| Chapter II. The Predicament of the Christian Historian Veritas non erubescit nisi abscondi. – Leo XIII «Christianity is a religion of historians.» 1 It is a strong phrase, but the statement is correct. Christianity is basically a vigorous appeal to history, a witness of faith to certain particular events in the past, to certain particular data of history. These events are acknowledged by faith as truly eventful. These historic moments, or instants, are recognized as utterly momentous. In brief, they are identified by faith as «mighty deeds» of God, Magnalia Dei. The «scandal of particularity,» to use the phrase of Gerhard Kittel, 2 belongs to the very essence of the Christian message. The Christian Creed itself is intrinsically historic. It comprises the whole of existence in a single historical scheme as one «History of Salvation,» from Creation to Consummation, to the Last Judgment and the End of history. Emphasis is put on the ultimate cruciality of certain historic events, namely, of the Incarnation, of the Coming of the Messiah, and of his Cross and Resurrection. Accordingly, it may be justly contended that «the Christian religion is a daily invitation to the study of history.» 3 Now, it is at this point that the major difficulties arise. An average believer, of any denomination or tradition, is scarcely aware of his intrinsic duty to study history. The historical pattern of the Christian message is obvious. But people are interested rather in the «eternal truth» of this message, than in what they are inclined to regard as «accidents» of history, even when they are discussing the facts of the Biblical history or of the history of the Church. Does not the message itself point out beyond history, to the «life of the Age to come»? There is a persistent tendency to interpret the facts of history as images or symbols, as typical cases or examples, and to transform the «history of salvation» into a kind of edifying parable. We can trace this tendency back to the early centuries of Christian history. In our own days we find ourselves in the midst of an intense controversy precisely about this very matter. |
| VII. ESCHATOLOGY. The Last Things and the Last Events 313 Behold, I make all things new – Rev. 21.5 I ESCHATOLOGY was for a long time a neglected field in modern theology. The arrogant phrase of Ernst Troeltsch – Das eschatologische Bureau ist meist geschlossen [«The bureau of eschatology is for the most part closed»] – was distinctively characteristic of the whole liberal tradition, since the Age of the Enlightenment. Nor is this neglect for eschatological issues fully overcome in contemporary thought. In certain quarters eschatology is still regarded as an obsolete relic of the forlorn past. The theme itself is avoided, or it is summarily dismissed as unreal and irrelevant. The modern man is not concerned with the last events. This attitude of neglect was recently reinforced by the rise of theological Existentialism. Now, Existentialism does claim to be itself an eschatological doctrine. But it is a sheer abuse of terms. Eschatology is radically interiorized in its existentialist reinterpretation. It is actually swallowed up in the immediacy of personal decisions. In a sense, modern Existentialism in theology is but a fresh variation on the old Pietistic theme. In the last resort, it amounts to the radical dehistorization of the Christian faith. Events of history are eclipsed by the events of inner life. The Bible itself is used as a book of parables and patterns. History is no more than a passing frame. Eternity can be encountered and tasted at any time. History is no more a theological problem. On the other hand, precisely in the last few decades, the basic historiocity of the Christian faith has been reassessed and reaffirmed in various trends of contemporary theology. This was a momentous shift in theological thinking. Indeed, it was a return to Biblical faith. Of course, no elaborate «philosophy of history» can be found in the Bible. But there is in the Bible a comprehensive vision of history, a perspective of an unfolding time, running from a «beginning» to an «end,» and guided by the sovereign will of God toward the accomplishment of His ultimate purpose. The Christian faith is primarily an obedient witness to the mighty deeds of God in history, which culminated, «in those last days,» in the Advent of Christ and in His redemptive victory. Accordingly, Christian theology should be construed as a «Theology of History.» Christian faith is grounded in events, not in ideas. The Creed itself is a historical witness, a witness to the saving or redemptive events, which are apprehended by faith as God’s mighty deeds. |
| The Complementarity of Interdisciplinary Research Methods in This Investigation 11 Cf. Adalbert Hamman. Supplementum to PL It1959, cols. 1101–1570. The ACCS is intrinsically an interdisciplinary research endeavor. It conjointly employs several diverse but interrelated methods of research, each of which is a distinct held of inquiry in its own right. Principal among these methods are the following: Textual criticism. No literature is ever transmitted by handwritten manuscripts without the risk of some variations in the text creeping in. Because we are working with ancient texts, frequently recopied, we are obliged to employ all methods of inquiry appropriate to the study of ancient texts. To that end, we have depended heavily on the most reliable text-critical scholarship employed in both biblical and patristic studies. The work of textual critics in these fields has been invaluable in providing us with the most authoritative and reliable versions of ancient texts currently available. We have gratefully employed the extensive critical analyses used in creating the Thesaurus Linguae Graccac and Cetedoc databases. In respect to the biblical texts, our database researchers and volume editors have often been faced with the challenge of considering which variants within the biblical text itself are assumed in a particular selection. It is not always self-evident which translation or stemma of the biblical text is being employed by the ancient commentator. We have supplied explanatory footnotes on some cases where these various textural challenges may raise potential concerns for readers. Social-historical contextualization. Our volume editors have sought to understand the historical, social, economic and political contexts of the selections taken from these ancient texts. This understanding is often vital to the process of discerning what a given comment means or intends and which comments are most appropriate to the biblical passage at hand. However, our mission is not primarily to discuss these contexts extensively or to display them in the references. We are not primarily interested in the social location of the text or the philological history of particular words or in the societal consequences of the text, however interesting or evocative these may be. Some of these questions, however, can be treated briefly in the footnotes wherever the volume editors deem necessary. |
| Elizabeth Theokritoff, Mary B. Cunningham Elizabeth Theokritoff, Mary B. Cunningham Notes on contributors Dr Nicolas Abou Mrad is Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Saint John of Damascus Faculty of Theology, University of Balamand (Lebanon), and Lecturer at various non-Orthodox theological schools in Lebanon. He is author of various articles and reviews in biblical theology and literature. The Rt Revd Dr Hilarion Alfeyev holds doctorates from Oxford and Paris. He is currently the Moscow Patriarchate " s Bishop of Austria and Representative to the European Institutions. He has published widely in the areas of Byzantine and Syriac patristics, Church history, dogmatic theology and contemporary theological, moral and social issues. His writings in English include St Symeon the New Theologian and Orthodox Tradition (2000), The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian (2000), The Mystery of Faith. An Introduction to the Teaching and Spirituality of the Orthodox Church (2002) and Orthodox Witness Today (2006). The Very Revd Boris Bobrinskoy has served as Dean and Professor of Dogmatic Theology at St Sergius Institute of Orthodox Theology in Paris. A pupil of Georges Florovsky and Nicolas Afanasiev, he has published numerous studies on the theology of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, the Church, and the Eucharist. Translations of his writings include The Mystery of the Trinity: Trinitarian Experience and Vision in the Biblical and Patristic Tradition, trans. A. P. Gythiel (1999) and The Mystery of the Church (2005). Dr Peter Bouteneff is Associate Professor in Theology at St Vladimir " s Seminary, New York, having served for five years as Executive Secretary for Faith and Order at the World Council of Churches. He has written extensively on Orthodox relations with other churches, as well as on patristic and dogmatic themes. Recent publications include Sweeter than Honey: Orthodox Thinking on Dogma and Truth (2006) and Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives (2008). |
| Why read the writings of the Holy Fathers? Because those venerable elders perceived what each of us needs and longs to perceive. The usual answer given to the title of this article is that the Church Fathers provide us with invaluable spiritual guidance, based on their own faith and experience. They interpret Scripture and other elements of Holy Tradition in such a way as to educate us in the Way that leads to the Kingdom of God. And by the witness of their own life, which often ended in actual martyrdom, they offer us a model of the Christ-centered, self-sacrificing love we are all called to emulate. These are certainly important reasons that make regular reading of patristic sources not only advisable, but essential. Without the Fathers’ guidance and witness, we would find ourselves adrift in the sea of doctrinal confusion and moral ambiguity that characterizes so much of Christian as well as secular culture today. Yet there’s another, equally significant reason for studying the ancient patristic writings. It is to acquire the world-view of the Fathers, which most people today seem to have lost. This includes a way of looking at “history” as well as physical reality. If “biblical literalism” poses for many of us as much of a problem as do certain forms of “historical criticism,” it is because both are predicated on notions of history, and of reality itself, that are misleading if not false. The presupposition behind both “right wing” and “left wing” readings of Scripture is that truth is revealed only through history, and that history is made up only of facts. Historiography—the writing of history (including biblical history)—thus aims to tell us “what really happened”: it focuses on events that, theoretically at least, are empirically verifiable. If an event or person depicted in a given body of literature could not in principle have been photographed or tape-recorded, then the narrative account of that event is relegated to the category of fiction. Jesus’ parables obviously fall into that category. They were never intended to recount events that actually occurred. Rather, they are stories that use familiar details of everyday life to convey some moral or spiritual message. Since Jesus’ miracles, and particularly His resurrection, cannot be verified objectively, the accounts of those events are also generally dismissed as fictitious. Or at best, they are considered to be “parabolic”: they are seen as mere illustrative stories, told to make a point. Since their details are unrepeatable and thus unverifiable, the argument goes, they fall outside the realm of determinable “fact” and cannot be taken as historically accurate, that is, as “really true.” |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy DECR chairman attends conference on World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Conciliarity in Light of Orthodox Teaching On September 16, 2021, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations, took part in the conference held by the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission on the theme “World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Conciliarity in the Light of the Orthodox Teaching”, which took place at the St. Sergius Hall of the Cathedral Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. The conference is attended by members of the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission, representatives of the theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church, university faculty, hierarchs and clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and guests from Local Orthodox Churches. Presenting his paper, Metropolitan Hilarion stressed in particular that the Orthodox teaching speaks about the unity and oneness of the Church proceeding from the Gospel and makes this characteristic the first in the rank of her properties. “Any threat to the unity of the Church is a threat to the Body of Christ, in which believers are united by one faith, the Eucharist and her Head - Jesus Christ”, the DECR chairman noted, “Precisely for this reason, the most tragic events in the history of the Church are schisms in which Christ-commanded unity is violated, the unanimous life in faith is lost, the union around the Eucharistic Cup ends, the apostolic succession in the hierarchy is upset, and a deep wound appears in the Body of Christ”. According to the hierarch, in the history of the Church there is a great deal of examples of how actions of her particular members led to tragic divisions with their consequences felt to this day. “These pages of church history could serve as a lesson and a warning against such actions in the present and the future. However, up to this day the unity of Orthodoxy is threatened not only from outside but also from inside, coming from those who seek to act contrary to the Orthodox teaching and canonical tradition. We can see such actions today taken by the Patriarchate of Constantinople”, Metropolitan Hilarion stated. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Sophiology JUSTIN M. LASSER In Orthodox theology Sophia represents an evocation of the mystical apprehension of the divine mysteries in the life of the Godhead and the symphonic apparatus of the cosmos. The term derives from the Greek word for “wisdom” (Sophia). It is the Greek translation of the biblical Hebrew concept Hokhma (wisdom) in the Old Testament scriptures, which contain a rich and diverse tradition about “divine wisdom” ( Deut. 34.9 ; 2Sam. 14.20; 1 Kings 4.29; Job 12.13 ; Ps. 104.24 ; Prov. 3.19 ; Prov. 8.22–31 ; Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 1.4, 7; 8.34). This tradition was taken up extensively, out of the biblical Wisdom literature, and also with reference to Greek philosophico- religious cosmology, and used by the Logos theologians of the early church to sketch out cosmological Christology. The concept of God’s creative wisdom is deeply rooted in many ancient religious cosmologies (not least pre-biblical Egyptian). In their use of Wisdom Christology the fathers followed Greek and Hebrew sages before them in personifying the divine wisdom, hypostatically, under the feminine figure of Sophia. This tradition continued despite the overall preference of the patristic era for the (masculine) equivalent “Logos” (Word or Reason of God) which was used heavily in the conciliar christological tradition. The poetic play between creator and created, as evidenced in the Sophianic Wisdom literature (see Prov. 8.22 ), precipitated a fierce debate in the 4th-century Arian crisis. It is the ambiguity of Sophia’s nature that lends her so easily to theological speculation. Sophiology, although subordinated after the 4th century to the terms of Logos theology, remained a significant part of the Orthodox mystical tradition, and was used to connote the eternal, creative, and preexistent Son of God, who entered into human history at the incarnation, and as “Wisdom of the divine” permeates the substructure of the entire cosmos which that Divine Wisdom personally shaped, and made, into a vehicle of revelation and grace. |
| Carl Olof Jonsson 5. The Seventy Years for Babylon For thus says the FORD, ‘When seventy years have been completedfor Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill my good word to you, to bringyou back to this place.” – Jeremiah 29:10 THE DATE 607 B.C.E. as given by Watchtower chronologists for the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Babylonians is determined by adding the seventy years predicted by Jeremiah to 537 B.C.E., the date when the Jewish remnant are thought to have returned from exile. It is held that diese seventy years were a period of complete desolation for Judah and Jerusalem: The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application of the 70year period to any time other than that between the desolation of Judah, accompanying Jerusalem’s destruction, and the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus’ decree. It clearly specifies that the 70 years would be years of devastation of the land of Judah. 330 If no other understanding of the seventyyear period is allowed for by Bible prophecy, then a choice has to be made between the date determined by this application and the one established by at least seventeen lines of historical evidence. When a certain interpretation of a Biblical prophecy contradicts historical fact, this indicates that either the prophecy failed or the interpretation is wrong. It is true that a certain application sometimes looks very convincing, so much so that no other appears feasible. It seems to the reader to be given by the Bible itself. In such a case it may also seem to be a sound Christian position to discard the historical evidence and “just stick to what the Bible says.” When this position is taken, however, those taking it often overlook the fact that the fulfillment of a prophecy cannot be demonstrated aside from history, because only history can show whether, when, and how it was fulfilled. Actually, prophecy is not generally understood until after it has been fulfilled historically through events in time. Serious mistakes have sometimes been made by sincere Bible students because historical evidence contrary to a certain application or interpretation has been rejected. One example will be given below to illustrate this fact. History and time prophecies–a lesson |
| Following up on the link I posted yesterday, I thought it might be a good idea to introduce folks to the entire concept of chronological revisionism, why it matters, and what it means for the Bible. Most of us assume that we know precisely when historical events occurred in ancient history- after all, encyclopedias and textbooks list, year by year, the reigns of various kings and the dates of various battles. In reality, however, the situation is far murkier than this. In fact, the entire edifice of ancient chronology is built upon the reconstructed chronology of Egyptian civilization. All other civilizations are “keyed” into Egyptian history. I won’t go into the exact problems with Egyptian chronology at this moment, but mainstream Egyptologists have referred to it as “rags and tatters.” It maintains weight by force of simple consensus. More importantly, though, what relevance does this have to the Bible? Well, in the conventional chronology, there is little more than circumstantial evidence for the exodus. James Hoffmeier and Kenneth Kitchen have argued for an exodus during the reign of Rameses II (13th century according to mainstream chronology). There are enormous problems with this identification. For example, it contradicts the biblical figure of 480 years between the exodus and the building of the Temple. Furthermore, we have Rameses’ mummy- he clearly didn’t pursue Israel into the Red Sea. Most importantly, however, we have these words from Pharaoh’s counselors: (Exodus 10:7) Then Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How long shall this man be a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God. Do you not yet understand that Egypt is ruined?” The exodus and the plagues of Egypt were not minor events in the ancient world. If they occurred, they brought about the ruin of Egypt, probably for an extensive period of time. The backbone of any revisionist chronology must be the destruction of Egypt. The basic outline of Egyptian history by mainstream historians is as follows: |
| Biblical accounts, often shaped by ancient myths, are based on facts: actual past events in the history of God’s people. They are important for us, however, only insofar as their meaning, their ultimate significance, extends from the past into our own present life and experience. For over a century biblical scholars have debated whether the Old and New Testaments contain “mythical” elements. The answer depends on how we define “myth,” and here there is very little agreement. The Brothers Grimm held that myths are stories that speak of “gods” (in the plural). If this is the essential criterion, many scholars have held, then there can be no myths in the strictly monotheistic Hebrew Scriptures. In any case, they argue, whatever ancient mythical elements might have influenced Old Testament traditions have been thoroughly “demythologized” and rendered “historical.” Recent research into the mythology of Ancient Near Eastern religions (Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite) has shown that myths develop around a people’s religious rituals and demonstrate a fairly consistent pattern. Beginning with a particular conflict (the hero, for example, does battle with a monster who represents chaos), the mythical story recounts the defeat or destruction of the protagonist, then passes to a description of the people’s lamentation (mourning the hero). In the final stage, the hero is “reborn,” rising from death and defeat to new and exalted life. This pattern of conflict, death, mourning, and vindication seems to have originated in agricultural societies, where ritual performances reenacted, and hence promoted, the rebirth of vegetation in the spring of the new year. This pattern unquestionably influenced the development of certain Old and New Testament traditions, just as it did various Hellenistic mystery cults. One can find such movement, for example, in several of the stories included in the first eleven chapters of Genesis (especially the Noah cycle; compare the fate of Job), and even in the life of Jesus (conflict with religious and political authorities, judgment and crucifixion, lamentation on the part of the disciples and faithful women, followed by resurrection). The Old Testament, and to a limited extent the New Testament (particularly the Book of Revelation), do reflect certain universal mythical themes. It is important to stress, however, that the Bible is essentially free of myth per se, since these underlying influences have been transformed by the essentially historical interest of its various authors. |
|
|
