Christology and history: A review essay

Theology Today, Jul 2000 by Keck, Leander E

Inevitably, to move beyond what historical criticism allows as "even permissible," Schwarz must rely heavily on the Resurrection. But this too "is based on circumstantial evidence, on the appearances of the resurrected one and on the empty tomb"-that is, both historical data permit but do not require the inference that Jesus had been resurrected. Consequently, the Resurrection is "only partially, and in a limited sense an event in history." Jewish thought did not expect the Resurrection of the messiah, but the disciples interpreted Jesus' Resurrection as "the beginning of God's new creation . . . the beginning of the new aeon." During Jesus' ministry, his authority "was proleptic" but "through his resurrection it gained final credibility, and the call for decision for or against him and his message could then be issued in his name."

The problem lies not in this understanding of the role of the Resurrection but in the use to which it is put-namely, a task assigned to history in christology overall cannot really be carried out, given the nature of the sources. On the one hand, beginning with the Jesus of history accords with common sense, for, after all, the Jesus-event occurred before there was a Christian christology about him (leaving aside for the moment the question of his own "christology"). So it is understandable that one would want to develop a christology "from below" rather than "from above" (beginning with the Incarnation of the pre-existent one), especially since the latter conviction appeared later (a standard conclusion of historical criticism). Beginning with the Jesus of history might be feasible if we had reliable historical information about him that is independent of the Christian Gospels. The troublesome fact, however, is that everything that we can learn about him depends on "the ever shifting results of New Testament exegesis." Moreover, developing a christology "from below" entails a shift away from the New Testament's christologies, for they begin "from the end"-from the end of the old age and the beginning of the new.

Accordingly, unless one allows the emergence and history of christology to govern its content, a more appropriate starting point would be the exegesis of the New Testament texts. The earliest Christians did, of course, have christologies before these texts were written, but they too can be recovered only from these texts by means of historical criticism.

Powell's Jesus as a Figure in History shows how difficult it is to restate classical christology "from below," and that Schwarz's claim that "there is a body of information concerning the life and proclamation of Jesus on which most New Testament scholars virtually agree," is too sanguine. One can, of course, identify items that are not debated so long as they are phrased broadly; for example, Jesus was a Galilean who, having accepted John's baptism, undertook his own (itinerant) mission in which he spoke of the kingdom of God and associated with the poor before going to Jerusalem where he was crucified on Pilate's orders. But Powell's survey shows that controversy erupts as soon as one amplifies these items with historical details.