It has been often observed that modernity is about rationalism, compartmentalisation, polarisation, and reductionism. As a symptom of this age, overspecialisation, to paraphrase Isaac Asimov, cuts knowledge at innumerable points and leaves it bleeding. Our culture of dichotomies is the outcome and the living proof of this situation. So is, too, our incapacity to reach coherence across the epistemological gap. Just think of the grand division of hard and soft sciences, and how this precludes us, for example, from tackling cosmology and anthropology in one go. But even researchers working in the same field deploy methods and jargons that are increasingly unintelligible to their colleagues. Behind our methods and jargons hide in plain sight our own perceptions and preferences, all of which condition the meaning of the objects we analyse. I concur with Friedrich Nietzsche's assessment: human, all too human. Meanwhile, we claim objectivity. And though this situation is known — especially to hard scientists — humanities scholars remain lost in the labyrinth without realising it. It's quite obvious in biblical historicism. No wonder the many and, overall, mutually exclusive “historical jesuses” produced in recent times. Either/or. As Rubem Alves would have it, we killed the myth and dissected the corpse without ever reaching understanding. We find ourselves, here, in the proverbial situation of counting the trees while missing the forest. Such is the case of representing the traditional figure of Jesus Christ in modern and contemporary scholarship.

It seems to me that this is what Jamieson considers in this monograph — a special case of either/or rationalisation of who Jesus Christ is. This is clear from the outset, where he summarises current discussions about the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with most scholars being unable to escape the Aristotelian excluded middle, the logic of either/or. As the author has it, “Either Jesus is Son or he becomes Son; it cannot be both” (p. 2). In turn, building upon clearly acknowledged foundations, Jamieson adopts the “quantum,” I'd say, noncontradictory logic of the included middle, defending the view that by “Son” Hebrews refers to “both who Jesus is and what he becomes. He is the Son who became Son” (p. 2; see also pp. 20, 47–48 etc). This articulation is paradoxical, with the incarnation being its pivotal point (pp. 4, 18, 24, 40, 77, 85, 87, 125, 129, 133, 137, 139–140, 147, 153). The author replaces the usual zero-sum, reductionist game of scholars by the non-zero-sum game, not mentioned as such, of holistic complexity (pp. 7, 10, 12, 15–17, 23, 43, 46, 161, 167). Accordingly, Jamieson tries hard to prove that this way of grasping the mystery of Jesus Christ in Hebrews is more rational and legitimate than the usual binaries. This he does with utmost skill, by taking the very tune of his opponents in terms of exegeting the text and interpreting it against the backdrop of credal statements. In the process, he undertakes patristic excursions meant to strengthen the case and nuance the position, that is, Jesus Christ is not easy to grapple with, and definitely not in either/or terms.

I have learnt much from the exegetical sections of this monograph, especially the points about Hebrews' subtle manner of referring to Christ's double identity, divine and human/messianic, by the same term, “Son” (pp. 49–98, 143, 146–149). I am certain that less patristically inclined scholars, especially working in biblical studies, will discover with both surprise and profit how mature is the Christology of Hebrews, which conveys in different words what later credal statements affirm in the technical terms familiar to us. In fact, this is a crucial contribution of this book, albeit not stated as such, namely, substantiating the consistency of Christological thinking from the author of Hebrews and his peers to the doctrinal theoreticians of the fourth to the eighth century. Here, Jamieson opposes the dominant “evolutionary” paradigm — which conditions many scholars to think in terms of a development of doctrine — by showing that whereas the words change in history, traditional perceptions transcend lexical fluidity. We cannot expect Hebrews, a sermon, to utter the language of Chalcedon's orthodoxy, but the Christology of both Hebrews and Chalcedon is in essence one (pp. 41–48, 149–150, 153–156). In the author's words, a theandric Christology, for which the mystery of Jesus Christ is irreducible to either divinity or humanity (pp. 2, 21, 122–142). The author's patristic explorations confirm his conclusions reached by way of analysing Hebrews.

Two points are in order, here. First, this book, which provides a unified “classical Christological toolkit” (pp. 20, 23–40, 77, 99, 138–139), perceives biblical and patristic studies as connected fields that map the early Christian landscape, beyond the current disciplinary divide. The parting of the ways — typical for overspecialisation — cripples both fields and obscures the significance of facts. In turn, bridging these and other fields in “transdisciplinary” fashion — acknowledging both disciplinary boundaries and the complementarity of different approaches — naturally leads to an inclusive attitude across the humanities. This, in turn, conduces to a better grasp of things. And the monograph is an excellent example of what this grasp reveals about the early Christian world. “He is the Son who became Son.” No either/or.

Second, I was surprised not to find, here, references to Bogdan Bucur's Scripture Re-envisioned: Christophanic Exegesis and the Making of a Christian Bible (2019) and Dragoș Giulea's Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The Case of the Divine Noetic Anthropos (2014). Though the former would have added strength to the case for Hebrews' identification of Jesus Christ as the God of Israel (pp. 144–145), the latter would have further substantiated the coherence of early Christian Christology advocated here. Conversely, Jamieson's analysis of Hebrews touches on matters neither of the other two authors had discussed.

The Paradox of Sonship: warmly recommended for whomever is interested in grasping the mystery of Jesus Christ, free of scholarly reductive schemas.

人们经常观察到，现代性是关于理性主义、划分、两极分化和还原论的。作为这个时代的一个症状，过度专业化，套用艾萨克·阿西莫夫 (Isaac Asimov) 的话说，会在无数方面削减知识并使其流血。我们的二分法文化是这种情况的结果和活生生的证明。我们也无法跨越认识论的鸿沟达成一致。想想硬科学和软科学的大划分，以及这如何阻止我们，例如，一次性处理宇宙学和人类学。但即使是在同一领域工作的研究人员也会使用他们的同事越来越难以理解的方法和行话。在我们的方法和行话背后隐藏着我们自己的看法和偏好，所有这些都决定了我们分析的对象的意义。我同意弗里德里希·尼采的评价：人，太人了。同时，我们主张客观性。尽管这种情况是众所周知的——尤其是硬科学家——但人文学科的学者仍然迷失在迷宫中而不自知。这在圣经历史主义中是很明显的。难怪最近产生了许多总体上相互排斥的“历史耶稣”。两者任一。正如鲁本·阿尔维斯所说，我们在没有达成理解的情况下扼杀了神话并解剖了尸体。在这里，我们发现自己处于数树不见森林的众所周知的境地。在现代和当代学术中代表耶稣基督的传统形象就是这种情况。尽管这种情况是众所周知的——尤其是硬科学家——但人文学科的学者仍然迷失在迷宫中而不自知。这在圣经历史主义中是很明显的。难怪最近产生了许多总体上相互排斥的“历史耶稣”。两者任一。正如鲁本·阿尔维斯所说，我们在没有达成理解的情况下扼杀了神话并解剖了尸体。在这里，我们发现自己处于数树不见森林的众所周知的境地。在现代和当代学术中代表耶稣基督的传统形象就是这种情况。尽管这种情况是众所周知的——尤其是硬科学家——但人文学科的学者仍然迷失在迷宫中而不自知。这在圣经历史主义中是很明显的。难怪最近产生了许多总体上相互排斥的“历史耶稣”。两者任一。正如鲁本·阿尔维斯所说，我们在没有达成理解的情况下扼杀了神话并解剖了尸体。在这里，我们发现自己处于数树不见森林的众所周知的境地。在现代和当代学术中代表耶稣基督的传统形象就是这种情况。最近产生的相互排斥的“历史耶稣”。两者任一。正如鲁本·阿尔维斯所说，我们在没有达成理解的情况下扼杀了神话并解剖了尸体。在这里，我们发现自己处于数树不见森林的众所周知的境地。在现代和当代学术中代表耶稣基督的传统形象就是这种情况。最近产生的相互排斥的“历史耶稣”。两者任一。正如鲁本·阿尔维斯所说，我们在没有达成理解的情况下扼杀了神话并解剖了尸体。在这里，我们发现自己处于数树不见森林的众所周知的境地。在现代和当代学术中代表耶稣基督的传统形象就是这种情况。

在我看来，这就是贾米森在这本专着中所考虑的——一个关于耶稣基督是谁的非此即彼合理化的特例。这从一开始就很清楚，他总结了当前关于希伯来书的基督论的讨论，大多数学者无法逃避亚里士多德的排中律，非此即彼的逻辑。正如作者所说，“要么耶稣是儿子，要么他成为儿子; 不能两者兼而有之”（第 2 页）。反过来，在公认的基础上，贾米森采用了“量子”，我会说，包含中间的非矛盾逻辑，捍卫希伯来书“儿子”指的是“耶稣是谁和他成为什么”的观点。他是成为儿子的儿子”（第 2 页；另见第 20、47-48 页等）。这种表述是矛盾的，化身是其关键点（第 4、18、24、40、77、85、87、125、129、133、137、139–140、147、153 页）。作者用整体复杂性的非零和博弈取代了通常的零和还原主义博弈（第 7、10、12、15-17、23、43、46、161 页） , 167). 相应地，贾米森努力证明这种理解希伯来书中耶稣基督奥秘的方式比通常的二元论更合理、更合理。他以最大的技巧做到了这一点，在注释文本和在信条陈述的背景下解释文本方面，他的对手非常喜欢。在这个过程中，他进行了教父式的远足，目的是加强案例和细微差别的立场，也就是说，耶稣基督不容易对付，而且绝对不是两者兼而有之。

我从这本专着的解经部分学到了很多东西，尤其是关于希伯来书用同一个词“儿子”来指代基督的双重身份，神的和人的/弥赛亚的微妙方式的要点（第 49-98、143 页， 146–149）。我敢肯定，不太倾向于教父主义的学者，尤其是从事圣经研究的学者，会惊讶和受益地发现希伯来书的基督论是多么成熟，它用不同的词传达了后来的信条陈述以我们熟悉的技术术语所肯定的内容。事实上，这是本书的一个重要贡献，尽管没有这样表述，即证实了从希伯来书的作者和他的同龄人到 4 世纪到 8 世纪的教义理论家的基督论思想的一致性。这里，贾米森反对占主导地位的“进化论”范式——这种范式使许多学者从学说的发展的角度来思考——他表明，尽管历史上词语会发生变化，但传统观念超越了词汇的流动性。我们不能指望希伯来书这本布道书会说出迦克墩的正统语言，但希伯来书和迦克墩的基督论本质上是一体的（第 41-48、149-150、153-156 页）。用作者的话说，一个theandric Christology，耶稣基督的奥秘不能还原为神性或人性（第 2、21、122-142 页）。作者的教父探索证实了他通过分析希伯来书得出的结论。

这里有两点。首先，这本书提供了一个统一的“经典基督学工具包”（第 20、23-40、77、99、138-139 页），将圣经和教父研究视为相互关联的领域，描绘了早期基督教景观，超越了当前学科鸿沟。分道扬镳——典型的过度专业化——削弱了这两个领域并掩盖了事实的重要性。反过来，以“跨学科”的方式将这些和其他领域联系起来——承认学科界限和不同方法的互补性——自然会导致人文学科的包容态度。反过来，这有助于更好地掌握事物。这本专着是这种理解揭示了早期基督教世界的一个很好的例子。“他是成为儿子的儿子。” 没有/或。

其次，我很惊讶在这里没有找到对 Bogdan Bucur重新设想的圣经的引用：Christophanic Exegesis and the Making of a Christian Bible (2019) 和 Dragoş Giulea在逾越节背景下的尼西亚前基督论：神圣的 Noetic Anthropos 的案例(2014)。虽然前者会为希伯来人认定耶稣基督是以色列的神（第 144-145 页）的论据增添力量，但后者会进一步证实这里提倡的早期基督教基督论的连贯性。相反，贾米森对希伯来书的分析触及了其他两位作者都没有讨论过的问题。

儿子身份的悖论：强烈推荐给任何有兴趣了解耶稣基督的奥秘的人，不受学术还原模式的影响。