I want to thank Howard Van Till for his kind words of affirmation, and George Murphy for his thoughtful perspective (and theological references) on the historicity of the resurrection. As we approach the most important festival day of Christian faith, the day on which we especially celebrate it, the resurrection seems like a fitting topic for readers of our ASA discussion group to meditate on. Let me add a few more thoughts.
I appreciate that the notion of "faith seeking understanding" guides so much of our desire to make sense of biblical revelation. I became a medievalist in my youth because I was bowled over by the brilliance of Aquinas' philosophical and theological writings, which so exemplified this dictum; I made my acquaintance with Anselm, Abelard, Bonaventure, and others who did likewise. One could add the names of the great Reformers to this list. I still honor them, as I do all who humbly seek that understanding. And, I am also all too aware of the dark side of this search, in which "certitude" replaces "understanding" and becomes the measure of faith, in which the "formulation about" occupies the judgment seat and declares who is in or out, orthodox or heterodox, and what is "the Christian way" of thinking about everything from the Bible to scientific paradigms.
I believe in the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and believe that this reality is grounded in a historical event, but I am content to let my understanding of it be wrapped up in the mystery of it. Not that understanding doesn't matter, but it seems to me, as I have come to live with mystery, that it still remains darkly mirrored and will only be fully disclosed when we are face to face. And that is sufficent for me.
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: george murphy
To: Robert Schneider
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: BIBLE: Marcus Borg
Robert Schneider wrote:
..........................
I respect Adrian's contention that there is sufficient evidence in the
gospels themselves to give him reasons to think that the resurrection did in
fact happen. John Polkinghorne, in _Quarks, Chaos and Christianity_, makes
a thoughtful case for it on the basis of the same accounts. Still, Jim
would say, "I *believe* that God raised Jesus from the dead," not "I know
that Jesus rose from the dead."
.................................................
A good case can be made for the basic historical truth of the resurrection accounts - Pannenberg in _Jesus - God and Man_ does so. But one could believe that Jesus indeed rose from the dead without regarding it as more than an inexplicable "Believe It Or Not" happening. What is central to distinctively Christian faith is trust in the crucified and the one who raised him from the dead.
In the creeds we say we "believe in" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - not that we "know" certain things. But we don't say simply "we believe in the resurrection of Jesus." It's a bit more subtle. I would say that the creedal statement "On the third day he rose again" is part of the identification of the one in whom we believe. I.e., we have reason (the apostolic witness) to believe that he was raised - though not strict analytic proof. _And_ we place our trust in the one who was raised.
The situation is, however, a little more complicated than that. Trust in the resurrection of the crucified gives us a certain standpoint from which we can try to understand our lives and the world. The fact that we can understand our experience more adequately from this standpoint than we could from some other point of view is one reason we have this trust. But in this light we also evaluate the historical evidence for the resurrection differently. It's a kind of feedback process - fides quarens intellectum.
An excellent overall treatment of the resurrection is Gerald O'Collins, _Jesus Risen_ (Paulist, 1987).
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 12:19:57 EST