新約神学と教義学(IX) : 下からのキリスト論をめぐって

1. Recently there has been much discussion of "Christology from Under." The modern European theologian most closely associated with this Christology is W. Pannenberg. According to him, orthodox Christology starts from the Deity of Christ and stretches to the incarnation. It is, however, impossible for man to stand in the position of God. Therefore, he must find a way which starts from the man Jesus and reaches the recognition of his Deity. I think this sort of Christology has arisen from distrust in modern biblical science, whose method is mainly historicophilological study. Today it seems impossible for "biblical theology" to come into existence. Therefore the dogmaticians feel anxiety about biblical science and try to enter the field themselves with "Christology from Under." 2. Biblical science is the science of the church as well as dogmatics. Therefore, church tradition is necessary as a counterpart of the historico-critical method. Both biblical science and dogmatics have the same object. I think that "Christology from Under" must originally be treated by biblical science. It is no wonder that dogmaticians have anxiety as to whether or not a bridge can be laid between dogmatics and biblical science. They must, however, have hope for the future of biblical science and entrust to her what she should be entrusted with. When dogmatics entrusts the historical Jesus to biblical science and concentrates upon "Christology from Above," biblical science can respect it and listen to what it has to say. It is very difficult, though, for biblical science to have a high regard for dogmatics when it insists on "Christology from Under.