| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
Both the apostle Paul and modern theology share the view that without knowing Jesus, it is impossible to have faith — that is, that the Christian faith begins with knowing Jesus.
"how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:14).
"Some Points of Consensus have emerged among Christian scholars dedicated to 'Jesus research, known as the Third Quest' ... First, knowing what Jesus did and accomplished ... is necessary in order to believe in Jesus".
As touched upon in Chapter 2 - Easy Study 2 ～ 3, extensive research has been conducted since the 18th century to uncover the historical reality of Jesus, but it has been a consistent understanding since the early Church that Christian faith requires knowledge of Jesus.
While that is undoubtedly the case, I'd like to ask the following question regarding this all-too-obvious line of thinking.
When it is said that knowledge of Jesus is necessary for Christian faith, does that "necessity" mean it is required for Christian faith to be established within us? Alternatively does it mean it is required for the faith that arises within us to be the correct one?
The statement by Paul quoted above likely refers to the former meaning. In the Roman world of the first century — that is, "where the name of Christ has never yet been heard" (Rom. 15:20 TLB) — it goes without saying that knowledge of Jesus was essential "for Christian faith to be established".
At that time, there was no need to be as concerned as we are today about the spread of misconceptions regarding the true nature of Jesus. This was because Jesus’s disciples and others who had actually seen him were still alive, making it possible to verify any hearsay that appeared erroneous directly with them.
The challenge at the time was not the uncertainty of knowledge about Jesus, but rather its preservation.
On the other hand, what about Charlesworth's statement? Fundamentally, this aligns with Paul's view: it asserts that knowledge of Jesus is necessary "for faith in Jesus to be established", and that forms of faith which can exist without such knowledge — such as the moral faith of Kant in the 18th century or the "Jesus-less" faith found in some strands of 20th-century Neo-Orthodox theology — differ from the faith of the early church.
What is being stated here is that the preservation of the nature of "fact-based" is required for Christian faith.
However, considering that Charlesworth is a scholar engaged in the study of the historical Jesus, it is insufficient to view the above statement merely as it stands.
Given that we currently have some knowledge of Jesus derived from the Gospels, the fact that he still considers it necessary to seek knowledge of the historical Jesus implies nothing less than the possibility that the knowledge of Jesus derived from the Gospels may be erroneous, and that, as a result, the faith we hold may be based on false information.
That is to say, Charlesworth's concept of the "necessity of Jesus" implies that in order for the faith that arises within us to be correct, we must still seek the historical Jesus.
To take this into account, considering the distinction between these two types of "necessity" will provide an initial perspective for addressing the aspect of "pastness" within the issue of "historical fact and faith".
Since it is clear that the "Quest for the historical Jesus" has sought to uncover "historically accurate knowledge of Jesus", this means—according to the classification above—that the quest has been for the Jesus who is necessary "for our faith to be correct".
On the other hand, what the Church has needed is not necessarily academically verified knowledge of Jesus. That doesn't mean it's okay for our image of Jesus to be wrong. However it is not considered necessary to provide proof or academic justification that it is correct.
Throughout the long centuries leading up to the present day, the Church has sustained its faith without recourse to scholarship regarding the historical Jesus. Viewed from this perspective, the Jesus presented by historical-Jesus research might well be considered a Jesus who is more than the Church requires.
It is safe to say, then, that there is a discrepancy between the Jesus required by the church and the Jesus explored through scholarly inquiry. What, precisely, is the cause of this difference in the conception of Jesus?