Toto

Jesus And the Origins of the Gentile Mission (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Michael F. Bird (The price is rather breath-taking; Eisenbrauns is having a sale, where it is reduced to $91.)

I came across this on a Catholic blog while looking for something else.

From part II of the review
This is, um, helpful, or at least helpful to know that we are post-Enlightenment. (Where did that light go?)

So, the "historical Jesus" is defined as what happens when a community of readers interact with a text, making it pointless to inquire as to whether Jesus existed. And "authenticity" doesn't mean authentic, but just that the scholar in question is using the grammar of a particular community of readers, part of the in-group identification, like a gang signal.

Is this clear?

I thought so.

Solitary Man

I disagree with Michael Bird on a number of issues, but I fail to see where exactly your criticism is coming from?

Toto

Maybe it's not a criticism, but this seems to remove the issue of whether Jesus was a historical figure by redefining the term so that it is essentially meaningless.

And it accepts that the criteria of authenticity have nothing to do with authenticity.

Do you see something a little off about this?

aa5874

This Michael F Bird appears to be a Christian, and I expect Christians to claim that Jesus was a figure of history.

See http://liftedveil.com/

aChristian

Hi,
I doubt that this man is a Christian although I have never heard of him before. The quotation you gave indicates that he doesn't trust the NT accounts of Jesus.

"The 'historical Jesus' is not a positivistic or objective history of Jesus, but it comprises a fallible portrait of Jesus that emerges from dialogue with the textual history of early Christianity and in partnership with other readers of this history."
Next, he explains a key problem: the primary purpose of the Gospels was to "convey the meaning and significance of Jesus for readers in the Graeco-Roman world, and not to write a life of Jesus which can cater to the interests of post-Enlightenment historiography."

If he is a Christian, he is just blindly believing something his mind says is untrue. I don't think that is wise or honors God in any way.

You are correct when you say that Christians believe Jesus was a figure of history. Christians as the Bible defines them do believe this. As Paul said, "If Christ is not risen from the dead, our faith is in vain".

Toto

But what does "Christian" mean in a post-Christian, post-Enlightenment world where words can be redefined so they lose any apparent meaning?

Or is Bird just playing the academic game and using words that are more acceptable to the academy, while handling snakes in his personal life?

DCHindley

Stephen D Moore, in Post Structuralism and the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1994, confesses that for a time he found the "new literary criticism" of the New testament (mainly Narrative Criticism coupled with Reader-Response Criticism) to be a way out of the dissonance he felt after his adoption of Historical Criticism some years beforehand. "Soon, however, a sneaking suspicion began to creep up on me ...: What if narrative criticism were actually a retreat from the critical rigor of historical scholarship? What if its not inconsiderable success were due to a widespread weariness with 'the unrest and difficulty for Christian piety' caused by centuries of historical criticism?" (Moore, pg. 115).

This suspicion was confirmed, he felt, by Mark Allan Powell's What is Narrative Criticism? (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1990). In a footnote Moore quotes Powell as cautioning that "we should be careful, however, not to disparage historical criticism simply because it raises questions that are difficult for people of faith. The struggles that historical-critical investigation engender are significant for theological growth. Employment of narrative criticism as a means of avoiding difficult or controversial issues represents, in my mind, a misuse of methodology." (Moore, pg. 116). However, Moore feels this caution is more than offset by statements that Narrative Criticism is quite compatible with "the interests of believing communities." It "is especially attractive to those who have been uncomfortable with the challenges posed by historical criticism." (Powell, pg. 88) To illustrate his uneasiness, Moore further quotes Powell: "By interpreting texts from the point of view of their own implied readers, narrative criticism offers exegesis that is inevitably from a faith perspective." (88-89)

DCH

aChristian

I agree with you that that is a problem. That's why I had to add "as the Bible defines it" in my post.

Gamera

It means that you don't worry about jaded arguments about historicity (since historicity is a modern concept reliant completely on texts), but rather accept the gospel, not as empirical "truth" but as a narrative that it tranformational.

Christianity is a narrative, not a series of truth statements.

This guy sounds interesting to me and thanks for the reference. He's on target with my own research and writing.

Gamera

Narrative theology isn't trying to overturn doctrinal Christianity, but in an odd way save it. Basically narrative theology posits that narrative is one way (an under utilized way) to understand the God posited in the Christian scriptures. It is hardly radical. It attempts to supplement and "preserve" Christian doctrine by embedding it in narratives.

In contrast, true postmodern Christians would claim that the discourse of historical Christianity is a waste of time, or rather a huge "anti-narrative" placed on top of the gospel narrative, which is rather simple and utterly non-theological. Christianity, from this view (which I calll Narrative Christianity) is a narrative, the gospel, and not theology. Theology is the opposite of the gospel and constitutes a vast garrulous distraction from the gospel narrative.

This recovers the radical nature of Paul's claim that the gospel saves (not Jesus per se, but the narrative about him), and focusses the Christian community away from jejune doctrinal quibbles to issues of what it means to be saved, what it means to sin, what it means to love, and what is Christian identity.