Posts Tagged ivp-academic
Review: Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus Imperfectum)
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Church Fathers on November 4, 2010
Translated by James A. Kellerman and edited by Thomas C. Oden, this addition to the Ancient Christian Texts library presents a long forgotten, and unfortunately incomplete, commentary on the Gospel of Matthew written by what is sure to be an Arian, but unknown to us. It was a favorite of the scholastic age of the Church, notably by the likes of Thomas Aquinas, as is a showcase of thought around the fourth century as well as a well written treatment of the Gospel of Matthew. Kellerman provides a solid translation geared to the lay as well as the academic reader, in hopes of reconnecting the modern audience to that of the tangible past.
Noting what a true commentary was (x), the editors write that these patristic commentaries present a ‘decisive pattern and prototype’ of Christian literary genre. It is not, as they note, filled with criticism, textual or otherwise, but in my opinion, serves as a response to the text and through this response helps to buffet the community against other interpreters of the text. While early Christian witness was filled with flourishing styles of rhetoric, later writers simply forgot the practice and instead filled pages after pages with mind-numbingly boring statements. These earlier commentaries are in dialogue with the text as well with other authors presenting diverse views. These divergent views are what makes this commentary in particular so very interesting. It is written by an Arian, and perhaps a Pelagian, who takes to task those who hold to a Tri-unity view of God (which he calls Gentile) and those who hold to a Unity view (which he calls Jewish). Throughout these volumes, there are clues and signals of the author’s theological thought-world as well as his time and place.
Kellerman’s introduction is in depth, but not overly extensive. It is not a thesis statement on the commentary, but includes history, speculation on the author, theological highlights and low points (noting the non-orthodox points), as well as manuscript work and a section on further scholarship on the matter. These presentations are not simplistic, but delve into the heart of the commentary, allowing the reader into the ongoing discussion of who wrote this and what community would have cared for it so much that they preserved it. The Scripture text, like the rest of the Ancient Christian Texts series, is the RSV, unless the subject at hand demands something different. Interesting enough, as Kellerman points out, like most patristic authors, the Majority Text (which is used in the King James Version) is the text which the author seems to be working from. This is not surprising given the close proximity of the author to that of the established Lucian text adopted by Constantine after decades of Imperialist attempts to read the world of the word of God. Further, each volume includes a Scripture index in the back of the book, which is helpful in examining the original author’s canon.
The Incomplete Commentary ends with Matthew 25 with a total of fifty-four homilies having been composed on various verses. An appendix of a bonus homily on Matthew 8 is included. Each homily is neatly divided with the verses in bold and the author’s thoughts in regular. There is a wealth of theologizing happening in these volumes, which thankfully have not been left in the dust bin of history, but have now been preserved in the English language for us all to enjoy.
Montonini’s interview with Tim Gombis, author of The Drama of Ephesians
Posted by Joel in Religious News on November 4, 2010
Matthew Montonini has interviewed Tim Gombis, author of The Drama of Ephesians, which is on my list.
2. Your main goal in this book is to perform ‘a dramatic reading’ of Ephesians (9). Could you explain how this differs from the typical way Ephesians is mined for doctrinal truths in order to produce a coherent theological system?
Christians sometimes fall into the habit of reading the Bible as a resource for something else—something outside of the Bible, like a doctrinal system. So, we see Paul mention justification in Galatians 2 or Romans 3 and we call to mind our doctrine of justification and note mentally that these passages are ones that can be utilized when speaking of that doctrine. Any part of Scripture, then, becomes a collection of bits of data to be taken elsewhere and arranged along with loads of other bits to create something else.
But we seldom imagine that there are narratival and theologically rich trajectories in Scripture, even in Paul’s letters. We need to learn to read “across” the text to determine these trajectories and then immerse ourselves in them to see how the gospel that Paul articulates to churches in Rome or Asia Minor might rebuke, redeem, and transform us. It’s a far more compelling exercise to find ourselves as characters in these gospel narratives, trying on different roles and gaining wisdom for creative Christian action in the world.
Please read the rest of the interview here.
New Testament Perspectives: Tim Gombis: The Drama of Ephesians Interview.
Review: Getting the Reformation Wrong
Posted by Joel in Book Review on October 22, 2010
James Payton presents both a history lesson and a moral lesson in attempting to right those who ‘get the Reformation wrong.’ What comes across is a great love for the Reformation, Protestantism, and a deeply held concern that not only are we getting the history of the Reformation wrong, but some how using those errors to ‘converse’ the prayer of Christ in John 17. From analyzing the events and situations leading up to the Reformation to walking us though certain doctrinal formations and ending with a plea for unity, Payton gives the foundation for all serious students of the Reformation, Protestantism and Church Renewal to right their own path.
There is something to be said about Payton’s use of the phrase, ‘Getting the Reformation’ wrong. It is at once a call to look at the historical facts of the period and to return the principles of the Reformation and to Christian unity. Payton simple wants us to stop using the Reformation in a wrong way, more often to cause division.
The first few chapters of this book deals with the cultural situation leading up to the break through by Martin Luther, which officially began the Reformation (although admittedly, others such as Zwingli, had begun to preach about faith before Luther’s inquisitive announcement on the church door). He notes the famines, plagues, and other physical anxieties which besought the Europeans. Further, he writes about the rise of scholasticism, the humanism of the day and does well to separate the myth that the humanists of today and the humanists such as Erasmus, Luther and Calvin were in any way the same. He points to the war and revolts of the age, which brought death and destruction with no discernible outcome. Finally, there were two crises which struck me as important today.
The first was the Church leadership issue. From the Avignon Papacy to the rise of councils which actually sought to curb the power of the Pope, the Western Church was attempting renewal, at least from within, of its governing institutions. It failed, as we now know. Monastic societies, and saints of the ages, railed against the abuses of power by the Church. Of course, secular authorities took advantage of it, trying to use the divisions to their gain. Arriving on the scene were the mystics and the preachers of repentance. The latter group urged a change of living to appease the wrath of God, turning instead of their common existence to the ‘penitential practices common among monks and nuns.’ (p50)
The final crisis, although not defined as such by Payton, was the fact that Europe was not hegemonic, with simmering hate towards Rome, although generally the Rome of its Imperial Past. These individual groups, such as the Germans and the English – those who were conquered by Rome, but never fully assimilated into the myth – were looking for a chance to overthrow the rule by the Roman papacy over their national churches.
He then moves into the misunderstandings engendered during the heady days of the Reformation as well as the conflict which arose between the leading Reformers. It is here that many may learn something new. It is often perceived that what Luther was, others were as well. Yet, Payton shows that Luther was hardly the likeable person we would hope that he would be or that all the Reformers cooperated easily. His views here are shielded, with no real biased being shown to any particular Reformer. While Luther dots more pages than the others, Payton doesn’t hold back on shedding light upon him. Further, he goes slightly into repairing the history between Zwingli and Luther, showing that it might not have been Zwingli’s issue which caused the major rift. Payton is fair to the Reformers and doesn’t hide them behind an angel complex. The only complaint here is in documentation, using the Reformer’s own words, and his use of Luther as a source although Zwingli had started to preach justification before Wittenberg.
Payton’s take on Protestant Scholasticism is interesting in that he wants to show that those in this traincar have so erred the Reformation that it would hardly be recognized and accepted by the Reformers. He notes that Luther, a scholastic himself, rails against the scholastic theology which netted certain ‘Roman’ doctrines citing Thomas Aquinas and his use of Aristotle. He writes,
According to Luther, reason had given Christian teaching “the French pox” (i.e., syphilis) and Aristotle was the pimp who had arranged the tryst… How is it then, that Luther’s would-be faithful followers could so readily turn again to what Luther excoriated as theological fornication? (197)
Payton goes on to lament the fact that the followers of Luther and Calvin have turned to scholasticism to keep alive the faith. Personally, I feel that at some levels, scholastics call the faithful to return to the proper path and can give us answers against the superstition which develops, such as myths and misinformation which surround our faith and dogmas. Much like Payton as the scholastic who calls us back to a proper understanding of the Reformation.
In speaking of Scripture as used by the Reformers, Payton writes,
The written Word of revelation communicates God’s wrath against sin, his provision for human salvation and the salvation in Christ, and the proclaimed Word is God’s loving summons to faith in his mercy in Christ. (p206)
While Payton doesn’t get into the nuts and bolts of the Reformation’s stances (although several chapters are doctrinal in nature), he wants to move the current understanding of the Reformation beyond that of the simplistic to the meat of what the Reformers were trying to say. We have often interpreted them not through their own words and statements of belief, but through those who proudly claim to follow in their footsteps. Payton’s mastering of this doctrine, along with the inclusion of the Reformer’s use and love of the Patristics, helps to break forth the light into many circles which claim the Reformers for their own, but consistently refute the very things that they believed in.
The final three chapters are essential questions yet to be answered. Was the Reformation a Success? A Norm? These first two questions are answered in an unsuspecting way, in that Payton doesn’t shy away from the fact that we have simply gotten the Reformation wrong, and in doing so have debased Protestantism. He tackles the notion of a golden age and calls us to attend to the fact that even the Reformers were discouraged with their own churches. Here, Payton starts to sound almost homiletic and remorseful, as if we can hear the Reformers today lamenting the state of our churches. His final chapter is not an answer, but a charge – a charge for unity.
Previous Articles in this Series
- Quote of the Day: Righting the Wronging of the Reformation (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- Scholasticism – Are we Wronging the Reformation here? (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- Are we due for another Reformation? (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- Did Luther Inspire Pre-Marx Marxism? Talk about Getting the Reformation Wrong… (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
Arianism’s picture of The Gentile Trinity and the Jewish Modalism
Intervarsity Press has done a great service to the Church by resurrecting for Protestant audiences the ancient writings of those passed on. One of these is the Incomplete Commentary on Matthew, written by an Arian, but filled with some substantial points about Christianity theology. Admittedly, the word ‘Arian’ may be off-putting to some, but the fact is, is that this commentary remained while so many of the other heretical works associated with Arius vanished. Why? Possible due to some of the deeper theological points found there.
While reading through this weighty book adored by Thomas Aquinas, I found the author’s view of the Trinity and Modalism, a theological war raging then and simmering now.
He writes in the forty-fifth homily, regarding Matthew 23.32, he assigns the Trinity to the Gentiles and Modalism to the Jews:
For whenever you see heretics saying that the three are equal in all respects, that they are of the same substance and the same authority, that all are without beginning but distinguishing the other two from themselves in some fashion, do not be astonished, for they are filling up the measure of their Gentile ancestors, because also they worshiped many gods in a similar fashion. When you see them saying that the three are one person and that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are the same person, do not be astonished, for they are filling up the measure of their ancestors, the Jews. So also they worship one God the Father and do not confess God the Son after the Father. (p358)
I find it interesting that during a time in which Chrysostom was preaching against the Jewish influence still found in the Church, and that Gregory of Nyssa was using a Jewish version of the afterlife in his writings, that this unknown author saw Modalism, or Oneness, beliefs as Jewish.
While I thank IVP for sending these books for review, I think them more for their great service in all of the Ancient Christian series which I believe is serving the Church in a return to the sources.
Quote of the Day: Righting the Wronging of the Reformation
Posted by Joel in Reformation on October 21, 2010
In speaking of Scripture as used by the Reformers, Payton writes,
The written Word of revelation communicates God’s wrath against sin, his provision for human salvation and the salvation in Christ, and the proclaimed Word is God’s loving summons to faith in his mercy in Christ. (p206)
While Payton doesn’t get into the nuts and bolts of the Reformation’s stances (although several chapters are doctrinal in nature), he wants to move the current understanding of the Reformation beyond that of the simplistic to the meat of what the Reformers were trying to say. We have often interpreted them not through their own words and statements of belief, but through those who proudly claim to follow in their footsteps.
Go. Buy. This. Book.
Related articles
- Scholasticism – Are we Wronging the Reformation here? (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- Did Luther Inspire Pre-Marx Marxism? Talk about Getting the Reformation Wrong… (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- Are we due for another Reformation? (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
Scholasticism – Are we Wronging the Reformation here?
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Reformation on October 20, 2010
I’m still reading through James R. Payton‘s book, Getting the Reformation Wrong, and something struck me today – especially given my personal choice of scholasticism as a means of correcting certain abuses, superstitions, and outlandish doctrines present today. He notes that Luther, a scholastic himself, rails against the scholastic theology which netted certain ‘Roman’ doctrines citing Thomas Aquinas and his use of Aristotle. He writes,
According to Luther, reason had given Christian teaching “the French pox” (i.e., syphilis) and Aristotle was the pimp who had arranged the tryst… How is it then, that Luther’s would-be faithful followers could so readily turn again to what Luther excoriated as theological fornication? (197)
Payton goes on to lament the fact that the followers of Luther and Calvin have turned to scholasticism to keep alive the faith. Personally, I feel that at some levels, scholastics call the faithful to return to the proper path and can give us answers against the superstition which develops, such as myths and misinformation which surround our faith and dogmas. Much like Payton as the scholastic who calls us back to a proper understanding of the Reformation.
Scholasticism becomes wrong when it starts to develop doctrines far exceeding their station and call.
I would point you also to Trevin Wax‘s review of the book.
Related articles
- Are we due for another Reformation? (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- Did Luther Inspire Pre-Marx Marxism? Talk about Getting the Reformation Wrong… (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
Are we due for another Reformation?
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Reformation on October 13, 2010
The first few chapters of this book deals with the cultural situation leading up to the break through by Martin Luther, which officially began the Reformation (although admittedly, others such as Zwingli, had begun to preach about faith before Luther’s inquisitive announcement on the church door). He notes the famines, plagues, and other physical anxieties which besought the Europeans. Further, he writes about the rise of scholasticism, the humanism of the day and does well to separate the myth that the humanists of today and the humanists such as Erasmus, Luther and Calvin were in any way the same. He points to the war and revolts of the age, which brought death and destruction with no discernible outcome. Finally, there were two crises which struck me as important today.
The first was the Church leadership issue. From the Avignon Papacy to the rise of councils which actually sought to curb the power of the Pope, the Western Church was attempting renewal, at least from within, of its governing institutions. It failed, as we now know. Monastic societies, and saints of the ages, railed against the abuses of power by the Church. Of course, secular authorities took advantage of it, trying to use the divisions to their gain. Arriving on the scene were the mystics and the preachers of repentance. The latter group urged a change of living to appease the wrath of God, turning instead of their common existence to the ‘penitential practices common among monks and nuns.’ (p50)
The final crisis, although not defined as such by Payton, was the fact that Europe was not hegemonic, with simmering hate towards Rome, although generally the Rome of its Imperial Past. These individual groups, such as the Germans and the English – those who were conquered by Rome, but never fully assimilated into the myth – were looking for a chance to overthrow the rule by the Roman papacy over their national churches.
____
Sitting in Church Renewal Class with Dr. Jason E. Vickers, he was making the case that in times of high anxiety, Renewal and Reformation seems to be stressed. The Reformation of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli was not the first such move in Christianity, as I would assuredly count that the great Councils and synods of the 4th century was a result, in large part, of levels of anxiety. But, for today, are we not seeing some of the same crises which gripped Europe during the age preceding the Reformation? We have church leadership issues from everything including molestation to the prosperity gospel to everyone person made a biblical interpreter. Wars? Revolts? We have them in abundance. While there is no Cold War, there is the fear that we may be the target of a new terrorist attack at any moment, and not to be fooled, it is in large part directed towards Christian countries. Plagues? Every type of animalistic flu you could think of, not to mention cloning and others areas of medical health concerns. We have the rise of new monastic communities as well as the legalists. Further, we have historical critical biblical studies which many believe undermines historical, creedal, Christian theology.We have scholastics, however, such as John Piper and Albert Mohler, Jason E. Vickers, N.T. Wright, and others who are writing, academically, to the lay Christian audience just as much as they are writing to the minds in Athens. There is also the cry of Ad Fontes!, or, to the sources for our theology and moral guidance.
So, is it time for another Reformation?
Related articles
- In Honor of Calvinists, New and Old (challies.com)
- The Political Impact of Calvin’s Institutes of The Christian Religion (socyberty.com)
- The Protestant Reformation: A Study Guide (brighthub.com)
- A Thousand Miles in the Footsteps of Martin Luther (online.wsj.com)









