The Development of the Word ‘Theology’1

Frank Whaling

doi:10.1017/S003693060001543X

The Development of the Word ‘Theology’1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009

Frank Whaling

Show author details

Frank Whaling: Affiliation:
New College, Edinburgh

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The word ‘theology’ can be and is used in a number of different ways. It has developed a variety of meanings, such that the use of this same word to allude to different concepts sometimes leads to confusion. In this paper I intend to look at the development of the word ‘theology’ without necessarily resolving the question of what theology is by reference to any one of the past meanings as a determining norm for a new quest. However, in the course of this analysis, certain suggestions will be made that may help to indicate directions for theology in our time.

Type: Research Article
Information: Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 1981 , pp. 289 - 312

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S003693060001543X [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 289 note 2} Duchesne-Guillemin, J.The Hymns of Zarathustra, p. 2 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 3} Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. (eds), A Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 791–792 (Clarendon: Oxford, 1940).Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 4} See Murray, J. (ed), A New English Dictionary, p. 275 (Clarendon: Oxford, 1919).Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 5} See New Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. vi, pp. 745–747 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 6} See New Catholic Encyclopaedia vol. x pp. 334–335.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 7} See Gellius', Aulus Noctes Atticue 13.16, quoted by Bird, OttoCultures in Conflict, pp. 14–15 (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1976).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 8} Aristotle Parts of Animals 1.1.639a 1–12, quoted by Otto Bird, op. cit., pp. 12–13.

^{page 294 note 9} Hastings, J. (ed), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. vi, pp. 253–254 (T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1913).Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 10} Kittel, G. (ed), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. iii, pp. 79–101 (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 11} The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, Nashville, 1962), pp. 430–436.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 12} See G. Kittel, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 16–19, 79–81.

^{page 295 note 13} See New Catholic Encyclopaedia on Martyr, Justin (vol. viii, pp. 94–95).Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 14} See Panikkar, R. on ‘Christianity and World Religions’ in Christianity (Punjabi University, Patiala, 1969).Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 15} Panikkar, R.The Unknown Christ of Hinduism (Darton Longman & Todd, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 16} This did not preclude theological disagreement within the Christian tradition.

^{page 297 note 17} Lampe, G. W. H. (ed), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, pp. 627–628 (Clarendon; Oxford, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 18} See J. Murray, op. cit., p. 275.

^{page 297 note 19} G. W. H. Lampe, op. cit., p. 268.

^{page 298 note 20} See New Catholic Encyclopaedia on Clement (vol. iii, pp. 943–4); on Origen (vol. x, pp. 767–74).

^{page 298 note 21} See Smith, W. C.Belief and History (University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1977).Google Scholar PubMed

^{page 299 note 22} G. W. H. Lampe, op. cit., pp. 940–3.

^{page 299 note 23} See New Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. xiv, p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 24} The lack of a central body within the Hindu and Buddhist traditions is another relevant factor.

^{page 301 note 25} See New Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. xii, pp. 94–96.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 26} See Watt, W. M.Islamic Philosophy and Theology (Edinburgh University Press, 1962).Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 27} Sarachek, J.Faith and Reason; the Conflict over the rationalism of Maimonides (reprint New York, 1970 (1935)).Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 28} The great Hindu ācāryas were essentially exegetists of sacred books which were, in the case of Vedānta, the Upaniṣads, the Bhagavad Gītā, and the Vedānta Sūtras.

^{page 302 note 29} See New Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. xiv, p. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 30} ibid., p. 52.

^{page 302 note 31} Aquinas built upon the work of Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides.

^{page 302 note 32} See Adams, J. L.Paul Tillich's Philosophy of Culture, Science and Religion, pp. 259–281 (Harper and Row, New York, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 33} See Bourke, V. J.Aquinas's Search for Wisdom (Milwaukee, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 34} See J. Murray op. cit., p. 275.

^{page 303 note 35} See for example Chadwick, O.The Reformation (Penguin, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 36} Part of the stimulus to explore this has come from Religious Studies departments.

^{page 305 note 37} Schleiermacher, F.Der Christliche Glaube. 2 vols (Reutlingen, 1828).Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 38} See J. Murray, op. cit., p. 275.

^{page 306 note 39} Nirvāṇa is described in absolute terms and the Dharma is taken to be pre-existent and eternal.

^{page 306 note 40} The same applies to the use of the word ‘philosophy’ when what is meant is ‘western philosophy’.

^{page 306 note 41} These options have been expressed perhaps with more sophistication within the Christian tradition but they are present to greater or lesser degree in all.

^{page 307 note 42} Barth and Kraemer are the best known Christian advocates of this view.

^{page 307 note 43} See van Leeuwen, A.Christianity in World History (Scribners, New York, 1964)Google Scholar. The thesis expressed here is being overturned by some modern thinkers within eastern religious groups who argue that the world needs not more secularization but more inwardness.

^{page 307 note 44} Classically in Farquhar, J. N., The Crown of Hinduism (1913)Google Scholar; recently in the work of R. C. Zaehner; implicitly in the Qur'ān; in modified form in Advaita Vedānta.

^{page 307 note 45} See for example Panikkar, R.The Trinity and World Religions (CLS, Madras, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 46} It is arguable that dialogue is a method that can be used with the other theological options mentioned; it is also evolving a theological attitude of its own.

^{page 307 note 47} Classically in the work of Troeltsch after 1915, and in Hindu thinkers such as Ramakrishna.

^{page 307 note 48} The work of Wilfred Cantwell Smith remains one of the most promising forays into this area.

^{page 308 note 49} See Butterfield, H.Origins of Modern Science (Bell & Sons, London, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 50} As applied to religion see Waardenberg, J.Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, vol. i (Mouton, The Hague, 1973).Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 51} J. Hastings, op. cit., vol. xii, pp. 297–9.

^{page 310 note 52} Macquarrie, J.Principles of Christian Theology, p. 1 (Scribners, New York, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 53} W. C. Smith's four universal theological categories are: faith, tradition, religious truth, and participation. At least as important as his attempts to particularise these categories is his insistence that there are such categories.

Article contents

The Development of the Word ‘Theology’1

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests