Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Jennifer Heise

Saved on

compared with

New Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Michelle Rosenstock

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

A key concept in Marxsen's discussion in Die Auferstehung Jesu von Nazareth is "the offer of Jesus" (Jesu Angebot/der Angebot Jesu). Clearly, "the offer of Jesus" is interchangeable with "the faith that the earthly Jesus brought" (der Glaube, der der irdische Jesus brachte). Thus he can say in succeeding sentences, "es geht immer um den Glauben, den der irdisehe Jesus brachte" and "es geht um sein Angebot" (150). Only a few pages later, then, he can define a heretic as "one who does not live out of Jesus' offer" (der, der niect aus dem Angebot Jesu lebt) and say that "the only question – -- christianly – -- is whether one is willing to accept Jesus' offer, and that means, in this world, in this life, to have to do with God" (die Frage, auf die es – -- christlich – -- allein ankommt: Wagt man es, sieh auf den Angebot Jesu einzulassen, und das heißt, es in dieser Welt, in diesem Leben mit Gott zu tun zu haben) (157 f.).

...

Wiki Markup
But, significantly, all this is cast in the past tense\--notwithstanding Marxsen's reiterated defense of Bultmann's "form critical reservation." That Jesus is represented in the synoptic tradition as having offered/demanded is clear enough. But, as Bornkamm rightly stressed,"in narrating the history that once was \[the gospels\] proclaim who Jesus is, not who he was." In other words, "the point of the witnesses in so representing \[Jesus\] was not to report what he did in the past, but rather to bear witness to what he was doing in the present \-\- not only to them, but through their witness of faith also to their own hearers. Jesus, they claimed, is the one through whom both they themselves and then, by means of their witness, all of their own hearers as well are decisively re-presented with the gift and demand \[-{_}{-}sc. den Angebot und die Zumutung\]-_ -of God's love, and hence with the possibility of authentic existence in faith and returning love. Accordingly, to accept their claim in no way requires one to assent to the truth of certain empirical-historical assertions about Jesus{-}{-}to the effect that he himself made or implied the same claim now represented in their witness of faith. On the contrary, whatever the truth or falsity of any such empirical-historical assertions, to accept the claim represented in the apostolic witness as Jesus' claim is to accept a strictly existential-historical assertion-\-the assertion, namely, that _Jesus means love_\--not that Jesus meant love, however true that may be also, but that Jesus _means_ love, in the sense that through him the gift and demand of God's boundless love are Inade fully explicit as authorizing our own possibility of authentic faith and love"(_The Point of Christology_: 121 f.).

...