"N.T. Wright is (very often) most likely right simply because he seeks to explain as much of the evidence as possible, and address as many of the possible questions together. This is what makes his own case concerning the historical Jesus, in Jesus and the Victory of God, so compelling"
Christ Sein, Küng
Existiert Gott?, Küng
Der Anfang aller Dinge, Küng
Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat
The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, John R. Franke
Shadow Sides. God in the Old Testament, Eric Peels
The Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight
Gebete des Lebens, Karl Rahner
Jesus and the Victory of God, N.T. Wright
Universal Salvation? The Current Debite, ed. by Robin Parry and C. H. Partridge
6 comments:
Well I think you are correct. And as much as I agree with him, sometimes wonder if Tom misses the trees for the forest. He is so interested in the big picture - his grand narrative - that he feels compelled to explain every leaf in his forest in terms of it. Often this works very will but some times I don't think the leaves have ever heard of the narrative.
Of course, Wright also ignores most of GosJohn in JVG, for reasons he kind of carefully elides past in the opening portions of the work (as I recall--been several years since I read it), but which amount in non-scholar-speak to: "If I included GosJohn more in the analysis it would blow some of my thesis all to hell." {wry g}
I didn't consider that to be addressing as many of the possible questions together, at the time (much less even getting in a substantial portion of the data for analysis); and I still don't today.
That being said, I don't have an opinion on his subsequent volume on the Res, because it's still sitting in my Giant Pile Of Books (along with all of Meir's series to date, which frankly I'm more interested in checking out). Hopefully it does better in this regard.
JRP
Chris Tilling raves verbally heinous mendaciousness ... proverb?:) Unless dead saints are walking among us.
Ed, I am sure you are right. That is the nature of his proposals, in a way.
Jason, I know through a friend, Wright confessed to avoiding John simply for strategic reasons (no scholar would take his book seriously if he did anything else). It does not follow that to adopt John is to crush his thesis. I don't think it would.
Depends on which part of his thesis you're talking about. (That's why I specifically said "some of my thesis" in my faux-quote. {s})
Wright tried to make a huge point in JVG, which he seems to be trying to continue to maintain, about a lack of consciousness in Jesus of being God. Personally I don't think this holds water even on an analysis of the Synoptics, but it is true that GosJohn pretty blatantly destroys that concept.
If Wright doesn't think GosJohn is historically viable enough for him to include in his analysis, then fine: he should be up front about it, and not succumb to the temptation to make use of it later when that seems convenient. (But then he would have directly alienated a larger audience than the scholars he's trying not to alienate.)
If Wright thinks GosJohn is historically viable enough for him to include in his analysis, but is afraid of "scholarly opinion" and doesn't feel up to the challenge of challenging that particular school of opinion (unlike Blomberg et al), then fine: but he should still be quietly factoring it into his analysis in order to build up a base for comparison and eventual inclusion, or at least not drawing far-reaching and important thesis points which will make it difficult for him or anyone else to factor GosJohn in seriously later.
JRP
I think Wright is always correct because he has British accent. And everyone in America knows that people with British accents are smart people.
1. Wright has British accent
2. People with British accents are smart
3. Therefore, Wright is smart.
Simple logic, really.
Post a Comment