A CRITIQUE OF CERTAIN UNCRITICAL ASSUMPTIONSAIN UNCRITICAL ASSUMPTIONSMoses Joshua etc at the expense of the taxpayers not only as history butas history of Divine inspiration although most thin ID: 450850
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "JETS 40/4 (December 1997) 653…661" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
JETS 40/4 (December 1997) 653…661 A CRITIQUE OF CERTAIN UNCRITICAL ASSUMPTIONSAIN UNCRITICAL ASSUMPTIONSMoses, Joshua, etc.] at the expense of the taxpayers, not only as history, butas history of Divine inspiration, although most thinking men (including not afew dignitaries of the Church) have long ago come to the conclusion that theseold legends are not to be taken as historical at all; that they are, in fact, myth-ology. . . . The late Sir Leslie Stephen, as good a man as ever lived, used to* John Warwick Montgomery is professor of apologetics and law and vice president for United JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 654 I.MIRACLES AND THE HISTORIAN UNCRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS IN MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY 655 (ed. P. Heath; New York: St. Martins, 1974). (ed. P. Edwards; New York: Macmillan, JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 656 cur even when ordinary observational evidence exists in their behalf? Flewsince the results will always reect already-accepted general experience. Un-so. But the moment the general runs into tension with the particular, the gen- UNCRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS IN MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY 657 Conclusion: The responsible historian must be concerned not only with be-II.HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE HISTORIANthen be labelled the primitive Christian faithŽ . . . . He draws two conclusions.First, Jesus . . . cannot have given any clear and precise account or interpre- JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 658 development of other ancient religions. . . . This approach stied the study of UNCRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS IN MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY 659 contains the loftiest poetry . . . intermingled with . . . whole scenes, baldly cult. . . . In the gospels, each division produces a di¯cult grouping. Squintinga spice of scholarship and variety. . . . Were the rst Christians adept at think- JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 660 else. . . . Nor can III.CONCLUSION UNCRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS IN MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY 661 interact.22 Nicole Lemaitre, in discussing Vérité historique et vérité de foi,Žnotes that it is no longer possible for the intellectual simply to split the Jesusof history from the Christ of faith. But how, then, in the moving words of an-éternité de Dieu sur notrechemin dEmmaüs, qui ore à chacun, sil le désire, un sens pour sa vieŽ? Theanswer, surely, is to treat the Biblical materials with utmost historical se-22ÙLhistorien et la foi (ed. J. Delumeau; Paris: Fayard, 1996). Contributors include such notedhistorians as Pierre Chaunu, Marc Lienhard, Francis Rapp and Bernard Vogler. I have discussedthe faith of several of these scholars in The Famous in France: Why They Believe,Ž New OxfordReview 61/8 (October, 1994) 23…25.