History and Faith

‘DID Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?” In an article by that title twenty years ago, Wolfhart Pannenberg of Munich, arguably the world’s foremost living systematic theologian, embarrassed the liberal theological community. For more than a hundred years, the liberal theological tradition had tended to deny, fudge, or ignore the history behind the Christian proclamation of the Resurrection. In this century, scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann insisted that the important thing is the Resurrection faith, not the Resurrectione Vent. But that rather begged the question of what event or events brought the faith into being. Why would the early Christians have proclaimed the risen Christ unless “something happened” that they were convinced justified a message worth living, and dying, for? That they were lunatics or liars does not, on the basis of the evidence, bear close examination. Pannenberg observed that “the legends created by excessive criticism [that tries to explain away the Resurrection] have been less credible than the Biblical reports themselves.”

One response is that, historical events aside, the Resurrection is a “meaningful” mythopoetic statement. But that seems very arbitrary. Others may say they find New Age reincarnation, the transmigration of. souls, or theosophy more “meaningful.” In the mythopoetic marketplace, you pay your money and take your choice. Some Christians, wishing to be orthodox, say they don’t bother their heads about the historical evidence; they just accept the Resurrection “on faith.” But that can be a form of fideism—a kind of faith in faith—that is hard to square with the understanding of Christians such as Paul the Apostle. “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain,” Paul wrote (I Corinthians 15). In this passage and elsewhere Paul assumes the importance of the historical evidence in making the case for the Resurrected Lord.

RJ

About the Author

Richard John Neuhaus

Featured Tags

‘DID Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?” In an article by that title twenty years ago, Wolfhart Pannenberg of Munich, arguably the world’s foremost living systematic theologian, embarrassed the liberal theological community. For more than a hundred years, the liberal theological tradition had tended to deny, fudge, or ignore the history behind the Christian proclamation of the Resurrection. In this century, scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann insisted that the important thing is the Resurrection faith, not the Resurrectione Vent. But that rather begged the question of what event or events brought the faith into being. Why would the early Christians have proclaimed the risen Christ unless “something happened” that they were convinced justified a message worth living, and dying, for? That they were lunatics or liars does not, on the basis of the evidence, bear close examination. Pannenberg observed that “the legends created by excessive criticism [that tries to explain away the Resurrection] have been less credible than the Biblical reports themselves.”

One response is that, historical events aside, the Resurrection is a “meaningful” mythopoetic statement. But that seems very arbitrary. Others may say they find New Age reincarnation, the transmigration of. souls, or theosophy more “meaningful.” In the mythopoetic marketplace, you pay your money and take your choice. Some Christians, wishing to be orthodox, say they don’t bother their heads about the historical evidence; they just accept the Resurrection “on faith.” But that can be a form of fideism—a kind of faith in faith—that is hard to square with the understanding of Christians such as Paul the Apostle. “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain,” Paul wrote (I Corinthians 15). In this passage and elsewhere Paul assumes the importance of the historical evidence in making the case for the Resurrected Lord.