C. Stephen Evans, a philosopher from Calvin College, approaches the study of the historical Jesus from a distinctly philosophical perspective. Most of the book is devoted to clearing away the numerous philosophic presuppositions that had hindered some from accepting a traditional understanding of Jesus.
...
Read more...
C. Stephen Evans, a philosopher from Calvin College, approaches the study of the historical Jesus from a distinctly philosophical perspective. Most of the book is devoted to clearing away the numerous philosophic presuppositions that had hindered some from accepting a traditional understanding of Jesus. For example, Evans discusses the enlightenment epistemology of Immanuel Kant and David Hume, arguing that the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions of the enlightenment had collapsed. Evans argues that much of modern critical scholarship is based on outdated philosophical assumptions, and that the time had come to rethink the problem of the historical Jesus from a more modern perspective (14-26).Evans analyzes the idea of gospels as myth focusing on Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis and Bultmann. According to Evans, Bultmann had uncritically adopted the enlightenment mindset. Evans discussed whether the various logical or philosophical attacks on the atonement and incarnation doctrines were valid. According to Evans most arguments against the historical nature of the incarnational narrative rested on modern epistemologies that had been discredited. After examining various theories of atonement and incarnation, Evans concluded that there were no good reasons to think that the incarnational narrative was logically or philosophically impossible (116-137). Evans then argued at some length that there was no good reason why accounts containing references to miracles should have been dismissed simply due to the supernatural elements. Evans interacted with Lessing, Kant, Witgenstein, Hegel, Frei, and Troeltsch, concluding that it was improper to dismiss a narrative as unhistorical simply due to the presence of miracles (Evans 1996, 135-202).Evans continued by evaluating various epistemological systems, e.g. Skepticism, Classical Foundationalsim, coherentism, and the anti-realism philosophy of Wittgenstein. Evans then seemed to argue for a view of a modified form of foundationalism, holding that some beliefs were basic, though fallible, in the sense of not being grounded in other beliefs. These basis beliefs were then to be defended, modified or possibly given up, upon reflection and analysis on the attacks of others (225-130).The book had very little to do with a historical reconstruction of Jesus himself, but is an excellent introduction to the philosophical issues surrounding the historical study of Jesus. Evans argued that the incarnation, atonement, and miracles are not philosophically illogical or impossible and he made a good case for reexamining the foundations of Enlightenment epistemologies on which much historical Jesus research is based.
