[In reading this and the next few posts if you want simply to capture the main argument feel free to skip reading the paragraphs printed in maroon. These paragraphs will present the supporting arguments for the points that are being made in the paragraphs in blue, the usual color in these posts.]
In days gone by Christians often branded Islam as “Mohammedenism” and a muslim as a “Mohammedan.” Apart from other deep theological misunderstandings revealed in this naming it does expose the misguided assumption that the prophet Muhammad in Islam occupies a similar position as Jesus Christ in Christianity. This, of course, is not at all the case.
But there is another question, or set of questions, that arises.
- What exactly is the position of Jesus Christ in Christianity?
- What is it about him that makes naming a follower of his “Christian” appropriate?
- What did he do to justify his being placed as the defining heart of the faith?
- What accounts for titles of highest reverence and significance being applied to him in the New Testament, such as Savior, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David, Lamb of God, Light of the World, Logos [Word of God,] New/Second/Last Adam, King of the Jews, Emmanuel?
- How do those titles and what they signify blend with others such as master, teacher, messiah, alpha and omega, morning star?
- In turn, how does all this match up with the language of the creeds? The ground on which the details stand is captured in this statement of principle from the Athanasian Creed, “What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.”
I repeat: what is there about Jesus, or what is it that he did, to justify this order of exalted language?
Back to Schweitzer from last post. Let me simply list summarize some of the highlighted points from that post. The purpose? To illustrate the complexity of knowing where to go to find an answer to my question.
- The absolute indifference of early Christianity towards the life of the historical Jesus
- Paul did not desire to know Christ after the flesh [and] felt that with the introduction of the historic Jesus into its faith, there would arise something new.
- Primitive Christianity [abolished] both the world and the historical Jesus
- Gnosticism and the Logos Christology agreed in sublimating the historical Jesus into the supra-mundane Idea.
- Greek theology was indifferent in regard to the historical
- We may consider it fortunate that the Synoptics were already so firmly established that the Fourth Gospel could not oust them;
- When at Chalcedon the West overcame the East, its doctrine of the two natures dissolved the unity of the Person, and thereby cut off the last possibility of a return to the historical Jesus.
What does this say about the question I want to answer? [It is, I repeat again: What is there about Jesus, or what did he do, to justify the language/ideas/concepts that later accrued to him?]
Note and keep in mind two things:
One, the time assumption.
Schweitzer articulates a time scale development [which has in turn been made almost axiomatic in modern New Testament research up to the present.] Thus:
30 50-55 55-90 50-Creeds
Jesus life and work—Paul’s life and work—Gospels written—Greek Christianity
The Synoptics John
Two observations about the distinction between the Synoptics and John.
A) They differ in significant ways: for example, chronology of Jesus ministry [one year versus three;] geography [one journey to Jerusalem verses repeated journeys;] style [short, sharp, everyday word pictures versus lengthy theological monologues;] content [John’s seven signs replace the exorcisms and healing miracles;] timing in relation to Passover and content of the holy week events including the crucifixion [most famously a last supper of bread and wine versus the foot-washing.]
- Frankly, these differences are irreconcilable if the documents are to be equally regarded as evidence for the life and work of the historical Jesus.
B) The Synoptics are in turn a complex blend of interdependent but different sources and/or traditions. The standard understanding of this relationship amongst them can be summarized:
The Synoptics equal
- (1) the bulk of Mark’s Gospel plus
- (2) material particular to Matthew [e.g. the visit of the magi cycle of stories, the bursting open of graves with the dead walking around Jerusalem, on Easter morning] plus
- (3) material particular to Luke [e.g. the birth of Jesus cycle of stories (with the census, the shepherds, the manger,) and many parables (the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son) and an emphasis on women] plus
- (4) material found only in Matthew and Luke [e.g. the Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes.]
Their similarities and interdependence are striking, but their differences are also. These differences themselves suggest caution in regarding them as simple records of a pure historical Jesus at work. Of these differences most stunning, perhaps, are their differing accounts of what transpired after the discovery of the empty tomb on the first Easter morning, where these things happened, and to whom.
- Frankly, these differences are irreconcilable if these documents also are to be equally regarded as evidence for the life and work of the historical Jesus.
Two, there are three options.
A literalistic fundamentalism that simply sets the internal differences aside and quotes away in certainty; “Jesus-said-and-that’s-that-ism.”
A radical skepticism that sets the reality of an historical Jesus aside and either drifts loyally into a total acceptance of the Christ of the creeds or imposes recreated [i.e.fictional] parameters on the Jesus figure [e.g. a liberating revolutionary, an end-of-the-world mystic, a sad and somewhat misguided teacher, a wise genius or …..]
A Biblicality-centered realism. This is the way I have been preparing in these posts and which will be the substance of all that follows.
clamjamfrey 