The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research
The article argues that current debates over method in historical Jesus studies reveal two competing ‘models’ for how to use the gospel tradition in order to approach the historical Jesus. These models differ over their treatments of the narrative frameworks of the gospels and, concomitantly, their...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage
2016
|
| In: |
Journal for the study of the New Testament
Year: 2016, Volume: 38, Issue: 4, Pages: 426-455 |
| Further subjects: | B
post-Bultmannians
B narrative and historiography B memory approach B Historical Jesus B criteria approach |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
| Summary: | The article argues that current debates over method in historical Jesus studies reveal two competing ‘models’ for how to use the gospel tradition in order to approach the historical Jesus. These models differ over their treatments of the narrative frameworks of the gospels and, concomitantly, their views of the development of the Jesus tradition. A first model, inspired by form criticism and still advocated today, attempts to attain a historical Jesus ‘behind’ the interpretations of early Christians. A second model, inspired by advances in historiography and memory theory, posits a historical Jesus who is ultimately unattainable, but can be hypothesized on the basis of the interpretations of the early Christians, and as part of a larger process of accounting for how and why early Christians came to view Jesus in the ways that they did. Advocating the latter approach to the historical Jesus and responding to previous criticism, this article argues further that these two models are methodologically and epistemologically incompatible. It therefore challenges the suggestion that one can affirm the goals of the second model while maintaining the methods of the first model. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5294 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the New Testament
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0142064X16637777 |