In the 19th and 20th century the perception grew and became common place that we could say very little for certain about Jesus, the historical person. This perception was particularly shaped by the belief that the Gospels were written much later than the lifetime of Jesus and his earliest followers, that the earliest written sources were primarily collections of sayings and that reports of events were transmitted through oral tradition and therefore subject to embellishment and error in the retelling. If so, then the Gospels were not therefore particularly trustworthy as sources. Rather, they are more likely to offer answers to the specific questions and issues that were contemporary for the church at the time the Gospels were believed to have been written down in their final form.
At the same time, it was generally accepted that Jesus was a historical figure and that his impact through time and history was significant. There was therefore a substantial interest, including at an academic level in the quest to get behind the text of the Gospels and discover the true historical Jesus. Indeed, such a quest was exactly that, to attempt to find hidden clues in Scripture that enabled people to build a picture of the true Jesus rather than reliance on extra biblical historical sources. Albert Schweitzer mapped out the attempts to do this and suggested that we might identify three distinct quests.[1]
We might suggest that these quests were attempts to answer the question that Jesus posed to his disciples “Who do you say I am?” If the disciples suggested the possibilities that Jesus was a prophet, named or unnamed, then the modern quest has proposed a variety of answers. These tend to vary between an emphasis on Jesus as kind of sage/near eastern guru figure with a focus on ethical teaching and Jesus as an eschatological prophet in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets seeking to usher in the age of God’s kingdom not just with words but also actions.
The latter option perhaps gets us closer to a sense of who Jesus was and certainly demonstrates a greater continuity with the Jewish scriptures. Jesus, the wise sage seems rather remote from2nd Temple Palestinian Judaism. Wouldn’t we do better to start with the question “What do the Gospels themselves actually say about his identity?” Even if the Gospels were later and subject to inaccuracies, the texts themselves surely give us a more reliable clue than our own speculative forays.
However, we have more reason top be confident in their reliability given that they were likely to have been written much earlier than scholars in the late/19th/early 20th century assumed and given that we have no reason to prioritise ”sayings sources” over those recording the deeds and actions of Jesus. In fact, the primary driver for questioning the reliability of the gospels seems to be a rejection of the possibility of God’s supernatural intervention. We don’t believe in miracles and so we don’t believe what the Gospels tell us about miracles which is all a rather circular argument.
If we come back to what the Gospels, we are given the answer that Jesus is “The Messiah/Christ, the son of the living God.” This makes him much more than a prophet or sage. Our focus then should be on understanding what that means. It also protects us from the temptation to impose our own priorities and hobby horses onto Christ.
[1] See Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the historical Jesus (Repr. 1998, Baltimore, Maryland. The John Hopkins University Press).
Faithroots 