Abstract
This article reviews a number of psychologically informed studies of Jesus in view of the criteria pertaining to psychobiography. It argues that the studies have produced divergent interpretations of Jesus because of a lack of data and the nature of the sources. This is especially true of these studies as they used psychological approaches based on childhood experiences. The framework for psychobiography also allows for the use of other methods that are more concerned with religious adults in coping situations. These may be applied to explore theories about the psychological development of the adult Jesus. The article shows also that the use of the New Testament sources also implies assumptions with regard to the nature of these sources and the people who had produced those sources.
Highlights
In the past ten years, I have been fascinated by the potential of psychobiography in the search for the historical Jesus
I was especially impressed by the work of William McKinley Runyan (1982), but he left me with the strong impression that in Jesus’ case there is probably not enough material for a good psychobiography, especially if one takes a Freudian perspective
Psychological method and the historical Jesus or of certain aspects of his life story, such as the effects he had on others
Summary
In the past ten years, I have been fascinated by the potential of psychobiography in the search for the historical Jesus. Psychological method and the historical Jesus or of certain aspects of his life story, such as the effects he had on others. Harold Ellens and Wayne Rollins (2004) gave us four volumes packed with essays on psychology and biblical studies. The fourth volume contains fourteen contributions related to the psychological study of the historical Jesus. In this article,[2] I want to assess where we stand from a methodological perspective: Can we write a good psychobiography of Jesus? How can psychological methods make a contribution to the study of the historical Jesus and the movement he gave rise to? In this article,[2] I want to assess where we stand from a methodological perspective: Can we write a good psychobiography of Jesus? And how can psychological methods make a contribution to the study of the historical Jesus and the movement he gave rise to?
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
