Re: Why the historical Jesus matters

Andrew,

As always, a great post. But I’d like to press you on some issues.

So, you’ve told us why the historical Jesus matters, but I’m not clear what you mean by "historical Jesus." Could you tell me a bit more about what you mean by "historical Jesus"?

What is "the biblical witness"? A lot seems to hinge on getting this right. Can you tell me more about what you mean?

On one hand, I agree that we should avoid the "traditional evangelical hermenuetic." And to avoid this, I agree also that placing scripture in literary and historical context is important for constructing an understanding of the meaning of some piece of text. However, on the other hand, I think that the present context in which we read the scripture and interpret it for ourselves is far more important to understanding how we can and should follow in the way of Jesus. In other words, I’m saying that literary and historical contexts are seen and understood only from our present vantage. We are always already here in the present context looking back and renarrating forward. So, therefore, understanding thehistorical and literary contexts are in some sense secondary to understanding the present conditions under which we make particular literary and historical interpretations. To be clear here, I’m not talking about decontextualizing scripture, I’m talking about pushing the contextual logic to its conclusion. While I feel that your contextualization of scripture is historically rich, it is only a halting step toward embedding the scripture in the contexts in which its actually being articulated and lived by followers—that is, the present context.

My point that the present context is missing from your analysis really pops out when I read #6. You represent the re-telling of scripture as something that we decide and learn to do and as something we can start and stop—you seem to presume that the re-relling is not always already in process. In saying this, however, you miss the mundane and overwhelming force of the present. As long as we are reading the Scriptures, we are always already re-telling scripture in artful ways.

The problem, as I see it, centers on your affirmation of the metaphysical claims that there are "deep and universal" elements of the Divine Christ and metaphysical claims that the Biblical "story" can "stand for what it is…apart from our pressing need to appropriate it for ourselves." I think that you risk succoming to the "pervasive and extremely powerful" modern paradigm that you’re tryiing to avoid.