Bultmann's view of the development of Christian faith hinges upon the observation that the early Christian communities saw Jesus as a mythological figure. In the apocalyptic and eschatological ferment of the first century it is not hard to see why this should be so. The New Testament itself suggests this: the Christ myth is more apparent in Mark, whereas the later synoptics present more detailed (and theological) accounts of Jesus and his ministry. [This insight has led to the general conclusion that the Christology of the New Testament begins with the "post-existent" Jesus Christ.] It takes time for an elaborate mythology to develop, and as it does, it will be largely determined by the concerns then most active; in this case, the apocalyptic and eschatological concerns of the early Greek churches. Bultmann concludes that the gospels' mythology represents the thinking of the Church, rather than the mind of Jesus.

  I tend to agree with Bultmann's reasoning on this topic; it is not only feasible, but quite useful also. For example, it shows us why Schweitzer's interpretation of Jesus is insufficient; that is, he wrongly attributes to Jesus the ideas and concerns of the unwashed masses, as if Jesus could not possibly be different (in thought and being) from them. Oddly enough, many modern scholars tend to do likewise; including Bultmann and Pannenberg.

 For Moltmann, the problem of the transition from the Jesus of History to the Christ of Faith is a minor thing. Of far more importance is the problem of the "path leading from the Jewish Jesus to the Christian Jesus, and the rediscovery of the Jewish Jesus in the Christian Jesus" (Way xvi). While this is undoubtedly an important project for Christology, I cannot help but feel that Moltmann's image of Jesus shares the same flaw as Bultmann's (and indeed of most modern visions of the Lord); namely, they cannot avoid the Enlightenment's tendency to equate intelligibility with reductionism and anti-supernaturalism. Hence, most modern portraits of Jesus are indeed "Jewish" in sum and substance; which is to say, that they deliberately limit Jesus to the categories we find in first century Judaism. For Moltmann, this means that we should view the Galilean rabbi according to messianic, apocalyptic, and eschatological categories only.

  I think it is a distinct possibility that Jesus' own understanding of these categories (ie. their terms, images, symbols, etc) burst the bounds imposed by his less perceptive contemporaries, such that his own use of these ideas and symbols contain meanings and implications that will differ from the common mind! [This may be why Jesus shied away from the inflammatory 'Messiah', and preferred the more ambiguous 'Son of Man'.] Most modern thinkers seem to see Jesus as some naive, but clever, peasant-type who really did not think overmuch about what he was doing. What is obviously needed here is a far greater appreciation for Jesus' spiritual and religious genius, brilliance, and creativity. As the 'universal man' who is the revelation of God, Jesus was *in* the world but not *of* it!

  That is, the meaning of his words and deeds, while they *can* be understood exclusively according to the categories of first-century Judaism, or those of the early churches' kerygma, nevertheless bursts the boundaries imposed by these artificial limits. In order to speak to people today, the incarnate Logos elevates Jesus of Nazareth above and beyond the specifics and particulars of first-century Palestine. In this sense, an element of discontinuity between Jesus and the world exists, such that the mystery and grace of the Incarnation can never be exhausted.

 Since Christology is the central and most vital aspect of theology in general, it is, at one and the same time, both an act of faith, and an act of reason. The latter allows Christology to address its very important apologetic function; while the former means that Christology cannot arrive at faith - as to some sought-after goal - but rather must presuppose the faith-input right from the start. Our view is that Christology should begin with the 'real' Jesus of History who must logically be distinguished from the dogmatic Christ of the later episcopal councils. But having affirmed the necessity of this distinction, we must at once emphasize that this distinction does not necessarily imply a radical discontinuity between Jesus and Christ. In examining the sources of the New Testament traditions, Bultmann finds that the only thing that can be discovered about the real Jesus of History is that he was the prophet of Nazareth.

 Now this is saying quite a lot (in our opinion) - for the implications are weighty in their significance - yet Bultmann does not see it this way at all. For him, our lack of certain knowledge about Jesus implies a radical break between the prophet and the Christ of faith: "For Bultmann there is an absolute discontinuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith." And this "absolute discontinuity" means that "the life of Jesus ultimately has no real importance for Christianity" (Sheehan, p.22). But this conclusion strikes us as being wholly contrary to the spirit and values of the Faith, and so must be rejected absolutely.

  In doing so, we see that the break between the prophet of Nazareth and the New Testament traditions is neither as absolute nor as drastic as our modern Christologists suppose. Indeed, the NT evidence shows a gradual (and even logical) development in the early believers' ideas about Jesus: prophet -> Son of Man -> Messiah (Christ) -> the Lord -> Logos -> Son of God.  There is no evidence in the text themselves of any absolute discontinuity between any one of these items and its nearest neighbors. On the contrary, what we see in the above schematic is a gradual, and even natural, progression (or growth) based upon an inherent continuity between the former life of Jesus and the later faith of the early Greek churches.

 Thus the "real" Jesus cannot simply be reduced to 'a mere man'; and so we recognize in him both the Son of Man and the Son of God. In other words, our Christology must assume from the start that Jesus Christ is both human and divine (ie. his divinity cannot be proved, only recognized and acknowledged).

 Our christological synthesis draws heavily from the work of Karl Rahner, mainly because he - more than the others - meets our strinngent requirements. And although Rahner hardly ever talked about the historical Jesus at all, we nevertheless welcome the following ideas from Rahner's Christology as the solid foundation of our own:

 (1) The world and its history are evolving toward a unity of matter and spirit, which is the fullness of God's Kingdom.
 (2) God is present to all people as the 'principle of growth' (ie. becoming fully human is a process of self-transcendence involving grace and faith).
 (3) The fundamental reciprocity between matter and spirit - central to Rahner's evolutionary perspective - means that the movement of history peaks with the Word/flesh union in Jesus Christ. [Pannenburg places the pivotal moment in history at the Cross, rather than at the Incarnation as a whole.]
 (4) The unity of history is thus focused on the whole Christ-event, because Jesus Christ embodies the destiny of humanity; (although in a different way than that suggested by Pannenberg).
 (5) Jesus Christ is the "ultimate word of God to humankind" (McB 477).
We also recognize the reality of God's universal grace, and the general 'unthematic' revelation in cosmos and human history (eg. Jasper's axial age). Beyond this, there is also the particular and concrete revelation (ie. Spirit/Providence) within the history of Israel (based on the I-Thou relationship between God and human beings).

 But all this is just the initial ground-clearing. We further accept that the ultimate revelation of God's Word is to be found in the life, person, and ministry of Jesus Christ, such that the 'vertical' Incarnation is both a unique historical and spiritual reality wherein the entire Christ-event (ie. from conception to ascension) is an eternally mysterious and gracious revelation of divine love. Yet despite these rather large 'a priori' assumptions, we nevertheless urge a balanced and moderate approach that is flexible enough to consider alien views, yet able to resist unrealistic and erroneous ideas; be they old (eg. the apocalyptic expectation of the imminent end of the world) or new (eg. dogmas which exalt Mary to the detriment of her son).

 The best way of making Jesus intelligible is to adopt a historical methodology that begins with Jesus' life, then follows the development of Christian faith and understanding through the death and resurrection to Paul, the gospels, the second century prophets and apologists, the Greek Fathers, Councils, and so on. But in order to get the full picture, we must also illuminate the horizontal dimension with the vertical. Now Rahner's system is the foundation of our christological synthesis, but it is not (or ought not) to be so inflexible that it cannot accommodate the best elements of Balthasar's work (eg. Trinity as a communion of love), as well as the fundamental insights of Pannenberg, and even a few functional elements (via Bultmann and Moltmann). Rahner's Christology proceeds along the horizontal dimension, but it could certainly use a good dose of Balthasar, introduced as needed. Now when we are faced with a 'monstrosity' such as Balthasar's 'theological project' (ie. vertical with a vengeance), it is not hard to see why some (eg. Moltmann) will run full tilt in the opposite direction. We must therefore resist both extremes if we are to pursue a reality-based Christology that does full justice to reason, experience, history, and the Christian traditions of the early Greek churches.