The Bruyns of Brown Street (7)—Ellen Esther Bruyn

In exploring the history of the land and house which Elizabeth and I purchased in Dungog a few years ago, I have already noted the early landholders for this property, and investigated the life of Daniel and Sarah Bruyn and their family after Daniel purchased the land in 1858.

When Daniel died intestate in 1882, all of his property was made over to his son, Daniel Justin Bruyn, whose life has already been canvassed. A few months later, we find that the land he received from his father in Brown St had been purchased by his sister, Ellen Bruyn. This is her story.

Ellen Esther Bruyn was born in in the later months of 1839 in Smethwick, Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell, West Midlands, England, the second daughter of Daniel Joseph Bruyn, a Blacksmith (1796—1882), born in Roscommon, Ireland, migrated to England, and Sarah Helen Nichols (1807—1882), whom he married on 5 Feb 1837 (to 4 May 1882) in West Bromwich, Staffordshire. Ellen was the fourth child born to Daniel and Sarah; a further three children were born in subsequent years.

The family travelled to France in about 1845, where two of those children were born, including Daniel Justin Bruyn. After a rise of unrest in France, they returned four years later to England. They came to the Colony of New South Wales in 1856 as assisted migrants. Daniel and Sarah arrived in the Colony on board the Commodore Perry on 1 May 1856 with their children Margaret, Ellen, Elizabeth, Daniel and Sarah. (The eldest child, Joseph, travelled to the Colony a few years later.)

We have seen that Ellen had a sizeable inheritance on the death of her brother, Daniel Justin Bruyn. He had accumulated cash and property over the years, with a thriving business as a Grazier on the lands that he had purchased to the northwest of Dungog. That was given over to her, added to the land that was already under her name.

Map of the Parish of Tillegra showing
the property owned by Ellen Bruyn

An 1894 survey map for the Parish of Tillegra contains Lots which are registered in the name of Ellen Bruyn: Lots 100 (45 acres), 101 (40 acres), 3 (39 acres), 147 (80 acres), and 148 (45 acres)—a total of 249 acres. This land was located immediately next to land in north-eastern section of the many Lots owned by Ellen’s brother, Daniel Justin, so it is reasonable to suppose that it formed a part of the one large farm stretching along much of the Dungog—Tillegra parish boundary.

So Ellen had a large portfolio to oversee, what with her own land and the land she had received on the death of brother Daniel. She managed this property well over the following decades, using the land to maintain a strong economic position throughout her life. Ellen continued to live in the house in Brown Street where she had spent the latter years of her childhood as well as the early decades of her adult life.

At some point late in the 1890s or, more likely, in the first decade or so of the 20th century, a substantial brick dwelling was built on this site, replacing what was an earlier family home. The 1913 Electoral Roll for Dungog lists “Bruyn, Ellen, Dungog, domestic duties” as a resident. A photo (undated, perhaps in the 1910s?) shows Ellen in her mature years in the garden at the front of this house.

The double brick house on the land in Brown St, where the Bruyn family had lived since the 1850s. The lady in the (undated) photo is Ellen Bruyn, who had owned the land since 1883.
The house appears relatively new; could this be early in the 20th century, or even a few years earlier?

The exterior of the house looks relatively unchanged even today. The sweeping curve of the verandah bricks and the path from the front fence leading to an offset entry can be seen. At the other end of the front verandah, it is evident that there are some people standing there, although identification of individuals is not possible. The front garden reflects a substantial investment of time and care from Ellen over the years.

Ellen was a single woman who never married. There are clear indications that Ellen’s bachelor brother, Daniel Justin, had lived in a room in this house over the years before he took his own life in 1912. Daniel had been a well-respected member of the Dungog community. Ellen herself was evidently very involved in charitable and community matters locally—the distribution of funds from her will indicated this very clearly.

The 1883 Conveyance passing the title of the property
from Daniel Bruyn to his sister Ellen

A Conveyance dated 31 May 1883 between Ellen Bruyn of Dungog, Spinster, and Daniel Justin Bruyn of Dungog, Blacksmith, indicates that Allotment No. Seven of Section No. Five and Allotment No. Six of Section No. Five were sold for the sum of two hundred pounds. Ellen would live there as the owner of the house for almost half a century, until her death in 1927. That property had been made over to Daniel Jnr soon after the death of his father, Daniel Snr, and he subsequently put it up for public auction.

Ellen must have pleased to be the owner of the house that she had been living in for years, as well as the adjacent block of land. Why she had to pay this amount to her brother when she was just as much a child of Daniel and Sarah as he was, is a mystery. The gendered bias in 19th century society would, of course, have meant that the property of the father would normally pass to his son after his death, unless another course of action was specified. Obviously, such an alternative had not been set out by Daniel Snr. So Daniel Justin Bruyn inherited the family home in Brown St, and then his sister Ellen Bruyn bought it off him.

Ellen’s signature on the 1883 Conveyance

Ellen lived in the houses on this property for many decades—from the 1860s until her death in 1927. Over this time, she would have seen the town of Dungog grow and develop over the years. In her study of towns and buildings in the region, Grace Karskens writes that Governor Darling “published regulations for town planning in 1829 which directed that streets be laid out in a grid pattern, and emphasised uniformity and regularity, wide streets, half-acre allotments, and that buildings were to beset well back” (Dungog Shire Heritage Study: Thematic History, 1986, p.51). This set the pattern for numerous country towns, including Dungog.

This neat, orderly development continued for some decades. Karskens notes that “the second half of the nineteenth century was generally a boom-time for the major towns in Dungog Shire, and thus also a period of physical consolidation and community growth” (p.63).

The pattern that she observes in the 1860s was certainly evident in Dungog: “neat, solid government buildings, such as police stations, watch houses, post offices and court houses, all built to indicate a civilized and well-ordered society. Rows of stores and offices were built by merchants, professional people, banks and businessmen along the main streets, slowly filling up the grids laid down by surveyors forty years before.” (p.63).

Karskens cites an unidentified press clipping held in the Newcastle Local History Library when she observes that “during the 1850s, Dungog, like Clarence Town, benefited from a position on the route to the Peel River and Gloucester goldfields, and this was repeated during the 1880s with the finds at Wangat (within the Shire), Whispering Gully and Barrington” (p.80).

An 1887 map showing the area of NSW designated as coalfield

She reports that “an anonymous correspondent writing in 1888 listed the town’s businesses as including three banks, four hotels, four large general stores, three butchers, three bakers, a coachmaker, wheelwrights, three blacksmiths, a hairdresser, a fancy tailor, boot makers, three saddle and harness makers and four churches, a weekly newspaper and ‘a School of Arts a credit to any town’.” (p.81). Included among those three blacksmiths, of course, was Daniel Joseph Bruyn, Ellen’s father.

Growth in the town continued year by year. Karskens notes that “Dungog Cottage Hospital was opened in 1892 in a small (two-roomed) ornate Italianate brick building in Hospital Street at the western end of town” (p.82) and in the following year the town was proclaimed a Municipality and elections were held for councillors for the first Dungog Municipal Council. The new council would have responsibility for services in the town of Dungog and the rest of the newly-formed shire.

Along Dowling St, the new buildings included the Roman Catholic Church and Presbytery (1880s, now Tall Timbers Motel and the Information centre), an Italianate Post Office (1874, with a less dramatic facade added some decades later), the Oddfellows Hall (1881, now the Dungog Medical Practice), the ornate CBC bank and residence (1884, now a private residence), Centennial Hall (1888, now a cafe), the Bank Hotel (an 1891 conversion of a former residence), the Skillen and Walker Terrace (1895, four two-story shops-and-residences with a central archway), the School of Arts (1898, now the Historical Society), and the Angus and Coote building (1911).

Dowling St, Dungog, early in the 20th century

After the death of her father in 1883, Ellen Bruyn had bought the land in Brown Street where the family had lived for around 30 years. As the town continued to grow, a number of significant buildings were erected near to this residence. On the corner of Brown and Dowling Sts, Dark’s Store was built in 1877 and expanded in each of 1896, 1900 and finally in 1920. It came to be called “the hall of Commerce” and housed the largest store in Dungog. Opposite this was the striking Coolalie, built in 1895 as the home of Henry Charles Dark.

The Court House Hotel (later renamed the Settlers Arms), the earliest hotel in Dungog

In Brown Street itself, Dungog’s oldest hotel, the Court House Hotel, now the Settler’s Arms (pictured above), had been trading since the 1850s. On the top of the hill, the Roman Catholic Convent of St Joseph was built in 1891, a Parish Hall in 1913, and a new Church in 1933, six years after Ellen died. As a devout Catholic, she would have been a regular attendee at the Church on Dowling St and, in later years, at Parish events in the Hall on Brown St. On the eastern end of Brown St, the James Theatre was opened in 1918; to the west of the Bruyn residence, a large and impressive Memorial Hall (now the RSL club) was built in 1919.

The James Theatre, Dungog, in the 1950s
(from https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/
1208160/dungog-cinema-celebrates-100-years/)

(The information about these buildings is taken largely from Michael Williams’ 2011 publication, Ah, Dungog! A brief survey of its charming houses and historic buildings.)

So the hypothesis that Elizabeth and I have developed is that, after she had bought the property in Brown St in 1883, with the older family home on it, Ellen Bruyn had a new double-brick house built on Lot 6.

Which opens the next stage as the story continues … … …

and see earlier blogs at

The Bruyns of Brown Street (5)—Daniel Justin Bruyn

In exploring the history of the land and house which Elizabeth and I purchased in Dungog a few years ago, I have already noted the early landholders for this property, and investigated the life of Daniel and Sarah Bruyn and their family after Daniel purchased the land in 1858. When Daniel died intestate in 1882, all of his property was made over to his son, Daniel Justin Bryan, whose life we now consider.

Daniel Justin Bruyn was born in France. His parents, Joseph and Sarah, had married in 1837 in West Bromwich, Staffordshire, where four children were born in the years 1837 to 1842. The family travelled to France, perhaps seeking to use there the skills that Daniel Snr had as a Blacksmith. Two children were born there; Mary died within a year, Daniel Jnr was born on 26 May 1847, at Graville, Le Havre, Seine.

After four years the family returned to England because of the unrest relating to industrialisation. Another daughter was born; the family then migrated to the Colony of New South Wales in 1856 and settled in Dungog, where Daniel purchased land and established his Blacksmith business.

Daniel Justin Bruyn was eleven years of age when his father purchased the land in Brown St; presumably he lived with the family there for some time after they moved into the building that was erected there, at some stage between 1858 and 1866, as noted previously.

Grevilles 1872 Post Office Directory lists both Daniel Bryun, Blacksmith, of Brown St, Dungog, and Joseph Bruyn, farmer, “near Dungog”. Joseph was the firstborn son of Daniel. At some point after this, Daniel Justin Bruyn began to purchase land holdings to the north of Dungog.

Daniel Justin Bruyn

On 11 Sept 1879, Daniel Justin Bruyn is listed as selecting 234 acres in Dungog, Al. No. 76-37754, C.P. No. 73–9338. On 19 April 1883 Daniel Justin Bruyn made application to be registered as “Proprietor by Transmission” of land in Dungog, as the Administrator of the intestate estate of Daniel Bruyn, deceased. The land was 3 acres, Lots 1, 2, and 3, of Section 32, Town of Dungog; this was on the northern side of Hooke St, between Abelard and Eloisa Streets. (There are residential building on these lots today.)

On 1 September 1892 Daniel Justin Bruyn made application for 79 1/2 acres at Tillegra; on 1 February 1893, 78 3/4 acres was granted to him. On 20 October 1892 he made application for 77 acres at Dungog; on 1 February 1893, 65 1/4 acres was granted to him. It is also reasonable to assume, from a piece of evidence noted below, that Daniel had a room in the house at Brown Street where his sister lived. That was his base when he was in town, it would seem.

In a series of Electoral Rolls (1895, 1900, 1904) Daniel Justin Bryun, Grazier, is listed as living at Sugarloaf. In 1905, he is listed as having 15 horses and 190 cattle (and no sheep) on his property at Sugarloaf Creek.

A survey map of the area, dated 9 January 1894, designates seven properties in his name running along the northern boundary of the Parish of Dungog, adjacent to the Parish of Tillegra, to the south of the current Sugarloaf Road, and west of the Longbrush Gully. Another survey map for the Parish of Tillegra places him as owner of a further fourteen Lots running in parallel to his Dungog Parish holdings.

In the Parish of Dungog, running east to west, Bruyn owned Lots 128 (50 acres) and 134 (73 acres), adjacent to each other; then stretching west from them, Lots 52 (234 acres), 50 (40 acres), 136 (40 acres), 53 (120 acres), and 151 (65 acres). This final Lot was the penultimate Lot before the boundary with the Parish of Lewinsbrook, covering the area between Dungog and Gresford. The total acreage of these seven Lots is 622 acres.

The holdings of Daniel Justin Bruyn in the Sugarloaf region, running along the northern boundary
of the Parish of Dungog

In addition, on the other side of the Parish boundary, in the Parish of Tillegra, there is another, more extensive, collection of Lots in the name of Daniel Justin Bruyn. Running east to west, he owned Lots 48 (40 acres), 129 (49 acres), 37 (40 acres), 38 (40 acres), 49 (80 acres), 106 (114 acres), 4 (99 acres), 149 (40 acres), 119 (40 acres), 137 (40 acres), 138 (40 acres), 55 (78 acres), 145 (40 acres), and 55 (78 acres)! The total acreage of these Lots is 818 acres.

The holdings of Daniel Justin Bruyn in the Sugarloaf region
on the southern border of the Parish of Tillegra,
adjacent to his holdings in the Parish of Dungog

The Sugarloaf Creek meanders its way through the easternmost half of the Lots in the Parish of Tillegra. A survey map declares that all of these Lots were part of a larger area, Gloucester Coldfield, that was proclaimed on 3rd June 1879. Together, the 1,440 acres of these Lots form a very significant landholding. To the east of Daniel’s landholdings, another series of Lots totalling 249 acres bear the name of his sister, Ellen Bruyn.

In the Dungog Chronicle of 30 August 1898, p.3, a notice appeared relating to a proposed “public meeting for the purpose of petitioning the Minister for Works, through the Member for Durham, to construct a road between Gresford and Dungog”. There are 14 signatories to this notice, including that of Daniel J. Bruyn, indicating that “a public meeting [is] to be held at the Council Chambers on THURSDAY NEXT, at 8 p.m.”

As one owning property in the Sugarloaf Creek area, Daniel Bruyn obviously had a vested interest. It is clear that the petition for the construction of this road was successful, as a road today does wind its way through the beautiful hills in the area between Gresford and Dungog, and through some of the land once owned by Daniel Justin Bruyn.

Scenery on the Sugarloaf Road from Dungog to Gresford, 2024

Not only did Daniel Justin Bruyn die a wealthy man, however; he died also a highly-regarded and well-respected member of the Dungog community. His obituary (see below) indicated that he was a Trustee of the Dungog Hospital, a Municipal Alderman, a Justice of the Peace, a longterm committee member of the A. and H. Association, and one of the founders of the Dungog School of Arts. He followed the local cricket team with enthusiasm, and owned a number of horses that he raced in the local area.

On 17 November 1891, the Government Gazette (p.9023) contained a notice from the Department of Lands of the appointment of Joseph Abbott, George Alexander McKay, Vincent Carlton, John Robson, and Daniel Justin Bruyn, as “Trustees of the land at Dungog, viz. portion 135, parish of Dungog, county of Dungog, dedicated 15th September 1891, for hospital site”.

Notice from the NSW Government Gazette of 7 Nov 1891

The Dungog Cottage Hospital was opened on Hospital Hill in 1892 and the site, now much expanded, has provided local hospital and medical services since that time.

The Dungog Cottage Hospital building

On 21 July 1893, the Government Gazette (p.5663) contained a notice of the election of Frederick Agustus Hooke, Dingadee, Dungog; Daniel Justian [sic.] Bruyn, Brown-street, Dungog; Henry Charles Dark, Dowling-street, Dungog; Joseph Abbott, Dowling-street, Dungog; John Robson, Dowling-street, Dungog; and John A. Jones, Dowling-street, Dungog, as Aldermen of the Municipal District of Dungog.

1893 Government Gazette announcement

Then, on 8 February 1896, the Government Gazette (p.1022) contained a notice of the election of Frederick Augustus Hooke and Daniel Justin Bruyn, as Aldermen of the Municipal District of Dungog. Three years later, on 13 February 1899, the Government Gazette (p.1415) contained a notice of the election of Frederick Augustus Hooke, Daniel Justin Bruyn, and John McLauchlin, as Aldermen of the Municipal District of Dungog.

Extracts from the Dungog Chronicle of 1896 and 1989, announcing the election of Alderman for the Municipality of Dungog

On 4 May 1901, the Maitland Mercury (p.3) reported that Daniel Justin Bruyn was amongst a list of “gentlemen appointed to them commission of the Peace” (that is, as a Magistrate, or a Justice of the Peace).

On 22 September 1886, Daniel Justin Bruyn had made his last Will and Testament “whereby he gave devised and bequeathed all his property of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate to his sister Ellen Bruyn absolutely and appointed the said Ellen Bruyn the sole Executrix thereof”. On 1 November 1912 Daniel Justin Bruyn died, and that will came into effect. So Ellen received a significant amount of property, as we have seen.

The Register of Coroner’s Inquests for 2 November 1912 lists an inquest for Daniel Justyn Bruyn of Dungog, held by Walterus Le Brun Brown, J.P., which notes that “cash or property possessed by deceased” was “probably over £10,000”. That equates to around $1.45 million in 2023.

to be continued … … …

*****

See earlier posts at

and subsequent posts at

Things That Matter: for the Fiftieth Anniversary of United Theological College (2025)

I’ve just received my copy of Things That Matter: Essays on Theological Education on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of United Theological College. The college (UTC) was where I trained for ministry in the latter years of the 1970s, was a visiting lecturer in the later 1980s, and taught as a member of the Faculty from 1990 to 2010.

It is edited by my friend and colleague, William W. Emilsen (whom I’ve known since he was also a student at UTC in the 1970s) and  Patricia Curthoys. Both are historians of some repute within the Australian church and beyond, each having written and published a number of significant historical works, as well as collaborating on earlier historical volumes.

The UTC campus in North Parramatta, Sydney, NSW

Prof. Glen O’Brien says that the book “highlights well the flourishing of the diverse contextual theologies that have been developed at UTC over many decades.” Assoc. Prof. Geoff Thompson, reflecting the title of the book, appreciates that the book explores “what has mattered, what no longer matters, what should matter.” And the President of the Uniting Church, the Rev. Charissa Suli (herself a graduate of UTC) offers appreciation for the way the book “beautifully weaves personal narratives with deep reflections on identity, vocation, and hospitality within Christian discipleship.”

There are ten chapters in the book, each written by a different author. I was pleased to be able to contribute the final chapter, “With Heart and Mind”, exploring the research output produced within the college over the last 25 years—both publications by members of Faculty as well as the many doctoral dissertations that they supervised during those years. 

I’d had early involvement in the development of the research culture of the College when we offered bachelor and masters degrees through the Sydney College of Divinity in the 1990s. In those days we had a Research and Publications Committee, which I convened, and a regular masters-level seminar. It is most pleasing to see how from those early steps a strong research and publications culture has developed, with scores of doctoral dissertations having been produced in the first 25 years of this century, supported by the regular Friday postgraduate seminar where ideas are presented, critiqued, and refined.

In the end, my chapter in this book ran to twenty-two pages with 114 footnotes, followed by a bibliography of works published by Faculty and PhD dissertations completed under their supervision, which added another 8 pages. So it was quite a piece of work: variously fascinating, illuminating, daunting, and finally: achieved!

There are many reasons why I am looking forward to reading this book. In an opening chapter, Ross Chambers explores the relationship of the College (and through it, the Church) to the University of which we became a part, in the School of Theology of Charles Sturt University. This is a substantial reason that underlies the flourishing research culture that I wrote about; government funding to the University meant that the college gained financial contributions for each faculty publication and for supervision of research students.

Ross was instrumental in negotiating the involvement of UTC in CSU; he saw the value of bringing into the School a Faculty where each member themselves had a quality doctoral qualification as well as a growing experience in research supervision. (And, of course, this would undoubtedly look good for the University!) Ross is both a former Vice-Chancellor of CSU and a Chair of the UTC Council (which in earlier years, when I was then secretary of this council, was chaired by two previous Vic-Chancellors of Macquarie University: Bruce Mansfield and then Barry Leal).

There are chapters in this book which explore ministerial formation, the centrality of community, the varying approaches to teaching from those responsible for Systematic Theology, the wonderful Camden Theological Library under the brilliantly entrepreneurial stewardship of Moira Bryant, and the opportunities for continuing education (especially through the presence of overseas visiting scholars) for those already engaged in ministry.

There’s a chapter on the intersection between multiculturalism (a key commitment of the Uniting Church) and theological learning, as well as a chapter each devoted to the experiences of the many Korean students of UTC, and the equally numerous Pasifika students, many of whom have produced doctoral work that develops and extends the theology of their native countries (Tonga, Samoan, Fiji, Tuvalu, the Cook Islands, and more). 

It’s a delight to know that my co-contributors to this book are both those alongside whom I taught for many years, as well as some whom I had taught in their foundational theological studies. It augurs well for the College and the Church that the current Faculty includes UTC graduates Peter Walker (Principal), Sef Carroll (Cross Cultural Ministry and Theology) and Bec Lindsay (Hebrew Scripture/Old Testament). A number of previous faculty members (myself included) had also begun their theological studies at UTC. Whilst there is certainly value in having teachers from beyond this circle—indeed, in some cases, from beyond the Uniting Church—on the faculty, it’s important to have “home-grown” scholars-ministers as well.

As I say, I am looking forward to reading the other chapters. I understand that the publication of the book will be recognised at the forthcoming meeting of the NSW.ACT Synod, and then there will be a formal public launch on 12 September at UTC in North Parramatta.

The book is published by Wipf & Stock and is available to order at https://wipfandstock.com/9798385218813/things-that-matter/

 

What question should we ask? (for Easter Sunday)

A sermon preached at Dungog Uniting Church on Easter Sunday 2025.

Today is a day of celebration. We gather, we sing, we exclaim “Christ is risen!” Joy fills the air; expectation and hope are abundant. It’s a fine way to emerge from the sombre mood of Friday, when we last gathered, on day of mourning, to remember the sombre reality, “Christ has died”. 

On that day, we remembered again the story of the last days of Jesus: a story of betrayal and denial, of physical abuse and verbal mocking, of abandonment and death, of grief and despair. 

And yet, today, we have moved from that deep despair, into abundant joy. 

Today is a day of celebration.

Today is also a day of mystery. It is a day that we cannot fully explain with simple phrases and formulaic responses. It is a day that invites us to pause, reflect, and ponder. 

Last week, Lurline quoted what she called “the most electric sentence of the Bible”: “he is not here; he has risen!” 

We have heard that electric expression of joy in the reading from Luke’s Gospel. “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.” (Luke 16:5)

And so we greet one another on this day: Christ is risen! Christ is risen indeed!!

That electric sentence provokes many questions. 

What is it that actually happened? 

How was the stone moved? 

Where is the body of Jesus? 

How exactly was Jesus raised from the dead? 

What is the form that Jesus now takes? 

What does it mean for us to hold the hope that we, too, will be raised from our death? 

This day of mystery confronts us with a host of questions. Preachers and priests, scholars and writers, over decades and centuries, have asked these questions, have explored them in their words, have sought to provide explanations, all the while intending to buttress and strengthen our faith on this day of mystery.

Did the resurrection really happen? is one of the questions that is often asked on or around this day. What was the historical reality of the day? I have to say, that is a very modern question. It may surprise you, but for centuries, this was not a question that troubled the minds of believers. It is really only something that has concerned us in the last few centuries—from the time of The Enlightenment, when the focus shifted from lives lived by faith to lives exploring scientific and historical realities. 

The question about “what really happened?” is a classic post-Enlightenment question. It’s not something that occurred to those of ancient times. So the biblical texts of antiquity don’t provide any explanation that satisfies us modern listeners and readers. 

Indeed, this is a question that cannot be answered by a simple historical “proof”. The resurrection is, by its nature, something that transcends the material, earthly focus of our modern era. It resists clearcut scientific or historical questions. It remains, in the end, a mystery.

What actually happened to the body of Jesus? is another question that is often asked about today—which also reflects the time in which we live, when “what happened?” is often an important question. And the answer offered by numerous writers has varied, ranging from “the body was stolen” through to “a miracle happened”. Again, a satisfactory explanation is beyond us. It is a mystery.

How was the stone removed from the doorway to the tomb? is another question that is asked. Mark’s Gospel says that when the women came to the tomb to anoint Jesus, “they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back” (Mark 16:4). So, too, does Luke (Luke 16:2); neither evangelist was interested in providing any explanation about this curious feature.

The account in Matthew’s gospel, however, does venture an answer: when the women arrive at the, “suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it” (Matt 28:2). That’s the explanation, it seems. This evangelist then continues, “his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow; for fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men” (Matt 28:3–4). Understandably! 

However, we need to note that Matthew’s account had also reported an earthquake at the very moment that Jesus had died on the cross: “Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matt 27:50–53).

That’s quite a story! and even more striking, perhaps, is the fact that none of the other evangelists report this incredible series of events: an earthquake and the raising of dead people at the moment Jesus died. It’s not in Mark’s earliest version; and it’s not in Luke’s later account, that we heard this morning. We can see, I hope, that this is part of the particular way that Matthew—a faithful Jew who held to the hope that God would act to come to earth to bring in the kingdom of God—tells the story of Jesus. 

The earthquake that happens as Jesus dies and the second earthquake that comes just as the women discover the empty tomb both draw on apocalyptic imagery that the later prophets used and developed in their prophetic oracles. It’s not an actual historical account. It’s a vivid, dramatic telling of the story, designed to highlight this one central fact: God acted, God came to us, God raised Jesus from the dead, the kingdom of God is now present!

So today is a day of celebration; we celebrate that God has determined to be amongst us in a new, startling, and dramatic way. That is what motivated the women, when the discovered the tomb to be empty, made haste to return to the other disciples, to tell them “he is not here; he has risen” (Luke 24:8).

This is also a day of mystery, for the way that God came to us, raising Jesus from the dead, poses a range of questions, as I have considered. There is much to celebrate, and yet so many questions to consider. And that is probably why the apostles—Peter and Andrew, James and John, Matthew and Bartholomew and Thaddeus and Thomas—all men, it must be noted, heard what the women told them, and as Luke crisply reports: “it seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:11). Ah, the patriarchy!

It was, they presumed, a strange story, told by hysterical women, completely unbelievable—even though the men in the tomb had explicitly reminded the women of what Jesus had said “while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again” (Luke 24:7). 

It’s a day of celebration; a day of mystery; and perhaps, in the end, today is a day that calls for faith. At the heart of the story of Jesus, as we have heard over the last few days, is a story of betrayal and denial, of physical abuse and verbal mocking, of abandonment and death, of grief and despair. It could very well lead us to a pessimistic view of the world, and to dampen our hopes.

Yet today is a day that calls us to have faith. To have faith that death is not the end of life. To have faith that there is more to our existence than our physical bodies. To have faith that God’s desire and intention is to work through even the despair of the lowest moments and to offer us the hope of what we can but glimpse today. 

For that is what the resurrection of Jesus stands for. We may not be able to answer the many questions that it poses. But we can affirm, with the faithful people of ages past, and across the world M.today, and those still to come in the future beyond us, that “Christ has died. Christ is risen“ … “Christ is risen indeed! Alleluia!” For God is with us.

The one coming after me: a review of “Christmaker”, a fresh look at John the Baptist

Yesterday Elizabeth and I had the opportunity to attend a lecture at Macquarie University given by our friend and colleague, Prof. James F. McGrath of Butler University, Indiana, who is on a short visit downunder at the moment. James has recently completed two books on John the Baptist, and as part of his visit he is speaking about some of the research involved in producing those books. The first is Christmaker: A Life of John the Baptist (Eerdmans, 2024); the second is John of History, Baptist of Faith: The Quest for the Historical Baptizer (Eerdmans, 2024).

His other personal and professional interest is in the intersection of religious studies and science fiction—he has written other works in relation to this area of interest: Time and Relative Dimensions in Faith (Dayton, Longman and Todd, 2013) and Theology and Science Fiction (Cascade, 2016). James is also speaking tonight at Sci-Fi Church in northern Sydney.

Elizabeth and I met James in 1997, when we were all a part of the research community in the Theology Department at Durham University in the UK. Both James and Elizabeth were undertaking postgraduate research under the supervision of the late Prof. James D.G. Dunn—James, into the Christology of John’s Gospel, and Elizabeth, into mission in the Gospel of Matthew.

The two books that McGrath has written complement each other. Christmaker is unapologetically “popular”, in that is was written for a generalist audience. I can confirm that it is easy to read as it invites us along the journey of discovery that McGrath himself has taken. The second book (a clever riff off the oft-heard statement about Jesus, “the Jesus of history, the Christ of faith”) promises to take us deep into the scholarly explorations of the ancient texts that provide the foundation for Christmaker. In his recent lecture at Macquarie University, James McGrath has provided a glimpse of those scholarly discussions in his typical engaging style.

The small book Christmaker (just 172 pages) opens with typical McGrath-esque snappy commentary: “everybody thinks they know John the Baptist; he has good name recognition”, and yet, “I bet most readers of this book would know him the way they know a homeless man they pass on their way to work each day … [with] an astonishing lack of detail, little apart from vague impressions” (p.1).

The book proceeds to explore “the splash John made” (pp.3–8) and then to set out how a reconstruction of the life of John will be built, using both familiar and less familiar sources. The best-known sources come from Hebrew Scripture—the infancy narratives of 1 Samuel 1—2 and Judges 13—and the New Testament—the conception and birth of John in Luke 1; the Gospel accounts of the baptising activity and preaching/witnessing of the adult John, and the Synoptic accounts of his death. The other sources he uses, barely known outside a small academic circle, are the Infancy Gospel of James from within second century Christianity, and the Mandaean Book of John, from the traditions of another living religion, Mandaeism.

There is, obviously, solid and groundbreaking scholarly work lying beneath the surface of this accessible “fresh look at the life of John the Baptist”. One element of this is that McGrath has co-authored the only English translation of the Mandaean Book of John, published in a critical edition (de Gruyter, 2019) which takes the readers on a wondrous journey into the poetry and imagery of this 7th century Aramaic text.

See the translation at http://www.gnosis.org/library/The_Mandaean_Book_of_John_Open_Access_Ve.pdf

Since late antiquity, the Mandaeans have followed the baptismal practice of John and have revered him as the key figure in their religion. Communities of Mandaeans are to be found in many places around the world today, still practising their faith. One significant characteristic of McGrath’s work is that he has connected with, and interacted with, Mandaean communities in a number of countries.

By discussing his views with them, he has ensured that he is best understanding (from the vantage of an “outsider” to the religion) how John is today understood within that faith tradition. Indeed, there were a number of Mandaeans present at the lecture that Elizabeth and I attended, and they offered helpful insights into the thesis that McGrath was proposing.

Another contribution to the fine scholarly work that is evident in this book is the careful critical reading of the Infancy Gospel of James, a second century Christian text replete with miracles and extravagant tales relating to the birth of Jesus (chs. 1–20) and the death of Zecharias, father of John the Baptist (chs. 22–24).

See a translation at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm and my own discussion at

By reading these two unfamiliar texts alongside the biblical passages already noted, McGrath is able to posit quite a lot about the quite overshadowed—and largely misunderstood—figure of John the Baptist. He wasn’t an unkempt and unruly figure, wandering the desert, angrily denouncing his fellow-Jews, for one; rather, he travelled the rural areas, proclaiming his vision for Israel. McGrath has visited many of the sites traditionally associated with John in person—beyond the all-too-predictable River Jordan spot where John’s baptisms were said to have taken place. So this adds another dimension to his discussion of the traditions.

John was not, as might have been expected of the son of a priest, devoted to service in the temple; rather, he was “an antiestablishment rebel and activist”, challenging the hegemony of the Temple through the practice of baptism, for which he is best-known. Such baptism “invited people to have a mystical spiritual experience of rebirth”—leading, eventually, to a Gnostic-type movement (Mandaeism) which embraced his practice as the key to religious fulfilment.

John did, indeed, look to the coming of “one who is to come”, to rectify the classism of ancient Israelite society—although it is not necessarily so clear-cut that John himself actually envisaged any particular one of his followers (let alone the man from Nazareth, Jesus) as the one to fill that role.

And, in a surpassing twist, it may well have been the overenthusiastic action of this particular disciple, Jesus of Nazareth, who sought physically to overturn the practices of the Temple in his famous “Temple tantrum” (a catchy phrase that McGrath has used in conversation with me). So it was John’s stimulus of Jesus which provoked controversy about his movement through this act, leading to the arrest of John and his eventual death. That Jesus might have borne primary responsibility for the death of John is a twist, indeed!

See my recent discussion of the death of John at

So, what can we take from this fascinating tour through ancient texts and modern religious practices? Jjj, that Christianity started within a very specific social and religious context—the Baptist movement—and not just within an undifferentiated amorphous mass of “Judaism of the time”. Jesus, as a disciple of John, adopted his teachings, his practices, his vision. The introduction that Luke provides to his Gospel, focussing on Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John, needs then to be reconsidered in this light.

Second, that piecing together a life of John the Baptist can and should be done by judiciously critical use of the later Mandaean sources. Scholars have learnt, in the last half-century, to utilise material from rabbinic writings in Mishnah, Midrash, and Talmud—works from late antiquity—with appropriate care and critical acumen, to inform our discussions of the foundational documents of Christianity (especially the Gospels). In similar manner, a critical appreciation of the Mandaean Book of John offers a range of applicable insights.

Third, scholars have become aware of “editorial fatigue” in their treatment of various ancient texts. This refers to the practice of including source material without paying careful attention to the need to adapt and contextualise it for the later writing in which it is used. Evidence for this “editorial fatigue” can be found in works by historians, evangelists, and apologists alike. McGrath cites instances in the Infancy Gospel of James which throw light on the figure of John the Baptist—especially the jagged change in ch.22 from a story about Jesus, to a story about John.

On this basis, he proposes that the author of this second century Gospel was using an existing account of the infancy of John and adapting it as a story about the origins of Jesus. An editorial lapse (forgetting to change the names of mother and child!) provides the key to unlocking this reading. We may well, then, have access to an early tradition about John, separate from the apologetic way that he is portrayed in the New Testament Gospels (where he is portrayed as “second-fiddle” to Jesus).

So a readily-accessible “life of John the Baptist” (set out with clarity in Christmaker) becomes possible, by tracing and examining the interlocking and overlapping threads across three religious traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Mandaeism—through the various source documents already noted. What results is a creative, insightful, and groundbreaking book. I recommend it as worth purchasing and reading.

See also https://www.insights.uca.org.au/what-can-mandaean-sources-teach-christian-scholars/

James F. McGrath with Christmaker

Constitutional Trivia #1

Thanks to my colleague, the Rev. Dr Avril Hannah—Jones, and as Australians look ahead to voting in a referendum to make a change to our national constitution, here are some constitutional trivia questions—the answers are well worth considering!

The Australasian Federation Conference, Melbourne, 1890.
Source: National Library of Australia

Constitution Trivia 1: Did you know that neither the Prime Minister nor Cabinet is mentioned in the Constitution?

Constitution Trivia 2: Did you know that the Australian Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament?

In 1986 two simultaneous Acts were passed to formally sever all legal ties between Australia and the UK apart from the monarchy: the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These Acts had to be passed by both the Parliament of Australia and the Parliament of the UK because lawyers were unsure whether Australia alone had the authority to enact the legislation. The two Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986. Until 1986, the Privy Council was Australia’s highest court of appeal, and the UK Parliament could still have made laws for Australian states.

Constitution Trivia 3: Did you know Australians only have five constitutional rights?

These are the right to vote (s. 41); the right to receive ‘just terms’ if our property is acquired (s. 51 [xxxi]); trial by jury for offences against Commonwealth law (s. 80); freedom from the imposition of any religion (s. 116); and freedom from discrimination on the basis of residence in any state, so that a Western Australian cannot be discriminated against for not being a Tasmanian, for example (s. 117).

Constitution Trivia 4: Did you know New Zealand was almost part of the Commonwealth?

Covering Clause 6 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, ‘Definitions,’ says that ‘the States’ in the Constitution means “such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State”. If New Zealand does ever want to join us it can under s. 121 ‘New States may be admitted or established’.

Delegates to the 1891 Federation Convention in Sydney.
Source: National Archives of Australia

Constitution Trivia 5: Did you know ‘race’ is mentioned twice in the Constitution?

Section 25 says that for the purposes of determining the population of a State, in order to determine how many House of Representative seats it may have: “if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted”.

Under section 51 (xxvi) the Commonwealth has the right to make laws with respect to “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. This section was amended by the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967, and previously read “(xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.” The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 also repealed section 127 which had said: “In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.”

The Constitutional Convention in Sydney, 1897.
Source: NSW Parliamentary Archive

Constitution Trivia 6: Did you know political parties are only mentioned in section 15 of the Constitution, and have only been there since 1977?

Section 15 covers casual vacancies in the Senate and now says that if the place of a Senator becomes vacant (for instance through resignation or death) they must be replaced by someone of the same political party. This clause was introduced after New South Wales Liberal Party Premier, Tom Lewis, appointed independent Cleaver Bunton to fill the vacancy left after ALP Senator Lionel Murphy became a High Court judge, and Queensland Country Party Premier John Bjelke-Petersen appointed independent Albert Field to fill the vacancy left after ALP Senator Bertie Milliner suddenly died, both in 1975. To prevent this from happening again section 15 was amended by Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977.

Constitution Trivia 7: Did you know section 25. ‘Provisions as to races disqualified from voting’ is an anti-racist clause?

Andrew Inglis Clark introduced it to penalise any State that enacted racially discriminatory voting laws. If a State was to disqualify the people of any race from voting in State elections, then those people would not be counted to work out how many seats each State got in the House of Representatives, and so that State would have fewer seats than States without racially discriminatory voting laws. Sadly, there was no attempt made to penalise States that denied women the vote, and when the Constitution was being drafted some of them did!

On 1 January 1901, the Constitution of Australia came into effect.
A five mile parade was held to commemorate Federation, which included horse-drawn floats and specially constructed Federation Arches that the procession passed through. 500,000 people lined the route from the Domain to Centennial Park. More than 60,000 people poured into Centennial Park, including 7,000 dignitaries and guests and 300 members of the press, all watching as the first Federal Government was formed (pictured above).
Three choirs sang for the occasion, including a choir of 10,000 school children, a church choir of 400 people and another choir of a thousand.
Source: The Parliamentary Education Office, Canberra

Avril has promised that there are more trivia questions to come … so stay tuned!!