I am implying, on other (in fact not all other) matters he was often (not always) right.
It so happens, the following quote was given in an incomplete version, and then William O'Flaherty gives a link to the complete version, with context:
Before revealing the more complete context, let’s consider where Lewis wrote these words. They come from a letter to Mrs. Johnson on November 8, 1952. They were in response to several questions that she asked of him. As noted in The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Vol. 3 she had inquired “Is the Bible Infallible?” and what you see below is his complete response (words in bold are what is found above).
“It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers will bring us to Him. When it becomes really necessary (i.e. for our spiritual life, not for controversy or curiosity) to know whether a particular passage is rightly translated or is Myth (but of course Myth specially chosen by God from among countless Myths to carry a spiritual truth) or history, we shall no doubt be guided to the right answer. But we must not use the Bible (our fathers too often did) as a sort of Encyclopedia out of which texts (isolated from their context and not read without attention to the whole nature & purport of the books in which they occur) can be taken for use as weapons.”
(CCSLQ-38) – Christ Himself Bible
http://www.essentialcslewis.com/2017/08/05/ccslq-38-christ-himself-bible/
In the following comment, O'Flaherty takes into account that C. S. Lewis (sometimes, and specifically stating so) followed Tolkien in characterising the Gospel as "true myth". However, in the same vein, he also considered full facthood and full mythicalness together as an exception for the Gospels, and he considered for instance Genesis as "still coming into focus".
He also takes into account that this quote is from a private letter. So do I, but for another reason.
He does so, since, if it is from a private letter, why make it public, a very modern, American, businessmanlike point of view which I have with good conscience flouted over and over again, because it has no place in a correspondence between men of letters (including men of learning). If his brother Warren H. had shared the modern idea, he would not have edited his brother's letters for publication, which however he very much did. If he had considered the idea here expressed as a very private opinion of C. S. Lewis of which he was shy to speak, he would not have included this letter.
I do so in another way, he could not reckon on Mrs. Johnson knowing how he used the word myth in the vein of Tolkien's poem Mythopoeia. Therefore, one can consider (barring evidence from other parts of same letter) that C. S. Lewis here meant "myth" precisely in the modern sense of the word (or if not, then he gave explanations in that same letter to Mrs. Johnson which have not been cited).
This is the kind of things he was learning from the Anglican "bishop" Charles Gore. A man who was willing to consider Mohammed had some degree of the gift of prophecy and to conclude that "if so" one could not deny this to Zarathustra as well. (I forget which book of him I had started reading, but can look it up in my "where CSL was wrong, Charles Gore was wrong before him" essay*).
So, the wiki has this to say on Charles Gore:
He was one of the most influential Anglican theologians of the 19th century, helping reconcile the church to some aspects of biblical criticism and scientific discovery, while remaining Catholic in his interpretation of the faith and sacraments.
In other words, Charles Gore was the kind of man who could consider Flood as locally Mesopotamian and Utnapishtim version as older than Biblical version, but who would not consider anything similar about Resurrection or even miracles of lesser dignity of Christ.
So, I think Charles Gore and C. S. Lewis after him were - sadly - involved in considering the Genesis account as "mythical" in one of the modern senses of the word. Only, a myth specially chosen to "carry a spiritual truth" ... or it wouldn't be in the Bible.
What is even sadder is, some Catholics have gone down that road. C. S. Lewis is a good writer, but not an error free guide to theology. A bit like Tertullian, who was also a heretic.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Zeno and 10,203 other martyrs**
9.VII.2019
PS, more than Lewis and Gore, what is wrong with Anglicanism is examplified in the Jesus Seminar followed by Tom Harpur while he apostasised.
The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light is a 2004 non-fiction book by Canadian writer Tom Harpur (1929-2017), a former Anglican priest, journalist and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto, which supports the Christ myth theory.
The very next sentence ties in with Acharya Sanning:
Harpur claims that the New Testament shares a large number of similarities with ancient Egyptian and other pagan religions, that early Church leaders fabricated a literal and human Jesus based on ancient myths, and that we should return to an inclusive and universal religion where the spirit of Christ or Christos lives within each of us.
Of whom - Acharya that is - I have dealt with here:
somewhere else : Starting a Video with Now Deceased Acharya Sanning
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2019/07/starting-video-with-now-deceased.html
* The Philosophy of the Good Life is a series of 12 Gifford Lectures held by Bishop Charles Gore - as Anglicans style him - in 1929-1930, and modified before print by his personal contact with the lecture hearers, which was one part of the conditions prescribed for lecturers.? ... Lux Mundi? ...
When CSL was wrong, Charles Gore was wrong before him, I think. Pt 1
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-csl-was-wrong-charles-gore-was.html
** Some would claim that "et aliorum decem millium ac ducentorum trium" involves a misreading of M which should be martyrum instead of millium, in which case there were 213 more.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire