The Historical Jesus and the Trinity

For some reason, I've gotten the sense from my evangelical peers and leaders that Jesus as a historical figure is suspicious--not legitimate in the way that Jesus as a Biblical figure (and the epicenter of the Christian faith) is. This kind of reasoning seems to create an us-versus-them dichotomy. Often, I think we get the idea that trusting accounts of the historical Jesus would be like (and this is an extreme example, as most examples are) reading an account of the Revolutionary War from the British perspective. It would be distorted and suspect. But then again, we would probably be better off treating our own accounts of the Revolutionary War in the same critical way.

I've tended to accept this argument, thinking that secular (and incredibly knowledgable) Bible scholars don't have the authority to talk about Jesus if they don't believe in him. I realize this is a bit silly because "believing" in Jesus isn't really an issue. Historically, Jesus existed, just like Mohammed and Mother Theresa and Santa Clause (fact check?).

I suppose much of this uneasiness comes from the notion that if you don't know Jesus spiritually, you couldn't possibly know him historically. Plus, I think many Christians don't feel the need to know Jesus historically. Or they think that the Jesus presented in the canonical Bible is all they need to know. Sure, that may be enough, but if you're pursuing the kind of relationship with God that Jesus clearly had with God in the Bible, I feel like you'd want to know Jesus through as many sources as possible.

What I'm getting at is that in the last few months, I've developed a whole new kind of uneasiness. I've found that knowing Jesus spiritually is pretty daunting if I don't know Jesus historically. I want to know everything there is to know about Jesus' life, and it shouldn't matter whether that information comes from the Bible or from one of the countless other texts that document his life and its context--as long as I read them critically.

Reading about the historical Jesus is entirely strange and fascinating and scary. It's forced me to refine my filter, to consider Jesus outside the realm and rhetoric of the Christian faith. And I know I've already experienced growth because of it. There are certain things I've learned that have made me feel uncomfortable. Many of these things seem obvious, but because of the way the religion has developed, Christianity has made it easy to sidestep them.

Previously, I never gave much thought to how the Biblical canon was formed. Finding out that the gospels were written several decades after the death of Christ made me uncomfortable at first. It's not like there was a stenographer scribe present at all the disciples' social and work functions. So it is misleading to view the gospels as historical and 100 percent accurate accounts of the ministry of Jesus. Yes, this was uncomfortable. But then it was affirming. After all, I believe in the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.*

I'm going to wrap up this rather lengthy post by sharing an example of how this "spirit-over-letter" attitude has freed me to embrace a more spiritual perspective. I love the image and meaning of the trinity. Recently, however, I've come to understand that Jesus' divinity was not a truth that Christianity has since made it to be. Historically, Jesus didn't claim divinity. This kind of messes with the trinity--God, the Spirit, and Jesus as one and three parts.

But this doesn't bother me because the symbolism of the trinity remains. Jesus was in relationship with--in community with--the Spirit and God. That's what the trinity is, really. A community. And because Jesus modeled that relationship and because I can learn about that relationship through the Bible and through other accounts of Jesus' life, I can also be part of the trinity, part of that community. I love that I can continue to be part of that truth regardless of its actuality.

In case you're wondering what's on my bookshelf right now, I'm reading Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg.

*More on this in a future post.