The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Divinity School of Chung Chi College

A study on Pentecostal hermeneutics and a critical discussion of a Pentecostal's criticism of Bultmann's program of demythologization

Instructor: Prof. Tobias Brandner

Student: Lung Chun Ming (100903030)

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Divinity

Graduate Division of Theology

• The Chinese University of Hong Kong

JULY 2012

The Chinese University of Hong Kong holds the copyright of this thesis. Any person(s) intending to use a part or whole of the materials in the thesis in a proposed publication must seek copyright release from the Dean of the Graduate school. Abstract 不少五旬宗學者認為有建構一具五旬宗特色的設釋方法的必要，而這觀點

主要源於他們對於現代性所高舉的看法的反對，以及對於現代證釋方法的不認

同。他們認為，五旬宗人仕有著與別不同的認識論，尤其對於相信聖靈在世上

的工作，以及神蹟奇事的彰顯。由於五旬宗人仕認識他們同時分享著新約信徒

的世界觀。故此，他們對於聖經的證釋因而會與沒有分享這世界觀的人不同，

因而他們有必要建構一套具五旬宗特色的證釋方法。

本文主要關注於五旬宗證釋學的研究。本文主要分為兩大部份。首先，對於

上述五旬宗觀點的形成，本文分別對數位初期五旬宗的領袖的觀點，以致近代

數位五旬宗學者的觀點進行分析，以讓能對上述觀點的建構有一較為清楚的了

解。

除此之外，本文主要欲處理一個由五旬宗學者E「vin在論證要建構五旬宗設

釋學時對Bultmann的去神話化所提出的一個批判。本人認為E「vin對於

Bultmann去神話化的批判理據不足，而這不足的原因是由於他對去神話化的

理解不夠深入。本人在文中透過引用了 Ricoeur對於Bultmann去神話化的分

析作為上述論證的框架，以指出En/in所提出的批判只是源於他對去神話化的「

部份理解」。故此，本人雖不反對建構具五旬宗特色的證釋方法，但在論證有上

述建構的必要時，宜先對現代證釋方法作出更深入的認知與理解。

Pentecostals hermeneutics strongly reject theological hermeneutics,

especially Rudolf Bultmann's demythologization. One of the reasons is

because the Pentecostals strongly rejects the impact of Modernity, and they

regard Bultmann's program of demythologization is somehow an adaptation to

the impact of Modernity. Because of such kinds of disagreement, some of the

Pentecostals start to develop a hermeneutic program coherent with the

epistemology of the Pentecostals. There are lots of discussions among the

Pentecostals. Such kind of discussions started from the early 80s. However,

ii we have to clarify one very important question on this issue, that is, is

Bultmann's program of demythologization really incompatible with the

Pentecostalism? Or, Bultmann's program of demythologization misunderstood by the Pentecostal hermeneutics?

The aim of this paper is two-fold. First, I will study the early Pentecostal experience, which gives us an understanding about the background of the contemporary development of the Pentecostal hermeneutics. And at the same time, since Ervin only represent one of the contemporary Pentecostal hermeneutic point of view, so in the second part of this paper, I will study on the main stands that contemporary Pentecostal scholars holds. Second, I will particularly focus on Ervin's criticism to Bultmann's program of demythologization. I argue that Ervin's understanding to Bultmann's demythologization not only in a shallow level, but also have some misunderstanding. With an in-depth explanation of both Bultmann's demythologization and its Pentecostal criticism, we will see how the latter one misunderstands the former.

To do this, I will give an analysis on how the Ervin criticizes Bultmann's demythologization. Then, I will give a detailed analysis to Bultmann's demythologization by going deep into two important writings, one written by

Rodulf Bultmann himself regarding the concept of demythologization, and the other a commentary writing to such concept written by Paul Ricoeur. After that

I will critically discuss the criticism from the Ervin and the concept of demythologization. I will use the framework as suggested by Ricoeur and try to show to what extent Pentecostal hermeneutics are correct and how he misunderstand Bultmann's demythologization.

iii Table of Contents

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION 6

Definition of the terms 8

1 EARLY PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE 9

1.1 Charles Fox Parham lo

1.1 BRIEF ACCOUNT TO CHARLES FOX PARHAM II

1.2 PARHAM'S VIEW ON PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE 12

2 William J. Seymour i6

2.1 BRIEF ACCOUNT TO WILLIAM JOSEPH SEYMOUR I6

2.2 SEYMOUR'S VIEW ON PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE 17

3 G. S. Cashwell 19

3.1 BRIEF ACCOUNT TO GASTON BARNABAS CASHWELL 20

3.2 CASHWELL'S VIEW ON PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE 21

4 Conclusion 24

2 CONTEMPORARY PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS 26

2.1 Menzies's view point to Pentecostal hermeneutic 28

2.2 Stronstad's view point to Pentecostal hermeneutic 29

2.3 Lewis's view on Pentecostal hermeneutic 3i

2.4 Conclusion 32

3 CRITICISM OF BULTMANN'S PROGRAM OF DEMYTHOLOGiZATION FROM A PENTECOSTAL PERSPECTIVE 33

3.1 Criticisms of Bultmann's program of demythologization from Howard m.

ervin 33

3.1.1 BRIEF ACCOUNT TO HOWARD M. ERVIN 33

3.1.2 FIRST CRITICISM： WORLDVIEW OF MODERN MAN NO LONGER HOLDS 34

3.1.3 SECOND CRITICISM: DEMYTHOLOGIZATION IS ONLY A TASK OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL

INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. DEMYTHOLOGIZATION NEGLECTS DIVINE HERMENEUTICS

DURING INTERPRETATION 35

3.2 Analysis of Bultmann's program of Demythologizing 36

3.2.1 BULTMANN'S VIEW ON DEMYTHOLOGIZATION 37

IV 3.2.2 RICOEUR VIEW'S ON BULTMANN'S DEMYTHOLOGIZATION 39

3.3 A CRITICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS AND BULTMANN'S

DEMYTHOLOGIZATION 44

3.3.1 RESPONSE TO FIRST CRITICISM 44

3.3.2 RESPONSE TO SECOND CRITICISM 45

3.4 CONCLUSION 46

CONCLUSION 47

BIBLIOGRAPHY 48

BOOKS AND JOURNALS 48

ONLINE RESOURCES： SO

V Introduction

Pentecostals hermeneutics strongly reject theological hermeneutics ^, especially Rudolf Bultmann's demythologization.^ Bradley Truman Noel, for example, says that, ‘[a]s Pentecostals, we must not only refuse to "demyth"

Scripture's supernatural accounts, we must emphasize... the supernatural'.^

He further explains that hermeneutical method proposed by Bultmann (that is, demythologization) aims to remove the supernatural elements. Because of such kinds of disagreement, some of the Pentecostals start to develop a hermeneutic program coherent with the epistemology of the Pentecostals.^

There are lots of discussions among the Pentecostals. Such kind of discussions started from the early 80s. Among them, Howard M. Ervin, French

Arrington, Timothy B Cargal, William Menzies, Roger Stronstad and Paul

Lewis are some of the most influential Pentecostal scholars.^ However, we have to clarify one very important question on this issue, that is, is Bultmann's

1 In this paper, theological hermeneutics refers to the hermeneutics that developed in the twentieth century, starting from Martin Heidegger, Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth etc. For details, please refers to Werner Jeanrond, "The Development of Theological Hermeneutics (II): Barth, Bultmann, and the New Hermeneutic" in Theological Hermeneutics (London: SCM, 1991), 120-58.

2 This is because the Pentecostals strongly rejects the impact of Modernity. While we regard Bultmann's program of demythologization is somehow an adaptation to the impact Modernity. For the details of why the Pentecostal rejects the impact of Modernity will be discussed in Section 2 of this paper.

3 Bradley Truman Noel, Pentecostal and Postmodern Hermeneutics: Comparisons and Contemporary Impact (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Pub., 2010), 97.

4 Noel, Pentecostal and Postmodern Hermeneutics, 103.

5 Ervin suggests that the epistemology of the Pentecostals are different from the theological hermeneutics, so it is not possible for the Pentecostals to accept the way in interpreting the bible like Bultmann, Eberling and other theological hermeneutics ("new hermeneutics" in some of their expressions). More details to Ervin's argument will be given in the following part of this paper.

6 A more detailed account to above figures will be given in next session.

6 program of demythologization really incompatible with the Pentecostalism? Or,

Bultmann's program of demythologization misunderstood by the Pentecostal hermeneutics?

The aim of this paper is two-fold. First, I will study the early Pentecostal experience, which gives us an understanding about the background of the contemporary development of the Pentecostal hermeneutics. And at the same time, since Ervin only represent one of the contemporary Pentecostal hermeneutic point of view, so in the second part of this paper, I will study on the main stands that contemporary Pentecostal scholars holds. Second, I will particularly focus on Ervin's criticism to Bultmann's program of demythologization. I argue that Ervin's understanding to Bultmann's demythologization not only in a shallow level, but also have some misunderstanding. With an in-depth explanation of both Bultmann's demythologization and its Pentecostal criticism, we will see how the latter one misunderstands the former.

To do this, I will give an analysis on how Ervin criticizes Bultmann's demythologization. Then, I will give a detailed analysis to Bultmann's demythologization by going deep into two important writings, one written by

Rodulf Bultmann himself regarding the concept of demythologization, and the other a commentary writing to such concept written by Paul Ricoeur. After that

I will critically discuss the criticism from Ervin and the concept of demythologization. I will use the framework as suggested by Ricoeur and try to show to what extent Ervin is correct and how he misunderstands Bultmann's demythologization.

7 Definition of the terms

In order to prevent misunderstanding, I am going to define some of the important terms that will use in this paper first. By Pentecostals, I am referring to classical Pentecostals, who trace their roots to the turn of the twentieth century and the Azusa Street Revival. Essentially, Pentecostals believe that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the 120 believers at Pentecost, as recorded

in Acts 2，should be normative for all Christians. Further, the key sign

associated with this Spirit Baptism is glossolalia, as it was in Acts/ The word

"classical" was added in about 1970 to distinguish Classical Pentecostals from

Charismatics.

By hermeneutics, I am referring to the theory of interpretation.® One of

the main focuses of this paper is to conduct a dialogue between Pentecostal

hermeneutics and theological hermeneutics, since Pentecostals hermeneutics

strongly reject theological hermeneutics， especially Rudolf Bultmann's

demythologization.^ In this paper, theological hermeneutics (or the new

hermeneutics) refers to the hermeneutics that developed in the twentieth

century, starting from Martin Heidegger, Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth etc.

7 For more on the history and impact of the Azusa Street Revival and the subsequent Pentecostal movement, see Dayton, The Theological Roots of Penfecostolism (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987); Vinson Synan, Tentecostalism" in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A.曰well (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984). 8 Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics (London: SCM, 1991), 1. 9 I will give a more thorough account to such assertion in the later part of the paper. 8 1 Early Pentecostal experience

The early Pentecostal leaders were concerned about making sense of their new experiences after experiencing a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Azusa Street revival. Among these leaders were William J. Seymour

(1870-1922)，Charles Parham (1873-1929)，Gaston Barnabas Cashwell

(1860-1916)， George Floyd Taylor (1881-1934)， David Wesley Myland

(1858-1943)，Ambrose Jessup Tomlinson (1865-1943)，and Joseph Hillery

King (1869-1946).^ They published works outlining their beliefs and practices associated with this new movement.

Early Pentecostals were not trying to produce a systematic theology or exegetical commentaries. They were much more concerned with simply "living the Christian life" and defending their understanding of the "Apostolic Faith".^

In fact, many of them were anti-intellectual, and were not shy about asserting the fact. However, these early Pentecostals produced various newspapers, magazines, and books in the purpose of explaining this new outpouring of the

Holy Spirit. They produced huge amounts of writings during that time.〗 In the years following Azusa, Pentecostals concerned to try and make some sense out of their new experience very much. They were thoughtful in their responses to the question asked of them. Because of that, there is a lot of primary literature available. For example，from 1906 to 1908，William J.

Seymour edited a famous publication entitled, The Apostolic Faith. This monthly publication included articles by several important Pentecostal leaders

1 Some of the leaders mentioned above will be given an in-depth analysis to their thoughts in the following section. 2 Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal hermeneutic for the twenty-first century: spirit scripture and community (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 73. 3 Grant Wacker, Heaven below: early Pentecostals and American culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001), ix. of the time, as well as testimonies of what God was doing at Azusa, and throughout the world.

Charles F. Parham was equally prolific, publishing Kol Kare Bomidar: A

Voice Crying in the Wilderness (1902) and The Everlasting Gospel (1911), to explain his different views on Christian doctrine, since he was a person who had Pentecostal experience. Other from the above two well known figures, I will also focus on one important figure who brings significant influence to development of Pentecostal Holiness Church, namely, Gaston Barnabas

Cashwell. He was a profound preacher in the southern part of America, and had organized a famous publication entitled, The Apostolic Evangel and later

The Bridegroom's Messager.

From analyzing those early literatures，we are able to determine the attitudes of early Pentecostal leadership towards the role of experience in the newest outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the place of reason in determining truth from error, as differing doctrines and explanations swirled around the new movement. In the following,丨 am going to study the writings of these three early Pentecostal leaders, and present their views on the place of experience and reason within Pentecostalism.

1.1 Charles Fox Parham

Charles Fox Parham (1873-1929) can be regarded as the founder of

Pentecostal theology, since he developed the distinctive Pentecostal doctrine of glossolalia as the initial evidence of Spirit Baptism.^ For Parham, speaking in tongues was the necessary evidence that one had been baptized in the Holy

Spirit. This is because he regarded speaking in tongues as the necessary

4 Archer, /A Pentecostal hermeneutic for the twenty-first century: spirit scripture and community, 76-7. 10 evidence in order to prove the validity of one's Pentecostals experience.^ He states that,

“The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is as universal as

salvation, and the speaking in tongues as the witness to

Pentecost is the initial gift of tongues that may develop

into a real gift of language, just as the faith that comes

in conversion is the initial faith that may develop into the

real gift of faith, which enables one to believe God

without any doubt. But the gift of tongues is given to

everyone to profit withal to the glory of God.

Parham adopted Acts 2 as a verifiable proof for the baptism in the Holy

Spirit. Because of that, he felt little need to debate correct hermeneutical approaches when discussing the "Bible evidence" for the baptism of the Holy

Spirit/

1.1-1 Biief accoiint to Charles Fox Parham

Parham was born on June 4，1873 in Muscatine and encountered numerous health problems since the early stage of his life. He contracted a virus as an infant, which left his growth stunted. When he was nine years old,

5 Douglas Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: theologies of the early Pentecostal movement (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 18-9. See also James R. Goff, Jr. Fields White Unto Harvest: Charles F. Parham and the Missionary Origins of Pentecostalism (Fayettevilie, AK: University of Arkansas Press, 1988). 6 Charles F. Parham, The Everlasting Gospel [BosAer Springs, Kans.: Charles, n.d.), 68. The electronic version of this book is available at "http://www.apostolicfaithonline.org/e_bookJibrary.htm": http://www.ap0st0licfaith0nline.0rg/TheEvelastingG0spelCharlesFParhaml44pages.p df (last access: May 31, 2012] 7 God, the church, and the world are tired of listening to these modern preachers while they whittle intellectual shavings and theological chips. They want REALITY, • message from under the Throne, delivered by one who opens his mouth to be filled by God, with burning, clinching truth. This message is now going forth. Parham, The Everlasting Gospel, 67.

11 he was stricken with rheumatic fever and such condition left him weakened for the rest of his life.® Following several brief pastorates, Parham founded a Bible

School in Topeka, Kansas. Several Holiness teachers concerning the doctrine

of Baptism in the Holy Spirit had influenced him, Parham directed his students

to Acts 2，in search of a noticeable and verifiable proof for the Baptism of the

Holy Spirit. As he says, "The purpose of this study was to discover the real

Bible evidence of this Baptism so that we might know and obtain it, instead of

being confused by the chaotic claims of modern Holy Ghost teachers”，

On January 1, 1901，one of his female students, Anges N. Ozman,

experienced the expected glossolalia as the "Bible sign" of the Baptism in the

Holy Spirit.io Shortly thereafter, Parham and 34 of his other students had a

similar experience. By 1905 Parham had launched another Bible school in

Houston, Texas, as an outlet for his preaching of the Pentecostal message.

William J. Seymour was the most notable student of him during that period, as

we may know, Seymour was becoming the leader of the Azusa Street

outpouring in Los Angeles one year after that.”

i .1.2 Parfiam's view on Pentecostal experience

Parham's thoughts on the place of experience within Pentecostalism

and his own rejection of rationalism are woven throughout his published works.

8 Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: theologies of the early Pentecostal movement, 20. 9 Charles F. Parham, Kol Kare Bomidbor: A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (n.p. 1902), 34. The electronic version of this book is available at "http://www.apostolicfaithonline.org/e_bookJibrary.htnn": http://www.apostolicfaithonline.org/VoiceCryinglnTheWildernessCharlesParhaml46p •ges.pdf (last access: May 31, 2012) Ms. Ozman is commonly referred to as the first person to speak with tongues in the modern Pentecostal revival. Her testimony concerning these events can be found in James R. Goff, JR. The Topeka Outpouring of 1901: 100th Anniversary Edition (Joplin, MO: Christian Life Books, 2000), 103-8. 1】Goff, JR. The Topeka Outpouring of 1901: 100th Anniversary Edition, 109-15. 12 Having been raised in a home with few books, Parham considered himself as a fortunate person, for he grew up "with no preconceived ideas, with no

knowledge of what creeds and doctrines meant, not having any traditional

spectacles upon the eyes to see through."''^ Jacobson notes:

He was convinced that he, unlike many of his peers,

brought no interpretive scheme to the Bible at all. He

simply believed what the scriptures actually said and

later in life he mused that his naive ability to read the

Bible fairly and accurately without any warped

preconceptions had helped him 'weather the theological

gales' that had driven so many others into error.^^

One of Parham's contributions to Pentecostal theology was his strong

belief in xenolalia, and it is somehow coherent to his believes (i.e. rejection of

rationalism). He believed that God would speak through believers via tongues,

in all kinds of human language as long as it is needed to complete the

missionary thrust of God before Christ's soon return. Although he claimed that

only those who were called to be a missionary to foreign places would develop

the full gift of a foreign language, all believers who were properly baptized in

the Holy Spirit and received this ability in certain measure. Because of that,

missionaries do not have to waste their time with language courses any more,

and they can start their ministry directly to those in need:

How much better it would be for our modern

missionaries to obey the injunction of Jesus to tarry for

12 Parham, Kol Kare Bomidbar: A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, 12. 13 jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: theologies of the early Pentecostal movement 21. 13 the same power; instead of wasting thousands of

dollars, and often their lives in the vain attempt to

become conversant in almost impossible tongues which

the Holy Ghost could so freely speak. Knowing all

languages, He could as easily speak through us one

language as another were our tongues and vocal

chords fully surrendered to His domination.

Although lots of later Pentecostal missionary experience proved

Parham's theory of xenolalia is not so correct, his views on the subject show the extent to which early Pentecostal leaders had broken through the hindrance made by Modernity, and embraced new forms of thought and doctrine entirely not supported by scientific evidence.

In the years following the Azusa Street outpouring, Parham continued his work as a tireless promoter of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues. However, he was challenged by some well-educated people at that time very often. Below is one of the responses Parham made to those challenges:

A Baptist preacher said to a friend of mine: "Now don't

become crazy about this. I have been through college,

and I know it is impossible for anybody to speak in other

or foreign languages unless he has learned them.”...

My friend came to me in trouble and said: "What shall I

do about this?"

M Parham, Kol Kare Bo mid bar: A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, 28.

14 I challenged that preacher to come to my school for just

one week. I promised him a post-graduate course that

would enable him to put another degree on the end of

his name. I would have gotten him so humble before

God, and so willing to let God use him, that he would

have come out of the post-graduate course with A.S.S.

on the end of his name. Could I have gotten him to

become as humble as was Balaam's mule, God would

have talked through him in tongues.^^

Parham did not focus on defining the correct hermeneutical approaches when discussing his "Bible evidence" for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, he did not find it as a problem because the support for baptism of the Holy Spirit can only be found in the narratives of Luke but not in the teaching of Pauline letters. This is because he strongly thought that tongues was the sufficient proof of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and it had been written in the scripture clearly. As he said, "remember, that it is an incontrovertible fact in Scripture that the Holy Ghost of promise was, and is today, accompanied with speaking in other tongues.”化 While today we might not agree with such a strong assertion, as it has only little or no theological support, such was the norm for early Pentecostal leaders. After all, the Holy

Spirit was given as a glorious tool of witness, not to provide scholars a new topic of debate.

Parham, The Everlasting Gospel, 68. Parham, The Everlasting Gospel, 75. 15 1.2 Wiiisaro J, Seymour

Another early leader of the Azusa Street Revival, William Seymour, strongly emphasized the seeking personal experiences in Pentecostal baptism.

I am going to analyze and explain his idea more thoroughly below.

1.2.1 Brief account to WilHam Joseph Seymour

William J. Seymour was the eldest son of Simon and Phillis Seymour, and was born on May 2, 1870 in Centerville, LA. He grew up in poverty during his childhood. When his father died in 1891，he left Louisiana for work up north in cities such as Memphis and Indianapolis. Seymour worked at various jobs during that period, including as a porter, and bartender. During the time when he was a waiter in Indianapolis, Seymour was converted and joined the local

Methodist- Episcopal church，Following this, Seymour appears to have spent a brief period in Chicago, where it is hard to imagine that he did not come into contact with the racially progressive teachings of the great faith healer John Alexander Dowie,

By 1905，after several years of evangelistic and other Christian ministry,

Seymour met Charles Fox Parham and connected with him. And Parham was the one who accepted him as a student in his Houston Bible School. However, because of the local segregation laws that time, Seymour was only permitted to listen to the lectures from the hallway outside the classroom. In February

1906，Seymour received an invitation to pastor a small Holiness Mission in Los

Angeles, so he arrived in Los Angeles shortly after that. Finding himself quickly

17 Archer, A Pentecostal hermeneutic for the twenty-first century: spirit scripture and community. 77-9. 18 Larry Martin, The Life and Ministry of Williom J. Seymour: And o History of the Azusa Street Revival (JopWn, MO: Christian Life Books, 1999), 68-70. 1? Martin, The Life and Ministry of William J. Seymour: And a History of the Azusa Street Revival, 74-5. 16 locked out of the new church by its Holiness founder who was not enthusiastic about his new teachings, Seymour began a series of Bible studies at the home of Richard and Ruth Asbury at 214 Bonnie Bray Street. In several weeks time, several of the participants, including Seymour, had experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the "Bible evidence" of speaking in tongues.

Soon, Seymour was forced to look for a bigger place to accommodate the members, and quickly settled upon the former sanctuary of an African

Methodist Episcopal Church at 312 Azusa Street. The revival at the Azusa

Street Mission burned brightly until mid-1908, and arose once again in 1911, but thereafter ceased forever. At its peak, the small Mission would be packed to capacity by the faithful, those seeking their own Pentecostal baptism, and critics who had come to solidify their opposition to this noisy and undignified movement. From Azusa Street, the Pentecostal message and experience spread rapidly throughout the earth.^^ As the pastor of the Azusa Street

Revival, Seymour monitored the revival effectively. As such, his thoughts on the role of experience and place of reason within the Christian faith are extremely important.

1,2.2 Seymour's view on Pentecostal expedience

In general, leaders of the Azusa revival such as Seymour were not interested to theological discussion, instead, they emphasized on the experience of baptized by the Holy Spirit. So it was not extraordinary to see that Seymour explained that the new Pentecostal message had clearly not

20 Martin, The Life and Ministry of William J. Seymour: And a History of the Azusa Street Revival, 80-1. 21 Many scholars study on this movement. For example, one can consider Dayton's book: Donald W. Dayton, The Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987). 17 been given to the outstanding academics of the time, but was accessible to the most ordinary and uneducated seeker. He made such kind of claim publicly by the means of the official publication of Azusa Street, that is, The Apostolic

Faith. As he said, "there have been those who have sought for the baptism and could not get it, because they did not come humbly as a little babe. They did not give up their doctrines and opinions; they did not empty out so they could get the filling. This is not revealed to our great theologians."^^

At the same time, Seymour recognized that sound Biblical doctrine was essential to keep the revival continues to spread out. In The Apostolic Faith,

Seymour contends: "We are measuring everything by the Word, every experience must measure up with the Bible. Some say that is going too far, but if we have lived too close to the Word, we will settle that with the Lord when we meet Him in the air."23 However, he was struggled with those who attempted to explain such experience theologically, as in his mind, such Pentecostal experience was an experience given by God to whosoever will. So, Seymour, as a lowly educated preacher, was not willing to join those who wished to abandon doctrinal purity, and simply experience unity through the experiences of the Holy Spirit. "They say, ‘Let us all come together; if we cannot be one in doctrine, we can be one in spirit.' But, dear ones, we cannot all be one except through the Word of God."24

While striving for the purity of doctrine, Seymour at the same time also realized that the Pentecostal Baptism was not a matter of knowledge or

22 The Apostolic Faith ].]0 (September 1907),3. The Apostolic Faith totally has thirteen issues, published by Seymour from September 1906 to May 1908. All thirteen issues can be viewed at "http://www.azusabool

"When we received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, the

power came down in such a mighty way, and after a

time people began to consider and got us to talking

thought. But what are we that will put straps and bands

on the Holy Ghost, when the Lord comes and finds and

thrills us with the Holy Ghost? Just because it is not our

power shall we quench it and hold it down? Let us be

free in the Holy Ghost and let Him have right of way.，烈

1,3 G. S, Casiimfeil

After giving an analysis to two of the most important figures among the early Pentecostals, I am now going to focus on one of the figures who brings significant influence to development of Pentecostal Holiness Church, namely,

Gaston Barnabas Cashwell. Although Cashwell was not as famous as other

Pentecostal figures such as Seymour, Parham, Durham...etc. that time, however, he was an important figure to the development of Pentecostal

Holiness Church in early times.

25 The Apostolic Faith 1.9 (June-September 1907), 2.

19 1.3.1 Brief account to Gaston Barnabas Cashwell

G. B. Cashwell was a minister of the Methodist Church. He joined the

Pentecostal Holiness Church of North Carolina, a church founded by Abner

Blackmon Grumpier, in 1898.^® He became a leading figure in the church and the Pentecostal movement on the east coast. Vinson Synan introduces

Cashwell as "the apostle of Pentecost to the south" in his books.^^ Cashwell was the person who made the journey to Azusa street revival and returned as the change agent in southern holiness churches. At that time, Cashwell was a forty-four-year-old minister in the Holiness Church of North Carolina.^® The experiences he had in Los Angeles revival during the fall of 1906 changed his life. Seymour printed the experiences of Cashwell at Azusa Street and his ministry in North Carolina in The Apostolic Faith.2。

The ministry of Cashwell led to important changes in southeastern

United States holiness churches. However, at the same time, he had supporters and critics from both sides. Some people may found him as an entrepreneurs, visionaries, change agents... and some may found him as out of control and rebellious. This is because he was the first person who had overcome racial prejudice and attended the Azusa Street revival in Los

Angeles, and returned in December 1907 to eastern North Carolina and brought tremendous revival to the Southern part of America.

26 Vinson Synan, The century of the Holy Spirit: 100 years of Pentecostal and charismatic renewal, 1901-2001 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 110. 27 Vinson Synan, Old Time Power (Georgia: LifeSprings Resources, 1998), 101. Also see Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement (Grand Rapids, Ml: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 121 • 28 Vinson Synan provides a detailed overview of this holiness denomination in Chapter 5 of Old Time Power. For details, please see: Synan, Old Time Power, 68-92. 29 The above reports can be read in the following issues: December 1906, 1,3; January 1907, 1; February-March 1907, 3, 4; May 1907, 1-2. (Last access: 3th May, 2012) 30 Due to racial prejudice, Cashwell was disappointed at first when he saw Seymour and most of the believers are black man. Synan, The century of the Holy Spirit, 108. 20 1.3„2 CashwefTs view on Pentecostal experience

After Cashwell came back to his hometown of Dunn, North Carolina, in

December 1906，he started to preach Pentecost in the local holiness churches and attracted lots of ministers and church members to come and receive their own "personal Pentecost". Those churches included the Fire-Baptist church and the Pentecostal Holiness Church, and these two denominations am the former churches of nowadays International Pentecostal Holiness Church.^^

Cashwell preached about the baptism with the Holy Spirit with tongues as initial evidence as he had become a leading figure in the South. By February of

1907，J.H. King was convinced of the scriptural evidence and led the Fire

Baptized Holiness Church to adopt the theology. A few weeks later N.J.

Holmes heard Cashwell speaks at West Union, South Carolina, and in the service, he saw and heard people speak and sing in tongues. Holmes was deeply stirred by that scene, and so he started an intensive study of the New

Testament. Such study led him to speak in tongues on April 22，1907.32

However, the founder of the Pentecostal Holiness Church of North

Carolina, A. B. Grumpier, was one of the few who refused to accept the speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Although Grumpier did accept the validity of tongues, he did not think that everyone had to speak in tongues is an initial evidence for one who had baptized by the Holy Spirit. And because of such dispute, Grumpier left that church by the end of 1908.^^ After that, speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of faith had been added to the statement of faith of the church. More

Synan, The century of the Holy Spirit, 108-9. 32 NJ. Holmes, Life sketches and sermons (The New York Public Library, 2011; reprint of 1920 edition published by the Press of The Pentecostal Holiness Church, Royston, GA), 135. Synan, The century of the Holy Spirit 109. 21 than that, the Bridegroom's Messenger, the magazine that edited and published by Cashwell, was also selected as the official periodical of the church .34

As illustrated above, the influence of Cashwell spread in publications.

After J.H. King led the Fire baptized Holiness Church into Pentecost, he quickly turned Live Coals (previously named Live coals of Fire) into a new magazine, The Apostolic Evangel, published in Royston, Georgia.^^ This change was noted in the February-March 1907 issue of The Apostolic Faith, where Seymour included The Apostolic Evangel as one of three papers "out and out for a Bible Pentecost according to Acts 2:4 and with subscription free\

36

In the same issue of The Apostolic Faith, an entire article was given to describe the change that occurred to The Apostolic Evangel:

“The position of ‘Live Coals' has been completely

changed. God unmistakably revealed to the editorial

staff the unscripturalness of the views they entertained,

and entire renunciation of the same took place.

Speaking in tongues as an evidence of Pentecost was

stoutly opposed and rejected, the paper did not oppose

the speaking in tongues as such, but to make a

distinction between this and the gift of tongues (was

seen) to be an unscriptural distinction to sustain a

fanatical proposition. But when this distinction was

seen, and that speaking in tongues evidenced

Syrian, The century of the Holy Spirit, 109-10. Synan, Old Time Power, 105. The Apostolic Faith 1.6 (February-March 1907), 1. 22 Pentecost in every instance where it was given in the

Bible, we all with one accord accepted that view and

instantly fell into line with joy. Henceforth the paper will

be unqualifiedly committed to the truth that Pentecost is

evidenced by speaking in tongues.

The Apostolic Evangel continued until 1930 as a prominent proponent of classical Pentecostal Holiness theology and became a mouthpiece for the

Falcon Camp Meeting, originally an inter-denominational meeting in Falcon,

North Carolina? Before the merger between the Fire-Baptized Holiness

Church and the Pentecostal Holiness Church of North Carolina in January

1911, the paper contained news reports of the activities of both organizations.

It also reflected the tensions existing among people of the two groups who did not accept that sanctification and Pentecostal baptism were separate experiences. Cashwell wrote an article titled "Pentecostal Evidence" in the

April 3，1907, argued that since many have received the Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Ghost,

“,..we must not fail to pray for our brethren who are

contending that they have received the Pentecostal

baptism when they were sanctified. There is nothing in

these last days that would please the devil better than

for us to say that we have the Pentecostal baptism and

not have the Pentecostal evidence, which is the Holy

Ghost speaking through us.，別

37 J-^Q Apostolic Faith 1.6 (February-March 1907), 4. 38 Syrian, Old Time Power, 102. 39 丁he Apostolic Evangel /April 3, 1907), 3 23 From the above illustration, we not only see how Cashwell influenced to the early stage of Pentecostal Holiness church, but also the point of view that

Cashwell held towards the Pentecostal experience.

1A Coiiclusioo

As we can see from the above early Pentecostal revivalists, speaking in tongues and personal experiences of the baptism in the Holy Spirit are the key evidences accompanied by the teaching of the biblical teachings. The biblical support for the Pentecostal teachings comes mainly from Acts 2.4° The main focus of the early Pentecostal leaders was on Jesus as the source of salvation, sanctification, healing and baptism in the Holy Spirit. They believe that Jesus enabled one to live a holy and productive Christian life through the Holy Spirit.

Such thought influenced their way in interpreting the Bible.^i As Seymour says,

"we are not fighting men or churches, but seeking to displace dead forms and creeds and wild fanaticism with living, practical Christianity.'"^^

Two observations could be found about hermeneutics within the traditional Pentecostal movement. First, the attitude of the Pentecostals toward

Scripture generally disregards the exegesis and carefully thought-out

hermeneutics.43 Scripture is the word of God and the Pentecostals tend to

40 Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 84. Another Pentecostal scholar, Roger Stronstad, who is the Academic Dean at Western Pentecostal Bible College in Clayburn, British Columbia, Canada, against such claims and thinks that the Pentecostal theology is not derived from the narratives of Acts on the principle of historical precedent, but from the teaching of Jesus and from the sermons and teaching of the apostles. Roger Stronstad, "Pentecostal Hermeneutics" in the Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies Wo\. 15, No. 2. 1993,215-222

Archer, Pentecostal hermeneutic for the twenty-first century: spirit, scripture and community, 73. 42 丁he Apostolic Faith 1.1 (September 1906), 2.

们 Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics, 86; Robert K. Johnston also discussed about the weakness of Pentecostal biblical studies, "it is a 24 obey it literally; there is little concern about hermeneutics. Second, the

Pentecostal experience precedes their hermeneutics. 44 |n a sense, the

Pentecostal tends to interpret his or her own experience.Their dynamic inspiration and personal experiences are far more important than the hermeneutical stimulation from the Scripture.

After giving a brief account to the above important figures in the early stage of Pentecostal movement, and analyzing their point of view towards

Pentecostal experience，we should have a deeper understanding to their standpoint in understanding the Bible and the Pentecostal experience. As mentioned, those early Pentecostal standpoints may somehow shape nowadays Pentecostals in understanding. So, in the following, I am going to the contemporary world, and see how the early Pentecostal experience shapes the way of thought of contemporary Pentecostal scholars.

historical weakness, given Pentecostalism's experiential focus, that demands attention _ namely, the mistrust of theological hermeneutics. Robert K. Johnston, "Pentecostalism and Theological Hermeneutics: Evangelical Options" in PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 1984, 54 44 William Menzies has rightly pointed out that Pentecostals did not look to the text for the origination of a theology, but for the biblical or theological verification of their experience. William Menzies, "The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics," in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin, ed. By Paul 曰bert (Peabody, Mass. Hendrickson, 1985), 13

45 Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics, 86

25 2 Contemporary Pentecostal Hermeneutics

As illustrated in the last chapter, the classical Pentecostal approach has generated enormous exegetical and theological problems within the people doing hermeneutics」Apart from that, Modernity is giving impact to traditional

Christianity, especially to Pentecostals. As a result, many Pentecostal scholars turned to the discussion on a core question, that is, "do Pentecostals need a distinct hermeneutic to firmly establish their beliefs and practices in

Scripture?"^ Most of the discussion among them concerns whether there actually exists, or should exist, a distinct Pentecostal hermeneutic.

In this chapter, I am going to first give a brief sketch to how the

Pentecostal sees Modernity as an impact to them, as it is one of the main reasons why the contemporary Pentecostal scholar want to develop a

Pentecostal hermeneutic. After that,丨 will analyze some of the contemporary

Pentecostal scholar's viewpoints on Pentecostal hermeneutic.

While examining the impact of rationalistic Modernity to the

Pentecostals, Archer figures out three main challenges. First, Evolutionary theory in both its biological and social applications which diminished the supernatural and personal aspects of God; secondly, higher Criticism which undermined the authority of Scripture; and thirdly, comparative religion studies which relativized Christianity and deprived it of its unique and absolute

1 Some of the Pentecostal scholars criticized the interpretative method of early Pentecostals as being literal, ahistoiical and pietistic. Grant Wacker, for example, considers the biblical interpretation of early Pentecostals as a logical extension of their 'ahistorical outlook. Grant Wacker, 'Functions of Faith in Primitive Pentecostalism', in Howard Theological Review 77, 1984, 365. 2 Kenneth J. Archer, "Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect" in Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2001), 74. 26 character.^ Because of that, Pentecostals strongly protested the secularizing influence of Modernity upon Christianity as the Pentecostals sought a personal experience of the Holy Spirit's "direct, divine, incontrovertible intervention which did not rely on the intellect or feeling but on a sign of the presence of the

Holy Ghost which both the individual experiencing it and all who were looking on would know that ‘the work had been done，.，，4

Archer concludes that the Pentecostals are a group of Christian comes out from the revival-restorational movement, and the most distinctive characteristic of this group of Christian was their strong desire for a direct experience with the Holy Spirit. Such kind of religious passion not only shaped and boosted up by their restorational stand in reading of the NT. narrative, but also leads them protest themselves against Modernity and mainline

Christianity.5 Many contemporary Pentecostal hermeneutical scholars like

Howard M. Ervin,® French Arrington/ Timothy B Cargal,® William Menzies,

3 Kenneth 丄 Archer, Pentecostal hermeneutic for the twenty-first century: spirit scripture and community (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 17. 4 Melvin E. Dieter, "The Wesleyan/Holiness and Pentecostal Movements: Commonalities, Confrontation, and Dialogue" in Pneumo 12.1 (1990), 13. 5 Archer, Pentecostal hermeneutic for the twenty-first century: spirit scripture and community, 21-2. 6 Ervin, H.M. "Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal option" in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal StudiesWo\. 3, no. 2 (1981), 11-25. 7 French L. Arlington, "The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals" in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, (1994), 101-107

8 Timothy B. Cargal is University Lecturer in Philosophy and Religion at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky. In his article, "Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age," he argued that the diversity of the Pentecostalism and the Pentecostal hermeneutics are more coherent to the postmodern age. Cargal, Timothy B. "Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age, “ in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies Volume 15, (1993), 163-187

27 Roger Stronstad and Paul Lewis^ tend to adopt different hermeneutical and interpretative approaches in the discussion of Pentecostal hermeneutics, while maintaining a commitment to the reliability of biblical narrative.

After studying the point of view of the above scholars, most of them tend to support the development of a distinctive hermeneutical method for the

Pentecostals. Although they have different point of view to what should

Pentecostal hermeneutic upholds, they have a common ground to such stand, which is, the acknowledgement to the role of the Holy Spirit during bible interpretation. Many of them assert "the spiritual and extraordinary supernatural experiences of the biblical characters are possible for contemporary believers，，.” So, many Pentecostals think the theological hermeneutic actually underestimated the role of the Holy Spirit during Bible interpretation. In response, I will conduct a critical dialogue between one of the

Pentecostal criticism of theological hermeneutic in the next chapter. However, in the following, I will first give a general account of the Pentecostal point of view towards Pentecostal hermeneutic by studying the viewpoints of some

Pentecostal scholars.

2.1 P/ieiizies's view point to Pentecostal hermeneytic

William Menzies proposes that the most crucial hermeneutical issue is on methodology only. He suggests that Pentecostal hermeneutic should consist of three levels. The first level he suggests is called the inductive level.

9 I will give a more detail account to some of the scholars mentioned here in the later part of this chapter. 10 Timothy B. Cargal, "Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age," in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies] 5, (1993), 163 11 Archer, Pentecostal hermeneutic for the twenty-first century: spirit scripture and community, 75. 28 Different kinds of inductive listening, such as declarative, implicational, and descriptive... are needed during this level of hermeneutic. Apart from that, the second level is called the deductive level. Menzies points out that after one has conducted inductive hermeneutics, certain patterns or theological motifs begin to emerge. Since those patterns and motifs are often essential especially when we are trying to understand the particular part of the text even it is not stated specifically in Scripture.^^

Menzies describes the final level as the verification level. As we may know, one of the main criticisms of Pentecostals by others is their exegetical method, which is "exegeting" out of experience. However, Menzies argues that it is dangerous to develop theology and hermeneutics from non-experience.

He explains that if a biblical truth is to be proclaimed, it certainly ought to be verifiable and demonstrable in life”

2,2 Stroiistexl's view point to Pentecostal henneneyrjc

Roger Stronstad suggests five components to a Pentecostal hermeneutic. Those are Charismatic experiential presuppositions, the

pneumatic, genre, exegesis and experiential verification.i4 This is somehow can be seen as a combination of traditional Evangelical hermeneutics with

Pentecostal concerns. However, we may see that only the first and fifth point he raised can be observed to be at all distinctive.

12 William Menzies,"The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics" in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin, edited by Paul Elbert (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985),1-14. William Menzies,"The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics" in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin, edited by Paul Elbert (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985),1-14. Roger Stronstad, "Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics," In Paraclete 26.] (1992), 28-9. 29 The reason to the above observation is that Stronstad strongly suggests the Pentecostals to contribute more to the traditional hermeneutics in the areas of pre-understanding in reading texts and experiential verification. As he said,

"[t]he Charismatic experience of the Pentecostal - ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit, speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, being led by the Spirit - enables him to understand Luke's record of the activity of the

Holy Spirit in Acts better than the non-Pentecostal."^^ He also believes that the

Pentecostals cannot consider Pentecostalism to be a kind of abnormal expression of faith through the direct encounter with the Holy Spirit, but a revival of New Testament theology and religion in the 20th century. This is because he thinks that the Pentecostalism has not only restored joy and power to the church, but a more straight forward reading to the Bible as well，He further elaborates,

Charismatic experience in particular and spiritual

experience in general give the interpreter of relevant

Biblical texts an experiential presupposition which

transcends the rational or cognitive presuppositions of

scientific exegesis. In other words, [the Pentecostals']

charismatic experience is an experiential

presupposition which enables them to understand the

charismatic life of the Apostolic church, as Luke reports

15 Roger Stronstad, "Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics" in Paraclete26A (1992), 15. 16 Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), viii. 30 it，better than those contemporary Christians who lack

this experience.^^

2.3 Lewis's view on Pentecostal hermeneutic

Paul Lewis notes that Pentecostal experience is both distinct and important in a variety of ways. First, the Pentecostals assumed the authority of

Scripture long before the debates over inerrancy. This is because the

Pentecostals experienced what the Scripture said, in their point of view, they are a group of people that not only understands the Bible, but also tasted the truth of the Bible by their personal experience. Second, in the debate between the text and the reader as the source of authority, Pentecostals "...assume that the author and the interpreter are both necessary as sender and receiver of

Divine assistance as both are 'inspired' by the Holy Spirit."^® He further suggests that in terms of the pre-understanding of the interpreter, "Pentecostal experience authenticates and provides reassurance that the pneumatological experiences of the Bible are also meant for today."i®

Thirdly, apart from the discussion on the understanding of the texts,

Lewis suggests that the Pentecostal experience also impacts the application of the text, as well as how these applications are accepted within the Pentecostal community. Finally, Lewis suggests that Pentecostal hermeneutics should be informed by a "third horizon" which refers to the culture and the horizon of the members who is shaped by a specific culture. This is because he wanted to

"Stronstad, "Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics", 17. Paul Lewis, "Towards a Pentecostal Epistemology: The Role of Experience in Pentecostal Hermeneutics" in The Spirit and Church 2.1 (2000), 112. Lewis, "Towards a Pentecostal Epistemology: The Role of Experience in Pentecostal Hermeneutics", 114. 31 emphasize the difference between different interpreter's cultures. He believes

that such "third horizon" can assist in understanding one's own cultural bias.2°

2.4 Coiiciiision

The above are the standpoints of some leading Pentecostal scholars

towards the discussion on Pentecostal hermeneutic. After analyzing their point

of view, I find that the point that most Pentecostals oppose to the so-called

"mainlines Christianity" seems invalid. This is because, firstly, the mainline

Christianity may not be the case as they describe (that is, some

misunderstanding to the mainline Christianity may appear to the Pentecostals);

and secondly, the point that those hermeneutical point of view suggested by the Pentecostals may actually agreed by the theological hermeneutic (that is,

some misunderstanding to theological hermeneutic may appear to the

Pentecostals). In order to prove my above view point, I am going to conduct an

in-depth dialogue between one of the criticisms of the theological hermeneutic

by the Pentecostals.

20 Lewis, "Towards a Pentecostal Epistemology: The Role of Experience in Pentecostal Hermeneutics", 117. 32 3 Criticism of Bultmann's program of demythologization from a Pentecostal perspective

3.1 Ciiticisrns of BuStmann's program of demythofogizatr^n： from Howaixl Ervm

In this chapter, I am going to give an analysis of how the Pentecostals criticize Bultmann's demythologization. Among those Pentecostal scholars, I will especially focus on one of the important writings about the development of

Pentecostal hermeneutics written by Howard M. Ervin.

3/1.1 Brief, account to Howard M. Ervin

As mentioned in the introductory paragraph of last chapter, we now may know that Howard M. Ervin is one of the important scholars within the

Pentecostal academic circle giving influence to the discussion of Pentecostal hermeneutics. He suggests a Pneumatic hermeneutic, based on the need for an epistemology firmly rooted in biblical faith, "...with a phenomenology that meets the criteria of empirically verifiable sensory experience (healing, miracles, etc.) and does not violate the coherence of rational categories."^ In articulating the meaning of pneumatic epistemology, he further explains that it would also "...provides a resolution of (a) the dichotomy between faith and reason that existentialism seeks to bridge, though at the expense of the pneumatic; (b) the antidote to a destructive rationalism that often accompanies a critical-historical exegesis; and (c) a rational accountability for the mysticism by a piety grounded in sola fide:? Because Pentecostals allow the experiential immediacy of the Holy Spirit to inform their epistemology, this contact with the pneumatic enlightens their hermeneutics in a way that may be considered

】Howard M. Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", Pneuma3.2 (1981), 23. 2 Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", 23. 33 beyond the traditional view of illumination. So, in Ervin point of view, there is a

critical difference in understanding the worldview of modern people between the theological hermeneutics and the Pentecostals.^

In that important writing, he further suggests, "there are at least four

factors that must influence any programmatic development of a Pentecostal

hermeneutic."4 Within those factors, one of them is particularly giving a strong

criticism to Bultmann's demythologization. So, in the following, I am going to

give an analysis of his criticism.

3.1.2 First criticism: worfdvjew of modern man no longer holds

The first criticism of Ervin to Bultmann's program of demythologization is

about the validity of the modern man's worldview. Ervin argues that the

so-called "modern mind" fits only in the eighteenth-or nineteenth-century

scientific worldview. This is because in the last half of the twentieth century,

Ervin states that, "the scientific phenomenology….is suggesting radically

different ways of understanding time and space…,and so he concludes that

the worldview used in demythologization is only "a fossilized mindset of the

nineteenth century".® The main point Ervin wants to make here is that the

so-called modern worldview suggested by Bultmann is outdated and no longer

suitable to the people living in the contemporary world.

Moreover, Ervin further says that the experience of the Holy Spirit is

"objectively real" to the Pentecostals, and so all the Pentecostals share the

3 Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", 12, 16. 4 Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", 24. 5 Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", 19.

6 Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecost•丨 option", 20.

34 same worldview as the Biblical worldview/ By stating some of the Pentecostal spiritual experiences such as divine healing, prophecy, miracles, speaking in tongues and exorcism, Ervin asserts that all the Pentecostals believe that there is "a sphere of non-material reality upon our time-space existence with which one can and does have immediate contact."® Pentecostals not only affirm those spiritual experiences on an epistemological level，but also on an experiential level.

As a summary of this criticism, Ervin thinks that there is no necessity to demythologize, since there is no difference between the worldview of the

Pentecostals and the intended readers of the New Testament while reading and interpreting the Bible.

3.1.3 Second csiticism: Demythologization is only a task of aiitliropoiogical interpretation of the BSbSe. Demythologkatson neglects divine liermeneutscs during interpretation

The second criticism of Ervin actually is two-fold. Ervin says that on one hand the new hermeneutic fails to articulate the pneumatic dimension clearly, and, as a consequence, Ervin understands that the program of demythologizing is actually only a task of interpreting the Bible anthropologically. ® Interestingly，in analyzing the reason why the new hermeneutic fails to articulate the pneumatic dimension clearly, Ervin explains that it is due to the "given …anthropological presuppositions of existential theology, [so]... the supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit must appear as mythological."10 Although we may spot a logical fallacy (circular argument)

7 Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", 24.

8 Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", 24.

9 Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", 18.

⑴ Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", 24.

35 when Ervin makes such criticism, I would like to treat it as two separate criticisms in order to conduct a true dialogue with these criticisms in the later part of this paper.

According to Ervin, since the "ontological re-creation by the Holy Spirit" is the precondition of every man for understanding the Bible, so he sees the interpretation of Bible as divine action that is initiated by the Holy Spirit.” So, apart from the above logical fallacy (that is, circular argument mentioned above), we can see the point that Ervin tries to make is that since the new hermeneutic neglect the pneumatic dimension, demythologization is only an anthropological task in interpreting the bible.

After analyzing Ervin's main criticisms of Bultmann's program of demythologization, I am going to give a detailed account of Bultmann's demythologization before engaging in a critical discussion with above criticisms.

3.2 Analysis of Bultmann's program of Derriytliologizhig

In this section, I am going to analyze Bultmann's program of demythologizing by going deep into one important writing of Bultmann, which is, New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New

Testament Proclamation (1941). In addition, I would also refer to another writing regarding Bultmann's program of Demythologizing written by Paul

Ricoeur, namely, Preface to Bultmann (1960). The former writing is chosen

because Bultmann explicitly mentioned the idea of demythologization in it. The

latter one is chosen because it gives us some important explanations about

the concept of demythologization under a hermeneutical point of view.

1 ‘ Erin, "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", 15, 17.

36 3,2.1 Bultmann's vSew on demythologization

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) identified himself with the Confessing

Church in Germany during the years of Hitler. He presented his well-known paper entitled "New Testament and Mythology" in 1941 during a meeting of the

Society for Protestant Theology among a group of Confessing Church

theologians. 12 in the paper, Bultmann attempts to make modern thought understandable to the expressions about God and God's action in the Bible, which have a mythological character i3 Bultmann calls such a process

“demythologizing，，.i4

•L2.1/1 Denlytlioiogizatio11 as eliminating the' mythological characters to modem readers

According to Bultmann, the worldview of the New Testament consists of mythological characters. It not only involves the imagery of "three-story world", but also assumes that there are Angels and Demons (supernatural powers), which are intervening in the world we live, and even in our lives.^^ However,

Bultmann asserts that it is both no point and not possible for a man who is living in the modern world to accept the worldview presented in the New

Testament. He further asserts in his paper that "[w]e cannot use electric lights and radios and, in the event of illness, avail ourselves of modern medical and clinical means and at the same time believe in the spirit and wonder world of

12 Roger A. Johnson, The origins of demythologizing: philosophy and historiography in the theology of Rudolf Bultmann (Netherlands: Brill Academic, 1974), 1-3.

13 Rudolf Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Proclamation" in New Testament and mythology and other basic writings, selected, edited and translated by Schubert M. Ogden (London: SCM, 1984), 2-8.

Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, 9-10.

15 Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, 1-2.

37 the New Testament.，，i6 For Bultmann, it is an unintelligible action for a modern

Christian to proclaim these "myths", since such mythological mode of thinking is unreal for modern man, and so it is no longer relevant to modern people.

However, Bultmann believes that the mythological language used in the

New Testament is not merely myth, but there is something behind the myth, which could be expressed in some other ways. As he says, "[t]he real point of myth is not to give an objective world picture... rather, is how we human beings understand ourselves in our world.And because of that, Bultmann suggests that people should not interpret the myth in the New Testament "in cosmological terms but... in existentialist terms.”化 Bultmann further suggests the task of demythologizing is "to interpret the dualistic mythology of the New

Testament in existentialist terms.

3.2.1.2 Dei 1 lyth olog iza I ion as existential interpretation

Existential situation is emphasized in the task of demythologizing because

Bultmann sees Christianity as an event rather than a bunch of timeless truths.We have to encounter such salvation-event, which is in the word of proclamation, with our existential situation.^^ In doing so, we may be able to answer the call from God, that is, to live our life in the grace of God through faith.22

16 Bultmann, New Testoment and Mythology, 7.

口 Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, 9.

18 Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, 9.

Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, 15.

20 Bultmann sees Christianity as a salvation-event and history of redemption. Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, 39-40.

21 Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, 39. 22 The life in the grace of God (or life with Christ) is a comparative concept to "life without Christ". Life without Christ refers to the life depending on "visible, available, 38 In summary, the task of demythologizing is to help modern people, who have different worldview from the New Testament, to interpret the Bible. It is to understand the truth of Scripture in reality (but not myth), which encounters our existence.

3/2,13 The importance of Ricoeur in understanding Bultmann 's d emyth olog iza lion

At this point, it seems that I can start to have a critical dialogue with the criticisms mentioned in the first section. However, in order to have a fruitful dialogue, it is good to employ Ricoeur's explanation to Bultmann's program of demythologization. This is because Ricoeur had done an excellent supplement in explaining the meaning of myth and demythologization to Bultmann's writing.

Such supplement is particularly useful when having dialogue with the criticisms that Pentecostal hermeneutics raised. Ricoeur suggests a three-levels framework in explaining the concept of demythologization of Bultamnn.

3.2.2 Ricoeur view's on Bultmann's demythologization

Ricoeur explains that demythologization does not mean simply deleting the myth (demystification), rather, it is a way to "shatter the false scandal constituted by the absurdity of the mythological representation of the world by a modern man and to make apparent the true scandal, the folly of God in

Jesus Christ, which is a scandal for all men in all times."^^ Ricoeur suggests that it is necessary to remove the mythological representation^"^ from the

disposable and measurable" things. According Bultmann, however, those things actually cannot secure one's life at all. In contrast, life with Christ is to accept that we are depending only on the grace and forgiveness of God. Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, 16-8. 23 Paul Ricoeur, "Preface of Bultmann" in The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974), 389.

24 At here, "mythological representation" is referring to "false scandal".

39 scripture because modern men are no longer sharing the worldview given in the New Testament. Only by removing those "false scandal"^^, can modern people start to encounter the "true scandal"^®. Up to this point, what Ricoeur says is more or less the same as Bultmann. However, Ricoeur further explains the task of demythologization by incorporating the concept of hermeneutic circle.

Ricoeur distinguishes Bultmann's demythologization into three levels. In each level, the meaning of "demythologization" and "myth" varies. Since it is important to distinguish the different meaning of demythologization and myth on different levels in order to give a response to the critique that Pentecostal hermeneutics raised against Bultmann's program of demythologization,丨 am going to give a brief account of the three levels of demythologization that

Ricoeur proposes.

3.2,2:1 First level ofdemythologizntkm: demythologization as work o/

sckmce'27

In the first level, demythologization means to eliminate / suspend the prescientific worldview. This is because such worldview is not understandable to modern men.

Demythologization is needed in order to remove the false scandal; however, later I will further explain that even true scandal is needed to demythologize (i.e. second level of demythologization). 26 "True scandal" is referring to the salvation-event proclaimed in the scripture (i.e. "the folly of God in Jesus Christ"). 27 The following three sub-headings comes the concluding paragraph from Ricoeur. For details, please refers to Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 393.

28 It is regarded as the worldview in the New Testament (i.e., a world composed of three stories 一 heaven, earth and hell. People who have supernatural powers descend down). Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 391

40 The so-called prescientific worldview is referring to the worldview in the

New Testament, that is, a world composed of three stories - heaven, earth and hell. People who have supernatural powers descend down. Authors of the New

Testament borrows concepts like "world", "flesh" and "sin" from cosmic mythology when writing.?® These concepts are alien to modern men because they are not sharing the same worldview as the authors and readers in the

New Testament (prescientific) times. Because of this, modern men should demythologize the prescientific worldview. According to Ricoeur, such worldview is referring to the false scandaP or myth to modern people that keeps them from encountering the true scandal.^^

3.2.2.2 Second level of demythologization: demythologization as work of philosophy On a second level，according to Ricoeur, "demythologization is no longer the exclusive work of the modern spirit."32 This is because demythologization is not only needed to eliminate the false scandal, but also the myth of the true scandal.

"True scandal" is referring to the salvation-event proclaimed in the scripture (i.e. "the folly of God in Jesus Christ", "folly of the Cross"...)- Since the salvation-event proclaimed in the scripture is not a product of the prescientific worldview, it is a myth to all people in all generation (even the

29 Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 392.

30 It should be regarded as false scandal because such scandal only applies on the people those are not sharing the same worldview of the New Testament. For the intended reader of the New Testament, they will find no problem in reading such cosmological languages (such languages actually helps them to understand better\o what the writers are going to say).

Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 391.

32 Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 391.

41 people who were living in the New Testament times). Because of that, demythologization is needed in order to unveil the real meaning behind such myth. In doing this, existential interpretation should be applied so that we may understand the real meaning behind the myth?

For example, when we read the healing story from the Gospel of John 9， the "sign (miracle) of healing" is a true scandal that needs to be demythologized. This is because the importance of that scene to the readers is neither not only the fact that Jesus has the power to heal a man blind from birth, but revealing Jesus himself is the "light of the world".So, the main point of this story was not telling us that Jesus has a power to heal people physically.

Rather, the main point of this story was telling us that the ability of seeing things physically is not the criterion to identify the fact that "Jesus is the light of the world" and so to receive the salvation from God.

According to Bultmann, this story consists in a "radical reversal of the human condition", that is, the blind will receive sight, and the seeing will become blind，And such "light" and "darkness" are referring to the salvation which man receives or rejects Jesus as the light of the world.

Demythologization makes the scripture highly related to the existential situation of human being, which is relevant to all generation, no matter whether in modern times or during the New Testament times.

Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 392.

Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 339. 35 Bultmann says that whether we are "blind" or "seeing" is actually the question that everyone must answer, no matter you are physically blind or not, no matter you are living in modern world or not. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 341 • Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 340-2. 42 However, Ricoeur says that this still is not the most decisive level for a

Christian hermeneutics. ^^ As concluded by Ricoeur, the first level of demythologization can be seen as a work of science, and the second level as work of philosophy? Both the first and second level of demythologization

does not have any specifically Christian aspect that is applied to the myth.

Thus, the task of demythologization should continue to the third level. The third

level is based on the assumption that "the kerygma itself wants to be

demythologize(l，，39

3.2.23 Third level ofdemythoiogizatJon: demythologization as proceediiiq from faith In the third level, demythologization is done through faith, during the

moment of preaching. This is because preaching is not only a way to "make

the Gospel heard，’4°，but also a way to mediate the same kerygma to different

generation of people. Such action can only be done through faith. According to

Ricoeur, "[i]t is the kerygmatic core of the original preaching which not only

requires but initiates and sets in motion the process of demythologization："^^

So, it is a process that begins from the kerygma, and is spoken by preachers

who had heard (or received) the kerygma through faith.

Ricoeur asserts that every preacher has to preach in order to let the

kerygma crosses the gap between different ages, and reaches the audience

37 Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 392.

38 This is because the myth of first level is demythologized through exegetical science method, and the myth of second level is demythologized through existential interpretation. For details, please refer to Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 393-4.

39 Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmonn, 392.

40 Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 393.

Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmonn, 392.

43 under different worldviews and existential situations. 42 However, such interpretation is not merely an action of exegesis or existential interpretation, but also a result of hearing to the kerygma, since the kerygma itself wants to be demythologized. Only when a preacher makes himself dependent on the kerygma which determines him, can he mediate the same kerygma to his

audience 43 So, this level of demythologization can only be done through faith.

In summary, Ricoeur analyzes Bultmann's understanding of demythologization and myth by distinguishing them into three levels. In each level, we can see how both the meaning of demythologization and myth varies.

In the following, I am going to use this framework to analyze the critics from

Pentecostal hermeneutics and give critical comments and responses to those criticisms.

3.3 A critical dialogye between Pentecostal hermeneir阮3 and Bijitinaoii's demythologization

In section 3.1, I have mentioned the main criticisms from Ervin to

Bultmann's program of demythologization. After a detailed study on the meaning of Bultmann's demythologization in section 3.2, I can now give my own critical responses to the former criticisms.

3.3.1 Response to first criticism

As stated in section 3.1，Ervin argues that demythologization is not needed for Pentecostals, since there is no difference between the worldview of the

Pentecostals and the intended readers of the New Testament.

In response, I am going to use the framework that Ricoeur suggests while analyzing the meaning of demythologization and myth in Bultmann's writing. It

Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 392-3.

Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 393.

44 is correct to say that the Pentecostals may share the same three-story worldview as the intended readers of the New Testament. However, it only means that nowadays Pentecostals may not have the false scandal while reading the Bible, that is, they do not have to apply the first level of demythologization.

Nevertheless, according to Ricoeur, demythologization is still required in order to eliminate the myth of the true scandal within the Bible (that is, the second level of understanding demythologization). As I have explained in section two, false scandal refers to the hindrance (myth) caused by different worldviews while true scandal refers to the happenings related to salvation-or

Christ-event. Since the Christ-event is a myth to all generation, it should be demythologized so that people can understand the real meaning behind such myth. So, this criticism cannot be held because the Pentecostals over-look the different levels of meaning of the concept of demythologization.

3,3,2 Response to second criticism

For the second criticism, as stated in first section, Ervin criticizes demythologization as an anthropological task only. The reason he gives is that the new hermeneutic neglects the pneumatic dimension while interpreting the

Bible. Again, by applying Ricoeur's framework, I can give a clearer view in responding such criticism.

According to Ricoeur's framework, demythologization does have an anthropological moment, which is, during the moment of second level of demythologization. As mentioned in section two, existential interpretation should be applied so that we may understand the real meaning behind the myth. However, according to Ricoeur, "this second level is not the final one.

45 For a Christian hermeneutics, it is not even the most decisive one."44 This is because apart from the moment of existential interpretation, there is a moment of faith during interpretation, that is, the third level of demythologization. Unlike the previous two levels of demythologization, the third level of demythologization is a passive action since “the kerygma itself wants to be demythologized.，站

The third level of demythologization is somehow a moment of divine-human encounter, and it can only happen through faith. The moment of demythologization in the third level is more or less the same as what the

Pentecostals believe. Because of that, I think it is fair to conclude that the second point of Pentecostal criticism of Bultmann's program of demythologization is simply invalid.

3-4 Coiiclusioo

I have analyzed the criticisms of Bultmann's program of demythologization from one of the important Pentecostal hermeneutical scholars, namely,

Horward M. Ervin. Then I have also explored the meaning of demythologization according to both Bultmann's and Ricoeur's point of view.

Finally, I have given critical responses to criticisms raised by the Ervin. To conclude, I have argued that the way Ervin understands Bultmann's demythologization not only in a too shallow way, but also that they have some misunderstanding about Bultmann's demythologization.

Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 392. Ricoeur, Preface to Bultmann, 392.

46 Conclusion In the first part of this paper, I have first introduced the main concern of the early Pentecostals in interpreting the Bible and briefly shown how these concerns affect later Pentecostals in interpreting the Bible. In the second part of the paper, I not only elaborated the meaning of demythologization, but have also given a critical response to the criticisms raised by a Pentecostal hermeneutical point of view. However, due to the limitation of time, this paper only focuses on one of the important Pentecostals hermeneutics' argument.

Further researches to the Pentecostals hermeneutics' argument are required.

47 Bibliography

Books and Journals Archer, Kenneth J. "Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation," in the Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 9.18 (2001): 32-70.

"Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect" in

Journal of Pentecostal Theology. 18 (2001): 63-81.

A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-first Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004.

Bultmann, Rudolf. "New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Proclamation" in New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings. Selected, edited and translated by Schubert M. Ogden. London: SCM, 1984. 1-43.

The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.

Cargal, Timothy B. "Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age," PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 15 (1993): 163-187.

Dayton, Donald W. The Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.

Dieter, Melvin E. "The Wesleyan/Holiness and Pentecostal Movements: Commonalities, Confrontation, and Dialogue" in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 12.1 (1990): 4-13.

Elbert, Paul (ed.). Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin, Presented to Him by Colleagues and Friends on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1985.

Ellington, Scott A. "History, Story, and Testimony: Locating Truth in a Pentecostal Hermeneutic" in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Volume 23.2 (2001): 245-63.

Erin, Howard M. "Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal option", Pneuma 3.2 (1981): 11-25. "Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal Option" in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin. Edited by Paul Elbert. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985.

48 Fee, Gordon D. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Goff, James R. JR. The Topeka Outpouring of 1901: 100th Anniversary Edition. Joplin, MO: Christian Life Books, 2000.

Goldingay, John. Models of Interpretation of Scripture. Frand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995

Grant, Wacker. 'Functions of Faith in Primitive Pentecostalism', Howard Theological Review 77, 1984, 353-375.

Jacobsen, Douglas. Thinking in the Spirit: theologies of the early Pentecostal movement. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003.

Jeanrond, Werner. "The Development of Theological Hermeneutics (II): Barth, Bultmann, and the New Hermeneutic" in Theological Hermeneutics. London: SCM, 1991. 120-58.

Johnston, Robert K. "Pentecostalism and Theological Hermeneutics: Evangelical Options" in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. (1984): 51-66.

Lewis, Paul. "Towards a Pentecostal Epistemology: The Role of Experience in Pentecostal Hermeneutics" in The Spirit and Church 2.1 (2000): 95-125.

Martin, Larry. The Life and Ministry of William J. Seymour: And a History of the Azusa Street Revival. Joplin, MO: Christian Life Books, 1999.

Menzies, William. "The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics" in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin. Edited by Paul Elbert. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985.

Noel, Bradley Truman. Pentecostal and Postmodern Hermeneutics: Comparisons and Contemporary Impact. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Pub., 2010

Parham, Charles F. Kol Kare Bomidbar: A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, n.p. 1902.

The Everlasting Gospel. Baster Springs, Kans.: Charles. n.d.

Ricoeur, Paul. "Preface of Bultmann" in The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974， 381-401.

49 Stronstad, Roger. "Pentecostal Hermeneutics" in the Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies Vol. 15.2 (1993): 215-222.

"Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics" in Paraclete 26.1 (1992): 14-30.

The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984.

Synan, Vinson. Old Time Power. Georgia: LifeSprings Resources. 1998.

The century of the Holy Spirit: 100 years of Pentecostal and charismatic renewal, 1901-2001. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 2001.

The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement. Grand Rapids, Ml: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1971.

Thomasm, John Christopher, "Where the Spirit leads' - the development of Pentecostal Hermeneutics" in the Journal of Beliefs & Values 30.3 (2009): 289-302.

Wacker, Grant. Heaven below: early Pentecostals and American culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Oniine resources: http://www.apostolicfaithonline.org/e_bookJibrary.htm http://www.azusabooks.eom/links.shtml#paper

50

r I .-.

«

-_

V：

： ^^嚷霞^^力：)()-、y」麵 A ： -

•

J二 r