Sometimes, all your main interests converge. Books? Check. Computers? Check. Philosophy and theology? Check. History? Check. The result: http://trinities.org/books.
Some of your know that I work on “early modern” (roughly 1650-1800) philosophy, especially philosophy of religion. For some time now, I’ve been reading through some of the many debates in that era regarding the Trinity. The debates are more wide-ranging and hard-hitting than anything academic theologians are doing now, and bizarrely, they’ve been forgotten by nearly everyone but a few historians. There are interesting historical and institutional reasons for this lapse of collective memory, but that’s an issue for another post (or five). In particular, it seems that most theologians and philosophers now writing on the Trinity are simply unfamiliar with this stuff. That’s a shame, as much can be learned from it, and moreover, in many cases recent-day people (including me) are just re-hashing points well-made back in 1692 or 1738 (or whenever).
Well, now you can read some of it – cheaply. These are real paperbacks, reprints of 17th, 18th, or 19th century editions. The covers are a little thin for my taste, but the pages and binding are quite nice. Print quality varies widely. For some reason, the online Previews always under-represent the print-quality. Beware that they print these to order – no stocks are kept, so they won’t accept returns. I could have these listed on Amazon, etc., but I probably won’t, as it would cost something like $150 each to do that.
I imagine I’ll get the same question as when students see the shelves in my office. No, I haven’t read all these – yet. Some I’ve read, some I’ve skimmed, some I just want to be able to read or refer to. I’m focusing on reading whole debates, both sides, to see what I can learn – pretty much all 17th and 18th century stuff, with a few 19th c. items thrown in. Some of these authors are extremely sharp, others, blow-hards. All I guarantee is that you can learn by “listening in” – whether that’s learning by others’ great discoveries, or by their great mistakes. Of course, since I’m interested in reading both sides of the debates, this stuff is, taken together, wildly inconsistent. So if you’re trying to discern my views, don’t read too much in to my selections.
I’ll be blogging on some of these from time to time, at least, after I finish going through the range of current-day theories by people in philosophical theology. Enjoy!
Hi Joseph,
Happily, I didn’t have to approach anyone – these are basically self-published. Lulu is a truly amazing new company. Basically, you provide a print-ready pdf (harder than it sounds), and prepare the cover, and they spit out the books when people order them. Basically, any fool can now be published, at next to no cost – they just take a small % of each book ordered. (They do charge more if you want promotional services, etc.) There’s never been anything remotely like it.
In the case of the Clarke volume, the results aren’t too pretty, but I thought it worth it because of the content. Someday maybe I’ll do the best (1738?) edition of Clarke, but (1) the trinitarian part of his Works is massive (2-3 books worth) and (2) it’d have to be done 8×10, not normal 6×9 size, because of the print sizes and layout. Really, I’d rather see someone do a proper new edition, but that’d be many years in the making. However, I went ahead and did Waterland, so it’d only be fair to do all the relevant works by Clarke.
RE: the SEP entry, the answer is: me. Maybe it’ll be included by some time in the Fall? I’d be glad to send you a rough draft when I get a complete one, if you care to give any feedback.
I have seriously entertained Clarke’s view, but I don’t quite hold it – the reasons for that are too complicated to go in to here. But I’m closer to him than to Athanasius or Aquinas.
Supercool! I’m particularly interested in what Clarke has to say about the Trinity. So how does Lulu work? I see you wrote the intro for the Clarke volume. Did you approach them and say I’d like to put out some cheap reprints of early modern classics on the Trinity and Incarnation? It doesn’t sound like it was an easy sell. And who’s writing the Stanford entry on the Trinity? I’d guess your own view is closer to the subordinationism of Clarke than the Augustinian pro-Nicene theory of Aquinas. (How’s that for name-dropping?)
-Joseph Jedwab
Comments are closed.