What do you think?
Rate this book
The Historical Jesus Question: The Challenge of History to Religious Authority
A natural sequel to The Historical Jesus Quest , The Historical Jesus Question offers commentary on the work and significance of the classic writers presented in the earlier volume--Spinoza, Strauss, Schweitzer, Troeltsch, Bultmann, Kasemann--and some additional comment on the work of Pannenberg. Not merely a summary discussion of these important writers, this book goes beyond to follow the implications for theology of the ongoing challenge history presents to biblical authority.
392 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2001
15 people want to read
About the author
Gregory W. Dawes
11 books11 followersGreg gained his first graduate degree at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome before returning to New Zealand to complete a PhD in Biblical Studies at the University of Otago. He has more recently completed a second PhD, in the Philosophy of Religion, and now teaches in both Religion and Philosophy. Having two young daughters, Anna and Kathryn, he is continually reminded of the truth of Quine's remark that the major questions of philosophy are asked by age five.
Greg is currently working on a new book entitled After Copernicus: Religion, Science, and Magic in Early Modern Europe.
I have a particular interest in the methodological naturalism or (more precisely) the methodological atheism of the modern sciences. In both history and the natural and social sciences, no proposed explanation that appealed to a divine action would be taken seriously. The creationist and intelligent design movements of today question this stance, arguing that it arises from nothing more than atheist prejudice.
My recent PhD examined and rejected this claim, arguing that the methodological naturalism of the sciences is well founded. Even if appeal to a divine agent could be shown to have explanatory force, there would still be reason to prefer a natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanation.
My earlier work focused on the assumptions that underlie the historical Jesus debate. The interesting philosophical question here is: What happens when religious and theological explanatory claims come into conflict? More precisely, what happens to religious belief when the phenomenon of religion itself can be explained without reference to a god?
Greg is currently working on a new book entitled After Copernicus: Religion, Science, and Magic in Early Modern Europe.
I have a particular interest in the methodological naturalism or (more precisely) the methodological atheism of the modern sciences. In both history and the natural and social sciences, no proposed explanation that appealed to a divine action would be taken seriously. The creationist and intelligent design movements of today question this stance, arguing that it arises from nothing more than atheist prejudice.
My recent PhD examined and rejected this claim, arguing that the methodological naturalism of the sciences is well founded. Even if appeal to a divine agent could be shown to have explanatory force, there would still be reason to prefer a natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanation.
My earlier work focused on the assumptions that underlie the historical Jesus debate. The interesting philosophical question here is: What happens when religious and theological explanatory claims come into conflict? More precisely, what happens to religious belief when the phenomenon of religion itself can be explained without reference to a god?
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 29, 2024
A “COMPANION” TO HIS EARLIER ANTHOLOGY
Author Gregory Dawes wrote in the Preface of this 2001 book, “The present work is intended as a companion to my recently published anthology ‘The Historical Jesus Quest,’ although I hope that it will also be useful in its own right. In compiling the anthology I was faced with the task of selecting eleven authors whose work would illustrate important developments in the earliest stages of the historical Jesus discussion… I am interested in exploring the challenge of historical knowledge to religious authority, a challenge that first emerged in the educated circles of seventeenth-century Europe and of which the historical Jesus question is merely the most obvious expression… not all the authors whose work was included in the earlier work deal with these underlying issues… For this reason I decided to choose just seven authors from the original eleven… the last chapter will go beyond the anthology in order to examine the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg.”
He says of Spinoza, “Spinoza’s ‘Tractatus Theologico-Politicus… is an extended discussion of matters both religious and political. Above all, it is a plea for freedom of thought and speech in all matters that do not undermine the very basis of a free society. In the course of this plea Spinoza outlines a method of interpreting the Bible… Spinoza is anxious that we interpret the Bible on its own terms and do not import our modern standards of rationality into our reading of the text… The third stage of Spinoza’s method … also involves first of all discovering the circumstances in which each biblical book was produced, including the life and character of its human author and the occasion on which it was written. It also involves tracing the history of the book’s reception, canonization, and translation… It also involves distinguishing between those matters that are of eternal significance and those that are of relevance only to a particular people or age…. Spinoza is concerned that proper limits should be placed on biblical authority.” (Pg. 40-41)
Of David Friedrich Strauss, he says, “Strauss’s close analysis of the Gospels demonstrates that neither the traditional supernatural not… these more recent rationalist explanations can withstand close scrutiny. In their place he offers his own, ‘mythical’ interpretation of much of the content of the Gospels. What Strauss means by a ‘mythical’ interpretation is a question to which we will return shortly.” (Pg. 79) He comments of Strauss’s later book ‘A New Life of Jesus’: “What is particularly notable is that … Strauss affirms the existence of a historical core to the Gospels, however much he may insist that ‘our historical knowledge of Jesus is defective and uncertain.’” (Pg. 80-81)
He notes of Albert Schweitzer, “Schweitzer’s alternative view is that… the supernatural element in Jesus’ teaching may be traced back to Jesus himself. It may be traced back to the apocalyptic worldview that shaped not just his teaching … but the whole course of his public ministry… Schweitzer emphasizes the ‘predestinarian’ dimension of Jesus’ teaching. While Jesus encourages people to live by a special ‘interim ethic’ in preparation for God’s kingdom, he is also convinced that it is only those whom God has chosen who will be saved. Schweitzer admits that there is a certain tension between these two ideas but insists that the predestinarian idea is the dominant one.” (Pg. 130)
Of Bultmann, he notes, “With regard to historical research into the figure of Jesus, Bultmann is skeptical about both its possibility and its theological value. On historical grounds alone, Bultmann is skeptical about our ability to know the Jesus of history… For Bultmann, the Gospels do not have this character by accident. He believes that the Gospels have their origin in the Hellenistic churches and therefore reflect the form which the preaching of Christianity took in that environment… Therefore the Gospels differ from … Greek biographies in that they embody ‘no historical-biographical interest.’ …Because of this exclusive interest in the Christ of faith, as encountered in worship, the Gospels are not documents that may be used to construct a ‘life of Jesus.’” (Pg. 273-274)
He comments on Ernst Käsemann, “a life of Jesus would need to include an account of both his inner development and the outer course of his life, and the Gospels do not provide that sort of information. All one can shoe is that certain features were characteristic of the message and work of Jesus and that early Christianity ‘united its own message with these.’ The discovery of this RELATIONSHIP between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith can be said to be the one valuable result to emerge from the nineteenth-century ‘life of Jesus’ research. Käsemann … affirms that the figure of Jesus himself escapes the categories of psychology, comparative religion, and general history. The problem of the historical Jesus is ‘a riddle,’ the existence of which may be established by the historian, but that cannot be resolved by historical research alone. It can be grasped only by those who accept Jesus as their Lord, and who allow his proclamation to be today, as it was then, a challenge to faith.” (Pg. 306)
Of Pannenberg, he observes, “Pannenberg moves on to examine the traditions of the empty tomb. He notes first of all that if the grave of Jesus had not been empty, it would have made the proclamation of the resurrection impossible. The disciples’ claim could easily have bene disproven. The Jewish authorities, for example, would simply have produced Jesus’ body… Other scholars have suggested that Jesus’ burial place may have been unknown, but Pannenberg notes that there is no evidence at all for such an idea. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that the tradition of Jesus’ burial is an ancient one… the empty tomb traditions merely confirm Pannenberg’s earlier conclusion that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead.” (Pg. 335)
He concludes, “If Christian theology is to continue, if it is to present itself as a respectable form of public discussion, it is faced with this fundamental question: What publicly contestable arguments may be put forward for the idea that either the Bible or the historical figure of Jesus are uniquely reliable religious authorities?... It is the question as to whether I should commit myself to this particular religious tradition or, more commonly, remain within it… the maintenance of religious practice may still be defensible even in the absence of a satisfactory theology… If there are other good reasons to hold the beliefs in question, one may reasonably continue to do so… in the hope that they may yet be vindicated.” (Pg. 352)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the historical development of Jesus study.
Author Gregory Dawes wrote in the Preface of this 2001 book, “The present work is intended as a companion to my recently published anthology ‘The Historical Jesus Quest,’ although I hope that it will also be useful in its own right. In compiling the anthology I was faced with the task of selecting eleven authors whose work would illustrate important developments in the earliest stages of the historical Jesus discussion… I am interested in exploring the challenge of historical knowledge to religious authority, a challenge that first emerged in the educated circles of seventeenth-century Europe and of which the historical Jesus question is merely the most obvious expression… not all the authors whose work was included in the earlier work deal with these underlying issues… For this reason I decided to choose just seven authors from the original eleven… the last chapter will go beyond the anthology in order to examine the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg.”
He says of Spinoza, “Spinoza’s ‘Tractatus Theologico-Politicus… is an extended discussion of matters both religious and political. Above all, it is a plea for freedom of thought and speech in all matters that do not undermine the very basis of a free society. In the course of this plea Spinoza outlines a method of interpreting the Bible… Spinoza is anxious that we interpret the Bible on its own terms and do not import our modern standards of rationality into our reading of the text… The third stage of Spinoza’s method … also involves first of all discovering the circumstances in which each biblical book was produced, including the life and character of its human author and the occasion on which it was written. It also involves tracing the history of the book’s reception, canonization, and translation… It also involves distinguishing between those matters that are of eternal significance and those that are of relevance only to a particular people or age…. Spinoza is concerned that proper limits should be placed on biblical authority.” (Pg. 40-41)
Of David Friedrich Strauss, he says, “Strauss’s close analysis of the Gospels demonstrates that neither the traditional supernatural not… these more recent rationalist explanations can withstand close scrutiny. In their place he offers his own, ‘mythical’ interpretation of much of the content of the Gospels. What Strauss means by a ‘mythical’ interpretation is a question to which we will return shortly.” (Pg. 79) He comments of Strauss’s later book ‘A New Life of Jesus’: “What is particularly notable is that … Strauss affirms the existence of a historical core to the Gospels, however much he may insist that ‘our historical knowledge of Jesus is defective and uncertain.’” (Pg. 80-81)
He notes of Albert Schweitzer, “Schweitzer’s alternative view is that… the supernatural element in Jesus’ teaching may be traced back to Jesus himself. It may be traced back to the apocalyptic worldview that shaped not just his teaching … but the whole course of his public ministry… Schweitzer emphasizes the ‘predestinarian’ dimension of Jesus’ teaching. While Jesus encourages people to live by a special ‘interim ethic’ in preparation for God’s kingdom, he is also convinced that it is only those whom God has chosen who will be saved. Schweitzer admits that there is a certain tension between these two ideas but insists that the predestinarian idea is the dominant one.” (Pg. 130)
Of Bultmann, he notes, “With regard to historical research into the figure of Jesus, Bultmann is skeptical about both its possibility and its theological value. On historical grounds alone, Bultmann is skeptical about our ability to know the Jesus of history… For Bultmann, the Gospels do not have this character by accident. He believes that the Gospels have their origin in the Hellenistic churches and therefore reflect the form which the preaching of Christianity took in that environment… Therefore the Gospels differ from … Greek biographies in that they embody ‘no historical-biographical interest.’ …Because of this exclusive interest in the Christ of faith, as encountered in worship, the Gospels are not documents that may be used to construct a ‘life of Jesus.’” (Pg. 273-274)
He comments on Ernst Käsemann, “a life of Jesus would need to include an account of both his inner development and the outer course of his life, and the Gospels do not provide that sort of information. All one can shoe is that certain features were characteristic of the message and work of Jesus and that early Christianity ‘united its own message with these.’ The discovery of this RELATIONSHIP between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith can be said to be the one valuable result to emerge from the nineteenth-century ‘life of Jesus’ research. Käsemann … affirms that the figure of Jesus himself escapes the categories of psychology, comparative religion, and general history. The problem of the historical Jesus is ‘a riddle,’ the existence of which may be established by the historian, but that cannot be resolved by historical research alone. It can be grasped only by those who accept Jesus as their Lord, and who allow his proclamation to be today, as it was then, a challenge to faith.” (Pg. 306)
Of Pannenberg, he observes, “Pannenberg moves on to examine the traditions of the empty tomb. He notes first of all that if the grave of Jesus had not been empty, it would have made the proclamation of the resurrection impossible. The disciples’ claim could easily have bene disproven. The Jewish authorities, for example, would simply have produced Jesus’ body… Other scholars have suggested that Jesus’ burial place may have been unknown, but Pannenberg notes that there is no evidence at all for such an idea. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that the tradition of Jesus’ burial is an ancient one… the empty tomb traditions merely confirm Pannenberg’s earlier conclusion that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead.” (Pg. 335)
He concludes, “If Christian theology is to continue, if it is to present itself as a respectable form of public discussion, it is faced with this fundamental question: What publicly contestable arguments may be put forward for the idea that either the Bible or the historical figure of Jesus are uniquely reliable religious authorities?... It is the question as to whether I should commit myself to this particular religious tradition or, more commonly, remain within it… the maintenance of religious practice may still be defensible even in the absence of a satisfactory theology… If there are other good reasons to hold the beliefs in question, one may reasonably continue to do so… in the hope that they may yet be vindicated.” (Pg. 352)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the historical development of Jesus study.
Displaying 1 of 1 review