Themelios, Volume 33, Issue 1
104 Pages

Themelios, Volume 33, Issue 1


Themelios is an international, evangelical, peer-reviewed theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith. Themelios is published three times a year online at The Gospel Coalition ( and in print by Wipf and Stock. Its primary audience is theological students and pastors, though scholars read it as well. Themelios began in 1975 and was operated by RTSF/UCCF in the UK, and it became a digital journal operated by The Gospel Coalition in 2008. The editorial team draws participants from across the globe as editors, essayists, and reviewers.
General Editor: D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Managing Editor: Brian Tabb, Bethlehem College and Seminary
Consulting Editor: Michael J. Ovey, Oak Hill Theological College
Administrator: Andrew David Naselli, Bethlehem College and Seminary
Book Review Editors: Jerry Hwang, Singapore Bible College; Alan Thompson, Sydney Missionary & Bible College; Nathan A. Finn, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Hans Madueme, Covenant College; Dane Ortlund, Crossway; Jason Sexton, Golden Gate Baptist Seminary
Editorial Board:
Gerald Bray, Beeson Divinity School
Lee Gatiss, Wales Evangelical School of Theology
Paul Helseth, University of Northwestern, St. Paul
Paul House, Beeson Divinity School
Ken Magnuson, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Jonathan Pennington, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
James Robson, Wycliffe Hall
Mark D. Thompson, Moore Theological College
Paul Williamson, Moore Theological College
Stephen Witmer, Pepperell Christian Fellowship
Robert Yarbrough, Covenant Seminary



Published by
Published 27 January 2015
Reads 0
EAN13 9781725234550
Language English
Document size 3 MB

Legal information: rental price per page €. This information is given for information only in accordance with current legislation.


dEsCriptioN hemelios IS an InTeRnaTIOnal eVangelIcal TeOlOgIcal jOuRnal TaT exPOunDS anD DefenDS Te ISTORIc CRISTIan faIT. iTS PRImaRy auDIence IS TeOlOgIcal STuDenTS anD PaSTORS, TOug ScOlaRS ReaD IT aS Well. iT WaS fORmeRly a PRInT jOuRnal OPeRaTeD byrtsF/UCCFIn Te Uk, anD IT became a DIgITal jOuRnal OPeRaTeD byhe GOSPel COalITIOnIn 2008. he neW eDITORIal Team SeeKS TO PReSeRVe RePReSenTaTIOn, In bOT eSSayISTS anD ReVIeWeRS, fROm bOT SIDeS Of Te ATlanTIc. hemeliosIS PublISeD TRee TImeS a yeaR excluSIVely OnlIne aTWWW.TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg. iT IS PReSenTeD In TWO fORmaTS: pdF (fOR cITIng PagInaTIOn) anD HtML (fOR gReaTeR acceSSIbIlITy, uSabIlITy, anD InfilTRaTIOn In SeaRc engIneS).hemeliosIS cOPyRIgTeD by he GOSPel COalITIOn. reaDeRS aRe fRee TO uSe IT anD cIRculaTe IT In DIgITal fORm WITOuT fuRTeR PeRmISSIOn (any PRInT uSe RequIReS fuRTeR WRITTen PeRmISSIOn), buT Tey muST acKnOWleDge Te SOuRce anD, Of cOuRSe, nOT cange Te cOnTenT.
Editors General Editor:d. A. CaRSOnTrinity Evangelical Divinity Scool 2065 Half Day Road Deerfield, IL, USAhemelIOS@TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg
Consulting Editor:CaRl r. tRuemanWestminster heological Seminary Cestnut Hill, P.O. Box 27009 Piladelpia, PA 19118, USA
Managing Editor:CaRleS AnDeRSOnOak Hill heological College Case Side, Soutgate, London N14, 4PS, UKcaRleSa@OaK
Administrator:AnDReW daVID NaSellITrinity Evangelical Divinity Scool 2065 Half Day Road Deerfield, IL, USAhemelIOS@TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg
Book rEviEw Editors Old TestamentrODRIgO De sOuSa Faculdade de Letras Universidade Federal de Goiás - Campus II Caixa Postal 131 - CEP 74001-970 Goiânia - Goiás - BrazilrODRIgO.DesOuSa@TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg
New TestamentAlISTaIR i. wIlSOn Dumisani heological Institute PO Box 681 King William’s Town 5600 Sout AfricaAlISTaIR.wIlSOn@TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg
HistorY and Historical heologYsaWn wRIgT Soutern Baptist heological Seminary 2825 Lexington Road Louisville, KY 40299, USAsaWn.wRIgT@TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg
SYstematic heologY and BioeticsHanS MaDueme Trinity Evangelical Divinity Scool 2065 Half Day Road; D-632 Deerfield, IL 60015, USAHanS.MaDueme@TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg
Etics(buT nOT BIOeTIcS)and Pastoralia dOmInIc smaRT Gilcomston Sout Curc Union Street Aberdeen AB10 1TP, UKdOmInIc.smaRT@TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg
Mission and CulturedanIel sTRange Oak Hill College Case Side, Soutgate London N14 4PSdanIel.sTRange@TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg
ArtiCLEs ARTIcleS SOulD geneRally be abOuT 4,000 TO 7,000 WORDS anD SOulD be SubmITTeD TO Te ManagIng EDITOR Of hemelIOS, WIc IS nOW PeeR-ReVIeWeD. ARTIcleS SOulD uSe cleaR, cOncISe EnglIS, fOllOWInghe SBL Handbook of StylefOR (eSP. abbReVIaTIOnS), SuPPlemenTeD byhe Cicago Manual of Style.hey SOulD cOnSISTenTly uSe eITeR Uk OR UsA SPellIng anD PuncTuaTIOn, anD Tey SOulD be SubmITTeD elecTROnIcally aS an emaIl aTTacmenT uSIng MIcROSOfT wORD (.DOc OR .DOcx exTenSIOnS) OR rIc texT FORmaT (.RTf exTenSIOn). sPecIal caRacTeRS SOulD uSe aUnIcODefOnT.
rEviEws he bOOK ReVIeW eDITORS geneRally SelecT InDIVIDualS fOR bOOK ReVIeWS, buT POTenTIal ReVIeWeRS may cOnTacT Tem abOuT ReVIeWIng SPecIfic bOOKS. AS PaRT Of aRRangIng bOOK ReVIeWS, Te bOOK ReVIeW eDITORS WIll SuPPly bOOK ReVIeW guIDelIneS TO ReVIeWeRS.
th Printed by Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8 Ave., Eugene, OR 97401. ISBN:  
EditoriAL  D. A. Carson 
D. A. Carson is researc professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity Scool in Deerfield, Illinois. elcOme TO Te fiRST ISSue Of Te neW DIgITalhemelios.LIKe Te OlD PRInT VeRSIOn, We WIll fOR Te w TIme beIng aIm TO PRODuce TRee faScIcleS a yeaR. BecauSe TIS VenTuRe IS neVeRTeleSS In SOme ReSPecTS neW, We aVe DecIDeD TO begIn WIT a neW VOlume numbeR (VOl. 33)—anD, unlIKe Te OlDPRInT VeRSIOn, cangeS In VOlume numbeR WIll cOIncIDe WIT cangeS In Te calenDaR yeaR. oTeR cangeS, TOug RelaTIVely mInOR, aRe mORe SubSTanTIVe. he neWhemeliosaImS TO SeRVe bOT TeOlOgIcal/RelIgIOuS STuDIeS STuDenTS anD PaSTORS. heRe WIll be nO PRInT VeRSIOn. ouR OPe IS TO becOme IncReaSIngly InTeRnaTIOnal In RePReSenTaTIOn: TaKe a lOOK aT Te lIST Of BOOK reVIeW EDITORS anD TeIR aDDReSSeS On Te PReVIOuS Page. we WIll accePT anD PublIS cOnTRIbuTIOnS In eITeR Te EnglIS Of Te UnITeD kIngDOm OR Te EnglIS Of Te UnITeD sTaTeS—TOug nOT a mIx Of Te TWO In any One PIece! he ManagIng EDITOR, CaRleS AnDeRSOn, lecTuReS aT oaK HIll COllege, sOuTgaTe, LOnDOn. submISSIOnS SOulD be SenT TO Im, PRefeRably In DIgITal fORm. in TIS ISSue We aRe STIll lIVIng Off eSSayS anD ReVIeWS TaT aD been SubmITTeD TO Te OlD PRInT jOuRnal, buT We aRe eageR nOW TO ReceIVe fReS cOnTRIbuTIOnS. Many ReaDeRS Of Te OlD jOuRnal aVe InDIcaTeD TaT TeIR faVORITe PIece eac ISSue WaS Te eDITORIal by CaRl tRueman—aS muc fOR ITS WIT, VeRVe, anD InDePenDence aS fOR ITS SubSTance. we aRe gRaTeful TO CaRl fOR agReeIng TO SeRVe aS COnSulTIng EDITOR anD TO cOnTInue WRITIng a cOlumn eac ISSue, nOW unDeR Te eaDIng “MInORITy rePORT.” we aRe alSO TanKful TO rObbIe CaSTleman fOR Te faITfulneSS anD TOugTfulneSS Of eR cOlumn DuRIng Te laST yeaRS Of Te PRInT VeRSIOn. wIT Te SlIgT SIfT In ORIenTaTIOn Of OuR ReaDeRS, We aVe DecIDeD TO RePlace eR cOlumn WIT a neW One, “paSTORales,PneésbuT OPe Se WIll eRSelf cOnTRIbuTe TO IT fROm TIme TO TIme. reaDeRS WIll nOTe TaT We aRe PRODucIng TIS DIgITalhemeliosIn TWO fORmaTS, bOT pdF anD HtML. he fORmeR PReSeRVeS PagInaTIOn fOR accuRaTe RefeRencIng; Te laTTeR enableS inTeRneT uSeRS TO SeaRc Te maTeRIal, cITe SnIPPeTS, cOPy cOnVenIenT cunKS, anD SO fORT. CeRTaInly We WanT Te maTeRIal TO cIRculaTe WIDely, SO We WanT IT TO be aS acceSSIble aS POSSIble. pleaSe nOTe, OWeVeR, TaT Te maTeRIal IS cOPyRIgTeD by he GOSPel COalITIOn. YOu aRe fRee TO uSe IT anD cIRculaTe IT In DIgITal fORm WITOuT fuRTeR PeRmISSIOn (any PRInT uSe RequIReS fuRTeR WRITTen PeRmISSIOn), buT We aSK yOu TO acKnOWleDge Te SOuRce anD, Of cOuRSe, nOT TO cange Te cOnTenT. All Te maTeRIal IS “fRee”—TaT IS, yOu can DOWnlOaD IT WITOuT cOST. obVIOuSly, TeRe aRe cOSTS InVOlVeD, anD If anyOne WISeS TO elP uS DefRay TOSe cOSTS, TeRe IS a Page TO elP yOu DO SO:suPPORThemelios.
hemelios33.1 (2008): 2-4
M i N o r i t Y r E p o r t
wy sOulD hOugTful EVangelIcalS reaD Te MeDIeVal MySTIcS?
 Carl Trueman 
Carl Trueman is Academic Dean and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Westminster heological Seminary. n a RecenT claSS On Te meDIeVal cuRc, i DID my TRaDITIOnal TWO OuRS On meDIeVal mySTIcS, cOVeRIng i Suc PeRSOnageS aS BOnaVenTuRe, MeISTeR EcKaRT, HIlDegaRD Of BIngen, anD JulIan Of NORWIc. i alSO IncluDeD hOmaS AquInaS TO maKe Te POInT TaT mySTIcISm, aT leaST In a meDIeVal cOnTexT, DOeS nOT excluDe SOlID TeOlOgIcal DIScuSSIOn, bIblIcal exegeSIS, anD PROPOSITIOnal TRuT. AnyOne WO aS ReaD AquInaS’S PRayeRS can ScaRcely DOubT TaT TIS WaS a man WIT a DeeP KnOWleDge Of Te TRanScenDenT mySTeRy Of GOD anD Of Te fRagIlITy anD InaDequacy Of IS OWn language TO exPReSS TaT. inDeeD, TaT IS an ImPORTanT cOnnecTIOn TO maKe TODay. we lIVe In a TIme Wen mySTIcISm aS becOme Really RaTeR TRenDy fOR a WOle VaRIeTy Of ReaSOnS. wen language IS SO OfTen unDeR SuSPIcIOn aS beIng SOmeTIng manIPulaTIVe anD DecePTIVe, Te SymbOlIc anD aPOcalyPTIc genReS uSeD by meDIeVal mySTIcS exeRT a ceRTaIn aPPeal—genReS TaT aPPaRenTly Place SO muc STOcK In Te cReaTIVe anD/OR emOTIOnal ReSPOnSe Of ReaDeRS TO Te TexTS. FuRTeR, In a cOSmOS Of cOnSumeRISeD cOmmODITIeS, WeRe eVeRyTIng SeemS TO be ReDuceD TO a meRe caS TRanSacTIOn, Te DeSIRe fOR mySTeRy anD TRanScenDence IS POTenTIally SaTISfieD by Te VeRy OTeRneSS Of Te mySTIcS’ WRITIngS. LIKe Te IncReaSIngly fabulOuS SPecIal effecTS Of mOVIeS, OR Te InTRIcaTe, KaleIDOScOPIc PlOTS Of fanTaSy nOVelS, TeSe WORKS STRIKe a cORD WIT SOme baSIc elemenTS Of Te uman cRaVIng fOR SOmeTIng mORe Tan Te munDane, Te banal, anD Te eaSIly acceSSIble. FInally, TeRe IS Te WOle nOTIOn Of RelIgIOuS exPeRIence, aS SOmeTIng SePaRable fROm OR PRIOR TO RelIgIOuS belIef, TaT aS OPeneD uP a Place fOR mySTIcISm WITIn Te mODeRn RelIgIOuS maRKeTPlace. weTeR TIS cOmeS aS a ReSulT Of Te TRaDITIOn Of analySIS Of RelIgIOuS exPeRIence PIOneeReD by men lIKe wIllIam JameS OR ruDOlP oTTO, OR WRITeRS Suc aS AlDOuS Huxley anD HeRman HeSSe, OR TROug Te POP culTuRe ImPacT Of STaRS fROm he BeaTleS, WIT TeIR InTeReST In tM, TO MaDOnna anD eR faScInaTIOn WIT Te kabbala, IS IRReleVanT: fOR many, mySTIcal exPeRIence IS mORe ImPORTanT Tan DOgmaTIc belIef (WeTeR TeOlOgIcal OR PIlOSOPIcal) anD, InDeeD, fRequenTly STanDS In OPPOSITIOn TO Te VeRy nOTIOn Of Te POSSIbIlITy Of Suc DOgmaS. in Suc a WORlD, Te meDIeVal mySTIcS Suc aS HIlDegaRD Of BIngen anD JulIan Of NORWIc aVe PROVeD POPulaR. heIR Igly SymbOlIc anD VISIOnaRy manneR Of exPReSSIOn aPPealS TO a WORlD TIReD Of PROPOSITIOnS. heIR emPaSIS uPOn exPeRIence aPPealS TO a WORlD WeRe exPeRIence IS Te allmaRK Of auTenTIcITy. heIR fRequenT anD POSITIVe alluSIOnS TO Te naTuRal WORlD (PaRTIculaRly Te caSe WIT HIlDegaRD) aPPealS TO a WORlD WeRe enVIROnmenTal ISSueS aVe cOme TO Te fORefROnT Of eTIcal DIScOuRSe. AnD, Of cOuRSe, Te facT TaT bOT HIlDegaRD anD JulIan WeRe WOmen aDDS TO TeIR SIgnIficance, maKIng
Tem ObVIOuS canDIDaTeS fOR anyOne WO WanTS TO fOcuS On Te ROle Of WOmen TeOlOgIanS In Te meDIeVal cuRc anD finD TeRe PReceDenT fOR SOmeTIng SImIlaR TODay. inDeeD, One cOulD aRDly DO beTTeR Tan zOOm In On Te WRITIngS Of TeSe TWO laDIeS If One WeRe lOOKIng fOR PReceDenTIal figuReS fOR SO muc Of Te mySTIcal exPeRIenTIalISm WIc SeemS TO unDeRlIe ceRTaIn STRanDS Of mODeRn eVangelIcalISm.
NOW, anyOne WO aS ReaD anyTIng i aVe WRITTen OR eVeR eaRD me SPeaK WIll KnOW TaT i aVe lITTle SymPaTy WIT muc Of TIS STuff. i am cOmmITTeD TO TeOlOgIcal PROPOSITIOnS, TO TRuT, anD, WIle i am, aS IT aPPenS, SOmeTIng Of an amaTeuR enVIROnmenTalIST, i DO nOT See TaT aS an InTegRal PaRT Of my TeOlOgy, beIng mORe Of a LuTeRan tWO-kIngDOmS man Tan a CRISTIan culTuRe WaRRIOR. AnD, neeDleSS TO Say, i am nO femInIST nOR eVeR lIKely TO be PlauSIbly accuSeD Of beIng One. NeVeRTeleSS, i TInK Te meDIeVal mySTIcS SOulD fORm a STaPle Of Te lITeRaRy DIeT Of all TOugTful CRISTIanS. wy? well, SeVeRal ReaSOnS SPRIng TO mInD:
FIRST, TeRe IS a SenSe Of GOD’S OlIneSS anD TRanScenDence In TeSe WORKS TaT IS SIgnIficanTly abSenT fROm muc mODeRn WRITIng anD TInKIng abOuT GOD. of cOuRSe, Suc can be mISPlaceD—TeRe aRe RIgT nOTIOnS Of GOD’S TRanScenDence anD OlIneSS anD WROng nOTIOnS Of Te Same; buT i WOulD DaRe TO Say TaT a WROng nOTIOn Of Suc IS beTTeR Tan nO nOTIOn aT all. we lIVe In a caSual age Wen We STROll flIPPanTly In anD OuT Of GOD’S PReSence. he mySTIcS DID nOT DO SO. inDeeD, WaT maKeS Tem mySTIcS IS TeIR SenSITIVITy TO TeIR VeRy SmallneSS anD InSIgnIficance befORe Te VaSTneSS Of GOD WO, In ImSelf, IS unKnOWable anD WO aS cOSen TO ReVeal ImSelf In Te fRagIle fORmS Of uman WORDS anD uman fleS. if Te TeOlOgy OfTen leaVeS muc TO be DeSIReD, IT WOulD Seem TaT Te anSWeR IS nOT TO RejecT Te ambITIOn Of Te mySTIcS buT TO cOmbIne TIS ambITIOn WIT aPPROPRIaTe TeOlOgy. FOR examPle, OuR TeOlOgy SOulD be SOT TROug WIT ReflecTIOn, fOR examPle, On Te laW Of GOD In all Of ITS TeRRIfyIng DemanDS uPOn uS anD On Te mySTeRIOuS—anD SOmeTImeS DISTuRbIng—PaSSageS Of Te olD teSTamenT TaT unDeRScORe TaT GOD’S WayS aRe nOT OuR WayS. he lOSS Of a SenSe Of GOD’S mySTeRIOuS anD aWeSOme OlIneSS SuRely lIeS aT Te ROOT Of muc Of TODay’S SambOlIc TeOlOgy. MeDIeVal mySTIcISm IS a SaRP cORRecTIVe TO TIS, a RemInDeR TaT Wen We aVe DealIngS WIT GOD, We SOulD be aWaRe TaT We TReaD On Oly gROunD.
secOnD, fOR Te meDIeVal mySTIcS, exPeRIence IS nOT a SePaRaTe caTegORy Of RelIgIOuS lIfe TaT can be ISOlaTeD fROm Te laRgeR DOcTRInal cOnceRnS Of Te cuRc. on Te cOnTRaRy, IT IS IneRaDIcably DOcTRInal anD cOnnecTeD TO DISTIncT belIefS. taKe, fOR examPle, Te mySTIcal DeVOTIOn TO Te MaSS. NOW, aS an eVangelIcal, i ceRTaInly WanT TO PROTeST Te TeOlOgy TaT unDeRlIeS Te MaSS: Te Real PReSence Of Te WOle CRIST accORDIng TO bOT naTuReS IS unbIblIcal; anD Te SacRIficIal cOnnOTaTIOnS Of Te WOle TIng aRe equally unaccePTable. BuT Te POInT IS TaT Te mySTIcal/exPeRIenTIal/affecTIVe DImenSIOn Of DeVOTIOn TO Te MaSS PReSuPPOSeS DOcTRIne. he MaSS IS nOT SOme nOumenal TIng TaT DefieS lInguISTIc DefinITIOn. iT IS PRecISely becauSe IT IS DefineD anD unDeRSTOOD In a ceRTaIn Way TaT Te meDIeValS RelaTeD TO IT aS Tey DID anD came TO OffeR TeIR mySTIcal ReflecTIOnS uPOn IT. tODay’S mySTIcS, WeTeR Of Te Pagan OR CRISTIan KInD, TOO OfTen faIl TO maKe TIS cOnnecTIOn. hey buy In TO Te TRenDy SOunDbITeS abOuT language, PROPOSITIOnS, anD TRuT, anD OffeR a fORm Of mySTIcal exPeRIence TaT, In effecT, STanDS PRIOR TO, anD IS mORe baSIc anD Real Tan, lInguISTIc exPReSSIOn. in SO DOIng, Tey TeRefORe ReVeRSe Te RelaTIOnSIP Of TRuT TO exPeRIence.
hIRD, meDIeVal mySTIcISm IS SOmeTImeS clOSeR TO OuR TeOlOgy Tan We RealIze. Muc Of CRISTIan mySTIcISm aS been PReOccuPIeD nOT SO muc WIT exPeRIence aS WIT aPOPaTIcISm. hIS IS TeOlOgy TaT SPeaKS abOuT GOD by DenyIng TIngS abOuT Im, SO-calleD negaTIVe TeOlOgy. By DefinITIOn, TIS
KInD Of TeOlOgy cannOT be ‘exPeRIenceD’ In any uSual SenSe Of Te WORD. COnSeRVaTIVe eVangelIcalS, Of cOuRSe, WIll OfTen InSTIncTIVely ReacT agaInST TIS IDea. AfTeR all, aS GOD nOTrevealedImSelf TO uS SO TaT We mIgTknowIm In a POSITIVe Way? well, yeS; buT Wen yOu ReflecT uPOn Te STanDaRD language Of ORTODOx CRISTIan TeOlOgy, IT IS InTeReSTIng OW many WORDS TaT We TInK aRe POSITIVe affiRmaTIOnS abOuT GOD aRe, mORe PROPeRly, DenIalS abOuT Im.InfinitemeanSwitoutlImITS.SimplemeanSwitoutPaRTS OR cOmPOSITIOn.Impassible anDimmutable meanwitoutOR cange. we aRe TRIcKeD SuffeRIng InTO TInKIng TaT OuR TeOlOgy maKeS aSSeRTIOnS abOuT GOD; buT In facT We OfTen STanD In Te Same lInguISTIc anD cOncePTual TRaDITIOn aS Te mySTIcS, buIlDIng OuR IDea Of GOD by STaTemenTS TaT aRe Really negaTIVe.
GIVen all TIS, i OPe Te caSe fOR ReaDIng Te meDIeVal mySTIcS IS cleaR. BuT TeRe IS One mORe SIgnIficanT ReaSOn Wy Tey aRe uSeful TO cOnTemPORaRy eVangelIcalS. wen i lOOK aT Te eDITIOnS Of HIlDegaRD anD JulIan anD hOmaS On my bOOKSelf, i am STRucK by Te PublISeR’S maRK: Tey aRe PublISeD by penguIn. NOW, aS faR aS i KnOW, penguIn DOeS nOT PublIS LuTeR OR CalVIn OR waRfielD OR sTOTT OR pacKeR. heSe laTTeR aRe PublISeD by SPecIalIST PReSSeS TaT SeRVe Te naRROW eVangelIcal cOmmunITy. haT’S becauSe feW, If anyOne, OuTSIDe Of TaT naRROW cOnSTITuency ReaDS TeSe auTORS. tO be PublISeD by penguIn, OWeVeR, a lOT Of PeOPle muST be buyIng anD ReaDIng Tem. in OTeR WORDS, In an age TaT cRaVeS fOR TRanScenDence anD mySTeRy TO lIfT IT abOVe Te banalITy Of a banKRuPT cOnSumeRISm, TeSe auTORS Seem TO aVe STRucK a cORD. YOu can beT yOuR lIfe TaT mOST WO ReaD Tem DO nOT ReaD Tem aRIgT: Tey aRe lOOKIng fOR PRecISely Te KInD Of cOnTenTleSS, mySTIcal exPeRIenTIalISm TaT i aVe aRgueD abOVe Tey DO nOT acTually RePReSenT; In OTeR WORDS, Te RecePTIOn Of TeSe WORKS In OuR culTuRe InVOlVeS a DeeP SubVeRSIOn Of Te PIeTy anD TeOlOgy TaT Tey ORIgInally RePReSenTeD. BuT TaT IS nOT Te POInT: TeSe aRe Te bOOKS TaT many ReaD anD TaT SaPe TeIR SPIRITual aSPIRaTIOnS anD PROVIDe Te gRID TROug WIc Tey WIll cRITIque cOnTemPORaRy cuRc lIfe. if yOu aRe DOIng yOuR jOb PROPeRly, TeSe aRe Te KInD Of PeOPle WIT WOm yOu WIll be STRIKIng uP cOnVeRSaTIOnS, InVITIng TO cuRc, TalKIng abOuT SPIRITual TIngS. An acquaInTance WIT Te meDIeVal mySTIcS WIll nOT juST enance yOuR KnOWleDge Of Te MIDDle AgeS; IT may alSO equIP yOu beTTeR TO Reac OuT TO Te lOST SOulS Of Te cuRRenT geneRaTIOn.
hemelios33.1 (2008): 5-15
BlOnDel remembeReD: HIS pIlOSOPIcal AnalySIS Of Te “QueST fOR Te HISTORIcal JeSuS”
 Paul Hartog 
Paul Hartog is an associate professor at Fait Baptist heological Seminary in Ankeny, Iowa. He is te autor ofpOlycaRP anD Te NeW teSTamenT, WUNT 2.134 (Tübingen: Mor Siebeck, 2002). eaDeRS Of TeExpository TimesWeRe RecenTly encOuRageD TO Pull uP a caIR anD eaVeSDROP aS cOnrTRIbuTORS acKnOWleDgeD TOSe WO aD PlOWeD Te Same fielD befORe Tem.2hIS bacKWaRD glance JameS dunn anD rObeRT MORgan DIalOgueD cOnceRnIng faIT anD ISTORy anD Te “queST fOR Te 1 ISTORIcal JeSuS.” AlTOug Te DIScuSSIOn cenTeReD uPOn JameS dunn’SJesus Remembered, bOT cauSeD MORgan TO cOmmenT On “OW cOnfuSeD TIS nIneTeenT-cenTuRy DebaTe abOuT faIT anD ISTORy 3 aS becOme.” he MORgan-dunn DebaTe OfTen SeemeD TO IglIgT Te IDeaS anD Influence Of MaRTIn 4 käleR (1835-1912) In PaRTIculaR. wIle dunn aPPRecIaTeS muc Of käleR’S baSIc lIne Of ReaSOnIng, e RaTeR cOOSeS TO accenTuaTe Te ImPReSSIOn Of JeSuS uPOn Te “firstfaIT” Of Te DIScIPleS, aS WITneSSeD 5 by TeIR WIllIngneSS TO fORSaKe all anD fOllOW Im PRIOR TO IS cRucIfixIOn. hIS mODIficaTIOn Of käleR’S
1  rObeRT MORgan, “JameS dunn’SJesus Remembered,”ExpTim 116 (2004): 1–6; JameS d. G. dunn, “on FaIT anD HISTORy, anD LIVIng tRaDITIOn: in reSPOnSe TO rObeRT MORgan anD AnDReW GRegORy,”ExpTim(2004): 13–19; rObeRT 116 MORgan, “CRISTIan FaIT anD HISTORIcal JeSuS reSeaRc: A rePly TO JameS dunn,”ExpTim 116 (2005): 217–23; JameS d. G. dunn, “A LeTTeR TO rObeRT MORgan,”ExpTim116 (2005): 286–7.  2 JameS d. G. dunn,Jesus Remembered, VOl. 1 OfCristianity in te Making(GRanD raPIDS: EeRDmanS, 2003).  3 MORgan, “CRISTIan FaIT anD HISTORIcal JeSuS reSeaRc,” 217.  4 MORgan, “JameS dunn’SJesus Remembered,” 2, 5, 6; dunn, “on FaIT anD HISTORy,” 13, 15; MORgan, “CRISTIan FaIT anD HISTORIcal JeSuS reSeaRc,” 217, 220. Cf. Te aPPeaRanceS Of käleR In dunn’SJesus Remembered, 49–51, 65, 71–2, 77–8, 80, 84, 99, 101, 126–8, 130, 184–5. MaRTIn käleR’S mOST famOuS WORK,he So-Called Historical Jesus and te Historic Biblical Crist, WaS fiRST PublISeD aSDer sogenannte istorisce Jesus und der gescictlice, biblisce Cristus(LeIPzIg: deIceRT; 1892; 2D eD., 1896). “wIle TeRe aS been muc DebaTe abOuT WaT PRecISely käleR DID OR DID nOT mean TO accOmPlIS, e cOnTRIbuTeD gReaTly TO Te DIcOTOmy beTWeen Te ‘JeSuS Of ISTORy’ anD Te ‘CRIST Of faIT’ WIc SInce Ten aS been a allmaRK Of SO muc NeW teSTamenT STuDy anD SySTemaTIc TeOlOgy” (MaRKuS BOcKmuel,his Jesus[LOnDOn: t & t ClaRK, 2004], 21–2). FOR IS PaRT, BOcKmuel nOTeS OW “IROnIc” IT IS TaT “ISTORIcal ScOlaRSIP aS meTIculOuSly InVeSTIgaTeD anD STRIPPeD DOWn Te TexTS” Only TO acKnOWleDge TaT “eVen In Te VeRy eaRlIeST SOuRceS” TeRe IS nO “JeSuS WITOuT cRISTOlOgy Of someKInD” (22). “in Te mOuTS Of eVen IS eaRlIeST WITneSSeS, JeSuS IS alReaDy Te One WO DIeD anD WaS RaISeD” (22). huS, “WaT We muST equally RecOgnIze IS TaT fOR TOSe WO fiRST SaW Im anD WeRe calleD by Im, JeSuS Of NazaReT anD Te ‘ISTORIc bIblIcal CRIST’ Of TeIR faIT WeRe One anD Te Same PeRSOn” (23).  5 JameS d. G. dunn,A New Perspective on Jesus: Wat te Quest for te Historical Jesus Missed(GRanD raPIDS: BaKeR, 2005), 33–4. MIcael BIRD agReeS TaT “IT IS PReSumPTuOuS TO aSSeRT TaT Te eaRly cuRc aD an enTIRely KeRygmaTIc faIT fOcuSeD excluSIVely On Te DeaT anD ReSuRRecTIOn Of JeSuS DIVORceD fROm any cOnceRn fOR IS eaRTly lIfe” (MIcael F. BIRD, “he puRPOSe anD pReSeRVaTIOn Of Te JeSuS tRaDITIOn: MODeRaTe EVIDence fOR a COnSeRVIng FORce In ITS tRanSmISSIOn,”BBR15 [2005]: 6).
BlOnDel remembeReD: HIS pIlOSOPIcal AnalySIS Of Te “QueST fOR Te HISTORIcal JeSuS”
emPaSIS allOWS dunn TO examIne nOT Only Te “KeRygmaTIc CRIST” WO WaS PReaceD “POST-EaSTeR” buT alSO Te ImPacT Of Te “pre-EaSTeR JeSuS”: “Te JeSuS We WanT TO finD IS Te JeSuS WOwasSIgnIficanT, Te JeSuS WO maDe Te ImPacT e DID, Te JeSuS WO WaS Te fOunTaIneaD fROm WIc CRISTIanITy 6 flOWeD, Te JeSuS WO TRanSfORmeD fiSeRmen anD TOll cOllecTORS InTO DIScIPleS anD aPOSTleS.” “huS 7 RefORmulaTeD, käleR’S aRgumenT IS eVen mORe effecTIVe,” cOnTenDS dunn. By cOnTRaST, “tO DIScOunT Te Influence TaT JeSuS acTually aD, TO STRIP aWay Te ImPacT TaT JeSuS acTually maDe, IS TO STRIP aWay eVeRyTIng anD TO leaVe an emPTy STage WaITIng TO be filleD by SOme cReaTIVe amalgam Of Te ISTORIan’S 8 OWn ImagInaTIOn anD ValueS.”
Overview of Maurice Blondel AlTOug käleR’S yOungeR cOnTemPORaRy MauRIce BlOnDel (1861–1949) neVeR aPPeaRS In dunn’S One-TOuSanD-Page TOmeJesus Remembered, IS cRITIcal InSIgTS may be eSPecIally ReleVanT TO Te DIScuSSIOn. BlOnDel WaS a FRenc PIlOSOPeR WO flOuRISeD aT Te TuRn Of Te laST cenTuRy anD WOSe DISSeRTaTIOn,L’ActionalReaDy SeT Te fOunDaTIOn fOR IS ScOlaRly caReeR. He WISeD TO SIfT (1893), PIlOSOPIcal aTTenTIOn fROm abSTRacT TOugT TO PeRSOnal cOmmITmenT anD acTIOn, anD e DeSIReD TO DemOnSTRaTe Te ulTImaTe anD IneVITable TRanScenDence Of uman acTIOn. He fORcefully DenIeD any RIgID DISTIncTIOn beTWeen Te InTellecT anD Te WIll, anD e InSISTeD uPOn Te PIlOSOPeR’S ROle aS a PaRTIcIPanT In Te acquISITIOn Of KnOWleDge RaTeR Tan aS a meRe SPecTaTOR. FOR BlOnDel, acTIOn WaS Te lInK beTWeen TOugT anD beIng. “AcTIOn IS TaT SynTeSIS Of WIllIng, KnOWIng anD beIng, TaT bInDIng fORce Of Te umancompositumWIc cannOT be bROKen uP WITOuT DeSTROyIng WaT One aS DISunITeD; IT IS Te PRecISe POInT aT WIc Te WORlD Of TOugT, Te mORal WORlD anD Te WORlD Of ScIence cOnVeRge; 9 anD If Tey aRe nOT unITeD TeRe, all IS lOST.” BlOnDel aPPlIeD IS “PIlOSOPy Of acTIOn” TO Te acaDemIc fielD Of bIblIcal STuDIeS InHistoire et 10 dogmeIn 1903. BlOnDel’S ImPacT uPOn SubSequenT “ISTORIcal JeSuS” ReSeaRc, OWeVeR, WaS amPeReD by IS cReDenTIalS SeT agaInST Te bacKDROP Of cOnTemPORaneOuS NeW teSTamenT ScOlaRSIP. He WaS neITeR a GeRman by bIRT nOR a lIbeRal pROTeSTanT by aDeRence nOR a ISTORIcal-cRITIcal ScOlaR by PROfeSSIOn. FuRTeRmORe, Te TITle Of BlOnDel’S WORK (WIT ITS menTIOn Of “DOgma”) WaS an ImmeDIaTe affROnT TO many mODeRn acaDemIc SenSIbIlITIeS. AS MORgan quIPS, ISTORIcal “queSTeRS” DO nOT lIKe Te 11 WORD “DOgmaTIc,” anD Tey DO nOT cOnSIDeR “CRISTOlOgy” TeIR buSIneSS.
 6 ibID., 32.  7 ibID., 34.  8 ibID., 34. dunn alSO DIffeRS fROm käleR by IS aTTenTIVe examInaTIOn Of JeSuS WITIn Te cOnTexT Of secOnD temPle JuDaISm. FOR an analySIS anD cRITIque Of dunn’S PROgRam, See AnDReaS J. köSTenbeRgeR, “of pROfeSSORS anD MaDmen: CuRRenTS In COnTemPORaRy NeW teSTamenT scOlaRSIP,” 13–17. TTP://WWW.bIblIcalfOunDaTIOnS.ORg/PDf/PROfeSSOR_maDman.PDf (acceSSeD MaRc 21, 2008).  9 BlOnDel,L’Action, 28; EnglIS TRanSlaTIOn In tReTOWan’S InTRODucTIOn TO MauRIce BlOnDel,he Letter on Apologetics and History and Dogma(EDInbuRg: t & t ClaRK, 1995), 86–7.  10 see JOn sImOnS, “MauRIce BlOnDel: pIlOSOPy anD CRISTIanITy,”CJT13 (1967): 254–65; Jean JacqueS d’AOuST, “he sIgnIficance Of MauRIce BlOnDel’S TReaTISe ‘HISTORy anD dOgma’ In Te FRenc MODeRnIST CRISIS,” p.d. DISSeRTaTIOn (NeW HaVen: Yale UnIVeRSITy, 1968).  11 MORgan, “CRISTIan FaIT anD HISTORIcal JeSuS reSeaRc,” 218.
FInally, muc Of Te ScOlaRly neglecT IS BlOnDel’S OWn faulT, SInce e RemaIneD “a SOmeWaT RemOTe 12 anD InacceSSIble figuRe” unTIl IS DeaT. MORe TO Te POInT, e WROTe In an exTRemely DemanDIng STyle. paul JaneT, One Of BlOnDel’S sORbOnne TeSIS examIneRS, nOTIfieD Im, “YOuR TOugT IS ObScuRe; yOuR Way Of WRITIng ObScuReS IT STIll mORe. iT TaKeS me an OuR TO ReaD One Of yOuR PageS anD Ten i faIl TO 13 unDeRSTanD IT; i calculaTeD TaT IT WOulD TaKe me fORTy-fiVe DayS TO ReaD yOuR TeSIS.” wen t & t ClaRK PublISeD a neW ImPRInT Of an EnglIS TRanSlaTIOn Of BlOnDel’SHistory and DogmaIn 1995, ReaDeRS Of 14 TeExpository Timeshe ReVIeWeR neVeR eValuaTeD ORSubjecTeD TO a RaTeR unelPful ReVIeW.  WeRe eVen SummaRIzeD BlOnDel’S acTual InSIgTS, buT Only lamenTeD BlOnDel’S “TORTuOuS” ReaSOnIng anD IS 15 “OPaque” STyle. he PIece enDeD WIT a meRe WImPeR, aS Te cRITIc TReW uP IS anDS In full SuRRenDeR, SImPly cOncluDIng TaT BlOnDel’S WORK “IS nOT eaSIly gRaSPeD aT a fiRST ReaDIng.” he auTOR DID manage TO SOunD One claRIOn nOTe cOnceRnIng BlOnDel: “AS a TInKeR e STOOD quITe OuTSIDe Te AnglO-saxOn 16 TRaDITIOn.” i SuggeST TaT MauRIce BlOnDel’S feeT aVe yeT TO mOVe, anD i PROPOSe TaT We InVITe Im InTO OuR umble AnglO-saxOn abODe anD WelcOme Im TO OuR cOnVeRSaTIOn Table, TO be SeaTeD nexT TO dunn anD MORgan. BlOnDel’S analySIS Of Te RelaTIOnSIP beTWeen “ISTORy anD DOgma” anD IS PIlOSOPIcal cRITIque Of Te lImITaTIOnS Of “ISTORIcISm” may be ReleVanT TO cOnTemPORaRy DIScuSSIOnS Of “faIT anD 17 ISTORy,” IncluDIng Te ScOlaRly “queST fOR Te ISTORIcal JeSuS.”
“Extrinsicism” and “Historicism” BlOnDel WISeD “TO acIeVe Te SynTeSIS Of ISTORy anD DOgma WIle ReSPecTIng TeIR InDePenDence 18 anD SOlIDaRITy, WIc aRe bOT equally neceSSaRy.” He DeSIReD TO DIScOVeR “Te auTORITy PROPeR TO eac” by examInIng OW “ISTORy anD DOgma STIll cOnTInue anD WIll cOnTInue TO VeRIfy anD VIVIfy One 19 anOTeR.” He TeRefORe SOugT fOR cOmmOn gROunD anD feRTIle cOnTacT beTWeen Tem. on Te One anD, e DISmISSeD “exTRInSIcISm” OR InTeReST In Te “ISTORIcal facTS” meRely fOR an aPOlOgeTIc uSe. He RefeRReD TO “Te DISIlluSIOneD ObSTInacy Of men WO ImagIneD TaT Tey KneW eVeRyTIng WITOuT aVIng examIneD anyTIng” anD WO SOugT TO buTTReSS a PReVIOuSly accePTeD TeOlOgIcal STRucTuRe WIc IS alReaDy SuPeRImPOSeD uPOn Te DaTa. on Te OTeR anD, e DISmISSeD “ISTORIcISm” OR Te call TO
 12 AlexanDeR dRu’S InTRODucTIOn TO MauRIce BlOnDel,he Letter on Apologetics and History and Dogma(EDInbuRg:t & t ClaRK, 1995), 13.  13 ibID., 40.  14 BeRnaRD M. G. reaRDOn, ReVIeW Of MauRIce BlOnDel,he Letter on Apologetics and History and Dogma,InExpTim107 (1995): 29. reaRDOn ReVIeWeD Te 1995 RePRInT (EDInbuRg: t & t ClaRK) Of Te 1964 EnglIS eDITIOn, TRanSlaTeD by AlexanDeR dRu anD illTyD tReTOWan. dRu TRanSlaTeDHistory and Dogma, anD tReTOWan TRanSlaTeDhe Letter on Apologetics. BOT dRu anD tReTOWan cOmPOSeD InTRODucTORy maTeRIalS fOR Te cOmPReenSIVe VOlume. he EnglIS TRanSlaTIOnS OfHistory and DogmaTROugOuT TIS PReSenT aRTIcle cOme fROm TIS dRu anD tReTOWan eDITIOn.  15 Cf. kenneT L. scmITz’S RefeRence TO BlOnDel’S “TORTuOuS TOugT” In Te fOReWORD TOhe Letter on Apologetics and History and Dogma,8.  16 sImIlaRly, dRu’S InTRODucTIOn RemaRKS TaT BlOnDel “IS STIll cOmPleTely IgnOReD In EnglIS-SPeaKIng cOunTRIeS, anD If menTIOneD IS uSually mISRePReSenTeD” (9; cf. 15). see alSO tReTOWan’S RefeRence TO “Te PReSenT STaTe Of aSTOnISIng IgnORance” cOnceRnIng BlOnDel’S TOugT (82). FOR a RecenT FRenc STuDy On BlOnDel anD JeSuS, See rené vIRgOulay, pIeRRe De COInTeT, eT al, Le Crist de Maurice Blondel, JéSuS eT JéSuS-CRIST 86 (paRIS: deSclée, 2003). he WORK IS ReVIeWeD by JameS Le GRyS InTS65 (2004): 649–50.  17 see AlexanDeR dRu, “he imPORTance Of MauRIce BlOnDel,”DRev80 (1962): 118–29.  18 BlOnDel,History and Dogma, 224.  19 ibID.
BlOnDel remembeReD: HIS pIlOSOPIcal AnalySIS Of Te “QueST fOR Te HISTORIcal JeSuS”
20 POSTPOne faIT unTIl One aS RecOnSTRucTeD a ISTORIcal fOunDaTIOn TROug cRITIcal meTODS. inSTeaD, e PROPOSeD a PROgReSSIVe anD SynTeTIc mOVemenT beTWeen ISTORy anD DOgma. BlOnDel TRIeD TO DemOnSTRaTe Te PIlOSOPIcal lacunae Of “ISTORIcISm” TROug cRITIcal meanS. He cOnceDeD TaT aT fiRST glance IT may Seem legITImaTe TO cOnSIDeR “Te facTS fOR TeIR OWn SaKe” by PlacIng TeOlOgy aSIDe. iT WOulD Seem TaT Te aPOlOgIST SOulD “TaKe uP IS POSITIOn . . . face TO face WIT Te 21 facTS, aS TOug e neITeR belIeVeD nOR KneW anyTIng Of CRISTIanITy.” YeT BlOnDel cOunTeReD TaT Te cRITIcal SPIRIT DOeS nOT cOnSIST SOlely In cRITIcIzIng OuR KnOWleDge (TROug a RIgOROuS examInaTIOn Of 22 TexTS anD TeSTImOnIeS); IT alSO cOnSISTS In Te fOunDaTIOnal cRITIque Of cRITIcal KnOWleDge ITSelf. he ScOlaR IS Only maSTeR In IS OR eR OWn DOmaIn by VIRTue Of a cleaR cOnScIOuSneSS Of ITS lImITaTIOnS. he manIfOlD ScIenceS VIeW RealITy fROm VaRIOuS angleS, anD nOne can maKe a TOTalITaRIan claIm TO PROVIDe a cOmPleTe PIcTuRe Of RealITy. BlOnDel emPaSIzeD TaT ceRTaIn ImPORTanT anD ReleVanT TaSKS fall beyOnD ISTORy’S fielD Of cOmPeTence, anD TeSe lImITaTIOnS leaD TO PRecauTIOnaRy RemInDeRS. HISTORy IS neITeR Self-SufficIenT nOR a TOTal meTaPySIc. HISTORy, lIKe all Te ScIenceS, DOeS nOT PRODuce a 23 unIVeRSal VISIOn nOR anSWeR ulTImaTe queSTIOnS. “he mOmenT a ScIence cOncluDeS fROm ITS InDePenDence WITIn ITS OWn fielD Of ReSeaRc TO a SORT Of Self-SufficIency, IT becOmeS guIlTy Of fRauDulenTly cOnVeRTIng a SImPle meTOD Of WORK InTO a negaTIVe anD TyRannIcal DOcTRIne. wIlly-nIlly IT IS leD InTO Te SubTly cRuDe IlluSIOn TaT becauSe IT IS legITImaTe anD neceSSaRy TO DIVIDe Te WORK Of Te mInD, Te DIVISIOnS SubSIST 24 In Te RealITy.”
Real HistorY and Reconstructed HistorY wITIn TeExpository TimesDebaTe IglIgTeD abOVe, rObeRT MORgan muSeS, “heRe may be mORe 25 TIngS In eaVen anD eaRT Tan aRe DReameD Of In OuR emPIRIcIST PIlOSOPIeS.” BlOnDel acTuallyinsists TaT eVeRy Self-cRITIcal ISTORIanmustTaT “Real ISTORy” IncluDeS TIngS beyOnD Te ScOPe RecOgnIze Of emPIRIcal InVeSTIgaTIOn, eVen If e OR Se DenIeS Te POSSIbIlITy Of “SuPeRnaTuRal elemenTS” OuT-Of-anD. real ISTORy IS meDIaTeD TROug uman beIngS In all TeIR SunDRy cOmPlexITIeS TaT lIe beneaT Te exTeRnal manIfeSTaTIOn aVaIlable aS ISTORIcal “facTS.” “waT Te ISTORIan DOeS nOT See, anD WaT e muST RecOgnIze aS eScaPIng Im IS Te SPIRITual RealITy, Te acTIVITy Of WIc IS nOT WOlly RePReSenTeD OR 26 exauSTeD by Te ISTORIcal PenOmena.” EVen SPecTaTORS cOnTemPORaneOuSly WaTcIng eVenTS unfOlD cannOT enTIRely RecOnSTRucT maTTeRS aS Tey acTually aRe, becauSe muc TaT PeRTaInS TO “WOle PeRSOnS” lIeS beyOnD Te emPIRIcal examInaTIOn Of OTeRS.
 20  regaRDIng Te TeRmS “exTRInSIcISm” anD “ISTORIcISm,” BlOnDel cOnfeSSeD, “i Sall maKe uSe Of ceRTaIn baRbaROuS neOlOgISmS WIT a VIeW TO fixIng aTTenTIOn anD TROWIng InTO RelIef Te excluSIVe caRacTeR Of eac TeSIS” (IbID., 225).  21 ibID., 232–3.  22  AS MaRcellInO d’AmbROSIO exPlaInS, “CRITIcal ISTORy WIc fORgeTS IT OWn lImITaTIOnS In TIS egRegIOuS faSIOn OVeRSTePS Te bOunDaRIeS Of ITS cOmPeTence anD TuS VIOlaTeS an ImPORTanT canOn Of TRuly ScIenTIfic meTOD” (MaRcellInO d’AmbROSIO, “HenRI De Lubac anD Te CRITIque Of scIenTIfic ExegeSIS,”Comm19 [1992], 376). d’AmbROSIO maInTaInS TaT HenRI De Lubac SOugT “TO IDenTIfy TOSe IDDen anD aRbITRaRy PReSuPPOSITIOnS WIc aVe been bOunD uP WIT ISTORIcal cRITIcISm fROm ITS IncePTIOn” anD WIc “PRejuDIceD” Te ReSulTS Of ITS “POSITIVIST PReTenSIOnS” (IbID., 373). d’AmbROSIO RIgTly nOTeS TaT De Lubac leaneD eaVIly uPOn Te WORK Of MauRIce BlOnDel, IS fellOW FRenc TInKeR (IbID., 367, 373–6).  23 BlOnDel uSeS “ScIenceS” In Te bROaD SenSe Of “fielDS Of acaDemIc InquIRy.”  24 BlOnDel,History and Dogma, 238.  25 MORgan, “CRISTIan FaIT anD HISTORIcal JeSuS reSeaRc,” 219.  26 BlOnDel,History and Dogma, 237.
on Te OTeR anD, “TecnIcal anD cRITIcal ISTORy” IS “ScIenTIfic ISTORy,” WIc examIneS anD lInKS Te emPIRIcal eVIDenceS Of PaST eVenTS aS One emPIRIcally InVeSTIgaTeS ObjecTS In a ScIenTIfic labORaTORy. BuT One muST DIlIgenTly RemembeR TaT cRITIcal-ISTORIcal RecOnSTRucTIOnS DIffeR fROm Te “Real ISTORy,” 27 TaT IS, eVenTS aS Tey acTually OccuRReD. A SImPle examPle IS any ImPORTanT DecISIOn TaT maRKeDly affecTeD Te cOuRSe Of ISTORy. he mODeRn ISTORIan may TRy TO RecOnSTRucT Te mOTIVaTIOnS anD DIScuRSIVe TOugT PROceSSeS beInD Te DecISIOn, buT In TRuT One cannOT Reac full ePISTemOlOgIcal ceRTaInTy On Suc cRucIally ReleVanT “InTeRnal” maTTeRS. NeVeRTeleSS, TeyreallyDID aPPen anD TeRefORe aRe “Real ISTORy.” obVIOuSly, “InTeRnal” OR “SPIRITual” maTTeRS Suc aS mOTIVaTIOnS, PuRPOSeS, emOTIOnS, DecISIOnS, anD TOugTS gReaTly InfluenceD Te ISTORIcal caIn Of eVenTS aT almOST eVeRy lInK. BuT ISTORy by ITSelf cannOT KnOW a facT TaT WOulD be mORe Tan a facT. haT IS, Te ISTORIan cannOT gO beyOnD anD beInD 28 Te exTeRnal manIfeSTaTIOnS Of Suc InTeRnal WORKIngS.
he DangeR Of “ISTORIcISm” lIeS In cOnfuSIOn beTWeen “TecnIcal anD cRITIcal ISTORy” anD “Real ISTORy.” heRe IS alWayS an InSuRmOunTable abySS beTWeen TeSe TWO ISTORIeS, One ReSulTIng fROm a PenOmenOlOgIcal meTOD anD Te OTeR RePReSenTIng genuIne RealITy. wen One SubSTITuTeS Te One fOR Te OTeR, “an OnTOlOgy, PuRely PenOmenOlOgIcal In caRacTeR, WIll be exTRacTeD fROm a meTODOlOgy 29 anD a PenOmenOlOgy.” wen TIS aPPenS, SeVeRal cOnfuSIOnS ReSulT. “HISTORIcISm” TenDS TO mISTaKe Te exTeRnal acT fOR Te enTIReTy Of Te eVenT ITSelf. iT SubSTITuTeS “Te facT fOR Te acTOR, Te TeSTImOny 30 fOR Te WITneSS, Te PORTRaIT fOR Te PeRSOn.” “HISTORIcISm” TenDS TO RegISTeR nOT SO muc Te InITIal OPeRaTIOnS Of Real PeRSOnS aS Te SubSequenT InfluenceS Of ITS OWn RecOnSTRucTIOnS Of TOSe InITIal OPeRaTIOnS. BlOnDel maInTaInS TaT TeSe ISTORIcal “PenOmena” aRe Only PaRTIal ImageS Of Te lIfe Of umanITy. AS dunn cOmmenTS, “A PaST eVenT IS nOT a TIng, an ObjecT, a DaTum. he ISTORIan can neVeR WITneSS IT In IS OR eR OWn exPeRIence, can neVeR exPeRIence IT aT fiRST anD. All TaT Te ISTORIan can aVe TO anD IS Te DaTa ReSulTIng fROm Te PaST eVenTS, aS yOu mIgT Say, Te ReSIDue, Te DeTRITuS Of Te 31 PaST.”
“HISTORIcISm” alSO TenDS TO lOOK fOR Te WOle SubjecT maTTeR Of ISTORy In Te eVOluTIOn Of Te unfOlDIng Of Te SeRIeS Of eVenTS. BuT TIS “lOgIcal DeVelOPmenT” IS Really a mecanISTIc VIeW TaT cannOT TaKe InTO accOunT Te PeRSOnal naTuRe Of all Te SPecIfic mOmenTS. if eac lInK Of Te “cRITIcal ISTORIcal” caIn IS maDe uP Of Te aVaIlable emPIRIcal eVIDence TIeD TO a SPecIfic eVenT, Ten Te enTIRe “cRITIcal ISTORIcal” caIn Of Suc eVenTS STIll cOnceRnS Only a TOTal cOnglOmeRaTIOn Of Suc emPIRIcal eVIDence. BuT In “Real ISTORy” eac lInK InVOlVeS PSycOlOgIcal, menTal, anD VOlITIOnal acTIOnS ImPlIeD by eVen Te leaST PeRSOnal acTIOn, becauSe “Real ISTORy” IS meDIaTeD TROug uman lIVeS In TeIR full cOmPlexITy. sInce PeRSOnal eVenTS IncluDe mORe beneaT Te exTeRnal leVel, Ten Te enTIRe “cRITIcal ISTORIcal” caIn Only PaRTIally RecReaTeS Te “Real ISTORy” Of SucceSSIVe eVenTS aS Tey acTually unfOlDeD.
 27 hIS DIffeRenTIaTIOn IS, Of cOuRSe, nOW cOmmOn faRe. dunn exPlaInS Te cOnTRaST (“on FaIT anD HISTORy,” 14), anD MORgan cOnSIDeRS Te DISTIncTIOn TO be an “ImPORTanT POInT” (dunn,Jesus Remembered, 5).  28  peRaPS One cOulD cOunTeR TaT DIaRIeS anD auTObIOgRaPIeS PeRSOnally ReVeal Te InneR WORKIngS Of ISTORIcal figuReS, buT TIS RejOInDeR IS nOT ReleVanT In “ISTORIcal JeSuS” STuDIeS.  29 BlOnDel,History and Dogma, 240.  30 ibID., 241.  31 dunn, “on FaIT anD HISTORy,” 14.