{"id":3289,"date":"2017-11-08T04:06:52","date_gmt":"2017-11-08T01:06:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/?p=3289"},"modified":"2017-11-08T04:06:52","modified_gmt":"2017-11-08T01:06:52","slug":"the-fictitious-lives-of-jesus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/3289\/the-fictitious-lives-of-jesus\/","title":{"rendered":"The Fictitious Lives of Jesus"},"content":{"rendered":"

From Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus – Ancient Evidence For The Life Of Christ (in print at Amazon<\/a>)<\/p>\n

From the late eighteenth through the nineteenth centuries, both before and during the heyday of Protestant Liberalism, there were numerous attempts to formulate what Albert Schweitzer called the \u201cfictitious lives of Jesus.\u201d In his view, these volumes were chiefly characterized as the words of \u201ca few imperfectly equipped free-lances.\u201d Yet, in spite of the preponderance of fictional elements, Schweitzer considers them the first of the modern lives of Jesus.^1<\/p>\n

Such works often attempted to invent Jesus\u2019 internal motivations and speculate on other aspects of his life, even in areas where the Gospels are silent. The typical approach was to postulate the existence of a secret organization or association. Often this was the Essenes, who were portrayed as being leading, but secret, members of society, and hence were able to manipulate events and circumstances in Jesus\u2019 life. But Schweitzer refers to these plot theses as \u201crather a sorry makeshift.\u201d^2<\/p>\n

Karl Bahrdt wrote one of the earliest attempts, a multi-volumed effort, from 1784\u20131792. For Bahrdt, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were Essenes who sought to keep secret their identity. At an early age, Jesus got involved with this clandestine order and later was viewed as a valued member. Through the efforts of this secret group, Jesus staged his \u201cmiracles.\u201d Luke was particularly responsible for the healings. The Essenes also plotted Jesus\u2019 death, and Luke administered drugs, causing Jesus to survive crucifixion. Afterwards, Jesus was nursed back to health, which allowed him to make several visits to his followers.^3<\/p>\n

Perhaps the best known and most imitated of the fictitious lives of Jesus was written by Karl Venturini from 1800\u20131802. From his youth, Jesus was protected and trained by the Essenes. The \u201cmiracles\u201d he performed during his public ministry were not really supernatural. His healings, for example, were effected by medicines. Venturini did not invent a plot surrounding Jesus\u2019 death, and Jesus actually expected to die. But Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus noticed signs that Jesus might still be alive while they were preparing his body for burial. They signaled the Essenes, who later removed his body. After having recovered somewhat, Jesus was periodically seen by his disciples.^4<\/p>\n

Later, fictitious lives by writers such as Gfr\u00f6rer (written between 1831 and 1838), Hennell (1838) and Salvator (1838) all postulated that the Essenes were involved in many aspects of Jesus\u2019 ministry. All three authors likewise asserted that Jesus was nursed back to health by the Essenes after his crucifixion so that he could visit his followers.^5<\/p>\n

Each of these writers conjectured that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, but was nursed back to health by the members of a secret group, and recovered sufficiently enough to visit with his disciples. Such attempts to construct a speculative life of Jesus attracted very little scholarly attention. They were plainly based on supposition and thus could add little to more serious historical studies, as noted by Schweitzer.<\/p>\n

1 See Schweitzer\u2019s classic treatment, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, transl. by J.W. Montgomery from the first German edition of 1906 (New York: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 38\u201339.<\/p>\n

2 Ibid., p. 38.<\/p>\n

3 Ibid., pp. 39\u201344.<\/p>\n

4 Ibid., pp. 44\u201347.<\/p>\n

5 Ibid., pp. 161\u2013166.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Classical Period<\/p>\n

The nineteenth century was the classical period of Protestant Liberalism. Often dated from the publication of Schleiermacher\u2019s On Religion^7 in 1799 until World War I, these decades probably produced the largest number of \u201clives of Jesus.\u201d In fact, this period of thought is sometimes characterized by these volumes.<\/p>\n

However, Jesus was not depicted as he was portrayed in the Gospels. The emphasis in the majority of these studies was on Jesus as a great example for living, with the implication that we should pattern our lives after his. But at least two key elements in the Gospels were usually either denied or ignored. Supernatural aspects such as Jesus\u2019 miracles were treated as nonhistorical. Further, dogmatic theology was eschewed, especially the doctrine of Jesus\u2019 deity. It was assumed that, while Jesus was an outstanding moral pattern, he was only a man.<\/p>\n

An example may serve to illustrate the liberal methodology. In the early phase of the movement, the predominant approach to Jesus\u2019 miracles was to rationalize them, most often by explaining how something that the Gospel writers considered to be supernatural could really be understood better as the normal operation of nature. This was a carryover from the deistic thinking of the previous century.^8 In his life of Jesus, published in 1828, Heinrich Paulus treated a fair amount of the New Testament text as historical, but he supplied naturalistic explanations of the miraculous elements. He thought that understanding the secondary causes behind the purported miracles would serve to explain what \u201creally\u201d happened.^9<\/p>\n

David Strauss\u2019 Life of Jesus, published just a few years later in 1835, presented a serious and influential challenge to Paulus\u2019 classic approach. Strauss supplanted the rationalistic replacement method with a mythical strategy that questioned many reports about the historical Jesus. He held that the Gospels were chiefly mythological documents that utilized normal description in order to depict transcendental ideas in seemingly historical garb. The overall purpose of the New Testament language was to express essentially inexpressible truths in a manner that allowed them to be more readily applied to life.^10<\/p>\n

7 Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, transl. by John Oman (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958).<\/p>\n

8 An example of deistic diatribe against Jesus\u2019 miracles is Thomas Woolston\u2019s \u201cA Defence of the Discourses on Miracles\u201d (1729), included in Peter Gay, ed., Deism: An Anthology (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1968).<\/p>\n

9 Schweitzer, Quest, chapter V.<\/p>\n

10 David Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, 2 vol. (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1879).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Most obviously, the mythical approach popularized by Strauss and others denied the basic historicity of the Gospels, thereby challenging the orthodox position. Not as evident, however, is how this method even undermined the earlier rationalistic strategies of those such as Paulus, inasmuch as they, too, relied on a certain amount of factual reliability in the Gospel accounts of Jesus.<\/p>\n

These two methodologies serve not only to typify the major Liberal treatments of miracles, but provide models for the entire subject of the life of Jesus. As such, they present two distinct methods of approaching the Gospel data.<\/p>\n

Still, Classical Liberalism as a whole fell on hard times earlier this century. It espoused an overly optimistic outlook, holding an evolutionary anthropology that involved humans reaching higher levels of consciousness. But such a view was overwhelmed by the realities of World War I and the recognition of intrinsic weaknesses within human nature. Those scholars who could not abandon their idealistic beliefs in the goodness of man, who still clung tenaciously to their convictions, struggled past the greatest slaughter of human lives in history, only to be confronted by the carnage of World War II. Liberalism was unable to maintain its leadership in the theological realm.<\/p>\n

Liberalism suffered setbacks for other reasons, as well. For our purposes, the major issue is not only whether there is warrant for the belief that Jesus lived and acted in history. On this subject, there was little dispute. But we are also interested if there is any basisfor supernatural events in his life. This remains to be seen. De-Emphasizing the Historical Jesus<\/p>\n

The publication of Barth\u2019s Epistle to the Romans^11 in 1918 seemed to entail a message that was not only more fitted to the troublesome political climate, but matched an emerging theological conviction, as well. Barth insisted on a revitalized belief in God\u2019s sovereignty, along with the reality of sin. The book hit the kind of nerve accomplished by very few volumes, serving as a monumental call away from a groundless trust in the goodness of human abilities, along with a restored focus on God.<\/p>\n

Barth\u2019s Neo-orthodoxy replaced Liberalism in the forefront of contemporary theological dialogue. However, while opposing a variety of the Liberal theological emphases, Barth and his followers were rather uninterested in the historical Jesus, preferring to divorce evidential concerns from the exercise of faith.^12 Even late in his career, Barth continued to express his lack of support for those who sought to study the historical Jesus.^13<\/p>\n

The work of Rudolf Bultmann was another major influence against the pursuit of the historical Jesus. His 1941 essay\u201c New Testament and Mythology\u201d popularized<\/p>\n

11 Karl Barth, Epistle to the Romans, transl. by Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London: Oxford University Press, 1933).<\/p>\n

12 For one early discussion of such matters, see Karl Barth, The Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Revell, 1933), pp. 130\u2013145.<\/p>\n

13 Karl Barth, How I Changed My Mind(Richmond: John Knox, 1966), p. 69.
\n
\nthe theological methodology of demythologization, including a de-emphasis on utilizing any evidential foundations for faith.^14 Biblical descriptions of the supernatural were thought to be crucial indicators of early Christian belief, but simply could not be understood today in any literal sense. Yet, transcendent language was significant in itself. Rather than discard it, such should be reinterpreted in terms of its existential significance for present living and decision-making.^15
\n
\nWhile Barth and Bultmann were quite different in their theological agendas, to be sure, and often radically opposed to one another,^16 they agreed that the historical Jesus was an illegitimate quest. Many of their followers agreed, but not everyone followed them in their conclusions.<\/p>\n

The New Quest for the Historical Jesus<\/p>\n

For years many theologians remained under the influence of Bultmann\u2019s existential approach. But there were also signs of some dissatisfaction. In a landmark 1953 lecture, Ernst K\u00e4semann argued that early Christian commitment to a particular message did not require believers to be uninterested in at least some minimum amount of historical facts in the life of Jesus. Rather, belief in Jesus actually requires the presence of some historical content.^17<\/p>\n

Other Bultmannian scholars soon joined K\u00e4semann in a modest critique of skeptical approaches that attempted to eliminate any historical basis in early Christianity. At the same time, scholars like G\u00fcnther Bornkamm also continued certain other Bultmannian emphases: a rejection of the Nineteenth Century quest for the historical Jesus, and the assertion that faith does not depend on historical<\/p>\n

14 Rudolf Bultmann, \u201cNew Testament and Mythology,\u201d in Kerygmaand Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. by Hans Werner Bartsch (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), pp. 3\u20138 for example.<\/p>\n

15 Ibid., pp. 9\u201316; Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology(New York: Scribner\u2019s, 1958), pp. 16\u201318.<\/p>\n

16 Barth and Bultmann had a famous disagreement over the reason for Paul\u2019s citation of the resurrection appearances in 1 Cor. 15:3ff. Bultmann\u2019s conclusion that Paul\u2019s chief purpose was to present proof for Jesus\u2019 resurrection (even though Bultmann thought that such was misguided) is important for our purposes. A brief synopsis of Bultmann\u2019s response is found in his Theology of the New Testament, transl. by Kendrick Grobel (New York: Scribners, 1951), vol. I, p. 295. Barth registered his complaints against Bultmann on several occasions. One interesting claim is that, apart from the problems that he perceived in Bultmann\u2019s program of demythologization, Barth thought that Bultmann\u2019s agenda was a return to the old Liberal emphasis (How I Changed My Mind, p. 68), a claim that Bultmann vehemently denied. We will return to a critique of Bultmann\u2019s views in Chapters 3\u20134.<\/p>\n

17 K\u00e4semann\u2019s essay is included in Essays on New Testament Themes, transl. by W.J. Montague (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1964), pp. 15\u201347.
\n
\nscholarship. Nevertheless, a substantial amount could be known about the life of Jesus.^18<\/p>\n

Citing the influence of K\u00e4semann, Bornkamm, and others, James Robinson rejected the old quest, while calling for a new approach to the historical Jesus. In agreement with others that faith was not dependent on historical research, he still<\/p>\n

asserted that the Christian kerygma(the core teachings) required an historical basis:<\/p>\n

This emphasis in the kerygmaupon the historicity of Jesus is existentially<\/p>\n

indispensable, precisely because the kerygma. . . proclaims the meaningfulness of life \u2018in the flesh\u2019.<\/p>\n

It is this concern of the kerygmafor the historicity of Jesus which necessitates a new quest.^19<\/p>\n

The \u201cNew Quest\u201d for the historical Jesus scholars, as they came to be called, popularized a test for historical authenticity in the life of Jesus. Often termed the \u201ccriterion of dissimilarity,\u201d this test dictates that we can only know that material in Jesus\u2019 life is authentic if it is not derived either from primitive Christian teachings or from Judaism. When Gospel material originates from neither of these sources, one can be reasonably sure that the material is historical.^20<\/p>\n

However, the resulting application of the criterion of dissimilarity yields significantly less material than the methodology employed by the old quest. One major criticism is that this test would allow Jesus to share neither Jewish nor Christian beliefs, which is ludicrous in that he was raised in the former milieu and is the chief inspiration for the latter. Thus this approach fails to extricate itself from the historical skepticism that it is critiquing.<\/p>\n

Further, the question is whether additional data can be justified, and on what grounds. Other scholars went much further in their critique of those who would severely curtail the search for history in the life of Jesus, which was the dominant trend until at least the middle of this century. Sometimes conclusions seemed more sympathetic to the stance of traditional Christianity, especially in arguing for some of the supernatural elements contained in the Gospels.<\/p>\n

Wolfhart Pannenberg headed a group of intellectuals who argued forcefully for the concept of God\u2019s revelation in time-space history.^21 The resurrection of Jesus, in<\/p>\n

18 G\u00fcnther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazarethtransl. by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), chapter I.<\/p>\n

19 James M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus, Studies in Biblical Theology, First Series, 25 (London: SCM, 1959), pp. 85\u201392; cf. pp. 9\u201322.<\/p>\n

20 Ibid., pp. 99\u2013100.<\/p>\n

21 For the seminal work written by a group of theologians sometimes called the \u201cPannenberg circle,\u201d see Wolfhart Pannenberg, ed., Revelation as History, transl. by David Granskou (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1968).
\n
\nparticular, was singled out for defense.^22 J\u00fcrgen Moltmann championed an eschatological perspective that acknowledged the importance of God\u2019s participation in both past and present history.^23<\/p>\n

The Third Quest for the Historical Jesus<\/p>\n

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 \u201cThird Quest\u201d for the historical Jesus.^24<\/p>\n

More positive in its assessment of the historical Jesus than was the \u201cNew Quest,\u201d 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\u2019 life and teachings. Any interpretation that does not recognize the \u201cJewishness\u201d of Jesus may be judged not to fit into this category.<\/p>\n

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\u2019 day.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s chosen people, with a renewed offer of community.^26<\/p>\n

E.P.Sanders centers on Jesus\u2019 cleansing of the temple, which, seen in the context of the Judaism of Jesus\u2019 day, was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death.^27 Richard Horsley interprets Jesus as favoring<\/p>\n

22 Ibid., chapter IV; cf. also Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus\u2014God and Man, transl. by Lewis Wilkins and Duane Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), pp. 88\u2013105.<\/p>\n

23 J\u00fcrgen 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).<\/p>\n

24 This designation was probably first given by Stephen Neill and Tom Wright in The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1961\u20131986, 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, \u201cThe New, Unimproved Jesus,\u201d Christianity Today, vol. 37, no. 10, September 13, 1993, pp. 22\u201326.<\/p>\n

25 Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian\u2019s Reading of the Gospels(New York: Macmillan, 1973); cf. Geza Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).<\/p>\n

26 Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus(London: SCM, 1979).<\/p>\n

27 E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).<\/p>\n

nonviolent social dissent.^28 Other important volumes add to the emphasis on Jesus and the Jewish background of his thought.^29
\n
\nA notable exception to this fairly positive trend is the position taken by the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar. While agreeing with the need to research the historical Jesus, these scholars follow more in the tradition of Strauss and Bultmann, and favor a return to a mythical approach to the Gospels.^30<\/p>\n

Summary and Conclusion<\/p>\n

It would appear that, for at least the last two hundred years, there has usually been a keen interest in studying the life of Jesus. Although there have also been times (such as a few decades earlier this century) when this interest has waned among scholars, it seems to reassert itself periodically.<\/p>\n

It is within such a contemporary context, then, that studies in the life of Jesus proceed. And like so many other areas, there are those scholars who will defend the biblical accounts, those who will deny their authority, and those who line up somewhere in between.<\/p>\n

But not all interpretations of Jesus\u2019 life attempt to pay strict attention to historical detail. Some, like the fictitious lives earlier in this chapter, have admittedly set out to construct rather imaginary portrayals of his time on the earth. But in spite of the fact that scholars deny the validity of such efforts, they have arguably played an influential role in the popular understanding of Christianity. In the last few decades, many popular lives of Jesus have appeared, and are quite similar in many respects to the fictitious works of about 150 years ago. We will discuss several in subsequent chapters.<\/p>\n

Perhaps surprisingly to some, there is still a conclusion to be gained from all of this variety. As in so many other matters, the question is not how many scholars hold such-and-such a view, or what trends have dominated intellectual thought, or even how surveys tell us the majority of people think.<\/p>\n

The real issue is what the data tell us about the Jesus of history. What sources do we have at our disposal? Is there any material from non-Christians? When did Jesus live? What did he do? What did he teach? How did he die? Is there any truth to the New Testament contention that Jesus was raised from the dead? It is our purpose to pursue the answers to many of these questions both by addressing critical challenges and by ascertaining what sources support a traditional understanding of Jesus.<\/p>\n

28 Richard Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine(San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987).<\/p>\n

29 Examples include James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism(Garden City: Doubleday, 1988); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1991) and Mentor, Message, Miracle, Vol. 2 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1994).<\/p>\n

30 Some representative volumes include the following: Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993); John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant(San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991); John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994); Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship(San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1987). A volume that exhibits some similarities is Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus – Ancient Evidence For The Life Of Christ (in print at Amazon) From the late eighteenth through the nineteenth centuries, both before and during the heyday of Protestant Liberalism, there were numerous attempts to formulate what Albert Schweitzer called the \u201cfictitious lives of Jesus.\u201d In his view, these […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_disable_autopaging":false},"categories":[6702,6709,6708,6707],"tags":[6710,6711,6712],"class_list":["post-3289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-thechrist","category-habermas-life-of-jesus-studies-thechristcontents","category-life-of-jesus-studies-thechristcontents","category-studies-thechristcontents","tag-habermas","tag-jesus-historical-facts","tag-life-of-jesus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}