Historical Jesus Studies and Christian Apologetics.

productively to a quest that demands respect for tenets at variance with the convictions of

their faith (e.g., that the historical reliability of what is reported in biblical writings must be

determined through careful analysis rather than affirmed by an appeal to the authoritative

status of those writings as divinely inspired scripture).

many Christian scholars who have no problem discovering or even proposing that the canonical,

biblical portrait of Jesus is a theological construct that may have been inspired by the historical

reality but that can also be distinguished from it. Even conservative Christian scholars like John

Meier have no problem admitting that the historical Jesus did not actually say or do everything

attributed to him in the biblical documents. Scot McKnight, a conservative evangelical who has

Jesus cannot be verified historically. The Christian historian may regard many things about Jesus

as authentic or true on the basis of scriptural authority while maintaining that these things

cannot be regarded as authentic or true from the perspective of secular, historical science.3

often try to establish or prove the legitimacy of what they believe to be true on grounds that do

not require blatant acceptance of biblical or ecclesial authority. Frequently, the apologists

themselves believe the matters to be true primarily on faith, as a result of accepting

authoritative biblical or ecclesial testimony, but they seek to find non-faith-based arguments

that also establish, confirm, or otherwise support the veracity of what they believe. The

motivation may be simply to support faith claims in a supplementary fashion, or it may be to

the gap between faith and science or history, so that “faith” will not be reduced to stubborn

insistence on the veracity of beliefs that science or history claim to be demonstrably false.

well as in a more general sense) should be accepted as reliable and historically accurate. Any

honest scholar who wants to discover the historical truth about Jesus will want to give those

arguments the consideration they merit. On the other hand, the involvement of apologists in

historical Jesus studies always seems one-sided. Most historical scholars find it frustrating to

listen with an open mind to the arguments an apologist wants to offer in favor of historicity

when they know that the apologist is not willing to listen with an open mind to any arguments

that can be offered against historicity.

quest rather than as a debate. In a quest, one searches for the truth with an open mind,

marked by a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, to revise one’s views or even

discredit the opposing position. A debate is enacted for the benefit of an audience, who will

decide which side won and which side lost. No one expects either participant in the debate to

be convinced by the arguments offered by their opponent.4

definition, are committed to convincing people that their position (in favor of historicity) is

correct, rather than to determining whether or not their proposal (regarding a possibility of

historicity) might be correct—faith convictions typically disqualify any potential for a negative

conclusion, or at least render such a conclusion remote, something the apologist would resist

for reasons unrelated to the persuasiveness of evidence or argumentation. There is, of course,

nothing wrong with this: apologists can and do pursue their vocation with integrity, and

but they don’t seem to get what everyone else is actually trying to do (or else, many suspect,

they just don’t care).7

studies. They may approach the latter with a conservative bias but a general willingness to

abide by “the rules of the game,” recognizing a distinction between what can be verified and

what cannot. Unfortunately, such scholars do not always get the attention they might

otherwise deserve simply because their commitment to apologetics is well known. They

become stereotyped as intruders or posers when such labels might not actually apply.

marginalization: Darrell Bock9 and Craig Keener.10 Both Bock and Keener have published

massive works on the historical Jesus and on the field of historical Jesus studies. This is because,

while their work has been enthusiastically received in evangelical circles, it has not had a great

impact on the field of historical Jesus studies overall. Some might suppose the guild operates

biographies of Jesus presented by other scholars.12 Jesus was baptized by John and, in so doing,

identified himself with John’s mission of national renewal and repentance. In his own ministry,

however, he announced the coming of God’s kingdom, a newly dawning age of shalom that was

already present in Jesus’s own activity but would be consummated in a powerful and all-

encompassing way. As he proclaimed this message, Jesus became noted for a number of things

that were unique or at least distinctive: reaching out to the unclean and to others on the fringe

of society; demanding that his followers exhibit intense commitment and total loyalty to the

kingdom and to his own person; performing unusual works that he claimed exhibited divine

power and exemplified God’s benevolent care; advocating a lifestyle reflective of trust in

division provision; encouraging a radical love for enemies and willingness to forgive others their

sin; and promising that, in the new covenant he was inaugurating, God would give people new

authorities, he was pressed specifically on the question of his own identity and subsequently

charged with blasphemy—that is, with claiming “an equality with God that the leadership

the dead gain credibility from the fact that they were framed in ways that the church would not

have invented.

appeals to multiple attestation, dissimilarity, and other accepted criteria, and he strives to

interpret Jesus’s actions within a context of Second Temple Judaism informed by knowledge of

archaeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other available resources. In all these ways, his work

resembles that of many scholars. What seems distinctive is a tendency only to affirm, but never

to deny, the historical reliability of biblical testimony. Thus Luke Timothy Johnson (another

conservative Christian scholar) says that Bock’s work would gain credibility if “at any point he

inerrancy, his historical Jesus work is sometimes suspected of being an exercise in apologetics:

an effort to affirm whatever he thinks can be affirmed and to ignore anything that cannot be.16

Robert Price calls his work “opportunistic”;17 Johnson suggests that he “has not yet grasped

(and evangelicals like him) “use traditional historical-Jesus criteria to further their project of

authenticating the Gospels” but “do not allow those same criteria to lead to negative historical

conclusions.”19 Indeed, Miller says evangelicals like Bock belong to a different “camp” than most

historical Jesus scholars and that there can be no real dialogue or productive discussion

between those camps (due to their very different presuppositions and understanding of the

contemporaneous works in this genre reveals a careful concern for accuracy. Obviously, ancient

reporting historical fact unless there is an obvious reason to think otherwise; this, Keener

maintains, is how scholars typically use other ancient works of historiography. Furthermore, the

Gospel authors relied on early written sources and oral tradition (Luke 1:1–4), both of which

provide eyewitness testimony; Jesus’s disciples probably took notes and committed large

portions of his teaching to memory, as was typical for disciples of other rabbis and for followers

of other prominent figures of the day.23 Even the reports of miracles should be read as accurate,

straightforward historical accounts since those who are not encumbered by a scientifically and

philosophically indefensible antisupernaturalism are able to recognize that such occurrences

have happened and continue to happen in the world today.

sinners, quarreled with Pharisees over purity practices and Sabbath laws, and reinterpreted

traditional ethics by prioritizing the necessity of love.

reinterpreted in terms of Daniel’s Son of Man (Dan. 7:13–14). He claimed to be the

eschatological Judge of the dawning end times, a figure who fulfilled but expanded all Jewish

expectations in light of the unique relationship he had with God, his Father. He realized that he

needed to die and taught his disciples that his crucifixion would function as an atonement. His

tomb was subsequently found empty and, among the various explanations that can be offered

for this, the most probable is that he rose bodily from the dead in a manner that aroused the

otherwise incredible resurrection faith of his disciples.

his work seriously. His knowledge of ancient literature is particularly impressive, such that

almost half of his books are sometimes occupied with endnotes, hundreds of pages that offer

might suggest he would deserve. The reason is simply that he is regarded as something of an

absence of negative verdicts. Robert Miller says, “If Keener does indeed have doubts about the

historical accuracy of any Gospel material, he keeps those doubts to himself.”25 The charge goes

any bias of antisupernaturalism, but she questions whether he would apply that position

consistently when considering accounts of people working miracles in other instances of

religious historiography (the Qu’ran, the Book of Mormon).27

disciples from scribes, presenting them as infants who, unlike the wise and understanding, must

rely on divine revelation (Matt. 11:25–27) and the Holy Spirit (John 14:25) to understand or

even remember things about Jesus.29

point is that the perception that he is engaged in apologetics rather than in an actual quest to

determine what can be regarded as historical keeps his work from being engaged in the same

way as work by conservative Christians like Meier who seem more open to admitting much of

what the Gospels report cannot be historically authenticated. Still—not to overstate the case—

Keener’s main book on the historical Jesus has been endorsed by such mainstream scholars as

James Charlesworth, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Gerd Theissen, and even those who regard it as an

example of apologetics recognize that much of what he has to say is worthy of consideration

(that is, if he is doing apologetics, he is at least good at it).

1. A survey of how major theologians have addressed the problems history poses for faith can

4. Of course, we would not want to press the vocabulary employed in this distinction too far—

5. Somewhat to my chagrin, a European edition of the first edition of my Jesus as a Figure in

8. So, Robert Funk dismissed the entire so-called Third Quest (with specific reference to N. T.

11. To some extent, such suspicions may also attend the reception of the book, Key Events in

13. Bock, “Historical Jesus: An Evangelical View,” 275. On the claim that a charge of blasphemy