2Ti 3:16
Figure 1 Gospels Criticism Centuries
Figure 2 STOP. What Does This Mean?
Please see figure one for a pictorial summary of the historical periods this study overlaps. Gospels criticism is the same largely cerebral estimation of Scripture as is biblical criticism per se (“Biblical Criticism”), except that the subject is the New Testament; specifically, the subject is the gospels ( Mat 1:1ff, Mar 1:1ff, Luk 1:1ff, Jhn 1:1ff). Beginning in the period called the Enlightenment, or, Age of Reason (“Age of Enlightenment”; note the precursor “Renaissance”), through the post-Enlightenment Bultmannian era (the Bultmannian era coincides with the “NQ” period in our figure one), to contemporary Nihilism, Pluralism, and Relativism (all of which coincide with the “NA” period in our figure one; “Nihilism,” “Pluralism,” “Relativisim”), there has appeared a consistent rejection of the divinity of Jesus Christ in gospels criticism [1]. In turn this rejection-conclusion finds its way into a gullible, theologically Christ-naive, and largely conditioned/predisposed-to-concur society (so it is in the early twenty-first-century). One of the purposes of this study is to prayerfully shine a little light on this theological Christ-naivety in the specific area of gospels criticism—which criticism of course ultimately focuses on Jesus. Our main purpose is to come to understand what lies behind this rejection of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Toward that end, two epistemological methodologies will necessarily be in view throughout the study: Empiricism and Rationalism (“Empiricism”, “Rationalism”).
This study will explore the interrelation of the major movements in gospels criticism concurrent with and since the Enlightenment (Fig. 1) with an eye to the philosophical environment of the time and its influence on the major, that is, trend-setting gospels critics. The study should make clear the profound effect that Empiricism and Rationalism has had on gospels criticism to the extent that gospels criticism has stripped the gospels of their supernatural element, an element that is summed up perfectly in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
With a heretofore authoritarian Church weakened by the Reformation in the West (“Protestant Reformation”), and Islam in the East (“Islam”, “Fall of Constantinople”), and in no little way with impressive advances in mathematics and science suggesting the possibility for far-reaching human self-sufficiency (“Mathematics,” “Science”), the spirit of Empiricism swept across western Europe and north America from the seventeenth to the nineteenth-century unthrottled (Fig. 1). Many people from different walks of life were influenced, but of interest here is that the theologian also fell under its spell. The movement ascribed a primary role to observation-based reason as arbiter of truth (“Reason”). As a product of the Enlightenment [2], this movement delineated most profoundly the dualism in Immanuel Kant’s metaphysics (“Immanuel Kant,” “Metaphysics,” “Philosophy”; Kant was influenced by G. Leibnitz, C. Wolff, and M. Knutzen), wherein lies the movement's connection to gospels criticism. Significantly, Kant had separated noumenal reality from phenomenal reality: to Kant, noumenal reality is that reality which exists independent of intellectual or sensory perception of it, while phenomenal reality is that reality constructed by the mind as a consequence of the experience of sensory perception/s (“Mind,” “Sense”). Kant's metaphysics (specifically we are referring to the bold text just above) unambiguously (overtly) entered gospels criticism by way of Ernst Toeltsch (“Troeltsch”), who provided three principles that greatly impacted gospels criticism [3]. The Kantian basis of these principles, that guide (according to Troeltsch) what may or may not be assessed as real (true) about historical events is evident—all three principles discount noumenal reality in favor of phenomenal reality. In short, that which the human mind can perceive to be real through its consistent correlation to human experience is real, and none other. This is an empiricist mindset, and such thinking came to guide gospels criticism with the consequence that the supernatural element became the object of Reason so as to bring it in line with empiricist observable norms (such is the liberal manifestation, which constructs enterprising this-worldly interpretations of the gospels to do just that), or it became the object of a discrediting rationale of elimination (such is the radical manifestation, which basically discounts the supernatural element altogether). So, in keeping with the empiricist thinking of the times, itself a thoroughly confirmatory type of observation-rooted thinking, the gospels criticism considered here followed in like manner, and thus pursued two manners of gospels-text interpretation, whose character we call: (1) liberal-enterprising rationalization of the supernatural element (Liberalism has an another flavor which we point out in the text), and (2) radical-altogether eliminating the possibility of the supernatural. Please compare (3) Fundamentalism (“Fundamentalism”), and for thoroughness consider note seven.
The Liberalism that began in the late eighteenth-century (updated 06/10/2015, A.s.) and continued until the time of Albert Schweitzer’s Quest for the Historical Jesus (1906; “Albert Schweitzer”; Fig. 1) is a consequence the Empiricism that preceded it. Seeking a plausible this-worldly explanation for the supernatural element in the gospels, the liberals, of whom the thought of H.E.G. Paulus and F.C. Baur is prototypical, either downplayed the miracles and focused on Jesus’ “extraordinary” human qualities as the cause [4], or devised exhaustive mundane cause and effect arguments consistent with the observable natural order of things in this world. It follows that the “Life of Jesus” movement( [5, “Jesus”]), that gave us many varied portraits of the historical Jesus, runs concurrent with this Liberalism, because it is not possible to rationalize the divine aspect of Jesus without completely redrawing him (thus many “portraits” of Him ensued) [6].
Liberalism has another leg wherein the doctrines of Christianity are transformed into an ethical and social Gospel, to the exclusion of its salient salvific, eschatological emphasis. Here we see a shift in emphasis and focus from the divine work of Redemption, singularly to the efficacy and import and value of the (observable) teachings of Jesus in guiding human social behavior and ethics, themselves an observable. Please notice that here is a wicked shift that undermines redemption | Salvation. (1) Why wicked? And (2) why does it undermine Redemption | Salvation? (1) it is a red herring—it is wicked because in all respects it is a very noble emphasis that plays on the human good works quota as the means for Redemption | Salvation; but (2) practically (via works), the realization of this shift cannot redeem one, seeing that even excellent human social behavior and ethics (works) do not satisfy the holiness requirement for Salvation; noble though these works certainly are, and are to be pursued, they are worthless as concerns Redemption | Salvation. Only the work of the Divine, the Perfect, the work of Jesus Christ at Calvary, effects Redemption | Salvation (“A Letter of Invitation,” both as an invitation here and as a Bible-based outline of Redemption | Salvation). In this particular liberalism the theology of Albrecht Ritschl is prototypical. “In Ritschl's estimation, religious affirmations—regarding God, for example—are strictly 'value judgments.' […] A person can come to a sense of his or her own dignity and worth through the idea of a God who is his or her Creator, Savior, and Sustainer. But remember, Ritschl emphasized that this doctrine of a divine being is strictly a value judgment. And the only concept of God that can pass the test of being a value(able) judgment is one in which God is exclusively love—and not holiness, not justice, not judgment.” (Strimple 50; cf. Green 35, “Social Gospel,” “Ethics,” “the Beatitudes,” Mat 5-7, esp. Mat 5:48). The influence of Empiricism is not lost in this other leg because these empiricist-liberals too reason that the human aspect of Jesus: His character, charisma, personality, particularly the force of His teachings, and so on, is the observable dynamic behind the supernatural element: a transformed life, or a healing, for example. Liberals take this one step further, in that they see the dynamic humanity (dynamic personhood) of Jesus as the observable dynamic behind Christianity on the whole (and thus the Church is not the divine work of the Holy Spirit [=DUNAMAI-power] in that regard, “Early Christendom”, Immanence). So what of the nature miracles then in this context? How can Jesus' personhood explain these miracles? Please notice that for the liberal, the nature miracles feed more in the explanatory-badlands of Troeltsch's principles (for example the “Swoon Theory” of Jesus' resurrection [“Swoon Theory”]), than in the explanatory-badlands of the dynamic (“volcanic” as one critic puts it) personhood of Jesus.
Whereas the empiricist-liberal explains Jesus’ divinity and the miraculous in such a way as to satisfy Troeltsch's principles [3], the empiricist-radical flat rejects these as implausible and accordingly interprets the texts in some discrediting manner. Here H.S. Reimarus, D. F. Strauss, and W. Wrede are prototypical (Rudolf Bultmann, considered later, belongs here). Reimarus was a Deist (typical of empiricists); he considered the gospels to be entirely fraudulent [8]. Strauss introduced the concept of myth (“Arianism,” “Myth”) into gospels criticism (Bultmann greatly widened its application, and the popularity of the idea; more on that below). Wrede thought that the gospel of Mark was a production by the Marcan community, that the messianic texts therein were never uttered by Jesus. One can still see here consideration of Troeltsch’s principles, but they are assimilated quite differently than by the liberals: the this-worldly explanation of the divinity of Jesus (the liberal approach) is as much an assault on the radical’s empiricism as is accepting it—he must flat reject it in favor of Kantian phenomenological reality.
Though Kasemann is credited with launching the New Quest, Rudolf Bultmann provided its methodology and momentum; the New Quest players were all in some form (to the left, center, or right) adherents of the thought of Rudolf Bultmann (Strimple 135). In Bultmann intersects the gospels-critic rationale of D.F. Strauss (Gospel mythology), W. Wrede (radical skepticism), Wilhelm Bousset (History of Religions interpretation with Hellenistic Church as Gospels source, [“History of Religions,” “History of Religions School”]), the philosophical rationale of Martin Heidegger, and the historical | literary criticism of Hermann Gunkel (Form Criticism) [11]. These men and others like them provided for Bultmann (and his disciples) both the backdrop from which sprang a hyper-liberal (see above) theological concept (apprehend the existential self-understanding of Jesus) and the framework for a peculiar literary criticism “science” which came to full bloom in Form Criticism [12]. Bultmann’s form criticism as applied to the gospels, in its goal to discover the oral tradition and in turn the true, wider Tradition behind the gospels, reflects an empiricism not unlike the modern scientific method [13]. And here is where the application led him: “As Bultmann saw it, there is very little in the Gospels that is not either secondary accretion or editorial addition by the Evangelist. The accounts of Jesus' birth, his temptation in the desert, his transfiguration, his miracles, his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, most of the story of his passion, his resurrection, his ascension—all are pure myth. Indeed, although Bultmann rejected out of hand Bruno Bauer's denial of the historicity of Jesus, so little was Bultmann concerned about 'Christ after the flesh' (2Cr 5:16 KJV) that he could say that he would not mind if some preferred 'to put the name of “Jesus” in quotation marks and let it stand as an abbreviation for the historical phenomenon with which we are concerned [enter Kahler's icon-subtlety].'” (Strimple 117). Stymied by the observer effect—his own and others', Bultmann pivoted and radically retooled his methodology: “As we have seen, Bultmann was willing to concede to the historical Jesus of Nazareth virtually no significance for our Christian faith. Affirming the post-Enlightenment principle that historical scholarship can at best produce tentative judgments of probability, Bultmann concluded that Christian faith cannot rest upon the never certain judgments of the historian. He leaped Lessing's 'big ditch' by means of the existential decision of a believing response to the Christian kerygma. He turned the Lutheran (Pauline) affirmation of justification by faith alone in Christ alone—the incarnate Christ who redemptively died and rose again in history—into the affirmation of justification by faith alone in the call to an existential decision alone—the positive continually-to-be-repeated decision to live an authentic existence of openness to the future. Bultmann insisted that 'our ultimate concern is not with historical actuality [not observable] but with kerygmatic efficacy [observable] and existential significance [observable].' Therefore, Bultmann professed no ultimate interest (as contrasted with the merely curious interest of the historian) in das Was of Jesus ('what' he said) or das Wie of Jesus ('how' he acted). Nevertheless he continued (for reasons unclear to many) to profess the need to affirm das Das of Jesus ('that' he once lived). It is at this point that some of Bultmann's admirers have criticized him for being too conservative, too orthodox, in his theology—a criticism that may seem amazing to evangelical Christians!” (Strimple 128, red font added). See also “Gospels Criticism (Part Two)”.
The end of the twentieth-century (roughly the 1980s) heralded a major paradigm shift in gospels criticism (Fig. 1), one in which the Empiricism that heretofore guided it shifted to Rationalism (“Empiricism,” “Rationalism”--see also "Humanism", updated 07/27/2018, A.s.). The sciences have remained and no doubt will always be fundamentally empirical disciplines (“Science”). This gospels criticism shift is evidenced by Relativism, particularly the relativization of Observation, which by default disqualifies Empiricism. The biblical texts (the God-given observables) are no longer apprehended from the vantage point of their literal content, historical context, and much less so from their authors’ intended meaning (“in the text” phenomenons or “behind the text” neumenons), but from the vantage point of the enterprising reader (“in front of the text” 'krisisons' ['judgmentons' if you will] if we may coin an apropos descriptor). This unbridled “reader-oriented” biblical criticism [14] is part of a plurality of modern biblical criticism that includes genres like Liberation Hermeneutics ( Strimple 152, Green 329 ff), Feminist Hermeneutics ([part of the Liberation Hermeneutics genre] Strimple 152, Green 349ff), and Canonical Criticism ( Strimple 153, Green 370ff, “Biblical Criticism”), among others (“Hermeneutics”, “Pluralism”). Contemporary pluralism marks a near complete abandonment of centuries of critical scholarly effort, largely value-questionable though it be.
This study explored the fabric of the major movements in gospels criticism concurrent with and since the Enlightenment (Fig. 1). We wanted to understand what motivated some of the gospels critics of this period to reject the divinity of Jesus Christ and generally to reject the miraculous, the supernatural, related by the Gospel record. To reject, or to accept for that matter, anything, presupposes decision-making, and decision-making presupposes knowledge, appropriate knowledge by which to decide. Thus the study was intimately bound up with epistemology—which is the study of knowledge (what it is, how it is acquired, how it is utilized, and so forth). Toward that end we looked at two epistemological methodologies—empiricism (external to self, evidential, experiential knowledge, “Empiricism”), and rationalism (innate, deductive, purely intellectual knowledge “Rationalism”).
Within the period under consideration (Enlightenment to twenty-first-century), gospels criticism unfolded in three broad phases, of which the first two may be characterized by a certain “quest” to discover the focal point of the Gospel, its main Character, namely the real Jesus who ministered in the first-century AD, and these two are what are called an “old quest” and a “new quest.” The third, ushered in by a near abandonment of the critical scholarship particular to the first two, is hard to pin down, but Pluralism, an untethered (from the Focal Point) sort of criticism characterizes it rather well.
The old quest began in the late eighteenth-century (dated to the work of Reimarus; updated 06/10/2015, A.s.) and continued until the time of Albert Schweitzer’s Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1906, which sounded its doom owing to Schweitzer exposing not least subjectivity (Fig. 1). We understand the old quest as an empiricist type of quest, one that ascribed a primary role to observation-based reason as arbiter of truth. It was a product of the Enlightenment, and delineated quite profoundly the dualism in Immanuel Kant’s metaphysics. The important thing about Kant in our context is that he separated noumenal reality from phenomenal reality, where to Kant noumenal reality is that reality which exists independent of intellectual or sensory perception of it (sort of that reality which lies “behind” the object), and phenomenal reality is that reality constructed by the mind as a consequence of the experience of sensory perception, quite tangible. Significantly, Kant's metaphysics overtly entered gospels criticism by way of Ernst Toeltsch, who proposed three Kantian-based principles [3]—in short the principles say that which the human mind can perceive to be real through its consistent correlation to human experience is real, and none other. This reflects an empiricist mindset, and this manner of thinking guided gospels criticism in the old quest, with the consequence that interpretation of the gospels found ways to satisfy these empiricist principles—basically in two variations, a liberal variation, which leaned/leans hard on the extraordinary personhood of Jesus to explain the miraculous, or leaned/leans hard on His teachings (from which arose a largely social and ethical Gospel). Whereas the empiricist-liberal explains Jesus’ divinity and the miraculous in such a way as to satisfy Troeltsch's principles, the other variation here—the empiricist-radical—flat rejects these as implausible and accordingly interprets the texts in some discrediting manner. It is through the radical, for example, that the notion of Myth entered gospels criticism. These critics are hard-core empiricists, embracing as truth nothing but phenomenal reality.
The new quest was inaugurated by Ernst Kasemann, a student of Rudolf Bultmann, in 1953 (Fig. 1). Martin Kahler probably anticipated the new quest in an essay written in 1892 entitled
The 1980s heralded a major paradigm shift in gospels criticism (Fig. 1), one in which the empiricism that heretofore guided it shifted to rationalism. We see this gospels criticism shift evidenced by relativism, particularly the relativization of observation, which of necessity disqualifies empiricism. The biblical texts (God-given observables as we understand them) are no longer appreciated from the vantage point of their literal content, historical context, and much less so from their authors’ intended meaning (“in the text” phenomenons or “behind the text” neumenons), but from the vantage point of the enterprising reader (“in front of the text” 'krisisons'). This “reader-oriented” biblical criticism is but part of a plurality of modern biblical criticism that includes genres like Liberation Hermeneutics, Feminist Hermeneutics, and Canonical Criticism, among others.
Praised be your Name great Jehovah God, even you, who reigns in my heart, and graciously speaks to my mind...
Alphabetical Menu
A B C D E
F G H I J
K L M N O
P Q R S T
U V W X Y
Z
“A Letter of Invitation.”
Jesus, Amen.
<http://jesusamen.org/aletterofinvitation.html >
“Absolutism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutism >
[Absolutism] “Enlightened absolutism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism >
end Absolutism references
begin Age of Enlightenment references
“Age of Enlightenment.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Age_of_Enlightenment >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment >
end Age of Enlightenment references
begin Agnosticism references
[Agnosticism]. Shanahan, Edmund.
"Agnosticism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 25 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm >
“Agnosticism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Agnosticism >
“Agnosticism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism >
end Agnosticism references
“Amish.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish >
begin Apocalypticism references
“Apocalypticism.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism >
[Apocalypticism] “Jewish Eschatology.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_eschatology >
end Apocalypticism references
[Arianism]. Barry, William.
"Arianism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 20 May 2015
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm >
“Arianism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Arianism >
“Arianism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism >
end Arianism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelianism >
[Arminianism] Loughlin, James.
"Arminianism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907.26 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01740c.htm >
“Arminianism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Arminianism >
“Arminianism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism >
end Arminianism references
[Atheism] Aveling, Francis.
"Atheism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 18 May 2015.
< http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm >
“Atheism.
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Atheism >
“Atheism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism >
end Atheism references
begin Augustine of Hippo references
[Augustine of Hippo] Portalié, Eugène.
"Life of St. Augustine of Hippo."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm >
[Augustine of Hippo] Portalié, Eugène.
"Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm >
“Augustine of Hippo.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Augustine_of_Hippo >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo >
end Augustine of Hippo references
Bacon, Francis.
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bauer >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur >
“Bayle, Pierre.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bayle >
“Beatitudes, the.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/thebeatitudes.html >
“Beccaria. Cesare.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Beccaria >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism >
“Bentham, J.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham >
begin Biblical Criticism references
[Biblical Criticism] Reid, George.
"Biblical Criticism (Higher)."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04491c.htm >
[Biblical Criticism] Prat, Ferdinand.
"Biblical Criticism (Textual)."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04497a.htm >
“Biblical Criticism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Biblical_criticism >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism >
end Biblical Criticism references
Wikepedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Bornkamm >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Bousset >
[Buddhism] Aiken, Charles Francis.
"Buddhism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm >
“Buddhism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Buddhism >
“Buddhism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism >
end Buddhism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann >
“Calvin, John.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin >
[Calvinism] Barry, William.
"Calvinism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 19 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm >
“Calvinism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Calvinism >
[Calvinism] “Calvinism Sacramentology.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Calvinism_Sacramentology >
[Calvinism] “Hyper Calvinism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-Calvinism >
“Calvinism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism >
end Calvinism references
“Catherine the Great.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_the_Great >
begin Catholic Church references
[Catholic Church] Thurston, Herbert.
"Catholic."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 May 2015.
< http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm >
[Catholic Church] Thurston, Herbert.
"Roman Catholic."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm >
[Catholic Church] “ Roman Catholicism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Roman_Catholicism >
“Catholic Church.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church >
end Catholic Church references
[Christianity] Keating, Joseph.
"Christianity."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm >
“Christianity.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Christianity >
“Christianity.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity >
[Christianity] Kirsch, Johann Peter.
"Ecclesiastical History." [w.r.t. Catholicism]
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 20 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07365a.htm >
[Christianity] “Church History.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Church_history >
[Christianity] “History of Christianity.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity >
“[Christianity] Denomination.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Denomination >
[Christianity] “Christian Denomination.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination >
end Christianity references
[Conscience] Rickaby, John.
"Conscience."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm >
“Conscience.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Conscience >
“Conscience.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience >
end Conscience references
begin Consciousness references
[Consciousness] Maher, Michael.
"Consciousness."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04274a.htm >
“Consciousness.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness >
end Consciousness references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Conzelmann >
“Copernicus, Nicolaus.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus >
“D'Lambert, J. B.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_le_Rond_d%27Alembert >
“Da Vinci, Leonardo.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci >
“Decision-making.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making >
[Deism] Aveling, Francis.
"Deism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm >
“Deism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Deism >
“Deism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism >
end Deism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes >
[Dialectic] Coffey, Peter.
"Dialectic."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 30 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04770a.htm >
“Dialectic.”
Wikpedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic >
end Dialectic references
“Dibelius, Martin.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dibelius >
“Diderot, D.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot >
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Dilthey >
begin Dispensationalism references
“Dispensationalism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Dispensationalism >
“Dispensationalism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism >
end Dispensationalism references
[Dogma] Coghlan, Daniel.
"Dogma."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 28 May 2015.
< http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm >
“Dogma.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma >
end Dogma references
“Early Christendom.'
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/earlychristendom.html >
begin Eastern Church references
[“Eastern Church”] Fortescue, Adrian.
"Eastern Churches."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 18 May 2015.
< http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm >
[Eastern Church] “Eastern Orthodox Church.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Eastern_Orthodox_Church >
[Eastern Church] “Eastern Orthodox Church.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church >
[Eastern Church] “East-West Schism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism >
end Eastern Church references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Ebeling >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion >
[Empiricism] Siegfried, Francis.
"Empiricism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05407a.htm >
“Empiricism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism >
end Empiricism references
[Epistemology] Dubray, Charles.
"Epistemology."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05506a.htm >
“Epistemology.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Epistemology >
“Epistemology.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology >
end Epistemology references
[Ethics] Cathrein, Victor. "Ethics."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05556a.htm >
“Ethics.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Ethics >
“Ethics.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics >
[Ethics] “Ethics in the Bible.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_the_Bible >
[Ethics] “The New Testament, Theology, and Ethics.”
S.E. Fowl (see Green, 394-410).
end Ethics references
begin Evangelicalism references
“Evangelicalism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Evangelicalism >
“Evangelicalism.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism >
end Evangelicalism references
begin Existentialism references
“Existentialism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Existentialism >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism >
end Existentialism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople >
Attribution and Licence: By Bidgee (Own work) [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.
Thanks to the author and the Wikimedia Commons.
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_criticism >
“Founding Fathers of the United States.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States >
“Franklin, Benjamin.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin >
“Frederick the Great.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great >
[Free Will]. Maher, Michael.
"Free Will."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm >
“Free Will.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Free_will >
“Free Will.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will >
end Free Will references
begin French Revolution references
[French Revolution] Goyau, Georges.
"French Revolution."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 28 May 2015.
< http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm >
“French Revolution.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution >
end French Revolution references
begin Fundamentalism references
“Fundamentalism.'
Theopedia.”
< http://www.theopedia.com/Fundamentalism >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism >
end Fundamentalism references
Galilei, Galileo.
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei >
[God] Toner, Patrick.
"The Nature and Attributes of God."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 26 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm >
“God.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/God >
“God.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God >
end God references
[Gnosticism] Arendzen, John.
"Gnosticism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 15 Jun. 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm >
“Gnosticism.'
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Gnosticism >
“Gnosticism.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism >
end Gnosticism references
“Gospels Criticism (Part Two).”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/gospelscriticism2.html >
Hearing the New Testament.
Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans Publishing Co.,1995.
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Gunkel >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger >
“von Herder, J.G.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottfried_Herder >
[Hermeneutics] Maas, Anthony.
"Hermeneutics."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Jun. 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07271a.htm >
[Hermeneutics] Maas, Anthony.
"Biblical Exegesis."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 15 Jun. 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm >
[Hermeneutics] “Interpretation of the Bible.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Interpretation_of_the_Bible >
“Hermeneutics.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics >
end Hermeneutics references
“Herrmann, Wilhelm.
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Herrmann >
[Hinduism] Aiken, Charles Francis.
"Hinduism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07358b.htm >
“Hinduism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Hinduism >
“Hinduism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism >
end Hinduism references
“History.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History >
[History] De Smedt, Charles.
"Historical Criticism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04503a.htm >
[History] “Historical Criticism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism >
[History] “History of religions.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religions >
[History] “History of religions school.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religions_school >
[History] ”History of philosophy.”
Wikpedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_philosophy >
[History] “Philosophy of History.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history >
end History references
“Hobbes, Thomas.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Julius_Holtzmann >
[Humanism] Löffler, Klemens.
"Humanism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07538b.htm >
“Humanism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism >
end Humanism references
“Hume, David.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume >
[Idealism] Willmann, Otto.
"Idealism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 18 Jun. 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07634a.htm >
“Idealism.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism >
“Idealism (Christian eschatology).”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_%28Christian_eschatology%29 >
end Idealism references
[Immanence] Thamiry, Edouard.
"Immanence."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 19 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07682a.htm >
[Immanence] Toner, Patrick.
"Relation of God to the Universe."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 19 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06614a.htm >
[Immanence] “Immanence of God.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Immanence_of_God >
“Immanence.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence >
end Immanence references
begin Individualism references
[Individualism] Ryan, John Augustine.
"Individualism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07761a.htm >
“Individualism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution >
end individualism references
[Intellect]. Maher, Michael.
"Intellect."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm >
“Intellect.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellect >
end Intellect references
“Interpretation of the Bible.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Interpretation_of_the_Bible >
"Islam (Concept)."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08190a.htm >
“Islam.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Islam >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam >
end Islam references
“Jefferson, Thomas.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson >
begin Jehovah's Witnesses references
“Jehovah's Witnesses.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Jehovahs_Witnesses >
“Jehovah's Witnesses.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses >
end Jehovah's Witnesses references
[Jesus] Maas, Anthony.
"Christology."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 20 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm >
[Jesus] “Christology.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology >
[Jesus] “Deity of Jesus.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Deity_of_Jesus >
[Jesus] Maas, Anthony.
"Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 20 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm >
[Jesus] “Historical Jesus.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Historical_Jesus >
[Jesus] “Historical Jesus.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_movement >
[Jesus] “Quest for the Historical Jesus.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus >
[Jesus]. Maas, Anthony.
"Resurrection of Jesus Christ."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 20 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm >
[Jesus] “Resurrection of Jesus.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Resurrection_of_Jesus >
[Jesus] “Resurrection of Jesus.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar >
end Jesus references
“Joseph II Holy Roman Emperor.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor >
[Judaism] Gigot, Francis."Judaism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 19 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm >
“Judaism.”
Theopedia.”
< http://www.theopedia.com/Judaism >
“Judaism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism >
end Judaism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_K%C3%A4hler >
[Kant] Turner, William.
"Philosophy of Immanuel Kant."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08603a.htm >
“Kant, Immanuel.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Immanuel_Kant >
“Kant, Immanuel.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant >
[Kant] “Kantianism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism >
[Kant] “neo-Kantianism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Kantianism >
end Kant references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_K%C3%A4semann >
“Kepler, Johannes.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerygma >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard >
begin Kowability of God references
[Knowability of God]. Toner, Patrick.
"The Existence of God."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 25 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm >
[Knowability of God] Summa Theologica First Part Question 12.
“How God is Known by Us.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
25 May 2015.
< http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1012.htm >
“Knowability of God.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Knowability_of_God >
[Knowability of God] “Existence of God.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God >
end Knowability of God references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Knutzen >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthold_Ephraim_Lessing >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz >
[Liberalism] Gruber, Hermann.
"Liberalism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm >
[Liberalism] “Theological Liberalism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Theological_liberalism >
[Liberalism] “Liberal Christianity.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity >
[Liberalism] “Religious Liberalism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_liberalism >
end Liberalism references
“Libertarianism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism >
“Locke, John.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke >
“Luther, Martin.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther >
Marxsen, Willi.
No Wikipedia article, hence we link to “Redaction Criticism,” wherein he as also G. Bornkamm and H. Conzelmann are mentioned.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction_criticism >
[Materialism] Gutberlet, Constantin.
"Materialism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 30 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10041b.htm >
“Materialism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism >
end Materialism references
“Mathematics.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics >
end Mathematics references
“Megachurch.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Megachurch >
“Megachurch.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megachurch >
end Megachurch references
“Mendelssohn, Moses.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Mendelssohn >
[Metaphysics] Turner, William.
"Metaphysics."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10226a.htm >
“Metaphysics.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Metaphysics >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics >
end Metaphysics references
“Middle Ages."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 28 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10285c.htm >
“Middle Ages.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages >
end Middle Ages references
begin Mind references
"Mind."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm >
“Mind.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Mind >
“Mind.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind >
end Mind references
Wiktionary.
< http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/modern >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history >
begin Modernism references
[Modernism] Vermeersch, Arthur.
"Modernism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm >
“Modernism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Modernism >
“Modernism.”
wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism >
“postModernism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Postmodernism >
“postModernism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism >
end Modernism references
“Modernity.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity >
“postModernity.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernity >
end Modernity references
“Montesquieu.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu >
begin Mormonism references
[Mormonism] Harris, William.
"Mormons."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 19 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10570c.htm >
“Mormonism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Mormonism >
“Mormonism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism >
end Mormonism references
[Mysticism] Sauvage, George.
"Mysticism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 26 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10663b.htm >
“Mysticism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism >
end Mysticism references
[Myth] “Liberal Myth of Christian Origins.”
Theopeda.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Liberal_Myth_of_Christian_Origins >
[Myth] Bultmann, Rudolf, selected, edited and translated by Schubert M. Ogden.
New Testament & Mythology And Other Basic Writings.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. 0-8006-2442-4.
[Myth] “Religion and Mythology.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology >
end Myth references
“Naturalism (Philosophy).”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29 >
end Naturalism references
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/newtestamentcanon.html >
“Newton, Isaac.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton >
“Nietzsche, Friedrich.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche >
[Nihilism] Palmieri, Aurelio "Nihilism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 28 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm >
“Nihilism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism >
end Nihilism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon >
“Objectivism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29 >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29 >
[Ontology] Siegfried, Francis.
"Ontology."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 Jun. 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11258a.htm >
“Ontology.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Ontology >
“Ontology.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology >
end Ontology references
“Otto, Rudolf.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Otto >
“Paine, Thomas.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine >
Wiktionary.
< http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paradigm >
“Pascal, Blaise.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Paulus >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon >
[Philosophy] De Wulf, Maurice.
"Philosophy."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 27 May 2015.
< http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm >
“Philosophy.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Philosophy >
“Philosophy.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy >
[Philosophy] “History of Philosophy.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_philosophy >
[Philosophy] “Philosophy of Religion.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion >
end Philosophy references
[Pietism] Lauchert, Friedrich.
"Pietism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12080c.htm >
“Pietism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Pietism >
“Pietism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism >
end Pietism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism >
“Pluralism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Pluralism >
[Pluralism] “ Religious Pluralism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism >
end Pluralism references
“Politics.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics >
[Positivism] Sauvage, George.
"Positivism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12312c.htm >
“Positivism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism >
end Positivism references
[Pragmatism] Turner, William.
"Pragmatism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12333b.htm >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism >
end Pragmatism references
begin Protestantism references
[Protestantism] Wilhelm, Joseph.
"Protestantism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 28 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm >
“Protestantism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Protestantism >
“Protestantism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism >
end Protestantism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology >
“Quakers.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers >
begin Radicalism references
[Radicalism] “Death of God Theology.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_God_theology >
end Radicalism references
“Rand, Ayn.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand >
[Rationalism] Aveling, Francis.
"Rationalism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12652a.htm >
“Rationalism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Rationalism >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism >
end Rationalism references
“Rationality.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction_criticism >
begin Protestant Reformation references
[Protestant Reformation] Kirsch, Johann Peter.
"The Reformation."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm >
“Protestant Reformation.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Protestant_Reformation >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation >
end Protestant Reformation references
[Realism] De Wulf, Maurice.
"Nominalism, Realism, Conceptualism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 28 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm >
“Realism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism >
[Realism]“Anti-realism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism >
end Realism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Samuel_Reimarus >
[Relativism] Walker, Leslie.
"Relativism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12731d.htm >
“Relativism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Relativism >
“Relativism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism >
end Relativism references
[Renaissance] Barry, William.
"The Renaissance."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12765b.htm >
[Renaissance] “The Renaissance.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Renaissance >
end Renaissance references
“Revelation Chapter Thirteen Commentary.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/commentaryrev13.html >
“Revelation Chapter Seventeen Commentary.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/commentaryrev17.html >
[Ritschl] Pohle, Joseph.
"Ritschlianism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 18 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13086a.htm >
“Ritschl, Albrecht“
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Albrecht_Ritschl >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_Ritschl >
end Ritschl references
“Romanticism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism >
“Rothbard, Murray.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau >
“Sartre, J.P.”
Wikpedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre >
“Schliermacher. Friedrich.“
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schleiermacher >
begin Scholasticism references
[Scholasticism] Turner, William. "Scholasticism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 28 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm >
[Scholasticism]. De Wulf, Maurice.
"Neo-Scholasticism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 28 May 2015.
< http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10746a.htm >
“Scholasticism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Scholasticism >
“Scholasticism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism >
end Scholasticism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer >
[Science] Hagen, John.
"Science and the Church."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm >
[Science] “Science and theology.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Science_and_theology >
“Science.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science >
[Science] “Scientific Revolution.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution >
end science references
[Secularism]. Dubray, Charles.
"Secularism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 26 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm >
“Secularism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism >
end Secularism references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense >
begin Seventh Day Adventism references
[Seventh Day Adventism] Havey, Francis.
"Adventists."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 19 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01166a.htm >
“Seventh Day Adventism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Seventh_Day_Adventism >
[Seventh Day Adventism] “Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church >
end Seventh Day Adventism references
[Skepticism] Walker, Leslie.
"Scepticism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 25 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13516b.htm >
“Skepticism.”
Wikpedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism >
end Skepticism references
“Smith, Adam.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith >
“Sociology.
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology >
Wikipedia.
]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel >
[Soul] Maher, Michael, and Joseph Bolland.
"Soul."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 27 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm >
“Soul.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Soul >
“Soul.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul >
end Soul references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Strauss >
The Modern Search for the Real Jesus: An Introductory Survey of the Historical Roots of Gospels Criticism.
Phillipsburg, NJ: R&R Publishing, 1984. 0-87552-455-9.
This was our main source that we relied on heavily; we thank Professor Strimple.
begin Supernatural references
[Supernatural] Sollier, Joseph.
"Supernatural Order."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 28 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm >
“Supernatural.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural >
end supernatural references
[Swoon Theory] Maas, Anthony.
"Resurrection of Jesus Christ."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.22 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm >
[Swoon Theory] “Swoon Hypothesis.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis >
end Swoon Theory references
“Theism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Theism >
“Theism.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism >
end Theism references
“Theodicy.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy >
“Theology.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Theology >
“Theology.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology >
end Theology references
“TI ESTIN ALHQEIA;” (“What Is Truth?”).
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/whatistruth.html >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich >
begin Transcendence references
[Transcendence] Turner, William.
"Transcendentalism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 19 May 2015.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15017a.htm >
[Transcendence] “Transcendence of God.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/Transcendence_of_God >
“Transcendence (Religion).”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29 >
end Transcendence references
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Troeltsch >
“Uncertainty Principle [Heisenberg's].”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._B._Warfield >
“Weber, Max.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Hermann_Weisse >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Weiss >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Wolff_%28philosopher%29 >
Wolfram Research.
Mathematica drawing tools.
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wrede >
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. This study will throughout remain focused on the outworking of epistemological methodologies that catalyze this rejection (“Epistemology”), though it is understood that Jesus’ divinity is rejected for other reasons, not least being a certain disdain for the great responsibility that goes hand-in-hand with affirming His divinity.
2. The Enlightenment was itself a product of the Renaissance, which followed on the heels of centuries of stifled learning, superstition, and an authoritarian Church (Fig. 1).
3. Troeltsch's empiricist principles are: “(1) the principle of methodological doubt. All historical judgments (including those made concerning the events reported in the bible) can only be statements of probability, which are always open to revision. They can never be regarded as absolutely true. (2) the principle of analogy. All historical events are, in principle (in 'quality'), similar. Thus, 'present experience and occurrence become the criteria of probability in the past.' […] (3) The principle of correlation. All historical phenomena exist in a chain of cause and effect, and therefore are mutually interrelated and interdependent. There is no effect without an adequate and sufficient cause. […] The Kantian philosophical roots of these basic methodological principles, and how they eliminate from consideration a priori the truth claims of Christianity and the possibility of revelation, miracles, or any divine activity in human history should be clear.” (Strimple, 7; see “Immanuel Kant,” whose guiding principle was: '...the autonomy of human reason...').
4. Jesus’ effect as a teacher, his personality, his psychological influence (note that these are observables, which is of interest to the empiricist), in the case of life alterations, healings, and so on, were seen to motivate the recorded miracles. Here is a human-at-its-root cause for the miraculous—that at the same time, however, does not discount the miraculous per se (discounting the miraculous altogether is the domain of Radicalism). Paulus for example devised arguments along these ultimately-human-at-their-root lines, thus explaining the miraculous in line with expected, observable, possibility. This sort of deferring to the “extraordinary,” charismatic, dynamic, human attributes of Jesus to explain His miracles is very typical of Liberalism.
6. Albert Schweitzer upbraided the liberal gospel critics for thus redrawing the historical Jesus—and necessarily redrawing Him “in their own image” ( Strimple 79). Interestingly, although Schweitzer's critique/s went a long way toward putting an end to the so-called Old Quest (Strimple 86), he too constructed a Life of Jesus somewhat in the mold of the Old Quest liberal gospel critics ( Strimple 80f), yet quite different from the former: “Certainly Schweitzer's Jesus was not one that the common person could find appealing. Rather than being a 'winning personality,' Schweitzer's Jesus is a repellent figure, dominated in all his thoughts by prodigious error. But the fact is that, for the most part, men and women find themselves irresistibly attracted to Jesus in some way. Most people do not easily come to the point of utterly rejecting and repudiating Jesus, but most would find it necessary to do so if Schweitzer's portrait of him were accurate. Thus, Schweitzer's interpretation of the Gospels did not appeal to readers—although his view of religion and personal example and sacrifice to others certainly did.” (Strimple 86).
7. For the sake of thoroughness, in no particular order, quite aside and separately, you may wish to compare (4) Roman Catholicism (“Catholic Church”), and (5) Eastern Orthodoxy (“Eastern Church”); note “Christianity”.
8. One must ask here: how could Christianity have survived, let alone vastly expanded, without a divine Jesus as the focal point of attraction? How about its incorporation of once hostile Rome? Or hostile Judaism?—were there any fraud, the antagonist Jews of the day would have quickly broadcasted such a thing (Act 1:1ff, “Early Christendom”, “Immanence”).
9. Kasemann’s mentor was Rudolf Bultmann; so also Gunther Bornkamm, Ernst Fuchs, and Gerhard Ebeling, key representatives of the New Quest, studied under Bultmann.
10. Deriving Jesus’ existential self-understanding, precisely the thrust of the New Quest, is an exponentially more difficult analytical task than simply tracing a human life (Old Quest)—and we note that the latter (the “easier” of the two) ended in futility, as evidenced by scrapping it in favor of a (more difficult!) New Quest. “As we have already noted, the advocates of the New Quest have stressed that their concern to discover Jesus' existential self-understanding must not be confused with the liberal desire to discover his psychological self-consciousness and perhaps even trace its development during his ministry.” (Strimple 137).
11. M. Kahler belongs in this group for his rejection of the authority of Scripture, a notion Bultmann clearly embraced.
12. The starting point for Form Criticism (“Form Criticism,” “Biblical Criticism”) is the assumption that there exists an oral tradition behind the text at hand (behind the gospels in our case). Its goal is to discover that oral tradition, in this way coming to grasp the wider Tradition buried in the text (Strimple 105). Mechanically, it breaks a text into its (presumed) fundamental literary kernels (“pericopes”; here is a judgment call, a “measurement”, sticking with terminology consistent with Bultmann's science perspective), and then categorizes these according to their kinship to similar kernels (another “measurement”). It then uses historical criticism (“Historical Criticism,” “Biblical Criticism) to locate the categorized kernels in their appropriate “historical slots” (another “measurement”; you can see how the “measurements” here are enfolded down to three levels at this point, with each level amplifying measurement-bias coming from the previous level to give a complicated, not so little picture of multiplied measurement-bias). In gospels Form Criticism, there are three such slots of import wherein “pericopes” are placed: (1) Jesus’ personal ministry, (2) the Palestinian primitive ministry, and (3) the Hellenistic Church. By comparison, Redaction Criticism (“Redaction Criticism, “ “Biblical Criticism”) attempts to look at the entire text as a literary composition, and is thus dubbed a so-called “constructive” process (as compared to Form Criticism, which in its methodology deconstructs). Notwithstanding its constructive literary technique, Redaction Criticism uses Form Criticism at the beginning of the process, thus feeding measurement-bias into the balance of the critique. G. Bornkamm, H Conzelmann, and Willi Marxsen are important representatives of Redaction Criticism. Applied to the gospels, redaction criticism is the third stage in the history of literary criticism that moved from the Source Criticism (“Source Criticism,” “Biblical Criticism) of the liberals, to the Form | Redaction Criticism of the Bultmannians.
13. Bultmann turned to science because of science's apparent objectivity (recall Albert Schweitzer's condemnation of gospels criticism subjectivity in 1906), or, better said, because in its outworking science's methodology severs noumenal reality (object-essence theory) and phenomenal reality (object-expression observation), and then it tests relevant objects, that is, it artificially creates phenomenal reality, more observables, that are themselves intended to be the expression of the object's hypothesized essence (noumenal reality, theory, that which lies “behind” the observables), so as to grade its apprehension of said essence, based strictly on this accrued bank of phenomenal reality, where phenomenal reality here in short is the evidence of Experiment, or, Measurement. Let us hear Bultmann for just a moment before we continue: “The objectivity of science is evident in its not being interested in particular results of its research. Any result is equally good, for any result means knowledge [note this key empiricist word= Latin scientia, modern “science”] as it really is, and to see precisely this is the aim of science. It seeks nothing except to allow the object as such to show itself and find expression.” (Bultmann 47, red font added). In other words, he claims that science engages an object without presuppositions, and therefore does not influence the object's expression (here is the empiricist's hopefully pristine observable) of itself in any way that would be consistent with said presuppositions were they in fact present (for example, measurement of observables should not introduce bias, but it always does, not necessarily intentionally—the “observer effect” bears this out (“Observer effect”). In fact, beyond bias even, measurements are always uncertain in at least one variable by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (“Uncertainty principle”). So science indeed tries to be objective, but, it too fails to be so because as an empirical discipline it is exceedingly a measurement-dependent discipline (then there is also the task of measurement-interpretation). And as we understand it, there is no difference between an innate, perhaps subconscious prejudice impressing itself in biblical criticism, and a measurement biased by the very act of measuring. The end of Bultmann's quest for objectivity, science, in practice came together in Form Criticism, but there too the observer effect prevents objectivity as suggested in note twelve. Scientists know that even though their measurements are biased, at the macroscopic level of observation (greater than atomic scales is meant) the effect may not necessarily prevent the overall goal of the Experiment (we will not get into the details of how this negative may legitimately “wash out” in this theological context). But, if we may dare to extrapolate, can we say the same of a little bit of (biblical) critical measurement-bias? Does it “wash out” too? Probably not. So it would seem that science is not entirely biblical criticism's objectivity-darling that Bultmann thought it was (it certainly has its place in authenticating manuscripts and deciphering the texts and so forth, but even there great caution must attend assimilation of the conclusion/s). It is not hard to understand then that the conclusions reached by the likes of The Jesus Seminar are questionable on procedural grounds, at least (The Jesus Seminar operates based on a form of Dialectic [“Dialectic”], thus hoping to embrace objectivity by force of concensus—“majority bias” if you will). Moreover we must ask, is theology (gospels-study in our context) really a science? That was a big question that Bultmann had to address up front. So he pondered some definitions; of science he was convinced that he defined it aright by way of its methodology, and concerning theology of necessity he deferred to a definition of God (such a definition is quintessential theology), which (God) he concluded he could not define. Thus he shifted to a lower gear and contemplated about knowing God (an epistemologically motivated shift, one he characterized philosophically; how one might come to know God in this way is puzzling), and concluded that: “...there is knowledge of God only as existential knowing. There is theoretical knowledge not of God but only of the idea of God...” ( Bultmann 50; red font added). In the mold of Kant, he is saying that noumenal reality (God here) is unattainable (he is groping for observables), only the idea that gives expression to God is attainable (enter Kahler's icon-subtlety) because “idea” is a consequence of phenomenal reality (in keeping with empiricism), itself bound up with “existence”. And that “idea” (of God that is), Bultmann understood to be the Jesus of history, that is, the observable object (we do not mean to be irreverent here) of the Kerygma. Thus he of necessity affirmed (only) the observable Jesus of history, to the dismay of some of his peers nonetheless, and was keenly interested in discovering Jesus' existential understanding of Himself. Why? Because that, to Bultmann, was (sufficiently) God.
14. It is unbridled in that the enterprising, unbounded imagination and thought (rationale) of the reader arbitrates the meaning of the text (gospels in our context). Enterprise here is encouraged in reader-oriented biblical criticism, where Enterprise spans the gamut from mockery and ridicule to flat rejection to fantasy to personalized rewrite. “What is it that readers have hitherto not been free to do? The answer of an increasing number of literary theorists is “make meaning.” Reading is not merely a matter of perception but also of production; the reader does not discover so much as create meaning. At the very least there would be no meaning at all if there were no readers reading. What is in the text is only the potential for meaning. Meaning is actualized not by the author at the point of the text's conception [carefully note this with respect to inspiration of the biblical texts] but by the reader at the point of the text's reception.” (Green 301). Compare figure two.