In his fascinating doctoral thesis, W.J. Hanegraaff has drawn a clear map to the labyrinth called 'New Age', which he defines as 'the cultic milieu having become conscious of itself as constituting a more or less unified movement'. It is an 'etic' description of 'emic' points of view held by a wide variety of representatives of this movement. The book is divided in three parts: 1. A general orientation; 2. The varieties of New Age experience; 3. An interpretation of the (...) material presented in parts 1 and 2. The author argues that although New Age is composed of many heterogenous elements, nevertheless a measure of coherence can be demonstrated even on the level of beliefs. He holds that as New Age is based on popular culture criticism, thus western esotericism, in which the movement is rooted, it is a third, 'gnostic' option in western culture next to philosophical and scientific rationalism and institutional Christianity. The reviewer, though enthusiastic about the book, questions it on its criteria for distinguishing New Age and Christianity and on the question of possible esoteric influences on apparently Christian movements. The distinction between faith and gnosis could perhaps be profitably related to God's transcendence and his immanence. The platonism of the early Church, adapted for Christian use, ought to be compared with the many platonic elements of present day New Age. (shrink)

SummaryIn this article, the Syriac version of a letter from Theodoret of Cyrus to Nestorius, hitherto known in three Latin translations only, is edited and taken as the starting point for some considerations on the relationship between, and a few important dates in the lives of, both theologians. Syriac sources suggest that Nestorius was exiled in the year 435 and died in 453. Theodoret's letter gives account of his assent to the formula of union of 433, but solemnly states that (...) he will never agree to Nestorius' condemnation. Since the letter was written when Nestorius was “already in exile”, it must be dated to 435 or perhaps even 436. From other sources it is known that Theodoret did indeed take some time to accept the formula, because he tried in vain to convince his metropolitan, Alexander of Hierapolis. And perhaps after his decision he also took his time to set himself to inform Nestorius of this. In any case, Nestorius' reply leaves no doubt as to his refusal to accept the compromise. Another letter from Theodoret to Nestorius may well be interpreted, as the Latin translator does, as an attempt to bring Nestorius to rethink his position. It is curiously enough worded as a request to Nestorius to try and convince Alexander of Hierapolis to unite with the other party. There seems to have been no reply. A final letter by Nestorius to Theodoret seems to have been written after the latter was deposed in 449. In 451 Theodoret was restored to his see—but only after he had officially condemned Nestorius. (shrink)

Genesis 22 has always been an important text in Jewish-Christian polemics. Yet this text contains elements which are problematic to both traditions alike. One such problem is the exact reading and the exegesis of verse 12, 'Now I know that you fear God', which poses the problem of God's foreknowledge. Two possible vocalizations of the Hebrew produce either the reading 'I know' or 'I have made known'. The first one is the Masoretic reading of Genesis 22, the second one appears (...) in different places in the Jewish tradition. In the Greek patristic tradition, 'You have made known' is also proposed, which could seem to hint at a different reading of the radicals in Hebrew. In Syriac however, two possible ways of vocalizing the radicals produce either 'I have made known' or 'You have made known', which suggests that the second reading in Greek specifically has a Syriac background. The first possibility, 'I have made known', though probably the original one, is never chosen by Syriac exegetes - because it was a well known Jewish solution to the problem and the Syrians were looking for a solution of their own? Another way of tackling the problem lay in the decision whether it was God himself or only an unknowing angel who spoke. But since the angel acted on God's behalf, not many exegetes found this an effective way to defend God's omniscience. The question of the audience of the proclamation when given either by God's angel or by Abraham himself also interested many exegetes in both traditions. (shrink)

This is an extensive review of a book by three German scholars on the relationship between the baptismal questions and the Old Roman Creed, which also deals with the question of the authorship of the so-called Apostolic Tradition, dwells on the origin of the second, christological baptismal question and proposes a revolutionary new theory on the origin of the so-called Old Roman Creed. While there is much food for thought here, some critical questions can also be put.

This issue of Bijdragen ends with a new edition, on the basis of more manuscripts, of CPL 1752. This credal text was first published in this journal in 1991, with an extensive commentary.

This article proposes three apparently interdependent versions of a confession of faith. Apart from a synoptic presentation of these texts, each of them is edited here on the basis of the available manuscripts and provided with a translation. After a discussion of the possible relationship between the three and a few parallels in patristic literature, a reconstruction of the original text is proposed.