There is a more complicated reason for distrusting the biblical history, especially concerning Jesus Christ, than the one mentioned in our last post about personal reasons when confronted with him. It concerns about the question known as the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. This question arose only after the 15th century as a byproduct of rational investigations summarily known as the period of Enlightenment. Before this period nobody had any doubts about the authenticity and historicity of the events narrated in the New Testament. However, different types of scientific investigations into the historical data narrated concerning the life of Jesus purportedly tended to undermine their authenticity. The specific reason for the same was due to a complete separation of the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.
It was true that the scholars undertook this separation for the sake of analysis, that was legitimate in itself, and then neglected to reunite them as if they were dealing with two persons. They wanted to separate history from theology even though the subject concerned,i.e., Jesus Christ, could not be so divided as there was only one person and not two. It took no less a person than Albert Schweitzer to put the Rationalists in their place by his observation that the little we could gather from the Rationalists was irrelevant to Theology. This was Schweitzer's considered view after a thorough study of the Rationalists in his book "The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede" published in 1906. This forced the later historians of Jesus' life to bracket questions of theology as they saw that what was genuinely relevant to theology could not be fully based on merely a historical quest. In other words, when Jesus of history is amenable to historical investigations more readily than the Christ of faith, the latter is not completely out of bounds of history. Faith in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that constituted him as the Christ of faith had to be initiated by God in the believers that was not completely devoid of any historical antecedents. Hence, for the purpose of analysis if Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are taken apart, one should not forget to join them together as is demanded by the integral picture of Jesus Christ.
However, there are certain weighty questions which need to be answered to aid the search for truth by honest seekers. A few are mentioned below:
1. The Gospels were written down between 70 and 100 A.D. and could a gap of more than 40 years from the events narrated affect the credibility of the historicity of those written down texts?
2. What about certain discrepancies in the 4 Gospels although they seem to report the same events?
3. What is more, even in the synoptic Gospels that are supposed to be governed by the same perspectives, there are differences, which need explanation.
4. John's Gospel starts with the Word of God-Logos-incarnating in human flesh. How is it different from the mythological interpretations of such events in other religions?
5. Did the miracles recorded in the Gospels really take place? If so, why are they not happening now?
6. After the resurrection of Jesus and the reception of the Holy Spirit by the disciples at Pentecost, they were totally changed persons. How could what they reported about the life of Jesus be authentically historical as they were bound to reinterpret the events in light of their new experiences?
7. Why did the Church pick and choose only the 4 Gospels while there were many more that were rejected?
8. How can anyone claim universal relevance for the message of the Bible that was restricted to a small corner of the world known as Palestine?
9.How can we know the mind of Christ expressed 2000 years ago since what we have got now is the mind of the Church representing Jesus Christ even in interpreting the Bible?
10. Is it claimed that the transformation of Jesus into Christ is historical and is there any method of verification for such claims?
We shall consider these questions in the next posts whereby the historicity of the events narrated in the Gospels and their meaning would become clear.
It was true that the scholars undertook this separation for the sake of analysis, that was legitimate in itself, and then neglected to reunite them as if they were dealing with two persons. They wanted to separate history from theology even though the subject concerned,i.e., Jesus Christ, could not be so divided as there was only one person and not two. It took no less a person than Albert Schweitzer to put the Rationalists in their place by his observation that the little we could gather from the Rationalists was irrelevant to Theology. This was Schweitzer's considered view after a thorough study of the Rationalists in his book "The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede" published in 1906. This forced the later historians of Jesus' life to bracket questions of theology as they saw that what was genuinely relevant to theology could not be fully based on merely a historical quest. In other words, when Jesus of history is amenable to historical investigations more readily than the Christ of faith, the latter is not completely out of bounds of history. Faith in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that constituted him as the Christ of faith had to be initiated by God in the believers that was not completely devoid of any historical antecedents. Hence, for the purpose of analysis if Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are taken apart, one should not forget to join them together as is demanded by the integral picture of Jesus Christ.
However, there are certain weighty questions which need to be answered to aid the search for truth by honest seekers. A few are mentioned below:
1. The Gospels were written down between 70 and 100 A.D. and could a gap of more than 40 years from the events narrated affect the credibility of the historicity of those written down texts?
2. What about certain discrepancies in the 4 Gospels although they seem to report the same events?
3. What is more, even in the synoptic Gospels that are supposed to be governed by the same perspectives, there are differences, which need explanation.
4. John's Gospel starts with the Word of God-Logos-incarnating in human flesh. How is it different from the mythological interpretations of such events in other religions?
5. Did the miracles recorded in the Gospels really take place? If so, why are they not happening now?
6. After the resurrection of Jesus and the reception of the Holy Spirit by the disciples at Pentecost, they were totally changed persons. How could what they reported about the life of Jesus be authentically historical as they were bound to reinterpret the events in light of their new experiences?
7. Why did the Church pick and choose only the 4 Gospels while there were many more that were rejected?
8. How can anyone claim universal relevance for the message of the Bible that was restricted to a small corner of the world known as Palestine?
9.How can we know the mind of Christ expressed 2000 years ago since what we have got now is the mind of the Church representing Jesus Christ even in interpreting the Bible?
10. Is it claimed that the transformation of Jesus into Christ is historical and is there any method of verification for such claims?
We shall consider these questions in the next posts whereby the historicity of the events narrated in the Gospels and their meaning would become clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment