History and theology in the synoptic gospels

Trinity Journal, Spring 2003 by Osborne, Grant R

It is a supreme irony that a century ago Albert Schweitzer summed up the nineteenth century quests for the historical Jesus by showing that they had all painted a Jesus in their own image. He called for a new openness to history, to let "Jesus be Jesus." In his inimitable prose he said,

Formerly it was possible to book through-tickets at the supplementary-psychological knowledge office, which enabled those traveling in the interests of life-of-Jesus constructions to use express trains, thus avoiding the inconvenience of having to stop at every little station, change, and run the risk of missing their connection. This ticket office is now closed. There is a station at the end of each section of the narrative, and the connections are not guaranteed.1

The result was a new age of historical inquiry designed to discover the true "historical Jesus." Fueled by the historical skepticism of Wrede and Troeltsch,2 the new era sought to determine "the real Jesus" of history. The results have been disappointing to say the least. The new Jesuses have suspiciously resembled the old in the sense that the so-called pure historians have also "modernized"3 him and created a list of figures that would fit their own times quite well. A brief perusal of the pictures developed in recent decades will illustrate this: the existential Jesus of Kasemann and Bornkamm; the itinerant cynic philosopher of Funk and Crossan; the Spirit-filled teacher of wisdom of Borg; the revolutionary social activist of Horsley; the prophet of Sophia of Fiorenza-all depict a Jesus who would find a perfect niche in the modern world more than one that fits the actual biblical and historical portrait. We have come full circle back to Schweitzer, proof that the so-called scientific advance promised in critical circles has not been forthcoming. The thesis of this paper is that no historical or "real" Jesus is possible until we take the data of the gospels seriously as historical documents in their own right.

At the same time, evangelical scholars must answer charges that we as well have failed to solve the problem. Luke Timothy Johnson has challenged the "cultural agenda" behind evangelical scholarship, saying,

A . . . complex pattern of avoidance can be found among those professors of New Testament in conservative seminaries who have managed to combine "critical scholarship" with the demands of traditional authority. A careful reading of their publications reveals that the scholarship is "critical" in form much more than in substance; the paraphernalia of the academy are used-often with considerable cleverness-to support conclusions already determined by doctrine.4

His criticism is that we are encumbered by an a priori demand that the Bible be accepted as an inerrant, absolutely historical document in its own right. Therefore, he believes, we cannot allow historical inquiry to proceed freely so as to let the results flow from the data itself. In one sense he has a point; we do believe that the gospels are inerrant and therefore perfectly reliable history. However, he is wrong that this leads us to "conclusions already determined by doctrine." Inerrancy is not a purely deductive conclusion imposed on the data; it is more an inductive principle developed through the data. The well-known "burden of proof" principle utilizes this-the burden is more upon the skeptic to disprove the data rather than upon the positive historian to prove it; as in jurisprudence the claims of the data are assumed until proven otherwise.5 Evangelical scholars work with the full range of historical documents in order to see the historical Jesus as he emerges from the biblical documents as informed and clarified by extra-biblical material. Johnson himself argues for a more text-aware approach to the historical Jesus, though he personally believes historical Jesus research is unnecessary.6 Evangelical historians more than any other fulfill this demand for a text-centered study of history.7 It is amazing that many critical scholars accept nearly everything said by Josephus or Tacitus but doubt everything said in the gospels. The new approach to the historical Jesus, that of the third quest, is more open to the gospel data. Therefore, evangelicals have the best tools for uncovering this material, for we take those texts more seriously than others.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the interaction between history and theology that is a major factor in any attempt to discover the historical Jesus that lies behind the documents themselves. We all agree that each gospel is a portrait of Jesus, an individual glimpse of not only Jesus as he was but of the church's understanding of his significance. In other words, the gospels are exactly what the term implies-good news or sermons about Jesus, theologized history rather than "pure" history, as if there is such a thing as pure history. Pure history is the event as it occurs; but once that event is recorded, it is always interpreted in terms of its significance. That is as true of Collingsworth and Gibbons as it is of Matthew and Mark. This is what the evangelists have done, telling the story of Jesus interpreted in terms of its theological relevance. As we seek to go behind the gospel pictures, we are asking the same questions as any historian how much did Jesus understand of his nature and how did that understanding develop? How did his life on earth unfold, and what was the interaction between the various groups as they reacted to Jesus? In so doing, there will be two parts to this paper, first a historical survey of the issue as it unfolded over the last hundred years leading up to the current scene, and second a delineation of principles for interacting with both history and theology in the pursuit of the historical Jesus.