these other scholars have tended to place in opposition to one another’, and ultimately judges as making ‘a compelling contribution to ecclesiology’ (p. 186). Overall, Mawson’s work offers a close reading of Bonhoeffer’s text which goes some way to correcting a number of misperceptions about Sanctorum Communio. His analysis of Bonhoeffer’s thought is sharp and his argument is generally persuasive or even compelling. And although I appreciate Mawson’s robust defence of Bonhoeffer against some other commentators, the one significant area of disquiet I have has to do with a lack of critical engagement with Bonhoeffer’s thought. For instance, it strikes me that Bonhoeffer’s claim that there is a kind of striving against one another in community even in its primal setting (creation, before the Fall) is very close to the völkisch theology that supported Germany’s agitation at this time for more ‘Lebensraum’, which can also be seen in some of Bonhoeffer’s writings when he was in Barcelona. Relatedly, although I am also persuaded of the continuities in Bonhoeffer’s theology from Sanctorum Communio through to the prison writings, I question the correctness of some of Mawson’s use of later material to interpret this early work (for instance in note 45 on p. 48). In his Ethics manuscript ‘The Natural’, Bonhoeffer says we cannot get behind the Fall to be able to discuss creation. That surely presents at least one significant aspect of his dissertation where it would be improper to use later material to explicate the earlier. My final criticism is that although Mawson clearly engages with the German text, his citations only offer the pagination from the English Works edition. This is a hindrance for all who are reading the German, so including the Werke citations as well as the Works would have been a great help. And on that note, I would like to conclude with a strong commendation: this is the finest monograph on Bonhoeffer I have read for some time, and it has sent me back to re-read Sanctorum Communio.

中文翻译：

---

书评：克里斯蒂娜·内利斯特（Christina Nellist），《东正教基督教与动物苦难：现代神学中的古代声音》

这些其他学者倾向于相互对立”，并最终判断为“对教会学做出了令人信服的贡献”（第 186 页）。总的来说，莫森的作品提供了对朋霍费尔文本的仔细阅读，这在某种程度上纠正了对圣公会的一些误解。他对朋霍费尔思想的分析是敏锐的，他的论点通常具有说服力甚至令人信服。虽然我很欣赏莫森对一些其他评论员的有力辩护，但我感到不安的一个重要领域与缺乏对朋霍费尔思想的批判性接触有关。例如，让我感到震惊的是，朋霍费尔声称即使在其原始环境（创造，堕落之前）非常接近当时支持德国鼓动更多“生活空间”的大众神学，这也可以在朋霍费尔在巴塞罗那时的一些著作中看到。相关地，虽然我也相信朋霍费尔的神学从圣公会到监狱著作的连续性，但我质疑莫森使用后期材料来解释这部早期作品的正确性（例如在第 48 页的注释 45 中） . 在他的伦理手稿“自然”中，朋霍费尔说我们不能落后于堕落来讨论创造。这肯定至少说明了他的论文的一个重要方面，即使用后来的材料来解释较早的材料是不合适的。我最后的批评是，虽然莫森清楚地参与了德语文本，他的引文仅提供英文作品版的分页。这对所有阅读德语的人来说都是一个障碍，因此包括 Werke 引文和作品将是一个很大的帮助。关于这一点，我想以强烈的赞扬结束：这是我读过一段时间的关于朋霍费尔的最好的专着，它让我重新阅读了圣公会。