In his Jesus
Remembered, James Dunn makes the following, insightful
observations about the interplay between the study of Jesus and the
study of history:
For those within the Christian tradition of faith, the issue [of
Jesusâ relationship to history] is even more important. Christian belief
in the incarnation, in the events of long ago in Palestine of the late
20s and early 30s AD as the decisive fulcrum point in human history,
leaves them no choice but to be interested in the events and words of
those days. For the incarnation, by definition, means the commitment of
God to self-manifestation in Jesus at a particular time and place within
human history, and thus places a tremendous weight of significance on
certain events in Palestine in the years 28-30 (or thereabouts) of the
common era. Christians cannot but want to know what Jesus was like,
since he shows them what God is like. . . . [T]he new questers of the
third quarter of the twentieth century showed that faith could and does
have a theologically legitimate interest in the history of Jesus. Honest
historical inquiry may be granted insights regarding Jesus which are
crucially (in)formative of honest (self-critical) faith. . . . The point
of [this historical] otherness of Jesus is, in part at least, . . . the
otherness in particular of Jesus the Jewâagain something we âmodernsâ
have forgotten at our cost. Without that sense of Jesus âborn under the
lawâ ( Gal. 4.4), of Christ âbecome
servant of the circumcisionâ ( Rom.
15.8), with historical awareness of what that means in terms of the
particularities of history, then the humanity of Christ is likely to be
lost again to view within Christianity and swallowed up in an
essentially docetic affirmation of his deity. Although the failures of
earlier lives of Jesus at this point . . . are now widely acknowledged,
the instinctive compulsion to extricate Jesus from his historical
context and to assume his [a-historical,] timeless relevance still has
to be resolutely resisted ( 101â102).
...