Ways of interpreting the gospel Flashcards
1
Q
What are the two main ways of interpreting the Gs
A
Seeing it as a historical document from which we aim to reconstruct the life of JC
Recognising that the above is not possible and instead looking for its theological meaning
2
Q
What is hermeneutics
A
A discipline focusing on the theory and methodology of interpretation
3
Q
Give an example of a gospel that cares not for historical accuracy and looks to give spiritual teaching
A
John
4
Q
Give an example of someone who someone who thinks that should interpret them from a historical level
A
Ian Marshall
5
Q
How does the authorial level of understanding differ from the historical level
A
This is looking at how the evangelists might have shaped the story to bring out their full theological meaning and to make sure it is relevant to the community it is being addressed to
6
Q
List the different ways in which authorial influence may have been present in the way the gospels were written
A
In the most basic sense, it may just be the way historical sources are edited and arranged into a narrative. It is likely that all the evangelists will have been working with multiple sources and that there would be no clear way to judge which is the most reliable, what historical order they should be in and whether or not they should be included in the narrative. This would have been the case even for Mark as it was still composed decades after JC died
The authors could have been even more radical than this in their approacjhj, adding background detail, context and bits of creative storytelling to join up these sources
Further still, they could have written in aspects that had no basis in history whatsoever
7
Q
What is the third level of understanding we should consider
A
That of the interpreter
8
Q
Explain this level of understanding
A
This is the perspective of the reader, who may gain impressions or insights that not even the author intended. These may be valid insights and should not be discounted just because they don’t align with authorial intentions. This is important when considering the moral message in the Bible, which may present itself differently depending on the reader and their background
9
Q
Why is it important to compare the historical grammatical method of hermeneutics and the historical critical method of hermeneutics
A
Because they are useful for distinguishing between conservative and liberal methods of biblical analysis. Both share certain scholarly tools, but diverge in their goals, assumptions and ideals
10
Q
Explain the historical grammatical approach to hermeneutics
A
Primarily concerned with discovering the author’s original meaning. Does so with a few background assumptions. The most controversial is that unless a passage is clearly meant to be poetic or metaphorical, it should be taken to directly represent history. It should be interpreted as literally true. This does not mean that the Bible should be taken at face value; it is important to develop an understanding of the historical context, grammar, semantics and coherency of scripture in order to gain a full appreciation of its authorial meaning. The interpreter should therefore get to grips with language, history and culture of the auithor when interpreting it, even if there is the assumption that it presents direct history throughout
Emphasis on viewing the Bible as directly representing religious events. We don’t have to try and second guess why an evangelist wrote something, if the event is there it is because it actually happened so was necessary to include. The same is true when considering concepts like heaven and hell. If Jesus speaks about these places they should be seen as literally existing, rather than being symbolic or allegorical
11
Q
Explain the historical critical approach to hermeneutics
A
Concerned with a vareity of aims when engaging with scripture. Like the historical grammatical approach, it wants to discover the original meaning of the text. However, they are not just concerned with the author, but also the world behind the text. Wants to understand how the text would have been received by different communities and recipients. There is no assumption that the scripture directly represents history. It adopts various perspectives and critical tools that initially challenge the authenticity and meaning of the texts
12
Q
List 3 critical tools used by the historical critical approach
A
SC
FC
RC
13
Q
What is SC
A
Focuses on the search for and analysis of different sources that may have informed the gospels. The most well known result of SC is the Q hypothesis
14
Q
What is FC
A
Wants to analyse how certain passages might have been interpreted within a particular sitz im leben (Setting in life) and how it might have been used by communities within this setting
15
Q
What is RC
A
Looks at how authors compiled and edited their sources. Key part is reconstructing what community a text was aimed at and how the intentions of the author impacted the redaction process in the context of this community reception
16
Q
What is literary criticism
A
Looser than the other three forms of criticism. Uses tools from literary theory to analyse the narrative and rhetorical structure of a text, examining it as a story first rather than a historical record. The aim is to uncover in a more cohesive sense what meaning and teachings the author tried to convey by their retelling of a story, rather than trying to break down the nature of a historical community or text
17
Q
Why have historical methods for interpretation generally given way to literary methods
A
Because it has become more recognised that individual bias easily taints historical interpretation of a text, especially one written so many years ago
18
Q
Describe the literal approach to the Bible
A
Texts are treated as primarily historical accounts that detail events and teachings that are factually correct. We have to see the recorded events as having actually happened, with the associated teaching having to be taken at face value
19
Q
What is the obvious appeal of the literal approach
A
Gives an easy route to understanding the meaning of the Bible and how we should think about its relevance to our lives today. For instance, Christians can definitively conclude that Jesus is the Messiah who fulfils OT prophecy
20
Q
What previous discussed approach to hermeneutics is the literal approach tied to
A
The historical grammatical method
21
Q
Issues with the literal approach
A
Should we literally believe that Jesus is bread? Even with the historical grammatical approach it is noted that we should still see some langauge as clearly not being meant to be interpreted literally
How do we tell what to interpret literally and what to interpret figuratively. If we accept some elements cannot be interpreted literally, then we could question this about any portion of the scripture
It is hard to resolve the contradictions between the gospels under a literal approach. The evangelists also have gotten geographical and historical details wrong. Is the virgin birth really credible, and if so does it make sense to interpret factually wrong statements in a literal manner
Conflicts between our modern understanding of the world and scripture. Should we believe Jesus walked on water when science shows this was impossible. We could say JC was divine and could do this but it seems more parsimonious to reject the gospels in favour of our understanding of science. If this is the case it means that a different style of interpretation is needed to fully grasp how the gospels can be meaningful to a modern audience
22
Q
Explain the allegorical approach
A
Takes events characters and occurances within scripture to have a deeper symbolic or metaphorical meaning
23
Q
Why can the allegorical approach be seen as reasonable
A
Plenty of instances where it appears as if the evangelists are writing with the intention of creating symbolic meaning through the images and concepts they use. Jesus himself may well have ised parables and symbols during his ministry in an attempt to generate a deeper spiritual understanding among those who were listening to him
24
Q
Why can we not equate allegory and symbolism
A
Because allegory involves a kind of symbolism that is by nature hidden to some degree. This means that for instance, an allegorical meaning of the parables cannot be discovered through the literal approach
25
Use the POTSATG to explain the allegorical approach
The literal approach would see this as pointing towards a second coming where humanity will literally be separated out on the left and right side of God
The allegorical approach says that there are hidden meanings about Judgement here
26
Problems of the allegorical approach
Isn't always clear what these hidden meanings are. Although JC teaches in parable and symbol, he also has more straightforward ways of teaching. This begs two questions
How can we tell whether a passage has an allegorical meaning?
How can we tell whether the allegorical meaning we have extracted is the correct one?
The first problem is easier to overcome. Where we encounter metaphorical, figurative or symbolic language we are likely to need to use the allegorical approach. For instance, the I AM sayings don't make much sense literally so we should interpret them as allegory. We could also say that when we encounter a lack of factual content we should look for an allegorical explanation. This is what Rowe does with John's signs. We do have some guidance over what to interpret as allegorical
Still need to answer the question of how we know we have the right allegorical meaning?
Difficult to answer because we are far removed from the original communities, cultures and societies where the gospels were written. This means the historical critical method is linked to the allegorical approach, as it states that in order to understand the true meaning of the gospels, we in some sense have to reconstruct who they were written for and how these texts might have been understood by them
The issue here is that this process is subjective and bias creeps in with our reconstructions. Those who favour a literal interpretation say that no matter what we do, we will inevitably read our own biases and ideas into the Bible, many of which the author would not have intended and may be better understood through literal interpretation
27
What is the moral approach
Avoids literal interpretations but also does not take an allegorical understanding. Instead treats the Bible as a kind of guide to life, which is primarily examined to understand how we should live our lives. At times this could involve a literal interpretation of passages and at other times an allegorical interpretation. There is not a commitment to either type of interpretation
28
Explain how the moral approach would work in terms of interpreting the feeding of the 5000
The literal approach might interpret this as a literal event demonstrating JC's divine power. The allegorical approach might look for a deeper meaning in what such miracles might indicate about the fulfilment of earthly and spiritual desires. The moral approach would analyse what moral guidance can be gathered from this miracle. We could derive a moral principle such as share even when this means you will have less. We could interpret virtues such as charity, compassion or faith as being necessary to a Christian moral life. In either case, the key element is an ethical appreciation or interpretation of biblical passages rather than a theological serach for meaning
29
Assess the moral approach
Strengths of this approach are clear. Abandon the arcane or subjective search for theological meaning and focus on how it can help us live here and now. By focusing on moral principles Christians can gain valuable moral guidance
This focus could be seen as too narrow. Do we risk missing important theological elements that lend context and meaning to these principles
For instance, it could be argued that the moral teaching in the feeding of the 5 thousands are not meaningful by themselves without the associated theological concepts of judegment, atonement and the afterlife
The gospel writers and early church likely would not have interpreted the scripture in this manner. Their approach was more theological and as communities they believed JC's appearance had more than just moral significance
Like with the allegorical approach, we risk making biblical interpretation overly subjective, as the moral meaning of passages aren't clear. Is the parable of the good samaritan about helping people or a critique of racist attitudes
30
How do all three of these approaches rely on seeing the Bible as an authoratative document
They assume that it contains deep and important truths about the world
31
What question does this assumption beg
Why do we assume this in the first place? The Bible is just another document written by humans, it too could be mistaken
32
What kind of theology is the historical critical method linked to
Liberal theology
33
What does liberal theology attempt to do
Recontextualise and understand the Bible from the vantage point of our modern understanding of the world
Wants to criticise/recontextualise the more mythological or supernatural elements of the Bible, such as miracles
Due to these criticisms it often attempts to promote a more allegorical or moral approach
34
Explain the dilemma theologians have between these three approaches
Historical criticism undermines the value of the gospel for Christians. Modern scholars thus face a fork in the road...
Do they continue to assert the truth of the Bible and its teaching, regardless of the fact this would conflict with out modern understanding of science (the literal approach)
Do they search for deeper spiritual meaning behind its passages that can coexist with our scientific understanding of the world (the allegorical approach)
Do we give up on this search for truth altogether and instead focus on the practical benefits the Bible can offer to us today (the moral approach)
35
Why is there still debate in terms of what Karl Barth actually stood for in terms of biblical interpretation
Partly because his views cannot be neatly slotted into any of the approaches we've seen so far. Nor can they be easily understood from Barth's work itself. His most well known work, Church Dogmatics, is 4 volumes and 1000s of pages long, meaning making sense of his ideas is hard
36
What kind of theology was becoming increasingly popular in the German universities where he studied when he started his academic life
Liberal theology
37
What kind of theology did liberal theologians tend to support
Natural theology
38
What is natural theology
Where beliefs about God and religion are shaped more by reason that faith or other forms of revelation. What tended to emerge was a more rationally constructed picture of God that aimed to cohere with contemporary scientific knowledge and historical knowledge of the Bible
39
What Barth think about liberal theology
He didn't like it
40
Why did he reject liberal theology
In one sense, it was due to the events happening to the Christian church at this time, with liberal Christian supporting German political and military aggresion
Barth also came to believe that in a theological sense, liberal theology was unable to grapple with real spiritual issues and had become wholly concerned with the human world
41
42
How did he criticise liberal theology in this work
He said that a 'time of crisis' had emerged to which liberal theology was becoming complacent
43
What two types of theology did Barth reject
Natural theology and liberal theology
44
Give some famous examples of natural theological reasoning
The cosmological and teleological arguements
45
Why did Barth reject natural theology
Saw it as a human endeavour. The God of natural theology does not truly reflect the being of God, especially if God is transcendent in the way that Christians often claim. If he is actually transcendent there must be a deep divide between him and the human world, one which human intellect cannot bridge. If God is truly transcendent omnipotent and omniscient, then our rational minds should bot be able to comprehend him. We struggle to even capture to difficult foundations of this world, let alone a being completely outside of this world
46
What term does Barth use to refer to the attempts of natural theology to capture God
Idolatry
47
Explain what Barth means when he accuses natural theology of committing idolatry
The process of trying to rationally conceptualise God doesn't result in human understanding of God, but rather results in us worshipping a human construct of what we wish or think God to be. Natural theology therefore transgresses the 1st commandment by worshipping a false God
48
Why does the conclusion of this natural theology seem strange
Because it we can't know God through reason, intellect or imagination then how could we know God at all
49
How does Barth show his Calivinist roots in his rejection of natural theology
Because like Calvin, Barth said that God is only knowable to humans through his grace. It is God alone who reveals himself to humans and this revelation is a gift from God which cannot be replicated through any human endeavour
50
Why is Barth's theology considered to be Christocentric
Revelation is not a universal enterprise. It is concentrated in a single figure, JC. Barth holds that despite the protest of many Christians, there is no truth revelation outside of JC. JC is the centre of all theological enquiry, and only through JC that God reveals himself. We cannot come to revelation through historically researching and interpreting Jesus' real life or examining the gospels as a kind of allegory
51
Give a NT verse that supports this christocentric viewpoint
Luke 10:22
52
What does Luke 10:22 state
All things have been handed over to me by the Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him
53
Why does this passage not necessarily support Barth's view
Because there are other interpreations of this passage
54
What problem does Barth's christocentricism cause
We can't go back and observe JC's life and teachings for ourselves, but neither can we use reason to reconstruct any idea of the 'historical Jesus'
55
How does Barth try and resolve this problem
He contends that humans should give up the search for God. Humans should instead strive to allow themselves to be found by God
56
Why have many criticised Barth for being too conservative
Due to his preference for revealed theology over natural theology
57
Why does this criticism miss the nuance of Barth's thought
Unlike conservatives or fundamentalists, he does not hold that the bible is inerrant. He insists that the Bible is a human work. It was written by human beings, he therefore accuses Christians who view it as being inerrant as bibliolatry, as they are idolising human works rather than searching for God himself
58
What is biblical inerrancy
The idea that the Bible is without error or fault
59
What problem does the rejection of biblical inerrancy cause
If the Bible is flawed then how can it be a vehicle for revelation?
60
How does Barth resolve this issue
Barth argues that although the Bible is not revelatory itself, it is a witness to revelation through JC and his proclamation to the world. In this sense the Bible becomes a medium for revelation
The notion of medium for Barth is that the words of the Bible aren't revelatory. However, they become revelatory when it is read by a human open to receiving God's grace. They in a miraculous sense temporarily transform and alow God to communicate directly with humans
61
Give a quote from Barth where he illustrates this idea
The Bible is God's word to the extent that God causes it be his word, to the extent that he speaks through it
62
What are the main strengths of this position
Preserves the one way relationship between humans and God - as it is God who finds us rather than the other way round
Preserves the central importance of the Bible for Christians. For it is only the Bible that is a witness to JC, the incarnation of God, and so only the Bible is capable of mediating revelation between God and humans
63
These ideas have an influence on what Barth considers to be good exegesis. Give a quote from well known scholar on Barth Thomas Torrence explaining the influence these ideas have on exegesis
Biblical exegesis therefore takes place in a strenuous disciplined attempt to lay ourselves open to hearing the word of God speaking to us, to read what the word intends or denotes and refrain from interrupting it or confusing it with our own speaking, for in faithful exegesis we have to let ourselves be told what we cannot tell ourselves
64
What should we not read into scripture according to this quote
Our own human ideas
65
How does Barth use the analogy of the healing at Bethesda in John 5 to explain his approach to exegesis
In this chapter a crippled man wants to bathe in a pool he believes has healing properties. However, contrary to his explanations it is Jesus who comes and heals him. The traditional interpretation of this story is that it shows the divine power and love of Jesus, but Barth points out that the crippled man would not have been healed at all if he had not gone to the pool and been open to the possibility of being healed. In a similar manner the Bible is a medium through which we can encounter Jesus if they approach it with openness
66
How does Barth deal with the historical inaccuracies in the Bible
Says we should not discount them, nor wholly endorse them. We should read the Bible as if it were a story rather than a strict historical account. Avoid trying to adjudicate which parts of the Bible are human and which are a witness to the divine, and instead focus on reading the stories receptively, trying to acknowledge and understand how they reflect a deeper encounter with the divine. We are not trying to historically reconstruct Jesus' life from the ground up, we are trying to communicate with God. Therefore the Bible is not meant to be treated like some historical source, but rather a unique theological document with the power to reveal God
Infact, he notes that there are two distinct events within scripture which can be classified as 'unhistorical history'. These are the creation of the universe and the resurrection. Barth's point when using this phrase is that neither of these events can be understood by human reason or can be meaningfully imagined by the human mind. Thus they cannot be dealt with like ordinary historical events by weighing up textual evidence or testimony. There is no way of rationally evaluating such events if they were true as they are beyond our intellectual capabilities
67
How would Barth have felt about the literal, allegorical and moral approaches
He would have found each unsatisfactory. He wanted to prevent the descent of Christianity into idolatry. This is clear when we compare his thought to earlier 19th century critics of religion such as Ludwig Feuerbach, who Barth often referred to when lecturing his students. Feuerbach argued that God was just a human projection, a way for humans to give their own desired qualities and characteristics to a higher being. As such the only true way to study human religion was through an anthropological approach, which examines God as a kind of human abstraction
Feuerbach was seen by Barth as being the endpoint of liberal theology. If we draw upon our human reason to talk about God, then we just end up with a human God. The only way to avoid this, Barth thought, was to develop a theology that recognises that it is only through God's revelation that we can come to know God. It is then up to humans to study the way in which God has revealed himself to us, rather than to try and construct an idea of God based on what human reason would suggest. In this sense God cannot be reduced to allegory or a set of morals. Nor can we develop a literally true picture of God
68
Problems with Barth's thought
For the liberal theologian, his ideas may be no more speculative than theirs. One of the central claims of liberal theology is that God made humans in his image, so it is coherent to suggest that he could be atleast partially known through human faculties such as reason. In fact, we could suggest that Barth's entire arguement rests upon a philosophical arguement based on the idea of divine transcendence and the ramifications of theorists such as Feuerbach
How can human beings come to know God through the revelation of the Bible in a way that does not violate the epistemic distance between humans and a transcendent God. If God is the only source of revelation for humans, and God has to communicate this revelation to humans, then how does God do this in a way that is comprehensible to our fallible minds. For traditional Calvinists this would be answered by the principle of accommodation, the view that God naturally reveals himself in a way that makes sense to fallible minds, meaning that he does not truly reveal himself
However, if this is true then what we are getting from the Bible is not really a revelation of God at all. Barth hasn't really solved the problems that liberal theology deals with. Therefore what Barth ended up having to do was assert that in some important way God and the revelation were identical. So, when we analyse his revealed life in JC, we are in fact getting an unobstructed view of what God really is. However, this has a vast range of strange implications, the most important being that the life of JC was not an important theological vehicle by which God lets us know important theological teachings but rather a kind of performance or representation of his own self. This defies the way that we traditionally view the Bible, and theologians are still trying to identify what he meant when he was talking about God in this way
His thinking reinforces a mystical approach to God that is very difficult to understand to modern perspectives. We are constantly having to ask ourselves whether we our treating our understanding of the Bible as a real understanding of God or as a result of our human shortcomings. While he might have made some good criticisms of liberal theology, it is difficult to implement his view too
69
How did the reception of Bultmann's texts change over time
At first he was regarded as radical and controversial, but now his texts are seen as foundational in biblical analysis
70
What do Bultmann and Barth both reject
Liberal theology
71
On what grounds does he reject liberal theology
For the same reasons as Barth. Said that it was a dead end. If we follow through with rational and scientific analysis of Christianity, we end up witha new religion possessing little to no substance. Christianity would just end up somewhat shallow, just reflecting whatever cultural opinions the reader had
However, he didn't want to do away with liberal theology altogether like Barth, he just thought it needed some refocusing. It had to end its obsession with discovering the historical Jesus and instead focus on what the gospels actually proclaim and how it can be related to modern audiences. For all our increases in our historical and sociological understanding of the world of Jesus, Bultmann held that it would never be possible to come up with a true account of what had happened in Jesus life. The gospels generally do not list specific locations and dates, vary wildly in their reports, and are not corroborated by other historical sources
Bultmann also thought that the quest for the historical Jesus was unnecessary. Instead he sought to built a new way of interpreting scripture, based partially on his fascination with existentialism
72
Which existentialist philosopher was he heavily influenced by
Martin Heidegger
73
Briefly explain existentialism
Views the human person as fundamentally 'thrown into the world', with every person a free and unwilling agent who has the ability to determine their own will and course in life. 'Existence precedes essence'. Emphasises that the nature of humans is less important than the fact that they exist
74
How does existentialism relate to Bultmann's theology
As we focus on the nature of human existence, some quite frightening realisations emerge. If we are thrown into the world then there is no natural guidance or purpose to our lives. As self aware beings, such freedom can be quite distressing. Existentialists believe that grappling with this freedom is the most stressful part of living, such that many choose to hide from their freedom and allow their lives to be defined by their nature. culture or society. Yet for Bultmann and other existentialist theologians, Christiantiy can be a real and meaningful answer to the terror of existence
The problem with liberal theology at this time was that it could not provide this answer. Bultmann said that we possess a modern scientific worldview. We automatically look for naturalistic explanations for things and analyse the world in light of these explanations. This differs from the ancient mythological worldview of the evangelists. Theirs was a world of mythological beliefs about supernatural forces. The trouble is that for ancient people these beliefs provides comfort, especially around religious topics like life after death. But we modern audiences cannot take comfort in such beliefs, ensconced as we are in our scientific worldviews. Therefore we are even more anxious when dwelling on our existence and have to seek security in whatever material comforts we can find
Moreover, whatever we do, we cannot force the mythological world view of scripture to make sense to us, we have moved on from this. However, trying to find a scientifcally or rationally satisfactory version of the Bible is equally futile
Bultmann said that we instead have to find the essential message of the Bible, the philosophical teachings and stories that scientifically minded people can understand, without distorting its meanin through mistranslations and misunderstandings. This requires us to engage with something he termed demythologisation
75
Explain the crossroads we now find ourselves at in terms of textual interpretation
If we our stuck with our scientific worldview and cannot understand what is written by those with a mythological worldview then what value or meaning can scripture have for us? Trying to find the historical Jesus or looking at the Bible rationally can only distort its message or reflect our pre existing attitude. The same is true for the moral approach. We also cannot do what Barth says and simply read the Bible as a story. Our scientific minds cannot reconcile the myths of the Bible with our search for reason and naturalistic explanation. It is impossible to interpret the Bible with any kind of literal or straightforward approach without deceiving ourselves
76
How does Bultmann resolve this
He proposes a kind of allegorical approach instead. He proposes that we have to commit to a process of demythologisation, whereby we strip scripture of its antiquated mythological elements to make the underlying messages transparent to modern audiences. This is not the same as simply looking for moral messages. Bultmann is always keen to stress that demythologisation should still lead to theologically rich ideas, particularly those that give guidance and wisdom in how to conduct our lives. Christianity can therefore provide a good response to existential issues, without resorting to shallow attachments to material things and identities
77
Why would it be incorrect to see Bultmann as anti myth
He is not arguing we should get rid of myths in the Bible, in the way that liberal theologians often seek to do. Bultmann holds that myths are deeply important to human life, but that we have to focus on the meaning behind the myths, rather than taking them at face value. Demythologisation doesn't involve anything like the quest for the historical Jesus or a strict historical reconstruction of the community behind the text. It's a process that aims to make messages or meanings of a text relevant to audiences outside of the context in which the text was created
78
How does demythologisation relate to the gospels
Bultmann holds that the central content and meaning of the Bible is contained in Jesus' teachings and proclamations. which Bultmann calls kerygma, the Greek word for preaching. While the Bible is a basic record of this preaching, its meaning and clarity has been diluted by early Christians creating myths around the figure of Jesus, such as his divinity, which prevent us from accessing the true meaning of the kerygma in the Bible.
This does not mean that early Christians were wholly concerned with mythologising. At times they did the exact opposite, for instance by focusing on weakening the apocalyptic expectations of early Christians, represented by the differences between Mark and the other gospels. Bultmann believes this is the result of the early church downplaying the possibility of the parousia
79
Give a quote from Bultmann where he explains how the Gs themselves legitimise demythologisation
'Demythologising has its origins in the NT itself and therefore our task of demythologising today is justified'
80
How does demythologisation work in action
For B, balancing our modern perspective while recognising the validity of a myth is a difficult and careful process. For instance, we may well doubt that a supernatural event like the resurrection could have actually happened. However, for the purposes of finding the essential meaning of the resurrection and what it means for our lives, we should read the accounts as if the resurrection did happen. This is not the same as trying to believe that the resurrection did happen historically
So the resurrection is not a literal event, yet it occupies an important part of the kerygma of the Bible. It gives meaning to Jesus' teaching, showing that if we live like Jesus we will be living freely and authentically, without anxiety. To live life authentically is the aim of the existentialist, for it means living according to ones choices rather than the roles, characteristics and beliefs of others. The story of Jesus' resurrection therefore represents a deeper victory over inauthenticity and the ways in which Christian teaching can be meaningful in helping us overcome existential problems. If we want to live an authentic Christian life we cannot disregard parts of the Bible due to historical preconceptions, but we also cannot pretend that the resurrection occured
It would be wrong the suggest that Bultmann is advocating some kind of third way between these choices, as his approach is fundamentally different in scope and aim. For him what is important is that we draw out the theologically rich kerygma that is relevant and accessible to modern audiences. This does not involve simply identifying Jesus' moral messages or just recognising the goodness of his actions. For there is no overarching moral message from events such as the resurrection, atonement and ascension. These are instead theological events that have a deeper meaning for Christians beyond the moral and so should be approached with Bultmann's method of demythologisation to dind what this deeper existentialist meaning that modern religious people can find
81
How would Bultmann feel about the moral, allegorical and literal approaches
Rejects the literal approach
He also opposes the moral approach, where we elimate myth completely and simply look for the underlying moral message
He also can't be equated with an allegorical view. For the process of demythologisation is not simply looking for an underlying meaning. What Bultmann requires is that the meanings we unearth become relevant for a modern audience. They have to serve the specific theological purpose in connecting the kerygma of the Bible with our existential issues
For instance, if we take an allegorical approach to the resurrection and say that its underlying message is that God is the spiritual saviour of mankind, what Bultmann might argue is that this message is still not appropriate for modern audiences with their scientific worldviews. On being presented with this interpretation they may well respond that this makes no sense because there is no such thing as a soul or spiritual realm. Such interpretation still rests on the old myth that there is a material world and the spiritual world which our connected to our daily lives, so it cannot be relevant to modern audience
82
How are Bultmann and Barth's aims similar
Both were attempting to find a new way forward for Christianity in the modern world. For Barth this was to reaffirm the centrality of revelation through Christ, and for Bultmann it was to reaffirm the importance of a contemporary kerygma relevant to modern audiences
83
How is Bultmann's idea of demythologisation linked to how Christian practises have evolved over time
If we think about the role and interpretations of the Eucharist, different denominations have changed its form and meaning to reflect the beliefs of their congregations, often because it is believed that older forms can't be relevant in light of contemporary beliefs
84
Dispute the idea that the Bible actually needs to be demythologised to be relevant to modern audiences
Are the views of modern people really as scientific as B claims. The way that scholars like B analyse the world are very different from normal people. There are also academics who argue for a spiritual dimension to the world. Do we actually need demythologisation to make the Bible relevant to modern audiences?
The continuing popularity of religion across the world might suggest not. There are millions if Christians across the world who accept and find meaning in the traditional myths of the Bible despite modern scientific views, so perhaps kerygma does not need updating, although there may be some scientific Christians who need this
85
Make the case that B was too quick to dismiss the quest for the historical Jesus
In the century since he said this, there has been enormous progress in the historical and sociological understanding of 1st century Judea, what Jesus' life would have been like and how his message would have been received. There are still deep and enduring questions, but in the view of many NT scholars, researchers have come closer to understanding who JC was
If this is the case then perhaps demythologisation isn't necessary. Instead we can embrace a scientific worldview and look for the Jesus of history, his 'whatness' rather than his 'thatness' to use B's terms. Even if we can't create a precise picture of the historical Jesus, we may be able to develop one that coheres with scientific knowledge and reveals the character and importance of his teachings. Bultmann's focus on updates kerygma may not be the only way that Bible can remain relevant to a modern scientific audience
86
Many modern scholars endorse a broad pluralism when it comes to biblical interpretation. What does this mean
This acknowledges that in the present there is no wholly authoratative method of interpreting scripture. Instead, it may be best to endorse a variety of approaches, all of which can shed insight on the Bible and its teachings
87
What are rational approaches to the interpretation of scripture
A rational approach to the Bible is one of the defining markers of liberal theology. It holds that biblical interpretation should be made to cohere with our rational, scientific understanding of the world. In practise this often means discarding elements of biblical narratives that affirm the existence of supernatural elements, powers and events
The rational approach is informed by a mixture of contemporary philosophy and science. For instance the problem of evil suggests that we can no longer understand God as being omnipotent or omnibenevolent - or we at least cannot believe that he intervenes in the world in the way that Bible suggests. The theory of evolution calls into question the creation accounts in Genesis and the idea that God created humans directly in his image. The rational theist recognises that the strength of these scientific and philosophical theories means that they are fundamentally required to re evaluate the way they interpret the Bible and the teachings within
88
What do rational theists look for in scripture
There are various perspectives on this question depending on the beliefs held by the scholar. For instance, it became fashionable to believe in deism during the Enlightenment. In terms of scripture, this meant that instances where God interevenes in the world cannot be seen as having actually happened. Perhaps most importantly, this means that the resurrection and ascension could not be seen as having happened either. If we strip out such supernatural forms of intervention we are left with a set of moral and philosophical insights into the nature of God and his being
89
Give an example of how liberal theologians can still believe in salvation and life after death despite this rational approach
They could even develop accounts of life after death that cohere with modern scientific concepts, like Hick and his replica theory
90
Why do some scholars view replica theory as too radical
They assert that after death humans enter a new spiritual dimension after death which is inaccessible so long as we remain in our physical bodies
91
Explain Hick's idea that the rational approach should lead us to religious pluralism
This is the recognition that one religion does not hold the exclusive pathway to truth about salvation. Other religions may be experiencing the same God in different forms
92
What is the main strength of the rational approach for modern scientific audiences
Because we should look for an interpretation of the Bible that doesn't contradict evidentially supported theories and facts recognised in the scientific community
93
What flaws of liberal theology must we remember when looking at the rational approach
Both Barth and Bultmann noted that once taken to its logical conclusion it creates an empty version of religion. Either we reduce the meaning of the Bible down to a set of moral messages that could be taught outside of the Christian faith, or we produce a version of God that reflects what we psychologically wish God to be, rather than what he is
94
How could stripping back supernatural elements of scripture be damaging to Christianity
Christian tradition today still largely adheres to the rites, beliefs and rituals held by Christians throughout history. This tradition is synonomous with Christianity itself. If we strip away the supernatural elements of Christianity we strip away much of this tradition, and along with it many of the traditional teachings garnered from the Bible. This doesn't mean that the process is wromg, just that we end up with a very different version of Christianity at the end
95
Why would Barth disagree with the rational approach
He argues that the challenge of the Christian faith is to open oneself to communication wiyth God through the Bible as a witness to revelation. As such we have to suspend our scientific beliefs to really understand the message
96
Why would Bultmann disagree with the rational approach
He thinks it fails because it does not address the real existential questions in life, which the bible and its kerygma is uniquely equipped to address so long as we refashion its myths for a modern audience
97
How does the rational approach risk making scripture meaningless
If we have a preference for naturalistic explanations that cohere with science, then what is the point of a scripture that centres around the notion of an interventionist God. The rational approach may not really give a meaningful interpretation to scripture at all, instead making it meaningless. For the atheist or agnostic this might be acceptable, but not so much for the Christian
98
What are the two main ways we can consider the rational approach
We can look at scripture from a scientific and philosophical POV, where are pre-existing worldview dictates how we look at scripture
The second method looks at scripture from a historical rather than a theological perspective, perhaps examining scripture in a secular way and sidelining the idea that Jesus was divine. This approach does not deny that supernatural events could have occured, but simply presumes that they didn't necessarily, so that the scholar can remain unbiased when looking at the actual historical events in scripture (this can be specifically referred to as the historical approach)
99
Explain the epistemic issue with the historical approach
Bultmann's rejection of the historical quest for Jesus. He noted that our distance from the life of Jesus and the relative paucity of historical sources about his life means will never be able to truly know what his life was really like. The evangelists weren't exactly objective historians trying to capture the real events of Jesus' life as accurately as possible. They were writing with a specific theological purpose in mind, considering the demands of their community. The notion that we should try and capture objective history has not been present throughout most of human history. Whenever there was a retelling of historical stories, it was often to serve some present motive the historian may have had
Although we can use the gospels themselves and different historical critical tools to discover these motives, this will always be speculative. We are trying to discover the inner lives of unknown individuals 2000 years ago and then use this understanding to uncover historical events and the character of a person we know very little about. This is why B abandons the quest for the historical Jesus
But is this so bad? Can't we just get closer to a historical understanding of Jesus without necessarily understanding his life? Even this carries problems. A quick survey of modern scholarship on the Gs reveals that while there is some agreement of the basic circumstances of Jesus' life, researchers also disagree profoundly on key aspects around his ministry and death. This reveals another key problem with the historical approach. Without good historical sources, we cannot really avoid projecting our own beliefs, wishes and desires onto the gospel texts. We will always be guilty of anachronism, the natural imposition of modern ideas onto very different historical ideas
100
What would be the issue with the quest for the historical Jesus even if we could accurately reconstruct his life
How meaningful could this figure be to us today, enmeshed in a very different mindset and set of circumstances. As Bultmann noted, our world views are fundamentally separate from the mythological perspectives of 1st century Judea. This historical approach may not be able to develop compelling narratives and teachings which inspire modern Christians and instead may produce an accurate but bland and irrelevant account of Jesus' life
101
How does the sociological approach to interpreting scripture work
Looks at the structures, views and patterns of human history at the time the Bible was composed and use these to develop a deeper understanding of both the texts themselves and and the communities they were written for. The aim is not to uncover the historical Jesus but rather who early Christians were, how they acted as a group and what their social relationships would have looked like
What proponents particularly pointed out is that in light of the paucity of historical accounts of Jesus life, what is really important is to study what the communities were like and how they operated within the first century. This gives us a clearer indication of how the natural religious impulse within humans responded to the message of Christianity and how the religion was able to grow so fast in particular communities
102
What is the main strength of the sociological approach
Important because much of 1st century religious life did not revolve around academic study of texts such as the Bible. There was more emphasis on public preaching and oral traditions, where individuals learnt of new ideas and beliefs in communal spaces. In this sense understanding the lives of people in the first century through social analysis can give greater insight than the historical approach. However, in a sense the historical and sociological approaches could work in tandem
103
Problems with the sociological approach
Faces similar epistemic issues to the historical approach. How do we know we're not projecting a modern understanding of the human religious impulse onto past figures? If we assume people had a similar worldview back then to now, we might make the mistake of imposing certain kinds of structural analysis onto communities they do not belong to. On the other hand, if we don't make some kind of shared connection between the past and the present, we might struggle to identify important religious social behaviours that enables Christian communities to grow so fast
Often it deals in generalities, using patterns of behaviour in certain communities to draw conclusions about the influence of these behaviours in specific texts or the growth of religious ideas. It may well be that it is specific historical details and circumstances that better explain the growth of Christianity rather than broad sociological factor. For instance scholars debate the influence that 70 CE would have had on the growth of Christianity and its theological direction, as it split away from its Jewish origins. These kind of historical factors aren't easily accommodated with sociological analysis
It can overlook the importance of specific figures in early Christianity. By focusing on communities we don't recognise the important individual impact that figures like St Paul may have had on the early church and the composition of the gospels. This is particularly the case when sociological analysis begins with a set of principles that exist outside of scripture itself
It should be noted that most who undertake the sociological approach are aware of these shortcomings and as such rarely claim that it can provide complete answers
104
What is the literary approach
Analyses that gospels as if they were pieces of literature, not merely historical documents.
105
Why can the literary approach be seen as reasonable
The evangelists were not intending for their books to just be objects of academic study or manuals of ethics. They thought they were specifically telling the story of Jesus' life, and it is significant that they all tell the same core narrative in different ways
106
What does the literal approach involve
Analyses the literary methods used in the composition and writing of the gospels. This can range from looking at the narrative structure and arc of a gospel to looking at specific literary concpets like drama, irony or metaphor that are often used within the gospels. One specific method that has proved useful is narrative criticism, which analyses the stories in the gospels and how different parts are connected to the specific purpose of a story. This is particularly the case when looking at conflict in John
107
How can literary analysis give us insight into the gospels
The evangelists did not just want to retell the events in Jesus' life but also wanted to put together a meaningful portrayal of these events. They did not just want to tell a story, but a good story. If you want to educate people about your religion or convert them to it, a good way of doing this is by writing something interesting. You could make the case that rapid growth of Christianity throughout the world was due to the arresting storytelling in the gospels
If we use literary analysis to examine different parts of the gospel, we can see how they connect to form a bigger narrative or idea. There are specific parts of the gospels that especially lend themselves to this kind of analysis. For instance, the parables act as a kind of story within a story. By analysing the rhetoric, structure and metaphors within the parables, we can look for narrative connections with the broader message of the gospel
Literary criticism can also help us undertand why the gospels are so different. It may not be that the evangelists used different sources but rather than each tried to shape the events of Jesus life to a story that they thought would be particularly meaningful to their audiences
108
What is the obvious appeal of the literary approach
Flexible and can potentially allow us to tease apart both how the writers composed their works and how their narratives could impact a reader of listener. With much of the gospels being written in narrative form, it is surely common sense to interpret them as pieces of literature
109
Problems with the literary approach
While the narratives are important, the gospels are more than just a story. They are intended to portray specific theological truths to the audience, and we have to assess to what degree these truths take precedence over the story
In the gospel of Luke Luke identifies himself as something of a historian. If this is true then the literal method can only go so far. For a historian does not seek to just tell a story but rather relay info about historical events. However, we could debate his self identification as a historian. Indeed, this identification may well have been a kind of rhetorical flourish used to give legitimacy to his story. Regardless, this example still highlights the complexities of using the literal approach
We might question the degree to which Christians can find meaning in assessing the Bible as a set of stories. Many Christians are interested in discovering the historical truths behind the biblical texts and how these impact our understanding of God and the world. Barth would say that we cannot tread to Bible in purely literary terms, but instead treat it as a witness to revelation itself. The literary approach treats scripture as just a piece of literature so may not be able to accommodate the desire to use the Bible to uncover real truths and use this to establish a relationship with God
110
How are differing biblical interpretations important in terms of the denominations
One of the greatest differences between Catholic and Protestant churches is their level of adherence to various kinds of biblical interpretation and the importance given to each
111
Give an example of why scholars have begun to favour a more pluralistic approach to biblical interpretation
We can see this if we analyse literary and historical criticism together. While it may be useful to know the historical facts behind the figures and events in the Bible, this can obscure the overall literary patterns and meaning behind the text. On the other hand, only looking for literary techniques and concepts can equally obscure the importance of good historical investigation into the meaning of particular passages
The strengths of one approach may help solve the weaknesses of another
112
