dear ester

Is
the absence
of non-Christian documents
an insuperable obstacle to learning
about the life
of Christ?

When a religious
genius appears within an environment
that allows the precise documentation of his development
and the circumstances of his life, there is always a temptation to try to uncover the psychological background leading to this religious phenomenon. However, such psychological studies
are often unsatisfactory, because the Spirit blows where it wills. This is especially true
of personalities who themselves are possessed by the Spirit. For example,
who would dare to attempt a psychological
analysis of the mystery
of Saint Francis?

Our inability
to provide a psychology of Yehoshua
that would not sound a jarring note arises not so much from the type of sources at our disposal,
as from the nature of his personality. Even if objective documentation is plentiful,
the most genuine sources concerning a charismatic personality are his utterances
and the account of the faithful -
read critically, of course.

Together
with these,
the testimony of outsiders
serves as a control! Two modern examples?
All that is significant about Joseph Smith (1805-1844),
founder of the Mormons, can be learned mostly from his words and from Mormon documents.
There is also the case of the African, Simon Kimbangu, who perfermed miracles of healing
in the Belgian Congo from March 18 to September 14, 1921.
He died in exile in 1950
...

Following the Christian model,
his followers believed him to be the Son of God,
but the documents do not make it clear what he thought of himself.
Because of the brevity of his public activity, no unequivocal answer can be given to the question
of his own self-assessment. This mystery of his self-awareness has not been resolved!
The testimony of the Belgian authorities in the Congo is as helpful in his case
as are the archives of the governor Pontius Pilate ot the records
in the chancellery of the high priest
in Yeshu's case.

The early
Christian accounts
about Yeshua are not as
untrustworthy as some scholars today often think:
the first three Gospels not only present a reasonable faithful picture of JC as a JEW of his own time,
but they even consistently retain his way of speaking about the Savior in the third person. An impartial reading of the Synoptic Gospels results in a picture not so much of e redeemer of mankind,
but of a Jewish miracle worker and preacher. There can be liitle doubt
that this picture does not do full justice
to the historical JC.

Obviously
such a picture did not require
the Resurrection experience of the post-
Easter church before it could be portrayed:
a series of miracle legends and sermons certainly
cannot be interpreted to constitute a "kerygmatic" preaching of faith
in the risen and glorified Lord, as most present day scholars and theologians still seem to suggest.
The only Gospel that teaches a post-Easter Christology is the "Gospel according to Saint John", and
it is of less historical value than the three Synoptic Gospels. The Yehoshua portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels is, therefore, the historical Yeshua, not the "kerygmatic Christ!" I love that original picture
more than any later paintings by all kinds of heathen believers & strange bedfellows, but
any value is better than no value at all! In other words: mankind is interesting as this
many splendoured thing of love, patience, insight, amazement, wonder, awe,
curiosity, faithfulness, tenderness
& loving
care.

Sleep well,
dream sweet, &
tell us all about it tomorrow
if you really want to do so:
we'll make it all
fit together
...