Page History

It also occurs to me that my two types of a posteriori christology (_sc_. christology dominated by an ontology of objectifying thinking) correspond almost exactly to the two types of inappropriate christology that Bultmann regularly distinguishes \-\- from one another as well as from an appropriate christology \-\- e.g., when he distinguishes christology as "metaphysical speculation about a heavenly being" from christology as "a character sketch of \[Jesus'\] personality as having a messianic conciousness" (_GV_ 1: 265 f.; cf. also 204 f.); or distinguishes the christology of Greek Christianity, which speaks about Jesus' "metaphysical being" by ascribing "a divine 'nature'" to him, from "the modern view of his person as a 'personality,'" with its talk of "the strength of his personal faith, his enthusiasm and heroism, and his willingness to sacrifice as verifying his word" (_Jesus_: 178 f.).