People find it difficult to accept that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead could be part of history. It is true that by resurrection the dead body of Jesus was transformed into a spiritual body suffused with the Holy Spirit as a result of which it may seem that the transformed Jesus could not be part of history. This problem shall be dealt with extensively in our future posts about the Christ of faith and the interaction between faith and reason in the Gospel narratives. Here we just want to call attention to the fact that the risen body of Jesus is neither purely historical nor purely transcendental, but a harmonious blending of both in such a way that it is at home both on earth and in heaven His appearances after the resurrection to the disciples and the modes of his interaction with them prove this point. Some biblical scholars like Rudolf Bultmann were ready to easily accommodate the Rationalists by keeping 'history' at a safe distance from 'faith' as is seen from their distinction between 'historie' (' the events of the past as they are' in German) and 'geschichte" ('the meaning and relevance of past events for our life' in German). As a result, Bultmann was willing to concede that the resurrection of Jesus was historical in the sense of "geschichte", but not of "historie" where it did not take place. We shall not be surprised by this kind of distinction given the rationalistic assumption that resurrection of Jesus meant a resuscitation of his body like in the case of Lazarus, for example. These two kinds of returning to life are qualitatively different as in the case of Jesus it was a permanent state, whereas for Lazarus it was only temporary as he was destined to die again. Not only that the risen Jesus is in a permanent state, but also his body was transformed from the physical to the spiritual plane, unlike in the cases of resuscitation of bodies. Bultmann arrived at such conclusions as he took over the concept of 'myth' propounded by D. F. Strauss a century earlier and applied it to interpret the New Testament without defining the concept of 'myth', thereby losing focus on the import of the Bible texts interpreted. We have already shown in our previous posts why history and meaning of history cannot be completely segregated as they belong together, although they may be distinguished for the purpose of analysis.
Webster defines history as "acts, ideas or events that will or can shape the course of the future". Given this definition, it is clear that there are no better historical records with us than the New Testament and especially the four Gospels. However, the allergy shown by some scholars to those records arise from the fact that they are written from a perspective of faith in Jesus Christ that is their theology. We are of the view that there is no history worth its name without some perspective or other and a theological perspective in the Bible does not detract from its historical value. This is particularly true as we are aware of those perspectives, which helps us to pinpoint the truly historical elements in those texts. It does not mean that each time we may succeed in sifting through the texts of the Bible in order to locate the historical as distinct from the statements of faith. It is enough that we know those statements are rooted in, though not caused by, historical facts in their general outlines. Historical facts can only be an aid or an occasion for faith that always comes from God as a gift that is not based on merit but always as grace out of His mercy. An historical investigation cannot destroy faith as faith is about the meaning of history and not about the facts of history. This is true in reverse too in as far as faith cannot destroy historical facts since it neither adds nor takes away anything from history, but only supplies meaning to historical facts.
As for the method of verification of the fact of the risen body of Jesus, unlike that of Lazarus, for instance, we shall hold the view that it is restricted to the believers in the crucified Jesus and not immediately open to the general public that refuses to follow the way of the cross. If the message is meant for all without any distinction of religion, caste, language, sex, culture etc. why is it restricted to believers only? Because all are welcome to follow Jesus by self-denial and carrying one's own cross to find fulfillment of one's own life(Mark, 8:34) and they are the true believers in Jesus Christ. The primary aim of verification is to establish the meaningfulness of the proposition that Jesus has risen from the dead after which alone the fact of resurrection can be approached. For meaningfulness of any proposition , including those of empirical sciences, the requirement is the possibility of verification and not actual verification of the propositions concerned.(See John Padinjarekutt,"Meaning and Verification in Wittgenstein", in BEIJDRAGEN, 1974). In this regard, the meaningfulness of a proposition of the type "Jesus rose from the dead" has the same verifiable value as that of "Julius Caesar was a Roman emperor".
After a proposition is seen to be meaningful, one may proceed to its actual verification for establishing its genuineness as belonging to the body of knowledge we have constructed. (See John Padinjarekutt, "The Meaningfulness of Theological Statements", in BEIJDRAGEN, 1975).
Webster defines history as "acts, ideas or events that will or can shape the course of the future". Given this definition, it is clear that there are no better historical records with us than the New Testament and especially the four Gospels. However, the allergy shown by some scholars to those records arise from the fact that they are written from a perspective of faith in Jesus Christ that is their theology. We are of the view that there is no history worth its name without some perspective or other and a theological perspective in the Bible does not detract from its historical value. This is particularly true as we are aware of those perspectives, which helps us to pinpoint the truly historical elements in those texts. It does not mean that each time we may succeed in sifting through the texts of the Bible in order to locate the historical as distinct from the statements of faith. It is enough that we know those statements are rooted in, though not caused by, historical facts in their general outlines. Historical facts can only be an aid or an occasion for faith that always comes from God as a gift that is not based on merit but always as grace out of His mercy. An historical investigation cannot destroy faith as faith is about the meaning of history and not about the facts of history. This is true in reverse too in as far as faith cannot destroy historical facts since it neither adds nor takes away anything from history, but only supplies meaning to historical facts.
As for the method of verification of the fact of the risen body of Jesus, unlike that of Lazarus, for instance, we shall hold the view that it is restricted to the believers in the crucified Jesus and not immediately open to the general public that refuses to follow the way of the cross. If the message is meant for all without any distinction of religion, caste, language, sex, culture etc. why is it restricted to believers only? Because all are welcome to follow Jesus by self-denial and carrying one's own cross to find fulfillment of one's own life(Mark, 8:34) and they are the true believers in Jesus Christ. The primary aim of verification is to establish the meaningfulness of the proposition that Jesus has risen from the dead after which alone the fact of resurrection can be approached. For meaningfulness of any proposition , including those of empirical sciences, the requirement is the possibility of verification and not actual verification of the propositions concerned.(See John Padinjarekutt,"Meaning and Verification in Wittgenstein", in BEIJDRAGEN, 1974). In this regard, the meaningfulness of a proposition of the type "Jesus rose from the dead" has the same verifiable value as that of "Julius Caesar was a Roman emperor".
After a proposition is seen to be meaningful, one may proceed to its actual verification for establishing its genuineness as belonging to the body of knowledge we have constructed. (See John Padinjarekutt, "The Meaningfulness of Theological Statements", in BEIJDRAGEN, 1975).
No comments:
Post a Comment