Page History

...

Having reread Marxsen as well as my essay on him and my essay involving criticism of Mackey I am clearer than I was before that both theologians are really developing essentially one and the same type of christology--a christology that to my mind! , is an un..revised revisionay christology. unrevised revisionay christology.

Whatever their differences, they both locate the historical ground of christology in Jesus' own faith and his living of that faith toward others who, through him, come to share it and then in turn live it toward yet others. Thus Marxsen argues that "God's way leads to people by way of people who themselves live the Jesus-business" UC(JC: 131 f.). But isn't this only a verbally different way of saying what Mackey says--that "this kind of faith . . . can only spread by contagion. Only carriers can give it to others" Uesus(Jesus, the Man and the Myth: 169; cf. 196)7Whatever their differences! they both locate the historical ground of christology in Jesus' own faith and his living of that faith toward others who, through him, come to share it and then in turn live it toward yet others. Thus Marxsen argues that "God's way leads to people?

True, Marxsen is sharply critical of tb.e the idea of Jesus' sinlessness. On the other hand! , he can so talk about Jesus' "completely" giving himself to the "business" of bringing others to his faith that it'll do until talking about sinlessness comes along.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that Marxsen's holding out for such a christology is contradictory of his own lTIOSt most basic principles-as I show in the final point of my criticislTIcriticism-whereas Mackey's position! , lacking in such principles, seems more consistent.

28 February 2007