It is important for us to have a clear idea of the meaning of history and its function in the formation of the Gospels in the context of the rationalistic vilification of their historical authenticity. As we have seen from the dates 6 B.C. to 37 A.D. given in the previous Post on 'The Real Jesus of History' , all of them do not have the same historical value and yet none of them can be rejected as unhistorical. This is because even those dates that may be doubted as to their historical accuracy are unreservedly supported by those that are clearly historical.
The crucial point we want to make here is that even genuinely historical events will be useless to us unless their interconnections, relevance, other events related to them etc., are presented to us by the historians themselves. The reason for this is that it is the historians alone, who had witnessed the events reported by them , who are able to see through those events and bring out their meaning for us. This means that some kind of interpretation of facts, supported by the self-understanding of the historian, is inevitable in every kind of historical narrative just as in our our everyday communication of ideas. In other words, there are no 'bare' or 'pure' facts to be scooped up by anyone! The biblical authors, especially the evangelists, had taken care to bring out the meaning of the facts they reported.. They expressed the significance of what happened in and through what happened using each one's peculiar views and style called their theology. In other words, they interpreted events to reveal their meaning that is of essential help in our own understanding of the same. Since this is the case even with secular history, how much more would it be applicable in the case of sacred history that does not restrict itself to time and space, but extends itself to the spheres of eternity too!
We refer to three historical events mentioned in our last Post, namely, Pilate was appointed by Tiberius Caesar in A.D. 25 as Prefect of Palestine, Sejanus was executed by Tiberius in A.D. 31 and Pilate was deposed and exiled by Tiberius in A.D. 36. Though they are seemingly three separate events, some connections and clarifications will assist our understanding not only of these events, but also of the nervousness of Pilate in the judgement of Jesus for crucifixion. Pilate was a friend of Sejanus who himself was friendly with Tiberius Caesar. This fact throws light on how a mere equestrian captain, the position of Pontius Pilate at the time, was suddenly elevated to the exalted status of the Prefect of a Roman Province. Due to some reason when Sejanus was suddenly executed by the Caesar in A. D. 31, Pilate found himself helpless without his political godfather in Rome. A ruler who was unsympathetic to the Jews till then doing what he wanted with them , Pilate found himself suddenly under immense pressure to keep his position safe when the case of Jesus came up for hearing. This background helps us to understand the ambivalent posture of Pilate with regard to the guilt of Jesus, especially as reported in the Gospel of John. Under the circumstances, the last thing Pilate wanted to hear was the insinuation from anyone that he was no friend of Caesar. The Jews took full advantage of this weakness of Pilate and solemnly announced that he was no friend of Caesar if he let Jesus go free who made himself a king. Although Pilate found Jesus to be innocent , he was forced to accede to the wishes of his accusers in order to keep his position as well as his life safe. However, since Caesar was fed up with complaints from the Jews about Pilate he had to depose and exile him to Gaul (France) in A.D. 36.
Before we end this section on the 'Jesus of History', a word of caution about our understanding of the Bible is in order here.It makes a lot of difference whether one views the Bible as the Word of God or otherwise, considering it like any other written text. It does not mean that being the Word of God no scientific rigor in investigations should be applied to it; on the contrary, the strictest methods of sciences are applied to it in the following manner. When it is taken as the Word of God we have to deal with two authors of the Bible, the divine as well as the human. Yet, usually we get to the intent of the divine author through the human author whose work may be submitted to all available scientific apparatus and methods available and appropriate for the scrutiny of the texts. By this method the intention of the human author we arrive at is also the intention of the divine author. The only exception we have to make is in the case of a few texts with a fuller and deeper meaning as in the case of prophecies, where the fuller meaning may not be immediately apparent even to the prophet although it is implicit in the texts themselves. This kind of intention of God would be made known in the fullness of time when the earlier texts take on a new meaning so far hidden from our understanding. The main example for this kind of texts is to be seen in those dealing with the mystery of Jesus Christ both in the Old Testament and in the New.
In this context,we must say that those who try to analyze the biblical texts purely as products of mere human authors are bound to be off the mark. A prime example of this kind of understanding may be seen in "The Da Vinchi Code" of Dan Brown. Although it is not a commentary on the Bible, but a novel at the end of which in the epilogue the main protagonist is made to see the whole experience as a dream, the air of scholarship injected into the discovery of the "Holy Grail" is truly deceiving. The author seems to be incapable of understanding any human relationship without the tag of sexuality attached to it even in the case of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Here we see how one's own self-understanding , standing as the basic tenet one necessarily falls back on for the purpose of every other understanding , is operative in the case of Dan Brown in his views on human relationships. As for his presumption that the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. under the influence of emperor Constantine imposed the four Gospels on the Church rejecting all others, we have already seen in our previous Posts how the four Gospels were selected as authentic by the whole Church much before the council of Nicaea. In this connection, we may point out the importance of intellectual honesty of scholars if they have really taken the pains to scan through historical records. Although David Strauss in his book "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined" roots for a mythological understanding of the Gospels, he has the intellectual honesty to admit that they derived from the Apostles. He notes that Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria and Tertullian testify that by the end of the 2nd century the four Gospels wee recognized by the church as writings of the Apostles and their disciples. This is in addition to the testimony of even earlier authors both in their own works and in quotations by other authors.
Having completed this section on "The Jesus of History", we shall move on to the next section on "The Christ of Faith" in the coming Posts with the warning that the two should not be seen as divided, but only distinguished for the sole purpose of analysis and understanding!
The crucial point we want to make here is that even genuinely historical events will be useless to us unless their interconnections, relevance, other events related to them etc., are presented to us by the historians themselves. The reason for this is that it is the historians alone, who had witnessed the events reported by them , who are able to see through those events and bring out their meaning for us. This means that some kind of interpretation of facts, supported by the self-understanding of the historian, is inevitable in every kind of historical narrative just as in our our everyday communication of ideas. In other words, there are no 'bare' or 'pure' facts to be scooped up by anyone! The biblical authors, especially the evangelists, had taken care to bring out the meaning of the facts they reported.. They expressed the significance of what happened in and through what happened using each one's peculiar views and style called their theology. In other words, they interpreted events to reveal their meaning that is of essential help in our own understanding of the same. Since this is the case even with secular history, how much more would it be applicable in the case of sacred history that does not restrict itself to time and space, but extends itself to the spheres of eternity too!
We refer to three historical events mentioned in our last Post, namely, Pilate was appointed by Tiberius Caesar in A.D. 25 as Prefect of Palestine, Sejanus was executed by Tiberius in A.D. 31 and Pilate was deposed and exiled by Tiberius in A.D. 36. Though they are seemingly three separate events, some connections and clarifications will assist our understanding not only of these events, but also of the nervousness of Pilate in the judgement of Jesus for crucifixion. Pilate was a friend of Sejanus who himself was friendly with Tiberius Caesar. This fact throws light on how a mere equestrian captain, the position of Pontius Pilate at the time, was suddenly elevated to the exalted status of the Prefect of a Roman Province. Due to some reason when Sejanus was suddenly executed by the Caesar in A. D. 31, Pilate found himself helpless without his political godfather in Rome. A ruler who was unsympathetic to the Jews till then doing what he wanted with them , Pilate found himself suddenly under immense pressure to keep his position safe when the case of Jesus came up for hearing. This background helps us to understand the ambivalent posture of Pilate with regard to the guilt of Jesus, especially as reported in the Gospel of John. Under the circumstances, the last thing Pilate wanted to hear was the insinuation from anyone that he was no friend of Caesar. The Jews took full advantage of this weakness of Pilate and solemnly announced that he was no friend of Caesar if he let Jesus go free who made himself a king. Although Pilate found Jesus to be innocent , he was forced to accede to the wishes of his accusers in order to keep his position as well as his life safe. However, since Caesar was fed up with complaints from the Jews about Pilate he had to depose and exile him to Gaul (France) in A.D. 36.
Before we end this section on the 'Jesus of History', a word of caution about our understanding of the Bible is in order here.It makes a lot of difference whether one views the Bible as the Word of God or otherwise, considering it like any other written text. It does not mean that being the Word of God no scientific rigor in investigations should be applied to it; on the contrary, the strictest methods of sciences are applied to it in the following manner. When it is taken as the Word of God we have to deal with two authors of the Bible, the divine as well as the human. Yet, usually we get to the intent of the divine author through the human author whose work may be submitted to all available scientific apparatus and methods available and appropriate for the scrutiny of the texts. By this method the intention of the human author we arrive at is also the intention of the divine author. The only exception we have to make is in the case of a few texts with a fuller and deeper meaning as in the case of prophecies, where the fuller meaning may not be immediately apparent even to the prophet although it is implicit in the texts themselves. This kind of intention of God would be made known in the fullness of time when the earlier texts take on a new meaning so far hidden from our understanding. The main example for this kind of texts is to be seen in those dealing with the mystery of Jesus Christ both in the Old Testament and in the New.
In this context,we must say that those who try to analyze the biblical texts purely as products of mere human authors are bound to be off the mark. A prime example of this kind of understanding may be seen in "The Da Vinchi Code" of Dan Brown. Although it is not a commentary on the Bible, but a novel at the end of which in the epilogue the main protagonist is made to see the whole experience as a dream, the air of scholarship injected into the discovery of the "Holy Grail" is truly deceiving. The author seems to be incapable of understanding any human relationship without the tag of sexuality attached to it even in the case of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Here we see how one's own self-understanding , standing as the basic tenet one necessarily falls back on for the purpose of every other understanding , is operative in the case of Dan Brown in his views on human relationships. As for his presumption that the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. under the influence of emperor Constantine imposed the four Gospels on the Church rejecting all others, we have already seen in our previous Posts how the four Gospels were selected as authentic by the whole Church much before the council of Nicaea. In this connection, we may point out the importance of intellectual honesty of scholars if they have really taken the pains to scan through historical records. Although David Strauss in his book "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined" roots for a mythological understanding of the Gospels, he has the intellectual honesty to admit that they derived from the Apostles. He notes that Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria and Tertullian testify that by the end of the 2nd century the four Gospels wee recognized by the church as writings of the Apostles and their disciples. This is in addition to the testimony of even earlier authors both in their own works and in quotations by other authors.
Having completed this section on "The Jesus of History", we shall move on to the next section on "The Christ of Faith" in the coming Posts with the warning that the two should not be seen as divided, but only distinguished for the sole purpose of analysis and understanding!
No comments:
Post a Comment