Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Jennifer Heise

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Andrew Scrimgeour

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Marxsen recommends that the term, "the historical Jesus," be used and defined in keeping with Reimarus's use and definition – -- according to which it refers to Jesus as he actually was before anyone ventured any interpretation of him (cf., e.g., Jesus and Easter: 16).

My problem with this recommendation is that it collapses the – -- for certain purposes – -- important distinction between "Jesus as he really was" and "the historical Jesus," i.e., "the actual Jesus" and "the Jesus that is now recoverable by historical means" (cf. Van A. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer: 266).

Accordingly, I use and define "the historical Jesus" (more exactly, "the empirical-historical Jesus," as distinct from "the existential-_historical Jesus") to mean "the actual Jesus of the past insofar as he is knowable to us today by way of empirical-historical inquiry using the writings of the New Testament as sources" (_The Point of Christology: 44).

21 February 2000