Читать книгу The Resurrection of History - David Prewer Bruce - Страница 6

In Batman: The Dark Knight Rises, Batman is surprised to see that an old nemesis, Ra’s al Ghul, has escaped from the “inescapable” prison that he had been exiled to and presumably died in. The caped crusader, with a hint of whimsy, asks him what he had been doing with himself lately, to which his arch enemy replies that he has been busy practicing his favorite hobby: “Resurrection.”

There is no doubt that the term “resurrection” is often used in a colloquial, casual fashion without theological implications. Most loosely, it acts as a synonym for “resurgence,” as when the career of a politician or an athlete gets back on track after some time on the sidelines. In the case of Batman’s enemy, as with anyone who has experienced prolonged unemployment, it can mean a return to active duty. For others, it means the return of hope and optimism, or simply even normalcy after a devastating setback or assault on their person.

When it comes to how scholars and believers view the resurrection of Jesus, there are essentially two points of view, with many subtle variations. Both have become widely influential in our time among both Catholics and Protestants. One point of view depicts the resurrection of Jesus as an event that happens independently of the perception of the disciples, which is then interpreted and transmitted by them. The other point of view depicts the resurrection of Jesus as an event that happens principally within or among the hearts and minds of Jesus’ disciples, and what they transmit is their interior experience translated into narrative form. Before we examine in subsequent chapters the theoretical and technical issues involved in asserting either of these positions to be plausible, we need to be reasonable and commit to listening to both points of view.

The Orthodox Understanding of the Resurrection of Jesus

For some, the label “orthodox” may mean Orthodox with a capital “O” in distinction with Western, Catholic Christianity; for others, “orthodox” may mean communally responsible, and therefore morally virtuous; for still others, “orthodox” may mean the highly technical, over-refined dogmatic view defended by a monolithic medieval institution against all who would dare to think for themselves. In this writing, all I mean by the label “orthodox” is the core understanding most commonly held by the majority of Christians through the last twenty centuries. I might have preferred to use the label “traditional,” but that label has already been taken up by a particular form of history writing, as you will see below.

The orthodox understanding is that Jesus was raised from the dead in the way that the texts of the New Testament portray: several days after his crucifixion, Jesus rose bodily from the dead, emerging from his tomb more than a full day after his crucifixion, and appearing to his disciples on several separate occasions. The resurrection signaled, among other things, Jesus’ victory over sin and evil, God’s acceptance of Jesus’ death as an offering on behalf of humanity, and the issuing of a new invitation to all to participate in the divine life. Despite the recent trend toward vilifying the ancient and medieval church for holding unwaveringly to orthodox formulae as a means of controlling the faithful, there are actually several sources of motivation for the church for having maintained and still maintaining the traditional view of the resurrection of Jesus as an objective historical event, all of them honorable and worthy of thoughtful consideration.

First, the orthodox understanding is anti-reductionistic, and empowers those who are wary or at least skeptical of the tendency of the reigning intelligentsia to believe they have the last word on reality. Science, for instance, though long in the ascendancy in the Western world, can never finally furnish us with answers to the most fundamental questions of existence and meaning. A recent case in point was the discovery of the Higgs Boson, the so-called God particle, whose presence explained why atomic material has mass. While not discounting the scientific importance of this finding, most philosophers and theologians seemed unimpressed with the finding that there is more “stuff” in the universe than previously thought, since the more fundamental questions are (1) why there is any stuff at all? and (2) what is the point of anything existing in the first place? To reduce the resurrection of Jesus to the impact of the disciples’ collective memory of Jesus is merely to replace metaphysics with psychology and reduce the ultimately mysterious workings of God to the relatively known quantities of human behavior, and in this way participate in “the domestication of the transcendent.”1

Second, the orthodox understanding asserts that our understanding of what is must in some respects precede our understanding of what we ought to do. The resurrection of Jesus is a great big “stone in the river,” around which our fluid debates about ethics and social progress must flow, because it reveals something of God’s enduring character and God’s purposes for humankind. Construing the resurrection of Jesus purely in terms of a metaphor with ethical implications begs the question of whose ethics we are employing: the ethics of the rich, the ethics of the poor, the ethics of the powerful, or the ethics of the weak. Ethics without attention to the givens of reality, whether metaphysical or historical, lacks any enduring points of reference and winds up being only the expression of the social order of the day. What we ought to be about must be more than a matter of social convention; it must be grounded in our most fundamental understandings of reality. If we endorse the idea that ethics are merely the production of a given society, we will ultimately have to evaluate all impetus for social reform as accidental by-products of history rather than the disciplined application of reasoned judgment, a view which denigrates human rationality and freedom. Enduring values require metaphysical grounding if they are to be the standard against which a society is measured, or else they are simply the dressed-up expressions of self-interest of different social groupings. Just as experimentation without attention to scientific method is only an application of the experimenter’s own prejudices, so ethical reasoning without recourse to an overarching worldview or metanarrative has no claim to universality. If the resurrection of Jesus is a historical event, it could be regarded as revealing of the God who brought it about, and that would give us insight into the very values of God. In fact many argue that the significance of the resurrection lies in its eschatological (eschaton is a Greek word referring to the ultimate goal of history) character, that is, of what it says about human destiny and therefore proper human values.

Third, the orthodox understanding affirms the value of the body. In the broader Christian tradition, and especially in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions where the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is upheld, the incarnation of God is understood to demonstrate the fundamental goodness of material reality, including that of the human body. Respect for bodily existence impels Christians to feed the hungry, to house the homeless, and to provide medical care. Respect for bodily existence raises questions about purely utilitarian calculations in beginning-of-life and end-of-life matters such as abortion and euthanasia. Affirming the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event in which Jesus was re-embodied is consistent with the affirmation of the dignity of all bodily existence, including the very young and the very old. It also speaks a word of hope to those who have been marginalized for some bodily characteristic, whether that be gender, skin-color, infirmity, or relative physical or mental disability: God will ultimately vindicate that human suffering which occurs in virtue of our embodied existence by granting the transformation of our bodies into a fully perfected state: the resurrection of Jesus is God’s seal on that promise for all of us. The body-affirming understanding of the resurrection of Jesus directs Christian ethical reasoning toward a holistic view of the human person and respect for basic material needs.

Fourth, the orthodox understanding provides solid grounding for continued humility. The belief that God intervened in human history carries with it the implication that humankind is not so evolved as to beyond the need of divine help. It also implies that there are possibilities for human transformation that are yet beyond our imagination, and that we are not capable of engineering humanity into a utopian state. The affirmation of the resurrection of Jesus as an objective, historical reality also keeps the death of Jesus in human view: the very rejection of God’s self-presentation in Jesus reminds us that we are always quite capable of rejecting God and God’s will, and in need of God’s gracious response to our incompleteness.

I offer these considerations not as compelling arguments, or even as a complete typology of reasons for affirming the resurrection of Jesus as a discrete historical event. These four motivations however might at least be indicative not only of the range of thinking among those who would uphold this view.

The Revisionist View of the Resurrection of Jesus

For some, the label “revisionist” may mean intellectually unfounded and academically irresponsible; for others, “revisionist” may mean radically rethought so as to bring contemporary humanity in touch with the spiritual dynamism of the early church; for still others, “revisionist” may mean relegating theology to a role subservient to other disciplines, such as philosophy, science, or history. By “revisionist” I mean the sincere attempt to reinterpret the resurrection of Jesus in ways more intellectually and spiritually satisfying than the orthodox understanding. While it could be successfully argued that there are many possible revisionist understandings of the resurrection of Jesus, I will choose the one that I understand to be perennial and, in many Christian circles, currently ascendant.

For many down through the centuries, the “resurrection” of Jesus can be understood along the following lines. Jesus, the popular preacher of the immanence of God’s reign, was arrested, vilified, and crucified, his influence seemingly extinguished by the jealousy of the religious leaders of his day and the mighty indifference of the secular government. However, in remembering his teachings, and recalling his willingness to live according to those teachings even if it meant his death, the life of Jesus continued to inspire his disciples to imitate their master: in their renewed dedication to live lives completely dedicated to the good news of God’s justice and love, Jesus’ influence was “resurrected,” brought back to life among his faithful followers. In such a scheme, the proclamation that God has “raised” Jesus means essentially that God has “exalted” Jesus in the minds of his disciples, and made him “Lord” by allowing his memory to become a controlling influence on the life of their community.

First, the revisionist understanding takes away the emphasis on the metaphysical. Categories of thought and experience change from century to century, and from culture to culture. Sometimes categories change within a given culture within a single century, as happened in the West with the adoption of Darwin’s theory of natural selection in the nineteenth century or Einstein’s theory of special relativity in the twentieth. We can’t be expected to live in the thought world of the first century, with a flat earth, heaven “above” and hell “below.” We don’t routinely cast out evil spirits anymore, but treat people for mental illness instead. We need to reinterpret the narrative accounts of Jesus’ resurrection in contemporary terms. To ask contemporary Christians to learn the language of ancient metaphysics is too daunting a task, and to ask people to abandon the fruits of human progress and embrace an outmoded worldview is cruel and unworthy of consideration. For most of us, highly abstract theoretical considerations that we might broadly call “metaphysical” are not what we enjoy talking about, much less pretend to understand, so how can that be an element of the gospel that Jesus preached to the poor and the downtrodden?

Second, the revisionist understanding places the emphasis on the ethical. If Christians are to live as people of hope, the resurrection of Jesus is the centerpiece of a faith that says God never gives up on any of us, no matter how dismal or unfair our circumstances. As the Gospels depict, Jesus’ life is the ultimate morality tale: even if the entire world is against you, stay true to God, and God will vindicate you and your efforts. Even if you do not live to see this vindication, the truth will win out eventually, and your life will be understood and esteemed for its value by those who come after you. Granted we would all love to experience our vindication in our own lifetime, but we are called to take up the invitation to live as courageously as Jesus did, offering ourselves for the ongoing life of the world, even if that means the ultimate sacrifice of never knowing how or when your contribution will be appreciated. Perhaps this is what was meant by “becoming as little children,” and being able to “give no thought for tomorrow,” but abandoning oneself to God’s assessment of our worth. This take on the resurrection of Jesus is not for the faint-hearted, but calls for a robust, courageous and world-engaging faith.

Third, the revisionist understanding acknowledges that you are not your body. The “I” that I know is different from my body: I can in some respects overcome my body, using mind over matter. This is a philosophical position that might conceivably be welcomed by those who are disabled, disfigured, or for other reasons that have to do with the condition of their bodies are marginalized by society. This also resonates with seniors, many of whom have to come to terms with the weakening of their bodies and the resulting lack of endurance and agility, and may also resonate with persons who are or are on the road to being transgendered and/or in the process of sex-reassignment. It may also be cherished by certain self-improvement movements, who focus on the mastery of the body. Discerning the action of God in Christ might lead us to look beyond the obvious features of the incarnation such as Jesus’ maleness, his Jewishness, his personal piety, and even his first-century worldview. These elements of Jesus’ life aren’t things we can aspire to, so the meaning of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus must lie beyond these physical and temporal considerations in a system of insights that is truly universal.

Fourth, the revisionist understanding makes the resurrection of Jesus something we can discuss in terms of contemporary historical reasoning. In a post-Enlightenment world, we no longer believe in miracles, at least not in the sense of events that require supernatural intervention. When historians encounter tales of miracles in ancient or medieval texts, they rightly assume that they are products of imagination or ignorance, stemming from a lack of scientific understanding of how the world actually works. Impartial historians would do far better to interpret the death and “resurrection” of Jesus within what we know of the unalterable laws of biology, namely that dead people do not spontaneously reanimate. Any other position is a retreat from the advance of scientific knowledge, and represents a break with the fundamental dictum that truth is truth no matter where we find it. A symbolic or subjective renewal of appreciation of what Jesus taught and stood for would be in keeping with our contemporary worldviews, and be salvageable for the inspiration of humanity in the third millennium. The narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection don’t record a single historical event, but rather they represent an enduring appreciation of what has always been true, that the ongoing power of life conquers the ongoing power of death over the course of cosmological history just as surely as hope conquers despair within the smaller parameters of human history.

Can We Dismiss the Question?

On the one hand, most discussion of key points of doctrine should probably be considered as sincere attempts to find new ways to express agreement with the historic Christian faith; rushing to judgment and pronouncing those who would challenge long-held beliefs as heretics or standing outside the circle of faith does nothing to encourage us to understand those who hold contrary opinions, and closes off conversation before it can even begin. On the other hand, it would seem strange to declare once and for all that all Christian beliefs are negotiable, and that there is no need on our part in the present to identify with the faith of the church as it existed in the first century, and that there is no “deposit of faith” to be treasured for all time. While someone might want to defend this position, it would require an extraordinarily thorough reconceptualization of religion, tradition, and community, not only for Christians but for our understanding of other religions as well. Not all advocates of this newer understanding of the resurrection of Jesus would claim this radical step is implied in what they affirm; in fact, many would claim that revisiting the resurrection of Jesus in the manner they are suggesting would help the church to reclaim the original dynamics of faith lost when the church committed to analyzing and concretizing its faith in the language of Greek metaphysics.

Sincere and thoughtful people do sometimes differ, and that has to be acknowledged and truly owned by those who want to think through the question of Jesus’ resurrection with any measure of seriousness. It is important to note that both points of view take the question of what kind of event the resurrection of Jesus is to be a relevant question. If the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event like other historical events, it potentially has different implications than if that is not the case. The resurrection of Jesus is the perfect test-case for studying the intersection of theology and history.

Some might want to dismiss the question and claim that it doesn’t matter whether or not the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event. It might be ventured that what really matters is that people believed that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event, and that’s all that really matters. Such an attempt to shelve the question has its own implications, however. It suggests that those who presented the resurrection of Jesus to the world as a historical event—at least by the time the Gospel narratives were written—were self-deceived or intellectually limited, which would have to cast doubt on the intelligibility of their representation of Jesus’ vision and ministry. It also suggests that those who lived—and in many instances, sacrificed—their lives for the integrity of the church in subsequent centuries were misguided, and perhaps to a large extent distracted from the real existential and ethical issues at hand. It further suggests that theologians, clergy, and dedicated lay persons have wasted enormous time, energy, and resources presenting, explicating, and defending something inconsequential, possibly indicating a deep-seated pathology on the part of the entire Christian movement.

An analogy might be that of the original moon landing. Some conspiracy-theorists claim that the moon landing was faked, with footage of the “lunar” event actually shot in a television studio to spare the American government the embarrassment that they had failed in their promise to put a man on the moon and thereby demonstrate global technological supremacy. In some respects, it might be true that if the moon landing was faked, it had much the same consequences as a successful mission: the expansion of funding to the space program and the inspiration of the American people. In other respects, the consequences of pronouncing the original moon landing to have been faked are enormous in terms of what that says about the relationship of the American government to the American people, in terms of social spending priorities, and in terms of the positioning of the United States in the global community. Beyond the emotional distress of having “lived a lie,” any American citizen has to consider the opportunity-cost of those funds going to the space program that might have gone to improving health and education or other social infrastructure, or the impact of an unearned reputation for America’s role as technologically dominant on its self-appointed role in policing global conflicts.

Even if the consequences of misconstruing the resurrection of Jesus to be a historical event were not so dire, to take the position that the historical question doesn’t matter is in effect to have already taken up the revisionist point of view. In saying that the question of whether or not the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event doesn’t matter is to say that the real event was the psychological conversion of the disciples of Jesus to declare him as alive in their own faith and witness to his life and teaching.

What This Book Discusses

The question of the nature of the event of the resurrection of Jesus is not an easy one to discuss, as it involves questions of metaphysics, epistemology, systematic and pastoral theology, and the faith of real women and men all around the world. It shouldn’t come as any surprise that the editorial comment that “the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” about Jesus (John 21:25) follows that Gospel’s resurrection narratives. There has been an enormous amount of ink spilled over the subject of Jesus’ resurrection, and what you are reading is just a little more.

Most of what has been written about the resurrection has been devotional and inspirational literature in which the question of whether or not the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event isn’t raised, either because the authors hadn’t thought much about these questions, or assumed (perhaps rightly) that this wasn’t a question their readers were prepared to pursue. It may be safe to say that for most Christians through most centuries of the church’s existence, the question of whether or not the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event was something only examined by professional theologians and more thoughtful clergy.

More recently, in the last couple of centuries, the question of whether or not the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event has reemerged among scholarly theologians in response to shifting worldviews. Many of these scholars ventured that the resurrection of Jesus was not a historical event, at least not in the sense that other chronicled events are considered historical, and were quite inventive in offering new categories of language, writing, and community tradition to help others grapple with their insights. Many of them tried to preserve the fundamental meaningfulness of the resurrection of Jesus as an element of Christian faith without committing themselves to declaring it to be a historical event, at least not along the lines of the traditional view. Other authors, especially among American evangelicals in the last century, offered vigorous defenses of the resurrection as a historical event, but often did so without much regard to either the profundity of their opponents’ arguments or attention to the theoretical question of what makes any event a historical event. Some of those writings, despite their shortcomings, are encyclopedic in their amassing of details, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts to uncover the truth.

This book is unique (or at least very rare) in its focus on issues that should be examined before anyone plunges into weighing and judging the evidence on the resurrection of Jesus. Just as courts are guided by rules of law, historians are guided by certain methodological rules. However, just as the law evolves, slowly and carefully, so the rules of historical method evolve, slowly and carefully. There is no one body of historians who make up the rules that historians have to use when engaged in their craft, and there are differing opinions about the how to prioritize recognized elements of sound history writing. Most historians, I have discovered, don’t regard themselves as experts on historical method, but tend to write the findings of their historical research in an intuitive fashion, along the lines of the kinds of history writing they have known and admired. Over the last couple of centuries there have been discernible shifts in thinking—at least in the Western world—affecting the work of the majority of professional historians, and some of what follows is an attempt to take those shifts into account when approaching the question of whether or not the resurrection of Jesus is an historical event. I will, in a way, argue that the discipline of history writing almost died and has been resurrected in a form that allows it consider the resurrection of Jesus on historical terms.

I will try to offer some background on the development of contemporary historical method and outline some of the shifts that have occurred, in increasing detail as we approach our own day, and discuss how they affect our central question. I will also trace how these shifts were confronted or embraced by some of the greater theological minds of the twentieth century. As the reader will see, I have chosen to dwell on the work of those theologians whose writings feature significant reflection on the issue of whether or not the resurrection of Jesus was historical. I will also engage the multidisciplinary world of New Testament scholars, who are implicitly historians and theologians. Along the way I will uphold the coherence of both the revisionist and traditional views of the resurrection of Jesus, but in the end I will affirm, for what I hope will be considered sound methodological reasons, the viability of the orthodox position. I will finish up by addressing in detail a few of the implications for Christian faith in the twenty-first century of declaring the resurrection of Jesus to be a historical event.

It is my casual, unscientific observation that evangelical Protestants in most parts of the world hold strictly to the orthodox understanding of the resurrection as a nonnegotiable, sine qua non of their faith, and are typically baffled as to how anyone claiming to be a Christian can seriously entertain any other point of view. I hope that evangelical Protestant readers will be able to bracket any discomfort they might have with my being Catholic and enjoy the convergence of evangelical Protestant and orthodox Catholic conclusions. I also observe that many mainline Protestant denominations are split between orthodox and revisionist understandings of the resurrection, with the vast majority of them not wishing to stir up troubles over what seems an obscure metaphysical issue when there are other urgent matters to attend to. I hope that mainline Protestant readers will consider the resurrection of Jesus central enough to their faith that they will see how their understanding of the resurrection of Jesus, their understanding of the mission of Jesus, and their understanding of the person of Jesus need to be woven together for the sake of their faith’s integrity. And I also observe, with a great deal of intrigue, how relatively few Catholics in my orbit have thought through this issue, seemingly accepting the orthodox understanding—more or less. Catholics, it seems, have long lived in a world of one-offs, of historical singularities, and imagine the resurrection of Jesus to be just one more of these. I do hear, however, listening between the lines of homilies as I visit different parishes and hear different priests, the tendency to treat all questions of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, as if they are simply a mythological representation of saying that Christ is present to us in the Eucharist. I hope Catholics will appreciate my concern that this kind of “translation” of the resurrection of Jesus into Eucharistic theology may ultimately undermine the orthodox understanding of Eucharist as well as the resurrection.

How to Use This Book

It may be my author’s vanity, but I think I have written a book that can be used in different settings. Holding two earned doctorates, I may now have spent enough time inside university and seminary classrooms to know what kind of things students discuss at various levels and in various settings. I have also been in pastoral ministry for twenty-five years, so I think I have a fair notion of the kind of questions that are helpful in an adult study-group setting. I now work outside both academic and ecclesiastical settings, having been “returned to the wild” of the laity, and have become reacquainted with the kind of questions that everyday followers of Jesus wrestle with in times of prayer and reflection.

At the end of each chapter are three sets of questions.

The first set is labeled “Seminary” and is intended for senior undergraduates or basic degree seminary classes. Many of them could be assigned as study questions in lecture courses, but they are really intended for discussion. These questions tend to suspend any particular faith-commitment.

The second set is labeled “Study Group” and is intended for use among adults in typical Catholic parish and Protestant congregational settings. These questions presuppose that the participants are practicing Christians with some rudimentary understanding of the Christian tradition. Wrestling with these questions might be aided by the presence of a priest, minister, or educated lay-person, but the presence of such a resource person isn’t presumed. Some groups who are without a resource person have found it helpful to note questions they found difficult and assign a group member to seek out someone outside the group who can be of assistance.

The third set is labeled “Individual” and is intended for personal reflection. The answers to these questions are likely to be of a nature that should only be shared with a close friend or a spiritual director, and are not normally intended for group discussion. If, however, two or more people who are very well-acquainted with each other are reading this book together, these questions might be considered in conversation. I only recommend that you decide beforehand if these questions will be part of your study-covenant: no one likes to be ambushed!

In all likelihood, most readers of this book will be flying solo. I understand the temptation to read a book like this like a novel, turning the pages as fast as one can, ignoring the chapter-ending questions as peripheral. I recommend, though, that you at least scan the questions at the end of each chapter, take a moment to consider your own thoughts, and mark any that you would like to return to someday when you have more time. When you are finished reading this book it would probably prove very helpful for you to flip through and take a second look at the questions you marked, and consider whether or not your reading and reflection have offered any further answers for you along the way.

And one more word. The research that stands behind this little book took me several years to conduct, and resulted in the writing of a thesis that I successfully defended for my PhD. You might not agree with my conclusions, but I can assure that the research is solid. I have, however, beefed up the theological conclusions now that I have a little more freedom to do so. For those of you who are only too glad this seems to be written by your local green grocer rather than someone who has spent too long in “the ivory tower,” you’re welcome.

Questions for Consideration

Seminary

1. What authors are you familiar with who might hold the revisionist view or the traditional view of the resurrection of Jesus?

2. What do you already know about the elements of historical method?

Study Group

1. What parts of the revisionist and traditional views of the resurrection of Jesus appealed to you? Why?

2. How much does anyone have to know before they can be called a Christian?

Individual

1. When have you ever defended a position you didn’t really believe in, and what was the result?

2. What elements of the Christian faith do you have secret doubts about?[

1. Placher, Domestication of Transcendence.