Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

Irish Theological Quarterly

http://itq.sagepub.com/ The Invincible Allure of the Historical Jesus for Systematic Theology
James F. Keating Irish Theological Quarterly 2001 66: 211 DOI: 10.1177/002114000106600302 The online version of this article can be found at: http://itq.sagepub.com/content/66/3/211

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Pontifical University, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland

Additional services and information for Irish Theological Quarterly can be found at: Email Alerts: http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Sep 1, 2001


Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

What is This?

James F. Keating

The Invincible Allure of the Historical Jesus for Systematic

Theology

With the emergence of a third quest for the historical Jesus, the relationship between history and theology once again comes to the fore. On one end of the spectrum are those who deny any theological significance to critical historiography. On the other end are those who insist that what is said about Jesus theologically cannot contradict what is known about him historically. The present essay explores why some form of the second position is inevitable given both the historical character of divine revelation and the ultimate unity of faith and reason.

ven

Ethat the

causal observer of the theological scene will be aware quest for the historical Jesus has, after a brief hiatus, reentered the theological stage. This revival can be credited to a movement called the third quest. Without rehearsing the familiar narrative of the rise and fall of the old quest in the nineteenth century and the emergence of the new quest in the mid-twentieth century, suffice it to say that this third quest differs primarily from its predecessors in its intent to locate Jesus fully within the world of first-century Judaism. Unfortunately, the undeniable gains inherent in this methodological evolution have not yet yielded a consensus portrait of Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, there is evidence aplenty that the historical debate is more furious than ever and no closer to resolution. Although some systematic theologians have taken the lack of clear progress as a justification to ignore this latest stage of the quest, many others have sought to discern the significance of the third quest for what is said of God in light of Jesus Christ. The following essay offers a survey of four options within contemporary theology, ranging from affording the quest no importance for theology to granting it determinative significance. It is hoped that by the exploring each options strengths and weaknesses many of the essential issues at stake can be clarified. To anticipate the conclusion, I am most sympathetic with those theologians who link the significance for the quest for the historical Jesus to the unavoidable requirement that Christian theology conform itself to what God has
most

the

1. Good surveys of this scholarship include Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest. The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1995); Mark Allen Powell, Jesus as a Figure of History. How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998); Bruce and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus. Evaluations of the State of Current Research, (Leiden; Brill, 1994). 211

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

212

revealed in

Jesus Christ. At the

same

historians
The First

monopoly

over

what

time, I reject all attempts theologians can claim.


cannot

to

give

Option:

The

Jesus of history

be

gained in any

meaningful way
The first option is that of historical scepticism. The pioneer of this approach to Jesus is surely the German historian Bruno Bauer ( 18091882), who argued that the Gospel of Mark, upon which the other gospels depended, is pure fantasy and at the centre of this grand illusion lies the fabricated figure of Jesus.- Not many serious people followed Bauer in this radical conclusion. Other and more probable versions of scepticism claim that while there are few reasons to deny Jesus existence, there is not much else we can say about him with certainty. Sceptics of this type cite the following factors to support their case: 1) the meager historical record; 2) the historical gaps separating not only the death of Jesus from the first accounts of his life but also the less remarked-upon, and perhaps more troubling, gap between the creation of these texts and the oldest surviving copies; 3) our lack of knowledge about the authors and their connection to the original events; 4) the stance of the authors as Christians primarily interested in supporting their new religion; 5) the significant differences of fact found in the four gospels; and finally, 6) the morass of disagreement existing among those engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus. When this list of obstacles to constructing a convincing portrait of Jesus is put together, the sceptic will argue that any objective portrait of Jesus must be considered to be at best sketchy and at worst arbitrary. John Dominic Crossan, one of the best-known Jesus scholars, openly acknowledges that the quest runs the danger of becoming a bad scholarly joke and that it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography. How are we to assess this option? On the one hand, it is certainly true that the historical traces Jesus left behind are far from ideal for reconstructing his life. The four Gospels not only disagree at critical points, but these differences appear to reflect struggles within the early Church as much as disagreements over what actually happened. Sorting all this out

theory appears in his Philo, Strauss und Renan und das Urchristentum,1841 (reprint, Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1972) and Christus und die Caesaren: Der Ursprung des Christenthums aus den römischen Griechenthum (Berlin, 1877). 3. Radical skepticism did, however, create a stir during the first decade of the twentieth century in response to Arthur Drewss Die Christusmythe (1901). For a treatment of Drews and other radical skeptics see Walter Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century (1900-1950), (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 45-71. 4. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), xxviii.
2. Bauers

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

213

has proved a Herculean task, demonstrated by the very number of alternative reconstructions of Christian origins. At the same time, there are reasons to temper the strength of these objections. Any sceptic with respect to Jesus must be prepared to be consistent. If the basic outline of Jesus life is inaccessible to historical scrutiny, surely most of the- figures and events which fill the pages of history books on the ancient world suffer the same fate. While the historical record of Jesus life is neither expansive nor without its problems, it is far from a blank slate or a whirlwind of confusion. Moreover, judgements about the possibility of finding reliable information about Jesus must be tutored in the methods and intrinsic limits of historical knowledge. Historical judgements are of their nature tentative, always awaiting either new evidence or a deeper understanding of the evidence we already possess. The decisive issue is whether the evidence is such that it allows judgements to move beyond the merely arbitrary. Once any particular interpretation is more likely than any other, one is dealing with historical knowledge. When this standard is applied to the historical Jesus, it is clear that the problem of his religious significance cannot be so easily dismissed. This fact leads to a second option. The Second Option: The Jesus of history less) but has no real significance for faith
can

be gained (more

or

Jesus,

This option holds that, whatever the chances of finding the historical the historian has nothing to tell the believer, either about whether he should believe or what he should believe. This position is most often 7 associated with the work of Martin K5hler and Wilhelm Herrmann.&dquo; Although their differences are considerable, both agreed that any attempt to base faith in the findings of historians is the purest folly. This follows from the very character of faith. While faith must be both certain and sustaining, historical judgements are tentative and forever open to revision. In Herrmanns words: It is a fatal error to attempt to establish the basis of faith by means of historical investigation. The basis of faith must be something fixed; the results of historical study are continually changing A faith ~Jhich looks to history for support will find not a mighty fortress but shifting sand.
5. For
a

Great,

see

comparison between the possibility of knowing Jesus and knowing Alexander the E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993), 3-4.

statement is true 6. A. E. Harvey remarks that [W]hat we have to ask is not whether agiven with a kind of supernatural certainty but whether the fact which it reports may be regarded as at least as well established as any other fact which comes down to us from antiquity. Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983), 5. 7. The significant works are Martin Kähler, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, ed. Ernst Wolf, tr. Carl Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1964); Wilhelm Herrmann, The Commumion of the Christian with God. trans J. Sandys Stanyon and R.W. Stewart (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). 8. Herrmann, Communion, 76. For a similar point by Kähler see The So-Called Historical Jesus, 111.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

214

faith,

Jesus of history can never serve as the object of Christian the reality to whom believers are called to entrust themselves. This honorific goes to what Kahler called the real Christ. [Tlhat is, the Christ who has exercised an influence in history, with whom millions have communed in childlike faith, and with whom the great witnesses of faith have been in communion - this real Christ is the Christ who is preached.9 Faith in this Christ does not arise from the historians desk but from the preachers pulpit, a product of an encounter between proclaimed Word and believer. By comparison, the Galilean of scientific history is pale indeed. The most influential modern proponent of this position is the Catholic exegete, Luke Timothy Johnson. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels has gained great popularity as a stinging and at times hilarious rebuttal of some of the most radical Jesus historians. 10 Yet when the dust settles, Johnsons wit is found to be directed against all attempts to allow an historically reconstructed Jesus to influence theological reflection. According to Johnson, the most destructive effect of the &dquo;Jesus Seminar&dquo; and recent &dquo;Historical Jesus&dquo; books has been the perpetuation of the notion that history somehow determines faith, and that for faith to be correct, the historical accounts that gave rise to it have to be verifiable.&dquo; Echoing K5hler, Johnson asserts that the real Jesus is not a figure locked in the dead past waiting to be discovered, but a living presence who abides with the Church transforming his followers through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the living Jesus of the canonical Gospels, the Jesus who enlivens the Churchs faith, and the Jesus whom it brings to the world. Jesus reality, therefore, is not available to historiography and its methods, but only to a faith-inspired engagement with the pattern which emerges from the variety of faith-textured testimonies found in the New Testament and embraced by the Christian Church.&dquo; It is this real Jesus and not some tentative reconstruction who is the proper object of true Christian faith and the source of systematic theology. There is a good deal to say for this option. It correctly notes that Christian faith got along quite well for most of its history without modern historiography. To permit the quest for the historical Jesus to establish a monopoly over all theological reflection would be tantamount to denying the Christological riches of our tradition, the liturgy, dogmatic pronouncements, and writings of Christian mystics. Moreover, few would wish for the intensity and assurance of faith to be captive to the latest scholarly fights and fads. Finally, Johnson is certainly correct that the object of Christian faith is a living and abiding reality and not a scholarly reconstruction. On the other side, charges of novelty must be tempered by a
9. The So-Called Historical Jesus, 66-67. 10. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. 11. The Real Jesus, 141. 12. The Real Jesus, 151. Johnson has provided an example of this approach in his Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

In any case, the

Living

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

215

recognition that theology prior to the advent of modem historical methods was not unconcerned about the historical veracity of the New Testament as much as it took that veracity for granted. What separates us
from Aquinas or Luther is not our obsession with historical truth, but the fact that the veracity of biblical history is now under siege. The critics of the Enlightenment knew well that an attack on the historical basis of Christianity is an attack on its very foundations. Knock the historical ground from under the Christian message and the edifice crumbles, if slowly, surely. To counsel ignoring historical issues runs the risk of violating the very logic of a faith which claims that God has entered history. Furthermore, those who pursue this option appear to reject the very legitimacy of historical scholarship at least when Jesus is under the glass. If Christians can claim a special avenue to Jesus independent of the rules which normally govern historical inquiry, might not others claim their own privileged avenue to figures with whom they enjoy a special relationship ? In other words, why should a believers opinion of Jesus of Nazareth be any less affected by continuing historical investigation than a Muslims opinion of Muhammad? An unsatisfactory rejoinder, I believe, not only opens Christianity up to the charge of special pleading, but overlooks the long tradition, especially prized in Catholic theology, that faith has nothing to fear from reason. This tradition results in a third option.

The Third Option: The quest for the Jesus of history is important for apologetic reasons, confirming by reason what is held in faith

This option is most closely identified with Catholic theology, although it is also found in Protestantism. The rationale is that, since all Christians insist that the Jesus who actually lived is coterminous with the Jesus of
Christian faith, honest historical inquiry can only serve to bolster this conviction. Historiography is not the enemy, but a friend and ally. One finds this confidence at work in much Catholic and Protestant apologetics since the Enlightenment. Not content to allow critics to undermine the traditional view of Scripture as true history, or to compel theology to retreat into the private world of faith, apologists from both sides of the confessional divide fought back.11 With the publication and dissemination of the anti-dogmatic portraits of Jesus by Strauss, Renan, and others, the historical credibility of the canonical Gospels became a field for intense combat. Protestants, on the whole, tended to focus their energies on the connection between true history and biblical inspiration, securing their traditional dictum that an inspired text is as trustworthy as its divine author. 14 Catholics, on the other hand, concentrated on the
13. For a survey of post-Enlightenment apologetic see Avery Dulless A History of Apologetics (New York: Corpus, 1971), 158-256. 14. Prominent examples include George P. Fisher, Essays on the Supermatural Origin of Christianity (New York: C. Scribner & Co., 1865, rev. ed. 1870), and J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supermatural Religion, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1893).

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

216

various

signs of credibility surrounding the biblical account, e.g., Jesus miracles, his messianic consciousness, his resurrection, the character of

apostolic witnesses, and the glorious Church which arose then and abides still. 15 In each case, the style of argument mirrored that of the adversary, marshalling arguments which could in principle be compelling to unbelievers.16 At the same time, these theologians strove to keep faith and reason properly distinguished. In particular, Catholic apologists operated against a backdrop of centuries of debate over how far reason can go in demonstrating the credibility of Christian belief by natural reason without supplanting either the priority of supernatural grace or displacing God as faiths proper object.17 This concern found official expression in the First Vatican Councils Dei Filius which sought to avoid the excesses of separating faith from reason as well as making faith a conclusion of reason. To this end, it declared that faith, although enjoying external supports such as miracles and philosophical demonstrations, is motivated not by any operation of reason but by the authority of the revealing God.&dquo; It is fascinating to see how the attempt to steer a path between the errors of fideism and rationalism is reflected in Catholic contributions to the quest for the historical Jesus. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, emphasis was given to rational arguments advanced in support of the historical credibility of the Gospels, in whole and in part. As the century progressed, however, the work of the apologist was affected by official pronouncements such as Pius XIIs Divino Af f lante Spiritu (1943), which offered a more complex view of the intent of the evangelists with respect to history.l9 The concern to establish a more sophisticated stance, one
the
15. For example, Hilarion Felder, Christ and the Critics. A Defense of the Divinity of Jesus against the Attacks of Modern Sceptical Criticism, tr. John L.Stoddard (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1924) and Léonce de Grandmaison, Jesus Christ. His Person, His Message, His Credentials, trs. Basil Whelan, Douglas Carter, 3 vols. (New York: 1935-1937). 16. If we, however, summon the opponents of the Christian revelation before the bar of fair, unclouded history, we, on our side, must of course be equally scrupulous. In this case,
must not, as apologists, presuppose either the faith or the scientific credibility of Christianity (Felder, Christ and the Critics, 13). 17. It is true that history cannot immediately and plainly demonstrate the truth of the Christian revelation and of the divinity of Jesus Christ, but it can prove the truth of the fact that Christ represented himself as God, and his religion as divine, and that he undoubtedly furnished proofs for this assertion.... Faith cannot be attested by means of history, but credibility can and must be demonstrated. Faith is not a matter of science; but it is the affair of science, and in this case also the affair of history, to prove that our faith is scientifically based upon the facts of revelation and Christianity, and is therefore reasonable (Felder, Christ and the Critics, 12). 18. See, in particular, DS 3005, 3008, 3015-3017. 19. Its warning to would-be apologists is telling. Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation ; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis (38). The Papal Encyclicals 1939-1958, ed. Claudia Carlen (Wilmington, McGrath Publishing Co. 1981), 73.
we

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

217

that affirms the basic truth of the Gospel narratives without committing itself to the literal historical truth of each and every account, received approbation in Vatican 11s Dei Verbum (1965). If the Gospel accounts were not intended in every instance to present what really happened, perhaps efforts to demonstrate the New Testaments absolute historical veracity were misdirected. This caution accorded well with developments in the field of apologetics engendered by the work of Catholic intellectuals such as Maurice Blondel (1861-1949) and Pierre Rousselot (11878-115 ).- Influenced by modern philosophy, these authors emphasised the subjective element intrinsic in any appraisal of the truth of Christianity. Without denying the objective force of apologetic demonstrations, they held that the subjective disposition of the hearer will, in most cases, determine whether such demonstrations are found to be credible. While Blondel did not specify the theological nature of this disposition in great detail, Rousselot pointed to grace transforming the intellectual faculties of the potential believer such that what may otherwise be unconvincing evidence is seen as convincing through the eyes of faith. Not surprisingly, Rousselots theory came under sharp attack by those who believed that his emphasis on subjectivity undermined Vatican Is insistence that the credibility of the faith was available to natural reason. 21 Many of the issues at play in modern Catholic apologetics can be detected in work of John Meier, the most prominent and highly respected Catholic scholar of the historical Jesus, and the reactions it provoked. 12 The first two volumes of his multi-volumed A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus make clear that faith will play no role in what he will conclude about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.&dquo; My method, he states, follows a simple rule: it prescinds from what Christian faith or later Christian teaching says about Jesus, without either affirming or denying such claims.~4 Moreover, just as faith must not determine what an historian says about Jesus, neither should what the historian finds have any direct consequence for faith. The real Jesus who is the basis and object of faith is not Meiers quarry but merely the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research .2 Although this task requires the bracketing ones faith, it should cause no anxiety for believers, especially Roman 20. Blondel, The Letter on Apologetics. History and Dogma, tr. A. Dru and I. Trethowan (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964); Rousselot, The Eyes of Faith and Ansuer to Two Attacks, trs. John M. McDermott, Joseph Donceel (New York: Fordham University
Press, 1990). 21. A prominent example is found in Stéphane Harents article Foi, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique VI, cols. 55-514, especially 260-275. 22. A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1991, 1994). 23. A Marginal Jeu, vol. 1, 1. 24. A Marginal Jeu, vol. 1, 1. 25. A Marginal Jeu, vol. 1, 1, also 197-198. For the difference between the real Jesus and
the historical
one, see

21-36.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

218

Catholics, since a distinction between what we know by reason and what


we

affirm by faith is firmly within the Catholic tradition.-6 The advantage of this capacity to distinguish faith and reason is most clearly evident at this point in Meiers treatment of miracles. 27 Meier believes that it falls within the task of the historian to probe all the relevant data for determining whether a purported miracle has a discernible earthly cause or was a product of trickery or excessive credulity. He draws a line, however, between such judgements and the decision whether or not a miracle has actually occurred. To affirm either that God has directly acted to bring about this startling event or that God has not done so is to go beyond what any historian can affirm in his or her capacity as a historian and to enter the domain of philosophy or theology. 12 Accordingly, a Christian is free to accept a miracle once properly vetted by the historian. Likewise, the materialist is free to draw his own conclusions from the evidence. But in neither case will the historian make the call or provide much assistance for those who will. If Meier expected to be roundly applauded for his finely tuned Catholic sensibilities, he must be quite disappointed. He has been attacked from all sides. Naturally, those, like Johnson, who judge the very project pernicious, find little theological relevance in his work.29 Other critics have objected that Meiers adoption of a neutral methodology amenable to Jew, Christian, and agnostic alike constitutes handing the palm of victory to the agnostic before the race has begun. Since religious beliefs, events, and motivations are integral to the life of Jesus, it seems unlikely that a consensus could ever be established which did not favor a secular position.30 In any case, ought not a Christian historian at least offer some resistance to a methodological positivism which brackets all claims concerning divine action simply because God cannot be considered an historical actor without violating the rules of modern historiography?31 Some critics go further, holding that Meier would be well advised to adopt a specially theological approach to the history of Jesus, employing the benefits of faith to delve deeper than would be possible for those lacking this gift.32
26. A Marginal Jew, vol. 1, 6. 27. A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 2, Mentor, Message, Miracle, 509-1038. 28. A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, 515. 29. See Johnsons review of Meiers second volume, Testing the Gospel Story, Commonweal (November 18, 1994), 35. 30. [T]he Catholic, the Protestant, and the Jew must abide by the scholarly criteria of methodological skepticism as a condition for keeping the skeptic involved in the exercise. Richard John Neuhaus, The Public Square, First Things, 21 (March, 1992), 58. 31. J. A. DiNoia charges that Meier does not ... consider the anti-metaphysical bias of the questers, nor the implicit positivism and rationalism of their views of history.... [T]he philosophical and theological presuppositions of what Meier takes to be the theologically (and doctrinally) neutral methodology of the historical quest thus slip unexamined and unchallenged into his argument (A Review of A Marginal Jew, Pro Ecclesia, 2/1 [1992], 124). 32. Roch Kereszty, in his detailed treatment of Meiers method, speaks of an empathy which faith gives the believer, or conditional believer, when studying Jesus. Historical Research, Theological Inquiry, and the Reality of Jesus: Reflections on the Method of J. P. Meier, Communio, 19 (1992), 576-600, esp. 585-87. See DiNoia, Review, 125 and Dulles,

Historians, 24.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

219

The debate touches directly on the nature of apologetics when Meier accused of being a rationalist on historical matters but a fideist with reference to theology. Joseph DiNoia raises the spectre of a doul:>le truth Dulles allows the of whether Meier the believer theory.)3 Avery question would disagree with Meier the historian. B4 Finally, Roch Keresky finds that Meier seems not only to distinguish but also to separate the realm of historical investigation from the realm of faith.&dquo; In each case, Meier is faulted not only for neglecting the apologetic task of identifying the historical Jesus with the Jesus of Christian faith but for blocking all such attempts through a definition of historical objectivity which excludes faith. A more apposite approach would employ all the resources of history and faith to demonstrate that it is likely that God was at work in the life of Jesus, not compelling faith but leading the potential believer up to the
is

doorstep.
In assessing this third option, its harmony with a great deal of Catholic tradition on the relationship reason has with faith must be acknowledged. The confidence that reason can uphold the historical truth of the Gospels is surely preferable to a protectiveness that can only nourish nagging doubts. Moreover, this approach recognises that the character of the New Testament message makes historical questions unavoidable and that theologians have a responsibility to address them using methods which appeal not only to the convinced, but also to those who struggle to

believe. There

are, however, some reasons to believe that this option is not wholly adequate. The first relates to the shared assumption of most apologists that, while reason can be of service to faith, it can never undermine it or rightly demand a revision of its content. Unaided reason does not possess the capacity to reach the object of faith - only faith elevated by supernatural grace (and reason illuminated by faith) is granted this privilege - and of itself has no control over what faith receives. Yet, while the logic is clear enough, one is entitled to ask what kind of claim is being

made which allows historical reason to support faith but never contradict it. Is this a priori delimiting of reasons reach simply a consequence of the internal logic of faith which by its very nature asserts its own truth, or is it a philosophical principle which even non-believers should find compelling, or at least reasonable? Another way to address this issue concerns how believer ought to characterise historical results which conflict with what Christians believe about Jesus or make their beliefs less credible. For example, let us suppose that an historian concludes that the basic outline of Jesus life round in the Gospels is an invention of the early Church which profoundly distorts Jesus actual life and message. Are theologian::. to consider such conclusions
33.

DiNoia,A Review, 125. 34. Dulles, Historians, 22. 35. Kereszty, Historical Research, 591.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

220

the result of bad history or the inevitable result of inquiring into a sacred subject without the eyes of faith? Maintaining the ultimate unity of faith and reason requires, I believe, that Christian theology must opt for the first of these responses. Problematic conclusions are to be refuted not on the basis of their conflict with faith but because the legitimate methods of historical research have been misapplied. Although the logic of faith requires that the believer hold that reason will always in the end prove to be supportive of faith, this conviction cannot be employed as an argument. The second objection is related. Even if reason could be limited in the manner that proponents of this option hope, it is worth asking whether such a limitation can account for the actual interplay between faith and the quest for the historical Jesus. Excepting the most rigorous rejecters of the quest, few theologians will deny that what is discovered by historians, whether informed by faith or not, can be of great value for reflecting upon the mystery of Jesus Christ. Even John Meier allows the quest some utility for theologians. In a chapter tellingly entitled Why bother? The Relevance of the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Meier asserts that the quest can combat attempts to mythologise Christ, to deny his humanity, or to co-opt his life and message for political purposes. In short, the Jesus revealed by historiography has the power to break all human constraints and flummox all ideologies which seek his unconditioned support.36 Avery Dulles agrees with Meier on this point, but goes further to assert that historical study of the New Testament may ... contribute to the better understanding of faith and assist in the development of Christian doctrine .3 Elizabeth Johnson takes another step in arguing that historical reconstructions of Jesus become part of the Churchs living memory of Jesus.8 As such, they keep alive the reality of Jesus humanity and serve to correct false images of Jesus which neglect or distort his liberating

power.39 logical
Jesus appears to serve a theopurpose beyond merely confirming what the Church confesses apart from it. Even Meiers modest claim that the historical Jesus has the capacity to explode easy labels raises the question of whether the Jesus presented in the canonical Gospels or affirmed in Church teaching is any
In each case, the quest for the historical

capable of this. The same question can be posed with respect to the development of doctrine, or the correction of inadequate images of Jesus. Does the historical Jesus have a special power, and if so, whence does it
less derive?

lack of

My point here is not to criticise those who take this third option for a clarity with respect to the precise relationship of faith and

36. Marginal Jew, vol. 1, 196-200. 37. Dulles, Historians, 25. 38. The Theological Relevance of the Historical Jesus: A Debate and a Thesis, The Thomist, 48 (1984), 25. Johnson is not responding to Meier but to David Tracy. 39. E. Johnson, The Theological Relevance, 30.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

221

historical reason. The very attempt to attain a balance is laudable enough. Yet, there are reasons to believe that just as the quest for the historical Jesus is a relative newcomer in the history of theology, the issues it raises have yet to be fully sorted OUt.~2 This failure may in part be due to a general underestimation of the revision required in traditional modes of theological reflection, once the historical Jesus is allowed relevance beyond simply confirming what can be said apart from critical history. The need for further discussion is one justification for considering a fourth option.
The Fourth

Option: The Jesus of history has potentially decisive significance for both the credibility and the content of faith

theology

This final option seeks to give historical reason a central role in both and faith. Such confidence in the importance of the historians task is most often associated with those who would employ history to undermine traditional views about Jesus. One finds this motive at work in the originators of the quest, e.g. Reimarus, Strauss. For those more attuned to current developments, the activity of the Jesus Seminar will spring to mind. In each case, the historical truth is contrasted with the distortions found in the New Testament canon and later Christian tradition, and is given full reign to constitute an alternative. In the hands of the most radical of this group, the canonical portrait of Jesus is cast as little more than the spoils of the victorious orthodoxy party in its struggle for control over the new religion.4 Yet there is another, more edifying motivation for allowing history its full say in theological matters: the conviction that searching for the historical Jesus is an inevitable and fitting element within the Churchs on-going desire to be faithful to God as revealed in Christ. Leading proponents of this option include the British exegete, N. T. Wright, and the German theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg. Both have produced monographs on Jesus in which critical history is incorporated into the theological task. 42 Pannenberg, as is well known, has spent a lifetime arguing that attempts to shield faith from the question of its historical truth, its basis outside religious experience and dogmatic judgment, not only discredit John Galvin observes that despite the significance of the reorientation of theological on the historical Jesus, many important theological dimensions of issues relative to the Jesus of history remain disputed and obscure (From the Humanity of Christ to the Jesus of History: A Paradigm Shift in Catholic Christology, Theological Studies, 55 [1994],
40.
attention

257).
41. The preface to a colour-coded translation of the Five Gospels contrasts the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith and concludes that the church appears to smother the historical Jesus by superimposing this heavenly figure on him ... The Five Gospels. The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, trs. Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar (New York: Polebridge Press, 1993), 7. 42. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996);Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man. 2nd ed, trs. Duane Priebe and Lewis Wilkins (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977).

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

222

Christianitys claim to speak of God but are wholly alien to the historical character of divine revelation witnessed in the Scriptures.&dquo; Arguments from authority leave the impression that Christian faith is its own creation with no anchor in a reality outside of itself. With respect to scientific research into the life, ministry, and fate of Jesus, Pannenberg makes the following argument:
To

and justify christological statements about Jesus, christology get behind the confessional statements and titles of the primitive Christian tradition, reaching the foundation to which these point, which underlies faith in Jesus. This foundation is the history of Jesus. Christology must ask and show how far this history of Jesus is the basis of faith. It does so by inquiring into the actual inner necessity of christological development in the NT and the continuation of this logic in the christology of the early church.44
test

must

N. T. Wright makes a similar argument for an essential unity between theological search for the meaning of the term god and an open-ended critical inquiry into the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth. 45
a

In assessing this final option, one can start with the intellectual integrity of refusing to place limits on what honest historical inquiry might mean for Christian theology. Wrights searing criticisms of the Jesus Seminar gain credibility by carefully foreswearing any reliance on Christian tradition and restricting his case to the plausibility of the

Seminars reconstruction of the historical material.46 Yet, Wrights scientific approach is not merely a matter of professionalism, but reflects a deeper conviction that critical history upholds faiths self-understanding as a response to divine action. One finds the same logic at work in the apologist who seeks evidence for Christian faith in historical fact. Employing accepted conclusions from research into the historical Jesus avoids the suspicion that his theological significance [is] a product of the Churchs faith.&dquo; Perhaps the most important aspect of this option is its connection to the actual practice of theology. Since the advent of the historical-critical
43. Of the many places one could look in Pannenbergs writing for this argument, the most complete is Systematic Theology, vol. 1, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 1-61. 44. Systematic Theology, vol. 2, 282. For Pannenbergs comment on the Third Quest see The Historical Jesus as a Challenge to Christology, Dialog, 37 (Winter 1998), 22-27. 45. The underlying argument of this book is that the split [between faith and history] is not warranted. That rigorous history (i.e. open-ended investigation of actual events in firstcentury Palestine) and rigorous theology (i.e. open-ended investigation of what the word god, and hence the adjective divine, might actually refer to) belong together, and never more so than in discussion of Jesus (Jesus and the Victory of God, 8). 46. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 28-82; and Five Gospels but No Gospel: Jesus and the Seminar, in Crisis in Christology: Essays in Quest of a Resolution (Livonia, MI: Dove

Booksellers, 1995), 115-158. 47. The phrase comes from John Galvin, From the Humanity of Christ, 266.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

223

method, the work of systematic theologians has been increasingly tied


the

to

conclusions of biblical exegesis. This has been especially true in the field of Christology. It is the rare practitioner of the discipline who does not attempt to ground at least some of his or her conclusions in the most accepted theories of what the historical Jesus did and said. Moreover, it is widely agreed within the theological community that Christological conclusions which rely upon outdated or highly controversial historical theories are rendered on that account suspect Yet, one can go further. It is not merely that theologians are responsible to the most successful reconstructions of the historical Jesus, but that, when relevant, these reconstructions possess an invincible normative power. No other theological source can trump an accepted conclusion of what really happened in Palestine two millennia ago. For example, a theologian attempting to describe the proper Christian attitude toward poverty is very unlikely to employ Matthews version of the first Beatitude (5:3), if he is convinced that Lukes (6:20) more likely goes back to Jesus himself. The same applies to a sacramental theologian fashioning a theology of the Eucharist. Will she not need to rely on historiography to determine whether the Last Supper was most probably a Paschal meal? Finally, no one concerned for the relationship that ought to pertain between Christianity and Judaism can afford to ignore what historians are saying about Jesus relationship to the Temple or the Law.&dquo; Indeed, it is virtually certain that a reconstruction of Jesus own attitude on these points will be given greater theological weight than the often polemical presentations of the four Evangelists. 51 In each case, what is discovered about the figure reflected by the canonical portraits is given a certain significance for determining what is said and not said about what God has revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. Nonetheless, in assessing the strengths of this option, it must also be noted that they run the risk of being obscured, if a number of concerns are not addressed. The most important of these involves the relationship between the reconstructed Jesus and other theological sources. Proponents of a strong, even potentially decisive, role for the historical Jesus must make clear the limits of their proposal. To claim an invincible power for accepted historical conclusions about Jesus need not give the

accepted

48. One need only consider the ongoing reception of influential Christologies based, more or less, on the New Quest for ready proof. Prominent examples include: W. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, tr. Matthew J. OConnell (New York: Paulist, 1976); E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology, tr. Herbert Hoskins (New York: Seabury, 1978); Hans Küng, On Being a Christian, tr. Edward Quinn (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976). 49. I am dependent for my examples (although not the implication) on Avery Dulless list of possible use for the historical Jesus in Historians and the Reality of Jesus, 24. Galvin adds personal presupposition of Jesus preaching and actions, Jesus understanding of his definitive salvific character, present and future dimensions of the Kingdom of God, Jesus approach to death, and origin of the Church and the sacraments (From the Humanity of

Christ, 260-270).
50. This intent is

clearly present

in E.P.

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1985).

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

224

historian monopolistic powers. Insights into the nature of Gods revelation in Christ not only predate the advent of the quest, but are often unrelated to strictly historical themes. Moreover, just as the Jesus of critical history ought not enjoy a monopoly over theological reflection, neither ought it be seen as either the foundation or the object of faith. The inadequacy of the historical Jesus for these roles can be admitted without forfeiting its importance. For instance, it can be readily conceded that the historical Jesus is not the real Jesus. No historical reconstruction can ever capture the reality of Jesus but remains forever informed by a panoply of inferences, judgements, and presumptions .5 At the same time, to acknowledge a distinction does not justify a separation. After all, the quest for the historical Jesus is, in essence, the quest for the reality of Jesus.52 Moreover, statements about the real Jesus can never contradict any accepted historical conclusion. A related issue concerns the current absence of a consensus of scholarly opinion on the historical Jesus and, given the disparate nature of modern theology, the slim chance of any particular reconstruction becoming accepted by all.3 Does the lack of unanimity pose a problem for this approach? The answer is no, to the extent that assertions of monopoly are resisted. While a theologian must attend to hypotheses, which have gained a consistent and widespread following among respected exegetes, he is free to look to other sources, if none have attained this status with respect to the issue at hand. In either case, the theologian will be called upon to defend whatever choice is made. A final concern facing all those who would give critical history a central theological role is the relationship between objectivity and faith. The idea that faith needs to be bracketed as a condition for objectivity must be abandoned. Both Wright and Pannenberg provide ample evidence that the quest for historical truth and the truth about God need not be opposed. Their arguments, no less than those of Meier, can be evaluated for their credibility by believer and non-believer alike. Both recognise that the presence of initial presuppositions does not determine objectivity, but whether what is concluded can be tested by those who do not share those presuppositions. Thus, taking advantage of ones faith
51. The complexity involved is well stated by William Loewe: "The historical Jesus" thus refers to a complex construct that rests on a set of more or less probable judgments about which sources are relevant and to what degree. Following upon those judgments there follows another set, each one again of greater or less probability, determining what Jesus actually said and did. Those judgments in turn supply the data for yet another judgments concerning which image or images best render the facts constituted by the second set of judgments historically intelligible (From the Humanity of Christ to the Historical Jesus, Theological Studies, 61 [2000], 328-329). 52. Wright makes this point in a response to Luke Timothy Johnson, In Grateful Dialogue: A Response, in Jesus & the Reconstruction of Israel. A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wrights Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL:

Intervarsity Press, 1999), 245-252.


53.

Loewe, 324-326.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

225

perspective to gain a fulsome portrait of Jesus becomes when that portrait is thereby sheltered from critique.

problem only

Methodological vulnerability to criticism also pertains to the metaphysical presuppositions involved in any religious quest for the historical Jesus. Since faith brings with it a theological conception of history, the Christian historian of Jesus must be willing to defend a critical historiography open to miracles and revelatory events. Constructing a credible alternative to the dominant secular historiography has been a project for theologians since the dawn of the modem era, yet even with the theological community itself success remains more of a hope than a reality. With respect to the life of Jesus, one must confront not only the problem
of the miracles, but whether or not Gods raising of Jesus is to be considered an event open to historical inquiry and judgement. Pannenberg, of course, is well known for holding that unless the resurrection is treated as an historical event, theology and scientific history can have no real relationship.4 Yet, the lack of positive response to Pannenbergs proposal shows the long and dusty road ahead.&dquo;

Conclusion
The above survey reveals that the theological relevance of the historical Jesus remains contested. Four options have been discussed, each with its own strengths and weaknesses; however, there is good reason to believe that in the end only two fully consistent positions are possible. On the one side there are those who deny history any power in theological formulations. Whether or not Jesus can be located with any precision, whatever is found is irrelevant to a faith which finds its source and security in a realm safe from the intrusion of historians. On the other side are all those who allow historical reconstructions of Jesus some value. The latter seems the more reasonable position given the historical nature of Christian religion and its basis in the Incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth. Yet, what it gains in appropriateness to the Christian revelation is threatened by the enormous complexity of determining with precision the value of historical reconstructions for theology. Does the value of constructing an objective portrait of Jesus lay solely in confirming what Christians hold apart from such research, with historical criticism becoming a new weapon in the apologists arsenal? Or does the objectivity that is the goal of every serious quest for the historical Jesus possess a special value for theology? Without claiming a final resolution to this choice, this essay has argued that the quest for the historical Jesus possesses an invincible allure for
54. Examples of recent statements include Systematic Theology, vol. 2, 343-363; History and Reality of the Resurrection, in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin DCosta (Oxford: One World Publications, 1996), 62-72; Die Auferstehung Jesu - Historic und Theologie, Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche, 91 (1994), 3 18- 3 28. 55. See the comments of John Galvin in From the Humanity of Christ, 271-272.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

226

systematic theology. It has found support of this contention in the practice of contemporary theologians attempting to anchor some of their conclusions in successful theories about the historical Jesus, or, at very least, to avoid relying on vulnerable reconstructions. What could justify this practice except the suspicion that the objectivity inherent in a successful reconstruction of the historical Jesus enjoys a special value for theology, as it attempts to discern the true character of what God has revealed? While the quest for the historical Jesus can never deliver the total reality of Jesus, and therefore can claim no monopoly over theological reflection, it can put forward hypothetical reconstructions of this or that aspect of Jesus history. When any reconstruction is deemed as more adequate to the reality than another, it will play a decisive role in Christology. Of course, the vying for the best reconstruction will continue, revered champions giving way to more vigorous challengers. And, at each turn, the hope for a more objective portrait will lure theologians.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi