The Origin of Christology

by C.F.D. Moule

This book is about the processes by which Christians of the first century came to understand Jesus as they did. Some writers represent these as 'evolutionary', as though a merely human teacher came to be thought of as a divine figure (a new species, so to speak). Professor Moule suggests that 'development' is a preferable analogy, implying not the evolution of a new species of figure, but the development of understanding of what was there in Jesus from the beginning. The author re-examines four familiar characterizations of Jesus as 'the Son of Man', 'the Son of God', 'Christ' and 'Lord'; then he considers the reflexion in the Pauline epistles of an experience of Jesus as more than individual. In his concluding chapter Professor Moule speculates, in dialogue with Dr Haddon Willmer, about the implications of his findings for Christian doctrine. The book, which earned for the author the Collins Biennial Religious Book Award in 1977, embodies his 1974 Moorhouse Lectures in Melbourne, Australia. It was first published in June 1977.

Genres: Theology

200 pages, Paperback

First published July 29, 1977

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

IS NT CHRISTOLOGY A PROCESS OF “DEVELOPMENT” RATHER THAN “EVOLUTION”?

Charles Francis Digby Moule (1908–2007) was an English Anglican priest and theologian, who was Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge from 1951 to 1976. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1977 book, “I am concerned to challenge… such a statement as that ‘the fundamental problem of a Christology of the NT… was that the view of Jesus found in NT Christology was not historically true of Jesus himself… can it seriously be maintained that it is ‘historically true of Jesus himself’ to attribute preexistence to him?... Or… how ‘true to the historical Jesus’ is the story of the virginal conception of Jesus?... My reason for putting a query against this type of assumption … is that it seems to me simply not to do justice to the evidence… My main point is not that all Christological expressions in the New Testament are adequate for modern statements of Christology, but that they are all more successfully accounted for as insights, of varying depth, into what was there in Jesus, than as the result of increasing distance from him.” (Pg. 4-5)

He continues, “My point is only that the evidence does not support the assumption that a ‘high’ Christology evolved from a ‘low’ Christology by a process of borrowing from extraneous sources, and that these Christologies may be arranged in an evolutionary sequence from ‘low’ to ‘high.’ … In particular, I want to ask whether New Testament scholarship has paid enough attention to the strange fact that Paul… seems to reflect an experience of Christ which implies such dimensions as any theist would ascribe to God himself: that is to say, Christ is, for Paul, personal, indeed, but more than individual… a fresh examination of the facts … endorses my claim for ‘development’ as against ‘evolution.’” (Pg. 6-7)

He argues, “what lies behind the Greek ‘ho huios tou anthropou,’ must be some Aramaic expression that meant… ‘THE Som of Man’ or ‘THAT Son of man,’ and that this phrase was thus demonstrative because it expressly referred to Daniel’s ‘Son of Man’… But it is… very difficult to believe that in Dan 7 … it does not mean human persons---the persecuted loyalists who are afflicted by the ‘horn’ that represents Antiochus Ephipanes, and who are brought very low; and there are some other examples of ‘holy one’ apparently meaning a human person, for instance in Deut 33:3…” (Pg. 13)

He points out, “it was Jesus himself who originated the [‘Son of Man’] usage; and that… all the familiar main categories of its use---relating to present circumstances, to suffering, and to future glorification---are intelligible in the setting of the ministry of Jesus himself, as a description of his vocation and authority. Evidence for the ‘Son of Man’s’ becoming a popular title for Christ in the early Church seems to me virtually non-existent. He is never ADDRESSED or INVOKED at ‘the Son of Man’; nor does the phrase occur in this form in any of the Epistles…” (Pg. 19)

He states, “No doubt it was the earliest theologians of the New Testament who first sharpened the terminology. For instance, Paul… points to the uniqueness of Christ’s sonship by using ‘adoption’ … for the status of Christians, and ‘God’s own Son’ ... for Christ… But, although a distinctiveness of status and being begins to become explicit in these various ways, the materials for it seem to be rooted in the traditions about Jesus himself.” (Pg. 31)

He summarizes, “After stating the thesis that development more satisfactorily describes the genesis of New Testament Christology than evolution, I proceeded to test it by re-investigating the origins of four terms applied to Jesus—‘the Son of Man,’ ‘the Son of God,’ ‘Christ,’ and ‘Lord.’ The conclusion reached was that, so far from their evolving away from what was there at the beginning, there was… evidence to suggest that the term was dictated by what Jesus himself was… and not by extraneous factor entering the stream of tradition from elsewhere.” (Pg. 47)

He explains, “Now, it is perfectly true… that Paul is exceptional among the New Testament writers in articulating this understanding of Jesus Christ as more than individual. On the other hand, other writers…also assume… aspects of Christian experience which require and imply… that more than individuality which is explicit in Paul. Putting all these phenomena together, we shall be presented with evidence of a consistently ‘high’ Christology from the very earliest datable periods of the Church’s life, endorsing quite independently the conclusions to which… the critical study of the titles of Jesus also points.” (Pg. 96)

He concludes, “it is not that the new conceptions of Jesus were generated in an evolutionary succession of new species by the creative imagination of the Christian communities as they drew upon the resources of other religions and cults. Rather, communities and individuals gained new insights into the meaning of what was there all along… To say this is to maintain that New Testament conceptions of Jesus are, in their different degrees, ‘true’ to the Person, Jesus himself, even if some are more profound than others… there is a continuous identity between the Christ of the ministry and the Christ of the first believers after Easter; and that the characterizations of Christ in the New Testament are better accounted for as springing from contact with Jesus himself than as springing from contact with extraneous sources.” (Pg. 135)

But he acknowledges, “This claim to continuity is not based mainly on the words of Jesus. Any case for a ‘high’ Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious. This claim to continuity rests, rather, on the evidence that, from the very early days, Jesus was being interpreted as an inclusive, Israel-wide … person: one who, as no merely human individual, included persons and communities within him, and upon whom Christians found converging all the patterns of relationship between God and man with which they were familiar from their Scriptures.” (Pg. 136)

This book will be of keen interest to those studying the development of Christology.

[Michael Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author was Cambridge Prof. of Divinity. He tackles the development - as opposed to the evolution - of the realization of Jesus's claim to be the Messiah. His point: Jesus always was, is, and forever will be; He did not "become."