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
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
3 comments:
-
Sherry said...
-
I I rather think theology needs the scholar. Theology is dynamic it seems to me, and feeds off everything new we can discover. In a way, it circles back, because theological insights can also provide an idea of how to look at scripture historically as well. I realize a certain tension here. You need only go to any forum and discuss religion. Some people are highly threatened by the scholar. But I think the tension is largely a problem of the fundamentalist who freaks at the possibility of the Bible not being "meaning exactly what it says."
-
November 9, 2007 at 10:05 PM
-
Kyle Cupp said...
-
I have a difficult enough time accurately interpreting the “historical me.”
Does Historical-critical research on the Gospels, or the search for the historical Jesus, have to be essential or at least very important to Christian theology in order to make a contribution to the discussion? -
November 10, 2007 at 5:22 PM
-
DJW said...
-
I think it does have a role to play. I plan to post more on the topic and address the issue of just how important it is. However, it does beg the question of whether or not theologians ought to be in constant conversation with historical studies in order to 'build up' their theology. I think they evidently should pay more attention to what historical-critical scholars are saying but that's a full-time job in itself and given that their findings are forever shifting, how much dependence ought to be placed on historical research?
And I don't think these worries are the sole preserve of "fundamentalists" either. -
November 10, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I I rather think theology needs the scholar. Theology is dynamic it seems to me, and feeds off everything new we can discover. In a way, it circles back, because theological insights can also provide an idea of how to look at scripture historically as well. I realize a certain tension here. You need only go to any forum and discuss religion. Some people are highly threatened by the scholar. But I think the tension is largely a problem of the fundamentalist who freaks at the possibility of the Bible not being "meaning exactly what it says."
I have a difficult enough time accurately interpreting the “historical me.”
Does Historical-critical research on the Gospels, or the search for the historical Jesus, have to be essential or at least very important to Christian theology in order to make a contribution to the discussion?
I think it does have a role to play. I plan to post more on the topic and address the issue of just how important it is. However, it does beg the question of whether or not theologians ought to be in constant conversation with historical studies in order to 'build up' their theology. I think they evidently should pay more attention to what historical-critical scholars are saying but that's a full-time job in itself and given that their findings are forever shifting, how much dependence ought to be placed on historical research?
And I don't think these worries are the sole preserve of "fundamentalists" either.
Post a Comment