Jesus Scholar Final Project
By: Hannah Starnes
What do you think is crucial to know or understand about Jesus?
Which of the views that we looked at give the strongest support to your own view?
Which of the views that we looked at offer the strongest challenge to your own view?
Why does that opposing view not convince you as of this moment?
Areas where you cannot yet explain your own choice, or otherwise you could envision doing further research to plot out your own growth on this topic.
Marcus Borg studied or "viewed" Jesus differently than most of the other scholars did. As stated in the opening sentence of his chapter, he prefers not to talk about "the historical Jesus" as a figure of the past who can be studied apart from religious or spiritual concerns. He also presents a vivid and persuasive description of Jesus in fewer words than some expend on prolegomena, and tries to "go with the flow" of mainstream historical criticism, accepting what most scholars would regard as reliable without proposing novel theories regarding sources or criteria of authenticity. He portrayed Jesus in a few different ways and those few ways were, Jesus as Spirit Person, Jesus as Healer, Jesus as Sage, Jesus as Movement Initiator, and Jesus as the Social Prophet. I do not believe, or understand his ways of studying Jesus this way, all because of how he words and quotes his studies.
At the beginning of the chapter in the "Jesus As a Figure In History" book, it is stated that John Dominic Crossan is one of the most brilliant, engaging, learned, and quick-witted New Testament scholars alive today. He engages in Jesus research for what he calls ethical and theological reasons as well as historical ones. He somewhat and sometimes offers his conclusions "as a challenge within the Christian faith." He studies Jesus in a different way than most scholars do, and he has three levels of operation of studying Jesus. The microcosmic, mesocosmic, and macrocosmic. The microcosmic level involves treatment of literary resources, the mesocosmic level involves historical reconstruction of the place and time in which Jesus lived, and the macrocosmic level involves analysis of the Jesus movement from the perspectives of social and cultural anthropology. These three different levels of operations in studying Jesus should never be taken place. First of all because I do not think that there are these three different ways of studying Jesus, and secondly because all of these things are in the Bible, just not exactly how he words them.
These two scholars really make me want to do further research on them and maybe think about explaining my own choice about if I like and agree with these two scholars or not.