Between psychology and history: different approach in Historical Jesus Studies and critique of the Criteria of Authenticity

Studije povijesnog Isusa čine pokušaje povjesničara i bibličara da, služeći se različitim metodologijama, dođu do nekih zaključaka o njegovu životu i djelovanju. Ovaj se članak prvenstveno bavi standardnom metodologijom utemeljenoj na kriterijima autentičnosti. Jasnijim određivanjem karakteristika ove metodologije, u radu se nastoji podvrgnuti kritičkoj analizi spomenutu metodologiju i ukazati na njezine moguće nedostatke. U članku se zaključuje da kriteriji autentičnosti ne moraju biti isključivi temelj proučavanja povijesnog Isusa te da je vjerojatno došlo vrijeme da se oni zamijene, odnosno dopune novijim pristupom. Drugi dio članka nastoji predstaviti drugačiji pristup povijesnom Isusu, koji je prvenstveno utemeljen na adekvatnijem razumijevanju naravi odnosa između prošlosti i sadašnjosti te koji uzima u obzir studije psihologije pamćenja.Historical Jesus Studies represent the attempts of historians and New Testament scholars to, using different methodologies, deduce certain facts about his life and acts. This present essay is primarily concerned with the standard methodology based on criteria of authenticity. By characterising this methodology in a clearer way, the article strives to critically analyse it, and show its disadvantages. The conclusion of the article is that the criteria of authenticity cannot be only basis of studying Historical Jesus, and that such criteria could be replaced by a more sophisticated approach. Basic problem with such criteria lies in the fact of their incompatibility with respect to the way history is remembered. Such a methodological approach assumes that history, if done properly, will be able to tell us how it really was. Also, trying to find exact words of Jesus does not take into account that people tend to remember gist of the event, not exact details. Numerous psychological studies have shown that. Also, very own act of remembering past events always includes present context. We are inclined to fill the gaps of our memory with things that are of great importance to us from the perspective of present events. Furthermore, present essay deals with specific criteria (e.g. Criterion of embarrassment, Criterion of dissimilarity etc.) and problems they have when one tries to use them as a means of getting to the real »historical« Jesus. The Criterion of dissimilarity, for example, ends up in a picture of historical Jesus whose foremost characteristics are his dissimilarity to Judaism. Getting there means that one has to have a presupposition that embeds anti-Judaism in methodology, a presupposition that is obviously wrong. Jesus was a 1st century Jewish teacher and that context is crucial if one wants to understand historical Jesus. The second part of the article presents a different approach to studying Historical Jesus based primarily on a more adequate understanding of the relationship between the past and the present. Also, this approach takes the studies of social memory and perception into consideration and use those studies when dealing with primary sources for Historical Jesus