Customer Reviews

The Philosophy of Jonathan Edwards: A Study in Divine Semiotics (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Prof. Daniel's work on the philosophy of Jonathan Edwards may well be the most difficult book I've ever tried to read. But having read enough to get the gist of his analysis, I can't imagine being without it. He makes a cogent case that, unless we know Edwards' intellectual background and why he thinks the way he does, we won't really understand Edwards at all. This would be unfortunate, because Edwards is arguably the most important theologian, next to Calvin and Luther, that Reformed Christianity has produced. If Prof. Daniel is right, then Edwards not only was far ahead of his own time, but he was, and is, far ahead of ours. It is painful to read much of Christian apologetics being produced nowadays, with its continuing modern bias. While Edwards surely came under the influence of modernity (especially as we find it in Locke and his contemporaries) he quickly perceived the limits and shortcomings of the modern world view. Nor did he allow his thinking to be uncritically informed by it. It would not, I think, be going too far to suggest parallels between Edwards' thought and postmodernism. I would recommend reading a book like "Who's Afraid of Post-Modernism" by James K.A. Smith, in conjunction with Prof. Daniel's work. Also, a reader well versed in Ramism would bring much to this book that would make the going easier. Some of the best thinking on Peter Ramus may be found in "Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue" by Walter Ong.
The problem is, however, that Edwards draws on many ideas and intellectual trends without saying so explicitly. For example, his views on language and how it works are extremely sophisticated, but nowhere in his works do we find a developed philosophy of language. He also writes extensively on Old Testament typology, but nowhere in his works will the reader find a systematic treatment of the subject by itself. All in all, Edwards makes great demands on the reader, despite his straightforward style of writing (taking into account the archaic expressions and diction which are found in his work). Prof. Daniel's commentary makes no fewer demands than Edwards. But anyone who has the fortitude to work through this book will have no problem reading anything Edwards has written.
Aidan M