John D. Caputo: A postmodern,prophetic, liberal American in Paris

Continental Philosophy Review -     

Hagiography and Monotheism in History: Doctrinal encounters between Zoroastrianism,Judaism and Christianity 1

Issues of hagiography and monotheism were central to the historical development of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity (and subsequently Islam). Overlapping geo graphical locales and cultural heritages, especially during the rule of ancient Iranian dynasties and within Iranian territory, seem to have facilitated and reinforced common solutions that linked devotees across confessional lines through shared communal notions and doctrinal tenets. The hagiographical lives and preachings of Zarathushtra, or Zoroaster, and biblical figures from Moses to Jesus consciously came to parallel each other ex post facto and were regarded as representing different aspects of monotheism. The Zoroastrian dualistic worldview did not exclude monotheism, although it did postulate a separate source of evil. Variations notwith standing, for members of each faith, the spiritual entity venerated by their founder was believed to be God--a condition acknowledged by the other confessional groups as well. Uniting a community of believers around themselves in the veneration of a singular deity eventually transformed Zarathushtra, Moses and Jesus (and later Muhammad) into prophets. Religious founders, the historically created and cross-culturally shaped images of such founders and an intercommunally emergent notion that their words represented communion with the divinity forged and strengthened the shared links between hagiography and monotheism among Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians and, in time, Muslims.     

Jonathan Edwards's Virtue: Diverse Sources, Multiple Meanings, and the Lessons of History for Ethics

The incompleteness of the task of integrating the influences made upon Jonathan Edwards by Calvinism and the moral sense leaves open a great many questions central to identifying his ethical position with any detail. This should worry ethicists, theologians, and church historians alike. For the puzzle of what Edwards meant by virtue is at the heart not only of his ethics but of a great many strands of his thought. It must be pieced together from diverse sources; and there are multiple meanings to be sifted through. But it is nevertheless possible to bring the concepts made available by the diverse moral traditions upon which Edwards drew into a generally coherent counterpoise. Such a counterpoise is not merely of antiquarian interest. Lacking a precise account of Edwards's ethical position, it is awkward to talk about applying it to the problems of the twenty-first, or any, century.