In addition to writing the introduction for this book, I also write a chapter on the intellectual history of Jesus research. This chapter draws from the research done for my essay in JSHJ. My basic thesis is that the First Quest/No Quest/New Quest/Third Quest paradigm is ultimately misleading. This paradigm has roots in Albert Schweitzer's "quest" survey. While it was the best treatment of the topic at the time, it is time to recognize it for what it was: ethnocentric to the point of German, supremacist myopia. Indeed, Schweitzer calls German intelligentsia spiritually superior on the first pages.
I begin:
Once Schweitzer's ethnocentric blinders have been removed, one sees that the "quest" for the historical Jesus begins long before Chubb, Lessing, et al. (perhaps as early as Josephus or Augustine), does not suffer a global "No Quest", and demonstrates a remarkably consistent theme related to Jewish-Christian relations throughout the centuries. Indeed the Jewishness of Jesus isn't unique to any so-called "Third Quest", but is a constant reminder whenever Jews and Christians find themselves in dialogue and debate.
It could be that there was a "No Quest" (or "no biography of Jesus") period in Germany. But the vast majority of scholars neglect to deal with the proximity of these years to the Holocaust / Shoah. Indeed, the Aryan Jesus and the Jesus-without-an-ethnicity of European intelligentsia was strategic during this period. (I will review Heschel's wonderful book in a future post.) For example, Ernst Renan is a well-known voice in Jesus research. But his program was also very motivated by the rise of "race" as a pseudoscience. I write:
In addition to pointing out the many overlapping threads between Jesus research and Jewish-Christian relations, I suggest that contemporary Jewish-Christian dialogue can benefit from a better understanding of our histories together. These relations have often involved competing portraits of Jesus.
anthony
Has there ever been a "quest" for John the Baptizer? Could this be another bridge in Jewish-Christian historical dialogue?
ReplyDeleteAlmost every study on Jesus' early ministry attempts to arrive at at portrait of John the Baptist. Bob Webb's book on the Baptist is still one of the best out there. ...I wrote my MA thesis on this topic in a previous incarnation.
ReplyDeleteBut your point is well taken; if John the Baptist can become a starting point, perhaps we have a better bridge between contemporary Jewish interests and the Christology of the NT. It would be one way among many to provide talking points between sibling religions. Of course, authentic dialogue cannot simply be grounded in Christian sacred texts.
It is apparent that Germans have had a major impact in shaping our modern day views of Christianity, the historical Jesus in particular, and have brought some clarity to a foggy pre-modern mystery. These Jesus researchers have made great contributions to their field. Albert Schweitzer's research is compelling and stands as the basis for most modern Jesus research However,as Dr. Le Donne point out, once Schweitzer's ethnocentric motives are brought into the light, his credibility is severely diminished. But does this mean that his research is entirely flaws and we have to cast out everything he has ever said in regards to the historical Jesus?
ReplyDeleteThank you Andrew, I think that the answer has to be no. Too much of Schweitzer's program is valuable to be tossed out. At this point, I'm just interested in what the intellectual history of Jesus research would look like if we survey the terrain ourselves rather than using his map alone (as has become popular).
DeleteI am curious as to what types of stories and information can be found in stories that take place before the "Old Quest." Most of my knowledge of this comes from listening to the bible being read to me in Church, but I have never actually taken the time to read the bible or research the the actual history of the man Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteSo can the reasoning behind the "cleansing" of the world, and the holocaust be what ultimately caused by people who felt that Jesus was a destroyer of Jews? I'm curious as to what was in the bible for Germany during these times, then. Was it the same, including Matthew, who was preaching for the Jews? Or did they not include that story because it conflicted with their version of the story? I guess I'm especially curious about the Holocaust time's version of the bible.
I also find it interesting that Renan would determine that Jesus was able to cleanse himself of Judaism and became a "destroyer of Jews." I wonder what his reasoning behind Jesus being born Jewish was. I am also really curious about what lead Renan into forming this opinion. Was it really his interest in racial theory that caused him to reach such a violent conclusion? And I am a bit surprised that Renan was French and still felt that the Jewish had to be destroyed. I guess a childish part of me had thought that only the German Nazis had these feelings.
This book is just a must read if you're interested in this topic.
Deletehttp://press.princeton.edu/titles/8820.html
But I would interested to hear what others think about this too.
Its interesting to see the Jewish and Christian conflict about the credibility of Jesus. When you wrote about the Rabbis questioning Jesus' birth story and accusing Joseph of raping Mary as a way to debunk the "godly" birth I found it interesting that the Rabbis chose to blame Joseph, I've always heard about the promiscous mary theory(have you ever seen the movie Saved!, there is a scene in which the main character questions mary's story). Its would be interesting to know more about Jesus as a man and his relationships with women specifically the two marys.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that not many (at least in academia) would argue against the notion of a Jewish-Christian dialogue aiding in Jesus historiography, so long as those who take part remain transparent and cognizant of the problems that can arise when discussing the “historical Jesus,” Christology, Temple history, et cetera. Establishing and maintaining healthy deliberation across any discipline undoubtedly requires incredible tact, let alone between two religious traditions focused on one of the world's most controversial figures. As Le Donne points out, the historical track record for the critical evaluation of Jesus among Jewish and Christian scholars isn't without it's blemishes.
ReplyDeleteLe Donne's chapter reiterated to me the undeniable malleability of Jesus and his traditions. Humans past and present seem to have a knack for appropriation that knows no bounds. From Renan's “destroyer of Judaism” to Kahler's “Supra-Historical Savior,” or even pop culture's bearded hippie and Family Guy caricature, Jesus can be shaped to fit almost any mold. Perhaps a healthy dialogue isn't just beneficial, but necessary. Then again, maybe not.
I find it interesting how there were several individuals, such as Augustine of Hippo, Abraham Geiger, Rabbi Jacob Emden, who believed that Jesus was Jewish and then when the Enlightenment occurs, there is a sudden shift of Jesus from being Jewish to, according to Ernest Renan, being the "destroyer of Judaism." Renan believed that Jesus cleansed himself of Judaism, and as a result of that cleansing was able to become the "destroyer of Judaism." I think he believed in such a statement because of the political and social hardships that were occurring in Europe. First of all, anti judaism became much more prominent during the Enlightenment period. This would cause tensions regarding the belief that some people had about Jesus being the Jewish messiah. Then, the Holocaust occurred in Germany. Renan could have been tentative about discussing Jesus' Jewish side because of the hatred towards Jews that was present in Europe. He may have also felt that Jesus was the "destroyer of Judaism" because maybe in some way he thought God was punishing the Jews through the Holocaust, for some reason. Maybe they broke the covenant again? Ultimately, I wonder why Renan out of all the individuals discussed in this work, is the one who describes Jesus as not being a supporter of the Jewish people. Since the Bible, specifically in the New Testament, describes Israel to be in a covenant with God, why would Jesus be against such an important city and its inhabitants?
ReplyDeleteI had never thought of competing portraits of Jesus before, but reading this article has really shown me how "Jesus" can be manipulated and portrayed differently depending on the audience. It would be interesting to see continued research in the different portrayals of Jesus presented by Jews and Christians. It seems that an image of Jesus is ever evolving and continues to be molded depending on the historical and social context of the times. It is interesting to see the correlation between anti-Judaism and a denial of Jesus' Jewishness. It makes me wonder what other aspects of Jesus' life and personality have been altered to fit a certain agenda...
ReplyDeleteOf course there is going to be debate between two different cultures about who Jesus was because not everyone agrees on one topic in this case, Jesus. Jesus is a man who is able to fit several different molds and should not have a concrete identity because he can always change to fit someone else's beliefs. Jesus is the man of the world in that Jesus can be molded into any way shape or form. The point is is that there is no reason to disagree with each other. What good does that do? Nothing. Society should accept the differences of fellow men and respect those differences not only in religious aspects but in all other aspects that come with a society.
ReplyDelete