Papers by John Kaufman
Love - Ancient Perspectives, 2021
In Anders Nygren's seminal study of the Christian concept of love, Eros och Agape, the second cen... more In Anders Nygren's seminal study of the Christian concept of love, Eros och Agape, the second century bishop and theologian Irenaeus of Lyons is given an important role in the development of the "Christian idea of love". In this chapter, I will critically discuss certain aspects of Nygren's and his colleague Gustaf Aulen's treatment of Irenaeus. Nygren and Aulen presuppose that one can delineate "pure" concepts or ideas or motifs in history (such as "Christian love"), they maintain that it makes sense to speak of the "essence" of Christianity as a given, and they find their normative basis in the genius of Luther, against which they can evaluate the genuineness of any given conception of Christianity. This is of course both provincial and anachronistic. A critical reading of Nygren's and Aulen's understanding of Irenaeus and the concept of Christian love raises important questions concerning objectivity, normativity and givenness. I argue in this chapter that there are no stable given "ideas" or "motifs" that can be " identified" or "discovered" or "described" objectively. I believe it is possible, however, to give accounts that will be recognizable and plausible to others who are familiar with the fragmentary sources upon which our accounts are based. At best, we can together construct plausible understandings of a concept such as Christian love, or of a thinker such as Irenaeus, or of something as broad and multifaceted as Christianity-without purporting to have found the true "essence" of the thing we are studying.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
John Kaufman (2016): Historical relativism and the essence of Christianity,
Studia Theologica - N... more John Kaufman (2016): Historical relativism and the essence of Christianity,
Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology, DOI: 10.1080/0039338X.2016.1172108
This article is a series of reflections by a historian who is also a theologian on some of the theological challenges raised by historicism and the historical study of Christianity. In particular, the question is raised as to whether it is still meaningful to speak of Christianity as having some form of normative “core” given at some point in the past, or an unchanging normative “essence” by which all forms of Christianity can be evaluated. The article begins with a brief look at Adolf von Harnack’s lectures on the essence of Christianity from 1900, before moving into reflections on historical change, relativity and normativity. The author rejects the idea of a religion having an unchanging normative core or essence. Like any other human institution, Christianity has been continually changing and adapting to new contexts, even though its representatives might claim an unchanging continuity. The article concludes with some reflections on the possible contours of a modest theology informed by these historicist reflections.
--------
The full article is available at this link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0039338X.2016.1172108
For a limited time, those without institutional access to Taylor and Francis can download the article from this link:
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/nJbNfFAQt4MWPXSJZG2W/full
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Among Jews, Gentiles and Christians in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Studies in Honour of Professor Oskar Skarsaune on his 65th Birthday, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Magazine and newspaper articles / Podcast episodes by John Kaufman
Tor, Håp og Ærlighet, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Dokka, 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Vårt Land, 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Dagen, Jul 2, 2013
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Inter Collegas, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Dissertation and thesis by John Kaufman
The author of a book I recently read explained at one point that he writes his books not because ... more The author of a book I recently read explained at one point that he writes his books not because he already knows something that he wants to share, but because there is something he does not know but that he wants to find out. That is also why I wrote this dissertation – I wanted to find something out.
In 2001, I completed a Master’s thesis in the History of Ideas at the University of Oslo. This thesis was a study of deification in the theology of Symeon the New Theologian, an orthodox monk who lived from 949-1022. After writing those pages, however, I was more curious than ever about the Orthodox doctrine of deification, for although references to deification can be found throughout the works of Symeon, he makes no attempt to explain exactly why he believes deification to be the goal of the Christian life. He seems simply to have inherited a tradition that he made his own and developed further. After writing about Symeon, I still had many questions about both what deification really means, and about how deification became a part of the orthodox tradition.
Because Irenaeus of Lyons is often referred to both in history books and orthodox literature as one of the earliest exponents of the doctrine of deification, I therefore decided to study his doctrine of deification. After having studied a writer standing at the receiving end of a long tradition, I would now study a writer standing at the other end, at the very beginning of this development.
As I immersed myself in Irenaeus and the secondary literature, however, the question changed somewhat, from “What does Irenaeus say about deification?” to “Does Irenaeus really talk about deification?”. He never uses the actual word “deification” (theopoiesis and theosis in Greek), so how can we be sure this is what he is talking about?
In my dissertation, I therefore discuss what we mean by “deification”, and I distinguish between deification “themes” and a “doctrine” of deification. Before answering whether or not Irenaeus really has a doctrine of deification, a first step was to identify and study certain deification themes. When people have asked me what deification means, I have often explained that it can mean several things. It can mean that humans in some way can be called gods, it can mean that humans somehow become “like God”, and it can mean that humans somehow “participate in God”. These three explanations, based on various Biblical texts, are in essence the three “deification themes” that are then studied in this dissertation: humans called “gods”, humans being “like God”, and humans “participating in God”. In separate chapters, each of these themes is studied in detail in the writings of Irenaeus, against the background of his Christian, pagan, and Jewish contexts. And I conclude that, to differing degrees, each of these themes is found in Irenaeus.
After studying these themes in detail, I then ask how they are brought together in the end. Are these themes brought together in a comprehensive doctrine of deification? For Irenaeus, is the final goal of man that he should transcend his humanity and be deified? My answer is no. Rather, in Irenaeus these themes constitute what it means to be fully human, to be what man was intended to be all along. For Irenaeus, humans are not called to become something more than human, to transcend human nature and be “deified”. Rather, the original goal for man, and thus the goal of the Christian life, is for him to receive the Spirit of God and be formed according to the image and likeness of God, that is, be formed according to the image of Christ. For Irenaeus, this is precisely what it means to be a fully mature human.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by John Kaufman
Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology, DOI: 10.1080/0039338X.2016.1172108
This article is a series of reflections by a historian who is also a theologian on some of the theological challenges raised by historicism and the historical study of Christianity. In particular, the question is raised as to whether it is still meaningful to speak of Christianity as having some form of normative “core” given at some point in the past, or an unchanging normative “essence” by which all forms of Christianity can be evaluated. The article begins with a brief look at Adolf von Harnack’s lectures on the essence of Christianity from 1900, before moving into reflections on historical change, relativity and normativity. The author rejects the idea of a religion having an unchanging normative core or essence. Like any other human institution, Christianity has been continually changing and adapting to new contexts, even though its representatives might claim an unchanging continuity. The article concludes with some reflections on the possible contours of a modest theology informed by these historicist reflections.
--------
The full article is available at this link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0039338X.2016.1172108
For a limited time, those without institutional access to Taylor and Francis can download the article from this link:
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/nJbNfFAQt4MWPXSJZG2W/full
Magazine and newspaper articles / Podcast episodes by John Kaufman
To episoder:
- https://podtail.com/no/podcast/tor-hap-og-aerlighet/pa-mf-med-john-kaufman/
- https://podtail.com/no/podcast/tor-hap-og-aerlighet/pa-mf-med-john-kaufman-del-2/
Dissertation and thesis by John Kaufman
In 2001, I completed a Master’s thesis in the History of Ideas at the University of Oslo. This thesis was a study of deification in the theology of Symeon the New Theologian, an orthodox monk who lived from 949-1022. After writing those pages, however, I was more curious than ever about the Orthodox doctrine of deification, for although references to deification can be found throughout the works of Symeon, he makes no attempt to explain exactly why he believes deification to be the goal of the Christian life. He seems simply to have inherited a tradition that he made his own and developed further. After writing about Symeon, I still had many questions about both what deification really means, and about how deification became a part of the orthodox tradition.
Because Irenaeus of Lyons is often referred to both in history books and orthodox literature as one of the earliest exponents of the doctrine of deification, I therefore decided to study his doctrine of deification. After having studied a writer standing at the receiving end of a long tradition, I would now study a writer standing at the other end, at the very beginning of this development.
As I immersed myself in Irenaeus and the secondary literature, however, the question changed somewhat, from “What does Irenaeus say about deification?” to “Does Irenaeus really talk about deification?”. He never uses the actual word “deification” (theopoiesis and theosis in Greek), so how can we be sure this is what he is talking about?
In my dissertation, I therefore discuss what we mean by “deification”, and I distinguish between deification “themes” and a “doctrine” of deification. Before answering whether or not Irenaeus really has a doctrine of deification, a first step was to identify and study certain deification themes. When people have asked me what deification means, I have often explained that it can mean several things. It can mean that humans in some way can be called gods, it can mean that humans somehow become “like God”, and it can mean that humans somehow “participate in God”. These three explanations, based on various Biblical texts, are in essence the three “deification themes” that are then studied in this dissertation: humans called “gods”, humans being “like God”, and humans “participating in God”. In separate chapters, each of these themes is studied in detail in the writings of Irenaeus, against the background of his Christian, pagan, and Jewish contexts. And I conclude that, to differing degrees, each of these themes is found in Irenaeus.
After studying these themes in detail, I then ask how they are brought together in the end. Are these themes brought together in a comprehensive doctrine of deification? For Irenaeus, is the final goal of man that he should transcend his humanity and be deified? My answer is no. Rather, in Irenaeus these themes constitute what it means to be fully human, to be what man was intended to be all along. For Irenaeus, humans are not called to become something more than human, to transcend human nature and be “deified”. Rather, the original goal for man, and thus the goal of the Christian life, is for him to receive the Spirit of God and be formed according to the image and likeness of God, that is, be formed according to the image of Christ. For Irenaeus, this is precisely what it means to be a fully mature human.
Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology, DOI: 10.1080/0039338X.2016.1172108
This article is a series of reflections by a historian who is also a theologian on some of the theological challenges raised by historicism and the historical study of Christianity. In particular, the question is raised as to whether it is still meaningful to speak of Christianity as having some form of normative “core” given at some point in the past, or an unchanging normative “essence” by which all forms of Christianity can be evaluated. The article begins with a brief look at Adolf von Harnack’s lectures on the essence of Christianity from 1900, before moving into reflections on historical change, relativity and normativity. The author rejects the idea of a religion having an unchanging normative core or essence. Like any other human institution, Christianity has been continually changing and adapting to new contexts, even though its representatives might claim an unchanging continuity. The article concludes with some reflections on the possible contours of a modest theology informed by these historicist reflections.
--------
The full article is available at this link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0039338X.2016.1172108
For a limited time, those without institutional access to Taylor and Francis can download the article from this link:
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/nJbNfFAQt4MWPXSJZG2W/full
To episoder:
- https://podtail.com/no/podcast/tor-hap-og-aerlighet/pa-mf-med-john-kaufman/
- https://podtail.com/no/podcast/tor-hap-og-aerlighet/pa-mf-med-john-kaufman-del-2/
In 2001, I completed a Master’s thesis in the History of Ideas at the University of Oslo. This thesis was a study of deification in the theology of Symeon the New Theologian, an orthodox monk who lived from 949-1022. After writing those pages, however, I was more curious than ever about the Orthodox doctrine of deification, for although references to deification can be found throughout the works of Symeon, he makes no attempt to explain exactly why he believes deification to be the goal of the Christian life. He seems simply to have inherited a tradition that he made his own and developed further. After writing about Symeon, I still had many questions about both what deification really means, and about how deification became a part of the orthodox tradition.
Because Irenaeus of Lyons is often referred to both in history books and orthodox literature as one of the earliest exponents of the doctrine of deification, I therefore decided to study his doctrine of deification. After having studied a writer standing at the receiving end of a long tradition, I would now study a writer standing at the other end, at the very beginning of this development.
As I immersed myself in Irenaeus and the secondary literature, however, the question changed somewhat, from “What does Irenaeus say about deification?” to “Does Irenaeus really talk about deification?”. He never uses the actual word “deification” (theopoiesis and theosis in Greek), so how can we be sure this is what he is talking about?
In my dissertation, I therefore discuss what we mean by “deification”, and I distinguish between deification “themes” and a “doctrine” of deification. Before answering whether or not Irenaeus really has a doctrine of deification, a first step was to identify and study certain deification themes. When people have asked me what deification means, I have often explained that it can mean several things. It can mean that humans in some way can be called gods, it can mean that humans somehow become “like God”, and it can mean that humans somehow “participate in God”. These three explanations, based on various Biblical texts, are in essence the three “deification themes” that are then studied in this dissertation: humans called “gods”, humans being “like God”, and humans “participating in God”. In separate chapters, each of these themes is studied in detail in the writings of Irenaeus, against the background of his Christian, pagan, and Jewish contexts. And I conclude that, to differing degrees, each of these themes is found in Irenaeus.
After studying these themes in detail, I then ask how they are brought together in the end. Are these themes brought together in a comprehensive doctrine of deification? For Irenaeus, is the final goal of man that he should transcend his humanity and be deified? My answer is no. Rather, in Irenaeus these themes constitute what it means to be fully human, to be what man was intended to be all along. For Irenaeus, humans are not called to become something more than human, to transcend human nature and be “deified”. Rather, the original goal for man, and thus the goal of the Christian life, is for him to receive the Spirit of God and be formed according to the image and likeness of God, that is, be formed according to the image of Christ. For Irenaeus, this is precisely what it means to be a fully mature human.