To Jim West for kindly sending me a copy of Bultmann's commentary on the Gospel of John!
Fantastic! Bye bye the borrowing of library copies! By the way, new does not necessarily mean better in the world of bible commentaries. Bultmann's commentary on John is widely considered a real classic.
I recently heard Rowan Williams say that 2 Corinthians is closest, of Paul's letters, to the theology of John's Gospel. Indeed! It is not an accident that Bultmann wrote a stonking commentary on 2 Corinthians, perhaps his very best.
All this means of course: I ought to say something nice about Zwingli today.
'I suppose Zwingli gave it his best shot, bless him'
There ya go.
9 comments:
I don't know whether you meant for Bultmann's eyes to have red pupils....
Bultmann's de-mythologizing John is a needed refreshment of "truth" today, that would limit over-zealouness...
Laughed out-loud...hard:
"I suppose Zwingli gave it his best shot..."
Good stuff.
I'm surprised so many people are so well read in Zwingli that they can criticise him or deride him. I have only read the titbits Jim posts - I've never studied him. But whenever there is a post here, there are always well read young scholars who are quick to denounce him. I admire their diligence - gosh I'd find it a bit tough on the old brain to study the theology of Zwingli. I leave that to my betters. (like Jim) :-)
Steph I couldn't agree more. I find the same with people towards the Great Bishop of Durham. It must have taken all of those minimalists years to read his works! ;-)
Actually no Mark, I've bought and read his main tomes - (there aren't that many after all although they're swollen with verbal diarreah), and I've read numerous articles over the years - and I've even bought and read three of his popular little books when I found them in second hand bookshops. So your assumption, Mark Stevens, is wrong. :-) And those 'minimalists' who criticise Wright have no doubt read him carefully too.
Once upon a time, many years ago, I heard a speaker on the subject of Bultmann's de-mythologizing of the Gospel of John. The gentleman, who was English, by the way, an Anglican priest, I believe, took the trouble to razor-cut the myths out of a copy of John's Gospels. There was not much left intact in the pages. He was making the point that Bultmann's de-mythologizing of John's Gospel was bad, bad, bad.
I haven't read Bultmann. The point here is simply to tell the story. Nor do I mean to say that I agree with the speaker.
Wow, Stephanie Fisher, I know I must be in trouble if you have used my whole name! ;-)
Well all I can say is at least you have read him; I can respect that, even if your conclusions are wrong! ;-)
Trouble? You assume to much again Mark;-)
How can you possibly know a conclusion is wrong if you haven't engaged with an argument. Maybe you just like Wright's conclusions and don't care about the unconnected apologetic 'poetic' drivel preceding them. Yawn. I could give you the benefit of doubt - maybe you haven't actually read those three bricks.
Steph, I am in the process of reading those three bricks. I must say they are easier that Barth's 13 bricks! At least I don't need a plethora of aides to help me understand them.
I do like his conclusions. He is just so, wright! Being a minister my time is limited so I don't get the opportunity I would like to engage with all facets of the arguments (my interests have to take a 'hobby' status). I don't have the luxury of going behind the scenes. As ministers we have to accept the arguments as they come to us. It is a shame but I am resigned to the fact!
It was his little 'piece of dribble' ;-) Scripture and the Authority of God that saved the scriptures for me. I was about to let them go and do away with them and his argument revealed how one could study this text rigorously and yet respect its livingness. Wright, and since then Peterson, have reignited my passion for this most holy and ancient of texts.
You will be happy to know that I have just commenced a sermon series on the gospel of Mark! :-)
Post a Comment