| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
■Prologue
[1] Barth, Karl. "Dai 4-kan wakai-ron I/2 [Volume IV: The Doctrine of Reconciliation I/2]." Kyōkai kyōgi-gaku [Church Dogmatics]. Trans. Yoshio Inoue. Tokyo: Shinkyo Shuppansha Pub. Co., 1972. Print. (241). "How can we recognize what happened in the past as something that happened for us today?"
[2] Zahrnt, Heinz.Shiteki Iesu no tankyū [The Search for the Historical Jesus]. Trans. Eiji Azumi. Tokyo: Shinkyo Shuppansha Pub. Co., 1971. Print. (176). *The following English translation does not contain the relevant page. Zahrnt, Heinz. THE HISTORICAL JESUS. Trans. J.S.Bowden. London: COLLINS, 1963. Print.
■Consideration
[1] Hick, John H. Philosophy of Religion. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs: A Simon & Schuster, 1990. Print (78). "William Alston has set forth the ways in which religious experience differs from sense experience. One major difference is that religious experience is not universal among human beings, whereas sense experience is. Everyone is equipped with, and no one could live without, beliefs about our physical environment. However, not everyone has, or apparently needs to have, beliefs concerning the Divine. Religious experience, and the beliefs that reflect it, seem to be optional extras, nonessential for human survival and flourishing."
■Review 1
[1] Bultmann, R. "Genshi kirisutokyō no Kirisuto-shishin to shiteki Iesu tono kankei [The relationship between the early Christ message and the historical Jesus]." Burutoman chosaku-shū 9 [COLLECTED WORKS 9]. Trans. Tashio Aono. Tokyo: Shinkyo Shuppansha Pub. Co., 1994. Print. (146-147).
[2] Käsemann, Ernst. Shin'yaku shingaku no kigen [The origins of New Testament theology (an abridged edition of EXEGETISCHE VERSUCHE UND BESINNUNGEN)]. Trans. Hidetoshi D. Watanabe. Tokyo: Nihonkirisutokyōdan-shuppankyoku, 1973. Print. (90).
[3] Bultmann, R. "Genshi kirisutokyō no Kirisuto-shishin to shiteki Iesu tono kankei [The relationship between the early Christ message and the historical Jesus]." (134-135).
[4] Käsemann, Ernst. Shin'yaku shingaku no kigen [The origins of New Testament theology]. (121).
[5] Bultmann, R. "Genshi kirisutokyō no Kirisuto-shishin to shiteki Iesu tono kankei [The relationship between the early Christ message and the historical Jesus]." (134).
[6] Bultmann, R. Iesu [Jesus]. Trans. Junshiro Kawabata, Seiichi Yagi. Tokyo: Mirai-sya, 1989. Print. (17).
[7] ibid., (12).
[8] Bultmann, R. "Pauro shingaku ni taisuru rekishi-teki iesu no igi [The Significance of the Historical Jesus for Pauline Theology]." Burutoman chosaku-shū 11 [COLLECTED WORKS 11]. Trans. Hiroshi Tsuchiya. Tokyo: Shinkyo Shuppansha Pub. Co., 1986. Print. (235).
[9] Bultmann, R. "Genshi kirisutokyō no Kirisuto-shishin to shiteki Iesu tono kankei [The relationship between the early Christ message and the historical Jesus]." (134).
[10] Bultmann, R. "Shin'yaku seisho shingaku Ⅲ 'Furon hōhō-ron to gakusetsu-shi' [New Testament Theology Ⅲ 'Appendix: Methodology and History of Scholarship']." Burutoman chosaku-shū 5 [COLLECTED WORKS 5]. Trans. Junshiro Kawabata. Tokyo: Shinkyo Shuppansha Pub. Co., 1995. Print. (195).
[11] Bultmann, R. "Shin'yaku seisho shingaku Ⅰ [New Testament Theology Ⅰ]." Burutoman chosaku-shū 3 [COLLECTED WORKS 3]. Trans. Junshiro Kawabata. Tokyo: Shinkyo Shuppansha Pub. Co., 1994. Print. (112).
[12] Bultmann, Rudolf, KERYGMA and MYTH. HARPER & ROW PUBLISHERS., New York, 1966 p.41
[13] Charlesworth, James H. Kore dake wa shitte okitai shiteki Iesu [The Historical Jesus You Should Know (Original title: The Historical Jesus An Essential Guide)]. Trans. Minoru Nakano. Tokyo: KYO BUN KWAN Inc., 2012. Print (66-68). "It may be confirmed that there is some consensus among Christian scholars. ... Fourthly, there is a continuity from 'teachings on the Kingdom of God' by Jesus to the 'sermons about Christ' by his earliest disciples. They never normatively distinguished or categorized the 'historical Jesus' and the 'Christ of faith'." ――However, Charlesworth's description fails to capture what Bultmann described as the difference between "historical Jesus and the Christ of the kerygma". Bultmann takes for granted the continuity between the two in the sense that Charlesworth refers to here. (Chapter 4 - Consideration 4 See the citation in note [4].)
[14] The problem of "the discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the apostolic kerygma" is based on the mainline's theological premise that "Jesus in the Gospel era was not divine, but later, in the apostolic age, Jesus was deified as the Christ", so it is natural that conservatives would not accept this problem setting itself. For confirmation that this premise is incorrect, see Part 1 - Chapter 3 - Proposition 1 (Argument), and Chapter 4 - Consideration 4. However, even so, the understanding that "historical facts do not give faith" must be maintained for the reasons stated below.
■Review 2
[1] Bultmann, R. "Shin'yaku seisho shingaku Ⅲ [New Testament Theology Ⅲ]." Burutoman chosaku-shū 5 [COLLECTED WORKS 5]. (195).
[2] Bultmann, R. Shin'yaku seisho to shinwa-ron [New Testament and Mythology]. Trans. Kikuo Yamaoka. Tokyo: Shinkyo Shuppansha Pub. Co., 1980. Print. (89).
[3] Bultmann, R. "Genshi kirisutokyō no Kirisuto-shishin to shiteki Iesu tono kankei [The relationship between the early Christ message and the historical Jesus]." (145).
[4] Bultmann, R. "Shin'yaku seisho shingaku Ⅱ [New Testament Theology Ⅱ]." Burutoman chosaku-shū 4 [COLLECTED WORKS 4]. Trans. Junshiro Kawabata. Tokyo: Shinkyo Shuppansha Pub. Co., 1994. Print. (340).
[5] In contemporary theology, G. Thiesen has simply adopted Bultmann's problem framework without question. "How can we understand the transition from the historical Jesus to the Son of God as proclaimed by the kerygma?" "Why do they say so much more about Jesus than he would have originally said about himself?" Theissen, G. "Shiteki iesu to kēryuguma ― gakumon-teki kōsei to shinkō e no michi [Historical Jesus and the Kerygma ― Scholarly Construction and the Path to Faith]." Trans. Ichirō Sudō. Seinangakuindaigaku shingaku ronshū 68(1). [Seinan Gakuin University Theological Studies 68(1)]. Japan: Seinan Gakuin University Academic Research Institute., 2011. Print. (199, 202). https://seinan-gu.repo.nii.ac.jp/search?page=1&size=20&sort=-controlnumber&search_type=2&q=1744346814446
■Argument
[1] Kirisutokyō daijiten henshūiinkai. "Kēryuguma." Kiristokyo Daijiten [Christian Encyclopedia]. Tokyo: Kyobunkan. 1983. Print (385).
[2] Käsemann, Ernst. Shin'yaku shingaku no kigen [The origins of New Testament theology]. (91).
[3] Marshall, I. Howard. "Shito no hataraki [The Acts of the Apostles]." Tinderu seisho chūkai [Tyndale New Testament Commentary]. Trans. Yuji Tomita. Tokyo: Word of Life Press Ministries, 2012. Print. (83). "It has been argued, to date, that this speech follows the same framework as other speeches and sermons in the Acts of the Apostles, and that this framework—along with the way in which Luke infuses it with specific content—reflects his own theology."
[4] The following quote is from The New International Version. (The Committee on Bible Translation. 1978.)
[5] In NIV, the word "But" is also used in translations of Peter's kerygma outside of chapter 13, but since this is a additional translation for which there is no corresponding word in the original Greek, it is enclosed in parentheses in the quotation.
[6] I expressed this view in my essay Hirakareta Kirisutokyō no tame no Shinkō to Riseiron [Faith and Reason for an Open Christianity], Part 16 (2010). Later, I found a similar viewpoint in G. Theysen's Iesu to Pauro [Jesus and Pauls], Trans. Nihon shin'yaku gakkai. Tokyo: Kyobunkan, 2012. Print. (152-154), but as follows, Theysen's perspective remains a superficial examination applying psychology. Theissen argues that the view of Jesus, which was unjustly diminished by the crucifixion, was balanced by the resurrection and exaltation, thereby reducing the apostles' cognitive dissonance, but assuming that this was indeed the psychological transformation that occurred among the apostles, it would only offer them "comfort" or "hope". However, what is found in the apostles' kerygma is more than just comfort or hope in faith; as we see in this section, it is confidence in Jesus. Therefore, the discovery of the resurrection proposition of ``God's approval of Jesus'' must be understood not as an adjustment to the psychological balance of the apostles, but as the discovery of a doctrine that would confirm and guarantee the impression that they had about Jesus while he was alive.
The concept of "cognitive dissonance" as described by Theissen can be traced back to L. Festinger, H.W. Riecken, and S. Schachter's book, When Prophecies Fail (1956). When a religious group's prophecy failed and nothing happened, it is recorded that the members of that group changed their interpretation of what the prophecy meant and strengthened their faith. One way to resolve "cognitive dissonance" is to change one's interpretation of an event, and it is argued that this creates faith.
The birth of Christianity through the acquisition of the "resurrection proposition," as seen in this essay, differs from the process of religious renewal in the aforementioned religious groups. The point is that in the early church, it wasn't a case of "changing the interpretation when nothing happened", but rather, because the unexpected event of the resurrection occurred, the apostles restored their original perception of Jesus. Christianity states that "if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty" (1Cor. 15:14), and it is a religion in which an active event precedes faith.
However, distinguishing between the religious group in When Prophecies Fail and the early Christian apostles by stating that the difference lies in whether they "changed their interpretation even though nothing had happened / changed their interpretation because a new event occurred," or "abandoned their previous claims and changed their interpretation / came to adopt some interpretation for the first time from a state of having no specific claims," and considering the former as adopting a convenient interpretation and the latter as adopting a more rational interpretation, would not be a fair treatment of both.
Whether it is a change in interpretation or the acquisition of a new interpretation, in either case it is a affirming the consequent inference, as described in Part Two, Faith and Reason, Chapter 2 - Easy Study 4 "Hermeneutics", and is an uncertain inference about an event. The effectiveness of interpretive thinking lies in acquiring new perspectives on events, and in this respect, the acquisition of interpretation by the religious group in When Prophecies Fail and the Christian apostolic community must be considered the same.
The former's change in interpretation was self-preservation-driven, and it can be argued that their motivation for adopting the interpretation differed from that of the Apostles. However, ultimately, the two must be distinguished simply by whether or not their interpretation was correct. Both the people in When Prophecies Fail and Christianity are "fact-based" faiths, so the correctness of their beliefs will ultimately be judged by the facts.
[7] 児島宏子訳、チェーホフ『大学生』未知谷 2005年
■Succession
[1] 私自身、「復活命題」をある未信仰の友人に語ったことがあったが、彼は「それは神を信じている人にとっては意味のあることだと思うが、信仰のない者にとってはとっかかりのない話だ」と言った。
[2] F.F.Bruce I and II Corinthians (The New Century Bible Commentary). WM.B.Eerdmans Publishing, 1984, p.37
なお、パウロが説教の方針を変えたとみる「俗説」は、「知的な説教」から「愚かな説教」に変えたとするものだが、私の「俗説」は「復活の説教」を捨てて「十字架の説教」を行うようにしたとするもので、「俗説」としての内容が異なる。しかしいずれも、パウロがアテネ伝道の失敗から方針を変えたとみる点では同じ。
[3] 岩隈直『新訳ギリシヤ語辞典』山本書店 1982年
[4]『信条集』前編・後編 新教出版社（昭和30年、昭和32年）、渡辺信夫『古代教会の信仰告白』新教出版社 2002年、J.N.D.ケリー『初期キリスト教教理史』一麦出版社 2010年 参照
[5]『ハイデルベルク信仰問答』新教出版社 1984年 p.42
[6] K.バルト『教会教義学』和解論Ⅰ/2 新教出版社 1972年 十四章「僕としての主イエス・キリスト」59節「神の子の従順」三「父の判決」p.276「『彼が歩み給うた道に対する神の判決の宣告と執行』としてのよみがえらし」
[7] 復活を「神によるイエスの是認」として述べている日本の書物は以下。
前田豊編『キリスト教入門・ハイデルベルク信仰問答による・』小峯書店 昭和57年 p.67「キリストの復活は…地上で拒否されたかたが実は神に受け入れられたかたであったということを鮮やかに示す証拠です」（宮田計 著）
ヴィルヘルム・ブッシュ『３６５日の主』いのちのことば社 1976年 p.128「『彼は死刑に当たる』『除け、除け』――あの時以来、学者も民衆も等しく叫びます。穏和なキリスト教的ヨーロッパ市民は、そんなふうには叫びません。が、ひそかに、イエスを葬りたいと願い、『彼は死刑だ』という判決を是認します。多数決による判決！ しかし、ただおひとりだけには、まだ解答が求められていません。それはイエス・キリストの父、生ける神です。復活は、イエスに対する最終的な判決文です。それにより、彼に対する人間のさまざまな判決は、ことごとく打ち破られます。」（抜粋）
■Mission
[1]「十字架」に関する歴代の解釈については、A.E.マクグラス『キリスト教神学入門』教文館 2002年 参照
[2] 信仰が持つ普遍性としては、この「信仰の確信」の他に、「信仰論」Chapter 4で述べる「史的イエスＲ」による史的研究の不定性に対する不変性、信仰対象である神、イエス、聖霊が超越的存在であることから由来する超越性があると考えられる。
[3] I.カント『純粋理性批判 上』岩波文庫 1978年 p.23（AXV）
■Proposition 3
[1] S.キルケゴール『哲学的断片への非学問的あとがき』キルケゴール著作集８ 白水社 1969年 p.34
[2] 前掲書 p.34
[3] 工藤綏夫（やすお）『キルケゴール』清水書院 昭和46年 p.155「実存する人間にとっては、真理は、そとに求むべきものではなくて、自己の内面に求めるべきものであり、自己のうちにおいて、永遠なもの、絶対的なものとかかわるべきものである、というのが、これまでの自己生成の過程であった。これらはすべて、『主体性が真理である』という確信の上に動いていた。しかしいまや、自己は、自己の内面には絶対者が内在していないことを、発見するにいたった。ここで、『主体性が真理である』という命題は、『主体性は虚偽である』という命題に、とって代わられることとなる。このばあい、『虚偽』とは『罪』を意味する。人間が絶対者という真理のそとに墜ちたことを意味する。絶対者は、自己の内にではなく、自己を超越した、自己のそとに求めていかなければならないこととなる。超越宗教としてのキリスト教こそが、真の宗教的人生を可能にするのである。」
■Proposition 4
[1] S.キルケゴール『反復』岩波文庫 1978年 p.37（原211）
[2] 前掲書 p.136（原274）
[3] 前掲書 p.10（原194）
[4] 前掲書 p.9（原193）
[5] 前掲書 p.149（原283）
■Proposition 5
[1] R.ブルトマン『共観福音書伝承史Ⅰ』ブルトマン著作集１ 新教出版社 2004年 p.107
[2] 前掲書 p.221
■Remark
[1]「後件肯定式推論」については「信仰論」Chapter 3-Consideration参照。「解釈」についての詳細は「信仰と理性論」Chapter 2 - Easy Study 4参照。
復活命題「復活は神によるイエスの是認を示す証しである」は、イエスの復活事象について可能な一つの解釈である。これを推論の形に述べ直すと、（ＡならばＢ）すなわち「Ａ）復活が神によるイエス是認の証しであるならば、Ｂ）イエスは刑死のままに置かれるはずはない」、そして（現にＢ）すなわち「事実、イエスはよみがえった」という後件肯定式推論となる。後件肯定式推論では後件（イエスのよみがえり）の真であることによって前件（イエスの復活が神によるイエスの正しさの証しであること）の真を主張する。ただし後件肯定式推論での主張は前件肯定式推論とは異なり、可能性としての真を主張できるだけであり確実なものではない。これがどのようにして「客観的な確実性ではないものの主観的な必然性」を持つ真として主張されるかについては、当章 Proposition 1～5それぞれに示した。
■補論3
[1] E.ケーゼマン『新約神学の起源』「Ⅰイエス ２史的イエスの意義への問い（ブルトマン派の対論）」日本基督教団出版局 1973年 pp.69-123
[2] 前掲書 p.118
[3] 前掲書 p.95
[4] 前掲書 p.93
[5] 前掲書 p.79（カッコ書きは原文）
[6] G.N.スタントン『福音書とイエス』ヨルダン社 1998年 p.100-101
[7] 前掲書 p.103
[8] R. ブルトマン『共観福音書伝承史Ⅱ』ブルトマン著作集2 新教出版社 1987年 p.22