Theological Language Research Articles

ABSTRACTS

Manoocher Aryanpur. “PL and the Odyssey.” TSLLRobert Beum. “So Much Gravity and Ease.”Christine Brooke‐Rose. “Metaphor in PL: A Grammatical Analysis.”Mario A. DiCesare. “Advent'rous Song: The Texture of Milton's Epic.”E. J. Dobson. “Milton's Pronunciation.”Language and Style in MiltonRonald David Emma. “Grammar and Milton's English Style.”Stanley Fish. “Milton's God: Two Defences and a Qualification.”K. G. Hamilton. “The Structure of Milton's Prose.”Hilda M. Hulme. “On the Language of PL: Its Elizabethan and Early Seventeenth‐Century Background.”John Huntley. “Milton's 23rd Sonnet.”John R. Knott, Jr. “The Visit of Raphael: PL, Book V.”Thomas Langford. “The Temptations in PR.”Anthony Low. “The Parting in the Garden in PL.”Leo Miller. “Milton's Reason of Church GovernmentEarl Miner. “Felix Culpa in the Redemptive Order of PL.”Ruth Mohl. “John Milton on Some of the Writings of His Day.”George M. Muldrow. “An Irony in PR.”John E. Parish. “Milton and the Well‐Fed Angel.”C. A. Patrides. “PL and the Language of Theology.”Jospeh Pequigney. “Milton's Sonnet XIX Reconsidered.”B. Rajan. “Comus: The Inglorious Likeness.”B. Rajan. “In Order Serviceable.”William John Roscelli. “The Metaphysical Milton (1625–1631).”John T. Shawcross. “Milton's Italian Sonnets: An Interpretation. “University of Windsor ReviewJohn T. Shawcross. “Orthography and the Text of PL.”John M. Steadman. “Ethos and Dianoia: Character and Rhetoric in PL.”Joseph Anthony Wittreich, Jr. “Milton, Man and Thinker: Apotheosis in Romantic Criticism.”Joseph Anthony Wittreich, Jr. “Milton's Lycidas, 192.”Michael J. Tolley. “Blake's ‘Edens Flood’ Again.”J. C. Maxwell. “Milton in Wordsworth's Praise of Spenser.”U. C. Knoepflmacher. “The Post‐Romantic Imagination: Adam Bede, Wordsworth, and Milton.”Franklin R. Baruch. “Bellow and Milton: Professor Herzog in His Garden.”

Book Review: God-Talk: An Examination of the Language and Logic of Theology

Book Review: God-Talk: An Examination of the Language and Logic of Theology

Book Review: God-Talk: An Examination of the Language and Logic of Theology

Book Review: God-Talk: An Examination of the Language and Logic of Theology

REVIEWS

Exploration Into God. By John A. T. Robinson, Bishop of Woolwich The Private Sea. LSD and the Search for God. By William Braden Phenomenology and Humanism. A Primer in Existential Phenomenology. By William A. Luijpen God‐Talk. An Examination of the Language and Logic of Theology, By John Macquarrie Connaissance de L’être. Traité d'Ontohgie. By Joseph de Finance Cicero on Moral Obligation. A new translation of Cicero's ‘De Officiis’ with an Introduction and Notes by John Higginbotham La Psychologic de l'Activité chez Albert le Grand. By Pierre Michaud‐Quantin Two Tracts on Government. By John Locke. Edited with an Introduction, Notes and Translation by Philip Abrams Limits of Liberty: Studies of Mill's ‘On Liberty’. Edited by Peter Radcliff World Come of Age, A Symposium on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Edited and Introduced by Ronald Greoor Smith New Frontiers in Theology: Vol. III Theology as History. Edited by James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb Salvation in History. By Oscar Cullmann The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of St John. By Franz Mussner A Basic Jewish Encyclopedia. By Rabbi harry A. Cohen The Serpent and the Dove: Five Essays on early Christianity. By Samuel Laeuchli The Making of Christian Doctrine. By Maurice Wiles The Commentaries on Boethius by Gilbert of Poitiers. Edited by Nikolaus M. Huuring, s.a.c. The Efficacy of Putative Attrition in the Doctrine of Theologians of the XVIth and XVIIth Centuries. By Hugh Patton, m.s.c. The Royal Society: Concept and Creation. By Margery Purver Educational Psychology in the U.S.S.R. Edited and translated by Brian and Joan Simon Education and Society in Tudor England. By Joan Simon

Theological Language and the Nature of Man in Jean-Paul Sartre's Philosophy

There is no more prominent atheist today than Jean-Paul Sartre. Yet serious students of Sartre's philosophy are struck by his unabashed use of theological idiom. This use is so extensive that Professor Hazel Barnes in her translator's introduction to Being and Nothingness comments:Many people who consider themselves religious could quite comfortably accept Sartre's philosophy if he did not embarrass them by making his pronouncement, “There is no God,” quite so specific.

Infallibility of the Laity by Samuel D. Femiano

BOOK REVIEWS chapter treats on the role of faith in our discourse on God. The " material moves " of theological language are rendered intelligibile only in the light of faith, interpreted as a radical conformity to the divine intentionality. Whereas Professor Preller's aim is laudable and the performance suggestive , it will be surprising if there is not much stringent comment from even the more flexible of Thomists. There is so much that is not quite clear, e. g., the key notion of concept and conceptual system. Furthermore , it seems that many Thomistic positions on analogy, even if influenced by Cajetan, are not as "horrendously naive" (p. 19) as the author suggests. It is hard to see how the author could hope for a convincing performance without a more ample viewpoint. One feels that at least some cognizance of modern theories on analogy is demanded {e. g., that of Schillebeeckx and de Petter in their clear rejection of Cajetan). Likewise, the distinctly Kantian slant of the author's position might have been remedied by an incorporation of some elements of the transcendental method as favored by so many modern Thomists. However, that is to anticipate the dialogue that must result. Though this book may suffer {and merit) quite drastic refutation, honest questions have been asked and a highly intelligent attempt has been made to reinterpret the best of St. Thomas in the light of the best in modern linguistic philosophy. St. Mary's Mrmastery Wendouree, Victoria, Australia A. J. KELLY, c. ss. R. Infallibility of the Laity. By SAMUEL D. FEMIANO, C. S. B. New York: Herder and Herder, 1967. Pp. 155. $4.95. The growing interest in the thought of John Henry Newman has produced several recent studies which have attempted to trace the historic development of Newman's thought in particular areas. The present work carries the catchy title of "Infallibility of the Laity." The author's own phrase which designates the purpose of his undertaking, viz., "Newman's thought on the voice of the laity in the Church " (p. 3) , more accurately reflects the major portion of the book. Newman's prevailing interest was focused on the continuity and witness, especially doctrinal, of the Church with her beginnings, as evidenced by his researches on tradition and the development of doctrine. It is in this sense that "the gradual evolution of Newman's thought on the laity was linked to his studies on the Church and on tradition." (ibid.) The "legacy of Newman" has exerted its influence upon the periti of this century and found echoes in the teaching of Vatican II and more recently and explicitly BOOK REVIEWS 263 in the collective pastoral of the American hierarchy, The Church in our Day. One of the contributions of this legacy regards the infallibility of the laity. The " infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office " is that " infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith and morals " (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. Q5; Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4) . Thus the Church as a whole, " the holy People of God, . . . spreads abroad a living witness to Him. . . . The body of the faithful as a whole ... cannot err in matters of belief ... it manifests this unerring quality when ' from the bishops down to the last member of the laity,' it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals" (Luman Gentium, n. IQ) . In what does the infallibility of the laity consist? Father Femiano traces the thought of Newman on this point by the current method of formative years, Anglican years, Catholic years, and special problems, in this case Newman's controversy in the Rambler on "consulting the faithful." For Newman the laity's role in the communication of the truth of the faith is one of bearer of tradition and of witness to the church's doctrine; witnessing, not judging or defining, is the laity's function. From his earliest years Newman had regard for the position of the laity in the Church. Here, as with the broader topics of his reflections, his thought had fundamentally crystallized by the...

Book Review: Language in Bible and Theology

Book Review: Language in Bible and Theology

THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES

Journal Article THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Get access Speaking of God: The Nature and Purpose of Theological Language. By WILLIAM HORDERN. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964. ix + 209 pages. $4.95. JULES LAURENCE MOREAU JULES LAURENCE MOREAU Northwestern University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume XXXIV, Issue 3, July 1966, Pages 275–276, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/XXXIV.3.275 Published: 01 July 1966

Speaking of God: The Nature and Purpose of Theological Language

Speaking of God: The Nature and Purpose of Theological Language

Book Review: Speaking of God. The Nature and Promise of Theological Language

Book Review: Speaking of God. The Nature and Promise of Theological Language

Towards the Relevant in Theological Language

Towards the Relevant in Theological Language

Tillich on the Personal God

able critics view this concept as the unfortunate result of Tillich's focus upon the ontological rather than the personal biblical categories. In either case, whether Tillich's position is accepted or rejected, his argument that God is not a being has been understood and assimilated into the current language of theology. Here is at least a reasonably clear-cut challenge to traditional theism. Even more central to theism than the concept of God as a transcendent being, however, has been the concept of the encounter on the personal level. Although Tillich has commented on this problem at various points in his writings, his position on the possibility of a divine-human personal relationship has remained somewhat problematical to the theological public. This is largely due to the fact that insufficient detailed attention has

Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Notes toward the Understanding of Doctrine

IN RECENT years theologians have had the problem of theological language thrust at them formidably by the work of the linguistic school of philosophy. The subject has been dwelt upon at every theological meeting I have attended over the past few years, and interest in it shows no sign of abatement. The literature from the philosophical side of the aisle as well as from the theological side grows at an amazing pace. Depending on one's point of view, theology evidently finds itself confronted with a rigorous challenge or a fine opportunity. As such the situation may be comparable to the flowering of biblical criticism after the middle of the nineteenth century. If such a comparison is valid it is remarkable that no one as yet has turned back to the figures of the early nineteenth century, Schleiermacher and Coleridge in particular, to see if these figures who, for good or ill, conditioned a major strand of Protestant theology for the future onslaughts of biblical criticism did not also have something

Wittgenstein and Religious Language

“If one were to follow a Wittgensteinian approach in theology, the very least that could be said is that one of the primary functions of theology would be the analysis of its own language. Broadly speaking, theology is the study of God and his relationship to men. Such a study of necessity involves the use of language in its development and communication. Thus the analysis of theological language can reveal a great deal about the nature of the experiences that give rise to theology. Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between the philosophical and dogmatic theologian at this point. The latter could be said to ‘do theology’ while the former's function is to analyze what sort of thing one is doing when one does theology.”

‘Non-Metaphysical’ Christian Philosophy and Linguistic Philosophy

In the continuing discussion between Christian theology and linguistic philosophy there is a fundamental division of the theological responses which has weighty implications for the whole encounter between the two disciplines. This basic distinction into two types of Christian response is one of those simple categorisations which by their very obviousness are often overlooked. I refer to two kinds of Christian thinkers who deal with linguistic analysis: the ‘non-metaphysical’ and the ‘metaphysical’. In this article I have chosen to discuss certain types of the ‘non-metaphysical’ response.Whether a Christian theologian deals with Oxford philosophy from a metaphysical or a non-metaphysical perspective is vital to the whole discussion. It is vital to the theologian because linguistic analysis is the latest in a series of philosophical movements beginning with Hume which claim to have undermined metaphysics finally and forever. If the theologian responds in a metaphysical way to the questions asked by the Oxford philosophers, he must justify his appeal to metaphysics over against the critique of metaphysics which lies behind language analysis. If, on the other hand, the theologian replies in a non-metaphysical way, he must demonstrate the epistemological significance of Christian doctrine apart from metaphysical support.The major contemporary criticisms of theological language come not from language analysis considered independently but from a revitalised logical positivism aided by analytical methods. I call this ‘new’ positivism ‘linguistic empiricism’ or ‘analytical positivism’. Linguistic analysis is fundamentally a method, while positivism is a theory of knowledge.

Biblical Criticism and Faith in Tillich and Niebuhr

MAJOR problem in contemporary theology is the relationship of the results of biblical criticism to the particular theological position being propounded. Often the biblical critic and the theologian seem to speak different languages although both are devout Christians. In a sense this is unavoidable since the language of biblical research is indicative' and empirical, while the language of theology, dealing as it does with ultimate convictions, cannot be so neatly labeled but instead occupies an ambiguous position. Some would assert that such language is simply emotive and prescriptive. While these elements are often present in theological language, such a designation is inadequate for it fails to recognize the reflective nature and rational structure of most theological language. Some claim that this language is simply tautological. This claim also is inadequate for while it is true that theologians use some tautological language, it is not the case that any particular theology is completely tautological. In short, theological language occupies an odd position. It combines elements of all four types of language just named indicative, emotive, prescriptive, and tautological. Perhaps it is fair to say that it is basically evaluational and as such may include in varying degrees, depending on the peculiarities of the particular theologian, the other four types of language. My thesis is, then, that indicative or empirical language is to be distinguished from theological language, but that there is no absolute segregation of the two since indicative language has a role to play in theological language. Theological language transcends indicative language, for the theologian is concerned with the language of faith which is primarily evaluational in nature. The language of faith, while transcending indicative and factual language, is nevertheless interpenetrated and influenced by it. It is obvious to one even superficially acquainted with contemporary theology that there is no universal acceptance of this thesis among theologians on the contemporary American scene. Conservative, orthodox or fundamentalist theologians are likely to reject the distinction altogether, asserting that theological language is the language of the Bible, and it is indicative, factual and true in an empirical sense. Faith determines fact. Liberal or naturalistic

Analytical Philosophy and Religious / Theological Language

standing of moral and scientific discourse than it has to discourse. According to R. M. Hare, one of Britain's leading analysts, religious discourse has come off badly for several reasons. First, very few analysts have enough interest in questions to make them a major study. Second, discourse is a very complex subject. Third, some things we want to say in discourse can be comprehended only by people whose experience of the life has gone further than that of most modern philosophers. Fourth, most theologians are at best amateurs in the study of logic., If the conversation between language analysis and theology is to continue in a useful way some, at least, of these difficulties must be overcome. The most useful thing a theologian can do is to attempt to reduce the complexity of discourse. Unfortunately, few theologians seem to be doing much about this particular responsibility. For example, little attention has been paid to the various functions which the sentences of re-

The Nature of Theological Language

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Nature of Theological LanguageWillem F. ZuurdeegWillem F. Zuurdeeg Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 40, Number 1Jan., 1960 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/485209 Views: 181Total views on this site Copyright 1960 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Mythology and Theological Language

Daniel Lamont, I think it was, once remarked that theologians should read more poetry. This insight into the nature of theological language has profound relevance for our contemporary concern with the problem of communicating the Gospel to modern man. Theology, as language about God, may be regarded in one sense as faced with an impossible task: ‘The maker and father of this Universe it is difficult to discover; nor, if he were discovered, could he be declared to all men.’ This hiddenness of the divine being is reflected even in the historical beginnings of the biblical revelation, in the cryptic tautology, ‘I am that I am’ (Exod. 3.14). Yet the fact of revelation was taken to mean, within Israel at least, not that the divine aseity was now compromised, but that this very self-sufficiency was revealed in terms of a purpose of love towards this people. The revelation was instrumental to the fulfilment of that purpose: the divine condescension used creaturely forms to communicate its truth and life to men. Therefore the theological language which sets forth this communicative revelation will be proportionately indirect or analogical.

The Advent and Theological Language

The Advent and Theological Language