1.

A Small History and Background of the Problem

The problem of the relationship between the Historical Jesus and the Christ of faith became a
theological topic of great interest through the theology of Bultmann and its sub- sequent discussion by
his followers.'

But Bultmann did not start from a "Tabula Rasa". Before Bultmann, the theologians of the
enlightenment, by their historical research, wanted to find out the real Jesus of Na. zareth exactly in the
form, he lived and worked in Palestine. They wanted to go further to the origins of the Church and
Christian faith after the death and resurrection of Christ, together with the history of the early Christian
community.

An initiative for this sort of work was given by H.S. Reimarus, in his book, "Fragment eines wolfen
buetteleschen Ungenannten", published by G. E. Lessing in 1774-1778. Ac- cording to him Jesus was a
political Messiah, full of noble ideas and accepted even a violent death on cross for the sake of his
ideals. He considered Jesus as a leader who is filled with a strong expectation of the future. After his
death, his disciples stole his body, invented the legend of his resurrection and ascension and they
proclaimed an imminent Parousia. Of Course, this reconstruction of the history of Jesus is rude and not
true to facts."

In the 19th century, theologians continued their efforts to reconstruct the life history of Jesus. As a
result, so many Works on Jesus were produced. Among these the work of D. F. Strauss with the title,
"The Life of Jesus" (1835-36), is an important one which provoked interest in the scientific work about
the origin, the literary character, the nature of Gospels, and the intentions of the Evangelists. Strauss, in
his study saw Jesus in the Gospels as mythological. There is no doubt that the work of Strauss and other
similar works of the theologians of the 19th century, have helped the scholars of this century in the
pursuit of their historical research on Jesus and the Gospels.

A brief outline of this history of this research in to the life of Jesus is given by A. Schweitzer in his famous
work, "The Quest of the Historical Jesus". Schweitzer considers that the basis of this research is faulty
because he thinks that on the basis of the sources available of the Gospels and considering its special
character, it is impossible either to reconstruct a life of Jesus, or to offer a direct picture of his

personality. He even said:

The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma... He does not stay; He passes by our
time and returns to His own." From the beginning of this century onwards, the Biblical scholars could
understand in the light of the new know. ledge on the formation of the Gospels, and on the method of
Form Criticism that the Gospels were written from the post-Easter standpoint of the Christian
community. Standing on the ruins of the research into the life of Jesus, done by the theologians of the
enlightenment, Bultmann clearly perceived its flaws. He clearly understood that the Synoptic Gospels
grew out of the oral traditions of the Church and they pre- supposed the Paschal faith of the Apostolic
community. In this background, Bultmann developed his Kerygma theology.
The Bultmanian interest was in the Kerygma and Demythologization of the Gospels at the cost of the
historical aspect of Jesus, especially his death and resurrection. He says, "The resurrection itself is not an
event of past his- tory"." He continues to say, "The historical problem is not of interest to Christian belief
in the Resurrection". He speaks of "the impossibility of establishing the objective historicity of the
Resurrection; No matter how many wit- nesses are cited"." He has affirmed", An historical fact which
involves a Resurrection from the dead is utterly inconceivable"." For him, faith in the proclamation of
Jesus, crucified and risen is of paramount importance. He teaches that the Kerygmatic proclamation of
Jesus has brought a new meaning and understanding to human existence, because apart from Christ,
man is not as he ought to be; he is not alive, but dead. For him, faith in Jesus means to be a new
creature. It must be noted that Karl Barth (1886-1968) also has made great contribution to Kerygmatic
christology by his well-known works-" Epistle to the Romans", "The Resur- rection of the Dead", and
"The Church Dogmatics".

After the Second World War reactions arose to Bultmann's thought even among some of his disciples. E.
Kasse- man reacted with his article, "The Problem of Historical Jesus" in 1954. His opponents argued
that historical Jesus must be taken more seriously and the starting point of the Christian faith must be
sought not in the Easter Kerygma, of the early Christian community, but in the self-experience and
understanding of Jesus Himself. This approach took an "Existential Quest" of the Historical Jesus,
namely, what does Jesus mean for me today? In this arena, we have Deitrich Bonhoeffer, J. Robinson,
Willi Marxsen," and E. Fuchs.

Honest to God"1" and the "Human Face of God"s by John A.T. Robinson are classics in this line. D.
Bonhoeffer wrote from his prison: "What is bothering me incessantly is the question... who Christ really
is for us today" Still, in the recent past, another line of Christology was formed giving prominence to the
"Contemporaneity" of Jesus or the "Now-dimension" of the Christ Event. The Bultmannian and the
Kirkagardian and the "existential" influence was there at the background of this development.

Bultmann wrote: The Cross and Resurrection are phenomena, not only of the past, but also of the
present. The para- dox of the Christian Gospel is just this - those events are present realities.... Many
young people are attracted to this theology of the presence of the dead and risen Christ in their midst.
Jesus is no more simply a historical person but the real Saviour, already present here and now with
them. In this presence of Jesus one can have real interpersonal relationship with Him. Meanwhile, J.
Moltmann drew attention to another aspect of Christology, giving importance to the crucifixion and
death of Christ i.e. to the Suffering Jesus. His book, "The Crucified God" is directed in this line. According
to Moltmann the Christian existence and identity are to be decided in our solidarity with the crucified
Christ. He affirms: As far as I am concerned, the Christian Church and Christian become relevant to the
problems of the modern world only when they reveal the 'hard core' of their identity in the crucified
Christ..."

He quotes Bonhoeffers famous sentence, "Only the suffering God can help". In the recent years, the
pendulum of Christology has swung to the direction of the so-called Liberation Theo- logy. Gustavo
Gutierrez and his companions are concerned about the Jesus of N. T. as a liberator who was really
interested in the human existence and human society. In this way they find a sociological and political
aspect in the mission of Jesus. With this Christological view they strive to bring about a better society
and a better future for humanity. They want to eradicate oppression and injustice from the face of the
earth. They propose the humanization of the dehumanized society and freedom for the oppressed. The
historical Jesus is a challenging Jesus who brought in liberty and liberation to all men by his words and
deeds. Apart from all this, a certain dissatisfaction is expressed today about the picture of Christ
presented in the Christo- logy of the Council of Chalcedon. Even Catholic theologians want to have an
anthropological starting point for the faith in Christ, not an ontological one as in Chalcedon. The Man-
Jesus is getting more and more attention.

We have seen the divergent approaches and attitudes towards the person of Christ in the N. T. Various
aspects of Christology Jesus as God-Man, Saviour, Prophet, Messiah, Living example for all men, men for
others, future of man- kind etc. were brought to light by biblical and theological research. But one thing
seems to be true that till recently, as Moltmann observes, our dominant concern was with the Historical
Jesus. To a great extent only in this century, we could develop the existential, anthropological and the
socio- logical dimensions of Christology. There are different viewpoints on the historical Jesus, according
to the bend of mind, the tastes of the authors, needs of the times, and the currents of thought. All this
shows that Jesus Event in history is not a one-sided reality, but a multi-dimensional mystery. As Prof.
Mascall wisely teaches, truth is a multi-dimensional reality. Therefore, one should not deny or minimize
one aspect of the truth at the cost of the other.

II. The Relation between the Historical Jesus and the Jesus of Faith

After a small study on the historical analysis of the problem, let us now consider the relation between
the Historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. I think that the best way to grasp this relation is to see it from
the stand-point of the Early Church. The faith of the early Christians was not isolated from the earthly
Jesus nor did they try to separate the Historical Jesus their Jesus of faith. Schnackenburg clearly writes:
The polarity, historical Jesus or Christ of faith. is wrong from the standpoint of the early Church. But this
alternation has significance for the modern historical consciousness which is interested in knowing how
events actually happened. For the early Church, however, there was no isolated consideration of the
earthly Jesus apart from the Christ who is actually experienced as the living one. The early Church had
throughout a deep interest in the emergence and activities of Jesus, in his words and deeds, but only to
the extent they became important for her faith in the risen Lord. This interest deter- mined the
selection, formation and handing over of the Jesus tradition; the historical interest was integrated into
the concern of the faith of the first Christians. That is why we cannot find answers in the early Church for
many questions of historical interest. Thus the question about the historical Jesus always comes to a
dead end. We must adapt our- selves to the way of thinking of the early Church and let it give us the
proper formulation of the question. Therefore, we prefer to speak about the relationship between the
Earthly Jesus and the Post- easter Christ in whom the community believes."

Therefore, it is extremely difficult to produce a real picture of Jesus that would be different from the
picture of faith. F. Hahn once stated, "what is important for the early Church is not the Historical Jesus,
Jesus detached from the Easter testimony but the earthly Jesus in his oneness with risen and exalted
Lord"."

There is a continuity of the Historical Jesus in the faith experience of the early Christians. They believed
in the same historical Jesus of Nazareth. Mascall teaches that we cannot disentangle the Jesus of history
and the Jesus of faith. The Gospels and the other N. T. books recall the immediate impact and
experience of the earthly Jesus in his contemporaries. As the Second Vatican Council teaches, the
Gospels deal with the deeds and words of the historical Christ," as understood by the Apostles and his
immediate followers.

In the Post-Easter experience the Apostles believed that Jesus was both the revealer and revelation.
Their primary intention in writing the N. T. was not to furnish minute historical details on Jesus but to
communicate to all men out of their own living experience, what Jesus really was. They communicated
the man and message of the earthly Jesus, with an invitation to believe in the same Jesus. It is also clear
that for all the Apostles, even for 'St. Paul, it is the appearance of the risen Lord and encounters with
him, that caused the decisive awakening to total faith in Him. We must also hasten to add that the Jesus
whom the disciples recognized was none other than the historical Jesus, who had lived with them,
talked with them, walked with them, taught them, and had eaten with them. The risen Jesus whom they
preached was none other than the crucified Jesus. No one can deny the fact that the longest section in
all the Synoptic Gospels is the passion of Jesus. Here, we have to consider another important question.
Did the faith of the early Christians falsify the historical authenticity of Jesus. The external and internal
evidences of the N. T., the characteristic words and deeds of Jesus, the intentions of both Jesus and his
Apostles, lead to a definite negative answer. Besides, the special life- circumstances of the Apostles and
the immediate followers of Christ reveal that the originality and authenticity of Jesus were not at all lost.
For the Apostles and witnesses, the appearances of the risen Lord were encounters with the reality of
the risen Lord, driving them to faith and preaching. If they had given a false image of Jesus, Christianity
would not have survived more than two weeks.

The proclamation of Jesus by the Apostles is not an information but a call to commitment and
fundamental change in the conduct and consciousness of a believer in him. Jesus does not expect a
purely rationalistic approach to his mission and message. His call was for unconditional faith in him. He
said to the doubting Thomas. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (Jn. 20:29). This is
the lot of the whole Christian community today, for a Chris- tian, the medium of conduct and
communication with Christ is faith. Bultmann writes: The authentic life, on the other hand, would be a
life based on unseen, intangible realities. Such, a life means the abandonment of all self-contrived
security. This is what the N. T. means by "life after the Spirit" or "life in faith".

For this life we must have faith in the grace of God. It means faith that the unseen, intangible reality
actually confronts us as love, opening up our future and signifying not death but life." The believer is the
lord of all things." "The Gospel is power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith..." (Rom. 1:16-
17). "The just man lives by faith" (Heb. 10:38). It is faith that guarantees salvation (Rom. 5:1-11). Such a
faith demands a life hidden in the risen Lord (Col. 3:1-4: Gal. 2:20).

Now we are in need of a balanced Christology. Christ is always true God and true man. Since he is God-
man, we should stress his humanity as well as his divinity. As Robinson rightly points out, "No one would
think to spend so much time insisting on the humanness of Socrates". Jesus is not a sort of celestial Big
Brother, but one who is like us in everything except sin. But what would be the right approach to the
balanced Christology, we are talking about? The experience of the early Church teaches that primarily, it
should be an approach of faith. True faith is more important than research. By this, one does not intend
to deny the importance of scholarly research.

Conclusion

In our study about the relation between the Jesus of His- tory and the Jesus of faith we understood that
if we want to get a complete picture of Christ, we must enter into the faith experience of the early
Church. The Gospel records com- bine the historical traditions with the vision of faith in such way, we
cannot clearly distinguish them. Therefore, "for the early Church, the earthly Jesus and the Christ of faith
formed an indissoluble unity "81 This not find his end of the Cross found his goal in resurrection. This
unity of the historical Jesus and the risen Jesus is the key to the understanding of the Gospels.

"The just man lives by his faith" (Heb. 10:38).

"It is impossible to please God without faith" (Heb.11:6).