No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
The relation of the Gospel to historical inquiry is one of the most important and difficult problems confronting modern theology—and, indeed, the Christian faith. Both terms need closer definition, and this must now be given.
page 337 note 1 The so-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, translated by Braaten, Carl E. (Philadelphia, 1964)Google Scholar.
page 339 note 1 Pelz, Werner, God is no More (London, 1964)Google Scholar.
page 339 note 2 van Buren, Paul, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (London, 1963)Google Scholar.
page 339 note 3 The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, ch. 2, ‘Martin Kähler on the Historic, Biblical Christ’, pp. 83–7.
page 340 note 1 op. cit., p. 53.
page 341 note 1 ibid.
page 342 note 2 op. cit., p. 58.
page 343 note 1 op. cit., p. 53.
page 344 note 1 Pannenberg, , Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. One (London, 1970), p. 48Google Scholar.
page 345 note 1 Robinson, , A New Quest for the Historical Jesus (London, 1959), p. 12Google Scholar.
page 345 note 2 Bultmann, , Das Verhältnis der urchrisilichen Botschaft zum historischen Jesus (Heidelberg, 1961)Google Scholar.
page 345 note 3 Bultmann is a writer whose views are remarkably self-consistent throughout a long period of literary activity.
page 345 note 4 Kerygma und Mythos, I, Ed. I (Hamburg-Völksdorf, 1951), pp. 15–48Google Scholar.
page 346 note 1 The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, ed. Braaten and Harrisville, p. 206.
page 346 note 2 This is said deliberately, in spite of the concession made earlier that Bultmann's thinking throughout the years has been remarkably consistent.
page 347 note 1 Althaus, , Das so-genannte Ketygma und der Historische Jesus (Gütersloh, 1958), p. 19Google Scholar. The whole passage is worthy of careful study. If Althaus is right, historical inquiry could never legitimate the kerygma in this sense; it is conceivable that it might falsify it.
page 347 note 2 Heidelberg Lecture, p. 13.
page 348 note 1 op. cit., p. 12.
page 348 note 2 Robinson, op. cit., p. 93.
page 349 note 1 Glauben und Verstehen I, p. 101.
page 349 note 2 Heidelberg Lecture, p. 17.
page 349 note 3 op. cit., p. 18.
page 350 note 1 op. cit., p. 25.
page 350 note 2 The Historical Jesus and the Ketygmatic Christ, ed. Braaten, and Harrisville, , p. 206Google Scholar.
page 352 note 1 op. cit., pp. 153ff.
page 352 note 2 I am encouraged to find that Professor H. P. Owen has independently come to the same conclusion. See his Revelation and Existence (Cardiff, 1957): ‘Because the two approaches (faith and historical judgement) are simultaneous, the subjective certainty of faith is able to confer objective certainty upon evidence that would otherwise remain no more than probable.’ (p. 129)Google Scholar.
page 353 note 1 op. cit., pp. 230ff.
page 353 note 2 op. cit., p. 234.
page 354 note 1 Prominent among these is the able and original writer Keck, Leander, A Future for the Historical Jesus (New York, 1971)Google Scholar.