A Brief Summary of Historical Jesus Studies

A Brief Summary of Historical Jesus Studies By Hershel Shanks

Modern biblical scholarship is barely two hundred years old. Three hundred years ago, it was dangerous to engage in such enquiry. In 1697, for example, an 18 year old Scottish student was hanged because he suggested Ezra rather than Moses wrote the Pentateuch. In the eighteenth century, Samuel Remarus published a critique of gospel historicity, but it was made public only 10 years after he died. This was the first phase of historical Jesus studies.

Albert Schweitzer began the second phase of Jesus scholarship but failed because he didn’t have adequate data to support his thesis.

Now the third phase is in progress. During the last 20 years it has resulted in a flood time of interest in the study of the historical Jesus. Enormous amounts of new materials, codices and other documents have been discovered in the last half century (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi Papyri, etc). New anthropological and cultural studies give us not only some new data on the Jesus environment, but some new ways of looking at them.

Two sensitive issues emerge which are controversial even today.

1.	The gospels are not history but rather theology

2.	Anti Jewish passages in the NT, especially John’s gospel, cause some concern to those who regard John as history

The historical setting of the writing of John’s gospel reflects the time when the church has become almost totally gentile. This is often not recognized behind John’s strong statements against Jews.

Another current awareness is that the Jesus of history is to be distinguished from the Christ of faith. The study of the historical Jesus is not a faith issue. Faith cannot be subjected to scientific investigation. Faith in who Jesus was is privately determined. Facts of history are here the concern. Churches have long taught that Jesus was a man as well as God (thus, history and faith have been virtually identified in church circles). We (of the Jesus Seminar) look at the evidence objectively and not from a faith stance. What conclusions we draw about Jesus are not eroded by historical accuracy, but rather it is substantiated.

There are three phases of information about the Jesus development.

1.	What Jesus said and did (history)

2.	What the disciples taught that Jesus said and did (spiritualized)

3.	What the gospels said about what Jesus said and did; written in a narrative sequence (mythology).

We have preserved only stage 3. The question is, how do we get back to stage one? That is our task!