Wolfhart Pannenberg headed a group of intellectuals who argued forcefully for the concept of God’s revelation in time-space history.^21 The resurrection of Jesus, in
18 Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazarethtransl. by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), chapter I.
19 James M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus, Studies in Biblical Theology, First Series, 25 (London: SCM, 1959), pp. 85–92; cf. pp. 9–22.
20 Ibid., pp. 99–100.
21 For the seminal work written by a group of theologians sometimes called the “Pannenberg circle,” see Wolfhart Pannenberg, ed., Revelation as History, transl. by David Granskou (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1968).
particular, was singled out for defense.^22 Jürgen Moltmann championed an eschatological perspective that acknowledged the importance of God’s participation in both past and present history.^23
The Third Quest for the Historical Jesus
It is probably accurate to say that, at the present, there has been a somewhat positive assessment of attempts to understand Jesus in historical terms. Interestingly enough, this attitude often crosses liberal-conservative lines. Although there is no identifiable consensus among current scholars, current trends have led to what some have called the “Third Quest” for the historical Jesus.^24
More positive in its assessment of the historical Jesus than was the “New Quest,” it is also more difficult to produce certain common earmarks of the latest installment of Jesus research, due to the inclusion of such a wide spectrum of views. Perhaps the chief characteristic is the emphasis on anchoring Jesus against the backdrop of his own time, especially with regard to the Jewish setting and context for Jesus’ life and teachings. Any interpretation that does not recognize the “Jewishness” of Jesus may be judged not to fit into this category.
Accordingly, emphasis has been placed on such factors as the religious, political, economic, and social influences in the land of Palestine. Recent archaeological findings have fueled a debate concerning the amount of Hellenistic and Roman influence in the Galilee of Jesus’ day.
A few brief examples will perhaps reveal some threads that tie together this loose-knit group of studies. For Geza Vermes, himself a Jew, Jesus was a popular Jewish rabbi and Galilean holy man.^25 A treatise by Ben Meyer portrays Jesus as preaching to Israel, God’s chosen people, with a renewed offer of community.^26
E.P.Sanders centers on Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, which, seen in the context of the Judaism of Jesus’ day, was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death.^27 Richard Horsley interprets Jesus as favoring
22 Ibid., chapter IV; cf. also Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, transl. by Lewis Wilkins and Duane Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), pp. 88–105.
23 Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, transl. by James W. Leitch (New York: Harper and Row, 1967).
24 This designation was probably first given by Stephen Neill and Tom Wright in The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1961–1986, Second Edition (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1988). The best treatment and evaluation is that by Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995). For a popular overview of recent works on Jesus, see Tom Wright, “The New, Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today, vol. 37, no. 10, September 13, 1993, pp. 22–26.
