In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

6 [105–146] On the Historicity of the Gospels A Contribution to Current Discussion on the Historical Jesus 1. The Gospels and the historical Jesus With respect to its methodological presuppositions and the approach based upon them, historical Jesus research belongs to the science of history: it analyses the historical materials1 that are available and on this basis draws pictures of the historical person of Jesus. The new orientation in recent years has stressed this character of Jesus research. It has distinguished between a theological interest in Jesus and the method that a historical presentation has to follow.2 This presents a new approach over against earlier phases insofar as in earlier analysis the theological dimension of the Jesus question mostly stood at the center.3 In contrast with this, recent Jesus research has rightly insisted that the theological and historical questions have to be distinguished: a theology that is critically accountable to its origins remains directed to its relationship to the science of history, whereas a historical presentation of the person of Jesus must take place independently [106] from the question of how this relates to the grounding of the Christian faith and Christian theology. 1 These could have differing character depending on whether they provide direct witness about the past or alternatively are formed by human beings “for the purpose of recollection.” Cf. the reference to Droysen 1977, 67–100, in chap. 3, n. 10 above (the quotation is from Droysen 1977, 426). From the first category archaeological witnesses from Galilee, which help to disclose the living space of Jesus, are, for example, important for Jesus research; from the latter the presentations of the Gospels are especially important. 2 Cf., e.g., Meier 1999; Crossan 1997; Theissen/Winter 1997, 175–232; 2002, 172– 225 (Part III: The Criterion of Historical Plausibility as a Correction of the Criterion of Dissimilarity). 3 In the nineteenth century this became clear, for example, in the dispute between Strauss and Weisse on the dogmatic foundation of the Christian faith, in the twentieth century especially in the discussion prompted by Bultmann concerning how a presentation of the teaching and activity of Jesus and a theology of the New Testament are to be set in relation to each other. Cf. the in-depth discussion of the latter problem by Lindemann 1975. 96 From Jesus to the New Testament This methodological placement of the Jesus question produces two consequences that are equally important for the current discussion. The first consequence relates to the evaluation of the Gospels as presentations that bear witness to the activity and fate of Jesus.4 In recent research one can discern a clear tendency to grant them the status of historical sources, thus to view their Jesus narratives—beyond the faith convictions that undoubtedly come to expression in them—as also relevant in historical perspective .5 This signifies a turning point in Jesus research to the extent that they were denied this status for quite some time.6 The judgment that the Gospels are ultimately unfruitful for a historical presentation of the activity of Jesus due to their kerygmatic character or their literary presentation can, however , no longer convince. Instead, they are [107] perceived as narratives that are interwoven in diverse ways with the underlying events of the life and fate of Jesus of Nazareth.7 4 Here I mean the gospels included in the New Testament—thus the ones that became canonical—and among these again primarily the Synoptic Gospels. With this, the view that precedence is to be given to these for the historical Jesus question is taken up without thereby denying a source value to the Gospel of John. The question of which writings beyond this should be drawn upon for a Jesus presentation will not be specifically discussed here. It may, however, be noted that the significance of extracanonical texts for historical Jesus research is sometimes overestimated at present. Some of these writings were not interested in a recollecting preservation and interpretation of the activity of Jesus, but present this mostly in interpretative frameworks of mythological or philosophical provenance . Moreover, most of these texts are of a later date than the gospels that made it into the New Testament and in historical perspective secondary in relation to these. In relation to the Nag Hammadi writings, cf. Schröter 1998c; on the whole topic, cf. also Schröter 2010 [2006], 40–68. It should, by contrast, be uncontested that the gospels included in the canon represent the earliest...

Share