Book Reviews

THE MARIAN LYRICS OF JACOPONE DA TODI AND FRIAR WILLIAM HEREBERT: THE LIFE AND THE LETTER It is not until the thirteenth century, largely under the influence of Franciscan spirituality, that the Middle Ages first saw the development of a rich tradition of Marian poetry. Indirectly, this tradition marks the culmination of centuries of patristic writing on Mary, beginning with the early Christian controversy over the exact nature of the Virgin Birth. During the early days of the Church's development, this controversy assumed crucial importance in the affirmation of Christ's divine paternity. In response to attacks against the Virgin Birth, the third-century writer Origen developed an original and effective defense. According to Marina Warner, "[b]y mining the multi-layered meaning of the word Logos, he [Origen] suggested that Mary had conceived Jesus at the words of the angel," a suggestion which "quickly acquired a literal stamp."1 Other Christian writers, including St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas, expanded the notion of Christ as Logos in their accounts of the Incarnation. St. Ambrose asserted explicitly that the Word was made flesh not through human seed but through the mystical breath of the Spirit, an assertion which St. Thomas affirmed through a rigorous series of deductive arguments, effectively proving that through the Incarnation the Virgin was the Mother of the Word of God.2 St. Thomas, moreover, envisioned Mary as having been specially instructed by Gabriel before the Incarnation on the mystery of the Word and the significance of the task she was about to accomplish. As a result of these various interpretations, Mary came to occupy a unique position in Biblical tradition. Of all the characters figured in the Bible, only she could be actually said to read the Logos. No one bears witness to the Bible's original incarnation of the Logos, where God says "'Let there be light'; and there was light." •Marina Warner, Alone ofAll Her Sex (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976), 37. 2See St. Ambrose's De Officiis 1.18.68-69, and St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.34. 221 Francisan Studies, 55 (1998) 222KATHRYN J. READY (Genesis 1:3) In this way, the Incarnation represents an unprecedented event—the single instance where a human being witnesses the enfleshment or the manifested meaning of the Logos. While God speaks to numerous figures throughout the Old Testament, none of them experience the creative power of His words. Mary alone fully comprehends the Logos, since she alone directly experiences its effects. On this subject, St. Thomas states: But one never reads the "Word of the Lord was made" Moses, or Jeremías, or one of the others. Yet thus uniquely was the union of God's Word to the flesh of Christ marked by the Evangelist: "The Word was made flesh," as was explained before.")3 Through the Incarnation Mary becomes, then, the quintessential Reader. For this reason, St. Ambrose casts Mary as the patron saint of readers, in which guise she often appears in medieval and Renaissance iconography, particularly in paintings of the Annunciation, where she is typically depicted bowing her head piously over a book.4 Mary's unique position as Reader indirectly explains her popularity as a subject for medieval devotional verse. Through the act of conceiving Christ Mary establishes a precedence for human interpretation of the Logos, literally endowing it with human meaning. In this sense, she is central to the Christian reader's understanding of the divine, and also the natural choice as Mediatrix.5 Origen's ingenious theory of the Virgin Birth thus '"Numquam autem legitur quod verbum Domini factum sit vel Moyses, vel Ieremias, vel aliquis aliorem. Hoc autem modo singulariter unionem Dei- Verbi ad carnem Christi désignât Evangelista, dicens [loan. I, 14], Verbum caro factum est, ut supra [cap. praec] expositum est." The Latin text is taken from the Leonine edition, as reproduced Hi St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, trans. R. Bernier and F. Kerouanton (France: P. Lethielleux, 1957), 194, and the English translation from St. Thomas Aquinas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith: Summa Contra Gentiles: Book Four: Salvation, trans. Charles J. O'Neil (Garden City, New York: Image...

Witchcraft Persecutions in Bavaria: Popular Magic, Religious Zealotry and Reason of State in Early Modern Europe. By Wolfgang Behringer. Translated by J. C. Grayson and David Lederer. Past and Present Publications. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. xxiv + 476 pp. $75.00. - Volume 68 Issue 2

Wolfgang Behringer, Witchcraft Persecutions in Bavaria : Popular Magic, Religious Zealotry and Reason of State in Early Modern Europe

Law and bioethics have traditionally expressed an elective affinity. Bioethics has often spoken “in the language of the law,” or at least in a pidgin that the law can easily understand, and bioethicists have conceptualized their principles and arguments in ways that make them amenable to legal translation. However, there has always been a tradition of bioethical reflection, what I describe as “self-contained bioethics,” that is deeply suspicious of its own readability to legal forms of interpretation; a tradition for which proximity to the law and a consideration of the actual circumstances of legal action compromises the purity of ethical inquiry. The article examines the work of President Bush's Council on Bioethics on human cloning as an example of this type of bioethical inquiry. In its 2002 report “ Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry” the Council professed to keep specific legal and policy options at arm's length to better explore the ethical significance of the issues at stake without being “skewed” by considerations of practical expediency. The article compares the form of bioethical advice produced by the Council with the opinion on human cloning that its predecessor, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), issued in 1997. In NBAC's report the discussion of the paths of legal action was thoroughly and explicitly integrated into the moral analysis. Ultimately, the President's Council resorted to the law, understood as an instrument of absolute prohibition, to translate its purified moral argument into social reality in the form of a ban or a moratorium. Yet, by not using legal considerations to focus and refine its bioethical inquiry, and instead resorting to the law merely as a tool of proscription, the Council guarantees that its advice remains as controversial in the short term as ineffective in the long run.

This introductory chapter addresses the questions: how is the Christian supposed to act when his or her government misbehaves? Is he or she expected to suffer or to resist? This fundamental question has been acute for many Christians throughout the ages and also for an ordinary Danish civil servant, Mr Paul Petersen, who wrote to the well known Rev. Kaj Munk in July 1943, during Denmarks occupation. The chapter also addresses the question of whether or not Christians should resist the German occupation of Denmark, thus illustrating the topic of this book. The book gives an in-depth analysis of the central question of non-violent resistance both in early Christianity and in the Christian tradition until today. It presents an overview of how the other chapters of the book are organised. Keywords: Christian tradition; Denmarks occupation; Kaj Munk; non-violent resistance; Paul Petersen

The Day the World Stopped Working

Women in Christian Traditions offers a concise and accessible examination of the roles women have played in the construction and practice of Christian traditions, revealing the enormous debt that this major world religion owes to its female followers. It recovers forgotten and obscured moments in church history to help us to realize a richer and fuller understanding of Christianity. This text provides an overview of the complete sweep of Christian history through the lens of feminist scholarship. Yet it also departs from some of the assumptions of that scholarship, raising questions that challenge our thinking about how women have shaped beliefs and practices during two thousand years of church history. Did the emphasis on virginity in the early church empower Christian women? Did the emphasis on marriage during the Reformations of the sixteenth century improve their status? These questions and others have important implications for women in Christianity in particular, and for women in religion in general, since they go to the heart of the human condition. This work examines themes, movements, and events in their historical contexts and locates churchwomen within the broader developments that have been pivotal in the evolution of Christianity. From the earliest disciples to the latest theologians, from the missionaries to the martyrs, women have been instrumental in keeping the faith alive. Women in Christian Traditions shows how they did so. Additional Resources

This article focuses on the value of reading in early Christian communities, starting from a critical analysis of the use of the lexical field of ἀναγινώσκω in the Pauline correspondence. Along with this analytical method, this contribution deals with the most important features of the reading practice in antiquity; subsequently, it analyses in detail the occurrences of the verb ἀναγινώσκω in the Corpus Paulinum, drawing particular attention to the incompatibility of the public reading of these Letters and the liturgical reading of the Scriptures. In fact, if one considers the proto-Christian literary phenomenon, it is noteworthy that right from his first Letter (I Thess 5. 27), Paul exhorts his audience to undertake a public reading of it. Indeed, it is Paul’s wish that his Letter reach the whole Thessalonian community through a communal reading. This difference can be documented through the divergent description of these approaches to the text given by Paul himself, attesting both the practice of public reading in the early Christian communities (II Cor 1. 13) and the liturgical memory of the First Testament (II Cor 3. 14-15). This research purposes to show the development and the progressive acquisition of significance of the reading practice in the Pauline communities: the liturgical reading of Paul’s Letters is regarded as the crowning of their interpretation and not as the starting point of their reception. In the light of the canonization process of Paul’s Letters, Eph 3. 4 constitutes, more than Col. 4. 16, an increase in value of the reading practice and, at the same time, it bears witness to the progressive acquisition of the Corpus Paulinum as Holy Scripture. The centrality of the reader for the community arises from I Tim 4. 13, which shows that literacy might be considered as ratio seminalis in the management of the first hierarchical architecture in the Pauline Churches.

The overt subject of this paper is Terry Eagleton's theological turn, but its implicit subject is the trend of turning to the Christian tradition and theological sources in contemporary Western academia, particularly left-wing thinkers, in order to come to terms with the social reality and theoretical issues in the so-called postmodern period. To this end, this paper intends to find certain particular implications of Eagleton's theological turn by tracing the development of his thought and analyzing key concepts in his theorizing. Included amongst them are the theoretical sources and grounding, the main content and significance, and their) relation to Western Marxism or left-wing theological thought of this theological turn.

The thesis of this informative study is that Christian reformulation of the wealth–poverty tradition became an essential part of early Christian construction of identity, a way in which theological and social realities could intersect and mutually influence each other. Here the classic tensions all come together: between giving to the poor and divesting oneself of wealth for one’s own advantage, and between giving to the poor out of compassion or for love of the ensuing honour. In chapter 1 the author begins with a good discussion of current scholarship on the Roman economy from Finley on, subsequent scholarship allowing for more economic development than Finley envisaged, yet not a capitalist system; the idealization of poverty by Cynics and Stoics; autarkeia and adiaphora; the polemic against the vice of philargyria; and the expectation in Roman society of liberalitas on the part of the rich in a patronage context. The contrast is raised between the Jewish and then Christian message of divine favour to the poor versus the Greco-Roman assumption of favour to the privileged.

Reviewed by: Memory and the Jesus Tradition by Alan Kirk Ernest Van Eck alan kirk, Memory and the Jesus Tradition (Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries 2; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018). Pp. xiii + 297. $128. Alan Kirk’s book consists of thirteen essays, twelve previously published between 2001 and 2016, with an added introduction. The twelve chapters are grouped together in four parts, Formation of the Jesus Tradition, Memory and Manuscript, Memory and Historical Jesus Research, and Memory in Second-Century Gospel Writing. In the added introduction (“Memory and Method: Towards a New History of the Tradition”), K. states the aim of the collection, namely, to “flesh out precisely how memory provides the basis for a comprehensive, unified account of the history of the Jesus tradition” (p. 8). In what follows, K. sticks to this aim, arguing that memory theory should replace the form-critical paradigms that are being used to investigate the historical Jesus tradition. Only memory theory, K. argues, is able to account for the origins and history of the Jesus tradition. In part 1, K. introduces “Social and Cultural Memory” (chap. 2), linking the social aspect of memory with the identity of groups memorizing events. In chap. 3 (“Memory Theory: Cultural and Cognitive Approaches to the Gospel Tradition”), K. elaborates on the main argument of the previous chapter, arguing that a tradition’s autonomy is the fact that it is the artefact of memory. Tradition in itself is a memory system (the product of memory forces), material remembered and retold for the sake of identity formation. As such, memory is always cultural memory. Chapter 4 (“The Memory–Tradition Nexus in the Synoptic Tradition: Memory, Media and Symbolic Representation”) reiterates K.’s point of view: the memory approach, although it incorporates some elements of form criticism, breaks radically [End Page 169] from this approach by seeing memory as the primary factor in the origins and history of the Jesus tradition. Part 1 is then rounded off with a discussion of the role of the cognitive aspects of memory (“The Formation of the Synoptic Tradition: Cognitive and Cultural Approaches to an Old Problem”). Here K., in short, argues that the Synoptic tradition is a cultural artefact that emerged at the interface of the cognitive and cultural operations of memory. Part 2 consists of three chapters. Chapter 6 (“Memory and Manuscript: Gerhardsson Revisited”) assesses Birger Gerhardsson’s Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity [ASNU 22; Lund: Gleerup, 1961]), concluding that, for Gerhardsson, memory equals memorization, with the function of maintaining the closeness of correspondence between the gospel tradition and memories of Jesus. In chap. 7 (“Manuscript Tradition as a Tertium Quid: Orality and Memory in Scribal Practice”), K. focuses on scribal practices in early Christianity. Building on the work of Vernon K. Robbins, David C. Parker, and Bart D. Ehrman, K. sees scribes as tradents, not copyists, of texts. The role of early Christian scribes, K. argues, was that of “active manuscript tradition” (p. 136). Scribes did not simply copy traditions; they also produced traditions and therefore must be seen as the continuation of cultural memory that produced and shaped traditions. The final chapter of part 2 (“Memory, Scribal Media and the Synoptic Problem”) has as its focus source criticism. In assessing the ability of the Two-Document, Farrer-Goulder, and Griesbach hypotheses to explain the transmission of the Jesus tradition. K. comes to the conclusion that these hypotheses are to one extent or another predicated upon inadequate understandings of ancient media realities, especially the instrumental role of memory in corresponding literary practices. Part 3 looks more closely at historical Jesus research. In chap. 9 (“The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q”), K. challenges the claim—the dogma in Q scholarship—that Q has no interest in Jesus’s death, and chap. 10 (“Memory Theory and Jesus Research”) is an abbreviated repetition of part 1 of the book. Chapter 11 (“Cognition, Commemoration and Tradition: Memory and the Historiography of Jesus Research”) attends to memory distortion. Memory, K. argues, distorts only if it is seen as total recall. Memory, rather than trying to remember on...

Vorstellungen von Evangelium und Legitimität im frühen Christentum.

Reverence Despite Rejection: The Paradox of Early Christian Views of Biblical Authority Adam Gregerman Introduction Among the different forms of inter‐religious dialogue, Jewish‐Christian dialogue is unique in that both sides affirm the authority of the Hebrew Bible.1 Since the triumph of the “orthodox” Christian argument in the first few centuries CE for retaining the Bible as sacred Scripture over Marcionite and gnostic rejection, the dominant Christian position has been that the Bible is a Christian holy book alongside the writings eventually gathered in the New Testament.2 As we will see, the implications of this vary, but in general terms Jews and Christians alike revere and seek guidance from this text. Because of this shared source, Jewish‐Christian dialogue can be especially rich, as participants consider the diverse ways that the text has been interpreted over time. Despite much that is similar in Jewish and Christian traditions, however, disagreements about the authority of the Bible are especially common. This is not surprising, for claims about authority can reflect diverse understandings of the nature of this authority. They can encompass, for example, affirmations about authorship, the reliability of the text (e.g., historically or doctrinally), or requirements to perform or refrain from specific actions.3 This last topic—the binding status of the many biblical commandments in religious life—is, and long has been, especially contentious between Jews and Christians, and it is this that I want to investigate. It arose repeatedly in the recent colloquia on “The Scandal of Particularity,” and in my experience surfaces often in dialogue between Jews and Christians. Specifically, I want to focus on Christian rejection of many of the biblical commandments. Commandments on circumcision, food, purity, Sabbath and holidays—these and others, despite the biblical requirements, were dropped by many in the early church, a position largely followed thereafter. In simplest terms, then, how do Christians affirm the authority of the Hebrew Bible while dispensing with observance of (some of) the commandments? My paper is offered as a contribution to greater clarity and understanding of seminal early Christian writings on biblical authority. In my experiences Jews have often struggled to understand this seeming incongruity in Christian thought: praise of faithfulness to the Bible sits uneasily alongside Christian rejection of some or most of the commands of the Bible.4 A survey of works by three foundational figures in the early church will reveal both distinctive ideas of each and also important commonalities. I consider how they defend this view of biblical authority, which, despite minor variations, is generally shared by all of them. I begin by looking at the letters of Paul, which contain claims taken up by nearly all later interpreters. I then turn to two of the most important later writers, Irenaeus from the second century and Origen from the third.5 While other Christians both before and after offer their own interpretations, these three writers together provide some of the most influential responses to this vital issue. Despite my commitment to improved Jewish‐Christian relations, I do not minimize what I, as a Jew, perceive to be eisegetical or radical about some of these views. I might better say that because of my commitment to improved Jewish‐Christian relations, it is all the more important to understand these writers’ views, for their remarkable influence on Christian thought and obvious sophistication make them essential contributors to a topic of immense and continuing importance. There is something scandalous in many religious claims, those of both Jews and Christians, for others with different assumptions, contexts, and especially goals. This is true regarding biblical authority and the status of the commandments, as much as anywhere else. Though most Jews know that Christians’ views differ dramatically, I hope a careful delineation of how some reached these views will clarify a complex issue. Paul Paul offers some of the most provocative and influential Christian discussions of the authority of the Hebrew Bible. He treats the topic extensively, because it complicates his efforts to bring Gentiles into an originally all‐Jewish, Law‐observant religious movement without requiring observance of the biblical commandments. This provoked opposition from prominent Jewish Christians, and his letters are intensely polemical.6...

For those in contemporary society who believe in an afterlife, there are a number of views available. The most common may be based on belief in an immortal soul. However, the early Christian account was, instead, bodily resurrection. As Christianity moved throughout the Mediterranean world, apologists and theologians adapted their teaching on human nature and the afterlife to Greek and Roman philosophies. By the time of Augustine (d. 430), the doctrines of body-soul dualism and immortality of the soul were firmly entrenched in Christian teaching. The incorporation of the concept of an immortal soul into Christian accounts of life after death produced a hybrid account. The body dies, the soul (at least of those who were to be saved) travels to heaven. At the end of history, there would be a general resurrection, and the souls would be reunited with their bodies, although the bodies would be in a transformed, indestructible state. This hybrid account of life after death went largely uncontested until the twentieth century. In this essay, I describe this history and argue for a return to the early Christian view of humans as a unity, not a duality, and for belief in resurrection of the body as the appropriate expectation for eternal life. This would not only be truer to Christian sources, but, valuable, I believe, in focusing Christian attention on the need to care for the environment.

Jovinian's accusations against ascetic extremists had a precedent in earlier Christian tradition. Ascetic elitism was opposed by a number of early Christian writers, including 1 Clement, Ignatius, and the author of the Pastoral Epistles. By the early third century, this opposition had hardened into the polarities of ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’. This anti‐heretical effort culminated in the writings of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria against the ‘encratite’ heresy, which anticipated the polemics of Jovinian. In the third century we also see the development of a ‘moderate encratism’ in the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, which later inspired the opponents of Jovinian, e.g. Ambrose and Jerome.