The Historical Jesus - Gary R. Habermas (introduction)
|
20 September 2008
Posted in
Outlines -
Apologetics Outlines
 | The Historical Jesus | About the author:"Gary Habermas is a Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University. He has authored, co-authored, or edited twenty-two books including The Resurrection of Jesus, The Historical Jesus, Beyond Death, In Defense of Miracles, The Verdict of History, and has published over a hundred articles in top scholarly journals such as Religious Studies, Philosophia Christi, Christian Scholar's Review, Faith and Philosophy, and Biblioteca Sacra. Dr. Habermas is one of the world's leading experts on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, Jesus as a historical figure, and the Shroud of Turin. He has engaged in several high-profile debates on the resurrection including one with famous British atheist Anthony Flew. Dr. Habermas holds an M.A. in philosophical theology from the University of Detroit; a D.D. in theology from Emmanuel College, Oxford; and Ph.D. in history and philosophy of religion from Michigan Sate University." |
| Introduction | Some think gospels are poor historical records |
| Purpose of the book | Numerous attempts to formulate the “fictitious Jesus” from 18th through 19th centuries: secret groups (e.g. Essenes) manipulated words of Jesus Karl Bahrdt (1784-1972): Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were secret Essenes, secret group forged miracles, Luke was responsible for healings and surviving crucifixion Karl Venturini (1800-1802): Jesus trained by Essenes as a child, healings were done through medicines, Jesus revived by Joseph and Nicodemus after death (he didn’t invent plot surrounding his death) Gfrorer (1831-1838 about), Hennell (1838), Salvator (1838): Essenes involved in many aspects of Jesus’ ministry, Jesus nursed back to health by them after crucifixion Response to these attempts: attracted very little scholarly attention, “rather a sorry makeshift” (Schweitzer in Habermas, 16) |
| Protestant liberal accounts | Protestant liberal accounts of Jesus as merely a good example (1799 - WWI) Jesus was a mere man, miracles and resurrection are non-historical |
| Barth & Neo-Orthodoxy | Barth and neo-orthodoxy (1918 with his Epistle to the Romans) Uninterested with historical Jesus Focus is upon God’s sovereignty and faith Other contributors Bultmann “New Testament and Mythology” (1941): demythologization, transcendent language sufficient by itself, existential significance (differed much from Barth in theology but agreed in irrelevance of history of Jesus) Others agreed but not always in their conclusions |
| The New Quest | The New Quest (Ernst Kasemann’s lecture, 1953) Belief in Jesus requires belief in some minimal historical content Scholars followed and began to look into history of faith James Robinson saw faith as separate from history, but that history was still important (Kerygma needs a historical basis) “Criterion of Dissimilarity”: authentic material about Jesus can only come from primitive Christian teachings or Judaism Problem: yields much less material than old quest come uncover with their methods Problem: Jesus could share neither Christian nor Jewish beliefs, silly Problem: whether additional data can be justified and on what grounds Other contributors: Pannenberg: resurrection as history is vitally important Jurgen Moltmann: importance of God’s participation in past and present history |
| The Third Quest | Third quest for the historical Jesus Positive outlook towards formulating a historical account of Jesus today Many different views, difficult to characterize One chief characterization: focus upon historical background of Jewish culture, settings of Jesus’ time (religious, political, economic, social influences in Palestine, e.g. archaeological findings and Hellenistic and Roman influences in Galilee) E.P. Sanders, Richard Horsley, Ben Meyer: their views based on background information (25) Exception: Jesus Seminar --> follow traditions of Strauss and Bultmann, mythical gospels |