Novak (novak) wrote,
Novak
novak

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Theology Notebook: Willi Marxsen on the Resurrection and Rahner

Writing from my Mom's where I'm recovering from a turkey overdose and reading Willi Marxsen's famed 1967-68 lectures on the resurrection. I'm only 30-some pages in so far, and I'm trying to be patient, but it really seems like he's setting up a false dichotomy to me--one between whether Gospel writers were writing on the resurrection to either a)give information on the resurrection and its mode, or b) issue a call to faith. The first option, it seems clear so far, he's going to associate with a wrong and misleading belief in and insistence on the bodily resurrection and the empty tomb. The second option, which he seems to be setting up favourably, is going to argue for some kind of "spiritual" understanding of the resurrection--one wherein these physical/historical details are irrelevant. Maybe it'll end up being better and more subtle than this, but my hopes aren't getting too high.

Oh, and he says you can't say that it's both. He calls that response "neat but spurious." I'm having a tough time buying the forced dichotomy. To rule it out seems like a logical fallacy to me. It's un-nuanced. I can't see separating content from intent. Event, proclamation, interpretation--they're all interwoven in my book.


So. I'm reading this and Wilhelm Thusing this weekend as they are two exegetes whose reading of scripture seemed to influence Karl Rahner on his writing on the resurrection. I'm trying to "backtrack" Rahner's thinking here and see to what extent he's influenced by these two.
Tags: christology, rahner, theological notebook
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments