Page History

...

Bultmann's point in distinguishing between the "what" and the "that" of Jesus can be stated (and I believe, stated better) in terms of my distinctions between among "authority," "source of authority," "subject of faith," " object of faith," "ground of faith," and so all.

By the "what" of Jesus is properly meant Jesus insofar as as he is a subject of faith and witness, and hence, at most, the primary authority for Christian faith and witness, as distinct from its explicit primal authorizing source. One may also say that it is Jesus as the ground of faith and witness who can never (logically, justifiably) become the object thereof as well. By the "that" of Jesus, on the other hand, is properly meant the ground of Christian faith and witness who is also, at least implicitly, their object, and hence the explicit primal source authorizing them.

...

Three further reflections: (1) The situation in this whole matter is evidently exactly parallel to the one in which Bultmann denies that historical-critical method has any bearing whatever on the claim that the Bible is God's word. (2) Clearly, a Jesus who decisively re-presents God may be just as much "the historical Jesus" as the Jesus who perfectly actualizes God -- which is why my own christological efforts were, for a long time, more a part of the problem than a part of the solution! (This, no doubt, is just what Bultmann meant when he wrote me, "You have no proclamation!") (3) The historical Jesus, as Schmithals rightly insists, is law not gospel, because the historical Jesus is at most an example for us to follow – -- one whose faith is to be our faith, whose witness is to be our witness, and so on.

...