Understanding Jesus Sampler

Christopher McMahon’s Understanding Jesus: Christology from Emmaus to
Today . . . is a refreshingly direct Christological overview in which McMahon

allows the debates, concerns, and questions not only of scholars but also of the
faithful to emerge from the texts and then to be addressed in a balanced and
thoughtful manner . . . . McMahon offers crisp summaries, poignant questions
for discussion and reflection, helpful charts, and sidebars, which serve as peda-
gogical tools. The book’s open and inclusive approach invites readers from any
background or perspective to make the journey and to encounter the richness
and impact of Christ’s life in the world.
—Shannon Schrein, OSF
Lourdes University
Sylvania, Ohio
With its explanation of the successive quests for “the historical Jesus,” [Under-
standing Jesus] provides a learned and comprehensive antidote to conspiracy
claims about Jesus of Nazareth. . . . The author helps students make sense of
an often-bewildering array of scholarly voices. . . . Christopher McMahon’s
accessible prose is supplemented with helpful charts, questions for reflection,
topical bibliographies, and a glossary.
—Christopher Denny
Associate Professor, Department of Theology and Religious Studies
St. John’s University
Queens, New York
7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 1 8/16/13 11:40 AM

Author Acknowledgments
At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to those people in my life
who have boldly modeled their faith in Christ and challenged me to be a more
faithful and consistent disciple. My families, students, and so many friends,
especially Julie Pomerleau, to whom this small book is dedicated, have power-
fully illuminated my world with their dynamic witness to the central convic-
tion of the Christian community: “In Christ God was reconciling the world to
himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Corinthians 5:19). With-
out such witness, the Christological doctrines and the theological tradition that
seeks to make sense of those doctrines will at best remain mere curiosities and
will leave Jesus as a historical figure standing on the shores of an ancient and
distant landscape.
I would like to thank the publishing team at Anselm Academic, especially
Jerry Ruff, Paul Peterson, Brad Harmon, and Maura Thompson Hagarty, as
well as the anonymous readers and instructors who have given feedback over the
years. They have helped to revise this text (originally titled Jesus Our Salvation)
and have made it a more effective teaching tool. Among those who gave help-
ful feedback in the formation of the first edition were Terrence Tilley, Ralph
Del Colle, Mary Ann Baran, SND, and Shannon Schrein, OSF. My colleagues
at Saint Vincent College have provided me with feedback along the way and
guided me to many useful sources. Rene Kollar, OSB, the Dean of the School of
Humanities and Fine Arts, Jason King, the chair of the Department of Theology,
and my colleague, Patricia Sharbaugh, have provided constant encouragement,
friendship, and support, as have Nathan Munsch, OSB, Campion Gavaler, OSB,
Tom Hart, OSB, and Elliott Maloney, OSB.
Scottdale Mennonite Church, my wife’s church community and mine by
marriage and fellowship, afforded me the opportunity to teach an adult Sunday
school class and to preach during the long months of revising this book, and they
provided valuable feedback on my presentation of the material. As a non-creedal
church, they helped me to articulate more precisely the value and limitations
of the dogmatic tradition. The blessing of sharing in two church communities,
one Catholic and the other Mennonite, has challenged me and left me doubly
blessed over the years.
Finally, no one has imaged Christ in my life more consistently or nobly that
my wife, Debra Faszer-McMahon. Her patient endurance and steadfast love as
well as her skill as a teacher and writer have improved every aspect of this book
in both its first and second editions. Words cannot express the debt I owe her.
As always, the efforts of those mentioned here do not diminish my responsibility
for this text, and any errors or oversights are my own.

Understanding Jesus
CHRISTOLOGY FROM EMMAUS TO TODAY
CHR IST OPHER MCMAHON

Created by the publishing team of Anselm Academic.
Cover image royalty-free from iStock.com.
The scriptural quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version
of the Bible, Catholic Edition. © 1993 and 1989 by the Division of Christian Education
of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. All
rights reserved.
Vatican documents and translations are taken from vatican.va unless otherwise noted.
Quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church are taken from English translation
of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of America copyright
1994 and 1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.—Libreria Editrice Vaticana,
available at usccb.org/catechism/text/.
Copyright © 2007, 2013 by Christopher McMahon. All rights reserved. No part of this
book may be reproduced by any means without the written permission of the publisher,
Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 702 Terrace Heights, Winona, MN
55987-1320, www.anselmacademic.org.
Printed in the United States of America
7047
ISBN 978-1-59982-426-0, Print

To Julie,
in gratitude for your friendship and humble witness to Christ’s saving love
(Romans 5:5; Galatians 2:19b–20)

Contents
Preface to the Revised Edition / 11
1. Contemporary Christology and the Historical Jesus . . . . . . . . . . 13

Changing Paradigms and Shifting Terrain / 14
The Old Quest: The Challenge of the Enlightenment / 16
Beyond the Question of the Historical Jesus / 22
The Quest Gets Baptized / 25
The Problem of History: Understanding the Limits and Value
of History / 29
Conclusion / 31
2. A Tentative Historical Portrait of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Historical Jesus and the Criteria of Historicity / 34
Applying the Criteria: A Tentative Sketch of the Historical Jesus / 42
Conclusion / 69
3. The Resurrection.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
The Old Testament Period / 72
The Afterlife in the Intertestamental Period / 80
The New Testament Period / 84
The Contemporary Debate / 89
Conclusion / 93
4. New Testament Christologies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

The Background for New Testament Christology:
“The One Who Is to Come” / 97
The Growth of New Testament Christology: Titles, Roles,
and Patterns / 102
Christology in Paul / 108
Christology in the Synoptic Gospels / 112
Wisdom and Logos: The Confluence of Jewish and Greek Ideas / 119
Conclusion / 124

5. The Development of Classical Christology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
The Way to Nicaea (100–325) / 127
Political and Theological Conflict as Engines
for Doctrinal Development: Constantinople I (381) / 134
Political and Theological Conflict as Engines
for Doctrinal Development: Ephesus (431) / 136
Schism and Compromise: Between Ephesus
and Chalcedon (433–448) / 139
More Politics and More Doctrine:
The Council of Chalcedon (451) / 140
The Aftermath of Chalcedon (451–553) / 144
Conclusion / 146
6. The Work of Christ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Biblical Images of Salvation / 148
Soteriology through the Middle Ages / 153
The Reformation and the Doctrine
of Penal Substitution (1500–1600) / 161
Conclusion / 167
7. Christology and Social Transformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Sin, Conversion, and Society / 170
Revolutionary Christology / 178
Feminist Christology / 180
Postcolonial Christology / 186
Conclusion / 190
8. Jesus and Other Religions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Traditional Christian Response to Religious Pluralism / 194
Christology and Pluralism at the Turn of the Century / 201
The Return of a High-Descending Christology / 209
Conclusion / 214
Glossary / 217
Index / 235

List of Charts and Sidebars
Chapter 1
Person of Interest: Albert Schweitzer / 21
The Historical Jesus at the Turn of the Last Century / 24
Christianity and Existentialism / 28
Modernism among Catholics and Protestants / 30
Chapter 2
Selectively Sketching Jesus / 35
Four Sketches of the Historical Jesus / 35
Stages and Sources in the Gospel Tradition / 36
The Markan Hypothesis, the Two-Source Theory, and Q / 38
Primary Criteria for Historical Jesus Research / 41
Person of Interest: Josephus / 45
Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls / 49
Some Modern Approaches to New Testament Eschatology / 53
Person of Interest: Apollonius of Tyana / 57
Major Sects in First-Century Palestinian Judaism / 60
The Battle to Understand Judaism in the New Testament / 63
Chapter 3
The Afterlife in History and Tradition / 74
The Canon, the Apocrypha, and the Deuterocanonicals / 77
Person of Interest: Philo / 81
Some Messianic Figures in Judaism / 83
The Variant Accounts of Jesus’ Resurrection in the Gospels / 87
Person of Interest: N. T. Wright / 92
Chapter 4
Does the New Testament Call Jesus “God”? / 98
Some Titles, Roles, and Patterns in New Testament Christology / 104
Person of Interest: Paul / 109
Kenōsis and Buddhism / 111
The Parting of the Ways: Christianity and Judaism / 115
Gospel Christologies: Portraits for Particular Audiences / 116
Person of Interest: Origen / 122
Chapter 5
Caesar and the Church / 130
Alexandria and Antioch / 135
The First Four Ecumenical Councils: A Time Line / 143
Person of Interest: Theodore of Mopsuestia / 145

Chapter 6
Sacrifice in Ancient Israel / 151
Person of Interest: Peter Abelard / 159
René Girard’s Theory of Sacrifice / 161
Soteriologies: A Simplified Comparative Chart / 164
Chapter 7
Person of Interest: Søren Kierkegaard / 170
Lonergan and the Notion of Bias / 173
Marxism, Liberation Theologies, and the Catholic Church / 179
Some Other Forms of Contemporary Feminist Theologies / 185
Cosmic and Metacosmic Religiousness / 189
Chapter 8
Religion, Tolerance, and Armed Conflict: Islam and Christianity / 196
Christian Perspectives on Religious Pluralism / 200
The Incarnation of God in Hinduism: The Avatars of Vishnu / 203
Pope John Paul II and The Relationship between Christians and Jews / 207

P r e fac e to
the Revised Edition
The motivation to offer a revised edition of a textbook can often appear simply
to be financial, a means of addressing economic issues on the side of the publish-
ers or the author. Yet, at times, circumstances demand a book be revised, and I
hope that readers of this text will appreciate the many reasons for this revision of
Jesus Our Salvation.
First, the original edition was well received by instructors and students, earn-
ing the book praise and numerous course adoptions. Yet, the book was crafted
in the early stages of Anselm Academic’s foray into the college textbook market,
and the precise editorial voice of the press had yet to be established. Moreover, it
was my first book, and the combination of these two factors played a role in the
shortcomings of the original edition. The opportunity to revise the text in light
of my experience and the insights of the experienced editorial team at Anselm
could not be ignored. It is my hope that the current edition will preserve the vir-
tues of the first edition, correct any of its errors, and provide both instructors and
students with an even more useful tool for engaging the questions surrounding
the religious significance of Jesus within the Christian tradition.
Second, the original edition seemed to take an explicitly faith-centered
stance on Christology, and many readers thought that it presupposed (or even
imposed) a faith stance. Feedback from instructors indicated that this percep-
tion hampered the book’s usefulness in settings where a significant number of
students did not share the same faith traditions or convictions. The new edi-
tion seeks to remedy this problem by adopting a “faith friendly” perspective, one
that articulates basic Christian and often Catholic convictions on Christology
without presupposing these convictions are shared by the reader. The title and
design of the book have been changed along with the artwork and the questions
for reflection so as to accommodate a wider audience. While no text will please
all readers, I believe that the current edition represents a strong and consistent
attempt to address this important issue in a balanced way—in a way hospitable
to readers representing a wide range of faith convictions.
Third, in this revision I have added some new material and revised much
of the original. For example, although many readers appreciated the sidebar dis-
cussions, a few sidebars seemed either inordinately long or otherwise distract-
ing. Several such sidebars have been deleted, and others have been revised and
11

12 U nderstanding J esus
abbreviated. Additionally, the presentation on the various quests for the histori-
cal Jesus in chapter 1 has been tightened and incorporated into a discussion of
the paradigmatic shift in Christology that has taken place over the course of
the past century. The reconstruction of Jesus’ life and ministry in chapter 3 has
been tightened, and the material on the resurrection of Jesus in chapter 3 has
been expanded slightly. The discussion of NT Christology in chapter 4 includes
additional material on the provenance and complexities associated with the
term messiah within late Second Temple Judaism. Additionally, the discussion
of soteriology in chapters 6 and 7 has been improved with an expansion of the
approach offered by Aquinas and a fuller presentation of Rene Girard’s contri-
bution to contemporary soteriology.
This revised edition will, I hope, continue to serve college students with a
useable, approachable, and engaging text that will help focus and direct further
inquiry into the central claim of the Christian tradition, namely that in Christ,
God is reconciling the world to himself. The book takes a theological rather
than purely historical or social-scientific approach to Christology. I hope that
this theological presentation resonates with both believers and nonbelievers in a
way that makes Christian claims about Christ a compelling and fruitful topic for
inquiry and discussion.

chapter   1
Contemporary Christology
and the Historical Jesus
The Western world, which for more than fifteen hundred years had defined
itself in relation to the Christian tradition, is rapidly being redefined, largely by a
globalized and distinctly post-Christian culture. Today all religions, and Christi-
anity in particular, struggle to promote the integration of a life of faith with daily
economic and political concerns. The broader culture tends to define the values
people hold, leaving religious values marginalized or blended and indistinct.
Standing twenty centuries removed from the life of Jesus of Nazareth,
Christians struggle to articulate the relevance of his life and the doctrinal state-
ments about him that emerged in the intervening centuries. What remains is
often pious religious sentiment or technical theological study, as the claims about
Jesus made in the history of Christian theology fade into obscurity. Indeed, the
history of theology is in some ways a history of forgetting. This is especially
true of the discipline known as “Christology,” i.e., critical reflection on the reli-
gious significance of Jesus. Many Christians regard the Christological tradition
as irrelevant for contemporary faith, and many choose to ignore it or simply for-
get it. A number of theologians in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have
even attempted to drive out what they regarded as the “demons” of medieval and
ancient Christology and its creeds.
Dissatisfaction with what might be called “creedal Christianity”1 and a
cultural move away from organized religion in the West has turned many con-
temporary Christians away from classic Christology to focus exclusively on the
Bible, hoping thus to arrive at a simpler, clearer understanding of Jesus. Such a
maneuver has its own problems, however, for how do we know that the Gospels
give us a true picture of Jesus? The desire to get behind the canonical Gospels to
1. This phrase will become clearer in the course of this text; for now, it is sufficient to identify
“creedal Christianity” with the classic formulations of Christian doctrine that emerged in the course
of the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries and resulted in the formulation
of the Nicene and Chalcedonian statements of faith.
13

find the real Jesus—the Jesus whom some claim has been hidden and distorted
by the early Christian church—has led to a series of scholarly “quests” to dis-
cover who Jesus really was. On a more popular level, the suspicion that the real
Jesus was different from the Jesus of the Gospels has found expression in the
widely popular book and film The Da Vinci Code.
Where does one turn, then, for answers? If the ancient creeds are irrel-
evant and if the Gospel accounts cannot be trusted—as both Jesus scholars
and a skeptical, secular culture seem to insist—what is an ordinary believer to
do? One response has been to allow one’s devotional life to become privatized
and individualized—insulation, after all, can be comforting. As long as one
remains within one’s private devotional life or that of a small group of like-
minded people, images or claims about Jesus can remain largely unexamined.
Yet, the desire to bridge this gap between faith and understanding has focused
the work of theologians in recent years, and these attempts define the landscape
of contemporary Christology.
Changing Paradigms and Shifting Terrain

In the past, Christology was a rather straightforward theological discipline. A
course on Christology had a mathematical precision to it—one investigated how
God became human in Christ, what powers Christ had, and how the death and
resurrection of Christ saved humanity. As the reader can probably tell already,
the account of Christology offered in these pages will not be so straightforward,
for contemporary Christology in general is not straightforward. In fact, most
theologians now would begin by discussing how modern times really shifted the
terrain or the paradigm for doing Christology (and all theology).
This paradigm shift in the way Christology is done and taught was cham-
pioned by, among others, the great Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner
(1904–1984). Rahner was particularly concerned with how modern Christians
had all but forgotten their own Christological teaching, which emphasized both
the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus.2 Although established at the Coun-
cil of Chalcedon in 451, by Rahner’s day most Christians paid only lip service
to this doctrine, which to the average lay person seemed essentially irrelevant.
Rahner believed that the teaching of Chalcedon, and indeed all the classic for-
mulations on Christ, represented both obstacle and opportunity for the renewal
of Christology.
The Council of Chalcedon had emphasized the full humanity of Christ
along with his full divinity. Nevertheless, all of the early Christological procla-
mations, Chalcedon included, tended to enshrine a “high descending” approach
2. Karl Rahner, “Current Problems in Christology,” Theological Investigations, vol. 1 (Baltimore:

Helicon, 1961), 149–200.

Contemporary Christology and the Historical Jesus 15
to Christology. The prologue to John’s Gospel best illustrates this approach: the
Word of God descends from heaven, becomes flesh, is glorified in death, and
returns to the Father in heaven. In Christian art, we often see images of the
Annunciation represented as a tiny person (often carrying a cross, as in Robert
Campin’s Annunciation Triptych) who flies down from heaven and occupies the
womb of the Blessed Mother. Such an approach to Christology tends toward
a crude literalism—which may have made perfect sense in the worldview of
ancient peoples, but as Rahner argued, it has become perilously out of date and
theologically dangerous today.
A high-descending approach has burdened many Christians with a warped
and unorthodox Christology that Rahner termed crypto-monophysitism. That
is, he accused people of being closet “monophysites”; monophysites—from the
Greek words monos (one) and physis (nature)—were early Christian heretics who
believed that Jesus had only one (divine) nature. In effect, Rahner was saying that
modern Christians, although verbally affirming the full humanity and full divin-
ity of Christ, actually downplay or forget that Christ was also fully human. This
neglect of Jesus’ humanity is entirely understandable given the high-descending
approach that dominated Christological discourse and popular piety for centu-
ries. Such an approach tended to produce a mythical understanding of Jesus that
disconnects him from human experience and history alike—which is not at all
what those who framed the creed of Chalcedon had in mind.
Rahner argued for a shift in Christological thinking, away from the high-
descending approach to an emphasis on Christ’s humanity—a low-ascending
approach—as the path to recovery of authentic Christology. Some theologians,
however, objected to this move, arguing that a low-ascending approach would
diminish the divinity of Christ. Anticipating such an objection, Rahner asserted,
“Anyone who takes seriously the historicity [authenticity] of human truth (in
which God’s truth too has become incarnate in Revelation) must see that neither
the abandonment of a [theological] formula nor its preservation in a petrified
form does justice to human understanding.”3 Just because one states a doctrine
correctly does not mean that one really believes it—i.e., one doesn’t necessarily
act according to one’s stated belief. The mere repetition of Christological doc-
trines and formulae does not mean that they have been properly understood or
adequately appropriated.
When talking about God, something more is always possible, Rahner
argued. Therefore, the shift to a low-ascending Christology is not really a chal-
lenge to traditional Christology; rather, it is the means by which contemporary
Christians do homage to the tradition and renew it.
This book will follow a low-ascending approach. Such an approach
will inevitably raise issues that can prove both helpful and problematic for
3. Ibid., 150.

articulating a contemporary Christology that is faithful to the tradition. How-

ever, in the end, this approach also positions the discipline of Christology to
address the questions and issues raised within the broader culture so that the
Christological tradition may be better understood beyond the boundaries of
the Christian church.
Interest in a low-ascending Christology has been responsible, in part, for
the wave of books, films, and documentaries on Jesus we have seen over the past
two decades. Christians have found some of these images of Jesus disconcert-
ing: Jesus as a violent revolutionary, a confused and naïve religious reformer, a
magician, and a philosopher. The diverse depictions all purport to offer a view of
the person behind the canonical Gospels, the historical human rather than the
religious figure proclaimed by the Christian church—which brings us back to
the question of “the real Jesus” behind the Gospel accounts. In scholarly terms,
this is the question of “the historical Jesus”; the remainder of this chapter will be
devoted to it.
The Old Quest: The Challenge of the Enlightenment

The Enlightenment provides the basic backdrop against which the so-called old
or original quest for the historical Jesus is best understood. In the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, “wars of religion,” sparked by the Reformation and the
Catholic Counter-Reformation, had swept across Europe; allegedly Christian
rulers busily tried to kill one another in the name of Jesus (the wars of reli-
gion were, in many ways, not about religion but about political power).4 These
wars helped to discredit religion and religious authority in Europe. If Christian
authorities on either side of a conflict could cite divine sanction for their violent
aggression, the logic behind their respective rationale had to be highly selective
and self-serving, to say the least.
The discrediting of religion and religious authority prompted many thinkers
to look outside religion for answers to questions of reason, truth, and morality.
The era of the Enlightenment, which followed, was characterized by a pervasive
suspicion of religious claims and religious authority. Instead, the Enlightenment
celebrated the work of the individual mind that was free from irrational beliefs
and unconstrained by religious authority. The Enlightenment set the stage for
the old quest for the historical Jesus that emerged in the nineteenth century by
discrediting traditional Christianity and its scriptures.
However, the Enlightenment’s hostility to organized religion provides only
one piece of the background necessary for understanding the old quest. The
4. For a provocative and insightful account of these conflicts, see William T. Cavanaugh, The
Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict (Oxford University Press,
2011), 123–80.

other piece involves the Enlightenment’s successor, Romanticism. Whereas the

Enlightenment emphasized the cool logic of scientific reason as the sole crite-
rion of truth and value, Romanticism emphasized the emotional, mystical, and
more natural aspects of human existence. Like the Enlightenment, Romanticism
prized individual experience and was suspicious of organized religion and reli-
gious authority. However, Romanticism was much more comfortable creatively
engaging traditional Christianity than was the Enlightenment, albeit in a sub-
versive way. Together Romanticism and the Enlightenment, to varying degrees,
fueled the major efforts of the old quest.
Looking for Jesus amid Social and Cultural Revolution

The French Revolution (1789) was a watershed in the political, social, and
religious life of Europe. The insights and challenges posed by Enlightenment
thinkers came to fruition in the French Revolution, with its wholesale rejec-
tion of the old order of Europe, including the cultural and political influence of
the Christianity. At this time the father of historical Jesus research, Hermann
Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), inaugurated what has come to be known as the
old quest for the historical Jesus.
The general indictment of the church that accompanied the French Revo-
lution seems to have played a role in Reimarus’s description of the origins of
Christianity and the place of Jesus therein. Reimarus suggested that Jesus’ proc-
lamation of the kingdom of God stood in contrast to the disciples’ emphasis on
the person of Jesus and the church. Jesus’ ministry, according to Reimarus, was
primarily a nationalist religious and political reform movement (much like the
French Revolution), while Jesus’ disciples, through their preaching and writing,
misrepresented Jesus’ message for their own purposes. Reimarus concluded that
traditional Christianity was, simply stated, a fraud, a deception that an investiga-
tion into the life of Jesus behind the Gospels helps to unmask. Such an account
of Jesus and the origins of the church further eroded the power of the church
while affirming those who sought political and social reform.
The attack on the Christian church as a fraud resonated within many quar-
ters in nineteenth-century Europe, but the profound religious and philosophical
sensibilities of the culture also admitted a more nuanced revision of the origins
of Christianity, such as that offered by David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874).
His major work, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1836), went through
several editions during Strauss’s lifetime. An admirer of the German philoso-
pher G. F. Hegel (1770–1831), Strauss argued that the Gospels were myth and
attempted to communicate a reality that Hegel designated the ideal of “God-
manhood.” Stated simply, this ideal describes human life lived toward the goal
of actualizing the great spiritual orientation of human existence: a union with
God. Jesus, therefore, is not the incarnation of God but a sign, or an example,

of what humans might become if they are awakened to the spiritual founda-
tions of their existence. For Strauss, the disciples’ desire to communicate the
dynamics of a personal encounter with Jesus could only be effective if that
communication were evocative—it had to invite people to respond or react
in a certain way, rather than merely describe or report the events of Jesus’ life.
Myth, Strauss argued, was the literary and religious convention early Chris-
tian writers used to bring the encounter with Jesus alive and make the realiza-
tion of God-manhood possible in a way that mere description could not. For
Strauss, Christianity was not a fraud but a mistake or a misunderstanding of
this basic dynamic, a mistake that could be corrected. This correction, however,
required the demise of traditional Christianity but at the same time would
create a new, more authentic, and non-dogmatic religion. Around the time of
Strauss, a movement emerged within theological circles that sought to find
middle ground between the principles of the Enlightenment and traditional
Christianity. This position came to be known as liberal theology, and one of
its most popular exponents at the turn of the twentieth century was the great
historian Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930).
Liberal theology sought to accommodate the principles of the Enlight-
enment and Christianity—usually by adopting a thoroughly modern outlook,
retaining aspects of traditional Christianity that seemed to fit, and abandoning
elements that did not. For example, the miracle stories were given naturalistic
and moral interpretations. Jesus’ healings had natural explanations, and so-called
nature miracles like the feeding of the multitude had moral but not literal signif-
icance, e.g., when we share, we find that there is more than enough to go around.
In his famous book What Is Christianity? (1900), Harnack depicted Jesus as an
eminently reasonable human and did away with any hint of the supernatural.
The resultant portrait of Jesus and his mission revolved around three central
ideas: (1) the kingdom of God as a present interior reality, (2) the infinite value
of the human soul, and (3) the law of love as the supreme religious and moral
value. For Harnack, Jesus did not point to himself; rather, he directed all people
to God as a loving Father. Harnack, like Strauss, rejected the doctrines of tradi-
tional Christianity but not on the grounds that the church had misunderstood
Jesus. Rather, he argued, Christian doctrines, even those in Scripture, are histori-
cally and culturally determined—the product of Greek and other influences—
and only of passing value.
Harnack was an important and serious church historian, and he was closely
connected to many of the Romantic and “liberal” approaches to the historical
Jesus that emerged in the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century. These
approaches imaginatively narrated the life and ministry of Jesus so that the
worldview of Jesus was made to fit with that of modern European intellectuals.
Around the turn of the nineteenth century, many began to wonder whether the
quest for the historical Jesus was sufficiently self-critical.

The End of the Old Quest:

The Limits of Historical Investigations
The old quest was brought to a close through the development of a better under-
standing of the formation and purpose of the Gospels, and a better (though still
imperfect) understanding of first-century Palestinian Judaism and its theology.
For the better part of Christian history, the Gospels were thought to pres-
ent eyewitness accounts of the life and death of Jesus (particularly the Gospel of
Matthew, the “first Gospel”). Beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century,
Mark came to be regarded as the first Gospel, a kind of bare-bones account of
Jesus’ life and ministry with few theological accretions. Some circles confidently
regarded Mark as a basic, historically reliable account of Jesus’ life, whereas the
other Gospels were thought to have comparatively little historical value.
At the close of the nineteenth century, the historicity of Mark came under
fire in the work of William Wrede (1859–1906), who suggested that even Mark’s
Gospel was suffused with the theology of the early church. Wrede claimed that
one example of this was the so-called messianic secret material in Mark. The
messianic secret refers to passages in Mark in which those who have witnessed
Jesus’ divine power (e.g., in a healing or exorcism) are instructed not to tell
others of Jesus’ identity as the divine agent (Mark 1:40–45; 5:21–24, 35–43;
7:31–37; 8:22–26). Wrede claimed that early Christians had come to believe
that Jesus became the Messiah after his death (the development of New Testa-
ment Christologies will be discussed in chapter 4). As beliefs regarding Jesus’
divinity developed, Jesus’ identity as Messiah was read back into the stories
about his ministry, but this created a tension—was Jesus the Messiah before or
only after his death? According to Wrede, Mark’s community resolved this ten-
sion by creating the messianic secret: Jesus was the Messiah during his life, but
he hid his identity and revealed it only after his resurrection. This feature of
Mark’s Gospel was but one example of how later concerns and developments
within early Christianity came to dominate the proclamation of the gospel. For
Wrede, the Gospels were excellent sources for the study of earliest Christianity
but poor sources for the reconstruction of the historical Jesus.
Criticism of the actual history of the Gospels was also fueled by the emer-
gence of a more sophisticated account of first-century Judaism and its theol-
ogy. Johannes Weiss (1863–1914) put another nail in the coffin of the uncritical
assumptions of the old quest with his book Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom
of God (1892). Weiss argued that one may indeed gain some knowledge of the
historical Jesus by reading the Gospels, but the picture that emerges makes Jesus
irrelevant to modern humans because his message and his actions all revolve
around an ancient understanding of the world and God. Weiss claimed that
Jesus’ preaching and ministry was informed by first-century Jewish apocalypti-
cism, or more precisely, apocalyptic eschatology.

Apocalyptic eschatology, which flourished from the second century BCE

to the second century CE, expressed particularly Jewish and Christian perspec-
tives about the coming of the end of the world. The term refers to a theological
genre of literature as well as a theological movement. This eschatology (from the
Greek eschaton, “end”) was blended with ideas from Persia and Greece and came
to focus on the idea that God would shortly intervene in history, raise the dead,
give both the wicked and righteous their just rewards, and reestablish Israel as an
independent kingdom ruled by God. Apocalyptic eschatology usually involved
the communication of this message or “revelation” (Greek, apocalypsis) of hope
to a persecuted community through the work of an intermediary—an angel or
a famous figure from the history of Israel. Needless to say, if Weiss was correct
about the basic content and meaning of Jesus’ ministry and self-understanding,
then the entire project of liberal theology would be undercut. In fact, the entire
historical Jesus quest would be irrelevant, because the resulting picture of Jesus
would not be useful for modern people.
Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965), notable composer, physician, medical doc-
tor, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and theologian, brought the old quest for
the historical Jesus to a halt in 1906 with the publication of The Quest of the
Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. In this
book, Schweitzer traced the progress and aberrations of the various attempts
to discover the historical Jesus in the nineteenth century. Schweitzer seconded
George Tyrrell’s famous image of historical Jesus research at the time: such
research is like looking down a dark well—one sees only one’s reflection. In
other words, the political philosopher and revolutionary see Jesus as a revo-
lutionary, the Hegelian philosopher sees Jesus as a Hegelian philosopher, and
the humanist sees Jesus as a humanist. Schweitzer’s position was similar to the
thoroughgoing eschatology of Johannes Weiss. Schweitzer contended that the
Jesus of history was so thoroughly immersed in the situation of first-century
Palestine and its concern with eschatology that any attempt to bring him into
the modern period does so only through violence and distortion. The historical
Jesus is alien to modern ways of thinking.
In his account of the progress of the old quest for the historical Jesus, Wil-
liam Loewe identified four major positions at the end of the nineteenth century:5
(1) the historical Jesus is the Jesus of the Gospels (the position of fundamen-
talists or reactionaries), (2) the historical Jesus is the Jesus of philosophers and
humanists (liberal theologians), (3) the historical Jesus cannot be reconstructed
from the Gospels (Wrede), and (4) the historical Jesus is freakish and irrelevant
to our time (Weiss and Schweitzer). Within academic circles in Europe, posi-
tions three and four carry the day, but positions one and two enjoy significant
popularity. The result of this division between academics and the broader culture
5. William P. Loewe, The College Student’s Introduction to Christology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgi-
cal, 1996), 31–32.

was the general acceptance of the position outlined in Martin Kähler’s book The
So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ (actually published before
Schweitzer’s book). For Kähler, the “historical” (geschichtlich in German) Jesus
cannot be identified as the object of faith; rather, it is the Christ proclaimed at
Easter that is the object of proclamation and belief, and it is this “historic” (his-
torisch in German) Jesus who makes a difference in history. Kähler’s distinction
between the historical person and the Christ of the faith community would be
influential over the next several decades.
Person of Interest: Albert Schweitzer
Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) was

one of the most important figures
within twentieth-century Western
culture. His family was deeply reli-
gious as well as musically and aca-
demically inclined, which helped
to chart Albert’s future. His great-
ness first manifested itself in
Albert’s musical abilities: he was
nine when he first performed at
his father’s church in Strasbourg.
Schweitzer’s musical interest con-
tinued unabated to the end of his
life—he wasn’t just good; he was
internationally renowned. His per-
© dpa / Corbis
formances and musical publications

made him wealthy, and as a young
man, he used his financial resources
Albert Schweitzer to further his education. Initially,
Schweitzer studied theology at the
University of Strasbourg where he completed his doctorate in philosophy
(1899). He also received a licentiate in theology a year later. He served as a
pastor and professor over the next decade, during which he wrote several
important books, including his celebrated account of the old quest for the
historical Jesus (The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1906). Around the same
time, Schweitzer decided to go to Africa as a medical missionary and pro-
ceeded to earn a medical degree in 1913. He founded a hospital at Lam-
baréné in French Equatorial Africa, which he would operate until his death
in 1965. The hospital could serve as many as five hundred patients at its
height, and Schweitzer had multiple roles there: physician, surgeon, pastor,
administrator, and janitor. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952.

Beyond the Question of the Historical Jesus

Few figures have dominated theological debates as did Rudolf Bultmann (1884–
1976) in the middle decades of the twentieth century. Bultmann, a Lutheran,
helped to move theology away from the seemingly intractable situation cre-
ated by the demise of liberal theology and the old quest to locate an authentic
religious expression of Christianity within a modern context. The movement
became known as dialectical theology. Dialectical theology did not share with lib-
eral theology its optimism regarding human history and progress; rather, God
was understood as entirely “other”—apart from the world—and such a posi-
tion carries some important implications for the study of the historical Jesus.
Bultmann denied the theological significance of the historical Jesus beyond the
mere fact of his existence (das Dass). The fact of Jesus’ existence was simply the
precondition for the proclamation of the early church. Bultmann was concerned
instead with historical issues surrounding the formation of the Gospels, in par-
ticular a method known as form criticism. He and other form critics (especially
Martin Debelius) sought to deconstruct the Gospels into individual units to
determine the original life setting of the early church in which these units took
shape. By doing this Bultmann hoped to discern the manner in which the early
church came to understand and communicate its faith in Christ. Armed with
this knowledge, the contingencies that formed much of the New Testament
could be relativized or dismissed in a project of demythologizing. For Bultmann,
as for Kähler, it is the proclamation of Jesus risen and now living (i.e., the Jesus
of the kerygma) that has import for believers. Bultmann outlined the main fea-
tures of his theology and his approach to historical Jesus research in his famous
essay on demythologizing the New Testament.6
For Bultmann, the New Testament presents a mythical worldview and a
corresponding mythical view of salvation. The New Testament assumes that the
world is a three-story structure (heaven is “up there,” earth is “here,” and hell
is “down there”); the course of human history is governed by spiritual powers;
salvation occurs as a result of the God-man’s atoning sacrifice and the victory
this gives him over the powers of evil; anyone who belongs to the Christian
community is guaranteed resurrection. For Bultmann, a modern person can-
not appropriate this primitive, unscientific worldview, which has its roots in the
mythology of either first-century Judaism or that of the Greco-Roman world.
Christians cannot accept this worldview because (1) there is nothing specifically
Christian about this worldview, and (2) no one can appropriate this worldview
today in light of modern culture and science. More important for Bultmann,
however, is the way self-understanding helps to shape the modern worldview,
and this has great implications for a contemporary understanding of salvation.
6. Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” in New Testament and Mythology and Other
Basic Writings, ed. Schubert Ogden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984; German original published in 1941).

Demythologizing does not imply a cafeteria approach to Christianity—

taking what fits with our modern worldview and leaving behind ideas or doc-
trines that do not conform to modern sensibilities. Rather, Bultmann insists,
“We can only accept the mythical world picture or completely reject it.”7 He
contends that the mythic picture of the New Testament will be done away with
as one uncovers the real intention of the New Testament and its use of myth. For
Bultmann, myth is to be understood not in cosmological terms but in anthro-
pological terms. It gives expression to the “beyond” or the limit of human exis-
tence that lies beyond the familiar disposable world that one takes for granted.
In other words, myth must be understood as disclosing the mystery of human
existence (what it means to be human).
This approach to the Christian gospel is not altogether novel, according to
Bultmann; rather, the task of demythologizing is already undertaken in the New
Testament itself.8 Earlier attempts at demythologizing the New Testament were
offered in the nineteenth century, most notably by Strauss and by some within
liberal theology. These attempts, however, failed to understand the kerygma (the
faith proclamation of the church). The modern world requires an existential
interpretation of the New Testament myths, an interpretation that will speak to
the difficulties of human existence in the modern world.
The understanding of “being” that underlies the Christian kerygma con-
trasts existence (or “human being”) with faith and without faith. The human
being outside faith—one who lives “according to the flesh”—is subject to the
impermanence and decay associated with the world. However, in faith, humans
live “according to the Spirit” because their lives are based on what cannot be seen
and what is not disposable. For Bultmann, the eschatology usually associated
with Jewish apocalypticism is now to be read as the new life of the believer, a
new creation, free from the trouble of this transitory and disposable world.
Bultmann contends that this discovery is dependent upon the New Testa-
ment. The revelation that takes place in Christ is the revelation of the love of
God. This love frees one from one’s self and opens one to freedom and future
possibility. Christian faith recognizes the act of God in Christ as the condition
for the possibility of human love and authenticity. That is why, for Bultmann,
the significance of the Christ occurrence rests not in historical questions but in
discerning what God wants to say to humanity in the proclamation of Christ.
7. Ibid., 9.
8. Ibid., 11. “The New Testament itself invites this kind of criticism. Not only are there rough
edges in its mythology, but some of its features are actually contradictory. For example, the death of
Christ is sometimes a sacrifice and sometimes a cosmic event. Sometimes his person is interpreted
as the Messiah and sometimes as the Second Adam. The kenōsis of the preexistent Son (Philippians
2:6ff.) is incompatible with the miracle narratives as proofs of his messianic claims. The virgin birth
is inconsistent with the assertion of his preexistence. The doctrine of the Creation is incompatible
with the conception of the ‘rulers of this world’ (1 Corinthians 2:6ff.), the ‘god of this world’ (2 Cor-
inthians 4:4) and the ‘elements of this world’ (Galatians 4:3). It is impossible to square the belief that
the law was given by God with the theory that it comes from the angels (Galatians 3:19f.).”

The cross of Christ is to be understood not as an occurrence outside of oneself

and one’s world; rather, the meaning of the cross is found in the lives of believers
who commit to the suffering that authentic freedom demands.
The project of demythologizing the New Testament preserves the paradox
(apparent contradiction) of the Christian faith: the transcendent God—the God
that is totally beyond us—becomes present in the concrete history and lives of peo-
ple. Bultmann’s project, though criticized during his lifetime, was eminently pasto-
ral (rather than simply academic) as it tried to outline how Christians are to believe.
The Historical Jesus at the Turn of the Last Century
At the close of the nineteenth century, the quest for the historical Jesus had all
but come to an end in one of four major positions on the historical Jesus.
The Historical Jesus Is the Jesus of the Gospels

For many Christians, the rise of biblical criticism in the wake of the Enlighten-
ment seemed obviously contrary to the spirit of Christianity; they responded by
rejecting any separation between Jesus in the Gospels and accounts of the his-
torical Jesus. Many Christians today continue to find such distinctions troubling
because they seem to cast doubt on the truthfulness of the Gospels.
The Historical Jesus Is the Jesus of Philosophers and Humanists

Not all Christians viewed the contributions of the Enlightenment, and the mod-
ern world in general, as destructive. Liberal theology saw the Enlightenment as
an opportunity to formulate a new understanding of Christianity. Liberal theol-
ogy worked tirelessly to construct a positive account of Jesus as the ultimate
humanist and philosopher rather than the incarnate Son of God.
The Historical Jesus Cannot Be Reconstructed from the Gospels

William Wrede denied that the Gospels could serve as a source for uncover-
ing the life and ministry of Jesus. Wrede saw the Gospels as good resources for
understanding the early church, which created the Gospels to help it deal with
its own particular situation. Christians, therefore, are left without any sure his-
torical resource for their faith.
The Historical Jesus Is Freakish and Irrelevant

Weiss and Schweitzer both attacked the supposition of liberal theology that
Jesus could best be understood through an appeal to modern ideas. Rather,
Weiss and Schweitzer emphasized that Jesus was a unique individual who was
a product of a first-century Jewish worldview: Jesus thought that the world was
coming to an end in the fiery and dramatic advent of God. His crucifixion was,
therefore, a failure, a last desperate attempt to force God to act.

The Quest Gets Baptized

The dismissal of the historical Jesus from the scope of theology was difficult
for many to accept, even some of those who closely supported Bultmann’s over-
all project. Ernst Käsemann (1906–1998), one of Bultmann’s former students,
launched the new quest for the historical Jesus when he challenged Bultmann’s
position on the historical Jesus.
Käsemann respected the basic theological insights of Bultmann and sym-
pathized with Bultmann’s dissatisfaction with liberal theology and the old quest.
Though Bultmann’s concern to present a thoroughly modern yet Lutheran
approach to the gospel succeeded in many ways for Käsemann, his denial of
the theological significance of historical Jesus research came dangerously close
to embracing the early heresy known as Docetism. Docetism (from the Greek
verb dokeō, meaning “to think” or “to seem”) denied the reality of the Incarnation,
saying instead that Jesus only “seemed” or appeared to be human, but because he
was divine, he could never be a real (material) human. Käsemann argued that the
denial of the theological significance of historical Jesus research in favor of the
kerygma was almost the same as denying the Incarnation.
The second and third points on which Käsemann criticized Bultmann are
directly related. First, Käsemann argued, Bultmann fails to deal with the fact
that the kerygma of the early church developed into the narratives of Jesus’ life
and ministry today called the Gospels. This happened, Käsemann argued (his
third point), because the earliest Christians wanted to make the explicit connec-
tion between the faith to which the kerygma calls Christians and the life of the
human Jesus that was the basis for the kerygma. These points combine to argue
that the quest for the historical Jesus, contrary to Bultmann’s assertion, was not
only possible but also theologically necessary.
From Bultmann’s students, few full-length works on the life and ministry of
Jesus emerged, with the notable exception of Günther Bornkam’s Jesus of Naz-
areth, which was widely read and influential for almost two decades. Among
Roman Catholics, however, historical Jesus research quickly became a focal
point of Christological reflection. One of the most prominent and influential
books released was Jesus: An Experiment in Christology and Christ: The Experience
of Jesus as Lord, a two-volume study by the Dutch Dominican Edward Schille-
beeckx (1914–2009). Schillebeeckx offered readers an outline of what historians
can reasonably assert about Jesus, a critically assured minimum of information
on this historical figure. This initial sketch focused on the words of Jesus and
his association with the marginalized and suffering. From this point, Schille-
beeckx reflected upon the development of Christology in the New Testament.
The “experience” (an important concept in Schillebeeckx’s theology) of the
early disciples provides the basis for their subsequent proclamations about Jesus’
identity as Messiah. Because of this, Schillebeeckx has been accused of blend-
ing his historical reconstruction of Jesus with his own theology, the theology

of experience. This is a common accusation raised against the entire new quest:
it aims to uncover the unique personality of Jesus and, thereby, gain an under-
standing of how Christian faith emerged from the personal encounter with
Jesus. In other words, there seems to be a theological agenda that controls the
historical reconstruction of Jesus. Taking due note of these criticisms, the new
quest, nonetheless, rescued historical Jesus research as an integral part of con-
temporary Christian faith, while failing to define precisely the place of historical
Jesus research within contemporary Christology.
The British scholar and Anglican bishop N. T. Wright coined the expres-
sion “third quest” to describe the wave of Jesus research that took place from the
mid-1980s to today. Generally, several new features distinguish this wave of Jesus
research from the earlier quests, but some of the concerns of a previous genera-
tion of scholarship persist. For example, the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars
and other interested individuals, have produced a series of works that seem, in
many ways, to continue the old quest’s objective of using historical Jesus research
to attack traditional forms of Christianity. John P. Meier, however, argues that
the third quest for the historical Jesus represents a significant departure from
previous quests. He identifies seven notable gains that define the third quest:9
1. The third quest has an ecumenical and international character (whereas

earlier quests were almost exclusively male, German, and Protestant).
2. It clarifies the question of reliable sources (the New Testament is viewed as
the primary source for research, and other texts and artifacts like the apoc-
ryphal gospels or the Dead Sea Scrolls are only secondary sources).
3. It draws upon a more accurate picture of first-century Judaism (as opposed
to the tendency in previous quests simply to contrast Jesus and first-century
Judaism).
4. It employs new insights from archeology, philology, and sociology.
5. It clarifies the application of criteria of historicity (i.e., unlike previous
quests it consistently and carefully applies certain criteria for sifting the
New Testament and other sources for historically reliable material).
6. It gives proper attention to the miracle tradition (as opposed to the previous
quests, which relegated the miracle tradition to the status of legend or myth).
7. It takes the Jewishness of Jesus with utter seriousness ( Jesus is understood
as a first-century Jew).
The two most important of these unique features of the third quest—the Jew-
ish background of Jesus (items 3 and 7) and the use of criteria (5)—deserve
further comment.
9. John P. Meier, “The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’ for the Historical Jesus: Loss and
Gain,” Biblica 80 (1999): 459–87.

Following World War II and the Holocaust, Christians have come to

acknowledge that their understanding of Judaism, especially the Judaism of the
first century, has been slanted and incomplete. For example, in the old and new
quests, and in Bultmann’s theology, Judaism served as a foil for the presentation
of Jesus. First-century Judaism was portrayed as petty, materialistic, and oriented
toward earning salvation from God through good works. This is a caricature
of Judaism rather than a historically and theologically responsible portrait. The
work of E. P. Sanders in the 1970s revolutionized Christian scholarly descrip-
tions of first-century Judaism, which subsequently became much more sophis-
ticated and sympathetic. Additionally, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a
collection of first-century Jewish sectarian texts, underscored the picture of first-
century Judaism as diverse and, therefore, less authoritarian. These factors help
to situate Jesus within Judaism as a faithful or perhaps prophetic critic, someone
on the margins but nonetheless recognizable as a first-century Palestinian Jew.
Meier also zealously defends the use of criteria in historical Jesus research.
In his voluminous treatment of the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew, Meier often
insists that whether we affirm or deny the historicity of a particular story from
the New Testament, we must know why we do so. In fact, for Meier the greatest
contribution of the third quest may be its historical autonomy. History guides
the quest, not theology:
It is only in the light of this rigorous application of historical standards

that one comes to see what was wrong with so much of the first and
second quests. All too often, the first and second quests were theologi-
cal projects masquerading as historical projects. Now, there is nothing
wrong with a historically informed theology or Christology; indeed, they
are to be welcomed and fostered. But a Christology that seeks to profit
from historical research into Jesus is not the same thing and must be
carefully distinguished from a purely empirical, historical quest for Jesus
that prescinds from or brackets what is known by faith. This is not to
betray faith. . . . Let the historical Jesus be a truly and solely historical
reconstruction, with all the lacunae and truncations of the total reality
that a purely historical inquiry into a marginal figure of ancient history
will inevitably involve. After the purely historical project is finished, there
will be more than enough time to ask about correlations with Christian
faith and academic Christology. (“The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’
for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain,” Biblica 80 [1999]: 459–87, 463)
In short, Meier’s concern is to defend the idea, rooted in the goals of the
new quest, that historical Jesus research is primarily an academic project that can
defend the reasonableness of Christian faith. Yet Meier’s concerns about the his-
torical integrity of Jesus research emanates from his frustration with the way lib-
eration theologians in particular (including both Latin American and feminist

theologians) have understood the nature of historical inquiry and the use of his-
torical Jesus research.10 Meier suggests that liberation theologians have traveled
down a “primrose path” that equates the historical Jesus with the real Jesus “and
then elevates that Jesus to the canon within the canon.”11 In doing so, Meier
claims that liberation theologians neglect the complexity and limitations of his-
torical Jesus research and confuse historical Jesus research with Christology.
Christianity and Existentialism
Existentialism is a philosophical movement that flourished in the middle part

of the twentieth century and that rejected classical philosophy and its insis-
tence upon abstractions such as “essence.” The famous existentialist philoso-
pher Jean-Paul Sartre defined existentialism in the following maxim: “existence
precedes essence.” In other words, humans are thrown into the world, “thrown
towards death” to use Martin Heidegger’s expression, without any definition
or foundation to guide them. According to existentialism, one is forced to
wrestle with one’s own existence and through the exercise of will, responsibly
create one’s essence. Such a project no doubt explains why humans are so
anxious—consumed by the desire to possess and control, under the illusion
that the one who controls or owns the most “wins.”
While some of the most famous existentialists were atheists (Sartre, de
Beuavoir, Camus) the movement had its roots in the work of the Danish theo-
logian and philosopher Søren Kierkegaard († 1855). Kirkegaard, deeply dissatis-
fied with the modern emphasis on science and a corresponding concern with
universals in accounts of human existence, emphasized the problems of indi-
vidual existence. Gabriel Marcel, a twentieth-century existentialist philosopher,
framed the issue simply: the primary task of human life is not to have or control
but to be or become. Such an outlook transcends the scientific emphasis of the
modern world without rejecting its advances. Thus, the modern world is neither
vilified nor glorified.
Both founders of dialectical theology (Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann)
appealed to the thought of Kierkegaard, though Bultmann was well acquainted
with the thought of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger as well. For dia-
lectical theology, existentialism helped to move Christianity away from liberal
theology’s problematic embrace of modernity and the dangerous idea of “prog-
ress.” Existentialism helped to emphasize the precarious position of the human
person and the need to abandon oneself to God in an outrageous leap of faith.
As such, existentialism helped to reinforce the Reformation’s emphasis on salva-
tion as a gift that cannot be earned.
10. See, John P. Meier, “The Bible as a Source for Theology,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theologi-
cal Society of America 43 (1988): 1–14.
11. Ibid., 13–14.

The Problem of History: Understanding the Limits

and Value of History
In the mid-1980s, Elizabeth Johnson, then at the Catholic University of Amer-
ica, and David Tracy, a professor at the University of Chicago, debated the ques-
tion of the theological relevance of historical Jesus research.12 Johnson maintains
that a critically assured minimum of knowledge about the historical Jesus can be
obtained through historical research. This basic set of data can then be cast into
a particular interpretive mold or framework, and can yield multiple Christolo-
gies given the particular sets of concerns or locations of the theologian. Johnson
also emphasized the theological necessity of the historical Jesus as “the memory
image” by which the church and the tradition have always referred to a reality that
predates the church. Even though the historical Jesus is the product of modern
historical research—no one was asking questions about the historical Jesus in the
Middle Ages—it still functions as the symbol that mediates the reality of God’s
saving activity. A sketch of the historical Jesus can provide necessary content for
Christian faith and can also test competing representations of Jesus. For example,
if one’s historical sketch of Jesus conclusively proved that Jesus prohibited vio-
lence, then images of Christ, or Christologies, that portray Christ as a warrior
could be rightly criticized as inconsistent with the historical Jesus.
Johnson also asserted that historical Jesus research functions as a norm
or foundation for Christology—a claim that has proven contentious. In 2000,
William Loewe challenged those who would argue for the normative value of
historical Jesus research.13 He concluded that while there has been a shift to his-
torical Jesus studies in contemporary Christology, this shift has significant lim-
its, perhaps the most obvious being its provisional character—such research is
always open to revision. What historians and biblical scholars affirm about Jesus
in one decade may have to be revised significantly in the next decade in light of
a new archaeological find, a previously neglected piece of data, or a more precise
and encompassing theory. Additionally, there seems to be less and less consensus
concerning what one can affirm of the historical Jesus. For instance, while John
Meier concludes that “the Twelve” (the twelve disciples) was a feature of Jesus’
own ministry, John Dominic Crossan contends that it is a creation of the early
church and runs counter to Jesus’ practice of inclusive discipleship: Jesus treated
everyone as equals and would not have privileged one group over others. This
lack of consensus among scholars, therefore, challenges the naïve assumption
that there is one established account of the historical Jesus and compromises any
talk of historical Jesus research as normative.
12. See Elizabeth Johnson, “The Theological Relevance of the Historical Jesus: A Debate and a
Thesis,” Thomist 48 (1984): 1–43. Johnson’s position has developed considerably in the past twenty years.
13. William P. Loewe, “From the Humanity of Christ to the Historical Jesus,” Theological Studies
61 (2000): 314–31.

Modernism among Catholics and Protestants
The panic that had taken hold of the Christian church in the nineteenth century
amid the spirit of revolution and the rise of secularism peaked at the dawn of
the twentieth century. In Roman Catholic circles, Pope Pius X (1903–1914) led
the fight against modern culture. Under his leadership, the social, political, and
philosophical spirit of the nineteenth century were condemned under the term
Modernism. Although there was no official movement that labeled itself Mod-
ernism, Pius X, in essence, created a “heresy” out of a pastiche of the cultural and
intellectual tendencies of the day that included the following:
• A critical view of Scripture based on history and comparative literature

• A rejection of scholasticism (i.e., medieval theology) and its account of the
harmony between faith and reason in favor of emphasizing religious feel-
ing or sentiment
• Emphasis on the complete autonomy of the natural and human sciences
• A teleological view of history that privileges the revelatory character of an
event in its consequences rather than in its origins
According to officials in Rome, Modernism had infiltrated the Catholic Church,

and several prominent intellectuals were accused of supporting the movement
(e.g., Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell). In his 1907 encyclical letter, “On the Doc-
trines of the Modernists” (Pascendi dominici gregis), Pius X helped to establish
some of the most rigid controls on theological activity in Church history. Cen-
sorship, monitoring, and reporting of suspected Modernists were encouraged
and even demanded in the encyclical. Supplementing it was “The Oath against
Modernism” that was required of all clergy, religious, and seminary professors.
Yet, at the same time, a theological renaissance was emerging in the wake of
the cultivation of a distinctively Christian philosophy emerging from a renewed
interest in medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas. This revival, though sponsored
by Rome to combat secularized education and secularized accounts of reason,
would eventually promote a historical consciousness about theology as well as
scripture study, culminating in the critical embrace of modern culture and an his-
torical critical approach to the Bible at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).
In the early twentieth century, many Protestant Christians reacted similarly
to challenges to biblical authority. Across confessional lines, conservatives
began to impose limits on seminary faculty and to cultivate suspicion. The Pres-
byterian Church particularly showed this tension, as rivals at the conservative
Princeton Theological Seminary and the modernist Union Theological Seminary
helped to divide the denomination, a divide mirrored in American Protestant
churches and culminating in the divide between “mainline” and “evangelical”
churches. Many Protestant Christians in the United States began to articulate
the plenary (i.e., full or complete) inerrancy of the Bible in all matters as a way
of insulating it against the claims of historical scholarship, an affirmation that
became the hallmark of evangelical churches.

Loewe concluded that the historical Jesus cannot be the ground of either
Christian faith or Christology. Rather, historical Jesus research helps Christol-
ogy to move away from an ahistorical, metaphysical approach, characteristic of
those who would simply take the Scriptures at face value or repeat the formulas
of church councils and old catechisms. Instead, historical Jesus research enables
one, in part, to focus on a historical and genetic account of the Christological
tradition. By enabling one to get a sense of Jesus as a historical figure, one can
more fully appreciate the dynamics of his ministry. In turn, a historical sketch of
Jesus’ ministry may help one to understand why and how the earliest Christians
came to believe that this human being, Jesus, was God’s own self-expression to
the world, God’s agent for conquering sin and evil. In this way, historical Jesus
research helps one to offer constructive statements on Christology and its con-
temporary significance. However, this importance must not be overestimated,
for historical Jesus research is not the foundation or norm of Christian faith.
The third quest has opened up the possibility for more fruitful historical
research through its attentiveness to more precise criteria, its concern for the
Jewish background of Jesus, and its ecumenical or interdenominational charac-
ter (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and non-religious scholars working together).
Yet these improvements in methodology and in the diversity of scholars
engaged in the field have not yielded more stable results. In fact, the results are
arguably more confused than ever. Perhaps the third quest’s lasting contribu-
tion is a sense of humility, regarding both the results of this research and its
theological significance.
Some theologians have gone so far as to question the validity of any so-
called quest for the historical Jesus. Instead, they argue for the fundamental
reliability of the canonical Gospels for understanding Jesus, and they eschew
the criteria and formulae proffered by scholars. One notable example of this
approach has been Pope Benedict XVI, who authored a three-volume work on
the life of Jesus. Although the work takes advantage of the work of scholars such
as John Meier and Joachim Gnilka among others, the pope offers something
more in the nature of a Christological treatise, unconcerned with recent devel-
opments in historical Jesus research.
Conclusion
The quest for the historical Jesus has consumed vast amounts of ink, paper, and
bytes over the last two centuries. Those who want to attack traditional forms of
Christianity have appealed to the historical Jesus for vindication, while defend-
ers of the faith have also appealed to these historical reconstructions to support
their cause. It would appear, however, that both sides in the debate are asking too
much of historical Jesus research. Bultmann was indeed correct when he warned

against pursuing historical Jesus research in order to prove Christian faith, but
his abandonment of the quest was problematic for the Christian understanding
of the Incarnation—“the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us”
( John 1:14). William Loewe, along with much of the theological community,
concludes that historical Jesus research has value in that it provides contem-
porary theology with important insights and moves away from mythological
understandings of the New Testament, but it is limited in that Christian faith
does not rest on a historical reconstruction. In other words, Christians do not
put their faith into a critical sketch offered by historians. Historical research on
Jesus is legitimate and constructive, but its results are not normative. As the great
churchman and theologian John Henry Cardinal Newman said, “History is not
a creed or a catechism; it gives lessons rather than rules. . . . Bold outlines and
broad masses of color rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they
may be incomplete; but they are definite.”14
Questions for Understanding

1. What were the defining concerns of the old quest?
2. Why did the old quest end?
3. What was the major contribution of Albert Schweitzer to the quest for the
historical Jesus?
4. Why did Rudolf Bultmann reject the quest for the historical Jesus?
What place does his project of demythologizing have in his theology?
5. On what grounds did Ernst Käsemann challenge Bultmann on the histori-
cal Jesus?
6. Describe three defining characteristics of the third quest.
7. Contrast the positions of Elizabeth Johnson and William Loewe on the
theological significance of historical Jesus research.
Questions for Reflection

1. Can we overcome George Tyrrell’s parable about historical Jesus research?
If so, how?
2. What do you think about the notion of “myth” used in this chapter?
Given that David Friedrich Strauss used myth positively and Rudolf
Bultmann used it negatively, what is the place of the concept in the
study of the New Testament?
14. John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Doctrine (various editions), Introduc-
tion, n. 5.

3. If historians reached a consensus and determined that Jesus offered a

definitive teaching, would this teaching be binding for contemporary
Christians? Why or why not? What is the connection between the history
of Jesus and the Christian faith?
For Further Reading

Allison, Dale C. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2009.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical
Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne,
1997.
Powell, Mark Allan. Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the
Man from Galilee. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Prog-
ress from Reimarus to Wrede. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1998.

Understanding Jesus Sampler

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Jesus Sampler

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Jesus Sampler

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christopher McMahon’s Understanding Jesus: Christology from Emmaus to

Today . . . is a refreshingly direct Christological overview in which McMahon

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 1 8/16/13 11:40 AM

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 2 8/16/13 11:40 AM

CHR IST OPHER MCMAHON

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 3 8/16/13 11:40 AM

Cover image royalty-free from iStock.com.

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 978-1-59982-426-0, Print

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 4 8/16/13 11:40 AM

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 5 8/16/13 11:40 AM

Preface to the Revised Edition / 11

1. Contemporary Christology and the Historical Jesus . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. A Tentative Historical Portrait of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4. New Testament Christologies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 7 8/16/13 11:40 AM

6. The Work of Christ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

7. Christology and Social Transformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

8. Jesus and Other Religions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 8 8/16/13 11:40 AM

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 9 8/16/13 11:40 AM

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 10 8/16/13 11:40 AM

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 11 8/16/13 11:40 AM

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 12 8/16/13 11:40 AM

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 13 8/16/13 11:40 AM

Changing Paradigms and Shifting Terrain

2. Karl Rahner, “Current Problems in Christology,” Theological Investigations, vol. 1 (Baltimore:

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 14 8/16/13 11:40 AM

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 15 8/16/13 11:40 AM

articulating a contemporary Christology that is faithful to the tradition. How-

The Old Quest: The Challenge of the Enlightenment

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 16 8/16/13 11:40 AM

other piece involves the Enlightenment’s successor, Romanticism. Whereas the

Looking for Jesus amid Social and Cultural Revolution

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 17 8/16/13 11:40 AM

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 18 8/16/13 11:40 AM

The End of the Old Quest:

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 19 8/16/13 11:40 AM

Apocalyptic eschatology, which flourished from the second century BCE

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 20 8/16/13 11:40 AM

Person of Interest: Albert Schweitzer

Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) was

formances and musical publications

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 21 8/16/13 11:40 AM

Beyond the Question of the Historical Jesus

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 22 8/16/13 11:40 AM

Demythologizing does not imply a cafeteria approach to Christianity—

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 23 8/16/13 11:40 AM

The cross of Christ is to be understood not as an occurrence outside of oneself

The Historical Jesus at the Turn of the Last Century

The Historical Jesus Is the Jesus of the Gospels

The Historical Jesus Is the Jesus of Philosophers and Humanists

The Historical Jesus Cannot Be Reconstructed from the Gospels

The Historical Jesus Is Freakish and Irrelevant

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 24 8/16/13 11:40 AM

The Quest Gets Baptized

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 25 8/16/13 11:40 AM

1. The third quest has an ecumenical and international character (whereas

7047-Understanding Jesus_CS6.indd 26 8/16/13 11:40 AM

Following World War II and the Holocaust, Christians have come to