Volume 2 - Issue 1
Review of theological journals, 1975By Ralph P. Martin
A word of explanation and introduction is called for as this annual feature finds a new home in Themelios. The present compiler of significant articles that have appeared in the previous year’s theological journals inherited the task from Andrew Walls who (as far as I can ascertain) originated the idea. There was a hiatus of several years between his relinquishing the job and my taking it up in 1968. Since then, in the old TSF Bulletin, annual surveys appeared, meeting a need that is more expertly filled by some continental journals which devote a section to what is called Zeitschriftenschau.
This survey has been and still is more selective than its European counterparts. It has aimed to include articles and contributions that seemed to the compiler ‘significant’ (admittedly involving a highly personal and subjective choice). ‘Significant’ is taken to mean (a) articles in English that appear to be intrinsically important by virtue of the data they contain and/or the fresh light they shed on the themes concerned; and (b) articles that carry forward the discussion to a new plateau of consideration. Withal, an eye has always been open for articles contributed by Tyndale Fellowship/Inter-Varsity members and sympathizers. The date of publication is 1975, unless otherwise noted.
Leaving aside the more technical aspects of Old Testament study, I have found greatest interest to centre in the following items. Hosea’s message is well presented by R. E. Clements in RE 72.4, pp. 405–423, for which issue G. W. Anderson (pp. 425–436) has also written ‘Hosea and Yahweh: God’s Love Story’ based on Hosea 1–3. The latter writes: ‘Those who want detailed documentation will find all that they could desire (and more) in the late Professor H. H. Rowley’s study, “The Marriage of Hosea” ’. Nonetheless both contributors bring Rowley’s work up to date and provide helpful, direct exposition.
On Daniel 7 there have been several studies, mainly concentrating on ‘The Identity of “the Saints of the Most High” ’, to quote G. F. Hasel’s title (Bib. 56.2, pp. 173–192). The more recent trend, set by M. Noth and L. Dequeker, to understand qaddîšîn as ‘angels’, is reversed as ‘saints’ are taken to be ‘God’s faithful followers who constitute His remnant people … set apart from the rest of the nations, persecuted by the power opposing God, but keeping the covenant faith’ (p. 192). The same view of qaddîšîn (stated by C. H. W. Brekelmans,Oudtestamentliche Studien, 14 (1965), pp. 305–329) is championed by W. J. Dumbrell, ‘Daniel 7 and the Function of Old Testament Apocalyptic’, RTR 34.1, pp. 16–23, and its New Testament bearings for a correct exegesis of ‘saints in Christ Jesus’ are described by O. E. Evans, in the series ‘New Wine in Old Wineskins’, ExpT 86.7, pp. 196–200.
Attention paid to the Chronicler has yielded some provocative articles. J. D. Newsome, ‘Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes’, JBL 94.2, pp. 201–217, proposes that the product of the Chronicler ‘is the historical expression of the same prophetic movement visible in Haggai and Zechariah’, with the central nucleus of his work seen to arise ‘out of that urging among the returned exiles that the shattered remnants of Judah’s life should be reconstituted through the re-establishment of the Temple cult and the restoration of the Davidic monarchy’ (p. 216). A similar view is taken by F. M. Cross, ‘A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’, Interp. 29.2, pp 187–201, who offers a reconstruction of the Chronicler’s enterprise covering the three periods of 520 bc, 458 bc and 400 bc (p. 198) in an attempt to find suitable Sitze im Lebenfor the whole work.
Only a couple of studies involving archaeology have been observed, but both seem significant. The strictly Old Testament report covers Gibeon. Sub-titled ‘Israelite Diplomacy in the Conquest Era’, the work by B. Halpern (CBQ 37.3, pp. 303–316) does not purport to defend the historicity of the pericope in Joshua 9–11 (cf. 2 Sam. 21:1–14), yet it does reveal the antiquity of its skeletal form and so speak for the reliability of the tradition concerning a strong alliance in central Canaan. ‘The account conforms to the strong logic of sound strategy, political perspicuity, and tactical insight—all in the context of what is known or surmised about life in second millennium Canaan’ (p. 315) is the author’s well-spoken conclusion.
The early-church context of Mithraism is illumined by L. M. Hopfe and G. Lease in their survey of ‘The Caesarea Mithraeum: A Preliminary Announcement’, BA 38.1, pp. 2–10. The value of this report is to bring up to date archaeological work on Caesarea Maritime from 1945 to 1971, and especially to comment on the finds since 1973 which have yielded evidence of Mithraea; in fact ‘the Caesarea Mithraeum is the first to be identified in the Roman province of Judea’ (8). The suggested date is ad 361–363, during the Julian revival.
On the Qumran literature, those working in the biblical field will take note of D. L. Mealand’s essay, ‘Community of Goods at Qumran’, TZ 31.3, pp. 129–139. He challenges Rabin’s view that community sharing at Qumran is not securely attested; on the contrary, it is maintained, such items as the numismatic finds and the presence of social structures can be explained only on the understanding that a ‘sharing of resources was important for their survival. Their renunciation of private property was necessary on practical as well as ideological grounds’ (p. 139).
Apocalyptic is an inter-disciplinary concern, so the two essays in RE (72.3—an issue devoted to this general theme) may be slotted in here. F. F. Bruce writes on ‘A Reappraisal of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature’ (pp. 305–315), and traces the development of the literary deposits from Ezekiel through Qumran to the Roman era. The specific New Testament examples of this genre are handled by G. R. Beasley-Murray in ‘New Testament Apocalyptic—A Christological Eschatology’ (pp. 317–323) in which he renews his opposition to the popular notion that Mark 14:62 promises an exaltation, not a coming to earth. The closing quotation from the WCC Evanston manifesto (1955), ‘We do not know what is coming to us. But we know who is coming’, aptly catches the spirit of this essay. We must also notice J. Barr’s wide-ranging lecture, ‘Jewish Apocalyptic in Recent Scholarly Study’, BJRL 58.1, pp. 9–35, that begins with K. Koch and concludes with Moltmann, but observes interestingly that the study of apocalyptic has been a British, and even a Manchester, penchant. But something has been lost since (Barr maintains) the British tendency is to simplify the obscure whereas the Teutonic mind frankly admits the obscurity that is inherent in apocalyptic mentality. The American contribution is largely bypassed.
Yet one more ‘bridge’ discussion is found in Q. Quesnell’s robust rejoinder to Morton Smith’s The Secret Gospel. Smith has asked for a consideration of the evidence relating to his find, and Quesnell (‘The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence’, CBQ 37.1, pp. 48–67) seeks to offer just that, maintaining that Smith has been content with insufficient evidence, has not reckoned with the possibility of forgery and, to date, has not clarified several leading issues. Morton Smith’s work was also the subject of F. F. Bruce’s Ethel M. Wood Lecture in 1974 (now reviewed and commented on helpfully in an ExpT 86.5, pp. 130–132 editorial). The question is very much sub judice.
(a) Gospel studies
The Son of man problem can be counted on to figure prominently in any annual survey. This year too we are not disappointed. W. Wifall, ‘Son of Man—A pre-Davidic Social Class?’, CBQ 37.3, pp. 331–340, begins with the reminder that the term has royal traditions in Palestine, even prior to the Davidic monarchy in Jerusalem. Indeed, the near-eastern settings of the title are this article’s major contribution, with a trajectory attempted from David through the prophets and Maccabees to the apocalyptic usages. The Gospel’s use of the title reverts to an application made to a humble, suffering figure. Proposing a very suggestive hypothesis, this essay merits close study.
So does B. Lindars’ response to R. Leivestad’s ‘Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man’ (NTS 18, 1971–2, pp. 243–267). Fittingly entitled, ‘Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, NTS 22.1, pp. 52–72, this reply is careful not to claim too much, yet maintains that ‘the concept of an agent of God in the coming judgement, who may be a character of the past reserved in heaven for this function at the end time’ (p. 54) is a defensible conclusion from the data. Further, such a term would be applicable to Jesus who, in fact, did see himself as destined to perform this function in some sense.
The same general lines of reasoning are presented by Lindars in reference to his soteriological study which formed the basis and groundplan of his Manson Memorial Lecture. Reprinted in BJRL 57.2, pp. 366–387, as ‘The Apocalyptic Myth and the Death of Christ’, it offers some perceptive and well-measured insights that deserve close inspection.
Whatever our standard textbooks may say, the christological titles are still much to the fore, particularly Matthew’s use of ‘Son of man’ (the title of J. D. Kingsbury’s exposition, CBQ 37.2, pp. 193–202) and ‘Son of God’ which is considered at length in the same author’s ‘The Title “Kyrios” in Matthew’s Gospel’, JBL 94.2, pp. 246–255. The constructive thrust of these essays is to demonstrate how Son of man is the title with which Jesus encounters the world as a ‘public’ figure, while Son of God presents Jesus as the one of exalted station who wields divine authority. At the parousia both titles (will) coalesce.
Matthean studies ‘since Rohde’ (Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists, Eng. trans. 1968) are comprehensively and carefully chronicled by D. J. Harrington under that caption (HJ 16.4, pp. 375–388), and special interest in ‘Salvation-History in Matthew: In Search of a Starting Point’ is shown by J. P. Meier (CBQ37.2, pp. 203–215). In particular, the contrasting traditions that cover a universalistic mission in Matthew and a restricted outreach (in 10:5, 6; 15:24 etc.) are helpfully synthesized in a way that makes some sense. The death and resurrection of Jesus as an eschatological event in which the kingdom breaks into this aeon in a new, fuller way (p. 212) is shown to explain why the limitations of territory, nation, and Mosaic law should be observed during the public ministry of Jesus, while all these restrictions fall away after the death and resurrection, after the enthronement of the Son of man.
An issue of Interp. (29.1) is devoted to Matthew, which may be said, therefore, to have achieved pride of place in this current year’s interest. J. D. Kingsbury’s survey (loc. cit., pp. 13–23) is especially noteworthy as he treats the ‘Form and Message of Matthew.’
‘Son of God’ is a title beloved of the fourth evangelist, as we all know. B. A. Mastin writes on ‘A Neglected Feature of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel’ in NTS 22.1, pp. 32–51. In this instance the unexpected title is ‘God’ (‘ “theos” in the christology of John’ is the sub-title). The author’s earlier conclusion that John’s use of this title was in conscious opposition to the imperial cult of Domitian is now exchanged for the view that the use of theos is due to the evangelist’s controversy with the Jews.
Also relating to Johannine studies we call attention to D. J. Hawkin, ‘Orthodoxy and Heresy in John 10:1–27 and 15:1–17’, EQ 47.4, pp. 208–213. This essay controverts Käsemann’s position that the author of the Fourth Gospel was heretical, and shows that the evangelist displays a passionate concern with the unity of the church. He can, moreover, conceive of a situation in which heretics must be expelled from the Christian community.
Still with Gospel studies, there will always be a niche for textes expliquées, and who better to address ‘An Unresolved Problem in the Temptation-Clause in the Lord’s Prayer’ than C. F. D. Moule in RTR 33.3, pp. 65–75? The position is ably defended that ‘nowhere else in the New Testament is there so unqualified an injunction to pray for escape from temptation’ as in the words of Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:4. Light too is shed on Luke 21:36 and Mark 14:36 in this welcome study.
Another contentious area is the ‘Synoptic Divorce Material’ which is patient of treatment as ‘a Traditio-Historical Problem’. This is the title of D. R. Catchpole’s thorough study, printed in BJRL 57.1 (1974), pp. 92–127; it merits close study at a time when the relevance of the data to present-day concern needs clarification.
By contrast, unless we have been unobservant, Pauline studies have suffered from neglect. All the more welcome, therefore, is F. F. Bruce’s Rylands Lecture, ‘Paul and the Law of Moses’, BJRL 57.2, pp. 259–279. We may regard this lecture as a spin-off from his earlier studies on the Galatian Epistle; it is welcome for whatever reason. The various nuances of Paul’s use of nomos are reviewed, with special attention given to Romans 7:7–13 where Paul ‘repeats in terms of individual experience both the fall narrative and the more general history of mankind before the law and under the law’; and to 7:7–25 where, contrary to popular opinion, Paul is seen to be ‘voicing a Christian perspective on his existence under the law, both in the earlier section where he uses the past tense and in the later section where he uses the present tense’ (p. 273). The dialectic is that of a person who lives ‘between the times’—in two aeons simultaneously.
This conclusion is almost identical with the result of J. D. G. Dunn’s paper ‘Romans 7:14–25 in the Theology of Paul’, given as a Tyndale Lecture and reproduced in TZ 31.5, pp. 257–273. Helpfully, and after a full survey of the field, Dunn concludes that Romans 7:14–25 is a ‘transcript of Christian experience.’ ‘Paradox and conflict is (sic) an integral part of religious experience … spiritual conflict is the sign of life—a sign that the Spirit is having his say in the shaping of character’ (p. 272).
The remaining Pauline studies are mainly less substantial than the above articles, but interesting. C. J. A. Hickling asks, ‘Is the Second Epistle to the Corinthians a Source of Early Church History?’ (in ZNTW 66.3/4, pp. 284–287). This is a little ambiguous as a title since the writer’s main interest is to oppose the current assumption that Paul’s letters were written almost exclusively to deal with specific situations, and that it is possible to reconstruct these situations in detail by a careful attention given to his language (p. 284). This had led to the construction of a type of Pauline adversary, known as a ‘divine man’ (see C. H. Talbert’s latest review of the data in JBL 94.3, ‘The Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity’, 419–436). Hickling is disposed to challenge this on several grounds, and pleads for caution and restraint in drawing unwarranted conclusions about the identity and prevalence of the opposition to Paul. He concludes that ‘theological assertions are enunciated, not principally as polemic, but as positive support for the exposition of the meaning of his apostleship’ (p. 267). This may well be the case, but it still remains that Paul did encounter adversaries with wrong-headed notions in his churches, as 2 Corinthians 11 clearly specifies.
However, D. J. Doughty, ‘The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth’, ZNTW 66.1/2, pp. 61–90, warns us not to accept too readily the idea of realized eschatology as a cause of the false teaching at Corinth. The underlying question of controversy has ‘to do not with the futurity of salvation, but rather with the understanding of salvation as such’ (p. 89) since ‘Paul conceives of no eschatological future in which man will be able to take his life in his own hands’ (p. 90). The root error of the Corinthians was not mistaken theology but boasting in self-salvation.
In view of the current interest in Paul’s teaching on the role of women, any attempt at exegesis that seeks to elucidate his mind is bound to be welcome. The egalitarian position of man/woman turns Paul into a schizophrenic by making his restrictions imposed in 1 Corinthians 14 (cf. 1 Tim. 2) contrary to the statements of Galatians 3:28. We take up W. O. Walker’s essay, entitled ‘1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and Paul’s Views regarding Women’, JBL 94, 1, pp. 94–110, with some anticipation, only to lay it down with disappointment. His best solution is to cut the knot of exegetical difficulty by excising the 11:2–16 section as an interpolation and so consign it, along with 14:33b–36, the Pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians to the bin of extra-Pauline materials. Galatians 3:28 survives and is thereby exalted to the place of eminence. This exercise in exegetical karate fails to impress. The bibliographies in this essay are, however, useful as a check-list of the recent debate, and call attention to one discussion that seems to me to be headed in the right direction, Elaine H. Pagels, ‘Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion’, JAAR 42 (1974), pp. 538–549, though I do not accept her views on Paul’s repression of women.
The question posed by M. A. Robinson, ‘SPERMOLOGOS: Did Paul preach from Jesus’ Parables?’ in Bib.56.2, pp. 231–240, does not look a promising—or even an answerable—one, until we dig deeper, and the reply has more to contribute to Paul’s preaching technique than to a study of the parables or Paul’s knowledge of the Gospel tradition. On the parables, J. A. T. Robinson, ‘The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: A Test of Synoptic Relationships’, NTS 21, pp. 443–461, looks like becoming a watershed in the debate over the history of transmission. It presses back to a pre-evangelic stratum in a convincing way.
The issue of Luke’s understanding of early Christianity over against that of Paul in the light of the current dichotomy that is proposed, inter alios by C. H. Talbert, is deftly handled by J. W. Drane, ‘Simon the Samaritan and the Lucan Concept of Salvation History’, EQ 47.3, pp. 131–137, who uses the test case of Acts 8:4–13 to refute Talbert’s axiom that ‘truth precedes its copy’ in reference to Luke’s alleged anti-Gnostic intent.
D. W. Palmer, ‘ “To Die is Gain” (Philippians 1:21)’, NovT 17.3, pp. 203–218, asks the question ‘Why?’, and suggestively argues from Greek literary parallels that death is gain because it brings release from earthly troubles. Paul’s firm pastoral responsibility in v. 24 shows how he rejects the ‘gain’ for the sake of the Philippians.
That being so, we may well anticipate that the evidence will give a strong denial to the question propounded by F. F. Bruce (in RTR 34.3, pp. 66–75), ‘Was Paul a Mystic?’ Obviously a lot depends on how ‘mystic’ is defined. Paul was a man of the Spirit, even if ‘charismatic’ is too loaded a term, yet he ‘insisted on the common life in the body of Christ, each making a personal contribution to the good of others and of the whole’ (p. 72). 2 Corinthians 12, which is often appealed to as a source of Paul’s mysticism, says less than we usually read from it, and is different from the experience of apocalyptists who received and communicated heavenly secrets. The conclusion is given that Paul was a mystic, but not the author of a mystical theology. J. G. Bishop, ‘Psychological Insights in St Paul’s Mysticism’, Theology 78, no. 660, pp. 318–324, calls Jung into the debate, but without much added illumination.
Eschatological questions in the Pauline correspondence are the theme of B. N. Kaye’s study, ‘Eschatology and Ethics in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,’ NovT 17.1, pp. 45–57, with the conclusion reached that disorderly conduct in the church was not the result of false or one-sided eschatological teaching, but had local or social roots. This may be so, but it is difficult to see his argument overthrowing Marxsen’s and Schmithals’ position.
Two contributions to Paul’s teaching on ‘tongues’ should prove helpful, as far as they go. In SJT 28.4, pp. 369–377, A. J. M. Wedderburn examines the status of ‘Romans 8:26—Towards a Theology of Glossolalia?’ and finds that both Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals may appeal to this descriptive verse, provided they have respect to the Pauline context which stresses earthly weakness and inadequacy.
E. Best, ‘The Interpretation of Tongues’, SJT 28.1, pp. 45–62, is concerned to ask questions partly from a sociological angle and partly to do with biblical hermeneutics. ‘How do we get from what Paul says about tongues to what the church should be saying today?’ (p. 62) poses the issue in a nutshell; and there are no simple answers.
Under this heading we may classify several useful studies that encompass the wider interests of biblical theology. High on this list will be two major essays. M. McDermott, ‘The Biblical Doctrine of KOINONIA’, carried in two successive issues of Bib. Zeit. 19.1, 2, pp. 64–77, 219–233, aims to take up where H. Seesemann’s 1933 monograph left off, and after a full linguistic discussion, it centres on Paul for whom ‘fellowship’ is a ruling idea, especially in 1 Corinthians (Allo). Of the various possibilities of meaning—community, participation, contribution, collection, communion—the choice settles on two senses, newly created by Paul: communion and collection (p. 232).
The other central study is J. G. Gibbs, ‘The Cosmic Scope of Redemption according to Paul’, Bib. 56.1, pp. 13–29, in which the author redefines and clarifies his position, stated in Creation and Redemption (1971). Continuity between Paul and his predecessors in the twin areas of creation and salvation is established, and the key to both aspects of the common reality is sought in the lordship of Christ (p. 28).
The biblical basis for atonement is considered under the heading of ‘Sacrifice’ in the series, ‘New Wine in Old Wineskins’, (ExpT 86.10, pp. 305–309) by F. M. Young, with the conclusion drawn that the ‘expiatory/propitiatory understanding of his death derived, I think, from Jesus’ own attempts to convey a positive interpretation of his fate in terms of the martyr’s sacrifice’ (p. 308). The OT background of sacrifice is considered, and further commented on in the same author’s volume Sacrifice and the Death of Christ (1975), reviewed editorially in ExpT 87.1, pp. 1–2, and thus this viewpoint is given maximum exposure in the journal. The book is an explication of the atonement, written with lucidity and verve but not eliciting full agreement, especially in the attempted definition: ‘The sacrifice of Christ was God’s act of salvation, a sacrifice offered by God to expiate sin, to avert the devil and to reconcile God with himself.’ Amid some admirable features of this presentation we pause at the final statement of God’s reconciling himself and wonder what meaning can be given to it. Probably more satisfying in the ultimate sense will be a recourse to the older exposition of James Denney, whose soteriology is admirably and sympathetically reviewed by B. G. Worrall, SJT 28.4, pp. 341–357, ‘Substitutionary Atonement in the Theology of James Denney.’
The resurrection of Jesus has evoked such a bewildering variety and complexity of views that the uninitiated may well quail before the imposing library of books dedicated to this central theme. All the more to be applauded is R. D. Ware’s ‘The Resurrection of Jesus’, HJ 16, 1, pp. 22–25 and 2, pp. 174–194, in which two articles are given over to (respectively) ‘theological orientation’ and the biblical aspects. In the latter category, both well-known studies (C. F. Evans, R. H. Fuller, B. Rigaux, X. Léon-Dufour, W. Marxsen) and lesser known (G. Kegel) are admirably surveyed and evaluated. The author’s own convictions are expressed in terms of ‘transformation’ by which a transition is made from the crucified Jesus to the origins of the Easter faith. The ‘symbol’ of the resurrection is related to the act of God in which faith in the earthly Jesus and his relationship to the Father is transformed into resurrection faith in the God-who-raised-Jesus-from-the-dead. The last phrase is typically Teutonic, and we are not surprised that this article was composed in Tübingen; but it performs a useful propaedeutic service.
Church history and general theology
If we may make so bold as to begin church history with Luke’s Acts, a couple of disquisitions on church order prove helpful. In ‘Acts 6:1–6: A Redactional View’, J. T. Lienhard (CBQ 37.2, pp. 228–236) finds a kernel of historical tradition in the dispute between two groups. The matter was resolved as certain members of the Hellenists were ‘authoritatively appointed to office’ in a two-step process, i.e. choice by the community and commissioning to office by the Twelve.
Exactly what happened in the laying on of hands is investigated by E. Ferguson, ‘The Laying on of Hands: Its Significance in Ordination’, JTS 26.1, pp. 1–12, which looks afresh at the rite of sāmaḵ in the OT and Judaism, and closes with fresh conclusions on the apostolic practice in Acts 6:6, 13:1–3, cf. 14:23.
A settled conclusion regarding the date and provenance of 1 Clement is disturbed by A. E. Wilhelm-Hooijbergh’s study, ‘A Different View of Clemens Romanus’, HJ 16.3, pp. 266–288. Arguing for a date which exactly reverses the customary numerals, he asks whether certain matters do not become clearer if the letter was written in ad 69. To be sure, he makes out a good case for an earlier dating and illumines thereby such matters as Clement and the Gospel tradition, Clement’s vagueness about the deaths of Peter and Paul, and the rise of ministerial office in the church at Rome. A valuable study.
Equally valuable in a different way is M. Simon’s broad overview of the ‘History of Religions’ school, given as “The religionsgeschichtliche Schule fifty years later”, in RSt. 11.2, pp. 135–144. Hitherto students have had to rely on C. Colple’s work in German; so it is good to have this expert survey, which concentrates mainly on the sacraments, available in brief, readable form.
It is just as acceptable to read several contributions in Interp. 29.4 to do with modern views on the canon, in particular the general survey by D. L. Dungan, ‘The NT Canon in Recent Study’, pp. 339–351, and the highly individualistic views of A. C. Sundberg in ‘The Bible Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration’, pp. 352–371.
Later church history has not, to my (limited) knowledge, been greatly illuminated in the past year. What caught my eye were two studies on John Bunyan. One by R. L. Greaves, ‘John Bunyan’s “Holy War” and London Nonconformity’ BQ 26.4, pp. 158–168, wherein the attempt is made to relate Bunyan’s descriptions, not only to his inner experience but to his activities in London in the stormy days of nonconformity in the post-Restoration epoch. This is a useful companion study to Monica Furlong’s recent Puritan’s Progress (1975).
At a different level in J. F. Forrest’s study, ‘Patristic Tradition and Psychological Image in Bunyan’s Three Shining Ones at the Cross’ in HTR 68.1, pp. 61–65, there is a proposal to relate the Pilgrim’s experience at the cross and with the shining ones to traditional figures in Christian imagery, especially in the sermons of John Donne who speaks of understanding, will and memory.
The discipline of systematic theology has received some notoriety, mainly with the reconstruction work of M. Wiles in The Remaking of Christian Doctrine (1974). Rejoinders to his proposals have not been slow in coming, and we note one in the pages of Theology 78, no. 661, pp. 338–345 by H. Meynell, ‘The Remaking of the Remaking’, to which the protaganist responds in the following issue in self-defence and clarification.
Still in the area of debate is R. Butterworth’s critique, ‘Bishop Robinson and Christology: the Human Face of God’, RSt. 11.1, pp. 73–85. The thesis is that ‘the book presents an uneven surface which is likely to distort’ and fault is found in the omission of any consideration of the faith of Jesus (p. 81f.).
On more traditional lines, there is an engaging defence of orthodoxy by A. M. Ramsey, ‘Christian Belief: An Unchanging Essence’, RSt 11.2, pp. 193–200, in which his bon mot on the Christlikeness of God is reaffirmed. A heavyweight defence of Trinitarian orthodoxy by T. F. Torrance (‘Toward an Ecumenical Consensus on the Trinity’, TZ 31.6, pp. 337–350) offers both a report of a Swiss-based ecumenical colloquium on K. Rahner’s approach to the Trinity and a brilliant statement of the key issues involved. The philosophical issues raised by the doctrine of the Trinity are adroitly presented by R. W. Jenson, ‘Three Identities of One Action’, SJT 28.1, pp. 1–15.
Of the diverse contributions noticed in 1975 none has had such telling impact on one reader as has C. F. D. Moule’s Drew Lecture on Immortality, which is now printed (in Theology 78, no. 657, pp. 114–125) as ‘The Meaning of “Life” in the Gospel and the Epistles of St John’. To pose the question of the meaning of Johannine ‘life’ is really a christological enquiry, since it is John’s overriding interest to keep Jesus at the centre of the stage. So ‘do not ask what sort of life it is; ask only who bestows it’ (p. 123).
BA Biblical Archaeologist (Cambridge, Mass.)
Bib. Biblica (Rome)
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (Manchester)
Bib. Zeit. Biblische Zeitschrift (Paderborn)
BQ Baptist Quarterly (London)
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly (Washington)
EQ Evangelical Quarterly (Exeter)
ExpT Expository Times (Edinburgh)
HJ Heythrop Journal (London)
HTR Harvard Theological Review (Cambridge, Mass.)
Interp. Interpretation (Richmond, VA)
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion (Missoula, Mont.)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature (Philadelphia)
JTS Journal of Theological Studies (Oxford)
NovT Novum Testamentum (Leiden)
NTS New Testament Studies (Cambridge)
RE Review and Expositor (Louisville, KY)
RSt. Religious Studies (Cambridge)
RTR Reformed Theological Review (Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia)
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology (Cambridge)
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel)
ZNTW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin)
As in past years, the author of this survey apologizes for any inadvertence in overlooking TF members’ contributions and other lacunae which ought to have been filled. Writers of journal articles are invited to send a bibliographical note, or even an offprint, as they appear, to him at Fuller Theological Seminary, 135 N. Oakland Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA.
Ralph P. Martin
Department of Biblical Studies, The University of Sheffield