As I was reading this, I suddenly started thinking about the Medjugorje children- are they deceivers ,or deceived, or is it the truth?
Like all Christian theologians, I want my resurrection-faith to be based on truth and to be intellectually tenable. I want to "get it right". Feeble and question-begging arguments such as that presented above actually undermine people's faith.
The above argument has no bearing on the question of the historicity of the early tomb, since there is no evidence that the apostles (including Paul) spoke of the empty tomb.
Some NT scholars, taking their cue from Mark/Matthew rather than Luke (who changes the Mk/Mt angel's message about a Galilee appearance because his Gospel makes no reference to such an appearance) suggest that the disciples fled to Galilee at the time of Christs arrest and there experienced the encounters with the risen One mentioned in the tradition Paul repeats in the mid 50's (1 Cor. 15).
It is further hypothetized that the empty tomb tradition, originally involving no resurrection appearances and no presence of apostles at the tomb, originated in Jerusalem. It figures in Mark (followed by Matt and Luke) and John -- texts composed between 70 and 100 AD.
So serious NT scholars are not accusing the Apostles of lying. On the contrary, they are trying to uphold the apostolic witness to an encounter with the risen one, truly risen from the dead, as Paul insists. If the empty tomb tradition had been part of their original proclamation, it is strange that Paul makes no mention of it at all in 1 Cor. 15, where it would have greatly strengthened his argument against those who denied the resurrection of the dead.
Actually, the argument above would be OK except for the passage interpolated by Philip Blosser. The apostolic witness resumed in 1 Cor 15 can be defended by the above argument (though the word "detailed" is a bit misleading). Indeed, I have frequently used this form of the argument myself. Paul himself speaks as a direct witness of an appearance of the risen Christ. It is impossible to believe he intends to deceive. It is possible to believe that he and the other witnesses were deceived, but note that one category of witnesses, a group of 500, could not be easily deceived. That the experience of these witnesses was no hallucination is avouched by the wider context, the power and joy that filled the early community etc.
As to the status of the empty grave traditions, one needs to go to N. T. Wright for what are presumably the best current defences. If you stretch the Pascalian argument to cover them you both weaken the argument, making it invalid in fact, and also provide such a feeble support for the empty grave that you undermine its credibility.
It is an interesting hypothesis that the apostles fled Jerusalem, and thus did not witness the empty tomb. Yet we will never be able to know for certain, will we? The tradition of the empty tomb is part of the deposit of Christian faith. If we are faithful Christians, we know that the tradition of the empty tomb is true and intellectually tenable, no matter what doubting scholars might say.
If anyone has a copy of Ratzinger's book On the Way to Jesus Christ, make haste to page 61, where Ratzinger makes a stinging criticism of the biblical hermeneutics so lauded by Fr. O'Leary and Realist Former Convergent.
'As to the status of the empty grave traditions, one needs to go to N. T. Wright for what are presumably the best current defences.'
Actually, no. N.T. Wright is great, yet in matters of faith and biblical interpretation, the faithful "pew peasant" should turn, not to the community of biblical scholars, but to the magisterium of the Church, which remains the true apostolic witness to all that Jesus said and did. When in doubt, turn to the Church, not to some self-appointed biblical "expert". That's not fundamentalism. It's called being a faithful Catholic.
Wouldn't it have been a bit pointless to talk about the empty tomb when the authorities had put it around that the body had been stolen by the disciples?
I mean, SVII is talking as though the fact that St Paul and the Apostles didn't mention it in their reported sermons meant that they didn't know about it, or that it was irrelevant, or (SVII’s apparent preference) that it didn’t happen at all (I apologise if I've misunderstood his argument); but surely it could equally imply that the empty tomb was the one thing everyone, from the Apostles to the Sanhedrin, took for granted: the subject of preaching had to be WHY the tomb was empty--ie, the Resurrection. Or, of course, the theft of the body. (Add in any of the other slightly weird ideas which have floated around over the centuries – a revival in the cold of the tomb, or a substitution on the cross, or whatever.)
Perhaps an analogy would be useful?
At the moment in this country (the UK) there are all sorts of rumours and conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in September 1997. When you read these articles, you're told (for instance) that the Government instructed MI5 to have her wiped out; or that Prince Charles, her ex-husband) arranged her death with the SAS - or whatever. Very rarely will you read an account of the actual way she died, in a car crash in Paris - because that's the bit which everyone agrees on. The interesting bit - the part of the affair which people try to convince others of - is the reason for the crash.
Exegetical "proofs" aside, the denial of the empty tomb seems to undercut many Catholic devotional practices. The idea that Christ's body decomposed in the tomb while his "spiritual" body made its rounds in Galilee makes nonsense of devotion to the Sacred Wounds of Jesus, to give one example.
Let us call to mind here a portion of Cardinal Newman's meditation before the Eucharist:
'I acknowledge and confess that I kneel before that Sacred Humanity, which was conceived in Mary's womb, and lay in Mary's bosom; which grew up to man's estate, and by the Sea of Galilee called the Twelve, wrought miracles, and spoke words of wisdom and peace; which in due season hung on the cross, lay in the tomb, rose from the dead, and now reigns in heaven.'
There is an essential continuity to Jesus' humanity -- earthly life, death, resurrection, and glory -- that is assumed in Newman's faith and prayer, which crumbles if the empty tomb was not historical fact. I'll say it again: to entertain the notion that Christ's body rotted in the tomb is worse than heresy -- it is blasphemy.
Dave:
Excellent point. If the Apostles had "an encounter" with the Risen Jesus, but His body was still in the tomb, how could He invite Thomas to put his hands into His wounds? Ghosts don't eat, fish or otherwise.
I'll apologize in advance for presuming to speak for Fr. O'Leary, but I think that he might reply that Jesus indeed appeared to Thomas in his glorified body, yet we should not assume that this glorified body was "literally" the same body that was laid in the tomb.
Now, we will all agree that the glorified body that appeared to Thomas is not "literally" the same body that was laid in the tomb, in the sense of being merely a reanimated corpse. Yet I suspect that Fr. O'Leary is saying something more than this. He seems to posit (or at least allow for) a fundamental discontinuity between the body in the tomb and the body that appeared to the disciples. The resurrection faith of the Church, on the other hand (as beautifully expressed by Newman), simply cannot admit of such a discontinuity. The true resurrection faith involves the idea -- the reality -- that Thomas, when he beheld the wounds of Christ, was beholding the SAME wounds that were inflicted on Calvary, the SAME sacred body that hung on the cross, the SAME Jesus who suffered and died, yet who now is utterly transformed into the very glory of God.
Where one stands on this issue has enormous practical consequences for our faith, not least our attitudes toward the sacrifice of the Mass.
Elsewhere Fr. O'Leary suggests that the real meaning of the Emmaus story is perhaps 'that the most real encounters with Jesus are ones that happen without our being aware that we are meeting him -- encounters with our neighbor, with suffering, with justice.'
This is quite an ironic reading of the Emmaus story, a story which has the most profound Eucharistic implications. It is certainly not a reading that would be taken seriously by Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. I mention Blessed Teresa because no one disputes the fact that she was all about meeting Jesus in 'encounters with our neighbor, with suffering, with justice.' Yet what often gets overlooked is the fact that personal devotion to our Eucharistic Lord was the bedrock of Blessed Teresa's external works of charity. Indeed, the life of Blessed Teresa is the very embodiment of the structure of the encyclical Deus Caritas Est, which affirms that priority of the first of the Great Commandments and the dependence of the second commandment upon the first.
My point is that it is no accident that Fr. O'Leary would a) allow for the possibility that our Lord's body decomposed in the tomb, b) consider social charity to be the most "real" way to meet the Risen Jesus, and c) exhibit a studied ambivalence toward the sacrificial nature of the Mass (recall his circumlocutions elsewhere about the meaning of "sacrifice" and his rather scornful attitude toward those who yearn for the traditional Mass). As I said above, there are significant practical consequences attendant to our understanding of what truly constitutes a resurrection faith.
Light and clarity -- Pope Benedict's Easter Vigil homily is available:
http://www.vatican.va/
holy_fathe...asquale_en.html
'At Easter we rejoice because Christ did not remain in the tomb, his body did not see corruption ...'
'Of what exactly does this "rising" consist? What does it mean for us, for the whole world and the whole of history? A German theologian once said ironically that the miracle of a corpse returning to life - if it really happened, which he did not actually believe - would be ultimately irrelevant precisely because it would not concern us. In fact, if it were simply that somebody was once brought back to life, and no more than that, in what way should this concern us? But the point is that Christ’s Resurrection is something more, something different. If we may borrow the language of the theory of evolution, it is the greatest "mutation", absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its development: a leap into a completely new order which does concern us, and concerns the whole of history.
'The discussion, that began with the disciples, would therefore include the following questions: What happened there? What does it mean for us, for the whole world and for me personally? Above all: what happened? Jesus is no longer in the tomb. He is in a totally new life. But how could this happen? What forces were in operation?'
Read on!
Grazie, Santo Padre!
Of course the empty tomb fits our concepts of the resurrection perfectly, but that is the very reason why people doubt it -- it is too redolent of apologetical fiction. Now I would like as much as any of you to believe that it is NOT apologetical fiction, but the argument of people like N T Wright to that effect would be more persuasive if he more frankly recognized that there is a lot of apologetical fiction in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (as perhaps he does). Matthew's story of the guard at the tomb (whose unhistoricity was shown in the 18th century) -- (developed shortly after in the "Gospel of Peter", where Jesus himself is taken out of the tomb by two angels) -- is clearly part of this trajectory toward apologetical elaboration, as is the story of Jesus eating to show he is not a ghost. The empty tomb is, of course, much better attested than these. But when people argue that every detail of the resurrection narratives is literally historical, even when they conflict, they undermine belief rather than build it up.
The statement from Benedict XVI that the resurrection is not the mere reanimation of a corpse but a step into an evolutionarily higher plane of existence is admirable, fitting the world of Eugen Drewermann (is he the theologian Benedict refers to?) and Teilhard de Chardin much better than it fits the world of inerrantist harmonizers.
What a joy to have a Pope who is versed, and deeply versed, in German theology (that is, far and away the most important theology of the last three centuries)! I am more and more becoming a fan of Benedict, much as I disliked his activities as Prefect of the CDF.
Not only is Benedict's one of the best Easter sermons I ever read, it also contains one of the best assurances of what our own "life after death" might be: ""I live and you will live also", says Jesus in Saint John’s Gospel (14:19) to his disciples, that is, to us. We will live through our existential communion with him, through being taken up into him who is life itself. Eternal life, blessed immortality, we have not by ourselves or in ourselves, but through a relation - through existential communion with him who is Truth and Love and is therefore eternal: God himself. Simple indestructibility of the soul by itself could not give meaning to eternal life, it could not make it a true life. Life comes to us from being loved by him who is Life; it comes to us from living-with and loving-with him. I, but no longer I: this is the way of the Cross, the way that "crosses over" a life simply closed in on the I, thereby opening up the road towards true and lasting joy."
Note that Benedict plays down "simple indestructibility of the soul by itself", though not going as far as Barth, who claims that following the Old Testament we must see man as intrinsically mortal.
Benedict, to be sure, stresses the empty tomb and that Christ's body did not see corruption. Personally, I also want to believe that this is literally true. But even if it were not, I think the risen and glorious body of Christ would still be an explosive reality, one that all of us will participate in.
However, I do not want to be a sycophant. If Benedict is referring to Drewermann in his reference to the German theologian, I must say that I find this a false note in his sermon. It is a throwback to Benedict's activities as Prefect of the CDF, activities that I believe he should in large part be repentant for. Attacking a colleague in an Easter sermon is low.
By the way Drewermann wrote a novel "The Last Days of Giordano Bruno" which contains a pen-portrait of Ratzinger (as Bellarmine). One wonders if Ratzinger read it?
Still, if Drewermann is the person alluded to, the allusion is not, after all, so terribly hostile: "A German theologian once said ironically that the miracle of a corpse returning to life - if it really happened, which he did not actually believe - would be ultimately irrelevant precisely because it would not concern us." What makes the allusion, if such it is, potentially nasty is the Church's actual treatment of Drewermann -- a prophet dishonored.
Found this on http://forums.catholic.com/showt...ead.php?
t=42996
'There is a mistake in this letter, which is unfortunately notorious in the English speaking world. The letter wrongly claims that Germany's most-read Catholic theologian alive today, "Eugen Drewermann, questioned the Virgin Birth and the reality of the Resurrection. He was expelled from the priesthood." Drewermann questioned neither the reality of the Virgin Birth nor of the Resurrection. He just argued that these doctrines have nothing to do with biological speculations. Also, Drewermann was not expelled from the priesthood but only silenced, which is a different thing altogether. In fact, Drewermann dedicated an entire book supporting the truth of the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth. It appeared in English under the unfortunate title Discovering the God Child Within: A Spiritual Psychology of the Infancy of Jesus (Crossroads Publisher). A very good overview of Drewermann's attempts to emphasize the healing power of Christian faith can be found in the recently published first English introduction to his work by Matthias Beier, A Violent God-Image: An Introduction to the Work of Eugen Drewermann (New York-London: Continuum, 2004).
A poor argument for the empty tomb narratives is that since their theological content is so slight they cannot be theological narrativizations but must be historical reports.
In reality the theological content of Mark 16.1-8 is quite high, and of course in a late development of the empty tomb tradition such as we find it in John 20 the theological content is massive.
"So serious NT scholars are not accusing the Apostles of lying."
Yeah, they're merely saying that the Apostles didn't tell the truth.
According to a most ancient tradition -- the only tradition the ancient Church ever had, in fact, and one that was cited by Vatican II as proof that the four Gospels were written by apostles and disciples of apostles -- two of our Gospels were written by Apostles, while the other two were written by disciples of Apostles. When we read the Gospels, we're reading the words of men who saw and touched and heard Jesus, or by men who lived their lives with eyewitnesses of Jesus the Risen Lord.
I find John E. Alsop, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel-Tradition, Stuttgart, 1974 instructive. He see the kerygma strand, the empty tomb strand, and the appearance-narratives as three originally independent traditions. He finds the oldest core of the appearance-narrative in the following: "1. He comes (and speaks) to them; 2. The disciples' reaction is recorded: partially acceptance, partially scepticism; 3. The risen One is recognized as Jesus the Lord by the disciples." Apparently this original core did not specify the LOCATION of the appearances, so that Mk-Matt locate them in Galilee and the source of Lk-Jn locates them in Jerusalem.
Fr. O'Leary, I am glad that we share an admiration for Pope Benedict XVI, despite our disagreement on various issues. Here is an excerpt from Benedict's Ubi et Orbi message:
'"He is not here . . . he is risen." The heavenly messengers announce first and foremost that Jesus "is not here": the Son of God did not remain in the tomb, because it was not possible for him to be held prisoner by death (cf. Acts 2:24) and the tomb could not hold on to "the living one" (Rev 1:18 ) who is the very source of life. Like Jonah in the belly of the whale, so too Christ crucified was swallowed up into the heart of the earth (cf. Mt 12:40) for the length of a Sabbath. Truly, "that Sabbath was a high day", as Saint John tells us (Jn 19:31): the highest in history, because it was then that the "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mt 12:8 ) brought to fulfilment the work of creation (cf. Gen 2:1-4a), raising man and the entire cosmos to the glorious liberty of the children of God (cf. Rom 8:21). When this extraordinary work had been accomplished, the lifeless body was suffused with the living breath of God and, as the walls of the tomb were shattered, he rose in glory. That is why the angels proclaim "he is not here", he can no longer be found in the tomb. He made his pilgrim way on earth among us, he completed his journey in the tomb as all men do, but he conquered death and, in an absolutely new way, by an act of pure love, he opened the earth, threw it open towards Heaven.'
Fr. O'Leary, I sincerely pray that our beloved Pope's deep FAITH will inspire you to stop doubting and over-analyzing, and simply believe.
The angel's words in Mk 16.7 "he goes before you into Galilee, there you shall see him" are a regarded by all critical exegetes (l'ensemble des critiques) as a later addition to the empty tomb tradition, for they resume Mk 14.28 "after my resurrection I will go before you to Galilee" (themselves added to the surrounding text). Thus Xavier Leon-Dufour SJ, Resurrection de Jesus et message pascal, Paris, 1971 (which has an Imprimatur), p. 151.
(Both statements are taken over by Matthew. Luke changes the angel's statement, eliminating any reference to a Galilee appearance, and doesn't retain the earlier statement.)
"the lifeless body was suffused with the living breath of God and, as the walls of the tomb were shattered, he rose in glory."
It may have been like that, but where did he get "walls" -- I think all the Gospels refer to a stone at the mouth of the tomb, that was rolled back, not shattered. I check: Mk 16.3-4; Mt 28.2; Lk 24.1; John 20.1. Moreover, the women (and in John, the two disciples) inspect the tomb and see the place where he lay. I suppose the Pope was misled by the reference to an earthquake (fictional) in Matthew. It is rather disappointing to find such obvious inaccuracies in a papal message.
One of the reasons the gospels of Matthew and John cannot have been written by the apostles so named is that their accounts of the apostles' meeting with the risen Lord are so clearly in conflict. In Matthew there is no Jerusalem meeting, in John no Galilee meeting (Jn 21 being by another hand). (Even if Jn 21 is taken into account, the meeting in Galilee is called the third meeting, by a lake, whereas in Matthew the first and only meeting is on a mountain. Also if Matthew, the apostle, is the author, it is strange that he relies on Mark for so much of his material, including the "I go before you into Galilee" statements). But this is arguing about the obvious.
It is so easy to make mistakes in discussing the resurrection traditions. Swinburne, in his The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford, 2003) says: "there is just one formal credal-type statement of to whom Jesus appeared in the New Testament, which is contained in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-8" (p. 147). But Luke 24:34 seems to be an echo of the kerygma tradition: "The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon."
Swinburne admits the variety of the resurrection accounts, due to divergences arising in oral tradition in the course of time. But he asks "is it any more divergent of accounts of much else in the life and Passion of Jesus"? (p. 14
. In fact, Alsop calls the appearance-narratives "a gospel complex, which compared to other gospel narratives has no parallel -- outside perhaps of the birth narratives -- in terms of its fluid character and wide-ranging variety" (p. 162).
If Mk had meant to deny an appearance to Mary Magdalene, Matt or John would not have added it, since both had a strong motive for attributing the first appearance to Peter (says Swinburne, p. 154). (Luke doesn't add it.) But would they have had this motive? Not at all clear. John's Gospel revels in privileged communications to women -- the Samaritan, Martha -- and outcasts -- the paralytic, the blind man.
Squaring the Jerusalem and Galilee traditions, Swinburne opines that the appearance to Thomas could have happened in Galilee (though Jn 20.26 strongly suggests that the apostles are in the same room as a week before). In reality, the Thomas story is a characteristic Johannine theological composition; no critical NT scholar takes it as historical.
Swinburne sees the easter appearances as taking place in this order:
Easter Sunday: Mary Magdalene, the Emmaus disciples, Peter, the Eleven (or only some of them, in Swinburne's view) -- in Jerusalem.
The 500, a church assembly, in Galilee -- which is what the "go before you into Galilee" text of Mk/Mt was referring to. Also the appearance to James and to the Eleven including Thomas take place in Galilee. Also the appearance at a lake (which John 21 mistakenly called the third, a late redactional slip according to Swinburne) and the appearance at the end of Mt 28.
Then back to Jerusalem for a last appearance to all the apostles and the Ascension.
The problem with this is that it shows no interest in the literary character of the texts and just puts the events together as if they were all straightforward literal happenings. The adjustments he has to make are very strained and again bespeak little interest in the literary integrity of the gospel authors.
Swinburne notes references to resurrection from the dead which do not entail the disappearance of the dead person's body from the tomb, but he misses the most important of these, namely, the disciple's statement to Jesus that some think he is John the Baptist (risen from the dead) in Mk 8.28; Mt 16.14; Lk 9.19.
Leon-Dufour comments that the tomb traditions are "marginal in relation to the central tradition of the appearances" (p. 167). This dedramatizes the quarrel about the empty tomb somewhat.
More, Leon-Dufour says that the tomb traditions "did not wish to report that the empty tomb was seen and that the resurrection was then believed in; they show that faith in the Resurrection was not born from the discovery of the empty tomb, but from the heavenly message; their aim is not properly biographical, but theological. In the tomb which symbolizes Death, God, through his angel, announces to the community that he has resurrected Jesus from among the dead; and, through the same mouth of the angel, the community celebrates the act of God triumphing over Death" (p. 16. Later the tomb was connected with an appearance of Jesus (Mt, Jn) or even became itself a proof of resurrection ("saw and believed", Jn 20.. The NT contains no "argument from the empty tomb" as a "proof" of the resurrection; it is rather a sign to be interpreted -- interpreted by Jesus himself. If Paul knew of the empty tomb, "this memory did not seem to him indispensable nor even useful to assure the fact of the resurrection of Jesus" (p. 170). "On its own, the event of the empty tomb is without value. The Christian believes not in the empty tomb, but in the risen Christ" (p. 171).
'In Jewish thought, the sepulchre was not the equivalent of our cemetery, but symbolized Sheol to which the dead had descended: "The Ur-grave we might call Sheol... Where there is grave there is Sheol, and where there is Sheol, there is grave" (L. Pedersen, Israel, 1926, I, p. 462)". ... the stone put aside symbolizes the defeat of Sheol" (p. 155).
R H Fuller was one of the most influential writers in my days as a student: his view that "the earliest church did not narrate resurrection appearances, but proclaimed the resurrection" is contested by William P Alston (a philosopher) in The Resurrection, ed Davis et al., who denounces Fuller for a massive argumentum ex silentio.
The point that supports Fuller most against Alston is the late dating of the detailed appearance narratives in Luke and John. Even Matthew does not contain real appearance narratives, as Fuller rather convincingly argues. The Galilee appearance in Mt is an address from the glorified Christ to the Church. The appearance to the women at the tomb is a doublet of the angel's appearance. So there does seem to be a development.
Alston gets rather heated, as N T Wright also does -- which can be taken as indicating a weakness in their arguments.
Alston admits that the risen Jesus cannot have given a commission to the apostles to preach to all nations, since if he had there would have been no problem about the Gentile mission. Fuller would probably say that the resurrection appearances did not involve any verbal message of Jesus to the apostles. It must be noted that such messages as are attributed to the risen Jesus are all recyclings of what he said during his earthly ministry (and in the style used by the respective evangelists in describing that ministry -- e.g. what Jesus says to the disciples at Emmaus is very Lukan).
Alston, though his disagreement with Fuller, is only a moderate one, ends up talking of Fuller's "hidden agenda" -- the sort of polemical phrase that biblical scholars never resort to when addressing one another.
So many words, so much in the way of intellectual vanity, so little in the way of the child-like faith that Jesus recommends. (Or did Jesus really recommend child-like faith at all, since most of what he "said" is fictional anyway?)
Fr. O'Leary,
As a theologian, you should know that theology, not biblical criticism, is "credo, ut intelligam". As a Catholic theologian, you should know that biblical criticism is subordinate to theology, and that theology is subordinate to the faith of the Church as defined by the apostolic witness of the magisterium.
You have turned all of these relationships on their head, making everything subordinate to biblical criticism.
Since you so heartily dislike Ratzinger's work as prefect of the CDF, you will not want to be reminded of the principles set forth in the instruction Donum veritatis. All the more reason to post it here.
http://www.vatican.va/
roman_curi...ocation_en.html
It is, I think, a salutary reminder.
'Fuller would probably say that the resurrection appearances did not involve any verbal message of Jesus to the apostles. It must be noted that such messages as are attributed to the risen Jesus are all recyclings of what he said during his earthly ministry (and in the style used by the respective evangelists in describing that ministry -- e.g. what Jesus says to the disciples at Emmaus is very Lukan).'
This statement is simply astounding. Jesus rose from the dead but he didn't SAY ANYTHING to his disciples???????
There is no explanation for this but a defective faith. This is not faith seeking understanding. It is faith in an advanced state of decay.
I am sorry, but there is simply no basis here for further discussion. Fr. O'Leary, I will pray for your soul.
And so Dave at last comes to the same conclusion as many others who once tried tangling with the penetrating mind of Fr. Joe O'Leary.
I think now is an opportune moment to quote The Bard. "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
In the end all of us "cradles" must make the same profession required of our converting bretheren: I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church to be revealed by God. If we can't do that, whether we wear Roman collars or not, we should at least be intellectually honest, apostasize, and go live in delicious sin. For hedonistic excess before the impending doom of non-existence strikes me as the only tenable alternative to the Faith witnessed by the Church, biblical scholarship (especially over the last few hundered years) be damned.
Correction: "all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God."
Typos just absolutely kill a good bout of high dudgeon.
*sigh*
This is Great Friday for those of us who are Orthodox; Pascha is this Sunday. As I stand in church through the long night service, awaiting the glorious Resurrection, I will greet all in this way: Christ Is Risen! I pray that all will respond: Truly He Is Risen!
Truly he is risen. The tomb cannot hold him.
What a joy to have a Pope who is versed, and deeply versed, in German theology, indeed, but also has a discerning nose and can distinguish between a good German Franziskaner and rotting weisswurst.
"Spirit," you deserve the privilege of receiving the royal smackdown put on your ideas, and I sincerely regret that I cannot give more fully of my time at present in assisting in the bestowing of that honor upon you. Be assured, however, of your deserts.
The biblical scholars' notion that a biblical author's religious faith or apologetical motives disqualify his text as having any substantial authenticative value is simply ludicrous. How Aristotle would laugh: What, disqualify the testimony of those very individuals in the community who are partisans of virtue and truth??? What a throwback to the logical positivist myth of value-free facticity! And you read Heidegger?
To Dissenting Priests
"It is your duty to to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other."
--from Christian Apologetics by C.S. Lewis, Easter 1945.
(Reprinted in God in the Dock pp. 89-90)
"Alston gets rather heated, as N T Wright also does -- which can be taken as indicating a weakness in their arguments."
Or passionate belief--something that can be intimidating or alternately attractive.
Count the messages, in a row, from Fr. O'Leary.
It's worth noting that we are in the presence of someone who hopes to comment-bomb this blog. On those grounds, surely, he should be eliminated from "contributing" here.
If you have something to say, say it. Dont try to silence others. I have now redrafted all the above comments in an essay to be posted in my own blog.
Sorry that you find the biblical texts so disappointing, Dave, but in point of fact the risen Jesus does not say anything substantively new in any of the four gospels, and in each of them he speaks exactly the language that he has spoken earlier in the Gospel -- Lukan language in Luke, Johannine language in John. No need to get on a high horse about this.
Strange that no one here seems interested in reading the gospel texts I have been discussing. Instead I find (understandably enough to be sure, it is the reaction I also had when first faced with these issues thirty-five years ago) reactions of fear and hatred. Examine your hearts, folks. Don't mistake het-up rhetoric for the serene conviction of faith.
C. S. Lewis might regard Peter Carnley as a dissenting priest, since he says we cannot be sure about the empty tomb or even about the objective reality of the resurrection appearances. Yet Carnley is the Anglican Archbishop of Perth. No doubt the Anglican Church regards the following expression of resurrection faith (taken from Carnley) as sufficient: “St Paul speaks about, and indeed continually celebrates, the continuing _presence_ of the raised Christ as Spirit, for ‘the last Adam has become a life-giving Spirit’ (I Cor. 15: 45)… This provides us with an additional datum in the cognitive nucleus of faith, an additional empirical anchor for faith, for which we urgently need an epistemology so as to explain how it is possible to identify and know the Spirit, not just as the Spirit of God in some very general sense, but s the living Spirit of the remembered Jesus,the crucified one” (p. 39).
Church teaching might be invoked to make certain what history on its own leave uncertain, as in the case of the virginal conception of Jesus. But it could be argued that the Church’s kerygma of the Resurrection and the belief in it urged by Jesus to Thomas in John 20.27 does not concern primarily the empty tomb or the nature of the appearances; belief that the crucified one is active among us as a life-giving Spirit, in his glorified body present in a special way in the Eucharist and in his mystical body the Church contains the essence of orthodox resurrection faith; the exact status of the empty tomb and even of the appearances remains secondary to this.
Carnley writes in the same peaceful, non-truculent style as Sarah Coakley, who refutes the empiricist positivism of philosopher of religion W. Alston. Significantly, both are Anglican clergy. Perhaps the Anglicans are the ones with the most to teach us about how to discuss these difficult topics with a spirit of mutual charity, quiet faith and responsible open-minded inquiry.
Anyone wishing to pursue this discussion is invited to join me at http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...esurrectio.html. But please refrain from irony and jeering, otherwise Da Rulz #1 may come into play.
Archbishop Carnley (Perth 2000-2005)
The whole question, he continued, is how we read ancient texts: "The fallacy of direct transferrance, as I would put it, is the fallacy that you can take an ancient text... and imagine that it can say the same thing to us today in our context (as in the first century). We bring an agenda to the texts which colours the way we hear them."
The current struggle between conservative and other forces in the churches was a struggle about the texts and how we use them, he maintained.
In 1987, Archbishop Carnley's scholarly study, The Structure of Resurrection Belief, was published by Oxford's Clarendon Press. Hardly extreme by the norms of international scholarship, the book nevertheless attracted some controversy.
"Fundamentalist people, with a surface reading of Scripture, are the ones who would find my views difficult", he said. "But my views on the Resurrection are the views of orthodox Christianity.
"The empty tomb was a sign of the Resurrection, not a proof, because an empty tomb can be explained in other ways. If you look at the Gospel records, the women in fact did not believe on the evidence of the empty tomb. They were very perplexed and went away disbelieving.
The body of Jesus, Archbishop Carnley continued, was transformed, not just resuscitated like the bodies of Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nain. The transcendant aspect of the raised Christ is very important to orthodox Christianity. The raised Christ can appear anywhere, and can be encountered by anyone; the raised Christ will never die again.
The actual events of Easter Day, however, remain a mystery. There was no witness to the Resurrection inside the grave, and it is extremely difficult to answer historical questions about the Resurrection event, because of the limited historical evidence available.
"The important thing for Easter faith is that the risen Jesus can be encountered now. The fundamental question that has to be faced by theologians is the one I tried to face in my book - how do we identify a reality encountered in the present - the spirit of Christ - as the spirit of the remembered Jesus?"
Father O'Leary:
I'm not trying to silence anyone. You will undoubtedly fill up the pages of your blog with the nonsense you display here on a regular basis. My point, however, is that quantity isn't a substitute for quality. It is exhausting trying to read through your posts. If you could make them more thoughtful and more brief, I'm sure I speak for most everyone here when I say we would be grateful.
"Perhaps the Anglicans are the ones with the most to teach us about how to discuss these difficult topics with a spirit of mutual charity, quiet faith and responsible open-minded inquiry."
I LOVE it! So funny it should have come at Christmas instead of Easter--what a marvellous e-present it would make for friends and family. Jolly old Spirit!
First, on the grounds that it comes from an Irishman. De-LISH-us!
Second, on the grounds that, yes, the Anglicans are obviously teaching us a GREAT DEAL about how to discuss difficult topics--they are atomizing before our eyes. The New Yorker just had a wonderful piece about the last agonizing stages of their self-destruction.
I wonder that Fr. O'Leary, like many brilliant people, can't seem to get any perspective on his own ideas. He's so convinced that he's several steps ahead of hoi polloi that he needn't reexamine what he's saying and thinking. This is the tough crust that seems impossible to penetrate. He doesn't know how to really LISTEN. This is yet another area in which he is very different from Joseph Ratzinger.
Do you, Fr. O'Leary, ever even WONDER if the "Fundamentalists" might be right?
If by fundamentalists you mean harmonizing biblical literalists, as a student or literature and a theologian I have no cause whatever to wonder if they might be right; their wrongness has been demonstrated a million times.
If in your ironic posting you mean to say that I consider defenders of the historicity of the empty tomb to be fundamentalists, you plainly have not read any of my own postings. I do not consider the defence of the empty tomb to be fundamentalist and as I have frequently said it may well be the truth. All I say is that agnosticism on this score cannot be ruled out and should not be lambasted as heresy. The empty tomb is probably a later tradition than those attested by Paul, and it is a tradition of which Paul shows no knowledge, though it would have helped his argument in 1 Cor. 15.
And what is all this sneering and jeering at our sister church about? I admire Anglicans for their sincere faith, openness to questions and to dialogue, and mutual charity. The New Yorker piece does not present a contemptible picture of this great faith community, if this is the piece you mean http://www.newyorker.com/online/
...on_onlineonly01.
I do not see how such contempt toward the Anglican Communion is compatible with Vatican II's urging of every Catholic to partake in ecumenism.
As to your reference to Irishness in this context, do you not see that you are thereby subscribing to the tribal sectarianism that has taken 3500 lives in Northern Ireland?
See the following person http://www.templechurch.com/page...hurch/
index.htm
He has a very good review of an anti-resurrection book in the TLS April 14. He says:
"We study the Easter stories as if they purported to tell of events as straightforward as the sowing of a field of corn; and we assess them for a straightforward truth or falsehood. But their authors, it may be, were less naive than we are. They may have been addressing a need we no longer imagine we have: the need for the readers, due to be confronted with anything so strange as the resurrection, to be brought to a special understanding equipped to understand it".
The whole of the New Testament is our initiation into this resurrection-world and we need literary as well as spiritual sensitivity to respond to its language.
I will say this about Fr. O'Leary. I admire his courage in standing firm and alone in his convictions (and he is pretty much alone on this blog) against a host of adversaries, myself included. If I cannot agree with his methods or his conclusions, I can at least admire his charity. He has taken some hard slaps (perhaps deserved from a theological point of view) and has turned the other cheek more than once.
"I do not see how such contempt toward the Anglican Communion is compatible with Vatican II's urging of every Catholic to partake in ecumenism."
But "Fundamentalists" (i.e., the vast, vast majority of Christians in all times and places) can be jeered at constantly and dismissed with the airy phrase, "proved wrong a million times."
His pals gotta get respect, but not our pals.
Dave, I think most of what Fr. O'Leary is doing is talking to himself. You have to have some realization that other people EXIST and ADDRESS them and LISTEN to them.
He ALWAYS dances around the really tough questions, sets up his own "fundamentalist" dogmas while sneering at those of others.
Just to take a tiny example: the earthquake in Matthew's resurrection narrative. It isn't "probably" fiction. O'Leary isn't just himself convinced it's fiction. It simply IS fiction. If you disagree, you're either a "fundie" or you don't know how to read. Oh, those opinions? They've been proved wrong a million times.
Well, there are plenty of people who sneer at the mere belief in God with just as much plausibility as O'Leary sneers at Gospel earthquakes. And plenty who sneer at any fussing with the Bible at all if you're going to end up with the thin gruel that Father retains after his demythologizing. But all of it, ALL of it, leaves Fr. O'Solipsist totally untouched.
Well, any student of literature, looking at the four gospel stories, even independently of historical plausibility, would conclude that the two earthquakes in Matthew are fictional (which of course for a literary student is never a bad thing -- and note that Vatican II advises us to take seriously the literary genre and conventions of the sacred authors). In addition to the two implausible earthquakes there are the attendant phenomena to the first one, not otherwise anywhere recorded: "the rocks were split and the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints who slept rose up and levaing the graves after his resurrection [?!] they came to the holy city and appeared to many".
To say that literalist harmonizers represent the vast majority of Christians is incorrect. The vast majority of Christians may be content with a surface reading of the texts (though this is hardly true of educated Christians anymore) but confronted with the tortured reasonings of the harmonizers they would probably agree that a natural and sensible reading of the texts, attentive to the spiritual symbolism, in the spirit of Dei Verbum, better corresponds to their faith.
You know perfectly well that there have been PLENTY of students of literature and of everything else who have believed that the events recounted in the Gospels were literally true. In fact, it never occurred to believers to doubt any such thing until very recently.
The idea that if something is recounted in one Gospel "but not anywhere else" is some sort of PROOF that it's an addition cobbled on later is almost indefensible as a historical reading of documents. Parallel historical texts have discrepancies not only because of "fictional additions", but because one historian remembered or was told something that the other one was not or a whole host of other reasons that no serious person could deny. This is obvious to historians, though not always to "scripture scholars."
Someone with an ounce, a TITTLE, a JOT, of intellectual humility would simply say, "This smacks of fiction to me for reasons X, Y and Z. I doubt I'm wrong, but of course, I might be." The arrogance and bad faith of modernists is revealed by the fact that they wildly oversell their theories and sneer at anyone who doesn't accept them.
Fr. O'Leary:
As a former Anglican, I can tell you that contempt and pity are entirely appropriate. That said, Effective tools for evangelization do not include satire of Anglicans -- too many of them won't understand that it is meant to be satirical. Karl Keating caused such a stir with his "Ash Wednesday moved to nearest Sunday by USCCB" headline. Too many Anglicans, for whom Gene Robinson is just another step toward meaningful compromise, "The Anglican Way of avoiding schism" -- simply can't hear the Truth.
It took my wife saying to me "You acknowledge the Catholic Church, and yet you somehow refuse to join it!" many years ago to bring me to my senses. I'm tremendously grateful to her for this.
Non-attestation elsewhere is of course not proof of non-historicity.
To the rest, I can only say that since critical reading of Scripture begun in the 17th century the historicity of such details as those in question was very quickly put in doubt -- by believers too, not only by Enlightenment atheists with axes to grind.
'Pere Richard Simon and English Biblical Criticism, 1680-1700'
Justin A.I. Champion
Department of History,
Royal Holloway College,
University of London.
Corresponding with Limborch in September 1685 about the thorny issues of textual integrity and inspiration raised by Leclerc's rebuttal of Richard Simon's writings, John Locke pinpointed the critical problem: 'if everything in holy writ is to be considered without distinction as equally inspired by God then this surely provides philosophers with a great opportunity for casting doubt on our faith and sincerity. If on the contrary, certain parts are to be considered as purely human writings, then where in the Scripture will there be found the certainty of divine authority, without which the Christian religion will fall to the ground'. Establishing criteria or measures of critical judgement in these matters was a question and task of the 'utmost degree fundamental'. Locke himself entertained doubts and anxieties about the authenticity of different parts of the canonical works long before he had read Leclerc: he hoped he might be relieved of such scruples by careful examination of Scripture. Criticism and scholarship was then a means for Locke a necessary, important and powerful solvent of textual ambiguity: so powerful that it must be used piously and discreetly. Devout scholars of the Church of England like Bishop Brian Walton, Henry Hammond, Bishop John Fell and John Mill, had all applied their learning to preserving the original scripture in the massive volumes of criticism and textual editions that were published between the late 1650s and the 1670s. From the colossus of the Polyglot Bible (6 volumes, 1656-165 which brought together the work of many leading scholars under the general editorship of Brian Walton, through the multi-volume folios of the Critici Sacri (10 volumes, 1660) co-ordinated by Bishop John Pearson, to the only relatively short abridgement of current criticism found in the presbyterian Matthew Poole's Synopsis Criticorum (4 volumes, 1669-76) and its English abridgement that went through many editions after its first in 1683 (folio, 2 volumes), the orthodox were not afraid of criticism, simply very meticulous and cautious. The controversial points of scholarship (the various readings, the debates about interpolations, prophetic inspiration and vowel points) were all firmly locked away in the Latinate language of the elite. Indeed much of Brian Walton's anger at the attacks the Independent divine John Owen made upon the Polyglot Bible was because he conducted the debate in the vernacular, opening difficult and dangerous matters to an ignorant and easily confused audience. Criticism was important but it had to be careful, decorous and godly or else it fall into the pits of impiety and atheism. So for example, although the works of Hobbes and Spinoza raised genuine points of criticism and scholarship about the historicity and textuality of S
Scripture, their work was almost uniformly reviled as corrupt and atheistical: since neither Leviathan (1651) nor the Tractatus Theologico-policitus (1670) bore the marks of true criticism, they could be dismissed as ungodly without detailed rebuttal. The work of the French Oratorian priest Pere Richard Simon (1638-1712) posed a set of more profound and complicated discursive problems: it was both learned and potentially corosive of all scriptural certainties.
Richard Simon, published his most controversial work, the Histoire critique du Vieux Testament [HCVT] in Paris in 1678. Much to his genuine surprise, the work raised fierce opposition from the powerful figure of Bossuet who had only been shown a selection of the text and an index of its contents. Having examined the pre-publication samples Bossuet declared 'that the book was a mass of impieties and a rampart of freethinking'. Consequently virtually the entire print run was destroyed in late July 1678, only a few copies escaping (as we will see below) to England and Holland for later publication. The first complete and unhindered French edition of the work was finally published in Rotterdam by Reinier Leers in 1685 complete with additional material in response to two of his early critics Charles de Veil and Frederic Spanheim Jnr. Although disgraced in France, Simon continued his work on Scripture and importantly published (almost simultaneously in French and English) the first volume of the Histoire Critique du texte du Nouveau Testament [HCNT] in 1689 which was followed up by two further tomes (on the manuscript traditions and New Testament Commentaries and the Church Fathers) between 1690 and 1693. As well as researching materials for his critical works Simon was also preparing for his own edition of the New Testament and editing works on the Greek orthodox church and the history of ecclesiastical revenues. Simon was then a man of staggering erudition.
As author of critical histories of the Old and New Testaments the title of the father of Biblical Criticism is commonly confered on Simon: it is the suspicion of this author that Simon is perhaps more commonly referred to than actually read. With the exception of a few important works there have been a slim collection of major studies of Simon's life and works. Most of the more recent French studies have been concerned to preserve Simon's reputation as a pious and orthodox Catholic against charges of irreligion. With the exception of a handful of chapters and articles anglophone scholarship has almost entirely ignored any profound engagement with either his life and works, and perhaps more importantly the history of the reception of his ideas in England has been shamefully ignored. Much of the historiography has treated Simon either as simply Catholic apologist or radical antiscripturalist. More recently Simon has been placed in a far more complex variety of contexts: Lebrun and Woodbridge have exposed the depth of his in
Lebrun and Woodbridge have exposed the depth of his involvement with Protestant circles in Charenton in the mid-1670s, while other scholars have explored his intimacy with Rabbinical circles and the 'Karaites'. One simple route scholars might have taken, and still can, into the complex and multi-confessional world that Simon inhabited (and in some sense constructed) is to explore his printed correspondence. The Lettres Choisies (revised edition, 4 volumes, Amsterdam 1730) reveal a series of connections and exchanges with all varieties of men from arch-heretics like Isaac la Peyrere to obscure Englishmen, and Protestant refugees. A combination of historiographical myopia and perhaps linguistic disability has meant that this resource for emploting Simon's intellectual geography has been neglected. French historians of ideas have perhaps not written about Simon's reception on anglophone shores because of an intuition that it might not add any insight to understanding his work. English historians have long been notorious both for avoiding the history of ideas, or insisting that anything of worth stopped at the cliffs of Dover. Late seventeenth century intellectual culture was far more cosmopolitan and permeable than its modern replacement.
Exploring the English reception of Simon's works, and indeed the network of personal associations made by him with English figures and residents, will both illuminate and throw into relief Simon's own thought, but also bring us back to how and why Locke and Newton could appropriate his work to their own purposes. On the 19th of March 1682 a worried John Evelyn wrote to John Fell, Bishop of Oxford: he wished to highlight 'to how great danger and fatal consequences the 'Histoire Critique', not long since published in French by Pere Simon, and now lately translated (though but ill translated) into English, exposes not only the Protestant and the whole Reformed Churches abroad, but (what ought to be dearer to us) the Church of England at home, which with them acknowledges the Holy Scriptures alone to be the canon and rule of faith'. Simon's work, continued Evelyn, boldly set out not only to 'unsettle but destroy' the certainty of Scripture. According to Evelyn the work was very successful: 'it hugely prevails already'. The fatal mischief was created because the work was not perceived as a work of 'some daring wit, or young Lord Rochester revived', but because the 'learned' author was regarded as 'a sober and judicious person'. Indeed Evelyn insisted that the work was a 'masterpiece' of criticism: 'the man is well studied in Oriental tongues, and has carried on his project with a spirit and address not ordinary amongst critics'. The resultant work was however pernicious. While it was difficult to know 'whether he really be a papist, Socinian, or merely a Theist, or something of all three', the product of his work was to undermine holy scripture: 'he tells the world he can establish no
he can establish no doctrines or principles upon them'. Evelyn's purpose was to prompt (indeed implore) Fell to encourage the 'pens and Chairs' of Oxford on 'all occasions to assert and defend the common cause'. An English edition of the HCVT had appeared in late 1681: it was not however the first sight of the text in the country. Paradoxically it was to England that two of the few surviving copies of the original 1678 imprint of HCVT came: it was from these copies that the faulty edition of Amsterdam (1680) and the later English versions were made. The story of its importation to British shores highlights some of the ambiguities of contemporary understandings of the status of Simon's work. In contradistinction to Evelyn, the man responsible for bringing the HCVT to England, Henri Justel (1620-1693), although a pious Protestant who became a refugee in England in late 1681, thought the work was of potential worthy purpose.
The connection with Justel brings Simon's work physically and intellectually close to English circles: Justel was not merely a correspondent with Simon but also John Locke. In March and April 1678 Justel wrote to Henry Compton, Bishop of London who had long established links with Protestant communities on the continent. Justel was sending copies (on Simon's instructions) of the HCVT to both Compton and Clarendon, men whom had made the author's acquaintance in Paris: but he was concerned to prepare the ground for their reception. He was well aware that the book might generate fears and doubts: 'son ouurage est attendu parce quil est hardi'. Justel hoped that some able English speaking critic might be able to accomodate Simon's work to pious purposes. Justel's ambitions were frustrated: the man he thought might be suitable to explain Simon's work to the English speaking world, Charles Marie de Veil, indeed published a swift and hostile response in French (translated into English in 1682 to counter the translation). Justel had corresponded with Simon since early 1672; he was to continue doing so after he left Paris for England in mid 1681 until 1686. These letters are ample testimony to the potential for critical dialogue between the Simonian position and Protestantism. In the course of their exchanges they discussed matters concerning ceremonies in the Greek Church, rabbinical learning and matters of textual criticism. Simon made enquiries about whether Justel might procure copies of difficult to obtain books from his friends in London and Oxford. Simon described the Jewish literature held in the Oratorian library, discussing at some length the Karaite commentary on the Pentateuch he had used. Indeed Simon, commented that he was addicted to reading the rabbinical scholarship in the library: he even tried to ration his time spent. Simon was keen to know what treasures lay in the English archives in comparison with the holdings available to him in France. Simon discussed the fiasco of the censorship of his bo
censorship of his book in some detail with Justel, disputing the motives and privileges of his oppressors. Simon was also clearly intrigued by the diversity of religious practice in England. Justel had reported that he had attended Anglican, Puritan and Anabaptist places of worship: Simon commented rather ruefully perhaps pondering his own situation 'les Angloise sont de grand chercheurs en matiere de religion'. The main significance of this correspondence is to be found in its continuity. Justel still manifested interest in Simon's work in the 1690s. He kept up his connection with the critic even after the hostile reception both the French and English editions of the HCVT received. Contrary to Evelyn's assertions and anxieties, a man like Justel did not feel either communication with Simon, or a championing of his work, would compromise true religion.
That other Englishmen had a similarly relaxed interest in Simon can be established by exploring the relationship between Henri Justel and John Locke. Again there is another surprising irony embedded in the connection. John Locke on his travels in France between 1675 and 1679 took every opportunity to converse with men of learning. One of the enduring associations he made was with Nicholas Toinard whom he met at Henri Justel's house in June 1677. It was Toinard who had forwarded samples of Simon's work to Bossuet which had resulted in the pulping of the volumes. Locke met with Justel frequently in France: their intimacy was such that Justel not only recommended Locke places and sights to see but also supplied him with a bibliography of important works to examine: unfortunately it does not contain any mention of the HCVT. That Locke knew of Justel's connections with Simon is clear: Toinard had written to Locke reporting 'une petite brouillerie au sujet du P. Simon exoratorian' at Justel's house. Just as he had written to Compton to find a man who might be able to communicate the non-controversial elements of the HCVT, so Justel also asked Locke whether he could suggest anyone who might make such a response to Simon's efforts, which he described positively as 'un recueil de lettres qui sont pleines d'erudition Rabinesque et dautres choses curieuses'. References to the HCVT litter their exchanges: Locke had presumably asked the Frenchman to get him a copy of the work. On the 15/25 November 1679 Justel wrote to an impatient Locke, 'vous avez a la fin L'Histoire critique de la Bible avec une anticritique qui sera bonne et qui vaudra la Critique: mais il faut attendre encore un peau et avoir patience'. In May 1680 Justel announced to Locke 'le livre du Pere Simon est imprime en Hollande', before continuing to comment that the responses of Spanheim and others had been 'tres bien faicte et tres exacte'. By June 1681 Locke most likely had a copy of the 1680 HCVT: the subject of his exchanges with Justel still concerned Simon, but had moved on from the HCVT to his edition of Leon
edition of Leon of Modena's book on Jewish religious ceremonies. Evidence from Locke's library catalogue shows that he had a full range of Simon's works, owning both the 1680 and 1685 editions of HCVT. Further manuscript sources show that Locke indeed read the HCVT carefully and took notes.
for the rest see: http://www.rhbnc.ac.uk/~uhra026/...026/
simon2.html
I just note in Schweitzer that one of the greatest Christian theologians, Schleiermacher, writing in 1832, entertained the possibilities launched in 18th century rationalizing theologies, going so far as to say that he has no interest in deciding whether the resurrection was a supernatural event or the reanimation of an apparently dead man, and even, it seems, holding personally that Jesus met his disciples without having really died.
This is much further from orthodoxy than the settled conviction of many exegetes today that, even though we cannot be sure of the historicity of the empty tomb, we can accept the testimony of the apostles that the risen Christ was present in his glorified body to the early Church. I must reread the Schleiermacher Easter sermon recently posted on my weblog with a more suspicious eye.
David Friedrich Strauss was the person who brought Christians face to face with the question of the historicity of Gospel narratives in its modern form. Though the literary analysis has improved since his time, his way of putting the questions remains at the origin of the church's ongoing search for an honest and perspicuous appropriation of the sources.
Schleiermacher dismisses completely Matthew's account of the opening of graves at the moment of Christ's death as a poetical representation stuck into the simple narrative of the passion. Schweitzer comments, "one imagines one is listening to Strauss"! (This particular passage, in other words, prompted Schleiermacher to a more modern literary-historical critical grasp than he usually has.)
Schweitzer's chapter on Strauss begins seductively: "One must love Strauss in order to understand him. He was not the greatest and not the deepest among theologians, but he was the most honest (das wahrhaftigste)."
Is this Fr. O'Leary's monologue?
Chris,
The answer is 'yes.' One must enjoy Goethe and Mozart to appreciate what Fr. O'Leary means here, I'm afraid, for beyond it's poetic and aesthetic nuances, it has little substance. I mean, would you look to Shirley MacLaine to sort out your tax forms for you? J.J. Rousseau was a poetic soul, too, who liked to walk in the woods and commune with himself; but he was also prone to write things like: "The reader cannot expect me to be clear and consistent at the same time." Indeed. The author of the Social Contract who began by pointing out that all me are born free and everywhere in chains, ended by suggesting that religious dissenters should be subject to capital punishment. Um ... yeah ... About as bright as Eric Pianka.
Some of those who Fr. O'Leary calls the greatest Christian theologians of history may have been "great," by some standard, but they may still have been poor as theologians as judged by the standards of the Church. In fact, some of them for whom O'Leary has expressed admiration may be called "Christian" only in the vague sense that they address the subject of Christian theology, not in the sense that they themselve are professing Christians. Not, at least, in any sense that has any continuity with historical Christianity or recognizably Catholic understandings of the term. God bless you!
My problem, Philip, is that my eyes can only tolerate so much screen whizzing by before they cease to make sense. Accordingly I have tried to keep my postings brief and to the point. Fr. O'Leary seems to glory in dumping both a great quantity and a great number of postings. I can only guess, often unsuccessfully at the quality.
Commenting by HaloScan
