Ojoh!'s long-range story

The critical study of the Bible

Of particular mention here is Martin Kahler's research. Since Kahler's research was published (1892), in biblical science the word "the same history" is divided into Geschichte and Historie and used differently. Then, under the influence of Kahler, he sees the Gospel as the manifestation of Christ's faith in the early church. In other words, behind that, he came to think that he was born in Galilee and did not know the life of Jesus who died in Jerusalem.

It is a Albert Schweitzer called the Apostle in Africa to inherit the direction of Kahler, and to have thought about this further in the apocalyptic after 20 years. This movement has become decisive in the study of literary types such as Schmidt, Dibelius, and Bultmann, and has reached today. Of course, around these people, there were studies by the people of the countless Protestant Biblical Society. Above all, I can not forget the name of Julius Wellhausen. When this becomes Käsemann and Robinson, the meaning of almost no longer is admitted to thinking about the Jesuas of the Nazareth which has already been actually alive as a historical fact.

It is a kind of agnostic theory that you can not know anything from the gospel.
The critical study of the Bible was, at first, an effort to at least identify the figure of Jesus Christ as a historical fact, as the foundation of faith. The place where it finally arrived was the appearance of the Gospel as the manifestation of the evangelical mission of the early church (IL Kerigma). Then, with such critical research as a fulcrum, I gradually turned to a direction of understanding existentially the faith.

In this way, in the new religion, the critical study of the Bible progressed. But at first this seemed to be much more dangerous to the Catholics. It was also a persistent vigilance that arose from the controversy and battle with the New Church about the Church Bible. It is a lump of feeling that I could not avoid anyhow from the circumstances until then. However, even after the WWII, even the Catholic Church has been increasingly motivated to incorporate the research results of the Church and to study these things.

As an indication, we can cite"The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Dictionary Charter on the Revelation of God" at Vatican II. Since this charter, many publications on the Bible's interpretation of the Bible on the Catholic side have incorporated many of the critical ones not seen before that, and the results of literary typology and editorial history research. It is a kind of snow melting phenomenon. It is not so clear how this will progress in the future. If it is acceptable to just say a faint desire, all of us will go beyond the difference in our own position and theories.