Abstract:
Since the advent of the first quest for the historical Jesus in the nineteenth
century, theologians have felt compelled to accept as normative
either the Jesus of history (so Liberal Theology) or the Christ of faith (so
Kerygmaltic Theology). This choice is a false one, for the structure of
early Christian faith involves both historical and confessional elements in
the creation of meaningful theological discourse. We can recover the
poetics of that discourse if we clearly distinguish between the historical
and ccnfessional elements in the gospels, and place them once again in a
dialectical relationship. In this way, the quest for the historical Jesus
may retain its character as an historical discipline, and yet still prove
fruitful for critical theological reflection.
