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
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment