Papers by Jeremiah Mutie
Pakistan Journal of Historical Studies, 2017
Church History, 2020
policies (small bits of material would be lost) or for fear of finding that the manuscript in que... more policies (small bits of material would be lost) or for fear of finding that the manuscript in question was not as early or as valuable as previously surmised. In all, Nongbri calls for far greater care in the evaluation of early Christian manuscripts and far greater restraint in the claims made about them and on the basis of them. His detailed stocktaking of manuscript discoveries, of the many problems attendant on them, and of the numerous resulting uncertainties provides ample reason for the more scrupulous approach to these materials that he recommends.
Perichoresis
Since its enactment in AD 313, the Edict of Milan (sometimes referred to as ‘the Edict of Tolerat... more Since its enactment in AD 313, the Edict of Milan (sometimes referred to as ‘the Edict of Toleration’), an edict that freed Christianity from empire-wide persecution, Constantine’s declaration has received a significant amount of attention within Christendom. Most of the discussion has centered on Constantine’s conversion, the precursor to the actual edict (whether the conversion was real or insincere, as some have suggested), with many suggesting that Constantine was acting more as a politician than a Christian. While this line of inquiry is legitimate, perhaps a better approach to the question may be more helpful to present-day Christians. That is, while it is logical to deduce that every prudent politician will ignore the largest religious movement in his/her time at his/her own peril, Christians of every age will be better served if they critically evaluate their reception of each and every major policy that is clearly aimed at their benefit. With this background, this paper wil...
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs Part of the B... more Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, Epistemology Commons, Esthetics Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, History of Religions of Western Origin Commons, Other Philosophy Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons
This book review was originally published at BiblicalTrinitarian.com
Vox Patrum
Debates on whether early Christians relied solely on exorcism and other miraculous healing under ... more Debates on whether early Christians relied solely on exorcism and other miraculous healing under the assumption that all diseases are a result of demonic activity, continue. On the one end of this scholarly continuum are those who hold that early Christians only approached disease and healing as purely spiritual phenomena (hence, focusing on exorcism and other kinds of miraculous healing), while, on the other end, others have argued that early Christians accepted a naturalistic view of the causes for diseases and, consequently, sought naturalistic solutions to diseases. However, like in many other areas of life and thought in early Christianity, there is truth in both of these contentions. Rather than choose sides in this debate, this paper will argue that, just like in other areas, early Christians chose and modified existing approaches to sickness and death based on their understanding of the scriptural teachings on these subjects. As such, their approaches provide some key lesson...
Drafts by Jeremiah Mutie
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958 [First published by Faber and Faber, 1930]) Although there hav... more (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958 [First published by Faber and Faber, 1930]) Although there have been countless apologetic books on the subject of the death and the resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ, my fascination with this monograph, first published in 1930, never ends. There are a number of reasons for this continued fascination. But, first, what is Morrison's thesis and argument? Well, in order to understand fully the thesis and argument of this monograph, one has to know something about the writer himself. Born as Albert Henry Ross, the author of the renowned classic went by his pseudonym, Frank Morrison. As soon as one opens the book to read, one notices a glaring oddity: the first chapter is entitled "The Book That Refused to be Written." Wait a minute, but what is the reader holding in his hands, one wonders. However, Morrison soon clarifies that the book that refused to be written is a reference to his what he originally intended to write. An English journalist living during the times of the peak of German higher criticism especially concerning the person of Jesus Christ, Morrison had assigned himself the task of seriously studying the life of Jesus. As he writes, his beginning point was that of suspicion, aiming at proving that Jesus' history "rested on very insecure foundations" (9). As such, he planned to write a monograph focusing on the last seven days of Jesus immediately preceding the crucifixion. He aptly chose this as a tittle for the monograph: "Jesus, the Last Phase." He further explains pertaining the reason for his title and choice of the time space for his investigation: "It seemed to me that if I could come at the truth why this man died a cruel death at the hands of the Roman power, how He Himself regarded the matter, and especially how He behaved under the test, I should be very near to the true solution of the problem" (11). He, in other words, thought that by focusing on this last phase of Jesus "with all its quick and pulsating drama, its sharp, clear-cut background of antiquity, and its tremendous psychological and human interest," he could succeed in stripping story the Person of Jesus "of its overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic suppositions, and [thus] to see this supremely great Person as He really was" (11). Nevertheless, something changed in his investigation, and this kind of book became the book that "refused" to be written. Instead, we now have his classic entitled "Who Moved the Stone?" So, what happened to Morrison's research to warrant such an earthshaking metamorphosis of thought, intent and result? He answers the question by noting that, as he engaged with the sources, the direction of his thought gradually shifted. He writes: "Things emerged from old-world story that previously I should have thought impossible. Slowly but very definitely the conviction grew the drama of those unforgettable weeks of human history stranger and deeper than it seemed. It was the strangeness of many notable things in the story that first arrested and held my interest. It was only later that the irresistible logic of their meaning came into view" (12). The remainder of the book is geared at explaining, piece by piece, how his prior endeavor crumbled, giving way to what we have today. I will summarize a few of the key pieces of evidence here.
Book Reviews by Jeremiah Mutie
This book review was originally published at BiblicalTrinitarian.com
Uploads
Papers by Jeremiah Mutie
Drafts by Jeremiah Mutie
Book Reviews by Jeremiah Mutie