The truth is not that Roman Catholics kept Aristotle and Luther threw him out; the debates surrounding the appropriateness of Aristotle’s ethics belong to the curriculum shifts of the era and not to any one Christian denomination. Aristotle’s ethics continued in major Protestant institutions well into the seventeenth century and the rate of replacement tracks with that of Roman Catholic institutions (see Richard Muller, After Calvin, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 122–36). In short, the persistent myth of the incompatibility of virtue with Protestantism is due almost entirely to ignorance of the era of Protestant orthodoxy and its university textbooks. Although purporting to redress this lack of attention, Cochran’s book unwittingly perpetuates this myth through her choice of sources and assumption that a turn to Stoicism is requisite for bringing Protestants to the virtue table. The spirit and direction of Protestant Virtue and Stoic Ethics are on the right track, but Cochrane’s imbalance of historical reception and bricolage prevents her from making a much stronger case. Early Protestant theologians are indeed overlooked as resources for virtue ethics, and this will likely remain unchanged until a major work on the ethics of Protestant orthodoxy is completed. It took Annas’s herculean synthesis of the ancient tradition to break down Stoic caricatures and something similarly massive will no doubt be required for the late-medieval and early modern virtue traditions as well—both Catholic and Protestant. In the meantime, Cochran’s volume is sufficiently insightful and creative to benefit students of moral theology and religious ethics, as well as scholars of virtue ethics searching for new points of entry into debates on, for example, the unity of the virtues and the role of faith in moral progress.

中文翻译：

---

书评：Jacques Ellul，Les sources de l'éthique chrétienne：Le Vouloir et le Faire，party IV et V

事实并非罗马天主教徒保留亚里士多德而路德将他赶出去；围绕亚里士多德伦理学适当性的争论属于那个时代的课程转变，而不是任何一个基督教教派。亚里士多德的伦理学在主要的新教机构中一直延续到 17 世纪，以及与罗马天主教机构的更换轨道的速度（参见理查德·穆勒，加尔文之后，牛津大学出版社，2003 年，第 122-36 页）。简而言之，美德与新教不相容的持续神话几乎完全是由于对新教正统时代及其大学教科书的无知。虽然旨在弥补这种缺乏关注的问题，科克伦的书通过她对资料来源的选择和假设，即转向斯多葛主义是将新教徒带到美德桌前的必要条件，不知不觉地延续了这个神话。Protestant Virtue 和 Stoic Ethics 的精神和方向走在正确的轨道上，但 Cochrane 对历史接受和拼凑的不平衡阻止她提出更有力的案例。早期的新教神学家作为美德伦理学的资源确实被忽视了，在新教正统伦理学的主要工作完成之前，这一点可能会保持不变。亚那对古代传统的巨大综合分解了斯多葛派的漫画，毫无疑问，中世纪晚期和现代早期的美德传统也需要类似的东西——天主教和新教。同时，