2001 - James F. Keating - The Invincible Allure of the Historical Jesus for Systematic Theology

8/14/2019 2001 - James F. Keating - The Invincible Allure of the Historical Jesus for Systematic Theology

1/17

http://itq.sagepub.com/

QuarterlyIrish Theological

http://itq.sagepub.com/content/66/3/211Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0021140001066003022001 66: 211Irish Theological Quarterly

James F. KeatingThe Invincible Allure of the Historical Jesus for Systematic Theology

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

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

can be found at:Irish Theological QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This? - Sep 1, 2001Version of Record>>

by guest on January 28, 2013itq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/content/66/3/211http://itq.sagepub.com/content/66/3/211http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.maynoothcollege.ie/http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/content/66/3/211.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://itq.sagepub.com/content/66/3/211.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.maynoothcollege.ie/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/content/66/3/211http://itq.sagepub.com/


2/17

211

The InvincibleAllure of theHistorical Jesus for Systematic Theology

James F. Keating

With the emergence of a third quest for the historical Jesus, the relationship betweenhistory and theology once again comes to the fore. On one end of the spectrum are thosewho

denyany

theological significanceto critical

historiography.On the other end are those

who insist that what is said about Jesus theologically cannot contradict what is knownabout him historically. The present essay explores why some form of the second position isinevitable given both the historical character of divine revelation and the ultimate unity offaith and reason.

ven the most causal observer of the theological scene will be awareEthat the quest for the historical Jesus has, after a brief hiatus, re-entered the theological stage. This revival can be credited to a movementcalled the third quest. Without rehearsing the familiar narrative of the

rise and fall of the old quest in the nineteenth century and the emergenceof 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 locateJesus fully within the world of first-century Judaism. Unfortunately, theundeniable gains inherent in this methodological evolution have not yetyielded a consensus portrait ofJesus of Nazareth. Indeed, there is evidenceaplenty that the historical debate is more furious than ever and no closerto resolution.

Although some systematic theologians have taken the lack of clear

progress as a justification to ignore this latest stage of the quest, manyothers have sought to discern the significance of the third quest for whatis said of God in light of Jesus Christ. The following essay offers a surveyof four options within contemporary theology, ranging from affording thequest no importance for theology to granting it determinative signifi-cance. It is hoped that by the exploring each options strengths andweaknesses many of the essential issues at stake can be clarified. To antic-

ipate the conclusion, I am most sympathetic with those theologians wholink the

significancefor the quest for the historical

Jesusto the unavoidable

requirement that Christian theology conform itself to what God has

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

http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/


3/17

212

revealed in Jesus Christ.At the same time, I reject all attempts to givehistorians a monopoly over what theologians can claim.

The First Option: The Jesus of history cannot be gained in anymeaningful way

The first option is that of historical scepticism. The pioneer of this

approach to Jesus is surely the German historian Bruno Bauer ( 1809-1882), who argued that the Gospel of Mark, upon which the other gospelsdepended, is pure fantasy and at the centre of this grand illusion lies thefabricated figure of Jesus.- Not many serious people followed Bauer in thisradical conclusion.

Other and more probable versions of scepticism claim that while thereare few reasons to deny Jesus existence, there is not much else we can sayabout him with certainty. Sceptics of this type cite the following factorsto support their case: 1) the meager historical record; 2) the historical

gaps separating not only the death of Jesus from the first accounts of hislife but also the less remarked-upon, and perhaps more troubling, gapbetween the creation of these texts and the oldest surviving copies; 3) our

lack of knowledge about the authors and their connection to the originalevents; 4) the stance of the authors as Christians primarily interested in

supporting their new religion; 5) the significant differences of fact foundin the four gospels; and finally, 6) the morass of disagreement existingamong 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 ofJesus must be considered to be at best sketchy and at worst arbitrary. JohnDominic Crossan, one of the best-known Jesus scholars, openly acknowl-

edges that the quest runs the danger of becoming a bad scholarly jokeand that it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesusresearch is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do auto-biography 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 recon-

structing his life. The four Gospels not only disagree at critical points, butthese differences appear to reflect struggles within the early Church asmuch as

disagreementsover what

actually happened. Sortingall this out

2. Bauers theory appears in his Philo, Strauss und Renan und das Urchristentum,1841(reprint,Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1972) and Christus und die Caesaren: Der Ursprung desChristenthums aus den rmischen Griechenthum (Berlin, 1877).3. Radical skepticism did, however, create a stir during the first decade of the twentiethcentury in response toArthur Drewss Die Christusmythe (1901). For a treatment of Drewsand 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.

http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/


4/17

213

has proved a Herculean task, demonstrated by the very number ofalternative reconstructions of Christian origins.At the same

time,there are reasons to

temperthe

strengthof these

objections.Any sceptic with respect to Jesus must be prepared to be con-sistent. If the basic outline of Jesus life is inaccessible to historical

scrutiny, surely most of the- figures and events which fill the pages of his-

tory books on the ancient world suffer the same fate. While the histori-

cal record of Jesus life is neither expansive nor without its problems, it isfar from a blank slate or a whirlwind of confusion.

Moreover, judgements about the possibility of finding reliable informa-tion 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 evi-dence we already possess. The decisive issue is whether the evidence issuch that it allows judgements to move beyond the merely arbitrary. Once

any particular interpretation is more likely than any other, one is dealingwith historical knowledge. When this standard is applied to the histori-cal Jesus, it is clear that the problem of his religious significance cannotbe so easily dismissed. This fact leads to a second option.

The Second Option: The Jesus of history can be gained (more orless) but has no real significance for faith

This option holds that, whatever the chances of finding the historical

Jesus, the historian has nothing to tell the believer, either about whetherhe should believe or what he should believe. This position is most often

associated with the work of Martin K5hler and Wilhelm Herrmann.&dquo;7

Although their differences are considerable, both agreed that any attemptto 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 sus-taining, 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 changingA faith ~Jhich looks to history for support will find not a mighty fortressbut shifting sand.

5. For a comparison between the possibility of knowing Jesus and knowingAlexander theGreat, see E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure ofJesus (New York: Penguin, 1993), 3-4.

6.A. E. Harvey remarks that [W]hatwe have to ask is not whetheragiven statement is true

with a kind of supernatural certainty but whether the fact which it reports may be regardedas at least as well established as any other fact which comes down to us from antiquity. Jesusand the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983), 5.7. The significant works are Martin Khler, The So-called Historical Jesus and the HistoricBiblical Christ, ed. Ernst Wolf, tr. Carl Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1964);Wilhelm Herrmann, The Commumion of the Christian with God. trans J. Sandys Stanyonand R.W. Stewart (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).8. Herrmann, Communion, 76. For a similar point by Khler see The So-Called HistoricalJesus, 111.



5/17

214

In any case, the Jesus of history can never serve as the object of Christian

faith, the reality to whom believers are called to entrust themselves. This

honorific goes to what Kahler called the real Christ. [Tlhat is, the Christwho has exercised an influence in history, with whom millions have com-muned in childlike faith, and with whom the great witnesses of faith havebeen in communion - this real Christ is the Christ who is preached.9 Faith inthis Christ does not arise from the historians desk but from the preacherspulpit, 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 forthe Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels has gained greatpopularity as a stinging and at times hilarious rebuttal of some of the mostradical Jesus historians. 10 Yet when the dust settles, Johnsons wit is foundto be directed against all attempts to allow an historically reconstructed

Jesus to influence theological reflection.According to Johnson, the mostdestructive effect of the &dquo;Jesus Seminar&dquo; and recent &dquo;Historical Jesus&dquo;books has been the perpetuation of the notion that history somehowdetermines faith, and that for faith to be correct, the historical accountsthat gave rise to it have to be verifiable.&dquo;

Echoing K5hler, Johnson asserts that the real Jesus is not a figurelocked in the dead past waiting to be discovered, but a living presencewho 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 whomit brings to the world. Jesus reality, therefore, is not available to histori-

ography and its methods, but only to a faith-inspired engagement with

the pattern which emerges from the variety of faith-textured testimoniesfound in the New Testament and embraced by the Christian Church.&dquo; Itis this real Jesus and not some tentative reconstruction who is the properobject of true Christian faith and the source of systematic theology.

There is a good deal to say for this option. It correctly notes thatChristian 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 denyingthe

Christologicalriches of our

tradition,the

liturgy, dogmatic pronounce-ments, and writings of Christian mystics. Moreover, few would wish for the

intensity and assurance of faith to be captive to the latest scholarly fightsand fads. Finally, Johnson is certainly correct that the object of Christianfaith 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 LivingJesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).



6/17

215

recognition that theology prior to the advent of modem historical meth-ods was not unconcerned about the historical veracity of the New

Testament as much as it took that veracity for granted. What separates us

fromAquinas or Luther is not our obsession with historical truth, but thefact that the veracity of biblical history is now under siege. The critics ofthe 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 violat-

ing the very logic of a faith which claims that God has entered history.Furthermore, those who pursue this option appear to reject the very

legitimacyof historical

scholarshipat least when Jesus is under the glass.

If Christians can claim a special avenue to Jesus independent of the ruleswhich normally govern historical inquiry, might not others claim theirown privileged avenue to figures with whom they enjoy a special relation-

ship ? In other words, why should a believers opinion of Jesus of Nazarethbe any less affected by continuing historical investigation than a Muslims

opinion of Muhammad?An unsatisfactory rejoinder, I believe, not onlyopens Christianity up to the charge of special pleading, but overlooks thelong 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 importantfor apologetic reasons, confirming by reason what is held in faith

This option is most closely identified with Catholic theology, althoughit is also found in Protestantism. The rationale is that, since all Christiansinsist that the Jesus who actually lived is coterminous with the Jesus ofChristian 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 toundermine the traditional view of Scripture as true history, or to compeltheology to retreat into the private world of faith, apologists from bothsides of the confessional divide fought back.11 With the publication anddissemination of the anti-dogmatic portraits of Jesus by Strauss, Renan,and others, the historical credibility of the canonical Gospels became afield 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 asits divine author. 14 Catholics, on the other hand, concentrated on the

13. For a survey of post-Enlightenment apologetic see Avery DullessA History ofApologetics (New York: Corpus, 1971), 158-256.14. Prominent examples include George P. Fisher, Essays on the Supermatural Origin ofChristianity (New York: C. Scribner & Co., 1865, rev. ed. 1870), and J. B. Lightfoot, Essayson the Work Entitled Supermatural Religion, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1893).



7/17

216

various signs of credibility surrounding the biblical account, e.g., Jesusmiracles, his messianic consciousness, his resurrection, the character ofthe

apostolic witnesses,and the

gloriousChurch 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 compellingto unbelievers.16At the same time, these theologians strove to keep faithand reason properly distinguished.

In particular, Catholic apologists operated against a backdrop of cen-turies of debate over how far reason can go in demonstrating the credi-

bility of Christian belief by natural reason without supplanting either the

priority of supernatural grace or displacing God as faiths proper object.17This concern found official expression in the First Vatican Councils DeiFilius which sought to avoid the excesses of separating faith from reasonas well as making faith a conclusion of reason. To this end, it declaredthat faith, although enjoying external supports such as miracles and

philosophical demonstrations, is motivated not by any operation of rea-son but by the authority of the revealing God.&dquo;

It is fascinating to see how the attempt to steer a path between theerrors 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 his-torical credibility of the Gospels, in whole and in part.As the centuryprogressed, however, the work of the apologist was affected by official pro-nouncements such as Pius XIIs Divino Af f lante Spiritu (1943), whichoffered a more complex view of the intent of the evangelists with respectto history.l9 The concern to establish a more sophisticated stance, one15. For example, Hilarion Felder, Christ and the Critics.A Defense of the Divinity of Jesusagainst theAttacks of Modern Sceptical Criticism, tr. John L.Stoddard (New York: Benziger

Brothers, 1924)and Lonce de

Grandmaison, JesusChrist. 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,we must not, as apologists, presuppose either the faith or the scientific credibility ofChristianity (Felder, Christ and the Critics, 13).17. It is true that history cannot immediately and plainly demonstrate the truth of theChristian revelation and of the divinity of Jesus Christ, but it can prove the truth of thefact that Christ represented himself as God, and his religion as divine, and that heundoubtedly furnished proofs for this assertion.... Faith cannot be attested by means of his-tory, but credibility can and must be demonstrated. Faith is not a matter of science; but it isthe affair of science, and in this case also the affair of history, to prove that our faith is sci-

entifically 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, inorder to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the SacredScripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also makea prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression orthe literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpre-tation ; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected withoutserious detriment to Catholic exegesis (38). The Papal Encyclicals 1939-1958, ed. ClaudiaCarlen (Wilmington, McGrath Publishing Co. 1981), 73.



8/17

217

that affirms the basic truth of the Gospel narratives without committingitself to the literal historical truth of each and every account, received

approbationin Vatican 11s Dei Verbum

(1965).If the

Gospelaccounts

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 apolo-getics engendered by the work of Catholic intellectuals such as MauriceBlondel (1861-1949) and Pierre Rousselot (11878-115 ).- Influenced bymodern philosophy, these authors emphasised the subjective elementintrinsic in any appraisal of the truth of Christianity. Without denying

the objective force of apologetic demonstrations, they held that the sub-jective disposition of the hearer will, in most cases, determine whethersuch 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 potentialbeliever such that what may otherwise be unconvincing evidence is seen

as convincing through the eyes of faith. Not surprisingly, Rousselots the-ory came under sharp attack by those who believed that his emphasis onsubjectivity undermined Vatican Is insistence that the credibility of thefaith was available to natural reason. 21

Many of the issues at play in modern Catholic apologetics can bedetected in work ofJohn Meier, the most prominent and highly respectedCatholic scholar of the historical Jesus, and the reactions it provoked. 12The first two volumes of his multi-volumedA Marginal Jew: Rethinking theHistorical Jesus make clear that faith will play no role in what he will con-clude 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 denyingsuch claims.~4 Moreover, just as faith must not determine what anhistorian 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 canrecover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modernhistorical research .2Although this task requires the bracketing ones

faith, it should cause no anxiety for believers, especially Roman20. Blondel, The Letter onApologetics. History and Dogma, tr.A. Dru and I. Trethowan

(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964); Rousselot, The Eyes of Faith andAnsuerto TwoAttacks, trs. John M. McDermott, Joseph Donceel (New York: Fordham UniversityPress, 1990).21.A prominent example is found in Stphane Harents article Foi, in Dictionnaire dethologie 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 MarginalJeu, vol. 1, 1, also 197-198. For the difference between the real Jesus andthe historical one, see 21-36.



9/17

218

Catholics, since a distinction between what we know by reason and whatwe affirm by faith is firmly within the Catholic tradition.-6

The advantage of this capacity to distinguish faith and reason is mostclearly evident at this point in Meiers treatment of miracles. 27 Meierbelieves that it falls within the task of the historian to probe all the rele-vant data for determining whether a purported miracle has a discernible

earthly cause or was a product of trickery or excessive credulity. He drawsa line, however, between such judgements and the decision whether ornot a miracle has actually occurred. To affirm either that God has directlyacted to bring about this startling event or that God has not done so is togo

beyondwhat any historian can affirm in his or her

capacityas a histo-

rian and to enter the domain of philosophy or theology. 12Accordingly, aChristian is free to accept a miracle once properly vetted by the historian.Likewise, the materialist is free to draw his own conclusions from the evi-dence. But in neither case will the historian make the call or providemuch assistance for those who will.

If Meier expected to be roundly applauded for his finely tuned Catholicsensibilities, he must be quite disappointed. He has been attacked from allsides. Naturally, those, like Johnson, who judge the very project perni-cious, find little theological relevance in his work.29 Other critics haveobjected that Meiers adoption of a neutral methodology amenable to Jew,Christian, and agnostic alike constitutes handing the palm of victory tothe agnostic before the race has begun. Since religious beliefs, events, andmotivations are integral to the life of Jesus, it seems unlikely that a con-sensus could ever be established which did not favor a secular position.30In any case, ought not a Christian historian at least offer some resistanceto a methodological positivism which brackets all claims concerningdivine action

simplybecause 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 speciallytheological approach to the history of Jesus, employing the benefits offaith to delve deeper than would be possible for those lacking this gift.3226.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 ofmethodological 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 thequesters, nor the implicit positivism and rationalism of their views of history.... [T]he philo-sophical and theological presuppositions of what Meier takes to be the theologically (anddoctrinally) neutral methodology of the historical quest thus slip unexamined and unchal-lenged into his argument (A Review ofA Marginal Jew, Pro Ecclesia, 2/1 [1992], 124).32. Roch Kereszty, in his detailed treatment of Meiers method, speaks of an empathywhich faith gives the believer, or conditional believer, when studying Jesus. HistoricalResearch, 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.



10/17

219

The debate touches directly on the nature of apologetics when Meieris accused of being a rationalist on historical matters but a fideist with ref-erence to theology. Joseph DiNoia raises the spectre of a doul:>le truth

theory.)3Avery Dulles allows the question of whether Meier the believerwould disagree with Meier the historian. B4 Finally, Roch Keresky findsthat Meier seems not only to distinguish but also to separate the realm ofhistorical investigation from the realm of faith.&dquo; In each case, Meier is

faulted not only for neglecting the apologetic task of identifying the his-torical Jesus with the Jesus of Christian faith but for blocking all such

attempts through a definition of historical objectivity which excludesfaith.A more apposite approach would employ all the resources of historyand 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 thedoorstep.

In assessing this third option, its harmony with a great deal of Catholictradition on the relationship reason has with faith must be acknowledged.The confidence that reason can uphold the historical truth of the Gospelsis surely preferable to a protectiveness that can only nourish naggingdoubts. Moreover, this approach recognises that the character of the NewTestament message makes historical questions unavoidable and that the-

ologians have a responsibility to address them using methods whichappeal not only to the convinced, but also to those who struggle tobelieve.

There are, however, some reasons to believe that this option is not

wholly adequate. The first relates to the shared assumption of most apol-ogists that, while reason can be of service to faith, it can never undermineit or rightly demand a revision of its content. Unaided reason does not

possess the capacity to reach the object of faith - only faith elevated bysupernatural grace (and reason illuminated by faith) is granted this privi-

lege -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 beingmade which allows historical reason to support faith but never contra-

dict it. Is this a priori delimiting of reasons reach simply a consequence ofthe 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 supposethat an historian concludes that the basic outline of Jesus life round inthe Gospels is an invention of the early Church which profoundly distortsJesus actual life and message.Are theologian::. to consider such conclusions

33. DiNoia,A Review, 125.34. Dulles, Historians, 22.35. Kereszty, Historical Research, 591.



11/17

220

the result of bad history or the inevitable result of inquiring into a sacredsubject without the eyes of faith?

Maintainingthe ultimate

unityof 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 con-

flict with faith but because the legitimate methods of historical researchhave been misapplied.Although the logic of faith requires that thebeliever hold that reason will always in the end prove to be supportive offaith, 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 andthe quest for the historical Jesus. Excepting the most rigorous rejecters ofthe quest, few theologians will deny that what is discovered by historians,whether informed by faith or not, can be of great value for reflecting uponthe mystery of Jesus Christ. Even John Meier allows the quest some util-

ity for theologians. In a chapter tellingly entitled Why bother? TheRelevance 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 Jesusrevealed by historiography has the power to break all human constraintsand flummox all ideologies which seek his unconditioned support.36

Avery Dulles agrees with Meier on this point, but goes further to assertthat historical study of the New Testament may ... contribute to thebetter understanding of faith and assist in the development of Christiandoctrine .3 Elizabeth Johnson takes another step in arguing that histori-cal reconstructions of Jesus become part of the Churchs living memoryof

Jesus.8As such,

they keepalive the

reality of Jesus humanityand serve

to correct false images of Jesus which neglect or distort his liberatingpower.39

In each case, the quest for the historical Jesus appears to serve a theo-

logical purpose 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 Jesuspresented in the canonical Gospels or affirmed in Church teaching is anyless 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 itderive?

My point here is not to criticise those who take this third option for alack of 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, TheThomist, 48 (1984), 25. Johnson is not responding to Meier but to David Tracy.

39. E. Johnson, The Theological Relevance, 30.



12/17

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 his-torical 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 toa general underestimation of the revision required in traditional modes oftheological reflection, once the historical Jesus is allowed relevancebeyond simply confirming what can be said apart from critical history.The need for further discussion is one justification for considering afourth option.

The Fourth Option: The Jesus of history has potentially decisivesignificance for both the credibility and the content of faith

This final option seeks to give historical reason a central role in both

theology and faith. Such confidence in the importance of the historianstask is most often associated with those who would employ history toundermine traditional views about Jesus. One finds this motive at work inthe 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 tradi-

tion, and is given full reign to constitute an alternative. In the hands ofthe most radical of this group, the canonical portrait of Jesus is cast aslittle more than the spoils of the victorious orthodoxy party in its strug-gle for control over the new religion.4

Yet there is another, more edifying motivation for allowing history itsfull say in theological matters: the conviction that searching for thehistorical Jesus is an inevitable and fitting element within the Churchs

on-going desire to be faithful to God as revealed in Christ. Leading pro-

ponentsof this

optioninclude the British

exegete,N. T.

Wright,and the

German theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg. Both have produced mono-graphs on Jesus in which critical history is incorporated into the theolog-ical 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 basisoutside religious experience and dogmatic judgment, not only discredit

40. John Galvin observes that despite the significance of the reorientation of theologicalattention on the historical Jesus, many important theological dimensions of issues relativeto the Jesus of history remain disputed and obscure (From the Humanity of Christ to theJesus of History:A Paradigm Shift in Catholic Christology, Theological Studies, 55 [1994],

257).41. The preface to a colour-coded translation of the Five Gospels contrasts the Jesus ofhistory and the Christ of faith and concludes that the church appears to smother the his-torical Jesus by superimposing this heavenly figure on him ... The Five Gospels. The Searchfor theAuthentic Words ofJesus, 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).



13/17

222

Christianitys claim to speak of God but are wholly alien to the historicalcharacter of divine revelation witnessed in the Scriptures.&dquo;Argumentsfrom authority leave the impression that Christian faith is its own cre-ation with no anchor in a reality outside of itself. With respect to scien-tific research into the life, ministry, and fate of Jesus, Pannenberg makesthe following argument:

To test and justify christological statements about Jesus, christologymust get behind the confessional statements and titles of the primi-tive 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 Jesusis the basis of faith. It does so by inquiring into the actual inner

necessity of christological development in the NT and the continu-ation of this logic in the christology of the early church.44

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

In

assessingthis final

option,one can start with the intellectual

integrity of refusing to place limits on what honest historical inquirymight mean for Christian theology. Wrights searing criticisms of the JesusSeminar gain credibility by carefully foreswearing any reliance onChristian tradition and restricting his case to the plausibility of theSeminars reconstruction of the historical material.46 Yet, Wrights scien-tific approach is not merely a matter of professionalism, but reflects adeeper conviction that critical history upholds faiths self-understandingas 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 Jesusavoids the suspicion that his theological significance [is] a product of theChurchs faith.&dquo;

Perhaps the most important aspect of this option is its connection tothe 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 mostcomplete is Systematic Theology, vol. 1, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: WilliamB. Eerdmans

Publishing Company,1991), 1-61.

44. Systematic Theology, vol. 2, 282. For Pannenbergs comment on the Third Quest seeThe 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] isnot warranted. That rigorous history (i.e. open-ended investigation of actual events in first-century 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 nevermore so than in discussion of Jesus (Jesus and the Victory of God, 8).46. Wright, Jesus and the Victory ofGod, 28-82; and Five Gospels but No Gospel: Jesus andthe Seminar, in Crisis in Christology: Essays in Quest of a Resolution (Livonia, MI: DoveBooksellers, 1995), 115-158.47. The phrase comes from John Galvin, From the Humanity of Christ, 266.



14/17

223

method, the work of systematic theologians has been increasingly tied tothe accepted conclusions of biblical exegesis. This has been especiallytrue in the field of Christology. It is the rare practitioner of the disciplinewho does not attempt to ground at least

some of his or her conclusions inthe most accepted theories of what the historical Jesus did and said.Moreover, it is widely agreed within the theological community thatChristological conclusions which rely upon outdated or highly contro-versial historical theories are rendered on that account suspect

Yet, one can go further. It is not merely that theologians are responsibleto 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 ofwhat 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 Jesushimself. The same applies to a sacramental theologian fashioning a

theology of the Eucharist. Will she not need to rely on historiography todetermine whether the Last Supper was most probably a Paschal meal?

Finally, no one concerned for the relationship that ought to pertainbetween

Christianityand

Judaismcan afford to

ignorewhat 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 polemicalpresentations of the four Evangelists. 51 In each case, what is discoveredabout the figure reflected by the canonical portraits is given a certain sig-nificance for determining what is said and not said about what God hasrevealed 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 concernsare not addressed. The most important of these involves the relationshipbetween the reconstructed Jesus and other theological sources.

Proponents of a strong, even potentially decisive, role for the historicalJesus must make clear the limits of their proposal. To claim an invincible

power for accepted historical conclusions about Jesus need not give the

48. One need only consider the ongoing reception of influential Christologies based, moreor less, on the New Quest for ready proof. Prominent examples include: W. Kasper, Jesusthe Christ, tr. Matthew J. OConnell (New York: Paulist, 1976); E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus:An

Experimentin

Christology,tr. Herbert Hoskins (New York:

Seabury,1978); Hans

Kng,On

Being a Christian, tr. Edward Quinn (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976).49. I am dependent for my examples (although not the implication) onAvery Dulless listof possible use for the historical Jesus in Historians and the Reality of Jesus, 24. Galvinadds personal presupposition of Jesus preaching and actions, Jesus understanding of hisdefinitive salvific character, present and future dimensions of the Kingdom of God, Jesusapproach to death, and origin of the Church and the sacraments (From the Humanity ofChrist, 260-270).50. This intent is clearly present in E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1985).



15/17

224

historian monopolistic powers. Insights into the nature of Gods revela-tion in Christ not only predate the advent of the quest, but are oftenunrelated to

strictlyhistorical themes. Moreover,

justas the

Jesusof

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 admittedwithout forfeiting its importance.

For instance, it can be readily conceded that the historical Jesus is notthe real Jesus. No historical reconstruction can ever capture the reality of

Jesus but remains forever informed by a panoply of inferences, judge-ments, and presumptions .5At the same time, to acknowledge a distinc-

tion does not justify a separation.After all, the quest for the historicalJesus is, in essence, the quest for the reality of Jesus.52 Moreover, state-ments about the real Jesus can never contradict any accepted historicalconclusion.

A related issue concerns the current absence of a consensus of schol-

arly opinion on the historical Jesus and, given the disparate nature ofmodern theology, the slim chance of any particular reconstruction

becoming accepted by all.3 Does the lack ofunanimity pose a problem forthis

approach?The answer is no, to the extent that assertions of monop-

oly are resisted. While a theologian must attend to hypotheses, whichhave gained a consistent and widespread following among respectedexegetes, he is free to look to other sources, if none have attained this sta-

tus with respect to the issue at hand. In either case, the theologian will becalled upon to defend whatever choice is made.

A final concern facing all those who would give critical history a cen-tral theological role is the relationship between objectivity and faith. Theidea that faith needs to be bracketed as a condition for objectivity must

be abandoned. Both Wright and Pannenberg provide ample evidencethat the quest for historical truth and the truth about God need not be

opposed. Their arguments, no less than those of Meier, can be evaluatedfor their credibility by believer and non-believer alike. Both recognisethat the presence of initial presuppositions does not determine objectiv-ity, but whether what is concluded can be tested by those who do notshare those presuppositions. Thus, taking advantage of ones faith51. The complexity involved is well stated by William Loewe: "The historical Jesus" thusrefers to a complex construct that rests on a set of more or less probable judgments aboutwhich sources are relevant and to what degree. Following upon those judgments there fol-lows another set, each one again of greater or less probability, determining what Jesus actu-ally said and did. Those judgments in turn supply the data for yet another judgmentsconcerning 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 GratefulDialogue:A Response, in Jesus & the Reconstruction of Israel.A CriticalAssessment 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.



16/17


17/17

226

systematic theology. It has found support of this contention in the prac-tice of contemporary theologians attempting to anchor some of their con-clusions 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 successfulreconstruction 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 realityof Jesus, and therefore can claim no monopoly over theological reflection,it can put forward hypothetical reconstructions of this or that aspect ofJesus history. When any reconstruction is deemed as more adequate to

the reality than another, it will play a decisive role in Christology. Ofcourse, the vying for the best reconstruction will continue, revered cham-

pions giving way to more vigorous challengers.And, at each turn, the

hope for a more objective portrait will lure theologians.

Documents

2001 - James F. Keating - The Invincible Allure of the Historical Jesus for Systematic Theology