The Apologetic Value in the "Search for the Historical Jesus"

In an article that was posted on "Christianity Today" (Sept. 2010) entitled "The Jesus We'll Never Know" Scot McKnight- New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, theologian, speaker, author and blogger- admits the difficulties inherent in finding the objective, historical truth about Jesus so long after these events took place.

"Historical Jesus scholars reconstruct what Jesus was like by using historical methods to determine what in the Gospels can be trusted."

That statement and the following admissions clearly outline the shift from trust in the authority of Scripture to the authority of historical analysis according to autonomous humanity and all its attendant danger of subjectivity. But to be fair, that was the reasoning for the "search for the historical Jesus"  in the first place- because scholars felt that the early Christians had inflated Jesus and were guilty of hyperbole or other inaccuracies. Finding in our own times, that people always project onto Jesus what they would like him to be like, this attitude assumes that the "real" Jesus was similarly obscured by those who encountered him in the flesh. What, or rather whom, they are seeking is the "uninterpreted" Jesus.  In his own words:

"To one degree or another, we all conform Jesus to our own image."

"The historical Jesus is the Jesus whom scholars have reconstructed on the basis of historical methods over against the canonical portraits of Jesus in the Gospels of our New Testament" 

"Most historical Jesus scholars assume that the Gospels are historically unreliable..."

The movement, known for it's search for the "historical Jesus" has been associated with such names as: Robert Funk, Ben F. Meyer, E. P. Sanders, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, and N. T. (Tom) Wright.  What was generally common to these scholars was the fact they studied the historicity of Jesus in the same way and by the same criteria as one would study Alexander the Great or any other great figure of history. Literary criticism, or higher criticism discounted largely the inspiration and authority of the scriptures and looked upon them as documents needing the historical method for verification.

While we may vehemently disagree with the shift from the authority of scripture to trusting in the authority of historical analysis alone what is important to notice is that essentially the historic analysis does not disagree with scripture on any vital points, it in fact coheres on all the salient points as far as these events are historically testable. What we therefore need to "fill in" are those questions like- Why? For what motive? To accomplish what?

So I venture to ask this question: What apologetic value might we glean from these studies?

Scot McKnight offers this as a summary of the many years of scholars lives that have been spent on this research for the "historical Jesus":

"This is what I said to myself: As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he thought his death was atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. But one thing the historical method cannot prove is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification. At some point, historical methods run out of steam and energy. Historical Jesus studies cannot get us to the point where the Holy Spirit and the church can take us. I know that once I was blind and that I can now see. I know that historical methods did not give me sight. They can't. Faith cannot be completely based on what the historian can prove. The quest for the real Jesus, through long and painful paths, has proven that much."

While that might seem an admission of failure to reach the lofty goal of an uninterpreted Jesus, far from being able to define the real Jesus, what he does say is fitting and maybe just exactly conforming to the extent that God chose to reveal by historical analysis. In the end specifically historical studies that do not- as a given- accord the scripture with spiritual authority will only reveal so much. The rest God must provide by way of revelation. But what we are assured of as historically proven is certainly valuable:

• Jesus lived.
• Jesus died
• His own view of the reason for his death was atonement.
• There was an empty tomb.
• The resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb.

If that much is historically significant then surely faith is not too big a leap, and certainly not without evidence!
In this regard I like what Ravi Zacharias has written in his book: A Shattered Visage- The Real Face of Atheism

"God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, and He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone"

Scot McKnight is professor of religion at North Park University in Chicago, and the author of many books, including The Jesus Creed.