I'm writing up a report on how WB Pope translated over a dozen works of conservative German biblical scholarship in the 1850s (in his 30s, before publishing his own stuff). A brilliant strategic move, building up the kind of Bible work he wanted to interact with. GENIUS.
I found David Lincicum's 2018 articles on this "fight liberal German critical influence by translating lots of conservative German biblical work" movement. T&T Clark published many volumes from many scholars. One translator worth noting: Sophia Susannah Taylor (1817–1911)
Lincicum's entry on her in Oxford DNB says she translated 23 volumes over 35yrs! "Although she has been almost entirely neglected by subsequent scholarship, her productivity marks her as one of the most accomplished translators of theological literature in the Victorian period."
Her strategy was the same as Pope's: Get a ton of doctrinally sound, evangelically alive, rigorous German scholarship to the Anglophone world. Oosterzee, Luthardt, Dorner, Lange, Keil, Oehler, Martensen, Sartorius, Delitzsch, etc.
T. Clark, her publisher, counted on her for steady work of high quality. "Sometimes the publisher suggested books for translation, while at other times Taylor herself furnished the proposal." Apparently they had lively & substantive editorial exchanges over some projects.
"She died, of old age... on 14 January 1911, w/no public notice or obituary to note the signal contribution she had rendered through the thankless task of translation to conservative theological scholarship in the latter decades of the nineteenth century."
Sophia Susannah Taylor, theology translator. I've read some of her work but just now learned her name. All the strategic genius I ascribed to WB Pope above belongs also to SST: She understood the times & knew how to take action thru steady, solid, self-directed work. Well done.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Interpreting the cross as a revelation of innertrinitarian agony is a bad habit, & a recent one. What we ought to see on the cross is the human death of the divine Son, not a partial eclipse of the Father/Son relation. Reading WB Pope (about 150 years back) helps with this:
Pope says "the incarnate Redeemer, in these the days of His flesh, felt in all its purity & force the recoil of life from dissolution that belongs to human nature..." That is, the Son felt human death par excellence. "But death came not to Him after the common visitation of man."
I think a lot of modern preachers would reach, at this point, for a Father-Son claim (turned away, broke fellowship, etc). But Pope leans into the dissolution in the assumed nature: "No created being will ever know the agony that separated the soul & body of the Lamb of God."
Here is a pretty good Trinity hymn by Joseph Hart (1712-1768). Hart is uneven as a hymn-writer (he can be didactic & predictable in way that makes you long for Watts & Wesley), but he has some excellent moments. archive.org/details/hymnsc…
He starts with the obligatory warning about what no created intelligence can fully comprehend about the Trinity, or even about the Trinity's work in salvation:
But moves quickly to his main point: Christian experience is firmly based on the work of the Trinity in salvation. This link between the nature of salvation and the triunity of God is the focus of the hymn.
Christmas Trinity: Only the Son is incarnate, but the incarnation is the work of the whole Trinity. You can see why a distinction is helpful here: to recognize the undivided work of God toward us, but to specify the Son's incarnation exclusively.
Luther loved to use a homey image for this (one which he attributed to Bonaventure). The incarnation is like three girls putting a garment onto one of them: all three put it on, but only one has it put onto her.
Is it possible to be more precise? Well, although the work is undivided, the distinct persons are evident in the incarnation in a way that corresponds to their order of existence within the eternal relations: the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding.
Benjamin Morgan Palmer (1818-1902) annoys me. His doctrine of salvation is so beautifully transparent to the doctrine of the Trinity that I just can't keep myself from quoting him. He really gets it: the way grace flows from God's eternal triune being. Exactly right.
Even when I don't quote Palmer verbatim, or footnote him, I've incorporated some of his way of putting things into my own formulations: grace is anchored in the triune relations, etc.
But wait: why would I avoid quoting, footnoting, or naming this author who is so good on this?
Because BM Palmer was an apologist for southern slavery. And not just a little: he was informed, active, & influential. He preached secession, he connected slavery to God's providential purpose for southern Christian civilization. All the way through; the whole catastrophe.
One way we remind each other of the awesome condescension of God is saying things like "the God who made the universe loves you, knows you by name." And we wave our hands around to gesture at the entire universe, to establish some perspective: All that! Its maker! Little old you!
That's good stuff. (Waves hands around & points to universe to establish perspective.) But there's something beyond that: God is greater than just being a universe-maker. In the depths of the divine being, God is great, greater. Not just big, but without measure.
Waving your hands around & pointing to that measureless depth of divinity, infinitely more than all of creation, is even harder than gesturing at the universe. What gesture shall I borrow to direct your attention to God in himself? Whither shall I point?
The creeds go straight from Christ's birth to his suffering, leaving out the private life & active ministry of Jesus. The reason is that they're not doing a general biography, or even a Gospels précis, but teaching incarnation & atonement for our salvation.
Some catechisms and all good extended commentaries on the creeds will insert a little bit more here. Sometimes they'll ask, "when did he suffer?" and answer that it's not just "under Pontius Pilate" during the final week, but that his entire life in the flesh included suffering.
Every mystery of the entire, undivided life of Jesus is glowing with revelation and burning with the power of salvation. But "born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pilate" not only suffices by framing his life correctly; it also directs attention to the most important things.