Lewis And Friends
Bright Shadow of Reality: C. S. Lewis and the Feeling Intellect, by Corbin Scott Carnell (Eerdmans, 1974, 180 pp., $2.95 pb), and Myth, Allegory, and Gospel: An Interpretation of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Charles Williams, edited by John Warwick Montgomery (Bethany Fellowship, 1974, 159 pp., $2.95 pb), are reviewed by Cheryl Forbes, editorial associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.
No other author, of this century at least, analyzed, explored, and used Sehnsucht as thoroughly as did C. S. Lewis. Defining Sehnsucht as a disorienting longing, Carnell isolates it as an aspect of Romanticism overlooked by most critics and writers—but not by Lewis. Carnell presents a convincing explanation of why this is so and shows that Sehnsucht is not a twentieth-century phenomenon.
Bright Shadow of Reality, then, is not only about C. S. Lewis. Rather, as Carnell states at the beginning of chapter two, it “is an attempt to explore an idea, to discover how that idea finds expression in Lewis’s writing, and to examine the validity of that idea as an instrument of literary analysis.”
Carnell spends too much time rehashing facts readily available in Lewis’s autobiography, Surprised by Joy. And he develops his argument about Lewis’s “feeling intellect” without thoroughly considering the Narnia Chronicles (he refers the reader to Walter Hooper’s essay, “Past Watchful Dragons,” in Imagination and the Spirit, edited by Charles Huttar, and to The Lion of Judah in Never-Never Land, by Kathryn Lindskoog). Yet his book performs two valuable functions for the scholar or advanced Lewis student. Carnell not only relates Sehnsucht to the past and isolates it as an aspect of Romanticism, but also shows how it forms part of what he calls the “new Romanticism.” He concludes:
Lewis’ explanation of Sehnsucht reveals to me a basic continuity between nineteenth-and twentieth-century literature.… Lewis’s concept of Sehnsucht provides a key to understanding the New Romanticism [Dylan Thomas, Edna St. Vincent Millay, D. H. Lawrence].… It suggests a useful and illuminating approach to modern literature.
Such a conclusion, validly and solidly argued, is intriguing for both literary historian and critic.
Carnell also explains the influence and impact that Charles Williams had on Lewis’s thought and writing, something no other critic has done so well or so thoroughly. Critics writing on Charles Williams have discussed Lewis’s comments on Williams’s Arthurian Poems, but after reading Carnell one finds it strange that such critics as R. J. Reilly and Charles Moorman have overlooked Lewis’s “Williams and the Arthuriad.” For those interested in reading Williams’s poems along with Lewis’s analysis, Eerdmans has just published Taliessin Through Logres, The Region of the Summer Stars, and Arthurian Torso in one volume with an introduction by the exceptional critic Mary McDermott Shideler ($5.95 pb).
Now that the poems and commentary are more readily available in this country we can expect further recognition and development of Carnell’s thesis. I recognize, of course, that anyone who has read the introduction by Lewis to Essays Presented to Charles Williams, which he edited, realizes the impact Williams had on Lewis. But Carnell makes clear how deep was Williams’s theological influence on Lewis. Many of Lewis’s ideas remain unfocused unless we understand that he, too, reflected the doctrines of co-inherence, substituted love, and the Way of Affirmations. For bringing this out so clearly, I, for one, am grateful to the University of Florida professor.
John Montgomery and Bethany are to be commended for making widely available four fine lectures given in 1969–70 at DePaul University. The one by Chad Walsh, English professor at Beloit College, stands out in both style and content. “Charles Williams’s Novels and the Contemporary Mutation of Consciousness” makes clear that for Williams “the entire universe is theological through and through, and meaningful life consists of being caught up into that dance where the musician is the one who first created the dance.” (Interestingly, Carnell ends his book on Lewis with the image of the Great Dance.)
Interesting Apologetic
Theology, Physics, and Miracles, by Werner Schaaffs (Canon, 1974, 100 pp., $2.95 pb), is reviewed by Richard H. Bube, professor of materials science and electrical engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
It is the purpose of the author, a professor of physics at Berlin Technical University, to show that the objections of modern theologians to biblical miracles are based on an outmoded understanding of physical science. The theological key to Professor Schaaffs’s reasoning is his interpretation of Genesis 1:31; since this passage states that the natural laws of creation are “very good,” it is improper to argue that God later set these laws aside to perform miracles. Rather it must be taken as a presupposition that “all the miracles of the Old and New Testament, including the Resurrection, are consistent with the natural laws of creation.” The scientific key to the author’s approach is the conclusion that modern physical understanding depends upon a statistical description of reality and hence makes miracles plausible.
As for theology, Schaaffs believes that the high point occurred in the early Church and is summarized in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. The error of modern demythologizing theologians such as Bultmann has resulted from their failure to realize that science has changed radically in the last hundred years from a position of physical determinism to one of physical indeterminism.
In spite of much valid and helpful material, the book takes on a curious flavor through manifestations of unwarranted dogmatism or unexpected naïveté. Schaaffs argues that acceptance of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe makes “the demand for a Creator-God … unavoidable.” His arguments that atomistic indeterminism leads directly to macroscopic indeterminism appear simplistic. He claims to have explained the miracle of Moses’ burning bush in terms of solar heating of “the volatile aroma of a large bush beyond its flash point,” in the absence of wind or winged insects. On several occasions he makes the mistake of supposing that scientific indeterminism, i.e., chance, is the foundation for human freedom of choice; in one place he even goes so far as to say, “Like human beings, the atomic system behaves freely.” In describing the relation between soul and body, the author departs from both scientific and biblical evidence for the whole person and argues for a body-soul dualism, with the soul and the body living in two separate worlds. He calls “the human spirit … a bit of God’s Spirit,” and attributes omnipresence to the Devil with the words, “Just as the Spirit of the Lord has access … to each atom in our body, … so the confuser, too, has access to them.”
The book starts with a curious exchange between the author of the foreword, who commends the book but rebukes Schaaffs for seeking to demonstrate that all miracles have a scientific explanation and for championing evolution over fiat creation, and a “word from the publisher” that expresses Schaaffs’s “serious reservations” concerning the criticisms given in the foreword.
Basically Schaaffs is on the right track, but his interlacing of a sound integration of science and theology with speculative and debatable material appreciably weakens his book for general use.
The Rise Of Modern Science
Cross and Crucible: Johann Valentin Andreae (1586–1654), Phoenix of the Theologians, two volumes, by John Warwick Montgomery (The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973, 350 pp., 144 guilders), is reviewed by Charles D. Kay, Department of the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
In these two volumes, Montgomery attempts to discredit further the persistent stereotype of a frozen and intellectually sterile seventeenth-century Lutheran orthodoxy by making an in-depth study of a prominent figure of the era, Johann Valentin Andreae.
Volume I first provides a detailed portrait of Andreae’s life assembled from primary sources—bringing order to the confusion that has accumulated in the secondary literature over the past three centuries. A chapter on Andreae’s Weltanschauung argues that his work reflected a consistently orthodox Lutheran position throughout his lifetime. The belief that Andreae in his early years was associated with the beginnings of Rosicrucianism is further attacked in the final section as Montgomery argues against Andreae’s supposed authorship of the early Rosicrucian manifestos, suggesting instead that he actively opposed early occult science: Andreae maintained a position that was “evangelical, sane, non-esoteric.”
This first volume is truly a mine for references and citations of hundreds of difficult to obtain manuscripts and early publications. Along with the second volume, which provides a facsimile reprint of the rare 1690 English translation of Andreae’s Chymische Hochzeit and an extensive bibliography of his writings and manuscript sources, it is an invaluable reference for those who wish to examine Andreae closely without having to rely on poor secondary accounts.
But why study Andreae? Perhaps Montgomery does not make this entirely clear. The introductory essay does discuss the early Lutheran attitudes toward the new science, but it fails to bring in the broader historical-philosophical problem of the relation of Christianity to modern science. As Montgomery says, “the simultaneity of the Copernican and Lutheran revolutions suggests more than an accidental relationship between them.” However, to use the old example, the fact that two clocks strike the hour together does not mean that one caused the other to do so. Indeed, there has been a major debate on the possible origins of modern science in the Reformation, not just in Lutheran Germany, but especially in Calvinist England and the Low Countries. It was in 1938 that R. K. Merton suggested on the basis of his sociological research that the high correlation between English Puritanism and scientific interests in fact reflected a casual relationship. Since then, the “Merton thesis” has been widely debated by historians of science. Professor R. Hooykaas has suggested that the same relation holds true for Holland and has written extensively on the basis for the rise of modern science in Reformed theology.
In all of this, Lutheran support for science has been largely neglected, primarily because of the inaccessibility of the primary materials, and the unfavorable image prevalent in the secondary tradition. Some recent studies have appeared in support of a new view of the Lutheran contribution, and Montgomery’s work adds further support to the new image: “It is this theology of a restored nature in Christ that makes possible Andreae’s union of natural and spiritual phenomena …, and his conviction that each properly complements and reflects the other.”
Yet Montgomery’s arguments are not consistently successful throughout his book. Only toward the end does he outline an alternative to the traditional view of Andreae and the origins of Rosicrucianism. He devotes a great deal of attention to the task of detracting from or demolishing the old stereotypes, showing how errors have accumulated as secondary and tertiary accounts have built up one on another; but Montgomery’s alternative, unfortunately, does not rise as a phoenix from the ruin of its opposition. A mere outline is all that is constructed. It remains for another, using the immense labors that Montgomery has obviously spent in laying this new foundation, to write a comprehensive biography of Andreae, which this study specifically does not claim to provide.
Montgomery focuses on Andreae’s life and work, but he does not adequately reflect on their context. Evidence of this is seen in his extensive (fifty-four-page) bibliography of secondary literature, which is intended to guide the interested student to further research; it contains many references of a very peripheral or general nature, while many more significant and relevant authors, such as Merton and Hooykaas, are missing. This narrowing of scholarship may have been necessary because of the depth of primary work required to produce this study, but it leads Montgomery into unnecessary errors about Bacon, Hartlib, the Royal Society, and other subjects.
A careful understanding of Andreae’s milieu is as necessary to the proper understanding of his work as was the rewriting of his biography, for the world was very different before the rise of modern science. Andreae’s weltanschauung consisted of more than Lutheran orthodoxy. His was also the world in which the works of Galileo and Kepler first circulated among intellectuals. It was a world not yet mechanized by Descartes and Newton, a world still full of the magic of God’s own hand. Occultism ca. 1600 did not have many of the connotations it does now, for much of nature still lay hidden from man’s view. Montgomery’s use of phrases such as “scientific, non-mystical” and “true precursor of modern chemistry” is meaningful only with the exercise of hindsight. Such hindsight, along with the use in the text of many parallels and references to modern authors, clouds the gap that separates our world from Andreae’s. Montgomery himself insists that the historian must “relive and re-enact the past” to best understand it, but his present text has too many links with the present to allow free access to that past.
A survey of Montgomery’s bibliography of secondary references reveals another important aspect of this study: much of the work is fairly old. The introductory essay was first published in 1963; the bibliography was not revised after 1964 (see p. 531). Later translations and editions of many references were apparently not used. A bibliographic addendum includes several historical works that have made a great impact on the history of science in the past decade (e.g., Yates; Debus), yet were not used in Montgomery’s work. Some classics (e.g., Kuhn) are not mentioned at all. Although this does not greatly detract from the value of Montgomery’s work, it does make it difficult to relate his study to the rest of current scholarship, and perhaps explains many of the apparent problems of the text.
Kittel For The Old
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume One, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ring-gren (Eerdmans, 1974, 479 pp., $18.95), is reviewed by Larry L. Walker, associate professor of Old Testament, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
Students now have for study of the Old Testament a companion tool to Kittel for the New. More complete than the similarly titled work edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, this Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren is now being made available in English. The translator is John T. Willis of Abilene Christian College. The reader is told that he may expect the English volumes “to appear annually, about a year after each fourth German fascicle.” This first volume has fifty-three entries—forty-nine words beginning with aleph, and four begining with beth.
Those interested in Bible word studies should realize that this is not a “popular” word study like several others on the New Testament. These word studies have the goal of organizing and presenting succinctly the biblical data and the non-biblical technical information available on key Hebrew terms.
Students of the Hebrew Bible have long awaited such a lexical aid, and this series should stimulate scholars to probe further the depths of the Old Testament as they react to some of the new meanings suggested for words. The unending inflow of new lexical information makes Hebrew scholars hesitate to attempt any definitive statements on Hebrew vocabulary. But the time is now ripe—perhaps overdue—for a study such as this. The new light provided by the ancient cognate languages is relevant and impressive. Generally speaking, TDOT makes good use of the important cognate languages of Ugaritic and Akkadian; in some cases, references are made to Egyptian, Hittite, and Sumerian. Brief but pertinent attention is given to the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, less to the Pseudepigrapha.
The contributors reflect an international (mostly European—including East Germany) and interconfessional perspective.
At the beginning of each entry the root or the basic form of the word is printed (in Hebrew) in a box, along with cognate words in Hebrew, but no meanings are given there. The reader must learn the meanings and semantic range from the ensuing discussion, where the Hebrew is mostly transliterated. The German version used unvocalized Hebrew throughout the discussion. The English version does use unvocalized Hebrew script in the discussion when reference to another entry is made. The German edition usually printed Greek in its own script, but sometimes it was transliterated; the English edition consistently transliterates the Greek. References to all other languages are in transliteration.
The editors and contributors appear to want to be helpful to a large readership. Technical terms used by scholars in this field are notably absent. Transliteration for all Hebrew is given, and notation is made when Hebrew and English versification differ. Proper nouns are usually omitted, but a few such names as Abraham, Asherah, Babel, and El are included. The usual format for discussion has three parts: etymology (including cognate words), distribution and usage in the Old Testament, and theological significance. Some entries are quite extensive; “signs” covers twenty-one pages, “light” twenty, God (El) nineteen, God (Elohim) eighteen, and “earth” seventeen; but some are as brief as two pages. Extensive bibliographies attached to the articles add to the usefulness of TDOT.
The unevenness of TDOT is understandable in view of the variety of contributors. The selection of articles, on the other hand, is the responsibility of the editors. One wonders why they included such words as “behind,” “with,” “alone,” “well,” and “end” but omitted such words as “mother,” “ear,” and even “stone.” In view of the stated intention of a “theological dictionary,” why discuss the seven Hebrew words for “lion”? Some entries are of cultural and archaeological significance, yet do not seem to fit into the dictionary’s stated purpose—“to analyze its [the Hebrew Bible’s] religious statements.” Critical presuppositions are occasionally reflected. The article on Abraham by Professor Clements assumes
the essential validity of the documentary hypothesis. These documents (J, P, E, L) are sometimes made to contradict each other (p. 55). In his article on Adam, Professor Maass tells us the word occurs as a common noun (“man”) in the earliest traditions (J, E) but as a proper noun (“Adam”) in P (with H). The reader has been assured in the preface that “the form-critical and traditio-historical methods have been refined to such a point that one can expect rather certain results.” Evangelical scholars will be more impressed with the factual linguistic data brought to light through archaeology and the study of ancient languages cognate to Hebrew, and how all this information helps us understand the sacred text.
Some kind of additional cross-reference index seems needed if the reader is to make full use of the dictionary. He needs to be aware that “woman” is discussed in the entry on “man.” It would be helpful to know that in connection with one word for “lion” he will find a discussion on six other semantically related (not necessarily etymologically related) words. The words discussed in each volume of TDOT are listed in the table of contents, but they are not all listed in alphabetical order. Some are subsumed under other major entries and elude a casual glance through the main alphabetical listing. Another aid to the reader would have been the inclusion of the meanings of the words in the table of contents.
In some cases a brief discussion of the phenomenon of parallelism would have helped in the study of a word. This basic characteristic of Hebrew poetry has been studied in depth in recent years, and it has important implications for hermeneutics and theology. Some reference to common word-pairs—words that are often found in parallel—would be useful for the study of Hebrew poetry in particular and the study of the Old Testament in general. Also, more information on semantic equivalents in addition to the etymological equivalents would have been helpful. For some of the words, a statistical analysis reflecting their distribution throughout the Hebrew Bible (as commonly done in Jenni and Westermann’s Handwörterbuch) would have been a convenient resource.
Undoubtedly these studies will prove to be a base from which more popular Hebrew word studies will evolve—the lack of which has long been noted by preachers of the Old Testament. We are all in debt to the publishers, editors, and contributors for what will undoubtedly be one of the most significant theological projects of this century.
BRIEFLY NOTED
For a survey of recent books on children and youth see The Minister’s Workshop, page 24.
The Evangelical Faith, by Helmut Thielicke (Eerdmans, 420 pp., $10.95). The well-known German theologian launches a three-volume project: a comprehensive examination of Christian dogmatics in the twentieth century. Here he explores, with commendable scholarship and lucidity, the relation of theology to modern thought-forms, particularly teaching about the “death” of God and the “mythology” of Scripture.
Ritschl and Luther, by David W. Lotz (Abingdon, 215 pp., $10.50). A “revisionist” interpretation of Albrecht Ritschl’s theology in light of his intensive Luther study. Uncovers his main themes.
Why Me?, by Rabbi Hyman Agress (Creation, 201 pp., $5.95). A rabbi’s story of his brain damaged son and the spiritual growth the situation has produced. Inspirational.
Oral Reading of the Scriptures, by Charlotte Lee (Houghton Mifflin, 198 pp., $8.50. Speech teachers in Christian high schools and colleges take note. Also for those outside the classroom who are seriously interested in improving their public Bible reading.
St. Thomas Aquinas 1274–1974: Commemorative Studies (two volumes), edited by Armand A. Maurer et al. (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies [59 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ont. M5S 1G4], 1,014 pp., n.p.) Thirty-five scholarly studies, three-fifths of them in English, treating a variety of aspects of Thomas’s life, thought, and influence. For major theological libraries.
Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions, by Arthur Custance (Zondervan, 368 pp., $8.95). The author, who has a Ph.D. in anthropology, recognizes the lack of academic support for his view that all humans are descended from Japheth (the Indo-Europeans, whose forte is philosophy), Shem (the Semites, man’s spiritual leaders), and Ham (Africans, Asians, American Indians, and others, whose strength is technology and who founded the world’s civilizations). The author admits to much speculation and unavoidable errors in detail. Readers should be aware that even conservative biblical exegetes differ widely among themselves on the matters Custance treats.
‘What If …,’ by Don Hillis (Victor, 96 pp., $1.50 pb). Brief reflections by the well-known missionary leader accompanying thirty cartoons by CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S own John V. Lawing, Jr. Naturally we commend it.
What’s Ahead For Old First Church, by Ezra Jones and Robert Wilson (Harper & Row, 132 pp., $5.95). Study of the plight of old, declining, downtown congregations. Not very encouraging.
The Six Version Parallel New Testament (Creation, 697 pp., $12.95) and Eight Translation New Testament (Tyndale, 1,897 pp., n. p.) Several years ago, the modern rash of parallel translations began, first with one set of four New Testament versions, then with different combinations, culminating in two rival publications (from Zondervan and World Wide), each of which had four translations of both testaments. Now we are back to the smaller testament, but the ante has been upped! The Six has large pages with three columns on each, so that on facing pages one has King James, Living, Revised Standard, New English, Phillips, and Jerusalem. The Eight has smaller pages with two columns divided top and bottom. It has the same six as The Six plus two other important ones, New International and Today’s English (alias Good News for Modern Man.) Regrettably, New American Standard and Modern Language are left out. Who’ll make it ten?
Hosea, by Hans Wolff (Fortress, 258 pp., $19.95), Ephesians, by Markus Barth (two volumes, Doubleday, 849 pp., $16 / set), and The Johannine Epistles, by J. L. Houlden (Harper & Row, 164 pp., $6.95). Latest additions by European scholars to three notable commentary series: “Hermeneia,” “The Anchor Bible,” and “Harper’s New Testament Commentaries,” respectively.
Pit-Men, Preachers and Politics, by Robert Moore (Cambridge, 292 pp., $16.50). Sociological study of the influence of Methodism on the political life of four English mining villages between 1870 and 1926.
Bibliography of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences, compiled by Sharmon Sollitto and Robert Veatch (Hastings Center [623 Warburton Ave., Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10706], 93 pp., $3.50 pb). Probably the best major bibliography of works dealing with all aspects of medical ethics from genes to graves.
