Kornelis H. MISKOTTE. Biblical ABCs: The Basics of Christian Resistance. (Tr. E. Hof, and C. Cornell). Lanham, London: Lexington Press/Fortress Academic. 2022. Pp. 171. 95.00 (cloth) ISBN – 9781978707535. Reviewed by Daniel L. SMITH-CHRISTOPHER, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, 90045.

This book is billed as a “theological resistance primer” and as a Quaker Biblical scholar dedicated to progressive interpretations of Christian faith and practice. I badly wanted to like this book.  We are introduced here to Kornelis Heiko Miskotte as “a Dutch pastor, theologian, and antifascist who lived and worked under the Nazi occupation of his country.”  Apparently, Miskotte also “facilitated underground Christian discussion groups” and this work, which first appeared in 1941, was published as “an illegal pamphlet” and as a study guide for these groups.  These initial descriptions strongly suggest that this is potentially an important work to translate in our times.  The significance of the result, however, is somewhat more debatable.  I will try to explain my hesitance. Although described as a “anti-Nazi catechism”, this work suffers from limitations of context, with all due respect to the author who faced challenges to life and limb in Nazi occupied Netherlands.
The shadow of Karl Barth (Miskotte’s teacher) looms large in this work, and the limitations of trying to read Barth  in generalizations with virtually no defending arguments simply asserted as true.  Believing that any defense of dogmatic statements suggests that the defenses are thus of a higher order of truth than the assertions themselves, Barth famously made many proclamations without further philosophical defense.  He is accused (I think often rightly) of fideism, requiring that an assertion be accepted on its own authority. Furthermore, although Barth did pay some attention to Biblical scholarship of his time, Miskotte’s work seems to contain very little in terms of either historical or literary observations of such scholarship.  This is particularly unfortunate for the Dutch context, where serious Biblical scholarship has a rich heritage.  For a work intended to be an “ABC” of the Bible, this is particularly problematic. 

Consider this paragraph: “God cannot be equated with Nature, but neither can God be known first and foremost as the Creator of Nature.  Belief in the Creator follows from faith in the Name.  God’s general guidance of the world is known from particular divine acts in history – in holy history.  The fixed pattern of Revelation shows itself in this fact: in reading from the particular to the general.” (24)  Such a series of assertions can be assessed from a variety of perspectives, but it is hardly a series of self-evidently clear points, and furthermore virtually dismisses Biblical studies as having much to contribute.  Related to this argument, Miskotte returns to a similar statement later: “…God has given the divine self to be known: to distinguish God from conceptual ideas about God…” (59).  I don’t particularly have objections to the point being made, but I am also quite aware that these are highly problematic arguments in Biblical Studies, then and now.  How God is to be “known” in Wisdom literature, for example, is strikingly different than Genesis, Exodus, or Prophetic literature. 

Throughout this work, there are significant challenges about what James Scott calls Hidden Transcripts, challenges that requires that a modern reader take into consideration the context of Nazi-occupied Netherlands.  What is written, often “implies” what is not, or cannot, be written under Nazi occupation. Therefore, virtually all statements must here be assessed for how they potentially challenge the ideologies of National Socialism.  In some cases, the courage of the statement is inherently clear.  When Miskotte states, for example, early in the work that “we are experiencing again how much we are connected with Israel through the holy instruction we have received from God” (5), the potential provocation seems clear.  Yet one wonders why Miskotte would then later argue that Torah/Teaching is, in his words, “neither pagan nor Jewish” but wider, warmer, and more personal” (8).  Such a statement raises concerns, as much for then as well as now. 

A major potential significance of this work is that it is portrayed as resistance literature.  As such, I agree with the translators’ sense of urgency about its importance.  But this is precisely where I have the most difficulty.  In an era when  Nazi activism is undergoing a dark resurrection in both Europe and the United States, do we have the luxury – and the time – for vague, opaque, or hidden transcripts in response?  Must we not speak plainly and clearly while we still can?  In my view, this work should have been accompanied by clear annotations where the authors/translators point out the ways in which Miskotte’s work is a challenge, a provocation, and a resistance to the hatreds of right-wing demagoguery.  I believe that the work can be made to read more powerfully for the modern times, but we need some clear statements.  In my view, a running annotation pointing out some of the more strikingly significant arguments for his time and his social and theological context would have made this project even more valuable.  However, I am grateful that the preliminary work has been done, and am waiting the next step.