Abstract
The Quest for the Real Jesus begins with Michael Wolter's main Prestige Lecture on the quest for the historical Jesus given at the Radboud Prestige Lectures in New Testament at the Radboud University in Nijmegen in December 2011. This is followed by nine chapters by various contributors who both affirm and critique Wolter's proposal at various points while making individual contributions to the discussion.
Wolter's main Prestige Lecture seeks to chart a third way between the search for a historical Jesus epitomized by Hermann Samuel Reimarus and belief in the “theological Christ” epitomized by Martin Kähler. He proposes seven different types of images of Jesus: the historical Jesus (as a creation of historians), Jesus Christ (the Jesus of Christian proclamation), the earthly Christ (the image of Jesus provided by the Gospels), Jesus Christ remembered (the non-literary memories of Jesus passed on by his earliest followers), Jesus from Nazareth (the opinion of those who had physically met Jesus), Jesus' self-interpretation or understanding, and the real Jesus (the ontic reality of Jesus known only by God). We cannot say anything about the real Jesus because any description is contaminated by interpretations, but theologically the resurrection indicates that Jesus' self-understanding matches God's view of him. Wolter's conclusion is that theological historians can know that there is a real Jesus even if “they could always only produce ephemeral historical Jesuses” (p. 17).
Cilliers Breytenbach provides a nuanced discussion of the role of memory in historical-critical reconstructions of Jesus and suggests that two main types of images lie behind Wolter's seven images of Jesus: “the earthly Jesuses in the Gospels” and “the images of the historical Jesus and of the Christ of faith which are really in the books about them [the Gospels]” (p. 51). Breytenbach concludes by arguing, contra Wolter, that “Jesus cannot have ontic reality” because he is a figure of the past (p. 52).
James D. G. Dunn critiques Wolter for being too negative about the possibility of knowledge about the historical Jesus and for passing over the connection of pre- and post-Easter faith too casually since faith in Jesus did not begin with Easter. The conclusion is that “the modern historian can have access, not to Jesus per se, but to … Jesus as he was remembered by his first disciples.” (p. 65).
R. Alan Culpepper does not significantly interact with Wolter's proposal but rather describes the contours of Jesus' life by focusing on the Galilean context of Jesus' ministry, the activities of his ministry, and his teaching. Culpepper suggests that we can have partial access to Jesus' self-understanding through his teaching preserved in the Gospels.
Craig Evans explores Wolter's “third way” by examining the relationship of Jesus' pre-Easter role as an exorcist and healer to post-Easter Christology. Jesus' activity as an exorcist and healer connects with pre-Christian Jewish anticipation and points forward to post-Easter Christian convictions about the identity of Jesus.
Michael Licona affirms the epistemological humility evident in Wolter's proposal but argues that Wolter goes too far. Licona proceeds to advocate for critical realism, a stance by which historians can make claims with varying degrees of certainty. He proceeds to summarize parts of his larger book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010), to argue that the resurrection is the best historical explanation and “should, therefore, be regarded as an event that occurred in history” (p. 125).
Christopher Hays affirms Wolter's critique of the historical critical constructions of Jesus and proceeds to present his own methodological proposal to integrate confessional and non-confessional Jesus scholarship. In short, confessional historical Jesus scholars should be “explicit when transitioning from comments that depend on one set of methods and presuppositions to the other” (p. 147).
Robert Morgan voices general broad agreement with Wolter's comments but highlights the complexity of the discussion at several points where Wolter oversimplifies. One example would be the use by Wolter of Reimarus and Kähler as representatives of broad positions, thereby obscuring the complexity of the issue.
Notger Slenczka provides an overview of Wolter's essay and explores Wolter's statement that “there can be no Christian faith, whose concept of reality does not contain certainty about the fact of the resurrection of Jesus” (p. 16). Slenczka highlights the ambiguity of this “certainty of fact” and concludes that this certainty can come only from an experience of transformation in light of Christian proclamation.
Martin Laube contributes the only German article to the collection and strongly critiques Wolter's attempt to gain access to the real Jesus by means of the Easter faith because it requires the argumentative trick (der argumentative Kunstgriff) of completely suspending the historical critical method (p. 217). Wolter's approach to overcoming the gap between theology and historical method thus serves only to further deepen the divide (p. 218).
The volume concludes with Wolter's curriculum vitae, a list of Wolter's publications, and an index of authors. This volume provides a window into the current dialogue at the highest academic level on the relationship between historical Jesus research and Christian theology and is ideally suited for readers having prior familiarity with the discussion.