Some Third Quest Views
Some Third Quest Views
The so-called Third Quest includes a diverse range of views, but its dominant expression among scholars today is a recognition of Jesus’ Jewish context.9 This approach represents a significant improvement over most previous discussions, retaining the Jewish (and in the majority of cases the eschatological) emphasis of Weiss and Schweitzer, while reflecting a much fuller understanding of first-century Judaism than was available to earlier generations of scholars.
In practice, this means closer attention to first-century, firsthand Judean sources like the Jewish historian Josephus (despite his Hellenistic apologetic approach) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (despite their sectarian perspective), as well as archaeological and other data. (Even those who portray Jesus as more Cynic than Jewish reflect the trend to take into account Jesus’ environment; they simply choose a different and, in my view, much less plausible environment.) Several “Third Quest” scholars, among them E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, and James Charlesworth, are well known for their work in Jewish sources more generally.
Beyond a common emphasis on reading Jesus in his context, however, these scholars have produced a wide array of views. The Jesus of Richard Horsley is notably political; the distinctive feature of the Jesus of Marcus Borg is more like a mystic or (in cross-cultural terms) a shaman (though he is also prophet and teacher); the Jesus of Geza Vermes is a signs-working prophet like Elijah or Honi; and the Jesus of E. P. Sanders is an eschatological prophet. Naturally, some of these perspectives overlap, and (as some of their proponents acknowledge) they are not all incompatible. For example, those who wanted Jesus killed undoubtedly saw his activity as politically threatening, and shamanism provides a crosscultural rubric for discussing the activity of a prophetic healer. Signs-working and eschatological prophets were also compatible, as some of their proponents concur (although Josephus’ eschatological and politically problematic “sign-prophets” differed starkly from a mere wonder-worker like Honi).
In addition to different pictures of Jesus, scholars pursue different approaches in their scholarly task. N. T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan, for example, synthesize a wide range of other scholarship into (very different) coherent pictures of Jesus’ mission. Whereas they are particularly noteworthy for their skillful big-picture approach, John Meier (like Raymond Brown on Jesus’ passion) focuses on detail, painstakingly and voluminously examining each line of evidence.10 E. P. Sanders works from particular historical data that are undisputed to construct a portrait of what can probably be known about Jesus. Whereas Sanders starts with Jesus’ actions, many others start with his teaching (an approach reflected earlier in e.g., T. W. Manson or Joachim Jeremias). Ideally one would like to synthesize the best of all these approaches, although ideally this could also invite an enormous range of competence (and perhaps a team of scholars working together from complementary angles).
Although not all the “historical Jesus” scholars writing today reflect this emphasis, the third quest on the whole reflects an increasing recognition of Jesus’ Jewish context. While one could have sampled any of the perspectives mentioned briefly above (or others), and I could have surveyed other carefully thought-out approaches below (such as Horsley, Meier, Gerd Theissen, Amy-Jill Levine, or Tom Holmén, among many others), my purpose here is merely to offer some samples, so I have elected to treat only three works here that have been influential in my own continent’s academic circles for some time. The first, Marcus Borg’s approach, is one that could have been placed in the preceding chapter, because he questions Jesus’ eschatology in the traditional sense. Nevertheless, the Jewish context of his basic approach seems sufficient to justify placing it here as well.
The second, the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes, helpfully sets Jesus’ healing ministry in a Jewish context. Because I have deferred most discussion of Jesus’ healing activity for another book, it is helpful for me to introduce the influential approach of Vermes here. Vermes has long been a major voice in scholarship on early Judaism and is among the best-known early scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls. The third is the approach of E. P. Sanders, whose research also leaves its imprint on this book (especially in my understanding of Jesus as an eschatological prophet). Sanders is also well known for his work in early Judaism as well as early Christianity. Despite my affinity for Sanders in most respects (as suggested in the book’s dedication), I shall try to engage what I feel are weaknesses as well as strengths in his approach.11