Bird’s List

I have been sitting on this link to Michael Bird for a while now but I really do love this list of things about the historical Jesus.

First, the notion that Jesus was unconcerned with theology, or that to find a historical Jesus we must remove all theology is ludicrous. It would be tantamount to saying that to understand Jackson Pollack we must remove all artistic references to be positively sure that we are only talking about Pollack. What is left when you’ve removed what that person is chiefly interested in? Not much.

I will just quote another one of Bird’s statements which is in lock step with that:

The task of the Gospels is to narrate the gospel of Jesus as part of Israel’s history and religious literature and in light of the church’s witness to Jesus and worship of Jesus.

The gospels plainly attempt to do just that. So, to deny them any ability to do so based on other-worldly criterion is a waste of time. You might as well look for gold in a coal mine.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with his conclusions:

a. The historical Jesus is not the presupposition to a New Testament Theology, rather, it is the prolegomena to a theology of the Tetraevangelium.

Without the first Word there are no gospels, and that first Word must be spoken first. Only then may other words and theologies be put forth – the four gospels.

The historical Jesus is the attempt to explain why there was a church with four Gospels in the first place.

Jesus can never be less than that figure. He exists unequivocally as the causality for the Church. Any attempt to understand him as not being that catalyst is woefully ignoring the evidence.