Spe Salvi
Pope Benedict XVI's new Encyclical has been released. A quick skimming reveals references to Aquinas, de Lubac, Adorno and Horkheimer, Kant and Marx.
Friday, November 30, 2007
New Encyclical
Spe Salvi
Pope Benedict XVI's new Encyclical has been released. A quick skimming reveals references to Aquinas, de Lubac, Adorno and Horkheimer, Kant and Marx.
Pope Benedict XVI's new Encyclical has been released. A quick skimming reveals references to Aquinas, de Lubac, Adorno and Horkheimer, Kant and Marx.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Historical Jesus and Theology (3)
To finish up this series of posts on the quest for the Historical Jesus and its relation to theology I'd like to point to another argument in favour of the position which holds that the quest is essential is the danger of ideological appropriation of Jesus. If theology ignores the historical Jesus it leaves the path open to the ‘hijacking’ of the Jesus of history for propagandist reasons as occurred with the ‘German Christians’ in the Nazi era who denied that Jesus was a Jew and presented him as an Aryan. In the face of such a perverted ‘kerygma’ of a group’s own making is it not of the utmost irresponsibility of theology to ignore the vital question of the historical Jesus? From the perspective of Fundamental theology (apologetics) it therefore becomes of paramount necessity to demonstrate that the kerygmatic Christ is not divorced from the earthly Jesus but that there exists a fundamental thread linking the two. Further theological reasons for maintaining the essential nature of the quest for theology is the understanding of ‘faith’ itself. For faith is not merely an assent to various propositions but is first and foremost a question of trust and trust needs to be directed towards another person not a mere proclamation. The quest is therefore essential in order to enable theology to build up a picture of the Jesus in whom people believe, historical study can contribute to the “faith-image” believers have of Jesus, as Norman Perrin expresses it. It also allows for a constant critical self examination by the Christian churches to ensure that their comfortable Christian domestications of Jesus are challenged by disclosing the historical Jesus’ nonconformist aspects. (John Meier) Study of the historical Jesus can thus be seen as an essential corrective to a theology which might otherwise lose sight of the fact that Jesus was a particular human being in history. The argument that questing for the historical Jesus eliminates the risk of faith must also be seriously questioned, it is not the case that Jesus’ disciples were exempt from having to take a risk of faith: there was a decision to be made as regards Jesus even then and just as there were some who accepted him, there were others who rejected him. It is also to be pointed out that Bultmann’s position is to a large extent a result of his Lutheran perspective (i.e., an aversion to anything that might seem like “righteousness from works” rather than faith alone), and one filtered through existentialism at that. A final reason to regard the quest for the historical Jesus as essential to Christian theology is that provided by Joachim Jeremias, who is on the opposite end of the spectrum to Bultmann and who could be regarded as holding a somewhat ‘extreme’ position. Jeremias argues that Christian theology takes its impetus primarily from the words of the earthly Jesus himself, and that these words are the basis of the Kerygma. The quest is therefore seen as absolutely essential to Christian theology for it could not really exist without it.
The quest can thus be seen as an important and necessary to Christian theology. It is not however, the basis from which to build theology and faith cannot be made dependent on historical research as Jeremias’ position might seem to suggest. Neither could the theological enterprise truly flourish it were made constantly to refer back to what exegetes are now saying about Jesus of Nazareth. Theology is fides quaerens intellectum, ‘faith seeking understanding’, the quest is a ‘secondary’ consideration for the theologian for whom the faith of the church must remain the principle starting point, as it is found already in the New Testament and in the creeds of the church. I would suggest that the best way for theology to regard the quest is as an aspect of apologetics. A theologian cannot be expected to undertake a task as great as a reconstruction of the historical Jesus as a sort of prolegomena to his theology. It is enough that two aspects of Jesus are regarded as pertaining to the earthly Jesus himself: that he regarded himself not simply as one amongst a long line of prophets but as the eschatological prophet and that the resurrection of Jesus can be shown to be historically credible. Whilst this notion of carrying out research for the historical Jesus will obviously be regarded by some as simply an attempt to legitimize Christian faith and thus be compromised by being in a certain sense ‘predetermined’, one can answer that claims to complete objectivity in scholarship are somewhat spurious and unattainable, as Crossan himself remarks and that much of the work of those who ‘discover’ a Jesus not particularly amenable to Christian theology is often compromised by the adoption of a post-Enlightenment worldview. The complaints, for example, that the work of someone like N.T. Wright simply present a ‘biblical Christ’ reveal a great deal about those critics, for such a complaint could come about only from those who set out with the presupposition that the historical Jesus simply could not be the biblical Christ. This also really begs the question whether a Christian theology can from the outset even regard the separation between ‘Christ of faith’ and ‘Jesus of history’ as legitimate. Of course one must then consider the importance at the very least of engaging in an attempt to prove the historicity of the gospels. The issue cannot simply be dismissed and theology cannot insist on the historical validity of the gospel accounts of Jesus without answering those who claim to be discovering a historical Jesus quite different from that proclaimed by Christian faith. This bears certain parallels to the debate over the relationship between theology and philosophy. Whilst one can take a ‘Barthian’ approach and insist on the self-sufficiency of theology and present it in an almost positivist way, the Christian tradition has for the most part acknowledged the need to dialogue with the ‘secular’ world in a manner which allows for an intellectually respectable expression of the Christian message, and which is thus capable of engaging with those ‘outside’. The fact that groups such as the Jesus Seminar have their findings entering the mainstream through the media requires that theology undertake historical research of its own, lest it leave the field entirely open to those who are finding a Jesus who has little affinity which that preached by faith.
In conclusion the Quest can be said to be essential to Christian theology but primarily as a minimalist task. It is enough for Christian theology to demonstrate that between the historical Jesus and later Christology there is a fundamental link which ensures that one does not think of theology as having simply invented a ‘Christ-myth’. A wholesale reconstruction of the historical Jesus by biblical scholars is perfectly legitimate and may prove an aid to theology but is not in and of itself an essential aspect of theology for which the gospel portraits of Jesus must serve as the norm. For it is these portraits which give us Jesus as he was seen through the eyes of faith and which present to theology the Jesus who is the object of Christian faith.
Part 1 of this series
Part 2 of this series
The quest can thus be seen as an important and necessary to Christian theology. It is not however, the basis from which to build theology and faith cannot be made dependent on historical research as Jeremias’ position might seem to suggest. Neither could the theological enterprise truly flourish it were made constantly to refer back to what exegetes are now saying about Jesus of Nazareth. Theology is fides quaerens intellectum, ‘faith seeking understanding’, the quest is a ‘secondary’ consideration for the theologian for whom the faith of the church must remain the principle starting point, as it is found already in the New Testament and in the creeds of the church. I would suggest that the best way for theology to regard the quest is as an aspect of apologetics. A theologian cannot be expected to undertake a task as great as a reconstruction of the historical Jesus as a sort of prolegomena to his theology. It is enough that two aspects of Jesus are regarded as pertaining to the earthly Jesus himself: that he regarded himself not simply as one amongst a long line of prophets but as the eschatological prophet and that the resurrection of Jesus can be shown to be historically credible. Whilst this notion of carrying out research for the historical Jesus will obviously be regarded by some as simply an attempt to legitimize Christian faith and thus be compromised by being in a certain sense ‘predetermined’, one can answer that claims to complete objectivity in scholarship are somewhat spurious and unattainable, as Crossan himself remarks and that much of the work of those who ‘discover’ a Jesus not particularly amenable to Christian theology is often compromised by the adoption of a post-Enlightenment worldview. The complaints, for example, that the work of someone like N.T. Wright simply present a ‘biblical Christ’ reveal a great deal about those critics, for such a complaint could come about only from those who set out with the presupposition that the historical Jesus simply could not be the biblical Christ. This also really begs the question whether a Christian theology can from the outset even regard the separation between ‘Christ of faith’ and ‘Jesus of history’ as legitimate. Of course one must then consider the importance at the very least of engaging in an attempt to prove the historicity of the gospels. The issue cannot simply be dismissed and theology cannot insist on the historical validity of the gospel accounts of Jesus without answering those who claim to be discovering a historical Jesus quite different from that proclaimed by Christian faith. This bears certain parallels to the debate over the relationship between theology and philosophy. Whilst one can take a ‘Barthian’ approach and insist on the self-sufficiency of theology and present it in an almost positivist way, the Christian tradition has for the most part acknowledged the need to dialogue with the ‘secular’ world in a manner which allows for an intellectually respectable expression of the Christian message, and which is thus capable of engaging with those ‘outside’. The fact that groups such as the Jesus Seminar have their findings entering the mainstream through the media requires that theology undertake historical research of its own, lest it leave the field entirely open to those who are finding a Jesus who has little affinity which that preached by faith.
In conclusion the Quest can be said to be essential to Christian theology but primarily as a minimalist task. It is enough for Christian theology to demonstrate that between the historical Jesus and later Christology there is a fundamental link which ensures that one does not think of theology as having simply invented a ‘Christ-myth’. A wholesale reconstruction of the historical Jesus by biblical scholars is perfectly legitimate and may prove an aid to theology but is not in and of itself an essential aspect of theology for which the gospel portraits of Jesus must serve as the norm. For it is these portraits which give us Jesus as he was seen through the eyes of faith and which present to theology the Jesus who is the object of Christian faith.
Part 1 of this series
Part 2 of this series
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Free Journal Access
Just a heads up for those who may be interested in reading scholarly theological articles but aren't at University and have no access to online databases, or maybe even those at University who don't have access to Sage Publications: if you sign up now you will have free access to all their journals until the 30th November and can download articles and so forth.
There are some theology journals there such as Studies in Christian Ethics, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Ecclesiology etc.
Might be of interest to some.
http://online.sagepub.com/
There are some theology journals there such as Studies in Christian Ethics, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Ecclesiology etc.
Might be of interest to some.
http://online.sagepub.com/
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Historical Jesus and Theology (2)
The 'idealist' position denying the quest for the Historical Jesus any theological relevance was adopted by the dialectical theologians of the 20th century such as Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann for whom any attempt to ground faith in historical certainty was theologically impermissible on the basis of the Sola Fides of the reformers. There is also the influence of Soren Kierkegaard, the ‘father’ of modern existentialism who stressed the either/or aspect of Christian faith, with the Christian message presenting itself as a challenge demanding existential commitment or rejection, not as an assertion to be historically verified before one made a decision. Bultmann expresses it thus: “The word of preaching confronts us as the word of God. It is not for us to question its credentials [by historical research]. It is we who are questioned.”
From this perspective then, it is theologically unnecessary to inquire into the details of Jesus’ life; moreover it may also be theologically impermissible as doing so would be an attempt to remove the risk of faith in response to the ‘preached Christ’. There is no possibility of absolute certainty, the only historical assertion necessary is that Jesus lived and died on a cross. This position frees theology from the contingent nature of historical research, and allows it to reflect on the Christian proclamation without fearing that its death knell might be pronounced at any moment by historical research: such a faith. as Karl Adam remarks, would be “useless”. A contemporary exponent of this view is Luke T. Johnson who argues in a similar manner to Kahler that the Gospel narratives are written with a focus primarily on Jesus’ death and resurrection. Whilst they are evidently concerned with Jesus’ humanity and aspects of his life and teaching, the emphasis does not lie there. Thus the proper object of theology is the Resurrected Christ as portrayed in the Gospels; for Johnson the quest for the historical Jesus cannot therefore be undertaken with primarily theological motives. The testimony of the Gospels themselves is that the death and Resurrection of Jesus are the normative basis for Christian theology.
This position, however, is one that is open to serious criticism. There are strong reasons to suppose that research into the life of Jesus is not only relevant but essential to Christian theology. One of the principle dangers inherent in denying the historical Jesus any relevance for theology is that theological affirmations become mere mythical assertions. Although one can affirm with Bultmann the independence of theology from historical research, one cannot go to the extreme that Bultmann went to, for if there was no objective historical event which correlates to theology’s assertions there would exist only a mythological idea. Thus even Karl Barth. who shared to a large extent similar convictions to Bultmann, became increasingly concerned at his existential approach to the Resurrection which appeared to suggest that it had no historical foundations and came to emphasise the empty tomb narratives (Barth however, maintained despite this that the resurrection remained closed to historical investigation). It is this apparent collapse into myth if one rejects the role of history in theology which justifies the Quest for theology.
The centrality of the notion of the incarnation to Christian theology is another reason why the Quest must be given attention. Christian faith is “an act of faith in the historical Jesus as the manifestation of God” (Crossan) and thus the words and deeds of the historical cannot be of no interest to theology which believes that the ‘Word was made flesh’ and entered history. This is pointed out by Ernst Kasemann, a student of Bultmann who inaugurated the ‘new quest’ in his 1953 lecture at Marburg. He remarks that even the Gospel of John, which is the most theological of the four and has developed its Christology further than the synoptics in the light of the resurrection faith, is nevertheless concerned with Jesus’ earthly history as the sphere wherein revelation takes place. The Easter experience did not render the experience of the earthly history of Jesus superfluous; it confirmed it. If this were not the case the Christian faith could be charged with creating “the Christ of salvation ‘on the occasion of’ Jesus of Nazareth”. If theology does not wish to become mythological but remain firmly grounded in history as the sphere of God’s revelation it must take account of the historical Jesus: “This inescapable Jesus-centeredness [for theology] is the result of the incarnation: it not only permits but demands historical study.” This concern with the implications of the doctrine of the incarnation for theology’s relationship with history is exemplified in the work of Pannenberg and his insistence on the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact open to investigation. It is the contention of those theologians who stress the importance of the historical Jesus for theology that any dismissal of the earthly life of Jesus is a lapse into the heresy of docetism, where the Logos only has the appearance of being a human being.
Part 1 of this series
Part 3 of this series
From this perspective then, it is theologically unnecessary to inquire into the details of Jesus’ life; moreover it may also be theologically impermissible as doing so would be an attempt to remove the risk of faith in response to the ‘preached Christ’. There is no possibility of absolute certainty, the only historical assertion necessary is that Jesus lived and died on a cross. This position frees theology from the contingent nature of historical research, and allows it to reflect on the Christian proclamation without fearing that its death knell might be pronounced at any moment by historical research: such a faith. as Karl Adam remarks, would be “useless”. A contemporary exponent of this view is Luke T. Johnson who argues in a similar manner to Kahler that the Gospel narratives are written with a focus primarily on Jesus’ death and resurrection. Whilst they are evidently concerned with Jesus’ humanity and aspects of his life and teaching, the emphasis does not lie there. Thus the proper object of theology is the Resurrected Christ as portrayed in the Gospels; for Johnson the quest for the historical Jesus cannot therefore be undertaken with primarily theological motives. The testimony of the Gospels themselves is that the death and Resurrection of Jesus are the normative basis for Christian theology.
This position, however, is one that is open to serious criticism. There are strong reasons to suppose that research into the life of Jesus is not only relevant but essential to Christian theology. One of the principle dangers inherent in denying the historical Jesus any relevance for theology is that theological affirmations become mere mythical assertions. Although one can affirm with Bultmann the independence of theology from historical research, one cannot go to the extreme that Bultmann went to, for if there was no objective historical event which correlates to theology’s assertions there would exist only a mythological idea. Thus even Karl Barth. who shared to a large extent similar convictions to Bultmann, became increasingly concerned at his existential approach to the Resurrection which appeared to suggest that it had no historical foundations and came to emphasise the empty tomb narratives (Barth however, maintained despite this that the resurrection remained closed to historical investigation). It is this apparent collapse into myth if one rejects the role of history in theology which justifies the Quest for theology.
The centrality of the notion of the incarnation to Christian theology is another reason why the Quest must be given attention. Christian faith is “an act of faith in the historical Jesus as the manifestation of God” (Crossan) and thus the words and deeds of the historical cannot be of no interest to theology which believes that the ‘Word was made flesh’ and entered history. This is pointed out by Ernst Kasemann, a student of Bultmann who inaugurated the ‘new quest’ in his 1953 lecture at Marburg. He remarks that even the Gospel of John, which is the most theological of the four and has developed its Christology further than the synoptics in the light of the resurrection faith, is nevertheless concerned with Jesus’ earthly history as the sphere wherein revelation takes place. The Easter experience did not render the experience of the earthly history of Jesus superfluous; it confirmed it. If this were not the case the Christian faith could be charged with creating “the Christ of salvation ‘on the occasion of’ Jesus of Nazareth”. If theology does not wish to become mythological but remain firmly grounded in history as the sphere of God’s revelation it must take account of the historical Jesus: “This inescapable Jesus-centeredness [for theology] is the result of the incarnation: it not only permits but demands historical study.” This concern with the implications of the doctrine of the incarnation for theology’s relationship with history is exemplified in the work of Pannenberg and his insistence on the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact open to investigation. It is the contention of those theologians who stress the importance of the historical Jesus for theology that any dismissal of the earthly life of Jesus is a lapse into the heresy of docetism, where the Logos only has the appearance of being a human being.
Part 1 of this series
Part 3 of this series
Thursday, November 8, 2007
History and Theology: Is the Historical Jesus essential to Christian Theology?
Historical-critical research on the Gospels has, in the eyes of many, rendered an uncritical acceptance of the Gospel texts as completely historical accounts documenting the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth, impossible. It has long been acknowledged that the Gospels (our principle source for information on the historical Jesus) are not objectively neutral accounts of the life of Jesus in the manner one might expect of a modern biography but confessional documents written in the light of the faith of a community which believed Jesus to have risen from the dead after his crucifixion therefore being vindicated and exalted by God. This recognition lead to the distinction being made between the ‘historical Jesus’ and the ‘Christ of faith’. The question Christian faith and theology must face is whether the search for the historical Jesus is in fact of importance, perhaps even essential to theology or whether theology need only be concerned with the Christ of faith. The theological issue lies in the ambiguous nature of historical research which does not produce definitive results; the question is therefore naturally raised about whether these results can serve as the base for theological assertions, or whether theology is essentially independent of historical investigation.
One approach to this problem is to deny the quest for the historical Jesus any theological relevance. This position can take a basically ‘idealist’ form in which the question of the historical Jesus is regarded as irrelevant due to the fact that it is the symbol of Christ as a source of religious and ethical guidance and challenge which is considered of utmost importance. This position is not one which can be adopted by theologians who would wish to classify themselves as essentially Christian. The most common approach which pays little heed to the historical Jesus as a source for theological affirmations is that which affirms the historical Jesus as a presupposition for the kerygma of the Christian community but is not concerned about learning the details of Jesus’ life. This position can be seen as having originated with Martin Kahler, the first great critic of the ‘life of Jesus’ research, in his lecture ‘The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ’. It was Kahler’s contention that “the historical Jesus of modern authors conceals from us the living Christ”. For Christian faith which believed Jesus to be the “unique sinless person” there could be no use of historical analysis which uses analogy to determine its results. Whilst Kahler’s argument was directed against the original ‘liberal’ quest for the historical Jesus and thus may not actually apply to the newer quests which can be viewed as possible and legitimate, he makes extremely pertinent points which must be answered by Christian theology. His concern about how one can come to know Jesus Christ is of great importance: would humanity need recourse to historical-critical methods in order to believe? The point being made is that historical research cannot be normative for faith, or as Kahler expresses it: “I cannot find sure footing in probabilities or in a shifting mass of details the reliability of which is constantly changing”.
Part 2 of this topic
Part 3 of this topic
One approach to this problem is to deny the quest for the historical Jesus any theological relevance. This position can take a basically ‘idealist’ form in which the question of the historical Jesus is regarded as irrelevant due to the fact that it is the symbol of Christ as a source of religious and ethical guidance and challenge which is considered of utmost importance. This position is not one which can be adopted by theologians who would wish to classify themselves as essentially Christian. The most common approach which pays little heed to the historical Jesus as a source for theological affirmations is that which affirms the historical Jesus as a presupposition for the kerygma of the Christian community but is not concerned about learning the details of Jesus’ life. This position can be seen as having originated with Martin Kahler, the first great critic of the ‘life of Jesus’ research, in his lecture ‘The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ’. It was Kahler’s contention that “the historical Jesus of modern authors conceals from us the living Christ”. For Christian faith which believed Jesus to be the “unique sinless person” there could be no use of historical analysis which uses analogy to determine its results. Whilst Kahler’s argument was directed against the original ‘liberal’ quest for the historical Jesus and thus may not actually apply to the newer quests which can be viewed as possible and legitimate, he makes extremely pertinent points which must be answered by Christian theology. His concern about how one can come to know Jesus Christ is of great importance: would humanity need recourse to historical-critical methods in order to believe? The point being made is that historical research cannot be normative for faith, or as Kahler expresses it: “I cannot find sure footing in probabilities or in a shifting mass of details the reliability of which is constantly changing”.
Part 2 of this topic
Part 3 of this topic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)