Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up

There are no “raw facts.” All historical reporting is an interpreted reporting, and this is especially true for the canonical gospels. For the evangelists, and for those communities that told and retold the sayings and stories of Jesus, Jesus was not a dead person to be remem­bered; he was—and is—the living Son of God who reigns in glory and shares himself with his people in Word and Sacrament. The gospels are theological texts. They interpret Jesus of Nazareth through the lens of faith.

Imagine if you will a modern reporter who is transported back into the past, armed with a thorough knowledge of first-century Jewish and Greek culture and languages, yet also ignorant of Christian faith and Church history. He follows Jesus around for three years, jotting down the things that he says and does. He conducts many in-depth interviews both with Jesus and the Twelve. But on the day of crucifixion, he still does not really under­stand who he is or what his mission is all about. Jesus’ identity still eludes him. He reads over his notes and despairs of writing anything meaningful about this man. He knows he lacks the inter­pretive key by which to understand him. All the Jewish and Hellenistic categories seem inadequate.

On Easter Sunday our reporter accompanies Cleopas to Emmaus.  On the road a stranger joins them. They share with him their dismay regarding the arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus of Nazareth. They thought he was the Messiah, Cleopas tell him.  The stranger directs them back to the Scriptures and shows them how they in fact witness to the passion and death of Jesus. When they reach Emmaus, they share supper together, and the stranger reveals to them his true identity. It’s Jesus! Finally, our reporter understands. The resur­rection provides the key unlocking the mystery of the Lord’s ministry and mission. From this point on he must interpret Jesus in light of the resurrection and all that it means. To do otherwise would misrepresent him. Thomas F. Torrance elaborates:

After the ascension of Jesus the reporter takes out his notebooks and goes over them carefully, for he knows that everything must be corrected and recast now that he is able really to see and understand what he observed. His ‘careful’ account of the events in the life of Jesus as they actually happened is, he is forced to admit, seriously distorting, for it abstracts their appearance, their phenomenal or literary surface, from its objective structure in Jesus Christ himself and thereby deprives the events of their underlying ontological integration; while ‘the objectively established data’ are quite evidently organized through concepts which, in considerable measure, derive from himself rather than from Jesus, and thereby betray his own subjective bias…. Thus an astonishing thing about the resurrection is that instead of cutting Jesus off from his historical and earthly existence before the cross it takes it all up and confirms its concrete factuality by allowing it to be integrated on its own controlling ground, and therefore enables it to be understood in its own objective meaning. Far from being ‘violated’ the historical Jesus comes to his own within the dimension of the risen Jesus, and the risen Jesus is discerned to have no other fabric than that in the life and mission of the historical Jesus. It is the resurrection that really discovers and gives access to the historical Jesus, for it enables one to understand him in terms of his own intrinsic logos, and appreciate him in the light of his own true nature as he really was—and is and ever will be. (Space, Time and Resurrection, pp. 165-166)

The canonical gospels are confessions of paschal faith. We should not be surprised that when secular historians attempt to reconstruct the history of the Nazarene independently of the faith of the apostolic Church, they inevitably fail. The historical-critical method rips the person of Jesus from the divinely-ordained frame of meaning that allows us to grasp his words and actions (see Walter Wink, The Bible in Human Translation). Christopher Seitz maintains that the secular attempt to find the “real” Jesus is doomed to failure, because it is pouring all of its energies into a hopeless quest to find a Jesus hidden “behind the words about him.” But no such Jesus ever existed and thus cannot be found. The true challenge is posed by the subject matter itself:

The very fourfoldness of the gospel record is a witness to the majestic difficulty of the endeavor of presenting Jesus as a character of time and space, fully man, fully God. But this is not an inadequacy that can be remedied through historical-critical heavy lifting, because it inheres with the subject matter itself, which is God in Christ—who exposes our inadequacy in trying to speak of him, and yet simultaneously remedies this through the work of the Holy Spirit in the church, allowing the frail testimony of human minds to be the lens on the glory of God, a touching of the ark of the covenant. (Word Without End, p. 58)

This confession of faithful narrative identification does not resolve the question of historical reference. Apparently the preresurrection Jesus did not say and do everything exactly as reported in the gospels. It is therefore proper to ask questions like “What really happened?” and “Did Jesus actually say that” But unlike his Jesus Seminar counterparts, the believing historian does not seek a hidden Jesus underneath the texts. Perhaps we might think of his work not so much as excavation but as penetration.

Who is the “real” Jesus? Is he the reconstructed Jesus of the historians? Is he the Jesus remembered by the Church and narratively rendered in the gospels? Is he the risen Lord and Savior who is experienced by Christians in prayer, worship, liturgy, Bible study, and service?

As Christians we properly approach the apostolic witness to Jesus as a whole, in all of its variegated texture and depth. While it may be useful to identify levels of tradition, to the extent that such identification can be intelligently and reasonably done, that’s fine. Such knowledge merely adds to the riches of our tradition and hopefully provokes even more interesting preaching. But it would be artificial for the Christian to identify one level of the biblical witness, say “Q,” as being the one, true, authoritative tradition. That would be a form of Q-fundamentalism. We are properly concerned with the apostolic witness in its entirety, in all of its stratified depth and complexity, for it is through this witness that we are given to know the real Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified and risen Son of God.

It is this living Jesus of the Apostles who has spoken to us in the gospel and incorporated us into the salvific life of the Church. A Christian historian cannot “pretend” he does not know that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead and is now enthroned in glory as Lord and King. In the terminology of Alvin Plantinga, this belief is properly stipulated as basic for the Christian. It would be irrational and schizophrenic for believers to acquiesce to the precon­ceptions of modernity, preconceptions which exclude a priori the Christian worldview.

Because of our commitment to the fidelity of the biblical witness to the truth of Jesus Christ, Christians will rightly accord greater credence to historical reconstructions that are consis­tent with the canonical witness than those that are not. Robert W. Jenson explains:

In the church, we will credit reconstructions of “the historical Jesus” that are compatible with the canonical narrative before we credit alternative hypotheses that are not. Theology will thus, for example, give a more willing ear to such pictures of the historical Jesus as those drawn by the midcentury “new quest,” in which he appears as a radical prophet and rabbi, than it will to more recent depictions of a New Age guru. There is no reason to be embarrassed by this prejudgment; it is far more reasonable than any possible alternative, since … the very existence of the Gospels as a corpus depends on the community constituted by the faith that so judges.

Nevertheless, it is conceivable that we might be driven, past “reasonable doubt,” to conclude that research falsifies the canonical narrative. To conclude that would be to conclude that no one person presents himself in the total tradition about Jesus, that Jesus is not now an agent in history. This is a real possibility; whatever may be true of other religions, Christian faith must be in this fashion historically vulnerable. (Systematic Theology, I:174)

Ultimately, the Christian believes and hopes that the identity of the “Christ of faith” and the “Jesus of history” will be eschatologically confirmed. And so we continue to pray, “Come, Lord Jesus.”

“When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight” (Luke 24:30-31).

(24 April 2014; rev.)

This entry was posted in Bible. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up

  1. mercifullayman says:

    It’s interesting that you are republishing these conversations, and at the same time, Candida Moss over at The Daily Beast is saying new research claims that the Gospel of John is a forgery. I’d be curious to know your take on what she’s suggesting. I’m not paying for a membership to read on article there, but it is an interesting take for sure. Will have to look more into why she is claiming that.


    • mercifullayman says:

      Appears rooted in Hugo Mendez’s research: See link

      Liked by 1 person

      • Fr Aidan Kimel says:

        Every Lent this kind of nonsense gets published and Christians are supposed to be shocked and embarrassed. Yes, it’s quite possible that the Apostle John was not the author of the gospel attributed to him. Does that mean it’s a forgery? I suppose it does, at least by modern standards. Does it make any difference to its canonical standing as Holy Scripture. Nope.

        Nothing to see here. Move along. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

        • mercifullayman says:

          Haha! I just had never seen it as regards to the Gospels. You get it from the Epistles, but the Gospels themselves always seem to kind of get a pass. Just food for thought was all I was hinting at. I am enjoying this conversation deeply.


        • Iain Lovejoy says:

          “Forgery” seems entirely the wrong word, since none of the gospels actually claim to have been written by the person whose name they bear. As I understand it Mark’s Gospel is supposed to have been compiled from John Mark writing down Peter’s teaching, which he then “handed down”. The evidence is pretty clear that Matthew relied heavily on Mark for the structure of his narrative. Even John 21:24 which supposedly identifies the author of the gospel as “the disciple Jesus loved” actually does no such thing: what it claims is that John wrote down his eyewitness accounts of what Jesus did, and “we” (not “you”) “know his testimony to be true”. The book appears to be claimings
          to be compiled from eyewitness accounts, not written by an eyewitness.
          The obsession with authorship seems to me to be a modern thing arising from books being replicated by printing, not hand copied, and more especially from modern copyright laws and commercial authors and publishers. I can’t see why anyone in the ancient world would name the gospels after an editor unnamed in the text, rather than the source of the tradition they were compiling their gospel from.


  2. Marian Catholic says:

    The Gospels are written in the genre of ancient historical biography just as the exploits of Alexander the Great have been written by men who accompanied him on his campaigns.


Comments are closed.