Book Two: PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANITY

BOOK TWO

PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANITY

 

The Quest for the Historical Jesus

 

                        The historian can say very little about Jesus of Nazareth with certainty. Most of the information provided about him comes from the pages of the New Testament, which was clearly written from a particular point of view in order to achieve particular ends. In fact, the historian can only definitively declare a few simple assertions concerning the man: (1) in Palestine, sometime between the years 26 to 36 C.E., Jesus became the head of some type of movement; (2) the Romans perceived Jesus (but apparently not his followers) to be a legitimate political threat and crucified him; and (3) some form of the movement continued in his name after his death.

 

                        In addition to these few bare facts, there are additional elements about which the historian can be reasonably certain. For instance, it is generally accepted that Jesus was from the region of Galilee; he had some affiliation with John the Baptist; he (or his followers) claimed that he was the anointed king of Israel; he gathered around him a group of twelve close associates; his central message was a concept termed “the Kingdom of God”; and so on. There are other assertions that can be made with a high degree of certainty, but any assertion concerning Jesus beyond the three listed in the preceding paragraph stray from the realm of verifiable evidence and into the realm of probability and faith.

 

                        The dearth of historical data has not hindered attempts at the reconstruction of an image of who the historical Jesus was. Modern, scholarly attempts began in Germany during the 19th century when it became generally accepted that there was an incongruity between “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith.” There have been at least three “quests” for the historical Jesus, each successive one becoming shorter in length and providing increasingly absurd depictions of Jesus. In fact, it would be a fair appraisal to state that each major quest for the historical Jesus has ended in failure. Far from uncovering who Jesus actually was in his historical context, each quest for the historical Jesus has merely personified the pre-existing presuppositions of the scholars who engaged themselves in the endeavor. Believing, after all, is seeing; and scholars and non-scholars alike see the Jesus in which they already believe.

 

                        Fortunately for the history of Christianity, the historical Jesus is largely irrelevant. That sentence should probably be set off in its own paragraph to give the reader sufficient time to process the initial shock that usually results from such a statement. Nevertheless, for the a history of Christianity, it is not as important who Jesus was and what he said and what he did, as much as it is important how those who followed him experienced and remembered who he was and what he said and what he did. To be sure, these experiences were tied to the historical figure, but subjective experiences are mutable, and therefore, not necessarily an accurate foundation upon which to build a history. For instance, in American History, experiences of individuals such as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington produced recollections that neither of these men ever told a lie. Yet, it is difficult to historically verify those claims. Surely a man like Lincoln, who was one of the most influential lawyers in Illinois, and a man like Washington, who engaged in many extramarital entanglements, felt the need to “readjust” the truth from time to time. Nevertheless, supporters and followers remember them differently. 

 

                        As far as the history of Christianity is concerned, the Christ of faith is the Jesus of history; and quite frankly, and however aggravating it may be to the historian, Christianity does not have to justify its opinion on the matter, any more than a man in love has to justify why he is in love. The historian must take the experiences of early-Christianity seriously in the examination of the history of Christianity, especially since the search for a historical Jesus that is suspicious of early-Christian experiences has proven to be a fruitless endeavor. This does not demand that historians blindly accept Christian claims and experiences as historical truth. It does necessitate, however, that historians accept that the fundamental “truthfulness” of those who experienced the Jesus of history firsthand was just as real for them as any piece of historical evidence is for the contemporary historian.