a gentleman and a scholar

I read this recently in The Historical Jesus Five Views and wanted to quote it in full. It is a quote by James Dunn in his response to Darrell Bock's essay in the book..

"it is well to remember that historical methodology can only produce probabilities, the probability that some event took place in such circumstances being greater or smaller, depending on the quality of the data and the perspective of the historical enquirer...Those who like 'certainty' in matters of faith will always find this uncomfortable. But faith is not knowledge of 'hard facts'; it is rather confidence, assurance, or trust in the reliability of the data. Probability, we now realize, is much more integral to daily living than was previously understood. So the acceptance of the fact that in historical investigation we are dealing with probabilities rather than certainties should not be so alarming to those of faith as it is sometimes thought to be.

It does seem important to me that those who speak for evangelical Christians grasp this nettle firmly, even if it stings!- it is important for the intellectual integrity of evangelicals. Of course any Christian (and particularly evangelical Christians) will want to get as close as possible to the Jesus who ministered in Galilee in the late 20's of the first century. If, as they believe, God spoke in and through that man, more definitively and finally than at any other time and by any other medium, then of course Christians will want to hear as clearly as possible what he said, and to see as clearly as possible what he did, to come as close as possible to being an eyewitness and earwitness for themselves. If God revealed himself most definitively in the historical particularity of a Galilean Jew in the earliest decades of the Common Era, then naturally those who believe this will want to inquire as closely into the historical particularity and actuality of that life and of Jesus' mission. The possibility that later faith has in some degree covered over that historical actuality cannot be dismissed as out of the question. So a genuinely critical historical inquiry is necessary if we are to get as close to the historical actuality as possible. Critical here, and this is the point, should not be taken to mean negatively critical, hermeneutical suspicion, dismissal of any material that has overtones of Easter Faith. It means, more straightforwardly, a careful scrutiny of all the relevant data to gain as accurate or as historically responsible a picture as possible.

In a day when evangelical even Christian, is often identified with a strong right-wing, conservative and even fundamentalist attitude to the Bible, it is important that responsible evangelical scholars defend and advocate such critical historical inquiry and their work display its positive outcome and benefits. These include believers growing in maturity

* to recognize gray areas and questions to which no clear-cut answer can be given

* to discern what really matters and distinguish them from issues that matter little

* to be able to engage in genuine dialogue with those who share or respect a faith inquiring after truth and seeking deeper understanding.

In that way we may hope that evangelical (not to mention Christian) can again become a label that men and women of integrity and good will can respect and hope to learn from more than most seem to do today.

Amen.