Crucified and Resurrected , livre ebook

Baker Publishing Group - U. Dalferth Ingolf ,
traduit par Jo Bennett

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

247 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

This major work, now available in English, is considered by many to be one of the finest and most significant contributions to modern Christology. Preeminent scholar and theologian Ingolf Dalferth argues for a radical reorientation of Christology for historical, hermeneutical, and theological reasons. He defends an orthodox vision of Christology in the context of a dialogue with modernity, showing why the resurrection, not the incarnation, ought to be the central idea of Christological thinking. His proposal is both pneumatological and Trinitarian, and addresses themes such as soteriology, the doctrine of atonement, and preaching.

Sujets

Christianity

Christian theology

Philosophie et théologie

Informations

Publié par	Baker Publishing Group
Date de parution	10 novembre 2015
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9781493400119
Langue	English
Poids de l'ouvrage	3 Mo

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,1032€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

Title Page
Copyright Page
Originally published as Der auferweckte Gekreuzigte
© 1994 by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen. All rights reserved.
English translation © 2015 by Ingolf U. Dalferth
Published by Baker Academic
a division of Baker Publishing Group
P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287
www . bakeracademic . com
Ebook edition created 2015
Ebook corrections 02.09.2023
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
ISBN 978-1-4934-0011-9
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible®, copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
Scripture quotations labeled NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com
Baker Publishing Group publications use paper produced from sustainable forestry practices and post-consumer waste whenever possible.
Dedication
To Eberhard Jüngel
Contents
Cover i
Title Page iii
Copyright Page iv
Dedication v
Translator’s Preface ix
Preface to the 2015 English Edition xi
Preface to the 1993 German Edition xxi
Abbreviations xxv
1. Incarnation: The Myth of God Incarnate 1
2. Cross and Resurrection: The Word of the Cross 39
3. Jesus Christ: Fundamental Problems in Constructing a Christology 83
4. Trinity: The Theological Relevance of the Cross for the Idea of God 157
5. Atoning Sacrifice: The Salvific Significance of the Death of Jesus 235
Modern Author Index 315
Subject Index 321
Back Cover 326
Translator’s Preface
“The task of translating a German theological work is never quite straightforward,” wrote Sir Edwin Hoskyns in the preface to his 1933 translation of Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans . Perhaps I may be allowed to echo his magnificent understatement.
Despite the complexity of the task, it has been a privilege to have been invited to translate Professor Dalferth’s scholarly, carefully argued, and deeply interesting work. I have gained much personal benefit from dealing with his theological thinking on a daily basis and am convinced that this text fully merits introduction to a wider, English-reading audience. In undertaking the task, I have sought to retain a balance between conscientious translation of Dalferth’s argumentation and the need for the English version to be read with fluency and enjoyment.
The issue of gender is one that may not have confronted Hoskyns but is inevitable for today’s writers and translators. Wherever possible I have used “humans” or “human beings” for der Mensch and thus have been able to avail myself of the plural pronoun “they,” resorting only where absolutely necessary to the gender-specific “he” or the slightly clumsy “he or she.”
Another issue faced by German-to-English theological translators in any era is the translation of Glaube . In agreement with Professor Dalferth, I have used “belief” whenever the object is a doctrinal proposition or doctrine, and “faith” whenever Glaube expresses an attitude toward or a relationship of trust in a person.
Biblical quotations are taken chiefly from the New American Standard Bible, except where a direct English translation gives the sense of the German quotation more accurately and therefore better supports the point the author is making.
Aware that some potential readers of the English text may not have Professor Dalferth’s thorough acquaintance with classical languages, I have provided, within the limits of my abilities and subject to his review, translations of the Latin and Greek terms that occur fairly frequently within the text.
My use of italics follows the original, except for a very few instances where I felt that the introduction of italics in the English translation was the best way to enhance the reader’s understanding of the text.
I would like to express my gratitude both to Bishop Michael Bourke, assistant bishop in the Anglican Diocese of Hereford and former cochair of the Meissen Commission, for his reading of my draft translation and his very helpful comments and suggestions; and of course to Professor Dalferth himself, whose thorough knowledge of the English language greatly simplified our discussions of various aspects of the translation process.
Jo Bennett January 15, 2015
Preface to the 2015 English Edition
1. Beyond Mythos and Logos
Every book has a history, and this book is no exception. Originally I did not plan to publish it separately but wrote it as the second part of a large study of the European strategy of orienting oneself in mental space by the contrast between mythos and logos , the mythical (narrative, temporal, meaning-constituting) and the rational (argumentative, atemporal, reason-giving), and the impact of this orienting strategy on Christian theology. The distinction between these different types of rationalities, experiences, and ways of thinking—variously conceived and contrasted and continuously reinterpreted since the beginnings of European philosophy, science, and theology in ancient Greece—is deeply entrenched in the history of European thought and has held a particular grip on philosophy and theology. My idea was to show that the mode and character of Christian theology can be understood neither in terms of this mental orienting strategy nor without reference to it. In antiquity Christian theology contrasted with both the mythos and the logos traditions by developing into a hybrid “third” that was different from both; in medieval Europe it tried to synthesize the mythical and the rational into a unity that transcended both, but this unity was always on the brink of breaking apart; and in modernity it redefined itself by reference to the mythical and rational strands within itself without completely identifying with either of them.
Christian theology emerged in a cultural setting in which it had no choice but to relate to the traditional orienting pattern of mythos and logos without ever fitting into it: because of its eschatological and soteriological orientation, and the christological and trinitarian ways of thinking that resulted from it, Christian theology became “the other” of both traditions by using modes of thinking derived from both of them. Later the contrast between Christian theology, on the one hand, and the ancient mythos and logos traditions, on the other, was turned into an internal distinction within Christian theology itself, which thereby became all-encompassing but at the same time precariously unstable, always in danger of losing its balance between the mythical and the rational by overemphasizing the one at the expense of the other. Enlightenment thinkers forced theology to rethink this internalizing strategy by insisting that it had to choose between either the one or the other: Christian theology is either an outdated mythology or an unfounded theism or—and most likely—both at the same time in different respects. Many critics in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries agreed with the first or the third view, or with both, and turned their back on Christianity and Christian theology. Others opted for the second horn of the dilemma but tried to show that it was not an unfounded but rather a well-founded theism. However, neither the skeptical atheist’s nor the rational theist’s way out is convincing. Both wrongly accept the alternative posed by the Enlightenment against the backdrop of the medieval synthesis of the mythical and the rational. But this alternative offers a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. Christian theology cannot identify with either the mythos or the logos strand, or simply combine them into some higher but inconsistent unity, without losing its characteristic identity as the unique thought form of the Christian faith. It is neither the mythology of a particular historical faith, nor a general philosophical theism unrelated to any particular faith, nor an inconsistent combination of both, but rather an intellectual endeavor sui generis. As Augustine made clear with reference to the Stoic pattern of theologies: 1 Christian theology is neither a form of natural theology (philosophical theism or theologia naturalis ), nor a form of poetic or mythical theology (mythology or theologia fabulosa ), nor a form of political theology (civil religion or theologia civilis ), but a fundamental critique of all three. If anything, Christian theology bears a faint similarity to natural theology because it seeks knowledge and truth and is not merely a matter of human invention and social convention. But it would be best not to call it theology in any of three Stoic senses at all. It is neither a case of mythos nor of logos , nor a combination of both, but something sui generis.
It took a huge effort for Christian theology to recover this insight at the end of modernity, and it never completely achieved it in a way that left a noticeable imprint on contemporary culture. Where it succumbed to the lure of the Enlightenment alternative, it became rationalist, liberal, and modernist; and where theology rejected modern rationalism, it restated the classical synthesis or became radically orthodox. However, neither is a way forward. In the light of the Enlightenment criticism, the precarious synthesis of the mythical and the rational cannot simply be continued, not even in a radically orthodox way; yet in the light of the origin of Christian faith and the beginnings of Christian theology, the Enlightenment alternative should not be accepted. Christian faith is n