Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Tillich claimed often and vehemently that the risk of faith in Jesus as the Christ ‘lies in quite a different dimension from the risk of accepting uncertain historical facts’.1 The ultimate concern expressed in and through Christology is free from the contingencies of history and the consequent possibility of falsification. Yet many critics have accused Tillich of making covert historical assumptions in an inconsistent manner, thus failing in practice to make good his claims. I wish to defend Tillich on his own systematic grounds from such criticism, but also finally to raise the question whether his grounds are tenable.
page 195 note 1 Systematic Theology II, Combined Volume, London, Nisbet, 1968, p. 134.Google Scholar
page 195 note 2 Theology of Culture, Oxford, O.U.P., 1969, p. 67.Google Scholar
page 196 note 3 Hegel, G. W. F., Introduction to the Philosophy of Fine Art. London, Kegan Paul, 1903, pp. 51ff.Google Scholar
page 196 note 4 The Interpretation of History, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936, pp. 15ff.Google Scholar
page 196 note 5 The Protestant Era, London, Nisbet, 1957, p. 66Google Scholar; Theology of Culture, p. 74.
page 196 note 6 Systematic Theology I, p. 100.
page 197 note 7 The Interpretation of History, pp. 15ff.
page 197 note 8 Systematic Theology III, pp. 214ff.
page 198 note 9 Systematic Theology II, p. 163.
page 198 note 10 Systematic Theology I, pp. 118ff.
page 199 note 11 Systematic Theology III, pp. 216ff., cf. I, p. 183.
page 199 note 12 Tillich for instance writes of the transformation of the symbol ‘immortality’ into a concept when the question of evidence was raised. Systematic Theology III, pp. 436–9.
page 199 note 13 Systematic Theology I, p. 32.
page 200 note 14 Systematic Theology II, p. 51.
page 200 note 15 op. cit., pp. 53–63.
page 200 note 16 op. cit., p. 136.
page 200 note 17 Systematic Theology I, p. 131. Cf. Tillich's, dictum that more truth is mediated through personal symbols. Religious Experience and Truth, Hook, S. (ed.), Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, 1962, p. 11.Google Scholar
page 201 note 18 Tillich does not restrict the appearance of the New Being to Christ alone, although he is final revelation. Without fragmentary glimpses of New Being the religions and cultures of mankind would not have arisen. Systematic Theology II, pp. 193ff.
page 201 note 19 op. cit., p. 174.
page 201 note 20 op. cit., pp. 150–2.
page 202 note 21 op. cit., p. 174.
page 203 note 22 op. cit., p. 132.
page 203 note 23 op. cit., pp. 158ff.
page 203 note 24 op. cit., p. 182.
page 204 note 25 op. cit., p. 185.
page 205 note 26 Theology of Culture, p. 28.
page 205 note 27 ‘Rejoinder’, Journal of Religion XLVI, 1966, p. 192.Google Scholar
page 205 note 28 Harvey, Van A., The Historian and the Believer, London, S.C.M. Press, 1967, p. 152.Google Scholar
page 206 note 29 Kelsey, D. H., The Fabric of Paul Tillich's Theology, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1967, Chapter VI, especially pp. 152ff.Google Scholar
page 206 note 30 op. cit., p. 88.
page 207 note 31 Clayton, J. P., ‘Is Jesus Necessary for Christology?’, Christ, Faith and History, Sykes, S. W. and Clayton, J. P. (eds.) Cambridge, C.U.P., 1972, p. 150.Google Scholar
page 207 note 32 Systematic Theology I, pp. 19ff.
page 207 note 33 Kant, I., Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, New York, Harper and Row, 1960, p. 56.Google Scholar
page 207 note 34 Systematic Theology II, p. 123. Here again ‘factual’ refers to experience.
page 208 note 35 op. cit., p. 144. While Tillich says here that his analysis was ‘partly’ dependent, he says also that the biblical picture contradicts the marks of estrangement point by point.
page 209 note 36 Systematic Theology I, p. 12.
page 209 note 37 Systematic Theology II, p. 51.
page 210 note 38 Husserl, E., Ideas, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1931Google Scholar. Cf. Perspectives on 19th and 20th Century Protestant Theology, London, S.C.M. Press, 1967, pp. 32ff.Google Scholar
