McKnight presents the idea that historical Jesus studies are both methodologically possible but theologically useless for the church. He follows this claim with four main arguments-
- The church doesn’t need a historical interpretation because it already has one from the Gospels and the creed.
- Criteria for establishing a historical Jesus failed to achieve what it intended to because scholars came up with different interpretations.
- Memory studies- All claims are based off of left over interpretations.
- Historical Jesus changes from generation to generation, and the church can’t adopt new interpretations with every movement.
The criticisms, especially 2 and 3 seem to contradict McKnights point that the historical Jesus is methodologically possible.