In the past few months, I have picked up several new readers. I am very happy about that of course. Many have asked me to explain my focus on “historical theology.” People who have been with me for a few years, please bear with me if I am repeating some earlier explanations. I do try to update even old explanations.

Describing myself I would say I am an “historical critical theologian.” To understand what I mean, one needs to think about what we call “historical criticism.”

HISTORICAL CRITICISM:

        Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries. The primary goal of historical criticism has been to discover a text’s original meaning in its original historical context. This requires examining the historical context of the author and of those for whom the text was written.

When examining a text, questions arise. Is the text describing an actual historical event or using symbols and creative images to describe a mythological or presumed historic event? The account about Adam and Eve, according to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions, is a good example. Nearly every ancient culture told its own set of creation myths, and they share a remarkable number of similarities, including key elements of the Adam and Eve story: humans fashioned from clay, a trickster figure who subverts the gods’ plans for creation, and a woman taking the blame for sin and pain.

Another good example of creative biblical imagery about an actual historic person is found in the Infancy Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. The Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998), in his book The Birth of the Messiah, stresses that the Infancy Narratives are imaginative literary products, created by the early Christian community primarily to express its belief about the historic Jesus as “Son of God.”

HISTORICAL CRITICISM AND TRANSLATIONS

        In historical criticism, a close examination of textual translations is important as well. Are translations faithful to the original text? In my professional development, I had to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. I did alright in Hebrew but excelled in Greek and Latin. I learned very early, however, that translations from one language to another can sometimes be very problematic, especially when translators use a contemporary word to translate an ancient word. A good example – there are many actually — is the way biblical translators have translated Pontius Pilate’s inscription on Jesus’ cross.

The famous INRI is an abbreviation for the Latin words Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum. (The letter “J” did not exist back then. It wasn’t invented until 1524 thanks to Gian Giorgio Trissino, an Italian Renaissance grammarian.) The word Iudaeorum means “of the Judeans.” However, it has too often been incorrectly translated as “of the Jews.” And so, we have inherited the absolutely erroneous translation which has greatly contributed to ignorance and antisemitism. The word “Jew,” did not enter the English language until the twelfth century. There were no “Jews” in the first century. The religion was the Hebrew religion. In the Bible we find Hebrews, Israelites, and Judeans, but never “Jews.” The correct translation is “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Judeans.” The historical Jesus (Iēsous in Greek and Iesus in Latin) was a Hebrew. His Hebrew name was Yeshua, which is a derivative from the Hebrew verb meaning “to rescue” or “to deliver.”

FAITH IS AN EXPERIENCE:

        Historical critical theologians focus on interpretations of faith. Faith is an experience. In the faith experience people have an experience of the Divine, often described under various names: God, Creator, Father, Mother, Allah, the Ground of Being, etc. To be open to the faith experience, we need quiet and reflective time. Faith and belief are not the same thing.

BELIEF:

        Belief is the attempt to put into words the meaning of our faith experience. Belief is really theology which is “faith seeking understanding.” Theological understandings – statements of belief — can end up as official teachings (doctrines) when religious institutional leadership judges them useful guidelines for Christian life. But it is important to remember that all doctrinal statements are time-bound, because language and understandings are time-bound. All doctrinal statements therefore are provisional until a better expression comes along.

 

SUGGESTIONS FOR THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION TODAY:

(1) I suggest first of all that we think of “church” not as an institution but as a community of faith-experiencing believers. What is happening within your own community of believers? What are the key issues and concerns? What does it mean for you and for your friends to experience God today? Where do you and they find your support?

 (2) In the first three centuries of Christianity, we have no direct evidence of what would later be called an ordination ceremony. The historical Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. He probably had no understanding of ordination. By the end of the third century, however, Christianity had a clear organizational structure headed by presbyters, from the Greek word for “elder” presbyteros; supervisor-overseers, called epískopoi in Greek; and deacons. (In the tenth century, our English word “bishop” evolved from the Latin word episcopus.)

(3) Initiation into the three orders was accomplished through a rite of ordination that inducted a person into a local office in a particular community. Ordination was introduced as a kind of quality control to assure communities that the women and men who were their leaders were trustworthy and faith-filled leaders. As my theological mentor, Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 to 2009), often said, “You led the liturgy because you were the leader of the people. You didn’t lead the liturgy because you were ordained to have the power of consecration.” (Prof. Schillebeeckx had a big impact on my life. Unlike other theologians, he did not view this modern world, with its secularization, as a loss or threat. On the contrary, he saw in it as a new opportunity to live Christianity authentically, creatively, and meaningfully today.)

 (4) Let’s scratch our heads about new forms of ministry and break out of the old patterns and paradigms. I have often thought over the years that many of my theology graduate students, regardless of sex or gender, would make excellent ministers in the university parish. Why not be creative with ordination. If ordination is desired, could it not be for say five years, with possibility of renewal for a few more years? Does it have to be life-long? Why not divide local parishes into neighborhood communities under several part-time ordained ministers, who are also professional people in the larger community, doctors, teachers, electricians, etc. How about electing bishops for a limited ministerial term office? Say five years and a renewal of a second five-year term possible after a positive performance appraisal.

(5) Healthy Christianity is rooted in being a healthy follower of the Way of Jesus. So, what does it really mean to be a follower of Jesus Christ today? Early Christians understood Jesus as the revelation of God’s graciousness and love. And they understood that Incarnation involves all of us. As Jesus says in Luke 10:16, “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Our humanity is anchored in divinity, whether people realize it or not.

(6) We need to change our conversation. Changing the conversation means moving from lots of talk and talk to making lots of real changes. We need to be creative and courageous change agents, realizing that change rarely comes from the top. In my Catholic tradition, for example, change usually starts at the grassroots level. People see the need and make the change. The old pattern is proven historically: (1) change is made; (2) change is condemned by church leadership; (3) change endures; (4) leadership allows the change as a limited “experiment;” (5) change becomes more widespread; (6) and finally church leadership allows it as “part of our tradition.”

 …

Creative and critical reflection is not a dangerous activity, and it can be a source of life, because it brings a new focus, a new conversation, a new change, and new life. That is the focus of historical theologians. At least the historical theologians I resonate with.

– Jack

John A. Dick, Ph.D. – Historical Theologian

Email: john.dick@kuleuven.be