Just a quick insight to chime with you here – concerning the resurrection. If it the resurrection is simply a piece of factual data like other facts yes it just goes to show that God is uncontrollably powerful and can do this sort of thing – and the God as conceived of by the most extreme Calvinists can do this too , so as to add ultimate authority to extreme Calvinism (I guess). But the resurrection as brute fact can completely miss or even wilfully ignore the significance of the resurrection; Christ as Victor over death, Christ as first fruits, Christ restoring humanity in the Incarnation and raising humanity to new life etc… The resurrection is a witness to God’s love and this love is relational as in the perichoretic koinonia of the Trinity ( I understand that this means something like the circling dance of the persons of the Trinity in eternity into which we will all become participants because of Christ’s redeeming Incarnation). Here we move into the mystery of divine love – and this is a fact, but it’s a living fact rather than a piece of ordinary lifeless data I guess.
I think you can discover true history by finding facts.
The problem is that the relevant facts are often very hard to find.
History is the story of what happened in the past. History and the interpretation of facts are two distinct entities.
I think you can discover true history by finding facts.
The problem is that the relevant facts are often very hard to find.
History is the story of what happened in the past. History and the interpretation of facts are two distinct entities.
Hi Paidon –
Love you because you are the man who I once misheard as the voice of Charlton Heston booming at me – mainly because you have a Mosaic beard – but I missed the every warm twinkle in your eyes. I’m still chuckling at myself about this one!!!)
Well this is one of those ‘it all depends what you mean by…’ discussions I reckon.
If we are talking about ordinary history here –
History is the human past (what happened in the past)
Using history in this first sense – yes we can keep this and the ’interpretation of facts’ separate. The past has gone for good – so it does not yield ‘facts’ of the same nature as those which we can observe and measure in the present and can verify through repetition (that’s a clumsy definition of the facts of science). But is does leave evidence.
History is the enterprise/need of all human societies to pass on an uncritical story/narrative of what happened in the past (because history is to society what memory is to the individual – without a story we have no compass)
Using history in this second sense – here the story what happened in the past and interpretation of what happened can and do merge together. The story will always depend on the story-tellers viewpoint. This type of storytelling can be harmless but obviously a story about the past can be told to inspire hatred and division in the present. I’m thinking of how this type of tribal history was sued by both sides in the troubles in Northern Ireland as a way of perpetuating the conflict; both sides emphasised the stories and evidence of conflict, but played down or even ignored counter-evidence of common sympathy and past collaboration between Protestants and Catholics.
History is the scholarly attempt to reconstruct and interpret the human past thought diligent research into all relevant evidence from primary and secondary sources.
Using history in this third sense; in the scholarly discipline of history as it has developed since the eighteenth century, diligent research into the evidence is the first step – and any historian who skimps on this is not worth their salt in my view. Research nito sources is a ‘distinct entity from interpretation. But in order to make sense of the evidence any historian is going to need to make connections between different pieces of evidence that testify to different events and phenomena from the past - this is interpretation; and they are also going to start asking questions about causes (when we’ve established what happened as far as we possibly can we still want to know ‘why did it happen as it did?’ to give us a real story) - this is also interpretation.
So I think that reconstructing the past and interpreting the past are different things – but they do overlap. OH my word – I guess the bog issue here is about subjectivity and objectivity in human knowledge. It’s what the philosophers call ‘epistemology’ , the discussion of that human beings can actually know about anything– and sends my head spinning horribly!!! My two pence worth on this subject is some very broad and clumsy generalisations:
We have people who call themselves ‘non-realists’ concerning knowledge. For this lot all human knowledge is subjective – it’s something we make up in our minds for our own convenience.
We have people how call themselves ‘realists’ concerning knowledge. For this lot we can be absolutely certain of our knowledge in various spheres. There is a clear factual truth and we can apprehend it.
And we have people who call themselves ‘critical realists’ – and I’d call myself one of this lot. For a critical realist there is a real truth outside of our heads. We don’t just make up morality, history, science etc (just to keep things in the secular sphere for the moment). However, our knowledge will always be limited – because that’s part of the human condition. We aim for truth, there is a truth that we can try and approximate to. We can make solid and valid distinctions in history for example between good historical research and writing, and biased nonsense - but we are all going to get things wrong and need to be humble about this.
Blessings
Dick
enjoyable thread so far! 
Good
Another word that has different meanings is ‘Myth’ –
In terms of secular history a ‘myth’ is a distortion of the evidence. For example, there is an ‘historian’, David Irving , who is (or at least was)a holocaust denier. Part of the evidence he used was what Goebbels’s says in his diaries. Now Goebbels’s was the Nazi minister for propaganda – so this obviously raises grave questions about the veracity of anything Goebbels’s wrote about the extermination of the Jews )never mind the other overwhelming evidence that disproves the case of the holocaust deniers. SO ‘myth’ in terms of the discipline of history has a specific and negative meaning.
‘Myth’ as used by C.S. Lewis has a very different meaning. He used the word in its literary sense to mean a story that embodies in narrative and symbol our deepest human longings – pre-eminently the myth of the dying and rising God. Lewis found the same story in the Gospels – but told with an artlessness that was very different from how it is told it the sagas of the ancients (which Lewis came to see as one of the hallmarks of the historical authenticity of the Gospel narratives). For Lewis the story of Jesus was the same story as that of Baldur, Osiris, Dionysus, and Mithras – but with the crucial difference that in Christ the myth foreshadowed in the stories of the ancients entered history.
Rudolf Bultmann used myth to mean picture language rooted in am ancient worldview that modern Christians need to translate into modern terms in order to make the Gospel’s accessible. For example, when we talk of Jesus – ‘ascending into the heavens’ it would be foolish to think of him travelling upwards like a rocket. ‘The heavens’ is picture language not for a specific physical location, but for the transcendent realm of God. Bultmann’s ‘demythologising’ project can be taken too far into outright scepticism– but as a modest principle it make complete sense to me – with the proviso that we need to remember that the modern worldview like the ancient is only our best approximation to truth at the moment. I do believe that knowledge progresses but our picture language for transcendence today is not the final truth; it’s still picture language for a transcendent mystery.
For Rene Girard, ‘Myth’ has a negative meaning. Myths are stories that have grown up in hum so cities to disguise the violent scapegoating mechanism that is the basis for so much human and ‘civilised’ ‘peace’. So whereas the original event was actually a lynch mob tearing an innocent victim to bits, this event is disguised as a story of a dying and rising god. The Bible actually subverts this story by giving voice to the scapegoats who are the innocent victims of self righteous mob violence – and indeed Jesus in his life death and resurrection completely subverts/demythologises the scapegoat myth.
All of these meanings of ‘myth’ may seems to conflict – but I think that they are not necessarily contradictory. Any ideas?
P.S ‘Epistemology’ rhymes with ‘by golly gee’ 
Greetings !
I plan on expressing my views concerning Time, History and what I will describe as "Relational Theology"
and how all of these fit within my conception of Church History ... :wink:
In my past .. in order to give myself more than enough "security" I, with passionate zeal
insisted upon the literal - in time and space as we know it -- historical "real" actual ...
Death and Resurrection of Jesus ( and by the way ... to me Jesus = Jesus Christ =
Christ Jesus = the same ... I do not agree with some that wish to view Jesus as the man
e.g. human and Christ as the "Spiritual aspect of .... )
During those years I indeed had very high level of Confidence ( with a capital 'C')
for the actual historical "real" ( not the demythologizing of Bultmann & Co. -- which
includes all the rest of the other "Critical" methods of analyzing History for enough reasons )
Of course I still do have the same viewpoint ... but at this point in my Life
I do not need the "security" of having the evidentialist arguments ...
that I once spent endless hours or research ... so that I might have enough
'live' ammunition to engage in 'live fire' with others online ...
Frankly speaking -- there is no way in this green earth that anyone is going to
dismantle or disprove the Resurrection of Jesus... along with the same on the
Evangelistic side as well...
However, this does not mean that the Resurrection of Jesus becomes
built upon "faith" or "Faith" only or mostly ...
As I mentioned earlier -- facts or events in History certainly do not have nice
cute handy tags on them -- stating "Here is the meaning of this Historical event !"
Even with all of the current high tech TV shows ... CSI ... and other Detective, Police,
You be the Jury shows... where the forensic tools available and even those shows
with paranormal help ... or the likes of Mulder and Scully -- The Truth is way OUT there ... :smiley:
Even with all those who are exceptionally talented in Historical Crictical tools ...
Has any TV show ever finally cleared up the query ... Who killed JFK? Pearl Harbor?
or even more recent shocking events ?
notice... the key point being -- finally produced enough conclusive results
to reach a high probability of consensus for resolving these events ...
sure... there are a multitude of books written almost yearly ...
even new books appear ...e.g. 1431 & 1434 .. in which Menzies has his
"Dan Brown " clone of a whopper ....
[1421exposed.com/html/1434.html](http://www.1421exposed.com/html/1434.html) for those with inquiring minds .... :wink:
What does this have to do with the NT texts relating to Jesus Resurrection ?
I will assume many of the members here are familiar enough with the
"Jesus Seminar" * cough * * cough *
When historical criticism gets this fine tuned and then is able to split hairs
( making it more exciting to watch those Ads for Shampoo to mend split hairs
returning your hair to a 'golden' shine )
then I reach for another 'beer' & munchies
I certainly appreciate and admire keen scholarship but this seems to me
to be yet another 'rerun' of Mulder & Scully
while the Fundamentalists have more rebuttals
while blowing a fuse, blow one's top, blow up, boil over, bristle as a cat who might be in danger
of losing one of their "9 lives"
both are extremes... and a healthy dose of Scottish "common sense" is just the medicine
to cure the hiccups from observing such phenomena ...
----The central concern of the school is the defence of common sense against philosophical paradox and scepticism. Common-sense beliefs govern the lives and thought even of those who avow non-commonsensical beliefs, and matters of common sense are within "the reach of common understanding". This isn't to say that critical thought isn't sometimes necessary in order to establish whether or not a particular belief is a belief of common sense,.....
Therefore, what does "common sense" have do to with the Resurrection of Jesus ?
and for that matter -- with earliest Chrisitian living ?
certainly a lot ... :slight_smile:
since this is a forum where there is a lot of healthy considerate behavior
I will breathe more easy ... than attempting to tangle with those on either extreme...
#1 even though I find lots of Christian bookstore Apologetical books being published
to its cheering applause of its targeted audience...
I will continue on ...
If we view MSS of all Historical documents during the period of the NT
then we can notice that there is a huge difference concerning the number of copies...
also the time interval between the extant copies we have and the actual time of those events
is also significant ....
There are more than 5,000 Greek MSS and enough Syriac and Latin ... making 13,000 copies
and the time interval is significantly ( understatement) than the other historical documents
available. The amount of textual variations is rather tiny .. and even the eensy meensy
spider would not have enough spider web material to make anything ...
or to put it another way .. if Spidey himself ran out of web fluid .. that is still much more
than the eensy meensy amount of textual variations for the Multi-Valent Text at hand...
When you put on the colored glasses ( that atheists, Infidels, evolutionary bio geeks
and my old co-worker with a BA in History constantly accused me of having ...
since I happen to have solid Scottish common sense for what I observe concerning
the Multi-Valent Greek text -- of which SBL at biblegateway surely has ... )
When you done 3D skeptical glasses of any variety ...
e.g. both extremes above
then you either ignore the situation, wave your hands, engage in various
historical critical methods along with their -- the "Truth is BACK there" ...
thus eliminating whatever remains in their path of historical pursuit ...
or on the other side ... use various devices like hammers, KJV bibles the
size of unabridged dictionaries that weigh a ton ... become a very annoyed
woodpecker pecking on someone's noggin .. pointing out as many small
details as possible .. where Jesus or Christians ( these words ) are mentioned
in secular documents, K-mart checkout receipts , Jewish historians
of that era , and eye witness testimonies
( which in today's Courtroom could very well give you the Monopoly 'card'
go to Jail do not pass Go and do not collect any money ... )
Yes, I recently noticed an article online that reports that eye-witness
testimony is becoming less and less reliable in order to be depended on ...
and CSI TV show high tech is sought after desperately ...
Thus in today's TV "Reality show" society I really wonder and feel very curious
as to the reasons for Crusading Evangelistic efforts with a very stubborn
Conservative bent ... who are still trying to "sell" eye witness testimony ... :wink:
On the other hand, I, personally, have deep keen appreciation, admiration
for Luke presenting his Gospel ( Literary genre ) in his manner.
Luke surely knew that having Scottish common sense was full of adroit
skill including being Well done or executed: clean, deft, neat, skillful.
Showing art or skill in performing or doing:
artful, deft, dexterous, skillful. Exhibiting or possessing skill and ease in performance
as an Passionate Artist to express his Invaluable insights concerning the Birth, Life,
Death and Resurrection of Jesus .... which was for his intended Audience
at that time and place ... and Praise be to God ( Father, Son, Spirit )
for allowing me almost 2,000 years later to view, experience and contemplate
this "Witness" to Jesus ...
Ahhhhhh Yes I did write "Witness"
which could very well have its own Topic entitled "Unintellible Witness " :laughing:
There is a powerful energizing spiritual intuitive awareness that is held to emanate from or give animation to
from "Witness" to the Father...
from the Son ... in which the Spirit will "Witness" to the Son ....
What has this to do with "facts" ?
When I first arrived in Taiwan many years ago ... I was to teach a class about Church History ...
and suddenly memories of me attending Church History classes in undergraduate daze...
brought chuckles and semi-boring emotive feelings ... chuckles because although the male
students in the back row were supposed to have divine behavior ... in 'fact', these nitwits
would sit there and stick out their tongues repeatedly while the Prof was lecturing ...
and semi-boring due to the 'fact' ... endless names, endless dates, endless events were
flowing like a waterfall which after a short time produced a drowsy feeling which was
very difficult to overcome...
Thus, I decided not to cause these Chinese students to quickly doze off into the netherworld ..
I chose to teach from a biographical framework instead... Living people who were involved
within social events which consisted of a maze of interconnected phenomena surrounding
everything ....
Which by the way .. is exactly what happened during the Life and Times of Jesus
along with the Earliest Church as well....
more coming soon ... <img src="/uploads/default/original/1X/15680453330e74f929b585a237613f0bdf61e069.gif" width="15" height="17" alt=":mrgreen:" title="Mr. Green"/>That’s very intereting old chap. I’ve just been reading a book which argues that the Gospels do fit into the genre of ancient biography.
As for your intention to draw on the best of all aprroaches without going to extremes of scepticism or literalism - a round of applause
As for Scottish Common Sense philosophy - hmmmm; isn’t that one of the bases for Christian fundamentalism? Alhthough I applaud a pragmatic and level headed approach that isn’t too theoretical, I think the Common Sense stuff has other implications (I think I’ve got something on it somehwere - and I really liked what you said about the authority of scripture in a previous post by the way).
Anyway keep posting - your views are very interesting; and your life sounds a saga of colour too.
Greetings !
I am delighted with sparkling eyes … while reading your posts … not glazed over as in boring …
We have a lot in common already ....
All of these meanings of ‘myth’ may seems to conflict – but I think that they are not necessarily contradictory. Any ideas?
P.S ‘Epistemology’ rhymes with ‘by golly gee’
Sobornost
and by golly gee … learning how to know how we know … rhymes with snow too…
which by the way the Eskimos have enough variations on it … 
I concur with your thoughts on "Myth" and Chesterton has some interesting comments about Fairy Tales too ...
For Barth and CS Lewis .. .Myth is much larger than the common ordinary variety ...
another thought --- Fairy Tales might have a 'kernel' of truth ... While a Myth will have much more Truth
for us to realize, consider and then believe ....
This is yet another reason I have such praise for the Gospel Writers ... especially Luke ...
I am thinking of my living experience here in Asia...
If a newbie from the States suddenly shows up in Taiwan or Guangzhou ...
then he or she will not suddenly be dis-oriented either ... because there is much common 'ground'
much common "connections" with the City he or she left and the City she or he enters into ...
However, sooner or later .. ( most likely sooner than either suppose or expect )
there will soon be enough lessons in Cultural awareness...
especially when crossing the street after the traffic signal turns to "green"
allow me to share with you ...
in Taiwan I will introduce the meaning of the colors found on a traffic signal...
as You are aware ... red means 'stop' yellow means 'caution' green means 'go'
whereas in a lot of places in Taiwan .. .green means 'go' yellow means ' go fast' and red means 'go very fast'
:laughing:
so if you believe in "facts" then you will be "factually" dead if you suddenly attempt
to cross the street immediately after it turns to green ...
there is a website .. need to google to find it later ...
along the lines of .. You know you have lived in Taiwan too long when.....
having the Cultural awareness which over time becomes internalized within your "living and breathing"
makes you much more comprehend, realize and understand many Cultural "signs"
this is where I completely disagree with the Jesus Seminar... along with Bultmann & Co.
and where I completely agree with Barth & Co.
The NT multi-valent text has little to do with Myth in this sense ...
The Genesis "narrative" (1-3 for me which I have reflected over & over for more than 10 years )
could fit this sense of Myth for me...
Source criticism like feng shui is interesting and beneficial to a certain degree for learning about
something out of my daily living routine ... but try to jump into the deeper end of its
swimming pool is of little Value to me .. due to the "luggage" I must carry in order to go along
with it and comprehend it more....
feng shui has a lot of concepts, ideas, Asian philosophical tenets that I definitely prefer not
to get deeply involved with ... due to the influence upon one's thinking and belief ...
which in turn has effects thus affecting my daily interactive behavior with others within society...
thanks for your Valuable insights !
all the best !My eyes are sparkling too my friend. It’s a pleasure to do business with you - and thanks for your valuable insghts too!
Here are a couple of resources people may find useful.
(I didn’t write this and I’m not sure where it came from)
***The Bible Says It.
I Believe It.
That Settles It.
Bumper Sticker
While most traditional Christians of the pre-modern period would not have used the phrase “inerrant,” certainly the bible was considered authoritative by them .
But fundamentalism went off the rails when it unconsciously employed the Scottish “Common Sense” philosophy. This school of thought was a rejection of the radical skepticism of philosophers like Kant and Hume, and stated that there was no reason to doubt such basic facts as the existence of the external world, cause and effect, and the continuity of the self. This philosophy had an anti-elitist tone and greatly influenced Americans — not surprising since both the nation and the philosophy took shape at the same time.
As American Christians absorbed this philosophy they began applying it to their religion, and in particular their bibles:
Common Sense philosophy affirmed their ability to know “the facts” directly. With the scriptures at hand as a compendium of facts, there was no need to go further. They needed only to classify the facts, and follow wherever they might lead. (George Marsden, Fundamentalism in American Culture, p. 56)
Results
In attacking a group that was undermining traditional Christianity, fundamentalists became unmoored from the traditions of Christianity.
By asserting their ability to know the simple “facts” found in the bible, they were unconsciously throwing out millennia of traditional theology involving allegorical interpretations, historical traditions and complex Greek philosophy. While traditional Christians may have accepted the bible as without error, fundamentalists were creating a new concept under the guise of the old. Inerrancy was now essentially literalism, and the fundamentalists put it front and center in their faith.
In attacking a group that was undermining traditional Christianity, fundamentalists became unmoored from the traditions of Christianity. Further, by embracing the anti-elitist undertones in “Common Sense” philosophy, fundamentalists were making every man his own biblical critic. The results of this are odd new “traditions” like pre-millennial dispensationalism and literal six-day creation (neither of these ‘traditions’ have any place in pre-modern Christianity – for example the Fathers of the Early Church were happy to think of the six days of creation as being symbolic).***
leaderu.com/marshill/mhr02/lewis1.html
And here’s an interesting, and enjoyable article from the Mars Hill Review by Duncan Sprague on C.S. Lewis and myth. It seems very sympathetic to Lewis’ orthodox but non-fundamentalist treatment of scripture – although it does include a critique of Lewis by Garry Friesen’s who does appear to be in the fundamentalist/inerrantist camp.
The Unfundamental C. S. Lewis
Key Components of Lewis’s View of Scripture
Perhaps, never in the history of Christendom has one man bridged so many levels of understanding to the story of Christianity. As Garry Friesen, friend and former professor says, “C. S. Lewis became all things to all readers.”{1} For the child at heart he created the land of Narnia and the untamed lion/saviour, Aslan. For science fiction readers he travelled to Perelandra with Ransom. For the philosopher and theologian he reasoned about pain and miracles, as well as debating doctrines of Christianity and the philosophy of men. For the lover of myth, he wrote an adaptation of the myth of Cupid and Psyche. For the pain stricken he observed grief and spoke of prayer. For those enchanted with rhythm and rhyme he wrote poetry. For those concerned with the afterlife he wrote about Heaven and Hell and exposed the mind of Satan. For the weak and questioning he wrote letters of personal encouragement and advice.
Unlike nearly all other influential thinkers and writers within Christian history, C. S. Lewis is not known for his reformation of or separation from the popular religious beliefs. Instead, he is known for defining, defending, and uniting the community of Christendom on what it “merely” (or in his own term “purely”) is. This is evidenced by the overwhelming appeal and popularity he has to all sects and denominational backgrounds within Christendom. I am amazed the extreme positions within Christendom that claim Lewis as the champion and defender of their own denominational faith. These extremes are seen on a continuum between the liberals and the fundamentalists; the Roman Catholics and the evangelical Protestants. Even within Protestant Christianity there are the extremes of the most conservative Baptists to the most charismatic Pentecostals claiming Lewis as one of their own. For example, there are John Willis{2} and Christopher Derrick {3}, both Catholic Priests, who claim that if Lewis had lived long enough to see Vatican II, his true colours of Catholicism would have come through. You have a similar claim being made in a Pentecostal magazine in an article by Kathryn Linskoog,{4} who asserts that if Lewis had lived to see the formation and branching out of the Pentecostal movement, he would have jumped on board.
In making the preceding claims, I do not mean to say that Lewis did not separate himself from popular religious views about Christianity, because he did. Lewis, on many occasions, set himself apart from movements and schools of thought within modern and historical Christianity. My purpose then is to identify the areas of Lewis’s scriptural view and define how he embraces a liberal view of Scripture and distances himself from a Fundamentalist view of the Bible (defined as the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture.). The evaluation of Lewis’s view of Scripture begins with his hermeneutic, followed by his specific views of transposition, revelation, inspiration, and authority of scripture, ending with my evaluation of Lewis’s view.
Lewis’s Hermeneutic
It is necessary to begin an understanding of Lewis’s hermeneutic with the realization that Lewis brought his rich legacy of literary criticism to all of his reading, including the Bible. As a foremost literary critic and expert in ancient and medieval-Renaissance literature, Lewis was well aware of the problems involved in the writing, translation and interpretation of literature. His hermeneutic, however, is not purely academic. The academic aspects are combined with some presuppositions of Christian faith (namely that there is a God and He has spoken and revealed himself and continues to speak and reveal), that somehow blend together to form a strange hybrid of biblical interpretation that satisfies hardly anybody. Richard Cunningham, in his book C.S. Lewis: Defender of the Faith, expands this point by saying that Lewis’s, “…recognition of the absence of a theological system, of the mythological and metaphorical elements, and of error and inconsistency in the Bible causes uneasiness among fundamentalists and conservatives.”{5} The marriage of biblical assumptions and literary criticism has created many critics of Lewis’s hermeneutic view.
Before looking at some of the specific elements that make up Lewis’s hermeneutic, it is important to see the power that Lewis attributed to the story of redemption throughout the scriptures. I can think of no better place to turn than Lewis’s book, The Voyage of the “Dawn Treader,”{6} to understand the importance of story and myth for communicating Christian beliefs. In this example, it is possible to assume that the method Lewis uses, of embedding the truths of scripture in a story, is what he has assumed on God’s “transposition” of truth in the scriptures. In other words, Lewis is following the example of Jesus by burying truth in story. In the case of this specific example, Lewis embeds his beliefs about the Bible under the auspices of a children’s story.
The adventure within The Voyage of the “Dawn Treader” which reveals Lewis’s understanding of the Bible occurs when Lucy, Edmund, and Eustace arrive at the island of the Dufflepuds. On the island they encounter strange creatures who are invisible and not particularly intelligent (in fact, they are downright stupid). For them to become visible again, a young girl is needed to go into the magician’s house, up to the second floor, to find the Magician’s book. Within the book she would find spells, one of which would make the Dufflepuds visible again.
Since the alternative was to fight invisible creatures, Lucy consents to brave the frightening house. When she enters a room, apparently the library, she notices many books of all sizes and shapes, but is instantly drawn to the large one on the reading table. There she finds the Magician’s book and begins reading the spells, page after page, in search of the visibility spell. As she reads, however, she eventually comes across a spell “for the refreshment of the spirit.” She becomes engrossed in the spell, aware that the spell is “more like a story than a spell. It went on for three or four pages and before she had read to the bottom of the page she had forgotten that she was reading at all.”{7} She began living in the story as if it were real, “and all the pictures were real too.”{8} After reading that story, she believes it to be the most beautiful story she has ever read and attempts to go back and read it again. But the pages will not turn back and the story begins to fade in her memory. All she can remember is that, “it was about a cup and a sword and a tree and a green hill.”{9}
What Lucy could remember as a cup, sword, tree, and green hill appear to be references to the closing scenes of Christ’s life. The cup recalls Christ asking God the Father to “remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), in the garden of Gethsemane. The sword could refer to Peter’s lopping off the ear of the high priest’s slave with a sword or the men with swords who accompanied Judas to take Jesus away (Mark 14:43-48). The tree becomes the cross that Christ hung on and died. And the green hill appears to be a portrait of Christ as He appeared and ascended into Heaven.
Lewis clearly depicts the theme in this, as in all his fiction writing, as being a shadow of the great story. I believe one hears Lewis himself speaking through the character of Lucy when she says, “a good story is a story which reminds her of the forgotten story in the Magician’s Book.” {10}The forgotten story is what Lewis frequently refers to as the myth that became fact. Here are C. S. Lewis’s own words as he is faced with the story of redemption in the gospels:
If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it . . . Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, man. This is not “a religion,” nor “a philosophy.” It is the summing up and actuality of them all.{11}
This theme of myth becoming fact has been described by Lewis as the “romantic longing” in man. It is the longing for something transcendent, mythical and infinite to enter the finite bodily creature bound in space and time. We are, as Lewis says in The Weight of Glory, always longing and trying to capture something, trying “to get in.”{13} Lewis spends much time contemplating this longing and frequently asks the question whether we can find any spell which offers genuine “refreshment of the spirit”–lasting refreshment unaffected by the corrosive and eroding powers of time. Lewis believes this refreshment is possible in myths and stories and believes that is the way they have been revealed to man . . . in the form of myth and story.
Transposition
In Lewis’s sermon “Transposition,” he describes what some have called one of his “most important contributions to theological thinking.”{14}The concept recurs repeatedly throughout Lewis’s writing. It is the idea that the highest does not stand without the lowest. This idea points to his understanding, once again, that God’s truth cannot be known without being immersed in both human imagination and human history (myth become fact). The belief of the Incarnation of God in the human form of Christ is an acknowledgment and acceptance of the possibility of the highest (God) and the lowest (human) being united. Transposition is also seen when an author, like Lewis, takes a timeless theme and exposes it in a temporal plot. It is, as Gilbert Meilaender says, “a temporal net to catch what is eternal.”{15} It is Lewis’s understanding of transposition that defines God as the greatest storyteller of all time, because He wrapped all of eternity’s truth in the story of redemption through Christ. We will see how Lewis’s view of transposition affects his understanding of inspiration in the section called “Inspiration,” but suffice to say now that inspiration is the conversion of human words (the lowest) into the divine Word (the highest).
Revelation
Lewis assumes that God is ultimately His own revelation of Himself, yet He has revealed Himself in various ways in different places. This explains why Aslan can appear as different animals throughout the Narnia stories. Some of these ways God is revealed can be deducted from Lewis’s writings: conscience, dreams, myths, the moral law, the creation of romantic or immortal longings, history, nature, religions, experience, pagan literature, the incarnation of Christ, the Scriptures, and in other ways in which the “divine pressure” has been exerted on the human mind. This may sound like a broad sense of revelation, but Lewis seems to also restrict it by saying that God can only be known by “self-revelation on His part, not by speculation on ours. We, therefore, look for Him where it is claimed that He has revealed Himself by miracle, by inspired teachers, by enjoyed ritual.” {16}
Garry Friesen writes about Lewis’s view, that the process of revelation, “emphasizes strongly its progressive nature as well as its basic unity. So nature often anticipates the truth revealed in Scripture.”{17} This idea of nature’s anticipation and revelation of scriptural truth is seen in Lewis’s writing when he records,
The corn itself is in its far-off way an imitation of supernatural reality; the thing dying, and coming to life again, descending, and re-ascending beyond all nature. The principle is there in nature because it was first there in God Himself.{18}
In the book The Problem of Pain, Lewis sees three main stages of revelation for all religions and a fourth for Christianity. The first of these stages is “Numinous”{19} (marked by the feeling of awe). The second stage is recognition that some kind of “Moral Law”{20}has been broken. Thirdly, subjects recognize that the source of the moral law is the numinous.{21} This third stage is evidenced by the Jewish understanding of God as the Law giver. The fourth and final stage of revelation is when a man is born and “claims to be the Numinous” and giver of the moral law. This is the picture of Christianity and the incarnation of Christ.
There is, as we will also see in Lewis’s view of inspiration, a sense of progression of revelation that has gotten clearer and more specific through time. This progressive revelation is seen in the fact that the Jews were given more revelation than the pagans. The revelation of God to the Jews was also more directive in how to live and gave a clearer and more focused view of Himself to them over the understanding given to the pagans. The focus becomes even clearer when what was “vaguely seen in them [the Jews] all comes into focus in Christianity–just as God Himself comes into focus by becoming a Man.”{22} We see in Lewis’s theory of progressive revelation a finish line that has not yet been reached. The finish line is the final and complete revelation of God in a face to face communion.
It is important at this point to explore and define another of Lewis’s big ideas which recurs throughout his writings, the idea of myth. As I mentioned earlier, Lewis concludes that myth had become fact in the story of redemption through Christ, but Lewis’s definition of myth needs more clarification since he believes that much in the Old Testament is myth by nature. (It follows that we should pursue this now since Lewis seems to see myth as “one form of unfocused revelation which was given to the pagans and early Jews.”{23}) Revelation comes into focus by a process of “crystallization”{24} in which revelation moves from myth to history. Lewis himself defines his view of Old Testament myth best when he talks about many Old Testament miracles as being mythical. He defines both, what myth is and is not.
A consideration of the Old Testament miracles is beyond the scope of this book and would require many kinds of knowledge which I do not possess. My present view–which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction–would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history … nor diabolical illusion … nor priestly lying … but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology–the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David’s court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.{25}
It is in Lewis’s view of myth that we find the bridge from revelation to inspiration. If, in myth, there are extreme points on opposite ends of the continuum of focused and unfocused revelation, then it would follow that the quality and/or focus of inspiration may also be viewed as having extreme points beginning with the least inspired (unfocused truth) to the most inspired (meaning the most complete truth directly from God). But, before we leave the issue of myth in revelation I sense the need to simplify, as best I can, Lewis’s definition of myth. I would say that he views myth as a story that could be and might be true, but does not need to be historically or scientifically true because it is meant to communicate something bigger than history or science. Therefore Old Testament stories like Jonah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Job, some of David’s Psalms, and even the creation account and fall of man are not necessarily historical events. In fact, in addressing the last point, Lewis writes, “For all I can see, it [the fall] might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but it is of no consequence.”{26}
Inspiration
It is important to note at the outset of this section that C. S. Lewis would have claimed that all scripture in the Bible is inspired. At the same time he would say that not only the writers were inspired, but that the Jews and the Christians who preserved and canonized the Scriptures were inspired; as well, the redactors and editors who modified them also had a “divine pressure” exerted on them. But the pivotal point of contention is what he does with the word inspiration. I think what Lewis would say in defense of his definition for inspiration is that “not all scripture is inspired for the same purpose or in the same way.”{27} Because of his literary criticism background, he would claim that there are errors, contradictions, and even (in his words) “sub-Christian” ideas. Again we are faced with his beliefs that Job, Jonah, and Esther were non-historical and that the early stories of Genesis are mythical. But he would argue that their non-historical elements and mythology say nothing about their spiritual truth. Lewis would continue to argue that the writers were moved, guided, unctioned–whatever word you want–by the “divine pressure” of God.
For Lewis, there are degrees of inspiration outside of Scripture and intrinsic to Scripture. He argues that “all truth and edifying writing, whether in Scripture or not, must be in some sense inspired.”{28} Lewis rejects the idea that
inspiration is a single thing in the sense that, if present at all it is always present in the same mode and the same degree; therefore, I think, rules out the view that any one passage taken in isolation can be assumed to be inerrant in exactly the same sense as any other.{29}
Lewis claims to find support for levels of inspiration in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12, Luke 1:1-4, and John 11:49-52.{30}
The idea of transposition returns to influence Lewis’s view of inspiration. He believes that “the Scriptures proceed not by conversion of God’s word [the highest] into a literature [the lower] but by taking up of a literature [the lower] to be the vehicle of God’s word [into the highest].”{31}In other words, he is saying that inspiration is the conversion of human words (literature) into the divine Word. Or to say the opposite would be to say that divine words were not made into human words. Lewis expands this point by arguing for a greater meaning in Scripture by asserting:
If the Old Testament is a literature thus “taken up,” made the vehicle of what is more than human, we can of course set no limits to the weight or multiplicity of meanings which may have been laid upon it. If any writer may say more than he knows and mean more than he meant, then these writers will be especially likely to do so. And not by accident.{32}
Lewis’s theory of multiplicity of meanings allows him to say in criticism of systematic forms of theology that there is nowhere in scripture an “unrefracted light giving us ultimate truth in systematic form.” He continues this argumentation by examples of Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. Even in Jesus’ teaching there was nothing systematic to hang one’s theological hat on.
In conclusion of Lewis’s view of inspiration we can say that he believed in degrees of inspiration. The level of inspiration seems to be directly related to the writers’ closeness or relation to God. An ascending order of inspiration can be deduced from the least inspired writings, those being pagan myths, to Jewish writings because “they were closer to God”{33} than their contemporaries. The writings of the apostles and prophets are next in clarity and focus of inspiration because they communicated with God either in dreams, visions or audible words (from either God or Christ). And ultimately, the most inspired words would be in the teachings of Christ himself where “there was no imperfection.”{34} Obviously there are some gaps of other writings that would fit in the list, but I think the idea is adequately represented. Ultimately, Lewis defines and defends his position about inspiration best by writing,
The total result is not “the Word of God” in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God and we . . . receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its over-all message.{35}
Authority
It should not be surprising, after examining Lewis’s levels of revelation and inspiration, to discover that in religious truth he finds different levels of authority among several authorities. Among these several authorities for the Christian, the highest authority is the Scriptures themselves.{36} In his evaluation of Lewis’s view of the authority of Scripture, Clyde Kilby gives a personal perspective around which to frame our thoughts.
It would be a bad mistake to infer . . . that Lewis regarded the Bible as simply another good book. He repeatedly calls it “Holy Scripture,” assures us that it bears the authority of God, sharply distinguishes even between the canon and the apocryhpha, presses the historical reliability of the New Testament in particular, and often assures us that we must “go back to our Bibles,” even to the very words.{37}
Creeds of the faith are the next level of divine authority. We can see that Lewis assumes the “truth of the creeds,”{38} as an embodiment of the pure doctrines of the faith.{39} Below the Scriptures and the creeds would be the level of “tradition” which include the authority of “Church Fathers, ecclesiastical authorities, great theologians and all good writers.”{40}Lewis maintains that he strongly belongs within the defense of the “traditional, dogmatic positions” of Christianity.{41}
Evaluation
By his own admission Lewis saw his view of inspiration as tentative. We can see this clearly in a letter he wrote in his later years to Clyde Kilby, when Lewis wrote explaining his view of inspiration: “Remember too that it is pretty tentative, much less an attempt to establish a view than a statement of the issue on which, rightly or wrongly, I have come to work.”{42}
The following concerns with Lewis’s view of Scripture are discussed more fully in Garry Friesen’s evaluation.{43}I provide a brief discussion and expansion to the main aspects of his concerns.
When Lewis discusses his view of Scripture he does not address Scripture’s own claims about itself, which are found in such important passages as 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, and Matthew 5:17-18. I see this as one of the weakest points of Lewis’s view of Scripture. Lewis has a famous argument concerning Christ’s claims of being God, in which he concludes that Christ was either a liar, lunatic, legend or the truth. It appears that Lewis did not transfer this same line of reasoning to his understanding of Scripture. If he had, he would have made a similar argument about Scripture’s claims about itself … that they are either lies, ramblings of crazy religious men and women, myth (that did not become fact), or truly God-inspired words and thoughts through the instruments of people.
A second weakness in Lewis’s view of Scripture centers around his idea that some Old Testament passages are myth. Though I understand his intention in definiting myth as being that the story may or may not be historically true, it appears that he uses this argument to avoid having to admit that the creation account and the fall of man were actual historical events. Instead he appears to be protecting his belief in biologic evolution, clearly seen in his own interpretive version of the Adam and Eve story.
For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulating, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. This new consciousness ruled and illuminated the whole organism. . .
I do not doubt that if the Paradisal man could now appear among us, we should regard him as an utter savage, a creature to be exploited or, at best, patronized. Only one or two, and those the holiest among us, would glance a second time at the naked, shaggy-bearded, slow-spoken creature: but they, after a few minutes, would fall at his feet.
We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods. . .{44}
The difficulty I have with Lewis’s position of Old Testament myth is that much of Scripture refers back to Adam and Eve, the fall of man, as well as Noah and the Flood as literal people and historical events (1 Chronicles 1:1; Matthew 19:4-5; 24:37-39; Luke 3:36-38; Hebrews 11:7;1 Timothy 2:13-15).
Myth was also seen by Lewis as unfocused revelation in the Old Testament. This view allowed Lewis to make some good contributions to the Christian’s understanding of natural revelation. However, Lewis seems to discount and/or ignore the events of special revelation from God to his people throughout the Old Testament. These were moments of clearly focused and direct revelation in which God spoke directly to individuals such as Moses, Abraham, and the prophets. These moments of direct revelation hardly seem to fit into Lewis’s idea of myth and unfocused revelation.
Stemming from Lewis’s weakened view of revelation comes a weakened view of inspiration. We are left with an errant Bible in which we are to find absolute truth. Lewis may have tried to compensate for this weakened view of inspiration by introducing the idea of transposition and by heightening the importance of illumination. In his view of illumination, the reader is inspired to the point that human words (the lowest) are transformed into the divine word (the highest).{45}He argues that literature is only the vehicle for God’s word, not the word itself. Lewis also argues that at times he reaches the Voice of God “through all the distortions of the human medium.”{46} It appears that Lewis views the use of “the human medium” of communicating God’s Word as a liability rather than an asset in the process of finding God.
Conclusion
Though variants can be seen in how Lewis differs from the fundamentalist view of scripture, I think it is ultimately important to frame our understanding of his view of Scripture around the context from which he was doing most of his speaking and writing . . . that being the context of the Church of England. Lewis’s view of Scripture is, for the most part, in harmony with the Church of England. It was of little debate within his closest circle of friends that there were errors within the literature of the Scriptures. It was only as his popularity grew and influential writings stretched across the ocean to America that the challenges arose to what was important to the American Christian culture. At that point in history, the term “fighting fundies” was gaining popularity in describing the fundamentalist movement in America. Lewis was reluctant to leave his own church history and orthodoxy for an ultra-conservative and constricting movement. In the end, I am grateful for the liberal heritage that Lewis brought to his writings and Christian life. For in that heritage is found the richness of his wide and diverse impact as the writer of all things to all readers as he tells the story of Christian redemption.
{1} I am deeply indebted to Garry for spurring me on in our mutual admiration and respect for the life and writings of C.S. Lewis. Many of his thoughts bear their influential fingerprints in my thinking, research and writing.
{2} John Willis, Pleasure Forevermore: The Theology of C. S. Lewis, (1983) Chicago: Loyola Univ.
{3} Christopher Derrick, C. S. Lewis and the Church of Rome, (1981) San Francisco: Ignatius.
{4} Kathryn Lindskoog, “C. S. Lewis and the Holy Spirit,” Charisma & Christian Life, Nov. (1988): pp. 91-93.
{5} Richard B. Cunning-ham, C.S. Lewis: Defender of the Faith, (1967) Philadelphia: Westminster ( p. 84).
{6} C. S. Lewis, The Voyage of the “Dawn Treader,” (1952) New York: Macmillian ( pp. 123-136).
{7} Ibid., p. 133.
{8} Ibid., p. 133.
{9} Ibid., p. 133.
{10} Ibid., p. 133.
{11} C. S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy, (1955) New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, (p. 88).
{12} Carol J. Hamilton, “Christian Myth and Modern Man,” Encounter 29 Sum (1968): p. 251.
{13} C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, (1972) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans (p. 12).
{14} Cunningham, p. 84.
{15} Gilbert Meilaender, “Theology in Story: C. S. Lewis and the Narrative Quality of Experience,” Word & World 1 Sum (1981) p. 225.
{16} C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, (1970) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans (p. 144).
{17} Garry Friesen, “Scripture in the Writing of C. S. Lewis,” Evangelical Journal 1 Spr (1983) p. 18.
{18} Lewis, (1970) p. 144.
{19} C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (1962) New York: Macmillian (pp. 20-21).
{20} Ibid., p. 22.
{21} Ibid., p. 23.
{22} Lewis, (1970) p. 54.
{23} Friesen., p. 19.
{24} C. S. Lewis, Miracles, (1972) New York: Macmillian (footnotes p. 139).
{25} Ibid., footnotes p. 139.
{26} C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, (1958) New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, (p. 64).
{27} Cunningham, p. 88.
{28} Clyde S. Kilby, The Christian World of C. S. Lewis, (1968) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids Book Manufactures, Inc. (p. 153).
{29} Ibid., p. 153.
{30} Ibid., p. 153.
{31} Lewis, (1958) p. 116.
{32} Ibid., p. 117.
{33} Ibid., p. 32.
{34} Ibid., p. 112.
{35} Ibid., p. 112.
{36} C. S. Lewis, Beyond Personality, (1948) New York: Macmillian (pp. 20-21).
{37} Kilby, p.156.
{38} C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, (1967) Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company (p. 26).
{39} Lewis, (1970) p. 92.
{40} Friesen, p. 21.
{41} Lewis, (1970) p. 60.42
(42) Kilby, p.153.
{43} Friesen, pp. 22-23.
{44} Willis, p. 88.
{45} Lewis, (1958) p. 116.
{46} Lewis, (1970) p. 60.
Greetings !
In QQ messenger or the Web-based QQ there are many different smileys ...
thus I will use english to indicate these smileys instead ... :bow: :bow: :applause :
and the one where the left hand is flat on top of the right hand which is a fist ...
indicating respect ( :slight_smile: I will need to refresh this after I ask some Chinese :wink:
Really delighted with your post ... lots of fascinating insights and information ...
quote ----
A second weakness in Lewis’s view of Scripture centers around his idea that some Old Testament passages are myth. Though I understand his intention in definiting myth as being that the story may or may not be historically true, it appears that he uses this argument to avoid having to admit that the creation account and the fall of man were actual historical events. Instead he appears to be protecting his belief in biologic evolution, clearly seen in his own interpretive version of the Adam and Eve story.
clearly seen ? really? read CS Lewis really fine article ( which is one I remembered the title for it after
many years have gone by ... while the other titles for his articles are lost in the "fog" of past memory )
Fern Seeds and the Elephant ...
Many attempt to use their own interpretative understanding of other Authors contributing to the mass
of differing and divergent musings concerning what these Authors meant to communicate ...
So many reviews of Barth, Lewis, Balthasar, Moltmann and on and on and on ....
I do not need to "protect" my belief about *biologic evolution* ( evolutionary biology )
because I disagree completely with --- Macro Evolution --- but can accept Micro Evolution for
more than enough reasons ...
Thus I disagree with Friesen that this is the Case concerning Lewis or myself....
which -- clearly seen in his own interpretive version of the Adam and Eve story. which comes from
Friesen's own personal hermeneutical method regarding the OT text along with his critical analysis
of CS Lewis ... along with what I will call the Genesis "narrative"
So there is no "perceived" weakness in Lewis theological musings or reflections in my opinion ....
The Genesis "narrative" has no intention nor wish nor desire to express that view which includes
a strictly Chronological ( using chronos instead of kairos ) detailed map of what transpired
during this "narrative" ( Gen 1-3 )
ahhhhh Yes I am utilizing these Greek words instead of Hebrew to express my perspective ...
because I want to draw careful attention to the difference between a literalistic hermeneutic
which wants to "safeguard" some supposed "security" that will aid, support, enhance and
"protect" Belief, Faith and understanding --- That God indeed Created the Universe both
known and unknown ... :slight_smile:
and a dynamic Egalitarian hermeneutic full of passionate innovative Artistic intuition
that will draw careful attention to the kairos of the events that occured during the
origin of Mankind along with the profound aspects of the interactive, interpersonal
relational events that transpired in it ... from my perspective of "Relational Theology "
Tally Ho ! Watson, the Case is Afoot !
all the best !
( Although I am most certainly a Trinitarian Theologian ( having confidence in my research
while not holding any Thd degrees ( plural ) I do not need to squeeze, hammer or forcibly
tuck into any text... a Case for the Trinity ... in the Traditional manner :smiley:Greetings!
I wish to veer off my previous post to illustrate another concept of mine ...
Let me attempt to elucidate it via the Gospel of Luke and his writing which includes Acts
and the much lauded praised Church Council of Chalcedon .....
Tally Ho !
from Wikipedia -- to introduce this post ... and for the sake of convenience ...
An ecumenical council (or oecumenical council; also general council) is a conference of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological experts convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice.[1] The word "ecumenical" derives from the Greek language "οἰκουμένη", which literally means "the inhabited world",[2] – a reference to the Roman Empire that later was extended to apply to the world in general. Due to schisms, only the two earliest councils can be considered to have included bishops of the entire Christian Church, as it existed before those schisms. Later councils included bishops of only parts of the Church as previously constituted, leading the Christians who do not belong to those parts to reject the actions of those councils.
The Church of the East (accused by others of adhering to Nestorianism) accepts as ecumenical only the first two councils. Oriental Orthodox Churches accept the first three.[3] Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church recognise as ecumenical the first seven councils, held from the 4th to the 9th century; but while the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts no later council or synod as ecumenical, the Roman Catholic Church continues to hold general councils of the bishops in full communion with the Pope, reckoning them as ecumenical, and counting in all, including the seven recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church, twenty-one to date. Anglicans and confessional Protestants, accept either the first seven or the first four as Ecumenical councils.
Of the seven councils recognized in whole or in part by both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church as ecumenical, all were called by the Roman Emperor,[8][9][10] not by the Pope.
The first seven councils recognized in both East and West as ecumenical and several others to which such recognition is refused were called by the Byzantine emperors. In the first millennium, various theological and political differences such as Nestorianism or Dyophysitism caused parts of the Church to separate after councils such as those of Ephesus and Chalcedon, but councils recognized as ecumenical continued to be held
Council of Chalcedon (451) repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, adopted the Chalcedonian Creed, which described the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, human and divine. Reinstated those deposed in 449 and deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria. Elevation of the bishoprics of Constantinople and Jerusalem to the status of patriarchates. This is also the last council explicitly recognised by the Anglican Communion.
This and all the following councils in this list are rejected by the Oriental Orthodoxy.
ahhhhh... now we can notice that the following councils in the list in this Wikipedia article...
(21 more councils for the Roman Catholics )
more coming soon !
as a preview I hope to showcase that while the Church Council of Chalcedon is widely held with very
high esteem and praise ... in my estimation was most likely held with huge political overtones ...
along with aggressive enforcement of Leo the Great's Tome ....
While on the other hand... Luke in hands of many Higher Critical Scholars and their tools ...
proceed with prodigious effort for their objectives ... with such enthusiastic fervor ...
thus that we might be tempted to swim in the Lake of "de-Mythologizing " sulfur ...
( with all due polite and public display of general respect to those who agree with Bultmann & Co. )
--- yes the sulfur is tongue & cheek reference to that so called perspective of Hades or Hell in
John's Apocalypse or book of Revelation ... :wink:
For Me, I prefer to view Luke as a Creative Passionate Artistic
(filled to the brim with the overflowing presence via the perichoretic koinonia
embedded within the active display of Grand Dance of the Trinitarian Particularity & Unity)
exceptional example of one of the Earliest Christian Theologians
along the lines of Capon, Barth, Moltmann, Wright, Volf, Lewis, Kreeft, Fee et al.....
all the best !Tally ho - and applause all round my courteous friend thank you for your insights too.
I’d still like to look a little more at the issue of different views of scripture before hurtling on to the creeds. Is that OK? 
I just don’t want to leave heads spinning here!!!
Anyway - I am busy for a couple fo days; but will get back to you as soon as I can. I may manage a brief post over the next day or so.
All very good wishes
(and ‘Tally Ho’ 
)
Dick
I’ve not read Lewis much, besides Narnia. What this guy describes as his philosophical framework of understanding revelation is so close to what I see. And described in such greater clarity.
"Lewis clearly depicts the theme in this, as in all his fiction writing, as being a shadow of the great story. I believe one hears Lewis himself speaking through the character of Lucy when she says, “a good story is a story which reminds her of the forgotten story in the Magician’s Book.” {10}The forgotten story is what Lewis frequently refers to as the myth that became fact. Here are C. S. Lewis’s own words as he is faced with the story of redemption in the gospels:
If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it . . . Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, man. This is not “a religion,” nor “a philosophy.” It is the summing up and actuality of them all.{11}"
When he goes on to speak of crystallization, my heart kind of jumped because thats the best description of the process that I’ve been able to see. He said their are 4 levels of understanding, I’d add a fifth; man realizes that the numinous becomes incarnated in all men.
I really found myself agreeing with Lewis’ view, though there were a few things I don’t. Like traditions holding weight, that high up the list. I’d put them at the level of pagan myth. They are mans decrystallization of the truth. Not that there isn’t truth in there, but usually it becomes so distorted through the years.
He mentioned Jonah being the furthest to the one end of the myth spectrum. Stephen Jones wrote of an occurrence of a whaler being swallowed by a whale then found alive a few days later. It happened in the 1800’s I think. They said the mans complexion was turned white, bright white because of the gastric juices in the whales stomach. Jones said that that would have likely happened to Jonah and been a sign to the people of Ninevah, because their god was dagon the fish god. Now whether that happened or was myth I don’t know. I agree that the storyline is what matters. I see this life as the grand narrative.
As for adam and eve, I also don’t really know (or care too much) if it was literal, because the spiritual application of what took place is written all over, and IMO is whats really important. With that said, I’m going to throw out a few thoughts about that way back time.
There are a few issues that come up with the traditional (and by that I mean the semi-fundie american background I’ve come from) interpretation of adam and eve. One is where did Cain get his wife, and move to? It seems that there were other people around. This ties in to Lewis’ holding to biological evolution. Just as Christ was a representative for all men, so is Adam a representative. He was the light bearer(heylel), the morning star. The son of God. He was put into the garden as an icon for mankind. As he went so went the rest. He was brought out of the dust region, where he was created, and placed into the garden. Him receiving the breath of life was God giving him the rudimentary understanding as mentioned in the above article. So consciousness came through Adam to all these early humans, or maybe it was supposed to. As the light bearer he was supposed to bring the light of life to men. Instead he brought death. I don’t believe they were elevated to the level of understanding of Adam and his family. So humanity was given consciousness, but not the full revelation. These were the sons of men. Adams family were the sons of God, who came down to the daughters of men. They would have been looked at as gods not only from their extremely advanced intellect, but their closer revelation to God. The primitive peoples were still in the awe phase. The giants, the men of renown were just like our giants now, our celebrities, our professional athletes, our politicians, our CEO’s. And they enslaved the human race. These men were deified like pharaohs, and were placed into the story that they had been told, that story that we forgot from the magicians book. Each time another “branch” came along, some of his story would be added, and so we see these compounded gods. These mighty men I’m sure played a hand in letting the people recognize who they purported to be (I’m sure their doting mothers played a role, B.C. stage moms? ).
Now if the above is the case at all, (which this may all be just from my imagination anyway, my myth) and the role of the lightbearer is to bring greater light to the people, a greater height of awareness, and knowledge of God. Then possibly the flood is symbolic of that elevation to a greater height. Noah and his sons were the only people left that even had a glimmer of the light coming out of them. And so they were saved, raised up on the water. The rain of the HS came down and destroyed all the wisdom of men, which is earthy demonic. They were elevated to a new understanding, and revelation of God. It definitely foreshadows Israel coming out of Egypt, which is where the next great revelation came. And I would dare say that Jesus as the Israel of God, came out of Egypt also called Sodom (earthly Jerusalem), he brought light into the land of the shadow of death (the shadow of the law), Judaism had become an open grave, the decayed corpse of religion, and demonic wisdom, the traditions of men, they even had their own gods, their father abraham, and moses. Then that light that Jesus brought faded as the church became Babylon, and turned into the very thing Jesus came to undo. The traditions of men overtook the light. And He still calls come out of her my people. Each time this revolution takes place we have an elevation of knowledge and understanding in all aspects (science, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, morality, technology)because the light is made clearer. And I think the whole is raised (eventually) by the remnant. Look at slavery. For the most part most of the world looks at it as an absolutely horrid thing. But a few hundred years ago that wasn’t the case, it was just part of the way things are. I think this is a useful way to look at the questionable things that took place in the OT, or even the need for the law. When the people were more savage (for lack of a better term), they would need a very strict law to keep people in line, because their is no collective understanding that eating uncooked food is bad for you, or touching a dead body can bring disease. Take using computers. They are so integrated into our lives that kids can use them without any trouble whatsoever. There is a collective understanding of how operating systems work. The icon is universally used, double clicking, etc. But look back 20 years and you see a very different thing, where computers were still very limited and useless (compared to now). People may have had a hard time using Ipads back then because the groundwork had to be laid. Now that peoples consciousness has expanded into the realm of everyday computer usage, that old DOS system is completely foreign to us, and doesn’t work for our time. Just like the law that was given for Adam’s time didn’t work after Noah’s upgrade. And Noah’s laws didn’t work for Abraham’s upgrade, and then Moses’, then to Jesus the single man, then to Jesus the corporate man. Which is how I tie all this together . The next upgrade is the corporate man. That info was given at the upgrade 2000 years ago. Paul was probably given the clearest understanding of it, the revelation of the mystery. The early church was founded on it. But we needed the 2000+ years to be ready for the full upgrade. We were only given the limited test program, the in-part, the downpayment, Revelation Beta? What informs most of my speculation in this long paragraph is not so much looking into the past, but into the future. That all men will be drawn up to Christ eventually, all of those events that foreshadow the reconciliation of all, had that as their seed, or framework around which their stories were told. As in Adam, So also in Christ. As in Christ, so also Noah. Whats that saying? A rising tide raises all ships
Thats my framework for understanding myth, both pagan and jewish/christian. At least thats how I see it for now.
liquid hot mag-maaaah,
thanks for that post, that was very cool and very interesting. methinks it’s time to revisit the old Bible with some of the perspectives i’ve heard lately. it might come to make sense to me again.
you argue quite well for progressive revelation, a concept i think is vital. the import of which is often totally missed!
Greetings !
Thank you redhotmagma for your really intriquing post which showcases your Creative passion
for understanding the OT text ...
I will be spending some time .. to write about my understanding of Gen 1-3 ...
but in the mean time .. here is a really interesting article about Erhman .. :wink:
[opensourcetheology.net/node/3047#comments](http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/3047#comments)
I concur with the comments concerning Erhman -- meaning there is really no need to continue
to perpetuate Bultmann & Co. proposals... for those who are in Academics...
it is known as publish or perish ...
all the best !Hi Hothorsegz -
Have read the articel about Ehrman - and I think i agree wiht the scope of it (will have a ponder)
I reckon that it would be good to pick up on Jeremy’s fascinating post along with bits and bobs that you and I have contributed to look deeper at non fundamentalist ways - but still faithful ways - of reading scripture. However, just for a brief interlude… I reckon that many people reading these posts don’t know much about the Quest for the Historical Jesus stuff (and I’m no expert either). So here is an article I’ve found that summarises The Quest - old ad new - in a way I think site members will find congenial. (So this is just to clarify matters )
A Survey of Historical Jesus Studies:
From Reimarus to Wright
by
Michael H. Burer
burer@bible.org
Introduction
The study of the life, ministry, and person of Jesus Christ has been at the center of the Church’s thinking since its inception, but the last two hundred years have seen a marked change in how those within the Church and those without have examined Jesus and the Church’s conceptions about him. The Enlightenment brought sweeping change to the world, and religious studies were no exception. Everything, even Jesus himself, fell prey to critical method and examination, and the current state of Jesus studies and Christology can be traced back to this fundamental change in the world’s way of thinking. The period of time covered in this study dates from the Enlightenment to the present day, with two respective scholars being used as bookends. Of course nothing is as simple as it seems. Hermann Samuel Reimarus did not think in a vacuum; recent study has pointed to trends and periods earlier than the Enlightenment which influenced his thinking. He was the first to give voice, however, to anything substantially different from the tradition and teaching received in the church throughout the seventeen and a half centuries before his writings were published, so he is seen as the starting point for modern critical study of Jesus. Using Reimarus as a starting point is now generally accepted as heuristically viable and useful. N. T. Wright is the ending point because he more than many other scholars is doing things in a positive way. He has a respect for history, a thirst for theology, and a sound method. So between these two men comes a period which is important to understand for those who wish to study Jesus and proclaim him in the next century.
Two caveats are in order before beginning. First, this study seeks to give an overview, not detailed analysis. I will show major trends evident in this period, I will identify major players, and I will offer tentative evaluations for the future direction of Jesus studies. It is a definitely a bird’s eye view. Second, terms must be defined. Technically “Historical Jesus studies” and “Christology” are not identical areas of study even though they focus upon the same person. Studies of the historical Jesus seek to explain and disseminate a reconstruction of his human life and work which is critically accurate and defensible; it is the practice of history. Christology, on the other hand, generally studies the meaning and significance of his death and divine life, both pre-existence and resurrection life, as they are expounded by the Church beyond Historical categories to spiritual and religious meaning and truth; it is the practice of theology. The quandary which this period leaves us and which anyone who serious delves into this area must address is the current divorce in religious studies between the historical Jesus and the Christological Jesus, between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Historical Jesus studies and Christology should go hand in hand; it is only in an attempt to be focused and concise that I have only looked at one side of the equation.
Overview of Historical Jesus Studies: Reimarus to Wright
The history of Historical Jesus studies during this period has generally been divided into recognizable periods. Although there is danger in defining anything into rigid periods of time, these classifications have proven themselves useful in tracking the major trends of study and patterns of thought in Jesus studies in the last two hundred years. Despite slight differences in naming, these distinct periods are generally recognized and used in almost every work concerning this time. My method will be to explain general trends and direction for each period of time as well as major players who helped to define that period. The major periods are the Old Quest, from 1778 to 1906; an interim period or “No Quest,” from 1906 to 1953; the New Quest, from 1953 to the present day; and the Third Quest, from the early 1980’s until the present day.
The Old Quest (1778-1906)
The first Quest for the historical Jesus, now defined generally as the Old Quest, received its name from the title given to the English translation of Albert Schweitzer’s book, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, published in 1906. The English translation was given the title The Quest of the Historical Jesus which came to be used for the pattern of study as a whole. There perhaps is one basic, broad attitude which operated during this period: a true, critical understanding of the history of Jesus’ life leads one away from the faith that had been received by the contemporary church. This time was the time of the Enlightenment. Dogma and revelation no longer were accepted as accurate sources of information. Critical history, devoted to sources and “objectivity,” held primacy of place in the determination of truth. Scholars working during this time felt that only critical historical work could truly discover who Jesus was. They believed it could strip away inaccurate layers of interpretation placed upon him by later followers which were not historical in any sense. This method of investigation had been used in other fields, and it was now time to apply it to the Bible. The application of this method of history upon the Gospel materials and their central character yielded something far different than what was normally understood to be true. The essential conclusion was that the Jesus of history was in no way equal to or coextensive with the Christ of faith. In fact, the Jesus of history had been transformed into the Christ of faith by naïve people at best, deceivers at worst. Along with this recovery of the true Jesus of history, the Old Quest carried with it the implicit assumption that the theology of the church should change to correct itself in light of this new historical revelation. The belief in Christ passed down throughout the ages in the church had been built on an improper historical understanding. In light of that, the belief should now change.
The starting point for this historical quest was Hermann Samuel Reimarus. Born in 1694, he was a professor of Oriental languages in Hamburg until his death in 1768. Interestingly enough, he never made his views about Christianity publicly known during his lifetime. It was not until Reimarus’ works were published posthumously by Gotthold Ephraïm Lessing in fragments from 1774 to 1778 that his private views were made public. The most important fragment was the seventh one, published in 1778, entitled “Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger,” variously translated as “On the Intention of Jesus and His Disciples” or “The Goal of Jesus and His Disciples.” This truly was the fragment which started the quest for the historical Jesus.
In “Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger” Reimarus postulated an intense difference between who Jesus actually was and what his disciples proclaimed him to be. Wright’s assessment of Reimarus is useful as a summary:
Jesus was a Jewish reformer who became increasingly fanatical and politicized; and he failed. His cry of dereliction on the cross signalled the end of his expectation that his god would act to support him. The disciples fell back on a different model of Messiahship, announced that he had been ‘raised’, and waited for their god to bring the end of the world. They too were disappointed, but instead of crying out in despair they founded the early Catholic church, which to Reimarus may have looked like much the same thing.
Jesus was a revolutionary who tried and failed; the disciples were deceivers who propagated a view of Jesus they knew to be false. Reimarus in his mind had unearthed a historical Jesus antithetical to the Christ of faith, and he hoped it would be the demise of Christianity as he knew it.
Once begun, the quest of the historical Jesus continued in earnest. David Friedrich Strauss is perhaps the best known scholar from this period. Born in 1808, he held various teaching posts in his early life. He was called to Zürich as a Professor of Theology in 1839, but because of opposition to him by conservative Christians he was never allowed to take up his post. He lived as a freelance writer after that until his death in 1874. Strauss wrote his monumental work Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet when he was 28 years old. In this work he patently rejected supernaturalism and rationalism and described the church’s handling of the historical information about Christ as myth. Strauss accepted a bare historical framework of Jesus’ life—including events such as his baptism by John the Baptist, his teaching and making of disciples, as well as his death due to the hostility of the Pharisees—but the early church elaborated upon this and turned the historical Jesus into something he was not by a twofold process. First, the church interpreted the events of Jesus’ life as fulfillment of prophecy and Old Testament belief and expectation, thus establishing him as Messiah. Second, in accordance with his reputation as Messiah, the church created myths and legends about him through the vehicle of community belief. “The historical Jesus was thus turned into the divine Messiah by the pious, but erroneous devotion of the church.” Thus according to Strauss the historical Jesus was buried underneath deep layers of myth, so much so that a biography of his life was nearly impossible to write.
Following Strauss was a true giant of the Christian faith and scholarly insight who marks both the end of the Old Quest and a new direction for Historical Jesus studies. Albert Schweitzer was truly a genius in his own right. He published his magnum opus, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, in 1906 at the age of 31. Not only did he prove himself to be an influential biblical scholar, he also distinguished himself in the field of music and medicine. It is well known that the last fifty years of his life were spent as a missionary doctor in Africa. His work contributed to the study of the historical Jesus in two ways. First, he declared the original quest to be void of results. In his estimation, the liberal lives of the nineteenth century were simply reflections of those who sought the historical Jesus. Second, he took issue with them for minimizing or neglecting the eschatological dimension of Jesus’ words and actions in an attempt to make him more universal. Schweitzer felt that the key to understanding Jesus was his eschatology. Jesus could not be divorced from the eschatological context which he shared with the Judaism of his day and be understood in any reasonable fashion. The problem with Schweitzer’s view is the extreme form of apocalypticism which he believed Jesus held. Wright’s assessment is useful at this point:
He * believed himself to be the Messiah while the onlookers thought he might be Elijah; he confidently expected that his god would step in and bring the world to an end during the course of his ministry. He dreamed the impossible dream of the kingdom, bringing about the end of world history. When this did not happen, and the great wheel of history refused to turn, he threw himself upon it, was crushed in the process, but succeeded in turning it none the less. He thus took upon himself the Great Affliction which was to break upon Israel and the world. The bridge between his historical life and Christianity is formed by his personality: he towers over history, and calls people to follow him in changing the world. The very failure of his hopes set them free from Jewish shackles, to become, in their new guise, the hope of the world.
Schweitzer thus halted the Old Quest so severely that it would not continue for another 50 years, yet he also set the stage for the Third Quest which would not start until 75 years after his writing and fifteen years after his death in 1965.
An Interim Period (1906-1953)
The period immediately following the publication of Schweitzer’s decisive work was a hiatus from the study of the historical Jesus. It has even been called the period of “No Quest.” Schweitzer had so effectively critiqued the Old Quest concerning its universalizing tendencies and lack of apocalyptic vision that scholarly pursuit into the historical Jesus was halted. Historical skepticism was the major feature of this period and its epitome is found in Rudolf Bultmann. A description of him and his views is sufficient for understanding this period.
Bultmann lived from 1884 until 1976. Throughout his life he held various teaching positions at different schools in Germany. He is most famous for his contributions to form criticism detailed in his work Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Bultmann contributed to this interim period between the quests by focusing the attention of history upon the early church, not the life of Jesus. The material in the Gospels does not illuminate the life of Jesus but the Sitz im Leben of the church. Jesus’ words were in fact those of Christian preachers speaking in his name, and the Christ which was preached was the Christ of faith, not the Jesus of history. Because of these characteristics of the New Testament documents, little could be said about the life of Jesus; material to gather that information simply did not exist in the New Testament. Despite this historical problem, Bultmann saw no need for the theology of the church to change in the slightest due to any historical study or knowledge. The theology of the church was in place because of a response to Jesus, not because of historical verity, and could stand as it was with no challenge to change from historical judgments. Jesus places an existential call to decision upon the lives of all whom he touches, and indeed the historical disjunction between his life and faith makes this existentialism all the stronger in Bultmann’s thought.
The New Quest (1953 to the present)
The force of Bultmann’s thinking and theology was difficult to overcome, but not impossible. The next stage of serious investigation of the historical Jesus softened the skepticism of Bultmann somewhat, but it did not alter at any fundamental level the wide reaching disdain for the historical record contained in the New Testament materials. This renewal of the Old Quest shares many characteristics of its predecessor and carries many of its assertions much further.
The New Quest began on October 23, 1953 when Ernst Käsemann presented his lecture on “The Problem of the Historical Jesus” to a reunion of Bultmann’s students. The ideals and methods adopted by the New Quest did differ somewhat from Bultmann’s thought. Käsemann criticized Bultmann’s total disconnection of history and faith, emphasizing that Jesus must be rooted in history to some degree to avoid docetism which would allow Christ to be formed however the scholar wills. This was a valid criticism which the New Quest was right to take up. However, the New Quest remained in the same vein as its predecessors in many ways. As Bultmann did, those within the New Quest relied heavily upon the sayings of Jesus as primary material, generally ignoring the events surrounding his life as worthy material for discerning the historical Jesus. The New Quest makes full use of critical tools such as source and form criticism which Wright asserts “have caused considerable difficulty when it comes to serious historical reconstruction.” The New Quest generally holds to an extreme view of apocalyptic and rejects it in contrast to Schweitzer who accepted it. The New Quest generally views scripture in a manner similar to Wilhelm Wrede’s in that the majority of the framework and content can be traced to the early church and is useless in establishing any type of historical truth.
The best known permutation of the New Quest is the Jesus Seminar. Headed by Robert Funk, the Jesus Seminar purports to undertake a serious, scholarly analysis of the material in the New Testament with the goal of determining who Jesus really was and freeing the Church from the improper interpretation handed down through the centuries. Serious analysis of the Jesus Seminar has been undertaken by many scholars, so only two major points need to be stated here. One, the Jesus Seminar falls right in line behind both Bultmann’s and Wrede’s skepticism. One need not read very far into the writings of the Seminar to find statements arguing against the historicity of the New Testament documents. This general attitude has shifted the burden of proof to those who claim historicity. This skepticism is obvious in their results: the Seminar does not rate many sayings or deeds at all as being exactly what Jesus said or did, so they are left with very little information upon which to base their historical reconstruction. Second, it can be charged that the Seminar is simply working to prove forgone conclusions about who Jesus really was. In the Introduction to The Five Gospels, the authors present many “Rules” which on the surface are intended to be understood as objective facts which guide their investigation. Many of these “Rules,” however, are far from settled in modern scholarship and simply represent the bias of the Seminar. As a matter of comparison, one such rule concerns Jesus’ teaching: “Jesus’ images are concrete and vivid, his sayings and parables customarily metaphorical and without explicit application.” Few would argue the accuracy of this statement. However, on the very same page is another statement of very doubtful worth: “Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah.” To make this claim as a “Rule” intended to guide the investigation is an a priori assumption which can only be seen as a conclusion reached before the investigation even starts. A cursory investigation of recent scholarship on Jesus’ statements and view of himself will show that this question is in no way settled, and there is no scholarly consensus. Assuming their conclusions is a serious flaw in the Seminar’s investigation, and it casts doubt upon the value of their work. Given these brief assessments, it is not difficult to see how the Seminar arrived at their conclusions: Jesus was a wise man, a sage who was distinct but not in any miraculous, apocalyptic, Christological way.
The Third Quest (Early 1980’s to the Present Day)
The Third Quest is distinguished from the other quests not so much in time as in thought and method. This stage is not as easily defined because it does not have a definite starting point, and scholars which fall under this rubric often diverge widely on other matters. Despite this diversity there are certain trends which can be identified. In one vein, the scholars within the Third Quest attempt to do history seriously by placing Jesus squarely and credibly within his Jewish eschatological context. This quest rejects the historical skepticism of the New Quest and embraces Schweitzer’s central theme to Jesus’ life while at the same time refining it and making it more accurate and representative of the Judaism of Jesus’ day. In another vein, parallel to historical work centering upon eschatology is a new field of study usually called early Christology. Early Christology casts its net wider than Historical Jesus studies because it also looks at the theological development which takes place within the New Testament writings as well. It is similar, though, in that it seeks to trace the roots of Christian conception about the Christ of faith through the New Testament writings as far back as historically possible, even into the life and understanding of Jesus himself. It is perhaps simplistic to state it this way, but the Third Quest contains two broad trends, one which does history which is theologically accurate, and another which does theology which is historically accurate. There is much overlap, but there is much complementary work as well.
N. T. Wright is a major player within the Third Quest worthy of note. He has written many popular works, and his major contribution to scholarly writing is a multi-volumed work currently in progress entitled Christian Origins and the Question of God. Two volumes have already been published, The New Testament and the People of God and Jesus and the Victory of God. Wright is making a positive contribution in Jesus studies because he has clearly thought through the historical questions which must be answered in order to get an accurate picture of who Jesus was and what he did. In his view, the scholar’s main goal should be to determine how history progressed “from the pluriform Judaism that existed within the Greco-Roman world of 10 BC to the pluriform Judaism and Christianity of AD 110.” To do so, Wright proposes five questions which must be answered: One, how does Jesus fit into the Judaism of his day? Two, what were his aims? Three, why did he die? Four, how did the early church come into being, and why did it take the shape it did? Five, why are the gospels what they are? Wright should be allowed to speak for himself in summarizing his views. The context of this excerpt is the validity of Jesus’ resurrection:
The relevance of Jesus, then, becomes radically different depending on whether one accepts or rejects the witness of the early church to his resurrection. Furthermore, even if one does accept that witness, it means radically different things depending on one’s view of Jesus prior to the resurrection. If he was a docetic figure, the divine being of so much would-be orthodox theology, his resurrection would simply validate the salvation he had revealed and offered. It would prove that he was, after all, ‘god’ . . . . If he was a teacher of timeless truths, the announcer of the timeless call to decision, or the pioneer of a new way of being-in-the-world, his resurrection would presumably endorse the programme he had articulated; though, interestingly, those who have constructed Jesus-figures like that tend not to include the resurrection in their schemes, except as a metaphor for the rise of Christian faith. But if he was an eschatological prophet/Messiah, announcing the kingdom and dying in order to bring it about, the resurrection would declare that he had in principle succeeded in his task, and that his earlier redefinitions of the coming kingdom had pointed to a further task awaiting his followers, that of implementing what he had achieved. Jesus, after all, as a good first-century Jew, believed that Israel functioned to the rest of the world as a hinge to the door; what he had done for Israel, he had done in principle for the whole world. It makes sense, within his aims as we have studied them, to suppose that he envisaged his followers becoming in their turn Isaianic heralds, lights to the world.
Major Areas of Need at this Juncture
After surveying the landscape, it is perfectly reasonable to chart our direction. Where are Jesus studies to go? What are the key ideas and thoughts to refute, ponder, or accept? Here I offer three areas of need and two cautions.
Needs
Much modern critical study of the historical Jesus uses extra-canonical works for historical information. For example, the Jesus Seminar believes the Gospel of Thomas to be an independent source for information about Jesus, and they date it older even than Mark. It becomes a crucial linchpin in their historical reconstruction and perhaps sets the standard by which other works, even the canonical ones, are judged. But is their assessment correct? Evangelical scholarship must seriously address the dating of extra-canonical books like the Gospel of Thomas and their relationship to the canonical materials. Just as J. B. Lightfoot accurately dated the seven Ignatian letters as within the early period of Christianity and Constantin von Tischendorf found early textual evidence for the text of the New Testament and thus F. C. Baur’s Hegelian reconstruction of the formation of Christianity fell, perhaps scholars need to take time to work on these materials to date them in relationship to the canonical materials and assess their textual origins; the results might prove to be just as dramatic.
The primary historical method in use since the 1950’s has utilized the criteria of authenticity. These are various rules used to determine whether or not something is more or less likely to be historical. They include the criterion of dissimilarity, coherence, multiple attestation, and embarrassment. The issue concerns the use of these criteria in light of the historical work proposed by the Third Quest. For example, the criterion of dissimilarity states that traditions different from the Judaism of Jesus’ day and the Christian church he founded are more likely to be original. This is in direct conflict with the trend to see Jesus as firmly within the Judaism of his day and directly connected to the church he founded. Criteria of authenticity must be constantly evaluated and reevaluated, refined and revised. We must learn how these criteria are affected by true historical work. This does not mean that we should reject them out of hand. Instead scholars should make them more useful as a better historical method is developed.
The alarming trend in a survey of historical Jesus studies in this period is the demands placed upon the church to change in light of the historical reconstructions advanced. This was a definite agenda of the Old Quest and still is of the New. But these demands assume that the historical Jesus found is the definitive portrait of Jesus above all others. But is the historical Jesus equivalent to Jesus in his fullness? We must carefully answer no. This gap between the historical Jesus and the real Jesus requires that we do two things. First, as scholars who are using history as our primary tool we must understand history’s limitations and restrictions. Christianity is based upon history but understanding it never has been and never will be solely a historical endeavor. We need to properly assess and if need be reassess history’s place in the study of Jesus. Second, we must learn how to properly place the historical Jesus within Christian life, thought, and theology as a whole. The historical Jesus as a modern reconstruction should not displace centuries of Christian thought and practice. Is it a useful endeavor? Yes, by all means; anything which delves into the person and work of Christ is worth pursuing, but it should be pursued with the proper method and perspective.
Cautions
The cautions I would offer are interrelated. The study of Jesus in any form or fashion demands humility. We are finite creatures, separated from his life on earth by great geographical, chronological, and cultural distance. We do not have exhaustive knowledge about Jesus. We also come upon the scene at the tail end of two thousand years of study, reflection, and investigation into Jesus. The greatest minds in the history of the world have sought him, and we follow in their path. As scholars who usually strive for honesty and integrity in our work, we should also strive for humility. Unfortunately this is sorely lacking in many scholars who study Historical Jesus and Christology. They presume to wipe away the Christ of faith with modern critical methods, a few articles, and some well-placed press conferences. The hubris of such scholarship is staggering. Let us not duplicate the errors of those currently in the fray. We should not be afraid to ask the hard questions and challenge currently held assumptions, but we must always be humble in our investigations and assertions and never assume that we have painted the definitive portrait of Jesus.
Not only must we embody humility, we must also embody the proper kind of skepticism. The trend in Jesus studies has been skepticism about the historical integrity of the text which we have. We must instead be skeptical about our own objectivity. Two hundred years of investigation into the historical Jesus have produced a bewildering array of differing pictures. Many were made in the image of the investigator, and many responded to the cultural questions of the time. The passage of time has shown us that those who investigate the historical Jesus have not been objective but have responded to and answered many of their own questions. We are not free from this trap either. We should carefully investigate our own biases and examine our results to weed out improper conclusions.
Conclusion
The tendency in evangelical scholarship has been to limit or even eliminate the pursuit of the historical Jesus from our scholarly work. I grew up hearing many sermons against “liberal theologians” who were attacking Christ, and that attitude is pervasive. Unfortunately, we have not balanced that with positive contributions in these areas; instead we have abandoned the playing field. As evangelicals who love the Lord we should strive to work positively in this area. Of course we will not accept every method or assumption, but we can make a positive contribution and change the tide. In a recent article in Christianity Today, Wright relates an incident which changed his attitude towards scholarly study and impacted the direction his life was to take. John Wenham was addressing the Christian Union at Oxford, and Wright says:
In one of those seminars, he said of course you realize what we desperately need are people who love the Lord and love scripture, and have got the academic background to do the biblical research. He said it’s no good waiting for people who don’t have that love in their hearts to write silly things about the Bible, and then put Christian scholars to work refuting them. What we need are people out there making contributions and feeding the stuff into the stream higher up.
In closing, as Wenham suggested to Wright, let us commit to being proactive in our study of Jesus. Let us not be afraid to blaze new trails and know Jesus in new and different ways. Our pursuits are not our own; let us do them for him and God’s greater glory.
Michael Burer graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1998 with the Th.M. and is currently studying for the Ph.D. He is the Assistant Editor for the NET Bible translation which the Foundation is sponsoring.*
Greetings again …
These days the weather has been thunderstorms during the days or nights with spectacular displays
of Lightning flashes and Lighning strikes ... although I have been a "wet duck" because I need to
walk along the over ankle deep puddles along the roads.. or riding an electric overgrown mix of
bicycle and motorcycle... these e-bikes are illegal in Central Guangzhou as well as regular
gasoline motorcycles or even scooters ( which is what many people call them but not me ... :wink:
I will try to find a convenient way to let others view where and what I have seen too...
by the way -- My tongue in cheek comments about Publish or Perish should not be taken
as derogatory towards Erhman too ... there is such a huge myriad of interpretative views
concerning the Biblical text whether it is about the OT text or the NT text ...
e.g.
Andrew,
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond. I really appreciate it.
Here are my thoughts in response to yours.
Regarding the shift in v. 24. You write
Martin acknowledges that Jesus repeats ‘in those days’ (en ekeinais tais hēmerais) from verse 19, but does not explain how this obvious temporal connection is somehow overruled by the change of register. …
Gustavo replies to Andrew ...
The obvious temporal connection? I am surprised by your style here. The meaning and referent of this phrase is hardly obvious, as evidenced by the many interpretations in the literature over the last 100 years+ Here as in the Septuagint, this rather formulaic phrase can refer to a number of things, and need not necessarily refer to the same events as before
both of these writers and researchers are really keen in their perspective fields ... ( from what I can
gather from reading their articles )
Further, I am surprised you mix, in your quote above, material from Matthew 24. Matthew has reshaped the Markan account substantially in light of his own needs. I believe my analysis and comparison with Matthew 24 shows that for Matthew, the fall of Jerusalem is no longer of interest, since he writes years after 70 A.D. He has chosen, therefore, to highlight the parousia (his term not Mark´s), which he inserts in the disciples´question, and to eliminate much of Mark´s procedural language in Mark 13:5b-23. We must keep the two passages separate, however. We are looking at Mark and trying to understand his shaping of the speech in light of his audience´s /readership´s needs.
As you can notice from Gustavo's response ... There is a lot of research dealing with the Markan priority
and a lot of linguistic analysis + literary analysis and so on ....
Thus, people have a tendency to go either more deep into the "Forest" of this kind of analysis ...
Others, will have a tendency to reject, ignore, or move in the direction of Allegorizing or Devotional style
or their own personal style ..
Then there are those who engage in a Literalistic interpretative method which most likely ends up
being .. the bible says what it means and means what it says .. although this probably is more connected
with how it means within 20th Century English ...
Then there is the Emerging Emergent portion that might include all of the above ..
Or outside the mainstream of the Traditional pattern as in Open Source Theology or others ...
the list could continue on ...
Which brings me to my point .. -- It is very refreshing to find a Forum such as this one ...
Where there is plenty of thoughtful Considerate behavior towards each person's perspective ...
( the applause smiley ) ( the applause smiley ) ( the applause smiley )
So again I wish to share my appreciation for those who are, have, and most likely will continue
to keep this Community as it is ...
all the best !------------ Let us not be afraid to blaze new trails and know Jesus in new and different ways. Our pursuits are not our own; let us do them for him and God’s greater glory. ----------
Sorbornost --- Really enthusiastic for your ongoing insights and contributions !
here is an article I am reading now ...
opensourcetheology.net/node/2543
all the best !
before I forget .. I will make a brief note here ...
because I used to have all of my notes, research articles, and papers handy ....
Now during these years living in Asia ... I no longer have any of my previous Theological reference works
or books or articles... so my daily living was swallowed up and engulfed with the issues
of earning income, finding really good medical care, and getting along with those surrounding me ...
The "earning income" was really good during a peak years ago .... then slowly declined until
I said to myself --- I could remain in Taiwan for several more years but then what ?
So I moved to Guangzhou ... the 2008 -2010 troublesome economic "times" did not really have
much of an impact on my daily living although for others it did ...
finding "good medical care" was relatively easy since I lived in Northern Taiwan area ...
medical care is also relatively cheap there too ... in a similar vein as Canada there is
National Health Insurance .. so making payments yearly to receive and use the NHI card ...
doctor visits were only 100 NT dollars per visit then raised to 150 NT dollars per visit....
usually the prescriptive medicine was included ... Dental visits were the same price too ...
which made me feel super happy ... once when I had visited Anchorage I sought out a Dentist
to only "look" at my mouth but after visiting 5 Dental Clinics I finally found one ...
The Dentist had a relative living in Taiwan so was friendly enough to help me ... whereas
the others would have charged me 3,500 NT dollars only for a "look-see" wow....
my notes --- [orthodoxwiki.org/Chalcedon_(An_Analysis](http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chalcedon_(An_Analysis))
The Oriental Orthodox Churches, consisting of the Armenian, Coptic,
Ethiopian, Eritrean, Indian and Syrian Churches, did not accept the Council
of Chalcedon but upheld the original three Ecumenical Councils. They were
in turn falsely accused of following the heresy of Monophysitism.
Monophysites taught that Christ is solely Divine and that His humanity was
“swallowed up” by His Divinity. Oriental Orthodox are instead Miaphysites
following St. Cyril of Alexandria (and before him, St. Athanasius the Great)
who taught the “one nature (mia physis) of God the Word incarnate.” While
the prefix “mono” connotes numerical oneness, “mia” more accurately
conveys our doctrine of Christ’s composite oneness.
My concept and perspective of Christ's life is the same as above .. miaphysite
but then again ... much more later ...
all the best !
because daily living presents all of us with lots and lots of challenging dilemnas …
HI Hothorsegz -
Really interesting posts! So you are actually a teacher of/lecturer in theology - by the sound of things - and your knowledge is certainly deep. Hmmmmm… Well I’m a general humanities teacher so my knowledge is broad but not deep - which is why I posted the article about the Quest for the Historical Jesus - for the benefit of others and for the benefit of reminding myself
I’d actually still like to slow down a bit and think back over stuff that you and Jeremey (Redhot) have said about myth and literalism. I think middle age makes me slower than I once was
Blessings (and Tally ho )
Dick
So are you originally from mainland China?
Actually I am not a Lecturer in Theology ... although that was supposed to be my 'dream' job years ago ...
My original plan A was to be a Bible Teacher / Professor in some not famous Bible College somewhere
in the World...
But .. well.. that did not happen ... and so I went along with what happened at that time ...
I became a teacher but not of Theology ... :wink: I have been teaching English in a dynamic way
to Taiwanese and now in Mainland China -- before I had my own illegal classroom which the police
knew was there ... but unlike others who wish to have an illegal classroom I did not put up a sign
outside to try to attract more students ... nor did I print out brochures or pamplets and so on
to distribute to the teeming masses surrounding the area and within the City itself or there a bouts...
I got involved in DIY making of my own computers and setting up of edutainment courseware as well...
edu = education and the tainment you already got ... :stuck_out_tongue:
I also taught in the local university as well as teaching from all ages too .. including k-12 undergrad
graduate ... doctoral students n professors along with businessmen to...
at one job interview -- the american interviewer was deeply impressed with me ... told me i was
certainly a "shoe-in " but the President had just changed ... and this new nitwit attempting to
exert his new found power :unamused: told me that I was over qualified and under qualified .. :unamused:
Although living here within a Chinese cultural environment I am neither a ABC (american born chinese )
nor a reverse banana either ... as a joke a banana is someone who looks Chinese ( or maybe Asian )
on the outside and whose behavior is "white" on the inside ... <img src="/uploads/default/original/1X/15680453330e74f929b585a237613f0bdf61e069.gif" width="15" height="17" alt=":mrgreen:" title="Mr. Green"/>
However, my degrees are Theological degrees .... :laughing: :laughing:
thus at times in the past this situation did present some challenges during a typical interview...
because many schools -- whether small or big ... or at the High School level or University level
especially Universities ... because Universities want to attract new students from the degrees
that the New Teacher / Professors have...
And although I have extensive teaching experience for too many years ..
A Theological degree has very little honey to attract bees... <img src="/uploads/default/original/1X/15680453330e74f929b585a237613f0bdf61e069.gif" width="15" height="17" alt=":mrgreen:" title="Mr. Green"/>
Up until now we have had Myth ... Literalism .. and I sneaked in an article from Open Source Theology
and have been reading through articles by another Theologian
[postost.net/lexicon/hermeneutics-pictures](http://www.postost.net/lexicon/hermeneutics-pictures) Andrew Perriman who deals with
the The narrative premise of a post-Christendom theology
I think that his article here above .. illustrates what is hermeneutics as per most usages...
[postost.net/2011/03/why-evan ... onclusions](http://www.postost.net/2011/03/why-evangelical-biblical-scholars-hesitant-accepting-historical-critical-conclusions)
[postost.net/2011/02/kevin-de ... about-hell](http://www.postost.net/2011/02/kevin-deyoung-rob-bell-argument-about-hell)
[postost.net/quotation/james- ... tive-jesus](http://www.postost.net/quotation/james-dg-dunn/there-no-objective-jesus)
[postost.net/2011/01/message- ... e-sentence](http://www.postost.net/2011/01/message-bible-one-sentence)
Andrew as those who make comments call him .. has more than enough dynamic Passion for his
Theological views ... to say the least ... :stuck_out_tongue:
there is a link to the 25 messages on that webpage ... and no I am not enthralled or enthusiastic
with Andrew's own sentence either ... :stuck_out_tongue: but then again why would I ? :laughing:
I continually find intuitive insights by reading others ... which then flash like lightning strikes in the
darkened sky above me .. where by I am stimulated to have my own "flash bulb" intuitive
experiences which then propel me onwards to building up and developing my own personal Theological
concepts, proposals and paradigm ...
Now there is a reason that I continue to move onward or from a Literalistic intrepretation of the
Biblical Text ... a literal -- e.g. taking the NT text for example and attempting to elucidate
one static interpretation in defense of say ... Anabaptists separation from most of Society ..
or the stance of many Calvinist Reformed teachings ... or the Pentecostal experience of
spiritual "gifts" or the Wesleyean camp of "Holiness" or say of Fundamentalist Churches
with their own rigid dogmatic doctrines ... to me creates a huge headache...
meaning which "camp" is correct ? which "group" supposedly owns the deeds to so called "Truth"?
with such diversity present in too many different Church denominations or groups that belong
to the Literalistic interpretative of NT texts then there is a continual struggle for "authoritative clout"
over others ... constant bickering and constant enforcement of very aggressive stubborn
Hierarchical Trinitarian relations which then are followed by advocating this Hierarchical relationship
within the Church structure and between members of these Churches ...
There are simply too many within and without the Church as a whole ...
that very often complain at the diverse aggressive turmoils between so called "Christians"
who are supposed to be the ambassadors for a so called "Loving God" who also happens to
follow the "In the hands of an Angry God" type of sermon (Jonathan Edwards I think )
thus the relevance of any Hope of Reconciliation between those within and without the Church
seems very dim indeed....
I can easily demonstrate ( demonstration as in marching thru a city on a street )
in Central Guangzhou ... or even travel to Beijing or Shanghai or even Chongqing for that matter...
and I also can become a very fast Martyr too...
in the sense of --- One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
Most likely the second one would happen rather than the first unless I wished to be such a
aggressive evangelist for those tenets expressed by Literalistic interpretative readings of the NT text.
Which also very strangely enough have more than enough "ethnocentric baggage" from their
clutching too tightly of Fundamentalist Conservative views of American cultural living ...
But what benefit for the Church at large within this World would that have ?
probably barely a footnote in some newspapers or News...
probably a lot of acrimonious writings in Conservative News...
more acrimonious dealings in the Political realm as well...
notice the attitude and behavior ... acrimonious
I will give a list of fascinating sentences with one of my own concepts ... soon ...
Thus for me ... the Bultmann & Co. ( my nickname for a lot of Historical, Literary Criticism ... )
I cannot accept their "Demythologizing" of the NT texts .. because of their basic premise to begin with ...
I also continue to move onward ( not meaning "more correct or accurate in terms of attempting
to "win" at the Chess game or obtaining more "authoritative clout " over others )
and in a direction leaving behind a Literalistic hermeneutic ( even though I seldom used it anyway)
What I feel delight and enthusiastic excitement is finding that Miroslav Volf
stimulates my intuitive thinking about Life ...
and this article at wikipedia about him ... has made my intuitive insights sparkle like the
the experience of feeling awe at a clear night sky with radiant light from the myriad of stars
and the reflective sunlight off the moon ... creating an ebullient, effervescent, exuberant
reflection of the moonlight & stars upon a lake while sitting on the grass ...
[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Volf](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Volf)
The systematic contours of Volf’s theology are most clearly visible in Free of Charge. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, commissioned the book as his 2006 Lent Book.[9] Its immediate themes are giving and forgiving as two chief modes of grace, but the book is an accessible introduction and invitation to the Christian faith. In this work, the central themes of Volf’s work that receive more in depth treatment in other texts—God as unconditional love, the Trinitarian nature of God, creation as gift, Christ’s death on he cross for the ungodly, justification by faith and communal nature of Christian life, love of enemy and care for the downtrodden, reconciliation and forgiveness, and hope for a world of love—come together into a unity. Because it contains frequent reflections on concrete experiences, the book makes visible that Volf’s theology both grows out of and leads to a life of faith.
The dissertation was published as Trinität und Gemeinschaft: Eine Ökumenische Ekklesiologie (1996; translated into English as After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Triune God, 1998). Volf seeks to both show that a Free church ecclesiology is a theologically legitimate form of ecclesiology (a proposition denied by both Roman Catholic and Orthodox official teaching) and to give that typically individualistic ecclesiology focused on the Lordship of Christ a more robustly communal character by tying it to the communal nature of God. Volf takes Joseph Ratzinger (Catholic, current Pope Benedict XVI) and John Zizioulas (Orthodox, and a bishop) as his dialogue partners, and critiques their anchoring of the communal and hierarchical nature of the church in hierarchical Trinitarian relations (both thinkers gives primacy to the “One,” though each does this in a different way).[11] As an alternative, Volf proposes a non-hierarchical account of church as a community rooted in an egalitarian understanding of the Trinity (since hierarchy is, in his judgment, unthinkable with regard to three equally divine persons).[12] Each member of the church has “charisms” for the common good of all in the church, without the strict need of the “one” to symbolize and guarantee unity (though the “one” might be needed for pragmatic rather than dogmatic reasons). Volf’s position is not, however, that hierarchical forms of ecclesiology are illegitimate. Though not ultimately ideal, in certain cultural settings hierarchical forms of the church may even be the best possible and therefore preferable ways of reflecting in the church the Trinitarian communion of the one God.
In my thinking I followed a similar perspective with Particularity within Unity ...
The whole article should be read … with enthusiastic viewing …
Theology of Embrace — this area is profound as well…
as well as involved in the Artistic way …
Some of these texts were on issues at the intersection between faith and culture (as, for instance, those dealing with the religious dimensions of the poetry of the Serbian poet Aleksa Šantić, which were the seed for his first book, done in collaboration with the Croatian painter Marko Živković and titled I znam da sunce ne boji se tame “The Sun Doesn’t Fear Darkness”].
:smiley: :smiley: :smiley: I will be careful not to quote too much from the Wikipedia article....
If I followed the Literalistic Hermeneutic then I dare to say that I would probably not appreciate
the depth, breadth and length that Volf has achieved by integrating many areas into his Theology....
Also If I followed the Bultmann & Co. with its Demythologizing scheme .. then I would approach
Volf from Liberation theology viewpoint or from politics ... which in my mind greatly reduces
the awe inspiring aspect of developing a profound Theology based on a Trinitarian perspective ...
To follow a Literalistic viewpoint with Fundamentalist Conservative ( and at times full of
"ethnocentric " behavior ) then I could never appreciate the people I am surrounded by...
I could never give a Muslim a bear hug .. or smile frequently to .. or wink with .. or laugh with ..
or share my friendly heart with .... and I would probably feel quite annoyed with Chinese
socio-cultural living ... along with continued aggressive stubborn evangelizing
these people who need more of the so called american dream ... :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
am I pro Chinese ...anti American ? :laughing: :laughing:
I am neither ... and while living in Taiwan I deftly side stepped the political badgering
between the two main political parties and their zealous adherents ...
all the best!
hoping that your daily living is well and satisfying within your current sitz im leben
and thankful to the Father, the Son and the Spirit for blessings ...