Greg Clarke reviews Tim Winton's lastest book: Video
Christianity on the Chopping Block: Video
Bronwen Hanna on the rescue of Jews in World War II: Article
Film: Justin Toh reviews The Painted Veil: Article
The Quest for the Historical Jesus (Part I)
John Dickson
| Academic tomes on Jesus often begin their account of previous
scholarship with the great German scholars Hermann Reimarus and David
Strauss and their attempts to apply the critical insights of the
Enlightenment to the study of this central figure of Western history.
These writers stand in a long line of scholars known for their scepticism regarding traditional teachings about Jesus and their quest to separate historical fact from religious understanding of who Jesus was and what he did. But it would be wrong to think that historical questions about Jesus began to be raised only two centuries ago, as if our own Modern era, or Post-modern era, was the first to think critically about this topic. It is a conceit of every age to suppose that it has discovered the most important questions—and answers. |
|
| Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been
fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who
from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this
in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the
beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most
excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things
you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4). |
| Whatever else this is, it is the statement of someone committed to
weighing earlier sources, gathering (eyewitness) testimony, researching
thoroughly and then providing an orderly account of the most reliable
data. Indeed, Prof. Richard Bauckham of Scotland’s famous University of
St Andrew’s—famous for more than being Prince William’s alma mater—has
recently shown that Luke’s declared interest in ‘those who from the
first were eyewitnesses’ is strongly reminiscent of other historical
writers in ancient times, including Polybius, Dionysis of Halicarnassus
and the first century Jewish writer Josephus. Bauckham identifies a host of ‘historiographic’ features in the Gospels, which underline for the modern historian just how keen these biblical writers were to preserve trustworthy testimony about Jesus, and eyewitness testimony in particular. The idea that the Gospel writers were interested in ‘spiritual truths’ rather historical events is as false as it is out-of-date. |
|
| Origen consulted as many manuscripts as he could find for each of the
Gospels. He wanted to reconstruct the most accurate form of the text:
today we call this Textual Criticism. He assessed the geography of the
Gospels against his own personal knowledge of Palestine, something
archaeologists are still doing. And perhaps most impressively, he
carefully compared the four Gospels with each another, honestly noting
the differences between them. He did not try to harmonize the accounts
into one neat version of the Jesus story, as others had done. Instead, he wanted to discern each Gospel writer’s particular emphasis and editorial hand. Scholars today call this Redaction Criticism. Sometimes Origen made judgments about the details of the Gospels that would make contemporary fundamentalists a little queasy, but he remained a firm believer to the end, absolutely committed to reading the whole Bible as the Word of God. (His scholarship on the Old Testament was equally dazzling). It was precisely Origen’s faith in the God of Truth that fuelled his commitment to search for the truth about Jesus. |
|