As I ponder that question, here are a few things that come to mind that are shaping my initial response:
- Jesus never wrote anything; we have no first-person record of his sayings/actions as we have with the writings of the apostle Paul
- None of Jesus' 12 apostles wrote the gospels (one of the "assured" results of historical inquiry)
- The gospels were written 40 - 70 years after the death of Jesus
- Each gospel presents a unique picture of Jesus as seen from the writer's perspective
- The gospels are clearly "devotional" documents, not historical documents
- The Gospel of John gives us the clearest evidence of how theology is at work in gospel composition, but the other three are also theologically driven
- The nature miracles make no sense historically, they make perfect sense theologically
- Scholars can not agree on criteria for the evaluation of the saying of Jesus
- The memory of Jesus was dependent on the strengths and weaknesses of oral tradition
- The Jesus tradition seems well placed in the social/political situation of the day
- First century historiography was different from our own
- We have no way of knowing what comes from the historical Jesus, even though the setting for the story seems well placed.
- Whether you use only the canonical gospels or supplement with data from the non-canonicals, we are still left with an historical construct that may or not be accurate.
- Does it matter? Not if the gospels are viewed as religious/devotional documents that act as sacrament, allowing us to experience the creative Spirit of the universe.
- As a part of our tradition, we believe that the canonical gospels provide us with what we need to know about Jesus
No comments:
Post a Comment