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
Showing posts with label Rudolf Bultmann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudolf Bultmann. Show all posts
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)