Elisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

AmyMadeleineWalters*

ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenzaandtheQuest

fortheHistoricalJesus

https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0117 receivedApril20,2020;acceptedJuly13,2020

Abstract: ThefeministtheologicalandhistoricalworkofElisabethSchüsslerFiorenzahasbeenmetwith divergingresponses.Forfeministbiblicalscholars,SchüsslerFiorenzaisessentialreading,withevenher worksfromthe1970sand1980sstillstandingaskeyreferencepoints.Formainstream (“malestream”) biblicalscholarship,however,herentirebodyofwritingistypicallyignored,includingwithinhistorical Jesusresearch (HJR),despiteitsvalueinbothproblematisingandadvancingtheso-calledQuestsforthe HistoricalJesus.ByevaluatingandsynthesisingSchüsslerFiorenza’sHJRworkonfundamentalism, feminism,andanti-Semitism,thisarticlesituatestheeffectsofSchüsslerFiorenza’sworkandthe credibilityofhercriticswithintheQuests.WhilethethemesSchüsslerFiorenzaaddresses,suchas feminismandJudaism,arekeyfeaturesoftheThirdQuest,SchüsslerFiorenza’sproposalswithregardto HJR,includingthepoliticsofinterpretation,theshifttomemoryandoralitystudies,andtheevaluationof meaning-makingitself,aretheoreticallycriticalandself-reflexiveinawaywhichtheThirdQuesthas rarelybeen.GiventheemphasisSchüsslerFiorenzaplacesonself-evaluation,andhercriticalexamination oftheworkofherpeersinHJR,oneisledtoconsiderthepossibilitythatherworkmayrepresentaThird QuestCritical-Stream,orevenaFourthQuest.

Keywords: questsforthehistoricalJesus,feministbiblicalscholarship,ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenza, historicalJesusresearch,criticaltheory,feminism,anti-Semitism,fundamentalism

Withacareerspanningover fiftyyears,ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenzahasconsistentlyworkedtoenhance feministstudiesandtheirreceptioninthe fieldofbiblicalstudies.MediAnnVolpeattributesthislifelong worktowardsanequalplaying fieldtoSchüsslerFiorenza’s “struggleforacceptanceinamale-dominated field,” followinghercompletionofRomanCatholictheologicaltrainingattheUniversityofWurtzberg.¹ VolpeconcludesthatatthecoreofSchüsslerFiorenza’sworkis “therecoveryofwomen’svoicesinthe historyofthechurchinadistinctivelyfeminist-theologicalkey.”²This,Iwouldargue,providesan excellentsummaryoftheoverarchingthrustofSchüsslerFiorenza’sscholarlyandpublicwork.However, inthisarticle,Iwillnarrowinonanareawhereherworkhasnotreceivedtheattentionitisdue,assessing SchüsslerFiorenza’splacewithintheso-calledquestsforthehistoricalJesus.AssuchIwilloftenreferto theThirdQuestanditsquesters.³Thisshouldbeunderstoodasreferringtotheperiodbetween1980and



1 Volpe, “ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenza (1938-), ” 712–4.

2 Ibid.,712.

3 Itshouldbenotedearlyonthattherehasbeensomebacklashtowardstheuseofthe “quest” languageinrecentyears.While Iacceptthatitmightbethesourceofsome “confusionanddisagreement,” Imaintainthattheconceptofthe “questforthe historicalJesus” isusefulincharacterisingsomeaspectsofhistoricalJesusresearch,andIwouldarguethatthismakes historicalJesusresearchmoreaccessible.Iagreethatthenamingofthe “OldQuest” and “NoQuest” isinaccurateandunfair,



*Correspondingauthor:AmyMadeleineWalters, TheologyandReligiousStudies,UniversityofNottingham,Nottingham, UnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthernIreland,e-mail:walters.amym@gmail.com

thepresentday,withthequestitselfbeingcharacterisedbythediscoveryandpublishingoftheNag HammadiandDeadSeaScrolls,andanawarenessofthepreviouslyunderestimateddiversityofearly firstcenturyJudaismanditsimplicationsforthestudyofJesus’ historicalcontext.⁴ Thediversityofthemes exploredinSchüsslerFiorenza’shistoricalJesusresearch,andthecriticismherworkhasreceived,makes ithardtoconfineherworktoanyonegenre,orevenquest.

SchüsslerFiorenza ’ smonograph, JesusandthePoliticsofInterpretation ,andtheearlierarticleof thesamenameseektocritiquethestateofhisto ricalJesusscholarshipandtoadvocateforan alternativemethodofstudy.AkeypointofSchüsslerFiorenza ’ scritiqueofhistoricalJesusresearch relatestothetendencyamongThirdQuestschol arstoarguefromtwodistinctstandpoints.The fi rst,a liberalview ( asintheworkofJohnDominicCrossan) ,iscritiquedthrougho utSchüsslerFiorenza ’ s workandsummarisedbyEloiseRosenblattas “ outdatedinitsrelianceonanineteenth - century Europeanidealofmaleness,which ‘ understandsJesusastheexceptionalindividual,charismatic genius,andgreathero. ’”⁵ AKMAdamattemptstocondensethisaspectofSchüsslerFiorenza ’ scritique, pointingtotheconstantbattleinhistoricalJesusresearchbetween “ identi fi cationwithJesus ” ( which encouragesscholarstouseJesus asavehiclefortheirownagenda) andasecondresearchframework, whichseesJesusas “ fundamentallydi ff erent ( thusasasafelydisplacedother ) ”⁶ SchüsslerFiorenza ’ s alternativesolutionisasfollows:

(HistoricalJesusdiscourses) needtoshifttheirtheoreticalfocusandframeofreferenceawayfromtheHistoricalJesus,the exceptionalmanandcharismaticleader,totheemancipatoryDivineWisdommovementofwhichhewasapartandwhose valuesandvisionsdecisivelyshapedhim.⁷

ThisquoteallowsusnotonlytosummariseSchüsslerFiorenza’srelevantscholarshipbutalsotounderstandher placewithinthequestsforthehistoricalJesus.HelenBondidentifiesSchüsslerFiorenzawithintheThirdQuest, describingSchüsslerFiorenza’smethodsasleadingtoapictureofJesusas “awisdomteacherpreachinga radicalegalitarianism,” whichSchüsslerFiorenzatermed “DivineWisdommovement.”⁸ However,Iwouldargue thatlocatingSchüsslerFiorenzawithinthequestsisamorecomplextaskthanitmightseem.

ThenatureofSchüsslerFiorenza’sworkasacriticalscholarmakesidentifyingsimilaritiesbetween herworkandthatofhercontemporariesandpredecessorsmorecomplex,butnotimpossible.Bart Ehrman’s LostChristianities beginswithanaccessiblebreakdownanddescriptionofanumberof apocryphaltexts,ataskwhichaccordingtoJonathanC.P.Birchis “aimedatpopularisingthefact ofancientChristiandiversitywhileproblematisingthewholequestionofscripturalauthority.”⁹ Like SchüsslerFiorenza,EhrmantakesanapproachwhichexposestherealityofChristiandiversity.

 buttotalkabouttheThirdQuestisnottobecomplicitinthisignorance,norisittoagreethat “the firstpartofthetwentieth centuryisaperioddevoidofresearch.” Furthermore,whencharacterisingresearchwithinthecontextofthequests,my intentionisnottosay,forinstance,thathistoricalresearchhas only beenusedintheThirdQuest,orthattheThirdQuestis only interestedinhistoricalresearchasopposedtotheological.Instead,itistonotethattherehasbeenagrowingtrendin historicalresearchwhichhasnowbecomeassociatedwithacertainperiodoftime.SchüsslerFiorenzaisnotthe firstto challengeresearcherstolookbeyondwhatisrecordedbybiblicalauthors;morethan200yearsagoJosephPriestleywas knownforhis “egalitariantendencywhichsoughttobringwomenandthesociallymarginalisedwithinthefold.” Thisisnotto saythatJosephPriestleyisa “ThirdQuester” orthatSchüsslerFiorenza’sworkismoresuitedtothe “OldQuest.” Referenceto the “ThirdQuesters” inthisarticleisintendedtojuxtaposetheworkofSchüsslerFiorenzawiththatofhercontemporariesin ordertoshowhowherworkmightbebettersuitedtoa “ThirdQuestCritical-Stream;” Bermejo-Rubio, “TheFictionoftheThree Quests:AnArgumentforDismantlingaDubiousHistoricalParadigm,” 211–53,222–3,234;Birch, “RevolutionaryContextsfor theQuest:JesusintheRhetoricandMethodsofEarlyModernIntellectualHistory,” 35–80.

4 Bond, TheHistoricalJesus:AGuideforthePerplexed,19.

5 Rosenblatt, “Reviewof JesusandthePoliticsofInterpretation, ” 204–5.

6 Adam, “Reviewof JesusandthePoliticsofInterpretation, ” 419–22.

7 SchüsslerFiorenza, JesusandthePoliticsofInterpretation,21.

8 Bond, TheHistoricalJesus,21.

9 Ehrman, LostChristianities:TheBattlesforScriptureandtheFaithWeNeverKnew,xi–xv;Birch, “CrackingtheCanon:John Toland, ‘Lost’ GospelsandtheChallengetoReligiousHegemony,” 85–112.

Throughoutthisarticle,thereisevidencethatauthorsagreewithSchüsslerFiorenza’sargumentsand thatherworkisnotconsistentlydisputed;despitethis,sheisnotwidelycited.¹⁰ Inlookingatthe relationshipbetweenCrossanandSchüsslerFiorenza,wecouldconcludethatSchüsslerFiorenzaisa ThirdQuesterbutthatherinputisoverlookedfornotaligningwiththeappropriateframework.This argumentIinferfromareadingofSchüsslerFiorenza’scritiqueofCrossan,inwhichshepointsto “the neglectoffeministworkasnottheexceptionbuttheruleinmuchofmalestreambiblicalscholarship” and arguesthatCrossanoverlooksfeministworksimplybecauseitisnotrootedinhisown “methodand reconstructiveframework.”¹¹IndefenceofCrossan,AdampointsoutthatsinceSchüsslerFiorenzaisjust oneofmanyscholarspublishinginapopular field, “howguiltyshouldconventionalscholarsfeelabout overlookingherworkinfavorofthepublicationsofscholarswhoplaybyconventionalrules?”¹²However, IwouldarguethatthisdefenceofCrossanisalso,then,adefenceofSchüsslerFiorenza,giventhat SchüsslerFiorenzadedicatesherworktoexposingthese “conventionalrules” askyriarchal.Incontrastto Adam,RosenblattsupportsSchüsslerFiorenza’sfrustrationatnotbeingcitedmorefrequently,writing, “Theimpatienceoffeministsatmalescholars’ failuretocitewomen’sabundantscholarshipofthelast 20yearsissurelyjustified.”¹³ThediversityinresponsestoSchüsslerFiorenzais,Iwouldargue,testament tothevalue,albeitcontroversial,ofherproposedamendmentstobiblicalscholarship.

SchüsslerFiorenza’sworkspansboththetimeperiodsoftheNewQuestandtheThirdQuest,so,in consideringherplacementwithinthequests,itisimportanttoconsiderherreactionstothemes characteristicofthesemovements.Iwouldarguethatwecoulddisregardthepossibilityoflocating SchüsslerFiorenzawithinthecontextoftheNewQuest,whichischaracterisedbytheuseofvarious criteriainformcriticismandaseparationbetweenJesusandJudaism,forinstancethecriteriaof dissimilaritywhich “seemsalmostengineeredtoproduceaJesusstrangelydislocatedfrombothhisJewish environmentandthechurchwhichfollowedhim.”¹⁴ SchüsslerFiorenzamakesanimportantdistinction betweenthetwoquestsregardingthetoneofanti-Judaisminbiblicalscholarship;shewrites,

IndistinctiontotheOldandNewQuests,theNewestorThirdQuestdoesnotseektoreconstructthehistoricalJesusover andagainst first-centuryJudaismbutseeshimastotallyintegratedintohistimeandculture.¹⁵

Despitethis,SchüsslerFiorenzaarguesthattheThirdQuestisill-equippedtoengageininterreligious dialoguesbecausethediscoursessurroundingthequestersremainkyriarchal.¹⁶ SchüsslerFiorenzatiesher critiqueofthe “dualisticrhetoricsof ‘scientific’ discourseofhistoricalJesusstudies” totheirpromotionof “politicalconservatism,marginalizationofwo/men,andanti-Semitism.”¹⁷ Bycreatingan “either/or” dilemma inhistoricalJesusresearch,ratherthanacceptingthatinbiblicalresearchthereareoftenavastnumberof possiblereconstructions,thesedualisticrhetorics,SchüsslerFiorenzaargues,servetocreatedivisionbetween groupsthatcouldbeunited.Amy-JillLevinespecificallyreferstoSchüsslerFiorenza’sexampleof “Jesusand Judaism,” wherebyscholarswithinthe fieldofbiblicalwomen’sstudiesareledto “arguethatitisnotplausible thatJesusandhisfollowerschallengedthedominantpatriarchalinstitutionsofhistime.”¹⁸ Thisisbasedon theargumentcharacteristicoftheThirdQuestthatJesuswasadevoutJew,andassuchwasTorahobservant – puttinghiminlinewiththecontextofpatriarchythatsurroundedhisera.¹⁹ Thisstance,Schüssler Fiorenzaargues,promotesananti-Jewishargument,sincehistoricallytherehasbeenanemphasison

10 SchüsslerFiorenzaisnotcitedinthemajorworksofJohnP.Meier (AMarginalJew Volume1andVolume4) orDaleAllison (TheHistoricalChristandtheTheologicalJesus).

11 SchüsslerFiorenza, “JesusandthePoliticsofInterpretation,” 343–58.

12 Adam, “Politics,” 421.

13 Rosenblatt, “Politics,” 204.

14 Bond, TheHistoricalJesus,17–8.

15 SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,40.

16 SchüsslerFiorenza, Jesus:Miriam’sChild,Sophia’sProphet,73.

17 Levine, “Reviewof JesusandthePoliticsofInterpretation, ” 110–1.

18 SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,41.

19 Ibid.,40.

presentingJesusasuniqueinpromotingaradicallydifferentethicalmovement.Thisautomaticallyassumes thatJudaismpromotedallthatwhichJesusworkedagainst,exemplifiedinhiswillingnesstoriskdeathin ordertoconfront “ritualisticorlegalisticJudaism.”²⁰ SchüsslerFiorenzaiskeentotackleanti-Semitismin ChristianfeministscholarshipinordertoacknowledgethediversityofSecondTempleJudaismandtoconsider TorahobservanceawayfromtheNewTestamentcontext.²¹Throughusingahermeneuticsofremembrance, SchüsslerFiorenzaencouragesresearcherstoacknowledgeChristianity’sJewishoriginsandtoremember “that thefeministChristianfoundationalstoryisthatofJewishwomenandtheirvision.”²²Rosenblattsummarises SchüsslerFiorenza’swarningforfeministscholars,writing,

FeministapproachestotheNewTestamentmustresistaninnatetendencytoreinscribeanti-Semiticprejudice.Dismissal ofJudaismhappenswhenscholarsopposeJesus’ liberatingrelationshipwithwomenagainstafalseconstructionof “legalistic” ancientIsrael.Feministsmustcarefullymonitortheirowninterpretationsforanti-Semitism.²³

AnotherofSchüsslerFiorenza’skeycritiquesoftheThirdQuestisitspositivism.VolpenotesSchüssler Fiorenza’sproposedshift “intoarhetoricalspaceforinterpretationthatavoidsanysuggestionofa positivisticapproachtobiblicalorhistoricaltexts.”²⁴ RosenblattwritesthatSchüsslerFiorenzachallenges the “falsepresumption” ofsocialscientistsregardingtheobjectivityoftheirdatabeforegoingonto describeSchüsslerFiorenza’sposition:underminingthe “questforproof” andinsteadarguingthatthe “focusshouldbeontheoperationofmemoryitselfasare-constructiveparadigm.”²⁵ Inorderthento underminetheir “questforproof,” SchüsslerFiorenzaadvocatesaresearchapproachbasedonthe “politicsofinterpretation,”“meaning-making,” andmemory.

SchüsslerFiorenza’sproposedshiftto “memory” asatheoreticalframeworkinvolvesmovingtheThird Quest’sframeofreferencefrom “Jesusasanexceptionalhumanbeing” toencouragingscholarstoengage with “memoryinthediscipleshipofequals.”²⁶ BylookingatJesus’ teachingsintermsofwhattheymight havemeantforthepeoplelistening,SchüsslerFiorenzaadvocatestheviewthatis,forher,attheheartof Jesus’ teaching:thatallpeopleareequal.²⁷ Aconsequenceofthisshift,SchüsslerFiorenzaargues,would bethat “onecannolongerholdthatwo/mendidnotinfluencetheJesustraditionsandmovements,” despitethefactthat “religioustextsandtraditionsareformulatedfromtheperspectiveofelitemalesand donotreflecttheperspectiveandexperienceofwomen.”²⁸ Laterinthisarticlesheshowshowthisviewof Jesusasachallengetothebeliefsofhiscontemporariesisoverstatedandhighlightsthehistoricalfactthat Jesuswasnotthe firstchallengetothe “dominantkyriarchalstructuresofsocietyandreligionin antiquity.”²⁹ SchüsslerFiorenzadoesnotgoontodescribeanyofthesealternativemovementsinany detail (anadditionwhichwouldhavebeenappreciated);however,herpointremainsclear – areformer doesn’thavetobe “Godstridingovertheearth” tohaveanemancipatorymessage.³⁰

SchüsslerFiorenza’smemoryframeworkinvolvesputting “practices,systematicstructuresand wo/meninthecenterofhistoricalre-construction,” andthenusingthistobetterunderstandtheJesus movementintermsofwhatitmeantforboththepeopleitdirectlyaffected,andthoseitcontinuestoaffect today.³¹Intheprefaceto Jesus:Miriam’sChild,Sophia’sProphet,SchüsslerFiorenzawritesthatherworkis

20 Ibid.,43.

21 SchüsslerFiorenzacites TheWomen’sBible asasourceofanti-Semitism: “NegativecommentariesaboutJudaismin The Women’sBible areconcentratedindiscussionsoftheso-calledOldTestament,especiallyinrelationtotheclaimoftheJewish peopletobetheelectofG*d.” SchüsslerFiorenza, SharingHerWord (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1998),68.

22 SchüsslerFiorenza, InMemoryofHer:AFeministTheologicalReconstructionofChristianOrigins,107.

23 Rosenblatt, “Politics,” 205.

24 Volpe, “ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenza (1938–), ” 12.

25 Rosenblatt, “Politics;” 204.SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,6.

26 Ibid.,354.

27 SchüsslerFiorenza, BreadnotStone:TheChallengeofFeministBiblicalInterpretation,91–2.

28 SchüsslerFiorenza, Jesus:Miriam’sChild,74.

29 SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,355.

30 Ibid.,354.

31 Ibid.,354.

notnecessarilyofChristologicalvalue;rather,itis “anattempttoscrutinizethelinguisticandtheoretical frameworksthatserveaslensesforreadingScriptureandengaginginfeministChristologicaldebates.”³² SchüsslerFiorenzaisexplicitinarguingthatthistextisnotintendedtoprovideanotherversionofJesusof Nazarethforthequest,butrathertocritiquethetheoreticalframeworksofsuchdiscourses.³³

SchüsslerFiorenzaarguesthatifhistoricalJesusscholarsareabletoengageinan “emancipatorypoliticsof interpretation,” thentheywill “ceasetomaintainscientificdiscoursesofdomination.”³⁴ Thepoliticsof interpretationthuslendsitselftoastudywhichidentifiesthe “meaning-making” attheheartofhistoricalJesus writings,withSchüsslerFiorenzaencouragingscholarstolookattheJesusmovementinthecontextof “contemporarysocialmovements” aspartoftheirstudy.³⁵ Thisisbecausebiblicalinterpretationcannotlimit itselftowhattheauthorinitiallymeant;itmustconsideratext’stheologicalsignificancetodayifatextistobe accuratelyreconstructed.³⁶ Regardingtheimportanceofliterarycomposition,Birchdemonstratessignificant similaritiestoSchüsslerFiorenza,forinstanceinarguingthattheBible’scontentisdirectlyinfluencedbythe needsoftheAncientNearEasternandGreco-Romancommunitycontextinwhichitwaswritten,and subsequently,theprioritiesofhistoricwriterswillundoubtedlybedifferenttothosewritingforacontemporary audience.³⁷ Similarly,forJohnBarton,biblicalcriticismis “primarilyaliteraryoperation” andthe “truthofatext issecondarytotheprimarycriticalfunctionofunderstanding.”³⁸ ThisshowssimilaritytoSchüsslerFiorenza’s politicsofinterpretationapproach;atextmustbeevaluatedhistorically/reconstructedinorderthatitsfunction canbeidentified.Thismeansthatscholarsmustacceptthatbiblicalwritingsarepastoral–theologicalresponses tothesituationsandproblemsoftheirowntimes.³⁹ Similarly,HalvorMoxnesidentifiesatrendindichotomies withinhistoricalJesusresearchandwrites, “Thevariousapproaches [tohistoricalJesusresearch] thereforereflect differentmodernconcernsand,explicitorimplicit,alsodifferentpoliticsofinterpretation.”⁴⁰ However,this approachhasitscritics.Forinstance,JohnH.Elliottarguesthatscholarsshould “avoidimposingontheancient sourcesalienandunfittingmoderncategories.”⁴¹However,SchüsslerFiorenza’sworkisnotsimplyrootedin extractinghistoricalfactsfromancientsources;inherroleasatheologian,sheadvocatesforanethicalapproach whichrecognisesthereal-lifeeffectsofthesesources.WhetherSchüsslerFiorenza’sworkimposes “alien” categoriesissubjective,butIwouldarguethatifhistoricalJesusresearchistocontinuetoberelevant,itmust attempttoreconstructancienttextsinawaythatisrelatable.

SchüsslerFiorenza’sfocusoncontemporaryissuesisakeyelementofherwork.Itisclearthatthe impactofhistoricalJesusresearchonbothreligionandsocietyisimportanttoherstudy,andthisenables ustoidentifyher firmlywithinherownhistoricalcontext,althoughthisdoesn’tnecessarilycorrelatewith herhistoricalplaceasaThirdQuester.SchüsslerFiorenzaactivelycritiqueshercontemporariesanddraws attentiontothesociopoliticallocationsofhistoricalJesusresearchers.ShecitesDieterGeorgi,forinstance, wholocatestheNewQuest, “liketheoldone,” withits “sociallocationwithintheevolutionofbourgeois consciousness.”⁴²SchüsslerFiorenzagoesontoshowhowtheNewestQuestforthehistoricalJesus coincideswiththe “resurgenceofthepoliticalrightandtherevivalofreligiousfundamentalism” exemplifiedinthereactiveformationoftheJesusSeminar.⁴³ThisisaprimeexampleofSchüsslerFiorenza workingtodeconstructthenarrativesadvocatedbythosewhomakeclaimstothe “truth,” assheshows howthecontextbehindeachstudypresentsanunavoidableinfluenceontheresearch.Narrativescanbe

32 SchüsslerFiorenza, Jesus:Miriam’sChild,ix.

33 Ibid.,4.

34 SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,29.

35 Ibid.,29.

36 SchüsslerFiorenza, BreadNotStone,32.

37 Birch, “GospelNarratives,Miracles,andthe ‘Critical’ Reader:TheEclipseoftheSupernatural,” 61–93;Birch, “Revolutionary Contexts,” 36.

38 Birch, “GospelNarratives,” 70–1.

39 SchüsslerFiorenza, BreadNotStone,39.

40 Moxnes, “JesusinDiscoursesofDichotomies:AlternativeParadigmsfortheHistoricalJesus,” 130–52.

41 Elliott, “JesuswasnotanEgalitarian:ACritiqueofanAnachronisticandIdealistTheory,” 75–91.

42 SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,346.

43 Ibid.,349.

deconstructedthroughapoliticsofinterpretationapproach,andassuchahermeneuticofsuspicionis essentialinorderthatresearchersmightrecognisethatbiblicaltextsareandrocentricconstructionsof biblicalhistory.⁴⁴ Thispointisfundamentaltoherworkbecauseofthedirectimplicationsofhistorical JesusscholarshiponnotonlythelivesofChristianwomenbutalsothevilificationofJewishwomen.⁴⁵ A centralaspectofSchüsslerFiorenza’sargument,therefore,isthatiftheroleofwomenintheNew Testamentwererecognisedbyscholars,thenthepositionofwomennowwouldalsobeimproved.⁴⁶

SchüsslerFiorenzaseesthediscoursesaboutJesusas “intertwinedwithhegemonicculturaland societalideologies.” HerpoliticsofmeaningattemptstotacklethisproblembyseeingJesusresearchin lightoftheimpactithasnotjustonreligiouscommunities,aswehavealreadyseen,butalsoon “Western cultures.”⁴⁷ AssuchhistoricalJesusresearchmusttackle “itsowninternalizationofhegemonicknowledge aboutJesus” inordertorecognisethewaysinwhichitsmethodsmaintainkyriocentricbehaviours.The “distancinggestures” andmethodsemployedbyhistoricalJesusresearchersserveonlytojustifythe repeatedinterventionsandinterpretationsofJesusbyscholars.⁴⁸ Forinstance,SchüsslerFiorenzanotes thatthedoctrinalparadigmpresentsaproblematicresearchapproachbecauseinseeingtheBibleasthe directrevelationofGod,thepotentialforinterpretationandreconstructionislimited.⁴⁹

Regardingherplacewithinthequests,despiteherlarge-scalecritiqueofthequesters,Schüssler Fiorenzaiskeento findconsensusamongscholarsand “toclarifythevariouspositionsofourtimein ordertoberelevanttoourcontemporaries.”⁵⁰ Doesthisdesireforconsensus,andwillingnesstoacceptthe plausibilityofanumberofcommonclaims,situateSchüsslerFiorenzaintheThirdQuest?Beforeweare allowedtoponderthisquestionfortoolong,SchüsslerFiorenzaclarifiesthatevencommonlyaccepted statementsaboutJesusarenotfacts;theyarestillopentocritiqueandmustbecritiquedinorderto maintaintheirauthority.Eventhetextsthatscholarsregardas “primary” are,forSchüsslerFiorenza,still upfordiscussionbecausetheythemselvesareaninterpretation (perhapsevenacontamination) ofan event,regardlessofwhethertheyhappenedinactualityorinmythologicalremembering.⁵¹

Toconclude,SchüsslerFiorenza’sworkaimstoexposefaultsinthecurrent,andinsomecases historical,trendsinbiblicalresearch.Thisisdonebyhighlightinganumberofmajorareasforreform, basedarounda “politicsofinterpretation” approachtohistoricalJesusresearch.Researchersshouldthen critiquetheirworkaccordingtothefollowingfourkeyissues:

1.Isananti-Jewishbiasbeingmaintained/reinscribed?

2.Doesthisreconstructionpaintanaccuratepictureofhistoricalwomen?

3.DoesitacknowledgecolonialorWesternpresuppositions?

4.Doesitaccountforthefactthatglobalisation “promote[s] thepoliticsofexclusivity,inferiority, prejudiceanddehumanizationinculturalorreligiousidentityformation?”⁵²

ConcerningherpositioninthequestsforthehistoricalJesus,IwouldarguethatSchüsslerFiorenza mustbeplacedwithintheThirdQuest,althoughherworkissomarkedlydifferentandradicalcompared tohercontemporariesthattheremaywellbecausefortheproposalofaFourthQuest,oraThirdQuest Critical-Stream.SchüsslerFiorenza’sconsistentreferencetotheimplicationsofnotonlyherownresearch

44 SchüsslerFiorenza, BreadNotStone,15.

45 SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,42.

46 Volpe, “Politics,” 712.

47 SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,42.

48 Adam, “Politics,” 420.

49 SchüsslerFiorenza, BreadNotStone,28.

50 SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,344.

51 SchüsslerFiorenza, Jesus:Miriam’sChild,5.

52 SchüsslerFiorenza, Politics,352.SincethewritingofSchüsslerFiorenza’sarticlein1997, “globalisation” hastakenona multiplicitymeanings,manyofwhichdonotseeglobalisationasasourceofdehumanization,butratheroneofliberation. Ratherthan “globalisation,” Iwouldarguethat “white-supremacy” orevenSchüsslerFiorenza’sownterm, “kyriarchy,” would beabetter fithere.

butalsotheresearchofherfellowhistoricalJesusscholars,ontheself-conceptionsofbothindividuals andcommunities,istestamenttoheruniqueapproach.SchüsslerFiorenzaacknowledgesthefar-reaching effectsofresearchonthehistoricalJesusand,assuch,workstoencouragehercontemporariestodothe same.Theallegedly “bullish” wayinwhichSchüsslerFiorenzadoesthisisthemaincauseofcriticism againsther,withAdamwritingthathercriticismsaresopointedthattheyriskalienatingevenher sympathisers,leadinghimtoquestionwhetherhercauseisworthitsimplications.⁵³Despitethis,thereis largelyconsensusacrossthereviewsofSchüsslerFiorenzathatIhaveread,thatherworkisdonein serviceofhercontemporaries,andthatdespitebeingdifficulttoread,biblicalinterpreterswillbemade “wiserandhealthier” forhavingreadit.⁵⁴

References

Adam,A.K.M. “Reviewof JesusandthePoliticsofInterpretation,byElisabethSchusslerFiorenza.” ModernTheology 18:3 (2002),419–22. Bermejo-Rubio,Fernando. “TheFictionoftheThreeQuests’:AnArgumentforDismantlingaDubiousHistoricalParadigm.” JournalfortheStudyoftheHistoricalJesus 7:3 (2009),211–53. Birch,JonathanC.P. “CrackingtheCanon:JohnToland, “Lost” GospelsandtheChallengetoReligiousHegemony.” In Looking ThroughaGlassBible:PostDisciplinaryInterpretationsfromtheGlasgowSchool,editedbyA.K.M.Adam, SamuelTongue,85–112.Leiden:Brill,2014.

Birch,JonathanC.P. “GospelNarratives,Miracles,andthe ‘Critical’ Reader:TheEclipseoftheSupernatural – CaseStudiesin EighteenthandNineteenthCenturyBiblicalHermeneutics.” Relegere:StudiesinReligionandReception 5:1 (2016),61–93. Birch,JonathanC.P. “RevolutionaryContextsfortheQuest:JesusintheRhetoricandMethodsofEarlyModernIntellectual History.” JournalfortheStudyoftheHistoricalJesus 17 (2019),35–80.

Bond,HelenK. TheHistoricalJesus:AGuideforthePerplexed.Edinburgh:T&TClark,2012. Ehrman,BartD. LostChristianities:TheBattlesforScriptureandtheFaithWeNeverKnew.Cary:OxfordUniversityPress,2003. Elliott,JohnH. “JesusWasNotanEgalitarian.ACritiqueofanAnachronisticandIdealistTheory.” BiblicalTheologyBulletin: AJournalofBibleandTheology 32:2 (2002),75–91.

Levine,Amy-Jill. “Reviewof JesusandThePoliticsofInterpretation,byElisabethSchusslerFiorenza.” TheJournalofReligion 83:1 (2003),110–11.

Moxnes,Halvor. “JesusinDiscoursesofDichotomies:AlternativeParadigmsfortheHistoricalJesus.” JournalfortheStudyof theHistoricalJesus 13:1 (2013),130–52.

Rosenblatt,Eloise. “Reviewof JesusandthePoliticsofInterpretation,byElisabethSchusslerFiorenza.” TheologicalStudies 63:1 (2002),204–5.

SchüsslerFiorenza,Elisabeth. BreadNotStone:TheChallengeofFeministBiblicalInterpretation.Boston:BeaconPress,1984. SchüsslerFiorenza,Elisabeth. InMemoryofHer:AFeministTheologicalReconstructionofChristianOrigins,2ndedn.London: SCM,1995.

SchüsslerFiorenza,Elisabeth. “JesusandthePoliticsofInterpretation.” TheHarvardTheologicalReview 90:4 (1997),343–58. SchüsslerFiorenza,Elisabeth. SharingHerWord.Edinburgh:T&TClark,1998.

SchüsslerFiorenza,Elisabeth. JesusandThePoliticsofInterpretation.NewYork:Continuum,2000.

SchüsslerFiorenza,Elisabeth. Jesus:Miriam’sChild,Sophia’sProphet:CriticalIssuesinFeministChristology.London: BloomsburyPublishing,2015.

Volpe,MediAnn. “ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenza (1938–). ” In TheStudent’sCompaniontotheTheologians,editedby I.S.Markham,515–7.NewJersey:BlackwellPublishingLtd,2013.



53 Adam, “Politics,” 421.

54 Levine, “Politics,” 111;Adam, “Politics,” 422.