Mark Goodacre has penned a very thoughtful and useful oped article on the inevitability of ignorance in historical Jesus research, whilst acknowledging scholarly tendency to deny such ignorance. Historical Jesus research isn’t my area, but I wonder how this article might be applied to systematics and pastoral theology. Here’s an excerpt (with my comments and emphases):
It may be that we seldom reflect on this fact because the ideological investment in Jesus affects our historical research on him [Hmm... maybe I'm one-sided but I can't help but wonder if this applies more to those who seek to undermine Christianity than those who seek to defend it?]. Those ideological interests are, of course, many and varied, but the same kind of optimistic assumptions about the data set are shared by those from different ends of the spectrum, from those whose faith commitment compels them to regard the scriptural deposit as definitive, to those who look to a range of materials and methods in a bid to reconstruct a Jesus who is uncongenial to later Christian orthodoxy [Critically... note that Historical Jesus research can be hijacked to reproduce an uncongenial Jesus, but that it need not. Both those who regard scripture as true in all it affirms and those who deny scripture's authenticity are able to engage in what they regard to be an authentic "Quest for the Historical Jesus".]
Let me illustrate the kind of thing I am talking about. According to almost everyone, one of the most certain things that we can know about the historical Jesus is that he was a disciple of John the Baptist. This is bedrock stuff and anyone familiar with Jesus research will know all about why. As it happens, I am inclined to agree with this; I suspect that Jesus did indeed have an association with John the Baptist and that it was important, in some way, in his development [This seems to be a point of agreement between the two extreme camps as well, being affirmed by the Lucan infancy narratives among other pericopes.]. But how important was John the Baptist, as an influence on Jesus, in comparison to other people? We know about the link between the two men because John the Baptist was himself famous — Josephus devotes more time to him than he does to Jesus. So the tradition remembers and underlines the association between the two men. [Well, yes. To an extent I agree: but tradition also affirms the influence of "The Holy Family" - Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Joachim and Anne. But Goodacre's point still stands.]
But our influences are seldom solely other famous people. Perhaps the major influence on Jesus was his grandfather, whose fascination with Daniel 7 informed Jesus’ apocalyptic mindset. Or perhaps it was Rabbi Matia in Capernaum who used to enjoy telling parables drawn from local agriculture. Or perhaps it was that crazy wandering Galilean exorcist Lebbaeus who used to talk about casting out demons by the Spirit of God. [These last three possibilities are particularly powerful: they underline the humanity of Jesus in the context of a vastly pluriform first century Judaism.] The fact is that we just don’t know. We can’t know. Our knowledge about the historical Jesus is always and inevitably partial. If we take the quest of the historical Jesus seriously as an aspect of ancient history, we have to admit that many of the key pieces must be missing. [I don't disagree. But what if we are engaging in the quest for the historical Jesus as part of a quest attempting to "do theology" - specifically Christology or Soteriology - rather than history? Are the pieces still missing? Perhaps not.]
The problem is that we are in denial. [Yes! But are we alone? Isn't this denial the very same hangover from the enlightenment with its vastly over-optimistic emphasis on the abilities of human intellect and will?] We simply do not want to admit that we do not have all the data we need to paint a complete picture of the historical Jesus. Good scholarship is sometimes born from a desire to fill in the gaps, and informed speculation can be a virtue. ["Informed Speculation" is an interesting concept: how informed, and informed by what? Is there any reason why historical Jesus research cannot be informed by the fidei depositum of Tradition and Magisterium?] But over-confidence born out of an unrealistic expectation [There are clearly unrealistic expectations placed on both theologians and historians: we will never be able to answer all the questions.] of the evidence will make future generations wonder what we were playing at. [Indeed. Will future generations look back at two centuries of historical Jesus research and wonder why theologians did not simply accept the ambiguities and focus on the Jesus of faith, the person of the Christian confession rather than the man of Nazareth?]
I thoroughly appreciated Goodacre’s piece, which is a refreshingly honest appraisal of the state of historical Jesus research. There is a profound unwillingness amongst theologians en generale to admit and accept our inability to provide exhaustive answers to the pressing questions of life. Indeed, there are some questions which theology cannot, and ought not, attempt to answer. Theological activity seems only to limit the scope of the thought area that can be defined as “Orthodoxy” without actually providing any definitive and exhaustive statements of its own.
