The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research

Abstract

The article argues that current debates over method in historical Jesus studies reveal two competing 'models' for how to use the gospel tradition in order to approach the historical Jesus. These models differ over their treatments of the narrative frameworks of the Gospels and, concomitantly, their views of the development of the Jesus tradition. A first model, inspired by form criticism and still advocated today, attempts to attain a historical Jesus 'behind' the interpretations of early Christians. A second model, inspired by advances in historiography and memory theory, posits an unattainable historical Jesus on the basis of the interpretations of the early Christians, and as part of a larger process of accounting for how and why early Christians came to view Jesus in the ways that they did. Advocating the latter approach to the historical Jesus and responding to previous criticism, this essay argues further that these two models are methodologically and epistemologically incompatible. It therefore challenges the suggestion that one can affirm the goals of the second model while maintaining the methods of the first model.

Feasible Researches in Historical Jesus Tradition: A Critical Response to Chris Keith

“…19. Keith (2016: 449) allows, with Crossley (2015, for the particular uncertainty of 'embarrassment' as a general argument, as I, too, have previously urged (Downing 1987: 154, and2000b: 224-27;cf. also Arnal 1997: 204-205).…”

Jesus, the Anthropologist: Patterns of Emplotment and Modes of Action in the Parables

“…In contrast, collective memory (the agency of which is central in the production of the gospels) focuses on general outlines rather than on details (Alison 2010). Theories that recognize in the gospels a product of collective memory are prone to posit that the process through which early Christians remembered and understood Jesus makes the historical figure of the latter (including the distinction between what he may and may not have said) unattainable, (Keith 2016). For Keith, this implies that "memory theory" and traditional historical criticisms are two mutually exclusive approaches.…”

Crowds, Bread and Fame: John 6.1-15 and History Revisited

“… 6. Keith 2016: 426. See also Schröter 2013: 10: ‘the early Christian texts do not convey direct access to the reality to which they refer but relate to that reality in a selective and interpretive manner’. …”