2020 Annotated Bibliography

Carter, Craig. 2018. Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

In the first book of a projected two-volume set, Carter lays the groundwork for a retrieving premodern exegesis (as opposed to Enlightenment historical-critical methods) in the church today. Reading the Bible means reading it as a unique book inspired by a transcendent, personal God. But the earliest Christian interpreters were “Christian Platonists,” meaning they held to a core set of beliefs in (Ur-)Platonism broadly, in addition to their Christian beliefs about God and the world. They were able to read the Bible as a single whole that centers on Christ, guided by the apostles’ models of interpretation  and the “rule of faith.” These interpreters also believed that the biblical texts may contain multiple meanings, but did not think just any interpretation was viable; the range of meanings in a text is grounded in the “literal” sense of the text. This allow for early reading techniques like “prosopological exegesis” that allow one to see Christ in the Old Testament. As things currently stand, the narrative about the triumph of historical-critical interpretation must change, and it would be quite in line with the way that biblical interpretation is actually done in church already.

Slusser, Michael. 1988. “The Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology.” Theological Studies 49: 461-476.

Trinitarian theology has as one of its roots a particular method of reading Scripture called “prosopological exegesis.” This comes from the Greek term prosopon, and early Christian readers sought to discern different speakers (prosopa) in Scripture. The classic description of this reading method is found in Justin Martyr (1 Apology 36), but other patristic sources comment on it as well (cf. Irenaeus, Apostolic Preaching, 49-50; Terullian, Against Praxeas 11). Even Athanasius used this reading method in his discourses against the Arians (cf. 1.54). This way of reading also became important in later Christological debates as well.

Steinmetz, David C. 1980. “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis.” Theology Today 37 (1): 27-38.

Benjamin Jowett is one example of a scholar who believes that what the human authors of the Bible had in mind when they wrote governs the meaning of the text, and that the historical-critical method is the key to unlock this meaning. But according to Steinmetz, this is “demonstrably false.” Medieval interpreters used 2 Cor 3:6 to guide them, and sometimes took this to mean that the text of Scripture has multiple meanings. But they also held that the “literal sense” of Scripture limits the range of possible allegorical meanings.

The classic understanding of medieval exegesis is the fourfold sense of Scripture: literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical. This understanding is what allowed the Church to make praying Psalm 137 sensible and (as he discusses later) to find several valid meanings in texts like Matthew 20:1-16. That Scripture has only one meaning was “certainly not advocated by the biblical writers themselves,” and even in Steinmetz own field (Reformation studies), nobody focuses solely on (for example) Martin Luther’s “explicit and conscious intention” to understand what he wrote. Steinmetz’ concluding claims are bold, and worth quoting at length:

The medieval theory of levels of meaning in the biblical text, with all its undoubted defects, flourished because it is true, while the modern theory of a single meaning, with all its demonstrable virtues, is false. Until the historical-critical method becomes critical of its own theoretical foundations and develops a hermeneutical theory adequate to the nature of the text which it is interpreting, it will remain restricted—as it deserves to be—to the guild and the academy, where the question of truth can endlessly be deferred

Pitre, Brant. 2011. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. New York: Doubleday. 

This book is an accessible presentation of the how Jesus, as a Jew, could get way with saying, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves” (John 6:53) and what he thought he was doing at the Last Supper. Pitre explores the relevant Jewish literature to draw connections between the expected new exodus (chapter 2), the new Passover (chapter 3), the the manna in the wilderness (including some surprising Jewish beliefs about the manna many have probably never heard) (chapter 4), and the bread of the presence in the tabernacle (chapter 5). Though he admits chapter 6 is more “speculative” than the others, he also considers why Jesus didn’t finish the Last Supper until the drinking of the wine on the Cross—though he gives some reputable support for this view. Chapter 7 draws together the threads of the previous chapters. The book ends with the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, where Pitre (as both a scholar and a faithful Catholic) thinks the event signals the fact that Jesus can really appear wherever he wishes, even in the Eucharist.

Burgos, Michael. Forthcoming. Against Oneness Pentecostalism: An Exegetical-Theological Critique. 3rd edition.

Early in my own journey out of Oneness Pentecostalism, I came upon the first edition of Burgos’s Against Oneness Pentecostalism. I subsequently got in contact with him and he sent me a copy of the second edition of the work. He has now revised and expanded the book, and I have read it again prior to publication.

In this book, Burgos as a pastor-scholar takes up the task of substantively responding to Oneness Pentecostalism within the confines of grammatical-historical exegesis and key Protestant hermeneutical principles. He defines these, and other important concepts, in the introduction to the book. He then proceeds to answer whether the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), and by extension 1 Corinthians 8:6, have anything to do with how many divine Persons there are. Burgos answers that these texts deal specifically with monotheism, though (as I put it in my own words, not his) not with whether unitarian or Trinitarian views are the case.

He then precedes to give an exegesis of key passages that are relevant to the Son’s active role in creation. These are Colossians 1:15-20, the prologue of Hebrews (especially 1:1-4, 8-12), and John 1:1-3. After this, Burgos argues that the Old Testament is actually “proto-Trinitarian” in light of an examination of the “angel of the Lord.” He also does some work to show that this same view carries over into the New Testament (e.g., John 4, Galatians 4:14, 1 Corinthians 10:9, Jude 5). He also responds to Oneness Pentecostal claims about the angel of the Lord. The final chapter addresses a number of favorite Oneness Pentecostal proof-texts on various topics.

The third edition also contains three new appendices. In the first, Burgos answers whether Oneness Pentecostalism is a “cult.” In the second, he provides brief answers to direct questions that David Bernard asks of Trinitarian doctrine in The Oneness of God. Finally, Burgos gives a brief overview of the origins of Oneness, his reflections upon them, and closes the appendix with responses to erroneous claims about the Oneness view of God in the Church Fathers.

Pawl, Timothy. 2020. “Conciliar Trinitarianism, Divine Identity Claims, and Subordination.” TheoLogica 4 (2).

In this article Pawl defines “Conciliar Trinitarianism” (hereafter, CT) as what the “first seven ecumenical councils” teach about the Trinity. He then proceeds in three main sections. Pawl seeks answers to these five questions in section two: “What are there three of? What is there one of? What are the relations between the three? What are the relations between the three and the one? What are the attributes of the one? What are the attributes of the three?” He finds answers in CT for all but the fourth. In section three, he argues that there are two views (strict identity and instantiation) that are inconsistent with CT, yet that answer the fourth (or the “Person-Nature”) question. The answer to the fourth question cannot require “(i) transitivity and symmetry or (ii) [obedience to] Leibniz’s Law.” Pawl then answers objections from Craig and Mullins that there is subordination in the Trinity; his response is modeled on his work in Christology.

Edwards, Mark. 2020. “Is Subordinationism a Heresy?” TheoLogica 4 (2).

Edwards begins (after using the abstract of the paper as an introductory paragraph) by defining four senses of “subordination.” These are ontological (substance, nature, essence), aetiological (order of causation), axiological (rank or status), and economic (functional, perhaps from the Incarnation forward). The first section is a brief survey of biblical passages where Christ might be called “God,” but Edwards concludes that these passages don’t clear show Christ’s ontological parity with the Father. Nevertheless, Scripture at best addresses economic subordination, and of the other three “nothing is said and little can be deduced” (p. 4).

The remainder of the paper is, more or less, a wide-ranging historical exploration of what thinkers, and when, held to which of the four kinds of subordination. He discusses Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians (briefly), Anomoeans, Homoians, Augustine, Calvin, and Milton, and two Anglicans.

Mullins, Ryan. 2020. “Trinity, Subordination, and Heresy: A Reply to Mark Edwards.” TheoLogica 4 (2). 

In this paper, Mullins uses Edwards’ fourfold distinction of “subordination” and how these senses (perhaps objectionably) apply to the Trinity. In the first section, Mullins provides four helpful criteria for any doctrine of the Trinity; he then says, follows Edwards, that for Conciliar Trinitarianism, the following is also required: “T5) Subordination: The Son and Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father.” He then discusses what it is for the divine Persons to be “of the same substance” (homoousios), and then clearly states the fourfold distinction of “subordination.” With regard to (T5), Mullins says that this means aetiological subordination. In the final section, Mullins offers two arguments to the effect that (an aetiological) (T5) is incommensurate with other Trinitarian criteria, both on the grounds that it leads to contradiction (The Inconsistency Problem) and ontological subordination.

Nemes, Steven. 2020. “Divine Simplicity Does Not Entail Modal Collapse.” In Roses & Reasons: Philsophical Essays, 101-119. Edited by Carlos Frederico Calvet da Silveira and Alin Tat. Bucuresti: Eikon. 

Ryan Mullins has offered objections to the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) to the effect that it entails a “modal collapse,” or that there cannot be any contingency whatsoever. Nemes explains the modal collapse objection and Tomaszewski’s response to one of Mullins’ arguments. However, as he points out, another modal collapse argument that Mullins offers cannot be countered by Tomaszewski’s argument. This is the argument that if God could have created a different world than the one that actually exists, then God has an unactualized potential, and therefore cannot be Pure Act and absolutely simple. Nemes argues that this argument commits a fatal equivocation once we distinguish a causal from an effectual sense of God’s actions. This response requires the proponent of DDS to deny that plausible causal principle is universal, namely that, “A difference in effect presupposes a difference in the cause” (109). He then draws out some consequences of this approach, such as the fact that why this world exists rather than another is indeterminate, and that “the primary object of God’s causation is the possible world as a whole and not individual beings” (119).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s