Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:35:42.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Criticism versus Prophetic Proclamation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Hendrikus Boers
Hendrikus Boers
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A question which historical critical scholarship can no longer evade is whether it still contributes fundamentally to the strengthening of faith, or whether it is effecting its dissolution. Where biblical research continues to be done within the framework of Christian convictions, a crisis of identity threatens, since the historical critical approach with its related methodologies tends to dissolve the most fundamental assumptions of the New Testament Christian faith, namely, that salvation is possible only in relation to Jesus Christ. William Mallard focused sharply on this problem when he pointed out that even “when critical research supports a historical religious claim, the character and function of that claim is thereby undermined, and the past event in question loses the force of revelation.” In the same context J. Maxwell Miller argued that there could be no resolution of the conflict between critical inquiry and the biblical view of history because a historical critical understanding can have no place for God's repeated “intrusions” into the course of the Old Testament history. To use Mallard's formulation, a critical explanation for these divine intrusions into the Old Testament history effectively abandons the Old Testament understanding itself. According to Miller: “If the Jewish historian does not offer a natural explanation for the origin of the Exodus traditions, he is untrue to the critical method of historical research. If he does offer a natural explanation, he destroys the basis of his Jewish faith — i.e., that God intruded upon human history at the time of the Exodus and made a covenant with the fathers which applies even today. The same would seem to be true of the Christian historian who attempts to deal with the incarnation or the resurrection.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , July 1972 , pp. 393 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In a paper, The Impact of Historical Study on Theology, read at the Interdisciplinary Seminar on “History and Historicity” in the Division of Religion of Emory University in 1968/69. (Unpublished)

2 Op. cit., 10.

3 History and Historicity in Modern Theology: The Old Testament. (Unpublished)

4 Op. cit., 6.

5 Adloc.

6 Sackgassen in Streit um den historischen Jesus, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht [abbreviated EVuB. below], vol. II [1964], 31–68; Eng. tr., Alleys, Blind in the “Jesus of History” Controversy, New Testament Questions of Today, by Montague, W. J. (London: SCM Press, 1969), 23–63Google Scholar.

7 Op. cit., 51; cf. Eng. tr., 45.

8 Kritische Marginalien zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Frage nach Jesus, Fides et communicatio. Festschrift für Martin Doerne zum 70. Geburtsag, edited by Rössler, Dietrich (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970), 341–61Google Scholar.

9 Op.cit., 358.

10 Op. cit., 361.

11 Ad loc.

12 Zur Problematik theologischer Wahrheitsfindung, Theologische Literaturzeitung 95 (3. March, 1970), cols 161–72.

13 Op. cit., col. 166, quoting affirmatively from Steiger, Lothar, Die Wirklichkeit Gottes in unserer Verkündigung, Auf dent Weg zu schriftmässiger Verkundigung. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie, vol. 39 (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1965), 164Google Scholar.

14 Op. cit., col.s 167ff.

15 Op. cit., col. 166.

16 Op. cit., col. 168.

17 Op. cit., col. 167.

18 Journal of Religion 41 (1961), 194–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.

20 Zur Frage der Entmythologisierung, Kerygma und Mythos, ed. by Bartsch, H. W. (Hamburg-Bergstedt: Herbert Reich — Evangelischer Verlag [abbreviated KuM. below], Vol. III, 2nd ed., 1957), 51Google Scholar; now also in Jaspers, Karl and Bultmann, Rudolf, Die Frage der Entmythologisierung (München: R. Piper and Co. Verlag, 1954), 62Google Scholar; Eng. tr., Myth and Christianity, by (unidentified) (New York: The Noonday Press, 1958), 60Google Scholar.

21 KuM., Vol. III, 58; Die Frage der Entmythologisierung, 72; Eng. tr., 70.

22 Glauben, und Verstehen, . Gesammelte Aufsätze (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], [abbreviated GuV. below], Vol. I, 4th ed. [1961]), 101Google Scholar; Eng. tr., Faith and Understanding, by Smith, Louise (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1969), 132Google Scholar.

23 KuM., Vol. I, 4th ed. (1960), 37; Eng. tr., Kerygma and Myth, by Fuller, Reginald (London: SPCK, 1957), 29Google Scholar.

24 Op. cit., 39; Eng. tr., 31.

25 KuM., Vol. II (1952), 91.

26 KuM., Vol. I, 46. Cf. the reaction of Karl Barth to this statement in Rudolf Bultmann. Ein Versuch ihn zu Verstehen (Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 2nd ed. [1953]), 21Google Scholar.

27 EVuB., Vol. II (1964), 49f.; Eng. tr., 44.

28 Op. cit., 51; Eng. tr., 45.

29 Op. cit., 55 ; Eng. tr., 50.

30 EVuB., Vol. I, 203; Eng. tr., Essays on New Testament Themes, by Montague, W. J. (London: SCM Press, 1964), 34Google Scholar; cf. EVuB., Vol. II, 68; Eng. tr., 64.

31 Op. cit., Vol. II, 57; Eng. tr., 52.

32 Op. cit., Vol. II, 67; Eng. tr., 63.

33 Op. cit., Vol. II, 47; Eng. tr., 40f.

34 Op. cit., Vol. II, 54; Eng. tr., 49.

35 Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966; Eng. tr., The Testament of Jesus. A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 [London: SCM Press, 1968])Google Scholar.

36 Op. cit., 137; Eng. tr., 87.

37 Das Verhdltnis der urchristlichen Christusbotschaft zum historischen Jesus, SAH., Phil.-hist. Kl., Jg. 1960, 3. Abh. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1960), 21Google Scholar; Eng. tr., The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus, in Braaten, Carl and Harrisville, Roy (eds.), The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ (New York: Abingdon Press, 1964), 35fGoogle Scholar.

38 Ad loc.

39 Der Sinn der neutestamentlichen Christologie, Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1962 [2nd ed. 1967Google Scholar (abbreviated GS. below)]), 274.

40 GS., 276.

41 Ad loc.

42 GS., 277.

43 GS., 276.

44 GS., 277.

45 Ad loc.

46 Ad loc.

47 GS., 277.

48 GS., 280ff.

49 GS., 280.

50 GS., 280.

51 KuM., Vol. I, 46; Eng. tr., 41.

52 Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für die Frage nach dem Verhältnis des historischen Jesus zum kerygmatischen Christus, Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, ed. by Ristow, Helmut and Matthiae, Karl (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961), 147Google Scholar.

53 GS., 341; Eng. tr., The Problem of a Theology of the New Testament, by Sanders, Jack T., Journal for Theology and the Church, Vol. I (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 183Google Scholar.

54 Apol., 22 b7–c4.

55 Ion, 542 a4f.

56 E.g., Charm., 169 b1.

57 Cf. esp. 168 b1ff.

58 Op. cit., col. 166.

59 Although it has retained not much more than a preliminary function in, for example, the hermeneutic of Ernst Fuchs. Cf., e.g., the chapter, Das hermeneutische Problem, Marburger Hermeneutik (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1968), 30–38Google Scholar.

60 Cf. Diem, op. cit., col. 170.