Jesus: historical and contemporary
25/02/15 05:20
Albert Schweitzer had several careers. He is known as the 1952 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. His philosophy of reverence for life was expressed in his founding of the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in what is now Gabon in west central Africa. His work as a doctor, however, was at least a second career for the German, who had already received acclaim for his theological work and his musical performances, including restoration and performances on historic pipe organs. He was into his thirties before he began medical school.
Schweitzer wrote in German, a language that I do not read, so I have been dependent upon translators for access to this works. 1906, When Schweitzer was 31 years old, seemed to be a banner year for his publications. It was that year that “The Art of Organ Building and Organ Playing in Germany in France” was published. That publication was critical in the development of the 20th Century organ movement which turned away from the romantic extremes and returned to a more classical form.
1906 was also the year of the publication of Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, which was translated by William Montgomery into English and published in 1910 as “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” The book had a deep impact on New Testament scholarship and upon the study of theology in general. The basic premise is that the image of Jesus portrayed by the contemporary church, is layered with centuries of church tradition and practice and is, in many ways, strikingly different from the reports of the 1st Century Gospel writers and the man who taught and healed and walked the earth.
He attempts to interpret Jesus in the light of Jesus’ own convictions, extracted from the words of Jesus’ teachings, primarily those reported in the Gospel accounts.
It is a noble quest, although, I must confess, I believe it is a futile one. Too many years have passed. Too many traditions have developed. Too many layers of thinking have wrapped themselves around Jesus for us to presume that we might know who Jesus was before the church existed.
Schweitzer went on to firmly maintain his position as a preeminent New Testament scholar with his 1911 book, “The Psychiatric Study of Jesus” and two later studies of Paul, the second of which was published in 1930, when Schweitzer was in his mid-fifties.
As a pastor and a person of faith, I haven’t been too taken with the various attempts at discovering, recovering, or perhaps even re-inventing in some cases, of the historical Jesus. Anything beyond the bare minimums is very difficult to establish. Because of variations in calendars and changes in calendar systems, it is even difficult to establish the exact dates of Jesus’ life. We do know that the traditions about the time of year when Jesus was born are likely not rooted in historical accuracy, though the time of his death is easier to establish because of its connection with the celebration of Passover. Direct quotes of words that Jesus actually said are questionable at best, having been filtered through decades of oral tradition and centuries of pre-printing press written tradition. It is likely that some errors or changes in reporting have occurred over the huge amount of time between the first eye witnesses (or is that ear witnesses?) hear Jesus’ parables. Historically the oldest of the Gospels, Mark, is not as focused as are other Gospels with what Jesus said, choosing rather to focus on his deeds and especially upon his death. Mark powerfully established Jesus as a healer and a human who died by crucifixion.
To know who Jesus was, independent of the traditions and teachings of the institutional church, however, seems to be not possible. Furthermore, from my limited perspective, the question of why the church kept and treasured certain stories and images is more intriguing than the question of what might have happened had the church not been formed. You can’t roll time backwards. You can’t re-create a new history. What did happen was that the church was formed and that the fledgling community that formed in the wake of Jesus’ death and resurrection became institutionalized and grew from a tiny sect persecuted by the power of the Roman Government to a mainstream religion practiced, promoted, and, in some cases, violently imposed by the state. This church went through schisms and reformations and additional reconfigurations and has produced a wide variety of institutions, a rather small strain of which is my church home - the United Church of Christ in the United States. We make no claim to be the most authentic or the most righteous expression of the faith, but we do seek to be faithful in our call to service to others in the name of Jesus Christ.
It does seem, however, that in each generation there are a few scholars who attempt to cut through the layers of tradition and practice to come up with their own version of Jesus before the institutional church. The current mood of postmodern deconstructionism has a decidedly anti-institutional flavor and lends itself to such efforts almost as if they feel that the institutional church has somehow masked or hidden the “true” Jesus through evil design or attempts at ill-gotten power and influence.
I just read one such essay, written by Cameron Freeman, a brilliant young Australian scholar. It is not a good idea to dismiss such work because it has much to offer those of us who seek to be faithful in this generation. We need to recognize the parts of our image of Christ that come from centuries of tradition and from the practices of the modern church and that have little or no connection to the teachings of Jesus. We need to continually seek to cut through the extraneous material to discover the reality that is at the core of Christianity. But we also need to recognize that there is no guarantee that contemporary speculation about the historical Jesus is more authentic than the traditions of the church.
My calling is to be a pastor and not a New Testament scholar. The works of the scholars, however, inhabit a portion of my thinking and, I am sure, influence my work as a pastor. Perhaps, some days, my actions and words reflect that which is genuinely of Jesus.
Schweitzer wrote in German, a language that I do not read, so I have been dependent upon translators for access to this works. 1906, When Schweitzer was 31 years old, seemed to be a banner year for his publications. It was that year that “The Art of Organ Building and Organ Playing in Germany in France” was published. That publication was critical in the development of the 20th Century organ movement which turned away from the romantic extremes and returned to a more classical form.
1906 was also the year of the publication of Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, which was translated by William Montgomery into English and published in 1910 as “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” The book had a deep impact on New Testament scholarship and upon the study of theology in general. The basic premise is that the image of Jesus portrayed by the contemporary church, is layered with centuries of church tradition and practice and is, in many ways, strikingly different from the reports of the 1st Century Gospel writers and the man who taught and healed and walked the earth.
He attempts to interpret Jesus in the light of Jesus’ own convictions, extracted from the words of Jesus’ teachings, primarily those reported in the Gospel accounts.
It is a noble quest, although, I must confess, I believe it is a futile one. Too many years have passed. Too many traditions have developed. Too many layers of thinking have wrapped themselves around Jesus for us to presume that we might know who Jesus was before the church existed.
Schweitzer went on to firmly maintain his position as a preeminent New Testament scholar with his 1911 book, “The Psychiatric Study of Jesus” and two later studies of Paul, the second of which was published in 1930, when Schweitzer was in his mid-fifties.
As a pastor and a person of faith, I haven’t been too taken with the various attempts at discovering, recovering, or perhaps even re-inventing in some cases, of the historical Jesus. Anything beyond the bare minimums is very difficult to establish. Because of variations in calendars and changes in calendar systems, it is even difficult to establish the exact dates of Jesus’ life. We do know that the traditions about the time of year when Jesus was born are likely not rooted in historical accuracy, though the time of his death is easier to establish because of its connection with the celebration of Passover. Direct quotes of words that Jesus actually said are questionable at best, having been filtered through decades of oral tradition and centuries of pre-printing press written tradition. It is likely that some errors or changes in reporting have occurred over the huge amount of time between the first eye witnesses (or is that ear witnesses?) hear Jesus’ parables. Historically the oldest of the Gospels, Mark, is not as focused as are other Gospels with what Jesus said, choosing rather to focus on his deeds and especially upon his death. Mark powerfully established Jesus as a healer and a human who died by crucifixion.
To know who Jesus was, independent of the traditions and teachings of the institutional church, however, seems to be not possible. Furthermore, from my limited perspective, the question of why the church kept and treasured certain stories and images is more intriguing than the question of what might have happened had the church not been formed. You can’t roll time backwards. You can’t re-create a new history. What did happen was that the church was formed and that the fledgling community that formed in the wake of Jesus’ death and resurrection became institutionalized and grew from a tiny sect persecuted by the power of the Roman Government to a mainstream religion practiced, promoted, and, in some cases, violently imposed by the state. This church went through schisms and reformations and additional reconfigurations and has produced a wide variety of institutions, a rather small strain of which is my church home - the United Church of Christ in the United States. We make no claim to be the most authentic or the most righteous expression of the faith, but we do seek to be faithful in our call to service to others in the name of Jesus Christ.
It does seem, however, that in each generation there are a few scholars who attempt to cut through the layers of tradition and practice to come up with their own version of Jesus before the institutional church. The current mood of postmodern deconstructionism has a decidedly anti-institutional flavor and lends itself to such efforts almost as if they feel that the institutional church has somehow masked or hidden the “true” Jesus through evil design or attempts at ill-gotten power and influence.
I just read one such essay, written by Cameron Freeman, a brilliant young Australian scholar. It is not a good idea to dismiss such work because it has much to offer those of us who seek to be faithful in this generation. We need to recognize the parts of our image of Christ that come from centuries of tradition and from the practices of the modern church and that have little or no connection to the teachings of Jesus. We need to continually seek to cut through the extraneous material to discover the reality that is at the core of Christianity. But we also need to recognize that there is no guarantee that contemporary speculation about the historical Jesus is more authentic than the traditions of the church.
My calling is to be a pastor and not a New Testament scholar. The works of the scholars, however, inhabit a portion of my thinking and, I am sure, influence my work as a pastor. Perhaps, some days, my actions and words reflect that which is genuinely of Jesus.