Edwyn Clement Hoskyns (1884 — 1937) described the movement of the classical Prayer Book tradition as one founded upon 'the ancient structure of the Church's worship' yet 'broken again and again to make room for the deep-seated cry of forgiveness.' While Hoskyns may not be expressing anything particularly novel in this description of the Cranmerian order of worship that brings coherence to the Prayer Book tradition, the journey by which he reached this insight, and the connection between this insight and the way that Hoskyns understands the presence of similar patterns in scripture, is worth further consideration for those who place importance in the biblical and theological structures of historic Anglican prayer.
Though not a household name today, even among Anglicans or scholars in his field, Hoskyns ranks among the most influential Biblical scholars of the 20th century. Canon Charles Smyth perhaps runs the risk of overstatement in describing Hoskyns as one of 'two outstanding names in history of Christian thought in England' during the first half of the 20th century, alongside G. K. Chesterton. A leading figure in the emergent field now called Biblical Theology, Hoskyns counted among his pupils the Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey and prominent New Testament scholar C. K. Barrett. Hoskyns published only one work of note during his lifetime, a critical summary of historical-critical scholarship of the New Testament called The Riddle of the New Testament (1931). A mere six years later, at 52, he died suddenly, which explains why he published relatively little and is not well-known today. Along with The Riddle of the New Testament, Hoskyns left behind a much-acclaimed commentary on John (1940), and a biblical theology in which he develops an insightful pattern for reading the scriptures in unity, a pattern which he calls 'crucifixion-resurrection.' Appropriately entitled Crucifixion-Resurrection, this work not completed until 1981 when his biblical theology was drawn together posthumously from his notes by two former students. Given that the work was rather dated by the time it was finally published, there has not been any serious scholarly engagement with it, its themes, or its implications.
For members of the Society
The full text of this article is reserved for members. Sign in with your email, or become a member, to read it in full.