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?)