Carl Baechle: "The Fathers Among the Modernists: Joseph Turmel's Curious Reception of Justin Martyr."

The field of Patristic Reception is a popular one; it has received thorough treatment from many scholars.  Scholarly investigations in this field have yielded insights into the way theologians from every era have relied on, used, appropriated, and characterized the witness and wisdom of the Fathers.  Despite all of these studies, however, hardly any attention has been given to one group that did study and write about the teachings of the Fathers: the so-called “Catholic Modernists” of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

   One of the more controversial Catholic Modernists was Joseph Turmel.  Turmel is a curious figure in the story of Catholic Modernism, mostly because of his penchant for writing under pseudonyms.  Turmel would frequently write articles that amassed the same facts but offered disparate conclusions.  One would usually offer traditional views; to this one Turmel would sign his own name.  Another would propose “modernist” opinions; to this one he would append one of his many pseudonyms.

   From 1905 to 1906, Turmel authored two series of articles that made use of the writings of Justin the Martyr.  Turmel discussed the teaching of Justin in a series of three treatises written for the New York Review in 1905 under his own name.  He also examined Justin’s Trinitarian statements in another series of essays that were published in the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses in 1906.  The latter statements, however, were made using one of his many pseudonyms, Antoine Dupin.

   In this paper, I will investigate how Turmel appropriated the writings of Justin in two contexts with two differing results.  The two occasions gave Turmel the opportunity to make different presentations of and to draw contrasting conclusions about the teachings and contributions of the most famous of the Christian Apologists.  Moreover, these writings give an insight into the importance of theological method, especially during an era that witnessed the excommunication of several Catholic theologians.  My paper will build on and enter into dialogue with the work of Alec Vidler, Marvin O’Connor, Jean Rivière, Joseph Lienhard, and Michael DeVito, evaluating their statements and filling out a heretofore unnoticed lacuna in scholarship on Patristic Reception.