Book Reviews | Near Emmaus

Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies (Downers Grove, IVP Academic), 2013. (Amazon.com)

When I saw this book previewed in the IVP catalog a while ago I made sure to ask Adrianna Wright to include me as a reviewer. She did and I received a copy a few weeks ago. This book addresses a topic that interest me. Empire in the New Testament is a field of inquiry that has become increasingly attractive in recent years. Personally, I began to read books like Brian J. Walsh’s and Sylvia C. Keesmaat’s Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire; Richard J. Horsely’s Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder; and John Dominic Crossan’s and Jonathan L. Reed’s In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom around 2005. It was at a time when I had graduated college quite discouraged by a Christianity that was consumed with either living right to go to heaven or living wickedly to go to hell. Also, I was disillusioned by the rhetoric coming from many Christians during their effort to re-elect President George W. Bush. Finally, I found literature that introduced me to a reading of Scripture that addressed earthy matters, including corrupt world governments and their rulers, which was my impression of the Bush Administration in my early twenties.

Then I kept studying and I realized that the New Testament may be more nuanced that I imagined. The first book to challenge my thinking on this topic was written by Seyoon Kim, Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke, which helped me realize that there may be a third option. It may be that early Christianity was neither accommodating to Rome nor anarchist. Instead, it could be that there is far more nuance and complexity. Since then I have come to appreciate something C. Kavin Rowe suggested in his book World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age, namely, early Christianity offered an alternative culture, but it wasn’t seditious, necessarily. Sometimes we find stronger anti-imperial language, especially in the Apocalypse, and sometimes we find language that seems a bit more grateful for Rome.

This book edited by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica is filled with essays by writers who understand this. This book is not an attack on Empire studies. In fact, the editors and authors are very appreciative of those who have helped us better understand the text by studying how it relates to the Roman Empire within which these texts were written. That said, there may have been a pendulum swing that went a tad too far the other direction which this book aims to correct, arguing for a healthy, cautious middle.

Message of the Book

The message is simple. As the editors put it, “This book is an attempt to strike a balance between a postcolonial reading of the New Testament and one that recognizing the contributions of that reading, yet posits a very different view of the ‘kingdom of God (p. 212).’” In other words, “…the New Testament writers affirm that Jesus is Lord, not with the sole intent of debunking Caesar and his empire, but to offer a stark contrast between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.” Now, the Roman Empire may behave in ways that is aligned with the kingdom of Satan, but that doesn’t mean there is a one-for-one correspondance. Rome could do some things well for a temporal, human government.

Summary of the Contents

Andy Crouch begins the book with a Forward that is the written equivalent to an exciting movie trailer. He observes, “We will always have empire (p. 8).” This is true “as long as we have complex human societies (p. 9).” Empires are the result of humans attempting to live as image bearers. We create things and we govern, but Crouch reminds us, “Empires always end (p. 9).” He says that the biblical writers are “surprisingly ambivalent” about the rising and falling of empires (p. 10), noting that even Cyrus can be called “Messiah,” as in Is. 45:1 (p. 11). This is because, “Not all empires are alike (p. 11).” Therefore, “…the question is not really whether we will have empires (we will) or whether they will endure (they will not), but what kind of empires will we have in this time between times (p. 12).”

Then he says the following which captures the point of this boom quite well:

“…to say ‘Jesus is Lord’ does not seem actually to entail saying ‘Caesar is not [Lord].’ Rather, it entails not saying ‘Caesar is Lord.’ This minute grammatical distinction, simply a matter of where the negation is placed, seems to me to explain so much about the New Testament witnesses. The affirmation ‘Jesus is Lord’ requires not so much a strident denunciation of earthly lords as a studied silence concerning their pretensions. The answer to Caesar’s inflated claims of significance is further proclamation of Jesus the Messiah’s real significance (p. 13).”

Jesus is Lord, but that doesn’t mean Caesar isn’t lord, even if temporarily. Caesar may be lord, but he is responsible to the Lord. In the meantime, Christians are to proclaim Jesus, the true Lord of lords, and if this results in persecution so be it. If it doesn’t and if like Paul we gain audiences among governing authorities, then we must proclaim Jesus to them as well, and let the Lord be the judge of all lords.

In the Introduction McKnight and Modica say a few things about empire studies as they relate to New Testament studies before outlining what the reader should expect from this book.

Chapter 1: We Have No King But Caesar: Roman Imperial Ideology and the Imperial Cult is written by David Nystrom, an expert on the Roman Empire. He explains how Rome came to power and the ideologies that supported their self-understanding, including the belief that their empire was ordained by the gods. This chapter is extremely helpful because it prevents us from importing back into history our understanding of Roman practices. Nystrom explains things such as patronage, whether worship directly implied divinity, and so forth.

Chapter 2: Anti-Imperial Rhetoric in the New Testament by Judith A Diehl is partly a survey of modern scholarship on how early Christians related to Rome and partially a presentati0n of how we may think about. For those lacking familiarity with the field this won’t catch you up completely, but it will give you a basic idea of what is being said and who the “movers and shakers” have been.

Chapter 3: Matthew by Joel Wilitts is the first chapter that directly addresses a section of the New Testament. Willits spends most of this chapter interacting with the work of Warren Carter. Rather that reading Matthew as anti-imperial Willits writes, “I don’t think Matthew is anti-imperial at all. Matthew’s problem with empire, if one can even put it that way, was not empire, but which empire (p. 85).” In other words, Matthew advocates the Davidic King and Israel’s empire. Matthew does address Rome, but it is not the primary message of the Gospel. Instead,

“Matthew was neither critiquing ‘empire’ per se nor singling out Rome uniquely. To take this view would be to inappropriately diminish Matthew’s message. Jesus is not only or primarily God’s answer to Rome. Jesus is God’s answer to Israel’s unfulfilled story (p. 97).”

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Luke and the Roman Empire is a fascinating juxtaposition between Luke and Josephus. He compares and contrast their approach to Rome and how their message may have been understood. It is proposed that Josephus was “snarling sweetly” in his writings, not directly opposing Rome, but saying things that defended his people and that were partially critical of Rome all the while writing for his Flavian audience. Similarly, Luke isn’t hiding anything. He isn’t against Rome, but he isn’t ignorant of Rome’s shortcoming either.

Chapter 5: John’s Gospel and the Roman Imperial Context by Christopher W. Skinner attempt to fill a gap in the field. The nature of the Fourth Gospel has led many to neglect it when studying empire. Skinner corrects this addressing a variety of objections to finding empire on John. Then he interacts with the works of Tom Thatcher, Warren Carter, and Lance Byron Richey discussing topics like “negative Christology” (i.e., Johannine Christology is mostly intended to rebuff imperial claims) and “the rhetoric of distance” (i.e., Johannine dualism as relates to the Gospel and Rome). Skinner expresses gratitude for those who have helped us see that the Fourth Gospel does say something about Rome, but he concludes that “…the Fourth Gospel is largely concerned with the incarnate Logos who has come down from above (p. 128).”

Chapter 6: Proclaiming Another King Named Jesus? The Acts of the Apostles and the Roman Imperial Cult(s) by Drew J. Strait contributes to the discussion of Acts’ relationship to Rome (which unlike John’s has been addressed by many over the years). Strait engages several dialogue partners providing helpful caveats and clarifications, one of the most insightful being the reminder that there is not one official imperial cult, but that the imperial cult had many forms. Also, his discussion of apotheosis and the ascension is very informative.

Chapter 7: “One Who Will Arise to Rule the Nations”: Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Roman Empire by Michael Bird addresses one of the most complex documents in the New Testament. One where we may find the most anti-imperial rhetoric mixed with the most caution toward Rome. Bird provides background information on Paul and Rome as well as how this has been discussed in recent scholarship. Then he moves through some of the more complex passages such as 1:1-4; 1:16-17; 13:1-7; and 15:5-13. While Bird’s essay seems the most welcoming to modern trends he does note, “Romans is not a political manifesto. It is pastoral theology, albeit one not divorced from the sociopolitical realities of the Roman Mediterranean (p. 161).”

Chapter 8: Philippians and Empire: Paul’s Engagement with Imperialism and the Imperial Cult by Lynn H. Cohick is a very informative study on Philippi and how Paul’s letter would have been understood there. She provides a background of the imperial cult that clarifies a lot, noting that while the imperial cult did include the living Caesar it would have included Julius Caesar, Augustus, Augustus’ wife Livia, and Claudius. In other words, it isn’t “Jesus v. Caesar” per se. The imperial cult is familial, including even a female member (pp. 169-170). Like Bird’s essay Cohick choses to discuss a few select areas: 1:27; 2:5-11; and 3:20-21, evaluating what has been said about these passages and whether the anti-imperial reading makes the most sense historically. Cohick counters with an “eschatological, anti-pagan” reading.

Chapter 9: Colossians and the Rhetoric of Empire by Allan R. Bevere is a two part chapter. The first deals with the aforementioned book Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire by Walsh and Keesmaat and the second part discusses Philemon. As much as I enjoyed Colossians Remixed I think this chapter is a strong critique of the book and Bevere provides what seems to me to be a more historical sound reading of the text and the problem addressed by the author (who he suggest is Timothy with Paul’s approval). Bevere is slow to embrace the idea that Paul was requesting Onesimus be released by Philemon in that epistle, noting that the relationship has changed, but that it isn’t obvious to him that Paul is requiring Onesimus be made a free man.

Chapter 10: Something Old, Something New: Revelation and Empire by Dwight D. Sheets revisits what may be the most discussed text in the field. Revelation is presented as the most anti-imperial document of the New Testament. Sheets revisits how we understand the author’s beliefs about Jesus’ return and the nature of apocalyptic discourse. He provides a thoughtful reconsideration of Domitian, which I found to be the most insightful part of the chapter (see pp. 202-205).Through this lens of the imminent return of Christ accompanied by the warning against cultural assimilation Sheets argues that these factors may have been far more influential than merely some theory of anti-empire.

Concluding Thoughts

If I were to critique this book in any way it would be this: each chapter needs to be its own book. For those who are attracted to the writings of Carter, Crossan, Horsley, and others this book may bother you because it has to provide a brief rebuttal. This may seem insufficient when we consider how much work these aforementioned authors have put into their anti-imperial readings. That said, if the reader is able to take these brief proposals and then revisit anti-imperial readings with them in mind I think a more fruitful, nuanced vision of how early Christians related to Rome will emerge. Empire studies have benefitted New Testament studies. There is no doubt about that. Yet we need to make sure to avoid a pendulum swing, The New Testament may not be about the “sweet by and by,” but neither is it about revolt or being so anti-Roman that the authors hoped to see Rome collapse some way other than when Christ returns, when all empires will collapse, not just Rome. I highly recommend this book for those who are new to the field or those who have been studying in it a while now.

March 21, 2013
by Brian LePort 9 Comments

Book Review: J. Warner Wallace’s Cold-Case Christianity

J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013.

J. Warner Wallace is a Christian apologist, “a cold-case homicide detective, a missions leader, and a church planter.” He has written a book from this perspective that outlined his case for Christianity. Wallace asked if I would be willing to review his book and I obliged, though I confess apologetics of this sort is not my “cup of tea.”

I struggle with this book for a few reasons. First, I am a confessing Christian, but that doesn’t mean I think all the loose ends come together neatly. There remain many aspects of my Christianity that are in suspense or agnostic even. Meanwhile, Wallace directs a blog and podcast at PleaseConvinceMe.com that tends to work from the presupposition that evangelical Christianity has it “right” for the most part.

The man who wrote the forward to this book is Lee Strobal, a journalist turned apologist. I read Strobal when I was in college and it did help me think about my Christianity. Of course, over time, as I revisited many of the topics he addressed in his books I came to see the world is far more complex than his apologetics books presented. This is not to deny that Strobal honestly assesses the evidence using his journalist skills and that the evidence he found moved him toward becoming a Christian. It is to say that I don’t see things as black-and-white as Strobal.

Similarly, Wallace used his detective skills to study Christianity. Both Strobal and Wallace moved from atheism to Christianity. I don’t deny that Wallace examined the evidence sincerely, and if you want to read his book you can decide whether or not you accept his arguments, but I am a tad skeptical of some of his conclusions.

Message of the Book

The main point: [Evangelical] Christianity (more precisely an Evangelical understanding of the trustworthiness of the Gospels) can be defended through examination of the evidence. As I noted above, this is problematic for me because I have come to see evangelicalism as more ethos than creed. Evangelicalism has become increasingly difficult to assess through a list of doctrines. I imagine that the Christianity that Wallace defends isn’t the essence of Christianity to many readers of this blog, even those who are more or less theologically conservative.

The methodology: examine the evidence through the same steps Wallace uses to examine evidence as a crime scene or sees evidence presented in a courtroom. This has its problems as well. It is one-sided. I know quite well that the topics that Wallace addresses such as how the Gospels evolved or what early Christian tradition tells us about the earliest Christians lack the consensus that this book seems to presuppose. If the courts were examining whether the Fourth Gospel was written by John, the son of Zebedee in the late first century the defending attorney may use some or many of Wallace’s arguments. On the other hand, Wallace’s book doesn’t show you what the prosecuting attorney may argue.

Summary of the Contents

This book is divided into two main sections. Section 1: Learn to Be a Detective covers the first ten chapters where Wallace provides principles from his experience as a detective to help the reader examine the evidence for Christianity. Section 2: Examine the Evidence begins to apply what Wallace has promoted to particular case studies.

In Chapter 1: Don’t Be a “Know-It-All” Wallace begins by warning against dangerous presuppositions like philosophical naturalism and scientism. He warns (rightly) that our presuppositions can prevent us from seeing the truth of the matter. A detective must be able to examine the evidence considering multiple possibilities.

In Chapter 2: Learn How to “Infer” Wallace dives into the use of logic: collect evidence, know what is possible and what is reasonable, and several other helpful steps worth taking when trying to find the truth. This chapter examines the resurrection of Jesus. For those familiar with apologetical works on this topic it will be nothing new. Wallace argues that Jesus died. He argues against the disciples stealing the body, or hallucinating, or seeing someone they thought was Jesus. Honestly, I accept many of his points. I affirm Jesus’ resurrection, but it isn’t evidence alone that has lead me to it. If I were in a courtroom on a jury it would be hard to ignore one simple fact: people don’t resurrect from the dead. This analogy from real life would likely force me to ignore the other pieces of evidence presented. I have read Michael Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus and chunks of N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God along with much more literature on the topic. Personally, yes, I think that Jesus was resurrected, but I am aware that for every argument presented in this book there are counter arguments that are argued quite effectively. Wallace is an apologist. He will present one side. That is fine. It is expected. Yet I imagine many of my friends and acquaintances would be skeptical of the one-sidedness.

In Chapter 3: Think “Circumstantially” forms of evidence such as the value of an eye-witness or the use of DNA matching other clues is Wallace’s focus. Wallace turns this toward cosmology: the universe appears designed. I agree, but I know of many scientist and philosophers who find the order to be quite chaotic at its core. Yes, human life (complex life) motivates me to seek a Creator. It doesn’t do this for everyone though because there are arguments that seems to be as strong for the lack of a Creator as there are for a Creator. Whenever apologists hint at attacking the evolutionary paradigm I am nervous. I fear a simplistic argument is coming. I imagine many critics would circle Wallace’s arguments like hungry sharks.

In Chapter 4: Test Your Witnesses we find many of the common arguments for Gospels being based on eyewitness accounts. I am sympathetic, mostly due to the work of Richard Bauckham which seems to have influenced Wallace. Again, the problem for me remains a simple one: the presentation is one-sided. I know there are counter-arguments and this book will not present those counter-arguments. Again, it is the prerogative of the author to present his side. As a review this is something that concerns me.

In Chapter 5: Hang on Every Word Wallace uses “the art of forensic statement analysis” to see if the wording used in the Gospels indicate witness. Wallace investigates the tradition that the Gospel of Mark is based on the message of Peter. Again, it is possible. I know the arguments. I am not adverse to them, but neither do I think there are watertight arguments for Mark being based on Peter’s preaching.

Chapter 6: Separate Artifacts from Evidence examines, primarily, scribal transmission of the biblical texts.

Chapter 7: Resist Conspiracy Theories provides characteristics of conspiracies and then critiques some of the modern conspiracies against Christianity, e.g., anything authored by Dan Brown or movies like Zeitgeist. I am in complete agreement with this warning. Likewise, his challenge of those who present early Christianity as a conspiracy by the apostles seems like a fair warning to me.

Chapter 8: The Chain of Custody discusses the movement from eyewitnesses of Jesus to later disciples to written documents. Wallace will argue along the lines of Bauckham that the Gospel traditions have been relayed accurately. Again, I am sympathetic here, though I think the debate is more complex than this book allows.

Chapter 9: Know When “Enough is Enough” presents readers with a true observation that sometimes you can collect only so much evidence. Sometimes more evidence will not convince those who won’t be convinced. This chapter explores theodicy as a case study.

Chapter 10: Prepare for an Attack surveys the role of a defense attorney and then asks how these principles apply to the apologist or Christian defending his/her beliefs.

Chapter 11: Were They Present? begins Section 2. Wallace presents his reasons for affirming eyewitness testimony (e.g. no mention of the fall of the temple in any of the Gospels; the deaths of Peter and Paul aren’t mentioned; etc). Wallace presents Mark as being written between 45-50, Luke 50-53, and Acts between 57-60. This isn’t absurd. Even a skeptic like James Crossley has dated Mark quite early. Those familiar with the study of the Gospels are aware that there are many good reasons given by scholars for dating Mark in the late 60s, Matthew and Luke in the 70s to 80s, and John in the 90s, even by more conservative scholars. So my problem here is with Wallace’s stacking the deck. I fear some young reader will be quite exited to see the Gospels written so early, then later in life feel a bit betrayed by the simplicity and assurance with which these early dates were presented.

Chapter 12: Were They Corroborated examines verisimilitude, a worthwhile endeavor. Do the Gospels mention names and locations that match what we know about the time of Jesus. Yes. Also, Wallace investigates whether authors like Josephus and Tacitus seem to correspond to the Gospels. We know this is more complicated then what most apologist let on, Wallace included. Wallace examines archaeology, and this is helpful as well because some things like an inscription naming Pilate or the discovery of the Pool of Siloam are helpful for validating some aspects of the Gospels’ messages.

Chapter 13: Were They Accurate simplifies a complex chain of transmission accepting with little resistance that John the Apostle taught Ignatius and Polycarp who taught Irenaeus and so forth and so on. I am not denying this may have been true. It isn’t simple though. I think this books makes it appear that this is obvious, even a consensus. In fact, there remains much debate over these matters.

Chapter 14: Were They Biased? examines whether the early Christians had other motives like financial gain or power for spreading their message. I think it is fair to say few would argue this. Wallace argues against it.

Wallace ends with a postscript, further resources, and his notes.

Concluding Thoughts

Let me restate what I said in the beginning: I am sure that Wallace has done his homework and that he affirms in all honesty the arguments he presents. That said, while I agree with much of this content, even if I don’t take the same road to get to the same location, I fear from my own experience being raised around Christianity and reading Strobal, McDowell, and other apologists that the backlash against a book like this will be that it is extremely one-sided. For some, this book will help them become Christians. That is fine and dandy and I am excited about it. For others, it may help reinforce their beliefs. Again, this may be a good thing. For others it will prove convincing temporarily. I remember the Brian LePort of my early twenties. He believed McDowell’s The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict settled many of his questions. One problem: I kept studying. I realized things were more complex and there there are arguments that apologists don’t take seriously that ought to be taken seriously.

I appreciate Christian apologists. I do. I appreciate Wallace and the effort he presents with this book. Yet I remain worried that arguments that may help an 19-22 year old may hurt those same people later. I understand apologists can’t always argue like biblical scholars, presenting a thorough reason for their beliefs while interacting seriously with opposing views. Yet this may be the most dangerous flaw of Christian apologetics, especially when an apologist has a critical thinker in the audience.

So would I recommend this book? Maybe, for some, with a grain of salt. I would tell them to read it critically. I would remind them that this book doesn’t settle the matter and that further study is demanded. The Gospels are worth a life time of study and there is nothing wrong with being a Christian who isn’t so sure that Matthew wrote the Gospel attributed to him. I don’t think Wallace would disagree with me on this.

March 15, 2013
by Brian LePort 12 Comments

Interview: Douglas Estes on the questions of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Two weeks ago I posted a review of Douglas Estes’ (Lead Pastor of Trinity Church in Mesa, AZ, and adjunct professor at Phoenix Seminary) new monograph The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric, and Persuasive Discourse (Leiden: Brill, 2013), which you can read here. As a friend, mentor, and former professor of mine I asked if he would be willing to do an interview about the book and he accepted. This isn’t the first time I have interviewed him. I did a two part interview titled “The Pastor-Scholar” wherein we discussed pastoring for those with an academic bent (read Pt. 1 and Pt. 2). This interview is about his new book and why he thought it was important enough to write. Enjoy!

__________

What is the thesis of The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric, and Persuasive Discourse?

The basic thesis of the book is to better understand why the Fourth Evangelist selects the questions of Jesus he does, and what those questions mean for the reader. Rather than take a theological or literary approach, I used linguistics and rhetoric as my primary method. Along the writing path, I found myself being constantly challenged by Jesus’ questions as I did the linguistic work. I’m always skeptical when scholars claim to find a pattern in a text (unless it’s poetic), but I did begin to notice how the questions of Jesus make a subtle and related rhetorical push throughout the gospel. By the end of my writing the book, the unwritten thesis is that the Fourth Gospel contains a number of rhetorical hooks, of which the asking of questions is one. This partly explains why it is one of the (if not the) most read text ever written.

Why did you write the book? Why do we need to give more attention to the questions of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel?

I wrote the book because I felt the issue of questions (and really, non-statements or non-propositions) is largely unexplored in NT studies. I also felt that many works that deal with questions in the biblical text are feel-good and short on any rigor. I felt it was interesting; and I really wanted my next book as a scholar to be something of an unofficial Habilitationsschrift for me (original, serious research monograph). As far as paying more attention to questions in John, the primary reason we need to do that is that John uses them. If we avoid parts of the narrative, such as question-asking, we will not understand the narrative as well as we could. To put it differently: The way in which many, many people approach the gospel is to see what they can dig out of it (truth, meaning, historical facts, or the lack thereof). In this I find skeptical scholars are actually very similar to faithful churchgoers: they’re all gleaners, gleaning the text for information. I’m not sure John was written to be gleaned in this way!

Did this study change how you understand the Fourth Gospel as a whole? If so, what would you say is the before-and-after impact?

Yes, in a subtle but meaningful way. Before writing the book, I felt I had a basic grasp on John—his modus operandi, so to speak. But with John there are always little riddles that scholars have noted for many years now. Some of those are not always obvious, as they are hidden behind the ‘simple language’ of John. Writing the book certainly changed my view on its rhetorical impact, and design. As I believe you mentioned in your review, an after-impact was that I am now definitely leaning much more to the view that John was more written for outsiders (though such a rigid, binary insider vs outsider view I find too coarse), based on John’s linguistic features especially with his non-declarative expressions like questions.

In the first and final chapters you allude to possible studies that may follow what you have done in this book. You said that there is far more research to be done in the area of questions, especially as questions relate to ancient narrative. If you could list a handful of topics you’d be excited to see some potential scholar engage (e.g., as a graduate thesis or doctoral dissertation) what would those be?

I would love to see someone tackle the way Paul uses questions (or non-declaratives) in order to build up his arguments. That’s a book waiting to be written. I also think there is much more linguistic work that can be done on the NT text—linguistics is somewhat a new field, and its (meaningful) impact on the study of the NT has been minimal. I also think that there are also many studies that could be written on the various forms of question-asking and argumentation in OT books. When I wrote the QJJ, the OT folks were far ahead of NT folks in the study of argumentation (my opinion), but they don’t appear to make much use of linguistics in this particular area (as far I can see). Someone could easily go back and do research on the way interrogatives were used in Hebrew, from a linguistic perspective. One thing I noticed in writing QJJ is that some languages (such as Latin) have more robust resources for handling non-declaratives than our Greek resources do.

In 2008 you wrote The Temporal Mechanics of the Fourth Gospel: A Theory of Hermeneutical Relativity in the Gospel of John that was published by Brill as well. What connection might we find between these two books? Another way of asking this question: Did your first book prepare you for this subsequent study?

Based on the titles, it may seem there is no connection; and in fact, it didn’t seem like it until near the end of writing the QJJ that I realized the connection myself. Temporal Mechanics did prepare me for the study as it gave me a lot of practice in identifying unstated assumptions, and then thinking outside the box without leaving the ranch. So the primary connection is looking at old problems in new ways. I would say that is one thing that is probably consistent in my writing.

Do you plan to write on the Fourth Gospel again? If so, would you be willing to provide a preview? If not, where do you plan on focusing your writing in the near future?

Yes! Unfortunately, since I’m still working out details with publisher(s), I can’t really give much of a preview now (sorry). I can say that I am busy at work. I can also say that my next book out will be a totally different direction, it’s called Better Habits, Better Life: How to Coach Yourself to Life Change, co-written with Matthew Reed and will be published by Cascade Books in 2014. It’s a practical-theological consideration of the nature of personal transformation and change in the spiritual life. Writing this is an enjoyable diversion, but soon back to John!

March 1, 2013
by Brian LePort 5 Comments

Book Review: Douglas Estes’ The Questions of Jesus in John

Estes, Douglas. The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric, and Persuasive Discourse (Leiden: Brill, 2013). (Amazon.com; Brill.com)

I received a complimentary copy for review from Brill.

Douglas Estes values questions. It is his assertion that we are taught (in the words of Thomas Hobbes) that “only propositions have truth value.” Therefore, we “dismiss questions as not real or downplay questions as simply a subset of propositions or quirks of grammar.”[1] What if questions have value in and of themselves though? What if questions function to do more than introduce propositions?

In the Gospel of John questions are extremely important and often overlooked. We are familiar with the famous propositions of the Gospel from Jesus (e.g., “…before Abraham was, I am!” in 8:58), or the narrator (e.g., “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son…” in 3:16), but less aware of the value of the questions. Estes notes that the first words from Jesus in this Gospel are in the form of a question (“What do you seek?” in 1:38) as are the last words of Jesus (“What is it to you?” in 21:23).[2] Is this a coincidence?

If we ignore or undervalue the questions of the Fourth Gospel we may overlook some of the most important content. As Estes states, “The logic and rhetoric of questions (and other non-propositional sentence and clause types) can often convey more truth and meaning than naked propositions.”[3] Questions do more than advance the narrative. Questions are a central part of the narrative.

Message of the Book

Estes writes, “…the goal of this book is to examine the questions of Jesus in John in light of their logical, rhetorical, and linguistic virtues.”[4] He aims to dispel the notion that questions are “…simply grammatical vehicles helping to carry the narrative along, at times formulating theological assertions, much the same as any of Jesus’ propositions.”[5] Rather, questions are selected, carefully, and questions are aimed at the reader. Jesus may be asking a question of Nicodemus in the narrative while at the same time the narrator is using the question to ask the reader the same thing. Estes investigates all of the questions of Jesus in this Gospel and he notes that many of them tend to ask one of two main questions: “Whom do you seek?” and “Do you believe in me?” These questions are not merely part of the story.[6] These questions are directed at the reader.

Johannine scholars have debated whether or not this Gospel was written for “insiders” or “outsiders.” The Questions of Jesus in John makes the case that it is directed for outsiders more than insiders. The questions of Jesus ask the reader to provide his or her own answer about Jesus. The reader enters the narrative when questions are asked.

Summary of the Contents

Chapter 1: Why Questions serves as an introduction to the book. It is here that Estes sets forth his complaint that propositions are overvalued and questions are undervalued when studying ancient narrative. This includes a brief history of how propositions were exalted in western thought over questions. Then Estes explores how we might recognize questions in an ancient text that doesn’t provide us with the sort of grammatical markings with which we may be familiar when seeking questions. The chapter ends with a lists of values and uses for questions such as how a question “…elicits a pause and a momentary shift in the thinking of the reader (John 9:35).”[7] Since questions are dialogical it is the questions in a narrative that help the reader follow the narrator’s logic. Similarly, the narrator’s rhetoric is better understood when questions are given proper attention.

Chapter 2: Perspectives on Questions asks, “How do questions work?”[8] Since the Fourth Gospel is written at the intersection of Hebraic and Greco-Roman cultures Estes explores examples from the Old Testament, literature from early Judaism, rabbinic literature, and figures such as Zeno, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and many more. He does not treat these two spheres as absolutely distinct, but notes where Hebraic/Jewish literature was Hellenized. Then he transitions to modern thought on questions since, “…the second context for our study is modern logic and linguistics.”[9] This includes brief thoughts on questions as questions relate to answers, truth, and speech.

Chapter 3: How Questions Work begins to tinker the mechanics of questions. Contra propositions, which Estes frames as “binary” (true or false), questions are “modal”. In other words, questions invite multiple possibilities.[10] This chapter provides a thorough study of the grammar of questions. Is a question the same thing as an interrogative, always? How to questions relate to the so-called “rhetorical question” that seems to be making a declaration more than asking a question? What is the difference between a direct and indirect question?

Estes explores how many people have defined questions from the angles of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Then he shows readers how there are basic sets of questions such as polar questions (yes and no), variable question (many possible answers), set questions (limited possible answers), alternative questions (either/or). This chapter is very important to Estes’ overall thesis because he aims to prove to the reader than questions matter and if the reader doesn’t think critically about questions that important nuance will be ignored. This chapter ends with sections on how questions inform and how questions are rhetorical.

The foundation has been set. Now, if you are like me, you may wonder if your attention span can last through the chapters that introduce the theoretical aspects of questions. My answer is “yes, you can.” In fact, I read through the first third of this book in a single setting. Estes’ writing is very engaging and inviting. This isn’t to minimalize the complexity of the subjects he addresses, but rather to acknowledge the skill with which he does it.

Chapter 4: John’s Use of Questions introduces a shift in the focus of the book. Now Estes can begin to examine the Fourth Gospel, specifically. “Questions, unlike propositions, add dynamics to narrative.”[11] Imagine in the Gospel was propositions, only? Questions “inform the dialogue Jesus has with other Johannine characters.”[12] Questions show us more about the characters than propositions at times. Questions are used to persuade the readers as the narrator draws the reader into the narrative. In other words, the reader cannot objectively disconnect from a debate between Jesus and the authorities. No, if the authorities ask questions about the identity of Jesus, the reader is forced to ask the same questions. If Jesus asks a questions of another character the reader is forced to ask themselves about their own thoughts on Jesus.

Estes aims to invite the reader into uncharted waters. He admits that questions in ancient narratives are not given much attention. This is true of the Fourth Gospel, specifically. This book is not aimed at correcting this. Rather, this book has more modest aims: to “offer glimpses and examples of how we can better come to terms with the questions of Jesus in John.”[13]

Chapter 5: Open Questions, Chapter 6: Reflective Questions, Chapter 7: Decisive Questions, Chapter 8: Responsive Questions, and Chapter 9: Coercive Questions introduces the reader to a variety of different categories for questions. If you are wondering like I was wondering, “What do you means ‘categories’? Isn’t a question a question?” then this book is going to be very informative!) As Estes introduces the reader to the various types of questions he is careful to show one may be able to recognize different questions. There may be semantic clues or syntactical clues to observe. Certain words tend to be found in certain types of questions.

It doesn’t make good sense to try to summarize here all the different questions found coming from Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, but I can provide an example of a place in Estes’ study that I found to be quite exciting. Estes provides a case study on John 18:34 which he labels as an “alternative question.” “Alternative questions stipulate the alternatives in the asking—either x or y (or z or more).” These sorts of questions allow for “freedom of decision within the possible alternatives.” For example, if I ask, “Do you want coffee, tea, Coke, or lemonade?” I am providing you with options while limiting your choices at the same time.[14] In John 18:33 Pilate notifies Jesus of the charge against him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Pilate gives Jesus a question that can be answered “yes” or “no” with varying consequences. Jesus doesn’t reply with an answer. Jesus replies with a question in v. 34. “Do you say this on your own behalf, or did others say this to you about me?” Estes notes, “Jesus sees Pilate’s trap and ups the ante with an even more wily trap. Instead of answering (or giving a non-answer), Jesus asks a response to Pilate’s question.” Jesus forces Pilate to decide whether to admit that he is making an accusation based on a charge fed to him by some of the Judeans or that he is charging Jesus with something without evidence of his own. The narrator doesn’t present Pilate as a fool though. Pilate answers with a question and so it goes until v. 37 when Jesus concedes: “…I am a king.”[15]

This is one of the more exciting examples of how questions function in the Fourth Gospel. The narrator presents us with a back and forth chess match—Jesus against Pilate—the “winner” being Pilate as Jesus answers, finally. If we read the Gospel seeking propositions without giving questions attention as well we will not read this Gospel to the fullest.

Chapter 10: Answers and Questions is a short concluding chapter where Estes summarizes the “big picture” of this book. He discusses how his study helps us understand the Fourth Gospel as “a dialectical Gospel” and “a rhetorical Gospel.” Then he offers students and scholars a way forward, emphasizing future possibilities for research.

Concluding Thoughts

First, this book should prove quite valuable to anyone studying the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. Several years ago I read R. Alan Culpepper’s Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design several years ago. It put in me a great appreciation for how the Fourth Gospel was composed to convey its message. Estes’ book renewed that appreciation. I confess that as a reader I have not stopped long enough to ask myself if the questions in this Gospel deserve my attention before I scurry along to the answer. I have been rebuked. The questions do matter.

Second, this book serves as an example of how a serious engagement with the linguistics and the rhetoric of this Gospel can be turned into a very beneficial study. Often, those who delve deeply into the “minutia” of Koine Greek will find that the audience for their book shrinks, drastically. Sometimes this inevitable, but at other times it may have to do with the author’s unwillingness to paint a “big picture” for the reader. Estes does not fail to show how questions make the Gospel. The reader will finish this book realizing that (1) this Gospel wouldn’t be as brilliant a piece of literature without the strategic use of questions and (2) it may be time to go back and read the Fourth Gospel again with “new eyes.” For those who have given their academic career to the grunt work of linguistic and rhetorical study this book may provide a model for how to share your work with a broader audience.

Third, this book may prove very useful for students aiming to do graduate or doctoral work with an emphasis in the Fourth Gospel. Estes’ engagement with the questions of John are an example of studying something important that often goes without notice from others. In fact, at the end of Chapter 1 Estes writes, “At best, Questions of Jesus in John will serve as a point of departure for further discussions of the use of questions in biblical texts.”[16] He returns to this point in his final chapter writing, “I believe further work in how questions inform the dialectical and rhetorical functions of ancient narrative would prove valuable to the study of all the gospels.” In general, “…much more work needs to be done on interrogatives.”[17] Estes believes there is land to be discovered. He has mapped the terrain, but he knows that there is more out there. Again, if you are a student who has interest in the Gospels, in ancient narrative, in rhetoric, or a variety of related fields this book may give you a head start on your research.

Personally, I found the book easy to read, though academically rigorous. Estes introduces a subject with which I have no expertise and I was able to follow his argument quite well. This book may not be one that you can add to your personal library easily. Brill is the publisher and Brill tends to market to libraries more than individuals. If you want to pay for it yourself it will cost about $140.00 (see links above). If you can get your local university or seminary library to purchase it that would be ideal and it would be a volume that would enhance said library.

[1] 5

[2] 1

[3] 9

[4] 13

[5] 163

[6] 165

[7] 10

[8] 14

[9] 27

[10] 33

[11] 58

[12] 59

[13] 66

[14] 118-119

[15] See 118-123 for Estes’ commentary.

[16] 13

[17] 171

February 27, 2013
by Brian LePort Leave a comment

Book Reviews (January-February, 2013)

This is a list of book reviews found across the Internet from January-February, 2013, that may be of interest:

Herbert Bateman, Darrell Bock, and Gordon Johnston, Jesus the Messiah by Clifford Kvidahl

Michael Bird and Preston Sprinkle, The Faith of Jesus Christ by Kevin Brown

Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey, The Color of Christ by Rodney Thomas

Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ by Nijay Gupta

Michael D. Coogan, A Reader of Ancient Near Eastern Texts by Charles Halton

Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity by Nijay Gupta

Mihee Kim-Kort, Making Paper Cranes: Toward an Asian-American Feminist Theology by Katie Yahns

Charles Hill and Michael Krugor, The Early Text of the New Testament (Pt. 1) by Kevin Brown

Douglas S. Huffman, The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek by Luke Geraty

James Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea-Jonah by Andrew King

Jonathan Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely (Pt. 2) by Nijay Gupta

Stanley Porter and Eckhard J. Schnabel (eds), On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries by Cliff Kvidahl

Eric A. Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior by Kevin Brown

Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture by Aaron White

Geza Vermes, Christian Beginnings by Mark Edwards

N.T. Wright, How God Became King

N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective by Amanda MacInnis

Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece 28 by Peter Williams

February 13, 2013
by Brian LePort 7 Comments

Book Review: Stephen R. Holmes’ The Quest for the Trinity

Stephen R. Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012). (Amazon.com)

The doctrine of the Trinity is something I confess to be true, though I must admit that is leaves me quite perplexed at times. Readers of this blog who are familiar with my story know that I entered Christianity through a Oneness Pentecostal congregation. Oneness Pentecostals deny the doctrine of the Trinity, so my earliest formation consisted of heavy doses of anti-Trinitarian rhetoric and polemic. Later, as I began to study for myself, for a variety of reasons it became apparent to me that it was wise to talk about the Christian God using the language formulated by Christian Creeds, Councils, and important theologians over the centuries. I admit that my approach to the Trinity fits into the slogan, “faith seeking understanding”. All in all, my brain doesn’t process metaphysical matters with much precision. I enjoy pondering and meditating upon what it means for God to be God, but I am not intelligent enough to talk of the divine in new or innovative ways (or, as some might say, I am intelligent enough to not talk about the divine in new and innovative ways), so I aim to understand why Christians have spoken of God as Triune from the posture of a confessing learner.

I have read many of the great thinkers of early Christianity: e.g., Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and others. I have noticed that the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated in these earlier years isn’t quite what I have heard it to be from modern writers. I have been seeking a book that would document the broad trajectories of Trinitarian thought over the centuries, a book that would summarize the development of the doctrine, and a book that would highlight important contributors to the discussion. I have found this book, finally. IVP Academic sent me a copy to review at my requestStephen R. Holmes The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity is exactly the sort of book I wanted to read. This review will come from someone who is not all that familiar with current discussions on Trinitarian theology. For such a review I recommend Nick Norelli’s review, “The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity”. This review will benefit people like me. People who as Christians speak of God as Trinity, yet who are sometimes overwhelmed when thinking about how to read and learn about the doctrine and its development.

Message of the Book

The subtitle of the book tells you a lot about its message. Holmes wants to engage modern discussions on the doctrine of the Trinity (and by “modern” I mean eighteenth century to present) by comparing more recent thought to ancient thought. He investigates what is being said by the most recent theologians. Then he asks what passages of Scripture have contributed to this doctrine’s evolution. This prepares us to study Patristic thought, which allows us to evaluate the continuation and discontinuation between Trinitarian thinking then and now.

Summary of the Content

This book has nine chapters and an introduction. In the Introduction Holmes prepares the reader for what is coming. He provides this important qualification (p. xv):

“This book is on a big-picture scale, necessarily. Covering in one brief volume two thousand years of debate over what is possibly the central topic of Christian devotion, together with the necessary biblical background, means that at every turn I have obscured details of debates, offered impressionistic sketches of complex positions, and otherwise done violence to scholarly ideals.:

The volume is brief. It has about two-hundred pages of content, not including the Introduction. The thesis statement of the book is as follows (p. xv): “In brief, I argue that the explosion of theological work claiming to recapture the doctrine of the Trinity that we have witnessed in recent decades in fact misunderstands and distorts the traditional doctrine so badly that it is unrecognizable.” Also, for what it is worth, Holmes imagines his audience to be “upper-level undergraduates”.

Chapter 1: ‘The History that God is’: Studying the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Twenty-First Century begins the discussion by examining modern renderings of the doctrine. Holmes argues (p. 1), “Right belief about the Trinity will determine our understanding of the church, of the proper shape of human society, and of many other pastoral and political questions.” The theologians summarized in this chapter include Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, John Zizioulas, Miroslav Volf, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jurgen Moltmann, Robert Jenson, Leonardo Boff, Cornelius Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Michael Rae, and Brian Leftow. Holmes outlines their basic contributions to recent discussions, where there are similarities, where there are dissimilarities, and prepares readers to compare and contrast modern Trinitarianism with Patristic and Medieval Trinitarianism.

Chapter 2: ‘In your light, we see light’: The Trinity in the Bible surveys the use of the Old and New Testaments in the development of Trinitarian thinking. This chapter presents the complicated history of developing a doctrine from Scripture that is not stated outright in Scripture (it should be noted, none of the competing paradigms are stated outright in Scripture making theologizing an endeavor that goes beyond mere proof-texting). Holmes introduces Patristic hermeneutics, especially as this relates to what words may “mean”, how this compares with the modern emphasis on “authorial intent”, and what “rules” governed exegesis in those days (that do not govern our own exegesis). Valuable passages like Proverbs 8, Wisdom 7, Isaiah 53, many psalms, and a broader canonical approach that investigated figures like “the angel of the Lord”, the “Son of Man” in the Book of Daniel, the Shema, and other themes from the Old Testament receive a brief overview. Holmes addresses some of the developments during the so-called “intertestamental” period. He ends the chapter by providing an overview of how the New Testament has been read, as well as some brief statements about Christian worship, interacting with scholars such as Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham.

Chapter 3: ‘Always with him are his Word and Wisdom’” Early Patristic Developments in the Doctrine of the Trinity discusses subjects such as The Rule of Faith, the developing canon, and Logos philosophy/theology. Theologians such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen of Alexandria take center stage. Holmes juxtaposes their views with gnosticism, Modalistic Monarchianism, Sabellianism, and a variety of other theological programs that presented differing views on the Monarchy of God.

Chapter 4: ‘From the ousia of the Father’: The Fourth-Century Debates 1 and Chapter 5: ‘The Godhead is by nature simple’: The Fourth-Century Debates 2 focus on the development of the Trinity from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Constantinople and all that is associated. This begins with the debate between Arius and Alexander of Alexandria; the emergence of Athanasius of Alexandria; debates over terminology such as homoousios, homoiousios, hypostasis, and other words borrowed from the philosophical worldview of the day and redefined to explain the canonical depiction of God; Asterius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Marcellus of Ancyra, and others. It ends with Eunomius, the Heterousian position; the rise of the Cappadocian Fathers; debates over divine simplicity and the divinity of the Holy Spirit; questions regarding the subordination of the Son to the Father; and the Nicene legacy, such as John of Damascus and others.

Chapter 6: ‘Understood by a few saints and holy persons’: The West and Augustine connects Trinitarian theology in the east to that in the west. Holmes rebuffs the idea that western Trinitarianism was drastically different than eastern. He introduces readers to Hilary of Poitiers, Novatian, and most importantly, Augustine of Hippo. The accusation that Augustine didn’t understand Nicene Trinitarianism is a mistaken view according to Holmes. He spends much of the chapter connecting Trinitarianism from east to west, showing the Augustine did understand the eastern language about God, and that he was connected in his own thoughts on the matter.

There is an Interlude where Holmes summarizes the “harvest of Patristic Trinitarianism”. This is his summary (on p. 146, repeated on pp. 199-200):

- The divine nature is simple, incomposite, and ineffable. It is also unrepeatable, and so, in crude and inexact terms ‘one’.

- Language referring to the divine nature is always inexact and trophic; nonetheless, if formulated with much care and more prayer, it might adequately, if not fully, refer.

- There are three divine hypostases that are instantiations of the divine nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

- The three divine hypostases exist really, eternally, and necessarily, and there is nothing divine that exists beyond or outside their existence.

- The three divine hypostases are distinguished by eternal relations of origin – begetting and proceeding – and not otherwise.

- All that is spoken of God, with the single and very limited exception of the language which refers to the relations of origin of the three hypostases, is spoken of the one life the three share, and so is indivisibly spoken of all three.

- The relationships of origin express/establish relational distinctions between the three existent hypostases; no other distinctions are permissible.

Chapter 7: ‘Distinction in the persons but unity in the nature’: The Medieval Doctrine of the Trinity surveys the filioque debate: does the Spirit proceed from the Father alone, or the Father and the Son. He argues that eastern and western theologians were debating this doctrine for a while. There was unity in spite of it, until the Pope used his authority to insert the filioque into the Creed (p. 148). Major figures that matter for this section include Anselm of Canterbury, Richard of St. Victor, the great Thomas Aquinas, and Gregory Palamas.

Chapter 8:’By the testimony of the Scriptures or manifest reason’: Anti-Trinitarianism from the Reformation to the Eighteen Century discusses the Reformation in brief. This includes reformers who continued to affirm the doctrine, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. This chapter discusses those who began to deny the doctrine as part of the upheaval of the Reformation, including Michael Servetus, Faustus Socinus, John Biddle, William Whiston, Samuel Clarke, John Toland, Matthew Tindal, Voltaire, and how post-Kantian rationalism moved many to understand the doctrine as outdated and irrelevant. As someone who emerged from anti-Trinitarian Christianity this chapter was helpful to see how language such as “persons” began to be redefined and therefore misunderstood by people reading earlier Patristic writings on the subject.

Chapter 9: ‘A transformation which will go back to its very beginnings’: The Doctrine of the Trinity since 1800 is an examination of “modern” Trinitarianism, beginning Samuel Taylor Coleridge, G.W.F. Hegel, F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Chalres Hodge, P.T. Forsyth, and Isaak Dorner. Scholars who influenced the “quest for the historical Jesus”, such as D.F. Strauss, Albrecht Ritschl, and Adolf von Harnack make an appearance, as does F.C. Baur. Those who defended the doctrine, like Hodge, seemed unable to explain why it matters. This seems to be the cause of the rethinking of the doctrine, expressed by those theologians mentioned in Chapter 1.

Concluding Thoughts

This book challenges several popular ideas about the development of Trinitarianism such as the nature of what was debated between the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, the relationship of Augustine to eastern theologians, the role of the filioque in the Great Schism, and more. I found myself leaning Holmes’ direction with many of his reconstructions, especially since what he had to say resonated with teaching I received from Marc Cortez, a fine scholar of historical theology himself. I found Holmes writing to be easy to grasp. The breadth of knowledge presented in this short volume is outstanding. He was able to tie hundreds of years and dozens of theologians and many perspectives of the Trinity together into a coherent narrative.

I have been told that the great disappointment with this book is that it isn’t “constructive”. It doesn’t offer a way forward. I can see why this would be said, but I don’t think it was the aim of the book. The aim of the book was to summarize the development of the doctrine and show where modern Trinitarianism has departed from Patristic and Medieval Trinitarianism. Holmes succeeds in these endeavors, masterfully.

I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to study the doctrine of the Trinity, anyone who is suspicious about popular retellings of this doctrine’s development, anyone wanting a survey of great theologians who have discussed this subject, a pastor doing a doctrinal study, a professor doing the same in a class. It is a fine work and it isn’t terribly long as noted above. Personally, I don’t come across a book that does exactly what I want a book to do all that often. This book does what I wanted in a book on the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t think you can go wrong by buying it and reading it.

	Daniel James Levy on Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics…
	Live Blog: Ecclesia… on Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics…
	Brian LePort on Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics…
	Jarrod Longbons on Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics…
	Brian LePort on Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics…