In my previous article, I introduced my initial journey to take a look at the quest for the historical Jesus from the perspective of historic Reformed theology. In order to accomplish this, I want to start reading the book The Historical Jesus: Five Views, edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy. This time, I want to closely read the historical survey of studies in the historical Jesus provided by the editors. The introduction then gives us a road map to understand the five views collected in the book.
The editors divided the quest for historical Jesus in four different stages:
The first quest (1778-1906)
The no quest (1906-1953)
The second quest (1953 - 1970s)
The third quest (1980s-present)
The First Quest
The first quest covered the period from the studies of Hermann Reimarus to Albert Schweitzer. The editors refused to accept that Reimarus pioneered the quest for historical Jesus. In their minds, 17th-century British and French deism prepared the way for Reimarus. With the rise of biblical criticism, the ideas of the supernatural, such as divine revelation and miracles, have been questioned. Consequently, the Gospels that served as a reliable source to know the Jesus of history have been severely attacked. According to Thomas Chubb, a British deist, the apostle Paul misinterpreted the Jesus of the Gospels, and it was him who was responsible for the formulation of dogma embraced by Christianity.
Nevertheless, despite the prior work of Thomas Chubb, it was Reimarus who was considered the “Father” of the quest for historical Jesus. In Reimarus’ mind, there is a clear distinction between the real Jesus of history and the Jesus of the Gospels. The Jesus of history is “a politically minded revolutionary” (p. 13) who wanted to establish his kingdom in Jerusalem using military force. Unfortunately, this ambition failed because he was arrested and crucified. Despite the failure of that political dream, the reason why Christianity grew was because “his disciples stole his body, fabricated a resurrection story, and eventually concocted ‘the doctrine of a spiritual suffering savior of all mankind’” (ibid.). This distinction between the Jesus of history and the history of the Gospels became “an unquestioned presupposition for many scholars throughout the quest” (ibid.).
Personal Response
By just reading the first five pages of the book, I got offended with such a view of Jesus. I originally intended to suspend my critique. However, I could not help myself but share my response at this point. Since the quest for historical Jesus is a product of deism in its early stage (I am not sure that this origin changed in the latter quests), it is clear at this point that the variation in the interpretation of Jesus of history between a critical scholar and a classical Protestant is a matter of worldview or prior sets of presuppositions (basically, metaphysical).
Another daring conclusion, which I no longer find surprising, is the confidence in asserting that the Jesus of the apostle Paul is different from the Jesus of the Gospels. Such an attack in the name of scholarship is aimed at the roots of Christianity.
As for the distinction between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of the Gospels, I think better to suspend this for later commentary, for I anticipate that many more “findings” will emerge regarding this subject in the later part of this introduction.
As for the ideas of Jesus as a political revolutionary and the hoax invented by the disciples, they remind me of two things:
First, I anticipate that activists are happy with such "insights," for they find support in Reimarus’ scholarly work for their ideology.
Second, the hoax reminds me of a narrative in the gospel of Matthew about the story crafted by the chief priests and elders telling the soldiers who witnessed the resurrection that the disciples stole Jesus’ body (Matthew 28:11-15). We were told that such a story spread among the Jews. I guess the materials found by Reimarus in his research for the historical Jesus came from such a source. As for the fabrication of a resurrection story, for a naturalist scholar, rejection of such divine intervention in history is easy.
I will stop at this point. I could not proceed with my reading. My thoughts stopped. The first five pages are enough for now. It is just frustrating that I could not complete my reading of the first quest. God, willing, I will pick up from there by tomorrow.
0 comments