Pub Date : 2020-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1063851219886590
Alexander H. Pierce
Many modern theologians interpret Augustine’s conception of the afterlife in contrast to that of Gregory of Nyssa as a static, passive, and individualistic vision of God that is utterly discontinuous with our present lives. I argue in this paper that upon closer analysis Augustine’s use of the commonly recognized concepts of peace, rest, joy, and vision is open to and even suggestive of a more dynamic afterlife and that attentiveness to his descriptions of heavenly praise and the society of angels or city of God and to his exegesis of Ps. 105:4 (“quaerite faciem eius semper”) reveals that Augustine understood heaven to be dynamic, active, and social, bearing a large degree of continuity with life in this world. Conducting this study of the ways Augustine imagines eternal life with God summons further study of his eschatology which moves beyond the reductive reading that has dominated the last century.
{"title":"Augustine’s Eschatological Vision: The Dynamism of Seeing and Seeking God in Heaven","authors":"Alexander H. Pierce","doi":"10.1177/1063851219886590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851219886590","url":null,"abstract":"Many modern theologians interpret Augustine’s conception of the afterlife in contrast to that of Gregory of Nyssa as a static, passive, and individualistic vision of God that is utterly discontinuous with our present lives. I argue in this paper that upon closer analysis Augustine’s use of the commonly recognized concepts of peace, rest, joy, and vision is open to and even suggestive of a more dynamic afterlife and that attentiveness to his descriptions of heavenly praise and the society of angels or city of God and to his exegesis of Ps. 105:4 (“quaerite faciem eius semper”) reveals that Augustine understood heaven to be dynamic, active, and social, bearing a large degree of continuity with life in this world. Conducting this study of the ways Augustine imagines eternal life with God summons further study of his eschatology which moves beyond the reductive reading that has dominated the last century.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"14 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121056111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1063851219891533
Cole Christian Jodon
This article provides an account of Bonhoeffer’s understanding of church visibility, and considers the implications that account has for the contemporary Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. By tracing the roles of divine and human agency within Bonhoeffer’s understanding of church visibility, the article argues that Bonhoeffer understands church visibility as a byproduct of discipleship. Applied to the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue, such an account implies that church visibility ought not be a goal of the dialogue, but rather an inevitable byproduct of discipleship to Christ which takes place as Christians follow after Christ together.
{"title":"Ecclesial Visibility as a Byproduct of Discipleship: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Understanding of the Visible Church and Its Ecumenical Implications","authors":"Cole Christian Jodon","doi":"10.1177/1063851219891533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851219891533","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an account of Bonhoeffer’s understanding of church visibility, and considers the implications that account has for the contemporary Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. By tracing the roles of divine and human agency within Bonhoeffer’s understanding of church visibility, the article argues that Bonhoeffer understands church visibility as a byproduct of discipleship. Applied to the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue, such an account implies that church visibility ought not be a goal of the dialogue, but rather an inevitable byproduct of discipleship to Christ which takes place as Christians follow after Christ together.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128261611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1063851219879524
{"title":"Corrigendum to Preaching in the Context of the Eucharist: A Patristic Perspective","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/1063851219879524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851219879524","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133284420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-19DOI: 10.1177/1063851220914005
Christopher D. Jackson
This article argues that most of the contemporary appropriation of Martin Luther’s distinction between the theologian of the cross and the theologian of glory is mistaken, in five points: First, the distinction has a thin textual basis, found explicitly only a handful of times in Luther’s early writings. Second, recent scholarship and an examination of Luther’s wider writings call into question contemporary accounts as to what Luther meant by the distinction. Third, the theological tradition did not make use of this distinction until the 20th century. It would be a mistake, therefore, to demand that a distinction which was not popularly received until such a late time act as a normative framework. Fourth, when referring to God and His people, “glory” and “glorification” are useful biblical and theological terms, and this distinction casts these terms in a negative light. Fifth, a thorough-going theology of glory is crucial for Christian discipleship.
{"title":"Luther’s Theologian of the Cross and Theologian of Glory Distinction Reconsidered","authors":"Christopher D. Jackson","doi":"10.1177/1063851220914005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220914005","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that most of the contemporary appropriation of Martin Luther’s distinction between the theologian of the cross and the theologian of glory is mistaken, in five points: First, the distinction has a thin textual basis, found explicitly only a handful of times in Luther’s early writings. Second, recent scholarship and an examination of Luther’s wider writings call into question contemporary accounts as to what Luther meant by the distinction. Third, the theological tradition did not make use of this distinction until the 20th century. It would be a mistake, therefore, to demand that a distinction which was not popularly received until such a late time act as a normative framework. Fourth, when referring to God and His people, “glory” and “glorification” are useful biblical and theological terms, and this distinction casts these terms in a negative light. Fifth, a thorough-going theology of glory is crucial for Christian discipleship.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123236945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-13DOI: 10.1177/1063851220906432
Paul Saieg
On a crisp fall day of a New York October in 2014, I remember a dark espresso, a bright morning of warm hospitality, and an excited Fr. John Behr showing me his fresh insight into the structure of John’s Prologue and talking about what he thought it might mean for theology. The few seeds John had just then found have since matured and grown into a new proposal, not just for how to read the Gospel, but for how to take up the task of theology itself. In order to understand and evaluate this proposal, a group of eminent scholars in each of the several disciplines Behr traverses in this difficult book have graciously offered their reflections and evaluations of its strengths, weaknesses, and impact for the field. In this symposium, Harold Attridge evaluates Behr’s engagement with contemporary biblical scholarship in his exegesis of the Gospel; Paul Blowers takes the book’s measure as a historical theologian; Fr. Andrew Louth assesses Behr’s arguments about the figure of John in the early history of Christianity and the Gospel in the liturgy (as well as Behr’s place among Orthodox theologians); Charles Stang draws out the deep connection between Behr’s three concluding proposals and the influence of Origen (whose On First Principles Behr has recently edited and translated), offering some tentative, if beautifully drawn, theological “worries” of his own; and Fr. Olivier-Thomas Venard analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of Behr’s use of French phenomenology in his approaches to both Scripture and theology. Because of the book’s incredible breadth—working properly across the fields of biblical studies, patristics, and contemporary phenomenology—we are grateful to these scholars for offering their experience and expertise to help the rest of us critically understand what it is Behr has achieved, where he has
2014年10月，纽约一个秋高气爽的日子，我记得一杯浓咖啡，一个阳光明媚、热情好客的早晨，兴奋的约翰·贝尔神父(Fr. John Behr)向我展示了他对《约翰序言》(John’s Prologue)结构的新见解，并谈论了他认为这对神学可能意味着什么。约翰当时发现的一些种子已经成熟，并成长为一个新的建议，不仅仅是关于如何阅读福音书，而是关于如何承担神学本身的任务。为了理解和评估这一建议，贝尔在这本难懂的书中所涉及的几个学科中，都有一群杰出的学者慷慨地提供了他们对该建议的优点、缺点和对该领域的影响的反思和评估。在这个研讨会上，哈罗德·阿特里奇评价了贝尔在他对福音的注释中对当代圣经学术的参与;保罗·布洛尔斯以历史神学家的身份来衡量这本书;安德鲁·劳斯神父评估贝尔关于约翰在早期基督教历史和礼仪中的福音(以及贝尔在东正教神学家中的地位);查尔斯·斯坦(Charles Stang)将贝尔的三个结论与奥利金(奥利金的《论第一原理》(On First Principles)最近被贝尔编辑和翻译)的影响联系起来，提出了他自己的一些试探性的(如果画得漂亮的话)神学“担忧”;和Fr. Olivier-Thomas Venard分析了贝尔在他的圣经和神学方法中使用法国现象学的优点和缺点。因为这本书的广度令人难以置信——在圣经研究、教父学和当代现象学领域恰当地工作——我们感谢这些学者提供他们的经验和专业知识，帮助我们批判性地理解贝尔取得了什么成就，他在哪里
{"title":"Myth and Phenomena: Introducing John the Theologian","authors":"Paul Saieg","doi":"10.1177/1063851220906432","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220906432","url":null,"abstract":"On a crisp fall day of a New York October in 2014, I remember a dark espresso, a bright morning of warm hospitality, and an excited Fr. John Behr showing me his fresh insight into the structure of John’s Prologue and talking about what he thought it might mean for theology. The few seeds John had just then found have since matured and grown into a new proposal, not just for how to read the Gospel, but for how to take up the task of theology itself. In order to understand and evaluate this proposal, a group of eminent scholars in each of the several disciplines Behr traverses in this difficult book have graciously offered their reflections and evaluations of its strengths, weaknesses, and impact for the field. In this symposium, Harold Attridge evaluates Behr’s engagement with contemporary biblical scholarship in his exegesis of the Gospel; Paul Blowers takes the book’s measure as a historical theologian; Fr. Andrew Louth assesses Behr’s arguments about the figure of John in the early history of Christianity and the Gospel in the liturgy (as well as Behr’s place among Orthodox theologians); Charles Stang draws out the deep connection between Behr’s three concluding proposals and the influence of Origen (whose On First Principles Behr has recently edited and translated), offering some tentative, if beautifully drawn, theological “worries” of his own; and Fr. Olivier-Thomas Venard analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of Behr’s use of French phenomenology in his approaches to both Scripture and theology. Because of the book’s incredible breadth—working properly across the fields of biblical studies, patristics, and contemporary phenomenology—we are grateful to these scholars for offering their experience and expertise to help the rest of us critically understand what it is Behr has achieved, where he has","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131171235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-13DOI: 10.1177/1063851220906512
O. Venard
With John the Theologian and His Paschal Gospel, John Behr offers us a book so rich (rhapsodic and somewhat repetitive) that summarizing it is beyond our capacity. Let the well-intentioned reader not be discouraged, however: brilliant synthetic statements helping you to better situate yourself in the journey in which you are embarked are not sparse in the book, and often Behr clarifies his approach only afterwards. For example, the goal of the first chapter is clearly stated on its last page:
{"title":"On Flesh and Words","authors":"O. Venard","doi":"10.1177/1063851220906512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220906512","url":null,"abstract":"With John the Theologian and His Paschal Gospel, John Behr offers us a book so rich (rhapsodic and somewhat repetitive) that summarizing it is beyond our capacity. Let the well-intentioned reader not be discouraged, however: brilliant synthetic statements helping you to better situate yourself in the journey in which you are embarked are not sparse in the book, and often Behr clarifies his approach only afterwards. For example, the goal of the first chapter is clearly stated on its last page:","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115951833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-11DOI: 10.1177/1063851220910502
David Ney
The doctrine of the Trinity was fiercely contested in the English Enlightenment. This debate is of interest not simply because of the doctrinal articulations of the belligerents or their various approaches to the Scriptural text, but because it led to the consolidation of a precise understanding of the relationship between the sensus literalis and doctrine for Trinitarians and Antitrinitarians both. Antitrinitarians of the English Enlightenment came to agree that the sensus literalis could be isolated by identifying the singular referent of each Scriptural word, but Trinitarians came to insist, to the contrary, that Scriptural words always refer within a larger canonical framework.
{"title":"The Sensus Literalis and the Trinity in the English Enlightenment","authors":"David Ney","doi":"10.1177/1063851220910502","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220910502","url":null,"abstract":"The doctrine of the Trinity was fiercely contested in the English Enlightenment. This debate is of interest not simply because of the doctrinal articulations of the belligerents or their various approaches to the Scriptural text, but because it led to the consolidation of a precise understanding of the relationship between the sensus literalis and doctrine for Trinitarians and Antitrinitarians both. Antitrinitarians of the English Enlightenment came to agree that the sensus literalis could be isolated by identifying the singular referent of each Scriptural word, but Trinitarians came to insist, to the contrary, that Scriptural words always refer within a larger canonical framework.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124232364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-03DOI: 10.1177/1063851220909050
J. Wood
This essay argues that despite a tonal shift in his post-conciliar writings, Balthasar’s Church-world construal remains consistent. This relationship is characterized by a dialectical pairing of themes which receive relative emphasis at different stages. The constellation of similar images which Balthasar employs to depict the missionary nature of the Church—yeast, leaven, salt, light, sacrament—highlights this dual-dynamic. The Church is tasked with transforming culture from within. To perform this properly, she must be open to the world yet unique within it—in solidarity without dissolving her distinct message or institutional mediation. Earlier in his career, the solidarity/openness pole merited emphasis because of the Church’s anti-modernist tendencies. Later, he became wary of the encroachment of Enlightenment rationalism—which tended to relativize the Church’s unique identity and contribution—into the Catholic Church. According to Balthasar, the Church is called to leaven the world without such a loss.
{"title":"Leaven without Loss: Church and World across Balthasar’s Corpus","authors":"J. Wood","doi":"10.1177/1063851220909050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220909050","url":null,"abstract":"This essay argues that despite a tonal shift in his post-conciliar writings, Balthasar’s Church-world construal remains consistent. This relationship is characterized by a dialectical pairing of themes which receive relative emphasis at different stages. The constellation of similar images which Balthasar employs to depict the missionary nature of the Church—yeast, leaven, salt, light, sacrament—highlights this dual-dynamic. The Church is tasked with transforming culture from within. To perform this properly, she must be open to the world yet unique within it—in solidarity without dissolving her distinct message or institutional mediation. Earlier in his career, the solidarity/openness pole merited emphasis because of the Church’s anti-modernist tendencies. Later, he became wary of the encroachment of Enlightenment rationalism—which tended to relativize the Church’s unique identity and contribution—into the Catholic Church. According to Balthasar, the Church is called to leaven the world without such a loss.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115218158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-27DOI: 10.1177/1063851220908143
John Jalsevac
Toward the end of Hope and Christian Ethics, David Elliot bestows upon a fellow scholar (a certain Dominic Doyle) a compliment that, it strikes me, is felicitous if applied reflexively. “[I]n contrast to much Thomist scholarship,” Elliot writes, Doyle demonstrates a knack for translating “Aquinas out of inhouse scholastic language” so as the better “to engage questions of widespread and obvious interest” (p. 189). Elliot’s compliment, however, comes with a proviso. Doyle, it turns out, attempted a somewhat daring development of Aquinas’s account of hope by which Elliot—for good reason, it would seem— is unconvinced. Elliot’s study, on the other hand, takes as architectonic a rigorously faithful rendering of Thomas Aquinas’ treatment of hope as found in the Summa theologiae. For all that, however, Elliot’s Thomism hasn’t a whiff of the parochial or pedantic. On the contrary, in his hands Aquinas feels uncannily contemporary, speaking presciently to the moods and pathologies afflicting our fevered age. For Aquinas, the common thread uniting all forms of hope is that their object is a future good “possible but arduous to attain” (ST II-II 17.1). In the case of theological hope, this possible but arduous object is, quite simply, God. What differentiates hope from charity is that whereas the object of charity is God for God’s own sake, the object of hope is God “qua one’s own good or beatitude” (p. 65). As might be expected, Aquinas posits two opposed vices: despair and presumption. Accordingly, in Elliot’s book we get one chapter on each of these (Chapter 4 on presumption, and 5 on despair). We also receive treatments of the beatitude that Aquinas associates with hope—“Blessed are the poor in spirit”—as well as the associated gift of the Holy Spirit—fear. 908143 PRE0010.1177/1063851220908143Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2020
在《希望与基督教伦理》的结尾，大卫·艾略特(David Elliot)给了一位学者同行(一定是多米尼克·道尔(Dominic Doyle))一句赞美之词。我觉得，如果是条件反射式的，这句话很贴切。艾略特写道:“与许多托马斯主义学术相比，”道尔展示了一种将“阿奎那从内部学术语言中翻译出来”的技巧，以便更好地“参与广泛而明显感兴趣的问题”(第189页)。然而，埃利奥特的赞美是有附带条件的。事实证明，道尔试图对阿奎那关于希望的描述进行大胆的发展，而艾略特似乎有充分的理由不相信这一点。另一方面，艾略特的研究，将托马斯·阿奎那在《神学大全》中对希望的处理，作为一种严谨忠实的架构。尽管如此，艾略特的托马斯主义丝毫没有狭隘或迂腐的味道。相反，在他的笔下，阿奎那有一种不可思议的当代人的感觉，有先见之明地说出了困扰我们这个狂热时代的情绪和病态。对于阿奎那来说，所有形式的希望的共同线索是，他们的目标是一个未来的好“可能的，但难以实现”(ST II-II 17.1)。在神学希望的情况下，这个可能的但艰巨的对象是，很简单，上帝。希望与慈善的区别在于，慈善的对象是上帝为了上帝自己，而希望的对象是上帝“为了自己的好处或幸福”(第65页)。正如人们所预料的那样，阿奎那提出了两种相反的恶习:绝望和傲慢。因此，在艾略特的书中，我们用了一章来描述这些(第四章是关于假设，第五章是关于绝望)。我们也接受了阿奎那与希望有关的幸福的治疗——“精神贫乏的人有福了”——以及与圣灵有关的礼物——恐惧。908143 PRE0010.1177/1063851220908143Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical theology .书评，书评，2020
{"title":"David Elliot, Hope and Christian Ethics","authors":"John Jalsevac","doi":"10.1177/1063851220908143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220908143","url":null,"abstract":"Toward the end of Hope and Christian Ethics, David Elliot bestows upon a fellow scholar (a certain Dominic Doyle) a compliment that, it strikes me, is felicitous if applied reflexively. “[I]n contrast to much Thomist scholarship,” Elliot writes, Doyle demonstrates a knack for translating “Aquinas out of inhouse scholastic language” so as the better “to engage questions of widespread and obvious interest” (p. 189). Elliot’s compliment, however, comes with a proviso. Doyle, it turns out, attempted a somewhat daring development of Aquinas’s account of hope by which Elliot—for good reason, it would seem— is unconvinced. Elliot’s study, on the other hand, takes as architectonic a rigorously faithful rendering of Thomas Aquinas’ treatment of hope as found in the Summa theologiae. For all that, however, Elliot’s Thomism hasn’t a whiff of the parochial or pedantic. On the contrary, in his hands Aquinas feels uncannily contemporary, speaking presciently to the moods and pathologies afflicting our fevered age. For Aquinas, the common thread uniting all forms of hope is that their object is a future good “possible but arduous to attain” (ST II-II 17.1). In the case of theological hope, this possible but arduous object is, quite simply, God. What differentiates hope from charity is that whereas the object of charity is God for God’s own sake, the object of hope is God “qua one’s own good or beatitude” (p. 65). As might be expected, Aquinas posits two opposed vices: despair and presumption. Accordingly, in Elliot’s book we get one chapter on each of these (Chapter 4 on presumption, and 5 on despair). We also receive treatments of the beatitude that Aquinas associates with hope—“Blessed are the poor in spirit”—as well as the associated gift of the Holy Spirit—fear. 908143 PRE0010.1177/1063851220908143Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2020","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"13 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120925665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-24DOI: 10.1177/1063851220907982
D. Driver
Irenaeus of Lyons is known as an early Christian apologist and theologian of creation. He has also been called the first biblical theologian. All of these elements are in view in Stephen Presley’s The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons (Leiden: Brill, 2015). A revision of his PhD at the University of St. Andrews, completed under the supervision of Mark Elliott, the study also pays a debt to D. Jeffrey Bingham, both as the teacher who first helped Presley conceive of the project and as the editor who brought it to print in Brill’s The Bible in Ancient Christianity series. It is easy enough to find accounts of Irenaeus that focus on his anti-Gnostic polemic. Such accounts seem bound to call “problematic” his description of the Ebionites, Marcion, Valentinus, and others. It is also common to see the spotlight trained on Irenaeus the trinitarian theologian. Both accounts tend to prioritize his proto-creedal commitments over his exegetical operations. Either way, whether one is thinking of Irenaeus and the heretics or Irenaeus and the scriptures, it can be difficult to avoid the impression that his work is important for some reason other than his ability to read well. The great value of Presley’s study, which builds on two earlier monographs on the use of Genesis in Irenaeus, is its exhaustive description of precisely how Genesis 1–3 functions across all five books of Adversus haereses. Irenaeus is given his due as an apologist, with acknowledged limitations, and as a theologian, especially of creation, but it is his handling of scripture that takes center stage. Presley treats “every verifiable echo, allusion, and citation of Gen 1–3” in Haer., together with the scriptural intertexts that are drawn into the orbit of Gen 1–3 (pp. 5, 241). On this account, Irenaeus emerges as a biblically minded theologian of creation whose handling of Christian scripture is marked by hermeneutical complexity and sophistication. 907982 PRE0010.1177/1063851220907982Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theologybook review book-review2020
里昂的爱任纽被认为是早期基督教的辩护者和创造神学家。他也被称为第一位圣经神学家。所有这些元素都在Stephen Presley的《创世纪1-3的互文接受》(Leiden: Brill, 2015)中有所体现。这项研究是他在圣安德鲁斯大学(University of St. Andrews)的博士学位论文的修订版，是在马克·埃利奥特(Mark Elliott)的指导下完成的。这项研究也要感谢杰弗里·宾厄姆(D. Jeffrey Bingham)，他既是第一个帮助普雷斯利构思这个项目的老师，也是把它印在布里尔(Brill)的《古代基督教中的圣经》系列丛书中的编辑。很容易找到对爱任纽的描述，集中在他的反诺斯替论战上。这样的叙述似乎必然会让他对伊便尼派、马吉安、瓦伦提努斯和其他人的描述“有问题”。我们也经常看到聚光灯对准三位一体神学家爱任纽。两种说法都倾向于优先考虑他的原始信条承诺，而不是他的训诂操作。不管怎样，不管一个人是想到爱任纽和异教徒，还是爱任纽和经文，都很难避免这样一种印象，即他的作品之所以重要，是因为他的阅读能力之外的原因。普雷斯利的研究是建立在两本早期关于《创世纪》在爱任纽的应用的专著之上的，它的巨大价值在于它详尽地描述了《创世纪》1-3是如何在《Adversus haereses》的五卷书中发挥作用的。爱任纽作为一个辩护者，有公认的局限性，作为一个神学家，尤其是创造学的神学家，得到了应有的评价，但他对圣经的处理才是最重要的。Presley在Haer中处理了“创世纪1-3的每一个可证实的回声、典喻和引用”。，以及《创世记》第1-3章的经文互文(第5,241页)。在这种情况下，爱任纽作为一个有圣经思想的创造神学家出现，他对基督教经文的处理以解释学的复杂性和复杂性为标志。907982 PRE0010.1177/1063851220907982Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical theology书评，书评，2020
{"title":"Stephen O Presley, The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons","authors":"D. Driver","doi":"10.1177/1063851220907982","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220907982","url":null,"abstract":"Irenaeus of Lyons is known as an early Christian apologist and theologian of creation. He has also been called the first biblical theologian. All of these elements are in view in Stephen Presley’s The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons (Leiden: Brill, 2015). A revision of his PhD at the University of St. Andrews, completed under the supervision of Mark Elliott, the study also pays a debt to D. Jeffrey Bingham, both as the teacher who first helped Presley conceive of the project and as the editor who brought it to print in Brill’s The Bible in Ancient Christianity series. It is easy enough to find accounts of Irenaeus that focus on his anti-Gnostic polemic. Such accounts seem bound to call “problematic” his description of the Ebionites, Marcion, Valentinus, and others. It is also common to see the spotlight trained on Irenaeus the trinitarian theologian. Both accounts tend to prioritize his proto-creedal commitments over his exegetical operations. Either way, whether one is thinking of Irenaeus and the heretics or Irenaeus and the scriptures, it can be difficult to avoid the impression that his work is important for some reason other than his ability to read well. The great value of Presley’s study, which builds on two earlier monographs on the use of Genesis in Irenaeus, is its exhaustive description of precisely how Genesis 1–3 functions across all five books of Adversus haereses. Irenaeus is given his due as an apologist, with acknowledged limitations, and as a theologian, especially of creation, but it is his handling of scripture that takes center stage. Presley treats “every verifiable echo, allusion, and citation of Gen 1–3” in Haer., together with the scriptural intertexts that are drawn into the orbit of Gen 1–3 (pp. 5, 241). On this account, Irenaeus emerges as a biblically minded theologian of creation whose handling of Christian scripture is marked by hermeneutical complexity and sophistication. 907982 PRE0010.1177/1063851220907982Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theologybook review book-review2020","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121033178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：