Religious Studles: Review
Religious Studles: Review
Religious Studles: Review
may be more faithful to some of its traditions than the Before reviewing Kermo
“insiders” occasionally are-a situation not unknown to interpretation, let us-placehis par
readers of the Gospel of Mark. spectrum of modern New T e we-r -
&complish this task, we will perform another ‘%en, dis-
~ tortion’’ on a literary model that has proved helpful in
sorting out the history of esthetic theories. M. H. Abrams
Religious Studies Review proposes that most theories of literature can be compared
Published quarterly, in January, April, July, and October, by the on a framework that includes four elements: the work itself,
Council on the Study of Religion the universe, the artist, and the audience (1953, 3-7).For
Abrams, the dominance of one of these criteria over the
Editors other three in judging the value of a text provides the key to
CharlesJ. Adams, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, the critical approach being employed. Theories that
Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G1 evaluate a text primarily on how well it imitates the world
Henry W. Bowden, Douglass College/Rutgers University, New “out there,” its universe, he terms mimetic. Theories that
Brunswick, NJ 08903 value the spontaneity and feeling of the artist above all else
Donald Capps, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ are expressive. If effect upon the audience is the criterion of
08540 good art, then the theory is a pragmatic one. And, finally, if
W. Lee Humphreys, Department of Religious Studies, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville, T N 37916 only the work itself, judged on its internal relations and
John P. Reeder,Jr., Department of ReligiousStudies,Brown Uni- patterns, is the deciding factor, then an objective theory is
versity, Providence, RI 02912 being used (1953, 8-29).
Richard S. Sarason, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Although Abrams understands these four elements as
Religion, Cincinnati, OH 45220 criteria for evaluating a work of art, let us, in good Ker-
Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, University of Notre Dame, Notre modian fashion, benignly distort his model to one for com-
Dame, IN 46556 paring, not the criteria of evaluation, but instead, the aim of
David Tracy, Divinity School, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL interpretation. Given the work itself, in this case the New
60637 Testament gospels, does the interpreter aim to clarify,
Robert L. Wilken, Department of Theology, University of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 through study of the text, its universe, the real world “out
Glenn Yocum, Whittier College, Whittier, CA 90608 there” to which it refers, or the artist/author whose genius
Mary Gerhart, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY created it, or the way in which the work affected and still
14456, Editorid Chair affects an audience, or, finally, the internal relations and
Harold E. Remus, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario patterns of the work itself, isolated from external factors?
N2L 3C5, Managing Editor Any comprehensive interpretation, just like any complete
Correspondence regarding editorial matters should be addressed literary theory, should, of course, consider all four factors,
to the Editorial Chairperson or to the Managing Editor. but it is the case for interpretations of the gospels, no less
than for esthetic theories, that one aim predominates. Our
Editorial Advisory Committee shift of Abrams’ model from judging the value of a text to
Leonard Biallas, CSR Bulktin clarifying the aim of interpretation reflects a similar change
Walter Conn, Horimns that Kermode sees in secular literary criticism generally.
William J. Danker, American Society of Missiology Whereas literary critics of ages past labored primarily in
Phillip E. Hammond,Journal for the Scientijic Study of Religion order to guide their followers toward good literature and
Joseph Jensen, Catholic Biblical Association away from bad, most scholars today are faced with a set of
James T. Johnson, J o u d of Religious Ethics literary works judged by the literary establishment to be
George Kilcourse, Catholic Theological Society of America
George W. MacRae, Society of Biblical Literature both good and serious (49). Hence, the task of modern
Martin E. Marty, Church History critics is more often one of interpretation rather than evalu-
Karl E. Peters, Zygon ation. In this task they parallel biblical scholars whose
Robert Scharlemann,Journal of the American Academy of Religion canonized texts centuries ago passed the test of the good and
Donald F. Williams, Association of Professors and Researchers in serious. The long experience of biblical scholars in this
Religious Education pursuit is, in fact, one major reason Kermode decided to
Graphics explore biblical material.
Michael Baldwin, MSIAD B
Most modern New Testament scholarship has concerned
Annual Subscription Rates itself either with the universe the text supposedly repre-
Individuals belonging to member societies sents-“directly or deviously” (Abrams, 1953, 6-r with
of the CSR $12.00 the artist/author. Form and redaction critics have inter-
Others (including institutions) $18.00 preted the gospels in order to construct a picture of the
Individual issues each$ 5.00 nascent Christian sect and its theological, christological, and
Make checks payable to Council on the Study of Religion. ecclesiastical debates. While the pre-critical period of bibli-
Copyright 0 1982 by the Council on the Study of Religion ’ cal scholarship assumed that the gospels directly proclaimed
(ISSN 0814485X) < ,
1
the activities of the historical Jesus, critics of the last two
centuries have slowly recognized the deceptiveness of the
surface narratives. Yet, for most modern scholars the gos-
VoL 8, NO. $1/January 1984 Religibus Studies;Riyiew 1 b
pels still reflect their universe, the objective situation “out Essentially for Kermode the New Testament gospels
there”; only now that universe is not the life of Jesus but, are fiction. He builds his case in several different ways; the
instead, the life of the early Christian community. Particu- characters are composed after the manner of fictional
larly in the work of redaction critics the gospels are often characters (for Judas, 75-90; for Pilate, 96-99); the plots
treated as historical allegories in which the characters of contain surface fractures, fortuities, and secrets similar to
Jesus, the disciples, and the Pharisees are almost ciphers for works of fiction (49-73);and the history-like narrative of the
the early Christian groups and their synagogue opponents gospelsis by its very nature fictional (101-23).Thus, aims for
(cf., e.g., Weeden, 1971; Kee, 1977). This dominant stream interpreting the gospels are similar to aims for any other
of New Testament scholarship posits a mimetic character works of fiction: to clarify the internal structures and de-
for gospel literature, although certainly a devious mimesis. signs present in them and to explore what makes them so
The point of interpretation, then, is to demonstrate or re- intriguing to their readers. Consequently, Kermode’s ap-
construct the world of the early church. proach to interpretation falls on the work-audience axis of
our model. In this position he is not alone, for a growing
number of biblical scholars are themselves beginning to look
seriously at the gospels as literature, examining both their
internal structures and their ways of affecting their audi-
ences (cf., e.g., Via, 1967; Petersen, 1978). However, many
of these writers, perhaps because of “institutional con-
straints” on their training or employment (4-5), are not yet
as bold or assured in their challenges as Kermode is. His
freedom is both exciting and disappointing: exciting be-
cause he suggests provocative possibilities for gospel in-
terpretation but disappointing because he leaves them only
The second major position in current research explores partially, and sometimes confusingly, developed.
the gospels in an attempt to glimpse their author. Yet, it is
not the evangelists, the direct authors, who are sought;
rather, it is Jesus, whose words and thoughts may occur C
obliquely in the texts. The evangelists are viewed by most For Kermode, narrative embodies interpretation. “Acts of
form critics as editors who exercise little control over their interpretation are required at every stage in the life of a
materials (cf., e.g., Bultmann, 1963), and though they are narrative; its earliest form must itself be an interpretation of
considered authors by redaction critics, they often appear as some precedent fable” (ix). Hence, new narratives are con-
corporate personalities, expressing the opinions of their structed by the interpretation of older narratives or a pre-
communities (it is this conception that has led some redac- narratival fable. Once interpretation by invention of new
tion critics toward sociological analyses; cf., e.g., Kee, 1977). narrative is halted by some formal, institutional f i t , like
Hence, the search for the author of gospel material is a quest canonization, interpretation still continues in commentary
for the historical Jesus. And it continues into the present form.
(cf., e.g., Jeremias, 31972;Crossan, 1973), regardless of the The source of such ubiquitous interpretation is secrecy:
fact that Albert Schweitzer wrote its epitaph almost eighty narratives conceal while they proclaim. Interpretation at-
years ago (1968). tempts to “penetrate the surface and reveal a secret sense”
Neither of these predominant orientations to the aims (x). All narratives are capable of darkness (14); in fact,
of gospel interpretation fits The Genesis ofsecrecy. Since they Kermode decides that ‘narrativity’always entails a measure
“
both necessarily regard gospel narrative as being at some of opacity” (25). Yet, this opacity or secrecy of narrative
point transparent on historical reality, Kermode’s absolute apparently arises only partially from itself, for first readers
denial of this possibility (62, 1 16-19) and his emphasis upon often see less mystery in a story than later readers (4,lO-12).
the fundamental secrecy of all narrative pose a radical chal- Therefore, some measure of the secrecy of narrative must
lenge to biblical historians. Although, to use Kermode’s own derive from the distance and “prejudices,” as Kermode calls
terminology, the munqest level of his book does not contest them, of interpreters. The role of the interpreter in forming
the assumptions of such scholarship, the Z&nt level cer- this secrecy is one Kermode never clearly delineates. He
tainly does. His gently ironic-and often well-deserved- does provide several hints: human beings are “pleroma-
pokes at the idiosyncrasies of some research (32,44,56-57, tists,” fulfillment-seekers, who prefer to see mystery and
68, 79, 130, 135) as well as his extensive treatment of the enigma rather than the muddle of existence; the trivial must
close relationship between fiction and history-writing (101- mean more than it seems (6-7,49,72-73). In addition, we see
23) serve as strong indicationsof this latent challenge. It may the book as we see the world, plural, arbitrary, impene-
well be that the biblical guild needs to be forced into rethink- trable, and we want to read as we wish to live, divining the
ing methodological assumptions too facilely or naively ac- inner connections and relations that make the “unfollow-
cepted. For this purpose, one might wish a more pointed able world” understandable, if only for a moment (144-45).
and rigorous approach on the part of Kermode than The More than these hints, however, are required to secure the
G& ofsecrecy provides, for the style of the book is neither case for a human yearning for secrecy, but Kermode’s easy,
argument nor contest; it is, rather, leisurely discussion. rambling style inhibits any attempt to pursue a disciplined
Nevertheless, the argument and challenge are there, but argument.* Thus, while Kermode clearly demonstrates that
they must be “divined (Kermode’s favorite term for in- the genesis of interpretation is secrecy,the genesis of secrecy
terpretation) in the latent sense of his text. still remains frustratingly opaque.
4 1 Religiow Studies Red& 982
-Assuming%he basic secrecy ofmarrative, Kermode de- the unfollowable plot. €0116
ve1ops.h chapter one a .vocabulary for acknow1edgir.g its tation to clarify hidden
dual tlature: the manifest sense is the surface story, the old In the course of these-
literal level of biblical allegory, and the latent sense is the real to be an extremely p
meaning of the story, the mystery, the secret. The key to this comparison of Mark‘
duality Kermode finds in the “theory of interpretation” of Joyce’s man in the Macintosh is excellent (50-57), as is the
Mark& 11-12,Jesus’ problematic saying on the purpose of proposal that the characters of Peter, Judas, and the young
parables (2). “Outsiders” get parables, stories, which are man in the shirt are actually the developed plot functions of
intended to hide a secret knowledge meant for “insiders”(3). Denial, Betrayal, and Flight (62,8492). Although his em-
Seeing only the manifest sense given to them, “outsiders” phasis on midrash & the primary formative element in the
often produce “carnal readings” (4-5,9) that tend to be quite composition of the gospels is somewhat overdrawn, his dis-
similar. However, what the “outsider” really wants is to cussion of the Christian use of the Hebrew scriptures as
uncover the secret or latent sense and thus produce a “spiri- oracles fulfdled by Christ is an elegant demonstration of his
tual reading.” Spiritual readings of the latent sense are whole approach to hermeneutics (18-21,88-89,110). In his
determined by acts of “divination” (4) and of necessity catch own divination of el of Mark, Kermode finds its key
only a momentary radiance of the secret. Hence, they are all to be an extensi of thematic oppositions (proda-
different. Moreover, spiritual readings, divining only a brief mationlsilence, ean, election/rejection, confes-
radiance of the secret, can never know fully what the stories sion/denial, mystery/stupidity) arranged in intercalated se-
mean, what the secret is. Such knowledge is given to “in- quences ( 127-43). Unfortunately, Kermode remains faith-
siders” alone; for all others everything is in parables. ful to his vow to presentjust hints for interpreters, not a full
Who, then, are the “insiders”? That question raises interpretation, and so leaves his comments only partially
another conundrum in Kermode’s exposition. Chapter two elaborated. Yet, there is a superb footnote on genre (162)
promises to address the issue by beginning with a restate- that in itself makes the book valuable reading for biblical
ment of the sharp distinction between “outsiders” and “in- scholars.
siders.” Kermode then moves to a discussion of the New D
Testament parables where, he suggests, this distinction is As literary theory The Genesis of Secrecy is frustrating and
most clearly shown. The “insiders” are the initiates; in the disappointing, but as practical criticism it is intriguing and
gospels, the disciples. Yet, the disciples in Mark, those to delightful. Kermode asserts, and I think he is correct, that
whom the secrets of the kingdom have been given, are often divination is an art; method enters in when one must explain
less perceptive than the crowds outside, to whom everything what one has divined (137). Kermode is a remarkable artist,
is in parables. Therefore, says Kermode, “beingan insider is but he is less satisfactory as an “explainer,” for he is more
only a more elaborate way of being kept outside’’ (27),and evocative than precise. Most of his theoretical assertions
finally he admits that no “insiders” exist (45). This in- come from others in an eclectic mixture. But what he says,
triguing point, however, gets lost as Kermode begins to he says very well indeed, and the book is immensely quot-
chronicle some of the history of parable scholarship with able. Truly, this secular literary critic, who takes the biblical
both its insights and absurdities (32-38). Yet, the vocabulary text seriously, has enriched both his discipline and ours. To
of “insiders” and “outsiders” appears again in the last chap- see the Bible as literature is to recover a mutuality often
ter. There the “insiders” are the trained biblical exegetes or ignored by both groups.
literary critics, possessing specialized knowledge of their Finally, the random pattern of the last four chapters
texts. Are these “insiders” as deluded as the disciples in spurs my divinatory powers, for “interpretation abhors the
Mark? Kermode’s earlier use of the outside/inside random” (9). I perceive a latent sense in the book, an occult
dichotomy would certainly suggest such a conclusion. But connection whose radiance is directed specifically at biblical
suggestions and hints are all he gives, and it is quite possible scholars. Hence, I suggest the following spiritual reading:
that he uses the terms inconsistently. His enigma may well be institutional constraints force the New Testament scholar to
a muddle. see the text as transparent on historical reality; so,the “in-
Chapters three through six’explore various aspects of sider” sees history in reading the Gospel of Mark. But the
Kermode’s main case study: the Gospel of Mark. Mark is “outsider” sees fiction, a parable, a story. Now, the “insider”
used primarily to illustrate the nature of narratives that is just as blind as the “outsider,” for, after all, history is
conceal and proclaim at the same time. The choice is an fiction, and both are a secret.
appropriate one, for, as Kermode notes, the gospel begins
with proclamation, the “good news of Jesus Christ,” and . NOTES
ends in silence: “And they said nothing to any one, for they
were afraid.” Except for their common use of Mark, how- He reviewed Raymond Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah,
ever, these chapters are only randomly connected. They Reynolds Price’s A Palpable God, and Bruce Meager’s The Early
deal with quite diverse issues: the desire for narrative coher- Versions of the N c v TFrtcrnrcnt in volume 25 (June29,1978). Later
numbers of volume 25 contained other reviews: Morton Smith‘s
ence leading to the discovery of occult plot designs (chapter Jesus the Magician (October 26, 1978) and Alec McCowen’s per-
.._
three); the relationship between character and plot and the dway (November 9, 1978). More
ways in which characters develop through successive in- d Lattimore’s The Four Gospels
terpretations (chapter four); the lfelationlhip between his-
fiction myd the issue o roughout the book is
s to be history (chapter rsch in his essentially
mxJA T,
.THEOLOGICALDIRECTIONS-
David Tracy
THE ANALOG1
Christian Theology and th
$24.50
Martin E. Marty
THE PUBLIC CHURCH
Mainline-Catholic- Evangelical
$10.95
Langdon Gilkey
SOCIETY A N D THE SACRED
Toward a Theology of Culture in Decline
$14.95
Parker 1. Palmer
THE COMPANY OF STRANGERS
Christians and the Renewal of America’s Public Life
Foreword by Martin E. Many
$9.95
Tom F. Driver
CHRIST IN A CHANGING WORLD
Toward an Ethical Christology
$12.95
James M. Wall, Editor
THEOLOGIANS IN TRANSITION
The Christian Century “HOWM y Mind Has
Changed” Series
Introduction by Martin E. Marty
$14.95; pbk $7.95
Derek Holmes
THE PAPACY IN THE
MODERN WORLD
Foreword by John Tracy Ellis
Illustrated $14.95
Karl Rahner
CONCERN FOR THE CHURCH
Theological Investigations XX
$12.95
Edward Schillebeeckx
MINISTRY
$12.95
New Paperback Edition
Ed ward Schillebeeckx
JESUS
An Experience in Christology
$9.95
New Paperback Edition
Morton Kelsev
cRossRoAD
$8.95
- R -~ v-----
NPW _-
i c dFdition
Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler
DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY
$24.50
THE CROSSROAD PUBLISHINGOOMPANY Write for a free copy of 7he New CrossroadKontinuum Review
575 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022
.\”
negative review (New Yod Review of Books 26 uune 14, 19791, Mark Pattison, wh% missed
18-20). It should be added, however, that selecting avviewer as time of the TractaSan secessio
ideologically opposed to Kermode’s general,criticalposition as is that had Newman known German
Hirsch seems unfair if not perverse. I I “, church would have been differen
~ ~ ~
that had Newman with his con
REFERENCES ous mind been able to read the
Criticism, he would have move
ABRAMS, M. H. fore him studying the German hi
1953 The Miwor and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical
Traditwn. Oxford University Press. to liberalism, but to a liberalis
BULTMANN, RUDOLF and sophisticated than the
1961 Glauben und V e r s t z h . Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul sayings to traditional religion of a Carlyle (die ezuige Nein) or
Siebeck). a George Eliot.
1963 ET The History ofthe Synoptic Tradition. Harper 8c Row. As it happened, Oxford, where school divinity was
CROSSAN, JOHN D. much honored, was left religiously ted in the after-
1973 Zn Parables: The Challenge of the HistoricalJesus. Harper 8c math of Newman’s defection, and rst concentrated,
Row. extended, and reflective response new German criti-
JEREMIAS, JOACHIM
a1972 E T The Parables ofJesus. Scribner’s.
cism came from such Cambridge sdholars as Lightfoot,
KEE, HOWARD C. Westcott, and Hort. Thus, it is esthetiqally fitting and there-
1977 Community of the New Age: Studks in Mark‘s Gospel. West- fore ethically apposite that-in a ere, certain her-
minster Press. meneuts assert, historical n Tweedledee to
KERMODE,FRANK. fictional narrative’s Tweedledurn book, one of the
1967 The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fictwn. first thoroughgoing critiques of the insolvency underlying
Oxford University Press. our current germanic vouchers, \should have been written
PETERSEN, NORMAN by none other than a Cambridge professor. There may be
1978 Literay Criticismfor New Testament Critics. Fortress Press. some “narrative” irony, however, in the fact that its author
SCHWEITZER, ALBERT wants to deflate the value of those particular linguistic
1968 E T The Quest of the H i s f m i dJesus. Maanillan. First pub-
lished in 1910; translated from the first German edition (1906). marks while inflating that of the historical Mark. (Gresham’s
VIA, DAN0. Law B la Kermode.)
1967 The Parables: Their Liceray and Existential Dimension. For- But as with another norm of fiction to which human
tress Press. development is submissive-or at least so says another
WEEDEN,THEODORE J. hermeneut-just as there were those who saw tragedy in the
197 1 Mark-Traditions in ConJict. Fortress Press. seduction of Lightfoot, et al., by the Higher Criticism, there
may be those who will see farce in the present undertaking
to bury much recent New Testament interpretation and
2 interpretation-theory. I t h i i k they willbe dead wrong. But it
will be instructive to see whether the peerage of the Society
Reviewer: Justus George Lawler of Biblical Literature responds as negativelyor indifferently
Xavier College to this book as did the peerage of the Modern Language
Chicago, IL 60655 Association to Ray Hart’s Unjnished Man and the Imagination,
which Kermode apparently does not know as he does know
Fonngeschichte,Redaktionrgeschichte,Traditwmgeschichte: once its dialogical partner, Robert Funk’s Lunguuge, Hermeneutic,
formidable Teutonic terms, but now standardized argot in and the Word of God. This will be instructive because ulti-
the lexicon of our biblical clerisy and, by that entropic pro- mately what brings success to a new theory or critical approach
cess known as base vdguri.sution, probably already incorpo- is, in modish language, the shifting of paradigms it engend-
rated as argumentative clinchers into the ordinary speech of ers (Brother, can you paradigm?), or, in more traditional
every freshperson seminarian and divinity student exercis- terms, the comemusecclesiae it confirms. And that is a matter
ing what Cardinal Manning-criticizing a Teutonizing lib- as much of politique as of mystique. The facts are dismal: a
eral, Lord Acton-once called “the ruthless talk of under- Latrocinium begets a Christology; the Elector of Saxony
graduates.” But still, however common now, an argot whose begets a Reformation; Garibaldi begets a dogma of Papal
ancestral coinage only a hundred or so years ago sent repro- Infallibility. Herein may be the Catch-22 of this and of other
bative shudders through the spinal circuitry of the pious, for efforts by every modernist hermeneut: that very politics,
whom all such language represented a return to the primal which a lot of good people identify with history, is burdened
obscene. In Eden Garden, the old latinate ethnocentrists by contingency, passion, irrationality, etc., that is, is bur-
had it, the devil spoke only German. So the Venerable dened by submission to adventitious elements that seem
Trollope: clearly beyond-what an odious neologism would call-“the
laws of ‘narratology.’”
“TheGerman professorsare men of learning,”said Mr. Hard-
ing, “but-” Now, precisely on this point of acceptance by the guild,
“German professors!” groaned out the chancellor, as though it is possible that Kermode’s frequent asides on the limita-
his nervous system had received a shock which nothing but a week tions of conventional biblical critics-“the professionals,”
of Oxford air could cure. “the exegetes de w’tier” (15), “the insiders” (3), “remarkable
(Barchester Towers) naivetd of professional exegesis” (130), “not . . .impressive”
u a y 1982 Religious Studies4Revie
itself be a strong factor in the rejection of many daring, as bold, even as brash as his own intellectual
ngenious and most engaging readings, and this science playing over the text will allow. Abstracting
s obvious that these asides represent on his part, religious considerations, and notwithstanding a re
tally adventitious obtrusion stemming from his own range of scholarship or his relations with the collegium,
personal idiosyncrasies, i.e., his own personal contingent, interpretation remains an individual act, the reader and the
passionate, etc., drives which are seemingly not controlled text. In Newman’s words, alone with the alone. What
by some sort of ideal psychological norm (read: “law of emerges from this encounter, however startling or shock-
‘narratology’”) to which any record of his own lifelfiction ing, if conscientious,is an intellectuallyresponsible heuristic
theoretically should submit. (This may well stand in contrast judgment. This conscientious brashness is the unavoidable
to the easy acceptance by the guild of Robert Polzin’s Moses burden and mystery of modern criticism. Kermode himself
and the Deuteronomist, a work as table-turning, or tablet- observes that some will think his suggestions “on the wild
breaking, as Kermode’s, but executed with even-handed side” (135); Geoffrey Hartman touches this modernist bur-
deference to more traditional approaches.) Is not that old den in Criticism in the Wh!mness, and I have elsewhere ad-
mole Jung hovering in the background here, or rather in vanced, as prefatory note to some other unconventional
that underground commonly called the subconscious?And readings, the term “wild criticism,” more or less after John
may not the laws of narratology be as much invented arche- ONeill’s “wild sociology”-both usages owing something to
types as the laws of psychological normality, and perhaps as Freud’s essay on “wild psychoanalysis.”
irrelevant to historical chronicling as Jungian theory is to
lived living? Again, I think not.
But the question opens up the entire hermeneutical
debate, the past and present of which this is not the place to
re-hash or re-Hirsch. The debate is endemic to the dualism
of an entire civilization, comes to point in the conflict of
harmony and invention in the Renaissance, and is defined
by our own poets as the issue of whether we “half perceive
and half create.” Crudely, it is the conflict of subject and Freud, of course, used the phrase pejoratively. So far as
object which, since the age of High Romanticism, seems to his own work and its interpretation were concerned, Freud
have been resolved on the subject side, as represented by in his later years was obsessed with orthopraxis, with in the
some more of those grand Teutons looming on our twofold present context “closing the canon.” As orthodoxy once
horizon: Mommsen’s Voraussetzung, Heidegger’s Vorsicht, taught there could be no further revelation after the death
V o r p i , and, closer to home, Bultmann’s Vomerstiindnis-all of the last Apostle, so too Freud. He, like the Fathers of the
coinages which will raise as many a hackle within the church, being the only duly consecrated and sanctioned
positivist menagerie at the University of Virginia as did their adjudicator. In the light of the institutionally grounded
nineteenth-century counterparts within the closes of Ox- hermeneutic of such ecclesiastical guardians of the text the
ford. It was indeed one of those I have elsewhere called modern notion of a “continuing revelation” would appear as
“Virginia Hams” who undertook the most putativzly evis- heresy. Now, for Blake it was churchman preeminently who
cerative assault on Kermode’s book, E. D. Hirsch, Jr., previ- rode the horses of instruction-though I have lately dreamt
ously known far more for his weasel strategy (stoat fellow, of a pig on a horse, a real nightmare-but most modern
he), “meaning / significance,” intended to unplug the re- critics, ecclesiastical or not, SBL or MLA,would embrace
spirator of interpretive invalids, than for his forays into this “heresy” in one form or another, even though a genu-
biblical studies-though perhaps here merely responding to inely wild criticism, advocating not merely an organic
certain affinities with that Matthean Wundergeschichte about “development of doctrine,” but also a radical reversal of the
the Gadarene herd. In any case, I do not want to take these received teaching or reading: such an advocacy would ter-
little epigones to market now (that wouldn’t be quite rify them. For this Safari-Land school of hermeneutics only
kosher); but this modest survey should make clear to which the most domesticated and tranquilized tigers of wrath can
side of that particular hermeneutical Mason-Dixon line I be tolerated. Yet even merely to catch a tiger by the tale is a
incline. step towards appreciating those insights of narratology
And Kermode obviously inclines there too; and this Kermode proffers. (Though the violation of mew auctoris in
may explain why his book is somewhat more satisfying than the correction of that old racist tag would seem to reaction-
another recent brilliant study on many of these same ary hermeneuts nothing less than the original Sinn.)
themes, John C. Meagher’s Clumsy Construction in Mark’s Again, the issue can only be briefly sketched. There
Gospel. Though more elegantly written and more closely may be seven types of ambiguity in a text, or seventy-seven
argued than Kermode’s book, and sharing some of the same types, or seventy-seven to the seventy-seventh power, but
presuppositions, if I dare use the expression-the subtitle of the number will be finite, and the text will be exhausted of
Meagher’s book is A Critique of Form- and Redaktionsge- new meaning; it may take five hundred years or five
schichte-the final contribution it seems to me is largely nega- thousand, but it will be in some finite period of time when
tive, aclearing of the ground for a subsequent development. this exhaustibility is realized. After that terminal point,
This, one suspects, is primarily due to the author’s self- people may still recite the poems of Keats or they may pray
imposed limits, to a more restrictive, I would say more the words of Jesus, but they will learn no more about
constrictive, theory of interpretation than that which them-unless, of course, some new factual datum is un-
undergirds Kermode’s book. Those who do not share that earthed, which turns everything over to the archeologists,
constrictive theory would say that the critic should be as and also doesn’t help much, since the number of such data is
y we say “the matter is closed,” since st a tour de fo
ble word, the definable text-is ex dcfini-
ciple of limitation. Only the human intelligence
admits no closure. The old axiom is correct: intellectus
intelligendo in infiniturn procedit. It is the human spirit, My accountof Green’s novel, however defective,may at least serve
quoddamnrodo omnia, playing over the text that mandates the to suggest that it belongs to a class of narratives which have to mean
interminibility of the interpretive act and the infinitude of more, or other, than they manifestly say. How do we know this?
textual meaning. The ratification of some of those meanings First because we know that many insiders think well of Henry
is an entirely different and tertiary issue: it brings us back to Green,so we assume that the book is not trivial and vacuous,even if
the comensus ecclesiae or to what Stanley Fish calls “the au- it seems so at first. This prejudice is supported by many signs that
thority of interpretive communities.”Wild criticism, then, is the writing, however odd, is not incompetent (7).
merely that criticism which allows a truly disinterested play This seems to me at best a kind of genre criticism, to which
of mind over the text. Kermode is oddly very sympathetic, or at worst a kind of
Now, all of this is what conservative (Safari-Land) and “worldly” critical-pietism-what Coleridge called our
reactionary (Virginia-Hamhanded) critics cannot or will not “hobby-horsical”devotion to old authors. I have never been
recognize (an element of politique again?).It looks like chaos, persuaded by Northrop Frye’s mot that “the Bible would be
what the French Revolution looked like to Burke or the a popular book if it were not a sacred one.” Rather, it is
whole life of the mind looks like to Gerald Graff in Literature popular largely because it is sacred, and some of the efforts
against Itself (cf. Wordsworth, The Prelude, VII, 708). HOW- to prove otherwise (truckling to the cultured despisers) re-
ever, chaos is the presupposition of order, just as matter is sult in the kinds of interpretive howlers Meagher has so
the presup osition of form. neatly exposed. There is much in the bible which is mani-
Since gere will be a companion review to this one, festly muddled, sloppy, or self-contradictory-the pagan
written presumably by a “professional” exegete, I will not Augustine was right-and which we would all do well with-
attempt a detailed summary of Kermode’s book. As noted, it out, but cannot because the canon was fwed not by such
seeks to look at the gospels free of the conventionalmethods semper, ubique, omnibus criteria as have been applicable to
and biases of the biblical guild and in the light of contempo- secular literature (paradoxically for Vincent of Lerins) but
rary literary-criticaltheory. This is rather vague, and in fact by the requisites of institutional hierarchs-not, however,
Kermode’s “look” sometimes seems to focus down simply to necessarily hungry for hegemony, as Pagels for apparently
acceptance of the principles of anyone who examines the ressentimental reasons asserts. Of Mark, Kermode observes:
bible without believing in it. Thus Jean Starobinski is lauded “My present point is simple enough: Mark is a strong witness
as employing a kind of literary-critical approach, though to the enigmatic and exclusive character of narrative, to its
what he has achieved parallels closely and is often eclipsed property of banishing interpreters from its secret places”
by several biblists doing semiotic analyses in Uon-Dufour’s (33-34). I do not see the force of this, since we could say the
collection Les Miracles & J i w - e v e n as Kermode’s fiction same thing of Mickey Spillane, and if some day, as the
model has been already used by Dominic Crossan. There is cultivation of bad taste further accelerates and is sanctioned
in fact a whole history of this kind of approach by “profes- by that oxymoronic discipline known as “popular culture,”
sional” scholars: Cadbury’s The Making of Luke-Acts, Lauren- there is a canonicking of the Spillane corpus (at the First
tin‘s Structure et thdologie & Luc 1-2, Morgenthaler’s Die Council of Bowling Green?) it too will be subjected to la-
lukanische Geschichtesschreibung als Zeugnis, Boulder’s Type bored, learned, and lauding exegesis. This particular issue
and History in Acts, Vanhoye’s La Structure littiraire & Z’Epitre opens up too many.questions of canon formation to go into
aux Hebrew, Malatesta’s The Eputles of John, etc. I am not SO here, but it is an issue that Kermode wrestles with-I would
learned as I appear. This history is taken from Charles say, to a draw.
Talbert’s Literary P a m , Theological Themes and th Genre of But apart from all that, what he does with Mark and the
Luke-Acts, a book which I, in turn, have found remarkably other evangelists is often little short of stunning, a word to
helpful from the viewpoint of what Kermode, whimsically I be used sparingly outside of that genre known as “blurb-
think, calls “worldly” literary criticism. However, “literary writing.” Thus my judgments above may sound more cen-
criticism” as Kermode uses it is not a hedging phrase, it is sorious than I intend. But there is so much in this book that
only somewhat imprecise-“hardly hedge-rows, little lines is so perceptive (though somewhat casually developed and
of sportive wood run wild,” to cite again the Venerable also anticipated, at least seminally,by conventionalcriticism)
Wordsworth. that I seem to have been impelled to engage in dialogue with
Basically, Kermode takes the form and structure, the it rather than grace it by encomia which, coming from an
character development, and the plotting of fiction as models entirely nonguildy party, might prove more damaging than
for potentially isomorphic formats in the New Testament. any conceivable criticism. For, indeed, Kermode
Thus he begins with a detailed analysisof elements in Henry has very arresting views about narrative “secrecy” as such,
Green’s Patty Going to point up the kinds of clues he is going about that unknown element, “X,”which characterizes
to pursue in the four gospels-curiously confined mainly to every strong work of art, and which opens it to further and
Mark: as curious as beginning with Henry Green, since further interpretation. He is also very good on that particu-
Henry Green is to Mark asJames Joyce is to Luke who might lar unknown element in the teaching of Jesus which Mark
therefore have been a more exemplary choice, though discerned and obfurcatGd (Mark spots the X), commonly
perhaps an easier one. For there are obvious “artistic” forces with that enduringly
at play in Luke, whereas Mark, as Meagher is not the first to unding the death of the
have shown-though he may be the first to have illuminated ,it’s still Salome); so too
Uniwsitv Press J
with the woman hemorrhaging and the Garasene demoniac, of the piece is usually drawn as fully as the hero-again Iago
with the recognition of Jesus’ office by Peter, and with much might come to ‘mind.
of the Passion narrative-at the center of which is the Crux, All of which is by way of suggesting that truth may
aWrd at the center of the discussion of which is a hermeneutic indeed be stranger than fiction, and that it may be exces-
crux. sively pessimistic to conclude “that interpretation, which
That crux has to do with the historicity of these various corrupts as it transforms, begins so early in the development
sayings and deeds, and of these various sayers and doers. of narrative texts that the recovery of the real right original
Kermode devotes his most subtle chapter, “What Precisely thing is an illusory quest’’ (125). “Illusory” is hyperbolic and
Are the Facts?,” to precisely this matter which might be “thing” is ambiguous. For, we do have guideposts and mar-
briefly instanced-out of many possible alternatives-by his kers for the quest, which at this stage is not for the real right
treatment of Judas who is viewed much as a Shakespearean original “thing,” but for the real right original text. Such
scholar might view an Iago: as merely “an abstraction given guideposts are those various principles of interpretation to
body” (Stevens), as merely a medieval morality-play’s which Kermode himself in this book and in others has made
elaborated personification of evil. It is widely acknowl- a notable contribution. Wellhausen on the Pentateuch may
edged, except among fundamentalists and some Scandina- have been wrong in equating brevity and simplicity with
vian traditionalists, that much of theJudas story is midrashic antiquity, and therefore closer to the “real right original”;
and entails a very considerable type and anti-type casting Scartazzini on Dante may have been wrong in suggesting
between Hebrew bible and New Testament. But to see the that of several variants the most complex should be adopted
“‘germ’ of the scene” (85), not only of Judas at the Last because scribes and redactors are simpla$iicateurs, and there-
Supper but of his very existence in the Psalmist’s “Even my fore farther from the real right original. But ultimately
bosom friend, whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, betrays testing these and scores of other congruent and contradic-
me”-to so see is to raise an interpretive hurdle that even the tory interpretive principles may lead to a real right original
wildest horses of instruction, much less tigers of wrath, text which is in no way illusory.
might balk at. (Porcine gravity, of course, requires a lower At this point the interpreter, like everyone else, lives by
stile.) Bishop Butler’s law of converging probabilities; and statisti-
There is narrative precedent for Kermode’sreading, as cally alone, there is no doubt that in some instances that
every cheerless soap-opera on adultery brings out (tl-iangule’ convergence must indicate, at the very least with moral
simiotiquement, as Starobinski might say), or as the thews anZr certitude, the real right original thing. This is the end of one
genre elaborates where, e.g., in the medieval Roman &Alex- quest and the beginning of another, since that thing as the
wire, the hero is betrayed by his close friend-a story as product of intellectus intelligendo is open to deeper under-
‘ctional probably as the story of the boy Alexander dumb- standing, even as that text, equally such a product, is open to
founding the Persian ambassadors or the story of the boy deeper understanding on the part of the questing intelli-
Jesus dumbfounding the Temple scholars. (Has this gence.
aretalogical parallel been drawn elsewhere?) Oddly Ker- But we not only have guideposts, we have guides, and I
mode is arguing from very conventional norms to a very am not sure that Hermes is our best patron, though Ker-
unconventional conclusion. Why should not the psalm ver- mode has some interesting reflections on his multiple roles.
sicle be a simple application to Judas rather than the germ But they are all rather archaizing, like those old tracts peri
of his “invention by Matthew” (1 11; my italics)-much as hermeneias. A contemporary hermeneutic needs a different
Shakespeare, entering into his fabrication, could affirm by model. In both Aeschylus and Shelley, Prometheus mocks
mere auctorial fiat: cogito, Iago sum. On the other hand, the Hermes as a mere messenger boy of the gods, as a mere
norms of narratology certainly do seem to be ignored by the transmitter or harbinger. Prometheus, whose name may be
evangelists’ supplying a papier-mkhk stock figure with a translated by the last of our germanicisms, “Vorverstand-
surname which conveys nothing of his character. When nis,” taught men all the arts including the art of reading. But
Trollope introduces Mr. Slope, and labors the point that even more significantly, he fought with Necessity, the one
Slope has added an “erron his name to make for a more definitive closed meaning, and gave humanity the gift of
euphonious appellation-as the Venerable Fields would Hope, the spes hermeneutica founded on the limitlessnessand
have it-we know the bad guy is on the scene. (The marvel- inexhaustibility of the interpretive act.
ous touch by Trollope is in the self-ironizing fact that the
supplemental “e”in his own name served a similar purpose.)
One may think of Peacock‘s Mr. Toobad, Dickens’ rascally MAN IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Jingle, Goldsmith’s Mr. Snake (who should have B Arnold Gehlen
dropped the “e”). But Judas Iscariot? Kermode, who relies d a n s l a t e d by Patricia Lipscomb
With a Foreword by Peter L. Ber er
heavily on Vincent Taylor’s Mark, fpys with the notion that
Iscariot means “betrayer,” a notion which, Taylor curtly
notes, “has commended itself to few.” (Taylor uses the
New York: Columbia University ress, 1980
Pp. xvi + 185. $17.00
P
anachronism “assassin,” and Kermode derives “betrayer”
from Paul Winter.) On conventional grounds, again, the Reviewer: E . Doyle McCarthy
“. fact that Judas is the only Judean disciple among all those Fordham University
Galileans might have suggested support for Kermode’s view Bronx, NY 10458
that he is a literary fabrication; but on narratological (sic?)
grounds one would have expected much more than the This is the first English translation of a work by the promi-
scanty detail about Judas the evangelists supply. The villain nent German social theorist Arnold Gehlen (1904-76). A
8;rNo. 1 / Januiry 1982 Religious Stu
German edition of his works, which span the tence-religion, language; and labor. The
m the mid-1920s to the mid-l970s, is currently and artificial structures of technical civiliiati
ished in Frankfurt by Vittorio Klostermann. The ferent world, one which takes on the appearance of
work was first published in 1949 under the title “opaqueness”and “unreality” and lacks the stabilizing fea-
chologische P r o b k in der industriellen Cesellschaft. tures of pre-industrial culture. Gehlen offers several #ex-
mis translation is of the 1957 revised edition which ap- planations for this. Modern industrial culture appears to
peared under the new title Die Seek im technkchen Zeitalter. It lack intrinsicjustification. Its institutions come to be seen as
has been consideredone of Gehlen’smost influential works. human creations which can be made and unmade at will.
Gehlen’swritings on the subject of modernizationwere Further, these institutions exclude large numbers of people
introduced to many by the sociologists Peter Berger and from direct production while imposing on others functions
Thomas Luckmann in their works on religion and modern so indirect, complicated, and specialized, that mental and
consciousness. There, in particular, Gehlen’s theory of in- moral integration is increasingly unfeasible. Due to the
stitutionsand his concept “subjectivization”played a promi- complex and specialized activities of technical culture and
nent role in the developmentof the now classic formulations accelerated rates of technical change, there is the growing
of secularization theory in The Sacred Canopy (1967), The sense that it is a domain at once inescapable, impenetrable,
Invisible Religion (1967), and The Hornless Mind (co-authored and overpowering. And, because of this, there is no close
by Berger, Berger, and Kellner in 1973). While these au- correspondence between what an individual does within
thors were, by their own acknowledgment, indebted to that culture and his view of what controls his world and the
Gehlen for his delineation of the social psychological conse- circumstances of his life within it. Given this situation,
quences of modernization, from a reading of the present human behavior increasingly takes on the appearance of
volume it is also true that they, in turn (perhaps, in return), “adaptation” where individuals can only reconcile them-
have served Gehlen well. They clarified and systematized selves and their actions to conditions which appear unalter-
several of Gehlen’s concepts for sociological use and, in able: an adaptation “to spiritually meaningless, morally vac-
particular, for the study of the effects of modernization on uous, and yet overpowering situations” (51).
consciousness. Gehlen emphasizes a twofold character of the
There is still much to be gained by reading Gehlen’s technical-industrialethos. It is both “abstract”and “unreal.”
own portrayal of the culture of modernity-an age of un- That is because it is a domain which is perceived to be
precedented stress for man’s psychic and moral constitution accessible through abstraction-mathematics and technical
and one characterized by a mutation in the very structures symbols-and, therefore, a domain inaccessiblethrough di-
of human consciousness. The crisis in cultural development rect experience. This, Gehlen argues, fosters the loss or
which Gehlen describes stems from the conflict of the attenuation of the sense of its “reality.” Simultaneously, a
human being’s unchanging need-structure and the chang- “new subjectivism” (the title of chapter four) takes place
ing nature of modern institutions. within the realm of private existence.
Gehlen’s theory of institutions rests on the writings of In the domain of the interpersonal, Gehlen argues, the
biologists and ethologistswho emphasize man’s unique posi- loss of traditional structures creates a situation where rela-
tion in the animal world. At birth the human animal lacks tions become “simplified”and “detached”from the rational
innate mechanismswhich provide him with a mode of action controls of public institutional life. The private domain be-
that permits him to respond automatically to his environ- comes a place given over to immediacy and the expression of
ment and to act upon it. The human being’s unique biologi- emotion. This situation accounts,says Gehlen, for the pecu-
cal character or its instinctualimpoverishment disposes him liarly modern tendency to psychological awareness and
to depend upon the extra-organicor social environment to self-absorption-the unprecedented explicitness and
acquire the stability he needs to function. Social institutions directness of individual psychological states. Concern with
“relieve” (enthten) the human being of the burden of pro- the private and the intimate can express itself symptomati-
viding for its own survival. It is the task of institutions to cally through anxiety-anxiety about individual feeling,
facilitateor relieve man of “the taxing search for an appro- identity, and the authenticity of one’slife and relationships.
priate line of conduct” (99). Further, the new subjectivism-the emphasis on “inner
Further, the human animal is a being constituted for elaboration” and “psycho1ogization”-represents an at-
action-for the modification of the external world-whose tempt to control a flood of stimuli that overtaxes our ability
being requires that he objectify himself through labor. to respond. It is as if confrontation with an unreal world, a
There is, for Gehlen, a twofold tendency built into man: a world devoid of meaning, turns the subject inward where
dependency on the social environment for stability and a experiences are monitored in states of heightened aware-
need to actively construct and control the structures which ness and reflection. Subjectivism refers, then, to the re-
come to constitute his life-world. Human action requires a sponse of the subject to the growing sense of the “unreality”
stable background (Hinterpndse$Uung), an “invariant of the public domain. It represents a fundamental trans-
reservoir of usages, habits, institutions, symbols, ideals” formation of the human condition-namely, the develop-
against which individuals may confidently measure their ment of the psyche itself and the bifurcation of inner and
conduct (67-68). outer experience, of “self’ and “outside world.” As he ex-
Man’s place in industrial culture is the theme of this plains in a later chapter, in such a situation a complex
book. It is an account of the fragmentationof the ego and of psychological theory-psychoanalysis-acquires the stand-
“the lost absolute which alone could hold those fragments ing of a world view. Philip Rieff described the appeal of
together” (115). Industrial culture means the weakening of psychoanalysis in similar terms: Freud’s psychoanalysis de-
the great stabilizing and integrating forces of human exis- fended the private man against the demands of culture and
1:&.No. 1J 982
FULLNESS OF LIFE
Historical Foundations for a New Asceticism
Awihble for the first time in Englkb- by Margaret R Miles
Exploring Christianity’s understandings of the body
ETHICS in the past, and presenting new concepts for the
by Wolfhart Pannenberg future, Miles discusses Gnosticism, martyrdom, and
Pannenberg enters into creative dialog with great asceticism, and leads the way for a greater
thinkers of the past and present to provide a full appreciation of the human body as the focus of life
statement of his views on the philosophical and and of salvation.
theological foundations of ethics and the Paper, $11.95
application of theology to social and political
issues.
Paper, $10.95
peated claims of persons raised from the dead, glossolalic ment of this thesis I have seen is Barton, 1980, a paper given at the
ecstasy, and eschatological visions of every sort were the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, 1980, and
forthcoming as part of a book-length study of religion and
stuff of daily life, the palpable elements of the really real. working-class culture in America.
This leads us to wonder, with Kenelm Burridge, if “those Davies, 1965,27; Anderson mentions (83-84, 214-15) but in
supposedly hapless creatures of circumstances, people, re- general severely minimizes the role of strain in the religious mean-
ally [are] 50 helpless?”The chaos and imaginative disorder ing system.
that stands outside the constraints and principles of the lL Some of this literature is summarized in Dearman, 1974,438;
social system is, in Bumdge’s words, undeniably the source see also Bourguignon, 1965, 57. Anderson acknowledges that
of the “noxiousand [the] destructive,”but surely it also is the Pentecostalism engendered the values of “passivity, obedience,
“fount of most of our becomings” (1979, ix-x). honesty, hard work, thrift, self-denial, and sobriety” (239). How-
Long after the computers have shut down and the ever, he characterizesthese as proletarian traits, which (except for
behavioral scientists have gone home, the real work of the the first) I find simply inexplicable.
“new” social historian remains to be done: somehow to un-
derstand the dialectic between social forms and the private REFERENCES
lives inside. This means, among other things, that the histo-
rian who seeks to untangle the origins of a religious move- BARTON, JOSEF
ment like Pentecostalismis charged with the taskof showing 1980 “Pentecostalismand Rural Society in the Southern High-
how plain men and women, locked into a particular position lands, 1890-1950.” Paper given at the annual meeting of the
American Academy of Religion, Dallas, 1980.
in the social system, paradoxically invested their lives with BLOCH-HOELL, NILS
significance by discerning chaos in order as well as the 1964 ET The Pmtccostal Movement: Its Ongin, Developmm, and
reverse. It may well turn out that the enduring significance fitinctive Character. London: Allen & Unwin (Norwegian origi-
of the vision of the disinherited is that it flourished precisely nal, 1956).
because it was so desperately out of step with the times. BOISEN, ANTON T.
1939a “Religion and Hard Times: A Study of the Holy Roll-
ers.” S o d Action 5, 8-35.
NOTES 1939b “Economic Distress and Religious Experience: A Study
I a m indebted to Donald G. Mathews and Everett Wilson for of the Holy Rollers.” Psychiahy 2, 185-94.
discussions that have helped me think about Anderson’s work in BROWN,PETER
the context of the general social origins of religious movements. 1972 Religion and Society in the Age ofsaint August&. Harper &
I shall use “Pentecostal” to refer to members of traditional Row.
Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God and BOURGIGNON, ERIKA
countless, independent store-frontchurches. I am not referring to 1965 “The Self, the Behavioral Environment,and the Theory
the recent neo-Pentecostals of charismatic revival in the Roman of Spirit Possession.” In Melford E. Spiro (ed.), Context and
Catholic Church and in some mainstream Protestant denomina- Meaning in Cultural Anthropology. Free Press.
tions. The term “tongues,”which Pentecostals prefer, will be used BURRIDGE, KENELM
instead of the more technical word glossolalia. 1979 Someone, No One:An Essay onlfidividualily. Princeton Uni-
Dissertations that have become books include Hollenweger, versity Press.
1977; Kendrick, 1961; Menzies, 1971; Nichol, 1966; Synan, 1971, CLOW,HARVEY KENNEDY
1973. A sizeable number of dissertationshas now been written on 1976 “Ritual, Belief, and the Social Context: An Analysis of a
American Pentecostal history. Many are listed in Anderson’s bib- Southern Pentecostal Sect.” Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University.
liography. Four he does not cite which are especially useful are CONN, CHARLES W.
Clow, 1976; Reed, 1978; Shropshire, 1976; Waldvogel, 1977. Two 1977 Likc a Mighty Army: A History ofthe Church of God, 1886-
important historical treatments that did not originate as disserta- 1976. Rev. ed. Pathway Press (Cleveland, TN).
tions by Pentecostals should be mentioned. Bloch-Hoell, 1964, is DAVIES,HORTON
the outgrowth of a dissertation by a very scholarly but decidedly 1965 ChristianDcoiations. Westminster Press.
unsympatheticNorwegian historian. Conversely, Conn, 1977, is an DEARMAN, MARION
able work by an amateur historian, a Church of God official. 1974 “Christand Conformity: A Study of Pentecostal Values.”
’The behavioral literature on Pentecostalism may not be vast Journal for the Scientijiu Study of Religion 13, 437-53.
but it is extensive. For a brief summary of the older literature see DOHERTY, ROBERT W.
Hine, 1969; for a much more extensiveand more recent summary 1967 “Status Anxiety and American Reform: Some AIterna-
see McDonnell, 1976. Virtually every issue of the Journalfor thc tives.” American Quarterly 19,32937.
Wadsworth and religious studies . .
exploring other worlds to understand our own:
At Wadsworth, we have a Iongstanding commitment:to bring you and your
students texts of the caliber and scope to meet your real and present needs. Our com-
mitment continues with the following texts-texts marked by their superb scholar-
ship, clarity, timeliness, objecff vity, and close attention to pedagogy. We invite you
to take a closer look at those Wadsworth texts that suit your needs.
-recently published- - the "StrengScder"contfnuerWMIthese new edftfons-
JUDAISM: DEVELOPMENT AND LIFE, NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIONS
THIRD EDITION Sam D. Gill (Ph.D., University of Chicago),
Leo Trepp (Ph.D., University of Wuerzburg), Arizona State university Paperbound/August 1981
Napa College PaperbounUOctober 1981 A brief, insightful introduction to native American
A revised and updated new edition of this esteemed, religions that provides undergraduates with the first
comprehensive work that covers the history, evolution, overview of the current research and thought in this
institutions, practices, and life patterns of Judaism and area that goes beyond the anthropologist'sview.. .new
Jews, with expanded coverage of the Holocaust. to the Series.
WAYS TO THE CENTER: JAPANESE RELIGION: UNITY AND DIVERSITY,
AN INTRODUCTION TO WORLD RELIGIONS THIRD EDITION
Denise Carmody (Ph.D., Boston College) and H. Byron Earhart (Ph.D.. University of Chicago),
John Carmody (Ph.D., Stanford University ), both Western Michigan University Paperbound/
Wichita State University Hardbound/January 1981 January 1982
"You have produced the best 'introduction to religion' An historically complete introduction to Japanese
text that I've seen. ..it clearly blends historical investi- religion that divides history into three periods and
gation, sociological/psychological/anthropological presents a unified interpretation of the Japanese tradi-
theories, and philosophicalinsight into a richly textured tion in modem times.. .anupdated, expanded edition
mosaic that expresses the complexity, the beauty, and with more on thought and dynamics of religious life
the problems in each religious tradition."T.V. Peterson, in modem-day Japan.
Alfred University THE BUDDHIST RELIGION, THIRD EDITION
The late Richard H. Robinson, formerly University of
EXPLORING RELIGION Wisconsin; and Willard L. Johnson (Ph.D., University
Roger Schmidt (M.A., Claremont Graduate School), of Wisconsin), Oberlin College Paperbound/
San Bemardino Valley College HardbouncVAugust 1980 Spring 1982
A topical exploration of the primary dimensions of A comprehensive, student-oriented introduction to
religious expression that is balanced, comprehensive, Buddhism that examines present-day Buddhism in the
contemporary, and academically sound. context of its historical development...a thoroughly
updated edition with expanded coverage of Tibetan,
AMERICA: RELIGIONS AND RELIGION Thai, and American Buddhism.
Catherine L. Albanese (Ph.D., University of Chicago),
Wright State University Paperbound/February 1981 Other texts available in The ReUgious fffe of Man Series
".. .the first new synthesis of American religion since (edited by Frederkk J. Streng, Southern Methodist Unhrerslty):
William Warren Sweet" (Ernest R. Sandeen, Macalester Understanding Religious Life, Second Edition, by Frederick
College) that combines a history-of-religionsapproach J. Streng The House of Islam. Second Ednion. by Kenneth
Cragg Chinese Religion: An Introduction,Third Edition, by
with a new interpretive model for pluralism in Laurence G.Thompson The Christian Religious Tradition,
American religion. by Stephen Reynolds The Way of Torah: An Introduction
to Judaism, Third Edition, by Jacob Neusner The Hindu
Religious Tradition, by ThomasJ. Hopkins Anthologies:
For more information on these texts or for a copy The Chinese Way in Religion, by Laurence G.Thompson
of the Wadswoith Religious Studies catalogue, write Religion in the Japanese Experience:Sources and Interpreta-
ReugiouSStudies Editor Sheryl Fullerton,Box RSR-1-82: tions. by H. Byron Earhart The Life of Torah: Readings in
the Jewish Religious Experience, by Jacob Neusner Islam
\v WADSWORTH
EIiE.COMPAlVY
from Within: Anthology of a Religion, by Kenneth Cragg and
R. Manton Speight The Buddhist Experience, by Stephan
Beyer
GERUCH, LUTHER
1970 Pe&C. Pow of Social Transfonnutwn. 1971 The Holiness P
Bobbs-Me;riil. Eerdmans.
GUTMAN, HERBERT G. 1973 The Old-Tim Reli&i: A History of the Pentecostal Holiness
1976 Work, Culture, and Society b Zndust?dizing America. Ran- Church. Advocate Press (Franklin Springs, GA).
dom House. THELEN, DAVIDP.
HARRELL, DAVIDEDWIN 1969 “Social Tensions and the Origins of Progressivism.”
1975 All Things A k: The Healing and Charismutic Re- Journul of American History 56,323-41.
vivals in Modan A iana University Press. THOMPSON, E. P.
HARRISON, JOHN F. C. 1966 Making of the English Working C h s . Random House.
1979 The Second Coming: Popular Millcnarianism, 1780-1850. TURNER, FREDERICK C.
Rutgers University Press. 1970 “Protestantismand Pohics in Chile and Brazil.” Compara-
HENREITA, JAMES A. tive Studies in So&p and History 12, 213-29.
1979 “Social History as Lived and Written.” A d a n HistOkd WALDVOGEL, EDITHL.
R& 84, 1293-1322. ’ 1977 “The ‘OvercomingLife’: A Study in the Reformed Evan-
HINE,VIRGINIAH. gelical Origins of Pentecostalism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard
1969 “PentecostalGlossolal~:Toward a Functional Interpre- University.
tation.” J o u d for the S&nt#U Study of Religion 8, 2 11-26. WILSON, JOHN F.
1974 “The Deprivation and DisorganizationTheoriesof Social 1978 Religion in American Society: The Eflective Presence.
Movements.” In Irving I. Zaretsky and Mark P. Leone (eds.), Prentice-Hall.
Religious Movements in Contenrporary America, 646-61. Princeton WILSON, BRYAN
University Press. 1961 Sects and So&ty. London: Heinemann.
HOLLENWEGER, WALTERJ.
1977 ET The P&cost&. Augsburg Publishing House.
HUTCH,RICHARDA.
1980 “The Personal Ritual of Glossolalia.”Journalforthe Scien-
hyu Study 4 Religion 19, 255-66.
JOHNSON, PAUL E.
1978 A Shopkcepcr‘s Millennium: Society and Revivalr in Rochesh,
NEU YO&, 18151837. Hill & Wag.
KENDRICK, KLAUDE
1961 The PronicC Fdf&d: A Histoty of the Modern Pentecostal
Mouement. Gospel Publishing House (Springfield, MO). 2
LABARRE, WESTON
1971 “Materials for a History of Studies of Crisis Cults: A THE DISINHERITANCE OF THE SAINTS
Bibliographic Essay.” Cuwent Anthropology 12, 3-44.
LANE, W. CLAYTON, and ROBERT A. ELLIS
1969 “Social Mobility and Anticipatory Socialization.” P m f u Timothy L. Smith
SotMb@al RGUiRU 12, 5-14. Johns Hopkins Universig
MARTIN,ROBERTF. Baltimore, M D 21218
1975 “The Early Years of American Pentecostalism, 1900-
1940: Survey of a Social Movement.”Ph.D. dissertation,Univer- The broad favorable reaction to Robert M. Anderson’s Vi-
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. sion of the Disinherited is readily understandable. Although
MCDONNELL, KILIAN judicious in tone, the narrative is frankly sympathetic. It
1976 Chu- Renewal and the Churches. Paulist Press. displays the results of wide reading in the sources of every
MENZIES,WILLIAMW. one of the many Pentecostal sects, as well as solid acquain-
1971 Anointed to S m e : The Stmy o f h e Assemblies of God. Gospel
Publishing House (Springfield, MO). tance with the extensive scholarly literature pertinent to the
NICHOL, JOHN THOMAS
subject. Moreover, Anderson carefully avoids affirming
1966 Pentecostdk. Harper & Row. either the general evangelical or the specifically Pentecostal
NUGENT,WALTERT. K. ideas and commitments the movement embraced. His inten-
1977 From C e n t e n d to World War: American Society, 1876- tion, he tells us, was to analyze “the making of American
1917. Bobbs-Merrill. Pentecostalism” from the point of view of both insiders and
REED,DAVID outsiders. T h e widespread approval of the volume seems to
1978 “Origins and Development of the Theology of Oneness me directly related to his fulfilling of this aim in a particular
Pentecostalism in the United States.” Ph.D. dissertation,Boston way: the evidence is drawn from insiders, and the interpre-
University. tations from outsiders.
RICHARDSON, JAMES T.
T h e facts of the narrative are in virtually every detail
1973 “Psychological Interpretations of Glossolalia: A Re- drawn from the contemporary writings and later reminis-
examination of Research.”J o u d for the Sci..tt#iu Study of Reli-
gion 12, 199-207. cences of American Pentecostals. It is a comprehensive ac-
SCHWARTZ, GARY count that deals evenhandedly with every major group,
1970 Sect Ideologies and Social Stutus. University of Chicago whereas previous writers have given preponderant atten-
press. tion to only one wing of the movement. Anderson includes
----- , dorse. All this wou
psycho-historical or sociological explanations of religious
movements did not. All this constitutes a great advance over fact to obscure major aspects
previous studies. illumination of some minor ones.
Nevertheless, Anderson almost never tests the accuracy Anderson’s opening chapter, entitled “The Charis-
ofthe accounts of insiders against the records left by outside matic Tradition,” raises this historiographic question sharp-
observers who, he argues, were closely associated with the ly. He argues, first, that tongues-speaking, which most
origins of Pentecostalism, namely, the radical Wesleyans in would agree is the distinctive mark of -Pentecostal faith,
the holiness movement, the spokesmen for the English and takes place in a trance-like experience of -ecstasy, or “an
altered state of consciousness.” Althou ’ h this denies what
American wings of the Keswick movement, and those evan-
gelicals (he does not identify them as Baptists, Congrega-
tionalists, and Presbyterians moving toward Fundamen-
B
modern Pentecostals themselves testi y a b u t the expe-
rience, it affirms what Anderson d a b ‘We consensus of
talism) who had embraced Plymouth Brethren views of dis- those historians, sociologists, anthropologists, theologians,
pensational premillennialism. He does not even consider psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurophysiologists who
the possibility that the founders may also have drawn their have studied the phenomenon.’’ T h e battery of big intellec-
ideas about restoring the New Testament church order tual guns he cites in the footnote to that statement is formi-
from the Disciples or Churches of Christ, or their conviction dable. But by appealing to such authorities he is able to avoid
that charismatic gifts are always linked with the baptism of the question whether many scholars who have studied the
the Holy Spirit, from Mormons. Charles parham’s millenar- phenomenon, including the ones he cites, were for reasons
ian beliefs-notably that of the annihilation of the wicked of their own fascinated by trancelike states, and a bit eager to
at death-seem obviously Adventist. A doctrine of the “fin- place “spiritual” phenomena in categories which diminish
ished work“ of Christ in the experience of the new birth had their religious significance. He also is able to ignore, as his
long been used by Southern Baptists and Presbyterians to authorities did, the fact that in both the Hebrew and Chris-
oppose the Methodist emphasis on sanctifying grace. The tian scriptures, as well as in the long history of the use of
records of both a nearer and a largely unidentified wider those scriptures by Christian and Jewish teachers, the pres-
circle of non-Pentecostal evangelicals thus play no part in ence and power of the Spirit of God-both in the commu-
shaping or validating Anderson’s narrative of events. nity of the faithful and in the consciousness of the
The outsiders whose interpretations and evaluations he individual-was understood to brixig illumination to the
adopts are twentiethcentury scholars in biblical, sociologi- intellect and moral empowerment to the will, rather than an
cal, psychological, and historical studies. Most of these altered state of consciousness.
leaned somewhat upon early anthropological studies of sur- One aspect of Anderson’s definition of tongues-
viving remnants of “primitive”religions. Their conclusions speaking seems certain to please Pentecostals. He rejects, for
were limited, of course, as are Anderson’s, to those they the purposes of historical analysis, the distinction between
believed scientifically valid. But the Pentecostals built what xmglossy (that is, a language unknown to the speaker and
was new in their understanding of Christian faith around some or all of his or her audience but known to some nation
belief in a continuing miracle of ecstatic speech, whether in or culture and intended for their conversion) and gbssorcllia
earthly or heavenly languages, and around the expectation (that is, “tongues” which are no human language at all but
of frequent miracles of divine healing, spiritual discern- one or more heavenly ones, thought to contain a message to
ment, and exorcism. Anderson’s massive use of twentieth- earthlings whenever one of the believing hearers is granted
century scholarship, therefore, sustains his flat rejection of the gift of interpretation). “Speaking in tongues,” he writes,
the authenticity of Pentecostal experiences of both ecstasy ‘‘isany vocalization uttered in an actual or imputed state of
and miracle. In the narrative, however, the authenticity of altered consciousness that is attributed by some group to a
the insiders’ reports of such seeming miracles is not an issue. spirit or power other than the speaker.” Such an inclusive
All that matters is the evidence of the character and extent definition protects Pentecostal belief from attacks by other
of their belief in them, and of the presumed source of that Evangelicals; for it ignores the apparent distinction between
belief: the psychic consequences of cultural or economic the gift of instantly understood human languages recorded
deprivation. in Acts 2 and the language of heaven that many Pentecostals
The net result is a book which will on first reading seem believe is the subject of the other New Testament passages
entirely satisfying to scholars in many fields. Its detailed and on tongues-speaking, in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.
respectful summaries of the testimony of early Pentecostals Only a tiny minority of Pentecostals, however, will be
will also make it attractive to the best-educated of their happy to find their conflation of these two events sustained
modern successors. The latter will be especially pleased that by a radically critical exegesis of the story of Pentecost pre-
Anderson relies upon insiders’ evidence to resolve persua- sented in Acts. Anderson argues that all the fleeting refer-
sively the major contradiction in previous Pentecostal his- ences to speaking in tongues in the New Testament refer to
toriography, namely, the argument over whether its origins glossolalia, that is, utterance while in asstateof altered con-
lie chiefly in the Holiness or the proto-Fundamentalist sciousness of a language unknown on earth. That phenom-
movements. enon, he says, demonstrates the ecstatic character of the
’ tian community. He appeals at length, then, to rience of such faith stirred profound emotio
w Testament scholars who have suggested that .St. both the Old and the
story of Pentecost so as to depict a gift oE emotionswere expresse
guages in order to sustain St. Paul’s effort beauty and intellectual power.
to impose rational order and ethical discipline upon a wildly In Hebrew and Christian religion ecstasy, or
charismatic church. Such reasoning is hardly an option for rience of the Spirit, consists in an intelligible gras
modern Pentecostals, for it challenges their loyalty to the the will and the love of God, and a hunger to share them.
widespread Evangelicalbelief in the divine inspiration of all Although dreams, visions, and trance-induced physical be-
scripture. havior, such as King Saul’s lying naked all day long among a
Biblical scholars on both sides of the Atlantic do not group of unidentified Hebrew “prophets,”do appear in the
seem to have displayed significant interest in ecstatic utter- Old Testament, ecstatic utterance as an expression.of reli-
ance as a sign of possession by the Spirit until the news of the giousecstasy does not appear there at all; nor does it occur in
Pentecostal awakening broke upon America and Europe in the nonbiblical literature of the ancient Near East (Isbell,
1907. The movement arrived in Germany in 1908, during 1976). Moreover, the phenomenon of glossolalia appears
the same period when the study of comparative religions only rarely in Greek and Hellenistic texts describing-the
was provoking inquiry into primitive elements in early mystery cults. Only in the case of the crazed gibberish of the
Christianityand the Hellenistic mystery religions. Then, for Delphic priestess is the record unambiguously precise. What
the first time, biblical scholars began to consider the prob- was in the air in the centuries preceding the Apostolic age
lem St. Paul addressed in Corinth to be the disorderly use of was the notion that sexual ecstasy, practiced often amidst
the “language of angels” by persons in trance-like states, temple prostitution, and secret or mysterious knowledge,
rather than, as all had earlier assumed, the use in public used pragmatically for personal advantage, were signs of
worship of one’s mother tongue when most of the hearers the supernatural. This notion both the Old Testament
could not understand it. Those whose conclusions Ander- prophets and the New Testament writers opposed. The use
son quotes, such as Ernst Kasemann and Hans Conzelmann, by modern biblical historians of shreds of evidence to argue
have adopted this new interpretation, even at the cost of the pervasiveness of glossolalia in the Apostolic age repre-
altering the meaning of the word in 1 Corinthians 14:14, sents in fact, as Anderson’s book does, a pejorative evalua-
translated in the best modern versions as “unfruitful,” to tion of both primitive Christianityand of the modern Pente-
mean “empty” or “swallowed up.” Following them, Ernst costals who believe they have revived it.
Haenchen, as Anderson points out, argues powerfully that Similarly, the central thesis of Anderson’s book, dis-
the story of the miraculous gift of well-known languages at played in the title, is drawn from a modern sociological
Pentecost was “a later interpretation imposed on the event theory he apparently believes is so widely accepted as to
by the author of Acts” (23,n. 52). The ground of such make the demonstration of it, from evidence, unnecessary.
reasoning, of course, as of Anderson’sacceptanceof it, is, in The notion that ecstatic religion reflects the need for dislo-
his own words, the scientific belief that “the ability to speak a cated and disinherited persons to find a compensatory sense
language with which one has had absolutely no prior of identification with the divinewould not stand up very well
acquaintance” is “utterly incredible.” if tested by comparativestudy of the immense growth in this
century of conservative churches with little or no history of
ecstatic religion, such as the Churches of Christ, the South-
e m Baptists, the urban Fundamentalists, the Black Baptists,
the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the Church of
Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints. Mormon expansion
has taken place without any revival at all of their early
interest in the gifts of the Spirit, including, though rarely,
that of unknown tongues. What Mormon missionaries of-
fered instead was a community of the saints that promised,
as did Pentecostal regeneration, both spiritual meaning and
temporal security, and citizenship in a kingdom that was to
come down from God and bring peace to every valley on
But the kind of “scientific” reasoning historians es- earth.
pouse does not sustain the use of these tiny pieces of ambiva- The Churches of Christ grew rapidly in many of the
lent evidence to make the New Testament testify that the same places where Pentecostals flourished: Roanoke, Nash-
experience of glossolalia, as practiced today, was wide- ville, Memphis, Little Rock, Houston, Los Angeles, and all
spread in early Christianityand the source of the confusion the Ozark towns. And they attracted the same social groups.
Paul was trying to restrain among the Christians at Corinth. Their preqccupation with the restoration of primitive Chris-
To do so is to ignore the centuries-longeffort of the Hebrew tianity, and hence with the New Testament, equaled that of
prophets-the most “charismatic”figuresof Old Testament any Pentecostal. But their beliefs and practices were the
faith-as well as of Jesus and his apostles,including St. Paul, antithesis of Pentecostalism. They thought premillennial-
to make understanding the faithfulness of God the intelli- ism a twentieth-century heresy. They stressed free will and
gible ground of the experienceof trust which opens a repen- free grace as intensely as any Wesleyan, and made obedi-
tant heart to the Spirit of God. In both the old and new ence to Christ’s commands the only sure sign of salvation.
covenants, the Holy Spirit is the bringer of Shalom-of wis- Yet the experienceof conversion among them was an affair
dom, holiness, and healthy relationships. That an expe- of the mind, which occurred when sinners were convinced
Religious
At your h k s e U e r or fiom
Vol. 8, No;r l ./Januaiy1982
dincame, educational “achievement, and home summers.ago to pray, sing, and speak.
:‘and thelevidence of lay leadership of ethnic unknown tongues is uncontestable evide
ons revealed remakkable degrees of middle-class ecstasyof glossolalic praise has a powerful appeal to h-.
aspifition a n d achievement among immigrant groups dividuals of all social and economic backgrounds.
whose ¢ arrival and perceived status seemed to place Turning to a different theme, Anderson seems to
them among the disinherited. Such studies have raised deep minimize and certainly does deprecate the Pentecostal em-
questions whether an analysis of “class,” particularly when phasis upon faith healing. He acknowledges that it was an
based upon traditional models, sheds much light on the important part of their belief system, standing alongside
cultural or religious behavior of new immigrants. This unknown tongues in the earlier period as a sign that the Last
should prompt readers of Anderson’s book to consider his Days were drawing near. His evaluation and interpretation,
failure to make or report close analysesof the social status of however, is drawn quickly but decisively from scholarly
persons who joined early Pentecostal congregations. Only “outside” studies carried on by persons who scarcely needed
by such studies could he have established the validity of the proof to convince themselves or their readers that real mira-
widely-held view that they were disinherited saints. cles do not take place in the actual world.
I What all such analyses require, moreover, but often do Anderson’s discussion makes no significant reference
dot provide, is a comparative study of the apparent social to the earlier growth of popular Protestant interest in divine
status of the members of neighboring congregationsof con- healing, as exhibited in Christian Science,in the teachings of
W t i n g belief and practice, such as Kenneth W. Under- some of the missionary and evangelistic “faith” movements,
wodd provided long ago in his illuminating account of and, more recently, in staid Lutheran and Episcopal par-
Holyoke, Massachusetts. Would the use of city directories to ishes. He seems not to realize that the leaders of both the
trace down the occupation of members or leaders of the Wesleyan and the Keswick holiness movements in America
pioneer Pentecostal Holiness Church in Nashville show a and England resisted for a long time the idea of making
different configuration than that of the community who faith healing a central part of their teaching, although many
belonged to one of the newly-founded Churches of Christ in on the fringes of both movements had wished to give it a
that city? Were Black Baptists in Memphis demonstrably less larger place. In view of the groundswell of public interest it
“disinherited” than those who joined Elder C. H. Mason’s seems likely that the Pentecostal declaration of the universal
Church of God in Christ? Only when we know the answers availabilityof healing through faith was an important draw-
to such questions can we really judge the matter fairly. But ing card. It certainly helped confirm their vindication of the
Anderson has been able to present his generalizations con- biblical idea of the miraculous. The similar preoccupation of
fidently because they fit so closely the preconceptions of the the early Mormons and of their contemporaries, the Lon-
scholarly community. don Irvingites, is worth recalling at this point.
The adequacy of deprivation theory would also be Would not reference to the centuries-longattraction of
more readily questioned, I think, in a volume which came faith healing to Roman Catholics also enrich our under-
forward in time so as to include the charismatic movement standing of the Pentecostal appeal? Here, certainly, stu-
that has grown so extensively since 1957 among Roman dents of Pentecostalism need to ponder the rapidly expand-
Catholic, Protestant Episcopal, Lutheran, and other “old ing scholarly literature concerning popular religion in
line” Protestant communions. The experience of speaking Europe, England, and America in the past four centuries.
in tonguekamong them may not be “ecstatic” at all, in The social historians of France have added much to our
Anderson’s sense of that word, as it generally is not among knowledge of these matters, notably Natalie Z. Davis and
second- and third-generation Pentecostals. Nevertheless, A. N. Galbern. Keith Thomas’ Religion and the Decline of
glossolalia, healing, spiritual discernment, and other kinds Magic is significant both for what it says and does not say
of what they call the “gifts of the Spirit” are clearly signifi- about the relationship between the two. But certainly one
cant elements in the fellowships that unite charismatic be- could explain the attractiveness of a healing-oriented
lievers in home Bible studies, prayer conferences, and reli- Protestantism to Roman Catholic immigrants from Central
gious rallies. Clearly, the leadership of the Catholic phase of Europe as much by reference to their traditions as to their
the movement is firmly in the hands of priests and bishops social dislocation. Moreover, the immense preoccupation of
and members of the Benedictine, Holy Cross, and Jesuit middle-class Protestants with healing ministries in recent
orders. years would suggest that even in the absence of such a
A decisive difference, of course, is the fact that persons tradition the promise of a great tide of physical healing in
in the charismatic movement remained members of their the Last Days is compelling to any who can be persuaded to
original congregations. They have participated more heart- believe that the Bible sustains it. Ironically, such a belief
ily than ever in sacramental rituals, declaring that their seems also to flourish amidst the declining certainty of
rediscovery of the spiritual realities that lie beneath the heavenly hopes. The escalating fear of death that RobertJay
rituals have made the Christian religion more deeply sig- Lifton has posited in our times may have contributed more
nificant than before. The older Pentecostals, by contrast, than we have recognized to a desperately“religious”quest to
appear to have sprung up among the most radical of reli- prolong life on earth.
gious firebrands, in communities where the historic con- Finally, I question whether the narrow interpretative
straints of order and ritual had almost disappeared. frame upon which Anderson wove this book would have
Nevertheless, the intensity of feeling with which Cardinal been possible if a broad interest in comparative develop-
Archbishop Suenens of Belgium and thousands of Roman ments in England and on the continent of Europe were
Catholics stood alongside Black and white American Pente- , regarded as prerequisite to sound scholarship about Ameri-
costals and charismatics in the Kansas City stadium two can religious history. For example, a misinterpretation of
Re!li&d&iilie~ Review / 27
Fosdickand Mathews ha
tive a successful revitalization of religious ideas that have How little change it would require to make these statements
permeated Hebrew culture ever since Moses led the fully contemporary!
Exodus, and have inspired Western Christendom ever since The situation in which we would reappraise liberalism
St. Paul wrote letters from a Roman prison. is, of course, very different from‘theone that originally gave
rise to the classical liberal themes: Certain battles seem to
REFERENCES
have been won decisively: the theological legitimacy of bibli-
I cal criticism and the historical-critical method generally; the
ISBELL,CHARLES D. recognition that the formation of both biblical ideas and the
1976 “Originsof hophetic Frenzy and .&static Utterance in history of doctrine are-relativeto historical and social con-
the Old Testament World.” Wesleyun Theological Journal 11 text; the acceptance of a much more complex relationship
(Spring),62-80. . I . . L a
:I.%.*<..
Robinson’s presentation makes considerable progress Why call the NHC ‘ ‘ g n ~ ~ t i ~Presumably
’’? because at one
in the direction of a satisfactory understanding of the Chris- period in the history of scholarly discussion about the NHC
tian world from which the NHC derive but is still not suffi- the word “library” suggested enough homogeneity that ev-
ciently critical of the assumptions we inherit or sufficiently erything in the NHC, plus some related materials, could be
inductive and circumspect about what the availableevidence painted with the same “gnostic” brush. But now that “li-
from Coptic (monastic) Egypt seems to suggest. On the one brary” is seen to be a very w e d designation, if not entirely
hand, there is little in the preserved traditions about the inappropriate, and to refer only to the monk-hermit (pre-
origins and early development of Coptic Egyptian monasti- sumably)who for some reason collected the diverse codices,
cism (Antony, Pachomius, even Shenoute) to suggest that how is it “gnostic”?Although Robinson and his collaborators
philosophical-theological concerns were the touchstone of seem to know better, users of the NHS/CGLmaterials will be
community acceptance. “Orthodoxy” in that sense seems forced to fight this “gnostic” ghost (not to mention the
not to be a major issue in and of itself, although it may “library”ghost) in this overt form as a series title as well as in
become an aspect of a more widely based conflict situation innumerable more subtle ways.
(especially with Shenoute). Much more in focus as water- Indeed, Robinson himself has scarcely been successful
sheds of “orthodoxy” (or is it “orthopraxy”?)for the emerg- on this front, despite his careful attention to the diversity of
ing monastic communities were matters of loyalty to God’s materials (content) and of format in the NHC. While he
human authorities-the archbishop, the local leadership acknowledgesthat the texts do not come “from one group or
(“holy man”)-and perseverance in wrestling with the an- movement” (1; see above), he postulates that “these diver-
tagonistic demonic world. By the beginning of the fifth sified materials must have had something in common which
century, a militant monasticism had developed under caused them to be chosen by those who collected them” (1;
Shenoute in the Nag Hammadi area which attempted to italics added). He then explains, quite arbitrarily:
take social control of the area as well by suppressing or The focus that brought the collection together is an estrangement
eliminating serious rivals (“pagans”). There is little evidence from the mass of humanity, an affinity to an ideal order that
of theological self-consciousness even here, except as part of completely transcends life as we know it, and a life-style radically
the larger context concerning authority and conflict. When other than common practice. This life-style involved giving up all
literature is mentioned in relevant late fourth- and early the goods that people usually desire and longing for an ultimate
fifthcentury stories, letters, and so forth, it tends to be liberation. It is not an aggressive revolution that is intended, but
biblical/canonical. But our sources of information are rela- rather a withdrawal from involvement in the contamination that
destroys clarity of vision (1).
tively few and limited in representation. All of this would
tend to confirm the possibility that a “Pachomian” monastic The assumption, from the outset, would seem to be that
s) could have“owned the NHC, but it there is at least a hermit-monastic ideal behind the materials.
burial“ of the NHC need be used as Given the probability, as Robinson argues later (17f.), that at
least some of the codices were produced in close connection
with the Pachomian monastery, presumably by monastics,
we would expect the writings to be in some way useful to the
into a vague “gnostic” environment: answer to the human dilemma, an attitude towaFd *iety, h a t is
m e point of the Nag Hammadi library [sic] has been battered and worthy of being taken quite seriouslyby anyone able and willing to
fragmented by the historical process through which it has finally grapple with such ultimate issues. This%& stance has until now
‘cometo light.. . .The ancient world’s religious and philosophical been known almost exclusively through the myopic view of
waditions and mythology were all that was available to express heresy-hunters, who often quote only to refute or ridicule. Thus
what was in fact a quite untraditional stance. Yet the stance was too the coming to light of the Nag Hammadi library gives unexpected
radical to establish itself within the organized religions or access to the Gnostic stance as Gnostics themselves presented it. It
,philosophicalschools of the day, and hence was hardly able to take provides new roots for the uprooted (3; italics added).
,advantage of the culture’s educational institutions to develop and
darify its implications. Gnostic schools[sic]began to emerge within This is very confusing. T h e “something in common” attrib-
Christianity and Neoplatonism, until both agreed in excluding uted to the NHL on p. 1 as the reason why the codices were
them as the “heresy” of Gnosticism. Thus meaningful and elo- collected by their most recent users in antiquity-a “focus’’
quent myths and philosophical formulationsof that radical stance which has “much in common with primitive Christianity,
became in their turn garbled traditions, reused by later and lesser with eastern religions, and with holy men of all times” (1)-
authors whose watered-down, not to say muddied, version may be has now become “the Gnostic stance.” I n the context of the
most of what has survived.
heterogeneity of the collection and its rather artificial
If we have read these presentations correctly, Robinson characterization as a “library,” this discussion can only be
begins by denying any clear sociological homogeneity (in described as premature, arbitrary, and potentially mislead-
terms of groups/movements) to the texts in the NHL, argues ing. We have materials that presumably appealed to an
that the (presumably fourth-century Pachomian monastic) ascetic Christian “stance” and were copied in that frame-
collectors found some focus in the texts, then proceeds to work. What the original “stance”of each text may have been,
talk as though the NHL actually derived from some original and how each particular text came to be transmitted and
unity (“stance”) that was somehow associated with “gnostic preserved in this specific form, and came into relationship
schools” and came to be badly garbled and diffused in the with the other texts in its codex, requires more careful
process of transmission. T h e ghost of a “Gnostic Library” detailed analysis and should not be prejudged by means of
seems to haunt this rhetoric! the “gnostic library” generalization.
At bookstores, or from
ORBIS BOOKS
Maryknoll, N Y 10545
Write for catalog
..
view :Val.
An-unusualjuxta-
the sooner the n a Hamburg codex
third- and fourth-
tic manuscripts seem
to use this valuable set of keys to help unlock various mys- to be even more tantalizing in this respect, at least at this
teries of early (Egyptian) religious history and literature. At relatively early stage of detailed modern study of early co-
present, we simply do not know what criteria will be most dices.’ The NHC seem to fit very well into the spirit of
useful in attempting to identify the motivations of fourth- Coptic bookmaking techniques as they were developing in
century Coptic Christians, or their predecessors, in copying the fourth century. That is another reason for taking great
and collecting the texts in their possession. Until we are care in defining the se in which the designation “library”
more aware of such matters, general discussions of the may appropriately be lied to the NHC, or to subgroups
“stance” of the “library” will be premature. within the “NHL.” T h e question of why various writings
The emergence within fourthcentury Coptic Chris- have been gathered together in a single codex requires
tianity of skillfully produced codices each of which contains closer attention.
a variety of writings is itself noteworthy. When the codex
(modern booklike) format became increasingly popular as CATEGORIES AND CONTENTS OF THE NAG HAMMADI
an alternative to the well-established roll/scroll in the second TREATISES
and third centuries, codices tended to be relatively limited in
The sequence in which the translated materials are pre-
content, containing the work of a single author much as had
been true of the roll. But it was found that the codex format sented in NHL follows the flow of the various tractates
within the thirteen NHC, in the order in which the tractates
could hold much more material than the typical roll, espe-
cially if several minicodices (quires or “gatherings”) were are now officially numbered (e.g., the “Jung Codex” =
bound together. This technological advance magnified the NHC 1). NHL provides a summary of this sequence on pp.
possibility of the development of codices in which a number xiii-xv. What it does not supply is any consistent attempt to
of different works, whether by the same author or by vari- classify the treatises either according to respective forms
ous authors, could be included, although even with “single- (insofar as that can be determined with the fragmentary
works) or their contents and perspectives. This is especially
quire” codices, a mixture of heterogeneous materials could
unfortunate insofar as the only index in NHL contains only
also be produced (see Turner, 55-71, on these matters).
Because of the fragmen nature of many of the a listing of proper names (there is no subject index).
oldest writings (especially papyri) preserved from antiquity Granted, a subject index would have added somewhat to the
size and cost of the volume, but it would also have increased
it is not always possible to know whether the extant rem-
nants of a particular text were once part of a larger codex in the usefulness of N H L many times.
In the absence of such a ready means of making general
which other writings also were~included.But in those in-
connections betwee_n% the individual writings in the
stances in which the evidence is clear, Christian-and espe-
cially Coptic Christian-codices seem to provide most of the heterogeneous collecdQn in NHL, we present the following
attempt at classifying the tractates with respect to their for-
examples of heterogeneous collections. With the develop- mal characteristics. We have used categories ranging from
ment of the concept of the unity of canonical biblical writ-
ings in Judaism and Christianity, a model emerged in which straightforward narrative (stories of events) on the one side,
matters of heterogeneity/homogeneity became blurred. through reports of deeds or,more frequently, of words and
“Biblical” writings were perhaps viewed, consciously or un- conversations, to material in “letter” form (addressed to a
consciously, as from the same source. Thus it is perhaps not specific person or group), to straightforward monologue or
very surprising to find early Greek papyrus codices contain- dialogue presentations. Inevitably, different sorts of material
ing more than one “biblical” writing.‘ From the fourth cen- will be intermixed in a given writing, and various subdivi-
tury onward, more luxurious parchment or vellum (leather) sions based on form, tone, or content suggest themselves. In
codices were produced in which a full corpus of Jewish and one way or another, “monologue” material predominates,
Christian scriptures were collected--e.g., Sinaiticus (S or followed by “dialogue.” What this may mean in any given
Aleph), Vaticanus (B), Alexandrinus (A), Beza (D), to men- instance remains to be investigated. (The abbreviated titles
tion only the earliest and most .famous. are basically those suggested by MacRae, 1976, compared
Mixture of what came to be f=ed in Christian tradition also with those of Mtnard in BCNH, 1.)
as “biblical“ with nonbiblical writings in early Greek manu- NARRATIVE OF EVENTS
scripts is relatively infrequent-the presence of Bumdas in
Sinaiticus and of 1-2 CZement in Alexandrinus may reflect Except as part of someone’s speech, these are rare in NHL.
ambiguities in the extent of the contents of “canon.” The The best examples are the following:
juxtaposition of Z Enoch and Melito O n Passover in Chester 812 Letter of Peter to Philip (PetPhil),which begins with a letter,
Beatty papyrus codex XII, from the fourth century, is more then continues to the end in third-person narrative, including a
problematic. An even “stranger” mixture takes place in the lengthy discourse by the spiritual Jesus on the Mount of Olives in
which he answers questions posed by the assembled apostles. It is
Bodmer papyri originally designated V-X-XI-VII-XIII-XII- unfortunate, because deceptive, that the opening words of this
xx-IX-VIII (in six different handwritings), which seem to short treatise have been used as the title for the entire work.
come from one or two cod ice^.^ A new element is introduced BG 850214 Act of Peter (AcPet),which briefly narrates a story
in another Greek Bodmer papyivs from the fourth cen- of Peter healing the sick and explaining why he allows his own
tury where we find Susanna; an tinidentified aporryphon, virgin daughter, whom he heals temwrarilv. to remain naraIv7ed
ew 1 41-
e Religion and Ethics Institute proudly announces: the publication (Sept. 1981)
of a new slide lecture series, "The Sacred in Ancient Israel and the Near East, "
edited by Paul F. Gehl and Howard M. Teeple. The authors are expert in the field,
and each lecture has been reviewed by a different professional consultant. Most
of the slides are color photographs of archaeological sites and artifacts, and have
been carefully selected to contribute to knowledge of the subject. Each set consists
of an 8-page printed lecture and 24 35mm. slides, including a title slide. $25 per
set; all six, $135. No approvals o r rentals. A l l prices include shipping & postage.
Produced with the aid of a grant from the National Endowment for the Humani-
ties, these slide lectures are certain to be very useful in academic courses on the
Bible o r on ancient history.
OT1, THE MIGRATION OF CULTURE, by Robert A. Oden, Jr.
OT2, YAHWEH AND THE OTHER GODS, by Wolfgang Roth
OT3, SACRED PLACES, by Lloyd R. Bailey
OT4, SACRED KINGSHIP, by Wolfgang Roth
OT5, SACRED ACTS AND SEASONS, by Walter Harrelson
OT6, SACRED LITERATURE, by Rebecca J. Schiffman
OTHER SLIDE LECTURES AVAILABLE
MYSTERY RELIGIONS SERIES: MR1, The Mystery Religions: An Overview,
by Edgar Krentz; MR2, The Eleusinian Mysteries, by David E. Aune; MR3, The
Dionysos Cult, and MR4, The Samothracian Mysteries, by Susan Guettel Cole;
MR5, The Cult of Mithra, by Lewis M. Hopfe; MR6, The Isis-Sarapis Cult, by
Robert A. Wild, S. J.; MR7, Orphism, by Larry Alderink; MR8, Cybele and
Attis, by Paul F. Gehl; MR9, The Syrian Goddess, by Robert A. Oden, Jr. ;
MRlO, The Mystery Religions and Christianity, by Howard M. Teeple. Produced
with aid of grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. 8-p. lecture;
24 color slides (23 in MR2) ; $25 per set; all ten, $225.
ARCHAEOLOGY SERIES: A2, Christian Catacomb Frescoes, by Howard M.
Teeple; A3, Nag Hammadi Discoveries, by Bastiaan Van Elderen; A4, The Rom-
an Imperial Cult, by Paul F. Gehl. 8-p. lecture; 24 color slides (22 in A2).
$25 per set.
NEW TESTAMENT SERIES: NTl, Greek New Testament Manuscripts, 11-p.
lecture, 22 color slides, $20. NT2, Variants in the Text, 10-p. lecture, 21
color slides, $20. NT3, They Searched for Truth [pioneers in biblical scholar-
ship], 7-p. lecture, 15 b/w slides, $15. A l l three by H. M. Teeple.
BOOKS A V A I L A B L E
The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, paper, $6; The Noah's A r k Non-
sense, cloth, $10; both by H. M. Teeple. Booklet: The Sangha of the Ti-Ratana,
by Edmund F. Perry and Shanta Ratnayaka, 12 p., 75$.
M E M BE R S H I P : Personal membership: $10 per calendar year. No institu-
tional memberships. Members receive 1/3 discount on personal orders.
on Peter as variant
ly, ZAp0cJa.s deals to “Eve th
fate and finds its sequel in
seems to. be the primary
sisgiven by-theresurrected
mainly a narrative about I am the portio
. and the last.
es an appearance and the scorned one.
and exhortations:by.the risen Jesus. T h e only unambiguous
“acts” document in NHL,from this viewpoint, is BG 8502/4 and the holy one.
AcPet, which is unique in not reporting a revelation- I a m thewoman, . I am the wife
discourse of Jesus. and I am the virgin. and the virgin. ’
I am the pregnant one. I am <the mother>
LE~RSIEPI- m ~ ,
srnfrrw APOSTOLIC^ COMPOSITIONS and the daughter.
the otherwise already I am the members
of my mother.
of epistles and related I am the I am the barren one.. . .
New Testament” an- I am hemidwife. - I am the midwife
has a few treatises in the and she who does not bear.
form of lettem-the ApocrJas (1/2) begins as a letter but I am the solace
records a “gospel;discourse,’’ OaRes (1/4) and Eug (3/3) of my labor pains.
both have letter form-but only the opening sections of I am the bride
PetPhil (8/2), and perhaps of ApocrJus, seem to qualify as and the bridegroom,
allegedly apostolicletters (in each instance, letters attached to MY husband is the one and it is my husband
other materials). There are, of course, numerous writings who begot me, who begot me.
and I am his mother, I am the mother of my father
identified in one way or another with “apostolic”names, but and he is my and the sister
most of them fit better into other categories. An exception, of my husband.
perhaps, is PrPuul (l/l), which by default (it is not gospel, or and my lord. and he is my offspring.
acts, or an apocalypse) might be included here. He is my potency. I am the slave
, . of him who prepared me.
APOCALYPSES I am the ruler
In one sense, the revelatory gospel-discourses listed above of my offspring.. ..
often also qualify as “apocalypses,” e.g., ApocPet (7/3). But That which he desires He is my offspring. . .
Jesus is not the only revealer of clearly Christian association I am (still) and my power is from him.
in the NHL collection. In 2ApocJa.s (5/4), Jacob/James plays a
... Whatever he wills
happens to me.. ..
central role as agent of revelation. More classic in form is but I have
ApocPauL (5/2), Paul recounts his journey through dly man. I am the utterance
the heavens. A int, again, “New Testament Apoc- of my name.
rypha” collections will be expanded by the material in NHL.
THE “NONGNOSTIC”CONNECTION
THE “NON-CHRISTIAN CONNECTION
To suggest that SSext or T h u d may be “nongnostic” in
It is clear that the NHC preserve numerous documents that origin is, of course, to presume a relatively tight definition of
have explicitly Christian connections in their present form, “gnostic.” Nor does it say anything about how the text came
whatever their origins and transmission history. There is no to be read and used in the course of transmission. For
reason to doubt, and there are good reasons to affirm, that present purposes, those texts which do not seem to require
Christians copied and transmitted the contents, at least in that the material world be considered basically and ulti-
the latest stages. What is not so clear is the extent to which mately inferior to and in important ways opposed to the %n-
originally pre- and/or non-Christian materials have found seen” spiritual/immaterial world would not qualify as main-
their way into the collection (see NHL, 8-9). The sections stream “gnostic.” Thus when the God who is to be wor-
from Plato’s Repubk (6/5) and from the Hermetic Prayer o j shiped is described as creating or maintaining the physical
Thnksgiving (6/7), Asclefitis (6/8), and the Dticourse on the world, or the savior/redeemer is depicted as somehow actu-
Eighth andNinth (6/6)are obvious illustrations of the breadth ally physical or physically raised from the dead, the “gnos-
represented in the direction of non-Jewish and non- tic” label seems to some extent inappropriate. Especially in
Christian materials. Whether and to what extent such texts “ethical” literature, of course, the line between a “gnostic”
as Pardhem, ApocAdam, 3Stscth, Zost, Allog, Mar, and Nor perspective that the world is inherently inferior/evil and a
relate to or derive from Jewish, perhaps even pre-Christian view that the originally good or neutral world hus become
Jewish, circles requires careful attention. The relation of “sinful”/“fallen’T and thus in need of redemption may be
SSext (12/1) to Judaism and Christianity, and also to “gnosti- very thin indeed. Adjustments in interpreting a text/passage
cism,” is equally problematic. Similarly, the tractate T h u d may also be required when the scholarly conceit of thinking
tended to mean is
ough a *shorter,somewhat
d, howe\ter,.the followingovertly ChriStianJf2xts in NHL resurrection-plus a few other ma
e reason or another seem less likely to be ,of “gnostic” of much popular co
: Silv, AcPetTwAp, ActPet. A number of other texts in ing Savior and ’Pagels’
NHL do not demand an overtly “gnostic” interpretation, abound in the next few
although they are ambiguous enough to allow such, notably Jesus as teacherhev
&Paul, GTh, ThCont, AuthTeach, GrPow, IntgbKn, Exsoul, as we have already notic
ApocJas, ApocPaul, and ApocPeter. Of the not overtly Chris- research concernin
tian texts, As1 and SSext seem especially problematic from a collections (the old
Testament Apocalyps
Christian prophecy a
FOCUS ON CREATION more far-reaching impact in the study of early (=hristianity.
Probably the single most pervasive general theme found Of special interest in the NH texts is&
among the NHL writings is the derivation of the world early disciples-Judas Thomas,Jacob/Ja
(cosmogony). In one way or another this is a central focus of Jesus), Peter, Paul, Philip, Mathias, Matthew-and not least
more than a dozen tractates. Indeed, several writings show on “the seven women” (SJC, beginning; ApoCJas 38.16f.),
such close similarities that arrangement of certain passages with particular attention to one or \more named
in parallel columns would be very helpful for studying this Mary/Mariam/Mariamme and occasional references to
material. In order to test the value of the index in NHL as a Martha, Salome, Arsinoe. The Indexof Names is, of course,
tool for study, we attempted to trace the story of the four useful here. On the whole, however, the disciples serve
angeldlights already known from the Bruce Codex “Seth- mostly as the foil for the Redeemer’s discoursing, and only
ian” tractate’s cosmogony-(H)armozel, Orfo)iel,Daveithai, occasionally do we learn anything about their independent
Eleleth. By working backwards and forwards from the NHL activities.
Index of Names, whkh provided a cross-reference between
the separate entries for Armozel and Harmozel, we were
FOCUS ON CHRISTIAN PRACTICES, USE OF
able to isolate the following group of cosmogonic texts with “SCRIPTURES,” POLEMICS
similar traditions: ApocrJn, Zost, GEgypt, TtiProt, Melch,
HyPArch. The composite picture of the four angeldlights From the materials in the NHL comes interesting informa-
derived therefrom is especially helpful iri.-attempting to tion about various aspects of Christian life‘and practice as it
understand each of the separate texts was known to the various authors and groups represented in
of contact, and led to other names to this collection of texts. Only occasi&ially’arechurch officials
onomastic chain reaction which added the following simi- mentioned, e.g., “the priest” in GPhi177.2; the antagonistic
larly cosmogonic texts to the growing listf+OrgWld,Tn‘Truc, “bishop and deacons” in ApocPet 79.25. Indeed, “the
GrSeth, ApocAdam, 3StSeth, DialSav, Pard?, ValExp, Mar, church” is itself a term rarely encountered (see NHL Index;
Albg. Various subgroupings within this *larger collection TripTract 57.34-59.10, preexistent church; GPhil 53.32;
emerge on closer analysis; for example, aspects’of the bibli- ValExp 29.29-3 1.37, pre-existent Sophia). Virtually nothing
cal Genesis creation tradition appear in many, but not all is said in the NHL texts about calendric observations (Sun-
(e.g., TriProt) of the writings. day receives passing notice in OrgWld 118.1-2). A number of
It is interesting to note that several of the aforemen- prayers, however, are referred to or are actually recorded in
tioned works seem to claim a special scripture-like authority the texts, along with mysterious “nonsense” formulas in-
for themselves (compare also ApocAdam), for example: cluding sequences of vowels resembling passages found
ApocrJn (end), the revealer commandsJohn to write what has elsewhere in magical literature (see GEgypt 44.2, 66.8,
been said and guard it to transmit to other disciples of this mystery, 67.14; On8th9th 56.17ff., 61.10ff.).
with a curse on anyone who merchandises the revelations; Of specific rituals, fasting plays no significant role, but
GEsrpt, “the holy book of the Egyptians,” “God-written, holy, baptism is mentioned in various connections, includin8 the
secret” (end);
Triprot (end), “a sacred scripture written by the Father”;
reference in OrgWld 122.14f. to “three baptisms:. . .
Allog (end). “write down” these revelations for “those who will spiritual, .. .a fire ...,water.” In GPhil 67.28-30 baptism is
be worthy after you.” the first of five interrelated ritual aspects of “a mystery”
performed by the Lord: “a baptism and achrism” (“superior
(See also Zost 130.If., “I wrote three tablets and left them . . . to baptism” in 74.12f.; leads to resurrection in 73.18f.) and a
for those who come after me, the living elect.”) eucharist (see 75.1, bread-cup-oil; also 75.14f., 77.2ff.) and
a redemption and a bridal chamber (see also 64.32 on the
FOCUS ON IESUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS “mystery of marriage,” 69.22ff. on baptism, redemption,
and bridal chamber). Other texts sometimes mention mem-
The Index of Names will not give the reader much assis- bers of this series besides baptism, e.g., TriTrac 127.26-
tance in attempting to locate information about the Jesus 128.34 where baptism is called the “garment” which those
5aditions in NHL, beyond undifferentiated lists referring who have received redemption wear; also “confirmation,”
to Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Mary, etc. This is unfortunate “silence,” “bridal chamber,” “li
shce NHL contains numerous references to the two poles of totalities”; ValExp 40-44 whic
SUS’ earthly story-birth and infancy’, ,+death
Vol. 8, No-J J
2 FORTRESS PRESS
2900 Queen Lane, Philadelphia, Pa. 19129
to:the poi,nt of unintelli- NHL,a
tempt to translate every
)before our eyes” (AcPet
for quantitative equiva-
lence also produces technically accurate but idiomatically
awkward expressions such as “finding your houses unceiled”
(Ap0CJQ.r9.5-6; Coptic emnmelot).A sentence such as is found
in ApocPet 7 1.22ff.-running for seven printed lines-may
follow the coptic closely yet & confusing in English due to error, this volume is amazingly free of such blemishes.
the accumulation of relative Clauses and the strange use of Those of US who have watched James Robinson meticu-
the dash. This should be divided into two or three sentences lously working his way through,*e proofs even during “free
if a useful English tramlution is desired. We also question the time” at busy Professional,meetings Can Perhaps be@n to
use of archaic “thee,” “thou,” etc., in prayers contained in appreciate the type of effort expended in this regard. A few
GEgypt 66-67, DialSav 121 (see also ”Ye.. .you” in 133.19, problems remain to be noted here:
On8th9th 52-63, PrThank, ParashGm (passim), 3StSeth 118- pp. 51 and 53 (heading), read I,4 not I,3;
27, Silv 112.28ff., and ValExp 40-44. It is especially confus- p. 79 (at 98.5), “phantasy,” bpt p. 81 (at 103.16), “fantasy”;
ing to come across this style in the middle o f a tractate when PP. 237 (at 143.19). 445. (at 47.261, 462 (at 36.3). close the
the opening prayer tractate of the collection does not use it; brackets;
the reader who is Coptic may think that readpe:;!$; (last line), initial letter has slipped, final letters should
there is a basis for’these differentiations in Coptic (a polite p. 304 (top Gne at end), read
second person), although there is none. p. 430 (last line), “does work on the Son” seems faulty;
Some of the translations are a Clear improvement over p. 44 1 (last line at 43.18), left bracket is lacking in the final pair.
previously published attempts. The better translations are
characterized by skillful editing and reconstruction of the The Proofreaders and editors failed more frequently in
text, effective sentence division, and avoidance of over- noting inC0nSiStenCieS in Use Of CapitdhtiOn even Within
literal translation. T h e reconstruction of gaps in the text of the SXIW tractate as Well as b&ween tractates, for example:
the PrPud (Dieter Mueller, translator) is particularly effec- “Son of man” (p. 27 last line, p. 145 at 76.1-2), “Son of Man”
tive. In the case of the AutTeach (Douglas Parrott, editor; (p. 30 at 3.141, “son of man” (p. SDlat9.18, p. 112 at 25.11, “son of
George MacRae, translator) the restraint,compared to earlier Man’’ (P. 106at 14.15)~eWt h e m of the Index should have
editions, shown in restoration of thkope’ning portion of the caug;fitthis Problem* I
Michael R. M
Robert 0.Paxton
$20.95
s
and: its critique o~:~rthodox* 1980 Pre-publication re
of the Society of Biblicai
SCHMIDT, CARL(ED.)
1892 Gnostische Schn@n in
BrucianuF. Texte und Untersuc
Fortress Press.
1979 Review of NHL. In BA 4214, 250r51.
1980 The Cnoslic Gospels. Random House. ’ ischen christlichen Schriftstel
PEARSON, BIRCERA. SCHOLER, DAVID M.
1978 “The Tractate Marsanes (NHC X) and the Platonic 1971 Nag Hammadi Biblw
Tradition.” In Aland, 1978, 373-84. tum.” Annual
1979 Review of NHS, 11. In BA 4214.251-52.
POLOTSKY, HANSJACOB
1944 Etudes dasyntaxe copte. Publications d 1955 Koptische Grammatik
logie copte. Cairo. das Studium der orientalisc
1971 “Coptic.” In Cuwent Trends in Li witz.
by T. A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton. TURNER, ERICG.
QUASTEN, JOHANNES 1977 The Trpobgyofthe Early Co
1950-60 Patrobgy. 3 vols. Newman. Press.
ROBINSON, JAMES M. VERMES, GEZA
1968 “The Coptic Gnostic Library Today.” New Testament 1975 The Dead Sea Scrolls in E
Studies 14,356-40 1. WILLIAMS,MICHAELA.
1972 “Introduction” to NHC. Reprinted as Occasional Papers, 1978 Review of NHL. In JBL
4, by the Claremont Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. WILSON.ROBERT McL.
1975 “The Construction of the Nag Hammadi Codices.” In
Krause, 1975, 18490.
1977a “The Jung Codex: The Rise and Fall of a Monopoly.”
RSR 311, 17-30.
*1977b The Nag Hammadi Codices: A G e w a l Introduction to the
Nature and SipjTuarue ofthe Coptic Gnostic Libraryfrom Nag Ham-
madi. Claremont: Institute for Antiquity and
1979a “Introduction.” BA 4214,201-04.
1979b “The Discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codices.” BA
4214, 206-24. YAMAUCHI,EDWIN
1979c “Getting the NHL into ‘EngliSh.” BA 4214, 239-48.