BIJBELONDERZOEK, ANALOGIE EN THEOLOGIE

Abstract

SUMMARY In 1972 Schillebeeckx, because of his concern over fundamental problems causing unrest within the Christian community, initiated a ‘dialogue’ about Jesus of Nazareth. He proceeded on the assumption that the Christian faith would lose its credibility if the scientific study of the Bible were to prove that Jesus did not exist, or that he was not what faith believes him to have been. The present article challenges this assumption which is that of Bultmann and of all those who have taken part in the Bultmann debate, and in the so-called New Quest of the historical Jesus, The article investigates the curious discussion about analogy that some of the participants in the debate engaged in, and that finally appeared to be based upon a misunderstanding of Bultmann's intentions. However, a closer look at the various positions and particularly at the apparent consensus concerning the historicity of Jesus reveals a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the terms historical and historicity (apart from Bultmann's distinction between historisch and geschichtlich). This ambiguity seems to confirm that analogy was, and is, a real issue in the debate. It appears to reveal that the scientific study of the Bible, insofar as this implies historical and literary research, falls short, by its very nature, of speaking about God. Historical statements as such, whether positive or negative, i.e., whether they affirm or deny the historicity of Jesus, are theologically irrelevant, and incapable of affecting the faith of the believer. This of course touches the shibboleth of contemporary theology, endorsed by Schillebeeckx, that faith does not concern ‘timeless and eternal truth’. As much as this expresses the wish not to be identified with Lessing, Kant, Hegel, Strauss, etc. (why this indiscriminate fear of such respectable company?), one would prefer a less ambiguous formula. For, if faith concerns God, it does concern the ‘timeless and eternal truth’ of God's Word which has become historical but in a way which escapes and transcends any univocal historical statement or investigation, although it can be expressed in historical statements which are analogical. The issue, then, is that Schillebeeckx brings assumptions into the dialogue which, although too common indeed, are not only un-theological but also inconsistent with his theological positions elsewhere. Not the use of historical statements is at stake but their meaning. Whether or not there ever was a Trojan horse, it remains eternally true that one can lose the civitas theologica to the innocent ruse of historical exegesis.