Is the Quest for the Historical Jesus Historically Possible? Is it Theologically Necessary?

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with Dr. Daniel Harrington S.J. Along with answering the above question, interaction was required with selections from Schubert M. Ogden's The Point of Christology, and John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew.

Thesis: Insofar as we have appropriately defined it, the quest for the historical Jesus is both historically possible and theologically necessary.

“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). This statement by Paul shows the theological necessity of grounding Christology in history. The need for a historical resurrection goes beyond the existential gleanings from vague “Christian-kerygma.”[1] As Ebeling put it, “if faith in him were shown to be a misunderstanding…the ground would be taken out from under Christian faith" (In Ogden, 50). Defining “historically possible” is important. Meier rightly highlights the distinction between the “real” Jesus, which, as with any historical figure, cannot be fully realized, and the “reasonably complete” Jesus, which is historically achievable.[2] The issue of sources, methodology, and historiography are thus to the fore. Contrary to Ogden’s position (Ogden, 54), the sources, primarily the four canonical gospels, do present an accurate depiction of Jesus, albeit laconic and with various theological emphases. Of course the intent of all of the gospel narratives was theological rather than purely historical, however, theologizing within a gospel account does not categorically discredit its historicity. In regard to the methodology of criteria: because of the extreme diversity of opinion among scholars regarding the use, primacy, and limits of the various criteria, it is safe to conclude that they cannot guarantee a pericope as either authentic or inauthentic; they can serve merely as helpful pointers that increase likelihood of authenticity. When they are used too stringently, however, they are limiting and exclusive. The use of criteria must be “more of an art than a science” (Meier, 184).

The philosophy of our collective historiography needs to be examined. Ogden rightly distinguishes between minimalist/maximalist (Ogden, 115), and a healthy middle ground seems to do a scholar well. However, Bultmann’s wholesale minimalist skepticism is most unhelpful, “we can know almost nothing concerning…Jesus” (In Meier, 28). At some point, there needs to be some level of trust in our documents that while theological are also historical. If this trust does not exist, we should not even bother with history, but the greater loss would be a futile faith.

---

[1] Schubert M. Ogden, The Point of Christology (San Francisco; Harper & Row, 1982), 51. (In-text citations from this point on).

[2] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York; Doubleday, 1991), 24. (In-text citations from this point on).

Why Are There So Many Interpretations of Jesus?

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with DR. Daniel Harrington S.J. Along with answering the above question, interaction was required with Gerd Theissen's work The Shadow of the Galilean, which tries to illustrate the "quest for the historical Jesus" in narrative form.

Thesis: Various presuppositions of the interpreter have led to differing interpretations of Jesus’ life and purpose.

Rudolph Bultmann posits that there is no such thing as presuppositionless exegesis.[1] The reason Jesus has such a vast array of interpretations of his life and purpose is because the exegete; whether a modern critical scholar, or a first century zealot, comes to the task of interpretation with varying presuppositions. In The Shadow of the Galilean, Barabbas plays the part of a typical first century zealot. His presuppositions about what the messiah should be and do (overthrow the Romans) disallow him from accepting Jesus’ agenda. His strong sense of political (social) justice, both in terms of overthrowing foreign authorities, and reversing common poverty, is inextricably tied to violence. This precludes him from following Jesus, who falls short of Barabbas’ expectations with “evasiveness” and “want[ing] to take the gentle way”(89)[2] Barabbas’ presuppositions about how the Kingdom of God should function prevents him from understanding Jesus’ true inauguration of the Kingdom.

Andreas, struggles to interpret Jesus’ meaning for his own life. While he tries to be objective, he too wrestles with the purpose of how the messiah would function (139). To complete his commission, he portrays Jesus in existing categories in Roman thought; philosopher and poet. His personal struggle comes when interpreting Jesus as a prophet (138-139), which he conceals from the Romans. When standing on their own, all of the presupposed categories of how Jesus functioned, while true, end up being an incomplete picture of Jesus’ purpose. Metilius, the inquisitive Roman, also interprets with presuppositions; thinking that Jesus and the zealots go hand and hand. It seems he is open to Andreas’ apology but struggles with the implications of Jesus for the Laws of the Jewish faith (150-151).

The correspondence between Theissen and Kratzinger surfaces their own presuppositions, though they are more difficult to decipher in the limited and one sided exchange. Theissen, while trying to be objective in his work, recognizes that he has presuppositions influenced by his own historical context (153).

---

[1] Rudolph Bultmann, “Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?,” in The Hermeneutics Reader (ed. Kurt Mueller-Vollmer; New York, Continuum, 1992), 243.

[2] I use in-text page citations to save space, all coming from Gerd Theissen, The Shadow of the Galilean, (Philadelphia; Fortress Press, 1987).

My Father's Photography

(Given at his outgoing presidential ceremony for GCSAA)

In addition to his love of golf, some of you may know that Jim Fitzroy also loves photography. He is a very talented photographer; capturing the beauty of sunflowers, lighthouses, skylines, golf courses, and many other outdoor works of art. Yet, one of the most special “models” for his camera is his family. Through his pictures, his love for his family is very evident. While I enjoy all of my father’s photography, there are three projects that stand out the most, besides the zillions of lighthouses.

First, recently my father organized a photo album of the Fitzroy family through the years entitled “Gram’s Pictures,” which he gave to all of his children. Some of these photos are Jim Fitzroy originals and others aren’t, but it still was a very special effort on my dad’s part. I enjoyed re-experiencing Easters, birthdays, and Christmases through these pictures. Many of them I uploaded onto Facebook, including one of my favorites, a shot of me in my superman tighty-whities, at about 6 years old. It was especially important for me to relive these childhood memories with the recent passing of Grandma Fitzroy this past June. These pictures reminded me of the special times I got to share with her and the rest of my family.



Another one of my favorite photo projects taken by my dad is one of me holding my son when was only a few weeks old. A similar picture can also be found of my brother holding his son. My dad took this picture knowing how important it is to capture through photography the love and joy a father has for his son.

A final photography project of my dad’s that I love is a series of 3 pictures of my son Gabriel at 15 months that captures his personality perfectly, happy, curious, and a little mischievous. I think it is through my father’s photography that his personality too can be seen. He has a good sense of humor, often throwing in digs to my wife about being a Yankees fan, but he also can be really sentimental and serious. He is family oriented and loves people, yet he also can appreciate the peace and solitude of nature.

Dad, your photography is very special to all of us. I love you. I am proud of you, and I wish I could be there for your special day.

My Philosophy of Christian Education

Let my teaching fall like rain

and my words descend like dew, 

like showers on new grass,

like abundant rain on tender plants.

Dt. 32:2 

My philosophy of Christian education has been shaped by my personal experience in theological education as a student and from serving in Christian education professionally. Throughout these experiences, I have crafted a working definition of Christian education that I implement as my mission as an educator:

“Christian education is the process by which an institution informs and transforms its members for the glory of God and to bring His glory forth. It is when a “teacher” intentionally comes alongside a “student” (partnering with the family) to facilitate learning, in the head, the heart, and the will. This will become the foundation of further learning, ministry, other Christian leadership, and the spread of the Gospel of Christ to fulfill the Great Commission and display the Kingdom of God.” 

Sadly, the term “education” can sometimes conjure archetypal images of a 1920’s classroom with a boring instructor in the front of the class, droning on about Homer, while her uniformed students fall asleep on their wooden desks. In Christian education, our definitions and models cannot be reduced simply to passing along the important content and information. Christian education needs to be transformative. It is especially sad when Christian educators settle for a status quo vision of education instead of striving for the goals in the above definition. My goal as a Christian educator is to work towards constructing an educational process which is transformative, as well as informative, both for the teacher and student. 

As a Christian educator, I have the immensely important opportunity and privilege of being an example of faith for my students and to “come alongside” them to encourage transformation and growth through the process of the curriculum and extracurricular mentoring. The great model for this is, of course, the incarnation of Christ. When I as the educator walk alongside of the student, we share in life; in Christian community with Christ. Both parties therefore, are learners in Christ. My greatest goal as a Christian educator is to embody this image of both the teacher and student being active participants in the educational process. The pedagogical approaches that I tend towards in the classroom not only are extremely effective for educating but also excellently reflect these goals!

I seek to provide the best pedagogical practices, challenge my students with high expectations, and expect that they will rise to that challenge. I believe that student participation is instrumental in the learning process and is invaluable to students as they seek to deepen their level of understanding on the subject at hand. However, I believe that participation goes far beyond an attentive brain or occasional raised hand. Teaching unengaged students is the same as teaching an empty room. I hope to cultivate a freedom in the classroom that allows for an intellectual curiosity to find truth and understanding. It is my hope that by cultivating this intrinsic curiosity it will pervade the students’ academic experience with the curriculum in my classroom. 

I am fully committed to Christian education! As I have discerned God’s call on my life to be a Christian educator, and as a person who has seen and experienced the goals of Christian education in my own life, I desire to help others experience transforming education in the name of Jesus Christ. I endeavor to serve with the Christian educative community at large, as it works as an arm of God’s universal Church, to raise the next generation of transformed people to be Christian leaders, deep thinkers, love bringers, and world changers. I strive to use the content of the course, not simply to teach the content of the course, but rather, to lead students in the “Great Curriculum” of living life unto the Lord. I desire to become a co-participant with my students in the endeavor of learning; seeking to accomplish the above goals of Christian education; that by our inquiry, God would glorified, and that His glory would be brought forth through the spread of the Gospel of Christ to fulfill the Great Commission and to display the Kingdom of God!

Soli Deo Gloria! 
Peter T. Fitzroy 
February 26, 2018

Article Theology in the Fourth Gospel

The last chapter of the Fourth Gospel (excluding the redactional 21^st chapter) provides critical readers with a fine example of “prominence” in Greek grammar. The English word “the” is perhaps the most ubiquitous, rivaled only by “a.” But in Greek, this little article plays a role in the foundation of our understanding of the entire grammatical system.

The example here is the issue of prominence, meaning the character or subject which the author wants to bring to the foreground of the narrative. In John 20 for example, the author uses the article to establish prominence for the character of Jesus. The primary example of this is at the end of the chapter. When Jesus is present with his disciples, or is the person speaking, his name appears with the article, rendered literally as “the Jesus.” But when Jesus is not present in the narrative the author chooses not to employ the article. Another example of this can be found in verse 2. Speaking of Jesus in past time, the author does not include the article, as Jesus is not prominent at this point in the narrative.

The only exception to this rule serves as a window to view the author’s theology and literary prowess. In verse 15 when Jesus does speak, according to this idea, there should be an article with his name. However, at this point in the narrative, Mary’s eyes had not been opened to Jesus yet; from her perspective, he is still merely the gardener, and hence not a prominent character. Only after Mary realizes that the man is Jesus does the article appear again with his name when he speaks in verse 17. Let us marvel at the artistry by which the author has constructed his theology, that even the word “the” can serve to advance his theological ideas.