|
The thesis advanced in this essay
argues that the diversity characterizing historical Jesus research
constitutes a crisis because it threatens the credibility of historical Jesus
research as a professional, historical discipline by challenging the myth of objectivity
on which the historical profession was itself founded, legitimized, and
sustained throughout much of its history. Attempts by historical Jesus
scholars to address this crisis of diversity are fueled in part by a desire
to maintain the integrity of historical Jesus research as a historical
discipline and its credibility as a professional discipline that has
authority to speak about who Jesus was. My goal will be to problematize the issue of objectivity in historical Jesus
research first by illustrating the central role objectivity has played in the
rise and development of history as a discipline and as a profession and
second by looking at the works of three leading historical Jesus scholars to
consider how their perspectives on the nature of history and the role of the
historian relate to the question of historical objectivity, and thus to the
crisis of diversity.
|
|
As we have seen, the idea and ideal of objectivity was the
myth upon which the historical profession was founded, legitimized, and
sustained throughout much of its history. Though largely dependent upon the concept
of the neutral, unbiased objectivity of the individual, historical objectivity
is not a single concept but a network of ideas and ideals that support and undergird one another. Historical objectivity and the
historical profession have existed in an ongoing symbiotic relationship. The
historical profession relied upon the myth of objectivity for the unity and
stability from which it derived its authority. When the unity of the
historical profession was threatened by diversity, notions of historical
objectivity were threatened as well. Conversely, when objectivity was
challenged, the unity of the profession, along with its credibility and
authority, was also challenged. Historical Jesus research did not arise out
of the wider field of historiography but out of the fields of biblical
studies and theology. Yet, insofar as historical Jesus research has
identified itself as a historical discipline, it has become heir to the
history of the historical profession and to its myth of historical
objectivity. Consequently, the radical diversity that characterizes
historical Jesus research constitutes a crisis because it suggests that
historical conclusions are being heavily influenced by the theological
biases, presuppositions, and agendas of its practitioners and that historical
Jesus research is essentially a theological enterprise in disguise. Thus, the
emphasis that Meier, Crossan, and Wright place upon
the community of scholars and the social mechanisms of a shared method, public
debate, and peer criticism is an attempt to address this crisis of diversity
and is fueled by a desire to maintain the integrity of historical Jesus
research as a historical discipline and its credibility as a professional
discipline that has authority to speak about who Jesus was.
|