How do you answer the question? The writer of the article suggests that the Jesus of faith exists apart from the Jesus of history. I don't see how that is remotely possible; one presupposes the other and, indeed, each is identical to the other. But this leaves an historical question. And, no, I don't have a solid answer, at least not in this case. Does faith require an answer to all historical questions ? I don't think so. However, it can be argued that you need good answers to all questions that are pressing. Not to do the necessary research, not to even try, strikes me as an abdication of faith. My humble opinion Billy ==================================== Published at RCP / Real Clear Religion May 21, 2014 from the site : Musings of a Priest An Embarrassing Criterion
In 1964, the Pontifical Biblical Commission distinguished between how the words and actions of Jesus had been elaborated. Words and actions were first witnessed. Words and actions were then set forth and adapted in preaching. Still later, words and actions were reported or summarized or, even, developed in accordance with the needs of a particular community. Those reconstructing the life of Jesus, then, distinguish between New Testament writings which are likely factual in their presentation of the words and actions of Jesus and writings which are likely not factual. John Meier, for example, identifies criteria which produce judgments “more of less probable” about what originates in Jesus. As to whether a word or act originates in Jesus or in the imagination of early Christian communities, embarrassment is considered relevant. Early Christian communities, Meier reasons, would hardly have gone out of their way to create materials embarrassing to themselves. A favorable level of historical plausibility, then, is associated with those words or action of Jesus which would have created embarrassment for those telling of such words or actions. Scholars not really existing in proximity to one another on the spectrum of biblical thought, mostly, favorably assess an historical core to Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist. This baptism is “one of the most securely grounded facts in all the history of Jesus” (James Dunn) and is “as historically certain as anything about either [Jesus or John] can be” (John Dominic Crossan). Embarrassment grounds the supposed historicity of such a happening. The evangelists treat the baptism of Jesus in the following way: In Mark, baptisms by John surround repentance for sin and no explanation exists as to why Jesus approaches John for baptism; in Matthew, a dialogue is introduced between Jesus and John where John confesses his need to be baptized by Jesus but Jesus responds that John should baptize him so as to fulfill “all righteousness”; in Luke, John is imprisoned prior to the baptism of Jesus and the identity of the person baptizing Jesus is not given; finally, in the fourth Gospel, no baptism of Jesus occurs (though features of overlap exist). To Meier, early Christian communities are being stuck with an increasingly embarrassing moment in the life of Jesus: “The idea that Jesus, whom early Christianity considered sinless and the source of forgiveness for humanity, should be associated with sinners by undergoing a ‘baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ is hardly a fiction created by the church, unless the church enjoyed multiplying difficulties for itself”. Embarrassment grounds the supposed historicity of this happening but this, I think, is weaker ground than often granted. Evidencing embarrassment, by surveying the movement of Matthew and Luke away from Mark, misidentifies the impact of embarrassment by confusing the object of embarrassment. When Matthew introduces a dialogue between Jesus and John – in which John confesses his need to be baptized by Jesus and in which Jesus responds by justifying his own baptism by John – it is more likely that Matthew is responding not with embarrassment to the prospect of Jesus having once been baptized, but to the Markan presentation of such a baptism. To Crossan, the Markan rendering exists “without any defensive commentary” . Likely such a rendering, and not its potential historical core, motivates Matthew to introduce a dialogue between Jesus and John. Vincent Taylor observes that the difficulty of having Jesus baptized by John – John who baptizes for the remission of sins – has not occurred to Mark. Well … it has to Matthew and Matthew being embarrassed by Mark is not evidence of there being an historical core to the Markan text. The Markan rendering of the baptism of Jesus is preceded by the anticipation of Jesus and followed by a description of the experience of Jesus. It could indeed be true that Mark, here, mitigates the embarrassment of Jesus being baptized by John but little is done to evidence the embarrassment of Mark with whatever tradition he is passing along. That what Mark writes will later embarrass others is not evidence of historical plausibility. I have great respect for those exploring questions of what Jesus Christ might said or have did. However, it is possible to overestimate the impact of such a quest. As Sandra Schneiders writes, an overemphasized focus can “ subvert the project of interpreting the New Testament as sacred Scripture. [It can] suggest that the real purpose of New Testament research is to answer that question [of what Jesus said or did] and that if it were to be answered comprehensively it would give us access to the ‘real Jesus’ of Christian Faith. Christian faith, however, bears upon Jesus as presented in the New Testament, and proclaimed by the Church, and not on some figure of the past presumed to ‘lie behind that text’”. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
