May 13
The historical Jesus dating game
It seems to me that all too often, conservative and liberal share the same assumption in talking about the gospels. Early writings are held to carry a higher degree of historicity. Today Dan Wallace offered an initial post on the modern history of critical appraisal and dating of John. The idea that John was of little or no historical use certainly grew strongly in parallel with movements to date it late into the second century. Wallace relates how manuscript dating put paid to that, since we have a fragment of John earlier than the mid-second century, and possibly considerably earlier, as many readers will know. I don’t know where he will go with this idea, but there are hints that just as arguing for its lateness went hand in hand with doubting its historical value, so arguing for its early composition will strengthen its historical value.
In the same way Markan priority is often equated (perhaps subconsciously) with Markan historicity. Part of the mania for Q seem likewise concerned with constructing an earlier and more reliable (and more reliable because earlier?) source than the Synoptics. Likewise, and in face of some of the pained arguments, whether Thomas can be dated to the first century is a different question from whether it gets us any closer to the historical Jesus.
On the one hand the idea that early is more likely to carry historical memory is a reasonable starting assumption with which to explore the evidence, but it can’t overrule the character of the evidence: rather the evidence must be allowed to challenge the assumption. Luke, for example, makes an explicit claim that he has done detailed research and an implicit claim that he has found other earlier accounts (Matthew and Mark) unsatisfactory. The more we recognize Mark’s theological agenda, the less we can use the criterion of embarrassment to argue for the certain historicity of, say, the disciples’ thickness.
The fourth gospel is problematic – both assessing it in itself, and considering it in relationship to the synoptics, and in the face of such a complex work, its probable first century dating can say little enough about its historicity.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:48 am
You know you probably spend too much time around students when your initial reaction to this subject line is that you’re being invited to do a quiz that tells you which gospel character is your ideal date!!
Interesting post, just the same.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
WWJD- Who Would Jesus Date?
Obvious, isn’t it?
May 16th, 2008 at 4:00 am
I agree that the time of composition is not the most determinative factor for historicity. Quality of evidence counts for a lot. But the scholarly agenda often determines what they consider qualitatively worthwhile. E.g., I could give you a great argument that Luke’s is the most Jewish of the Gospels because he records things about Jesus’ Jewishness that the other Gospel writers either ignored or took for granted. That makes Luke someone we have to pay more serious attention to (and you can see his interest in Jewishness in Acts as well). Too many scholars are indifferent to this Jewishness.
The real point is that a good scientific theory is one that grasps the whole and not just picks apart this or that piece. It is being able to see a pattern that runs through the whole that makes for good scientific, historical work — a pattern that fits the historical context as we know it form other sources.
Leon Zitzer