Jesus: history, fact and myth
In one of those occasionally serendipitous coincidences of blogging, three different posts today interlock.
- First up was Michael Bird on Fact and Meaning in Biblical Studies
- Then came Matthew Montonini with a quote from Mark Strauss on the real Jesus and scientific historical enquiry.
- Finally there was Ben Witherington fisking of a book by
a raving nut-jobproponent of the view that Jesus was a myth not a real person. (I wish BW would stop SHOUTING and use lower case).
The existence of idiots (certainly in the etymological sense of that term) overturning the whole discipline of history in the service of their atheist polemic (I assume God knows where Mr Doherty got the history degree Wikipedia attributes to him, but Doherty’s website isn’t saying) — the existence of such idiots is at least one reason why historical Jesus research should be considered of value. The question is whether it can serve more than either an apologetic (on the one hand) or corrosive (on the other) purpose.
Is Strauss right to claim however, that
The historical Jesus – defined as knowledge about Jesus which can be attained through historical research – is a subset of truth about the real Jesus.
I’m not so sure. The problem lies in the definition. Strauss defines it in a way in which few other people seem to work in practice. Historical knowledge about Jesus is not that hard to come by, and has informed many different views of Jesus. However, most people usually mean somewhat more than historically informed interpretations. Fitting that knowledge into anything like a coherent reconstruction is more than possible, but the diversity, to say nothing of the incompatibility, of the various reconstructions suggest that “the historical Jesus” understood as a person in history, is less a “subset of truth” and more a mishmash of evidence and prejudice.
Some of the problem is in the discipline of history, which is always less scientific than it likes to present itself as. Hence, I think, the importance of Michael’s musings about “facts”. Historical facts are not really detachable from historical narratives, and hence come embedded in meaning. That meaning may or may not be the best interpretation of the events being described. The narration of facts always involves interpretation, simply because of what is included or omitted in the narrative sequence, however impartial the historian / narrator seems (or intends) to be. Facts without narration (implicit or explicit) are fairly useless.
The historian’s job is partly the evaluation of data, partly the mining of data, and partly the combination and configuration of data into information. The best historians both account for the most data, and present a persuasive narrative that converts it to information. History matters, and, for those who believe in the incarnation, should matter, but it is less as a “subset of truth” about Jesus, and more as rounding and fleshing out of the story with the best available data. The story (and for the believer that includes the church’s story and one’s personal story) needs to account for the data and be shaped by it, but the story also shows what the data means, and why it matters. Only when narrative and data are in an ongoing relationship, can we learn any information at all.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:37 am
[...] Matthew Montonini, Michael Bird, and Ben Witherington, which were all collated and added to by Doug Chaplin. Koester [...]
March 10th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Very well-worded, Doug. You might consider repackaging the post for the Biblicalist and see what response it generates there.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I think you’re right, although maybe we might still salvage some value in what Strauss said. The information we can determine to be historically probable is a subset of the things Jesus actually said and did (and probably includes some ‘false positives’). The attempt to synthesize those puzzle pieces into a narrative about Jesus, on the other hand, involves a significant amount of the skills traditionally placed under the heading ‘creative writing’.
Is that simply saying what you said in different words, or am I saying something different?
March 10th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I’m not sure I would use the phrase “creative writing”, for two reasons:
a) It ignores the way in which historical data acts as a constraint and shaping force on the creative reconstruction.
b) The way you’ve phrased it seems to be as a specific issue for historical Jesus research, whereas I was trying to make the point about all historical narrative.
So, I don’t know, are we saying the same thing?
March 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I certainly agree that the historical data acts as a constraint, but it also seems to be the case that, if one feels like a significant part of the evidence is leading to a particular depiction of Jesus, then troublesome sayings or actions that seem to run counter to it can be ignored, explained away, dismissed or reinterpreted. So there are constraints, but also ways around them, and as long as one doesn’t go too far (although one can go as far as one wants, depending on who the book will be published by).
I was tempted to make an analogy to writing fan fiction in the Star Wars universe…
Did you realize my blog isn’t in your blogroll…?!
March 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
James, I have now corrected that oversight on my blogroll. You can take a look and see your blog in lights.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Woo hoo!
In response to the comment you left on my blog, I should say two things. First, I’m starting research on the Mandaeans. Now those are Baptists. Second, I’d gladly overlook a few quibbles about theology or practice for a chance to sit in a cathedral and hear a choir singing music of Parry or Stanford…