Very few “conservative” believers…if any would even consider these beliefs I hold…but the “liberal” Christian community…for the most part embraces part or all of the propsitions Crosson, Borg, Spong, Pagels, Mack, Erhman and O’Grady put forth to the orgins of early Christianity.
hi pub,
my guess is you have already read this email debate but just in case you havent I think the questions Luke Timothy Johnson posed to Crosson and Borg are interesting… this is Johnson’s closing remarks
**a) If
the reconstruction of Jesus begins with the dismantling of the canonical
Gospels, how can this be read except as implying that the Gospels are not
only inadequate but also wrong? b) If the reconstructed Jesus is proposed
as the norm for christian identity and practice, how can this be
understood except as the suppression of the richer set of images of Jesus
in the Gospels, and its replacement by the reconstruction? c) If the
historical reconstruction of Jesus is to function for Christian faith as
the new norm, what distinguishes such efforts from that of the
evangelists? d) If the authority for such substitution of norms does not
derive from the church or from the Holy Spirit, from where does it come?
Code:
Finally, I summarize my own position:
1. Since Christianity is a historical religion, it is
appropriate and necessary to study it historically. The earliest stages
of the movement, and the figure of Jesus, are also legitimate subjects of
historical inquiry.
2. With respect to such historiography, however, two
important limitations must be observed. The first I have already
mentioned: the inability of our sources to provide anything like a full
historical reconstruction. The second is even more important, namely the
realization that history is intrinsically a limited mode of human
cognition, and cannot simply be equated with “reality.” From the bottom
of human existence to the top, much of what is most interesting escapes
the net of historical investigation.
3. The Christian claim concerning the resurrection of
Jesus is the supreme example of a reality that can be asserted as “real”
or “true” without being capable of historical verification. But since
this claim is absolutely pivotal to the Christian understanding of Jesus
—even in his earthly life— this means that what is most critical to
apprehending the “real Jesus” (in the view of Christians) cannot be
fitted within “the historical Jesus.”
4. Finally, I have argued that Christian scholarship must
begin with loyalty to the church and its canon and creed. Irenaeus
already recognized that the diversity of sources concerning Jesus could
yield any number of portraits. It was precisely for that reason that
Irenaeus proposed the tripod of self-definition that has structured
Christian discourse from his day until very recently: the rule of faith,
the canon of scripture, and the apostolic succession. The Jesus of the
Gospels is read — has been read---- by Christians within that
framework. I remain unconvinced that specifically Christian discourse has
any compelling reason to abandon its tradition of reading, particularly
when the versions of Jesus offered are so silent on the truths so deeply
etched in the hearts of believers by their own experience of the risen
Lord, and are so redolent of contemporary cultural preoccupations.**
this is a link to the whole email debate.
markgoodacre.org/xtalk/debate.html
The sad truth is that every time these guys get together they contact the media and falsely give the unknowing general public the impression that their views are where scholars now stand. When in reality not just conservative but most centrist biblical scholars disagree with their views. I think B.F. Meyer has summed it up very accurately when stating “As historical-Jesus research, it is unsalvageable. Not that a long historical struggle has turned out to have been in vain, for there are no signs of any such struggle having taken place” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993), 576
