The

Posthistorical
Jesus

AndrewLloyd

MeaningandHumanitySeries,Volume4

 A. JesusinPragmatistFocus

AutobiographicalForeword(2)

1. RefusingtoGetReal(3)

2.Jesus:PossessionofMany(17)

3.SchsslerFiorenzavsWright(38)

4.YeshuaofNazareth:EnactoroftheKingdomofGod(49)

5.FictionisAllYouHave(77)

6.InventingtheFictionalJesus(94)

7.Bibliography(104)

B.TheGospelofJoshuaSophia

1. TheGospelofJoshuaSophia(fulltext)(106)

2.WhyWriteTheGospelofJoshuaSophia?(119)

3.TheGospelofJoshuaSophiawithCriticalApparatusandCommentary(121)

4.AGospelButNoGospel:TheGospelofJoshuaSophiainContext(150)

5.TheEthicsofJoshuaSophia(152)

6.History,Literature,TheGospelandJesus(157)


C.TheFutureoftheHistoricalJesus

1. Introduction:SchweitzerWasRight(171)

2.TheSubjectiveQuest(179)

3.MethodsButNoControls(189)

4.W
hatFutureforTheQuestandtheHistoricalJesus?(198)

1
 AutobiographicalForeword


This book began to be written in1999whenIwasapostgraduatestudentinthe
Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield in the United
Kingdom. AtthattimeIwasaged30,theageanumberofreconstructionsofthe
historical Jesus make Jesus when he began his public career. To my
disappointment, I had notbeenabletogainmaintenancefundingbeforestarting
my postgraduate career and so I had to fit my studies in withtheworldofwork
and the need to survive and to study parttime. In retrospect, I was lucky to
be studying at all but thanks to a lecturer at the department, one who was
subsequently to leave as I began mypostgraduatestudiesandwhohadinspired
me to begin them, I had been given a grant from the university to cover my
universityfees.

My studying had all begun so promisingly. In the 1990s I had begun to suffer
from the effects of anxiety and depression, havingsufferedwithpanicattacksin
my late teens and from poor mental health generally from my early teens. One
way out of this was the world of study since I had always exhibited an
intellectual and academic curiosity. Fate had it that at the time I had come into
contact with Christians and so I began some Christian studies through a local
theological college. This led me, in 1996,tobeginanacademicdegreeinbiblical
studies in a secular biblical studies department. I achieved this degree in 1999
as the top scoring graduate of my class and, thanks to the work behind the
scenes of that lecturer who I had come to regard as something of a mentor, I
wasabletoatleastbeginpostgraduatestudies.

However, in 2002, aged 33 and half way through what was to be 6 years of
parttime PhD study, I gave up the ghost. I had not been encouraged through
my study even though the subject I had chosen, The Posthistorical Jesus, was
one that did intellectually interest me. For one thing, I found it impossible to
share time between study and other things since I am the sort of person who
likes to throw all my weight behind one thing at a time with the ethic If its
worth doing, its worth doing well. For another, I like to work from waking up
until about midday on my studies but this proved impossible in my
circumstances. A third reason was that my aforementioned mentor, Stephen D.
Moore, had left the department. I had wanted him to be my supervisor but this
proved impossible. So,withmeaged33,likeonemuchmorefamousthanI,this
studyhaddied.

It wasnt until 2017 that, by accident, I found the floppy disks (!) it was stored
on and this study, miraculously, rose from the grave. Now risen, this study has
become a study of human meaningmaking and the humanity that requires it
with the historical Jesus as the specific focus of that activity in this case. This
recognises that Jesus, still in 2017, is a focus of human meaningmaking but
alsothatmakingmeaningissomethinghumansmustdo.Andnowitisfinished.

2
 A. JesusinPragmatistFocus

1. RefusingToGetReal

ThehistoricalJesusprojectisasiteofepistemologicalstruggleandthe
productionoftruth,andthecriticalquestionsconnectedtoitarehowknowledge
isconstitutedandgenerated,whoaredeemedknowersandwhy,how
knowledgeclaimsareadjudicated,andwhatthematerialconditionsand
discursivestrategiesarewhichenabletheprivilegingofonediscourseandthe
structuringofpositionsofmarginalityforthedeviantother.(Sandra
WalkerRamisch)

ForPragmatists,thereisnosuchthingasanonrelationalfeatureofX,anymore
thanthereissuchathingastheintrinsicnature,theessence,ofX.Sotherecan
benosuchthingasadescriptionwhichmatchesthewayXreallyis,apartfrom
itsrelationtohumanneedsorconsciousnessorlanguage.(RichardRorty)

Forthepragmatists,thepatternofallinquiryscientificaswellasmoralis
deliberationconcerningtherelativeattractionsofvariousconcretealternatives.
Theideathat...wecansubstitutemethodfordeliberationbetweenalternative
resultsofspeculationisjustwishfulthinking.(RichardRorty)

Whatcanbethoughtofmustcertainlybeafiction.(FriedrichNietzsche)

Introduction:QuestioningTheRealistQuest

From the customary beginnings of the Quest of the Historical Jesus (with
Hermann Samuel Reimarus), that academic pursuitwhich,invariouswaves,has
attempted to recover the life and details of a Jesus shorn of later theological
interpretations, rightupuntilthepresentday,thatdiscoursehasbeeningeneral
following a standard philosophical, if not purely epistemological,paradigmthat
which American philosopher John Searle labels external realism. This,
succinctly put, is the belief that there is a way things are. It is my contention
that the Quest of the Historical Jesus, my interest in this study, suffers from its
static attachment to this paradigm. It is mybeliefthatitistimetheQuestmove
on from this paradigm and open itself up to others. Externalrealism,Iwishto
contend, is not the only philosophical or epistemological option available. That
being so, perhaps it is not even the best of the bunch. So what happens if we
follow another paradigm instead, or open up the Jesus Quest to multiple

3
paradigms all at once? What, if anything, is lost in that case? What is gained?
What,toputitmorefundamentally,isatstake?

What I am proposing is that the Quest (actually numerous contemporaneous

Quests unified only by a specific set of rhetorical assumptions) be allowed to
disperse into numerous pragmaticallybased quests as, I would argue, it has
already done of its own volition anyway, even if only with disapproving frowns
from some as an accompaniment. My proposal is based on what the main body
of this opening chapter shall be concerned with Pragmatism a philosophical
attitude first brought to lightinnortheasternAmericabyCharlesSandersPeirce
and William James in the last third of the 19th century. Using examples from a
number of pragmatist theorists, including Peirce, James and their partial
contemporary, John Dewey, and, more recently, from philosopher RichardRorty
and literary and legal critic Stanley Fish, I want to suggest that the problems a
thoroughgoing Realism gives us in historical Jesus research (along with its
regular companions Foundationalism and Essentialism) are simply things we
should let go of and, instead, we should concentrate onthingsforthedifference
they make relationally in terms of meaning rather than for the realismwecan
claim. To put this another way, I want to present historical Jesus study as a
rhetorical and cultural discourseratherthanagettingthingsright.Iwantittofit
in with the quotes at the head of this chapter rather than be something which
claimsthereisonlyonewaytoseethings,therightway.

Of course, this does not deny realists the chance to continue using their
paradigm and making their claims. It does, however, set that paradigm and
thoseclaimsinanentirelydifferent(andfundamentallyrhetorical)context.What
is convincing, what fellow human beings can be persuaded to believe, what
counts for us, and why, becomes more transparently important in such a
context. Indeed, these things become part of the historical Jesus debate, a
debate as much about starting points and presuppositions, about rhetorical
practices and cultural locations, as about the historical Jesus. But enough of
what I shall be doing. It is what we have been doing, and in the Quest almost
uniformlystillare,thatconcernsmerightnow.

That the Quest has been, and is, Realist is an assertion I expect no one to
seriously question: it is manifest. Nevertheless, I shall provide a few
representativeexamplesfromittodemonstratemypoint:

Our goal, as honest readers of theGospelsandgenuinefollowersofJesus,isto

find the real Jesus and to submit to that Jesus. This, no doubt, involves the
surrenderofourownimagesofJesuswritesEvangelicalscholar,ScotMcKnight.

the historical Jesus of modern authors conceals from us the living Christ. The
Jesus of the LifeofJesus movement is merely a modern example of human
creativity, and notaniotabetterthanthenotoriousdogmaticChristofByzantine

4
Christology. One is as far removed from the real Christ as the other wrote
Germantheologian,MartinKhler.

Once it had become clear that nineteenth century historical method had failed
topenetratethedepthsatwhichtherealityofhistorylies,andconsequentlythat
its historical Jesus failed to exhaust the reality of Jesus of Nazareth, it was
inevitable that a restudy of historical method should follow, in an attempt to
gain access to that deeper level of historical reality...Forthetimebeingatleast,
the only historical Jesus available was the nineteenth century reconstruction,
now seen to fall far short of Jesus of Nazareth as he actuallywaswrotebiblical
scholar,JamesM.Robinson.

The only chance to transform Jesus into a lifelike character beckons from the
realities of the Jewish world of his day. By recreating the milieu of his time, we
may be able to catch a glimpse of what hereallywas...Ourpanoramicsurveyof
Galilee, its history, society, culture and popular religion has already made our
case and has allowed, however vaguely and sketchily, the face of therealJesus
to emerge...By the end of the first century Christianity had lost sight ofthereal
Jesus and of the original meaning of his message writesJewishbiblicalscholar,
GezaVermes.

The real and the historical do not coincide, but there is considerable
overlap...The real Jesus, even in the Richard Nixon sense of a reasonably
complete record of public words and deeds, is unknown andunknowablewrites
Catholicbiblicalscholar,JohnP.Meier.

There are facts about Jesus, his career, and its consequences which are very
firm and which do point towards solutions of historical questions and the
presentstudyisbasedprimarilyonfactsaboutJesuswritesbiblicalscholar,E.P.
Sanders.

I use the term historical Jesus, mindful of the fact that it can be misleading,
since it properly denotes the historians Jesus, Jesus as reconstructed by the
methods of historical research, but is regularly used to denote the man himself
who walked and talked in the hills and villages of Galilee in the late 20s and/or
early30softhecommonerawritesBritishbiblicalscholar,JamesDunn.

My point in noting these few representative quotes fromthehistoryofacademic

Jesus studies is not to note their scepticism or optimism regarding finding the
real Jesus but, rather, their acceptanceofthenotionthatthereisorwasevera
real Jesus to find, at least in the very narrowly defined version of Realism of
which the famous contemporary external realist John Searle speaks which Ive
noted above. Thus, it is my presupposition that the Quest so far has been the
RealistQuest.Philosophicallyspeaking,Iamarguing,andpresupposing,thatthe
various quests have been virtually uniform in accepting the realist worldview
with all its investment in external reality, intrinsic and correspondent truth,

5
knowledge of essences (in which, it is argued, reality is found), and the
application ofvariousscientificallyconceivedcriteriaandmethodologyandthat
these things, when done properly, are taken to come to something in whichthe
humanresearchercanhavegroundedandlogicalconfidence.

It is my suggestion that, generally speaking, Jesus researchers would hold to

beliefs (they would probably call them truths) such as thattruthisamatterof
correspondence to facts and that facts areamatterofwhatexists,ofontology
(in the words of John Searle) and that knowledge is something like lining up
language with realities, something that is solid and immovable, not subject to
the whims of description or interpretation (i.e. some things just are true and
language, description or interpretation cannot put that conclusion offorreshape
it). Further, things would be held to have intrinsic, nonnegotiable attributes
which are in principle both discoverable and describable: we are talking
representations, correspondences and essences. In short, these Jesus
researchers would be trying to locate such in their search for Jesus and, I
suggest, would here have been seconded into the scientistic, sciencebased
paradigm of inquiry which has been progressing roughly since Descartes,
perceiving/conceiving that there is some Jesus out there with which to match
their findings or against which to measure whattheyhavefound.Reality,inthis
specific sense, is manifest and is, at least in theory, open to us, would be their
assumptioninmyview.

What this has yielded is, I think, plain for all to see: any number of books,
papers and journal articles in which Jesus scholars and researchers think,
however tentatively, that they have found something real (that is, something
with need of a philosophically realistic basis) about Jesus (most usually upon
which some further agenda,belief,orinterestcanbebased).Ihaveyettocome
across a book on the historical Jesus, for example, in which one is not left
thinking, to some degree, that here is Jesus as he was theveilhasbeentorn
from toptobottomandwebeholdtheholyofholies.Inthisrespect,theskeptics
among us have been following the sameparadigm,butwithrathermorecaution
or pessimism. An example of the former here would be the work of Catholic
scholar, John Dominic Crossan,who,inoneofthemostfamousbooksofthelast
few decades onthehistoricalJesus,appropriatelytitledTheHistoricalJesus:The
Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, speaks of having nothing left to believe
in ifwecannotbelieveinhistoricalreconstruction.Butafterthisconclusiontohis
text there begins 39 pages of what to the ordinary reader may look very much
like periodic tables of evidence for his views. It all seems very final and
unarguable. A book published in a similar timeframebutwhichtakesacontrary
view, that there never even wasaJesustobeginwith,isTheJesusMysteriesby
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. These writers seem equally certain that their
contrary view is true based on hard evidence, an example of reality. Yet just
these two of many, many examples cannot both be right within that
philosophical context. And neither really concede that other points ofviewcould

6
grasp at truth beside theirs. This is reality rightlyperceivedandyoumusteither
acceptitorrejectit.Thereisnoroomforpluralityhere.Acceptitorrejectit.
As I have said, what I propose is simply to drop the pretension to (this kind of)
reality, to instead ask the question What if the measure isasmuchoursasour
findings? or What if fictions are all we have? This isbecauseinitsmorecrass
forms this formerly presumed kind of reality has been nothing more than a
rhetorical strategy aimed at manipulating readers. I would put the public works
of The Jesus Seminar, a loose and broadly liberal group of biblical academics
(though definitely not always the works of its members) in this category along
with those they love to hate most, the religious conservatives (of which Scot
McKnights quote, above, is a perfect example). The rhetorical formula here is
simple: if we can persuade our audience that something is real then, we
suggest as Jesus authors, something should follow: reality is a key foundation
here, that which grounds us (and them) simply because it is and cannot be
avoided. This is reality as (philosophically justifiedandmoral)obligation.Andits
not something that even Gospel writers were immune to for they had purposes
toserveaswell.

Yet it is this kind of reality that I want to challenge the assumptions of

(consequently pulling the rug from under the feet of thosewhowouldrelyonit)
by offering a different, pragmatist, way forward for Jesus research and an
appreciation of the Jesuses of history, one which shifts the focus from
philosophically realist justification to rhetorical justification. That is, I do not
want to say that there is no reality out thereIwanttosaythatrealitydoesnot
have a language, language being all that we do have. My contention is thatitis
a kind of talk, a culture, that is creating problems for historical Jesus research
(realist talk) and that pragmatist talk, a pragmatic culture, for want of better
terminology, will both provide a new, flexible and inclusive basis for historical
Jesus study and put that study on a contemporary ethical and political footing.
On this footing such scholarship critiques and is critiqued as much for what it
doesandhowitisusedasforwhatitfindsandhowitfindsit.

Now, of course, onemaylegitimatelyaskwhatproblemsthisrealisttalkcreates.

Iwouldsuggestthatamongthemarethefollowing:

1. Inabilitytoagreeonmethodsorresults.
2. Adherencetoabeliefinsomefinalanswer.
3. Lackof(acknowledged)plurality.

In short, my view is that in the vast majority of the Quests, and inthemajority
of studies and Jesus researches today, what we have are what Nietzsche called
advocates whodonotwanttoberegardedassuchforthemostpartnobetter
thancunningpleadersfortheirprejudices.Hecontinues:

Ithasgraduallybecomecleartomewhateverygreatphilosophyhashitherto
been:aconfessiononthepartofitsauthorandakindofinvoluntaryand

7
 unconsciousmemoirmoreover,thatthemoral(orimmoral)intentionsinevery
philosophyhaveeverytimeconstitutedtherealgermoflifeoutofwhichthe
entireplanthasgrown(fromB
eyondGoodandEvil)

My contention is that this perfectly and exactly describes studies into the
historical Jesus armed, as they usually are, with their realism. I intend to
counter this and for this purpose we need to turn to American Pragmatism and
thatwedonow.

Pragmatism

Pragmatism started in 1898 when William James, the Harvard psychologist and
philosopher, gave this name to what he regarded as his expounding of the
thoughts ofhisfriendandmentor,CharlesSandersPeirce,whohadhimselfbeen
expounding his pragmatist theories on semiotics, science, logic and cognition
(amongst other things) foraround30yearsbythistime.ItisnotablethatPeirce
thought himself misrepresented by James, and so much so that he later
attempted to call his further philosophical work after this date "pragmaticism"
instead and pragmatists in general have ever sincebeenaccusedofmisreading
and misrepresenting or, as something related to this phenomenon, of trying to
pursue a nihilistic "anythinggoes"kindofphilosophy.Suchcritics,ofcourse,are
mistaken and they reveal the superficiality of their own readings of pragmatism
and the pragmatists by such comments. Instead, what pragmatists have been
doing is pursuing an opportunistic "art of the possible" philosophy, one in which
not anything goes but in which, to quote Stanley Fish, "anything that can be
made to go goes". William James, who besides pragmatism spoke to the
support of something he called "radical empiricism", considered this to be
responding to the constraints of the lived stream of experience. Reality, James
thought, resists us yet is still malleable by us. We build the flux outinevitably"
is how he put this in his 1907 philosophical treatise Pragmatism: A New Name
ForSomeOldWaysOfThinking.

As furtherexplanationofthisJames,whoconceivedthatthethatofrealitywas
its own but that the whatdependsonthewhichandthewhichdependsonus,
could further confirm the presence of resisting factors in every actual
experience of truthmaking in Pragmatism. These resisting factors he exegeted
as Reality and in any particular belief the reality acts as something
independent, as a thing found, not manufactured. Yetsometimestheanything
goes charge is part of internecine pragmatist infighting as when James T.
Kloppenberg accuses Stanley Fish himself of just such an orientation.
Alternatively, Pragmatism, as Richard J. Bernstein notes, might be regarded as
an ongoing engaged conversation consisting of distinctive sometimes
competing voices. Bernstein himself offers five interrelated substantive
themes that enable us to characterize the pragmatic ethos. These are
Antifoundationalism, A thoroughgoing fallibilism, the socialcharacterofthe

8
self and the need to nurture a critical community of inquirers, contingency,
andplurality.

A key metaphor for pragmatists is often the evolutionary one. Both James and
his pragmatist colleague, the American philosopher and educationalist John
Dewey, made use of evolution metaphorically, if in different ways. James
concentrated on the biology of the metaphor, conceiving that we human beings
grow or evolve histories, traditions, practices, truths, biographies and
autobiographies even as the body grows cells. This is just to be human and
comes, no doubt, as an outgrowth of his psychological views on habit thatwere
present in his The Principles of Psychology. Dewey concentrated on the
evolutionary situation of living beings in an environment and thesocialsituation
which this entails. For Dewey, who talked about "the social organism" and was
involved in social action to the extent that he could be formative inthecreation
of bodies such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), it was the social
which was the given and the individual which was the abstraction. Dewey
thought that being living beings in an environment entailed that that
environment could and would affect the living beings and forhimthismandated
theattempttoadaptandchangethatenvironmentforthebetter.HisDemocracy
and Education is a good example of this concern. Dewey himself had validated
this belief experimentally inhisfamousLaboratorySchoolinChicagointheearly
20th century which had pioneered what are now known as progressive
educational techniques based on the belief that people learn things by doing
them and that those things found useful in practice get carried forward, grafted
ontotheoldthingswhichhavebeencarriedonintheirturn.

But yet this concentration on evolution, as with Darwin's original theory of

biological evolution by a blind yet constrained process of natural selection,
provided a paradigm different from that which had gonebefore.WalterLippman
noted this of what Dewey was doing with philosophy in the early 20th century:
"[Dewey] is urging us consciously to manufacture our philosophy", he said,
noting that previously "the whole value of philosophies....ha[d] been that they
found support for our action in something outside ourselves. We philosophiedin
order to draw sanction from God, or nature or evolution". Lippman was right
about the paradigm change. Pragmatism, both in its originary wave as marked
by the works of Peirce, James and Dewey, and in its more contemporary
manifestation via the work of scholarssuchasRichardRorty,StanleyFish,Louis
Menand, Richard J. Bernstein and Cornel West forsook the requirement of
external and independent verification of our theories, theories necessarily of
correspondence and reference to what is commonly called "external reality",
and, instead, took up an adaptational outlook on life which seeks to make the
best ofwhatlifegivesustoworkwiththeytookupanattitudeorientatedtofelt
practical consequences as opposed to abstract, mental theorising. Charles
Peirces own pragmaticmaxim,forexample,wasthefollowing:Considerwhat
effects,thatmightconceivablyhavepracticalbearings,weconceivetheobjectof

9
our conceptions to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of
ourconceptionoftheobject.

This attitude is one of adaptation motivated by our desires to make the best of
things as beings with intentions and practices. Pragmatism is not so much a
static philosophy, a reflection of how things are, an enunciation of "what is"
complete with a metaphysics and an epistemology, so much as an attitude to
life. InthissenseJamescouldsaythatthisattitudinalpragmatismstandsforno
particular results and that it is an attitude of orientation...the attitude of
looking away from firstthings,principles,categories,supposednecessitiesand
of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts. Pragmatism will not
tell you where to go and how to get there so much as tell you what you are
doing after you have done it and why. Or, as the AmericanprofessorofEnglish,
Louis Menand, phrases this with the characteristic pragmatist downgrading of
theory, "theor[ies] can never tell us where to go only we can tell us where to
go. Theories are just one way we make sense ofourchoices".Thissuggestsnot
a rigorous theory which guides inquiry, as a realist might propose to make
reality perspicuous to us, but thattheoriesarepostinquiryjustificationsforwhy
wedidwhatwedidguidedbyhiddenbeliefs,desiresandreasons.

Perhaps this is whypragmatismhasalwaysbeenpluralistic.RichardBernstein,a

contemporary pragmatist philosopher, has, as noted above, suggested that
pragmatism itself is a contested thing. This may be true since pragmatists
themselves have tended to accord dignity and room at the table to beliefs ofall
persuasions. They have also traditionally been antiauthoritarian and anti
traditional dogmas. Indeed, as Louis Menand tells the story of John Dewey in
The Metaphysical Club, Dewey conceived that other people, a social situation,
that which Stanley Fish updates today into "interpretive communities", are
actually necessary: we only know ourselves and the meanings of our
conversations if we have conversation partners, other people to bounce off,
correspond with, learn from, share thingswith.ThisexplainswhyDeweyhimself
was so concerned to promoteafullyfunctioningdemocracy.Hefoundithealthy.
Richard Rorty, perhaps the most notorious pragmatist of the last half century,
talks of this as "the plurality of norms", quoting a phrase used by Friedrich
Nietzsche who himself spoke of truth as in short a sum of human relations
which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation
and decoration. The pragmatist human environment is one of a plurality of
conversation partnerswithapotentialandactualpluralityofviews.Somethings,
those things which make communication possible, we will share others, like
particular beliefs or persuasions, we will not share. We walk a line between
commensurabilityandincommensurabilitythatmakeshealthyinquirypossible.

Stanley Fishs version of pragmatism turns this attitude intoanoutrightbeliefin

human beings as partisan beings held by practices in which pragmatism itself
avails nothing but a retrospective comment on where we,inourvariousgroups,
bodies and communities, have been as opposed to directions for where we will

10
go and how we will get there. For example, see his collection of essays entitled
The Trouble With Principle which are a studied and consistent espousal of this
theme. On the other side of this pragmatist coin is StanleyFishsneopragmatist
penchant for emphasising the rhetorical nature of debate or inquiry (and, thus,
the everpresent potential ability and opportunity to make contributions to
debate). He, and I following him, come down on the rhetorical side of a
demonstrative/rhetorical divide in inquiry that is, not that sidewhichisdecided
andarbitratedbyfaithfulnesstoextrinsicfacts,statesorthenatureofthecase
(whilst being preoccupied with the quest for certainty) but rather that side
whichisafunctionofhumanneeds,desires,intentionsandbeliefs.

This has led pragmatists to convergence and consensus theories of truth asone
means of concretely expressing their credentials as supporters of truth as a
sociology of knowledge. For Richard Rorty, for example, "...there is no such
thing as love of Truth. What has been called by that name is a love of reaching
intersubjective agreement, the love of gaining mastery over a recalcitrantsetof
data, the love of winning arguments, and the love of synthesising little theories
into big theories". Rorty, who in the article this quote is from describes
pragmatism as romantic polytheism, argues thattruthisamatterofjustifiable
consensus in the sense of agiventheoryorwayforwardbeingthoughtthemost
successful currently manufactured for reaching a given goal and of convergence
in the sense that the sharpest thinkers in a given paradigm of thinkingwilltend
to want to come tothesameconclusionsandtojustifythemselvestoeachother
in mutually reaffirming ways. What counts in these cases, and what the early
pragmatists emphasised more fully, is always the matter of "convincingness" in
the matter of life experience. Rorty summarises the approach of Dewey under
the rubric "[A given theory] has no validity unless it is treated as a hypothesis,
tried out, and found successful". This reveals Dewey's experimentalism,another
pragmatist trait, at the same time as it emphasises the pragmatistpenchantfor
not cheating thehangman:thecriterionof"convincingness"concernedisathing
grounded in our very specific lives. As former US Supreme Court Judge, Oliver
Wendell Holmes, wrote in a personal letter, "Man is like any other organism,
shaping himselftohisenvironmentsowhollythatafterhehastakentheshapeif
you try to change it you alterhislife"."Convincingness"isamatterofvalidating
experience or plausibly changing the life concerned whilst at the same time not
simplybeingamatterofindividualhumanchoice.

There are ramifications from this for pragmatist inquiries. For instance, such an
approach is summed upinthestatementthatpragmatiststhinkthatthereisbut
a selective choice for a given purpose in inquiry, a totalising, unchallengeable,
complete description of phenomena, or answer to a given question, not being
available for partial, constrained human beings. Each inquiry is set in a given
social, cultural and intellectual situation which acts upon inquirers in specific
ways here constricting, there freeing here allowing sight, there denying it. A
single answer is but a single, if currently satisfactory, point of view. What is
always thecaseforpragmatistinquirersisthatsomethingelse,somethingmore,

11
something different, can, and might, be said. In this context, "the data" is grist
for our collective, partial and always selective mill. "Evidence" is that which
chimes with the beliefs our life experience has collected and now is validatedas
such in the light of the presupposition that it is evidence for something in
particular that is prior to inquiry. "Truths" are those things which can stand as
such with us as theinquirersweare.Weareneitherforcedtobelievesomething
nor forced to deny it at least by abstract, pregiven determinations. Further
answers or descriptions are relevant to us even if they do not yet cause us to
alter our own since they are possible alternative paths with their consequent
possible alternative consequences. Yet the social and personal situations we are
entangled in will extract their price by constraining us to be more persuaded by
somesuggestionsorsolutionsthanbyothers.Thepriceofhavinganintellectual,
cultural and social situation, and the freedom inherent in it, is that you cannot
avoid using those beliefs and understandings your life has provided you with as
the arbiters of your inquiries. We must conclude, as Stanley Fish asserts, that
"freedom...isanothernameforconstraint".

Charles Sanders Peirce comes to compatible conclusions in one of his influential

founding documents of pragmatism which he entitled The Fixation of Belief.
Therehesays:

Thatwhichdeterminesus,fromgivenpremises,todrawoneinferencerather
thananother,issomehabitofmind,whetheritbeconstitutionaloracquired.
Thehabitisgoodorotherwise,accordingasitproducestrueconclusionsfrom
truepremisesornotandaninferenceisregardedasvalidornot,without
referencetothetruthorfalsityofitsconclusionspecifically,butaccordingasthe
habitthatdeterminesitissuchastoproducetrueconclusionsingeneralornot.

To put this in plain and vulgar language: habits work if they lead to the kind of
success we seek but habits are also the historically manufactured algorithms of
life these algorithms are changeable but the price of them being algorithms at
all is that some things will just be more convincing than others in any given
case. But what are these habits? How does the pragmatist account for them?
And what has this to do with pragmatic and academic inquiry? The pragmatist
mightrelateabasicnarrativethatgoessomethinglikethefollowing:

Pragmatism is based upon the belief that human beings are beliefholding
beings who exist in social contexts. Further, pragmatists believe that there is
nothing transcendent over this, neither some Godseyeview, some ideal
situation or some nonsocial rationality, nor that there is anything foundational
undergirding this except beliefs, each supporting and linking together with each
other. These beliefs are what we are. They are basic. They function as rules for
action (things you can and do put your trust in, items of prediction andcontrol)
rather than items to be fitted into a representational scheme. They are those
things which solve our problems and help us to make them things of the past,
those things which we haveanduseatthemomenttheybecomeusefultohave.

12
This idea may be summedupasthebeliefthatthepressureoffirstprinciplesis
felt and responded to twentyfour hours a day, the belief thatthereisnostage
pre strong evaluative interest. So, we might call pragmatism a philosophy of
situations or perhaps especially a philosophy of belief(s). These beliefs about
belief lead to a certain circularity, what Stanley Fish calls the circularity of the
dictionary. But we should not then think of a relationship between us and our
beliefs for what there is is an identity of us with our beliefs. We are
beliefholding beings articulated by, and articulating, those beliefs. This means
we are forever situated inquirers. And, if I may be so bold, in the area of
historical Jesus studies this can be plainly seen. Thisiswhy,toquotethetitleof
anotherpaperbyFish,wecantalljustgetalong.

Thus, habits and beliefs areforthepragmatist,beingconstitutedhistoricallyand

contingently, experiencefunded facts of life. In this context inquiry is that
practice in which we hold onto as many of our beliefs as we can whilst dealing
with the latest problems or puzzles, or the newest pieces of information, or the
latest situations, in the contexts that our contemporaneity has bequeathed us.
Thus: Experience is a process that continually gives us new material to digest.
We handle this intellectually by the mass of beliefs of which we find ourselves
already possessed, assimilating, rejecting or rearranging in different degrees.
This belief springs from an anthropological one: What you believe is what you
see is what you know is what youdoiswhatyouare(soFishinWhyWeCant
All Just Get Along) and makes pragmatists antifoundationalists where
antifoundationalism teaches that questions of fact, truth, correctness, validity
and clarity can neither be posed nor answered in reference to some
extracontextual, ahistorical, nonsituational reality, or rule, or law, or value.
Richard Rorty notes that, furthermore, The reweaving of a communitys fabric
of belief is not to be done systematically it is not a research program, not a
matter of what Heidegger calls a Grundriss. It is a matter of scratchingwhereit
itches,andonlywhereititches.

WecanalsoputthisinthecontextoftruthtalkasWilliamJamesdoeshere:

Truththusmeans...therelationoflessfixedpartsofexperience(predicates)to
otherrelativelymorefixedparts(subjects)andwearenotrequiredtoseekitin
arelationofexperienceassuchtoanythingbeyonditself.Wecanstayathome,
forourbehaviourasexperientsishemmedinoneveryside.Theforcesof
advanceandofresistanceareexertedbyourownobjects,andthenotionof
truthassomethingopposedtowaywardnessorlicenseinevitablygrowsup
solipsisticallyinsideofeveryhumanlife.

Richard Rorty considerably linguistifies this position. He sloganises pragmatism

with his comments that Everything is a social construction and All awareness
isalinguisticaffair.Buthecontinuesbypointingoutthat:

13
 Both[theaboveslogans]arewaysofsayingthatweshallneverbeabletostep
outsideoflanguage,neverbeabletograsprealityunmediatedbylinguistic
description...Tosaythateverythingisasocialconstructionistosaythatour
linguisticpracticesaresoboundupwithourothersocialpracticesthatour
descriptionsofnature,aswellasofourselves,willalwaysbeafunctionofour
socialneeds...Ifyouputthetwosloganstogether,yougettheclaimthatallour
knowledgeisunderdescriptionssuitedtoourowncurrentsocialpurposes.

Accepting this would be a major departure for historical Jesus studies yet forall
this talk of experience and the process of inquiry the pragmatist might often be
charged with a kind of solipsism. My own auditioning of these views in
philosophical contexts has often led to this very charge. This seems to be
because the pragmatist, when she unloads her situationist, internalist baggage,
seems reluctant to talk about the world as anything out there or as
independent. But the pragmatist cannot do this without betraying herself (or,
at least, if she does she apes Rorty by talkingaboutthingsbeyondourcontrol
or James who talks about things escaping our arbitrary control in our
experience). The pragmatists viewpoint is holistic andherinclinationistorelate
things to her own needs and purposes and ignore questions of metaphysics
entirely insomuch as she can. Stanley Fish provides an ampleexampleofthisin
hisdiscussionofchange,akeytopicinthediscussionofinquiry.

It is most often argued of pragmatists either that they are beholden only to the
whims of their uncontrolled minds or to the perpetuation of their desires at all
costs. Since they do not acknowledge any meaningful world independent of
themselves (which, to their interrogators, would be the ultimate control) they
are, so it is asserted, either making it all up as they go along or simply
selfobsessed. Of course, they might also be charged here with being
relativists.YetRortyespiesinthisarealistlogic:

Therealistis,onceagain,projectinghisownhabitsofthoughtuponthe
pragmatistwhenhechargeshimwithrelativism.Fortherealistthinksthatthe
wholepointofphilosophicalthoughtistodetachoneselffromanyparticular
communityandlookdownatitfromamoreuniversalstandpoint.Whenhe
hearsthepragmatistrepudiatingthedesireforsuchastandpointhecannot
quitebelieveit.Hethinksthateveryone,deepdowninside,mustwantsuch
detachment.Soheattributestothepragmatistaperverseformofhisown
attempteddetachment,andseeshimasanironic,sneeringaesthetewho
refusestotakethechoicebetweencommunitiesseriously,amererelativist.
Butthepragmatist,dominatedbyhisdesireforsolidarity,canonlybecriticised
fortakinghisowncommunitytooseriouslyandnotforanythingelse.

But back to our pragmatists under interrogation from others. At this point
pragmatists mightbeinvitedtojumpoffthenearesthighrisebuildingtoprove
that reality exists. Indeed, this challenge has been proposed to me, apparently
with utmost philosophical seriousness. This kind of highrisereality,itisthought

14
by those suggesting it, is the kind that tells us all about itself, itisthekindthat
we are supposed to be taking note of, accounting and tracking. It proves that
there is a way the worldis.Ifthisindependent,highriseworldchangesthenit
should be arbitrating a change in us too. To this doubleheaded attack Fish
respondsbyblurringthevision:

Thecomfortableoutlinesofthispictureareblurred,however,whenone
substitutesforthisfoundationalistepistemologyanepistemologyinwhichthe
objecttobedescribedcannotbesharplydistinguishedfromthedescriptive
vocabularythatseemstoappropriateit.

At this point the foundationalists (for that is what they are) opposing the
pragmatists find themselves on a knifeedge, poised between an insubstantial
world of mere words and the hard, solid, arbitrating world they thought they
werefamiliarwith.Fishdoesnotallowthemtodrawbreath,butcontinues,piling
on the pressure and, I think, closes off the notion of a cold, hard, independent
arbitratingworld:

wecannotcheckourinterpretiveaccountsagainstthefacts...becauseitisonly
withinouraccountsthatis,withinanalreadyassumedsetofstipulative
definitionsandevidentiarycriteriathat...facts...emergeandbecomeavailable
forinspection...itisnolongerpossibletoseechangeasoccurringwhenthe
worldorapieceoftheworldforcesustoreviseorcorrectourdescriptionofit
sincedescriptionsoftheworldareallwehave,changescanonlybeunderstood
aschangesindescription.

At this point the foundationalist either retreats into the safe world of his
grounded bunker (if timid) or attacks with the solipsistic retort (if bold). Fish,
undeterred, outlines a pragmatist position on how minds and the world (the
formulation is deceptive for the pragmatist does not regularly make this
distinction)togetheroperateandhowchangeinourbeliefscomesabout:

beliefsarenotallheldatthesameleveloroperativeatthesametime.Beliefs,
ifImayuseametaphor,arenested,andonoccasiontheymayaffectandeven
altertheentiresystemornetworktheycomprise.Eventhoughthemindis
informedbyassumptionsthatlimitwhatitcanevennotice,amongthoseisthe
assumptionthatonesassumptionsaresubjecttochallengeandpossiblerevision
undercertaincircumstancesandaccordingtocertainprocedureswhentheyare
setinmotionbycertainpersons.Whatthismeansisthatthemindisnotastatic
structure,butanassemblageofrelatedbeliefsanyoneofwhichcanexert
pressureonanyotherinamotionthatcanleadtoaselftransformation.In
short...ratherthanbeinganobjectofwhichonemightask,howdoesitchange?
themind(and,byextension,thecommunity)isanengineofchange,anongoing
projectwhoseoperationsareatonceconstrainedandthemeansbywhichthose
sameconstraintscanbealtered.

15
In this formulationFishisnotignoringtheworld.Indeed,itisassumedinallof
his rhetoric but not as an object of our attention. Rather, it is that which
cannot be disentangled from our apprehension of it or, indeed, our belief(s)
aboutit.Inthissensewemaysay,asisnotableofWilliamJamessthought,that
the pragmatist conceives of there being experience all the way up and
everywhere around or, in terms that I would use, of interpretation all the way
down. This phenomena is irredeemably interpretive its specification cannot be
made independently of the way a community conceives of itself, of the story it
tells about itself and lives out intheactionsofitsmembers.Fishcrystallisesthis
thought for us by reminding us why a subject/object or inside/outside duality is
misleading: It is misleading because it assumes that the distinction...is
empirical and absolute, whereas in fact it is an interpretive distinction between
realmsthatareinterdependentratherthandiscrete.

Thus, the pragmatist can think only in relational terms and does not see the
need of all metaphysical rubbish, as C.S. Peirce called it. An outside or an
object would only be so as interpreted as such. But this is not as bad as it
sounds in foundationalist orrealistears.If,forthepragmatist,thewebofbeliefs
is an engine of change, it is an engine ofchangebecauseitsassumptionsare
not a mechanism for shutting out the world but for organizing it, for seeing
phenomena as already related to the interests and goals that make the
community what it is. Thus, Fish both answers the solipsisticcharge(bysaying
that pragmatists assume the world is what they are already indefatigably
relating with and mixed up in, even though it will always be interpreted) and
gives account of how supposed pragmatistsolipsists change their beliefs. They
change their beliefs because change is what beliefs, given time, quite often will
do. It is necessarily built into their very operation. Posed flippantly and
philosophically,RortystatesthatWeirrationalistsdonotfoamatthemouthand
behave like animals. We simply refuse to talk a certain way, the Platonic way.
And that, in a nutshell, is pragmatism, the pragmatism we need to better
interactwiththehistoricalJesus.

16
2.Jesus:PossessionofMany

Once upon a time there was a man and thatmanhadsomethingtosay.Hewas

no one from nowhere and his words became written down and studied by great
teachers. That man was not the man now known as Jesus of Nazareth. It was
me as I was writing a PhD thesis about the images and pictures of Jesus that
have been formulated, discussed and, primarily, written down over the years
and often with a focus to find the historical Jesus, Jesus the manwhoactually
walked among us. That study was an academic and interdisciplinary study that
covered history, literature, theology and many semiphilosophical forms of
criticism and ideology, all areas relevant to a properly academic study of the
subject. This study is, hopefully, to be a moreeasytoreaddigestandupdateof
its earlier predecessor which will wend its observational way in this chapter
through books about books about Jesus. Along the way we will, almost without
realising it, have to address what it means to construct a picture of someone, a
question which comes to be about what that person means to us. We will find
that we cannot create and construct images of people without therebeingsome
stakes for us in that process. We will find that Jesus himself is Legion... for
there are many. We will find that, in theend,itcomestobeaboutconstructing
whow eareasmuchaswhohewasandisforus.



Whyreadifonealreadyknowswhatonewillfind,namely,oneself?(Evangelical
theologian,KevinVanhoozer)


Ifwepossessourwhyoflifewecanputupwithalmostanyhow.(Friedrich
Nietzsche)


Inthebeginningwastheinterpretation,andtheinterpretationwaswithGodand
theinterpretationwasGod...everythinghappenedbecauseofinterpretation,and
apartfrominterpretationnotonethinghappened.Thatwhichdidhappenin
interpretationwaslife,andthislifewasthelightofhumanity.(Myownrendering
ofJohnsGospel1:13)

HumanBeingsandMeaning

Let me introduce you to psychoanalyst, logotherapist and Holocaust survivor,

Viktor Frankl. He believed that we all have what he terms a will to meaning.
Shortcircuiting his psychological explanation of this phenomenon in the
extreme, Frankl believed that we all need a why in our lives. When this is

17
missing we manifest disorder(s), when present things all hang together. This
meaning is a unifying andcompletingforce.ForFranklhimselfthiswasprimarily
an existential discovery, something he learnt whilst enduring the horrors of
Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps during World War 2.
Subsequently to this, in his practice as a psychoanalyst, one of the three great
Viennese psychoanalysts, along with Freud and Adler, he verified this discovery
and put ittopsychotherapeuticusethroughoutasuccessfulcareerinpsychology
viahispsychologicaltheorytermedlogotherapy.

Logotherapy, in Frankls words, is a meaningcentred psychotherapy. The

name comes from Frankls appropriation of the Greek word logos (the same
logos Johns Gospel usestodescribeJesuswhenhewritesInthebeginningwas
the logos) which he translates as meaning and the therapy, so he writes,
focuses on themeaningofhumanexistenceaswellasonmanssearchforsuch
a meaning. According to logotherapy, this striving to findameaninginoneslife
istheprimarymotivationalforceinman.Thismeaning,writesFrankl,is

uniqueandspecificinthatitmustandcanbefulfilledbythehumansubject
aloneonlythendoesitachieveasignificancewhichwillsatisfyitsownwillto
meaning.Therearesomeauthorswhocontendthatmeaningsandvaluesare
nothingbutdefensemechanisms,reactionformationsandsublimations.Butas
formyself,Iwouldnotbewillingtolivemerelyforthesakeofmydefence
mechanisms,norwouldIbereadytodiemerelyforthesakeofmyreaction
formations.Man,however,isabletoliveandeventodieforthesakeofhis
idealsandvalues!

Frankl here argues for the importance of this meaning we seek. Hecontinuesto
discussthismeaningwhenhewritesthefollowing:

themeaningoflifediffersfrompersontoperson,fromdaytodayandfrom
hourtohour.Whatmatters,therefore,isnotthemeaningoflifeingeneralbut
ratherthespecificmeaningofapersonslifeatagivenmoment.Toputthe
questioningeneraltermswouldbecomparabletothequestionposedtoachess
champion:Tellme,Master,whatisthebestmoveintheworld?Theresimplyis
nosuchthingasthebestorevenagoodmoveapartfromaparticularsituation
inagameandtheparticularpersonalityofonesopponent.Thesameholdsfor
humanexistence.Oneshouldnotsearchforanabstractmeaningof
life...everyonestaskisasuniqueasistheirspecificopportunitytoimplement
it.

Psychologically speaking, Frankl believed that the human subject thrives in a

situation of tension, a tension which finds its release (resolution? purpose?) in
being directed towards a worthwhile goal. This tension is inherent in the
human being and meaning is found in striving and struggling at the call ofa
potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled. A further feature of this meaning
Frankl believed human beings seek and, indeed, require, was that it is a matter

18
of selftranscendence, of something beyond themselves in the world rather
than as the result of an internal debate with oneself. Frankl saw human beings
as part of something much bigger than themselves and there was no room for
anykindofsolipsism.

All this necessary meaningmaking is set against an existential background of

contingencyandchoice.Franklbelievesthat

atthebeginningofhumanhistory,humanitylostsomeofthebasicanimal
instinctsinwhichananimalsbehaviorisembeddedandbywhichitissecured.
Suchsecurity,likeParadise,isclosedtohumanityforeverhumanityhasto
makechoices.

But this transitoriness of our existence does not lead straight to nihilism for
Frankl.Whatitdoesis

constituteourresponsiblenessforeverythinghingesuponourrealizingthe
essentiallytransitorypossibilities.Thehumansubjectconstantlymakesits
choiceconcerningthemassofpresentpotentialitieswhichofthesewillbe
condemnedtononbeingandwhichwillbeactualized?Whichchoicewillbemade
anactualityonceandforever,animmortalfootprintinthesandsoftime?At
anymoment,thehumansubjectmustdecide,forbetterorforworse,whatwill
bethemonumentofitsexistence.

To this effect, Frankl pronounces that having been is the surest kind of being
andhepromotesresponsibleness.Butsince

eachsituationinliferepresentsachallengetothehumanbeingandpresentsa
problemtobesolved,thequestionofthemeaningoflifemayactuallybe
reversed.Ultimately,thehumanbeingshouldnotaskwhatthemeaningoflife
is,butrather...mustrecognisethatitistheythemselveswhoareasked.Ina
word,eachpersonisquestionedbylifeandapersoncanonlyanswertolifeby
answeringfortheirownlifetolifetheycanonlyrespondbybeingresponsible.
Thus,logotherapyseesinresponsiblenesstheveryessenceofhuman
existence.

So Frankl delivers a psychology of will to meaning and responsibility, in which

the human subject is inevitably addressed by the world and by life andinwhich
she must go beyond herself to find fulfilment and purpose. It is this kind of
thinking which I find suggestive by analogy to historical Jesus studies as an
academic field which seeks to reconstruct Jesus and to the idea of constructing
anykindofimageofJesusatall.Letmeexplain.

My suggestion is that historical Jesus scholars and anyone with an interest in

constructing an image of Jesus similarly have their will tomeaning.Whatthey
seek specifically in their activities is meaning (not just data or evidence or

19
history or sense. Frankl himself wrote that logos is deeper than logic.)
Historical Jesus study, I venture, and the making of Jesus images more
generally, has an existential side to it, one in which the participant is himselfor
herself both invested and addressed. Meaning is found in its process and in its
results and this meaning validates us in ourselves as we take responsibility for
our existence as historical Jesus scholars, Christians, mythmakers or whatever
else we are when we decide that Jesus was like A instead of likeBandthatthis
matters. I want to suggest that our very lives, conceived ofasautobiography,
both result in the (historical) Jesus discourse(s) we produce, part of a
meaningmaking process, and provide context for our text (and in a way in
which disentanglement ofthetwoisnighonimpossible).ToconstructJesusisto
construct yourself, to take Frankls step of responsibility which constitutes
meaningmaking.

In order to carry though this thesis we need to address a hot topic, that which
William Arnal calls epistemic neutrality, a philosophical discussion about the
nature of knowledge and its relation to the knowers, us. We shall do this
primarily by addressing the paperscollectedtogetherinthe1997volumeWhose
Historical Jesus?, a volume, as the title usefully suggests, which puts the
meaningful and, as Frankl has shown, psychologically fundamental questions of
theownershipof,andidentitywith,Jesusasasignificantfigurefrontandcentre.
But this same question also has a wider context. This wider context is
hermeneutical and is represented here by Kevin Vanhoozers hermeneutical
question which I placed at the head of this chapter. To repeat the question,
Whyreadifonealreadyknowswhatonewillfind,namely,oneself?

I propose that there are multiple and manifest good reasons why we should
read even if we do only find oneself, which is not to admit that this isallwe
do find, and this chapter should be seen as mounting an indirect answer to
Vanhoozersquestion.AsillustrationsofsomeofthesegoodreasonsIshallfocus
on two papers from Whose Historical Jesus?, that of Grant LeMarquand, which
addresses creating or reconstructing Jesus from an African context, and
especially that of Jane Schaberg. Schabergs paper is the standout paper of
Whose Historical Jesus?andraisesmanyfertileissuesforhistoricalJesusstudies
and creating images of Jesus more widely, not least that the title of the volume
it is a part of is not mere academic ingenuity. As Schaberg discovers, the
historical Jesus is a very closely guarded possessionofmany,verymuchapart
of various autobiographies. It means something and that, in the sense Frankl
meant it, is truly existential. It is a way people are making sense of things, of
everything,andsoofthemselves.

In turn, the insights of Schaberg and LeMarquand lead us onto two anthologies
of Jesus images. The first is William Hamiltons A Quest For The PostHistorical
Jesus and the second is Clinton Bennetts In Search of Jesus: Insider and
Outsider Images. Both of these volumes, though with different emphases to be
sure, provide plural images of Jesus by their presentation of multiple Jesuses

20
from across literature (in Hamiltons case) and culture (in the case of Bennett).
In the case of Hamilton this is because he now has some terminal skepticismof
the historical Jesus project in his view it has had its day and achieved all it is
likely toachieve.Inaddition,heperceivesthattheJesusoftenfoundinhistorical
study is used as a crutch or as a bearer of responsibilities he thinks more
properly ours. Jesus is neither for us nor our willingly coopted helper is his
conclusion in a way very influenced by theseminal20thcenturyacademicstudy
ofJesuspublishedbyAlbertSchweitzerin1906.ThereSchweitzerhadconcluded
that Jesus was an apocalyptic stranger not of our time. Hamilton agrees with
thatconclusionandwiththeviewthathecannottherebybecooptedtoourvery
modern agendas. In the case of Bennett, a former missionary, the task is,
perhaps, more positive. He wishes that Jesus be allowed to be Jesusforthose
whose culture heisin.Thus,BennettthinksthatOnlywhenJesusisChinesefor
the Chinese and Indian for the Indian will he trulybeforthesecontexts. Thus,
bothHamiltonandBennettofferachallengetothosewhowantJesustobesome
disentangled scientificrealist object in which we are merely the disinterested
collectors of his literary or archaeological traces, acolytes bowing down before
holy facts. On the contrary, we are the interested and that interest is right and
proper, not to be offset, deflected or disguised. This is about meaning and
meaningisalwayss omebodysmeaning.

Ultimately, my point here will be that the historical Jesus, aparticularconcept

of a given time, place and mode of thinking, when other ways of thinkingabout
Jesus are added in and when human concerns are accounted for, particularly
ones related to meaningmaking, is now what I once (unoriginally) termed the
posthistorical Jesus. This turn from history to posthistory, this challenge to
assumed methods of historical procedure and to what counts in Jesus studies,
opens up our knowledgeaccumulating activities to scrutiny, exposes personal
and communal interests, and the historical Jesus as anidea,asagoal,becomes
the practice of formulating, in Nietzsches term,anexpedientfalsification.This
phrase of Nietzsches, along with his biologistic metaphors of lifeshaped
knowledge, will aid me in this part of my project as I attempt tomakeoverour
historical Jesus images into ones posthistorical. This may indeed lend to the
product of this process the quality of fiction but, in line with the thinking of
Douglas Templeton in his The New Testament As True Fiction, I donotthinkwe
need have much cause to worry on that score. Facts may be plastic to fictions
touch but meaning is not simply about facts anyway. Thereisplentyoftruthin
astory,forexample.IftherewasnttheGospelswouldbeuseless.

So what I think we do have need to worry about is the fact that most historical
Jesus scholars these days, when venturing into print to shepherd their readerly
flocks, attempt to cover their work with the veneer ofanawarenessoftheissue
of epistemic neutrality (by saying something like we cannot, of course, be
totally detached, but real history about Jesus is still possible as if this didnt
involve us) only, in practice, to plough on as if there was no need to have said
anything at all. This will not do and the saying of some such nicety only to

21
thereby fit in with current trends, trends chastened by postmodern skepticisms
even if those same skepticisms are still resisted, is no longer credible or
plausible. I think it is better (and better because more honest and less
repressive of what is manifestly admitted to be the case) to be openly
autobiographical, in theory and practice, than to carry on in this vein. I believe
that inquiry into the historical Jesus (as an example of Jesusrelated
meaningmaking) is primarily about the creation of meaning and not the reality
or inviolability of material and, because of this, I see him as part of, and the
outcome of, that specific network of relations called life. To rebut Catholic
historical Jesus scholar, John Dominic Crossan, who once wrote that historical
Jesus scholarship was a very safe place... to do autobiography and call it
biography: this is autobiography as biography. That is what meaningmaking
lookslikeinthiscontext.

So, in contradistinction to Crossan, I want to argue that doing autobiography

and adhering to historical constraints, both in terms of what the past confronts
us with and in terms of what historical method, if any, we will make use of,are
by no means at odds. Indeed, I want to argue this is both natural and usual.
This is the process of meaningmaking, something Frankl has argued very
persuasively is fundamental toanyhealthy,functioninghumanbeing.Oneofmy
points is that both the autobiography and the past as we have it (albeit in the
traces that have made it down to us), allow for the diversity that Crossan has
formerly found so embarrassing to his scholarly profession. My conclusion is
along the lines of So whats the problem? But lets now move to look at the
sourcesIreferredtoaboveandprogressthisthinkingfurther.

WhoseHistoricalJesus?

a)AProblemVocabulary

As noted above, William Arnal recognises epistemic neutrality as one of the

current hot issues in historical Jesus studies at least if the volume he coedits
be representative of current historical Jesus scholarship. That volume indeed
finds evidence for such a belief and this evidence is worth noting and analysing
foramomentortwo.

We may begin withArnalhimself.Hisendofvolumesummarynotesthatexplicit

lack of neutrality in historical Jesus studies (such as that found in, and
demonstrated by,thepapersofLeMarquandandSchabergIshallconcentrateon
shortly) results in the work itself not being taken seriously for thatveryreason:
its form is offputting and revealing or showinganinterestislookeddownupon.
Perhaps, we might be led to wonder, the scholar writing suchworkissomewhat
rebellious and lacks the appropriate scholarly discipline? This disciplinary
attitude, Arnal intimates, hides a conservative tendency topreservethewaythe
world is, to inscribe various kinds of hegemony into research and even thinking

22
itself. Arnal rounds off his brief comments by speaking of the value of
recognising bias (which is what epistemic neutrality alternates with in the
body of his paper) this value is found in recognising we are all subject to
inevitable positionality. For Arnal, this positionality,theadmissionthatweall
have an interest, a point of view, some meaning we want to make, apparently
has effects (or at least affects those involved) but he does not give any
intimation what this might involve. In this, Arnals end of volume summation is
an accurate reflection of many, but not all, of the papers in Whose Historical
Jesus?, not least in that it rarely gets to grips with the idea that people need
thingstomakemeaningforthem.WithitIwouldgroupespeciallythefollowing:

Robert L. Webb takes an observe your existential concerns and then offset
them approach in his note introducing a paper by Larry Hurtado. Peter
Richardson, in his paper entitled Enduring Concerns: Desiderata for Future
HistoricalJesus Research, notes a major methodological issue surrounding
whatevidenceshouldbeheardandpreferred.Noneofthekindsofevidencehe
presents seems freefrominterpretation,potentialanachronismortheimposition
of present cultural standards and values. Barry Henaut, in an article surveying
the work of Martin Khler, Ernst Ksemann and Burton Mack in particular, finds
that history and methodology can be used for nonhistorical or
nonmethodological (i.e. personal) purposes. (Surprise, surprise!) Stephen
Westerholm, giving perhaps unguarded vent to his scholarly frustrations, finds
that in a lack of scholarlyagreementaboutthehistoricalJesus,andtheseeming
ubiquity of the historical Jesus creators own ideals and convictions, is a
plague that continues to bedevil the quest. This elicits from the perhaps
tortured Westerholm at least two alases and almost a wish that as a biblical
academichedidnothavetogetinvolvedinhistoricalJesusstudyatall.

Another member of this group is Edith Humphrey who presents a paper on

apocalyptic writingandwonderswhetherthescholarlyhistoricalJesusreaderwill
allow themselves to understand via this medium or find apocalyptic, and
apocalyptic interpretations of the historical Jesus which are now regarded
anachronistically in our modern world, as a stumbling block. Leif Vaage, as
another example, finding disinterestedness something still bothering and
befuddling contemporary efforts to discuss the historical Jesus, takes the
route, once more, of suggesting that the biased historian may be alert to
possibilities of reconstructing the past which others without similar prejudice
may not have noticed. Bias, it seems, has its uses too! Whatever paper we
seem to turntoinWhoseHistoricalJesus?thestakesandconsequencesarenot
usually a matter of indifference. But should we expect any less? Not if, having
read Frankls story and his psychological insights, we conclude that human
beingsmakemeaningasstomachsgrindupfoodstuffs.

This issue (and vocabulary) of epistemic neutrality is perhaps best presented

by Larry Hurtado in his paper A Taxonomy of Recent HistoricalJesus Work.
Whilst describing the work of eight historical Jesus scholars,workdonebetween

23
19841993, Hurtado wishes to demonstratethatthescholarsconcernedcometo
different conclusions without consensus in sight besides providing pointers for
future historical Jesus work. The first point hereneednotdetainussinceitis,in
another guise, exactly what we are currently attempting to explain and,indeed,
justify. As to the second matter, this is worth analysing in more detail since
Hurtadosapproachisrevealing.

Having adduced the requisite lack of consensus in his representative band of

scholars, Hurtado paints a picture of a branch of scholarship slowly sinking into
the mud under the weight of its own industry. The range of evidence is
daunting, he tells us, and, adding to the burden, Sound historical work that is
to be of broad and lasting use in the field must also interact fully with other
scholars onallrelevantissues.Theoceanicamountofscholarlyworkgermaneto
historicalJesus research will make this difficult. To relieve the burden
somewhat Hurtado presents a new criterion. We should regard the historical
Jesus as analogous to the ancient texts that convey him and, as ifweweretext
critics, aim to reconstruct the reading [i.e. the Jesus] that best explains all the
variants. Thus, via this process, and using a critical and technical skill many
historical Jesus scholars may already have, we sift our evidence and work our
way back to the original Jesus thus solving the problem that everyone keeps
making (or finding!) their own. In this we should...prefer...that reconstruction
of the historical Jesus which best accounts for the variation in the sources of
earlyprovenance.

But why follow this procedure? Because we need a procedure involving

something more than the preference of the individual [and sadly
nonconsensual] scholar. Indeed, for Hurtado difference and diversityseemthe
problems they are for Crossan that I referred to above. Diversity,infact,hasto
be dealt with, Hurtado and Crossan both agree. And since for Hurtado it is a
major objective to reconstruct a now lost original historical Jesus, one not
tainted, so he would think, by our meaningmaking, and the situation visvis
the historical Jesus scholar is bleak (with their concerns hoveringallaroundina
nonconsensual, particularistic swarm of diversity), this seems a good, solid,
methodological way out. We must go about our historical Jesus inquirieswitha
proper scholarly rigour and selfcritical ability. Method, he believes, will trump
ourneedformeaning.

And, thus, does Hurtado, I think unwittingly, perfectly describe the problems of
the vocabulary and paradigm of epistemic neutrality and bias. He seems to
offer a 4 Maccabees approach to historical Jesus study: A most philosophical
subject I am about to discuss, that is, whether devout reason is sovereign over
the passions, as the book 4 Maccabees itself begins. This is notbyanymeansa
new problem in human thinking. Its as old as the discovery that human beings
can think AND feel and someone decided to set them in opposition. Its a very
human question, it is to ask what and who we are, how we work and what we
can,andcannot,achieve.

24
For Hurtadodevoutreasonshouldrulethepassions,scholarlyrigourshould
put down existential preferences, commitments and concerns. But this is both
selfdeconstructing and (thus)impossible.Aconcern(existentialorotherwise)to
offset another concern is itself a concern. How does Hurtado suggest we
adjudicate one concern by use of another, or keep one whilst dispatching its
cousin? He gives no answers, and that, I think, because his philosophical
paradigm, his vocabulary (realist, objective, admitting of an original Jesus who
could be found) is deceiving him as to the shape of his problem and as to the
makeup of a human being: Hurtado finds himself locked in an unhelpful
discourse which works against his best interests. Put simply, some concerns,
some passion, must be retained that cannot be avoided. It is not a matter of
devout reason or the passions it is which passion shall rule the roost and
conjure up the reasons for now. Human beings are holistic not federations of
separablepartsandfaculties.

There is a further issue here. For Hurtado has spoken as if text criticism, the
model for his way out of the manyhistoricalJesusesproblem,wasthecollection
of pristine and uncontaminated antiquarian data. Hurtado is looking for the
algorithm thatgetshimbacktoJesusasmaterial,theoriginalJesus,whichwill
provide Jesus as meaning, the original meaning ofJesusandhemeanstodo
this whilst keeping out of the way himself. He thinks that if he gets one (the
material Jesus) he gets the other (the meaning Jesus). What he has not either
foreseen or admitted as a possibility is that text criticism is not the detached
search for an original text which can then be given overtotheexegeteswho,in
their woolly and biased way, start interpreting as they please. It is, instead,
the active and interpretive process of piecing together a text based on what
makes interpretive sense. Text critics look to reconstruct their texts, and their
relative histories, interpretively, dealing with texts whose meaning is not simply
or naively in the texts alone in some original sense. Such critics provide a
reasoned basis for why they choose one variant over another, and thatbecause
these issues are not predetermined: they are matters of debate and choice and
originalisonesuchchoicethatmustbearbitrated.Itisaninterpretivetask.

It seems that Hurtado is either denying this is the case (which he doesnt seem
to be) or, more likely, he has not even considered it as anoption.Yethowdoes
Hurtado conceive that text critics operate if they do not have some interpretive
framework at hand, a framework based ontheirowninterpretivechoicesaswell
as their knowledge of the material? Hurtado makes the error of separating the
collection of pristine, meaninginherent material (which is his fantasy text
criticism) from the interpretive meaning constitutive of the process of text
criticism itself. This leaves Hurtado with a choice: either he thinks that his
criterion, and the conception of historical Jesus study it presupposes, is to be
defined as mere collection of data (along with its supposed innate, original
meaning) or he must accept that his criterion, as apartofwiderhistoricalJesus
study, does not escape the pitfalls he has amply, in his terms, already set out
with some dismay. Hurtado simply rushes to the conclusion that original, ifhe

25
can give some material that epithet with justification, trumps all. It ends the
meaning game he wishes to escape. He doesnt see at all that this isnt escape
fromthemeaninggame:thisisthemeaninggame!

But there is yet another problem with the approach in Hurtados paper. For,
when probed, the original Jesus concept is found to be without substance and
the issue of epistemic neutrality or bias implodes. For what does epistemic
neutrality consist of? What is the scholars bias against? In order for these
metaphors to work there has to be something real, solid, and definable to kick
against. But, as this little discussion has continually shown, and as scholarafter
scholar has found it necessary repeat, all weseemtohaveishumaninterest(s).
And so Hurtado or some other historical Jesus scholar such as Webb or Vaage
have reached their Waterloo: its time to show your way works or start
evaluating existential concerns by other means, paradigms, vocabularies and
discourses. The original Jesus paradigm so many want to try and breathe life
into as it rots in its tomb, with its biases and existential concerns and
epistemic neutralities, must either more willingly embrace
existential/philosophical challenges or give way to paradigms which make
specific human interests constitutive of their processes and results. You can try
and evacuate images of Jesus of their meaning but, in the end,youwillactually
find that meaning is all you really have and, like the skin you are covered with,
you cannot get rid of it without destroying yourself. To make a pictureofJesus,
even if you regard yourself as a professional academic and your image is
christened historical, is only to be done if your existential concerns and
meaningmaking faculties are fully involved, critically engaged and totally
embraced. This is what making a picture of Jesus consists of. Jesus is you
lookinginthemirrorandseeinghim.

b)VocabulariesofDifferenceandLiberation

Such embracing, such looking in mirrors, if Grant LeMarquand and Jane

Schaberg aretobebelieved,isexactlywhatAfricanandFeministhistoricalJesus
scholars practice. Here we have different, more openly interested, personal and
engagedapproaches.Ishalltakethesescholarsinturn.

The approach of GrantLeMarquandinhispaperTheHistoricalJesusandAfrican

New Testament Scholarship is of the bias can help us type. But what marks
out his discussion of African scholarship on Jesus is its presentation of that
scholarships cultural difference and thedifferingculturalandpoliticalneedsthat
the African historical Jesus needs to fulfil: African biblical scholarship, not
content to leave Jesus in a firstcentury context, is compelled by social,political
and religiousconvictionstodemonstratehisrelationshiptocontemporaryAfrican
life,hesays.Thislife,hereports,isrepletewithaconfessionalityandaspiritual
world where spirits and miracles are thought of asrealthatchangesthecontext
for a picture of Jesus that can be believed in and thought of as meaningful. A

26
Western academic might not need to believe miracles really happen but an
AfricanthinkingofJesusmightisLeMarquandspoint.

LeMarquand claims that this African difference will help Western, northern
hemisphere scholars. This is a claim that awaits validation whilst, perhaps,
making selfinterest the measure. Whatever the case, African scholars are
certainly dubious of Western (our) scholarship and wish to disentangle it from
the historical Jesus, another sign that ownership, and therefore what is
meaningful, is in play here. But then they have interests to serve, as
LeMarquand notes: Biblical scholars working in a context of acute and visible
suffering (such as an African context often is) are perpetually challenged to
demonstrate the relevance of their work. Africa is not a comfy North American
campus or some parochial English theological college. This, in itself, could be
regarded as suggestive of a question: if Westerners are also embroiled in their
scholarship, in their making pictures of Jesus, but claim to have no relevance
agenda to serve and are trying to avoid their personal interests, then what are
they doing instead? Simply propagating careers to keep themselves alive?
Servingthemselves?

Perhaps two statements LeMarquand quotes from white South African historical
Jesus scholar Albert Nolan may stand for his description of the tenor and
purpose of African historical Jesus scholarship as a whole: The method is
historical, but the purpose is not and [W]e do not need to theorize about
Jesus, we need to reproduce him in our time and our circumstances. Such
purposes are clearly political in orientation. The historical Jesus simply has to
mean something in African context, has to make a difference, has to count.
What else would be the point? Often in the examples LeMarquand quotes in his
paper this is a matter of a close relevance to theJesusfoundinhistoricaltraces
with the struggle for power and representation in many African countries, often
on racial or cultural grounds. A culturally irrelevant but supposedly historically
accurate white mans Jesuswouldbeuselessinsuchacontext.Infact,hemight
be seen as the enemy. Hewouldcertainlybeseenasbesidethepoint.Hewould
be meaningless. The accusation of meaninglessness is exactly one many white
male Christian scholars make of the idea of an historical Jesus at all. He cannot
bethebasisfort heirfaith.Quite.

Jane Schabergs experience of historical Jesus study demonstrates something

similar. It demonstrates that when we describe some concerns of the historical
Jesus scholar as existential or personal we are not merely referring to
matters cognitive, mental or philosophical for in her case these terms
(existential, personal) would refer toveryconcreteeffectsinthestructureofher
professional and private life. She has, as she confesses, struggled to keep her
career on track due to the, at times, vilificatory and vitriolic response to her
historical Jesus work (and, perhaps more accurately, to others own
presentations of it). In brief, Schaberg wrote a book in which she floated the
idea that Marys rape resulted in the birth of Jesus. It resulted in her receiving

27
hate and threats as well as condemnation from the pulpit by bishops and the
attempt to remove her from her academic position. Her paper in Whose
Historical Jesus? had originally meant to address the question of why historical
Jesus scholarship ignores or frowns upon feminist contributions, particularly
those of the most wellknown feminist biblical scholar, Elisabeth
SchsslerFiorenza. However, it takes a more personal tone because her own
experience is that being ignored is not the only way to attempt to silence or
marginalisefeministorderivativehistoricalJesuswork.

In a way, and I say this without judgment of Schaberg, Schaberg should not
have been surprised at the responses she received inside and outside of the
academy to her own work as well as the willed ignorance of the historical Jesus
academy to her fellow feminists work. For Schabergs brand of feminist
scholarship, whether coming directly from itself or in the minds of others, is
made out to be overtly, brashly, political and subversive. It aims to be
iconoclastic and it wants to change the agenda and begin a new discourse. By
being not in the malestream, as feminists often call traditional scholarship,
she is immediately designated by it as marginal. When Schaberg tries to utilise
tools in order to make political progress resistance is going to be felt for
Schaberg is kicking againstthegoads.Whenallhellbreaksloose,asitdidinher
case, politics (academic, religious, media, personal) is exactly what she should
expect for this is the typeofarenasheisinandpoliticalprogressispartofwhat
shewants.

The proximate cause ofthetroublesSchabergreportsinherpaperisareporton

her work compiled by the religion reporter for the Detroit Free Press. This
reporter chose, in Schabergs words, to report on an angry uncredentialed
loosecannon feminist, dogmatically preaching the gospel according to Jane on
everything from Marys rape to abortion rights, while threatening to sue her
university. Schaberg reports that the response involved distancing by her
(Roman Catholic) university via public statements and internal silence,
indifferent responses from her fellow faculty members (some were hostile,
others remarked on how the incident might affect the universitys economics),
and the archdiocese of Detroit chose to go on the offensive via public media
and in its pulpits. The Archbishop of Detroit himself spoke against the reported
views of Schaberg, linking them in with the abortion debate that is ongoing in
theUnitedStatesofAmerica.

The ultimate result of all this, as farasIcantellfromreadingSchabergspaper,

is that the marginality of her position, and her feminist scholarship, was
politically reinforced. Let it not be said that a political agenda is easy, certainto
succeed or a road paved with gold. And yet, despite thesepoliticalandpersonal
traumas, Schaberg claims to have learnt a number of things through the
presentationofherscholarshipandthemeaningsinherentinit.Theseare:

28
1. that sexism and misogyny are deeply rationalized, theologized and
spiritualized

2. that societal attitudes about sexual assault assume the culpability of the
victimsanddrawstrength,wemaysuppose,fromrepressionandguilt

3. that hatred and blame are directed mostparticularlyatthefemalevictimsof

violence

4.thattheofficialdoctrinesregardingMarydenigratenormalwomen

5. that these doctrines...draw on, and at the same time obscure, the human
needforafemininedimensionofthedivine

and

6. that fundamentalists and theultraorthodoxsee,asliberalsoftendonotsee,

that biblical and traditional images of women go hand in handwiththedenialof
womensrightstocontroltheirownbodiesandlives.

In addition,andnotleast,Schaberghasalsolearntthedangerinevenfollowing
a good feminist methodological procedure and speaking personally in or about
ones scholarly work the responses, negative and positive, to feminists work
and persons. This latter point is reinforced when Schaberg notes that This
incident Ihavedescribedorsomethinglikeit,orthethreatofitisthecontext
in which feminist New Testament critics pursue their work. That is my major
point. But (in Schabergs context and mine) the key here, of course, is the
question Schaberg herself addresses: What has this got to do with historical
Jesus research? This question itself is relevant when Leif Vaage, who writes a
short paper in the same book, questions Schaberg interests, claiming that she
seems to have no particular interest in Jesus! Schabergs answer, however, is
that it has A great deal to do with historical Jesus study and why can be
summarisedinfourpoints:

1. In historical Jesus studies there is not a level playing field we are not
carryingoutourstudiesequally.

2. We must question whose interests we are serving in our studies. Are they
those of the status quo? Such studies will only serve the interests of those the
status quo insulates (and leave those not insulated prey to the power plays
involvedinthem).

3. Everybodys angle is both valid and not the only angle, as our experience(s)
willshowgivenhalfachance.

29
4. Apocalyptic, viewed as the energy and discipline for an egalitarian
sociopolitical experiment, warrants more research. When linked to the New
Testament passion/resurrection predictions, the stories of the empty tomb and
the witness of the women, it may ultimately prove to be central to a feminist
understandingofChristianorigins.

By my analysis, all of these points (as with LeMarquands description of the

interests of African historical Jesus scholars) bear the marks of personal,
autobiographical involvement. As such, Schabergs feminist approach, engaged
politically and personally as it is, holds out a number of distinctives, issues to
consider if you will, for historical Jesus scholarship: enlarged framework of
discussion,newdirections,differentpresuppositions,interestsandquestions,the
open use of experience and the possibility(probability?)ofconflict,forexample.
Such scholarship is a demonstration that for some, even in Western ivory
towers, all in the garden is not always so lovely, so without stake, so
meaningless and detached. One further thing it does, and almost without
noticing, is see historical Jesus studies as a set of competing discourses carried
out in distinctive vocabularies rather than being about the historical Jesus asan
object who is in receipt of our discreet (or not so discreet) glances. This last
item,ifonlyinphilosophicalterms,isnobadthing.

But both LeMarquand and and especially Schaberg in some senses attack the
search for an historical Jesus if by that wemeanonemanwhocanstandfront
and centre and command the equal and undivided attention of all. LeMarquand
and Schaberg both show that this will never be possible and reveal that social
and personal interests, the need to make social and personal meaning, are
constitutive of the process of finding a Jesus we can call historically relevant. It
is not that normal or proper scholars dont look for meaningandtheseloose
cannon others do. Its that all do but some are more honest about it than the
others. So, for example, as Schaberg points out, Feminist interpretation in a
sense deconstructsandunderminesthequestitisnotsointerestedinJesusthe
individual, as in the relational Jesus, Jesus in his social world, Jesus reforming
his social world. To be more specific, feminist critics areinterestedinthesearch
for the historical women of his movement. To mean something to Schaberg
Jesus has to fit into a social network, one that speaks to women and their
concerns. In highlighting this she not only reveals her personal need for
meaning, she also uncovers the presence of that same meaning in others,
namelymen,malescholarsandamaledominatedecclesiasticalworld.

c)VocabulariesofPluralityandPlasticity

William Hamilton, as far as I know, got there first with the termPostHistorical
Jesus.WhenIalightedonthetermmyselfIwasunawareofhisbook,orhisuse
oftheterm.HamiltonattemptstousethetermtomeanthatJesuswhoisfreeof
restrictive historical conditions (and conditioning) for Hamiltons book is about
theJesusesofliterature.Onewaytosumuphisbookmightbethefollowing:

30

YoustilltaketheBiblefartooseriouslyasasourceofreliablehistorical
information.JustasthereisnomeasIreallywas,sothereisnocertainsense
ofthemeaningoftheGospels.Theysimplydonotdelivermyinnermeaning,
whateverthatmeans.Theirstoriesarefictionsallstoriesaboutmeare,even
thosethatpretendtobehistories.(ThisspeechisgivenbyafictionalJesus
Hamiltonhimselfmeetsonabeach.)

That is, wehaveaturnfromthehistoricalJesustothefictionalJesus,or,rather,

a turn from the historians Jesus to the poets Jesus. Hamilton offers a
christological exploration and he claims to inhabit a space labelled radical
theology which is both conservative and religious because it seeks to define
the conditions under which Christianity might still be intellectually and morally
possible. Painting our times as in need of a response to Reaganism and
Thatcherism, (which gives a clueastowhenthebookwaspublished!)Hamilton
hasahistoricalJesusinformedbypostSchweitzerianinsights:

...Schweitzerinsisted[that]ourhistoricalmethodsarenotpowerless.They
havejustbeentendentiouslyemployed.TheJesusofhistoryisaccessibletoour
research,andwhatwefindisanenigma,astranger,onewhodidnotcometo
solveourproblems.HistoricalinvestigationreleasedJesusfromdogma,hoping
hewouldtherebyglidecomfortablyfromthefirsttothetwentiethcentury.He
wasreleasedhedidvisitusandhereturnedatoncetothe
apocalypticeschatologicalworldofhisowntime.

This insight, that Jesus as he was is a Jesus either inaccessible or irrelevant

results in Hamiltons research programme whichistosearchforaposthistorical
Jesus, a literary and fictional Jesus, but one that still speaks to our need for
meaning.Itisfurtherbasedonwhathetermsaconsensus:

Jesusisinaccessiblebyhistoricalmeans...or...wecanknowsomethingabout
Jesus,butwhatweknowisoflittleusetousinthelatetwentiethcentury
...or...ThereisagooddealthatweprobablydoknowaboutJesusthetroubleis
thatwecanrarely,ifever,besurepreciselywhatitis.

ThereforeHamiltonthinksthat:

TheposthistoricalJesusiswhatremainsafterwehavedeterminedthatsome
oralloftheabovethreepointsareontarget...wegladlyrelinquishouranxiety
abouthistoricity,andbegintoseparatejudgmentsofimportancefrom
judgmentsofhistoricity.Thisalsomeansgivinguptryingtofind,byhistorical
means,aJesuswhoagreeswithus...ByposthistoricalJesusImeantheJesus
wecanturntoafterwehavedeterminedthatthehistoricalmethod(andits
cousin,theologicalinterpretationbasedonthatmethod)hasgivenuseverything
itiscapableofgiving.

31
 ThetheologiansandthehistorianscanofferneitheraconvincingJesusof
historynorChristoffaith.TheGospelsarenotamixtureandinterpretationthat
ourwisdomcandistinguish.Theyare,infact,fictionalorideologicalportraits
designedtomeetneed,tostimulateimagination,intelligenceandaction.Itis
timetoturnfromtheologicalearnestnesstothepoetsplay.

At this point, after setting out his course, Hamilton gives his readers averitable
anthology of various literary and poetic Jesuses from the 19th century onwards
(plus someliberationistpoliticalonesinachapterconcernedwithHowtoInvent
A Political Jesus. Hamilton is not enamoured of the politicalquesthefindsit
all so much fiction and ideology). Highlights are Harriet Beecher Stowes(black)
feminised Jesus, as featured in such books as her Uncle Toms Cabin and
Footsteps of the Master, and Jim Bishops The Day Christ Died which, according
to Hamilton, knows a lot more about what happened to Jesus than the New
Testament does, but that is OKthatiswhywecancallitfiction.Alsoofnoteis
a section of Hamiltons book which details the Jesuses of poetry, and often
1960s,druginduced,poeticJesuses.

Salted throughout Hamiltons text are comments to the effect that all Jesus
writing is fiction, most ideology, and that our appreciation of the literature
concerned will fairly match our appreciation of the writers particular faith.
Hamilton seems happy describing a multitude of poetic, literary, and often
populist, literature on Jesus whilst letting the occasional pithy comment do his
intellectual work. But it should not escape the reader of his book that he is
working withahistorical,perhapsinhiscontextillicit,construalofJesusinmind,
even if it is that strange and unavailable foreigner he regards Schweitzer as
having.Butthenagain,hehimselfcanwriteinhisownanalysisthatThesetales
ask to be enjoyed and to be figured out. These, along with our own Jesus
fictions,saysomethingabouttheauthors,aboutthereadersandaboutJesus.

And then there is the Jesus of Hamiltons epilogue, one who happens upon him
on the beach one day as Hamilton is taking his regular walk. (Compare Johns
Gospel, chapter 21.) This is an enigmatic figure, indirect, not easily put into a
stereotypical pigeonhole (historical orreligious).Hechooseswhichquestionshe
will answer and how he will answer. Hamilton is hesitant, tentative, in his
presence, hisownreligiousaffiliationsinquestioninhishistoricalsituationatthe
end of what he refers to as the century of death. (That is, the 20th Century.)
Hamiltons Jesus here, in his own explicit fiction, is antiauthoritarian, almost
laissezfaire in his attitude.ThisisnotaJesusburdenedwithsavingtheworldor
carrying his cross (compare Mark 8:34f). Indeed, it is almost as if he came to
wander: Just dont assume that my function is to meet your needs he warns.
This Jesus seemsstrangeanddistant,difficulttogetalongwithandthenithits
you: this is theSchweitzerian,foreign,unavailable,inaccessibleJesusinfictional
guise, for this Jesus too is not here to solveourproblems!Wehaveherebeen
learning about the Jesus that means somethingtoWilliamHamilton.Ithasbeen
bothhishistoricalreadingofJesusandhisfictionalconstructionofJesus.

32

So what is the point ofHamiltonsbook?IreaditasaskingJesusscholarstoput
a historical Jesus behind them or to one side of them because such thinking
does not grasp the truth about Jesus anymore than any other way of imagining
him would. Our thoughts need not always be clouded with historical anxiety
about what we can know and how real this might be. But I also read
Hamiltons book as one which does not wish to let go of truth, existential truth,
useful truth, even historical truth. This is,afterall,theJesuswecanturntoas
far as Hamilton is concerned. So HamiltonsJesusisaJesusthatmeansandhas
the benefit of serving some existential purpose (as, presumably, are all those
many he details). Finally, in the light of Hamiltons fiction matching his history,
Hamiltons book lends the sneaking suggestion that history is not something so
easily avoided as context for Jesus:youcannothidefromitorpretenditdoesnt
exist if you think any Jesus existed. His fictional construals and presentationsof
literary Jesus images lends to the historical Jesus debate the question of
meaning and historical constraints as nonnegotiables and shows that the
parameters, available within these twin constraints, are wide indeed, perhaps
evenaswideasourown,specifichistoricallyfundedimaginations.

Clinton Bennetts In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images similarly

details numerous images of Jesus. His book is valuable for placing side by side
what he terms the traditional [Christian] view, ahistoryoftheacademicquest
for the historical Jesus, that which he terms outsiders views on Jesus (from
Celsus to Rasta Fari, white supremacists, Morton Smith, William Blake and the
Jesusisamyth school which believesJesustobeapersonificationratherthan
an historical person), as well as Jewish and Muslim views and Hindu and
Buddhist views. Bennetts book, perhaps more than any other read during the
research for this study, presents a rich plurality of views onJesus.Hisapproach
is sincere and he attempts to put himself in the place of each audience he
addresses in his text. After all, for Muslims Jesus is a Muslim, for Jews a Jew.
And not only this that we receive one image of Jesus does not mean he stays
that way. Bennett reports that while manyIndiansdidnotagreewiththeWests
judgment of their own religions during the colonial period they warmly received
the stories about Jesus they were told and then rapidly assimilated them to
their own experiences and understandings, taking Jesus and dropping the
Western Christian trappings. In this way, in Bennetts book we have Jesus
appearing as a member of differing world cultures, fittingeachoneinturnlikea
glove. This is testimony to the power of culture and the ease of assimilation of
Jesus if nothing else. He can belong to many, and that simultaneously,
multifariouslyandwithsomeplasticity.

But Bennett also has some critical criteria to impose on the Jesus images he
presents. One ishistoricalandtheological(anydepictionofJesusthathassome
rooting in what can be historically and theologically affirmed of him is
authentic), another is pragmatic, emancipatory in intent and almost certainly
political (all responses to Jesus...must be judged bytheirfruits,bytheireffects

33
on peopleslivesdotheyliberateorenslave,dotheyturnpeopleawayfromself
towards communal solidarity, or encourage love of self? Do they encourage the
privileging of some above others? Do they challenge hierarchies, elitism and
unjust exclusion?). Bennett believes in letting people speak for themselvesand
he wants to put the matter of authentic interpretation ofJesusinquestion.He
quotes Holland Hendrix with favour when he speaks of Jesus as an
interpretation right from the earliest sources and, furthermore, asaplurality
of interpretations. And his conviction is that no theology can be meaningfully
read without also readingthetheologian.Finally,hehasapluralistethic:What
does Jesus mean to those who possess [a] particular image of him? I suggest
that all images of Jesus which respond to his universal appeal represent
interpretations that have validity, or authenticity, for those individuals or
communities who possess them. Why is this? Because the fact that they even
exist suggests they meet some genuine human need, or respond to some
genuine question about who Jesus was. This is all very interesting and
encouraging from my perspective as one who sees that in the meaning our
images of people have we learn as much about ourselves and who we are as
whowethinktheyare.

Summarising Bennetts approach, we should say that he seems to lift themes

from the historical Jesus life (as he sees it) and then take them and look for
them wherever they may be found in other pictures of Jesus. For example, the
conclusion to his book revolves around the concept of Jesus as liberated
and...liberating where this(historical?)themecanbefoundinpicturesofJesus
there Bennett finds the existence of an authentic picture of the historical Jesus.
However, he does also conceive that a bare set of facts can be asserted, with
reasonable confidence, about the historical Jesus, although he doesnt say
explicitly what these are (as, for example, historical Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders
or a body likeTheJesusSeminardoes).Yethisoverarchingmethodseemstobe
to verify the existence of such historical themes as he can find in the images of
Jesus he surveys and this allied to a survey of what human needstheseJesus
images serve. This, in its turn, opens up the prospect of Bennetts proclivities
(personal and historicalcritical, one assumes) questioning and judging those of
the others. Bennett acknowledges that this is his situation, seemingly without
any interest in, or recognition of, questions of cultural relativism or the
incommensurability, or otherwise, of the crosscultural discourse made
necessary by his procedure. He acknowledges that texts and storiesareopento
a multiplicity of interpretations which are free to be used as people will. He
states only that he has a righttocritiquethembasedonhisownunderstanding.
Bennett regards this asbeinginclusivistasheexplainedtomepersonallyinan
email conversation we had. However, it is inclusivist against the background of
how he judges the history. Its still very much involvedwithhowheunderstands
thingsandwhattheymeanforhim.

In Bennett we have a tolerantliberalpluralist research programmewheremany

Jesus images may, subject to certain constraints, stand side by side. What

34
Bennett acknowledges is, amongst other things, the recognition that Jesus
images clearly find a home in the existential meaning of someones life. This is
not to be overlooked asmerepanderingtotheselfinBennettseyesbut,rather,
demonstrates its own kind of integrity. What Bennett deplores most ofallisany
one picture of Jesus, historical or not, claiming the field for itself (for we simply
have an inability to definitively find Jesus). Jesus is not, cannot, be onething.
Jesus is not the possession of any one scholar, school, academic or religious
grouping, or culture. Put simply, there are many ways to crack the Jesus nut,
many points of entry, many networks of relations into which some aspect of his
(historical) character, mission or message may be inserted or from which they
maybeextracted.Bennett,inlayingoutthepluralityofJesusimagesaroundthe
world, amply demonstrates that, whilst hemeansmanydifferentthingstomany
different people, none of them end up owning him at all... at the same time as
theyalldo.

AnExpedientFalsification

Thus, my researches have evidenced a wide range of approaches to the

historical Jesus and the ways in which people have tried to grasp hold of the
man and turn him into something meaningful. All have admitted
autobiographical or existential involvement in the process of historical Jesus
study. Some have soughttooffsetthisinvolvement,othershavefounditmore
constitutive, even important and vital. I am in the second camp. For me
historical Jesus study, like any form of creating a pictureofJesus,isamatterof
human interests first and foremost. This is both my valuation and also my
responsibility. It is a matter of drives pressing the situated and constrained
reality of the historical Jesusintoservice,ofourneedsinterpretingtheworld.As
such, this approach seems to be somewhat Nietzschean.ThisistheNietzscheof
his collected notebooks in the posthumously published The Will To Power,
specifically the notes in the third book of that volume and his Principles of a
New Evaluation. I wanttoofferapictureofthestudentofthehistoricalJesusin
this Nietzschean light as an example of a person who goes looking for a Jesus
that can mean something to them. This will function as a bookend much as I
made use of Viktor Frankls logotherapeutic light to help me characterise
historicalJesusscholars,andthesituationoftheirstudies,tostartit.

This Nietzschean historical Jesus scholar seeks to prosper and preserve the
discourse that is their thinking (their form of life). This thought exerts itself as
will to power (All meaning is will to power) and seeks to test itselfagainstthe
resistances that are the evidence(s) about/for Jesus. The scholars thinking
needs this resistance (which can manifest itself as displeasure in the ongoing
process of research), this evidence which is not of it butcanbeputtousebyit,
for it is thiswhichwillmakeitsgoal,itsincreasingofpowerthroughmeaningfor
the purpose of utility, achievable. It is a game of resistance and victory in
which the historical Jesus scholar impose[s] uponchaosasmuchregularityand

35
form as [their] practical needs require. There is a desire to approach this
matter, this evidence, and overcome it, that is, to use it profitably as a kind of
intellectual fuel. In this, things become whattheycanbemadetobecome.They
cannot become what they are not but can only become what they can be. The
life of the historical Jesus scholar here is decisive what can be used is used,
what cannot be used is not used. The lifeshaped knowledge of the present,
funded by a very specific past, creates a usable future. The evidence for Jesus
enters into a relationship with the historical Jesus scholar, inserted into a
network of relations. In this our vocabulary is set uptodefinetheboundariesof
our ignorance and the horizons of ourknowledgeandthisknowledge,woven
into regulative articles of belief, is what isusefulforlife.Wegetwhatweneed
from what is there to be had, thinking rationally and logically (these too are
abilities suited perfectly to a form of life) to achieve thisaccordingtoascheme
that we cannot throw off. What we have is systematic falsification, a
misunderstand[ing] of reality in a shrewd manner, anexpedientfalsification,
fictionalization. In building our Jesus, in excavating a past with our past in our
present, we interpret, we use our means of becoming master of something,
and we...do what we are. In this lies the value of our activity. In short, if this
process works (as it must) we survive and Jesus survives as the meaningful
thingwehavemadehiminto.

Epilogue

So in good pragmatist order what consequences has all this had? How in the
symbolic battle of Jesuses, does my posthistorical Jesus challenge the
hegemonyofthehistoricalJesus?Inatleastthefollowingsixways:

1. In the sense that history tries to get things right whereas posthistory
knows that things are always wrong (in thesenseusefullyfalsified,narrativised,
morethanfacts).

2. In the sense that history is literature and therefore not subject to a

paradigm of originalityandfixitybuttooneofusefulnessandsuitabilityto
purposes.

3. In the sense that this historical Jesus is funded byourlifeshistoryandfor

that same lifes prosperous continuance (i.e. consistently and constitutively
personal).

4. In thesensethatdiscourseordescriptionXaboutthehistoricalJesusisnot
the only possible, viable or valid one. As the purposes, so the Jesus. Thus, with
William James in The Will To Believe, we can say that we have the right to
believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will.
(James originally used this criterion in order to argue people had a right to
believeingodsiftheycouldnothelpdoingso.)

36

5.Inthesensethatmeanings,notmaterials,makeththehistoricalJesus.This
is another way of pointing out the plasticity of materials, their susceptibility to
bend and meld under the heat of interpretation. It further is to point out that
what counts as material is similarly a matter of meaning. So I stand against
noninterpretive givens and original meanings standing in the past arbitrating
theirownstatus.

6. In thesensethatdiscourseordescriptionXaboutthehistoricalJesusisthe
result ofprudenceandutility,contingency,constraintsandchance.Thus,neither
the process of historical Jesus research nor the object the historical Jesus are
free, anything cannot go. What the historical Jesus always is is within some
kindof,orsomeones,boundsasadiscourse.

Fallibility, interpretivity, existentiality, plurality, plasticity, contingency: the

posthistoricalJesus.

37
3.SchsslerFiorenzavsWright

Introduction

There is no more prominent female (or feminist) biblical scholar in the world
today than Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza. There is hardly a single other British
scholarbesidesN.T.(Tom)Wrightwhohasadvancedasignificantcontributionto
the annals of contemporary (post 1990)historicalJesusresearch.Thesearejust
two (fairly random) reasons why it would be useful to discuss the approach
these two scholars take to historical Jesus research from a philosophical or
broadly theoretical perspective as examples of scholars working in Jesus
research in recent times. But there are other, and perhaps more relevant,
reasons. Schssler Fiorenza, coming from a German background, displays work
at points echoing a criticaltheoretical sensitivity. Allied to this is the broad
theological/philosophical character reminiscent of a German context. Wright, for
his part, displays an English common sense desiretogethisfactsstraightand
stand up for them whilst at the same time being practical and wearing any
theory evident as lightly as possible, something perhaps characteristic of the
English academic who wishes to be light on ideology because heissuspiciousof
it.

More pertinent still, perhaps, is that both Schssler Fiorenza and Wright have
tackled historical Jesus study from a theoretical perspective as part of their
research. This is not always (nor even usually) so.MosthistoricalJesusscholars
seem able to get by talking solely about the danger of bias and inevitably
regarding it as but a threat and virtually the only philosophical question out
there. Compare, forexample,acuriousbookfromtheturnofthelastcenturyby
Raymond Martin, The Elusive Messiah: A PhilosophicalOverviewoftheQuestfor
the Historical Jesus. This overview concentrates entirely on one incarnation of
this question as the faith versus reason question. Is this all there is of
philosophical or theoretical interest in the context of the historicalJesusandthe
various quests for him? Schssler Fiorenza and Wright, however, have had the
courtesy, the good senseandtheforesighttodelvedeeperthanthisandengage
in extended discussion about it. Both take up theoretical stances to historical
Jesus study and prepare the theoretical/philosophical ground before them. This
is to their credit. Here I am going to address their theoretical approaches (but
not their practical results) in turn, Wrights critical realist approach and
Schssler Fiorenzas feminist and emancipatory approach, before elucidating
some benefits I can see from their approaches taking my pragmatist attitude
frompreviouschaptersasmymeasure.

TomWrightandtheCriticalRealistJesus

Tom Wright presents an extensive and thoroughgoing appraisal of

epistemological issues surrounding historical Jesus research in his The New

38
Testament and the People of God. There he covers knowledge itself as well as
knowledge as it applies to three areas he finds necessary to his discussion:
literature, history and theology. What we find is a dualistic approach, the
rhetoric of personal and social involvement allied with a lingering objective
realism. The basicpositionWrighttakeshelabelscriticalrealism,distinguished
in that it is neither positivism nor phenomenalism (which for Wright are both
versionsofempiricism).HereWrightisoverly,ifnotcrassly,simplisticinoffering
his reader but three choices: two polar extremes and the safe, sure middle
ground. We may see the duality, nottosaythedichotomy,theschizophrenia,in
this term (as an example of Wrights wider approach) if we read critical in
oppositiontorealism.Wrightsanalysisdoesnotmakethisreadingimpossible.

For Wright, Critical Realism is a matter of worldview, a key element of which is

story. He describes this as a way of describing the process of knowing that
acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the
knower (hence realism), while also fully acknowledging thattheonlyaccesswe
have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or
conversationbetweentheknowerandthethingknown(hencecritical).

This yields a situation in which Knowledge...although in principle concerning

realities independent of the knower, is never itself independent of the knower.
Wrighthasadiagramtoillustratethis.

Observer>Object
initialobservation
<
ischallengedbycriticalreflection
>
butcansurvivethechallengeandspeaktrulyofreality

What this diagram amounts toisfurtherexpoundedbyWrightinthatthereisno

such thing as a gods eye view all humans inevitably and naturally interpret
the information received from their senses through a grid of expectations,
stories, psychological states, and soon...atacitandpretheoreticalpointofview
is...a necessary condition for any perception and knowledge to occur at
all...There is no suchthingastheneutralorobjectiveobserver...[or]such[a]
thing as the detached observer. Thus, any realism which survives
acknowledgesitsprovisionality.

In this context what is important is the big picture, the observers story or
worldview. People have to find things that fit. Stories here are seen as basic,
more basic even than beliefs or aims which come from the stories we tell
ourselves. These stories gain their currency from their ability to make sense of
the world around us: the proof of the pudding [is] in the eating. There is but

39
the claim that the story we are now telling about the world as a whole makes
more sense, in its outline and detail, than other potentialandactualstoriesthat
may be on offer. This Wright conceives of as pretty close to the method of
hypothesisandverification.

Thus, we perceive external realitywithinaprior[storied]framework"whichis

our worldview: facts already come with theories attached. There is a
modifieddiagramforthis.

Storytelling humans>Storyladen
world

initialobservation(alreadywithinastory)
<
is challenged by critical reflection on ourselves as storytellers (i.e. recognising
thatourclaimsaboutrealitymaybemistaken)

>
but can, through further narrative, find alternative ways of speaking trulyabout
theworld,withtheuseofnewormodifiedstories

This view Wright thinks to be about interrelation[ship] and relation and is a

relational epistemology. Even so, and despite the chosen vocabulary, itseems
mired in an oppositional observer/observed rhetoric which, in the light of my
discussion in chapter 1, seems all toorealist(e.g.asinhisdiagramsreproduced
here). Discrete chunks of external reality are still out there waiting for our
storied worldviews to relate to them, and seemingly in such a way that they
can beempirically(ornoninterpretively)distinguished.Atleast,Wrightdoesnot
go far or deep enough into his thinking to dissuade the reader from such a
conclusion and this betrays the suspicion that with this thinking he is still
struggling to handle theissuesconcerned.AndyetWrightcanalsoaddaRortian
tone to this when he says that the observer, from whatever background, is
called to be open to the possibility of events which do not fit his or her
worldview, his or hergridofexpectedpossibilitiesitisappropriateforhumans
in general to listen to stories other than those by which they habitually order
their lives, and to ask themselves whether those other stories ought not to be
allowed to subvert their usual ones. On the whole, it all seems very much a
case of trying to bolt two contrary things together simplistically rather than the
useofsomethingmoreholisticanddeveloped.

In a later work Wright gives us a different approach: We know about Jesus in

two ways: history and faith, he informs us in the opening line of his
contributions to The Meaning of Jesus, coauthored with Marcus Borg. He goes
on to present what, once again, seems to develop into something of a
schizophrenic approach to historical Jesus study. As his opening chapter

40
develops, Wright sometimes talks about looking through ones own spectacles
in inquiry, and sometimes talks about the probable course of events and
scientific grounds. He uses a metaphor of seeing (lenses), noting that these
lenses distort, as if these lenses we use can be faulted by us intheprocessof
historical Jesusstudy,changed,andtheerrorcorrected.Inallthisheseemsto
create a clash ofrhetorics,arhetoricofreaderlyinvestmentintheproceduresof
historical inquiry with a rhetoric of objective correctness. Wright argues for a
single world of multiple interlocking dimensions which combines a
noholdsbarred history and a noholdsbarred faith although it is
simultaneously difficult to avoid the suggestion that what he has is two
apparently discrete things (history and faith) which must be held together in a
single vision but which do not interpenetrate or affect each other except as
discrete entities. Wright wishes to lust...after evidence and speak to the
support of the scientific method of hypothesis and verification. At the same
time he informs his readers that History...prevents faith becoming fantasy.
Faith prevents history becoming mere antiquarianism. Yet what of his readers,
like myself, who see history and faith as interpenetrating? And how in all this
canhespeakofanhistoricaltextbeinglistenedtoonitsownterms?

Wright is apparently unaware that he has aproblemhedoesnotseethatthese

two he has named as history and faith seem to function for him as
selfcontained entities which serve to counter or restrain each other rather than
be constitutive of each other already. For isnt it the case that faith is
constitutive of the historical enterprise and that history is a constitutive of
faith? Isnt faith a constraint on, and a specific product of, (a) history, and
history a matter of some particular faith? And so are these not interpreted and
interpenetrating rather than discrete entities? This seems to be not so much a
voluntary epistemological choice as an existential ramification of human life and
cognition. Thus, Wright is left needing to explain, on his own account, an
account wanting to reform and make credible for modern audiences but not
replace a realist approach, just how, when and where these two arbitrary
creations of his interact and whathappensthenandhegivestheimpressionof
having provided a simplistic, even naive, theoretical basis for historical Jesus
study, one which explains away or tries to restrain personal involvement rather
thanfullyintegratingit.

ElisabethSchsslerFiorenzaandThePoliticsofJesusStudy

At the start of her book Jesus: Miriams Child, Sophias Prophet Elisabeth
Schssler Fiorenza lays out her direction for Jesus studies: I seek to create a
womendefined theoretical space that makes it possible to dislodge
christological discourses from their malestream frame of reference. This is part
of a wider programme of engendering a critically reflexive, publically engaged,
biblical scholarship such that biblical scholars become critical public
intellectuals. Such a scholarship, Schssler Fiorenza suggests, [is] able to
recognize the voices from the margins and those submerged by kyriocentric

41
records of biblical and contemporary hegemonic texts. With Elisabeth
Schssler Fiorenza, scholarship on Jesus turns political and the question of the
ethics of that scholarship is brought to the fore. Even so, it is not clear exactly
what Schssler Fiorenza practices herself, a description, from her own works,
being a matter of collating the various alternatives she offers. These include
regarding her work as something ethicalpolitical, publicrhetorical,
feministpostcolonial emancipatory, rhetoricalethical, rhetoricalpolitical,
radical egalitarian cosmopolitan, rhetorical, ethicopolitical, critical
communicativepostcolonialorradicaldemocraticcosmopolitan.

Schssler Fiorenza writes in pursuance of a positive political goal (broadly to be

termed feminist, although it is also generally liberationist) and seeks by her
historical reconstructions and her theorising to justify not only the resultsofher
historical research (such as her In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological
Reconstruction of Christian Origins) but also the aims she has in pursuing it. In
this respect, it is notable that discussions of theory usually accompany the
results of practice in Schssler Fiorenzas work.Assuch,sheoffersbothabroad
and general challenge to what she describes as malestream scholarship on
Jesus, scholarship she regards as kyriarchal and perpetuating domination,
and she suggests an alternative scholarship she regards as emancipatory. As
part of this strategy she deploys a raft of neologisms,twoofwhichIhavemade
reference to already in malestream and kyriarchy. The former is a
manipulation of mainstream which Schssler Fiorenza uses to indicate that
scripture, tradition, church, and society have been and still are determined and
dominated by elite educated white men whilst the latter is a matter of the
domination of the lord, slave master, husband, the elite freeborn educated and
propertied man over all wo/men and subaltern men. Wo/man or wo/men is
Schssler Fiorenzas inclusive way of denoting the instability of the term
(presumably the term woman) and also that the term is to include
subordinated men. It can be seen that here is a powerfully selfconscious
rhetoric and use oflanguageandithasfivekeyfeaturesinitsdeploymentwhich
Ishallbrieflysummarisenow.

1.Memory

Schssler Fiorenza does not pursue, or use, a paradigm of scientific objectivity

or what she terms a positivist figuration of history. Instead, she prefers a
paradigm of memory. She conceives that history is best figured...as a
perspectival discourse that seeks to articulate a living memory for the present
and the future. The memories we keep reveal who we are! Thus, Schssler
Fiorenza continues, the historical figure of Jesus is no longer available as a
historical artifact but can only be comprehended in and through the memory
and texts of the Jesus movement and, hence, she notes whenever I refer to
Jesus I refer to such a remembered Jesus. Such a strategy, for Schssler
Fiorenza, has the double benefit of allowing the scholar to focus on womens
involvement in Jesus activities and on the rhetoricity of our knowledge about

42
Jesus. In addition, she thinks that If one shifts from the frame of reference
that centers on Jesus as exceptional charismatic man and hero...to that of
memory in a movement of equals, one can no longer hold that the Jesus
traditions were not shaped by wo/mens work of remembering. All of this is of
huge importance in my view. The central concept that the historical Jesus is
memory and not object is perhaps the most important fact that any participant
inthevariousquestsneedstoremember.

2.Rhetoric

Rhetoric operates in Schssler Fiorenzas workasthebinaryoppositeoflotsof

intellectual demons in disguise, things such as realism, scientism and
objectivism. Schssler Fiorenza conceives of it as epistemic and that because
it reveals an ethical dimension of knowledge production as political practice.
Since its goal is persuasion, the ethical knowledge rhetoric strives to achieve is
that of commitment. As a positive phenomenon it issues in a description of
historical Jesus scholarship as a matter of discourse. But discourse and
discursivity must be understood as related to context and power. Thus, a
critical theory of rhetoric insists that context is as important as text. What we
see depends [on] where we stand. Ones social location or rhetorical context is
decisive for how one sees the world, constructs reality, or interprets biblical
texts. This rhetoric becomes for Schssler Fiorenza a hermeneutic, one that
does not assume that the text is a window to historical reality nor does it
operate with a correspondence theory of truth. It does notunderstandhistorical
sources as data and evidence but sees them as perspectival discourses
constructing their worlds and symbolic universes. Since alternative symbolic
universes engender competing definitions of the world, they cannot be reduced
to one meaning. Therefore competing definitions are not simply right or wrong,
but they constitute different ways of reading and constructing historical
meaning...[thus] creating a world of pluriform meanings and a pluralism of
symbolicuniverses.

Such a hermeneutic leads to the elucidation of the ethical consequences and

political functions of biblical texts and their interpretations in their historical as
well as in their contemporary sociopolitical contexts. Thus,weareabletoaska
specific question in our research: What does a biblical text dotoareaderwho
submits to its worldofvision?ThefurtherquestionWhatdoesareadingofthis
historical Jesus research do to the reader is the de facto point of Schssler
Fiorenzasbook,J esusandthePoliticsofInterpretation.

Perhaps themostimmediateconsequenceofSchsslerFiorenzasownrhetoricis
her insistence that there is no hiding place in Jesus research her scholarship is
peppered with a rhetorical for or against to the extent that Jesus scholars, as
biblical scholars more widely, are always engaged fororagainsttheoppressed.
Intellectual neutrality is not possible in a historical world of exploitation and
oppression. Thus, scholars will offer something emancipatory or contribute to

43
the status quo, they will bring either exploitation and oppression
or...emancipation and liberation, they will either foster exploitation and
oppressionorcontributetoapraxisandvisionofemancipationandjustice.

3.Ideology

As discourses founded in rhetorical strategies, Schssler Fiorenza finds a

substantial place forideologyinformationsofthehistoricalJesus.Akeypassage
from Schssler Fiorenzas introduction to the secondeditionofherInMemoryof
Herheredeservestobequotedatlength:

Historiansrewritethepastintermsofthepresentandtheirownvisionforthe
future.Thepersonalexperienceandsociallocationofscholarsdeterminetheir
theoreticalperspectives,assumptions,epistemologicalframeworks,scientific
models,disciplinarymethods,narrativerhetoric,anddiscursivefunctions.Since
theprincipleofanalogyisbasictoscientifichistoriography,ahistorians
understandingofpresentdayrealityservesasanoverridingguidefor
interpretingtexts,evaluatingevidence,andnarratingthepast...Inshort,the
historyofChristianbeginnings,likeallhistoricalaccounts,isideologicalinthatit
notonlyshapeshistoricaldiscoursebutisalsoshapedbythediscoursesofits
ownsociallocationandculturalreligiousperspectivity.

Such a view extends back to the biblical writings themselves which do not tell
us how it actually was buthowitsreligioussignificancewasunderstood.Allthis
iswellworthkeepinginmind.

4.Experience

Experience is a troublesome category for Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza and it

presents her with some difficulties. The problem is that Since wo/men have
internalized and are shaped by kyriarchal commonsense mindsets and values,
the hermeneutical starting point of feminist interpretation cannot simply be the
experience of wo/men. In other words, wo/mens experience is dominated and
determined by elite white male discourses. If wo/men were to make use of this
experience they would be reproducing that which, in Schssler Fiorenzas eyes,
they are supposed to be offering an alternative to. Thus, Schssler Fiorenza
wishes to critically reflect upon this experience (which cannot be escaped,
whatever determined or shaped it) before making use of it, something she
describes as experience being critically explored in the process of
conscientization. Thus, as an example of this process, Christian feminist
theology must reject malestream hermeneutical frameworks rather than
reinterpretthehistoricalmalenessofJesusinhumanistorliberationistterms.

However, it is not clear herethatSchsslerFiorenzahasavoidedthetrapsheso

perceptively espies. Experience, wherever it is found, is based in its
environment. It seems to me that Schssler Fiorenza, as with other feminist

44
critics, can only make use of the experience she has, even if thatbeexperience
nurtured by kyriarchal discourses. The rhetoricity of these discourses, which
Schssler Fiorenza describes well, allows for these very discourses to be
critiqued, challenged and questioned (and for new ones to be developed from
and in opposition to them, creation ex nihilo being disregarded). As a rhetoric,
discourses of all kinds are subject to these restraints and challenges. For
example, in StanleyFishsdiscussionofrhetorichestatesofitthatHavingbeen
made [it]canbemadeagain.Withrhetoricwhatwehaveisatalefullofsound
and fury...signifying a durability rooted in inconclusiveness, in the impossibility
of there being a last word. Thus, Schssler Fiorenza seems to be on firmer
ground when she remarks that feminists are not concerned withpreservingthe
world as it is butratherwanttochangeittofittheirownexperienceofbeingin
theworldaswo/men.Thisisanentirelyviablepossibility.

5.Emancipation

Only anemancipatoryfeministmodelofhistoricalandtheologicalreconstruction
can do justice both to ourcommonstrugglesfortransformingreligiouskyriarchy
and to our particular historical struggles and religious identity formations that
are different, notes Schssler Fiorenza under a section of her Jesus and the
Politics of Interpretation headed an egalitarian reconstructive model. This
historical model, which begins with the assumption of wo/mens [historical]
presence and agency, is Schssler Fiorenzas alternative HistoricalJesus
discourse. As such, it takes notice of, and analyses, the discourses of
domination produced by Western science as an integral part of its research
project, critically reflects on social location as of first importance, develops a
social rather than an individual reconstructive historical model and becomes
engaged in a discussion of social theory. The historical moves thisencompasses
include envisioning a pluralistic first century Palestinian Judaism (minus any
orthodoxy), a plethora of different basileia or kingdom movements seeking
liberation from Roman exploitation, and the Jesus movement as a prophetic
movement of Divine SophiaWisdominwhichJesusisprimusinterpares(first
amongequals).

However, these theoretical and historical moves are but methodological

priorities. Prior to this, an a priori to this, is Schssler Fiorenzas own
emancipatory desire. She is interested in looking as a wo/man (i.e. with a
hermeneutics of suspicion rooted in a feminist social analytic) not looking at a
wo/man [i.e. Jesus] as an objectified research object. As someone who wants
to practice emancipatory scholarship, Schssler Fiorenza has implicit (if not
explicit) goals in mind as she does her research. These goals find rhetorical
support (her statement that no scholar can be neutral inthefaceofexploitation
and oppression among them) and can be correctly identified as a political and
ethical programme. Recognising the linguisticality of all interpretation and
historiography and postmodern elaborations of the undecidability of meaning
and the pluralism of interpretive approaches whilst looking for rhetorical

45
discourses that must be investigated as to their persuasive power and
argumentative functions in particular historical and cultural situations, is, thus,
the intellectual jargon of someone with a programme they designate
emancipatory (emancipation being a shared, social, rhetorical, and thus
debatable, category and not a given). Schssler Fiorenzas goal, as much as a
certain kindofJesusscholarship,isacertainkindofacademyinacertainkindof
society made up of a certain kind of participant. Indeed, that kind of academy
and that kind of society and that kind of participant will find that kind of Jesus
(or Jesusmovement).Itisnotable,then,thatSchsslerFiorenzasJesus,asfirst
delineated in In Memory of Her, is a matter of the praxis of inclusive
wholeness.

Thus, we have Schssler Fiorenzas kind of emancipation, an emancipation of

academy, society, religion and research results. This is a matter of Jesus
scholarships public character and political responsibility.Further,itseemsto
me, it is fundamentally not so much about history as about identity. (This is
Schssler Fiorenzas comment on the boom in HistoricalJesus publications. I
apply it equally to her.) For Schssler Fiorenza this is a matter of the
responsibility of the scholar as citizen and responsible scholarly citizenship
which, by another name, we might designate the praxis of inclusive scholarly
wholeness orthecreationofabettersocietybytheuseofscholarshiponJesus
based on emancipatory desire. That is, at bottom Schssler Fiorenzas work
resides in a desire for, and an evaluation of what counts as, emancipation. It
becomes the role and responsibility of the Schssler Fiorenzian Jesus scholar to
participate in the emancipation of the historical Jesus, scholarship, minority
groups and, indeed, society as a whole through the work of historical Jesus
research.

NotExactlyPragmatism

Wright and Schssler Fiorenza are not exactly pragmatists and their theorising
and practices are not exactly pragmatic. Wright, as has been seen, dallies with
realist configurations of knowledge whilst using a vocabulary at points tending
towards a pragmatist one. But he is not sufficiently rhetorical or rhetoricised,
being, instead, too locked into an internal/external way of looking at things in
which things internal arbitratewhatweshouldsayaboutthem.Hecantseemto
ditch certain ways of thinking or stop talking about things which can speak for
themselves. Schssler Fiorenza, in many ways significantly pragmatist in
orientation with her rhetorics ofcommunityandherarticulationsofpersonaland
group interest(s), seems to use her vocabulary asaweaponagainstherpolitical
opponents and opposed discourses without realising that the weapons of
rhetoric turn themselves back upon their users: rhetoric is such a useful
intellectual weapon because, once conceived as rhetoric, any and every
proposal, discourse, rhetoric is rhetorically challengeable, vulnerable and liable.
This is an inbuilt featureofrhetoric(andtherhetoricalwayoflookingatthings)
itself. However, both Wright andSchsslerFiorenza,intheirownways,domove

46
historical Jesus research in a pragmatist direction and I wish to close this
chapterwiththreebriefpragmatistimplicationsIseefromtheirapproaches.

Firstly, one implication of Wrights criticalrealismandaprogrammeofSchssler

Fiorenzian emancipatory scholarship is that anyone who is able to play the
historical Jesus game should be allowed to play. Contributions should be
welcome from all quarters and, indeed, fromallfields.Thus,interdisciplinarityis
to be welcomed. Accessibility should now be one aim of historical Jesus
scholarship more varied input should be seen to equal more vibrant and better
historicalJesusscholarshipasawhole.

One reason why this should be seen to be so are the instincts implicit in Cornel
Wests prophetic pragmatism in which human knowledge generally becomes a
matter of politics and democraticallyinclined participation. Here Social
experimentation is the basic norm, yet itisoperativeonlywhenthosewhomust
suffer the consequenceshaveeffectivecontrolovertheinstitutionsthatyieldthe
consequences, i.e., access to decisionmaking processes. Thus, historical Jesus
scholarship should move from an authoritariandidactic model, where experts
teach (or hold on to) specialised knowledge (often based in exclusive camps or
schools or paradigms), to a participatory model where those with something to
say pool their inputs. Not onlywouldthismakehistoricalJesusscholarshipmore
ethically and politically diverse, simultaneously promoting awareness of these
very aspects of inquiry, it would also promote historical Jesus discourse
fundamentally based in a communicative imperative and would also lead to a
more generally productive scholarship on Jesus, since the more interests
invested in scholarship on Jesus,themorecommunitiesinvolvedandinvestedin
its results and conclusions. In other words, it is better to reach a conclusion by
participationthanbydecree.

Secondly, it seems to me that Wright and Schssler Fiorenza articulate what

historical Jesus study is, or should be about, at this historical moment: the
telling of stories. Both scholars make use of stories in their theorising Wright
finds historical Jesus research locked up in stories of one kindoranother whilst
also basing his own research in ahistoricaltheologicalstoryaboutthequestion
of God. Schssler Fiorenza makes her research part ofanexplicitpoliticalstory
with a past, a call for present action and a vision for the future. It is this desire
to tell a story (based, inevitably, onsocialandpersonalexperience)whichisthe
key here. To tell these kinds of stories is to create a narrativespace,avisionof
the world in theoretical and practical terms, something, in addition,withitsown
integrity and which deserves its own fair measure of respect. Wright and
Schssler Fiorenza both make use of the creationofthisspace,urgingthattheir
stories should be participated in (politically, ethically or theologically), as the
best stories are. This both articulates their respective scholarshipandimplicates
it (and their audiences) in particular visions of the present and the past,aswell
as in future hopes, in a way that cannot fail to serve as a record of this
contemporary historical moment or as an impetus to present action (or

47
nonaction). This historical Jesus scholarship is, then, itself correctly described
asprophetic.

Thirdly, and finally, following fromthelatterpointistheobservationthatneither

Wright nor Schssler Fiorenzamakearhetoricof(philosophical)certaintytheir
primary concern. They eschew that particular rhetoric, concentrating instead on
elucidating their own existential concerns via academic persuasion. Indeed, it
seems assumed in both cases that the stories they tell have veracity or
believability or credibility inherent in them simply because they are matters of
lived experience which can receive an academic articulationratherthanbecause
they are matters of certainty of a peculiarly philosophical kind. This is
demonstrated in that Schssler Fiorenza articulates her emancipatorydesiresas
prelude to the practice of her research, a strategy which contextualises what
follows. Wright, though much less explicit, follows in a similar vein, there being
signs that he too has specific, presuppositional concerns which play arbitrative
roles in his practice of research. Indeed, both Wright andSchsslerFiorenzaset
the contemporary context for historical Jesus study in their mutual agreement
that nonpresuppositional study is now both a theoretical and a practical
impossibility.

48
4.YeshuaofNazareth:EnactoroftheKingdomofGod

And so we come to what, for some, will be the fun part of this book, the bit
where I myself engage in some historical research about Jesus who, more
properly and historically, should be referred to as Yeshua in Aramaic. There will
be no discussing pragmatism or realism ordryphilosophicalconceptsorrhetoric
or emancipation here. Here I will simply practice the doing of historical Jesus
research (Ill stick with Jesus for familiaritys sake) and tell a tale (perhaps
even a tall tale) about the historical Jesus. In doing so you may take all that
preceded this chapter as read. My sources are to be the same texts that any
academic historical Jesus scholar might study, primarily the early gospel texts,
both canonical and extracanonical, as possible witnesses to the memory of
Jesus of Nazareth. All witness equally to something even if later judges made
confessional choices about their relevance and usefulness. I am with those who
draw no confessional distinctionsbetweenthesetextsandstudythemallequally
as historically interesting artifacts. This involves working out their purposes and
motives for beingwrittenandindecidingifwecandiscerntraditionswithinthem
which might be references to or even direct descriptions of things Jesus either
said or did. Within this chapter I aim to present and argue for my own view of
the historical Jesus based on a reading of such material and by the end of the
chapter you willhopefullyknowwhereIstandonthismatterandwhy.Although,
to be fair, my title should havegivenyouacluewhereImheading!Jesuswasa
first century Palestinian Jew and so its inthisareaweneedtolookifwewantto
findanythingrelevantatall.

But hold on a moment, you might be saying. Are you rushing immediately to
the conclusion that there was a person who existed called Jesus from Nazareth
without any further discussion? Basically, yes I am. But Im doing so having
read a number of excellent studies which arguedthathedidnt.Putsimply,they
didnt convince me. The arguments contained in such books, for example like
Robert M. Prices excellent Deconstructing Jesus, are less convincing tomethan
the onesthatsupposehedid.Andthesewerentjustbookswrittenbythosewho
believed things about Jesus and had some personal interest in furthering belief
in his existence. Even in antiquity there is evidence for the existence of Jesus
from those who dont really gain any advantage in saying so, people like the
Jewish Romanhistorian,Josephus.Youcanarguethatitmightservehispurpose
to report that Jesus is a figment of some sects imagination (or even not to
mention him at all) but he doesnt. In addition, the way that those who argue
Jesus never existed go about filling in the gaptheyhavetherebycreatedstrikes
me as less plausible as an explanation of what came after his putative life than
the fact that he did exist. I also note that if Jesus never existed with the
evidence we might argue we have for that belief then, it seems to me, lots of
other people of antiquity disappear based onmuchlesserevidence.Inanycase,
any basic discussion of this subject will supply you with the references of
antiquity that give reference to Jesus andyoucanmakeyourownmindup.Also

49
many books exist which argue that Jesus never did and you can evaluate those
arguments for yourself too. It is a decision and my decision is that there was a
mancalledJesusand,assuch,heneedstobeexplainedasbestwecan.

APreliminaryViewoftheHistoricalJesusandChristianOrigins

Any historical attempt to get to grips with the historical Jesus and Christian
origins must necessarily focus on both of these things. Put simply, one cannot
have a Jesus that does not also explain the earliest Christians and what they
thought and said about him. A Jesus that did not do this would be a perfect
example of an ahistorical Jesus. So the theories that you have about this must
account for the whole phenomenon and not just a part. As I see this, there are
three phases of activity to account for. First, we have the rise of Jesus, the
things he says and does and theresponse(andpeople)thisinspires.IseeJesus
as a preacher, teacher and enactor of the Kingdom of God and this doesindeed
inspire some people to follow himanddrawspeopletosimilarbeliefsandhopes.
But then we have the second phase which is the fact that Jesus is killed orgets
himself killed. The crucifixion is a pivot and the central event inthissetofthree
phases I'm discussing here. It is how we get from Jesus the enactor of the
Kingdom of God to early Christianity. And then, thirdly, we have the first
Christians themselves and the things they said, did, thought, and believed. We
need to be able to explainthesethingsinthelightofwhatwe,andthey,believe
aboutJesus.BelowisaconciseexpressionofhowIseethesephasesinoutline.

I think that Jesus was a man who became energized by the notion of the
Kingdom of God as a present reality that needed no mediation by priests or
Temple, that was powerfully present and immediately available now to all who
would believe this way and act accordingly. He preached this Kingdom, taught
about it, modeled it and enacted it with symbolic actions and language. He
thought that this Kingdom meant both individuals changing their ways and
beliefs and that it meant both a new kind of society and a new communal
approach to religion. Jesus was preaching and teaching open access to God,
God's transcendent immanence in, over and above all things, and that this
should make a real difference to people's lives and their experience of life. So I
think that he could talk of it asworldendingorasanewtimebecausehesawit
as something new and different yet, of course, still related to the story of the
Jewish God which was the frame of reference he and his hearers were working
with. However, I don't thereby think we have to make a choice between him
being a wise and prudent sage or an eschatological prophet who speaks of end
times. He can bebothandthat'sfine.Ithinkhewas.IdonotthinkthatJesusin
any sense talked about this Kingdom as being based on himself. It was God's
Kingdom and Jesus did not think of himself as God or as in any special
relationship to God that anyone else within God's kingdom could not be in too.
Jesus may have initially been energized to speak and act duetotheactivitiesof
John the Baptist but this is not somethingwehavetobelievetoexplainhislater
activity. If there was any contact at all it was only a step on the roadforJesus,

50
even if one whichinspiredhim,forexamplebytakingJohnsbaptism,tohisown
action due to belief inJohn'sGod,onewhoisaliveandactspowerfully.Weneed
to remember that Jesus was a first century Palestinian Jew and so our beliefs
about him must fit into this context too. But, of course, we do not necessarily
have to believe that Jesus was right. We merely have to explain his actionsina
plausiblecontext.Ithinkthisbriefsummarydoesthat.

This activity, perhaps due to its message or to its relative popularity or both,
brings Jesus into conflict with authorities of at least two kinds. The first kind is
with the Jewish religious authorities which his message basically bypasses and
annuls. The second is the Roman authorities which are legal and judicial. Such
people would not be enamoured of those they see as troublemakers. Jesus is
killed by crucifixion. I do not see this as anything Jesus expected, desired or
hoped for. Much lesswashetryingtogethimselfkilledaspartofhisownbeliefs
or as some part of Gods plan. So I do not see this as fulfilling any
predetermined purpose. I do not see any of the socalled "Passion narratives"
as being remotely reliable historical records of how this came to be since they
are clearly theological constructs trying to make sense of the event rather than
historical recordsrecordingtheeventsastheyhappened.Wemayspeculatethat
Jesus, and perhaps intuitive others, could seethatJesus'activitiesmightleadto
conflict with the focus that they had but they do not seem to have stopped him
or any others involved carrying on anyway. But Jesus did get killed, most likely
due to his activities, and this gave all of those people who had beeninspiredby
Jesus themselves a problem. They now had to make sense of all they had seen
and heard from Jesus without Jesus actually being there physically anymore.
Jesus was killed and stayed dead. This was exactly the problem whilst not
beingexactlyhowtheycametoseeit.

It is now that we come to the invention of Christians because, during the

activities of Jesus, there had been no Christians but just Jews who believed a
particular interpretation of the Jewish faith. It is my suggestion that after the
death ofJesusthesepeoplecametobelieveinGod'sKingdominanewway,one
inspired by what Jesus had said and done but now based profoundly in a belief
that what Jesus had been doing specifically embodied the truth and that Jesus
himself was pivotal to this. Jesus was seen in a new light. They saw his death
symbolically as avictoryandabeginningratherthanasadefeatandanendand
him, in a way analogous to the Jewish prophet Elijah, who in legend had never
died, as still alive. They conceived that God's Holy Spirit, the spiritofJesuswho
was now conceived as being in a special relationship to God himself, was active
within their growing communities. Jesus was alive! So they moved on, due to
Jesus' death, from the message that Jesus himself had been giving, that of
present access to Gods Kingdom, to a new message of God's Kingdom as
available to all thanks to, because of and through Jesus himself. Jesus now
became the focus and the proof of the things they now believed and Jesus'own
significance was greatly heightened and made pivotal in the new founding story
of this new faith. In essence, they invent Christianity which is built upon the

51
original ideas Jesus had had about the Jewish faith but which goes far beyond
them, particularly as they apply to Jesus himself. They refused to believe that
what Jesus had taught both performatively and in words was dead but,instead,
believed that the power of the God Jesus had spoken about was such that it
could not be defeated and that even death itself should not be feared. Jesus
himself was the proof of everything they now came to believeandtheyupdated
the message of Jesus intothenewcontexttheynowfoundthemselvesin,onein
which Jesus himself needed to be expounded upon and explained as the
cornerstoneofthefaith.

So that, in fairly concise form, is the kind of narrative that I tell about the
historical Jesus and Christian origins and most of the rest of this chapter willbe
given over to explaining why Ive come to this view and what supporting
evidence and argumentation (within the bounds of a single chapter) I can
present for it. It will be noted that this is a hypothesis that attempts to explain
things broadly, recognising that things either make sense together or not at all.
It should also be noted that all of the evidence we have for this or any other
hypothesis about the historical Jesus and Christian origins comes from the third
phase Ive outlined above, the phase in which Christianity is invented. It is in
pretty much all cases early Christians, though not to be thought of as one
homogenous group, who provide evidence for their own beliefs and for the
activities and sayings of Jesus and so it will always be necessary to distinguish
what any historical actors may have said and done for themselves from what
they are now being said to have saidanddoneinexpresslytheologicalbooksby
other people. We should be particularly wary of what these writers tell us it
means if they offer any opinion on such things, which they often do. In writing
this chapter I do not have any overriding need either to contradict or support
any particular ancienttextorpointofview.Rather,Iconceiveofmyselfasdoing
that which pragmatist psychologist and philosopher, William James, saysweare
all entitled to do, that being the right to takeupanybeliefwhichisliveenough
to tempt our will. This is to state only that Ipursuemyinquiryhonestlyevenif
itendsupbeinginerroror,intheviewsofothers,mistakenorincorrect.

SourcesforJesusofNazareth

The first thing to say is that we have no basis in historical fact or narrative for
much biographical detail about Jesus. That the traditional canonical gospels are
themselves trying to be biographical, in historical and modern terms, we may
grant. Yet these are not full and detailed biographies in any respect. Jesus gets
given some dubious family history in which wearenotquitesureifJosephishis
father or not and perhaps some siblings and he is situated in Galilee and
specifically Nazareth. But this isnt very much and, virgin birth aside, isnt
regarded by much of anybody as very important. Whatisregardedasimportant
in the historical documents is the things Jesus said and did and this because
then those doing the writing can set it in a context and say what they think it
means. But not all ancient documents have this purpose. Scholarly work on the

52
biblical gospels has uncovered the possibility that there were other documents
behind the ones we now have that operated as sources of the sayings or deeds
of Jesus. For example, there is thought to be a document now called Q (from
Quelle, the German for source) which was a source document for the gospels
of Luke and Matthew (which, it is argued, also relied on Mark as a source as
well). Some argue that there was a Signs Source which was a source of
information behind the gospel of John. Others argue that there was an earlier
version of the gospel of Mark. Yet others argue that the document modern
scholars call the gospel of Thomas is another collection of sayings of Jesus. The
point here is that this is all a literary process. It is a matter of writing, of
literature, of composition. Whilst these possible literary sources may not have
been gospels but rather collections of the sayings or deeds of Jesus,weneedto
remember that the four books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Christian
Bible are gospelsandgospel,asiswellknown,meansgoodnews.Thesefour
books, all of which may well be based on earlier written sourceswhichwerenot
gospels, were created to give a specific message. Their focus is that message
and not a Jesus biography, first and foremost. As I have argued above, this
message is the Christian message and nottheteachingofJesusalthough,aswe
might expect if the first ChristiansbuiltuponandadaptedJesusmessagerather
than completely abandoning it, this is contained within them as part of their
good news. However, it takes a little detective work (yes, we might openly call
thisguessworktoo)toseparateJesusfromChristianinterpretation.

So ifweweretryingtoputtogethersomecontentthatwemightascribetoJesus
to try and get some clue as to what he wasabouthowmightwegoaboutdoing
this? This is the problem that every person historically interested in Jesus must
face. Such people do not have the option that those with a purely faithdriven
theologicalinteresthavewhichissimplytobelievethattheBibleistrueandtake
it as read. Historians, unlike so many people of faith, should not be apologists.
Their inquiries are not done in order to support doctrines or articles of faith. I
have read numerous book length histories of Jesus over the years by various
Evangelical biblical scholars, for example, which read as straightforward
apologies for the Christian Jesus, Son of God, come to earth. They donotstrike
me as remotely written with any historical (orevenself)awarenesswhatsoever.
More plainly, they are simply apologetic tomes writtenaspartofsomeimagined
culture war in which the participants think they have to fight for their orthodox
view of Jesus. Of course, such peoplehavetheirpolaroppositesasallsuchwars
today seem to have. In this case such people would probablyberepresentedby
The Jesus Seminar, a body which flourished between about 1985 and 2005
under the leadership of liberal biblical scholar, Robert Funk. Funk, so it seems,
wanted to find a Jesus that the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists couldnt
believe in. All good fun, perhaps,butveryobviousandapologetic.Inthelightof
my previous chapters it would be as well to mention that I see a difference
between being the person you are, the person who can only find what honestly
makes sense to you, and being an apologist. We cant avoid the former but we
shouldavoidthelatter.

53
But that still leaves us with my question: how might we find things Jesus said
and did? There isnootherchoiceexcepttopickandchooseamongstthevarious
documents we have available to us and to say why we accept some sayings,
deeds and events and not others. It is a matter of argumentation and
persuasion, of sifting what we have according to what strikes us as sensible,
reasoned and justified choices. There is no escape from this, either
methodological or historical, and no guarantees of any kind. There is no
algorithm which finds the historical Jesus without hard work required. Indeed,
such categories as methodological or historical are deployed merely as
examples of the argumentation, justification andpersuasionweneedtoprovide.
You will find in other places examples of the methods and historical matrices
biblical academics and students of early Christianity use in their studies. These
are ones thought convincing for the communities that they are aimed at and
each ofuscanmakeourownmindsupaboutwhethertheyconvinceusornotor
about what tweaks or changes might be needed to make them more convincing
for us. Academics themselves often expend great energy arguing about such
things.

In my study here and my presentation of an image of Jesus Iamgoingtocross

reference the gospel texts, both the canonical ones, including reconstructionsof
their putative sources such as that referred to above as Q, and the
extracanonical one known as the gospel of Thomas (hereafter known simply as
Thomas), to produce what I regard as a bareminimumofmaterialwhichcanbe
regarded as traditions about Jesus which go back further than any of their
current sources yet whilst still being from multiple sources. This is not because
of any belief this guarantees this material is from Jesus. It doesnt and no
method could ever guarantee this. Neither does this imply anything about the
dating or tradition histories of the documents referred to. In this studyIamnot
intending to give a completely thoroughgoing review of all these very
interesting and important matters, even though in the end for a full study of
these matters it is very necessary, as there is simply not the time. My thinking
here is simply that traditions about Jesus which come from multiple different
sources yet preserve similarities preserve things that all those who preserved
them found important and useful. It will be remembered here that my outline
reconstruction was that the Christians did not jettison what Jesus had said and
done. Rather, they built upon the thingsthatJesushadsaidanddoneandmade
Jesus himself more fundamental in the consequences of this. It is hard to see
how anyone could say anything at all about Jesus if they are not going to cull
information from the gospel materials in general (widely understood) having
made historical judgments about them. So I am going to do exactly this. This
bare minimum of material may then allowmetointroduceothermaterialfrom
these same sources on a coherence principle. But none of this is sure orcertain
and at everypointitisaninterpretivechoicebasedonwhatmakessenseforme
and means something to me. I have no choice in this matter for this is how
humaninquiryworks.

54
A basic and common, if never universal, understandingofrelevantdocumentary
relationships between the earliest Jesus material has it that the gospels of
Matthew and Luke used Mark and the documentary source Q as sources
(documentary because the copyingissosimilarthatonlyapriordocumentcould
explain the similarities). Some argue they then had theirownuniquesources,M
for Matthew and L for Luke(documentswehavenoknowledgeof),butthemost
basic suggestion isthatMarkandQwerecommonsourcesforMatthewandLuke
making them both earlier documents than these later gospels. Q was not a
gospel in this thinking but merely a collection of Jesus material, a way to
remember things Jesus said and did. Thomas is similar to this in that it is a
collection of 114 sayings of (that is, ascribed to) Jesus. The gospel of John is
believed by a number of scholars to have had a Signs Source as a
documentary source usedwhenputtingtogetherthisgospel.ThisSignsSource
would nothavebeenagospeleitherbutanothercollectionofthedeedsofJesus.
That collections of the sayings and/or deeds existed, or are reputed to have
existed, is evidence itself for the importance of saving and remembering the
words and deeds of Jesus in the early Christian community. Here was a person
of meaning for them, one so important as to have things written down about
him. For my purposes here things that can be found in the most different
sources are the place to start and we can triangulate ourselves from there. And
sowebegin.

WhatJesusSaidandDidandHowtoUnderstandIt

We begin, however, not with these sayings and deeds, which I will come to
shortly, but with our presuppositions, things we must always have because no
reader or inquirer is ever a blank slate. This is not to suggest that the
presuppositions we start with are to remainintactthroughoutourinquiries.That
way lies the apology I criticized above. We are not, or rather, should not be
apologists for our beliefs. But we should have beliefs (in my pragmatist
understanding we cant avoid this) and we should be as open aboutthemaswe
can be rather than regarding them with some kind of embarrassment. These
beliefs, as I argued above when giving a pragmatist account of inquiry,arehow
we evaluate ourstudies.Theyarehowweread,howweprocessinformationand
howwelearnandprogress.Thus,theyplayanimportantandpivotalrole.

In the chapter previous to this one I mentioned the work of British biblical
scholar, Tom Wright. It was not by chance that he was one of my examples in
that chapter as he is probably the historical Jesus scholar in the contemporary
quests for the historical Jesus in whom I have taken the most interest. In the
past he has been aferventcriticoftheworkoftheJesusSeminar,aliberalbody
of scholars who, primarily in the 1990s, sought to present a Jesus that was not
under the controlofanyecclesiasticalbody.Wrighthimselfhasecclesiasticalties
(having once been one of the most high ranking bishops in the Church of
England) and so perhaps itisunsurprisingthatinthepastheventuredintoprint
many times to critique the methodology and the results of the Seminar in their

55
numerous publications which included books claiming to highlight what
scholars think Jesus really said (The Five Gospels) and really did(TheActs
of Jesus). Wright, who writes theological history according to the teacher who
first introduced me to the quests of the historical Jesus in the mid to late 90s,
Professor Clive Marsh, wrote an article about the Seminar in 2000 that, in my
view, will serve as an interesting guide for us now as I come to make my own
historicalevaluations.

The article in question was titled Seven Problems with The Jesus Seminar and
served as a concise yet thoroughgoing critique of their entire enterprise in
effect. It could have been called How To Deconstruct The Jesus Seminar in
Seven Steps with equal justification. I will state the 7 problems Wrighthadwith
the Seminar now for claritys sake before commenting on them in a way that
explains their argumentative force and triangulates my own inquiries in relation
tothem:

1. AmethodologywhichtakesJesusoutofthestoryofIsrael.
2. TakingJesusoutofaJewishapocalypticframework.
3. TakingJesusoutofthecontextofJewishmessianicmovements.
4. ReinventingJesusasawanderingcounterculturalcynicteacher.
5. MakingJesusnoncontroversial,someonewhocouldntbekilled.
6. Making Jesus the cynic teacher who doesnt think his message is about
him.
7. The lack of integration between the career, death, resurrection and
ChristianresponsetoJesus.

Of the things that Wright values and finds important for a properly historical
historical Jesus scholarship I think I come out rather well. I agree with Wright
fully on a number of the points above in a presuppositional way. Jesus, I think,
must be understood within thecontextofthestoryofIsrael,andJewishfaith,at
the presuppositional level (although our research may or may not question or
revise that view). There seems to at least be a case to answer regarding the
apocalyptic nature of Jesus pronouncements and activities. To announce
something new is to announce an end and Im open to arguments about the
language and imagery used about that. In first century Palestinian Jewish
context the idea that Jesus might fit into a messianic context (and, remember,
Christ is not a name, it means anointed one or messiah) is hardly a ridiculous
one that should be disregarded out of hand. I did not address above how those
interacting with Jesus during his activities regarded him but as a messiah is
one possibleanswerImnotpreparedsimplytodismiss.Sothatsthreeforthree
already. But myself and Wright start to take different paths from this point on.
Wright (not alone amongst scholars) sees the need to sharply differentiate
characterisations like cynic sage or eschatological prophet (two common
choices for delineating Jesus depending which side of a scholarly fence you are
on) when viewing Jesus and I simply do not. Granted, that these are historical
decisions but I just dont see the need to make cardboard cutouts of these

56
characterisations in a way many do. Prophets can be wise too, right? Sagescan
be prophetic? (Diogenes of Sinope, for example, would seem both prophet and
sage to my eyes, albeit Greek not Jewish.) So Im happy to sit right down on
that fence and get comfy about it becausewhatwehavetoworkwithlookingat
Jesus historically is not a modern biography and an interview with the man
himself but scattered reminiscences of sayings and deeds by partial observers.
In my view thats not nearly enough to be acting as if we have all this
understood and we can sayprophetsarethis,messiahsarethatandcynicsages
are the other. Habits of scholarship are dangerous because we start to assume
them.Idlikealittlemorefluxandflexibility.SoImonthefencehere.

I also agree with Wright that Jesus is killed and we need to explain how that
might have happened. It seems sensible to assume, at least presuppositionally,
that his activities are the cause. So Jesus needs to be a man who says and/or
does things that can bring him to the attention of the authorities and get him
into trouble. He cannot be a rather tame or effete preacher of edifyingwordsor
different lifestyles, someone who challenges or troubles nobody, something
Wright criticizes in the Jesus Seminars work. But it is with Wrights sixth
problem that I come into flat disagreement with him. Wright considers, not just
presuppositionally but as a settled conclusion, that Jesus message, his
preaching, teaching and doing, was not merely about the Kingdom of God but
also about himself as a, ifnotthe,keyaspectofthis.Wright,inthewordsofmy
former teacher, Clive Marsh, a doer of theological history, has this suffocating
need to make all the ducks line up in a row.Indeed,Wrighthimselfhaswritten,
as I discussed in the previous chapter, about the need forbothhistoryandfaith
in his work. Elsewhere he writes of having the task of integrating history and
theology. This is a very clear presupposition and interest of Wright in all his
historical work and its why, in my view, this problem is raised here now.
Wright wants a unity and consistency of message from In the beginning God
created the Heavens and the Earth rightthroughtotheendoftimewhenGods
elect will be with him in paradise. In thisrespectthefactthathismajorworkon
the historical Jesus, Jesus and the Victory of God, is the second of a series of
weighty tomes calledChristianOriginsandtheQuestionofGodisverypertinent.
For Wright allofhistoryisonebigconsistentstoryoftheGodofIsraelandallhe
has created, a story that goes from beginning, through Jesus, to end. It is that
story Wright is telling and Jesus is the pivotal part of that story, the keystone.
Wright cannot have it thatthisallcomesasabigsurprisetoJesushimself.ButI
do not share Wrights theological needs at this point. And so for me this is
dubious at best and something that researching will need to demonstrate if it
canatall.

And so we see that Wrights seventh problem, the aforementioned need to line
up alltheducksinarow,tolineupJesusactivitieswiththestoryofIsraelsGod
before him and the Christian communities after him, in one grand narrative of
the God of Israel is actually the key problem that Wright is himself concerned
with. From this need for a unified and consistent story come all the other

57
problems if Wright espies that, somewhere alongtheline,thereissomepieceof
the puzzle that is out of place. For what its worth, I dont actuallyfullydisagree
withWrighthereasyoumayalreadyhaverealised.AboveIwrotethatJesushas
to make sense in the context of his time and place, first century Palestinian
Judaism, as well as in the context of a man who is killed. He also must make
sense, in my view, in terms of what those who may have followed him thought
about him as well as those who made him part of their message after he was
dead. Like Wright, I do not think we makesenseofJesushistoricallyifwemake
him a stranger in his own time and place, someone so at odds with all around
him that its hard to understand how anyone else could have understood him at
all. You may, of course, argue that no one did understand him. But thats your
case to make and notmine.I,withWright,amsettledonacourseofintegrating
him into a plausible historical scenario, one that describes how he could have
been received and understood in the first place, accounts for his death and for
the reactions to him. This, in my view, is doing history. Anyone can sit down,
decide that Jesus is this or that thing theyd like him to be andthencarryonas
if he was. This can be done historically too butatleastwhendoingithistorically
one must explain the connections or lack of connectionsonemakes.SoIregard
Wrights desire for a more complete explanation as areasonableimpulseevenif
I dont share his theological need to make of everythingtheredemptivestoryof
IsraelsGod.

AKernelofTruth?

These issues noted and dealt with,wecannowprogressforwardsrealisingmore

fully what it iswearetryingtodo.Butthequestionnowbecomeswheretolook.
Im suddenly struck by an existential fear that this is all pointless. Hot on its
heels comes radical doubt that anything said of Jesus in any ancient texts is
true. Why pick one thing and not another? Why say this is authentic and thatis
not? Look at all these academic books about the historical Jesus written by
people with equally impressive qualifications that in many ways disagree about
everything. Perhaps, as some have said, the historical Jesus is all just made up
out of whole cloth? This explanation would satisfy Tom Wrights need for a
complete explanation too, although not in any way hed find pleasing or
satisfying. This kind of skepticism is, I think, only natural. It reminds us that
there are no certainties here in a world in which, very often, this isallwewant.
We are dealing with reconstruction, something which also contains the word
construction within it, something that reminds us that even in the first place
these events and their meaning were constructed. It also, to me at least,
reminds us that there are no gods, heavenly or academic, who can simplyhand
down the truth to us. Whats true has got something to do with me and you.
Reconstruction is all we have, as John Dominic Crossan reminded us in his
scholarly work on the historical Jesus (primarily represented by The Historical
Jesus: The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant). If we cannot be satisfied
withthatthenwecannotbesatisfiedatall.

58
SoletusstartwithasayingattributedtoJesusinThomas,MarkandQ(meaning
its also to be found in MatthewandLuke),asayingaboutamustardseed.Jesus
isaskedwhattheKingdomofGodislike.Hereplies:

Itislikeamustardseed.Itisthesmallestofseeds,butwhenitfallson
preparedsoilitproducesalargebranchandbecomesshelterforthebirdsofthe
sky.(Thomasversionofthesaying)

The first thing to note is that here Jesus is discussing the Kingdom of God with
people. It is not clear who this may have been, eitherpeoplegenerallyorcloser
followers more specifically.Thebooksthatusethissayingrangebetweenstating
this was an habitual parable of Jesus he addressed to anyone asking about the
Kingdom to saying he was addressed specifically by his disciples. I would argue
that it doesnt seem overly outlandish to suggest that Jesus had disciples or
close followers, people who linked up with him, although we do not have to
restrict it to twelve or, indeed,tomenalone.Neitherisitbizarretosuggestthat
Jesus had a set of images or parables he might relate on different occasions
about the Kingdom of God he was energised by. Jesus seems to have been
itinerant and so we can imagine him moving around and having needtodiscuss
similar topics repeatedly. It should go without saying that none of the texts we
useassourcesarenecessarilythatinterestedinthecontextofwhenJesusmight
have said these things in a historically precise way. So these sayings can, in
many senses, simply function as exemplars of things he used to say. This
mustardseedsayingwouldhavebeenone.

Another example is the followingsaying,againabouttheKingdomofGod,which

is found in Mark, Q and Thomas (meaning Matthew and Luke as well). Jesus is
askedwhentheKingdomwillcomeandhereplies:

Itwillnotcomebywatchingforit.ItwillnotbesaidLookhere!orLook
there!.Rather,theKingdomofGodisspreadoutupontheearthandpeople
dontseeit.(Thomasversionofthesaying)

This is an interesting version of the saying which Luke replicates in his version
where Jesus states that the Kingdom is right there in your presence and also
not observable. But Mark and Matthew, who seems to copy Marks version of
the saying, only demonstrate a thematic similarity intheiruseofitwhichseems
transposed to a different context from those Thomas and Luke have used.
Another thematic similarity is in Thomas third saying where Jesus claims the
Kingdom is inside you and outside you. What theyallshare,whethercopiesof
a saying or not, is a concern that the Kingdom of God is not a matter of seeing
and so seemingly of events. It is not about something in the future to be
observed. It is present now and active at the current time. This is important to
note and is a fault line in studies of Jesus as scholars choose sides between a
Jesus who thought the Kingdom was here now and those who think he thought
itsarrivalwasafutureevent,perhapsofcataclysmicportent.

59
Interestingly, Tom Wright, as I in this case, thinks that Jesus said things about
the Kingdom which had both present and future reference and so he refuses to
choose sides, preferring to explain both kinds of reference under an
allencompassing hermeneutic. Given his unified and consistent intent in
explaining everything as part of one great story this might not be surprising in
his case. In my own case its more amatterofhistoricalcautionalthoughIdont
think that my explanation of the historical Jesus and Christian origins disallows
thatJesuscanspeakeitherpresentorfutureKingdomsayingsorboth.Thething
to note, from my own perspective, is that Jesus is speaking about the Kingdom
of Israels God and he can speak of it as present now regardless of any future
events. Indeed, these first two sayings Ive introduced, both with wide
attestation in sources thought independent (although obviously not at source if
Jesus really did say things like this), have been about addressing the subject of
the Kingdom of God. This, I think, is what we must assume Jesus thought his
activity was about, the interpretive matrix within which to understand him and
what he said and did. This also makes sense of the earliest Christians
understandings of him as part of the same Jewish religious story. Even in
Thomas, a bookconservativesandtheorthodoxwanttoquestionanddisparage,
Jesus talks about thissubject.Itseemssafetoassumeitssafegroundtosituate
himon.

And so it must be in this context that we understand another couple of the

multiply attested sayings of Jesus. The first, primarily from Q and Thomas (and
so in Matthew and Luke aswell)isasectionofteachingwhichaimstoshowthat
its whats inside that counts and that this will inevitably show itself. I quote the
versionfromLuke6:4345:

Achoicetreedoesnotproducerottenfruitanymorethanarottentreeproduces
choicefruitforeachtreeisknownbyitsfruit.Figsarenotgatheredfrom
thorns,noraregrapespickedfrombrambles.Thegoodpersonproducesgood
fromthefundofgoodintheheart,andtheevilpersonproducesevilfromthe
evilwithin.Asyouknow,themouthgivesvoicetowhattheheartisfullof.

This teaching very much seems to apply to the individual and so brings a
measure of personal responsibility to Jesus teaching about the Kingdom. It is
not just a matter of some big future event ortheactionsoftheJewishGod.The
sense is that you need to look to yourself and cultivate the right kind of fruit
within you. The fruit, says Jesus, tells you what sort of tree you are. In his
rendition of this saying Matthew adds that every tree that does not produce
choice fruitgetsthrowndownandtossedonthefirewhichaddsaconsequential
element to the saying or sharpens up this aspect which may already be implicit
in the other versions of it. We cannot imagine that Jesus thought it made no
differencewhatkindoftreeyouwereorwhatkindoffruityoubroughtforth.

This is important in the context of the second set of sayings I want to dealwith
now, again attested in Thomas, Mark and Q (and so Luke and Matthew too),

60
which deal with some kind of public mission that Jesus seems to send his
followers on. He gives them concise and yet quite precise instructions about
going from place to place to do things like healing the sick and informing the
people that the Kingdom of God is closing in. The instructions for going about
this seem to suggest travelling light (no purse, noknapsack,onlyoneshirt)and
staying in one persons house at each town or village rather than moving
around. The missionaries were to bless those who received them well but to
shake the dust from their feet wheretheywerenotwellreceived.Itsinteresting
to me here that the message aspect of this behaviour, which encompassed the
help the missionaries gave as well as their spoken words, was the Kingdom of
God. It wasnt, at least in the sayings Im dealing with here, to do with Jesus
himself. He is not telling them to go ahead of him, for example, and tell people
that he iscoming.EveninMark,whereitisthe12disciplesJesussendsout,itis
not a mission to announce Jesus but the Kingdom and Mark reports that this,
andnotJesusasmessiah,forexample,iswhattheypreach.

And this question of what Jesus preached and if it was in any way himself that
he preached is not something we can avoid dealing with ourselves ifwewantto
give the impression ofhavingtriedtounderstandJesusandhisactivityproperly.
It would beggar belief to suggest that in all that was going on who Jesus was
and if this was part of the message never occurred either to Jesus himself orto
those he was attracting. Clearly,itmusthave.OnetermthatitisreportedJesus
used, Son of Man, has attracted particular attention from those interested to
answer such questions, not least because it is not an immediately perspicuous
term. Some argue for it as a messianic signifier (the messiah being a special
figure anointed by God who might play some personally significant role in
Israels story) whereas others have argued for it as not much more than an
idiosyncratic and clever way for Jesus to refer to himself. It is not clear, in
addition, that either of these choices might suggest that Jesus claimed any sort
of divinity for himself. You will recall that Judaism is distinctivelymonotheist(to
this day) and that Jesus has, in our survey to date, been talking about the
kingdom of the Jewish God rather than himself. What we can say in general
terms, before getting more specific, is that even the canonical gospels, which
were written by Christians who clearlyregardedJesusveryhighly,donotsimply
have him appearing as some divine figure from the start. Or,atleast,iftheydo
(as in John) its abitmoresubtlethanhavinghimalwaysspeakingabouthimself
or telling people to worship him. Partly, this is because Jesus needs to be
intelligible in first century Jewish context. So in talking about the Kingdom of
God people know immediately what Jesus is relating hisactivitytoandwhatits
about. And yet the Christian difference, and the suggestion of scholars likeTom
Wright,isthatJesusintegrateshimselfpersonallyintothisstory.

Another saying of Jesus that we can bring into thediscussionhere,oneattested

inMark,QandThomas(andsoLukeandMatthew)again,isthefollowing:

61
 Whoeveruttersawordagainstthesonofmanwillbeforgiven,butwhoever
blasphemesagainsttheholyspiritwontbeforgiven.(Luke12:10)

Whatever we can say about the son of man here we can say that it is
contrasted with the holy spirit. Is there also a consequent downplaying of the
formerinthecontextofthelatter?Perhaps.Interestingly,theThomasuseofthe
saying at Thomas 44 does not use son of man butreferstothesonandalso
brings the father into the saying as well. (Whoever blasphemes against the
father will be forgiven.) Of course, Thomas, as a sayingscollection,rarelyoffers
any context for the sayings and such is the case heretoo.Thomasdoesreferto
son of man elsewhere though (Thomas 106) but with a completely different
meaning (an androgynous human being) not present in the biblical gospels
which showsthatsonofmancanbeusedindifferentways.InLukethissaying
is set between material which is clearly relevant to thetimeofChristianwriters,
speaking about future judgment and being called to account for their beliefs
before religious and civil authorities. Marks use of the saying strips out any
reference tosonorsonofmanatallandthesayingbecomesawarningtoall
those who would doubt the spiritual actuality of God in the context of Jesus
activity.

I think it is very important here to ask ourselves what the Kingdom of God
refers to in the context of Jesus own activity because this will betheproximate
matrix to use in interpreting his speech and actions. Here a statement of Tom
Wrights in his The New Testament and The People of God is very relevant.Ina
chapter in which he discusses apocalyptic, a way of speaking that is often
regarded as very colourful and metaphorical and which is often used to invest
present actions with historically resonant meaning whilst discussing some
imagined future event, Wright says that he has come to the view that The
kingdom of god hasnothingtodowiththeworlditselfcomingtoanend.Thisis
based on his reading of Judaism in the centuries beforeJesusandespeciallythe
texts of that time. As he reads this material, the Jewish hope was based much
more on Land and Torah and Temple, a restorationofformerglories,ifyoulike,
rather than the elements melting, the earth fading away and some heavenly
realm descending. (It will be remembered that Palestine was occupied by the
Romansatthistime.)

If we understand Kingdom of God this way, as a very earthly returntoformer

glories for Israel and Judaism, it makes less sense to understand anytitleJesus
uses of himself as some claim to divinity orhighauthorityinmyview.Thisdoes
not turn away all other possibilities though. I have already stated above that I
agree with Wright that it is correct to situate Jesus within the many messianic
claims and movements that were evident in Palestine inthefirstcenturyCEand
I still believe this. I can easily envisage that those being drawn to Jesus, for
example, engage in whispered conversation amongst themselves as to who
Jesus might be and that the messiah might be one answer that they
hesitatingly pondered. After all, he wouldnotbetheonlyoneinthattimeperiod

62
and even the canonical gospels feel the need to mention others who will come
claiming to be the same thing. So we are clearly moving in that thought world,
as, indeed, we should be. It could also be the case that those he wasattracting
hoped he might be a very earthly messiah, one who would restore Israel to the
kind of place, Gods Kingdom, that they wanted it to be. As toJesushimself,he
clearly felt energised to proclaim the kingdom of his god. If he felt a special
calling to do this would he not feel himself anointed to the task and would this
really besostrange?Cannotsonofmanbeawayheunderstandsthis,andyet
a way that is not immediately clear in its full implications to others? I can see
how itmightbe.ButIdoubtverystronglythatJesusmeanstoputhimselfinthe
spotlight by it. The kingdom itself seems far more important to him inmyview.
It is thekingdomthatisherenow,spreadout,insideandoutsideofyou,thathe
wants to publicise and reveal not some hidden truth about himself. He is the
prophetic messenger, not the content of the message. It is the Christians who
elevateJesusintheyearsafterthecrucifixion.

SitRep

So after a preliminary, barelyscratchedthesurface lookatsomefewsayingsof

Jesus which is wholly inadequate to the task ofcomingtoanyconclusionsabout
him, we find a man sending people out to heal and proclaim the Kingdom of
God, understood as the Jewish God, who himself is preaching this very
kingdoms presence in his time and place. This makes it seem likethismightbe
a communal movement involving numerous people and it may also have
messianic connotations if Jesus, the leader and impetus of the group, uses the
words son of man of himself in a riddling way or if those round abouthimsee
him that way, which they easily could have. This kingdom that is preached and
proclaimed is like a mustard seed. It may start small but on the right ground it
grows. This kingdom is also about more than GodsactionbecauseJesusthrows
back responsibility onto people to bring good fruit from within themselves. The
kingdomisalsoaboutbeingtherightsortofpeople.

This, in effect, ismymustardseedatthisstageoftheinquiry.Butthisinquiry,

restricted to one chapter as it is, cannot now go on to dissect and attempt to
explain every shred of evidence for Jesus and his life. This takes some scholars
five volumes and counting! (See John Meiers A MarginalJew.)Itisverymucha
case here of having a hypothesis and simply placing some markers to follow for
readers who might want to look further. Ive also made the case, asIamabout
to do again now, that we need a workable hypothesis which collects all the
material up and holds it together in an historically viable way. In this respect I
choose the way Tom Wright takes over the way The Jesus Seminar took when
they published their book The Five Gospels which attempted, on the basis of
scholarly votes from a hand picked selectionofscholars,todelineatewhatJesus
could reliably have said. They were trying to suggest that scholarly votes could
set history in place on a sure and solid footing. But far from everyone would
agreewiththat,peoplewithlotsoffaithandpeoplewithnonealike.

63
In a critique of The Five Gospels called Five Gospels But No Gospel which is
containedinabookcalledAuthenticatingtheActivitiesofJesus,ascholarlytome
frombroadlyconservativescholars,TomWrightmakesthefollowingstatement:

Thereissuchathingasgenuinehistoricalknowledge,anditdoesallowusto
makedefiniteclaimsaboutJesus.

Wright claims that the way this is found is by the critical realism I delineated
from his works in the previous chapter. This is a matter of hypothesis and
verification where an outline explanation of the data under consideration is
constantly checked and rechecked against the data that is being processed. If
data comes to light which does not fitthehypothesisthenitmustberejiggedor
even completely abandoned if it cannot account for what is being inquired into.
What you should not do, and what Wright accuses the Seminar of doing, is to
decide on your hypothesis prior to the atomistic analysis of sayings with the
express purpose of using your hypothesis to give those sayings that fit the
hypothesis your imprimatur and those that dont the boot. Once more we walk
the line between an apology in a not very convincing disguise and a more open
and sophisticatedprocesswhichdoesnotsoobviouslygiveintowhatitwantsto
find. This, of course, is not to suggest that the latter method makes what you
find any less whatyouwantedtofind,Wrightcertainlydoesthatinmyview,but
it does mean you tried much harder to be convincing and put in the hard yards
to convince other people, to appear historically plausible. It is the difference
between being serious about trying to convince people at large, whether they
agreewithyouornot,andsimplyproducingwhatyouwantregardlessofanyone
elsesviews.

So what does this make Wrights genuine historical knowledge, which, for
arguments sake, I would take a statement like Jesus was concerned to preach
and teach about the Kingdom of God to be? The first thing to say,especiallyin
this study, is that we cannot retreat to some neutral land where people dont
have any views on the subjects they study. I have already said fartoomuchon
that subject to have left myself any such opportunity now. Instead, what Ive
said in earlier chapters must be fully embraced and we must recognise proper
history, genuine historical knowledge, as that thing which is argued for openly
and accepted inthissenseofitsconvincingnesstopeers.Thisisnottosayitwill
be accepted by your peers. But it must in theory be put forward as something
that could be rather than kept as a private theory not open to anyone else to
correct, revise or destroy. Such genuine historical knowledge is then properly
rhetorical in the sense thatitispartofanongoingconversationandinthesense
that it is subject to revision, correction or being updated in the light of new
and/or better arguments being presented. In no sense is history the result of a
vote from people with fixed positions not up for discussion. So, to take my
hypothesisinthischapterasanexample,itcouldbewrongandIamreadytobe
persuaded,inoutlineanddetail,thatitis.

64
So what this means for ourhistoricalmethodsandpresuppositionswhendealing
with Jesus is that they should be as much on the table as our hypotheses and
our data are. For example, when dealing with the gospels, which are the major
part of our evidence for Jesus, we should neither take the view that, as
documents written by Christians, they are highly tendentious and therefore
unreliable anymore than we should take the confessional view that they are the
inerrant word of god. The public, rhetorical mode of inquiry that is being
represented here is to progress bymeansofpublicallychallengeablehypotheses
which are tested by how adequately they account for the datawhenthemselves
fitted in with other relevant knowledge of the period. This is why, as Wright
argues, no hypothesis which cannot explain the early Christians, the sort of
people who wrote the gospels we now have, should be regarded as convincing.
No hypothesis which cannot explain Jesus within a Jewish context he clearly
invokes himselfwithKingdomofGodtalk(aswellasbeingevenmoreintegrated
into it by later gospel writers, for me an intensification process rather than a
totally novel one) should be convincing either. None of this proves anything of
course ormakesitsureandcertain.Itissimplytokeepmaintainingadistinction
between an apology and the public and rhetorical history I espouse, between
rearranging the material cheaply to make the picture in your head and allowing
yourself the possibility to have your mind changed. All that said, it remains for
me only to give a few more pointers that lead me to the hypothesis I gave
earlierthatarepersonallypersuasiveforme.

TheActsofJesus:EnactingtheKingdomofGod

No appropriate appraisal of Jesus can be undertaken without accounting for the

kinds of things he is reported to havedone.Onecan,ofcourse,takeanattitude
of extreme skepticism and decide to disavow all ofthemandexplainthemaway
as the inventions of early Christians. But I question if this procedure is serious
about doing history because it seems all too easy. To be sure, today we do not
habitually believe that people can cast out demons or heal blind people by
rubbing mud on their eyes or pronounce that paralysed people can now walk.
Neither do we change water into wine or feed large crowds from seemingly
inadequate amounts of food. But in the texts that are our evidence for Jesus
there are clearly people who do and we must getinvolvedinunderstandingthat
process if we do history rather than being dismissive. There is also the need,
already explainedseveraltimes,totakeonthebigpicturehereandexplainwhat
it might mean overall. What might a healer, wonderworker and speaker to
crowdsofpeoplebedoing?Howmightitbeexplained?

It seems to be the case that in many scholarly worksaddressingsuchquestions

the most obvious question a modern readerwouldhave,Didthesethingsreally
happen? is often avoided. It goes without saying that the modern Western
reader, at least, does not find the idea of healing the blind and the paralysed
with a prayer or invocation or through faith especiallyconvincing.Suchpeople
are thus left with residual doubt and a need to have these things explained in

65
another way. The question, Did this happen? is answered with a no. This, in
turn, can be read as a judgment on the entirety of the material. Stories have
been made up of Jesus doing things we would regard as impossible is the
modern assessment. But even this assessment is to beg the relevant historical
questionsinsomerespects.ItseemssafetoassumethatJesusdrewcrowdsdue
to his activities. Such, at least, is the regular gospel testimony. Logically, this
then necessitates the need to explain what drew these crowds. We can, of
course, make of Jesus a preacher and teacher, a sort of itinerant speaker who
drew crowds with his words. But this is not the simple gospel testimonyand,as
such, it leaves us needing to explain the numerous stories of Jesusdeedsaway
or, as I want to do, to integrate them into the story in a way we can accept as
historically viable. As to if they really happened history does notreallygiveus
the perspicuity to be able to answer since we do not know exactly what we are
dealing with. What we can say is that each of the canonical gospels feels the
need to explain Jesus in words and in actions. If we accept that these are not
made up wholesale (as I do) then we can accept that they preserve a tradition
which is of a Jesus that did more than speak. So he was no mere pithy teacher
orlaconicwordsmith.

Under the rubric of acts of Jesus we are also dealing with morethanhealings,
exorcisms and wonderworking too. For example, Jesus appears to have shared
food with people and a number of especially modern scholars have seen
significance in this. We must remember at thispointthatourinterpretivematrix
for understanding the whole activity of Jesus istheKingdomofGodandthis,I
argue, explains his actionsnolessthanhiswords.JohnDominicCrossan,asone
modern example, has made great play of Jesus activities sharing food with
people, especially people regarded as, in biblical language, sinners. There was
great importance placed on purity in some sectarian Jewish communities of the
first century. In the case ofcommunitiessuchasthoseassociatedwiththeDead
Sea Scroll finds at Khirbet Qumran this could extend to rules for ritual purity
which was felt to be necessary in order to carry out ones religious observances
correctly. Crossan describes Jesus sharing of food with sinners as open
commensality and makes it part of a unified program on Jesus part. Crossans
view, which brings in an explanation of Jesus activities, is in fact worth quoting
atlength:

Theecstaticvisionandsocialprogramsoughttorebuildasocietyupwardfrom
itsgrassrootsbutonprinciplesofreligiousandeconomicegalitarianism,with
freehealingbroughtdirectlytothepeasanthomesandfreesharingofwhatever
theyhadinreturn.Thedeliberateconjunctionofmagicandmeal,miracleand
table,freecompassionandopencommensality,wasachallengelaunchednot
justatJudaismsstrictestpurityregulations,orevenattheMediterraneans
patriarchalcombinationofhonorandshame,patronageandclientage,butat
civilizationseternalinclinationtodrawlines,invokeboundaries,establish
hierarchies,andmaintaindiscriminations.I tdidnotinviteapoliticalrevolution
butenvisagedasocialoneattheimagination'smostdangerousdepths.No

66
 importancewasgiventodistinctionsofGentileandJew,femaleandmale,slave
andfree,poorandrich.Thosedistinctionswerehardlyevenattackedintheory,
theyweresimplyignoredinpractice.(fromT heHistoricalJesus)

Now, to be sure, Crossan is not one of those modern historical interpreters who
finds Jesus to be a Jewish eschatologicalfigurepreachingtheKingdomofGodin
a way compatible with many other Jewish people of his day, and not least he is
not found compatible with John the Baptist, a character I have not yet really
mentioned but whom many believe acted as something of a mentor for Jesus
himself. John, so it seems, had expected people to come out to him toseekout
the repentance that he offered. Jesus, in distinction to John, was prone to
travelling around. And yet I do find that Crossans interpretationcanfunctionas
an aspect of Jesus activity in thatitmodelswhatJesusregardsastheKingdom
of God, a meal shared with allcomers. In his habitual activity Jesus models,
enacts, the very kingdom he proclaims and so Jesus comes to be an enactor of
the Kingdom of God that his activity is both a proclamation of and a
demonstration of. Jesus heals the sick, feeds the hungry, does amazing deeds,
shares food with all kinds of people, breaks boundaries and therefore makes
implicit and explicit comment on contemporary Judaism through his constant
interpretivecontext,theKingdomofGod.

Now to take this as the context for your activity is by very definition to place
oneself right in the middle of the story of Israel and so, implicitly, into conflict
with those who saw themselves as its guardians. So Jesus activity is not the
benign actions of someone who threatens no one or who makes wishy washy,
nonconsequential claims. It could have been. But acting under the auspices of
the Kingdom of God, by enacting it and, in effect, living it, he is as radically
Jewish as it is possible to be. Jesus sets himself right in the centre of a
conversation about what Israel is and should be, about what it looks like right
now in a very specific historical location. But more than this, he says that the
Kingdom is here right now and this is what it looks like. It is liberatory,
egalitarian and purifying. It is also a call to something new, a form of renewal,
and so also an end to something else. Eschatology is not here ruled out by a
messageoftheKingdomspresence.Indeed,mightitnotbetherebyaffirmed?

Another biblical scholar, Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate
Biography takes thissubjectofpuritywithinaJewishfirstcenturyunderstanding
and makes it an interpretive key for understanding Jesus historically within his
own context. At the same time he revealsthatitwouldbeprofoundlyahistorical
for us 21st century people toimaginethatJesuscanjustbecommunicatedfrom
an alien context across two millennia as if he and his times were just a less
technological version of us. This is ahistorical thinking in the extreme. Even
today we may travel to other countries or regions to meet with people who live
in the same time as us and yet may be confronted with traditions, beliefs and
practices with which we are profoundly unfamiliar. How much more so across
two millennia?! The problem we moderns have to overcome is in thinking that

67
our thinking is the standard, one that others must be molded to. However, it is
more historical to recognise that all thinking is historically contingent. We must
therefore get inside other historical forms ofthinkingifwehopetounderstandit
appropriately.

Chilton, in his own imaginative reconstruction of the life of Jesus in which an

historical understanding of first century Judaism is key, argues that Jesus, who
had been a disciple of John the Baptist, was much concerned with purity,
something which was an abiding concernofJudaismatthetime.Jewsgenerally,
if they were religiously observant in any way, hadthisconcerntoaddresspurity
issues to keep themselvesanacceptablepartoftheJewishcommunity.Dailylife
itself was a constant challenge for such people to keep themselves pure andwe
know that some Jewish sects, and even John the Baptist, had pools or rivers at
their disposal for the ritual washings they may have thought theyrequired.This
was also an abiding concern of both the temple hierarchy and the pharisees of
which we are familiar in the gospels, both having their own rules and formulas
for the necessary purity required. Chiltons Jesus believes in purity through the
spirit of God which is a demonstration of the Kingdom. He is the Jesus who can
say If by GodsspiritIthrowoutdemonsthentheKingdomofGodisuponyou
(Matthew 12:28) as well as the Jesus who believes that what comes out of you
makes you pure, not what goes in. Here Chilton sees these demonsasunclean
spirits and argues that many of the reported acts of healing or exorcism can
actually be viewed correctly in an historical sense through the matrix of purity
issuescorrectlyunderstood.

I find this persuasive and not least because itisanattempttounderstandthese

acts of Jesus in historical rather than modern terms. In Jesus case, exorcism
amounts to driving away the forces of impurity is Chiltons suggestion. Purity
then, in first century Jewish context, is one historical way we get an authentic
handle on what he was about and this becomes a powerful new way to
understand his acts, acts whichdirectlyinterjectedintothepuritydebatesofthe
time. Jesus claimed to act with the spirit of God to make pure, a sign of the
Kingdoms presence. In that sense, the meals that he frequently took part in
which would have included all kinds of participants, both the pure and impure,
were, in effect, Kingdom meals which were also commentary up Jesus views
about purity. Using purity as an interpretive key shedsmuchnewhistoricallight
on the activities of Jesus and separates us from anachronistic modern
interpretations. It also explains the reports of thosewhosoughtJesusoutashis
fame, and his approach to a key marker of Jewishidentity,becamemorewidely
known. (Many forms of illness were regarded as impure yet here was Jesus
offering purity in a new way.) Meanwhile, it should also not be overlooked that
Jesus distinctive approach here effectively removed both the Temple and the
Pharisees from their roles as the guardians of purity. Jesus, scandalously,
seemed to offer that which they all needed freely through Gods spirit, a
proclamation that Gods Kingdom was indeed here and the old ways of doing
thingswerebypassedanddeemedinappropriateandunnecessary.

68
TheDeathofJesus

In my outline of the story of Jesus and Christian origins I gave above I

suggested that Jesus death can likely be explained by his activities. But this is
not exactly how the canonical gospels see it or, indeed, the rest of the New
Testament. These give much broader, grander and, to be honest, less historical
reasons for it. I mean this in at least two senses. Firstly, they give
extrahistorical reasons for his death such as St Pauls testimony that Christ
died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3). The
sense here and in many other Christian New Testament places is that Jesus
death (and, as they would argue, subsequent resurrection) was both foretold
and part of a divine plan of the Jewish god. Such Christian writers evenmakeit
part of Jesus own message in a way I dont generally find plausible. Secondly,
they significantly theologise it because they are concerned with its meaning.
Biblical scholar Marcus Borg argues that the meaning of Jesus death was more
important to those who wrote about it than a forensically detailed historical
account of its circumstances and Iwouldagreewithhim.Thismeaning,whichin
the context of this study would make perfect sense as their focus, is explained
accordingtoscripturalandJewishcategoriesintheaccountswehavenow.

One thing that Borg points out is that the basic accountwehaveofthedeathof
Jesus comes from the gospel of Mark (which is thought by most scholars to be
the earliest canonical gospel in any case). This account is relied upon by
Matthew and Luke in documentary form whilst John writes his own account but
offers little new or significant historically. The account of Mark states that Jesus
had gone to Jerusalem before Passover. There the Jewish authorities, described
as the chief priests and scribes, essentiallytriedtowhipupaconspiracytohave
Jesus arrested and killed. Coming to terms with Judas, a man inside Jesus own
camp, they arrange for him to be arrested in the quiet of the night and he is
taken to the high priests palace. There various false witnesses and trumped up
charges are brought but nothing really sticks. Nevertheless, Jesus is taken by
these Jewish authorities to the Roman governor, Pilate, the next day and
accusedofnumerousthings.

Pilate doesnt seem very convinced and Mark even goes so far as tosaythathe
could see the chief priests were jealous of Jesus which was why they had
brought him! Pilate tries to get rid of Jesus by offeringtoreleasehim.However,
the crowd, incited by the Jewish authorities, prefer the release of another
prisoner,Barabbas,andtheychantforJesustobecrucified.Pilateacquiescesfor
a quiet life, the impression given that death wasnt really his choice. Jesus is
taken to be crucified, is certified dead and is buried, apparentlybyamemberof
the Jewish Council, Joseph of Arimathea. This was just before the Jewish
Sabbath. After the Sabbath some women who were followers of Jesus, and
present at his crucifixion, go to anoint his corpse. They are surprisedtofindthe
large stone that would havesealedthetombisrolledaway.Insidetheyfindthat
Jesus is not there and a young man in a white robe tells them thatheisrisen

69
and they must goandtellJesusdisciplesthathehasgonetoGalileewherethey
must go to meet him. Then, in one of the most startling texts in the whole
Christian bible, the women do the opposite of that. They run away, frightened
out of their wits, and in selfrefuting words do not tell anybody because they
were afraid. (Mark 16:920, which follows this abrupt ending, is almost
uniformly thoughttobealateradditiontothegospelandisacknowledgednotto
bewrittenbythesamepersonaswrotethemainbodyofthetext.)

So this is the basic historical reconstruction we have of the immediate

circumstances of Jesus death. It was a setup, a trap, of the Jewish authorities
who keptshakingthetreetryingtotripJesusupandgethimintotrouble.Pilate,
the Roman authority with power to administer capital punishment, wasnt really
that fussed but, being pestered bytheJewishauthoritiesandhearingthechants
of the incited crowd, went along with it. As a general outline that isnt
necessarily that implausible. But there are a number of factors which make us
question the emphases apparent in the story. For one thing, Mark (and those
who follow him) claims toknowthingsitseemshecouldnothaveknown.Thisis
not restricted to meetings that no one to do withJesuscouldhavebeenpresent
at (such as with the High Priest or with Pilate). Markclaimstoknowthecontent
of Jesus prayers whilst alone and the motivation of a Roman governor, for
example. This is beforewenote,again,thatthegospelstatesallJesusfollowers
ranaway.

There is also, as Borg again points out in his chapter dealing with this in the
book he coauthored with Tom Wright, The Meaning of Jesus, the prevalence of
scriptural text and allusion. If you read Mark 1416 using a text that has
crossreferencing to biblicalparallelsitwillbeapparentjusthowconstructedthis
is as a literary text. This is a patchwork quilt of biblical meaning and
crossreference which can never be less than a literary phenomenon. Wright
wants to retroject this into the meaning and purpose of Jesus throughout his
activity concerned with the Kingdom of God. But this is precisely the Christian
impulse of the New Testament writers. Its my view that this is the activity of
Christians making sense of Jesus after his death rather than the teaching of a
precrucifixion Jesus. One good reason for taking this view is that all of Jesus
followers run away when he is arrested (as the women do after his
resurrection) and yet Wright and others would have us believe that his death
and resurrection was his conscientious and deliberate teaching. In that case
either Jesus was a terrible teacher, contrary to much other evidence, or his
followerswereremarkablydense.

It will come as no surprise, of course, that Tom Wright, in his own appraisal of
the issues, wantstobelievethemandhedulysetsoffonwhatisoneofhismost
clear examples of historical synthesis of the material as given by the gospels.
But his reasoning is somewhat jawdropping. In his chapter on Jesus death in
The Meaning of Jesus he begins with four presuppositional points. Firstly, he
argues,tendentiously,thattodenytoJesustherighttoseehimselfasfulfilling

70
biblical prophecies is to split off Jesus from Judaism. Of course, we shouldnt
deny Jesus this possibility but such a charge is nonsense. Wright here tells us
what Jews must do and, as such, he overeggs his pudding. Secondly, Wright
tells us we must concentrate on how contemporary Jews of the time thought
about suffering, death and martyrdom. Interesting, to be sure, but far from
telling us what Jesus did. Thirdly, Wright actually seems to argue, in a nutshell,
that in first century Jewish Palestine, in Jerusalem during Passover week,
keeping a secret would have been nigh on impossible! He portrays this assome
sort of observation about oral traditions but inrealityitseemsallhecouldcome
up with to explain how Mark can claim to know things it could not know. His
motive seems clearly faithbased and apologistic. Finally, Wright gives us a
choice between the whole account being a clever fiction or substantiallycloseto
theeventsastheyoccurred,agambitaimedatpushingustowardsthelatter.

For our purposes Wrights reconstruction is illustrative as the strain obvious in

his need both to support the scriptural account and to integrate Christian belief
into the life and teaching of Jesus shows. At various points Wright seems toget
very historically fortunate that precisely the information a Christian might need
becomes historically perspicuous tous.Indeed,Wrightneverseemstoshowany
doubt about any of the story at all. He is simply determined to demonstrate its
historical plausibility as is. Thus, Jesus own understanding is, how fortunately
for us, both historically recoverable and theologically illuminating. At best we
could say that Wright provides the possibility that first century messianic Jews
might think in certain categories. But we must ask, as historicallyminded
people, if this is enough, especially when we have the weight of Christian
interpretation bearing down on us in the rest of the New Testament about who
Jesus was and what his death means for them. (Wrights own chapter on this is
tellingly called The Crux of Faith.) We must remember that it is these same
people who write up the story here too. So, contra Wright, we do not have
every reason to believe that Jesus foresaw his death and taught about it. We
have possible reasons to think people in his situation might think about it in
certain ways. But, in any case, he didnt write about it so what those who did
thought is probably as important, if not ultimately more so, than what, if
anything,Jesusdid.

So my reconstruction of the death of Jesus is that, yes, he is crucified by the

Romans, the only people who had the power to authorise that kind of death
anyway. The ascription on the cross, it is said, read Jesus of Nazareth, King of
the Jews which can be read different ways by different audiences. To a Roman
it is a simple political charge, Jesus threatens Roman authority. The Romans
executed many such people in their time in Palestine. Jesus was to them
basically a terrorist or political agitator in the termsoftoday.ToJews,however,
it canbespunasblasphemy,claimingpowerandauthoritythatonlyGodhimself
can have. We have already seen how,infact,Jesusactivitiesdidcutacrossand
impinge upon conventional Jewish religious power bases, whether from the
Pharisees or the priests oftheTemple.ConsideringthatJesuswenttoJerusalem

71
and was there arrested and killed it makes sensethat,knowingabouthim,such
people may have been animated enough to want him out of the way. But now
we come up against the very modern problem of antisemitism for some must
have it that the Jews are not made responsible. This would be the opposite
impulse to that of the gospel of Matthew which even has the Jewish crowds
bringing down the responsibility of his death onto their own heads. Johns
gospel, too, seems to want to blame Jewish sources for Jesus death. Combined
with Marks portrayal of the Roman authority figure here as a less than
enthusiastic executor it all speaks persuasively of a Christian community
outgrowingitsJewishrootsasitspreadsacrosstheRomanempire.

Yet I propose that we reverse out of this particular culdesac and simply try to
explain, as realistically as we can, who was responsible and why. The best
solution seems to be that a collection of Jewish and Roman authorities are
responsible for Jesus death, the most likely impetus to this death coming from
Jewish authorities alarmed at Jesus activities which directly challenge and
abrogate theirs. It may even have been because of the Temple incident(Mark
11:1519) that the gospels report, a direct challenge to the central Jewish
authority itself. We cannot know what was said to who and what was said in
reply inthedetailsofJesusarrestandanypossibletrials.InthewordsofJohn
Dominic Crossan, Those who knew didnt care, and those who cared didnt
know. The gospels themselves report that Jesusfollowersranawaywhich,asI
have already stated, makes his teaching less than penetrating if Wrights
arguments about it integrating his death and resurrection are true. So we are
left with the bare fact of his crucifixion and, likely relevant, the chargenailedto
his cross which I have already shown could be explained satisfactorily to both
Roman and Jewish audiences. So Jesus, by reason of his activities, got himself
killed and the authorities, Roman and Jewish, had their explanation for it nailed
above his head on the cross, an explanation also open for exploitation by later
Christianapologistsandevangelists.

WhatHappenedNext?TheEarlyChristians

The Gospel According to John is the fourth and final of the Christian gospels of
the New Testament (historically as well as in terms of New Testamentorder).It
beginsinthefollowingway:

InthebeginningwastheWord:andtheWordwaswithGodandtheWordwas
God.HewaswithGodinthebeginning.

This Word is Jesus, the very Jesus I have been trying to describe and discuss
in thischapter.Butthis,Ihope,isnoJesusyoucouldeverhaverecognisedfrom
my description and its tentative, historicallymotivated justifications. This Jesus
is if not divine then certainly eternal, very nonhuman, incorruptible even.
Further on into the same gospel the divine light verily pours out of him as heis
not justasourceofthereflectedlightofIsraelsGodbuttheLightoftheWorld

72
in his own person. And this is, as my former teacher StephenD.Mooreexplains
in the most perspicuous essay on the historical Jesus I haveeverread(OnThe
Face and Physique of the Historical Jesus in his Gods Beauty Parlor), about
which I will have more to say in my next chapter, the Jesusthatpeoplewant.
It is certainly the Jesus that the early Christianswant,theChristianswhoinvent
themselves and their new religion, an offshoot of historic Judaismthatcomesto
be known as Christianity. This religion becomes less Jewish the more it moves
away in time from the Jew it came to venerate and, I argue, less based on the
teaching and activity ofJesushimselfandmuchmoreaboutwhohewasthought
to be and what this meanstothosedoingtheexplaining.Thatgospelswerepart
of a tradition of teaching that was handed down the gospel of Luke makesplain
in its opening versesinwhichthewriterspeaksoftheeventsthathavereached
their fulfilment among us. Yet fulfilment speaks of the copious theologizing
and scripturalizing that willtakeplaceintheearlyChristiancommunityandtheir
writings in order to explain Jesus and present him to new, not always Jewish
communities. In order to really appreciate the scope of this you need to use a
bible with a critical apparatus that will point up where Jewish scripture is being
used or alluded to. Then you will begin to realise the scope of the problem and
theextentofearlyChristianindustry.

Mark, our earliest canonical Christian gospel, begins in the following way: The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is written in the
prophet Isaiah. Here Jesus is already Jesus Christ, meaning Jesus, Gods
anointed one and the Son of God. Jesus is the Son of God right at the
beginning of Mark even though in the body of the gospel Jesus will arguably
never use that term of himself even once. So this seems a title given by others
rather than one claimed by Jesus himself. Mark then, as with all the Christian
gospels, goes on to explain Jesus as the fulfilment of the Jewish faith, the hope
of Israel, Gods anointedone,hisSon,andsoforth.Thisseemsverymuchlikea
story others might tell about Jesus rather than the story Jesus told. Our final
canonical gospel, Matthew, beginswithagenealogy,thatofJesusChrist,sonof
David, son of Abraham. It goes without saying that Jesus never seems that
concerned with his suggested Davidic or Abrahamic ancestry in the body of
Matthews text. Once more aChristiangospelmakesJesushimselfthemessage.
Indeed,itsgoodnews.

And how do these same gospels end? Matthew ends with a divine commission
from a radicallytransfigured(becausedresurrected)Jesus.Jesustellshisclosest
followers (and the presumed readers) that he will be with themalwaystothe
end of time. This sameJesus,bytheway,hasjustclaimedthatallauthorityin
heaven and on earth has been given to him. Meanwhile the ending of Mark is
strange, garbled and possibly even made up. At first it seems, as I mentioned
earlier, as if some women find the empty tomb and then run away frightened,
saying nothing to anyone, a very inauspicious end to what had begun as the
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But subsequently appended we have a
number of suggested appearances of the risen Jesus which, when reported, are

73
not believed by Jesus closest followers which is strange if he had taught such
close followers so deliberately about what must happen to himself. Then Jesus
appears to them personally, berates them and commissions them before being
raised to the right hand of God. Mark does not tell us how he knows this. He
tells us only that the followers of Jesus then did as they were told and their
successprovedthetruthofwhattherisenJesushadsaid.

The ending of Lukes gospel is interesting because it is only subsequent to his

crucifixion and resurrection that Jesus then opened their minds to understand
the scriptures (Lk 24:45) which explains why he had to die and be raised from
the dead. (So it is written that the Christ would sufferandonthethirddayrise
from the dead, and that, in his name, repentance for the forgiveness of sins
would be preached to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Lk 24:4647) To
be sure Lukes Jesus makes clear that he had taught this before his death too.
But then why the need for this postresurrection mindopening session?Doesnt
this all sound much more like what they have been doing and how they have
come to understand things consequent upon a transfigured conception of Jesus
himself after his shocking death? The gospel finishes with Jesus promising to
send the power from on high before ascending. Then, we note, they
worshipped him (Lk 24:52) as well as praising God in the Temple. How they
have managed, as Jews, to rework the network of their monotheistic Jewish
beliefs,whichaJesuswhonowcanbew orshippeddemands,wearenottold.

The gospelofJohn,whenreadalongsidethepreviousendingsIhavementioned,
makes interesting reading. There is a double conclusion that makes up Johns
21st and final chapter. The first is a meeting by the Sea of Galilee with the
disciples, his closest followers. Towards the end of this first conclusion Jesus
speaks to Peter regarding the disciple whom Jesus loved, in Christian legend
referring to John, the supposed authority behind this gospel itself. Peter asks
Jesus about John and Jesus replies IfIwanthimtostaybehindtillIcomewhat
does it matter to you? which seems quite striking when Matthew has already
written that Jesus himself with be with them always to the end of time, and
that apparently from his own lips. Why, then, wouldanyoneneedJesustocome
back (because he is about to disappear) if he is always going to be there
anyway? Even more interesting is that the final two verses of the gospel are, in
effect, an argument from authority in that it ascribes the gospel to this disciple
whom Jesus loved and swears he is telling the truth about all the events
recounted in the gospel, events which were more than he recounted and could
fill more books than the world could hold. Believe me, I was there and Jesus
lovedmeiswhattheveracityofthisgospelfinallybasesitselfon.

The Acts of the Apostles, the book which follows the four gospels in the New
Testament, is apottedhistoryofsomeaspectsoftheearlyChristiancommunity.
It seems to be written by the same person whowrotethegospelofLukeandso
can be seen as part of a twopart work that encompasses Jesus and Christian
origins. Interestingly, at the start it gives another, slightly fuller recounting of

74
the ascension of Jesus. Here Jesus is asked by hisdisciplesifnowisthetimehe
will restore the kingdom toIsrael.ButinresponseJesustellsthemtokeepout
of Gods business, wait for the power of the Holy Spirit which he will send, and
then be his witnesses to earths remotest end. This does not accord with the
teaching of Jesus in Lukes gospel, much less with any notion of the present
Kingdom of God we have seeninhispredeathactivitiesearlierwhichwereseen
to be enacting and modelling the kingdom right now. However, it does seem to
suggest that even here our writer ispreservingthisfocusonthekingdom,albeit
in new, updated and perhaps surprising circumstances (not to mention
unforeseen consequences). This does, though, contrast with Jesus apparent
earlier interests which seem very based in the land of Palestine itself and the
Kingdom of God, understood as ancient Israel, generally. The language used to
this resurrection Jesus here might even be taken as confirmation of this.
However, this resurrected Jesus in the Christian texts is seen to be completely
reconfiguring the context of his own mission in a way the Jesus prior to his
crucifixion seems not to have done. Moreover, the witness is now not to the
kingdom of God (even though in Acts 1:4 the writer states that Jesuscontinued
to teach the disciples about the kingdom in the 40 days after his resurrection)
but to the meaning of Jesus himself. Indeed, all the gospels in their beginnings
and their endings, as well as here at thestartofActs,havebeenfocusedonthe
meaning of Jesus the person and not what he did in his activities before his
crucifixion. On the contrary, what he may havesaidanddoneisusedtosupport
a picture of Jesus himself. They function as signs or testimony to something
else. In the letters of Paul, which make up much of the rest of the New
Testament, we see repeated again and again the pattern that who Jesus is
comes first and what he means and then this means as a consequence is what
motivates the Pauline mission. Paul, a Jewish legalist,utilizesallofhisscriptural
knowledge in his epistles to bolster the meaning of Jesus as Saviour and Lord,
explaining his life, death and assumed resurrection asthekeyeventsinadivine
planofredemptionandsalvation.

It is my simple suggestion that in the writings of the early Christians we see a

change of tack, a reorienting of focus from the Kingdom ofGodtoJesushimself
which then, at least at first, gets explained in terms of the Jewish story, the
restoration of the Kingdom of God, if you will, which gets spreadfarbeyondthe
historical and theologicalboundsofIsraelbythetimetheyarefinished.Interms
of the outline I am giving in this chapter I choose to see that as a change the
early Christians made and not something that is original to Jesus. This,initself,
does not invalidate theirchange.Itsimplynotesit.NeitherdoIthinkthisshould
be very controversial as the gospels, for example, clearly seem to be a mix of
both kingdom talk and a focus on Jesus himself. We may, of course, take it, as
Tom Wright does, as an invitation to plough rightonaheadandtakethemasall
of a piece and to regard our task as the task of historical synthesis of material
we give our implicit trust to. But I choose not to and I give what I regard as
historical reasons for doing so. I regard the Jesus we are now presented within
Christian gospels and other New Testament books as a theologically boosted

75
figure who is transfigured from theKingdomofGodinfusedGalileanmanpeople
might have encountered in the earliest decades of the common era. The
historical Jesus enacted this kingdom the early Christians claimed this dead
man was saviour of the world. A god in a manshaped suit or a man shaped by
beliefinthekingdomofhisgod?Youdecide.

76
5.FictionisAllYouHave

Ivefinished,groanedJesus,gratefullygivinguptheghost.Latethatnight,his
fathercametoclaimthebody.Neveronetostandonceremony,hewentto
workthereandtheninthetomb.First,heskinnedthecorpse.Afterhehad
laboriouslyremovedthebodyhairbyscraping,hescrubbedtheskinclean,
sighingallthewhileatthepuncturesandtearsthatmarredit.Thenhe
smootheditwithpumiceanddresseditwithchalk.Perspiringprofuselynow,he
carefulcutitintorectangularsheets,stackedandfoldedthemmeticulously,and
sewedthemalongthecreases.Leavingthebookontheslab,hewearilyvacated
thetombbeforesunrise,draggingtheflayedcorpsebehindhim.Soon
afterwards,thebookwasfoundbytwoofJesusdisciples(asitwasmeantto
be),oneofwhomrecogniseditastheremainsofhismasterandlovinglyboreit
away.Yearslaterhewoulduseittowritethefirstdraftofhisgospel.(Stephen
D.Moore,OnTheFaceandPhysiqueofTheHistoricalJesus)


I want to set you a task, one I recently gave myself. Type Jesus into the
Google search engine and select images. What you will almost certainly get
back, as I did, is a cavalcade of white Jesuses, the recorded history of popular
images of Jesus over decades, if not centuries or even two millennia. This is
passing strange if you think about itsincetheonethingwedoknow,ifweknow
anything about the historical Jesus at all, is that he was a first century
Palestinian Jew. And first century Palestinian Jews, might I suggest, were not
white men. My hits also contain one black Jesus, equally inaccurate (and a
blackface version of a Warner Sallman white Jesus toboot,whichisworse),and
one reconstruction of the face of a first century Palestinian Jew from the 2001
BBC TV series, Son of God. These aberrations aside, I am confronted with a
culturaltideofwhiteness,atestamentbothtoculturalhegemonyandtotheidea
that people want a Jesus like them. Not just Jesus robes are white in the
collective imagination it seems. Perhaps the transfiguration that resurrection
seemstodemandmakeseverybodywhiteandIamjustnotyetawareofit?

I was first apprised ofthisphenomenonthankstotheverycorporealconcernsof

my formeruniversitylecturer(forwhomIonceimaginedJesusasawoman)and
the person really responsible for why I am even doing this, Stephen D. Moore.
TheparagraphwithwhichIbeganthischapteristheopeningparagraphfromhis
own essay addressing Jesus physical appearance in what was at that time (the
beginning of the third millennium CE) the contemporary quests of the historical
Jesus. I recommend wholeheartedly that you find a copy for yourself to read
since it is both entertaining and deeply incisive on issues to do with images of
Jesus with which we are also here concerned. One deeply penetrating question
that Moore raises here is why biblical scholars of very high standing and
reputation within the field of historical Jesus research are allowing very fictional
images of Jesus to be slapped on the front covers of their books, seemingly

77
without much of a secondthoughtaboutitoritsconsequences.Mooreisrightto
follow up this question by asking how the readers of these books are then
supposed to take it. (One here muses, in a Moorelike way, that the answer
might be like a man.) The written content of the books is, no doubt, to be
taken with the utmost seriousness. But what of the pictorial and very fictional
informationtheyhavealsosupplied?

This is of importance, in a study such as this one which is to do with human

meaningmaking, when Moore suggests that our main cultural image of Jesusis
a northern European savior whose physicalcharacteristicsproclaimhisdistance
from thedespisedracewhomhehasbeensenttoredeem.Icantspeakforyou
but my mind immediately goes to millions of white Americans who proclaim
themselves Christian yet seem to hate Jews (and Palestinians generally, in the
historical sense, if truth be told). Are these people, 2,000 years later, now
blissfully unaware that theirsaviourwasaJewandthathedidntlooklikethem?
In fact, he looked much more like the people they seem tohate.But,ofcourse,
the faultisnottheirsalone.ThisimageofJesusisundertheskinofallofus.But
it is a fiction. As Moore suggests, Gods and Jesus own appearance doescount
for a great many people(s). Yet, as Moore goes on to say, To
anthropomorphize God is to confer ethnic identity upon God. This has become
the white construct, the white fiction, we are all so familiar with. Whiteness is
next to Godlikeness. To be white is, thus, to be more like God and
nonwhiteness is less like God. Yet whiteness is itself a constructed category as
Moore knows well. Soweshouldbeabletoagreewithhimthat,Contrarytothe
cliche,therefore,thisGodisacutelyconcernedwithwhatisoutsideaperson:his
veryexistencedependsuponit.Carriedawayonaverywhiteflightoffancy,we
may eventually come to the verymanshapedbutultimatelydehumanisedJesus
ofGerardManleyHopkins,Victorianpriestandpoet:

...hisbodywasthespecialworkoftheHolyGhost.Hewasnotborninnatures
course,nomanwashisfatherhadhebeenbornasothersarehemusthave
inheritedsomedefectoffigureorofconstitutionButhisbodywasframed
directlyfromheavenbythepoweroftheHolyGhost,ofwhomitwouldbe
unworthytoleaveanytheleastbotchorfailinginhiswork.

I am not really quite sure what to say to that but my notated copy of Moores
essay simply has Oh brother! written beside it in pencil. My point here is
simply that perfect white male (and apparently nonhuman) bodies are doing
stand in work as the highestbeingswecanconceiveof.Whatisprobablyworse,
if we think about it, is that we know the truth to be other than as we have
consciously conceived these bodies. In short, wehavefictionalisedJesusandwe
arequitehappyaboutit.Fiction,infact,isthetruthasfarasweareconcerned.

I was musing on this fact as I took one of my regular walks and, wanting to be
relevant to the modern world, I thought about what that world of our
increasingly homogenised Western experience is. We live in a world where we

78
cannot even agree about what has happened or is happening. An event occurs
and there are immediately several partisan and tendentious versions of it
reported and the spin begins. (As I was writing this study the Las Vegas
shooting occurred. Example.) We have websites which proclaim themselves as
news sites and yet this is news as Obi Wan Kenobi might give it, True, from a
certain point of view (as he explains to another blueeyed white boy saviour,
Luke Skywalker, having previously said thathisfatherwasdeadonlyforLuketo
find out that it was, in fact, Darth Vader). We have seen quite clearly and
repeatedly in the modern world how fiction becomes fact over and over again.
We will quite regularly hear complaints made that public information from
numerous sources is no longer trustworthy but, instead, a fictional narrative
suited to particular purposes. Fiction is very much king in todays world and
millions of people are more than happy to swallow it whole. Just tell me what I
wanttohear.

It might not be immediately obvious but this comes to be relevant for a

discussion of the historical Jesus and the meaningmaking that surrounds it. In
hisexcellentstudyofthehistoricalJesus,JesusofNazareth:MillenarianProphet,
Dale C. Allison goes verydeeplyintomillenarianismandwhatcharacterisessuch
movements. In a detached note he details 19 features of such movements
outside the Jesus tradition. It is the nineteenth of those which draws my
attentionnow:

Anymillenarianmovementthatsurviveshastocometotermswith
disappointedexpectations,sincethemythicdreamorendnevercomes.

Our beloved disciple from my previous chapter no doubt knows exactly what
Dale Allison means. But, I wonder, does Tom Wright? Allisonspointhereisthat
when the hoped for or even prophesied things never occur we get what hecalls
secondary exegesis. The nonevents have to be explained and, slowly but
surely, the narrative builds and gets changed. Just tell me what I want to
hear... but keep the story going so that we can still believe it today. After the
factrationalizations,saysAllison,arealmostinevitable.Heconcludes:

Itiseasiertodeceiveoneselfthantoadmitselfdeception.

Far from having no use forfiction,then,oritbeingrestrictedtoharmlessleisure
time stories, human beings actually thriveandevenwallowinit.Itisthemotive
power of life itself. That dream, that hope, that inspirational vision, that reason
to keep on going, itneedskeepingaliveandthatmeansitneedsfeeding.Fiction
is the perfect sustenance for that. Perhaps this is how a dead first century
Palestinian Jew comes to be the shiny, perfectskinned,whitesaviourofmodern
conception? No more a scruffy odd job man from Galilee with a very time and
geographically bound focus, he is now free, in the fictions of his followers, to
roam the globe bringing white salvation to the masses who will become white

79
like he is. White here, of course, means so much more than just a colour as
anyevencursoryanalysisofhiswhiteapologistswilldemonstrate.

PsychologizingJesus

Of course, there are better and worse ways to fictionalise things and often
complementary ways do the most comprehensive job. The beauty of fiction,
since it is narrative in form, is that it is a way to make sense of things on a
broad scale. Having taken care of fitting the big things together, the smaller
things can be integrated with little subnarratives. Like a basket full of puppies,
so long as all those legs and heads have somewhere reasonably comfortable to
restthenthewholebasketcansnoozeundisturbed.Jesus,theperfectwhiteman
who now shines like a divine superhero, is not a very historical fiction though.
But there are those who provide more historical ones and who see the need for
Jesus to be a man and not merely a god. This is aparticularlyChristianfictional
problem since, after three centuries of fictionalising Jesus, Christians realised
that they needed him to be both fully god and fully man or, somehow, the
salvational scheme they had worked out wouldnt work. This seeming
contradiction, from which they have never escaped, is preserved in the creeds
they invented, instructing all believers to give assent to such godhead and
manhood, although I have barely met a common or garden Christian who could
explainhowthisparticularfictionworkedtoanygreatextent.

All this aside, it is one criticism of the quests of the historical Jesus, in which I
took part during my last chapter, that, in doing such research, those doing it
were looking for a more human saviour or a figure to whom they could give
some measure of respect in distinction to the very obviously fictionalised
godmen of popular religion whichcontemporarytimeshadrendereddistantand
unsympathetic. Albert Schweitzer, to whom I will come again later, in what is
perhaps still the most important book on the historical Jesus and which is
actually called The Quest of the Historical Jesus, very heavily criticised those
who wanted to humanise Jesus and makehimcomfortableanddomesticatedfor
modern day use. He, like Wright as we saw earlier, wanted to try and force
historical meaningmakers into a choice between the Jesus as presented in
canonical gospels or a Jesus made up from thin air, one who didnt exist.
Ultimately, Schweitzer pronounced the gospel Jesus an historical alien to our
times soitwasfortunatethathisownfaithcamenotfromanhistoricalJesusbut
fromaverypresentspiritualChristoffaithunboundfromhistoricalconstraints.

But not all faith, or rather meaning, does. For some, Jesus the man, Jesus the
man we can relate to, is what attracts. And what better waytobeabletorelate
to him as a human being than to psychologize him! Thus, we have John Millers
1997 book, Jesus At Thirty: A Psychological and Historical Portrait (from the
cover of which another postRenaissance whitemanstaresblanklyatus).Miller,
who has biblical and psychiatric experience, attempts to understand the inner
workings of Jesus through chapters dealing with his family, father and (of

80
course) mother explicitly, his baptism and sexuality amongst other things. His
sources are only the sources everybody else has which, clearly, are neither
directly recorded by Jesus himself nor, as weve already seen, are they
uncontested sources of any kind of truth about Jesus in the first place. So what
isgoingonhere?

Miller starts his preface with an interesting observation: portraits of Jesus fit in
with their time and place whether this be good shepherd, cosmic ruler, the
crucified for the guilt ridden or many others. None of them are, god forbid, a
drawing or painting of the man himself. Indeed, we have no image of Jesus
because, as far as we know, nooneeverrecorded,ordescribed,whathelooked
like. All images of Jesus are meaningful fictions constructed to say something
about their creators and admirers by saying something about him. And so it
seems when, in his preface and opening chapter, Miller justifies hisownurgent
task. This task appears to be no lesser task than keeping Jesus realistic and
believable for modern human beings in a world in which historical study and
psychology are converging in our culture to create a significant new matrix for
understanding Jesus. Indeed, if Jesus is to continue to occupy a place among
us as a guide, savior, mediator, prototype, we are thus compelled to form a
clearer, more intelligent impression of this (psychological) side of his life than
may have seemed necessary in previous generations. Modern human beings,it
seems, need modern saviours too. Miller also raises the intriguing notion that
these very human investigations may be the old christological ones of the first
three centuries of the Common Era being undertaken again in a very
contemporary vocabulary. Indeed, in his own preface he asks that the results
that emerge from his study might be considered of importance for the
construction of a meaningfulcontemporarychristology,aclearcaseofhistorical
miningforthepurposesofcontemporarymeaning.

But of what use is the study itself? This is a hard question to answer.Thereare
certainly problems and some may judge them insurmountable. Firstly, there is
dubious use of gospel sources. Miller makes all four canonical gospels his
historical source material but does so with no historicalcritical appraisal of the
material that I can see. Crucial to the developmental psychological profile he
attemptstobuildareincidentssuchashisbaptismbyJohntheBaptist(including
his supposed vision of a dove) and what are referred to as his temptations by
Satan or the Devil. Many, many historical Jesus and gospel scholars would
regard these events, in their recorded detail if not whole, as later Christian
inventions. This problem becomes worse, having read the whole study, when it
seems as if Miller just pulls in any gospel material deemed support for his
psychological profile without any historicalcritical analysis of the text required.
If it fits the profile it seems to be regarded as historical. This isnt really
satisfactory and leaves Miller open to the chargethatheisabuildingaprofileof
asynthesizedgospelJesusandnotahistoricalone.

81
Miller may respond to this charge, however, by claiming thathisstudyispaying
attention to the established results of historical Jesus research, a phrase he
uses in a useful appendix to his book which gives a brief overview of previous
psychological study of Jesus. The historical Jesus, then, does seem tobewhat
Miller thinks he is studying when he criticises past psychological studies for not
doing so. When he talks about the temptations and developmental conflicts
Jesus may have suffered hedoesthinkhesreferringtothehistoricalJesus.But,
as we have already seen, there doesnt seem to be much difference in practice
between this Jesus and one that is a synthesis of canonicalgospelmaterial,one
in which his psychological profile does the choosing. So how historicalreallyis
this process? Miller lists 9 studies in a footnote that he calls the more
substantial conclusions of recognized historians working in the field, studies by
scholars such as Geza Vermes, James Dunn, Ben Meyer, Martin Hengel, Marcus
Borg and John P. Meier. (My view on his scholarly biblical sources generally is
that they skew towards conservative and Christian.) But in a previous footnote
he quotes Graham Stanton with approval when he says, there is littleevidence
which suggests that large numbers of traditions were simply made up by
Christians in the postEaster period which gives the impression that Miller has
basically decided to believe everything unless an outstanding reason for not
believing something were to raise its ugly head. Here it seems relevant to point
out that if the temptations ofJesusbySatanareconsideredreliablehistorythen
whatelseinthegospelswouldntbe?

InbuildingourownprofileofMiller,then,westarttogettheimpressionthatthis
is a study to find a traditionalist, conservative Jesus, certainly one who will not
scare believers. Millers chapter on the sexuality of Jesus here stands out in
which Miller manages to talk, ostensibly, about that sexuality for several pages
but, at the end, you realise that he has basically said nothing about Jesus as a
sexual being at all. This Jesus may indeedhaveapenisandafullsetoftesticles
(at least, this isnt denied) but you better believe he never uses them. Here a
very coy and conservative tendency to refuse to fully embrace the idea of a
properly human Jesus raises its very ugly head. Jesus, in this study as in so
many others where Jesusisdesexualisedand,therefore,dehumanised,ismade
celibate (and presumably a lifelong virgin). But its more than celibate.Henever
has a single rude or naughty thought. Although he found women attractive,
writes Miller, who will brook no notion that Jesus was gay, he did not look at
them lustfully. Now, I ask you, in an avowed psychohistorical study of the
historical Jesus how can Miller legitimately make any claim such as this? As
history this is completelyfabricatedguesswork.Thereisnoevidenceforthisone
way or another. The strong suspicion that Miller is here being guided by other,
christological things such as that Jesus was without sin is mightily apparent.
This is ironic when Millercanbemoanastillwidespreadandlargelyunconscious
resistance to a full recognition of Jesus humanity and the more obvious
emotional factors at work within it earlier in his study. The trouble is that here
Jesus mustbehumanbutnottoohuman.YoucanbesurethatthisJesusdidnot
even masturbate so much as once and neither did he follow the curves of

82
anothers human body and fantasize about it. Is that a picture of a human,
historicalJesus?Isthatevenavalidpsychologicalpictureofahumanbeing?

So what Miller is giving us is a modern narrative for an ancient purpose. It is

christology by other means, a Jesus that modern, 21st century Christians can
believe in. It is the gospel Jesus linked together within the context of a
psychological narrative. It wants to humanise Jesus at the edges but for the
purposes of, somehow, making him even more the god that he was before,
enough likeusthathebecomesattractivetous(historicalJesus)butenoughnot
like us that he can still be set apart, holy (Christ of faith). Miller makes great
play of the notion that Jesus was tempted in every respect as we are, yet
without sin (Hebrews 4:15) and takes this to mean that Jesus emerged from
the psychological trials of his life victoriously as a generative (the term is
related to the neoFreudian, developmental psychology of Erik Erikson and
Daniel Levinson) adult man, one who had gotten over the troubles of a father
who died in his early teenage years andamotherhebecame,insomemeasure,
estranged from forthesakeoftheKingdom.Thisfictionalnarrativeofonemans
struggle to overcome the trials of life reads, in some ways, as a quest romance
narrative but one is left wondering if this was ever really in doubt. JesusisLord
and Saviour and this is a makeover to humanise such a being, a being who
would seem as distantandunknowableasanyifleftinthecloudsofheaven.Yet
if we can speak of struggles with friends and family,ofinnerturmoilsandofthe
temptations which we are all very familiar with then, so it seems, what we are
left with is a modern pictureofJesus,onenotonlyusefulforchristologybutone
that has been christology all along. That Jesus was fully human is, after all, a
christologicalstatement!Millerhasprovidedamodernfictioninsupportofit.

AlbertSchweitzerandTheQuestofthePersonalJesus

If we had read our Schweitzer, of course, we should have known better.

Schweitzer, in fact, was also a man qualified in biblical and medical areas. His
The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906), which was a magisterial book on the
quests for Jesus up until the beginning ofthe20thcenturyandastudywhichall
taking part in this field of study have had to reckon with since, was partly
responsible, in Schweitzers own mind, for a negative attitude towards Jesus
psychology. After all, in Quest Schweitzer had described Jesus as a man so
obsessed with the end of the world that he had tried to force it into happening.
So in 1913 Schweitzer publishedamedicalthesis,DiePsychiatrischeBeurteilung
Jesus, in which he attempted to rehabilitate Jesus sanity and to present himas
at least a sane man of his own time and place with theeschatologicalbeliefshe
maintained were the only correct way to view Jesus as a character of genuine
history. So, putting these two studies together, this is Schweitzers own version
ofthepsychologicallyhealthyhistoricalJesus.

But it is Schweitzer as an interpreter of previous biblical scholarship (then

usually regarded as simply theology) which resulted in an area of study called

83
historical Jesus research that concerns us here. When Schweitzer begins his
tale, arbitrarily with the postdeath publication in 1778 of fragments written by
Hermann Samuel Reimarus, there was, properly speaking, nosuchthingasthe
historical Jesus. Contemporary biblical scholarship, as the populace generally,
considered that the gospel Jesus was Jesus the historical figure. To doubt this
was simply blasphemy rather than scholarship which took a different point of
view. Schweitzer aimed to show that with Reimarus and his view that Jesus in
no way intended to abolish this Jewish religion and introduce a new one in its
place, thus opening up a division between the earthly Jesus and the one that
lives on because of protoChristian belief, a new, right and proper historical
debate began, one which would lead straight to his own historical Jesus, an
eschatological prophet of thoroughly Jewish caste who believed he would play a
part in God bringing about the end of the world. When it didnt happen he tried
to force it to and was killed in theattempt.Thiseschatologicalvision,theoneof
which Schweitzer hadhimselfbecomeconvinced,isthemajorhermeneuticalkey
he uses to describe, in almost 500 brilliant pages, the course of what will come
to be regarded as historical Jesus research. Along the way his thoughts become
indispensableevenformodernscholarssettingoutupontheQuest.Forinstance,
hestates:

eachsuccessiveepochoftheologyfounditsownthoughtsinJesusthatwas,
indeed,theonlywayinwhichitcouldmakehimlive.
ButitwasnotonlyeachepochthatfounditsreflectioninJesuseachindividual
createdJesusinaccordancewithhisowncharacter.Thereisnohistoricaltask
whichsorevealsamanstrueselfasthewritingofaLifeofJesus.Novitalforce
comesintothefigureunlessamanbreathesintoitallthehateoralltheloveof
whichheiscapable.Thestrongerthelove,orthestrongerthehate,themore
lifelikeisthefigurewhichisproduced.ForhateaswellaslovecanwriteaLifeof
Jesus,andthegreatestofthemarewrittenwithhateItwashatenotsomuch
ofthepersonofJesusasofthesupernaturalnimbuswithwhichitwassoeasyto
surroundhim,andwithwhichhehadinfactbeensurrounded.Theywereeager
topicturehimasanordinaryperson,tostripfromhimtherobesofsplendour
withwhichhehadbeenapparelled,andclothehimoncemorewiththecourse
garmentsinwhichhehadwalkedinGalilee.

The theytherereferstoReimarus,whowasSchweitzersstartingpointandthe
first, in his view, to hituponeschatology,thekeystoneofJesushistoryproperly
carried out, and the second was David Friedrich Strauss who, in 1835, had
published his The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, which was a thoroughgoing
application of the concept of mythologisation to the four canonical gospels. This
was not a new process in itself and had been applied liberally in the Old
Testament and even to the beginning and end of the gospels. But it had never
been applied to the entirety of the gospel material before and so, when Strauss
did just that, according this story and that story of the gospels the description
myth in the process, it created a religious and academic scandal which, in a
nutshell, ruined the rest of Strauss life. Schweitzer, however, in his reporting

84
the tale of Strauss over a number of chapters, marks him out with Reimarus as
one of those who, although scandalous to their times, had actually set
scholarship on its way to a properly historical appreciation ofthegospelsandso
of the Jesus within them. Strauss historicalprocedure,whichwastocombatthe
twin critical approaches of the time which were an unsupportable
supernaturalism and a ridiculous rationalism, was to apply the categorymythto
the gospels as a way to explain their contents without the need to fall back on
either of those previous approaches, approaches whichhadgivenalltheyhadto
give but without success. But from Schweitzers point of view what was one of
the most notable things about Strauss procedure was that what were leftbeing
regarded as the most authentic of all the gospel materials were exactly the
eschatological passages. Schweitzer notes, for example, that even for Strauss
the problem of the son of man is already the central problem in which are
focused all the questions of messiahship and eschatology. The third of
Schweitzers scholarly forebears in his study will be Johannes Weiss who makes
eschatologyandthekingdomofGodtheentirefocusofJesusactivities.

In characterising all this historical Jesus research from the previous 130 years
Schweitzer notes that it did not take its rise from a purely historicalinterestit
turned to the Jesus of history as an ally in the struggle against the tyranny of
dogma. Schweitzer further characterises the whole industry as a school of
honesty for theology generally. Moreover, in general comments on the whole
enterprise, one, lest we forget, he thought had produced genuinely useful
historical results, he regarded the whole thing as a matter of experimentation
in which the guiding principle must ultimately rest upon historical intuition. In
this the sources give no hint of the character of his (i.e.Jesus)consciousness
and,interestingly,

Itisnotthemostorderlynarratives,thosewhichconscientiouslyweavein
everydetailofthetext,thathaveadvancedthestudyofthesubject,but
preciselytheeccentricones,thosethattakethegreatestlibertieswiththetext.

This line of thinking continues as Schweitzer works his way through the 19th
century and gets to those who flat out deny that Jesus ever existed. He
concedes that this is one way to go but he notes that such people as do argue
this seem motivated by a higher purpose which they regard as sacred.
Schweitzer also berates the language of certainty which can ofteninfiltratesuch
research.Hewritesthat

ToassertthatthehistoricityorunhistoricityofJesushasbeenprovedisaway
ofspeakingwhich,thoughcommonenoughineverydayconversation,inthe
sphereofstrictscientificthoughtmeansnomorethanthataccordingtothe
availableevidencetheoneisveryprobablewhereastheotherisnot.

85
Schweitzers own historical skepticism reaches a peak when he says that
Modern Christianity must always reckon with the possibility of having to
abandonthehistoricalfigureofJesus.

But it is this connection between researcher and researched which is really

highlighted and pointed up for me by Schweitzers study. Indeed, this
relationship seems to be the entire basis on which Schweitzer has proceeded in
thefirstplace.Considerthefollowingfromtowardstheendofhisbook:

TherealJesuscouldproveinhiswholerangeofideastobesodeterminedby
thetimeinwhichhelivedthato urrelationshipwithhimcouldbecomea
problem.AdefencewhichdoesnotinadvanceconsiderthepossibilitythatJesus
mayturnouttobetoohistoricalisnot,infact,impartial.Itisdefendingthe
historicityofJesus,butonlyofaJesusw homithasitselfdetermined.(italics
mine)

ThustheSchweitzerianconclusionthat

Andifweconsider,too,thathis(Jesus)understandingofhimself,his
expectations,histeaching,hisdecisions,andhisactionsarealleschatologically
determined,thisfurtherstrengthensour(i.e.Schweitzers)impressionthathis
personalityisalientousandtothetimeinwhichwelive.Thusatfirstsightit
seemsfareasiertoaccepttheideathatw ecanhaveabsolutelynorelationship
withhimthanitistoacceptthatwecan.(italicsmine)

On the very next pageSchweitzerwillcriticisemoderntheologyfortempering
the historical with the unhistorical to a degree sufficient to retain a Jesus of
whom it can make use of for its own religious ends. Schweitzer finds this
procedure inauthentic because he finds trying to understand Jesus as the
historical person inauthentic. All it finds, in his view, is a man who speaks
another language, the language of a first century PalestinianJewwhowantsthe
kingdom of God to come now. This, Schweitzer imagines, is an alien, foreign
language to us. It cannot speak to modern people. We need to liberate
ourselves from the thought forms which were available to him.Historicalterms
usedofandpossiblyevenbyhimbecomeforushistoricalparables.Butitmust
be noted most strongly that in all this Schweitzer does want a relationship with
Jesus. He just wants one that he can regard as authentic instead of one which
tampers with history for itsownpurposes.Hewantstheineffablemysterywho
will come as one unknown in the memorable words of his final paragraph.
Thus, Jesus as a character is not a personage of no matter or import for
Schweitzer. It is exactlybecauseheissuchapersonthatallthisindustryfinding
ahistoricalpersoninthefirstplacehasbeinggoingon(inthosehereportsonas
in himself). Schweitzers study hasbeenanobjectlessonintheusesandabuses
of history but also a powerful witness to the fact that when people get involved
in such things what and how they see molds the material they have at their
disposal and the narrative that emerges. He may well come as one unknown

86
but we researchers are very keennottoleavehimso.SchweitzersalienJesus
is both a way to cut off certain historical (or, as Schweitzer would have it,
ahistorical) meanings of Jesus and a way to necessitatethemeaningSchweitzer
wants. In either case, a Jesus who means is what counts and what fiction or
mythology is deployed as an explicative narrative is important as we saw
previously in this chapter with white Jesus and psychologically welladjusted
Jesus. Each individual created Jesus in accordance with his own character is
Schweitzers judgment on an entire branch of biblical scholarship. Quite. Reach
outandtouchfaith.

RortyandNietzsche:RealityasUsefulFictions

Assuming we dont wish to argue that all these Jesuses being found, that bear
the imprimatur and imprint of their makerfinders, are merely the result of
substandard inquirers, people who, despite their best intentions, succumbed to
finding what they wanted to find in spiteofthemselves(andIdont),howmight
we best explain that this seems to bewhatprettymucheveryonedoes?Myown
way to explain this will be to return to Richard Rorty and Friedrich Nietzsche,
philosophers who appeared early on in this study as I was doing the
groundwork. It turns out that both, from their different but sometimes
compatible locations, each tell stories about human beings, their cultures, their
knowledge, their truths and their ways of being in the world which give a wide
angle of view on what is going on. The stories they tell make iteasytoseethat
Jesus is not being treated in a special way when he is viewed historically by so
many different people and communities with their differing needs. He is just
quite a famous example to take as a subject of study which highlights a much
bigger and allencompassing subject: human beings and how human beings
negotiate their way through theworldatall.Inshort,Jesusinthisstudyhasnot
been the subject of thestudybutjustanexampletofocusonwhichrevealshow
humans operate. But lets move, once more, to the stories Rorty and Nietzsche
telltomakethismoreexplicit.

In the second, third and fourth chapters ofhis1999book,PhilosophyandSocial

Hope, Richard Rorty, under the heading Hope in place of knowledge, gives a
cutdown, popular version of hisbrandofpragmatism.Thisisundertheheadings
truth without correspondence to reality, a world without substances and
essences and ethics without principles. In each chapter, as the headings
suggest, he seems to take something away that people have claimed (and
sometimes still do claim) that we human beingshaveneededtogetby.IsRorty
being mean and not allowing us to cling to our safety blankets anymore? My
reading of Rorty suggests that he doesnt think we human beings need any
safetyblankets.

Take truth without correspondence to reality, for example. As Rorty would

have it, truth is not a goal of human inquiry. So we dont need to worry if we
have it or not. Beliefs about things, he tellsus,aremostlytruemostofthetime

87
for everyone anyway. Think about it. If we humanbeingswentaroundand90%
of what we thought was true wasfalsethenwewouldntsurvive,wouldwe?Our
picture of the world, and the truths that make it up, have to be as true as the
world needs them to be or we wouldnt last very long. Whatwecalltruthhasto
be able to survive the daily grind of living in a world we do not control. So you
cant just make things up and, crucially, you cannot believe a single thing that
you couldnt justify to yourself or to the necessary others of your community
that need to be satisfied in order for it to be taken as true. So, for Rorty, the
problem is not truth or certainty or knowledge and how we know we have
these things. The normal operation of the world takes care of these things. We
do not need procedures for ensuring them or to try and map something called
reality to make sure we are right. So there is nothing to be said about the
connection of truth and justification or about "the limits of human knowledge,"
for example. Rorty would prefer to substitute the relationship between now and
the future for this or to swap "epistemology," the attempt to ground things,
hardwire relations and soachievecertainty,for"hope,"theopportunitytocreate
and practice a betterhumanfuture.Allthereistosayabouttruthorjustification
or beliefs is that there is simply the process of justifying beliefs to audiences.
Andthatsit.Thatsenough.

This tendency to want to map things or, as Rorty will describe it elsewhere, to
want to atomise things, believing that if we understand the little things that
make up the bigger things we will achieve some unique insight that will be
complete understanding,isalsounderfirewhenRortymovestoaworldwithout
substances or essences. This particular essay has the point of showing that
ancient dualisms, things like appearancereality, subjectobject and
nomosp hysis are misleading and unhelpful. Much better, argues Rorty, that we
simply think of everything panrelationally like numbers.Thereisnoessenceof
a number. A number is just a number and there is no way to get inside it to
behold the essence of it. Every description of the number is just another
description,awayofrelatingittootherthingswithdifferentdescriptionsnoneof
which is any more essential than the next. So, as Rorty tells this tale,
everything is a social construction which is tosaythataslinguisticbeingswith
social practices everything, natural as well as conventional, will always be a
function of our social needs. What we are then concerned with is not reality,
nor the fear that all we might have is appearance instead. We let this
distinction go and, realising that power is allthereistoknowledge,theabilityto
use and make relations between things, different ways to relate one thing to
another being all thatwecando,weconcernourselvesinsteadwiththerelative
utility of descriptions. This follows from the belief that there is nothing to be
known aboutanythingexceptthesentencesusedtodescribeit.Allthatweknow
about things is that certain sentences are true of them. So, like numbers, no
way of describing something is the insideway.Weshouldwasteourtimeifwe
wanted to try and map reality somehow by searching for essences that are not
there to find. Instead, we should forget the dead ends of knowing and certainty

88
and turn to the future hope of creating. For we can certainly do that and, with
hope,profitablyso.

Truth, knowing and certainty are all very well. But what about ethics, human
conduct? Here the instinct to map is revealed to be principles and it will not
surprise you to learn that Rorty thinks we do not need them. Here,Rortytellsa
more explicitly developmental tale, basedonDarwinsevolutionaryexample.We
humans, he says, are just cleverer animals, language using animals. We differ
from the lower animals only in degree, not kind. We are not set apart, a
completely different thing. Our difference from them can be explained by telling
a tale of development rather than mapping out essential differences and saying
what the essence of each is. We are just a further advanced developmental
stage. Analogously, we can think of ethics and, in so doing, principles as hard
and fast guides or explanations for ethics seem to drop away. This is because
there was no point in the past, says Rorty, at which practicalreasoningstopped
being prudential or useful to become moral or authoritative instead. The one
developmentally and all by itself morphed into the other and, that being true, it
was always both and neither. So it really becomes pointless to talk about either
as it is an empty distinction. For the same reason that we should drop the
distinction between reason and the passions, that it is a bad way to thinkabout
things, we should drop distinguishing principles from prudenceorusefulwaysto
act from moral ways to act. What we actually need to focus on is not the
ontological status of thingsbutdebatingtheutilityofalternativeconstructionsof
how human beings should progress. It doesnt matter if reason or passion,
prudence or morality suggests a certain course of action (a desirewhichreveals
a desire to be right according to some unargued for antecedent). What does
matter is the priority of the need to create new ways of being human and to
create societieswhichdemonstrateaneverlargerloyaltytoeverwidergroupsof
people. We will find these ways by discussing them, saysRorty,notbytryingto
divine a moral law which somehow arbitrates from some nonhuman vantage
point.

What all three ofRortyschaptersherepointtowardsisaviewwhichprizeshope

for future human development over a backward looking need to be certain we
have things right first. On Rortys view, we need neither an unavailable map of
reality nor to be certain we arerightbeforewecanprogress.Simplyarmedwith
our sociallyenabledandlinguisticallyarticulatedhumanity,wehaveallweneed.
Our human situation will provide all the things that it will seem to some like
Rortyhastakenawayand,ifitdoesnt,forgetthem.Weclearlydidntneedthem
in the first place. Here the stories we tell ourselves, the way weunderstandour
worldandoursituationwithinit,shouldnotbethoughtofascertaintiesorthings
which, by human investigation into the nature of things, we can turn into
certainties. They are simply fictions, mythologies, useful ways to understand
things which help us to get the things we want. Their usefulness is the only
recommendation they need. And this is where Nietzsches story helps us out
further.

89
Nietzsche never published the short essay On Truth and Lie in A NonMoral
Sense in his own lifetime. It was written in the early part of his publishing
career in 1873, shortly after he had published his first book, The Birth of
Tragedy, with which it is often included today as an added extra. It is a very
short essay, easily read in under an hour, and in it, like a later book Nietzsche
wouldpublish,T wilightofTheIdols,hephilosophizeswithahammer.

He begins by telling a parable of the most arrogant and most mendacious

minute in the history of the world. This was the minute when we humans
invented cognition, something Nietzsche regards as insubstantial and
transitory and purposeless and arbitrary. From here Nietzsche writes, in 50
foot high bold relief lettering, about how the human intellect is merely human,
something fitted precisely and only for a human form of life. We think that we
are understanding life, the world and the universe with our arrogant thinking,
suggests Nietzsche, but, if itcouldtalkandthinkaswe,wouldntthemidgetoo?
Cognition, understanding, knowledge, truth, it puffs up those who imagine to
possess them. They overplay their hand. This cognition is not ours by
coincidence though. It was, after all, fitted to our form of life. It was necessary
for us and gives value to our existence, and that mostly by deception and
dissimulation. This preserves the humans who, with their constant fluttering
around the one flame of vanity, arepossessedofillusions,dreamimagesand
illusoryconsciousness.

If all human beings lived alone this might be enough, Nietzsche concedes, but
they dont and so some form of peace treaty is required andpartofthisisthe
convention known as truth and its distinction from something else called lying.
But dont confuse this truth for actual,real,genuinetruthdisconnectedfromthe
human beings, warns Nietzsche. Truth is only wanted for certain usefulfeatures
that would be of benefit in this social situationsuchastheavoidanceofharmor
its lifepreserving consequences. It is truth from the human point of view or
truth as it is of benefit to human beings.Pureknowledge,puretruth,oreither
ofthesethingswheretherearenoconsequencesforhumanbeingsarestrictlyof
no interest to the humans. Here Nietzsche shows human beings to be
consequencedriven the use of truth is what is important and not its status or
reality.Forthehumans,truthisjustselfpreservation.

From here NietzschenowgoesintohisownlittleversionofaRortiannarrativeof

development, remarking how words were once just the copy of a nervous
stimulation in sounds. By a circuitous routeourlanguage,whichgivesourtruth
something ofthenatureofatautologyratherthanbeingamapcorrespondingto
the landscape of reality, becomes merely a human relating of things to human
beings. Metaphor is loaded on top of metaphor in this process and, in so doing,
we confuse ourselves. We think we may, in fact, have created a map of reality
and that, through language, we can gain access to the map. But we are wrong.
No correspondence is going on and all weve done is to relate things to us. We
utilize concepts to try and help us understand but these are just generalizing

90
falsifications of things, a making equivalent of that which is nonequivalent.
Thus, what is individual and real is glossed over, conceptualised and
generalised to enable our form of understanding. It is thoroughly and uniquely
anthropomorphic.

Andnowwegettothepoint:

What,then,istruth?Amobilearmyofmetaphors,metonymies,
anthropomorphisms,inshortasumofhumanrelationswhichhavebeen
subjectedtopoeticandrhetoricalintensification,translationanddecoration,and
which,aftertheyhavebeeninuseforalongtime,strikeapeopleasfirmly
established,canonicalandbindingtruthsareillusionsofwhichwehave
forgottenthattheyareillusions,metaphorswhichhavebecomewornby
frequentuseandhavelostallsensuousvigour,coinswhich,havinglosttheir
stamp,arenowregardedasmetalandnolongerascoins.

But we have not finished yet for this has only described societys imposition of
truth upon itself for the maintenance of good, lifepreserving order. How about
the drive to truth? asks Nietzsche. Well, of course, human beings have
forgotten how they got to where they are. They have forgotten about theirslow
development from one thing to another. But Nietzsche says that exactly this
unconsciousness about it has allowed them to arrive at the feelingoftruth.This
feeling for truth,anditsopposite,thedespisingofthelie,helpshumanbeingsto
feel confident about truth and to keep telling themselves how good this truth is
for them. This, over many years, becomes the systematizing which comes to
define humanity and the fictionalizing by which we have success and all this
without ever being that thing which we might imagine truth is, a pure truth
unrelated to human needs or purposes or consequences. We create the
conventional world. This world is thoroughly human and so, of course, we feel
totally at home in it and because we feel at home in it it becomes something
regulatory and imperative for us. Truth meansfittinginwiththisconstructed
humansystemandthis,inturn,becomesthefoundationofhumanlife.

This thing which makes us feel most at home about this truth, however, is also
that which is, fromanimaginary,nonperspectivalandpureview,itsproblem.It
is not truthinitself or pure truth. It is not what is true behind a veil of
appearances. It is just anthropomorphic truth, truth as is useful to us. Human
beings have now made themselves the measure of all things but they become
forgetful that this is what they have done. Our measurements become the
measurements from nowhere, reality, pure, unalloyed, inarguable,
unconditioned,facts.Weforgetithasallbeenmediatedthroughusandforus.It
is conditioned and not unconditional. It is truth by faith and a subjective,
creative faith at that. We have swapped the aesthetic relation of this truth fora
totalising perception we never had. It is not true that the essence of things
appears in the empirical world, says Nietzsche. That fact that metaphors can
harden up and seem to become facts or truths is no guarantee of necessity or

91
its justification, he continues. The fact that our knowledge and our truths seem
nottobeaboutourimaginationorcreationisbytheby.Everythingweknowisa
matter of things having been related to human needs and consciousness and
understanding. It is all a relating of things to eachotherinanendlesscycle.We
never get outside of it or inside of it because it is all justanetworkofrelations.
This even extends to science. All the conformity to laws which we find so
imposing in the orbits of the stars and chemical processes is basically identical
with those qualities which we ourselves bring tobearonthings,sothatwhatwe
findimposingisourownactivity,saysNietzsche.

And so, whether in language or in science, Nietzsche finds a human drive to

create the world of our experience and existence which he terms the
anthropomorphicworld.Thisdrivetoformmetaphorscannotbeleftoutofthe
account for to do so is to leave humanbeingsoutthemselves.Thehumanbeing
has created a web of concepts in her head. It might be a myth, it might be a
dream, but either way human beings themselves have an unconquerable urge
to let themselves be deceived. Creative contentment for the human being is
asgoodasanyand,indeed,theybecomeintoxicatedbyit.

It is by thinking on these two visions, those ofRortyandhereofNietzsche,that

I come to the notion that human beings are fictionalising or mythologising or
rhetoricizing creatures. This is not a faculty applied to various subjectsortopics
as necessary or something that applies in certain circumstances. It is not what
human beings do if they have become disturbed or are mistakenorhavegotten
confused. It is a large scale explanation for how we humans understand or
inquire into anything at all. It is, without hyperbole, what we are. Iamclaiming
that human beings, as amatterofcourse,createnarrativeswhichconstitutethe
world. Into these narratives fit all the apparatus of truth and knowledge and
beliefs whose function is to make those worlds seem real, believable and
justifiable. So, in this sense, fact is fiction. In this sense, fiction is true. In this
sense, what you know was created, where being created was no different at all
to being given. I am saying,justasNietzscheandRortywereintheirownways,
that human beings routinely create the world that the world of cause and effect
allows them to create. This world might be a little more plastic and pliable than
those who want to find maps to reality would like. But from Nietzsches
perspective this drive to truth will not be stopped and from Rortys all that
countsisabetterfuture,notsearchingforamapthatwasnevertheretofind.

So Im saying that fiction is all youve got because creating fiction is what you,
me and everyone else does. For some that fiction is I am finding the authority
to which I think we must all give fealty and to othersitmightbetoanswerthe
question What is the mostemancipatorypersonIcanbe?butineachcaseitis
fiction understood not ontologically but in terms of the drive that Nietzsche
spoke of. The fictionormythologyorrhetoric(eachofthesetermswilldo)isthe
activity of humans to utilise their world of existence and experience for their
survival and greater good. My conception of the person here is, naturally, more

92
than simply a conception of the physical self. It encompasses all we think we
are, our thoughts,feelings,emotions,beliefs,etc.WhenItalkaboutoursurvival
I mean our survival as identities, as the people we think we are. Applied to a
discussion of the historical Jesus, this would become the creation of the person
we create him to be because of who we need to be to bewhoweare.Historical
Jesus study is the relating of the historical Jesus to the self, a community or
something else. For all inquiry is fictional mythmaking related to us in a
rhetoricalcontext.

This would not come as asurprisetoRorty.Indeed,hewouldhaveimaginedme

to have written 94 pages working up to something completely obvious if this is
all Ive got. Of course they are social constructions, he wouldsay.Andsoare
atoms, and so is everything else.Fortobeasocialconstructionissimplytobe
the intentional object of a certain set of sentences sentences used in some
societies and not others. And, realising this, Rorty envisions us giving up
pointing it out because now we have something better to do: debating the
utility of alternative constructs. And yet. For others, of course, what Ive
alreadysaidwillbefartoomuch.ForthemIhaveabandonedtruth(theintrinsic,
nonhuman, arbitrating kind), trivialised knowledge (making it something like
opinion) and become a nihilist (who doesnt care about anything butventinghis
mind and especially not the certainty which gives anything meaning). But
mentionofm eaningisapposite.Asweshallseeshortly.

93
6.InventingtheFictionalJesus

ThePragmaticQuest:HistoricalJesusStudyAsCulturalCriticism

Thegoodpersonproducesgoodfromthefundofgoodintheheart,andtheevil
personproducesevilfromtheevilwithin.Asyouknow,themouthgivesvoiceto
whattheheartisfullof.(Luke6:45)

Thus was Jesus truly a pragmatist prophet before his time. Here Jesus links
what the heart is full of to either the good or evil which we produce.
Change the vocabularytomakeitcontemporaneousandwehavethepragmatist
doctrine that the products of our intellectual inquiries are indefatigably linkedto
us, in pragmatist parlance, our web of beliefs,ourdesires,ourpurposes,us.We
have the belief that we are always situated within our own view of the world
regardless of the rhetoric we deploy, the effects it might seem to have or the
protestations to the contrary. Because of this I had at first thought to lay out a
set of pragmatist rules for the road for the historical Jesus researcher as a
conclusion to this study and as an alternative to an ever nascent and unhelpful
realist approach. But I had not been reading my Stanley Fish with my fullest
attention for, as he notes, nothing follows from pragmatism and theory about
itdoesntunderwriteitaspractice.Fishexplains:

Thatisthelessonpragmatismteaches:thatweliveinarhetoricalworldwhere
argumentsandevidencearealwaysavailable,butalwayschallengeable,and
thattheresourcesoftheworldaresufficientuntomostdays.Itisneithera
despairingorinspiringlesson,anditdoesnttellyouexactlyhowtodoanything
(itdeliversnomethod),althoughitdoesassureyouthatinordinary
circumstancestherewillusuallybesomethingtobedone.

So there is something to do, we can be fairly sure. But what is it? According to
Cornel West it is cultural criticism. We can initially take this claim in religious
terms since, as West notes in quoting Peirce in his genealogy of pragmatism
entitled The American Evasion of Philosophy, Peirce, a Christian believer, linked
his pragmatic maxim with a saying of Jesus he regarded his pragmatic maxim
as only an application of the sole principle of logic which was recommendedby
JesusYemayknowthembytheirfruits,anditisveryintimatelyalliedwiththe
ideas of the gospel. Thus, pragmatism was involved in making cultural
applications of its use of ideas from its inception. When we further note other
pragmatists, that William James was similarly an active Christian believer, his
The Varieties of Religious Experience being a seminal discussion of religious
culture, and that men such as John Dewey, Sidney Hook, W.E.B. Du Bois,
Reinhold Niebuhr, Stanley Fish, Richard RortyandWesthimself,haveallplayed,
or continue to play, the role of public intellectual, dabbling and more in
political, ethical and cultural debates inside and outside of their supposed
academic fields, we begin to see that avowed pragmatists, allied with the

94
pragmatic attitudes they espouse, have felt compelled to take part in public
debates of many different persuasions. As Rortyexpresseditinthelastchapter,
we come to see that pragmatists feel compelled to discuss the relative merits
anddemeritsofthingsinordertomoveforward.

Why would this be? What is it about pragmatism that promotes this and what
might it mean for pragmatic historical Jesus study? According to West,
pragmatism has major themes of evading epistemologycentred philosophy,
accenting human powers, and transforming antiquated modes of social
hierarchies in light of religious and/or ethical ideals. Allied to this, he espiesan
unashamedly moral emphasis and [an] unequivocally ameliorative impulse.
This evolves into a future oriented philosophy (in the nonspecialisedsense),an
instrumentalism that tries to deploy thought as a weapon to enable more
effective action. For West this makes pragmatism a form of culturalcriticism,
a continuous cultural commentary or a set of interpretations that attempt to
explain[things]...ataparticularhistoricalmoment.Thisexplanatoryroleisboth
a worthy and a necessary one, not least in the context of the Quest of the
Historical Jesus, a discourse which has not always been clear as to where it is
going orwhatitisgoingtherefor.Assumption,orassumptionthatsomeoneelse
knew the answer to that, has all too often been the order of the day. A
pragmatic Quest challenges historical Jesus scholars to stop assuming and start
explaining, to start weaving narratives of whys and what fors in relation to
historical Jesus study, explaining its purposes, its relevance and its place (and
use) in contemporary cultural debates. Tosummarisethis:historicalJesusstudy
should adapt to its current conditions of life and play its part in shaping and
directingthemand,throughthatprocess,thefuturetoo.

There is a further strand to Cornel Wests claim that pragmatists are (and have
been) cultural critics. This is the idea that you cannot (read an ethic: should
not) tell these stories about what you are doing without having to take up a
stance as regards the content of the stories. This is a point West raises in
discussing Richard Rorty who was himself no stranger to political or cultural
debate in his lifetime or to reimagining or repurposing things for contemporary
and future purposes. Appropriately, West is applying his comments to
philosophy, but the point stands outside of the disciplinary configuration: you
cannot tell a story about something and eschew its political content, its role or
itsfunction.Westspointismeanttogrowintoactivism:

Thegoalofasophisticatedneopragmatismistothinkgenealogicallyabout
specificpracticesinlightofthebestavailablesocialtheories,culturalcritiques,
andhistoriographicalinsightsandtoactpoliticallytoachievecertainmoral
consequencesinlightofeffectivestrategiesandtactics.

Here West provides something traditionally missing from pragmatist critiques, a

discussion of the operations of power. He regards pragmatism in our
postmodern moment (he wrote The American Evasion of Philosophy in 1989)

95
as a matter of providing moral and political weapons in social and ideological
contestations with those who rule and dominate the lives of most of us. He
explains:

Thepoliticalmotivationof[pragmatism]isnotideologicalinthevulgar
sense...[Its]claimisthatonceonegivesuponthesearchforfoundationsand
thequestforcertainty,humaninquiryintotruthandknowledgeshiftstothe
socialandcommunalcircumstancesunderwhichpersonscancommunicateand
cooperateintheprocessofacquiringknowledge.Whatwasoncepurely
epistemologicalnowhighlightsthevaluesandoperationsofpowerrequisitefor
theproductionoftruthandknowledge.Thepoliticalsubstanceof[pragmatism]
isthatwhatwastheprerogativeofphilosophers,i.e.rationaldeliberation,isnow
thatofthepeopleandthepopulacedeliberatingiscreativedemocracyinthe
making...[This]isthecitizenryinaction,withitscivilconsciousnessmoldedby
participationinpublicinterestcentredandindividualrightsregarding
democracy.

Thus, in a pragmatic vein, historical Jesus study becomes public property, a

contemporary cultural discourse rather than a consequenceless academic
discourse that should be left tothosewithhigherbiblicalstudiesdegrees.Thisis
a doubleedgedswordinthathistoricalJesusscholarsjointhedemocraticthrong
with their own expertise and their own narratives whilst simultaneously being
subject to critiques or reformations from other sources (sources perhaps
psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc., but perhaps also religious,
journalistic or political) and via a host of contemporary media. In this historical
Jesus study becomes engaged, and thus an ethical and political discourse,
something whichhasmeritonlyinregardtothepurposesforwhichitexistsoris
used, purposes with ethical contexts and political ramifications. Part of the
historical Jesus scholars task is then to produce scholarship suitable for ethical
and political purposes, scholarship which, dare it be said, contributes to
democracy and social justice by contributing its own insights to a pluralistic and
participatory democratic discourse about the historical Jesus. (Of course,
scholarship which ignores or eschews this will still also be possible.) This, for
example, is part of whatRichardRortymeansbytakinganethicopoliticaltack
in philosophy, part of a swerve from imagined objective demands to purposive
ones. This may well need to be a responsive type of scholarship, one which, in
Rortian vein, is able to respond to the needs of ever more inclusive groups of
people. It is my contention that the alternatives are notonlymorallyworsebut
also philosophically worse and that a pragmatic approach entertains new
possibilities not only for historical Jesus study but also for personal and social
humanfulfillment.

All this is based on a simple pragmatist suggestion, that human beings are
committed and purposive beings, beings with concrete (yet dynamic) identities
and social contexts, and that discourses produced in a spirit of cooperation,
justice and communication are better than discourses reinforcing positions of

96
power or exclusion of certain groups. Pragmatists recognise that discourses
serve purposes and that they areheldintheswayoftheirmotivatingbeliefs.No
less, however, dotheybelievethatcommonbondscanbefound,communication
across boundaries is possible and democratic debate is nothing to be afraid of.
They agree with Sidney Hook that The cardinal sin...is refusal to discuss, or
action which blocks discussion (which is one of Hooks rules of democratic
discourse). From Emersonian optimismtoRortianhope,pragmatistsaimtobuild
something socially and culturally positive and fundamentally meaningful. It is to
that end that a historical Jesus scholarship in pragmatic guise charts its course
andmakesitsstand.

WhatDoesJesusMeanToday?

My pragmatist motives fullyrestated,IcannowcometothequestionofJesusof

Nazareth as a significant person of today. I do this not least as a good student
who once attended the University of Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies, a
department that, when I first began studying there, was headed by Professor
David Clines. Clines, besides being one of the worlds leading Hebrew Bible
scholars of the last several decades, also has an interest in regarding the Bible
as an in print, contemporary book likely to be found in many homes and other
places worldwide. Indeed, I remember a speech he once gave to a gathered
band of undergraduates, of which I was one, in which he argued that we, as
students in a department of biblical studies, were being trained in the use and
understanding of this still most popular of books in the contemporary world.
Thus we were, if not uniquely placed, at least in a position to be abletoshinea
little light and ask relevant questions wherever it might be brought up or
discussed in contemporary society. If you look around contemporary societies
and cultures it actually gets brought up more than you might imagine. That I
now write about Jesus of Nazareth as a person of contemporary significance
might,then,besaidtobepartoffulfillingthatcommissionClinesoncegave.

In doing so, however, a question needs to be asked: what does Jesus mean
today? This chapter is called InventingaFictionalJesusandIwillinglyconcede
that this title is deliberately provocative. However, within the terms Ive set out
in this study, I also regard it as the most useful of ways to look at it. My
argument has been that human inquiry itself is a matter of fiction, myth,
rhetoric, categories of meaning, and so studies of the historical Jesus must be
too. If we take on board Rortys insights about inquiry or Nietzsches about our
human apparatus of truth making and our drive to truth thenthereisnoreason
to think other than that the human beingmakesmeaningthroughfiction,fiction
that functions asfact,myththatfunctionsashistoryorrhetoricthatfunctionsas
worldview. In that context, what does Jesus meantoday?TheonlyanswerIcan
give(besidesahugelistofmeaningsIcouldbutwontgive)isthatthatquestion
likely receives as many answers as there are people the question could be put
to. For what Jesus means today is a question that would receive a personal
answer. It might be an interesting project to collate those many answers but

97
what you would be collating would be a collection of contemporary attitudes to
thereceptionofimagesofJesusasmuchasattitudestoJesussimplystated.

But let us ask another, related question at this point. If we ask what all the
historical Jesuses of the (roughly) last 250 years from Reimarus (the start of
Schweitzersstudy)totodaywereforthenwhatistheanswertothatquestion?I
tend to agree with the comments Schweitzer himself made in 1906 or, at least,
variations on them. People, both in the past and in more contemporary times,
have gone searching for the historical Jesus in order to find some authority
figure they can use in contemporary debates. Schweitzer argued that a number
of the historical Jesuses were motivated by hate, not necessarily hate of Jesus
himself but of something he was being used for by others. Often this was some
dogma. In more modern times weve seenasimilarphenomenonwithTheJesus
Seminar of the 1990s as a primary example. Motivated by their now sadly
deceased leader,RobertFunk,theywantedtowrestthehistoricalJesusfromthe
control of dogmatic conservative Christianity, especially as that manifests itself
in theUSA.TheJesustheycreatedcouldnothavebeenasupportforthefaithof
suchpeople.They,andothers,oftenfindanhistoricalJesuswhocannotbearthe
support of a religious faith. Often this is also selfsabotage as in the case of
Schweitzer himself. Similarly, and yet in a different way, Tom Wright has done
huge amountsofhistoricalworkandhasfoundaJesushecanverymuchbelieve
in. Not only is Jesus a historically realistic figure in Wrights historical work but
he also just happens to be a man (I mean a god) in whom Wright can entirely
base his religious faith. Isthisacoincidence?Ofcourseitisnt.Schweitzerfound
that every Life of Jesus, every historical Jesus study, found theJesusthatthose
researching wanted tofindor,attheveryleast,couldmakeuseof.Iaddthatso
did he and so has everyone ever since including me. Historical Jesus research
always finds a usefulJesus,aJesusforsomepurpose.Jesusisneverthesubject
ofdisinterestedstudy.Ourpurpose,findingthebestpurpose,iswhatcounts.

There is a third question we can ask. What about if we think of the historical
Jesus in terms of the Logotherapy I mentioned in chapter two, that theory of
psychologist Viktor Frankl which was based on the psychological viewpoint that
every human being alive needs a meaning of life.Thismeaningisnotaoncefor
all time meaning, like a chess move whichisthebestchessmoveofall.Butitis
likeameaningwhichisneededrightnow,likethebestchessmovewecanmake
right now in the situation we might find ourselves in in a particular game. If we
ask about the historical Jesus in terms of the meaning we each need in our life
right now what then? As far as I can see it becomes clear to me that this
meaning that we need, and the purpose and motivation it provides, becomes
crucial. Some people today are actively looking for a saviour, for example.
Others are not. Some want a friend. Others want selfsufficiency. Some seek a
wise teacher. So it cannot be that this meaning we seek and carry inside us is
irrelevant to the discussion of the historical Jesus. This whole study has been
arguing, in fact, that human beings are not blank slates. We are active,
purposive beings who act on meanings and search for more meanings andexist

98
in the context of meanings. We are walking agendas because, as Frankl argued
and, indeed, experienced personally in Nazi concentration camps, that meaning
weseekneedstobefulfilled.Ourlives(quiteliterally)dependonit.

All this moves us along to the question What SHOULD Jesus mean today? as
that is the question, perhaps, that historical Jesus research is really always
asking but never does explicitly for fear of exposing itself to a charge of lacking
the imagined necessary scholarly neutrality. Yet isnt that the question that
Wright, Crossan, The Jesus Seminar, Schweitzer, Reimarus, Strauss and all the
others were and arereallyasking?TheyclaimtobetalkingaboutwhoJesuswas
but they surely have an interest in what it means? And that means in what it
means today, right now, whenever the particular now happens to be. Surely
none of them would claim to be indifferent about what they find or aloof about
its consequences?SowhatshouldJesusmeantoday?What,inthe21stcentury,
isJesusevenfor?

One book that ventures answers on this question is the 2001 book Jesus Then
and Now: Images of Jesus in History and Christology. It is full of paperswritten
by academics that address subjects pertinent to the historical Jesus,
christological debates and, in a shorter last section, Jesus relatedtootherfaiths
and the modern world. But what strikes me is that all the contributions to this
book are addressing Jesusinthemodernworldbecausetheywereallwritten(or
at least published) in 2001. So none of the writers submitting papers for this
book are doing so fromsomehistoricallyunconditionedposition.WhenJamesM.
Robinson, for instance, writes about Jesus in Q he is not writing from the Q
Community. He is, presumably, writing from an office or study in the 21st
century. When Richard Swinburne writes a paper to try and explain how the
Incarnation might be sensibly understood as a fact he does so not from some
atemporal, christological bubble but as part of the very real world of 2001. In
some papers this is more explicit than others. In the historical Jesus section of
the book we find old adversaries John Dominic Crossan, Tom WrightandRobert
Funk (the first and last of these motivating forces of theJesusSeminar,Wright,
as Ive explained earlier, very much against them) each justifying their own
positions in articles about eschatology, resurrection and, in Funks case, a
defence of the Jesus Seminar. All these debates, to me, read as if they take
placeverymuchin2001andinthecontextofwhateachwriterwantsJesus,and
Christian faith, to mean in the 21st century. In this, first century Palestine acts
very much as a battlefieldbyproxyfortheonetheyareactuallylivingin.Sothe
question What should Jesus mean today? is not aninappropriatequestion,not
even for the scholar who imagines their job is to be factual and neutral.Infact,
that is exactly the question that is really being asked, hidden under the
subterfuge ofacademicdebate.WhatJesusshouldmeantodayisthecontenthis
inquirersareallreallysupplying.

In Jesus Then and Now this is shown in a number of ways. For example, there
are two papers which discussJesusinliterarysources,MarkandQ.Whatweget

99
here is currenttheoriesontheirarrangementandcontentwhich,ofcourse,have
consequences for what they mean. MarvinMeyer,oneofthosescholarswhohas
done much research on the Gospel of Thomas, writes a paper themed in line
with a thought of Albert Schweitzers that The glorified body of Jesus is to be
found in his sayings. Thomas, of course, is presented as a collection of the
sayings of the living Jesus. Jonathan L. Reed authors a paper on Galilean
archaeology inwhich,atfirst,hecomplainsthatChristianscholarshavebasically
used archaeology as a means to an illustrated bible, a bible come to life
exhibition and, in their minds at least, a means to validate faith. He examples
the boat that was found some years ago in the Sea of Galilee which, quite
fortuitously for some, seemed to seat twelve. However, his helpful and nuanced
paper helps to move archaeology away from such apologetic concerns to ones
which give a broader picture of Galilee as a Jewish land rather than the
Hellenised one some have imagined (or hoped for) to give support to their own
pictures of Jesus. John Dominic Crossan writes a paper against the notion of an
apocalyptically eschatological Jesus, one such as Schweitzer himself found and,
in more contemporary guise, Dale C. Allison has foundtoo.BothSchweitzerand
Allison have Jesus wrong in imagining the end oftheworldinsuchtermsandso
Crossan wonders how the right of Christianity can be gotten fromaJesuswho
waswrong.

In the christological section of the book (at least, if we are going to be blind to
the notion that there is a nonchristological section to this book) we see similar
debates conditioned by their historical time and place. The earlier papers are
preoccupied with the idea of virgin birth (in the context of the modern offence
such an idea mightprovide)andvariouswaysareexploredtoeitherexplainitor
validate it in terms acceptable to the 21st century thinker. Interestingly here,
Richard Swinburnes paper is titled Evidence for the Incarnation. Evidence?
John Hick, in his paper, prefers more metaphorical explanations. The last four
christological papers are modern concerns brought into relation with
christology, i.e. feminism, Process Christology, power and postHolocaust
studies. What we learn here, it seems to me, is that the christologicalsubjectis
one that never stops being in need of debate, redescription and redefinition.
Since time never stops, the talking, describing and explaining can never stop
either. This point is highlighted in the final section of the booktoowhichrelates
Jesus to (modern) Jews and Judaism, to Islam and to the global world future.
What these papers taken together show is that a world in which the person of
Jesus remains a significant figure will be a world in which people need to keep
triangulating his meaning for themselves and for others for this can have
consequences. Jesus, and hisgod,have,bythistime,becomesowrenchedfrom
their presumed first century Palestinian circumstancesthat,fromtheGodhates
fags of the Westboro Baptist Church to the deethnicised Jesus who just wants
everyone to love each other,themeaningsofJesuscanbeveryconsequentialin
their own right. What he should mean today is always right there, front and
centre.

100
HowCanItNotKnowWhatItIs?

What Jesus should mean today,ofcourse,isimportantonlybecauseofourneed

to mean something ourselves. Nothing, outside of the needs of people, pushes
Jesus to a meaningful place or makes how he is regarded important. If he is
important it is because some person, some community,somesociety,thinksso.
But identity itself is a very mysterious thing, a thing no less prey to the fiction,
myth and rhetoric I have been talking about in this study. Allow me to explain
withanexample,ifyouwill.

There is a scene near the beginning of classic science fiction film Blade Runner
where our hero,Deckard,playedbyHarrisonFord,hasgonetotheheadquarters
of the Tyrell Corporation to meet its head, Eldon Tyrell. He is met there by a
stunningly beautiful assistant called Rachael. Deckard is there to perform tests
on theemployeestodiscoverifanymightbereplicants,syntheticbeingscreated
by the Tyrell Corporation, some of which have rebelled and become dangerous
tohumans.Specifically,heneedstoknowifthetestshehasavailabletohimwill
work on the new Nexus 6 type replicants that haveescaped.Tyrellwantstosee
Deckard perform his tests on a test subject before he allows the tests to
continue. Deckard asks for such a test subject and Tyrell suggests Rachael. The
test being completed, TyrellasksRachaeltostepoutsideforamoment.Deckard
suggests that Rachael is a replicant and Tyrell confirms this and that she is not
awareofit.Howcanitnotknowwhatitis?repliesabemusedDeckard.

This question, in the wider context of the film and the historyofitsreception,is
ironic. BladeRunnerwasnotamassivelypopularfilmatthetimeofitscinematic
release in1982andwasthoughttohaveunderperformed.But,overtheyears,it
has become a classic, often placed in the top three science fiction films ever
made. That popularity and focus on it asaseriousfilmofthegenrehas,inturn,
produced an engaged fan community. One issue regarding the film has always
been the status of Deckard himself. (This concern is also continued in the now
published sequel, Blade Runner 2049.) Could it be that Deckard was himself a
replicant? Interestingly, those involved with the production of the film have
differingviews.

Back in 2002 the originaldirector,RidleyScott,confirmedthat,forhim,Deckard

was indeed a replicant and that he had made the film in such awayasthiswas
made explicit. However, screenwriter Hampton Fancher, who wrote the basic
plot of the film, does not agree with this. For him the question of Deckards
status must forever stay mysterious and in question. It should be forever an
eternal question that doesnt have an answer. Interestingly,forHarrisonFord
Deckard was, and always should be, a human. Ford has stated that thiswashis
main area of contention with Ridley Scott when making the film. Ford believed
that the viewing audience needed at least one humanonthescreentobuildan
emotional relationship with. Finally, in Philip K. Dicks original story, on which

101
Blade Runner is based, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Deckard is a
human.AtthispointIplayfullyneedtoaskhowcantheynotagreewhatheis?

Of course,inthecontextofthefilmDeckardsquestionnowtakesonanewlevel
of meaning. Deckard is asking straightforwardly about the status of Rachael
while, perhaps, having no idea himself what he is. The irony should not be lost
on us. But let us take thequestionandapplyitmorewidely.Indeed,letsturnit
around and put it again: how can he know what he is? This question is very
relevant and itappliestoustoo.Howcanweknowwhatweare?Weseeaworld
around us with numerous forms of life upon it and, we would assume, most if
not all of them have no idea what they are. We think of thehistoricalJesusand
the various identities historians and others want to foist upon him. And so it
comes to be the case that actually knowing whatyouarewouldbeveryunusual
if not unique. How can it not know what it is? starts to look like a very naive
question (even though Deckard takes it for granted that Rachael should know
and assumes that he does of himself). But if you could know you would be the
exceptionnottherule.

I was enjoying a walk yesterday evening and, as usual, it set my mind to

thinking going through the process of the walk. My mind settled on the subject
of Fibromyalgia, a medical condition often characterised by chronic widespread
pain and a heightened and painful response to pressure. Symptoms other than
pain may occur, however, from unexplained sweats, headaches and tingling to
muscle spasms, sleep disturbance and fatigue. (There are a hostofotherthings
besides.) The cause of this condition is unknown but Fibromyalgia is frequently
associatedwithpsychiatricconditionssuchasdepressionandanxietyandamong
its causes are believed to be psychological and neurobiological factors. One
simple thesis is that in vulnerable individuals psychological stress or illness can
cause abnormalities in inflammatory and stress pathways which regulate mood
and pain. This leads to the widespread symptoms then evidenced. Essentially,
certain neurons in the brain are set too high and trigger physical responses.
Or, to put it another way more suitable to my point here, the brain isthecause
oftheissuesitthenregistersasaproblem.

The problem here is that the brain does not know that it wassomepartofitself
that caused the issue in the first place. It is just an unexplained physical
symptom being registered as far as it is concerned. If the brain was aware and
conscious surely it would know that some part of it was the problem? But the
brain is not conscious: I am. ItwasatthispointinmywalkthatIstoppedand
laughed to myself at the absurdityofthis.Iamconscious.NotonlydidIlaugh
at the notion of consciousness and what it might be but I also laughed at this
notion of the I. What do I mean whenIsayI?WhatisthisI?Andthatwas
whenthequestionpoppedintomyhead:howcanitnotknowwhatitis?

The question is very on point. If I was to say to you right now that you were
merely a puppet, some character in a divinely created show for the amusement

102
of some evil god you would have a hard time proving me wrong. Because you
may be. If I was to say that you are a character in some future computer
simulation a thousand years from now you would have a hard time proving me
wrong there too. Because, again, you could be. How you feel about it and what
you think you know notwithstanding. Because we know that there are limits to
our knowledge and we know that it is easy to fool a human being. We have
neither the knowledge nor the capacity for the knowledge to feel even remotely
sure that we know what we are or what I might refer to. We have merely
comforting notions which help us to get by, fictions which function as truths,
somethingfarfromthelevelofinsightrequiredtostartbeingsure.

Howcanitnotknowwhatitis?nowseemsalmosttobeaverydumbquestion.
Howcanitknowwhatitis?nowseemsmuchmorerelevantandimportant.For
how can we know? Of course Rachael didnt know what she was. She just knew
what she thought. That is to be normal. We, in the normal course of our lives,
gain a sense of self and our place in the world and this is enough for us. We
never strive for ultimate answers (because, like Deckard, we already think we
know) and, to be frank, we do not have the resources for it anyway. Who we
think we are is always enough and anything else is beyond our pay grade.
Deckard, then, isaneverymaninBladeRunner,onewhofindssecurityinwhat
he knows he knows yet really doesnt know. It enables him to get through the
day and perform his function. It enables him to function. He is a reminder that
this I is always both a presence and an absence, boththereandyetnot.Heis
a reminder that who we are is always a feels to be and never yet an is.
Subjectivity abounds. How can it not know what it is? How, indeed, could it
know?

So this all important identity question, the one Viktor Frankl based an entire
psychology and psychiatryofmeaningaround,comestobeafundamentalthing.
Who am I and what things in the world do I orientate myself by? is a basic
human question. It could be argued to bethequestionthatmotivatestwoBlade
Runner films. But for us where one answer to that question is Jesus then our
meaning cannot but help fill his meaning with creative content just as, for
Deckard in the original Blade Runner, his thoughts about replicants filled out a
picture of them for him. And yet, even there, there was one replicant, Rachael,
who changed his views (as comes to be explained in the sequel, Blade Runner
2049). When things mean something, then, it always has effects and who we
think we aremattersinrelationtowhowethinkothersareandwhattheymean.
In this we are never talking about these things in an objective, intrinsic sense.
Neither, surely, would anyone really think that that mattered. It is a matter of
relations. And what matters more to anyone than how things relate to them?
How could anyone have any meaning at all unless things were related to
themselves? This all seems to be mutuallyreinforcing,realityasahugenetwork
of relations in which how things relate to each other creates semantic worlds.
Fiction or reality, myth or history, rhetoric or cartography do not matter here.
Whatm eansdoesandhowyounegotiatethatinthelivingofyourlife.

103
Bibliography

(This bibliography does not list every book read when undertaking this part of
the study but just those thought most helpful in giving further depth and
background to the issues I have raised so far as I have raised them. Books are
listed only once and so they may also be found relevant for chapters following
theirinitiallistingaswell.)

Chapter1

Stanley Fish, Doing WhatComesNaturally,1989TheresNoSuchThingAsFree

Speech,AndItsAGoodThing,Too!,1994T heTroublewithPrinciple,1999.

William James, The Will To Believe, 1897 Pragmatism: A New Name for Some
OldWaysofThinking,1907.

LouisMenand,T heMetaphysicalClub,2001.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886 The Twilight of The Idols,
1888 The Will to Power (notes of Nietzsches unpublished in his own lifetime)
editedbyWalterKaufmann,1968.

Charles Sanders Peirce, The Fixation of Belief, 1868 (now published again in
2017).

Richard Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism, 1982 Truth and Progress, 1998

PhilosophyandSocialHope,1999P hilosophyAsCulturalPolitics,2007.

Chapter2

WilliamE.ArnalandMichelDesjardins,eds.,W hoseHistoricalJesus?,1997.

ClintonBennett,I nSearchofJesus:InsiderandOutsiderImages,2001.

ViktorFrankl,M ansSearchforMeaning,1946T heWilltoMeaning,1988.

WilliamHamilton,T heQuestofthePostHistoricalJesus,1993.

Chapter3

Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological

Reconstruction of Christian Origins, 1983 Jesus: Miriams Child, Sophias
Prophet, 1994 Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies, 1999 Jesus
andThePoliticsofInterpretation,2000.

104
N.T Wright, The New Testament and The People of God, 1992 Jesus and The
VictoryofGod,1996T heMeaningofJesus(withMarcusBorg),1999.

Chapter4

DaleC.Allison,Jr,J esusofNazareth:MillenarianProphet,1998.

BruceChilton,R abbiJesus:AnIntimateBiography,2000.

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant,1992T heBirthofChristianity,1998.

The Jesus Seminar (Robert Funk, ed.,), The Five Gospels, 1993 The Acts of
Jesus,1998.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (5 volumes to

date,19912016).

RobertM.Price,D econstructingJesus,2000.

E.P.Sanders,J esusandJudaism,1985.

N.T.Wright,T heResurrectionofTheSonofGod,2003.

Chapter5

JohnW.Miller,J esusatThirty:APsychologicalandHistoricalPortrait,1997.

Stephen D. Moore, Gods Beauty Parlor: And Other QueerSpacesInandAround

TheBible,2001.

Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lying in a NonMoral Sense, 1873

(unpublishedinhislifetime).

Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of The Historical Jesus, 1906 (Complete English
Editionfirstpublishedin2000).

Chapter6

DavidJ.A.Clines,T heBibleandTheModernWorld,1997.

Marvin Meyer and Charles Hughes, eds., Jesus Then And Now: Images of Jesus
inHistoryandChristology,2001.

CornelWest,T heAmericanEvasionofPhilosophy,1989.

105
 B.T
heGospelofJoshuaSophia


ONE

This is the gospel of Joshua Sophia, Child of Humanity, breath of the power of
God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty and image of His goodness.
Blessed are all those who interpret the wisdom that the living Joshua Sophia
speaks for theywillreceivethelight,thelightthatisthelifeofallhumanity,and
willnottastedeath.

TWO

As it was written, A virgin will conceive a child and she will give birth and s/he
will be called God with us. S/he, too, was mortal, likeallothers,adescendant
of the firsthumanbeingformedontheearth,modelledinfleshinsideamothers
womb. S/he too was born and breathed in common air and fell on the same
ground that bears us all. Crying was the first sound s/he made and s/he was
nurtured in swaddling clothes with every care. No king has known any other
beginningofexistenceforthereisonlyonewayintolifeandonewayoutofit.

THREE

As a child of God s/hecameamongusinflesh.S/helivedamongusandwesaw

the glory of God. S/he was the friend of human beings, intelligent and holy. All
those who interpret the words of Joshua Sophia have the power to become
childrenofGod.

FOUR

What I learned diligently, I shall pass on liberally. I shall not conceal how rich
s/he is. For s/he is to human beings an inexhaustible treasure, and those who
acquirethiswinGodsfriendship,commendedtohimbygiftsofinstruction.

FIVE

Joshua Sophia was bornintothehouseofJosephandMiriamofNazareth.Thisis

how it happened. Miriam was in her sixth month one day when Josephreturned
from working, entered the house and discovered that she was pregnant. He
struck himself in the face, threw himself to the ground on sackcloth and began
to cry bitterly for he had not yet had sex with her. Who has set this trap for
me?Whohasdonethisevildeedinmyhouse,saidJoseph.Haveyouforgotten
the Lord your God, he said to Miriam. But Miriam began to cry and replied, I
am innocent. I have not had sex with any man. ThenJosephsaidtoher,Then
where did the child come from? Miriam replied, As the LordmyGodlives,Ido
notknow.

106
SIX

Joseph and Miriam both became very frightened and they did not speaktoeach
other because they didnotknowwhattodo.Tocoveruptheeventwastobreak
the law of the Lord but to reveal it was to invite retribution. In his heartJoseph
thought that tosolvehisproblemhewouldquietlydivorceMiriam.Butthatnight
a messenger of the Lord came to him in a dream saying, Do not be afraid of
Miriam because the child she carries is of the Holy Spirit. Shewillgivebirthand
you will name thechildJoshuaSophiafors/heisofGodandwillbealightforall
Israel. Joseph immediately got up from his bed and began praising God forthe
favour they had been shown, telling Miriam everything that he had been told.
Andfromthatdaytheywereasone.

SEVEN

The child was born, grew and became strong and s/he received Gods favour.
When s/he was of age s/he entered the synagogueandtaughtwithanauthority
that amazed all who heard it forthiswasnotliketheteachingofthescribesand
priests of the region. It was full of wisdom and understanding. S/he was
questioned about this teaching and they were astounded by the answers s/he
gave. Joshua Sophia continued to increase in wisdom and stature and in favour
withGodandwiththepeople.

EIGHT

At the time of John the Baptizer, who had appeared by the Jordan river
preaching a baptism for the forgiveness of sins, Joshua Sophia left home and
went down to him. S/he stayed there with him for a while, listening to his
teaching, and s/he received his baptism. S/he felt Gods blessing and returned
home full of the Holy Spirit and began to preach all around Galilee that the
kingdom of God was at hand. S/he attracted a number of people, male and
female, bytheteachingthats/hegaveandpronouncedpeoplecleanthroughthe
Holy Spirit which only increased the popularity that s/he had. Often, s/hewould
withdraw from the people to lonely places to pray and meditate so that they
would come looking. Then she would say, Those who seek should not stop
seeking until they find. Ask, and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find.
Knock, and the doorwillbeopenedtoyou.ForyourFatherinheavengivesgood
gifts.

NINE

The people would crowd around Joshua Sophia in every town and village and
even in the country and with patience and grace s/he would teach them and
answertheirquestionssaying:

107
TEN

Often you have desired to hear these things I am saying and you have no one
else to hear them from. I tell you, there willbedayswhenyouwillseekmeand
willnotfindme.

ELEVEN

Be compassionate to all living things insofar as you can for a compassionate

mind is a diligent mind. A wise person sees others as themselves. Do you not
realise that however many holy words you hear,howevermanyyouspeak,they
will do you no good if you do not act upon them? Therefore, nurture an innate
recognition of your interconnectedness to all things. Simplicity, patience,
compassion: these are your greatest treasures. The greatest degree of inner
tranquility comes from the development of love and compassion. So thepathto
enlightenment is underneath your feet. Stay on the path. Step into the fire of
selfdiscovery. The fire will not burn you, it will only burn what you are not.
Recognise that to give up yourself without regret is the greatestcharity.Weare
here to awaken from theillusionofourseparateness.Whereverthereisabsence
of self there are no others, because in absence of self I am all others. You are
one with everything. Your suffering is my suffering and your happiness is my
happiness.

TWELVE

Joshua Sophia was asked by someone in the crowd what this meant and s/he
replied, A man was traveling fromJerusalemtoJerichoandithappenedthathe
was attacked by robbers and left for dead. By chance a priest was walking that
way but when he saw him he passed by on the other side of the road. Next a
Levite came down the road but he too crossed over the road and passed by. A
Samaritan was also going that way and when he saw the man he took pity. He
went over to him, cleaned his wounds and bandaged them. He set the man on
his donkey and took him to the nearest town and paid forhimtostayataninn,
telling the innkeeper that he would pay more when he came back if the man
needed to stay longer. Now, I ask you, which of these men showed
compassion? The one who helped him, the questioner replied. Go, then,and
do likewise, said Joshua Sophia, for the kingdom of God is inside you and
outsideyou.

THIRTEEN

Another time Joshua Sophia was by the Sea of Galilee and people were coming
asking to be made clean and s/he was pronouncing them clean by the Holy
Spirit. Some friends having a boat, s/he got into it and began to teach them
saying:

108
FOURTEEN

Blessed are the poorforyoursisthekingdomofGod.Blessedarethehungryfor

you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you that weep for you will laugh. Blessedare
you when you are hated and repudiated on account of the Child of Humanity.
Rejoicewhenthathappensforyourrewardinheavenisgreat.

FIFTEEN

But woe to you that are rich. Woe to you that are full now. Woe to you that
laugh and woe to you whoarewellspokenof.Youvehadallyoushallhave.You
shallhungerandweep.

SIXTEEN

To those who have two good ears to hear I say that you should love your
enemies and do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you and
pray for any who abuse you. Turn the other cheek if yours is struck and give
your shirt to the one who forcibly takes your coat. Give to those begging from
youanddontaskforyourthingsback.

SEVENTEEN

Do forothersexactlyasyouwouldhavethemdoforyou.Fornogoodtreebears
bad fruit and no bad tree bears good fruit. Atreeisknownbyitsfruit.Thegood
person brings good from the treasure inside of them as the evil one brings evil.
And so from inside each person speaks. If you bring forth what is within you
what you have will save you. Congratulations to the person who has toiled and
hasfoundlife!

EIGHTEEN

Truly I say to you that the one who hears my word and believes the one who
sentmehasreallife.Theywillnotbejudgedandareeternal.

NINETEEN

Joshua Sophia drew disciples from among the people, male and female, and
went to stay in a housewithsomeofthemandtheres/hewasquestionedabout
the kingdom. S/he answered themthatthecropishugebuttheworkersarefew
sobegtheharvestbosstodespatchworkerstothefields!

TWENTY

Whoever is near me is near the fire, and whoever is far from me isfarfromthe
Fatherskingdom.Seekandyouwillfind!

109
TWENTYONE

Joshua Sophia was sending out disciples to preach the good news of the
kingdom andtohealthesickandpronouncetheuncleancleanagainthroughthe
Holy Spirit. S/he gave instructions that they were to takenopurseorknapsack,
no spending money, no sandals or staff and only one shirt. They were to
pronounce peace on a house where they were admitted and to eat and drink
whatever they were offered. But in places they werenotwelcomedtheywereto
shakethedustfromtheirfeetandtopronouncethatGodskingdomisclosingin.

TWENTYTWO

Joshua Sophia was traveling through Samaria with some followers and came to
Jacobs well in the town of Sychar. Being hungry and thirsty, s/he sent the
followers to fetch provisions. Meanwhile, a Samaritan woman came to the well
and Joshua Sophia asked her for a drink. The woman was surprised and asked
how it could be thats/heaskedherforadrink(sincebeingaSamaritanshewas
unclean).JoshuaSophiarepliedthatifshehadknownwhowasaskingshewould
herself have asked for water and she would have been given living water to
drink. The woman did not understand and pointed out that Joshua Sophia had
nothing to draw water with from the well. Joshua Sophia replied to her saying
that whoever drinks of the water that s/he shall give will never thirst and will
become a spring that wells up to real life.Thewomanwentawayandtoldmany
Samaritans ofJoshuaSophiaandtheymarveledandaskedthats/hestayandso
s/hestayedtherefortwomoredays.

TWENTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia said, Who drinks from my mouth will become like me I myself
shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to them. The
heavens and the earth will roll up in your presence and who is living from the
livingonewillnottastedeath.

TWENTYFOUR

On another occasion Joshua Sophia was teaching a group of people, including

tax collectors and sinners, about the kingdom of God and all that must happen
saying, I came not to call the righteous but sinners. S/he was in a house in
Capernaum where s/he hadjusthealedsomeonebytakingherhandandhelping
her up. Suddenly, a close follower says, Your mother and your brothers and
your sisters are outside. They have come for you and say you have gonemad.
Soon another messenger came from them to say that s/he should go out to
them.JoshuaSophialookedaroundtheplaceandsaid,Whoaremymotherand
sisters and brothers? You here are my mother and sisters and brothers! Who
doesGodswillismymotherandsisterandbrother!

110
TWENTYFIVE

AndtheyaskedJoshuaSophia,Whenwillthekingdomcome?Ands/hereplied,
It will not come by watching for it. People will not say Here it is! or There it
is!.Rather,itisspreadoutupontheearthandpeopledontseeit.

TWENTYSIX

Joshua Sophia said, I teachnothingtothinkmerelyenablesustowakeupand

become aware. It does not teach, it points. If you are not happy here and now
you never willbe.Howyoulivetodayishowyouliveyourlife.Ifyourealisethat
all things change there is nothing that you will try to hold on to. So do
everything with a mind that lets go for every morning we are bornagain.What
we do today is what matters most and every new moment matters most so
concentrate on now. Everythingchanges.Thereisnothingtostickto.Thatisthe
most important teaching. But remember, all teachings are merereferences.The
true experienceislivingyourownlife.Solookwithoutsearchingandseewithout
knowing.Theholiestbeliefsandthehighestthoughtsofferyounothing.

TWENTYSEVEN

The truth knocksonthedoorandyousay,Goaway!Iamlookingfortruth,and

soitgoesaway.

TWENTYEIGHT

To every person is given a key to heaven. The same key may also take you to
hell.

TWENTYNINE

Joshua Sophia was teaching them again and said, A sower went out to sow.
Some seed fell on the path and the birds ate it. Other seed fellonrockyground
and the sun scorched it. Yet more fell among thorns and the thorns choked it.
But some fell on good soil and produced a great yield of grain. If anyone has
earstohearthenletthemhear.

THIRTY

One of the Pharisees, Israels teachers, came to see Joshua Sophia under cover
of darknesstoinquireoftheteachings/hewasgivingaboutthekingdomofGod.
Truly I say to you, s/he said, You cannot enter Godskingdomunlessyouare
born again. The man did not understand and so again s/he spoke saying, You
must be born of the Holy Spirit and of living water for flesh is flesh and spirit is
spirit. So look to the living one as long as you live otherwise you might die and
thentrytoseethelivingone,andyouwillbeunabletosee.

111
THIRTYONE

Light has come intotheworldandyethumanbeingspreferdarknessratherthan

light.

THIRTYTWO

Joshua Sophia said, Do not be pious for public effect neither make show of
helping people. Rather, do these things in secret withoutthoughtofrecognition.
And when you pray do not do it so others can see it. Likewise, do it in private
and not for show. And, again, if you fast do not make show of your discipline.
Continue to wash and appear as normal so that itiskeptsecret.Forwhereyour
treasureistherewillyourheartbealso.

THIRTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia and some disciples went away across the lake to be in a quiet
place by themselves for people were always coming to them to be taught or to
be healed and made clean. But some people saw where they were going and
when their boat made landacrowdwasalreadywaitingforthem.JoshuaSophia
taught them fors/hehadcompassionforthem.Afteralittlewhileitwasgrowing
late and some disciples came to Joshua Sophia asking that the people be sent
away to find food in the surrounding area. But Joshua Sophia said to them,
Feed them yourselves. The disciples complained that it would cost a lot of
money to feed such a crowd which numbered over 5000 people. Joshua Sophia
asked what food they had available and it was fiveloavesofbreadandtwofish.
Then s/he had the disciples sit the people down to eat and divided the food
amongstthem.Everyoneateandwassatisfied.

THIRTYFOUR

Seeing this, the Pharisees were dismayed for they noted that the disciples of
JoshuaSophiadidnotwashasprescribed.Thus,theyweredefiledintheireyes.

THIRTYFIVE

Joshua Sophia said, There is nothinggoingintoapersonwhichcandefilethem.

Rather,isitthatwhichcomesoutthatdefilesaperson.

THIRTYSIX

Again Joshua Sophia spoke in parables saying that the kingdom of God is like a
king who gave a marriage feast for his son. He sent his servants to fetch all
those who had been invited but they would not come. So he sent them again,
encouraging them to come because now it was time for the feast. But some
ignored his servants and others ran them off or abused them. Some were even

112
killed. The king got angry then and sent his troops to destroy those people and
burned their city. Then the king told his servants that those who had been
invited were not worthyofthefeastandsoheinstructedthemtogooutintothe
streets and invite anybody they could find to come along instead. And so they
did, inviting both good and bad to the kings table, and the feast was full of
guests.

THIRTYSEVEN

Joshua Sophia said, Come, peopleblessedbymyFather,inheritthekingdomof

God! For I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink, a
stranger and you welcomed me, naked and youclothedme,sickandyouvisited
me and in prison and you came to me. Then those right with God will ask,
Lord, when did weseeyouhungryorthirsty,nakedorastranger?Whendidwe
visit you sick or in prison? And s/he will say, What you did for the leastofmy
brothersorsistersyoudidforme.

THIRTYEIGHT

Then Joshua Sophia was teaching them that those who did not do this would
stand condemned by their own actions for to not give food or water, to not
welcome the stranger or clothe the naked, tonotvisitthesickorthoseinprison
was not to do it to Joshua Sophia either. Let those hear who have two ears to
hear!

THIRTYNINE

And Joshua Sophia was saying to them that the kingdom of God is like a tiny
mustard seed, it is the smallest of seeds but if it lands on good ground itgrows
intosomethinginwhicheventhebirdsmaynest.

FORTY

Joshua Sophias disciples were asking Do you want us tofast?andShouldwe

pray? and Should we give to charity? and What diet should we observe?
Joshua Sophia replied, Dont lieanddontdowhatyouhateforallthingswillbe
disclosed. There is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed for all thingswillbe
revealed.

FORTYONE

Joshua Sophia saw some babies being nursed and s/he said, These nursing
babiesarelikethosewhoenterthekingdomofGod.

113
FORTYTWO

Joshua Sophia said, There is a light within the person of light that shines upon
the whole world. But if it does not shine it is dark. You see a sliver in your
friends eye but you do not seethetimberinyourowneye.Attendtothetimber
first,thenyouwillseethesliver.

FORTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia said, If a blind person leads a blind person both of themwillfall
intoahole.

FORTYFOUR

JoshuaSophiasaid,Bepassersby.

FORTYFIVE

Joshua Sophia said, Whoever becomes as achildwillbecomegreaterthanJohn

theBaptistandamonghumanbeingstherewasnonegreaterthanhe.

FORTYSIX

Joshua Sophia said, Do not judge by appearances but judge with right
judgment.

FORTYSEVEN

As Joshua Sophia was walking with some close followers s/he saw a man blind
from birth. The followers were asking,Rabbi,whohassinnedthatthismanwas
born blind, him or his parents? JoshuaSophiaanswered,Itwasnotthateither
he or his parents have sinned but that the works of God maybeshownthrough
him.

FORTYEIGHT

After this Joshua Sophia spat on the ground and made mud and wiped itonthe
blind mans eyes, telling him to go and wash it off in a nearby pool. And, doing
this, he could see. The local Pharisees heard about this andquestionedtheman
because it was the Sabbath when one should do no work. He told them what
Joshua Sophia had done but they would not believe him. They even went and
questioned his parentswhotestifiedthathehadbeenbornblind.Buttheywould
not accept his explanation for the fact that he could now see. If this man were
not from Godhewouldnotbeabletodoanything,hesaidtothem.And,calling
himasinner,theycasthimawayfromthemindisgust.

114
FORTYNINE

Joshua Sophia was passing throughJerichowhenZacchaeus,ataxcollectorwho

was very rich, wanted to see was s/he was saying. And so he climbed a tree to
get a good vantage point. But then Joshua Sophia said to him, Come down
because Im staying at your house today. And the people were murmuring
becauses/hehadgonetostayatthehouseofasinner.

FIFTY

TheChildofHumanitysaid,Ihavecometoseekandsavethelost.

FIFTYONE

Joshua Sophia said, There are eunuchs who were born that way, and thereare
eunuchs who were made so by men, and there are eunuchs who become so for
Godskingdom.Thosewhocanreceivethis,letthemreceiveit.

FIFTYTWO

Joshua Sophia said, Go, sell all your possessions and give the money to the
poorandthen,come,followme!

FIFTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia said, Let the one who has found the world and become wealthy
renouncetheworld.

FIFTYFOUR

Joshua Sophia was saying, Hate hypocrisy and evil intent, for intent is what
produces hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is far from the truth. Instead, become eager
for instruction. Instruction first requires faith, then love, then deeds and from
these comes life. For instruction is like a grain of wheat. When sowed faith was
had that it would grow and then it sprouted and waslovedbecausemoregrains
were envisaged and when it was workedtheworkersweresustainedbyit,using
it for food. What they did not eat was kept back tobesown.Soitispossiblefor
you,too,toreceivethekingdomofGod.

FIFTYFIVE

Joshua Sophia was asked, What is the sin of the world? And s/he replied,
There is no such thing as sin. Rather, you yourselves are what produces sin
whenyouactaccordingtothenatureofadultery,whichiscalledsin.

115
FIFTYSIX

Joshua Sophia said, I am light. No one lights a lamp and puts it in a cellar or
under a bushel basket but rather on a lampstandsothatthosewhocomeincan
seethelight.

FIFTYSEVEN

Joshua Sophia was discussing with some Pharisees and teachersoftheLawwho

were discussing what was clean and unclean. S/he said to them, You are
imposters! You cleantheoutsideofcupsanddishesbutinsideyouarefullofevil
and greed.Didnottheonewhomadetheoutsidealsomaketheinside?Dontbe
blind!Firstcleantheinsideandthentheoutsidewillbecleantoo!

FIFTYEIGHT

Someone shouted, I will follow wherever you go! to Joshua Sophia. S/he
replied, Foxes have dens and the birds of the sky have nests but the Child of
Humanityhasnowheretorest.

FIFTYNINE

Joshua Sophia was alone with the disciples and s/he began to speak, saying,
What human being indeed can know the intentions of God? And who can
comprehend the will of the Lord? For the reasoning of mortal human beings is
inadequate, and their attitude of mind unstable for a perishable body presses
down on the soul, and this tent of clay weighs down the mind with its many
cares. It is hard enough for us to work out what is on earth, laborious to know
what lies within our reach who, then, can discover what isintheheavens?And
who could ever have known your will, had you not given Wisdom and sent your
Holy Spiritfromabove?Thushavethepathsofthoseonearthbeenstraightened
and people have been taught what pleases you and have been saved, by
Wisdom.

SIXTY

JoshuaSophiasaid,WisdomIlovedandsearchedforfrommyyouthIresolved
to have her as my bride, I fell in love with her beauty. She enhances her noble
birth by sharing the life of God, for the Master of All has always loved her.
Indeed,shesharesthesecretsofGodsknowledge,andshechooseswhathewill
do. If in this life wealth is a desirable possession, what is more wealthy than
Wisdom whose work is everywhere? Or if it be the intellect that is at workwho,
more than she, designs whatever exists? Or if it be uprightness you love, why,
virtues are the fruits of her labours, since it is shewhoteachestemperanceand
prudence, justice and fortitude nothing in life is more useful for human beings.
Or if you are eager for wide experience, she knows the past, she forecasts the

116
future she knows how toturnmaximsandsolveriddlesshehasforeknowledge
ofsignsandwonders,andoftheunfoldingoftheagesandtimes.

SiXTYONE

Joshua Sophia withdrew to be alone and to pray and she offered the following
prayer to the God of Israel: God of our ancestors, Lord of Mercy, who by your
word made the universe, and in your wisdom fitted human beings to rule the
creatures that youhavemade,togoverntheworldinholinessandsavingjustice
and in honesty of soul to dispense fair judgment, grant me Wisdom, consort of
your throne, and do not reject me from the number of your children. For I am
your servant, child of your serving maid, a feeble human being and with little
time to live, with small understanding of justice and the laws. Indeed, were
anyone perfect among the children of humanity, if they lacked the Wisdom that
comesfromyoutheywouldstillcountfornothing.

SIXTYTWO

You have chosen me to rule over your people, to be judge of your sons and
daughters. You have bidden me build a Temple on your holy mountain, and an
altar in the city where you have pitchedyourtent,acopyoftheholyTentwhich
you prepared at the beginning. With youisWisdom,shewhoknowsyourworks,
she who was present when you made the world she understands what is
pleasing in your eyes and what agrees with your commandments. Despatch her
from your holyheavens,sendherforthfromyourthroneofglorytohelpmeand
to toil with me and to teach me what is pleasing to you since she knows and
understands everything she will guide me prudently in my actions and will
protect me with her glory. Then all I do will be acceptable, I shall govern your
peoplejustlyandbeworthyofmyfathersthrone.

SIXTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia went to Jerusalem for the Passover and went into the Temple.
And s/he began to drive out those who bought and sold there and to turn over
the tables of the money changers. S/he would not let anyone carry anything
through the Temple. And s/he taught, saying, Is it not written that my house
will be a house of prayer for all nations? But you have turned it into a den of
robbers. The crowd were astonished and the Temple authorities were afraid
becauseofthisandplottedtodestroyJoshuaSophia.

SIXTYFOUR

Judas Iscariot, who was one of Joshua Sophias inner circle, went totheTemple
authorities in order that s/he would be betrayedintotheirhands.Andtheywere
pleasedandofferedtopayhimmoney.Hebeganlookingforanopportunity.

117
SIXTYFIVE

Judas came with an armed deputation from the Temple authorities and they
seized Joshua Sophia as s/he was quietly praying. Joshua Sophias followers all
ran away. S/he was taken to the High Priest of the Temple and there they tried
to find reasons s/he should be killed. And they all condemned Joshua Sophia as
deserving death. In the morning the Jewish authorities took Joshua Sophia to
Pilate, the Roman Governor, and s/he was questioned by him asking, Are you
the king of the Jews? but s/hewouldnotconfirmit.Andthens/hekeptsilence.
PilatehadJoshuaSophiascourgedands/hewassenttobecrucified.

SIXTYSIX

Joshua Sophia was hung on the cross and the inscription read The king of the
Jews. And s/he cried out, My God, myGod,whyhaveyouforsakenme?Then
she cried out loudly once more and died. Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of
James andJosesandSalomewerethere,watchingatadistance.AndafterPilate
had confirmed s/he was dead Joshua Sophias body was buried by Joseph of
Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Council who was also hoping for the
kingdom of God. He wrapped the body and buried it in a tomb. The two Marys
sawwheres/hewaslaid.

SIXTYSEVEN

When Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James and
Salome brought spices so that theymightanointthebodyofJoshuaSophia.But
on the way they realised they would need help to roll the stone away from the
front of the tomb. Yet when they got there the large stone was already to the
side. They went in and found that there was no body there. A man dressedina
white robe told them, Look, he is nothere.Heisrisen.Dontbeamazedbutgo
and tell the disciples that he has gone to Galilee like he said. You will see him
there. But they fled from the tomb, terrified, and told nooneanythingbecause
theywereafraid.

118
WhyWriteTheGospelofJoshuaSophia?

Recently, as the first study of what I hope to be several studies under the
heading Meaning and Humanity, I wrote a bookcalledJesusinPragmatistFocus
about the historical Jesus. It was a study of the historical person but in the
contextofthe250yeardiscoursethathascreatedandshapedthatpersoninthe
context of meaningmaking. The aim was to show that this historical figure is a
site of human meaningmaking, a matter of being as much about those who
makethemeaningastheoneitisabout.

In doing that I had to read a lot of texts and primarily gospel texts and so I
started thinking about gospels. I asked myself whythesetextshadbeenwritten
and what their point was. I asked about the Christian canon and why some
gospels found themselves inside it and others not. I asked how these gospels
were put together. I considered the reconstructions of the historical Jesus
scholars I was reading and asked myself if I could believe their selfmotivated
arguments and find them convincing. After all this, I thought that I would
composeagospelofmyownandseewhatittaughtme.

First off, I should say that none of the gospel Ive written is fabricated new by
me, its composer. All the 67 textsweretakenfromothersourcesasyouwillsee
in the critical apparatus and commentary below. This is to say that the gospel
itself is a composite of other texts and not a wholly new creation. 63 of the 67
texts are from either Christian orJewishsourcesand4arefromZenBuddhistor
Taoist sources. Of the 63, the vast majority are from Christian sources and of
those Christian sources the majority again are from the four canonical Christian
gospels. What this means, I think, is that no one, being a Christian, can simply
dismiss the textIvecomposed...becauseitisprettymuchalltextthatformsthe
basis of the Christian New Testament anyway. To dismiss such texts in this
context would be like finding the gospel of Luke butrejectingitbecauseitisnot
thegospelofMark.(LukeusesMarkasasource.)

In composing the gospel I imagined that it was found in the deserts of Egypt
somewhere and dated to the first twoorthreecenturiesofthecommonera.But
this was simply a composerly fantasy and not a serious suggestion. This whole
exercise functions for measawaytothinkaboutgospelsandgospelwritingand
to ask the most important people today regarding gospels, gospel readers, to
think about what they aredoingwhentheyreadagospel.Thatthisissomething
that needs thinking about might be a surprise to some and in that case this
exercise functions as a wake up call to anyone who thinks that 2,000 year old
books written in specific locations to specific groupsofpeople(asallthegospels
were) are simply and obviously perspicuous to anyone just picking themupand
reading them 2,000 years later in a language theywerenotwrittenin.Itsreally
notthatsimple,muchaswemightlikeittobe.

119
By now youre probably wondering ifIdidlearnanythingfrommygospelwriting
and the truth is that I certainly did. The questions I posed above, and others
besides, were pointed up and sharpenedintheprocessofthecompositionwhich
really focused me on what I was doing and what previous, more well known
gospel writers might have been doing too. The primary thing I learned wasthat
gospel writers cannot fix what their texts, lovinglyanddeliberatelycomposedas
they may be, mean or how they are read. This is to say that writers are
defenceless before readers who will approach their perhaps finely honed good
news with their own needs, agendas, reading strategies and moods of theday.
In this sense, there is no meaning ofthetextandatextmeanswhatsomeone
takes it to mean and a writer cant do anything about that. In these days of
poststructuralism and postmodernism, of reading communities and interpretive
strategies, this is not suchanewinsightandwehavediscoursesandtheoriesall
about it. But it wasnt always so. As IcomposedthisgospelIstartedtowonder,
and even to worry, that someone might read the text Id composed in a way I
hadnt foreseen or against the grain as we sometimes read today in literary
circles. This is the anxiety that all writers of any text must face, that the thing
you set out to control the meaning of becomes the thing which, in the hands of
readers,youdonotcontrolanymore.

Having acknowledged this fear and gotten over it, I became more relaxed and
realised that I could not stop a reader taking a text in isolation that I thought
was contextualised by the ones before and after it. Neither could I stop them
thinking some honorific title meant something I dont think it means nor couldI
force them to see an image of the person speaking in the text that I thought I
was giving (or stop them seeing one I didnt think I was giving). The meanings
of the text were not in my control to give but were simply subject to the play
that is reading. I thought about this in the context of especially the canonical
gospels which, so gospel scholars tell us, are very much setting out to give a
particular message, tweaked to specific audiences in each case. Gospels,
Christian beliefs about inerrancy and divine inspiration aside, are all human
documents written by specific people in specific historical situations for specific
historical audiences.Theyhaveamessagetogive(gospelmeansgoodnewsof
course) and it occurred to me that maybe those gospel writers, too, were
concerned that what theywantedtosaywasnotwhatwasunderstood.Butonce
thebookiswrittenitsoutofyourhands.

So thats a brief overview on the why? of this gospel and its existence. What
follows is a more critical and detailed version ofthetextwithsomecommentary
for context and thenafewessaysonthisgospelandgospelsgenerally.AsIsay,
this is all for the purpose of getting gospel readers to think about gospels and
the experiment in human meaning that is gospel reading and if this gospel
sparksthatprocessthenitwillhavedoneitsjobadequately.

120
TheGospelofJoshuaSophiawithCriticalApparatusandCommentary

ONE

This is the gospel of Joshua Sophia, Child of Humanity, breath of the power of
God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty and image of His goodness.
Blessed are all those who interpret the wisdom that the living Joshua Sophia
speaks for theywillreceivethelight,thelightthatisthelifeofallhumanity,and
willnottastedeath.

Cf.Mk1:1,GTh1Wis7:2526Jn1:4

Thisopeningismodeledonatleasttwogospels,thegospelofMark(Mk)andthe
gospel of Thomas (GTh), the latter a noncanonical gospel which contains 114
sayings the living Jesus spoke, some of which have canonical gospel parallels.
In my studyofthehistoricalJesusinJesusinPragmatistFocusIwasverystruck
withhowgospelsopenbecauseitsetsthetoneforwhatfollows.Itsayswhatthe
book is about. Both Mark and Thomas do this quite directly, referring to Jesus
and establishing his credentials, whereas Matthew, Luke and John, as contrary
examples, do this in a more roundabout way. What follows here is described by
text 1 as the gospel of Joshua Sophia which suggests that what follows is a
unified message of good news rather than atomistic sayings. Child of
Humanity is a rendering of the gospel phrase son of man which Jesus
sometimes uses of himself in gospels and in ways that, even (or especially)
2,000 later, people are unsure about the meaning of. Here the writer uses it of
Joshua Sophia too but why? Perhaps because it is a remembrance ofsomething
Joshua Sophia said? If you were writing about a person and there was a
remembrance that they used certain words of themselves might you not feel
motivated to use it too? The next three comments on Joshua Sophia are taken
from the Jewish book theWisdomofSolomon(Wis)(whichiscanonicalforsome
Christians such as in the Catholic translation of the bible I prefer) and a section
of that book where the writer, under the guise of King Solomon, a king thought
uniquely wise in Jewish history, eulogises wisdom itself in a way which almost
seems to personify it. Here the writer uses this personification of wisdom of
JoshuaSophia.

But what about thatname?ThisisnotagospelofJesusandthatwasdeliberate.

Clearly, this gospel stands in close relation to other gospels which are about
Jesus but the writer wanted the name here to be different yet related. Yet, the
name isnt different, is it? Joshua is the name Jesus in Hebrew. Jesus is a
Greek translation. So thisisagospelaboutJesusbutitsagospelaboutaperson
whoisHebrew,aJew.AJew,yetalsoaGreek.JoshuameansYHWHsavesin
Hebrew but Sophia is the Greek word for wisdom. So its relevantthatthisis
also a gospel about a person being closely identified with wisdom and perhaps
esoteric knowledge. Light and life are mentioned, words which have special
significance in some Christian traditions, both inside and outside the Christian

121
bible. A phrase of Johns gospel (Jn) is used here, a gospel in which Jesus is
calledthepreexistentwordofGodandwhereJesusispresentedasthesource
of a very specific quality of life. Joshua Sophia is not called Gods preexistent
word here. Indeed, nothing in text 1 equates Joshua Sophia with God but,
clearly, a relationship between the two is established, a very close relationship.
Joshua Sophia is said to speak wisdom which stands in need of interpretation
with light that becomes life (the kind of life that doesnt taste death) as the
reward for this in the process of the interpretation. As the breath of the power
of God this wisdom might be thought to come from God himself. So this is a
very dense opening text with lots of ways to bring the various components into
relationship with one another, ways establishing who Joshua Sophia is and a
relationship of Joshua Sophia to God, understood astheJewishGod.Italsosets
upthiswisdomasamatteroflifeanddeath.

TWO

As it was written, A virgin will conceive a childandshewillgivebirthands/he

will be called God with us. S/he, too, was mortal, likeallothers,adescendant
of the firsthumanbeingformedontheearth,modelledinfleshinsideamothers
womb. S/he too was born and breathed in common air and fell on the same
ground that bears us all. Crying was the first sound s/he made and s/he was
nurtured in swaddling clothes with every care. No king has known any other
beginningofexistenceforthereisonlyonewayintolifeandonewayoutofit.

Cf.Mt1:23,Isa7:14Wis7:16

Text 2 begins a run of texts which offer a kind of origin story. Not all gospels
share this interest even if they usuallywanttosetsomekindofcontextfortheir
subject, especially in canonical versions. In the ChristianbibleonlyMatthewand
Luke want to account for the birth of Jesus. For John, Jesus always existed and
Mark doesnt seem to care, Jesus only being of interest in the context of the
activity of John the Baptist. In this gospel a biblical reference is used (Isaiah
7:14) which is also used by Matthew (Mt) in his gospel and which involves a
symbolic name, God with us or Immanuel in Hebrew. So this is another
signifier of the significanceofJoshuaSophiaforthewriterintheirrelationshipto
theJewishGod.

At this point I need to explain the use of the term s/heinthisgospel.Itisthe

onlypersonalpronounusedofJoshuaSophia,apersonwhocanbethoughtofas
having one male and one female name, throughout the entire gospel. It is used
to deconstruct any binary notion of gender. In this gospel Joshua Sophia, in
other sections of this gospel referred to as child of humanity which is used in
the gospel of Thomas, for example, to mean an androgynous human being, is
neither a he nor a she. S/he is a s/he, a term which denotesbothyetalso
neither binary genders. There are a number of reasons for this. First, to ask
what difference it makes if thetitularcharacterinthisgospelismaleorfemale

122
or neither or something else. Second, to throw a spanner in the works of those
for whom their saviour must be male (for reasons they dont, or cant,explain).
Third, to promote the concept of a person, a human being, someone who isnot
distinguished primarily by binary gender characteristics or thinking. Fourth, to
make gender an explicit concern. Fifth, to question the gender identities and
thinking of those who read gospels in order to get them to realisethat,indoing
so, they feed particular notions andusesofgenderedthinkingbytheiractivities.
If the thought is that Jesus in othergospelscanbeasaviourbecauseheismale
and Joshua Sophia cannot because s/he is something else then I want to
question that thinking and ask why. I want to put the whole notion of gender
and gendered human beings in religioustextsinquestionratherthanhavethem
readasunprobedassumptionsorasthefunctionsofdiscursiveboundaries.

In this context, the writers use and adaptation of a text from the Wisdom of
Solomon is timely. In Wisdom the writer, thought of as Solomon, is describing
himself yet hereitisreappliedtoJoshuaSophia.Thisfunctionstoemphasisethe
humanity and mortality of the title character who was flesh, born, breathed,
cried and was in need of being nurtured. This is no divine being, it seems.S/he
isahumanbeing.

THREE

As a child of God s/he came among us in flesh. S/he lived among us and we
saw the glory of God. S/he was the friendofhumanbeings,intelligentandholy.
All those who interpret the words of Joshua Sophia have the power to become
childrenofGod.

Cf.Jn1:14Wis7:228:1GTh1

Here is a mixture of Johannine, Wisdom and Thomas sensibilities, something

which perhaps reveals that these things are not that far apart and certainly
compatible. John, too, wants us to think of Jesus as becoming flesh although,
given his opening, how we can think of that Jesus as a human being is very
muchinquestion.Incomparison,JoshuaSophiaseemsmuchmorehumanyetis
still a child of God even as s/he is a child of humanity.Perhapswhenpeople
are called children of God it is not always something that should be thought of
metaphysically or ontologically? The ending tothisthirdtextencouragesriddling
withthistofindmoremeaningthanwemayhavefoundbefore.

FOUR

What I learned diligently, I shall pass on liberally. I shall not conceal how rich
s/he is. For s/he is to human beings an inexhaustible treasure, and those who
acquirethiswinGodsfriendship,commendedtohimbygiftsofinstruction.

Cf.Wis7:1314

123
The writer speaks in terms which make it clear this is something they have
themselves learnt with some disciplineandeffort.Andwhattheyhavelearnedis
not merely teaching but a person, for s/he is the inexhaustible treasure not
merelywhats/hesays.SotobeinarightrelationshipwithJoshuaSophiaseems
theimportantthingforhowelsemightyouacquirethetreasurethats/heis?

FIVE

Joshua Sophia was born into the house of Joseph and Miriam of Nazareth. This
is how it happened. Miriam was in her sixth month one day when Joseph
returned from working, entered the house and discovered that she was
pregnant.Hestruckhimselfintheface,threwhimselftothegroundonsackcloth
and began to cry bitterly for he had not yet had sex with her.Whohassetthis
trap for me? Who has done this evil deed in my house, said Joseph.Haveyou
forgotten the Lord your God, he said to Miriam. But Miriam began to cry and
replied, I am innocent. I have not had sex with any man. Then Joseph saidto
her, Then where did the childcomefrom?Miriamreplied,AstheLordmyGod
lives,Idonotknow.

Cf.IGJ13

The origin story continues with alegendtakenfromtheInfancyGospelofJames

(IGJ), one of a kind of Christian texts which, in the decades after the death of
Jesus, attempted to fill in the gaps from the canonical gospels with (often
scarcely believable) legends of the boy or not yet born Jesus. Here Joseph and
Miriam, Hebrew names, are distressed to find that Miriam is pregnant in an
unexplained way. Aftertext2wemightwonderifonlytheyhadreadIsaiah7:14
andinterpreteditcorrectly!

SIX

Joseph and Miriam both became veryfrightenedandtheydidnotspeaktoeach

other because they didnotknowwhattodo.Tocoveruptheeventwastobreak
the law of the Lord but to reveal it was to invite retribution. In his heartJoseph
thought that tosolvehisproblemhewouldquietlydivorceMiriam.Butthatnight
a messenger of the Lord came to him in a dream saying, Do not be afraid of
Miriam because the child she carries is of the Holy Spirit. Shewillgivebirthand
you will name thechildJoshuaSophiafors/heisofGodandwillbealightforall
Israel. Joseph immediately got up from his bed and began praising God forthe
favour they had been shown, telling Miriam everything that he had been told.
Andfromthatdaytheywereasone.

Cf.IGJ14Mt1:1824

The Infancy Gospel of James explains it all, however, and in a way not so
different from how Matthew does in the New Testament. It is the action of the

124
Holy Spirit and yet another signifier of the closeness of Joshua Sophia to God.
Gods light is to shine through the activity of this human birth. Butforwho?For
all Israel. Already, without even being born, this activity has brought together
thisJewishcoupleasone.

SEVEN

The child was born, grew and became strong and s/he received Gods favour.
When s/he was of age s/he entered the synagogueandtaughtwithanauthority
that amazed all who heard it forthiswasnotliketheteachingofthescribesand
priests of the region. It was full of wisdom and understanding. S/he was
questioned about this teaching and they were astounded by the answers s/he
gave. Joshua Sophia continued to increase in wisdom and stature and in favour
withGodandwiththepeople.

Cf.Lk2:40,47Mk1:2122Lk2:52

Some text which stands in for a childhood. S/he grew to become a wise young
adult, one who could amaze those who heard the commentarys/hegaveonthe
themes of the day, themes which were religious and political as one in the
historical context, a Jewish nation occupied byaforeignempire,inwhichhowto
be Gods people and how to be Israel, the kingdom of God, were constant
themes. Luke (Lk) notes that this attracted Gods favour too which begs the
questionhowheknewthis.

EIGHT

At the time of John the Baptizer, who had appeared by the Jordan river
preaching a baptism for the forgiveness of sins, Joshua Sophia left home and
went down to him. S/he stayed there with him for a while, listening to his
teaching, and s/he received his baptism. S/he felt Gods blessing and returned
home full of the Holy Spirit and began to preach all around Galilee that the
kingdom of God was at hand. S/he attracted a number of people, male and
female, bytheteachingthats/hegaveandpronouncedpeoplecleanthroughthe
Holy Spirit which only increased the popularity that s/he had. Often, s/hewould
withdraw from the people to lonely places to pray and meditate so that they
would come looking. Then s/he would say, Those who seek should not stop
seeking until they find. Ask, and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find.
Knock, and the doorwillbeopenedtoyou.ForyourFatherinheavengivesgood
gifts.

Cf.Mk1:411,1420,3845,3537GTh2:1,Mt7:8,Lk11:10,13

Joshua Sophia begins to preach that the kingdom of God is at hand, a phrase
resonant with meaning to first century Palestinian Jews. Has the stay with John
the Baptizer kickstarted this? Read from the point of viewofhumanmotivations

125
(rather than scriptural dogma) it may seem so. Joshua Sophia seemsmotivated
and yet also in need of time alone, perhapstoreenergiseandrefresh,butsuch
is the popularity s/he has that people are constantly on the lookout. Note that
the message is very Jewish. It is about the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of Godand
being clean, something which covers both concepts of sin but also purity in the
thinking of the time and which will be commented on again throughout the
gospel. Joshua Sophia preaches that because of the Holy Spirit s/he can
pronounce people Gods people clean and so there is an aspect of deliverance
and (re)constitution of Gods people to this talk as well. To this end, Joshua
Sophia encourages people to seek, something related to the wisdom of former
textsbutalsotothegoodgiftsitisclaimedaretheretofind.

NINE

The people would crowd around Joshua Sophia in every town and village and
even in the country and with patience and grace s/he would teach them and
answertheirquestionssaying:

Cf.Mk1:45

The message seems popular and speaks to a hunger for comment on the
subjects Joshua Sophia is raising. It is a thought pool into which it is hoped
stones will be thrown so that the ripples may be followed where they lead. We
note here also that Joshua Sophia seems to be traveling around and perhaps
with others constantly asking questions as s/he goes. Given the way the text is
laid out here and in the next two texts it seems this may be some kind of
programmaticsummaryofthemessageasawhole.

TEN

Often you have desired to hear these things I am saying and you have no one
else to hear them from. I tell you, there willbedayswhenyouwillseekmeand
willnotfindme.

Cf.GTh38Jn7:34

Joshua Sophia attests to the hunger of the crowds for the message but also to
theirlackofsuitablesourcesofsustenancefromeitherconventionalorotherwise
available means. S/he even says that s/he will not be around for ever which
perhaps suggests a context of eat while you can or gather in food while it is
there to be had. Seeking no longer finds if there is nothing there to find. In
other gospels this kind of comment might be a knowing, forward reference to
christological dogma of death and resurrection but, as we will see, its more
complicated here because we have yet to establish if such notions are even
presentinthecaseofthisparticulargospel.Itisntinallofthehistoricalones.

126
ELEVEN

Be compassionate to all living things insofar as you can for a compassionate

mind is a diligent mind. A wise person sees others as themselves. Do you not
realise that however many holy words you hear,howevermanyyouspeak,they
will do you no good if you do not act upon them? Therefore, nurture an innate
recognition of your interconnectedness to all things. Simplicity, patience,
compassion: these are your greatest treasures. The greatest degree of inner
tranquility comes from the development of love and compassion. So thepathto
enlightenment is underneath your feet. Stay on the path. Step into the fire of
selfdiscovery. The fire will not burn you, it will only burn what you are not.
Recognise that to give up yourself without regret is the greatestcharity.Weare
here to awaken from theillusionofourseparateness.Whereverthereisabsence
of self there are no others, because in absence of self I am all others. You are
one with everything. Your suffering is my suffering and your happiness is my
happiness.

Cf.Mt25:3540Lk6:31.Seealsotexts12,1317.

This is the first of two sections drawn from Zen Buddhist and Taoist traditions.
That is a deliberate choice of the author who is writing in 2017 for people of
2017 (and beyond)evenifinthecontextofahistoricalfictionsetinfirstcentury
Palestine. Such an addition grates against notions of canonicity, the choices of
authoritative bodies of people to create orthodox texts forreligiousadherents,
and against notions of the divine inspiration and inerrancyoftextitself.(Surely,
we may think, gospel writers cannot just write what they want, dragging in
whatever material they find relevant? Why not? Are they untrustworthy
authors?) Yet it must be said that it is relatively easy to plunder spiritual and
philosophical traditions from theistic and atheistic sources alike and come up
with very similar teachings such that things that Jesus said doesnt seem a
very specific category at all and certainly notadistinctiveone,atleastinethical
terms. Many people, it seems to me, have it in their heads that Jesus taught
many things that were either new or original but the truth is rather different.
Any reading of generalisedJewishwisdomorofselectionsofsayingsfromthings
like the Jewish Talmud inform the reader that such ethics as Jesus teaches in
canonical gospels move in the same circles as many people before, during and
since Jesus. The words here may seem strange,formulatedfromZenandTaoist
sayings as they are, but could you honestly say the Jesuses found in canonical
gospels are against any of it? Here Joshua Sophia preaches compassion, to see
others as yourself (much like do unto others as you would have them do unto
you) and that actions not words count. The summary of the Jewish Law (love
God love your neighbour as yourself) is here replicated in its second part too.
This is a holy, humanist ethic of compassionate interconnectedness not an
original revelation of Jesus or, here, of Joshua Sophia even though, in both
cases, they tap into it from their intellectual and social locations. So this is the
resultofintersubjectivehumanconsiderationnotspecificdivinerevelation.

127
TWELVE

Joshua Sophia was asked by someone in the crowd what this meant and s/he
replied, A man was traveling fromJerusalemtoJerichoandithappenedthathe
was attacked by robbers and left for dead. By chance a priest was walking that
way but when he saw him he passed by on the other side of the road. Next a
Levite came down the road but he too crossed over the road and passed by. A
Samaritan was also going that way and when he saw the man he took pity. He
went over to him, cleaned his wounds and bandaged them. He set the man on
his donkey and took him to the nearest town and paid forhimtostayataninn,
telling the innkeeper that he would pay more when he came back if the man
needed to stay longer. Now, I ask you, which of these men showed
compassion? The one who helped him, the questioner replied. Go, then,and
do likewise, said Joshua Sophia, for the kingdom of God is inside you and
outsideyou.

Cf.Lk10:2537GTh3:3

The generalised human wisdomisappliedbyJoshuaSophiaintheparableofthe

Good Samaritan. Samaritans, in historical context, were regarded as impure
and unclean mongrels, an example of the worst of people you could find in
Palestinian society from the perspective of Jews. (Centuries previously they had
been interbred with invading Assyrians.) They were not of Gods people. Yet
Joshua Sophia examples them as ones who are Gods people if they act
compassionately, perfectly demonstrating the teaching of the previous text and
overturning political and religious conventions in one fell swoop. The payoff in
this textual formulation, that Gods kingdom is inside and outside of you, is
important as it means that the kingdom is all around you here and now. Your
conductwillshowifyouareofitornotratherthancurrentconventions.

THIRTEEN

Another time Joshua Sophia was by the Sea of Galilee andpeoplewerecoming

asking to be made clean and s/he was pronouncing them clean by the Holy
Spirit. Some friends having a boat, s/he got into it and began to teach them
saying:

Cf.Lk6:1819,5:3

Joshua Sophia is again pronouncing people clean by the Holy Spirit (asopposed
to by the following of rules or the doing of programmatic actions suchasothers
did). This seems an habitual practice as does teaching the crowds which s/he is
about to do again now. Again, this seems like a programmatic formulation of
what that teaching was as the next five texts all seem connected to this one as
theexplicationoftheteachings/hewasgiving.

128
FOURTEEN

Blessed are the poor for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are the hungry
for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you that weep for you will laugh. Blessed
are youwhenyouarehatedandrepudiatedonaccountoftheChildofHumanity.
Rejoicewhenthathappensforyourrewardinheavenisgreat.

Cf.Lk6:2023GTh54Mt5:312GTh68:1,69:12

These are The Beatitudes in their Lukan formulation. Luke blesses the actual
poor, hungry, weepers and hated whereas Matthew, in his rendition of these
categories, spiritualises them (poor in spirit rather than just poor, forexample).
Joshua Sophia is happy to agree with Luke that the actual poor are blessedand
that theirs is the kingdom of God, an indication that this kingdom turns over all
previous categorisations and revolutionises the experienceofliving.HereJoshua
Sophia also uses Child of Humanity as a selfdesignation which perhaps
explains why the gospel writer has too, for example in text 1. But what does it
mean?Onewhoactsonbehalfofhumanity?

FIFTEEN

But woe to you that are rich. Woe to you that are full now. Woe to you that
laugh and woe to you whoarewellspokenof.Youvehadallyoushallhave.You
shallhungerandweep.

Cf.Lk6:2426GTh68,69

The Lukan formulation continues. It is not good to be rich, full, laughing or well
spoken of when the kingdom comes. Gods riches or human riches? That
seems to be Joshua Sophias point of comparison. Yet within that we see the
seed of an idea of humanityitselfforthisisreallythecontrastoftwowaystobe
a peopleasawholeifreadinthecontextofotherethicaltextshere.Itisanidea
of humanity inwhichsomearepoorandsomearerichorinwhichnonearepoor
and none are rich, for example. So it is more radical, and more earthly, more
human, than it first appears. So what is being preached is a radical redefinition
of humansocietyasawholeasagainstthebinariesofgoodandbadfortunethat
arecurrentlyinplace.

SIXTEEN

To those who have two good ears to hear I say that you should love your
enemies and do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you and
pray for any who abuse you. Turn the other cheek if yours is struck and give
your shirt to the one who forcibly takes your coat. Give to those begging from
youanddontaskforyourthingsback.

129
Cf.GTh21Lk6:2730Mt5:3848

The radical ethicalreversalscontinuewhenJoshuaSophiatellspeoplenottopay

back people according to as they deserve (which is traditional human
convention) but to live as an example of certain ethical ideals. Thus, what is
aimed at is not a reshuffling of the pieces that make up human society but a
reshaping of human society itself at its base level. This, according to Joshua
Sophia,ishowGodloves.ThisisthekingdomofGod.

SEVENTEEN

Do for others exactly as you would have them do for you. For no good tree
bears bad fruit and nobadtreebearsgoodfruit.Atreeisknownbyitsfruit.The
good person brings good from the treasure inside of themastheevilonebrings
evil. Andsofrominsideeachpersonspeaks.Ifyoubringforthwhatiswithinyou
what you have will save you. Congratulations to the person who has toiled and
hasfoundlife!

Cf.Lk6:31,6:4345Mt7:1520,12:3335GTh45GTh70GTh58

Do for others as you would have them do for you is actually a more radical
ethic thanitseemsanditshouldbeaspartoftheethicalsayingswehaveseen
here. For most people dont treat others fairly at all. They want special
dispensation for themselves or their favoured ones so that doing as you would
be done to becomes very radical indeed. Joshua Sophia points outthathowyou
act cannot be hidden for your deeds, and so the intellectualbasisforthem,isin
plain sight. It is from within that we show what we are and only this kind of
action can make a difference and change us from what wearetowhatwecould
become. Thesuggestionisthismaytakeeffortbutitisaneffortthatisrequired.
So its not just a matter of divine action at all. Its amatterofhumanactiontoo,
humanactionthatcansaveyou.

EIGHTEEN

Truly I say to you that the one who hears my word and believes the one who
sentmehasreallife.Theywillnotbejudgedandareeternal.

Cf.Jn5:24

Real life is what many translate as eternal life. But life in John is not an
amount of life, its a kind of life, itswhattheothercanonicalgospelswouldthink
of as life in the kingdom of God. Here it is a matter of belief rather than moral
action but in the context of the previous texts that belief can be viewed as not
merely mental assent, which is the easy version of belief, but belief shown
through actions too, a holistic demonstration of assent that is lifechanging and
lifesaving.

130
NINETEEN

Joshua Sophia drew disciples from among the people, male and female, and
went to stay in a housewithsomeofthemandtheres/hewasquestionedabout
the kingdom. S/he answered themthatthecropishugebuttheworkersarefew
sobegtheharvestbosstodespatchworkerstothefields!

Cf.GTh73Mt9:3738Lk10:212

Joshua Sophia recognises that the task is about more than one person or the
work that one person can do. Perhaps there is also the notion that s/he is not
special in this respect and that it is work others can do equally well (see also
text21).

TWENTY

Whoever is near me is near the fire,andwhoeverisfarfrommeisfarfromthe

Fatherskingdom.Seekandyouwillfind!

Cf.GTh8292

A comparison saying using the imagery of fire which is here not something to
shy away from but what should be sought for. The imageshouldberiddledwith
touncovermultiplemeanings.

TWENTYONE

Joshua Sophia was sending out disciples to preach the good news of the
kingdom andtohealthesickandpronouncetheuncleancleanagainthroughthe
Holy Spirit. S/he gave instructions that they were to take nopurseorknapsack,
no spending money, no sandals or staff and only one shirt. They were to
pronounce peace on a house where they were admitted and to eat and drink
whatever they were offered. But in places they werenotwelcomedtheywereto
shake the dust from their feet and to pronounce that Gods kingdom is closing
in.

Cf.Lk10:212Mt10:716Mk6:713

Previously, Joshua Sophia has said that people should turn the other cheek if
they are struck.Nowshesendsoutpeopletopreachthekingdomwithoutastaff
which was not merely a walking aid but a weapon to fend off potential
aggressors. These people are to travel light without supplies too, relying on
other people for their needs. To welcome their message and activities is to
welcome them and take care of their needs. This is kingdom behaviour (as it is
to accept the shelter, food and drink). For those who do not welcome them or
theiractivitiesawarningofthekingdomsadvanceistheirreward.

131
TWENTYTWO

Joshua Sophia was traveling through Samaria with some followersandcameto

Jacobs well in the town of Sychar. Being hungry and thirsty, s/he sent the
followers to fetch provisions. Meanwhile, a Samaritan woman came to the well
and Joshua Sophia asked her for a drink. The woman was surprised and asked
how it could be thats/heaskedherforadrink(sincebeingaSamaritanshewas
unclean).JoshuaSophiarepliedthatifshehadknownwhowasaskingshewould
herself have asked for water and she would have been given living water to
drink. The woman did not understand and pointed out that Joshua Sophia had
nothing to draw water with from the well. Joshua Sophia replied to her saying
that whoever drinks of the water that s/he shall give will never thirst and will
become a spring that wells up to real life.Thewomanwentawayandtoldmany
Samaritans ofJoshuaSophiaandtheymarveledandaskedthats/hestayandso
s/hestayedtherefortwomoredays.

Cf.Jn4:414,3940

To some audiences this fraternisation of Joshua Sophia with Samaritans would

be offensive. But s/he does not treat these people any differently and, indeed,
offers living water that results in kingdom life to one if not all of them, being
generous with time as well. This is an example that the ethicalpronouncements
of earlier texts are not a sham but what s/he is actually living, a powerful and
personal demonstration of what thekingdomofGodisreallyabout.Thisandthe
next text picture Joshua Sophia as a lifegiving spring since water is necessary
foralllife.

TWENTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia said, Who drinks from my mouth will become like me Imyself
shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to them. The
heavens and the earth will roll up in your presence and who is living from the
livingonewillnottastedeath.

Cf.GTh108,111

The teaching that Joshua Sophia gives brings the insight that s/he has and the
kingdom life that overcomes even death which emphasises the importance
attached to the message. But this saying says more than this. It says that
person will become like Joshua Sophia. So that throws us back into looking at
whatthisgospelhastosayaboutJoshuaSophiatoo.

TWENTYFOUR

On another occasion Joshua Sophia was teaching a group of people, including

tax collectors and sinners, about the kingdom of God and all that must happen

132
saying, I came not to call the righteous but sinners. S/he was in a house in
Capernaum where s/he hadjusthealedsomeonebytakingherhandandhelping
her up. Suddenly, a close follower says, Your mother and your brothers and
your sisters are outside. They have come for you and say you have gonemad.
Soon another messenger came from them to say that s/he should go out to
them.JoshuaSophialookedaroundtheplaceandsaid,Whoaremymotherand
sisters and brothers? You here are my mother and sisters and brothers! Who
doesGodswillismymotherandsisterandbrother!

Cf.Mk2:15,171:313:21,3135GTh99

This is a densely packed text with numerouspointsofnote.First,JoshuaSophia

was teaching people and the crowd were mixed. Tax collectors and sinners
were looked down upon and one would become unclean by contact with them.
Joshua Sophia, though, is unconcerned foritissuchasthesethats/hecomesto
call to the kingdom, something which is not merely for the good people. Next
we may note that Joshua Sophia was teaching and healing together. The
kingdommessages/hegivesneverseemstobeaboutheadknowledgeorsimply
teaching. It is also a matter of action and example. This is important when we
observe, thirdly, that Joshua Sophia gives another ethic of the kingdom, that
familial bonds are superceded by kingdom ones. In the kingdom those who act
with the kingdom ethic are as familymembersbutofamoreimportantkingdom
family.Oncemore,humansocietyisturnedonitsheadandreconfigured.

TWENTYFIVE

And they asked Joshua Sophia, When will the kingdom come? And s/he
replied, It will not come by watching for it. People will not say Here it is! or
Thereitis!.Rather,itisspreadoutupontheearthandpeopledontseeit.

Cf.GTh113Lk17:2021

The question Joshua Sophia answers here is posed in linear fashion,

diachronically. But it is answered in synchronic fashion. The kingdom is not a
time thatwillcome.Itsherenow,spreadoutbutunrecognised.Inthecontextof
what has already been shared in this gospel this might be seen as referring to
the kingdom ethics and those who practice them. The imagery given by Joshua
Sophia is not of some big revealbutratherlikesomepurifyingagentworkingits
way through society instead. Evolution not revolution. In this context it can be
seen as a rejection of the ideathatitsallaboutsomedivineactionbreakinginto
theworldfromoutsideinonebigevent.

TWENTYSIX

Joshua Sophia said, I teach nothing to think merely enables us to wake up

and become aware. It does not teach, it points. If you are not happy here and

133
now you neverwillbe.Howyoulivetodayishowyouliveyourlife.Ifyourealise
that all things change there is nothing that you will try to hold on to. So do
everything with a mind that lets go for every morning we are born again.What
we do today is what matters most and every new moment matters most so
concentrate on now. Everythingchanges.Thereisnothingtostickto.Thatisthe
most important teaching. But remember, all teachings are merereferences.The
true experienceislivingyourownlife.Solookwithoutsearchingandseewithout
knowing.Theholiestbeliefsandthehighestthoughtsofferyounothing.

We reach the second and final section of texts from Zen Buddhist and Taoist
sources with texts 2628. Text 26 focuses on existing in the present moment,
something very relevant in the context of apresentkingdom,withthekeyideas
that every morning we are born again and that change is constantly present.
That said, teaching is a tool not a rule. Personal experience is trulyexistingand
in this existence the truth is found. There is no escape from this in legalism or
moralism.

TWENTYSEVEN

The truth knocks on the door and you say, Go away! I am looking for truth,
andsoitgoesaway.

This saying seems to follow hot on the heelsofthelastsentenceoftheprevious

text.Truthiswhereyoufinditnotwhereyoumightconventionallyexpecttofind
it. Its not as if the kingdom of God Joshua Sophia has been talking about isthe
same human world with the pieces or priorities shuffled. Its a world completely
reconfigured. So to look outside the box is entirelyappropriate,evennecessary.
Sodonotturnawaytruthbecauseitwasntwhereyouexpectedtofindit.

TWENTYEIGHT

To every person is given a key to heaven. The same key may also take you to
hell.

Thissayingfirmlyplaceshumanbeingsinthespotlightasoneswhohaveagency
and can make choices. As we have seen in other sayings, Joshua Sophia does
notthinkthatGodskingdomissimplyamatterofdivineaction.Farfromit.

TWENTYNINE

Joshua Sophia was teaching them again and said, A sower went out to sow.
Some seed fell on the path and the birds ate it. Other seed fellonrockyground
and the sun scorched it. Yet more fell among thorns and the thorns choked it.
But some fell on good soil and produced a great yield of grain. If anyone has
earstohearthenletthemhear.

134
Cf.Mk4:39,23GTh9Mt13:3b8Lk8:58a

Another saying with a call to personal action and involvement.Itcouldbeheard

as a simple discussion of different kinds of ground in a sort of resigned way
some will respond, others wont. But the call for ears that hear that concludes
the saying surely implies some encouragement to hearers to make themselves
good soil. Of course, it depends what you think the seed and the different
kinds of terrain represent. Multiple interpretations are possible.Teachingpoints,
ifweremembertext26.

THIRTY

One of the Pharisees, Israels teachers, cametoseeJoshuaSophiaundercover

of darknesstoinquireoftheteachings/hewasgivingaboutthekingdomofGod.
Truly I say to you, s/he said, You cannot enter Godskingdomunlessyouare
born again. The man did not understand and so again s/he spoke saying, You
must be born of the Holy Spirit and of living water for flesh is flesh and spirit is
spirit. So look to the living one as long as you live otherwise you might die and
thentrytoseethelivingone,andyouwillbeunabletosee.

Cf.Jn3:16GTh59

Joshua Sophia has raised interest from a Pharisee, one of a teacher class who
regarded themselves as keepers and preservers of the Law of Moses. He comes
under cover of darkness perhaps so that no others will take note of hismeeting
with Joshua Sophia, who has been teaching different things to the Pharisees,
claiming to act with Gods powerandmixingwithuncleanpeople.JoshuaSophia
again mentions being born again (compare text 26) which is here a spiritual
process of living water which we may compare to past references to this as the
wisdom Joshua Sophia imparts. The final part of this text recommends seizing
theopportunitywhileitisthere.

THIRTYONE

Light has come into the world and yet human beings prefer darkness rather
thanlight.

Cf.Jn3:19

In the context of the previous text this seems to be an observation that people
prefer death to life, confusion to enlightenment, lightanddarknessclearlybeing
fullofsymbolicresonances.

135
THIRTYTWO

Joshua Sophia said, Do not be pious for public effect neither make show of
helping people. Rather, do these things in secret withoutthoughtofrecognition.
And when you pray do not do it so others can see it. Likewise, do it in private
and not for show. And, again, if you fast do not make show of your discipline.
Continue to wash and appear as normal so that itiskeptsecret.Forwhereyour
treasureistherewillyourheartbealso.

Cf.Mt6:18,1618,21GTh6,14:13,62:2

Here Joshua Sophia teaches about humility and the necessity of a spiritual
discipline. This spiritual discipline is not just in acting the right way but indoing
it such that it is private. This is painted as wisdom (treasure) and it reveals a
persons character which suggests that ethics here is about more than the
performance of deeds but a persons being (existing) itself. So Joshua Sophia is
not promoting the notion of a listofrighteousactswhichstandsassomekindof
testimony. Instead, s/he is promoting the notion ofexistentialgoodcharacter,a
stateofbeingandexistingintheworld.

THIRTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia and some disciples went away across the lake to be in a quiet
place by themselves for people were always coming to them to be taught or to
be healed and made clean. But some people saw where they were going and
when their boat made landacrowdwasalreadywaitingforthem.JoshuaSophia
taught them fors/hehadcompassionforthem.Afteralittlewhileitwasgrowing
late and some disciples came to Joshua Sophia asking that the people be sent
away to find food in the surrounding area. But Joshua Sophia said to them,
Feed them yourselves. The disciples complained that it would cost a lot of
money to feed such a crowd which numbered over 5000 people. Joshua Sophia
asked what food they had available and it was fiveloavesofbreadandtwofish.
Then s/he had the disciples sit the people down to eat and divided the food
amongstthem.Everyoneateandwassatisfied.

Cf.Mk6:3144Jn6:113Mt14:1321Lk9:10b17

In historical recitation this story is often scoffed at for its miraculous

implications but read here I wonder if that is the mostimportantaspect.Joshua
Sophia constantly takes responsibility throughout this story. S/he takes
responsibility for the refreshment, peace and quiet s/he and the disciples need.
Then s/he takes responsibility for a crowd they have tried to take time away
from. Nexts/hetakesresponsibilityforfeedingthepeoplewhohavecomeoutto
where they are (by teaching and feeding physically). The disciples are worried
about the cost but s/he is not. S/he shares whatisthere.Inthatistherenotan
ethicofthekingdomaswehaveseenitunfoldinginthisgospel?

136
THIRTYFOUR

Seeing this, the Pharisees were dismayed for they noted that the disciples of
JoshuaSophiadidnotwashasprescribed.Thus,theyweredefiledintheireyes.

Cf.Mk7:18Mt15:19

Comparison with the Pharisee way is given here. They are depicted as legalistic
rule followers, something at odds with the ethics of the kingdom Joshua Sophia
preaches which is, literally, more about the spirit of the law. Joshua Sophias
activities constantly bring the threat of uncleanness and so sin to bear but s/he
does not preach rules andlawstooffsetthisbutthecompletelydifferentethicof
the kingdom of God as s/heunderstandsit.Thisethicischarismaticandpresent
now,amatternotmerelyofouractionbutourexistenceandcharactertoo.

THIRTYFIVE

Joshua Sophia said, There is nothing going into a person which can defile
them.Rather,isitthatwhichcomesoutthatdefilesaperson.

Cf.Mk7:15GTh14Mt15:1011

Joshua Sophia becomesveryspecificinresponsetothePharisaicjudgment:who

youareandwhatyourevealyourselftobedefilesyounotthatyoubreakhuman
conventionsaboutthingssuchasinfoodregulations.

THIRTYSIX

Again Joshua Sophia spoke in parables saying that the kingdomofGodislikea

king who gave a marriage feast for his son. He sent his servants to fetch all
those who had been invited but they would not come. So he sent them again,
encouraging them to come because now it was time for the feast. But some
ignored his servants and others ran them off or abused them. Some were even
killed. The king got angry then and sent his troops to destroy those people and
burned their city. Then the king told his servants that those who had been
invited were not worthy ofthefeastandsoheinstructedthemtogooutintothe
streets and invite anybody they could find to come along instead. And so they
did, inviting both good and bad to the kings table, and the feast was full of
guests.

Cf.Mt22:110Lk14:1624GTh64

Joshua Sophia tells a parable of reversal about the kingdom of God. Previously,
s/he has said she came to call sinners (text 24) and s/he has been habitually
mixing with people who would be called that by others continuously. Here,
scandalously, this is taken even further. In the parablethekingsservantsbring

137
in a rabble,amixtureofgoodandbadtothekingsfeast,whoever,infact,will
come. To respond positively to the invitation is enough for none who come are
turned away. They feast with the king as his guests. This, then, is yet another
teaching about personal decision and responsibility. Will you answer the call of
Joshua Sophia, ofwisdom,orwillyouignoreit,disparageit,betoobusyforitor
run it off, even kill it? In the context of Joshua Sophias meals, indoors and
outdoors with mixed crowds of people, this parable canalsoonlyhighlightthose
meals as kingdom meals in themselves, active, present demonstrations of the
kingsfeast.

THIRTYSEVEN

Joshua Sophia said, Come, people blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom
of God! For I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink, a
stranger and you welcomed me, naked and youclothedme,sickandyouvisited
me and in prison and you came to me. Then those right with God will ask,
Lord, when did weseeyouhungryorthirsty,nakedorastranger?Whendidwe
visit you sick or in prison? And s/he will say, What you did for the least ofmy
brothersorsistersyoudidforme.

Cf.Mt25:3440

In the context of the previous parable thismaybeseenasanexhortationtothe

gathered guests. The attendees are blessed by my Father and potential
inheritors of his kingdom. But now more ethical characteristics of the kingdom
are spelled out again. The feast may have let in good and bad alike, any who
responded, yet this isnt without consequences for the hearers of parables. To
inherit the kingdom, to be more than guests at a party, is to givehelpandbea
brother or a sister, as if a family member (compare text 24), to all in need
without distinction.This,presumably,isthekingdomethicandsoanenunciation
of the love and compassion of which Joshua Sophia speaks. Be compassionate
to all living things as text 11 has said. Being let into the party was Gods gift.
Onerepaysthehostwellbybeingasheis,bybeingrightwithGod.

THIRTYEIGHT

Then Joshua Sophia was teaching them that those who did not do this would
stand condemned by their own actions for to not give food or water, to not
welcome the stranger or clothe the naked, tonotvisitthesickorthoseinprison
was not to do it to Joshua Sophia either. Let those hear who have two ears to
hear!

Cf.Mt25:4146

In this case there isaflipside.Characterisntwithoutconsequences.Theethicis

thatallareasone.Comparetext11again.Loveyourneighbourasyourself.

138
THIRTYNINE

And Joshua Sophia was saying to them that the kingdom of God is like a tiny
mustard seed, it is the smallest of seeds but if it lands on good ground itgrows
intosomethinginwhicheventhebirdsmaynest.

Cf.Mk4:3032GTh20

The agrarian imagery of seeds is used again. Here the seed is explained to be
the kingdom. The challenge to hearers here is to be the ground on which it can
growwhichmaythenevenprovideshelterforothers.

FORTY

Joshua Sophias discipleswereaskingDoyouwantustofast?andShouldwe

pray? and Should we give to charity? and What diet should we observe?
Joshua Sophia replied, Dont lieanddontdowhatyouhateforallthingswillbe
disclosed. There is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed for all thingswillbe
revealed.

Cf.GTh6Mk4:22Mt10:26Lk8:17,12:2

Joshua Sophia does not exactly answer the questionsofthediscipleshereaswe

might expect. They seem to want rules or practices to follow but s/he doesnt
seem interested in the questions at that level. The exhortation not to lie or do
what you hate might be an injunction against hypocrisy given previous sayings
(compare text 32) in the sense ofnotdoingthingsforshowratherthanfortheir
benefit to your character in the context of your existence. Instead, rather than
giving rules, s/he simply states that nothing will be hidden, a statement which
exposes their existence to a glare (a light) which cannot be avoided, where
motives are perceived and not just surface actions. Again, this is an ethical
insight which reconfigures the narrative. The inference is it doesnt matter what
youdoinitself.Whatmattersisthatwhateveryoudowillbeseenforeverything
it is and where it comes from. So there is no formula in actions for right living
and a list of right actions is never enough. Things are once more about what is
behindtheactions,whatonesbeingconsistsin.

FORTYONE

Joshua Sophia saw some babies being nursed and s/he said, These nursing
babiesarelikethosewhoenterthekingdomofGod.

Cf.GTh22:12Mk10:1415Mt18:3Lk18:1617GTh46:2

139
Thesayinghereissimpleonceyoudiscernwhatnursingbabiesarelike!Sodo
everything with a mind that lets go for every morning we are born again (text
26).

FORTYTWO

Joshua Sophia said, There is a light within the personoflightthatshinesupon

the whole world. But if it does not shine it is dark. You see a sliver in your
friends eye but you do not seethetimberinyourowneye.Attendtothetimber
first,thenyouwillseethesliver.

Cf.GTh24Mt5:14Jn8:12GTh26Lk6:4142Mt7:35

Two separate sayings are brought together here to form a connected thought.
The theme is seeing and being able to see. For this one needs light and Joshua
Sophia says each person of light can be this light that will shine out upon the
whole world. But this is then juxtaposed with a saying in which these same
people are not seeing correctly, focusing on lesser faults in others to the
detriment of their own greater ones. So in a sense they have restricted vision.
Seeing, then, is not just about the presence of light. Its about having eyes that
can see as well, here explained as an attention to your own faults. Only by
attention to these faults will your vision be clearer and the light available for
others. Perhaps, then, the oversight referred to in the second half of the text is
thedarkreferredtointhefirsthalf.

FORTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia said, If a blind personleadsablindpersonbothofthemwillfall

intoahole.

Cf.GTh34Lk6:39Mt15:14

Another saying about sight is attached to the text previous to this one. Joshua
Sophia says that sight is necessary otherwise everyone falls into thesamehole.
In the contextofawisdomgospelsuchasthisseemstobethiscanonlybeseen
asadvocatingwisdomitself.Toseeistobewise.

FORTYFOUR

JoshuaSophiasaid,Bepassersby.

Cf.GTh42

This saying seems a little tricky, perhaps as if it were some kind of trick or
riddle. But what if its taken literally? What if we readthisinthelightoftext26?
If you realise that all things change there is nothing thatyouwilltrytoholdon

140
to perhaps contextualises this as a saying about not holding onto things or
realising that all things must pass. In historical context Joshua Sophia and the
followers s/he collected were itinerants and this could be an exhortation to that
lifestyle too (for which we can compare Joshua Sophias mission instructions in
text 21). In a world of change (text 26 again) to be a passerby is to be in tune
with the worldaroundyouandso,onthisinterpretation,thiswouldbeapieceof
practicalwisdom.

FORTYFIVE

Joshua Sophia said, Whoever becomes as a child will become greater than
JohntheBaptistandamonghumanbeingstherewasnonegreaterthanhe.

Cf.GTh46Lk7:28Mt11.11Mk10:15Mt18:3Lk18:17

The riddle ofbeinglikeachildisusedagaininthissayingwhichpraisesJohnthe

Baptist most highly. Yet he is as nothing beside wisdoms children. Its
noteworthy that this saying suggests that becoming like a child is something
people will need to actively do or even cultivate. Becoming like a child is here
envisagedasanachievement.

FORTYSIX

Joshua Sophia said, Do not judge by appearances but judge with right
judgment.

Cf.Jn7:24

What right judgment might be is elusive if considered by itself. But the text,
and the wider gospel context, provide the necessary interpretiveapparatus.The
right judgment is contrasted with judgment by appearances which is argued
against. The Pharisees are those earlier accused in the gospel of doing such a
thing and so other contrasts with their behaviour elsewhere become relevant.
Texts such as 30, 32, 3436 provide context for this. The right thing is not
necessarily the thing that can be seen, much less the thing that is done to be
seen.

FORTYSEVEN

As Joshua Sophia was walking with some close followers s/he saw a man blind
from birth. The followers were asking,Rabbi,whohassinnedthatthismanwas
born blind, him or his parents? JoshuaSophiaanswered,Itwasnotthateither
he or his parents have sinned but that the works of God maybeshownthrough
him.

Cf.Jn9:13

141
Joshua Sophia is here referred to as aRabbi,thehonorifictitleofawiseteacher
even though s/he held no such official post as far as we have evidence for.
Clearly, s/he has been acting out this role regardless. S/he is posed a hard
question. Illness or infirmityinthosedayscouldbeblamedonsinorwrongdoing
and in the case of this man born blind the difficulty, for those askingatleast,is
in deciding who to blame. Joshua Sophia, however, disappoints the questioners
with their presuppositions by refusing the premise. It was no ones fault but
ratheranopportunityforGodtoact.Ashewillshortly.

FORTYEIGHT

After this Joshua Sophia spat on thegroundandmademudandwipeditonthe

blind mans eyes, telling him to go and wash it off in a nearby pool. And, doing
this, he could see. The local Pharisees heard about this andquestionedtheman
because it was the Sabbath when one should do no work. He told them what
Joshua Sophia had done but they would not believe him. They even went and
questioned his parentswhotestifiedthathehadbeenbornblind.Buttheywould
not accept his explanation for the fact that he could now see. If this man were
not from Godhewouldnotbeabletodoanything,hesaidtothem.And,calling
himasinner,theycasthimawayfromthemindisgust.

Cf.Jn9:434

Joshua Sophia gives the man instructions to gain the sight he has never had
(important in asectionofthegospelwheresightandseeinggenerallyhavebeen
significant themes Joshua Sophia is the Sightgiver) but it gets him into trouble
for it is the Sabbath which, for the Pharisees at any rate, was governed by
rulebound notions of how to respect God on this holy day. The Pharisees
questioned the man and his parents but refused to accept (which is more than
found themselves unable to believe) his explanation. The man who is now not
blind reasons that Joshua Sophia must be of God as the actions have revealed
the source of the actions. But the Pharisees, portrayedinthemoldofthosewho
refuse the kings invitation intext36,casthimawayduetohisexplanationsand
reasonings which they hardheartedly refuse to accept. The moral is left for
thosewhohavebeenreadingthisgospeltodraw.

FORTYNINE

Joshua Sophia was passing through Jericho when Zacchaeus, a tax collector
who was veryrich,wantedtoseewass/hewassaying.Andsoheclimbedatree
to get a good vantage point. But then Joshua Sophia said to him, Come down
because Im staying at your house today. And the people were murmuring
becauses/hehadgonetostayatthehouseofasinner.

Cf.Lk19:17

142
Joshua Sophia once more upsets the notions of the crowd schooled in
conventional understandings by going to stay with the sinner Zacchaeus who
was a tax collector. We will recall that earlier in the gospel (text 24) Joshua
Sophia stated that s/he came to call such as these to the kingdom of God,
however. S/he is as good as the word s/he speaks. Consistency of word and
deedisdemonstrated.

FIFTY

TheChildofHumanitysaid,Ihavecometoseekandsavethelost.

Cf.Lk19:10

And Joshua Sophia (compare text 1) now statesthisboldlywithaprogrammatic

statement. In this context it makes absolute sense. You seek the lost not the
found.Itisactionwhichreconfiguresreligiousandpoliticalunderstandingstoo.

FIFTYONE

Joshua Sophia said, There are eunuchswhowerebornthatway,andthereare

eunuchs who were made so by men, and there are eunuchs who become so for
Godskingdom.Thosewhocanreceivethis,letthemreceiveit.

Cf.Mt19:12

Thisissomethingofahardsaying.Aeunuch,inthetraditionalsense,isonewho
has been castrated, perhaps becausehewasworkinginaharemandthemaster
does not want him to be able to impregnate the women of the harem. But one
cannot be born castrated (medical defects aside) and we should not necessarily
imagine men castrating themselves for the kingdom either. So eunuch here is
not simplytobetakenliterally.Inthelatercasethesuggestionseemstobethat
there are those who give up sexual and reproductive desire for the kingdom
which, givenhowreproductionwasregardedasaduty,wouldbeseenasagreat
sacrifice worthy of respect. Joshua Sophia does not give this as a rule though
and recognises that not all will be able to accept it. However, its clearly not
compulsory in any case. This saying may function, with the next couple, as
sayingswhichareaboutgivingupthingsforthekingdom.

FIFTYTWO

Joshua Sophia said, Go, sell all your possessions and give the money to the
poorandthen,come,followme!

Cf.Mt19:21

143
This saying is as straightforward as it seems. Joshua Sophia says that the
kingdom issovaluableitsworthmorethaneverythingyouhave.Again,thepoor
should benefit in this kingdom (simply because they are poor, they do not have
to earn or deserve it) and you should dedicate yourself to learning what Joshua
Sophia has to teach. This is an immediate call and a moment of decision
(comparetext36).

FIFTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia said, Let the one who has found theworldandbecomewealthy
renouncetheworld.

Cf.GTh110Mk10:23Mt19:23Lk18:24

Yet another sayingaboutgivingthingsupwhichtakesplaceinthecontextofthe

reversal that this gospel speaks of in which the world is opposed to Gods
kingdom.Itissupposedthatonecanhavetheformerorthelatterbutnotboth.

FIFTYFOUR

Joshua Sophia was saying, Hate hypocrisy and evil intent, for intent is what
produces hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is far from the truth. Instead, become eager
for instruction. Instruction first requires faith, then love, then deeds and from
these comes life. For instruction is like a grain of wheat. When sowed faith was
had that it would grow and then it sprouted and waslovedbecausemoregrains
were envisaged and when it was workedtheworkersweresustainedbyit,using
it for food. What they did not eat was kept back tobesown.Soitispossiblefor
you,too,toreceivethekingdomofGod.

Cf.SBJ6:8,1618Mk4:1320Mt13:1823Lk8:1115

This saying, from the Secret Book of James (SBJ), begins on a theme we have
seen before, hatred of hypocrisy and the evil intent which does thingsforshow.
This, as said before, is opposite to whatJoshuaSophiastandsfor.Inthissaying
this turns into a cultivation of the desire (or curiosity) for instruction which will
lead to life. The imagery of the seed is used once more and the possibility of
receiving the kingdom is held out. All the while this is explained as part of a
holistic process requiring faith, love and deeds. Joshua Sophia never teaches
that the kingdom is based on knowledgeorrulesorstatementsoffactsalone.It
alwaysinvolvespersonalandsocialaction.

FIFTYFIVE

Joshua Sophia was asked, What is the sin of the world? And s/he replied,
There is no such thing as sin. Rather, you yourselves are what produces sin
whenyouactaccordingtothenatureofadultery,whichiscalledsin.

144
Cf.Mary3:24

This saying is from the Gospel of Mary (Mary) and revolvesaroundthemeaning

of the phrase the nature of adultery. Adultery is to break a special bond
between two people, witnessed in public, and to enter into false relations with
another. Joshua Sophia saysthatwecreatesinwhenweactthisway.Incontext
here itseemstomeanthatthepeoplebreakcontractwithGodtolookelsewhere
andthatthisissinful.Therefore,tobefaithfultoGodistoremainclean.

FIFTYSIX

Joshua Sophia said, I am light. No one lights a lamp and puts it in a cellar or
under a bushel basket but rather on a lampstandsothatthosewhocomeincan
seethelight.

Cf.Jn8:12GTh77:1:Mt5:1415Lk11:33:Mk4:21GTh33:23

Joshua Sophia makes personal claim to bethewisdoms/heshareswhichinvites

us to riddle with what light is to understand the contexts in which s/he might
mean to be light. In any case, one does not hide a light. One uses it to enable
peopletosee.

FIFTYSEVEN

Joshua SophiawasdiscussingwithsomePhariseesandteachersoftheLawwho
were discussing what was clean and unclean. S/he said to them, You are
imposters! You cleantheoutsideofcupsanddishesbutinsideyouarefullofevil
and greed.Didnottheonewhomadetheoutsidealsomaketheinside?Dontbe
blind!Firstcleantheinsideandthentheoutsidewillbecleantoo!

Cf.Lk11:3941Mt23:2526

Joshua Sophia gets involved with discussions about (ritual) cleanliness and
purity which has been shown to be something important to the teaching s/he
gives and especially the activities s/he has carried out. Here s/he directly
accuses the Pharisees of being imposters (people falsely representing the willof
God) in their legalistic teachings.JoshuaSophiaopposestheirteachingwiththat
whichs/hegivesaboutcharacter,existenceandbeing.

FIFTYEIGHT

Someone shouted, I will follow wherever you go! to Joshua Sophia. S/he
replied, Foxes have dens and the birds of the sky have nests but the child of
humanityhasnowheretorest.

Cf.GTh86Mt8:20Lk9:58

145
Another saying which seems to be teaching itinerancy. The child of humanity
could be a selfreference or referring to people in generalorboth.Itinerancy,of
course, is necessary because Joshua Sophia has come to spread the good news
of the kingdom. Thus, the life s/he leads is suited to that purpose and this
saying,inthecontextofthequestion,isastatementofthecostofthekingdom.

FIFTYNINE

Joshua Sophia was alone with the disciples and s/he began to speak, saying,
What human being indeed can know the intentions of God? And who can
comprehend the will of the Lord? For the reasoning of mortal human beings is
inadequate, and their attitude of mind unstable for a perishable body presses
down on the soul, and this tent of clay weighs down the mind with its many
cares. It is hard enough for us to work out what is on earth, laborious to know
what lies within our reach who, then, can discover what isintheheavens?And
who could ever have known your will, had you not given Wisdom and sent your
Holy Spiritfromabove?Thushavethepathsofthoseonearthbeenstraightened
and people have been taught what pleases you and have been saved, by
Wisdom.

Cf.Wis9:1318

The main bodyofsayingsandteachingnowseemstobeoverandfromherethis

gospel moves to its close. Here Joshua Sophia teaches disciplesinprivateabout
the wisdom s/he has shared which comes from God by the Holy Spirit, This is
necessary as the experience of being human is burdensome and an impediment
toknowingGodswill.

SIXTY

Joshua Sophia said, Wisdom I loved and searched for from my youth I
resolved to have her as my bride, I fell in love with her beauty. She enhances
her noble birth by sharing the life of God, for the Master of Allhasalwaysloved
her. Indeed, she shares the secrets of Gods knowledge, and she chooses what
he will do. If in this life wealth is a desirable possession, what is more wealthy
than Wisdom whose work is everywhere? Or if it be the intellect that is at work
who, more than she, designs whatever exists? Or if it be uprightness you love,
why, virtues arethefruitsofherlabours,sinceitisshewhoteachestemperance
and prudence, justice and fortitude nothing in life is more useful for human
beings. Or if you are eager for wide experience, she knows the past, she
forecasts the future she knows how to turn maxims and solve riddles she has
foreknowledge of signs and wonders, and of the unfolding of the ages and
times.

Cf.Wis8:28

146
Ahymntodivinewisdomasthemostprizedpossessioninlife.

SiXTYONE

Joshua Sophia withdrew to be alone and to pray and she offered the following
prayer to the God of Israel: God of our ancestors, Lord of Mercy, who by your
word made the universe, and in your wisdom fitted human beings to rule the
creatures that youhavemade,togoverntheworldinholinessandsavingjustice
and in honesty of soul to dispense fair judgment, grant me Wisdom, consort of
your throne, and do not reject me from the number of your children. For I am
your servant, child of your serving maid, a feeble human being and with little
time to live, with small understanding of justice and the laws. Indeed, were
anyone perfect among the children of humanity, if they lacked the Wisdom that
comesfromyoutheywouldstillcountfornothing.

Cf.Wis9:16

SIXTYTWO

You have chosen me to rule over your people, to be judge of your sons and
daughters. You have bidden me build a Temple on your holy mountain, and an
altar in the city where you have pitchedyourtent,acopyoftheholyTentwhich
you prepared at the beginning. With youisWisdom,shewhoknowsyourworks,
she who was present when you made the world she understands what is
pleasing in your eyes and what agrees with your commandments. Despatch her
from your holyheavens,sendherforthfromyourthroneofglorytohelpmeand
to toil with me and to teach me what is pleasing to you since she knows and
understands everything she will guide me prudently in my actions and will
protect me with her glory. Then all I do will be acceptable, I shall govern your
peoplejustlyandbeworthyofmyfathersthrone.

Cf.Wis9:712

In these twosectionsJoshuaSophiapraysforwisdomyetinthecontextoflittle
timetoliveandbeingworthyofmyfathersthrone.

SIXTYTHREE

Joshua Sophia went to Jerusalem for the Passover and went into the Temple.
And s/he began to drive out those who bought and sold there and to turn over
the tables of the money changers. S/he would not let anyone carry anything
through the Temple. And s/he taught, saying, Is it not written that my house
will be a house of prayer for all nations? But you have turned it into a den of
robbers. The crowd were astonished and the Temple authorities were afraid
becauseofthisandplottedtodestroyJoshuaSophia.

147
Cf.Mk11:1519Lk19:4548Mt21:1213Isa56:7Jer7:11

Joshua Sophia, inspired by biblical words of the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah,
causes a scene in the Jewish Temple, the holiest place known to Jews. S/he
attempts to stop its business (which served to maintain the smooth running of
the Temples sacrificial operations) as she finds it offensive. It should be noted
now that s/he has been praying for wisdom before this scene unfoldsandsowe
can only assume this is regarded as right action that is well considered. Note
also that Joshua Sophia believes that Gods wisdom willactasprotection.Andit
seemss/hewillneeditastheTempleauthoritieshavebeenarousedtoaction.

SIXTYFOUR

Judas Iscariot, who was one ofJoshuaSophiasinnercircle,wenttotheTemple

authorities in order that s/he would be betrayedintotheirhands.Andtheywere
pleasedandofferedtopayhimmoney.Hebeganlookingforanopportunity.

Cf.Mk14:1011Mt26:1719Lk22:36

One of Joshua Sophia closest confidants conspires with the Temple authorities
whichgivesthemtheopportunitytheyseek.

SIXTYFIVE

Judas came with an armed deputation from the Temple authorities and they
seized Joshua Sophia as s/he was quietly praying. Joshua Sophias followers all
ran away. S/he was taken to the High Priest of the Temple and there they tried
to find reasons s/he should be killed. And they all condemned Joshua Sophia as
deserving death. In the morning the Jewish authorities took Joshua Sophia to
Pilate, the Roman Governor, and s/he was questioned by him asking, Are you
the king of the Jews? but s/hewouldnotconfirmit.Andthens/hekeptsilence.
PilatehadJoshuaSophiascourgedands/hewassenttobecrucified.

Mk 14:4364, 15:115 Mt 26:4768 Lk 22:4771 Jn 18:224 Mt 27:123 Lk

22:6623:25Jn18:28,3340

So much of this gospel has been things Joshua Sophia said but this is pure
narrative. Indeed, at this pivotal moment s/he chooses silence. S/he has been
left alone with enemies as the followers have nowallgone.S/heistrapped.The
Temple authorities think s/he should be killed and Pilate tries to find a reason.
Yetnoteagainhowallthishappensintheshadowoftexts61and62!

SIXTYSIX

Joshua Sophia was hung on the cross and the inscription read The king of the
Jews. And s/he cried out, My God, myGod,whyhaveyouforsakenme?Then

148
she cried out loudly once more and died. Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of
James andJosesandSalomewerethere,watchingatadistance.AndafterPilate
had confirmed s/he was dead Joshua Sophias body was buried by Joseph of
Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Council who was also hoping for the
kingdom of God. He wrapped the body and buried it in a tomb. The two Marys
sawwheres/hewaslaid.

Cf.Mk15:28,3347Mt27:4561Lk23:4455Jn19:25b30,3842

Joshua Sophia had not confirmed being king of the Jews but it was the charge
laid on the cross anyway,awarningtootherswhomightpresumetoleadIsrael.
S/he is broken and (feeling) abandoned. We can imagine that opponents, those
who disagreed with the teaching s/he gave and those outraged by the actions
s/he took in the Temple and elsewhere previously, were happy at this outcome.
Some women, clearly known to the writer or significant enough to mean
something to readers, watch at a distance. S/he dies and is buried and the
womenmarkthespot.

SIXTYSEVEN

When Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James and
Salome brought spices so that they mightanointthebodyofJoshuaSophia.But
on the way they realised they would need help to roll the stone away from the
front of the tomb. Yet when they got there the large stone was already to the
side. They went in and found that there was no body there. A man dressedina
white robe told them, Look, he is nothere.Heisrisen.Dontbeamazedbutgo
and tell the disciples that he has gone to Galilee like he said. You will see him
there. But they fled from the tomb, terrified, and told nooneanythingbecause
theywereafraid.

Cf.Mk16:18

Since the women had watched where s/he was buried they can gotoanointthe
body. Then they realise they wont be able to get in but that problem is solved
because the entrance is clear. Joshua Sophias body is not there. A man tells
them that Joshua Sophia is risen, something not mentioned previously at all in
this gospel, and that the disciples should go back to Galilee where s/he will be.
The women become terrified by this and run away as the disciples did when
JoshuaSophiawasarrested.Theydontspeakawordofit.

Sowhathappensnow?Andwhatofthisgospel?Whereisthegoodnewsinthis?

149
AGospelButNoGospel:TheGospelofJoshuaSophiainContext

Those familiar with more historical gospels than this onemaynotice,asIdo,an

immediate discrepancy with the Gospel of Joshua Sophia. In this gospel the
death of Joshua Sophia is not prepared for nor even hinted at. We have text
after text of teachings, a few activities and some sayings and then the tone
changes. Joshua Sophia prays for wisdom before going to the Jewish Temple at
Passover time, the busiest time, and disrupts its operations. S/he could hardly
have done anything more disruptive to strike at the heart of contemporary
Judaism. And s/he paysaheavypriceass/heiskilledforit.Inthisgospelthisis
related, seemingly, as just a historical narrative, a this is how Joshua Sophia
died story. In biblical gospels this isnt the case at all. There the fact of the
death and resurrection of Jesus is integrated into his teaching and made partof
biblical prophecy. He is said to teach his disciples about it. Paul, in his letters,
will write that the death and resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone on which
Christian belief and Christian hope rests. But not here. Joshua Sophia never
teachess/hewilldieandriseagain.Itssomethings/heperhapsexperiences(the
question of resurrection is left very open) but certainly not something s/he
taught.Itwasnotthatthatwasthegoodnews.

So Christians reading this gospel might argue, quite strongly and persuasively,
that although this book calls itself a gospelitinfactcontainsnoChristiangospel
at all. The four canonical gospels are not, as this one in the main is, a program
for living an ethical life in the kingdom of God. To be sure, canonical gospels,
especially the first three, containmuchofthattoo(afterall,itswherethiswriter
got it from in the main). But the point of those gospels is topointtotheperson
and significance of Jesus himself. All else is but illustration and example of who
Jesus is and why he matters. Jesus even speaks of andreferstohimselfseveral
times in the canonical gospels, often in future contexts. This is taken to the
extreme in Johns gospel which pictures him as the pivotal being in history,
coequal and coeternal withGodhimself.JoshuaSophiadoesnotdothatnearly
so much either in degree or amount. S/he focuses on the kingdom of God and
Gods wisdom which we can assume to be the active existentialcharacterofthe
kingdomitself.

So if the Gospel of Joshua Sophia is going to refer to itself as a gospel thenthe

referent cannot be the same as that the canonical gospelshave.SomeChristian
biblical scholars have been and continue to be very touchy about any book,
contemporary or historic, calling itselfagospeloutsideofthesefour.Documents
such as the gospels of Thomas or Mary, which have been used in compilingthis
gospel and which are part of an historical interChristian debate about the
Christian message and its consequences, are disparaged and put down as, it is
claimed, they dont share the agenda or have the doctrinal purity of the
canonical gospels. A putative document such as Q, a document many New
Testament scholars think was a documentary source for the gospels of Matthew
and Luke, is also disparaged if it is argued, as some do, that it was a gospel

150
before the gospels. This is a very polemical debate in which many of the
participantsseethemselvesasfightingoverthecontentofGospeltruthitself.

So in distinction to the biblical gospels this gospel is distinctive in that, if

anything, Joshua Sophia is not the message. Joshua Sophias death is not a
sacrifice for sins nor is it given any other kind of significance. It is an open
question if Joshua Sophia is resurrected. Joshua Sophia does not teach anyone
about needing to die or about how s/he will be raised from death. As we have
seen, the Holy Spirit is regarded by Joshua Sophia as already present in the
kingdom of God s/he preaches and teaches about. So there is no need for a
Pentecost event either. Indeed, all of Joshua Sophias teaching and speaking
about the kingdom of God here seems very present, very about action and
activity and decision now. This does notruleoutanyfutureeventsbutitdoesnt
say people should wait for God to do something either. For Joshua Sophia, God
is acting right now and now isthetimetorespond.Wecanobservethatwisdom
teaching, too, is a very present form ofcommunication.Wisdomisabouthowto
live in the present rather than a message of waiting for future events. It is a
form which focuses on who you are and how you live now. Joshua Sophias
message and activity is to show that Gods kingdom is now and that by right
actionitcangrowandbeexpanded.

So the canonical gospels are about Jesus but the Gospel ofJoshuaSophiaisnot
about Joshua Sophia, even though s/he is regarded as the bearer of special
wisdom. The Gospel of Joshua Sophia is about the announcement of the
kingdom ofGodandwhatthosehearingandobservingitintheactionsofJoshua
Sophia should do about it. This is an important distinction. A Christian would
expect faith and belief in Jesus as a person. But Joshua Sophia does not expect
such a thing. S/he expects and hopes for eyes that can see the kingdom and a
heart and mind curious and desirous to be molded into beings who, by their
speech and action, show themselves to be part of it. So, in this sense, Jesus in
the canonical gospels points to himself. Joshua Sophia is a pointertosomething
else, the kingdom of God. Blessed are those who interpret the wisdom she
speaksratherthanthosewhorightidentify(thesignificanceof)aperson.

151
TheEthicsofJoshuaSophia

This essay is to be a general essay to draw out some notableethicalpointsthat

Joshua Sophia makes in the Gospel of Joshua Sophia. It is not to be fully
detailed, however, extracting every possible ethical interpretation and
ramification from the text. Rather, this is about drawing out general points and
so it should also be read in tandem with the commentary on the text, given
above, which also has ethical points to make. Before we move to the specific
ethical points I want to highlight, though, we first of all need to recognisesome
general issues appertaining to such an exercise in historical and contemporary
context.

Firstly, we needtorecognisethatJoshuaSophiaisa1stcenturyPalestinianJew.
This historical location matters and it does mean something. It means s/he is a
theist and that s/he believes in the god of Israel and, indeed,thestoryofIsrael
that every good Jew would have in their head andthatcontextualisedtheirvery
existence. So whatever we think of the ethics of Joshua Sophia there can be no
notionthats/hewasafeministoraworkerforsocialjustice(forexample)inany
modern understanding of those terms. Suchthinkingisanachronismandwishful
thinking. The only appropriate way to understand the ethic of Joshua Sophia
historically is through an interpretation of the idea of the kingdom of Godwhich
is theethicalcontextfortheethicJoshuaSophiagives.Wewillhavetobearwith
the fact, however, that this is a kingdom and that Joshua Sophia does believe
that a deity, the Jewish god, is the king. Joshua Sophias ethic is anethicwhich
s/he believes comes straight from the god of Israel and that reflects what he is
likeandwhatpleaseshim.Theparableofthekingsfeastintext36shouldmake
thatprogrammaticallyclear.

So, secondly, this should inform us that what we aredealingwithherewhenwe

deal with a historically situated ethic with historical causes is an act of
translation. Joshua Sophia was active in1stcenturyPalestinebutwe,evenifwe
should be in modern day Palestine, are not 1st century Palestinian Jews. We
have moved on but Joshua Sophias teaching is set in its historical culture and
location for all time. We have to respect thatbutifthereistobeanypointatall
to writing it down and sharing it with others not of that time, place or culture
then we have to be able to draw appropriate conclusions from it without doing
violence to the situation it came from or, worse, reading back from us to the
putative point of origin. This is to say that Joshua Sophia cannot share our
motives for the motives s/he had were historical and particular just as ours are
too. So we should be careful how we read and careful not to draw conclusions
which are motivated by an unseen desire to coopt Joshua Sophiatoourcauses
inawaythatcouldneverbepossible.

A third and final general point here is the issue of gender which was alsoraised
in the commentary to the gospel undertext2.Itisworthnotinghereagainonly
that Joshua Sophia in this text is gender ambiguous which, I will admit, is a

152
device deliberately used to get readers to think about gender, whatitis,whatit
means, what consequences it has and associated questions.Noapologyismade
for this and the readerofthisbookwillhavetoriddlewiththatasbesttheycan,
not least in this essay whichisconcernedwithethics.Itcannotbeillegitimateto
raise ethical issues and to read with an ethically interested consciousness when
one is reading a text that is itself clearly ethically interested. One aspect of any
kindofreadingshouldbecritique.

All that said, we come to the seven key ethical points I have identifiedfromthe
GospelofJoshuaSophia.

The first point IwanttoraiseisthatJoshuaSophiasethicisanethicofpersonal

and social responsibility. This is seen right at the startoftheteachingsectionof
the gospel (texts 858) in text 8 which gives a general description of what
Joshua Sophia was doing. S/he urges the people to seek for themselves and
s/he preaches this generally indicating both personal and social dimensions to
the task. S/he will come to form a type of community later in the gospel (text
21) and part of this message s/he gives is the exhortation that workers be sent
into the fields to gather the harvest (text 19). Yet the ethic, whilst socially
responsible as in the feeding of the 5000 in text 33 and the saying about those
who feed or help others being the same as iftheyhaddoneitforJoshuaSophia
in text 37, is also a personal call to response and responsibility too. The gospel
begins with it being noted that those who discover the interpretation of the
wisdom that Joshua Sophia gives will be blessed and receive a personal light.
Text 23 saysthattheindividualwhodrinksfromthemouthofJoshuaSophiawill
have things revealed to them. Text 54 urges people to seek instruction which,
with faith, love and action, becomes a crop that can feed many. The ethic of
Joshua Sophia in the historical context of the kingdom of God is about
communityandpersonaldecision,ithassocialandpersonaldimensions.

The overarching context of the ethic seemstobecompassion.Itislaidoutquite

early on into the teaching section of the gospel suggesting it be seen as some
sort of heading for everything that follows. Already in text 9 Joshua Sophia has
shown patience andgraceinthefaceofconstantpopularitytosharewhats/he
has to share. In texts 11 and 12 we have a section of teaching and a practical
application of it in the parable of The Good Samaritan. Iftheteachingintext11
is dense and riddling and something which requires time to think about, text12
is clear and straight to the point. Compassion is helping those who despise you
and putting yourself in danger for another (even a total stranger) and not
counting the cost. The ethic here is that people count and have value, your
thinking about them or societal consequences notwithstanding. Compassion will
be the ethical keyword of Joshua Sophia throughout this gospel, the context in
which all else should beunderstood.Weseeitagainpowerfullyintext37,which
again is about helping anyone, and in the example of Joshua Sophias own
activities: I have
come to
seek
and
save
the
lost(text50).Thenextmarkerof

153
the ethic s/he has makesitclearthelostismuchwiderinscopethanmightbe
imaginedordesired(bysome).

The third marker of Joshua Sophias ethic is that it entails a radical reversal of
human thinking and conventions. This reversal, or reconfiguration, is littered
throughout the text. It is first seen in texts 1417 where the poor are lifted up,
just for being poor, and the rich are left behind because theyve had their fun.
We see here a series of contrasts but thecontrastisbetweentheethicofselfish
human beings and the ethic of the kingdom of God. There isnocakeandeating
it here. You have to choose and you have to see past the immediate human
payoff in doing that. The poor, for example, might not be doing well in life. But
Joshua Sophia says they will in the end in Gods kingdomwhereastherich,who
chose an every man for himself mentality, have had their reward. The ethic
Joshua Sophia gives is one that is opposed to the every man for himself
mentality and which dangles the question Whatifitwasntabouteverymanfor
himself? in front of the crowd (and the readers). We see this most clearly in
text 17 which offers the ethic do unto others as you would have them do unto
you. This is not every man for himself but treat everyone as yourself and
privilege them as you yourself would hope to be privileged. This ethic is
continued in the action of Joshua Sophia and in the calling of sinners like
Zacchaeus (text 49). You would hope to get a chancetobeinGodskingdomso
why shouldnt everyone? In this kingdom an agenda of personal benefit to the
detriment ofothersoraneverymanforhimselfmentalityisreplacedbyoneof
personal cost for the benefit of all and the idea of some kind ofspecialpersonal
worthisreplacedwithgeneralhumanworth.

The fourth ethical marker I want to draw attention to is the idea of community.
This follows logically from what has already been said, of course, and fits in
historically with the idea of the kingdom of God and the story of Israel as a
people special to the Jewish god. Yet in times often moreindividualistictheidea
of community itself is sometimes under attack, especially in configurations such
as collective action or community care. Yet Joshua Sophia seems to be very
much about communityandtheideaofcommunalresponsibility.Inthisthevery
historical notion of the kingdom of God itself is important since this is a realm
and the idea of belonging to that realm introduces the idea of nationality or
kinship between those who are members. There is further evidence in text 24
where Joshua Sophia describes kingdommembersbyanalogytophysicalfamily.
Only, in the kingdom, your spiritual family members, who couldhaveoncebeen
strangers or even enemies or people from whom you were estranged, are even
more important. The radicality of this communal ethic is shown in text 36 and
the parable of the kings feast wherethekingcallsinliterallyanyone,goodand
bad and invites them to share his feast. This ethical community Joshua Sophia
wishes to create is like a feast with members who are regarded as closer than
family. Perhaps this is why, in text 21, s/he preaches reliance on others,
replacing the notion of looking after number onewithlookingaftereachotherin

154
a kingdom of human beings who are mutually reliant on each other as a
communityofkingdompeople.

The fifth ethical marker I want to expose is that of personal humility and
discipline, something thatrevealstheethicsofthekingdom,inapersonalsense,
to be about character, existence and being. In the gospel this aspect is often
pointed up by contrast to the Pharisees who play the role of advocates of the
letter of the law as opposed to Joshua Sophia who stands for the spirit of the
law. So Joshua Sophia wants people to follow their observances in private and
not makeashowofthem(text32).S/hewantspeoplewhoprioritisefeedingthe
hungry over those who complain that rules and rituals were broken by doing it
(texts 3334). Fundamentally, you do not judge by appearance but you
recognise that motives and contexts are not always immediately visible (text
46). Indeed, you do not rush to judgment generally in a world where people
increasingly do. What is insideiswhatcounts(text57)sothatiswhatshouldbe
focused on both intermsofanyjudgmentandintermsoftheactionsindividuals
may need to take to correct and maintain themselves. This is fundamentally
about character, existence and being for you cannot have such discipline or be
humble by chance or at random. You need to develop and grow such qualities
which become part of who you are and so it is envisaged that kingdom people
actually become certain kinds of people. Who you are is the focus and not what
youdo,understoodasisolatedactions.

The penultimate ethical point to note from this gospel isnotsomuchanethicin

itself as a lifestyle which implies ethical consequences. The lifestyleisitinerancy
which is the meaning of Be passersby in text 44. In text 58 Joshua Sophia
states that s/he,orpossiblyhumanbeingsasawhole,havenowheretolaytheir
heads. Then we must remember the mission instructions s/hewasgivingintext
21 in whichs/hepromotedacodependencyon,andcoprovisionfor,eachother
as part of the mission strategy. I see in this a quite clear vision which is thatin
the kingdom people are to act as a community and depend on, and providefor,
each others needs in a straightforward and noncontroversial way. It is exactly
the outworking of the ethic of do unto others as you would have them do to
you.Itisthepracticeofuniversalcompassion.Itinerancy,asalifestyle,actively
encourages the need for this. It is, once more, a negationoftheeverymanfor
himselfidealforacommunalvisionofmutualresponsibility.

The final ethical marker of the kingdom I want to emphasise is that not only
does all this imply giving things up for the sake of the kingdom, in a scenario
where you are being encouraged to put that first, but it is also specifically
pointed outintexts5153.Intheeunuchsayingoftext51thiscanbeviewedas
family or the fruits of a sexual life. There isnomentionofJoshuaSophiahaving
any family and sothismaybethecasethere.Buts/heacceptsinthesayingthis
may not be for everyone. It isnt compulsory. When it comes to those with
possessions or wealth though it seems something ofaprerequisiterequirement.
We have seen in a text like text 15 already that the wealthy are viewed as

155
people who made a choice, a choice not just for themselves but for a mode of
human living. The wealth was the fruits of it and thats it. But Joshua Sophia
envisages thekingdomofGodtobeacompletelydifferentkindofsociety,onein
which people choose to be a kingdom of God person in the kingdom of God
community. There are no rich and poor there for, in a real sense, everything is
everyones and people do not hoard for themselves but they share liberally and
without counting a personal cost. Those who have much will therefore be
requiredtogivemuchaway.

So these are the seven ethical points that I want highlight as the ethics of
Joshua Sophia in this gospel. Considering that they arecontrastedseveraltimes
with those of the Pharisees it seems pertinent to me to point out that the ethic
Joshua Sophia promotes is both more fundamental and more thoroughgoing. It
is a matter of being, of existence, of who you are as a person, rather than a
matter of fulfilling rules, following procedures or ticking boxes, somethingwhich
may be seen as lessening ethical requirements rather than fulfilling them.
Joshua Sophia talks of nothing being hidden and all things beingrevealedwhich
means there can be no hiding place or living a double life in which publicly you
play the game but privately you are all for self. It is about transformed human
beings living inatransformedcommunity.Inaddition,wemaysaythattheethic
of Joshua Sophia is both public and private but not in such a way as these two
are played off against each other. The context for this ethic is an itinerant
mutuality in which it is understood that all members of the kingdom are beings
of worth and respect. The mentality of the people in this mutual itinerancy is
compassion, the compassion which treats anyone else as you yourself or as
someoneesteemedsuchasJoshuaSophia.

156
History,Literature,TheGospelandJesus

Recently, immediately prior to writing this book, I wrote a study about the
Quests for The Historical JesuscalledJesusinPragmatistFocus,thefirstofwhat
may prove to be several books in a series called Meaning and Humanity. The
longer I have gone on with writing this book themoreIhavebecomeconvinced
that, infact,ImightstillbewritingthatearlierbookevenasIwritethisone.For
isnt it the case that what Ihavedonehere,andinawayinwhichIwasntquite
selfaware that I was doing it, is compose an historical gospel on the analogy
of the historical Jesus? And so, it now seems to me, this wholebookhasbeen
an exercise in the Quest of the HistoricalGospel.Itisatleastacompanionbook
to that earlier one if not its continuation by other means. And this raises
interesting questions. One that immediately comes to mind is to ask after the
gospel Jesus might have had as opposed to the gospels literarilymindedpeople
have produced in which he himself was the Gospel. This is essentially the
question the whole of the Quest of The Historical Jesus hasbeenaskingandthe
question, certainly, that began it. It is to pose the question, Is there a
distinction to be drawn between the gospels and Jesus? Some, but not all, of
the Quest has said yes and a simplistic way to view the Quest as a whole is to
view it as an ongoing battle between those who say yes and those who say no
to this question. Inwritingthisbook,Iappeartobesayingyesaswell(although
IhadsaidyesinapreliminarywayinJ esusinPragmatistFocusalready).

Thus, the question of the historical Jesus is ineluctably bound up with questions
of the history of the Gospel too. It has to be. To argue inanywaythatagospel
was a work of literary or theological creation, and that the facts were
subsumed under any kind of scheme, thus in some way mitigating them, is to
say that the historical Jesus was secondary to some other purpose. Of course,
we might imagine that gospel writers thought that the Jesus portrayed in their
books was the authentic Jesus and true to who they thought him to be. But I
imagine that John Dominic Crossan, N.T. Wright andDaleC.Allison,Jr,scholars
engaged in the current, socalled Third Quest, do as well. This raises the
prospect that gospels, in a way, were the first Quests after an historical Jesus.
They certainly, especially in canonical forms, claimed to be not just a message
about Jesus but of him as well. Yet even a gospel like the gospel of Thomas
claims to be the words that the living Jesus spoke. And yet, as gospel and
historical Jesus scholars have been saying now for almost two and a half
centuries, these gospels, as with books about the historical Jesus, have been
sayingdifferentandoftencontradictorythings.

At this point it is fortunate that recently, in the course of my research, I came

across an essay entitled Diverse Agendas At Work in The Jesus Quest by
Professor Clive Marsh who is the biblical scholar who first introduced me to the
Quest of The Historical Jesus 20 years ago. It builds upon a previous essay of
his, Quests of The Historical Jesus inNewHistoricistPerspective,whichhehad
just published at the time he began to teach my undergraduate class about the

157
Quest. Both of these essays being dissatisfied with a selfinterested attitude
towards the history of the Quest, one which describes it as Old Quest (that as
covered by Albert Schweitzer in The Quest of the Historical Jesus up to 1906),
No Quest (1906 until the 1950s when,sowearetold,littleinterestwasfoundin
the question), New Quest (1950stoearly80sandmarkedbyaliteraryattention
to gospels and their sources) and Third Quest (early 1980s to the present and
often remarked to concentrate on Jesus in a proper 1st century Palestinian or
even Galilean Jewish context), they take a refreshingly different tack and
exegete the Quest in philosophical, cultural, literary and other categories. For
example, in the earlier, 1997 paper Marsh had discerned the following nine
Quests: The Positivist Quest, Form 1 (insufficiently ideologically aware,
noneschatological Jesus resulting) The Positivist Quest, Form 2 (insufficiently
ideologically aware, eschatological Jesus resulting) The Romantic Quest The
FormCritical Quest The Quest of the NonJewish Jesus The TraditioHistorical
Quest The Existentialist Quest The JewishChristianQuestandThePostmodern
Quest. As the title of the newer essay Ishallnowconcentrateonmakesclear,it
is very much a case of (diverse) agendas at work in The Jesus Quest and, it
seems,ithasbeenheretoowithmyexerciseingospelreconstructionism.

The first sentence of Diverse Agendas is something that should be printed on

any and all books about the historical Jesus and maybe even gospels too. It
reads: The Quest of the Historical Jesus has never only been about Jesus.
Marsh will find no dissension from his former student on that matter here. Not
only was it a major conclusion of Schweitzers in his seminal study of early
Quests, but it was also a major point of my ownrecentlypublishedstudy,Jesus
in Pragmatist Focus. As Itriedtoexplainthere,thisisoftenastatedobservation
of many a Jesus Quester and yet alsoonethereaftertooeasilybrushedaside.It
is asifnotingtheQuestisfullofagendasisagoodenoughreasontodismissthe
same observation. Marsh, in both theessaysIvereferredtohere,ismuchmore
thoroughgoing than most in documenting these agendas but he, too, does
sometimes have his own moment of scholarly recoil when he remembers,
momentarily, that scholars are meanttobeobjective(arentthey?).Annoyingly,
this is a remembrance he seems unable to quite throw off and it first happens
just a few short lines after his noteworthy opening line when he states:
Objectivity needs to be respected lest the narratives or pictorial portrayals of
Jesus which continue to prove culturally (religiously, socially, ethically and
politically) influential lose all connection with the man from Nazareth. A
pragmatist response to this, such as I gavemuchfullerexpressiontoinJesusin
Pragmatist Focus, would be to say that all we need to do to remedy this is to
discuss Jesus amongst a group of experts on Jesus in 1st century Palestinian
context. The boundaries evident in the conversation will then reveal what is
allowedhistoricallyandwhatisnot.Objectivitytakescareofitself.

However, it is to the meat of Marshs essay that I must now turn as a way to
explain what has been going on here with The Gospel of Joshua Sophia. In this
essay Marsh updates his categories from his previous essay Quests and now

158
finds seven useful categorisationshereredubbedagendas.Theseagendasare:
Theological, AntiEcclesiastical, Ethical, Political,CulturalReligious,Psychological
and Philosophical. Clearly, these agendas are not exclusive. We can imagine an
ethical agenda easily becoming ethicopolitical or a philosophical agenda being
barely distinguishable from a theological one, for example. But we need to give
Marsh a chance to make the case for these categorisations. Even if, ultimately,
we want to reject them, it is somewhat of a useful noveltytohavetheQuestas
a whole explained in this way anyway. It certainly tells us much more about
historical Jesus and even historical gospel research than the standard
OldNoNewThird linear mantra does. Here Marsh enunciates a concern I also
share in exegeting the Quest itself in that it is far too selfabsorbed in a very
nonselfaware kind of way. To lay out alternative motivations of research,
described as agendas here, is to holdupamirrortotheQuestandQuestersand
to challenge them to look in the mirror and see themselves as another sees
them. Already in my JesusinPragmatistFocusIhadarguedthathistoricalJesus
scholars look in the mirror and see Jesus. Marshs approach is compatible with
thisviewyetwhilstbeingmorecircumspectsuchasbefitsonewho,unlikeme,is
apersonwhomakeshislivingfromworkingwithintheacademy.

The Quest, Marsh notesintheopeningparagraphofDiverseAgendas,isalways

also an ideological Quest. His essay aims to explain how these agendas are to
be understood. In this it is the basic intentions (purposes, drives) of differing
contributions to the Quest that are Marshs explicit focus. Essentially, this is to
beMarshsreadingofwhatpeoplehavebeencontributingtotheQuestforrather
than attempts at a study of presuppositions or psychoanalytics. This is a
pertinent question and not least in the context of this gospel Ive been dealing
with in this book which, as I now see, has really been my attempt at the
reconstruction of an historical gospel of Jesus. Why do people, whether
academics or not, write books and essays, give lectures and hold conferences
about a 1st century Galilean Jew? In my context here, why did they (and in my
case stilldo)writegospelsabouthim?Allthesequestionsarenotnecessarilythe
questions that Marsh concerns himself with and yet, within the disciplinary
configuration of theQuestoftheHistoricalJesus,hisresearchesandsuggestions
are of relevance. For any attempt to write a gospel aboutJesusisanattemptto
portray the historical Jesus unless it is, for example, openly and explicitly
theological poetry instead. Any gospel which claims allegiance to an historical
man is implicitly comment on and about the historical Jesus. And then all
Marshs reflection on the historical Quest becomes mightily relevant once more.
Marshs essay becomesawayinwhichallJesusQuesterscansubmitthemselves
toquestioningaboutwhattheyaredoingwhentheyquest.

It is pertinent, then,thatMarshsfirstagendaisthetheologicalonewhich,ashe
suggests, is surely the most common agenda at work in the Quest. Its also one
that unites Questers and gospel writers. If ImaybeallowedtoglossMarshhere
in his description of the theological agenda, most QuestershavebeenChristians
looking for theological ways to enable reasonable Christian faith to remain

159
possible in the modern era. As Marsh describes, this has taken a number of
forms, theology by literary means and a Bultmannian (after Rudolf Bultmann, a
German 20thcenturytheologian)existentialeschatologyamongthem.Andyetit
is those who wanted to reform or make theological beliefs more reasonable in
the light of the pinpricks of a historical criticism that exists not merely to serve
theology that have been most evident throughout the history of the Quest. For
every Reimarus or Strauss or even Schweitzer there have been several lesser
known Quest participants who have taken on the challenges they raise in an
effort to make them theologically palatable or to make historical judgments
theologically compatible with Christian belief. In so doing the plasticity of both
history and theology have become apparent. Witness a book such as The
Meaning of Jesus from 1999 by historical Jesus scholars and Quest contributors
Marcus Borg and Tom Wright.Thesetwotheologicallyengagedscholarscometo
wildly differing conclusions about history and theology and yet both claim to be
making both history and theology palatable toChristians(andnonChristians)in
the modern era. This itself becomes an interesting theological point when we
note, as Marsh does, that Jesus wasneveraChristianbutaJew,Judaism,and
historicalformsofJudaism,oftenbeingablindspotfortheoftenoverwhelmingly
Christian, theological portraits of Jesus. In terms of the gospel and gospels this
Jewish/Christian question is, of course, pivotal. One of the key historical
questions is how monotheistic Jews could come to see the JewJesusasGod.As
historians we must reckon with the question rather than making Jesus the first
Christian. Theologicallyengaged Questers, however, are often concerned with
speaking about the historical Jesus because they imagine that by doing so they
speak about God. Thus, to do historical Jesus work has beentodotheologyand
christology by default and such historical Jesus scholarship is set within the
context of something else, often the Church or seminary, and can end up, inits
worst form, as barely disguised apologetics. Theological inquiry, as Marsh
suggests,doesnothappeninavacuum.

To the extent that the Church preached a Gospel Jesus that historical inquiry
was starting to find problematic we can speak of an antiecclesiastical agenda
in some historical Jesus scholarship. Marsh mentions Reimarus, the arbitrary
starting point of Schweitzers analysis and a man who questioned the gospels,
and Robert Funk, latterly the leader of The Jesus Seminar, a project which
certainly did set out to counter the Jesus being put forward in certain kinds of
church withonetheyregardedasmorehistorical.Amoreextremeformofthisis
the view that Jesus never even existedwhich,atleastintheory,seemstoargue
that there isnotevenanyreasonfortheChurchtoexist,theultimateformofan
antiecclesiastical agenda! Such an agenda is the propagation of the view that
the Church in general has history very wrong and particularly in relation to
Jesus. Of course, one of the primary historical mistakes would then be the
canonical gospels themselves which become the founding documents of a
mistakenortendentioushistory.TheantiecclesiasticalagendainhistoricalJesus
studies is then that agenda which keeps reminding the Church of this. It may
take place as an intraChurch debate of course about what thecorrecthistorical

160
basis for Christianity is, a sort of enemy within, but it may also come from
people outside the Church who criticise it as, essentially, a historical falsehood
that continues to be perpetrated in error. One thinks of Bishop John Spong or
the formerpriestDonCupittintheformercategoryfrommoderntimes.Itisalso
true, in todays context, as Marsh notes, that it is much more possible to be a
mere academic and make comment on the historical Jesus and the historical
Gospel (and gospels) than in former times. Our context is also one of an
increasingly punchy New Atheism which takes aim at ecclesiastical
orthodoxies. Marsh finds that the Quest is not always happy with cosying up to
(orthodox)Christianityandthat,fortunately,isnotverydifficulttoagreewith.

The ethical agenda is that in which people find a Jesus who can help people to
work out how to live. The Gospel of Joshua Sophia is basically this and so this
agenda from Marshs analysis becomes very relevant for me in particular.
Interestingly, Marsh notes that perhaps the mostethicallyengagedQuesterwas
Albert Schweitzer who, besides being a biblical academic who invented the idea
of the Quest as a quest and changed secular and theological views aboutJesus,
was also a medical missionary and a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his variously
expressed Reverence for Life, his attempt to find a modern, universal ethic.
Marsh describes Schweitzer as one exhorting people to mystical, ethical
discipleship of Jesus in which it is thefollowingthatmatters.ButnowMarshs
academic search for objectivity reasserts itself as a no to thekindofagenda
Schweitzer was following. Such discipleship is surely out of bounds for the
detached historicalcritical scholar? Distortions cannot but result, remarks
Marsh. But distortions of what exactly? Is Marsh aware of some truth that
Schweitzer or others like him are not? What can be the sense of talking about
distortions here? It cannot be a matter of dishonesty for Schweitzer clearly
believed, and strongly argued for, the Jesus he believed in,bothhistoricallyand
theologically. To speak of distortion seems to me at least philosophically
inadequate as readers of my Jesus in Pragmatist Focus will have gathered,
where I argue that such talk is illsuited not just to the historical Jesus but to
reality itself. For now I note only that Marshs analysis could be even more
diverse than it is for there are also views he has not yet considered besides
thosehehas.

In discussing Schweitzer and, indeed, Johannes Weiss, whose scholarly work on

Jesus and the Kingdom of God Schweitzer had popularised and adapted for his
own purposes, Marsh points out that the agenda is here to address how one
makes use of such alien notions in a contemporary context. This, indeed, has
been my own conundrum in this bookthroughtheliterarydeviceofanimagined
gospel which turns out to be historically initiated if not historically justified.This
is to say that where Schweitzer or Weiss might seek historical or even
theological authority for their ethic I do not. The ethical agenda here, indeed,is
not necessarily one that needs to seek authority in an historical authority of
Jesus or in an historical and theological authority of the Gospel. It may be
enough for an ethical agenda that one finds historical material in the course of

161
ones researches that one finds of use in a modern context. This is what I have
done as I have explained above where I pointed out one major difference
between the Gospel of the Church which, for them at least, is based on the
four canonical gospels and the common view of Jesus it is claimed that they
have which is that Jesus is himself theGospel,andmyown.Theyfindanethical
authority in Jesus (as some Jesus Questers have to). Yet others, asI,havenot.
Not all Ethical Questers need to find an ethical authority in Jesus himself so
much as an ethical imperative in his historicallyreconstructed teaching and
activities. But even there the view can be shared that, somehow, the kingdom
of God can be abasisforrightliving.ThiswouldnotthenbetheInterimEthic
of Schweitzer, one which awaits a theologicallyexplained future event, but a
more straightforward ethic of how to live as human beings on planet earth. So,
as Marsh exegetes Schweitzer, it need not be thecasethattofollowsomeoneis
to know them best (a fault common to many Christian Questers). Indeed, one
need not know Jesus at all to follow an ethical agenda. It is, contrary to the
views of some, possible to have the ethic without the man who functions as an
authorityfortheethic.

Such separating, whilst remaining ethical, can be either theological or

nontheological. An ethical agenda need not be either to be essentially ethical
and neither need the ethical emphasis be dependent on finding an historical
Jesus who can be the authority figure needed to back it up. The humble claim
made here is that thehistoricallyreconstructedethiccanspeakforitself.Andso
it may not be that we need to recreate Jesus for our time or be his authentic
followers, or some such circumlocution, but merely to translate the content of
his teaching and activities. All Ethical Questers will agree that the ethic ofJesus
is onethatneedstofindsuchatranslationinmodernliferegardlessofanyother
differences they may have. So when Marsh talks about following in his
discussing of theEthicalQuestItakeitthatthisneednotmeanfollowingaman,
theologically explained or otherwise, but that it canmeanfollowingahistorically
reconstructed ethic too. This is what I take Marsh to mean when he talks about
human flourishing as one engages with the historical reconstruction of the
ethics of Jesus one finds in the course of research. It is to recognise the
historical Jesus as an essentially ethical character, albeit that some will want to
confine those ethics to an essentially 1st century Jewish religiopoliticalcontext,
and to say that to be inspired by his ethics and to want to share them today is
alsoawaytounderstandhim.

This, I think, is what Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza is doing in herJesusresearch

which, in many ways, is undermining of and againstthegrainoftheQuestinits
entirety since it is essentially the practice of an ethic (and an ethic of
scholarship) that happens to be about Jesus and Christian origins. Where
Theological Questers put historical Jesus research in the wider context of
theology, Schssler Fiorenza, as an Ethical Quester, puts it in the wider context
of ethics. If the first is valid then why should the second not be (as it is often
remarked not to be within historical Jesus research)? Schssler Fiorenza

162
essentially uses the ethics of Christian origins (forsheisinterestedinJesusasa
member of a community and not as a male authority figure) to undermine the
Quest itself and to set an ethical agenda for the scholarship she practices and
the communities she is a part of. As readers may see from my own ethical
researches through the literary fiction of the GospelofJoshuaSophia,theethics
of Jesus may indeed be things which undermine the Quest itself as it is often
carried out. Schssler Fiorenza has realised that too. Indeed, in the context of
theThirdQuest,sheisoneofthefew.

To the extent that Schssler Fiorenza engages in the Ethical Quest it is also a
Social Quest too for ethics must alwaysbewithinasocialcontext.Thisstandsin
opposition to all those Quests which are carried out by authoritative white men
seeking tofindanauthoritative(white)mantogiveusethicalcommandmentsto
follow based on protected positions of privilege. The Ethical Quest often comes
across to those not selfaware enough as an example of a modern agenda
imposing itself on a historical subject. But this is doubly blind. It is doubly blind
because any inquiry carried out is both a modern concern and an agenda in
itself. Theological or antiecclesiastical inquiries, such as have already been
noted, which are carried out in 2017 or whenever are just as much
contemporaryagendasimposingthemselvesonhistoricalsubjectsasanyother
kind. Contemporaneity is not restricted to ethics or to an ethical concern in
historical Jesus research. In this, Marshs conclusion tohissectionontheEthical
Quest is important in that he notes that what is a hallmark of this approach is
how one asks questions of, and draws conclusions from, ones sources.Inthis
respect his summary question, what do you have to conclude about Jesus to
encourage people to act in a way which is in continuity with him?issuggestive
but not necessarily on point. Does one need to be in continuity with him as a
historically reconstructed figure, him as a member of a putative community or
him in terms ofhisteachingandexample?Whateverthecase,anethicalagenda
at least has the benefit of recognising thathistoricalJesusinquiriesareapartof
contemporary society and the modern world rather than privileged, shuttered
inquiriesfromanatemporal,ahistoricalvantagepoint.

Marshs fourth agenda in historical Jesus research is the political which, it must
be said, stands at an intimate relation totheethicalone,notleastinthecaseof
the aforementioned Schssler Fiorenza who has written a book called Jesus and
The Politics of Interpretation. This is further confused if one moves towards
Jesus as a political figure or political motive force in that to distinguish politics
from religion in 1st century Jewish context is troublesome at best and invalidat
worst.However,Marshremindsusthathisessay,andhisconcerninwritingit,is
more about describing the purposes of the participants in the Quest than
reconstructions of the historical Jesus himself. This agenda might then be
reconfigured as those scholars who understand the historical Jesus as a man
whose activities are drawnoutfortheirpoliticalconsequencesorramifications,a
concern, as Marsh rightly notes, which is hardly prevalent in the history of the
Questandwhich,onoccasion,hasbeenaglaringomission.

163
But immediately Marsh diagnoses a trap and its one that I, his former student,
may have fallen into. In discussing Wilhelm Weitlings The Poor SinnersGospel,
originally an 1843 communist tract which was a collage of thecanonicalgospels
interspersed with commentary (sound familiar?), Marsh notes the inherent
danger of detaching Jesus from history in doing so, making of a specific man in
specific circumstances an anachronistic message. This is a reasonable point to
make yet it isonlytopointoutthetruismthatthemoreoneuniversalisesJesus,
the less historically specific one makes him. And the more historical one makes
him, the less universally applicable hecanbe.Thisinturn,Ithink,isonlytosay
that the historical Jesus can never be merely a message, political or otherwise.
So Jesus cannot be an ahistorical political force or set of principles. On this I
very muchagree.Hemustalwaysbestudiedasahistoricallyspecificpersonand
any construal of politics (or anything else really) must stem fromthat(notleast
if one also requires him as an authority for it). However, the question of
application is separatefromthequestionofhistoricalreconstruction.Ifanything,
Weitlings communist Jesus, to which Marsh refers in The Poor Sinners Gospel,
is at fault because he has become a detached message rather than a
contemporary application. He has becometheahistoricalcypherforCommunism
he could never historically have been. That isthemistakeWeitlingmakesrather
thanapplyingJesuspolitically.

So I think that it is not necessarily wrong to apply Jesus politically for to apply
Jesus at all is to take him from his time and put him in ours. If we cannot do
that then Jesus is now merely a relic, something to stare at in a museum and
ponder on how old and irrelevant to the modern world he is. Some will want to
dothat.YethistoricalJesusscholarshipistakingplaceexactlybecausethisJesus
is thought very relevant to those undertaking the research and any audiences
theymaywritefor.Hemaybepolitically(orethicallyorideologically)relevantto
them as well. The challenge is to make the application from an historical basis
and this is true of political as well as any other construals. Marshs example of
the work of Richard Horsley, which entanglesJesusinpoliticalcontextspastand
present, is here very relevant as are his warnings from history about what
happensifonemakesofJesus(usuallynowconceivedofasChrist)anahistorical
idea which can then be bent to thewillofwhoeverusesit.Inourowndayitis
now not at all hard to findselfdescribedNazissharingimagesofJesusasChrist
on social mediaandclaimingthatweneedtodefendChristianity,oftenagainst
Islamic extremism. Jesus, we may be sure, was not a Nazi yet that does not
stop groups like Britain First, a UK far right extremistgroup,claimingthatJesus
may have been to England asinaFacebookpostIwasmadeawareofinwriting
thisbook.

Such shocking and unscholarly claims, now continually being popularised in lots
of online places, are only encouraged by politicallymotivated pictures of Jesus
from the scholarly world such as the deJudaised, Judaismopposing Jesus of
Walter Grundmann to which Marsh gives some ofhisattention.Itmaynotcome
as a surprise to us that a book published in Germany in 1940 argues thatJesus

164
was probably not a Jew and that he was opposed to Judaism but, as Marsh
rightly says, we cannot criticise Grundmann for having a point of view. We all
have a point of view. What we can criticise him for is getting his history wrong.
As Marsh again notes, the historical research in Grundmanns book is not
minimised and Grundmann researches Galilee quite thoroughly in order to paint
a picture of aHellenisedratherthanaJewishJesus.Evenifthiswasclearlyfora
purpose, and even a predefined one, Grundmann can only be criticised for
getting his facts wrong rather than for being led on in his research by his
interests. The way to correct and silence suchillegitimateaccountsistocorrect
the history in which they plant their roots rather thantoillegitimatelyclaimthat
one should not have a point of view at all when one comes to do historical
research.

In this contextIamallinfavourofthepluralismthatMarshencouragesinterms
of the sites where historical Jesus research may be undertaken. Indeed, this is
an explicit recommendation of the pragmatist approach to historical Jesus
research I promoted in Jesus inPragmatistFocus,towhichIreferallreadersfor
more details about it. Political construals of Jesus are, perhaps, some of the
more dangerous construals if, asissometimesthecase,detachedideastakethe
place of his supposed risen (or atleastabsent)bodyandareusedasthemotive
force forcurrentpoliticalaction.So,asMarshsays,thesociopoliticalcontextof
Jesus of Nazareth cannot be neglected, not least because it acts as some kind
of anchor on what can be said about him and clearly anachronistic links with
ideas such as Communism or Nazism (or Capitalism) can be ruled out of court
before they have a chance to set down any roots at all.Inthisrespect,diverse
institutional contexts are to be preferred justas,inJesusinPragmatistFocus,I
argued that diverse conversation partners are what pragmatists have seen as
necessaryforhealthydebateofanykind.

Marshs fifth agenda is the CulturalReligious agenda which might, not

necessarily with Marshs approval, be glossed as the Spirituality and
Popularisation agenda. This agenda once more has the current writer in its
spotlight since I am neither employed as an academic nor am I a member or
representative of any church. Despite this, I retain an interest in Jesus and a
desire to think and write about him at the educated reader level (albeit as one
with a biblical studies degree and a once half finished PhD on the Quest of The
Historical Jesus). Many people, those who have shared my cultural location and
those who havent, have shared this interest, people who regarded Jesus as a
great teacher or moral leader or cultural icon. One thinks, immediately, of the
Muscular Christianity of the 20th century which saw Jesus notmerelyasagreat
man but as an archetypal man for modern Western society. (As Stephen D.
Moore has noted, this Jesus had great hair and teethandanattractivephysique
too.) But it is not restricted to phenomenasuchasthese.TheJesusSeminar,as
Marshnotes,werealsopopularizersandmembersofthepublicwerebothfreeto
attend their meetings and certainly encouraged to buy their publications. This
applies also to journalistic TV shows such as the BBCs LivesofJesusfrom1996

165
which Marsh mentions and the same organisations SonofGodfrom2001which
he does not which was presented by the journalist Jeremy Bowen and had an
accompanyingbook.

But I think there is more to this than Marsh says in his briefer appraisal of this
kind of Quest. For example, take John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg and N.T.
(Tom) Wright. All three of these men are genuine historical Jesus scholars who
hold, or held, academic posts which they used, partly, to produce academic
entries into the Third Quest of The Historical Jesus. But all three, and they are
not the only examples, also produced popularized versions of the same. In Tom
Wrights case he has produced a veritable library of popular level works
intending to explain to general readers not just the historical Jesus but theNew
Testament and Christian faith in general (for example, his Simply Jesus, which
he published as Tom Wright as opposed to his academic works which are
published as N.T. Wright). Of course, there has always been a market for
popular scholarship which is thought to be more accessible than the academic
kind. In the latter kind scholars will argue over the meaning of a single biblical
text or even a word ad nauseam to the seeming distraction of readers who just
want it given to them straight like a pear cider thats made from 100% pears.
Thegeneralreaderdoesnotwanttobeoverburdenedwithdetail.Theyjustwant
the outline and to imagine it comes from someone who knows what they are
talking about. Or perhaps they just want their prejudices to be confirmed in a
readable and entertaining way. But the point of this in the context of the Quest
is that scholarly and academic Questers are also taking part in this process as
opposed to merely interested others or popularizersofthescholarshipofothers.
This, as Marsh intimates, likely cashes in on the idea of Jesus as a cultural
figure who still has some cash value in modern societies. Even today there are
still books in the spirituality section of book shops in which uncredentialed
people are writing books about the significance of Jesus alongside the
selfpopularized scholarship as well. All this indicates that Jesus is a person of
culturalinterest.

Marshs sixth agenda is the Psychological Quest and this is one I touched on
myself again in Jesus in Pragmatist Focus. Marsh begins the section byaskingif
all Questers dont come to the Quest with ideas of the human self. I have to
respond that Im not at all sure that they do, especially if they happen to have
led reasonably happy and welladjusted lives without any significant trauma
involved. We may be a more psychologically savvy society than in former times
but this does not mean we all have theories of the self knocking about in our
heads. Indeed, I discern a certain reticence in general to discuss matters
psychological in relation to the self and to others in general but perhaps this is
just a matter of perception. Marsh asks a second and related question as to if
any theories of the self, such aswehave,mightnotshapeourpicturesofJesus.
My intuition is to say that they certainly will. But Im not at all sure that many
either can or want to. By this statement I dont just refer to those, such as the
aforementioned TomWright,whohavewrittenthatsuchanagendaisimpossible

166
(and, by inference, invalid) for what I presume are historical and theological
reasons.Forsome,Ithink,psychologizingjustfeelsabitinauthentic.

But, of course, this is to leave out the psychologically interested amongst us

which, in an era of expanded human reason and a growing interest in anything
human beings can study, extends now even to the interior human world.
(Incidentally, the Quest itself was a part of this expansion too some two and a
half centuries ago.) My own appraisal of the Psychological Quest, primarily
through a study of John W. Millers book Jesus At Thirty: A Psychological and
Historical Portrait, was to regard it, certainly in the case of that study, as back
door christology based on inadequate (or even nonexistent) appraisal of the
historical sources for Jesus. To create Jesus as a psychological being is to make
him fully human and the full humanity of Jesus is a christological statement.Its
also a credal one if you happen to be Christian. Us nonChristians look on,
amazed, of course, wondering why anyone would need to write with a
psychological interest to demonstrate that a human beingwasfullyhuman.But,
of course, this psychological interest, even from Christians, could go the other
way as when Albert Schweitzer almost seemed to make Jesus a deranged and
deluded mad man in The Quest of The Historical Jesus, a picture he later wrote
about again (in The Psychiatric Study of Jesus) to tryandcorrectwhilstwearing
his medical hat. Marsh remarks that such studies emphasize how much
imagination is needed for the task ofhistoricalreconstructionyetIwouldretort
that when using imagination part of the artifice is in hiding that it is imagined
and clothing it in the garments of believability. Millers book, inparticular,reads
as psychological fabrication based on gospel synthesis with little or no historical
work actually done. The problem here, of course, which Marsh sees, is that
where psychological study is undertaken by Christians then Christian dogma
about the nature of Christ, who is much easier to seeasagodthanasahuman
being, is going to get in the way. This, I think, iswhyMillersstudyfunctionsas
psychologicalchristologyandapologetic.

Much more interesting then, I think, is Marshs turn to focus on the psychology
of the Quester in the actoftheQuest.This,hethinks,isamatterofprojection,
imagination and emotion. Projection, for Marsh,isatermwhichindicatesthata
basically positive picture of Jesus is in focus and is fundamentally a matter of
imagination, a matter of what people are studying Jesus for in the first place.
Marsh discusses this angle of view on the Quest in a discussion of Hal Childs
Jungian study of the Quest in his The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the
Evolution of Consciousness. To the extent that Marsh and Childs aresayingthat
any historical Jesus research is partly constructed from projections of the
interpreter then I,ofcourse,agree.Iwouldalsoconcedethatreconstructionisa
matter of imagination. Yet I am less than happy that, once more, Marsh feels a
need to keep objectivity in view. This, I think, is a philosophical issue that
remains undiscussed in his own thinking but as the Philosophical Quest is his
finalagendawemayshortlyfindoutmoreaboutthis.

167
And so to this Philosophical Quest. This particular Quest was very much my
interest in Jesus in Pragmatist Focus. Indeed, my argument there was that a
certain view of the worldsharedbythemajorityofQuesters(certainlymodernif
not also more historically) was deceiving the entire Quest as to the shape of its
problem. This view of the world I glossed as external realism, borrowing a
term from contemporary realist philosopher, John Searle. This designation in
itself, which Searle himself glosses as there is a way the world is, has proved
how contemporary my observations were though asMarshfocusesonPositivism
and Idealism as historical philosophical associations of the Quest. However,
Positivism and the external realism I took aim at line up in that the target of
both is what Marsh refers to as the one, original Jesus. So both Positivist and
external realist Quests coincide in their desire to use a universal human
rationality to find the one truth that there is to find. These two link up with the
IdealismMarshmentionsinthattheyallfocusononeuniversalviewoftheworld
and they all seek, in the their own ways, to know reality right and to be sure
they know reality right. This is pretty much the philosophical wrong turn I
diagnosedandwantedtoavoidinJ esusinPragmatistFocus.

UndertherubricofthePhilosophicalQuest,though,wecantalkaboutmorethan
this and Marsh himself has been a reminder of this with his several mentions of
scholarlyobjectivityandthepositivistmomenthethinksallQuesters(must?)
succumb to in the Quest. The necessity for the first I would reconfigure and
Jesus in Pragmatist Focus is a 52,000 word dissertation as to why. Put simply,
objectivity is a kind of talk, a rhetoric. It is not some special perspicuity
inquirers have on historical objects if they do things correctly, the objectivist
way. By his constant mentions of the need for this Marsh merely demonstrates
that he has been schooled in such rhetoric and has either succumbed to it or
more positively embraced it. Whether or not there is a positivist moment in
any Quest, and if the fact that all genuine Questers would like to imagine that
what they are talking about is the historical reality of an historical object that
once existed, is a more complex matter. Yet Marsh is correct to point out that
Tom Wright,inscholarlyguiseasN.T.Wright,isoneJesusscholarwhohasgone
several extra miles to help explain his approach to this though, as with Hal
Childs view of Crossan, whichMarshfootnotes,not,Ithink,farenough.Critical
Realism, which Wright espouses, is still realism and if it isnt critical enough to
unhitch itself from the realism then I wonder just howcriticalitreallyis.What
it says to me is that if this isanexampleofthecuttingedgeofthePhilosophical
QuestthenthatQuestremainsfirmlyentrenchedinphilosophicalconservatism.

Having cometotheendofMarshsagendaswecometowhatallthismeansboth
for the historical Jesus and for this book. I fully agree with Marsh when he says
that it is not actually desirable, muchlesspossible,tostripawayanyoftheseor
other agendas from theQuest.Putsimply,andinawayMarshdoesnot,itisthe
agendas which motivate the Quest in the firstplace(astheyhavemotivatedmy
previous book and now this one). If you take agendas away then there is no
Quest. This is to say that all inquiry is interested and that no interest equals no

168
inquiry. This is why all talk of offsetting agendas or neutralizing bias in the
Quest, which I addressed in Jesus in Pragmatist Focus, is bunkum from people
whohavenotgraspedwhatitistheyaredoingorhowtheygoaboutit.

Marshs second conclusionismoreinterestingandraisestheprospectthatJesus

existence now is only as narrative, that his body after death has not been
transfigured into a spiritual one but into one made of words. Jesus, after all, is
theWord.IknowthisbecauseitsayssointheGospel!Thesuggestionhasmuch
to recommend it asfarasIcanseeandthegospelcontainedinthisbookcanbe
taken as a not particularly historicalcritical or detailed example of it, an
ethicalpoetic meditation and reminiscence on a historicalJesus.Itisahistorical
Jesus in the same way as, having met someone who is alive with several other
people, each person comes away with their own views and impressions of the
person they just met. This is the question of meaning I raised in Jesus in
Pragmatist Focus. Meaning is always personal and is something even the most
conservative historical Jesus scholar will never be able to fix for everyone else.
No one can tell you what Jesus means. It is the experiment you have toinitiate
yourself to find out, the experiment that reading a text labeled gospel or the
historicalJesusisallabout.

So if, then, I agree with Marshs postmodern historians that all history is
narrative this does not mean that the interaction withthehistoricalJesusstops
there and that a literary barrier has beeninsertedbetweenusandJesus.Partof
my reason for writing The Gospel of Joshua Sophia was to promote an
appreciation of the historical figure behind the text but unobscured by
christological dogma and Christian doctrine, something that, in my view,
canonical gospels contributeto.Itwas,asIsaidearlierofothers,awaytomake
thingsIregardasauthentictoJesusliveinthecontemporaryworldand,thus,to
make Jesus a figure of relevance in a way I could find authentic and that I
regard as authentic to him as well. It is also, as readers of Jesus in Pragmatist
Focus will know, compatible with my preliminary historical reconstruction of
Jesus himself as I do not regard him as havingspokenofhimselfsomuchinhis
activities or as having predicted his death and resurrection and taught his
disciples about it. So in this, as in any literary reconstruction of Jesus regarded
as having an historical focus, historical claims will be made. But they are also
unavoidably literary and more often than not narrativised too. This, then,
becomes a literaryhistorical act of imagination. This initiates experiments in
meaning and in beinghumanasonlytheactofreadingcando,somethingwhich
applies equally to gospels and to historical Jesus narratives. The ethical Jesus I
have portrayed in this gospel as Joshua Sophia is not the Christian Jesus. Butit
is an aspect of the Christian Jesus, the Gospel Jesus and the Jesus portrayed in
(canonical and noncanonical) Christian gospels and even that figure as he is
compatible with textsfromcompletelydifferenttraditions.Isitalsothehistorical
Jesus? I would claim it is related to him too. It is an historical and intertextual
Jesus.

169
But all this does mean, as Marsh makes clear in his third conclusion, that the
hard evidence available will never satisfactorily solve the question of how the
Jesus of history is portrayed. And to this I say GOOD! For this is a positivist
configuration of history. Rather than take this view I would rather take the
storied approach of Tom Wright who at least acknowledges that historical Jesus
research is about telling the best story, in outline anddetail,thatonecantellto
explain Jesus. Where Wright goeswrongisinbelievingthatthereisarightstory
(as opposed to a Wright story, something there certainly is) to tell. This is
where, with my Pragmatist Quest, one Marsh has yet to recognise, I bring in
Richard Rorty who will implore us to tell the best, most useful stories that we
can, eschewing the idea that there is a canonical, authoritative or essentially
correct story that trumps all the others. This, as was explained muchmorefully
in Jesus in Pragmatist Focus, is not to make things up. It is simply to keep
finding the best and most useful descriptions, stories, narratives and
conversations that lead to the most hopeful outcomes we canimagine.Sowhen
Marsh states that Jesus was notafictionalfigureIagreewithhimifbythathe
means Jesus existed but I do not agree with him in the sense that there is
one wayJesuswas.ThereweremanywaysJesuswasandtherearemanyways
Jesus is, although I would prefer to say that Jesus became and today still
becomes to indicate that his identity, as all identity, is fluid not static. And why
not? Thus, I applaud Marshs view that itisthemutualcritiqueofferedbyother
interpreters that keeps historical flights of fancy in check rather than the
evidence or the facts, things which are not free from the values or agendas
Marshhasbeendetailinginhisessaybutwhicharetheproductsofthem.

The Gospel of Joshua Sophia, my reconstruction of an historical gospel of the

historicalJesus,isnomoreandnolessthantheproductofmine.

FurtherReading:

Clive Marsh, Diverse Agendas At Work in The Jesus Quest, in Handbook For
The Study of The Historical Jesus, (4 volumes, eds. Tom Holmen andStanleyE.
Porter,Brill:LeidenandBoston,2011),pp.9851020.

Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version,

PolebridgePress:Sonoma,1994andHarperCollins:SanFrancisco,1994.

170
 C.T heFutureoftheHistoricalJesus

Theinstantyouspeakaboutathing,youmissthemark.ZenProverb


Wehaveartinordernottodieofthetruth.FriedrichNietzsche


WhenallissaidanddonewelookforthehistoricalJesuswithourimaginations
andtheretooiswherewefindhimifwefindhimatall.DaleAllison


Inchoosingourpast,wechooseapresentandviceversa.HaydenWhite

Introduction:SchweitzerWasRight

The Quest oftheHistoricalJesuscontinuesbut,inrecentyears,itseemstohave

lost its mojo and run out of force. The big beasts of the current phase of this
discipline (N.T. Wright1, John Dominic Crossan2, Marcus Borg3, The Jesus
Seminar4, E.P. Sanders5, Dale Allison6) gave us their influential major
contributions tothisbodyofresearchsomeyearsagonow.Havingdoneso,they
have felt the need to move on elsewhere and, in the case of the dear departed
Borg and the Seminars motive force, Robert Funk, to exit the stage completely
(RIP). John P. Meier remains, of course, his A Marginal Jew: Rethinking The
Historical Jesus project which began in 1991 is now, by 2016, up to fully five
volumes and thousands of pages.7 The latest volume even comestoconclusions
about the parables of Jesus that might seem to make the aforementionedJesus

1
N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (SPCK, 1996) and The Resurrection of the Son of God
(SPCK,2003).WrightpublishesacademicallyasN.T.WrightbutoftenmorepopularlyasTomWright.
2
John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
(HarperCollins,1991)andJ esus:ARevolutionaryBiography(HarperCollins,1994).
3
Marcus Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus (Edwin Mellen Press, 1984),
Jesus: A New Vision (Harper and Row, 1987) and Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings and
SurprisingRelevanceofaSpiritualRevolutionary(HarperCollins,2006).
4
Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the
Authentic Words of Jesus (Polebridge Press, 1993 and HarperCollins, 1997), Robert W. Funk and
The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (Polebridge
PressandHarperCollins,1998).
5
E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (SCM Press, 1985) and The HistoricalFigureofJesus(Penguin,
1993).
6
Dale Allison, Jesus of Nazareth:MillenarianProphet(AugsburgFortress,1998),ResurrectingJesus
(T and T Clark, 2005), The Historical Christ and The Theological Jesus (Eerdmans, 2009) and
ConstructingJesus:Memory,ImaginationandHistory(BakerAcademic,2010).
7
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking The Historical Jesus (5 vols to date, Yale University
Press,19912016).
171
Seminar into wildeyed optimists. But this is not to restrict such research to
headline names for, of course, in the underbelly of academia Historical Jesus
Studies has probably never been more popular than it has in the last 25 years.
Any number of books about Jesus, in historical context, are now written and
some scholars, for example Bart Ehrman or Robert M. Price, seem to have
turnedwritingaboutJesus,fromtheirpointofview,intoaminiindustry.8

But there are further issues here which have lead increasingly to a seeming
slowing down of impetus if not of industry. Firstly, we have no end of students
being schooled in The Quest who write innumerablethesesforhigherdegrees.
These students then jostle for positions in the academy. The problem is that at
this end of affairs, the end which is about retelling a now concretized narrative
and regurgitating current wisdom, its all become a bit dull and lifeless. Is any
new and vital (in the sense of alive) research actually taking place anymore or
are we just repeating ourselves to satisfy preestablished audiences? Secondly,
it must immediately be noted that now it is virtually impossible to be cognisant
of all the relevant scholarly material on,andextantviewsabout,Jesus.Arecent
handbookforhistoricalJesusstudyrantofourvolumesandover3,700pages.9
That is some handbook! Anthologies of important and relevant entries to the
Quest also often run to hundreds of pages alone.10 This is before we get to the
book length treatments of single issuesandthevoluminousliteratureinjournals
and periodicals. Historical Jesus Studies even got its very ownjournalin2003.11
The historical Jesus scholars task hasnevercomprisedofmorematerialtowork
with and as the years pass the task of sifting the wheat from the chaff only
growsmoreonerous.

All that said, when one looks at this now almost 250 year enterprise, shouldwe
accept Schweitzers choice of Hermann Reimarus as the starting point, I believe
that two major conclusions stand out. Incidentally, it is Albert Schweitzer with

8
Bart D. Ehrmans Jesus Before The Gospels (HarperOne, 2016) and Robert M. Prices
DeconstructingJesus(PrometheusBooks,2000)arejustrandomexamplesinthisrespect.
9
Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols., eds, Tom Holmn and StanleyPorter,Brill,
2011).
10
Some examples are The Historical Jesus (Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, Craig A. Evans,
ed., 4 vols., Routledge, 2004) and The Historical Jesus in Recent Research (James D.G. Dunn and
ScotMcKnight,eds.,Eisenbrauns,2005).
11
ThisistheJ ournalfortheStudyoftheHistoricalJesuspublishedbyBrill.
172
his The Quest of The Historical Jesus,12 whosetsoutthesetwoconclusionsmost
plainly and forcefully. If you recall Schweitzers book, and no one engaged in
work on the Quest has any excuse not to have read the entire study, he
concludesthat:

1. Jesus was a deluded man trying to bring in the kingdom of Godandthat,

therefore,JewisheschatologyisthekeytounderstandingJesus.13

2. EveryonestudyingJesusfoundtheJesustheywanted.14

What I find remarkable about these two assertions is that, 111 years after
Schweitzer first made them, theyarestillverysolidlyentrenchedwithinthefield
of historical Jesus work. I mean to say here that scholarship since Schweitzers
Quest has, neither inonefellswoopnorcumulatively,beenabletodoawaywith
either conclusion. People have tried, of course. The whole Bultmannian and
postBultmannian tendency in New Testament scholarship was, depending on
your point of view, an effort to do away with the first in all its historical force,
relegating ittoanexistentialidea.15Thesecond,asIexplainedinmyownrecent
study, Meaning and Humanity: Jesus in Pragmatist Focus,16 is often remarked
upon in the most cliched fashion only to beregardedassomekindofphantom
problem. We close our eyes and imagine it has gone away, the ghost of
subjectivity wasnt real in any meaningful sense after all.17 But Schweitzer was
quite clear and he gives us no room for manoeuvre. Yet I think he could have
expressed it better. It is not so much that everyone finds the Jesus that they

12
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (First Complete Edition, SCM Press, 2000,
from an original German edition in 1906). This book was updated by Schweitzer a few times in the
originalGerman.
13
Thus the force of Schweitzers assertion that we have to reckon with an unhistorical Jesus who
isnt eschatologically understood or a too historical Jesus who becomes historically relative. See
Quest,p.406and,indeed,theargumentofthewholebook.
14
Each individual created Jesus in accordance with his own character is how Schweitzer phrases
this specifically (Quest, p. 6). He continues that There is no historical taskwhichsorevealsamans
(and, one imagines, a womans) true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus. Its worth noting that so
much is this a conclusion of Schweitzers that he foregrounds it at the beginning of his book in the
openingchapter.
15
See Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and The Word (Charles Scribners Sons 1934 and 1958)andHistory
andEschatology(Harper,1955).
16
See Andrew Lloyd,MeaningandHumanity:JesusinPragmatistFocus(selfpublished,2017)which
ispartAofthisbook.
17
So most of the commentary on this in Whose Historical Jesus? (William Arnal and Michel
Desjardins,eds.,WilfridLaurierUniversityPress,1997).
173
want to find so much as that everyonefindsaJesusthattheycanuse.Theone
thing Jesus must never be is irrelevant (except where his irrelevance is
simultaneouslyofuse).

The Quest in recent times has come to be categorized by some as a matter of

Old, No, New and Third Quest types. See, for example, the recent Guideforthe
PerplexedbyHelenK.Bond18althoughthisschemeisrepeatedinotherplacesas
well.19 However, along with the likes of Dale Allison, Maurice Casey and Clive
Marsh, I find this linear arrangement simplistic at best and facileatworst.20The
supposed contemporary interests of current Third Questers, primarily a
concentrationonathoroughlyandauthenticallyJewishGalileanJesus,arenotso
much distinctives of a period in time as badges of honour certain scholarsclaim
for themselves. In a postHolocaust periodofincreasingpoliticalsensitivitywhat
could bemorecontemporarythananappreciationthatJesuswasactuallyaJew?
It is, thus, noteworthy that when other pictures of Jesus are given, such as the
cynic Jewish peasant of Crossan, some accuse him of dejudaizing Jesus.21 It
seems that the implicit criticism here is not just of an image of Jesus but of a
certain view of JewsandJudaismitself.Theproblemhere,inanhistoricalsense,
however, is that even if in the current period scholars have wanted to focus all
their attentions on creating Jesus as a viableJewishcharacterofthe1stcentury
they have always seemed to miss the required precision. Jesus becomes a
Jewish everyman for we lack the data to be specific about him. We describe a
timeandaplacebuttheevidencerarely,ifever,takesusdirectlytohim.

This, in turn,makesusrecoil.WeaskourselveswhataboutourpicturesofJesus
is truly historical. We recognise that to build a narrative in our contemporary
moment in which history asnarrativeisregardedasnotthatfarremovedfrom
the speculative historical novel or, worse, as fiction, puts the historical scholar,

18
HelenK.Bond,T
heHistoricalJesus:AGuideforthePerplexed(TandTClark,2012).
19
As, for example, in Stephen Neill and Tom Wrights The Interpretation of the New Testament
18611986(OUP,1988).
20
These objections are raised by Allison on pp.126 of Resurrecting Jesus, by Maurice Casey in his
Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historians Account of His Life and Teaching (T and T Clark,
2010), pp. 159, and by Clive Marsh in two very important essays, Quests of the Historical Jesusin
New Historicist Perspective in Biblical Interpretation 5 (4) from 1997 and Diverse AgendasAtWork
inTheJesusQuest,inH
andbookForTheStudyofTheHistoricalJesus,pp.9851020.
21
MauriceCaseyintheopeningchapterofJesusofNazarethbeinganexample:Theoverallresultof
(Crossans) process has the same social function as most scholarship on the Jesus of history: it
reduceshisJewishness(p.20).
174
something many insist they are, under pressure. Questers from Renan to
CrossanandWrighthavebeenwritinghistoricalnarrativesthattheyexpectusto
accept both as history and as story. So there is a sense in which we have to
accept not merely the historical postulates but the contextofmeaningthatsuch
scholars provide as well. This is to say that often it is not merelyhistoricalfacts
that we are asked to accept but we are pushed towards accepting complexes of
meaning too. For example, if one reads N.T. Wrights The Resurrection of The
Son of God, which Wright insists is a historical book about matters that
historians can and should investigate, we are asked to accept both that there
was, historically, an empty tomb and actual appearances of the risenJesus.But
we are then told, in the same book as part ofanhistoricalargument,thatthese
facts are both the sufficient and necessary conditions for the rise of Christianity
and so also for Christian belief. We are offered a both/and not an either/or,
historical facts and historical (yet also contemporary) meaning as a single
historically mediated package deal.22 Yet the question remains, in thecontextof
the Quest, whether the Quest itself is historical merely in historiographical
senses, as historical narratives, as form, or whether it is ever anything more
than this. Is it enough to makeuphistoricalstoriesbyjoiningassortedhistorical
flotsamandjetsamtogetherintoameaningfultale?

And this brings us to the criteria for historical Jesus research which, in the 21st
century, have suffered something of a going over.23 There are now several
scholars who will openly say that they regard the traditional criteria,coherence,
dissimilarity, embarrassment, multiple attestation and the like, as basically
useless. Dale Allison, for example, made this point most forcefully and
convincingly back in 1998 in his first Jesus book, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian
Prophet and has continued to since.24 Yet others, such asE.P.Sanders,tookthe
route ofstartingwithwhattheyregardedashistoricalfactsandgoingfromthere
instead.25 N.T. Wright nods in the general direction of criteria yet his more
important one seems to be that his Jesus fit into a particular story he (or

22
Oneneedstogettothemeatinpp.587738ofT
heResurrectionoftheSonofGodforthis.
23
ExamplesofthisareJournalfortheStudyoftheHistoricalJesus13.1(2015),theentirefirstvolume
of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus and Jesus, Criteria and theDemiseofAuthenticity
(ChrisKeithandAnthonyLeDonne,eds.,BloomsburyTandTClark,2012).
24
Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 177, is a tightly argued essay on criteria and the Quest which should be
regardedasfoundationaltothediscipline.
25
SeeJ esusandJudaismandTheH istoricalFigureofJesus.
175
perhaps God himself) is telling about Israels God.26 Overall, it seems that
there has been something of a reassessment of these things in the light of a
contemporary handwringing about the subjectivity of historical Jesus study.
This reveals not only the philosophical basis many imagine they undertake the
Quest on the basis of (a realist, positivist one in whichthereisonlyonetruthto
find) but also that the traditional criteria were always mute tools that could not
protestinthehandsofthosewhousedthemtobeginwith.

Here we may note, of course, that things such as coherence or dissimilarity are
not things which judge themselves. They are matters of humanjudgmentwhich
means they are subject to the needs and agendas of their users (as well as
requiring a comprehensive database we arguably do not even have). Multiple
attestation, a criterion that some find more reliable, does not escape such
subjective fudging either for someone has to decide that something is, indeed,
multiply attested in a relevant way.InthecontextofthehistoricalJesusguildof
scholars which, as with society in general, has increasingly fractured into
selfcontained units pursuing their own interests in Jesus research, such criteria
are no longer controls on historical Jesus study so much as methodological
justifications or tools to be used as points of argumentation. Such, indeed,
seems to be John Dominic Crossans much vaunted stratigraphy and
methodology which has been picked apart by many since it appeared in his The
Historical Jesus back in 1991andwhichheseeminglytookupinanefforttoslay
the dragon ofautobiographyasbiographyinhisownwork.27Butitdidntwork.
Those reading Crossans historical works have beenplainlyabletoseeCrossans
own commitments and concerns just as plainly as those of the cynic Jewish
peasant he has attempted to reconstruct.28 The methods were justifications not

26
StoryornarrativepermeatesWrightsoutlookonChristianoriginsgenerallyandhasbeenexplicit
in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series of which Jesus and the Victory of God and
TheResurrectionoftheSonofGodhavebeenapart.Wrightsexplanationforthisisfoundinpartone
oftheprojectSeeT
heNewTestamentandthePeopleofGod(SPCK,1992),pp.31144.
27
Allisons opening chapter in Jesus of Nazareth is a focused example of this which completely
disarmsCrossansmethods.
28
Crossans essay Eschatology, Apocalypticism, and the Historical Jesus in Jesus Then and Now:
Images of Jesus in History and Christology (eds. Marvin Meyer and Charles Hughes, Trinity Press
International, 2001), pp. 91112 is a good example of this, especially the section which reads: our
very humanity demands that we reject definitively the lure of a violent ultimacy, a violent
transcendance, or a violent God. If, ontheotherhand,wesincerelybelieveinaviolentGod,wemust
surely follow openly the advice of Mrs Job: Curse God and die (pp. 9798).HereCrossanhimselfis
personallyagainstanyapocalypticagenda.AsishishistoricalJesus.
176
controls. Many now are saying that thisisntaproblemmerelyforCrossan:itsa
conclusionapplicabletothewholediscipline.Therearemethodsbutnocontrols.

This becomes a dark night of the soul for historical Jesus scholars who stand
accused of telling historical stories about a man called Jesus who was a 1st
century Galilean Jew. It is not that they were stories. It is not even that they
were histories. It is that they werent particularly objective or controlled by
things outside of the scholar constructing them which reveals the essentially
philosophical nature of the problem in a world where too many scholars think
history is a kind of science and that science is penetrating to what isthenature
of the case. Here the difference between construction and reconstruction
becomes much narrower than many historical Jesus scholars would feel
comfortable with. Schweitzer, naturally, would have insisted that
noneschatological portraits were ruled out by history itself but even that
judgment leaves the field open to numerous uncontrolled conjectures at a
juncture when historical Jesus studies itself seems to have reached a point
where controls, or the almost total lack of them, seems to be precisely the
problem.

Here the outside observer may once again reflect on the spear that is always
being nudged so gently into the side of historical Jesusscholarship,itsproclivity
to subjectivity, to telling historical stories that function equally well as
contemporary ones. Or, as Crossan informed us, of doing autobiography and
calling it biography. Here, in the face of mumbled, if not shouted, protestsfrom
the guild of historical Jesus scholars I remind you that the charge is not that
these scholars find who they wanted tofind.Rather,theyfindapersontheycan
use. And its often not even that difficult (for others) to see. In this respect the
attention that memory and memory studies have received in recent historical
Jesus work (such as in books by James Dunn, his student Anthony Le Donne,
Dale Allison and Ken McIver, as well as an essay by Terrence Tilley)29 has been

29
Inthe21stcenturymemoryandmemorystudieshasbeenaburgeoningareaofstudyexploredby
some historical Jesus scholars in order toanchortheirimagesofJesustoaplausiblepast.Theitems
I mention are James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Volume 1,
Eerdmans, 2003), a book in which the title itself wants to anchor that link in our minds, Anthony Le
Donne, Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (Eerdmans, 2011), Dale
Allisons ConstructingJesus,especiallyitsopeningchapter,andKenMcIversMemory,Jesusandthe
Synoptic Gospels (Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). Many chapters of the aforementioned Jesus,
Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity are also relevant as they are written by proponents of this
177
yet another attempt to reign in the all too apparent subjectivity. But it hasnt
workedandSchweitzersconclusionstillstands.

It seems to me that this conclusion now stands in need of a better answerthan

the halfembarrassed and halfignored one it, in the more than a century since
Schweitzer first affixed his charge to the cross upon which historical Jesus
scholarship now hangs, has received. This will no doubt require a good deal
more selfeffacing honesty than much historical Jesus work has yet
demonstrated itself capable of. It will, without doubt, include addressing
numerous shibboleths in the guild of historical Jesus scholarship including, but
not reducible to, the idea that history is an imaginative art and not a science,
that the literature historical Jesus scholars provide on Jesus carries meanings
which may not be historical and that the historical Jesus as an idea is, as
Schweitzer has already suggested, not something with which wecanhavemuch
to do because Jesus is not merely a less sophisticated and historicallyparticular
versionofus.30

So we must, in the end, reckon with the verySchweitzerianideathatwecannot

be resuscitators of Jesus body at a 2,000 year remove. Historical Jesus
scholarship as a whole, as a 250 year, postEnlightenment and historically
particular enterprise, stands accused of being an academic act of looking in the
mirror. And it doesnt seem as if it even has much of a defence in light of the
accusation. Like Marks Jesus before Pilate, it simply murmurs, If you say so
and then avers from further discussion of the subject,31 meekly accepting its
crucifixion on the cross of subjectivity yet seeing it as a symbolic victory and
testimony to some overarching objective truth it still refuses to let go of. I ask,
will this do? I suggest it wont and so, in the rest of this essay, I intend to
discuss the Quests subjectivity, focusing on recent scholars and studies which
demonstrate the issue in contemporary context, and to discuss the apparent
controls which are argued for that, so we are told, stop us slipping into the
quicksand of intellectual masturbation. Thereafter, I will move to a reconfigured
idea of what the Quest itself as a whole is actually about. It is hoped that such

memory approach. See also Terrence Tilley, Remembering the Historic Jesus: A New Research
Program?inT heologicalStudies68(2007),pp.335.
30
Indeed,heistoourtimeastrangerandanenigma,Q
uest,p.478.
31
Mark15:25.
178
honesty can finally allow the historical Jesus to escape his earthly prisons of
ideological writing inbooksandriseoncemoreaspoetryandplay,unfetteredby
a history that never was more than the exercise of the human imagination
anyway. For it really is true, as Zen Buddhists realise, that The instant you
speakaboutathing,youmissthemark.

TheSubjectiveQuest

Wheretobegin?Perhapswithtwoscholarswhoarenotsimplysubjectiveintheir
views but openly apologetic in their intentions. The first is the Roman Catholic
scholar Luke Timothy Johnson who, technically speaking, isnt a Quester at all.
So why is he here? He is here because he wrote a book about the real Jesus
and he didnt mean the historical one, something which irked some Questers
enough that they hadtorespond.32Infact,Johnsonbasicallywishedaplagueon
the houses of all those who thought that a search for the Jesus of history was
even necessary. Perhaps this was the sense of his subtitle themisguidedquest
for the historical Jesus and the truth of the historical gospels, something that
wouldnt have been out of place in the late 1800s.33 Johnsons attack on the
entireQuestisbasicallyatthelevelofitsfoundingpremise,toseeiftheJesusof
history was the man portrayed in the gospels or not. Johnson, a good Catholic,
thinkshewasandhealsodoesntthinkthathistorycatchestherealityofJesus
in any genuine sense. This is the realm of a living faith. Andthenhethinksthat
should be it. We dont need mere scholars who use history as their guide
thinking that they can undermine faith based on gospels (not to mention the
Gospel)bycreatingahistoriographicalgapbetweentheoneandtheother.To

32
LukeTimothyJohnson,TheRealJesus:TheMisguidedQuestfortheHistoricalJesusandtheTruth
of the Traditional Gospels (HarperCollins, 1996). Noteworthy responses are WalterWink,Response
to Luke Timothy Johnsons The Real Jesus in Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997), pp. 233248,
and two articles by Robert J. Miller, The Jesus of Orthodoxy and the Jesuses of the Gospels: A
CritiqueofLukeTimothyJohnsonsTheRealJesusinJournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament68
(1997), pp. 101120, and History is Not Optional: A Response to The Real Jesus by Luke Timothy
Johnson in Biblical TheologyBulletin28(1)(1998),pp.2734.WidercontextonJohnsonsviewscan
be found in a collected volume of his essays, Contested Issues in Christian Origins and the New
Testament (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 146, Brill, 2013), where he not onlyaddressesthe
Quest again but alsoN.T.Wrightspecifically,Wrightbeingsomeonewhohadinitiallysuppliedaquote
for the cover of The Real Jesus but had then subsequently backed off in his support of Johnsons
views.Wright,ofcourse,verymuchseestheneedforbothhistoryandtheologyinawaythatJohnson
doesnot.
33
TheobviouscomparisonisMartinKhlersT
heSoCalledHistoricalJesusandtheHistoricBiblical
ChristoriginallypublishedinGermanin1892.
179
read these compositions in terms simply of the historical information they
provide," Johnson writes, "is to miss the most important and most explicit
insight they offer the reader, namely, how the experience of the powerful
transforming power of God that came through the crucified Messiah Jesus
created not only a new understanding of who Jesus was but, simultaneously, a
new understanding of God and God's way with the world."34 So thatsthatthen.
TounderstandJesusyouneedfaithandhistoryisregardedasbutinformation.

A second apologist we may note is Gary Habermas. Habermas, who was

educated at liberalinstitutions,isnowDistinguishedProfessorofApologeticsand
Philosophy at Liberty University (training champions for Christ since 1971), a
private Christian institution initially founded by Jerry Falwell Sr in Lynchburg,
Virginia. Habermas personal website35 states at the top that he specialises in
Resurrection of Jesus research and offers readersafreeebookwiththetitle
The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ Amongst The Major World Religions. In general
terms Habermas writes books in defence of miracles, the life ofJesusaswritten
in the gospels and concerning the historical truth of the resurrection. However,
in all of this his argumentation usually comes down to a simple preference for
believing the truth of the canonical gospel accounts which, as with Johnson, is
simply a refusal to ask the questions the likes of Reimarus were asking in the
first place when they questioned the Jesus described in them.36 However,unlike
Johnson, Habermas conceivesofhimselfastakingpartintheQuest.Itsjustthat
with Habermas he argues that thegospelsarecoherent,meaningfulandtruthful
history whereas Johnson downplays history as meaningful for faith. Noneofthis
might matter and we could detach Habermas from a scholarly engagement with
the Quest, properly describing what he does as faithbased apologetics, except
for two things.First,HabermasisreferencedbyagenuineQuester,N.T.Wright,
in his scholarly work37 and has also been published in the Journal for the Study
of the HistoricalJesus.38Second,Habermasisbutthemoreobviouslyapologetic,
leading edge of an evangelical Quest which is not out to demonstrate any

34
T heRealJesus,pp.173174.
35
www.garyhabermas.com
36
On Reimarus see C. H. Talbert (ed.), Reimarus: Fragments, (translated by Ralph S. Fraser,
Fortress,1970).
37
FourreferencesarelistedinT
heResurrectionoftheSonofGodbyWright.
38
Gary R. Habermas, Resurrection Research From 1975 to the Present: What are CriticalScholars
Saying?inJ ournalfortheStudyoftheHistoricalJesus3.2(2005),pp.135153.
180
history as such but to argue that an evangelical position on certain historical
facts become narrative mandates an evangelical position on Jesus with all that
they believe that entails.39 One question one need not ask ofsuchscholarshipis
if the conclusions were ever in any doubt. Not, of course, that this issomething
uniquetoevangelicalChristians.

British biblical scholar Maurice Casey was one of those to note this in an
enlightening chapter from his 2010 book, Jesus of Nazareth.40 The opening
chapter of the book is his own precis of the Quest in which he disavows the
judgment of others who have seen the history of the Quest according to the
OldNoNewThird scheme and accuses many in the Quest, not least in its
contemporary form, of being prey to a culturalcircleandbeingvictimsoftheir
own cultural locations.MostobviouslyherewefindChristianscholarsofanykind
indicted and Casey indeed indicts John Dominic Crossan, Tom Wright, James
Dunn, John P. Meier, Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer and Ben
Witherington III amongst others. Casey also highlightsthatmuchofthemodern
Quest is played out against the backdrop of a modern culture war based firmly
within the USA. Thus, CaseyreferstoTheJesusSeminarastheAmericanJesus
Seminar and cites this body within the context of this culture war in which the
Seminar and its conservative and fundamentalist Christian criticsarelockedina
publicity war over images of Jesus with the generalpublicastheaudiencebeing
fought for. Casey argues that the Jesus Seminar has achieved the opposite of
what ithopedfor,thesuccessofaliberalpictureofJesusasasageorteacherof
wisdom, in that it has rather encouraged conservatives toimaginethatalltheir
dogmatismisright.41Henotesthat,inthiswar,toprovetheothersidewrongis
often regarded as the purpose of debate (and a mountain of publishing) rather
than any interest in historical work per se.42 Hence there are any number of

39
Examples of this phenomenon are Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest (IVP Press, 1997), Scot
McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Eerdmans, 1999),
Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (IVP, 2009),CraigA.EvansFabricatingJesus(IVP,2008)
and Darrell L. Bock with Benjamin I. Simpson, Jesus The GodMan: The Unity and Diversity of the
GospelPortrayals(BakerAcademic,2016).Therearecountlessmore.
40
J esusofNazareth,pp.159.
41
J esusofNazareth,p .22.
42
Jesus of Nazareth, p. 21: The effect of the American Jesus Seminar on conservative American
Christians has been just as disastrous as theworkofSeminaritself.Someofthemwritebookswhich
appear to assume that, if they can demonstrate that the Jesus Seminar is wrong, they thereby
demonstrate the absolute truth of Protestant fundamentalism or Catholic orthodoxy, whichever the
perspectivefromwhichtheauthoriswriting.
181
apologetic conservative Christian books (many of which are by genuine
conservative Christian scholars with Christiancommitmentsandseminaryposts)
which set out simply to refute the claims of more liberal scholars for apologetic
reasons.Caseydescribesthiscontextforstudyasgoingfrombadtoworse.43

Casey himself says that he carries no religious commitmenteitherfororagainst

and so when he suggests that the Quest in general suffers from the religious
convictions of those taking part (mostlyChristianbutsometimesatheist)wecan
understand why.HealsocriticisesthemodernQuestforitslackofinterestinthe
Aramaic sources behind the gospels and any reconstructions of things Jesus
might have said in Aramaic himself which, as Casey repeats more than once, is
the language that Jesus himself spoke. The study of Aramaic sources for the
gospels and for sayingsofJesuswasonemajorfocusofCaseysownscholarship
before his sad death in 2014 and one that his own Jesus book benefits from
greatly.44 Sadly, Casey notes, most current researchers in historical Jesus
studies are either completely unqualified for such a task or choose to neglector
ignore it andare,thus,hamperedbytheirownignorancewhichreflectsonJesus
scholarship as a whole. Casey is, however, one of those contemporaryQuesters
for whom a proper siting in first century Judaism is essential for a genuine
historical Jesus to emerge. Thus, he is one of those who accuses Crossan of
essentially dejudaizing Jesus by giving him a cynic caste and who praises Geza
Vermes andE.P.SandersforgivingusthoroughlyJewishJesuses.45Alltoooften,
however, CaseyhasdiagnosedthroughoutthehistoryoftheQuestanattitudeof
superiority from Christian interpreters towards Judaism and Jesus as a Jew, a
superiority which leads to them filling in the blanks in their knowledge with
Christianisms and gives a certain inevitability to their scholarly conclusions.Itis

43
J esusofNazareth,p.21.
44
Examples are Aramaic Sources of Marks Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
Series 102, Cambridge University Press, 1999) and An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 122,
CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).
45
The contribution ofE.P.Sandershasalreadybeenreferencedinthisessaybutitisalsopertinentto
note his Judaism: PracticeandBelief63BCE66CEwhichisastandardreferenceworkonJudaism
of the period. Geza Vermes was one ofthemajorscholarsofthe20thcenturyonJudaismatthetime
of Jesus and the surrounding period, particularly in relation to theDeadSeaScrolls,andwasJewish
himself. He wrote several books on the historical Jesus in Jewish context, beginning with Jesus the
Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels (Fortress, 1973) and including Jesus and the World of
Judaism (Fortress, 1983), The Religion of Jesus the Jew (Fortress, 1993) and Jesus in his Jewish
Context (Fortress, 2003). One cannot read Vermes onJesusandimaginehimasanythingotherthan
Jewish.
182
all too easy to show that Caseys criticisms here have teeth and that they stick.
HisfirstchapterinJ esusofNazarethreferstomultipleexamples.

At this point the thoughtful scholar needs to muse on the fact that a branch of
biblical scholarship, the Quest of the Historical Jesus, is mostly carried out with
explicit Christian commitments (of whatever flavour)fullyintact.Onealsoneeds
to ask how such a fact might affect the methods and results of the Quest. For
example, it goes without saying that most scholars in the Quest have a
prerequisite need for Jesus to have existed at all and to be an historical figure
ofmeaningandpurpose.Yetthesearenotinsignificantthingstobecarryinginto
academic study and it should be recognised that many of the major lives of
Jesus we see constructed today, such as those of Wright, Dunn, Sanders,
Crossan, Borg, Allison and others, were ALL created by men of explicitChristian
commitment. We can speak, with some justification, of the predetermined
nature of these constructions and legitimately inquire as to their relation to the
beliefs of those doing the constructing and what Christian theology, values or
beliefs they are seeking to smuggle in orprotectwiththeirconstructions.Thisis
not even toarguethatstudiessuchasthesehavenecessarilybeeninaccurateor
misleading in their conclusions or argumentation (although none of them are
exactly the same and most have at least something important to say). It is to
argue that the prior commitments of such people (as with their opposites or,
indeed, any others) are both real and determinative. One cannot, as is so often
the case, speak of commitments but then act as if they have zeroeffect.46Such
dishonesty and selfdeception is rife in theQuestandthefailuretoseehistorical
conclusions as the outcomeofhistoricallyformulatedpreconditionsisendemicin
its operation.MauriceCasey,anindependenthistorianaccordingtothesubtitle
of his book, wasonescholarwhowouldlikelyagreewithsuchanassessmentfor
this istheforceofthesecondsentenceofhisbookwhichaddressesJesus:Most
of us belong to social subgroups which have a definite view of him.47 It is
unlikely and duplicitous to argue that suchviewswillbesubsequentlyignoredor
thattheywillbedeactivatedduringscholarlyinquiries.

46
This is the conclusion I take away from so many discussions of commitments or bias found in
historical Jesus context. A paradigmatic example of this phenomenon is Whose Historical Jesus?
(eds.WilliamArnalandMichelDesjardins,WilfridLaurierUniversityPress,1997).
47
J esusofNazareth,p.1.
183
At this point we must reckon with Anthony Le Donnes short but very
concentrated book, Historical Jesus: What Can WeKnowAndHowCanWeKnow
It? (mentioned above) which claims even to inveigle readers in the messy
subject of postmodern history,48 a subject many historical Jesus Questers would
recoil from at even the mention of the name. (I suspect that many of these
would not even really know why either since few would have actually made any
genuine attempt to understand it and so would completely misappropriate and
falsely characterize it. Such people likely cross themselves at the mention of
Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard and even Hayden White as well.) Inthisrespectit
is very important that Le Donne begins his book not with statements about the
life of Jesus but by noting that the conscientious historian must begin with a
philosophical framework. The historian must have some working theory of the
nature of history what it is, what it isn't, what we bring to the task, and what
to expect from it.49 These will all, necessarily, be personal yet social
constructions, ways that we as human inquirers in a social context configure
what it is we think we are doing and why. But Le Donne goes further than this
and so questions such as he has about the nature of inquiry, questions like To
what extent do we perceive what we expect to perceive? and How much
creativity is required to remember what weve perceived?50 are important as
well, and, as far as Im concerned, important as subjective aspects of any
human inquiry. File under things you cannot avoid if you consider yourself a
humanbeing.

Le Donne goes on to argue, in ways he considers postmodern, that history is a

matter of memory. Memory, he suggests, is something that is always

48
Relevant texts on postmodern history include Frank R. Ankersmit, Narrative Logic: A Semantic
Analysis of the Historians Language (Nijhoff, 1983), History and Tropology: The Rise and Fall of
Metaphor (University of California Press, 1994), HistoricalRepresentation(StanfordUniversityPress,
2001), Sublime Historical Experience (Stanford University Press, 2005), F.R. Ankersmit and Hans
Kellner (eds.), A New Philosophy of History (Reaktion Books, 1995) Keith Jenkins, On What is
History?: From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White (Routledge, 1995), Refiguring History: New
Thoughts on an Old Discipline (Routledge, 2003) Hans Kellner, Language and Historical
Representation: Getting the Story Crooked (University of Wisconsin Press, 1989) Alun Munslow,
Deconstructing History (Routledge, 1997), The New History (Longman, 2003) Hayden White,
Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in NineteenthCentury Europe (TheJohnsHopkinsUniversity
Press, 1973), TropicsofDiscourse:EssaysinCulturalCriticism(TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,
1978), The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (The Johns
HopkinsUniversityPress,1987).AddtothislisttheanthologybyKeithJenkins(ed.),ThePostmodern
HistoryReader( Routledge,1997).
49
H
istoricalJesus,p.4.
50
H
istoricalJesus,p.7.
184
interpretive, an ongoing process of imaginative reinforcement. And so weare
active participants in the shaping of our memories.51 LeDonnealsoarguesthat
history is interpretive too meaning that Le Donne considers that history is the
interpretation of interpretations. So Le Donne can now argue that The
storytellers behind the gospels are interpreters by discipline. In tellingtheJesus
story they interpret, revise, metaphorize, theologize, apply typologies, highlight
character developments and plot movements. These are not things they do
because they had little care for history. This is what telling history looks like
what it ought to look like!52 Le Donne also quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson with
favour when he says that people can only see what they are prepared to see,
suggesting that theinevitableperspectivalpictureshistoricalJesusscholarshave
of Jesus (not to mention gospel writers) are not so much conscious choices as
the inevitable consequences of being human beings, beings without a totalizing
view of, well, anything at all. It is not just that human beings have subjective
preferences or that memory as a kind of human thought is interpretive, they
were made that way. Subjectivity, in this sense, is what even enables a human
being to inquire at all. Le Donne himself arrives at a similar position by way of
Schleiermachers hermeneutical circle, Diltheys all understanding always
remainsrelativeandHeideggersrecognitionthatAnyinterpretationwhichisto
contribute to understanding must already have understood what is to be
interpreted.53 The pointhereisthathumansubjectivity(callitinterpretationif
you prefer) in perception and in memory is not a weakness. It is what makes
such things possible at all. We were not made to simply trawl for
undifferentiated and useless knowledge but to actively filter, imagine and
interpret for knowledge thought useful to us in the first place. In this sense all
knowledge is for us meaningful knowledge, knowledge which has been about
recycling memories, perceptions and understandings we already have.
Continually.

So when Le Donne goes on to argue, contrary to the hopes of Textual Criticism

and certainly in the case of some of its participants, that there is no original
story of Jesus to find, for example in any original manuscript, because the
stories of Jesus are memories passed on by an everflexible culture of oral

51
H
istoricalJesus,p.32.
52
H
istoricalJesus,p.40.
53
H
istoricalJesus,p.5664.
185
retelling which precedes any notion of an authoritative written tale, this makes
perfect sense. But thisprecludesanymodernorscientificnotionofcertaintyor
what Le Donne refers to as the mirage of objectivity54 and we must always
remember that Perspective and interpretation are the very basis for memory's
existence.55 Thus, Le Donne finds himself agreeing with postmodern historian
Hayden White that historians make decisions that essentially create stories,56
something which has consequences for both Jesus historians and gospel
composers. Yet Le Donnes book, which hasreallyfunctionedasbutaprimerfor
this theories of history as memory as interpretation, lacks the theoretical and
philosophicalunderpinningthatWhitesownpostmodernhistoriographicalwriting
does. In particular, White speaks in Tropics of Discourse about the historians
conceptual apparatus (without which atomic facts cannot be aggregated into
complex macrostructures and constituted as objects ofdiscursiverepresentation
in a historical narrative).57 His argument here is that there is no firm line
betweenthedoingofhistoryandthedoingofphilosophyofhistory.

Thosehistorianswhodrawafirmlinebetweenhistoryandphilosophyofhistory
failtorecognizethateveryhistoricaldiscoursecontainswithinitafullblown,if
onlyimplicit,philosophyofhistory.Andthisisastrueofwhatisconventionally
callednarrative(ordiachronic)historiographyasitisofconceptual(or
synchronic)historicalrepresentation.Theprincipaldifferencebetweenhistory
andphilosophyofhistoryisthatthelatterbringstheconceptualapparatusby
whichthefactsareorderedinthediscoursetothesurfaceofthetext,while
historyproper(asitiscalled)buriesitintheinteriorofthenarrative,whereit
servesasahiddenorimplicitshapingdevice.58

In this, the pointatwhichWhiteandLeDonneagreeisthathistoriansareactive

subjects who shapetheir(hi)stories.Theycantbeanythingelsebecausehuman
perception itself is interpretive. And so we come to see the sense in Alun
Munslows statement that This means we would do well to recognise and
remember that the histories we assign to things and people are composed,
created, constituted, constructed and always situated literatures. History is not

54
H
istoricalJesus,p.76.
55
H
istoricalJesus,p.107.
56
H
istoricalJesus,p.113.
57
T
ropicsofDiscourse,p.126.
58
T
ropicsofDiscourse,p.127.
186
the same asthepast.Itisanarrativeinterpretationofthepastor,asMunslow
notes again, history is first and foremost a literary narrative about the past, a
literary composition of the data into a narrative where the historian creates a
meaning for thepast.59Assuch,historyisastoryaboutthepastconstructedby
subjective interpretation. So history is not a matter of correspondence in the
positivist sense that many past Jesus historians have taken it to be. This
approach is a mistake from start to finish simply in that it mischaracterises
human activity and so the inquiry as a whole. This is likely because, for many,
there is a still a lingering notion that history is analogous to seeing. You look at
something and there it is, immediately perspicuous to us in all its glory. The
problem with this, as Le Donne shows, is that the very act of seeing is an act
which involves the one doing the seeing in social conceptions of how seeing
works,whatwemightandmightnotexpecttoseeandmanyotherthings.There
is, to put it bluntly, interpretation all the way down and without any hope of
escaping this conclusion. As British postmodern historian Keith Jenkins phrases
this history is a theoretical,speculativeexperimentallthewaydown.Another
way Jenkins puts this is that history is in themainwhathistoriansmake.60Yet
hefurtherformulatesthisasaworkingidea:

Historyisashifting,problematicdiscourse,ostensiblyaboutanaspectofthe
world,thepast,thatisproducedbyagroupofpresentmindedworkers
(overwhelminglyinourculturesalariedhistorians)whogoabouttheirworkin
mutuallyrecognisablewaysthatareepistemologically,methodologically,
ideologicallyandpracticallypositionedandwhoseproducts,onceincirculation,
aresubjecttoaseriesofusesandabusesthatarelogicallyinfinitebutwhichin
actualitygenerallycorrespondtoarangeofpowerbasesthatexistatanygiven
momentandwhichstructureanddistributethemeaningsofhistoriesalonga
dominantmarginalspectrum.61

This definition, once again, lines us up with Caseys description of liberal vs
conservative culture wars of a distinctly American flavour, wars which overflow
into historical Jesus study, diverting the Quest from a pursuit of history to a

59
Munslow was writing in the preface to the Routledge Classics Edition of Keith Jenkins Rethinking
History(Routledge,2003).Thiswasoriginallypublishedin1991.
60
R
ethinkingHistory,p.31.
61
R
ethinkingHistory,p.3132.
187
quest to win arguments in public and make the other side look bad. Itmaywell
be that the Quest has always been a partly polemical exercise and, if so, the
contemporary stages of it are playing their part. That being the case, I would
add to it here by noting that all that has been said here amounts to the
conclusion that there is no fact/interpretation distinction to be made in history.
All facts, to be of any use, are already interpretations and interpretations are
whatwe,naivelyorotherwise,havedesignatedfacts.Thisistosaythat:

itisneverreallyamatterofthefactspersebuttheweight,position,
combinationandsignificancetheycarryvisviseachotherintheconstruction
ofexplanationsthatisatissue.Thisistheinevitableinterpretivedimension,the
problematic,ashistorianstransformtheeventsofthepastintopatternsof
meaningthatanyliteralrepresentationofthemasfactscouldneverproduce.
Foralthoughtheremaybemethodsoffindingoutwhathappenedthereisno
methodwhatsoeverwherebyonecandefinitelysaywhatthefactsmean.62

This mention of meaning ispertinentforIhaverecentlyarguedinmyownJesus
work that meaning is the primary category when interacting with what is today
the profound and pervasive cultural symbol of Jesus.63 It might be thoughthere
that historical Jesus study acts as a control on subjectivity and, to an extent, I
believe it does if only because of the diversity and positionality of so many
inquiries into the historical Jesus. (Yes, thats right, this diversity actuallyhelps,
at least in one respect.) In this, of course, I take my cue from an American
pragmatist conception of democracy and inquiry in which conversationpartners,
properly and honestly interacted with, can only help the collective as a whole.64
Differing points of viewshouldhelpyousharpen,orabandon,yourownpointsof
view,inotherwords,providingyouareanhonestandconscientiousinquirerwho
recognisesweaknessesandproblematicsintheirownhistoricalunderstandings.

Yet this is not totally convincing and throughoutthewritingofthissectionofmy

essay I have felt the menacing presence of Jean Baudrillard's precession of
simulacra, the notion that The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does

62
R ethinkingHistory,p.40.
63
SeeAndrewLloyd,J esusinPragmatistFocus,partAofthisbook.
64
I got this point from Richard Rorty and he claims to have learnt it from John Dewey. Compare
Richard Rorty, Philosophy as CulturalPolitics:PhilosophicalPapers,Volume4(CambridgeUniversity
Press,2007)withJohnDewey,D emocracyandEducation(TheFreePress,1997,originally1916.)
188
it survive it.65 TheterritoryhereisJesusandthemapisourconstructions.They
are not the same thing. A question we must always be asking, and adistinction
we must always be making, is to ask if we have the territory or the map. Or if
the territory waseveravailable.Orifwehaveamapwhichwenowimposeupon
the territory such that we dont need the territory anymore. Ortoaskaboutthe
relationship between maps and territories. This is one reason why I think that
recent configurations of history as memory are not completely convincing
especially if they function as catch all (and semiscientific) methods to rescue a
history that some (often conservative) scholars have found themselves
increasingly unable to justify and increasingly exposed as beliefs. There can be
no easy recourse to memory and theories of how memoryworks(andtheoral
culture that goes with it) which serve to endupjustifyingconservativepositions
all over again but by the new, trendy and contemporary means of memory
research. We must all always reckon with the notion that we are simulators
trying to make the real coincidewithoursimulationsoreventhatsimulationis
all we have.66 Method alone can never secure results. Never again will the real
have the chance to produce itself such is the vital function of the model in a
system of death, or rather of anticipated resurrection, that nolongerevengives
theeventofdeathachance.67

MethodsButNoControls

We start with a statement that every Jesus Quester can agree with: Jesus
himself wrote no gospel.Everyonewouldregardthisastrueyetmanywouldstill
read the gospelsasifitdidntmatter.Perhapstheymightarguefortheessential
reliability of oral traditions, necessary to take us from the life of Jesus toatime
when people do write things down about him, or even, in some cases,wouldbe
working with notions of gospel inerrancy or even infallibility in their heads. But
what would all this reliability, inerrancy and infallibility be about? Jesus himself
wrote no gospel. So nothing here is from thehorsesmouth.Theclosestanyone
could argue that any gospel material comes to speaking about Jesus is in their
remembrances and impressions of him. At this point it may be retorted that

65
This,ofcourse,isfromJeanBaudrillardsnowinfamoustextSimulacraandSimulation(TheBodyin
Theory:HistoriesofCulturalMaterialism,UniversityofMichiganPress,1994).Frenchoriginal1981.
66
ThisistheprospectIteaseinJesusinPragmatistFocus.
67
S imulacraandSimulation,p.2.
189
most people would argue that at least some of this material in the gospels is
original to Jesus and that may well be true. But this is the point, once more, to
reiterate what was being said in the subjectivity section of this essay. The
gospels, as examples of history writing, were written down using creative
subjectivity throughout. So even if, when we come to discuss criteria of
authenticity directly, we could argue that such criteria, used in a certain way,
were absolutely guaranteed to give us a solid bedrock of sayings and deeds of
Jesus (and no one does!), neither these same criteria, nor any others we could
imagine, would ever tell us how to fit them together or extract from them what
Jesus thought he was doing and why. They would not, in short, give us the
meaning. This meaning, which most would argue to be a vital part of any
history, is something that only Jesus himself could give. What we have is what
others take Jesus to mean andinthattheymayaccordwithJesusandtheymay
not.IfwehadagospelwrittenbyJesushimselfwecouldcompare.Butwedont.
Jesushimselfwrotenogospel.

Many will want toargueagainstthis,notleastthosewhowritelivesofJesusand

synthesize material in order to come up with their grand schemes, putting
forward what, as farastheyareconcerned,Jesuswasallaboutfromhispointof
view. But it is a legitimate historical question to ask if we actually have been
given Jesuspointofviewingospeltextsatall.Wehavecertainlybeengiventhe
point of view of certain Christian gospel writers. Some of theseviewshavelater
been canonised. But noneofthesearefromthehorsesmouth.Thisisimportant
when one remembers why the Quest of the Historical Jesusevenexistsbecause
this Quest has been motivated from the start to be suspicious of the motives of
Christian writers and their subjective imposition of meaning through narrative
upon the Jesus depicted in their stories. The Quest is there to look for
differences between the literary characters called Jesus and the historical
individual called Jesus. For some, this is reason enough to be suspicious of the
Quest itself as a whole and it comes to be seen as a negative, suspicious and
critical (inthebadsense)enterprise.ButtheQuestdoesnotexisttovalidatethe
literary creations of Christians. It is not called The Quest of Gospel Validation.
It is the Quest of an historical character, the attempt to distinguishanhistorical
character from literary creations about him. In this, Christian gospels may
indeed be helpful because witnesses, whether right or wrong about the things

190
they witness, can still provide useful contextual information. Butitisnotthejob
of a serious Quester to take what they say as read or to benaivesynthesistsof
material simply because it is there. It is because the critical (in thegoodsense)
impetus of the Quest has recognised this that criteria of authenticity were
developed in the first place, criteria which searched for a Jesuswhowasnotyet
Christianised and subject to the creative subjectivity and the subjective
narratives of others. As Quester Dale Allison has formulated this in the opening
chapter of his book Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, a chapter that is a
must read regarding matters methodological, Dozens of ancient sources tell us
what Jesus supposedly said and did. But what did he really say andwhatdidhe
reallydo?68WeseektheunvarnishedJesusnotthevarnishedone.

Once you start to distinguish between a varnished and unvarnished (but never
unsubjective) Jesus you realise that you need some means to do this andthese
are the various criteria that scholars have developed over time forthispurpose.
The four major criteria historically have been those of coherence, dissimilarity,
embarrassment and multiple attestation. In addition, sometimes scholars try to
devise new ones such as when German scholars Gerd Theissen and Dagmar
Winter argued for a criterion of historical plausibility.69 But immediately, and
rather obviously, we can see problems here. Coherence or dissimilarity are
matters of interpretation not objective fact (even if we thought objective fact
was a philosophical possibility). They also need huge data bases to be reliable,
something it is argued we do not have. Embarrassment, as a criterion we can
reliably use, stumbles over the fact that all the potential embarrassments will
not be so embarrassing that they have been left out of our source texts. That
something has multiple attestation in different sources doesnt actuallymeanits
historical fact. It means more immediately that different sources find a similar
thing useful without establishing their source. As for Theissen and Winters
historical plausibility, well, that something is historically plausibledoesnteven
mean (or establish) that it happened. Much less does it mean that Jesussaidor
did it. When working with texts, as historical Jesus researchers are, it is always
wise to remember that we can always findtensionsorcontradictionsbetween

68
J esusofNazareth,p.1.
69
See Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of
Criteria(Westminster/JohnKnoxPress,2002).Germanoriginal1997.
191
two texts.70 Its also worth remembering, again, that gospels are creatively
subjective documents and that even where words of Jesus are used they are
used to accord with their own creative purposes, thus recontextualising the
sense. It might come to seem like we are looking for blue pieces of a puzzle
but where all the puzzle is blue. Certainly Dale Allison seems on point when he
notes that, If our tools were designed to overcome subjectivity andbringorder
toourdisciplinethentheyhavefailed.71

It is here that I think Dale Allison makes a statement that the methodologically
inclinedshouldtakenoteof.Itisworthquotinginfull:

Howevermuchwebetterourmethodsforauthenticatingthetraditionsabout
Jesus,w
earenevergoingtoproduceresultsthatcanbeconfirmedor
disconfirmed,Jesusislonggone,andwecanneversetourpalereconstructions
besidethefleshandbloodoriginal.W
eshouldnotdeceiveourselvesinto
dreamingmethodologicalsophisticationwillevereventuateeitherinsomesortof
unimaginativescientificprocedureorinacademicconcord.RudolfBultmannwas
righttoassertthatoftenweareleftwithonlyasubjectivejudgment.U
ntilwe
becomeliteraltimetravelers,allattemptstofindthehistoricalJesuswillbe
steeredbyinstinctandintuition.Appealstosharedcriteriamayassistusin
beingselfcritical,butw
henallissaidanddonewelookforthehistoricalJesus
withourimaginationsandtheretooiswherewefindhim,ifwefindhimatall.
72


These are serious charges and, by means of them, Allison impugns the entirety
of the Quest, accusing itofproducingsubjectiveandunverifiableaccountswhich
method does little to secure.Inshort,heaccuseshistoryofbeinganartandnot
a science. But he also, thereby, accuses a criterialed Quest of inhabiting a
particular view of the world for it is surely not all that hard to see how history
by criteria leans towards a scientific view of the world, one in which
interpretation or subjectivity might be regarded as dirty words. Here we
might note a shift of guiding assumptions over 40 or 50 years which, as Morna
Hooker reports in her foreword to Jesus, Criteria and the DemiseofAuthenticity

70
Allison,J esusofNazareth,p.3.
71
J esusofNazareth,p.6.
72
J esusofNazareth,p.7,emphasismine.
192
were, during the 1960s and 1970s, very much about securing a path to a safe
and secure, scientificallyattained historical Jesus based in things like Form
Criticism.73 In this light we see that the idea of criteria itself is a situated idea
which follows from certain assumptions. So it is important that HelenBond,ina
review of the same book that Hooker provides the foreword for, notes that
times, and so guiding ideas if not also paradigms, have changed.74 Today we
regard the gospel writers as creative writers and not compilers of collected
material and we think of history as interpretation not as a list of facts strung
together. So not only is it the case that the criteria are now noted as much for
their impotence as for their utility but it is also the case that they find
themselves on scholarly ground no longer fertilefortheirapplication.Backthen,
when criteria were all the rage, scholarly impartiality was still a thing. Today,
no one is getting away with such a naive notion. Neither are they getting away
withthenotionthathistoryismerelyamatterofinauthenticorauthenticpilesof
materialincorporatedintogospels.OrlivesofJesus.

Morna Hookers suggestion in Forty Years On is that instead of thinking of

ourselves as scientists ofliterature,oneswhobreakthingsdownintocomponent
parts we then accord authenticity to or withhold authenticity from, we should,
instead, stand back and consider the wholefor,whenweconsiderthewhole,we
do have something to work with. This might not necessarily be an intimate,
objective picture of indisputable events but then,asAllisonhasnotedabove,we
should be wise enough to consider thisbeyondusinthefirstplace.Hookergoes
ontosay:

Thesearchfortheauthenticisinfactastrangeconceit.Forwhatmakesa
sayingorastoryauthentic?SinceJesusspokeinAramaic,andtheGospelsare
writteninGreek,therecordoftheminevitablytakesusatleastoneremove
fromtheoriginal,foralltranslationinvolvesinterpretation.Wehavetoreckon,
too,withtheinterpretationgiventothesayingorthestorybytheearlyChristian
community,whichhandedthetraditionon,aswellaswiththatgiventoitbythe
evangelist.Andwhatmakesatraditioninauthentic?

73
Morna Hooker, Foreword: Forty Years On in Jesus, Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity, pp.
xiiixvii.
74
Helen Bond, Crumbling Criteria: Constructing an Authentic Jesus in Marginalia dated April 1st
2014(foundonlineatasourcenowlost).
193
The forceofHookerspointisthatsomethingisnotinauthenticmerelybecause
someone else butthesubjectofourhistorymaysayit.Peoplecanspeaktrulyof
others and pretty much everyone would recognise such a thing to be the case.
Therefore, criteria which aim at the words and deeds of Jesus but only at the
words anddeedsofJesusriskexcludingvaluableinformation,informationthatin
the normal course of every day life people would accept about or from people
they know. Once again, the gospels are interpretive documents but
interpretation is not a synonym for untrue much less for irrelevant. Hence
why some, such as Le Donne, have attempted to plough an historical furrow
labeled memory. We must accept that a concentration on theplaceanduseof
the interpretation of Jesus is as valid, if not more valid, than a oneeyedsearch
for a bogus view of what is authentic, one which, completely untrue to life
itself, regards Jesus in isolation. No man, so the truism goes, is an island. We
shouldnotexpectcriteriatofindanislandeither.

It is the necessity of this interpretation, in thesourcesandinouruseofcriteria,

that leads me to a perhaps suggestive thought. I am currently watching the
latest iteration of the Star Trek universe in the new series StarTrek:Discovery.
As part of my interest in the show I took the impulsive decision to joinacouple
offangroupsonFacebookandimmediatelyIwasconfrontedwithanynumberof
theories and speculations about how various characters or plot aspects of the
show might, could, or even should develop. One particular phenomenon I have
observed is how numerous people want the show to link up with other, known
elements of the Star Trek universe in its other shows and films. This, perhaps,
gives a real time angle of view on what most observe to be happening in the
gospels, documents many would argue are setting out to give definitive guides
to who Jesus is and what that means in a mythological context. In effect, they
are linking him into a larger mythology in differing ways, justasthewritersand
fans of Discovery are doing toowiththatshowanditscharacters.Thedifference
here is that everything that has ever happened in Star Trek is recorded and
immediately checkable. What happened in the life of Jesus is not. And this is
where Allisons example of the mythical Faustina, an invented prophetesswho
begins speaking words of Jesus very soon after his death, comes into play.75

75
Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 710, which leads into a direct interaction with the method of John
DominicCrossaninhisT
heHistoricalJesusinthepagesfollowing.
194
For, from the point of view of criteria, it is very hard if not impossible to screen
such things out and so those who absolutely insist on Jesus, thehistoricalJesus
and nothing but the historical Jesus are onto something of a hiding to nothing,
something that is frankly not there to find. When it comes to Jesus, who wrote
no gospels, in the beginning there was theinterpretation.Andtheinterpretation
was god and the interpretation was the only god. There was nothing but
interpretation.76

This is where the methods of John Dominic Crossan in The Historical Jesus and,
more particularly, their spectacular destruction by Allison in Jesus of Nazareth
are very instructive.77 In his book Crossan is very careful and deliberate in
opposing theology to history and autobiography to biography. He wants to be
seen as pursuing the latter and not the former. Andhismethodfordoingthatis
method itself. He tries to put charges of theological and autobiographical
concerns to one side by deploying a very thorough stratigraphy of his sources
and a disciplined methodology in his use of them. But is anybody fooled? Is
there anyone who reads Crossan and imagines that objective method and
stratigraphy have led us to the conclusions he brings forward? In his other
writings his concerns and his scholarly views often sit there, cheek by jowl,
together in the text. So why not here? I say this not to impugn or to insult
Crossan personally. But I do have to wonder at the idea that method can be
used as a shield against what, in the end, is the charge of interpretation.
Crossan claims to be aware that reconstruction is all we have. That being the
case,methodcanonlybejustificationforresultsandnottheirbasis.

Another misstep Crossan takes is in thinking that for us to get the historical
Jesus right (a dubious goal in itself, at least for one with any knowledge of
postmodern historical theory) then all the scholars need to agree. It is to this
end that he has, in the past, spoken to the need for a strictly methodological
approach. Without the strictest possiblemethodology,scholarswilldisagreenot
only on the interpretation of any given text but also on what texts are in the

76
ThewriteroftheFourthGospelhereseemstoagree.SeeJohn1:1.
77
Allisons interaction with Crossans method specifically is on pp. 1033 of Jesus of Nazareth. It
focuses,naturallyenough,onCrossansuseoftextualsourcesalthough,ofcourse,Crossansmethod
overall is about much more than this. We shouldalsonotethatinhisprologueCrossansaysheaims
notatanunattainableobjectivitybutanattainablehonesty.
195
original historical Jesus layer of tradition to be interpreted, he writes.78 Allison
responds by asking if people who use the same methods wont also disagree
and, in that, the interpretive aspect is onceagainintroduced.Itappearsthat,at
least in the 1990s, Crossan was so blinded by method that hethoughtthatonly
throughitwasanytruth,regardedasconsensus,evenpossible.Formyownpart
I would ask why truth is even regarded as consensus, in the sense of everyone
coming to the same conclusion, in the first place? Do you know a person about
whom everyone you know of has the same views? Do you regard it as the case
that unless everyone does come to the same views about a person, either in
terms of what they have said and done or in terms of what it means but
preferably in both, that therefore the world is upside down and our views about
this person are a collective embarrassment? This appears to be Crossans view
about the historical Jesus and it is a nonsense view, onethatnotevenhewould
accept about the people he himself knows. On this basis Crossan stratigraphies
the Jesus traditions based on numerous conjectures and multitudinous
uncertainties and argues that unless we do thesamethingtoo,orrefineitsoits
better, then we are merelyaddingtoascholarlyrollofshame.Theonlyproblem
with this, and its a big one, is that the entire idea is false. Method in historical
research cannot secure results, it can only be used as justification for them.
Method is also powerless to resist being used interpretively or with partiality.
Ironically enough for Crossan, the best control there might actually be the very
scholarly diversity he lambasts. In historical inquiry your best friend isoftenthe
personwhodisagreeswithyouanddemonstrateswhereyouvegonewrong.

On page17onJesusofNazarethAllisonnotesthat,forallhisstratigraphyand+
and signs regarding individual traditions, Crossan has basically cobbled
together a Synoptic Jesus and there is not much new from outside these
sources. Yet Allison also notes something else about the Synoptics (and literary
sources for the life of Jesus generally) towards the end of his interaction with
Crossans method, one which leaves it in tatters. It is a very profound thing he
admits and one which might not come very easily to many scholars. Its
ignorance. He notes that there are hundreds of questionswemightproperlyask
about these sources, how they relate to each other, who used or knew of what,

78
In John Dominic Crossan, Jesus and the Kingdom: Itinerants and Householders in Earliest
Christianity,J esusat2000(ed.MarcusJ.Borg,Westview,1997),pp.3233
196
which accounts are earlier than others and which accounts preserve early
tradition atall.Henotesthatwemaywellhaveourconvictionsaboutthis(which
he claims to most usuallyandwhichCrossancertainlydoes).However,whether
our convictions constitute knowledge we can never discover. We just do not
know.79 The sourcesareapuzzleandtheycannotprotesthoweverweconfigure
or reconfigure them. Scholarship in general demonstrates this with many
configurations apparent at any one time. Yet the conclusion seems clear. We
should admit a largedegreeofignoranceasopposedtopublishingourlifeasthe
lifeofJesus.80

As far as I can see this humble admission, not one which is prone to puffing up
the claims of ones own work for the benefits of national and international
publicity, throws us yet again into the arms of interpretation, the subjective
historical appreciation of sources which we justify by means of sometimes
methodologicalargumentationforthepurposeofmakingaparticularinterpretive
case. This is why I believe that scholars like Dale Allison and Tom Wright are
correct when they argue that we need to be thinking in big categories rather
than engaging in stratigraphy in the salt mines of Jesus research. Our goal is
not to be free of prejudices but tohavetherightprejudices,asAllisonputsit.81
Thus, I am receptive to Wrights notion (though often not to his individual
conclusions!) that the story of Jesus needstofitintobiggerstories.82Criteriafor
research can only make of this man an island. But he never was nor should be
that. If he does not make sense as part of stories bigger than his own then he
does not make sense at all. But we cannotmakeofthisacriterionofplausibility
either since this will never differentiate Jesus from the plausibility thathasbeen
an interpretation of someone else.83 Plausibility criteria merely establish
plausibility and not their source. In the end I can only fall back on the very
unscientific notion that history is an art which operates by intuition,imagination
and argumentation, one which frees us from the burden of scientific truth and

79
Allison,J esusofNazareth,p.31,emphasismine.
80
In this respect Crossans historical Jesus stands as a test case for all historicalJesusscholarship.
In the epilogue to The Historical Jesus Crossan refers to hisreconstructionofJesus.Butwhyisita
reconstruction and not simply a construction? What is the difference here? A subjective view on the
plausibilityoftheJesusconstructed?Aquestionforthewholediscipline.
81
J esusofNazareth,p.39.
82
Wrights The NewTestamentandthePeopleofGodinparticularissoakinginthelanguageofstory
andinastoriedcontextforthestudyofthehistoricalJesusandChristianorigins.
83
HereagreeingwithDaleAllisoninJ esusofNazareth.
197
scientistic notions of the world. Therefore, I heartily encourage scholars to put
forward whatever historical cases they will in the knowledge that other
interested parties are out there waiting to argue, correct, question, clarify and,
occasionally, agree with the interpretive portraits of Jesus brought forth. The
bestcriterionofauthenticityIknowofistheengagedandinformedscholarship
of a community of interested others. As far asIamconcerneditisalwaysabad
sign when any scholar or scholarship seeks to avoid or simply ignores the ideas
itbringsforth.

WhatFutureforTheQuestandtheHistoricalJesus?

The imminent death of the Quest and the needlessness of its Jesus has been
remarked uponthroughoutitswholeexistence.84Iammyselfintwomindsabout
whether a Quest is necessary and open about if it can achieve anything
worthwhile. (That it willcontinueregardless,however,iscertainaslongasthere
are people who will pay for the upkeep of departments of religion, theology or
biblical studies and others who will pay to attend them.) My discussions in the
two preceding sections of this essay suggest that we will only ever have an
interpreted Jesus (or aninterpretationofaninterpretationofaninterpretationof
Jesus) and that we willneverbeabletogetanythingotherthaninterpretation.85
In addition, the criteriaforauthenticity,beingonascalefromflawedtobasically
useless, are themselves prey to interpretive use. To some this istherecordofa
desolate past and the promise of an empty future but there is not necessarily
any cause for despondency in that. All you have regarding a family member or
best friend who perhaps leaves to move to another country is your

84
Scot McKnight is one (evangelical) scholar who has laboured in the fields of historical Jesus
scholarship but one wonders why since he is active in his belief that the Jesus of history is both
uselessfortheChurch(andsoforfaith)andincompatiblewithitstheologicallyconstructedJesus(and
so believers must choose history or faith/theology contra the views of the equally conservative and
Christian N.T. Wright, for example, who pairs history with faith). McKnights own historical Jesus is a
theologically compatible construct argued as historical. See hisJesusandHisDeath:Historiography,
the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Baylor University Press, 2006). He argues, further,that
the Quest is an enterprise aimed at getting behind the gospels for opposing the churchs Jesus.
When he says Canonical Jesus study sets an interpreted Jesus [canonical Jesus] in his Jewish
context while historical Jesus study gets behind the canonical Jesus to the (less interpreted) real
Jesus and sets that reconstructed figure in his historical context. Im all for historical study of the
canonical Jesus we must stand back and wonder at the muddle McKnight has got himself into.
McKnight has the interpretation he wants, in other words. He doesnt need other ones. See further:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/10/10/historicaljesuscontrarian/
85
SomethingforScotMcKnighttoconsider.
198
remembrances and shared experiences of them, some perhaps storedinwritten
or digital markings. When sprinkled with a little creative imagination your
thinking of these things is enough to almost make it seem as if they are in the
room with you. Your body reacts, a smile at the memories may form, and a
genuine experience hasbeenhad.Allofthiswasyourexperienceofpastevents,
albeit ones in which you mayhavebeenpresent,although,shouldsomeoneelse
shareanexperienceoftheirsofthesamepersonwithyou,youwouldveryeasily
fit it in with your own memories and experiences too in a very similar way. The
point here isthatinterpretationsofpeople,notleastonesbasedonmemory,are
neither necessarily poor fare on which to survive norinadmissibleasevidence.I
am not a Christian myself and neither do I have any reason to speak to the
veracity of the gospels so this point should not be taken as a confessionaloran
apologeticone.

My own view, as best as I can express it, is that it does come down to choices,
intuitions, which are built upon imaginatively andthesewilllikelycomefromthe
subjectivity of the inquirer and the particularity of theirpaththroughlife.Ihave
been thinking recently about the resurrection and I have been thinking about it
in the context of the ChristianclaimthatChristianityeitherstandsorfallsonthe
basis of it (with which I agree). I have been reading N.T. Wrights The
Resurrection of The Son of God to get his historical take on this for the
resurrection either happened as an event in history or it did not happen at all.
This is to say, as Wright does, that we are talking about an empty tomb and
appearances of a person formerly believed dead. Wright speaks of
transphysicality to explain this and he arguesthatthenecessaryandsufficient
conditions for the Christian beliefs about Jesus are that there was an empty
tomb and that there were risen appearances and that these must both be the
case for it to be true.86 Neither he, nor I, will accept wishy washy obfuscations
such as that Jesus swooned or that his followers imaginedappearancesofhim
after the fact. Yet, unlike Wright, I do not accept his twoprongedconditionsfor
the Christianexplanation.Itseemstomethatallthatisrequiredisthattherebe
no extant body of Jesus and that his followers believe that he is somehow still
alive, a belief that they somehow manage to multiply.87 Wright, in his book,

86
Wright,T
heResurrectionoftheSonofGod,pp.685718.
87
Here wemaynotethatmillionstodayclaimtobelieveinarisen,livingJesusonmuchlessevidence
than empty tombs and transphysical appearances. Some even die for such beliefs on this much
199
argues that history doesnt give us any choice and forces us to his view. I,
without being able to account for Jesus body or the postresurrection
appearances, demur from that view and remain unconvinced. Logically, if I
becameconvinced,IwouldhavetobecomeaChristian.88

Yet if I were indiscussionwithWrighthimselfaboutthisIimaginethathewould

likely want to askifIliveinaworldwhereIthinkpeoplecanrisefromthedead,
perhaps imagining that if my thinking were open to such a possibility it might
make his explanation more convincing. I would reply that under normal
circumstances I would not think it possible and, moreover, I wouldimaginethat
he would agree with me as well if he was honest. This is important for, as I
understand Wrights argument in The Resurrection of the Son of God, he is not
arguing that anyone can rise as he argues Jesus historically did. Instead, he is
saying that this has happened precisely once in the history of the world to the
man Jesus. Thequestionthenbecomesifitisreasonableorplausibletoassume,
on the basis of even Wright himself arguing this occurrence has happened
precisely one time, that it did in fact happen on that occasion. My own position
would be that special occasions require special evidences. Wright, I assume,
would claim to have provided them in his book. However, having read Dale
Allisons humble admission of scholarly ignorance, there is avalidthirdcategory
besides it happened and it didnt happen and this is we dont know. We
have no reason for expecting that people will just accept an historical
explanation for something because its advocate, as Wright does regularly,
argues that history forces us to a certain view. If Wright were the historian he
often refers to himself as then he wouldknowthathistoryoftendoesntforceus
to any view and that not enough evidence to establish a view one way or the
other is often a regular choice too. History is not a game where we have to
either bet on red or black every time. We can simply observe and wait for
something convincing enough to tempt our own particular intellect. After all,
thats what basically everyNewTestamentwitnesstothesupposedlyrisenJesus
didatfirstaccordingtoitsownsources.89

lesser evidence which puts the regular Christian argument thattheearliestChristianwitnessestothe

resurrection are truthful witnesses because they were prepared to die for their beliefs in some
jeopardy.Thismovesthegoalpostsfromtheyknewitwastruetotheybelieveditwastrue.
88
InmyyoungerdaysIwouldhaveclaimedtobe.Butthatsanotherstory.
89
In Marks gospel, regarded as the earliest canonical gospel and a documentary basis for Matthew
and Luke, the disciples fleeuponJesuscaptureandthewomenwhogotothetombfleeuponfinding
200
So my own view is that there can be no future for the Quest or an historical
Jesus which does not make this kind of honesty, humility and interpretivity part
of its makeup. The Quest should not be about finding an impossiblecertaintyor
be in the business of touting an unobtainable historical fixity. It should instead
be morepersonal,intimate,connectedtothosewhopursueit,recognisingthatit
is the interpretive needs of inquirers which motivate and sustain it. This is the
kind of Quest which recognises history as an art not a science and which
recognises that language is interpretation not objective report. To this end, one
thing that must finally be done away with is the notion of the original Jesus.90
Such a thing never has, does not, and will not ever exist. It is merely the
product of a not very convincing philosophical outlook on life. Even what Jesus
thought about himself is not the original Jesus for even ones thoughts about
oneself are ones own interpretive (mis)understandings about ones thoughts,
beliefs, motives and hopes. They may be more immediately available to us
subjectively but that does not make them any less interpretive. Even if Jesus
had written a diary we would not knowanythingmoreabouttheoriginalJesus
but merely his interpretive, subjective experience. But, in any case, it is surely
immediately obvious to mostinquirersthattheoriginalJesusisonlywantedas
a supposed authority with which to beat opponents in some imagined culture
war. It is myhopethatthefutureQuestismoresteadfastlyfocusedonhistorical
collegialitythanpublicityseekingpartiality.

And this brings me to another point that needs to be accepted rather than
avoided during any future Quest: It must be acknowledged to be about us, our
needs, our desires, our wants, what we can use. It must be acknowledged and
recognised that the historical Jesus is an object ofourattentionandthatinquiry
into this object is a matter of relating it to ourselves.91 Of course, I dont for a
second imagine that this point will be accepted by many engaged in the Quest

Jesus body missingandbeingtoldthathehasrisenfortheywereafraid.AssumingMark16:8isthe

authentic end of the gospel then we have to leave it there.Matthewchangesthewomensfeartojoy
and, moreover, has Jesus meet and encourage them on their way to tell the disciples. Upon Jesus
appearing in GalileeevenMatthewreportsthatsomedoubted.InLukethewomenstestimonyisnot
believed by the disciples and in John we have the story of doubtingThomas.Ifallthesewitnesses,
who supposedly knew Jesuspersonally,coulddoubtIdontseewhyanyonewithanhistoricalinterest
shouldnotdosoonmuchlesserevidenceandwithmuchlessopportunitytoverifyitthantheyhad.
90
An idea that Larry Hurtado, as only one example, seems very enamoured of in A Taxonomy of
RecentHistoricalJesusWorkinW hoseHistoricalJesus?,p p.272295.
91
This is to find the wisdom in the quote Everything begins with structure, configuration, or
relationshipwhichiscreditedtoJacquesDerrida.
201
for most taking part are too timid and too professionalised to take thisstepand
prefer the safety of an imagined scholarly distance, something which also,
conveniently, requires somewhat less responsibility in inquiry. Some, Im sure,
would like to continue imagining that historical Jesus study is like archaeology
and that all Questers do is uncover what is already there, an act of
reconstruction not construction. Its nothing to do with them.Theyjustdigaway
until the truth is found. But it must surely have dawned on many by now that
the truth will never be found at the same time as numerous differing
audiences imagine that the truth has already been found. What this should tell
us is that this truth isnt onething.Itsasmultifariousastherearethosetoseek
it. Its as multifaceted as the views of the people who met Jesus while he was
alive and thought something about him. (We cannot imagine they all uniformly
came to the same conclusion.) In each and every case peoplesawsomethingof
Jesus, related it to themselves, understood as only theycouldandcametotheir
own conclusions. In this theonlythingthatiscompletelybeyondcomprehension
is why, now, we still have any serious person interested in the historical Jesus
who imagines that the Jesusthatistobefoundwillbeoneanswerforeveryone.
To some he will always be a Messiah. To others hewillalwaysbeasage.Toyet
others he will always be a mistaken fool. The Quest needs to give up the idea
that it seeks one answer for thetruthisnotone:itismany.Itisconstructionas
reconstruction.

As long as there is interest in Jesus, and as long as salvation from our human
biological circumstances is still relevant, there will probably be some kind of
Quest. The Quest arose because Enlightenment thinking was turned upon the
gospels andwebegantoaskiftheyweretrueandtoaskifwecouldimaginethe
circumstances of their creation. But the truth is that the Quest is not likely to
ever discover definitive answers and this fact, and the gaping lacunae that are
unlikely to ever be filled, will motivate speculation without end for new
generations of Questers whose interest will continually be fanned by those
seeking to commercialize or otherwise exploitthatinterest.Therearethose,like
Dale AllisonwhopronouncedConstructingJesushislastJesusbookin2010,who
have been wise enough to see this and who have made their contributions and

202
stepped aside.92 I applaud this for I do not think that there is much point to
regurgitating the same things over and over again, the same things that are
often, in the end, either unprovable or argumentation foritsownsake.Ibelieve
in honest inquiries honestly done that are not afraid to face the challenges of a
different point of view but that, having studied the evidence, come to a
conclusion and then move on. But I donotthinkthatpeoplehavetochooseone
of the options that are currently offered by scholarship as being available. It is
only rightandproper(anditshouldbemorecommon)thatQuesterssayIdont
know toquestionsaboutthehistoricalJesus.Agenuinehumilityisbetterthana
false certainty and offering a range of possibilities is better than saying
something is the case you when you dont have the evidence or the
argumentationtoestablishacasetotheexclusionofallothers.

This leads me to ask what use the historical Jesus is andwhatpeoplestudythis

subject for. This is a harder question than might be imagined because I am
convinced that there are very few peoplewhocananswerithonestly.Thisisnot
necessarily because they dont want to but because, in some measure, theyare
unable. Like it or not, Jesus hasbeenclaimedtobemanythingsfor2,000years
and in any Western town or city, at least, there will be numerous places where
he is worshipped as holy and divine. That is one heck of a burden to put toone
side when one tries to inquire into this character historically. I question if it is
even possible to do so. In a real sense Jesus is never allowed just to be Jesus,
he cannot just be Yeshua from Nazareth, anonymous Galilean, anymore.Claims
to the contraryswirlallaroundusandnooneenteringintotheQuestisunaware
of them. The problem is not, as Schweitzer said, that he comes to us as one
unknown. The problem is very much the opposite. He comes to us as one only
too well known. Would that we could go back and know him before he had
becomeknownatall.Fornowweknowtoomuchandyetnothingatall.

Theinstantyouspeakaboutathing,youmissthemark.ZenProverb

Wehaveartinordernottodieofthetruth.FriedrichNietzsche

Inchoosingourpast,wechooseapresentandviceversa.HaydenWhite

92
Allison, Constructing Jesus,p.Ix,Thisismyfourthand,Ihope,finalbookonthehistoricalJesus
It is time to move on to other things. Note also that Allison has called his book constructing not
reconstructingJesus.
203