tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post4607687717584364413..comments2023-07-03T11:49:37.837+01:00Comments on Theologies: The New New QuestMarikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02613745498284783614noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-77251539775281201762011-06-29T18:31:46.239+01:002011-06-29T18:31:46.239+01:00what I've read suggests to me an opening up of...what I've read suggests to me an opening up of the debate, which I've found very helpful.<br /><br />I've found the stuff approved of by most Evangelicals closes down the debate. Brian McLaren is one of the more open Evangelicals, but even he goes only so far.Karinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13913127925431380024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-65638575743134748362011-06-28T22:44:53.979+01:002011-06-28T22:44:53.979+01:00Like I say, it's been a while. I think I read ...Like I say, it's been a while. I think I read some Borg, but the other people I only ever came across second hand. I was mostly just trying to present Wright's take on them. That may not have come across very well in the post, and I certainly took the opportunity to vent some of my own frustration with historical criticism in general.Marikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02613745498284783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-73899914582327965472011-06-28T17:38:08.880+01:002011-06-28T17:38:08.880+01:00Marika, I was wondering if you had read anything b...Marika, I was wondering if you had read anything by Borg, Crossan, Spong or even Karen Armstrong, or if you were just taking Wright's word for what they are like.Karinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13913127925431380024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-78801549329506783492011-06-27T14:41:27.251+01:002011-06-27T14:41:27.251+01:00I totally agree that modern biblical scholarship h...I totally agree that modern biblical scholarship has good things to contribute; so, for that matter, would NT Wright. I do think that a lot of it is much more reflective of the sort of Jesus scholars want to find than it is 'objective' historical research, and that goes for liberal and evangelical biblical scholarship alike. I don't think Wright's perfect, but I do find his account more persuasive than most others I've read, and it certainly doesn't sit entirely comfortably with traditional evangelical scholarship: Wright himself acknowledges that some of the conclusions he reached weren't ones he was hugely comfortable with.<br /><br />Obviously the NT doesn't necessarily lead you to Chalcedonian orthodoxy; I don't think that means that Chalcedon necessarily represents a misreading of the NT: it's one interpretation, thrashed out over the first few centuries of the Christian church.<br /><br />I'm certainly not bang up to date with contemporary New Testament scholarship, but I did spend a fair amount of time on biblical studies as an undergraduate, so I guess I'm a moderately informed amateur; although asking me to remember exactly who I read is, I'm afraid, asking a bit much!Marikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02613745498284783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-43598247390325538202011-06-27T14:20:25.609+01:002011-06-27T14:20:25.609+01:00The trouble with Christian orthodoxy is that it ha...The trouble with Christian orthodoxy is that it has been developed over a couple of thousands of years to suit the purposes of those who developed it. Biblical scholars who are not Evangelicals are trying to see what Jesus might really have been about before orthodoxy got its hands on him.<br /><br />Even if you read what the gospels say in a standard Bible, it is clear that the Church doesn't practise what Jesus preached.<br /><br />Modern biblical scholars have a better understanding of the culture Jesus lived in than some of the people who developed Christian Orthodoxy. So, they realise that 'the Son of God' was a phrase sometimes used for someone who seemed especially in tune with God, or maybe favoured by God, but never meaning the literal, genetic son of God, for example.<br /><br />It has also become clear to Biblical scholars who are open to such possibilities that first of all the New Testament has been edited down the ages, which is not surprising as that has also happened to the Old Testament. It can also become clear from biblical criticism that ideas about Jesus developed over time as the earliest NT texts do not suggest he was the son of God or that his mum was a virgin, for instance.<br /><br />Which theories posited by non-Evangelicals have you read in any detail, Marika?Karinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13913127925431380024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-17585615691188061642011-06-27T08:49:34.883+01:002011-06-27T08:49:34.883+01:00Fair enough! I'd agree with you that Wright...Fair enough! I'd agree with you that Wright's sometimes a bit too keen to make everything fit together perfectly; but he often makes the point that lots of non-evangelical scholars are so eager to escape traditional Christian readings of Jesus that they'll believe the most tenuous theories over something that sounds like Christian orthodoxy. That's certainly my experience of New Testament studies.Marikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02613745498284783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-83651120717911456002011-06-26T10:09:52.881+01:002011-06-26T10:09:52.881+01:00I've got a lot of time for the Jesus Seminar. ...I've got a lot of time for the Jesus Seminar. I think their book 'The Five Gospels' is very interesting. It is true it is based on how the members of the Seminar voted and this reflects the different views held by individual members of the Seminar.<br /><br />If you look at the 'Five Gospels' it is clear that we can't be sure Jesus said half that we have been told he said. Of course we don't have to take what the book tells us as 'the gospel truth', but it is an interesting counterbalance to the unquestioning/unquestionable 'certainties' dished up by Evangelicals and others.<br /><br />Borg and Crossan are members of the Jesus Seminar along with John Selby Spong and others. Of course Evangelicals don't like what they say, but that seems to be a good reason to read what they have to say, even if I don't agree with every word. It opens up the very necessary debate, to my mind, about what Christianity should really be about if it is about following Jesus.Karinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13913127925431380024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-76400109861293297012011-06-26T08:38:58.889+01:002011-06-26T08:38:58.889+01:00I'm afraid most of the snark in that post was ...I'm afraid most of the snark in that post was mine rather than Wright's. He's rather more measured and professional than my blog-summary makes him out to be. But measured and professional doesn't make for such a fun blog post.Marikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02613745498284783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-73833261247658699012011-06-24T21:36:41.894+01:002011-06-24T21:36:41.894+01:00Personally I'd rather read the work of the Jes...Personally I'd rather read the work of the Jesus Seminar, Borg or Crossan than that of Wright. The latter are willing to look at new evidence and ask awkward questions, while it seems that Wright prefers to mock and dismiss what doesn't agree with his ideas, from what you have said.<br /><br />I haven't found anything I've read of Wright's very convincing.Karinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13913127925431380024noreply@blogger.com