Edith Stein: The Life of a Philosopher and Carmelite (Washington, D.C.: ICS Publications, 2005)

Originally written by Teresia Renata Posselt, O.C.D.. Edited by Susanne M. Batzdorff, Josephine Koeppel and John Sullivan.

This book is the third biography of the Carmelite nuns that I have read recently. If St. Thérèse of Lisieux demonstrated that mystical faith could be practical and apparent in small services in daily life, St. Teresa Benedicta a Cruce showed that mystical faith could also be philosophical on the other end of the spectrum.

St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross had been a star in philosophy before she became a nun. She was a student and assistant of Husserl, the German philosopher who established the school of phenomenology. She wrote her doctoral thesis under Husserl and was awarded the highest honor. She helped Hersserl organize his manuscripts. Heidegger helped her in the process.

Nevertheless, because she was a female, and later because she was a Jew, she did not get a teaching post at the University. She was not a religious person at all. But one day she randomly picked a book and read the biography of St Teresa of Ávila. She was captivated by the book and read it in one sitting. When she closed the book, she exclaimed, “That is the truth!” Very soon, she was baptized, and joining the Carmelites seemed natural for her.

She continued her academic work after becoming a nun, especially in relating phenomenology and Aquinas’ theology, but the rise of Nazism prompted her to escape to Holland. However, she did not escape the fate of being gassed in Auschwitz. I cried while reading this episode. A nun seeking a contemplative life could only benefit society. How can someone like her hurt anyone?? Her strong faith in the Lord leaves an everlasting impact on the world, not only for Catholics but for anyone.

on Heidegger
his philosophy as “the philosophy of a bad conscience.” (p. 91)

on suffering
“If we are faithful and are then driven out into the street, the Lord will send His angels to encamp themselves around us, and their invisible pinions will enclose our souls more securely than the highest and strongest walls. We do not need to wish for this to happen. We may ask that the experience be spared us, but only with the solemn and honestly intended addition: “not mine, but Your will be done!” (p. 193)

Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002)

I was introduced to this book soon after it was published. I bought the book, but since I had no time to read it, I sold it. Only in recent months have I repurchased it and read it.

I have to confess that I don’t know much about Judaism. The shortcut to remedy is to consult study Bibles that use Jewish literature to illustrate the New Testament Text. Books such as the Zondervan Background Commentary, the IVP Background Commentary, and the Complete Jewish Bible are helpful. The Jewish Annotated New Testament, written from a Jewish perspective, is valuable too. Certainly, Strack-Billerbeck’s massive commentary also helps, if used according to its original purpose.

Oskar Skarsaune’s In the Shadow of the Temple is divided into four parts. It begins by describing the development of Judaism up to Jesus’ time. Then it describes the beginning of the church and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. The third part is about the Jewishness of the early church, and ends with an epilogue in part four.

I read this book in preparation for the Bible class at the church. I find parts one and three most helpful. I chose four topics for the Bible class, namely, 1. JudaismS in the New Testament times; 2. Jewish roots of baptism; 3. Jewish roots of the Lord’s Supper; 4. Where Jews and Christians part their ways.

Still need to re-read the relevant portions.

David Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (Tübingen: Mohr, 1992)

As titled, this book (his PhD Thesis in Cambridge) is about Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. 70 CE is an important date, because when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple-centered Judaism had to be changed. Rabbinic Judaism eventually developed and became the mainstream of Judaism. The author points out that “The exegetical techniques and assumptions used by the Jews of the late Second Temple Period should help us to understand the exegesis of the Old Testament in the New.” (p. 2)

However, Rabbinic Judaism could not be regarded as the Judaism of the New Testament period. In fact, there were JudaismS at that time. To be precise, Rabbinic Judaism adopted the Pharisaic strand of Judaism, but not the Sadducees or the Zealots. And of course, Kabalah mysticism developed after the New Testament times.

David Instone-Brewer clearly distinguishes scribal exegesis and non-scribal exegesis. He adopts an inductive approach. Firstly, he identifies the pre-70 CE works; then, he discusses their exegesis; and then he synthesizes the principles they used. He notes that the scribal exegesis was “nomological” and the non-scribal exegesis was “inspirational.” “Nomological” looks for the plain meaning of the text, and “Inspirational” looks for the hidden meaning of the text.

His conclusion:
“III.4 In conclusion, the differences between the exegesis of the scribes and their contemporaries can be summarised by their approach to Scripture. The scribes regarded Scripture as fixed law while their contemporaries regarded it as living prophecy. This difference resulted in the scribes interpreting Scripture according to its context, without looking for spiritual or secondary meanings, and accepting only one standard text as valid. At the same time, their contemporaries expected new secondary meanings to be revealed, which might be completely independent of the original context. They expected copyists and translators to be inspired so that all versions and text traditions were of equal value.

The distinctions between these two approaches to Scripture began to become blurred and disappear after 70 CE when the rabbis inherited both Nomological and Inspirational principles.” (p. 225)

Lesson learned:
Must be very careful to say “the Jews believed…” The date (before or after 70 CE) and the type of Jews who made such a statement should be examined first.

The book is very rich in content. Unfortunately, there are few examples of how the New Testament used the Hebrew Bible. My interests are: 1. The NT writers seem to be atomistic in quoting the NT; 2. The NT writers seem to have their own definition of how the OT was fulfilled. I still need to explore…

A very helpful article is the Introduction of the Lexham English translation of Strack-Billerbeck, written by David Instone-Brewer. He argues that S-B is helpful for its purpose, i.e., for illustrating sayings, concepts, parables, theological background, and cultural assumptions. However, one needs to be aware of some critical issues, such as the dating of the source and its representativeness. One has to be mindful that most rabbinic literature comes from after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and the Judaism that survived was only one strand among many in Jesus’ time. In other words, one should not use S-B to construct a comprehensive Jewish theology as if S-B contains all the Jewish thoughts of Jews throughout all times.

Peter Enns, The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desires our Trust More than our “Correct” Beliefs

The title captures the essence of the book: 1. There is no “correct” belief; 2. we can only trust.

Peter Enns, a Harvard PhD in the Old Testament, resigned under pressure from the Westminster Theological Seminary, his alma mater, where he had taught for many years. There is no need to list how he teaches differently from the “correct” beliefs, as this can be found easily on the internet.

While reading this book, I can feel the pain and the anguish of his soul. I think he wrote in a reactionary way. He is confident that the Bible contradicts modern science, history, and other “correct” knowledge. Yet he chose to trust God. I believe Bart Ehrman is also confident that the Bible contradicts modern science, history, and other “correct” knowledge. However, he chose not to trust in any God. I can understand why Bart Ehrman did, but not Peter Enns.

A catching phrase in The Sin of Certainty is “trust God anyway.” He argues that one can still trust in God even if one does not understand the mystery. But at the same time, he discredits the Bible in many aspects. Peter Enns gives courage to believers who have serious doubts about the Bible to stay as Christians. His citing of the Wisdom Literature helps Christians to put their doubts and faith in perspective. But readers outside the faith would simply ask why, in the first place, I need to trust in God if the faith builds on falsehood and mistakes??

“I can choose to trust God with childlike trust regardless of how certain I might feel.”
“I need to be willing to let go of what I think I know, and trust God regardless.”
“a faith that is not so much defined by what we believe but in whom we trust.”

I am sure many Christians who still hold “correct” beliefs share his attitude, too, though they are going in different directions.

“I believe that faith in the Creator is necessarily transrational (not antirational) and mystical.” Well said. But it does not communicate. It will leave seekers dumbfounded.

“Of course, believing is never empty of content. The Israelites trusted God because of what God had done for them, namely delivering the Israelites from harm (Egyptian slavery and Babylonian captivity being the two big examples).” Wait a minute, Christians who believe in the Bible, which records the very same event, seem to be treated differently by Peter Enns.

All in all, this book is challenging. To those who are in doubt, this book can point you to two ways: either give up your faith (easier to do), or trust in God anyway (but based on what?)

Sister Elizabeth of the Trinity: Spiritual Writings, Edited by M. M. Philipon, New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1962.

St Elizabeth was a French Carmelite Nun. She was a contemporary of St Teresa of Lisieux, only a few years younger, and also died at an early age.

Being a mystic, St Elizabeth is easy to read but difficult to understand. Reading her words about union with Christ, devotion to Christ, etc, makes my heart warm. But when I think about what it actually means, I am always puzzled. “If I fix my eyes on Him… I lose myself in Him like a drop of water in the ocean” (p. 58). These words sound puzzling! She quoted from the Bible a lot, especially Paul’s epistles.

In a monastery, these things help one to devote to Christ:
– silence (besides 2 hours of recreation time, all the rest of the time must keep silent)
– solitude
– service doing chores
– regular schedule (begins the day with prayer at 5 am)

Terms seem to have special meaning to Carmelites:
– movement
– recollection

Quotable quotes:
“Let us live for love, always surrendered, immolating ourselves at every moment, by doing God’s will without searching for extraordinary things…”(pp. 54-55)

“Death is the sleep of a child in the arms of its mother.” (p.71)

“(Quoting Father Vallée) The contemplative is a being who lives in the radiance from the Face of Christ, and who enters into god’s mystery, not by light derived from human thought, but by that produced by the message of the Incarnated Word.”(p. 73)

“suffering is the greatest token of love that God can give to His creature.” (p. 114)

The editor has an interesting note to St Elizabeth’s quoting Life of Angela of Foligno: “Such pious exaggerations, though dear to some of the mystics, have no warrant in the Gospels…” (p. 116) I think this caution applies to all mystic writings: pious, but not without exaggerations.

“the secret of happiness I should say it was to care no longer about oneself, to deny oneself all the time.”

“As it is love that unites us to God, the more intense our love the deeper we enter into God, and become centred in Him.” (p. 142)

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

現在神棍滿街，但信者不少，正好應驗他們常說的末世現象。

C.S. Lewis 這本小書是80年前出版的老書了，英國版的基督教比起美國版還是踏實一些。

Mere Christianity 所以叫 mere，是不想拘執於任何宗派，只提出基督宗教的共同核心信念。全書是純理性討論，沒有催人淚下的見證以麻痺腦袋，也沒有神蹟奇事的演示或地震海嘯的預言以迷惑眾生。

雖然這書一直備受推崇，但我覺得還是有點讀不懂，尤其是關於三位一體的論述，所以，只列出 quotable quotes

“When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them.”

“People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of; and if the theory of vitamins is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the same. Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works.”

“The real black, diabolical pride comes when you look down on others so much that you do not care what they think of you. . . . as if their opinion were worth anything?”

“Some people are ‘cold’ by temperament; that may be a misfortune for them, but it is no more a sin than having a bad digestion is a sin;”

“God’s love for us is a much safer subject to think about than our love for Him. Nobody can always have devout feelings: and even if we could, feelings are not what God principally cares about.”

“Faith . . . is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”

“you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map.”

“Fine feelings, new insights, greater interest in ‘religion’ mean nothing unless they make our actual behaviour better; just as in an illness ‘feeling better’ is not much good if the thermometer shows that your temperature is still going up.”

Beautiful Joe 是加拿大作家 Margaret Marshall Saunders 1893年出版的，故事從狗的視角看世界。Joe 是一頭小狗，遭主人殘酷對待，把牠的耳朵和尾巴切掉。後來得到 Moore 一家救助，儘管 Joe 樣子不討好，但善心的女主人 Laura 仍給牠取名為 “Beautiful Joe”。Joe 跟主人一家生活，並遇到了各種動物，作者借狗的自述說明善待動物的重要性。這本書記錄了 Joe 的經歷，與主人的關係，並談到人類的同情心。

我不喜歡貓狗，但家裡也算養過寵物。女兒小時候喜歡龜，前後買了多隻巴西龜。但可能養不得其法，很多都不能存活，但其中有三隻居然活下來。女兒把牠們放進小箱，還給牠們起了名，上教會時也一同帶去，在空地任由牠們四處跑動。

時光飛逝，龜長得很快，我們只好把牠們放進膠箱，一人一個，基本上，已沒有轉身的空間。夏天天氣炎熱，龜背長滿青笞，水也變得混濁，刷背換水的工作，就落在照顧者身上。龜會越獄，跑到隱蔽的地方躲起來，居室雖不大，但居然有時也找不到。

在漫天烽火之際，女兒到了山明水秀和平安靜的國度，三隻巴西龜，自然要留在中國香港。有一天，有一隻龜對龜糧不感興趣，沒多久，我發現牠動也不動，原來牠已走完了一生的路。我把牠放入一個鞋箱，對牠說感謝牠陪伴女兒過了快樂的童年，然後包裝好，送別了牠。

後來，我要離開中國香港，此去雖不至經年，但總有一段長時間不能餵食換水，只好棄養。搜尋了一輪，找到政府的部門接收，親手把兩隻龜送到域多利道的香港動物管理中心，簽署棄養文件，從此告別了牠們。我估已跟牠們相處了十年八載，不能說有甚麼感情，但總有點遺憾。但如今，牠們有較大的活動空間，在一切完善了的中國大都會的安全環境中，應該活得快活的。

看 Beautiful Joe，是因為我問舊友她的名字是自取的還是父母改的，她說小時候看這書，很感動，所以就取了這個名。我就從網上找這書來看看，這書近400頁，不短，論內容，其實是頗說教的，總之要善待動物，而且因為年代不同，我對動物向來也不留心，很多詞語都不了解，只是囫圇吞棗。

狗眼看的世界，還是不同人的。狗把人間的善惡看透，只是人還以為自己可以騙倒蒼生。