholars who comprise TJS, there are only a few well-known scholars in the group. These include Harold Attridge, Bruce Chilton, Roy Hoover, Lane McGaughy, J. Ramsey Michaels, and Daryl Schmidt. Other scholars who have written extensively and participated in what has been called the "Third Quest," but who are not associated with TJS, include Raymond E. Brown, John P. Meir, E. P. Sanders, and N. T. Wright. The best introductions to the work of all these men (TJS-affiliated and not) are Colin Brown, "Historical Jesus, Quest of," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [DJG], 326-27 and Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995).

{14}F. Blass and A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 9th ed. (G?tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954 [orig. published 1896]); English edition: F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and ed. Robert W. Funk. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961. The current German edition is: F. Blass and A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, ed. Friedrich Rehkopf, 17th ed. (G?tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).

{15}SBL is the mainline association of (predominantly) critical scholars; membership numbers over 6,000.

{17}Funk's words in these regards are cited in Sheler, "In Search of Jesus," 48-49.

{18}Recent representative works include The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991); Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993); The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994). The jacket of The Historical Jesus boasts that it is "the first comprehensive determination of who Jesus was, what he did, what he said." For a very different opinion, note the scathing review by Ben Meyers: "For my part, I find here little evidence to support this description [of Jesus as a Cynic social reformer], but I would not recommend redoing the book. As it stands it is as good as it will ever be. In all these 500 pages of impeccable political correctness there is hardly one badly turned sentence. It is delightfully readable, the pace rapid, the text filled with useful information on recent anthropology, on the ancient world's social, economic, and political systems, on the Cynics, and so on. As historical Jesus research, it is unsalvagable. Not that a long historical struggle has turned out to have been in vain, for there are no signs here of any such struggle's having taken place. Historical inquiry, with its connotations of a personal wrestling with evidence, is not to be found. There are no recalcitrant data, no agonizing reappraisals. All is aseptic, the data having been freeze-dried, prepackaged, and labeled with literary flair. Instead of an inquiry, what we have here is simply the proposal of a bright idea. But, as Bernard Lonergan used to say, bright ideas are a dime a dozen-establishing which of them are true is what separates the men from the boys" (CBQ 55 [1993]: 576).

{20}The mystical sorcery of Carlos Caste?da (a disciple of the Mexican Indian sorcerer don Juan Matus) is specifically cited as influential in Borg's study. For a summary of this system, known as Tensegrity, see <http://www.webb.com/Castaneda/jour.html>. The second half of this web page includes an explanatory excerpt from Caste?da's journal, Readers of Infinity: A Journal of Applied Hermeneutics, 1.1 (1996). The nature of Tensegrity as including magic, shamanism, and sorcery is explicitly acknowledged.

{23}Smith summarizes the historical-critical assumption that underlies this point: "Since the biblical texts are not to be viewed as divinely inspired, it is axiomatic that the truth claims made by a biblical text be open to refutation." In a note he cites Harvey to the effect that "the historican does not accept the authority of his witnesses; rather he confers authority upon them, and he does this only after subjecting them to a rigorous and skeptical cross-examination" (Barry D. Smith, "The Historical-Critical Method, Jesus Research, and the Christian Scholar," Trinity Journal 15 ns (1994): 202). Smith (who is not a critical scholar) has written a valuable article. Unfortunately the second of his arguments against the historical critical method is flawed in that it is based on the assumption of a sensus plenior hermeneutic and explicitly allows for "unhistorical" interpretations (see his summary on 207). Those who reject this approach to interpretation (as this writer does) will not be able to employ the second half of Smith's argument.

{24}Non-canonical sayings attributed to Jesus are sometimes referred to as the agrapha.

{25}Time magazine refers to the "purposeful theactricality" of the beads (Ostling, "Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple," Time, 10 January 1994, 39).

{26}Several variations of these four categories are given by TJS; one is as follows: "red, Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it; pink, Jesus probably said something like this; gray, Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own; black, Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition" (The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, ed. Robert W. Funk and Roy W. Hoover [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993], 36).

{27}Note that the second-century gnostic Gospel of Thomas is included on an equal level with the traditional, canonical Gospels. The published results of this stage of TJS's work may be found in The Five Gospels.

{28}The one-page chart above includes every word that TJS is sure that Jesus really said with the exception of three parables-which are the only extended passages, comprising twenty-seven and a half verses. The text is TJS's own translation.

{30}Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" 551. By "right-wing televangelists" Funk intends all fundamentalists, not just television preachers, though they are his most visible enemy. Evangelicals would also fit into this category since they also espouse an inspired Scripture.

{32}Watson, "Lesser Child," 54. Gibbs summarizes similar sentiments: "Since the mainstream press rarely covers the esoterica of New Testament criticism, [Funk] set an irresistible trap: he would gather 'eminent' scholars, and they would put the events in the Bible to a vote.. . . The invitation to reporters [to cover the vote on the resurrection] promised that the experts 'will be drilling close to the nerve of the Christian faith'" ("Miracles," 70). For a fascinating evaluation of why the media has been so susceptible to the tactics of TJS, see Johnson, The Real Jesus, 76-79.

{33}Johnson, 74-75. It is fascinating to note Wells' assessment that much of contemporary evangelical church leadership has followed a similar path (No Place for Truth: Or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), see ch. 6, "The New Disablers," 218-57). Fundamentalism is not far behind in this regard. The professionalization (Wells' term) of the ministry has been viewed as a means of attaining or regaining social status. This has resulted in the loss of a theological basis for ministry and an emphasis on management and (outward) success instead. In his own words, "It is my contention that the presence of this latter model [professionalization] in the Church goes a long way toward explaining the growing enfeeblement of the Church inwardly despite its outward growth.. . . The new direction should be understood mainly as a psychological reaction to the growing irrelevance of ministers in society" (218-19).

{34}D. A. Carson, "Five Gospels, No Christ," Christianity Today, 25 April 1994, 33.

{35}The terms historical and historic are sometimes distinguished in Jesus studies. When the distinction is made (usually by German scholars: historisch and geschichtlich), historical refers to the objective facts about Jesus and historic refers to the significance of this information. Likewise the technical meaning of real when applied to a person (especially a person from ancient history, but also a contemporary) is more difficult to define than at first appears. For an extensive and helpful discussion, see John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1991-94), 1:21-40. As used by the writer of this paper, the real Jesus refers to accurate, historical information about Jesus, including both what he said and did (the events ). The assumption is that the nearly exclusive source of such data (and the only fully reliable source) is the Bible-largely the Gospels, though not limited to that corpus. The contrasting assumptions of TJS and historical-critical scholars is discussed above.

{36}Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768) is much less known than Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781) who was the primary popularizer and publisher of Reimarus' view of Jesus. Reimarus saw Jesus as a pious Jew who sought to establish the kingdom by calling his fellows to repentance. Eventually he came to believe that he could force God to move quicker in his kingdom plans by dying the death of a martyr, but he died forsaken by God and disillusioned. Only the creative ingenuity of the disciples in proclaiming a resurrection of Jesus and a coming kingdom salvaged Jesus' work and enabled the development of a new religion. Both Jesus and the disciples were wrong according to Reimarus. (See the summary in Brown, "Historical Jesus, Quest of," DJG, 326.) For a helpful overview of the rise of the historical method in general (i.e., not limited to the Jesus quest), see Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 6-32.

{37}"On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power," in Lessing's Theological Writings, 53, as cited in Millard Erickson, The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Christology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 114; see also Brown, "Historical Jesus, Quest of," in DJG, 326-27. In addition to Reimarus, other significant influences on Lessing included Gottfried von Leibniz and Benedict de Spinoza.

{38}For Lessing, there can therefore be no objective truth. Religion is not revealed but natural. Each individual views truth and religion differently-and it doesn't matter. All religions are equally valid, containing both truth and error. It is therefore not necessary to make any historical statements about Jesus. Adjudicating competing truth claims is unnecessary; only the internal, subjective search for truth is important. (Cf. Erickson, Word Became Flesh, 112-17.)

{39}"On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power," 55, as cited in Erickson, Word Became Flesh, 115. Lessing could not, or would not, make the leap. But, is there a ditch? Is it not far more likely that this was an imaginary ditch? One created in the unregenerate mind of a brilliant man who sought to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18)?

{40}The distinction between "the Jesus of history" and "the Christ of faith" (a concept characteristic of much 20th C. theology, e.g., Bultmann) is a phrase traceable at least to Martin K?ler's Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtlishe, biblische Christus (Leipzig: Deichert, 1892; 2d ed., Munich: Kaiser, 1956); ET, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historical Biblical Christ, trans. C. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), see 43-45 in particular. K?ler himself rejected the distinction as the title of his book intends to make clear: the "so-called historical Jesus" is the artificial portrait of Jesus found by the first "questers" in contrast to the "historical, biblical Christ." "For K?ler . . . the biblical Christ is the historic Jesus" (Carl Braaten, "Introduction" to K?ler, The So-Called Historical Jesus, 14).

{41}David Friedrich Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (Tubingen: Osiander, 1838-39); English translation: The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, ed. Peter C. Hodgson, trans. George Eliot (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973). Others involved in this first quest include F. C. Baur (1792-1860) of "the Tubingen School," J. E. Renan (1823-1892), A. B. Ritschl (1822-1889), and Adolf Harnack (1851-1930). S?en Kierkegaard (1813-1855) might also be discussed at this point, but he is usually viewed as a philosopher rather than a NT scholar. He also argued that historical knowledge is irrelevant to faith. He had no interest in historical critical studies since history is only an occasion for encountering the transcendent. (Cf. Colin Brown, "Kierkegaard, S?en Aaby," in New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, 565-66 and Erickson, Word Became Flesh, 117-26.)

{42}See the summary of Strauss' views in Brown, "Historical Jesus, Quest of," DJG, 327-28.

{44}This does not mean that they believed Jesus' message. Rather his eschatology was what was necessary to make sense of the gospel accounts-to make them credible history, not to be believed in the modern world. They agreed with Strauss' views that much of the gospel record was embellished with church-created myth.

{45}For summaries of this stage of the quest see: Brown, "Historical Jesus, Quest of," DJG, 331-33 and Witherington, The Jesus Quest, 9-11.

{49}Meir, A Marginal Jew, 1:27. The reason for this designation is clear when one reads K?ler's warm, almost devotional writing that contrasts so vividly with much of the dry, laborious, academic prose of his contemporaries. He was greatly influenced in his training by the "biblical realism" of the pietist Johann Beck (who escaped the impact of critical problems by appealing to "pneumatic exegesis").

{50}K?ler, The So-Called Historical Jesus, 44, 48, 88, 90, 113-15, 138-41. Because he rejected the orthodox and the historical critics views of Jesus-yet accepted the critics' methodology and conclusions regarding the Bible-he was forced to seek a mediating position. As Braaten summarizes his dilemma, "How can the Bible be a trustworthy and normative document of revelation when historical criticism has shattered our confidence in its historical reliability? And how can Jesus Christ be the authentic basis and content of Christian faith when historical science can never attain to indisputably certain knowledge of the historical Jesus? Underlying both of these questions is the existential quest of faith for a sure foundation, for what K?ler called an 'invulnerable area' (sturmfreies Gebiet)" ("Introduction" to K?ler, The So-Called Historical Jesus, 10).

{51}Ibid., 74, 87. It should be asked, of course, on what basis Christ evokes faith, since there is no other source of information on which to base this faith. From reading K?ler (only once!), this writer would conclude that he should probably be viewed as a precursor to neo-orthodoxy. Braaten's introduction to the English translation is written from what appears to be a Lutheran neo-orthodox position, so the impression of K?ler may be overweighted in this regard. For a critique of K?ler's system, see Gordon H. Clark, Historiography: Secular and Religious, 2d ed. (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1994), 247-61.

{52}The "criterion of dissimilarity" says that a statement by Jesus is probably genuine if it contrasts in content and attitude with common Jewish thought. This became the mark (though not the only mark) of true scientific, historical criticism. TJS relies heavily on this criteria.

{53}Bultmann's system is essentially existential; echoes of K?ler are clear at this point, although without his pietistic background. Although somewhat oversimplified, it does not seem too far afield to suggest that Kahler's argument + form criticism + existentialism = Bultmann.

{54}Ernst K?emann, "The Problem of the Historical Jesus" (1953 lecture which began the second quest; ET in his Essays on NT Themes [Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1964], 15-47); G?ther Bornkamm, Jesus von Nazareth (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1956); ET, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. I. & F. McLuskey with J. Robinson. (New York: Harper, 1960); Hans Conzelmann, "Jesu," in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Tubingen: Mohr, 1957-62), published separately in ET: Jesus, trans. J. R. Lord, ed. J. Reumann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973); and Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1967). Two collections of essays are also important for understanding this stage of the quest: Kerygma and History: A Symposium on the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, trans. and ed. Carl Braaten and Roy Harrisville (New York: Abingdon, 1962); and The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ: Essays on the New Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. and ed. Carl Braaten and Roy Harrisville (New York: Abingdon, 1964).

{56}Witherington, The Jesus Quest, 12; others question whether this will prove to be a satisfactory designation for the post-Bultmann period (Brown, "Historical Jesus, Quest of," DJG, 337).

{58}The mainline quest is represented by the following diverse list of scholars (see ibid., 337-41, for bibliographic details): S. G. F. Brandon, Colin Brown, Bruce Chilton, James Dunn, David Flussner, Howard Clark Kee, Ben Meyer, C. F. D. Moule, E. P. Sanders, Grahm Stanton, and Gerd Theissen.

{59}It is interesting to note the opinion of the well-known scholar, Jacob Neusner (Univ. of S. Florida) that TJS is "either the greatest scholarly hoax since the Piltdown Man or the utter bankruptcy of New Testament studies-I hope the former" (quoted in Ostling, "Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple," Time, 10 January 1994, 39).

{61}From a conservative perspective, the two best book-length treatments in this regard are Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God? Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1995), and Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995). Witherington also has a chapter on TJS: "Jesus the Talking Head: The Jesus of the Jesus Seminar," in The Jesus Quest, 42-57 (several other sections of the book are also relevant). Major critiques of either the entire TJS enterprise (Johnson, The Real Jesus) or of individual issues (Meier, A Marginal Jew) from mainline critical scholars have been noted above.

{62}TJS makes no pretense that it operates on other than a naturalistic basis. They explain: "The contemporary religious controversy. . ., turns on whether the world view reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith. Jesus figures prominently in this debate. The Christ of creed and dogma, who had been firmly in place in the Middle Ages, can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo's telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abode of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens" (The Five Gospels, 2). This sentiment echoes Bultmann: "It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles. We may think we can manage it in our own lives, but to expect others to do so is to make the Christian faith unintelligible and unacceptable to the modern world" (Rudolph Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. H. W. Bartsch, trans. R. H. Fuller [New York: Harper & Row, 1961], 5; the entire essay is worth reading as an exposition of naturalism). As D. A. Carson explains, "Funk himself, not to say the seminar his Westar Institute supports, is passionately committed to philosophical naturalism. Mere evidence will never overturn it; historical evidence can always be explained away" ("Five Gospels, No Christ," Christianity Today, 25 April 1994, 33).

{63}In this regard it is interesting that the Jesus of Luke Timothy Johnson (the primary mainline critic of TJS) is probably closer in some respects to the TJS Jesus than he is to an orthodox view of Jesus. This is due to Johnson's acceptance of a historical-critical approach to the study of Jesus.

{64}An open universe refers to a view of the universe in which the Creator can and does intervene in his creation; the supernatural is not to be ruled out. As Marsden puts it: "The supernatural and the natural realms are not closed off to each other. Christians who affirm that Jesus was not only human but also fully divine must presuppose that the transcendent God, the wholly Other, the Creator of heaven and earth, can appear and be known in our ordinary history" (George Marsden, "What Makes Scholarship Christian?" Books & Culture, Jan./Feb. 1997, 12; excerpted from the book The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship [New York : Oxford University Press, 1996]). This contrasts sharply with the closed universe of naturalism. For example, Bultmann argues that, "the historical method includes the presupposition that history is a unity in the sense of a closed continuum of effects in which individual events are connected by the succession of cause and effect." Later he says that "this closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings cannot be rent by the interference of supernatural transcendant powers and that therefore there is no 'miracle' in this sense of the word" (Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, trans. S. M. Ogden [New York: Meridian Books, 1960], 291, 292).

{65}As used here, realism refers to the belief that "the world enjoys an independent existence apart from its perception by humans, that essence precedes existence, and that mind is capable of perceiving existence beyond itself with at least some accuracy." The implications of this view are that Kant's conclusion "that the human mind is the determining element of ontology and ethics" is rejected, as is relativistic historicism (history writing is a form of imaginative literature), the skepticism of conventionalism in science, philosophical monism, and psychological determinism (Mark Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986], 146-47.)

{66}As the ICBI statement puts it, "We affirm that God who made mankind in his image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration" (Article IV of "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).

{67}Robert Grant explicitly identifies reason as an "autonomous agent" in the "modern scientific study of the Scriptures" (The Bible in the Church [New York: Macmillian, 1960], 105-08, as cited by Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, 7). Contrast this with B. Smith, "Historical-Critical Method," 202-03. Smith also phrases this in terms of the noetic authority of Scripture (204, 215, 217-18). He makes what some would consider to be a bold statement: "Inevitably, therefore, one cannot be a Christian today without accepting the noetic authority of a set of texts as a necessary correlative of faith in Christ" (205-06). At the close of his article he says that "the Christian cannot do Jesus research on historical-critical principles. Regardless of the pressures of the academic world to conform to prevailing methodological standards, a Christian Jesus researcher ought to take the path of faith, even if this means loss of academic reputation or position" (220).

{68}This is confessedly a faith perspective (though not fideistic) that assumes ultimate authority is vested in God (known in and through his Word), not in man. No one has the right (nor the competency) to pass judgment on God-to put God in the dock. An adequate, transcendent, epistemological pou sto is necessary to have absolute truth. Depravity has rendered the human cognitive capacity incapable of judging truth claims. Thus the ultimate starting point, the ultimate presupposition, must be assumed; it cannot (by definition) be proven. The Christian's self-evidencing, transcendental starting point must be God himself. No other starting point is adequate as a basis for a satisfactory world view or for absolute truth. For a brief discussion of this matter, see Greg Bahnsen, A Biblical Introduction to Apologetics (Placentia, CA: SCCCS, 1973), 41-42. For more detailed discussions, see the other writings of Bahnsen as well as Cornelius Van Til and John Frame.

If the objection is raised that this approach leads to gridlock, it may be observed with Clark that "the only personal solution to this logical impasse is a change of heart on the part of one of the contestants. Agreement can be obtained only by one party's repudiating his premises and accepting the other's presuppositions. One of them must be converted. One must be regenerated. One must be born again. And the change is something logic cannot do. God alone is able" (Historiography, 337). This may seem defeatist to some, but it appears to be the only conclusion that harmonizes with a biblical anthropology and hamartiology-and the resultant epistemology.

{69}This is the writer's first forray into the subject (at least so far as committing his thoughts to paper) and he is under no delusion that the following brief summary is adequate to touch, even if briefly, all the issues involved, let alone to resolve them. There is an enormous literature on the subject and these few paragraphs barely scratch the surface. It is a tentative sketch that may help raise some of the issues involved in TJS. John Lawlor has recently pointed me to an additional resource that has not been included in this paper due to time constraints: John H. Sailhammer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), esp. ch. 3, "Text or Event," 36-85 (ch. 4 is also relevant). The focus is OT rather than the Gospels, but the issues discussed are fundamental to both. Another work referred to there is also relevant: Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1974).

{70}C. Stephan Evans, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), vi.

{71}Some, of course, have no desire to claim the name Christian, being content to use "the Christ of history" as a convenient sociological designation of what has motivated people who are Christians.

{72}A classic statement of this may be found in John Warwick Montgomery, The Shape of the Past: An Introduction to Philosophical Historiography, History in Christian Perspective, 1 (Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards, 1962): "Christian interpretations of history have great appeal, but are ultimately disregarded because they are believed to rest on 'values inaccessible to science'. . . It is the conviction of the present writer that the Christian world-view is in fact 'accessible to science' and rests upon an objective foundation which will stand up under the most exacting criticism. . . . On what, then, does the case for Christianity rest? It rests . . . on the objective, historical truth of the resurrection" (138). Montgomery is right that there is valid, objective content in Christianity, but it is not the verification of this by criticism that proves Christianity true. (It is likely that many such claims would not stand up under "the most exacting criticism" of the historical critical method, not because they are not true, but because historical criticism loads the deck presuppositionally against non-naturalistic explanations.) This puts the proverbial cart in front of the horse. It is rather that because Christianity is true it is therefore historical.In a more popular rendition, this principle may be stated as follows: It is not that the Bible is proven true because prophecy is fulfilled, but rather that prophecy is fulfilled because the Bible is true. This does not mean that it is a matter of wishful thinking-the wave of a magical wand that makes such things true, but rather the believer, accepting the Scripture as his or her ultimate authority, is confident that the things which the Bible says are therefore true. Any other conclusion denies the authority of Scripture making it less than one's ultimate authority.

{73}Evans summarized four general approaches to the question: defend the biblical account as traditionally understood by the church, reject both the biblical account and Christianity, revise the biblical account and Christianity, or divorce the meaning of the biblical account from its historicity (The Historical Christ, 27, see also his discussion of these four options: 28-46).

{74}Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 167. Ziesler echoes this statement: "Christianity is an historical religion, that is to say, that it would quickly wither away if it were shown that Jesus never existed, or that he was substantially different in character from the New Testament portrait of him . . . . If these claims were to be made good, then the whole of Christianity would become highly suspect" ("Historical Criticism and a Rational Faith," Expository Times 105 [1994]: 270).

{75}Cf. the discussion by Clark, Historiography, 250-52. He comments that "to believe is to believe something. It may be the efficacy of pickles or the efficacy of Christ; but no one ever just believes-period" (252).

{76}As Clark puts it, "Christian confidence cannot be based on historical investigation. Let us admit this and insist on it. Research is always provisional, even if new sources of knowledge concerning Jesus Christ are most unlikely to appear." A bit later he says, "if history is admitted to be uncertain, then the Christian cannot base his faith on archaeological discoveries. Quite true" (Ibid., 257). John Lawlor makes a similar point in regard to the use of archaeology ("Archaeology and Biblical Studies," Baptist Bible Expositor, 1.4 [fall 1990], 4).

{77}People (especially young children deceived by misdirected adults) do believe in Santa Claus despite his mythical, fictitious nature. Some might suggest that Christianity is no different: people believe something that is not true. This only emphasizes the point being made above: there must be a genuine historical basis for faith. Apart from it there would be no Christianity. (There are a few other theoretical explanations that attempt to avoid a historical basis for faith; for a summary and critique, see Evans, The Historical Christ, 69-72.)

{78}There are other essential historical events in Scripture (e.g., creation), but these two are the most directly relevant to the issue at hand.

{80}In regard to revelatory narrative (my term, by which I refer to a divinely interpreted account that provides a framework or grid against which an event or statement may be understood), see Johnson's good discussion of the importance of narrative in presenting an adequate understanding of the character of Jesus (The Real Jesus, 152-58); also Wells, No Place for Truth, 270-82; and Carson's chapters five and six (The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 193-314). It is also similar to what Evans calls "incarnational narrative" (The Historical Christ, 2ff).

{81}Cf. Ziesler, "Historical Criticism," 270. He notes that the eschatological elements of Scripture are also related to historical concerns, though to the end of history rather than to its past.

{82}See Johnson, The Real Jesus, 133, for a good summary. Johnson's own historical skepticism is, however, evident (e.g. 108f). He opts for church acceptance/authorization of diverse and disagreeing (i.e., inconsistent, contradictory-though he doesn't use those terms) gospel records in contrast to Marcion who rejected everything inconsistent with his theological view and Tatian, who harmonized all four Gospels into one account. They are "normative . . . in all their diversity" (148). That is, we can have contradictory accounts that are normative for faith (since the church determines what is true, using these fallible sources as guides?! Note this Roman Catholic scholar's dependence on the magisterium here.) Johnson rejects any historical basis for Christianity and argues instead for a strictly religious basis, viz., "religious claims concerning the present power of Jesus." "The only real validation for the claim that Christ is what the creed claims him to be . . . is to be found in the quality of life demonstrated by those who make this confession." These claims "can be validated only existentially by the witness of authentic Christian discipleship" (133ff).

{83}Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, 56 n. 2. This necessitates "the exclusion of God as a causative factor and in the denial of the possibility of miracle" (58). Pure historicism is less common in the philosophy of history today than it was in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, but it is by no means dead-TJS seems to have imbibed a great deal of it.

{84}Ibid., 167. "Scientifically speaking, this past century of scholarship has confirmed that the 'purely' historical, non-christological Jesus remains hidden from view. He is in any case best seen as a figment of the post-Enlightenment imagination. But what we must equally recognize is that for those who first saw him and were called by him, Jesus of Nazareth and 'the historic biblical Christ' of their faith were one and the same person" (Bockmuehl, This Jesus, 23).

{85}Krentz summarizes the problem with Bultmann at this point: his "existential canon makes the conceptual world of the interpreter the criterion of truth in the Scriptures. History is in danger of being interiorized and psychologized. Such history does not really need the past" (The Historical-Critical Method, 31).

{88}For an overview of postmodernity, see John Jelinek, "Why Be Moral? The Contradictions of Postmodern Morality in America," faculty forum paper, Baptist Bible Seminary, 6 December 1996. For an invaluable, massive, book-length treatment, see D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). For a more diverse perspective, see David S. Dockery, ed., The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1995).

{89}Jelinek summarizes five key tenets of postmodernity: "1) Absolute truth is either non-existent or invalidated (non-verifiable). 2) Human rational capacities (reasonings) are culturally bigoted (and, therefore, non-objective). 3) Human language itself is also an insufficient medium for communicating truth. 4) Every paradigm has a logic of its own. Readers must construct their own meaning. 5) Finally, it falls to each culture to construct truth that is truth for itself" ("Why Be Moral?" 14-15).

{92}Technically, this amounts to an ultimate authority claim oforhuman autonomy or the human intellect.

{93}Or their concern may be to deny biblical truth as having any normative value than it is to affirm some limited part of it, namely the humanity of Jesus (Clark, Historiography, 248, referring to K?ler's evaluation).

{94}For brief summaries and evaluations of deconstructionism, see Carson, Gagging of God, 21, 72-77 and Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 380-85. (Carson provides more extensive interaction with deconstruction and postmodern hermeneutics in chapters two and three of his book.)

{95}See the perceptive chapter "On Drawing Lines When Drawing Lines Is Rude," in Carson, Gagging of God, 347-67. A helpful treatment of pluralism will also be found in Harold A. Netland, Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).

{98}There are surely exceptions to this statement, but the point here is that the popular impact has been exacerbated by the pluralism and relativism of our culture.

{99}For example, Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God?; D. A. Carson, "Five Gospels, No Christ," Christianity Today, 25 April 1994, 30-33; and Wilkins & Moreland, ed., Jesus Under Fire.

{101}In this regard, see Meier's two-volume, A Marginal Jew. Already at 1,600 pages, a third volume (and perhaps a fourth) is in preparation. See the author index s.v. the main TJS personalities for interaction with their theories. Another major study of Jesus by a critical scholar is Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1993); and The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1994). Both Meier and Brown are Roman Catholic scholars.

{102}John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 11. This small book makes an urgent and important plea that the pastor would be wise to heed.

{103}David Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 89.

{105}Johnson, The Real Jesus, 63. Wells echoes some of these same concerns: No Place for Truth, esp. 250-57.

{106}This is not to denigrate the ministry of those who have never had the opportunity to study the languages. It is intended as a rebuke to those who have had the advantage of such training and who then abandon such tools due to misplaced priorities in ministry, assuming that matters other than their handling of the Word are more important. Although other matters may appear to be more urgent, they are seldom more important.

{107}Wells' evaluation of contemporary preaching in this area is striking. Based on a survey of published sermons by those who believe the Bible to be the Word of God, he found that "less than half are explicitly biblical" and over 80% were anthropocentric. Less than 20% were "grounded in or related in any way to the nature, character, and will of God" (No Place for Truth, 252).

{108}This is not the place to indulge in a lecture on preaching, but it might be suggested in passing that it would do many pastors well to periodically read and reread some of the better books on preaching. On that list this writer would include John Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), John MacArthur, ed., Rediscovering Expository Preaching (Dallas: Word, 1992-though some sections of this book [esp. ch. 17] need to be updated with a more balanced view of the biblical langauges, such as Mois? Silva, God, Language and Scripture [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990]), and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971).

{109}This representative list is not intended to elevate certain doctrines above others, but to suggest several areas that are particularly crucial in relation to TJS.

{110}Carson emphasizes this with reference to what he calls the "plotline" or "metanarrative" of Scripture (Gagging of God, ch. 5-6).

{111}"Relevant" must be understood in light of Carson's warning that relevance can too easily become "kitsch" (ibid., 470-80).

{112}There are still some people who have grown up in Bible-preaching churches, but they are progressively becoming a smaller minority. This varies in different parts of the country; the "Bible-belt" and rural areas may be moving in this direction less rapidly than urban and suburban areas.

{114}Contra Johnson, The Real Jesus, 141-44. Even Krentz's proposal for certainty contains a considerble element of the subjective and existential at this point: "Historicism has falsely taught that one should accept as true and believe only what can be established by positivist, rational proofs. But the believing critic knows 'that there is truth which must not be deomnstrated by historical proofs,' for then it disappears. Criticism . . . makes us hear the biblical proclamation as the first Christians did-without any security outside of the proclamation that confronts us with its demand for believing response-and this alone gives certainty to faith" (The Historical-Critical Method, 67).

{115}Osborne illustrates this same problem in the context of group Bible studies, showing the similarities with a deconstructionist hermeneutic that ignores the context and historical background of the text (The Hermeneutical Spiral [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991], 384).

{116}Jim Eaton's plea in this regard at the recent BBS missions conference was very well stated and much appreciated.

{117}It seems unnecessary to say, but it is somewhat amazing to me the instances of well-intentioned paganism in local churches at the holiday season. Why, e.g., would any Sunday School teacher give his or her students chocolate Easter bunnies on Easter Sunday? This, and many other such holiday foolishnesses, contradict the message that is (or should be!) proclaimed. If I may indulge in a personal illustration, a grandmother in the church that I pastored in Michigan was shocked one Easter to be asked by her granddaughter (junior high age), "When are you going to tell me the truth about Jesus? You told me the Easter Bunny was real; you told me that Santa Claus was real. What about Jesus? Is he real? Or is he just like them?" Although saddened, I was not surprised, for I had observed the paganism of far too many professing Christian families.

{118}This writer was involved for a short time on the staff of such a church which constantly "bought programs" and sponsored seminars to cure church problems. One such effort in fund raising was predicated on the assumption that church membership would be much larger than typical Sunday morning attendance. The theological implications of a regenerate church membership was never considered by the local church leadership nor by the "stewardship consultant" (from "another tradition") that was hired.

These pages use CSS and Unicode UTF-8 encoding; most Greek text is now in Unicode format, though some remnants of the older, non-standard Galilee encoding remain. You should not have difficulties viewing this material if you have a relatively current web browser and a font that contains polytonic Greek. (Even the archaic IE will work, but you ought to be using FireFox! :)