Abstract
Don Capps employed a Freudian Model and current biblical criticism models of Crossan, Borg, and others to evaluate the biblical data regarding the person and self-concept of Jesus of Nazareth. This article points to some vulnerabilities for serious criticism inherent in Capps's model and suggests the necessity of a wider range of psychological models for screening the data available on Jesus' development as a person in order to draw conclusions about his nature and motivations. Capps concludes that Jesus was a melancholic personality who was at odds with his society because he and his family were defamed regarding his problematic birth story, resulting in the violent symbolic action of cleansing the temple, thus expressing his arrival at self-confidence and self-affirmation.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Allport, Gordon W. (1954, pb 1958), The nature of prejudice, New York: Doubleday/Anchor.
Boccaccini, Gabrielle (1998), Beyond the Essene hypothesis: The parting of the ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Capps, Donald (2000), Jesus: A psychological biography, St. Louis: Chalice.
Charles, R. H., tr. (1917, sixteenth impression 1977), The book of Enoch, London, SPCK.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. (1983), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1: Apocalyptic literature and testaments, New York: Doubleday.
Gerkin, Charles V. (1984), The living human document: Re-visioning pastoral counseling in a hermeneutical mode, Nashville: Abingdon.
Homans, Peter (1989), The ability to mourn, Chicago: Chicago.
James, William (1983), Essays in religion and morality, Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
James, William (1984), The will to believe, Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
James, William (1985), The varieties of religious experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
James, William (1997), Selected writings, New York: BOMC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ellens, J.H. A Psychological Biography for Jesus: Responding to Donald Capps'. Pastoral Psychology 50, 401–407 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015487513578
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015487513578