SECTION 1 - via - School of Visual Arts

the “Christ of faith.” 2 This distinction articulates two very different moments in both history
and Christian faith: (a) the historical period of time when the person Jesus of Nazareth lived his
human life and during which he may have been believed to be the messiah (Christ) in only an
implicit or incipient way; and, (b) the period of time after Jesus’ historical life on earth when he
was more explicitly believed to be the Christ by his followers. 3 While the event of Jesus’ death
and resurrection involved a transition from the Jesus of history to the Christ of faith, “[t]his
relationship is one of personal continuity. The person referred to in the concrete historical life
of Jesus is exactly the same as the person contained in the living reality of the risen Christ of
faith.” 4
The upshot of the distinction between the “Jesus of history” and the “Christ of faith” is that
many scholars suggest employing the name “Jesus” for references to his historical
existence—what is typically called his “public ministry.” The stories in the Gospels generally
refer to “Jesus.” By contrast, the word “Christ,” a title attributed to Jesus by the early Church,
would be used when referring to the time following his resurrection. “Christ” is a title ascribed
to Jesus by those believing in his resurrection. This title, then, would be reserved for the
discussion of the post-resurrection period and the faith that emerges from the primordial belief
by Christians in the resurrection from the dead of Jesus of Nazareth.
There is a good deal of debate within the biblical field as to whether the title “Christ” was given
to Jesus during his public ministry, or whether it was a title attributed to him by the early
Church following his resurrection. The four Gospels were not composed until some thirty to
sixty years after Jesus’ death. 5 It is therefore unclear whether the use of the title “Christ” in the
public ministry section of the Gospel (e.g., Mark 8:29: “You are the Christ”) is a historically
accurate reference to Jesus’ lifetime, or is rather a proleptic bestowal of a post-resurrection title
onto the Jesus of history.
This debate is further complicated by a shift in the scholarly understanding of the literary genre
of the four Gospels. Traditionally, the Gospels were thought to be historically accurate
biographies of Jesus’ life. 6 Twentieth-century critical biblical scholarship, however, has shown
convincingly that the Gospels are primarily theological statements composed by various writers
and communities in the early Church to express their faith in the person of Jesus Christ.
Given the complexities described above, what can we learn from the Cleveland woodcarving?
What does it disclose to us? Jirousek’s careful research shows that this piece does not derive
from the Last Supper narrative in John 13. 7 If the artist’s inspiration for the piece springs from
another point in the historical (pre-resurrection) life of Jesus of Nazareth, then the name
“Jesus” would be more biblically and theologically appropriate for the piece. On the other
hand, if some evidence indicates that this piece describes a post-resurrection moment, then the
title “Christ” would be the more adequate appellation.
There is a significant piece of evidence portrayed in the woodcarving itself: the figure of Jesus
does not exhibit the stigmata, or wounds of the crucifixion, typically found in works of art
depicting his post-resurrection period. Neither the hands nor the feet show the nail-marks of a
crucified body. It is reasonable to assume that the artist intended to portray a moment during
the public ministry of Jesus. With this evidence as support, the more appropriate name to use is
“Jesus.”
16