To view detailed reading materials on Christology kindly go to the topic titles on the side bar.
Christology Syllabus 2007-8 by Goerge Zachariah
Gurukul Lutheran Theological College & Research Institute, Chennai 10
Department of Christian Theology
September and January Terms 2007-08
M. Th. 1 CT 22. Christology
Bibliography
Amaladoss, Michael. The Asian Jesus. Delhi: ISPCK, 2005.
Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1969.
Boff, Leonardo. Passion of Christ, Passion of the World. New York: Orbis Press, 1988.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Christ the Center. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978.
Borg, Marcus. Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1994.
Brock, Rita Nakashima. Journeys by Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power. New York: Crossroad, 1992.
Brock, Rita Nakashima and Rebecca Ann Parker. Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering and the Search for What Saves Us. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.
Brown, Joanne Carlson, and Rebecca Parker. “For God so Loved the World?” In Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse: A Feminist Critique. Ed. Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989.
Bultmann, Rudolph. Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate. New York: Harper & Co. 1962.
Chakkarai, V. Jesus the Avatar.
Clarke, Sathianathan. Dalits and Christianity: Subaltern Religion and Liberation Theology in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Cone, James. God of the Oppressed. New York: Orbis Books, 1997.
Crossan, Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992
Dupuis, Jacques. Who do you say I am? Introduction to Christology. New York: Orbis Press, 1994.
Ela, Jean-Marc. “The Memory of the African People and the Cross of Christ” In The Scandal of a Crucified World: Perspectives on the Cross and Suffering. Ed. Yacob Tesfai. New York: Orbis Books, 1994.
Ellacuria, Ignacio. “The Crucified People,” In Systematic Theology: Perspectives from Liberation Theology. Ed. Jon Sobrino and Igacio Ellacuria. New York: Orbis Press, 1996.
Farley, Wendy. Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: A Contemporary Theodicy. Kentucky: Westminister, 1990
Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler. Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet: Critical Studies in Feminist Christology. New York: Continuum, 1995.
George, N. V. The Doctrine of Incarnation in Vaishnavism and Christianity: A Critical and Comparative Study. Delhi: ISPCK, 1997.
Grant, Jacquelyn. White Women’s Christ and Black Women’s Jesus: Feminist Christology and Womanist Response. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Philadelphia: Fortress Pres, 1978.
Hick, John. The Myth of God Incarnate. London: SCM Press, 1977.
Isherwood, Lisa. Introducing Feminist Christologies. Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 2002.
Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. Christology: A Global Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2003.
Knitter, Paul. Jesus and the Other Names. New York: Orbis Press, 1996.
Macquarrie, John. Jesus Christ in Modern Thought. London: SCM Press, 1990.
Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology. Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004.
Moltmann, Jurgen. Theology of Hope. New York: Harper and Row, 1967.
Moltmann, Jurgen. The Crucified God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Norris, Richard A. Jr. The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Panikker, Raimundo. Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Bangalore: ATC. 1982.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus, God and Man. London: SCM Press, 1968.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Pieris, Aloysius. “The Christhood of Jesus and the Discipleship of Mary: An Asian Perspective” Logos, Vol. 39, No. 3.
Pui-Lan, Kwok. Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Queirnga, Andres Torres, et al. Eds. The Resurrection of the Dead Concilium 2006/5. London: SCM Press, 2006.
Rhoads, David. “The Political Jesus: Can there be any other?” In Mission with the Marginalized. Ed. Samuel W. Meshack, Tiruvalla: CSS Books, 2007.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-Talk. Boston: Beacon Press, 1983.
Samartha, Stanley J. One Christ Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology. New York: Orbis Press, 1991.
Samuel, V. C. The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined: A Historical and Theological Survey. Madras: CLS, 1977.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Jesus: An Experiment in Christology. London: Collins, 1977
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Christ: Christian Experience in the Modern World. London: SCM Press, 1980.
Schmiechen, Peter. Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church. Michigan: Eerdmans, 2005.
Soares-Prabhu, George M. The Dharma of Jesus. New York: Orbis Books, 2003.
Sobrino, Jon. Jesus the Liberator: A Historical-Theological View. New York: Orbis Books, 1999.
Solle, Dorothee. Thinking about God: An Introduction to Theology.
Thomas, M. M. The Secular Ideologies of India and the Secular Meaning of Christ. Madras: CLS/CISRS, 1976.
Weaver, Denny J. The Nonviolent Atonement. Michigan: Eerdmans, 2001.
Westhelle, Vitor. The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.
Yoder, John. The Politics of Jesus: Behold the Man! Our Victorious Lamb. Michigan: Eerdmans, 1972.
Requirements
1. Regular and active class participation and presentation of reading reports.
2. Four written assignments.
Class Schedule and Readings
Week 1. Introduction
Autobiographical Christologies. “Who do you say I am?”
R. Brock and R. Parker. Proverbs of Ashes.15-50
Week 2. Recapitulating
V. Karkkainen. Christology: A Global Introduction. 19-58
D. Rhoads. “The Political Jesus: Can there be any other?” 51-91
R. Norris. The Christological Controversy. 1-31
V. Karkkainen. Christology: A Global Introduction. 265-285
Week 3. Methodology
W. Pannenberg. Jesus God and Man. 21-37
W. Pannenberg. Systematic Theology II 278-297
D. Bonhoeffer. Christ the Center. 27-39
P. Tillich. Systematic Theology II. 19-96, 97-165
Week 4. Methodology
G. Soares-Prabhu. “The Jesus of Faith,” 75-101
A. Pieris. “The Christhood of Jesus…” 3-45
E. Fiorenza. Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet. 3-63
S. Clarke. Dalits and Christianity. 178-217
Week 5. Methodology
J. Moltmann. The Crucified God. 82-111
J. Sobrino. Jesus the Liberator:A Historical-Theological View. 11-63
J. Grant. White Women’s Christ and Black Women’s Jesus. 63-90
K. Pui-Lan. Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology. 168-185
Week 6. Incarnation
D. Bonhoeffer. Christ the Centre. 69-113
N. V. George. The Doctrine of Incarnation… 87-156
V. Chakkarai. Jesus the Avatar. 1-14, 216-228
M. Amaladoss. The Asian Jesus. 127-148
Week 7. Incarnation
Rita Brock. Journeys by Heart. 25-70
W. Farley. Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion. 95-114
L. Isherwood. Feminist Christologies. 52-70
Week 8. Suffering and Death
M. Hengel. Crucifixion 1-90
Pannenberg. Jesus, God and Man. 47-49, 245-280
Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor.
P. Schmiechen. Saving Power. 313-352
Week 9. Suffering and Death
P. Tillich. Systematic Theology Vol. II. 165-180
J. Moltmann. The Crucified God. 200-290
D. Weaver. The Nonviolent Atonement. 179-228
V. Westhelle. The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross. 76-176
Week 10. Suffering and Death
L. Boff. Passion of Christ, Passion of the World. 9-24, 44-136
J. Ela. “The Memory of the African People and the Cross of Christ.” 17-35
L. Isherwood. Feminist Christologies. 87-102
Brown/Parker. “For God so Loved the World.” 1-30
Week 11. Resurrection
R. Bultmann. Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate. 34-43
E. Kasemann. “The Pauline Theology of the Cross.”
W. Pannenberg. Jesus, God and Man 53-114
Week 12. Resurrection
J. Moltmann. Theology of Hope. 139-229
J. Sobrino. Christ the Liberator. 11-112
A. Queirnga. The Resurrection of the Dead. 35-130
Week 13. Contemporary Significance
D. Migliore. Faith Seeking Understanding. 197-222, 301-329
J. Dupuis. Who do you say I am? 140-167
A. Pieris. “The Christhood of Jesus…” 45-69
Week 14. Contemporary Significance
S. Samartha. One Christ Many Religions. 87-161
J. Hick. The Myth of God Incarnate. 167-185
M. M. Thomas. The Secular Ideologies of India…193-203
Week 15. Contemporary Significance
D. Sole. Thinking about God. 102-119
L. Isherwood. Feminist Christologies. 103-132
J. Cone. God of the Oppressed. 99-126
I. Ellacuria. “The Crucified People.” 257-278
Week 16. Evaluation
Revised autobiographical christologies
Showing posts with label Christology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christology. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Primitive Christology: Analysis of Titles of Jesus
Oscar Cullman identified ten main titles of Jesus in the New Testament. He grouped them under the categories of "earthly work" of Jesus (with titles like Prophet, Suffering Servant, High Priest), "future work" (Messiah, Son of Man), "present work" (Lord,Saviour) and ""pre-existence" (Word, Son of God, God) of Jesus. Cullmann traces most of the titles of Jesus to the Old Testament though he is inclined to find two titles influenced by other traditions, "Son of Man" title to the "heavenly man" concept of oriental religions and "Logos" to the Greek mythology.
One of the major concerns of the earliest christologies was to show that Jesus is the Christ of God. Ferdinand Hahn, a student of Gunther Bornkamm, argued that between the Palestinian Jewish Church and Gentile churches there existed another group, the Hellenistic Jewish Church. He argued that various christological titles reflected the Christologies of these communities. For him the exaltation of Jesus was not present in the earliest of christologies. It was the Hellenistic Jewish Church which applied the titles of Lord and Christ to the risen Jesus, as they emphasized the present work of Jesus while the Palestinian Church conceived Christ to be inactive during the interim period of resurrection and parousia.
The Son of Man title which in the teaching of Jesus reflected his expectation of an eschatological functionary other than himself, was quickly identified with Jesus as they hoped for the return of Jesus as Judge. During the earthly ministry Jesus rejected the Jewish concept of Messiah and probably the very word, but his followers liked to interpret him in messianic categories.The titles "Son of David" and "Son of God" were linked to the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, the anointed one, the Greek form of which is Christ (from the Greek root, "chrio," to anoint). According to Pannenberg, "The special significance of the title, Christo, lies in the breadth and capacity for change in its content, which in addition, also could take up the entire tradition about Jesus, including, the passion tradition" Jesus-God and Man, p.32). Christ signified Jesus fate and Israel's eschatological expectation. While most other titles disappeared from usage, the title Christ even overshadowed the name Jesus.
R. H fuller in his Foundations of New Testament Christologies (1965) accepted Hahn's method but reversed it to argue that each title was redefined during the three stages of Christological development, namely, Palestinian, Hellenistic, Jewish, and Hellenistic Gentile transitions. Christology reflected only the thinking of the Church about Jesus, not of Jesus consciousness of himself.
It was the Hellenistic Gentile church which in the title, Lord, expressed the divinity of Jesus and read it back to Jesus' earthly career.
One of the major concerns of the earliest christologies was to show that Jesus is the Christ of God. Ferdinand Hahn, a student of Gunther Bornkamm, argued that between the Palestinian Jewish Church and Gentile churches there existed another group, the Hellenistic Jewish Church. He argued that various christological titles reflected the Christologies of these communities. For him the exaltation of Jesus was not present in the earliest of christologies. It was the Hellenistic Jewish Church which applied the titles of Lord and Christ to the risen Jesus, as they emphasized the present work of Jesus while the Palestinian Church conceived Christ to be inactive during the interim period of resurrection and parousia.
The Son of Man title which in the teaching of Jesus reflected his expectation of an eschatological functionary other than himself, was quickly identified with Jesus as they hoped for the return of Jesus as Judge. During the earthly ministry Jesus rejected the Jewish concept of Messiah and probably the very word, but his followers liked to interpret him in messianic categories.The titles "Son of David" and "Son of God" were linked to the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, the anointed one, the Greek form of which is Christ (from the Greek root, "chrio," to anoint). According to Pannenberg, "The special significance of the title, Christo, lies in the breadth and capacity for change in its content, which in addition, also could take up the entire tradition about Jesus, including, the passion tradition" Jesus-God and Man, p.32). Christ signified Jesus fate and Israel's eschatological expectation. While most other titles disappeared from usage, the title Christ even overshadowed the name Jesus.
R. H fuller in his Foundations of New Testament Christologies (1965) accepted Hahn's method but reversed it to argue that each title was redefined during the three stages of Christological development, namely, Palestinian, Hellenistic, Jewish, and Hellenistic Gentile transitions. Christology reflected only the thinking of the Church about Jesus, not of Jesus consciousness of himself.
It was the Hellenistic Gentile church which in the title, Lord, expressed the divinity of Jesus and read it back to Jesus' earthly career.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Christology: Methodological Issues
Christological studies have been always confronted with a methodological problem: Where to start, “from above” or “from below.” From above refers to the ontological aspect of Christology, beginning from the second person of trinity, stuffed with Greek metaphysics and the Jewish concept of the Messiah, the Christ, the anointed Son of God, and the preached Christ of faith . From below refers to the incarnate Jesus, historical person and the work of Christ as a human being, the historical Jesus. The new Testament records a growing awareness of Christians, from Jesus the son of Mary and Joseph, to Son of David and Son of Man to Son of God, and the second person of Trinity. It can be said that the Synoptic Christology is a “from below” Christology while that of John as “from above” christology. Ignatius of Antioch, second century Apologists, Alexandrian Christology of Athanasius and Cyril all followed "from above" pattern. They found their warrant in the Pauline statements in Philippians 2:5, Romans 8:3, and Galatians 4:4. Nevertheless,as Pannenberg notes, the "historical process of the development and transmission of tradition, in the course of which the unity of man the man Jesus with God became recognized, runs contrary to the kind of concept that speaks of God's becoming man" (Jesus God and Man, p.33).
Luther, Schleiermacher, the Ritschlian school of historical Jesus all favoured a "from below" approach. The quest for historical Jesus which started in the ninteenth century certainly challenged the Chalcedonian Christology which was based on the discussions on the two-nature christology: how divinity and humanity in Jesus coexisted in Jesus. Though Chalcedon wanted to maintain a balance between the Alexandrian tradition which emphasized the divinity of Christ and the Antiochean tradition which high lighted the humanity of Christ, both were revolving around Greek metaphysical considerations.
Martin Kähler’s book, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, edited and translated by Carl E. Braaten, Fortress Press, 1964) made proclamation of the early church as the most significant event in the study of Christology. Schleiermacher and the Erlangen School of Theology earlier suggested that historic Christ can be really apprehended only in the faith of the Christian community.
Kähler was attacking the quest for historical Jesus prevailing in the 19th and the early 20th centuries. Those who were after the "Quest" set Jesus in opposition to Paul. Harnack was the most prominent one who contrasted Jesus with Pauline theology. Against this tendency Kähler asserted, “The real Christ is the preached Christ.”
It is now clear that the early church faced similar problem. The way they solved it was by presenting Jesus from various angles, Jewish, Gentile, Popular and Philosophic angles. They were trying to build a Christology after the model of how the disciples answered Jesus’ question at Caesaria Philippi: What do people say that I am? The result was the four Gospels of the New Testament. While selecting four they had to discard several other interpretations of Jesus. This method makes sense in the context of religious and cultural context of today. Multiplicity of interpretations can not be avoided, but the Church has the responsibility to say which constitutes more authentic among the interpretations, but should not fall into the trap of proclaiming any one interpretation as the authentic, which the early Church also found to be unfeasible.
The form-critical study of the Gospels help us to distinguish Jesus’ person and work from “the particular perspective in which it is transmitted this or that New Testament witness.” (Pannenberg, Jesus- God and Man, 23). The form critical study, however, does not help us to understand the chronological sequence of the life and ministry of Jesus, “for the sequence of presentation in all four Gospel has been proved to be determined by consideration of composition.”The form criticism of Bultmann was succeeded by that of his students. Bultmann’s disciples, Kasemman, Fuchs, Bornkamm and others tried to overcome the historical constraints by assuring themselves that historicity of Jesus is no longer important through their traditio-historical criticism. For them what has been communicated through the Gospels were enough to arrive at a knowledge of Christ's life and work. The historical-critical approach to the Gospels tried to explore how the early Christian proclamation of Christ “emerged from the fate of Jesus” (Pannenberg). They counted New Testament as a vehicle for Kerygma understood in universal as well as existential terms. There remained an unresolved question of an antithesis between historical Jesus and the primitive Christian Kerygma. To make the connection between the two has always been a difficult methodological task for Christology.Oscar Cullmann suuggested his theory of "salvation history" as an alternative to the global view. He emphasized that salvation is made possible by what God does in history and not simply on the basis of accepting a message which is independent of history.
The earliest document of the Christian Church, the Pauline letters, do not provide any evidences to determine Jesus’ life. What Paul has attempted is to present a Jesus as it has appeared to faith: to present Christ, the Messiah, the anointed one, promised in the scriptures. Since the Jews rejected him, as Paul explained in his theology of the Cross, Christology refocused its attention from the Palestinian Judaism to a Hellenistic-Judaic-Roman context. Going beyond this faith proclamation seemed impossible to any rational search for Jesus.
As Schweitzer concluded the Quest, though it showed the significance of historical Jesus, has failed to go beyond the mystic, kerygmatic, mythic experience of the early Christian Church. Bultmann closed the Quest by absorbing the person of Jesus in the Word. (Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958). He was satisfied with his demythologized Christ, preached Christ of faith. In the twentieth century Karl Barth held a "from above to below" approach which invited Panneberg's comment that Barth is closer to Gnostic Redeemer myth, than of incarnational christology.
The discussions on the importance on the starting point in christological methodology has acquired significance from the inception of contextual theologies in the late sixties of the last century. The contextual theologies of the 1960, the Black, the Liberation and the Feminist streams, were anxious to establish Jesus’ historicity as it strengthened people’s struggle to establish, equality and justice, which they considered as the most important contribution of the historical Jesus.
Luther, Schleiermacher, the Ritschlian school of historical Jesus all favoured a "from below" approach. The quest for historical Jesus which started in the ninteenth century certainly challenged the Chalcedonian Christology which was based on the discussions on the two-nature christology: how divinity and humanity in Jesus coexisted in Jesus. Though Chalcedon wanted to maintain a balance between the Alexandrian tradition which emphasized the divinity of Christ and the Antiochean tradition which high lighted the humanity of Christ, both were revolving around Greek metaphysical considerations.
Martin Kähler’s book, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, edited and translated by Carl E. Braaten, Fortress Press, 1964) made proclamation of the early church as the most significant event in the study of Christology. Schleiermacher and the Erlangen School of Theology earlier suggested that historic Christ can be really apprehended only in the faith of the Christian community.
Kähler was attacking the quest for historical Jesus prevailing in the 19th and the early 20th centuries. Those who were after the "Quest" set Jesus in opposition to Paul. Harnack was the most prominent one who contrasted Jesus with Pauline theology. Against this tendency Kähler asserted, “The real Christ is the preached Christ.”
It is now clear that the early church faced similar problem. The way they solved it was by presenting Jesus from various angles, Jewish, Gentile, Popular and Philosophic angles. They were trying to build a Christology after the model of how the disciples answered Jesus’ question at Caesaria Philippi: What do people say that I am? The result was the four Gospels of the New Testament. While selecting four they had to discard several other interpretations of Jesus. This method makes sense in the context of religious and cultural context of today. Multiplicity of interpretations can not be avoided, but the Church has the responsibility to say which constitutes more authentic among the interpretations, but should not fall into the trap of proclaiming any one interpretation as the authentic, which the early Church also found to be unfeasible.
The form-critical study of the Gospels help us to distinguish Jesus’ person and work from “the particular perspective in which it is transmitted this or that New Testament witness.” (Pannenberg, Jesus- God and Man, 23). The form critical study, however, does not help us to understand the chronological sequence of the life and ministry of Jesus, “for the sequence of presentation in all four Gospel has been proved to be determined by consideration of composition.”The form criticism of Bultmann was succeeded by that of his students. Bultmann’s disciples, Kasemman, Fuchs, Bornkamm and others tried to overcome the historical constraints by assuring themselves that historicity of Jesus is no longer important through their traditio-historical criticism. For them what has been communicated through the Gospels were enough to arrive at a knowledge of Christ's life and work. The historical-critical approach to the Gospels tried to explore how the early Christian proclamation of Christ “emerged from the fate of Jesus” (Pannenberg). They counted New Testament as a vehicle for Kerygma understood in universal as well as existential terms. There remained an unresolved question of an antithesis between historical Jesus and the primitive Christian Kerygma. To make the connection between the two has always been a difficult methodological task for Christology.Oscar Cullmann suuggested his theory of "salvation history" as an alternative to the global view. He emphasized that salvation is made possible by what God does in history and not simply on the basis of accepting a message which is independent of history.
The earliest document of the Christian Church, the Pauline letters, do not provide any evidences to determine Jesus’ life. What Paul has attempted is to present a Jesus as it has appeared to faith: to present Christ, the Messiah, the anointed one, promised in the scriptures. Since the Jews rejected him, as Paul explained in his theology of the Cross, Christology refocused its attention from the Palestinian Judaism to a Hellenistic-Judaic-Roman context. Going beyond this faith proclamation seemed impossible to any rational search for Jesus.
As Schweitzer concluded the Quest, though it showed the significance of historical Jesus, has failed to go beyond the mystic, kerygmatic, mythic experience of the early Christian Church. Bultmann closed the Quest by absorbing the person of Jesus in the Word. (Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958). He was satisfied with his demythologized Christ, preached Christ of faith. In the twentieth century Karl Barth held a "from above to below" approach which invited Panneberg's comment that Barth is closer to Gnostic Redeemer myth, than of incarnational christology.
The discussions on the importance on the starting point in christological methodology has acquired significance from the inception of contextual theologies in the late sixties of the last century. The contextual theologies of the 1960, the Black, the Liberation and the Feminist streams, were anxious to establish Jesus’ historicity as it strengthened people’s struggle to establish, equality and justice, which they considered as the most important contribution of the historical Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
