Message to a student after a class:

Hi -----,

To follow up on your question yesterday in PHL407, "History and Philosophy of the Enlightenment" (if you are serious about pursuing it... )

1) Read this article, and other works by N.T. Wright, an Anglican theologian.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

lots more at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/

2) read this article, "The Corrected Jesus," by Richard Hays, professor of NT theology at Duke University: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9405/articles/revessay.html

It's pretty irreverent, but that will make it all the more enjoyable for you.

3) Read
The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History (Paperback)
by C. Stephen Evans "

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Christ-Jesus-Faith-Incarnational/dp/019826397X/sr=8-1/qid=1163791939/ref=sr_1_1/104-5583102-2155936?ie=UTF8&s=books

Book Description
The story of Jesus of Nazareth, as recounted in the New Testament, has always been understood by the church to be historically true. It is an account of the life, death, and resurrection of a real person, whose links with history are firmly signalled in the creeds of the early church, which affirm that Jesus `suffered under Pontius Pilate'. Contemporary historical scholarship has, however, called into question the reliability of the church's version of this story, and thereby raised the question as to whether ordinary people can know its historical truth. This book argues that the historicity of the story still matters, and that its religious significance cannot be captured by the category of `non-historical myth'. The commonly drawn distinction between the Christ of faith and Jesus of history cannot be maintained. The Christ who is the object of faith must be seen as historical; the Jesus who is reconstructed by historical scholarship is always shaped by commitments of faith. A reconsideration of the Englightenment epistemologies that underlie much historical scholarship shows that historical knowledge of this story is still possible. Such knowledge can be inferential, based on historical evidence. A careful look at contemporary New Testament studies, and the philosophical and literary assumptions upon which it rests, shows that this scholarship should not undermine the confidence of lay people who believe that they can know that the church's story about Jesus is true.

Product Details
Paperback: 400 pages
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (May 9, 1996)
ISBN: 019826397X

IF you want to approach this issue not from the point of view of a theologian, but of a philosopher, this is the book for you. I find it fascinating that in our day it is the philosophers who are upholding the historical truth of the gospels, and the theologians who are denying it!

4) Read:

The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. By Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright. HarperSanFrancisco. 288 pp. $24.

Contained herein is a fascinating conversation, carried out in essay form, between what might be called the two reasonable poles of historical research on the person of Jesus. Wright represents the pole which claims that historical accuracy about Jesus can be grasped only through the premises of faith and theology; Borg, at the other end, is convinced that historical testimony is valid only insofar as it can be cleansed of distorting confessions of postEaster faith. It is difficult to imagine a book that lays out more carefully, calmly, and rationally the basic disputes in Jesus research today than this thorough and accessible scholarly exchange.


-----------------------------------------------------
By now it is obvious to you that I do not share the Enlightenment presuppositions that many theologians are still working with. In order to answer Jesus' question, "Who do you say I am?" in a mature manner, I cannot see how anyone can avoid thinking about their metaphysical and epistemological commitments. One of the (few) good things about postmodernism is that it forces us to address those issues.

By my lights, it takes about a century for the ideas of the philosophers to filter down to the theologians. If that is indeed true, it will be interesting to see what the next century of biblical scholarship looks like. I predict that postmodernism will challenge the once-monolithic enterprise of the historical-critical method. Of course, it will also challenge traditional Christian orthodoxy. What will not change is the question, "who do you say I am?" (Matt. 16:15-17).

Blessings in Him,

Beth