Skip to main content

McKnight Vs. Wright on the Historical Jesus Explored

The cover article of this month's Christianity Today deals with the question of the historical Jesus. Can we know him and should we try? Scot McKnight takes the line that we can't and we shouldn't. McKnight's main concern seems to be that what historical Jesus studies end up doing is creating a fifth gospel, which selectively draws upon and trumps the four canonical ones. The strong danger is that the historian creates Jesus in their own image. They find precisely the pieces they like to be the authentic ones and the ones they don't like to be inauthentic. The canonical gospels get relegated to a role of less authority, as what really matters is what happened in history. McKnight, correctly sees that this is a major mistake, since the canonical gospels are, after all, the word of God and our scholarly reconstructions aren't.

Another issue that McKnight brings up that's very important follows Dale Allison in, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, which is an excellent book that all Christians who seriously study the Bible need to wrestle with, even if you disagree with him fundamentally (and I don't agree with him on several points). One thing that Allison shows in is that, using historical methods, it's really hard to penetrate the gospel traditions and know which specific stories are authentic. We can know the types of things that Jesus did and said, but we cannot know exactly what he did and said. It seems to me that there is something additional that is driving McKnight to say that we don't need historical Jesus studies anymore: Historical Jesus studies can't produce much of anything concrete. All we get are general impressions of who he was and what he did (e.g., Jesus performed miracles and had clashes with the Pharisees over a range of issues), with only a few exceptions like the crucifixion and resurrection.

I strongly agree with the points McKnight makes above; the question is, however, is his conclusion, that we should then abandon historical Jesus studies, warranted? N.T. Wright answers with a resounding no. I agree with him, but I want to clarify what the goals of the study of the historical Jesus should be. As Wright points out, historical studies can be rightly used in an attempt to understand the Jesus of the four canonical gospels better. We can analyze him within the framework of contemporary Jewish and early Christian thought. This is a very different type of historical Jesus study than that mentioned by McKnight (as Wright points out). Any historical study of Jesus must be done with the intention of working within the framework provided by 1st century Judaism and the early church, focused on the canonical gospels, trying to maximize our understanding of the four portraits provided there. In my opinion, any goals larger than that are unattainable and are potentially in tension with a high view of Scripture. For it is the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels that really matters for the Christian faith, as they contain the truth about Jesus that God wants us to know.

In closing I think that I should make one very important clarification. Above I state that we can't know much of anything with certainty, historically, about Jesus, and I say that this is ok, because I don't think that it undermines the truth of God's word. This does not imply that I believe the gospels to be fictitious and the creations of the early church. I do believe that they are firmly rooted in history, and I think that there are solid arguments to support that conclusion. The decision to trust the gospels, though, is still a move of faith. As Christians we need to approach the Scriptures with what Richard Hays terms, 'a hermeneutic of trust.' My points above are expressions of the conclusions arrived at by the usual methods of historical inquiry.


  1. I think my major place of disagreement is that I don't think an act of faith is necessarily not knowledge. If it results from a process that God has initiated in order to bring us to believe the things that are true, then it's about as reliable a means of coming to understand the truth as you can get. I don't see why we shouldn't call that knowledge. But that's probably just a difference in our underlying epistemological views.

  2. I would want make a distinction between the type of knowledge that we attain by a posture of faith vs. the type of knowledge that we arrive at by ordinary means. Thus I would agree that both are knowledge, just not the same kind of knowledge. This holds true for knowledge of historical events.

  3. FYI...McKnight has just written a clarification of his article, and it's very much in line with the points I make here.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Exploring the Christian Way of Life - The Identity of Jesus - Church History (Pre-Reformation) - Aquinas and Conclusion

When we reach Aquinas we come to the pinnacle of orthodoxy when it comes to the Trinity and Christology. Christology was important to Aquinas and he dedicated the first fifty-nine questions of Tertia Pars of his Summa Theologiae[1] to the topic. In many ways it is refreshing because he does not treat solely the more philosophical questions of who Jesus was that preoccupied theologians from the third century on. He also spent extended time on Jesus earthly ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and glorification which was a major innovation.[2] Of course every possible topic of Trinitarian and ontological speculation is also probed. For the sake of space we will only hit some highlights.

Aquinas is clearly in step with the tradition that can be traced from Nicea, through Augustine and the Lombard, to the heart of the Middle Ages. One thing to briefly note is that even in his densest argumentation, Aquinas was not trying to prove elements of his theology via rational argument as that…

Exploring the Christian Way of Life - The Identity of Jesus - Church History (Pre-Reformation) - Irenaeus

Starting from Irenaeus, Christology, in some respects, moves on. A big part of this would have been due to the “gnostic” controversies. It became increasingly important to clarify the relationship between Father and Son and to minimize their distinctiveness, while still maintaining Jesus’ full humanity. From this point on, clashes over heresy about the nature of Christ and discussions related to Trinitarian theology dominate Christological discussion to the point that the original emphasis on Jesus’ Messianic identity fades to the background.[1] Maintaining the affirmation that Jesus was both human and divine was critical for Irenaeus and those after him because they saw that as the necessary grounds of salvation.[2]

Of particular interest to Irenaeus was the baptism of Jesus. What happened when he received the Spirit?[3] It was not the means by which the Word entered Jesus. He was not merely human before that point.[4] Rather it was a divinization of the human nature of Jesus, a nat…

End of Summer Review/Update

The school year is now upon us and I'll definitely not be posting the next two months. This summer didn't quite go to plan so I didn't get to do the blogging I was hoping to do. Specifically I was planning on blogging through 2 Thessalonians, but that didn't happen. It may happen late in the fall, but we will see. I may instead decide to pick up a different Pauline letter (perhaps 2 Corinthians). This is my last year of school  and by the fall of next year I should be back on a more regular blogging schedule.

A lack of blogging was not from a lack of productivity (although I'm sure my Pokemon Go playing did cut into my reading time a little bit). I've had a interesting summer learning about Medieval Christianity and specifically focusing on Peter Lombard and Thomas Aqunias. They'll both be featured in my next paper in Exploring the Christian Way which I hope to publish here in late January of 2017. 90% of the reading and 80% of the writing is done for that …