Abstract
In this article a distinction is made between social scientific criticism and historiography. Historiography describes what is unrepeatable, specific and particular. Social scientific criticism is to some extent a phenomenological approach. On a high level of abstraction, it focuses on ideal types. The historiographical quest for Jesus is about the plausibility of a continuity or a discontinuity existing between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. This approach has been broadened by the interdisciplinary application of the results of archaeological, sociohistorical, and cultural anthropological studies of the world of the historical Jesus. But it does not mean that historical-critical research as such is now dismissed. The aim of the article is to argue that social scientific criticism can complement a historical-critical analysis.
Highlights
In this article a distinction is made between social scientific criticism and historiography
The quest for the historical Jesus is about the question “Who was Jesus?” Because of many reasons the writings of the earliest Jesus groups do not give a clear answer to this question
The quest for the historical Jesus implies the plausibility that a discontinuity and/or a continuity could exist between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith as it was witnessed in the writings of the earliest Jesus groups
Summary
The quest for the historical Jesus is about the question “Who was Jesus?” Because of many reasons the writings of the earliest Jesus groups do not give a clear answer to this question. Ethnocentrism occurs where the cultural distance between ancient and modern societies, and among particular cultures in a given period is not reckoned with because of an adherence of irreconcilable cultural phenomena that cannot stand the test of a responsible cross-cultural enterprise It seems that Craffert considers historical criticism as part of modernistic epistemology but social scientific criticism (historical anthropology) as postmodern in. During the last year he has presented other papers and published more articles in which he explained his position in further detail In lights of these works it has become clear to me that Craffert understands historiography from a cultural perspective in such a manner that it implies a total shift from what has been previously understood by exegetes engaged with historical Jesus studies. A similar opinion can be seen in the work of John H Elliott (1993:7): “Social-scientific criticism complements these other modes of critical analysis, all of which are designed to analyze specific features of the biblical texts.”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
