Abstract
The popular and prolific Jesuit theologian Gerry O’Collins is well known as one of a rare kind: with enough knowledge of New Testament scholarship to take on its specialists and offer conservative conclusions on disputed theological questions, reassuring rather than challenging the faithful. He writes clearly and simply, avoiding much of the complexity of the issues. His appeal to the specialist literature is naturally selective, but also reveals a conservative bias. In articles on biblical translation, he refers to John Barton’s wonderful Penguin 2022 book, The Word, but not to the most instructive of recent translations, that of David Bentley Hart (2017). What is also lacking is any reflection on the religious and theological value of holding different translations and interpretations in our minds simultaneously. As theologians and believers, we do not always have to choose between them, as historians and translators usually must.
Most of these fifteen short essays were previously published between 2021 and 2023. They are mainly on individual words or passages, and four are on the resurrection, repeating views the author has argued at much greater length elsewhere. Here the conclusions are rarely justified by the preceding arguments, but they may encourage some readers to dig deeper One bête noir attacked is an explanation of the resurrection appearances as bereavement visions. His inevitably selective footnotes do not mention Peter Gant Seeing Light (2019) and Fr. O’Collins does not consider whether such naturalist explanations are compatible with believing that God vindicated Jesus in the event we call resurrection, distinguishing it from resuscitation but recognizing the inadequacy of all our language on this divine mystery. Supernaturalist explanations of events in the gospels are the only ones admitted by some believers, or perhaps considered by some theologians the only ones that some of their hearers or readers can tolerate without distress. For them it is not enough to believe God did it; we have to know (and are told) how God did it. Some appear to know that God would not have done it in a way that could be misconstrued as excluding divine agency. Others disagree but admit they do not know.
Well, historians can explain why Reimarus’ anti-Christian explanation of the emergence of resurrection belief was mistaken (Expository Times, 2017, 1-11 at 4), but other matters are less straightforward. Those who do not accept that some naturalistic explanations of miracle-stories or myth are compatible with orthodox Christianity, or that some historical guesses may be compatible with belief in divine agency, may be wiser to admit that the historical evidence is sometimes inconclusive, and open to different possible explanations, and therefore unlikely to persuade interested enquirers. These reductive explanations do not necessarily compete with traditional assumptions, as they usually have done. We may be agnostic about some historical matters while accepting the biblical witness to God in Christ crucified and risen, ascended, glorified.
On another disputed text, Fr. O’Collins is (I think rightly) unpersuaded by an ‘angel christology’ theory about Phil. 2.6-11, but his account of theological interpretation seems to me flawed, again on account of expecting too much from the uncertainties of history and exegesis. That said, the collection contains much of value on particular verses (John 21.14; Heb. 12.2a) and vocabulary. It ends with the author asking whether it conveys fresh insights, and ‘leaves it to the readers to reply’. A reviewer who respects its motives and appreciates any attempt to combine exegesis with theology and the life of the church, yet has some reservations, can trust that others will answer that question with a grateful, ‘Yes’! If this were to end the nonagenarian’s many valuable publications (and I hope not) it will have been good to end a world much travelled around in 80 books with a bang, not a whimper.