But when the result is a historical Jesus who is greater than anyone else and who can do spectacular supernatural things, one must wonder just how the words "historical" and "authentic" are being used.
One wonders where even to begin when trying to understand such a statement and the motivations for it.
Implicitly banned categories
In Crossley's thinking, Jesus could not have been both "greater than anyone else" and authentic. Nor could he "do spectacular supernatural things" and be historical. This is a logical fallacy, one presumably caused by the assumptions of naturalism (that the supernatural does not exist) and humanism (specifically, that no one can lay any claim to inherent greatness over another). One must ask, is God banned from history? Is he unable to act as he wills within his creation? For any scholar really concerned with finding out the truth, assuming such things should be anathema.
In the Gospels, Jesus claimed that he was:
- sent to earth by his Father (Jn 5.36)
- one in substance with his Father (Jn 10.30)
- the only one who totally knew his Father (Mt 11.27)
- able to take up his life again after laying it down (Jn 10.17-18)
- alive before Abraham (Jn 8.58)
Why write the Bible at all?
I feel the question that is at the crux of the difference between those who do and do not accept the historicity of the Scriptures is: what were the people who wrote the Bible trying to achieve? Were they simply ancient versions of "Oprah", trying to make people feel good without actually giving them anything good? Were they just a bunch of simple-minded people, wanting to preserve their traditions in the face of a changing culture? Were they charlatans, for whom deceiving the public was a means of making a living?Some of these factors may have been present (e.g. preserving of tradition), but when you read, say, Romans or 1 Corinthians, ask yourself this: what did Paul believe, and was that different to what he wanted his readers to believe? I think someone picking up one of those books for the first time would come to the natural conclusion that Paul really believed that Jesus Christ was God in human form, and that he really was alive, 25 years after being crucified by the Romans. What's more, Paul wanted his readers to believe just like he did, love just like he did, and hope just like he did.
Why read the Bible at all?
I've heard it said that biographies are only ever written by those who loved the subject, or those who hated ner. It seems those who study the Scriptures are divided into the same two groups. The latter seem to want to set themselves up as the judges of Scripture,2 whereas the former realise they are inadequate judges, and instead allow themselves to be judged by the Word.
If Jesus is not alive today (2000 years after being crucified by the Romans) and able to rescue me from my sin, my surroundings and my self, then i am "to be pitied more than all men" (1Co 15.19). So stick a pair of nerd glasses on me and call me a loser.
1. James G. Crossley is co-chair of the Jesus seminar for the British New Testament Society, according to his bio page at the University of Sheffield. Of course, i've no right to disagree with him, having studied lower qualifications at less prestigious institutions. But i'll have a shot at it anyway. ;-)
2. Which incidentally, is why i think the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is an extremely important one. The problem with any view which holds the Bible as less than inerrant is simple: who gets to decide which parts are right and which are not? Biblical errancy puts the locus of authority with the interpreter rather than the God who revealed it and the human who wrote it. Or to put it another way, believing inerrancy takes a lot less faith.
Where even to begin?
One place might be Norman L. Geisler's "Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of its Philosophical Roots", Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981. Geisler's review of the views of Bacon, Hobbes, and Spinoza is instructive in showing how far back such opinions go.