The Christs of Faith:
Some Personal Questions - An Informal Essay
by
Richard T. Nolan

CHRISTOLOGY AND OTHER CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

           A college sophomore, puzzled when I referred to the many current publications in christology, commented, “I thought that all issues related to Jesus were settled a thousand or more years ago! What more can be said?” This is an understandable reaction, especially for those who received only the most basic religious education. Furthermore, academic doctrinal issues are often avoided in pulpits, so that worshippers do not become confused or rattled. Additionally, for many scholars and clergy there is nothing more to talk about. I continue to have some questions.

Preservers and Pioneers. In the mid-1950s a divinity school dean lecturing to undergraduates on the ordained ministry as a vocation commented that there are two types of clergy and scholars: preservers and pioneers. The former perceive their responsibility as perpetuating traditions, the latter as exploring new possibilities. Although an oversimplification, the categories suggest likely inclinations among all the faithful: maintaining the status quo or delving into the unfamiliar. The tension between the two styles can be acrimonious or collegial. More often than not, bitter, silent divisions result rather than thoughtful exchanges. In some instances agreements to differ are not considered. The dean upheld the necessity of both styles to the evolving life of Christianity, but regretted any resulting animosities and divisions.

           The plethora of contemporary studies in christology has emerged, in part, because “preservers” are satisfied with either restatements or fine-tuned doctrines; “pioneers,” or explorers, can depart from tradition with fewer retaliatory consequences. Nowadays one is not going to be executed for heresy, and fewer will lose their jobs. Within a recent advertisement of one study there is a notation that the book “concisely surveys 23 recent and contemporary Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians who have offered influential interpretations of Jesus.” Christology is alive and well!

           Other long-established issues are less fixed today than ever, even if their scrutiny is unpublicized. A Roman Catholic theologian mentioned in an informal, private, ecumenical discussion group of religion professors that the classical doctrine of the Trinity no longer makes any sense. A Roman Catholic priest referred to the Rosary as “babble” and another to the Pope as obviously fallible, even when speaking ex cathedra. The efficacy of intercessory and petitionary prayer is under question. Classical views of providence and grace remain in dispute. The very nature of the Bible is unsettled among Christians. Those who wish to preserve their traditional position and those dissatisfied with what seems to be available are not each other’s enemies. Each cares; few are indifferent. Further, all studies will not be possible with some sort of non-human detachment, but more than likely, varied degrees of emotion.

Purpose of this Essay. My purpose in this brief essay is to raise some christological questions that have emerged in my mind. Of particular interest is the extent of the variety of first century C.E. Jewish outlooks; whether the biblical Hebrew dabar provides meaning for the Johannine logos; whether the Aramaic spoken by Jesus provides meaning for the Greek NT verb “to be” – especially in John’s Gospel; and the impact of any of this on current christological considerations, and by implication, understandings of the Trinity. Among scholarly works consulted, I have found assorted and conflicting judgments.

Complications and Uncertainties

Complicating the scholarly efforts in raising these questions are at least six factors:

(1) Some who study Jesus also love Jesus; the emotional commitment to the person being researched understandably skews the results toward the vision and experiences one has of the beloved, not unlike a spouse researching a dearly loved partner. Likewise, some who are either committed or addicted to their religious tradition find it nearly impossible to think deeply about doctrinal matters. Many individuals care so intensely about their religious beliefs and practices that analytical academic reflections are not viable.

(2) “Obstacles to Clear Thinking” are noted briefly in chapter 2 of a textbook elsewhere on this website at http://www.philosophy-religion.org/living/2.pdf . Many of the mentioned barriers come into play when cherished convictions are questioned. For example, many wonderful, beloved hymns, art, and liturgical observances are intimately associated with christological and trinitarian dogmas. The emotions as well as the intellect may feel violated when such doctrines are brought into question, and not a little fury may be directed at dissenters. Additionally, those feeling that essentials of their religion are being attacked might correctly sense a real threat: that a revision of a particular doctrine would have a ripple effect necessitating major changes of long-held traditions perceived as indispensable. Such obstacles to clear thinking significantly complicate explorations of many doctrines. An impartial, intellectual analysis is rarely possible. Also, shrieking “heresy” or “satanic” is mere hysteria and resolves nothing.

(3) Judgments about the meanings of words in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek (et al.) may likewise be slanted in a particular direction. In a response to my query, one biblical scholar replied that his faith determines which meaning(s) he assigns to the particular word we were discussing; his honesty was commendable.

           Decades ago, one of my own professors told us that he was a graduate student “go-for” while a committee was working on the RSV translation of the Bible. More than once, we were told, the scholars flipped a coin to decide which rendering of a word or verse would be accepted. Today we are likely to hear about close votes “settling” some weighty matters related to biblical studies. Similarly, many scholars committed to historic Christian Councils, Tradition, and “orthodoxy” tend toward translations supportive of their authorities, even when alternatives are possible.

(4) The insights of a scholar may be trivialized, and indeed ignored, if (s)he is perceived as an evangelical or liberal, a member of a particular faith community, a faculty member of a specific institution, and/or a supporter of a certain school of thought. Dismissing a scholar for trivial reasons is regrettable, because a learned individual could be off course in many matters and on track in one or two. A faculty appointment at an historic research university does not confer infallibility, and service on a relatively unknown faculty does not assure unreliability.

(5) The high regard paid to the fallible early church councils and equally fallible “church fathers” has been overgenerous. Councils and early theologians are rightly of considerable interest to historians as the emergence of early Christianity is researched. However, their canonizations are unsound. Creeds and decisions which they produced reveal their respective eras, and more often than not, they were more reflective of Greek philosophical qualities than of the thinking of Christ and his apostles. For preservers insisting that the Councils and “church fathers” are essential to fundamental Christianity, there is no need for this exploration.

(6) I have come to realize that in my own formal theological studies the bibliographies provided were not exhaustive. I was not exposed to many alternative positions of various doctrines. Moreover, in my own teaching career I, too, was selective, and I am unsure of all the principles that guided me toward listing one resource and not another. Frankly, the internet has introduced me to sources I knew little or nothing about, and e-mail has allowed some valuable information to come my way. I remain committed to my undergraduate College ’s stated purpose:

Our paramount purpose is to foster critical thinking, free the mind of parochialism and prejudice, and prepare students to lead examined lives that are personally satisfying, civically responsible, and socially useful.¹

In the Spirit of the Liberal Arts

           Now in my elder years, I value critical thinking more than ever; a liberated mind and an examined life are central. This being the case, I dare to venture into what may indeed be either orthodoxy or heresy of some sort. To be sure, there is a part of me that is a preserver, but there remains an adventurous spirit ready to examine notions that, for whatever reasons, command my attention.

           It is helpful for me to know of likeminded others who have served, and still serve, within the mainstream community of faith that has nurtured me for my entire life: The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (still one of its official names). Over the years, many Episcopal and global Anglican scholars have researched and questioned every creedal phrase, and diversity among interpretations has been produced. Dedicated preservers have been outraged by many resulting positions, and some have sought official condemnations. Some other preservers have been so angry that they have established or joined other Communions. They have lost the historic Anglican vision that we Episcopalians/Anglicans experience unity, not by means of intellectual agreement, but in acts of corporate worship.

Boundaries?

           Nonetheless, how far is straying too far as one finds a particular interpretation no longer convincing and another persuasive? Is the Anglican vision limitless, or are there boundaries? What are the doctrinal boundaries of Christianity? Are there infallible, unchangeable doctrines and practices? What constitutes dogma? One will not even find unanimity on the crucial issue of parameters. The Episcopal Church is not unique in this dilemma. Should the Roman Catholic theologian and priest quoted above about the Trinity and Rosary be excommunicated? At what point should an individual recognize his/her incompatibility with one’s religious tradition and voluntarily withdraw? Is one issue sufficient? Two? Uncertainty pervades here, too. At least being burned at the stake is ruled out, and as a retiree, I will not suffer the trauma of losing a job!

Heresy?

           In terms of traditional, post-biblical dogma, the classical pre-7th century Trinity and Christ have been taken for granted as unalterable. It has been said that they may be restated in contemporary terms, but their essential truths are generally regarded as unbendable. Nonetheless, questions are being raised about their fundamental soundness, not in pulpits, but in quiet, scholarly explorations – written and by word of mouth. These queries are not attacks from outside Christian Churches, but inquiries from within. It is within the spirit of loyal examination that this brief essay continues. However, am I straying into heresy?

AN ORIENTATION TO CHRISTOLOGY

           Christology seeks to explain Jesus Christ’s ministry of realigning humanity to God’s purposes and community by explaining who Jesus was: his nature, his relationship to God, his death, resurrection and ascension, and his eventual coming again. In the ongoing evolution of the Church, the belief in Jesus' saving (realigning) role has led to various assertions about who he was. Christology is the response of particular Christians to their experiences of Jesus. It has become commonplace to refer to “portraits” of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and the same figure of speech is applicable to the experiences and understandings of him throughout Christian history. Of course, the “real” Jesus is no more accessible via whatever reliable history may exist than for any other historical personage; all history is written within interpreters’ worldviews and not as raw data. As a result, in neither the Bible nor corporate Christian discernments is there one christological doctrine. Nor does a composite of all of them offer a coherent view.

           It appears that Jesus himself did not teach straightforwardly that he was the Messiah, the Christ expected by the Jewish people; rather, he implemented a “christology” through his words and deeds. After Jesus' crucifixion, his followers’ hopes were justified by their experience of his resurrection; they responded to what they believed God had accomplished through Jesus by formulating understandings of who Jesus was.

           Initially Christians expressed their beliefs about Jesus with titles and models borrowed from the environment of first century Palestine. Both Hebraic and Hellenistic Greek conceptions of God, history, and destiny were available to them in varying degrees. The biblical Wisdom tradition is significant, too.

I. WHAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE VARIETY OF FIRST CENTURY C.E. JEWISH OUTLOOKS?

           As one looks to the New Testament as the major source for a christology, it would be helpful to understand the intellectual context of the period during which the various texts were written. All of the surviving writings were in the Greek language, but their culture was primarily Jewish. However, were their Jewish authors Hellenized, such that Greek/Platonic/Stoic philosophical categories prevailed? Or, were the writers thinking in one of the styles of traditional Jewish categories? Alternatively, was it a mixture? How do we consider the New Testament renderings of Jesus’ Aramaic words translated into Greek, a very different type of language and thought patterns? Were the Gospels, especially John, penned with an attempt to blend biblical and Hellenistic worldviews? Should we take it for granted that John’s Prologue was written within a Hellenized Jewish perspective? Is it a version of the Jewish wisdom tradition, a mix of Hellenism and Jewish wisdom tradition, or something else?

           Studies in this area continue to surface. I recently received a Fortress Press (2003) catalog with notations of two new books: Vermes, Jesus In His Jewish Context (August 2003) – “In this stimulating work, one of the most renowned scholars of ancient Judaism explores how Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom and the earliest Jesus movement fit into the Jewish world of Judea and Galilee. In this revised edition of an earlier work, Vermes includes four new chapters.” Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins (September 2003) – “… Since the 1950s, however, a dramatic shift has occurred in the study of Judaism, driven by new manuscripts and new methods and tools for analyzing sources. ….” And, then some already available books are noted in the catalog, such as Stegemann and Stegemann’s The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century. I have an inclination to wait and read these before writing further, but undoubtedly, other books will be on the way whenever my first word is written.

Philo

           From time to time, Philo (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE) is considered representative of first century C.E. Jewish thought. Is this a vast overstatement? Philo understood the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Pentateuch) within the conceptual framework and methodologies of Hellenistic philosophy, and his influence in Judaism was actually very limited. He knew no Hebrew² and read the Septuagint with the mindset of a Greek philosopher. He was more influential in the eventual evolution of Christian thought than representative of any association with the life and times of Jesus. That the world of Jesus and his followers was bound to Hellenistic thought forms is an unjustifiable assumption. Actually, many rabbis opposed too close an acquaintance with, and study of, Greek culture - which they saw as pagan and idolatrous; continued ancestral beliefs and identity were maintained. Is it to be expected that an adoption of Hellenistic culture to a lesser or greater extent, must affect one ’s Judaism?

Other than Philo

           In any case, Judaism was not unified in terms of all beliefs and practices. The Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes are among the more familiar groups, but there were several others, along with contentious issues being argued as well. Furthermore, the new Christianity was not united, but diverse. This is evident in the New Testament itself. Each form of Christian tradition tended to tell the story of Jesus in different ways. However, did any of the New Testament Christians understand Jesus as God Incarnate, as the Second Person of the Trinity? Did John?

II. MIGHT THE BIBLICAL HEBREW DABAR PROVIDE MEANING FOR THE JOHANNINE
LOGOS?

           When we read the New Testament, we are reading a Semitic text about Semites, writings that have passed through Greek on their way to us. Its central personage was the Jew Yeshua, whose parents were Miryam and Yosef. We read them as Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Might there be more significant restorations needed to understand better the New Testament writings?

John

           As Yale Divinity School Dean and New Testament professor wrote recently, “Contemporary Johannine scholarship displays remarkable methodological diversity.”³ Burge adds, “In the last ten years, many of the assumed conclusions of Johannine studies have experienced remarkable upheaval.”⁴ With specific reference to the Prologue, Patterson proposes, “The debate surrounding the Prologue to the Gospel of John stands in need of a good airing out. The outmoded assumptions that have long dominated this discussion need to be exposed and discarded.”⁵ This being the case, should we open our minds to new insights that might contradict widely held, traditional beliefs? On the other hand, should we dismiss meanings that challenge time-honored doctrines?

           One correspondent, a renowned scholar of the Johannine literature, wrote in a private email, “The origin, and therefore the range of meaning, of logos in Fourth Gospel will always be debated. I see the Fourth Evangelist, including whoever penned the prologue, as not primarily influenced by Hellenistic Jewish philosophy but by more widespread, less technical Jewish thought available within any synagogue.” Another has commented, “We have, then, a document from an early and pure Christian Judaism.”⁶ The Jewishness of John is reflected in its references to the Hebrew Scriptures, references to the Jews (i.e., Jewish religious authorities), the comparison of Jesus to Moses and other leading figures, and John’s familiarity with Jewish customs and tradition. What are some implications for this vision of John?

excerpts on John from The New Interpreter’s Bible , Vol. 9, pp. 504-510

John thus belongs to and derives from the complex and multi-faceted cultural and intellectual milieu of first-century Judaism. The influence of this diversity of Jewish traditions on the Fourth Evangelist is evident throughout the Gospel. From beginning to end, the Gospel is shaped by the language and images of the OT. The opening words of the Gospel (“In the beginning . . .”) are clearly intended to echo Gen 1:1. …. John’s animosity to the Jewish religious authorities thus does not extend to Jewish religious traditions. He is thoroughly saturated in and shaped by the Jewish Scriptures.
………..

The Gospel of John was thus written by a Jewish Christian for and in a Jewish Christian community that was in conflict with the synagogue authorities of its day (represented in the Gospel as “the Pharisees” or “the Jews”). … The place of the Gospel’s origin, like its author, must remain unnamed; what is critical to the interpretation of John is the recognition of its origins in the religious life of first- century Judaism.

           Given the Jewishness of John’s Gospel, is it necessary to conclude that a Hellenized Judaism is its context? Is the logos⁷ of the Prologue the logos of Philo or like types of Greek/Platonic/Stoic philosophy? Could it be that “the less technical Jewish thought in the synagogue” was not so Hellenized, that logos was intended to convey the meaning of the Hebrew dabar?

And The Word Was Made Flesh and Dwelt Among Us

           In Hebrew, God’s dabar (“word of YHWH” or dabar YHWH) can refer to God’s purposes or intentions for humanity. The Hebrew Scriptures utilize the phrase dabar YHWH 241 times, and for the most part this is translated in the Septuagint as logos kyrios - the first appearance of logos in Jewish tradition.⁸ God’s word is not conceptualized in metaphysical terms, but is experienced as dynamic and active. The focus is not on God’s being, but upon his activity. It is through God’s acts that his will is disclosed to human beings. Dabar as logos is personal, in the sense that it is this personal God’s Word, but to suggest a high degree of metaphysical personification of logos would go beyond anything found in Hellenistic Judaism⁹ (other than possibly with Philo).¹⁰ Likewise, the personification of Wisdom, as possibly related to logos, does not denote a separable aspect of God’s being, any more that anyone’s insights or thoughts are detachable from his/her mind. One Johannine scholar noted in personal correspondence, “In particular, the meaning of God's intention/purpose (dabar) is perhaps the very best sense to give to logos in the prologue.” Thus, is it accurate to say that Jesus lived among us as “the incarnate expression of God’s speech; as word gives body to thought, so does Jesus give visible expression in the world to the invisible power and presence of God.”?¹¹ (This view does not support the non-Hebraic, pre-existent Person in a classical trinitarian sense.)

           A draft translation of the Prologue¹² in this dabar/logos sense follows in the left column with the NRSV on the right. Admittedly, some of the draft verses lack the elegance of the more customary wordings.

*also, enfleshed, embodied

III. DOES THE ARAMAIC SPOKEN BY JESUS PROVIDE MEANING FOR THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT VERB “TO BE” – ESPECIALLY IN JOHN’S GOSPEL?

           Unique to The Gospel According to John are Jesus' "I am" sayings, such as - "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." We have received the New Testament in Greek (the common Greek of the time), but Jesus normally spoke the Semitic language Aramaic. To comprehend the meaning of the "I am" symbolism, it is necessary to include the Aramaic sense of action whenever we read variations of the verb "to be." In other words, we must probe beneath the Greek to the Aramaic language, in order to try to think as Jesus did. Having done this, we might interpret this "I am" saying as meaning "I am/live/make real/embody the way, and the truth, and the life." In this sense “The Father and I are one” is not a metaphysical declaration, but a statement of Jesus’ living/acting in harmony with, consistently with, indeed fully embodying, God’s purposes. Might he be the unique incarnation of God’s Word, truly a Son of God, but not “God the Son” conceived in a trinitarian mode?

           A further consideration, having an impact on interpretations of the Eucharist, is that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, not Greek, could not have said “This IS my body…..” as usually understood metaphysically in Greek. In Aramaic the verb “to be” in this case does not focus on essences/substances, but is a connecting verb suggesting action/activity. It would seem that Jesus never intended to address the “is-ness” (essence/substance) of the blessed bread and wine, but rather how the sacred elements act in the life of the faithful. As one British theologian noted in the mid-twentieth century, “God’s grace is conveyed not through the elements but through the act.”¹³ All of the speculations about what happens to the bread and wine as they are blessed become unpersuasive, in that the classical, mediaeval, Reformation, and post-Reformation explorations are about a Semitic people whose worldview and languages were unconcerned with such issues. Actions, not is-ness, characterize their corporate way of thinking. What would Jesus have known, or even cared about, with regard to his “real presence in” the elements? What do consubstantiation, transubstantiation, and the like have to do with Christ’s actions at the Last Supper?

My Lord and My God (John 20:28)

           Is it possible that after the Resurrection Thomas was confessing the awesome presence of God’s living and active Word in Jesus life and ministry? Astonished, humbled, and with a sense of unique holiness active in front of him, did Thomas declare Jesus as the embodiment, the incarnation, of Dabar YHWH? Alternatively, was he confessing Jesus Christ as the trinitarian God the Son? Consider this analysis:

           The well-known words of Thomas to Jesus, “My Lord and my God,” are supposed to be decisive for the full Deity of Christ. Jesus, however, had already denied being God (see above on John 10:34-36). John distinguishes Jesus from the one and only God, his Father (John 17:3). Readers of the New Testament often do not realize that the word “God” can be applied to a representative of God. There is good evidence that John incorporates into his portrait of Jesus as Messiah, ideas drawn from the Messianic Psalm 45. In answer to Pilate, Jesus declared that he was a king whose task was to bear witness to the truth (John 18.37). There is an Old Testament background to this theme. Psalm 45 is written in praise of the Messiah (Heb. I:8), who is addressed as “most mighty,” and urged to “ride prosperously in the cause of Truth” (vv. 3, 4). The psalmist foresees that the king's enemies “will fall under you” (v. 5). The royal status of this leader is emphasized when the writer addresses him with the words “O God” (Ps. 45:6). The career of the Messiah outlined in Psalm 45 is reflected in John's observation that Jesus’ enemies recoiled at his claim to be the Messiah and “fell to the ground” (John 18 6) 42 Thomas' recognition of Jesus as “God” is a beautiful fulfillment of the Psalm's highest address to the King of Israel. In that Psalm the Messiah is acclaimed as the Church's Lord and “God.” But the “God” Messiah has been appointed by his God, the One and only Infinite God (Ps. 45:7).

           Jesus himself was interested in the use of the word “God” for human rulers (John 10:34; Ps. 82:6). The Messiah is supremely entitled to be called “God” in this special sense, particularly because he embodies the “word” which is itself theos (John l:1). It is possible that John adds one further statement about Jesus as “God.” He declares him to be (if this is the correct manuscript reading - the point is disputed) “unique son, ‘God' [theos]’ (John 1:18). This is the ultimate Messianic description, expressing the fact that Jesus is the image of the One God. As Son of God, however, he is to be distinguished from the one who is underived, namely his Father. It remains a fact that John wrote his entire book to prove that Jesus was the Christ (John 20:31), and that the God of Jesus is also the God of the disciples (John 20:17). An unusual occurrence of them in reference to Jesus should not overturn John’s and Jesus’ uniform insistence on the creed of Israel. It is an unwarranted advance (2 John 9 should be noted) beyond the intention of John to make him the innovator of the equation “Christ” = “the Supreme God.” It is sufficient to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God (John 20:31). ¹⁴

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR CURRENT CHRISTOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The following conclusion to the online essay “The Necessity of a Biblical Christology”¹⁵ is very much on course.

A Biblical christology is necessary because of the nature of the Christian Faith. That faith is not based on a idea or an ideology. We are not talking about a “Christ principle.” We are talking about a revelation from God which comes in and through real historical events. Jesus was a real man who lived in the real world. That means that he lived at a particular time and in a particular place. The Bible provides the only real access we have to that person. It provides us with information about him. It also interprets that information and helps us to understand its significance. The Bible also provides the context in which to understand Jesus. While there has been, and presumably will continue to be development in christology, any christology which is not rooted in the Bible -- which does not take into account the context, and the content, and the continuity which the Bible provides, will always be inadequate, or worse, just plain wrong. It may even turn Christianity into a different religion altogether.

           However, my questions about a biblical christology may indicate a theological direction not considered by the distinguished author of the foregoing passage. Unlike many christological explorations over the years,¹⁶ one or more interpretations that might emerge from my, and similar, queries would be biblically based, but perhaps yield uncommon results.

Some Odds and Ends. The readiness to translate “paying homage to” as “worship” needs another look. Did the Magi “worship” or “pay homage to” him? In addition, Hebrews 1:8 and so much more have been explored by Buzzard and Hunting in their 1998 study.¹⁷ Too, there is nothing new or controversial in the realization that Jesus’ New Testament titles do not support the notion of his deity.

           Given the likelihood of a perennial christological pluralism, what is the nature of Christian unity? Although some Churches permit variations on christology rooted in the seventh century (those that are clearly Nicene in character), where might those rooted in a biblical christology of the sort anticipated by questions raised in this essay fit in? Almost all Christians are willing to sing “The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord” and to confess “Jesus is the Risen Lord and Christ.” However, the christologies assumed by various Christians as they pray and declare their faith could (and already do) differ significantly. What, then, is meant by Christian unity?

A Comprehensive Question. Is it possible that a biblically based christology or christologies would result in a human Christ whose divinity is of a Hebrew sort: “divine” meaning one with an extraordinary relationship with God? Can it be legitimately proposed that the Risen Lord and Christ, Son of David, Holy One of God, Rabbi, Savior, Lamb of God, Son of Man, and Son of God we call Jesus was a human being in whom God’s Word (dabar/logos/ purposes-intentions for humanity) was enfleshed/incarnated/embodied/personified? Without Greek/Platonic/Stoic contexts, with a Jewish mindset of ordinary synagogue folk, could this be the case?

AN AFTERTHOUGHT

           It appears to me that at this time there is no agreed upon method by which questions raised in this essay can be answered definitively; faithful biblical and theological experts differ considerably in methodology. Nonetheless, the issues are reasonable. Moreover, despite all the obstacles mentioned at the outset, a reexamination of the New Testament for its christological inferences and declarations remains appropriate. The Jewishness, humanity, life, ministry, and teachings of, and about, Jesus are legitimate topics that may lead to a more fully developed, biblically based christology. With greater protection for today’s scholars, specialists are able to continue their research and collaborative efforts without fearing imprisonment or worse.

           We have arrived at a time in history when appeals to sheer authority or tradition will not persuade many pioneering inquirers to keep quiet and “have faith.” An informed faith is one thing; naïve faith increasingly repels educated and independent people, including many preservers. “Peasant religion”¹⁸ is becoming more and more a deterrent to those who might otherwise energize an association of the faithful. Unless so-called untouchable doctrinal matters are responsibly treated, however painful and revolutionary that process might be, negligent religious groups will become less credible and increasingly a repository of psychologically and intellectually marginal people basking in delusional Wonderlands.

¹ Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut
² J. Neusner (ed. in chief), W. S. Green (ed.), Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period (Hendrickson, 1996), p. 481. Also, Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev.ed. (Fortress, 1999), p. 84.
³ H. W Attridge, “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL121/1 (2002) 3-21. (Presidential Address delivered at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Denver, Colorado)
⁴ G. M. Burge, “Situating John’s Gospel in History” in R. T. Fortana and T. Thatcher, eds., Jesus in the Johannine Tradition (Westminster John Knox, 2001), p. 35.
⁵ S. J. Patterson, “The Prologue to the Fourth Gospel,” ibid., p. 324.
⁶ R. T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor (Fortress, 1988), p. 214.
⁷ Logos has over 70 meanings.
⁸ Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, p. 388.
⁹ Ibid.
¹⁰ Luke Timothy Johnson, op. cit., p. 535.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² “It” was used by 16th century Tyndale: “In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God. All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made.”
¹³ J. S. Whale, Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1952), p. 163.
¹⁴ A. F. Buzzard and C. F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity (Christian Universities, 1998), pp. 278f. See other items in the subsite “The Christs of Faith.”
¹⁵ by R. Reid, Th.D. for The Anglican Institute at http://www.anglicaninstitute.org/whoreid.htm/.
¹⁶ See D. F. Ford, “Christology” in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (Oxford, 2000), pp. 114ff.
¹⁷ A. F. Buzzard and C. F. Hunting, op. cit.
¹⁸ See http://www.philosophy-religion.org/world/peasant.htm