1974 - Glyn Richards - Paul Tillich and the Historical Jesus

7/27/2019 1974 - Glyn Richards - Paul Tillich and the Historical Jesus

1/10

http://sir.sagepub.com/Religieuses

Religion/SciencesStudies in

http://sir.sagepub.com/content/4/2/120.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/000842987500400203

1974 4: 120Studies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesGlyn Richards

Paul Tillich and the historical Jesus

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion

can be found at:Studies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesAdditional services and information for

http://sir.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://sir.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1974Version of Record>>

by guest on January 28, 2013sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/content/4/2/120.citationhttp://sir.sagepub.com/content/4/2/120.citationhttp://sir.sagepub.com/content/4/2/120.citationhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.ccsr.ca/http://www.ccsr.ca/http://sir.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://sir.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://sir.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://sir.sagepub.com/content/4/2/120.full.pdfhttp://sir.sagepub.com/content/4/2/120.full.pdfhttp://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://sir.sagepub.com/content/4/2/120.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://sir.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://sir.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.ccsr.ca/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/content/4/2/120.citationhttp://sir.sagepub.com/


2/10

Paul Tillich and the historical Jesus

GLYN RICHARDS

The problem of the relation of history to faith and of the effect of historicalcriticism on Christian belief was a matter of continuing concern to Paul Tillich.He paid tribute to Ernst Troeltsch for first turning his attention from the

theology of mediation to the problems of historical research into the biblical

writings, and he acknowledged debts to Schweitzers The Quest of the HistoricalJesus and Bultmanns The

SynopticTradition for

providinghim with historical

insights into the New Testament. In a set of propositions presented to a groupof theological friends as early as 1911 he attempted to answer the question howit might be possible to interpret Christian doctrine if the non-existence of Jesusas a historical person were to become a probability.2 In his Systematic Theologyhe could still raise the question of the historical Jesus in a most radical way and,without consciously evading difficulties, attempt to deal with the problemscreated by an uncompromising insistence on the historical basis of Christianity.3

3

Tillichs claim is that Christian belief is founded on the biblical picture ofJesus as the Christ and not on the historical Jesus. This picture is rooted in

ecclesiastical belief and human experience, not the shifting and artificial con-struct of historical research.~ The paradoxical nature of such a claim led toTillichs being misunderstood and misinterpreted. InAmerica he was sometimesclassified as a Barthian, while in his native Germany he was looked upon as aradical theologian. Tillich rejects these interpretations of his position.Accept-

> ance of the Barthian paradox of justification does not necessarily reflect agree-ment with Barthian supernaturalism, he insists, nor does a measure of agreementwith the achievement of liberal theology necessarily imply the wholesale accept-ance of liberal dogmatic.5 The purpose of this essay is to clarify and elucidate

Tillichs positionon

the question of the historical Jesus and to examine criticallythe implications of his standpoint.Tillichs attention was focused on the historical problem by the work of

Martin Kdhler, one of his theological teachers.6 Kahler attempted to solve the

problem of how to be sure of the truth of the Christian message by equating theJesus of history with the Christ of faith and making the Christ of faith indepen-dent of the uncertainties of historical research. Since Kdhler regarded anyattempt to construct a life of Jesus as doomed to failure because of the incerti-

tudes of historical research and the unreliability and inadequacy of the sources,he believed that we have to ground our certainty concerning the Christian

message in the Christ of faith. Faith guarantees what historical research cannot

reach.7 The whole historical problem was later brought to the fore by Bultmannand his school so that Kdhler was, as Tillich indicates, the prophetic forerunnerof what developed more fully only in the twentieth centuryThe radical historical sceptical school with its doubts about the possibility of

http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/


3/10

121

reaching the historical Jesus by the use of historical methods of investigationconstitutes the background of Tillichs attempt to answer the question how

can we say that Jesus is the Christ if historical research can never reach a sure

image of the historical Jesus?9 Tillich refers to the second volume of SystematicTheology as an attempt to look at the theological implications of radical scep-ticism concerning the New Testament in general and the historical Jesus in

particular.1 He elucidates his position on the question of the historical Jesusas it relates to the framework of his system in the chapter on The Reality ofChrist.&dquo; He begins his treatment of the subject with the name Jesus Christand maintains that the birth of Christianity does not coincide with the birth ofthe man called Jesus but rather with that moment when he was pronounced theChrist

byhis

disciples.For the event on which

Christianityis based has two

sides: the fact which is called &dquo;Jesus of Nazareth&dquo; and the reception of thisfact by those who received him as the Christ.12The historicity of the fact to which the name Jesus of Nazareth points seems

to be clearly indicated in this statement. Tillich claims it to be a theologicalnecessity since without it the fundamental assertion of Christianity that the

estrangement of human existence has been overcome by essential God-Manhood is denied. In Tillichs view Christian theology must insist on the

historicity of the fact to which the name Jesus of Nazareth refers: If there wereno personal life in which existential estrangement had been overcome, the New

Being would have remained a quest and an expectation and would not be a

reality in time and space. Only if the existence is conquered in one point - a

personal life, representing existence as a whole - is it conquered in principle,which means &dquo;in beginning and in power.&dquo;13

This stress on the historicity of the personal life referred to by the name Jesusand expressed in the biblical picture of Jesus as the Christ indicates that itwould be a misunderstanding of Tillich to accuse him of docetic tendencies.Yet charges of Gnosticism have been levelled against him. Tillich himself attri-butes these charges to premature judgments based on an incomplete study of

his work,14 Doubtless Tillich underestimates the difficulties and apparentam-

biguities students experience in trying to interpret his thought; but even so wemust admit that his insistence on the factual, historical, personal element behindthe biblical picture of Jesus as the Christ really does prohibit any docetic inter-

pretation,15In Tillichs view the receptive side of the event on which Christianity is

founded is equally important and calls for equal emphasis. Without the recep-tion of Jesus as the Christ there would never have been the manifestation of

the New Being in the personal life referred to by the name Jesus. The factualand

receptivesides are of

equalimportance and the foundation of Christian

theology is undermined if either is ignored. 16The question which concerns us now is: what can we know of the fact or the

personal life to which the name Jesus of Nazareth refers and to what extent isit open to critical historical investigation? Tillichs answer to this questionnecessitates drawing a distinction between the factual element of the Christ

.



4/10

122

event and the historical Jesus. He describes the quest for the latter as a cou-

rageous and significant endeavour, but concludes that if it is judged by its

primary intention of seeking the empirical truth about Jesus of Nazareth itmust be regarded as a failure. The historical Jesus recedes from view as the

quest progresses. This lack of success characterizes both the old and new questssince the methodological situation remains the same in both.As Tillich says:the result of the new (and very old) questioning is not a picture of the so-calledhistorical Jesus but the insight that there is no picture behind the biblical onewhich could be made scientifically probable.17The reason for this failure, according to Tillich, lies not in the methods of

historical research but in the nature of the sources. To find the historical Jesus

behind the

pictureof Jesus as the Christ it is

necessary

to

distinguishbetween

the elements on the factual side of the Christ event and the elements on the

receiving side. With the material we are able to discover on the factual side wecan then construct a life of Jesus. But these biographies, Tillich maintains, areat best only probable and cannot constitute the basis for accepting or rejectingthe Christian faith. He states his position clearly: Historical research has madeit obvious that there is no way to get at the historical events which have pro-duced the Biblical picture of Jesus who is called the Christ with more than a

degree of probability.18According to Tillich the same applies to the attemptto formulate a Gestalt of Jesus by reducing the picture of the historical Jesus

to the essentials and leaving the particular details open to doubt. This cannotsucceed because the shape of the Gestalt is dependent upon these particulardetails.19

If the quest of the historical Jesus is a failure and if historical investigationproduces mere probability, what can we say about the factual element of theChrist event or the personal life witnessed to in the biblical picture of Jesus asthe Christ? Does the failure of the search for the historical Jesus mean also the

refutation of the fact to which the name Jesus of Nazareth points? Tillich doesnot think so. Our scepticism concerning the results of historical investigationdoes not in

any waylead to a denial of the

factualelement of the Christ event.

Though the quest shows that the historical Jesus cannot be found, neverthelessthe facticity of a Jesus of Nazareth is the sine qua non of Jesus as the Christ.We are faced here, according to Tillich, not with the question of historicalresearch but with the question of faith. Faith guarantees its own foundation. It

guarantees the occurrence of an event in history which has transformed history.

for the faithful. 120 It is not able to give any historical information about the

background of the event; it cannot guarantee that the name of the person inwhom the transformation of history was accomplished is Jesus; what it does

guarantee is the factual transformation of reality in that personal life which theNew Testament expresses in its picture of Jesus as the Christ.21 To put thematter in another way: the historical Jesus is elusive but not necessary anyway.The facticity of Jesus of Nazareth, or of the person to whom the name Jesus ofNazareth points, is guaranteed by faith in the Christ event which effects a trans-formation of reality for the community of faith.



5/10

123

This is the crux of the historical problem in Tillichs Christology. Faith givescertainty about its own foundation. It is immune to critical investigation, un-

affected by historical research, and independent of historical truth.22 Tillichrecognizes Kahlers influence on his thinking in the emphasis the latter placeson the necessity to make the certainty of faith independent of the unavoidableincertitudes of historical research.23 He insists that faith guarantees the appear-ance of that reality which has created faith - the New Being - although it cannot

guarantee the existence of Jesus of Nazareth or the essentials of the biblical

picture.24 He justifies his claim on the ground that historical criticism cannot

question the immediate awareness of the New Being. TheAugustinian-Cartesiantradition refuted radical scepticism by pointing to the reality of self-conscious-ness which

throughits

participationin

being guaranteesits own existence. In

the same way, Tillich maintains, immediate awareness of, and participation in,the New Being guarantees the reality of that personal life in which the New

Being has conquered the old being and overcome existential estrangement.25The movement of Tillichs argument is from experience of, and participation in,the reality of the New Being to an affirmation of a historical personal life inwhich the New Being appeared and which is expressed in the biblical pictureof Jesus as the Christ. That is, faith experience rather than historical investiga-tion grounds the historicity of the factual element of the Christ event.Althoughfaith cannot guarantee the name of the person to be Jesus of Nazareth it can

guarantee that Whatever his name, the New Being was and is actually in thisman.26

The validity of this argument is open to serious question as we shall see, butit is necessary to point out at this stage that, whatever the objections to the

argument, Tillich insists on facing the historical problem. He refuses to retreatfrom it by means of an existential acceptance of the kerygmatic Christ. He con-

sistently maintains the factual element of the Christ event. Historical criticism

may question all the characteristics and traits of the biblical picture of Jesus asthe Christ but it cannot deny that through this picture theNew Being has powerto transform those who are transformed by it.27 He rejects as unrealistic Kierke-gaards proposition that it is enough to know one thing, namely that in the yearAD 30 God sent Christ for our salvation.28 He dismisses as mistaken the notion

that the expression of ~the New Being in the biblical picture of Jesus as the Christis an existential creation. It represents in fact a real victory over existential

estrangement which has already taken place.29 To a question put to him by astudent concerning the possibility of the non-existence of Jesus Tillich replies:I want to say that if we were able to read the original police registers ofNazareth, and found that there was neither a couple called Mary and Josephnor a man called

Jesus,we should then

goto some other

city. The personalreality behind the gospel story is convincing. It shines through.3oAn extension of the argument for the fiducial guarantee of the historical

basis of Christianity is Tillichs concept of analogia imaginis. He claims thatthere is an analogy between the biblical picture of Jesus as the Christ which

expresses the reality of the New Being and the historical personal life in which



6/10

124

the New Being appeared and which lies behind the biblical picture. The picturewas created by the transforming power of the reality encountered by the dis-

ciples. The same transforming power is mediated through the biblical pictureof Jesus as the Christ. On the basis of this analogical relation between thebiblical picture and the historical personal life from which it has come Tillichconcludes: The concrete biblical material is not guaranteed by faith in respectto empirical factuality; but it is guaranteed as an adequate expression of the

transforming power of the New Being in Jesus as the Christ.31Tillich anticipates the objection that the picture may have been an imaginary

one.32 Such a picture, he claims, would have been the creation of those who hadnot experienced the transforming power of the New Being and would have beenan

expressionof their search f or the New

Beingrather than their actual trans-

formation by the New Being. The biblical picture has transforming power pre-cisely because it expresses the transforming power of the New Being. It createstheChurch and the individual Christian; it is not created by them.33We have attempted so far in this essay to elucidate Tillichs position on the

question of the historical Jesus by clarifying the distinction he draws betweenthe probability of knowledge of the historical Jesus and certainty concerning theelement of facticity in the Christ event, that personal life which finds expressionin the biblical picture of Jesus as the Christ. We need now to make a criticalassessment of his standpoint.The main question that arises is why the historical Jesus should be open to

critical investigation while the factual element of the Christ event is not. It isdifficult to understand why the personal life behind the biblical picture shouldnot be subject to the same kind of historical research and investigation as thehistorical Jesus. Tillich seems to be applying one criterion of historical truthto the historical Jesus and another criterion to the factual element of the Christ

event. But why should not the same norm of truth apply to both? The personallife expressed in the biblical picture is in no way less historical. There is no

qualitative historical difference between the two. So why should not both be

opento critical historical

investigation?Is it not difficult to

preserveintellectual

integrity otherwise? The assertion of a factual element behind the biblical pic-ture really constitutes a historical judgment and cannot be declared to be im-mune to historical research on the basis of a fiducial guarantee.The point is that Tillich wants to have it both ways.34 On the one hand he

accepts the results of the most radical historical investigation into the life andcharacter of the historical Jesus, and on the other hand he guarantees on thebasis of faith the historical existence of a personal life in which the New Beingappeared and which is expressed in the biblical picture. But can a Christologywhich takes its historical basis seriously free itself entirely from the results of

historical investigation?35The validity of Tillichs argument for the fiducial guarantee of the historical

basis of Christianity is logically questionable. What he is doing in fact is makingreligious truth the criterion of historical truth. We can clarify this point bymeans of a philosophical analogy. The insistence of some philosophers on



7/10

125

ordinary language as normative and the paradigm of rationality implies thatwords must have a certain definite meaning in all contexts. When they are used .

in any other sense, as they are used for example in religious language, theirmeaning is stretched to the point of absurdity or eroded by a thousand quali-fications on the part of the believer. 36 But to insist on ordinary language as

paradigmatic, or as the norm of meaningfulness, is to elevate the rules of

ordinary language to the evaluating standard for all other uses of language. Itmeans taking the criterion of meaning applicable to one context and extendingit to all other contexts. To say that a word must have a particular meaning inall contexts is to use language in an arbitrary fashion. The must here is in no

way logical; it is a matter of preference. To make ordinary language the para-

digmfor

religious languageis to make the

philosophyof

ordinary languagenormative rather than descriptive and also the criterion of religious truth.It is possible for Tillich to be criticized for a similar kind of arbitrariness in

the use of language. His starting-point is the New Being. The reality of theNew Being in Jesus as the Christ is beyond question for the believer since he

participates in it. The norm of meaningfulness and the criterion of religioustruth for the believer is his immediate awareness of and participation in the New

Being as expressed in the biblical picture of Jesus as the Christ. To say that this

experience of the reality of the New Being must have, or guarantee, a factualhistorical element in the biblical picture of Jesus as the Christ is to make a

criterion of religious truth normative for a historical context. The must hereis in no way logical; it is a matter of preference.Acertain arbitrariness is in-volved in making religious truth the criterion of historical truth. It is an illegi-timate use of religious language.37Asimilar criticism, though in different form, is the claim that Tillich solvesthe historical problem of his Christology by means of a dogmatic confession.Historical facts are verified by a dogmatic judgment.38 This is basically a neo-orthodox solution of the problem. But if you accept the criterion of a secularhistorian you cannot accept a neo-orthodox solution. The difference between

Barth and Tillich on this

pointis

reallyminimal. For Tillich faith

guaranteesthe historical basis of Christianity; for Barth acceptance of the biblical pictureof Jesus in faith is the epistemological foundation for regarding Jesus as the

royal man. 39The question that arises is why Tillich should be so concerned about guaran-

teeing a historical basis for the Christian faith independent of the uncertaintiesof historical research .40 The most probable explanation is that his whole inter-

pretation of the meaning of history rests on a Christological foundation. Thecentral concept in his interpretation of history is the kairas by which he meansthat moment when history has matured to such a point as to be able to receive

the revelation or manifestation of the Kingdom of God.41 The unique kairosis the appearance of Christ as the centre of history and source of unconditioned

meaning. In him the threat of estrangement and meaninglessness is overcome.The appearance of Jesus as the Christ as centre of history is the event whichaffirms the historical dimension. History is understood from the point where



8/10

126

history reveals its meaning; that point is the unique kairos, the appearance ofJesus as the Christ as centre of history.42

Tillichs Christological interpretation of history means that Christianity forhim cannot possibly be divorced from its historical foundations; neither can itshistorical basis be made dependent upon the uncertainties of historical research.If the appearance of Jesus as the Christ could be proved not to have occurredat all, faith would be threatened. Hence Tillichs solution that faith guaranteesits own foundation.

My conclusion is that Tillich offers no real solution to the historical problemwhich concerned him throughout his career. To root the factual element of theChrist event in ecclesiastical belief and human experience43 and to make it

independentof historical

investigationis to

protect

the historical basis of

Christianity with a dogmatic methodology and an illegitimate use of religiouslanguage. Why should the historical basis of the Christian faith be so protected?To say that the risk of faith is existential and that the wrong faith destroys the

meaning of a mans life is no justification for making faith guarantee a historicalfact. The value of a faith, the historical basis of which is sheltered from the

critical methods of historical investigation, is questionable. The fact to which thename Jesus of Nazareth points should be open to the same methods of historicalresearch as other events of history. There does not seem to be any justificationfor constructing a sheltered zone for the historical basis of the Christian faith.

NOTES.

..

~

.

.. :

1 On the Boundary (London 1967) 49, 50. Cf The Interpretation of History (New York1936) 33.

2 On the Boundary 503 Ibid 50; Systematic Theology (London 1968) II, 116ff4 On the Boundary 505 Ibid 50

6 Tillich describes him as the most

profoundand modern

representativeof the nine-

teenth-century theology of mediation and as a man of overwhelming intellectual

ability and religious power (ibid 47ff).7 M. Khler The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ trans and ed

Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia 1964) xii. Paul Tillich Perspectives on 19th and 20th

Century Protestant Theology (London 1967) 209, 2108 Perspectives 2159 Ibid 227

10 Ibid 227

11 Systematic Theology II, 112ff. D. Moody Smith, jr, in an article on The HistoricalJesus in Paul Tillichs Christology The Journal of Religion 46 (January 1966) 131-47,classifies Tillich with Bultmann on the question of the historical Jesus but points outthat Tillichs scepticism reflects his refusal to allow Christology to be affected by theuncertainties of historical investigation rather than any docetic tendencies.

12 Systematic Theology II, 112. Cf Ultimate Concern ed D. Mackenzie Brown (New York

1965) 134.13 Systematic Theology II, 113, 11414 The Journal of Religion 46 (January 1966) 192. This is Tillichs reply to D. Moody

Smiths article in the same issue.



9/10

127

15 There have been a number of docetic interpretations of Tillichs Christology. FrederickC. Grant Editorial: Paul TillichAnglican Theological Review 43:3 (July 1961) 244;

Maria F. Sulzbach The place of Christology in Contemporary Protestantism Religionin Life 23 (1953-4) 212; Kenneth Hamilton The System and the Gospel (London1963) 163; Bruce J.R. Cameron The Historical Problem in Paul Tillichs ChristologyScottish Journal of Theology 18 (1965) 257ff; D.M. Baillie God was in Christ (London1948) 78-9. Barths comments on Tillich as collated and recorded by one of his stu-dents refers to Tillichs Christology as essentially docetic. Raymond KempAndersonBarth on Tillich: Neo Gnosticism? The Christian Century (December 1970) 1477-81.

16 The New Being for Tillich is essential being. It overcomes the gap between essenceand existence and conquers mans feeling of alienation and existential estrangement.While it is manifested in that personal life to which the name Jesus of Nazareth points,it is not confined to that life. The New Being has been continuously manifested through-out history. Systematic Theology II, 136-44, 155-6

17 Systematic Theology II, 11818 Dynamics of Faith (New York 1958) 87. Cf Systematic Theology II, 118.19 Systematic Theology II, 118, 11920 Dynamics of Faith 8921 Systematic Theology II, 12322 Dynamics of Faith 8923 Khler xii

24 Systematic Theology II, 13125 Ibid

26 Ibid

27 Ibid II, 132

28 Ibid II, 131-2. Cf Perspectives 175: Can we solve the problem which historical criti-cism has opened up by a theology of the leap? I do not believe it is possible.

29 A Reinterpretation of the Doctrine of the Incarnation Church Quarterly Review 147(1949) 145-6. Cf Systematic Theology II, 132.

30 Ultimate Concern 146-7

31 Systematic Theology II, 13232 D. Moody Smith 138. Smiths objection is that transforming power does not guarantee

the historicity of the objects of faith. The criterion of transforming power is indecisive.33 Systematic Theology II, 132-334 Cf Dorothy Emmet Epistemology and the Idea of Revelation The Theology of Paul

Tillich, ed C.W. Kegley and R.W. Bretall (New York 1961) 213.

35 Cf Wolfart Pannenberg, who rejects the idea that it is possible for the Christian faithto retreat into some sheltered area where it would be immune from historical criticism:

New Frontiers in Theology vol. III. Theology as History, ed James M. Robinson andJohn B. Cobb (New York 1967) 248.

36 Cf R.W. Hepburn Christianity and Paradox (London 1958) 5;A.G.N. Flew Theologyand Falsification New Essays in Philosophical Theology, edA. Flew andA. MacIntyre(London 1955) 98.

37 For two further criticisms of Tillichs position from a philosophical point of view com-

pare : Ninian Smart Being and the Bible The Review of Metaphysics 9:4 (June 1955)589-607. See also The Intellectual Crisis of British Christianity New Theology No. 3,ed Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman (London 1966) 20-9; J.H. Thomas PaulTillich:An

Appraisal (Philadelphia1963) 86.

38 Cf D. Moody Smith 131.39 Karl Barth Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh 1956), vol. rv:2, 247-8: Jesus of Nazareth,

the Royal Man, is seen by the community in which the New Testament arose as the Sonof God who is also the Son of Man. This is how we must try to see him, with the

presuppositions of the New Testament. We have thus refrained ... from any critico-historical construction or reconstruction of this presupposition. Cf also vol. IV: 2, 102



10/10

128

and 164ff. Cf T.W. Ogletree Christian Faith and History (New York 1965) 204; VanAustin Harvey The Historian and the Believer (New York 1966) 134.

40 When it is

suggestedto Tillich that he should abandon the

attemptto

guaranteea

historical basis for the Christian faith independent of the uncertainties of historicalresearch and proceed with his theological work on the presupposition that Jesus existed,that is, take the risk of historical uncertainty, he rejects the idea. For him the risk offaith and the risk of historicity lie in two different dimensions: The risk of faith isexistential; it concerns the totality of our being, while the risk of historical judgmentsis theoretical and open to permanent scientific correction: Systematic Theology II, 134;cf The Journal of Religion 46 (January 1966) 193-4.

41 Systematic Theology III, 39342 Ibid 393. Cf The Interpretation of History 249-250.43 On the Boundary 50


1974 - Glyn Richards - Paul Tillich and the Historical Jesus

Documents

Transcript of 1974 - Glyn Richards - Paul Tillich and the Historical Jesus