N. T. Wright on Paul and the Invention of Christian Theology

N. T. Wright on Paul and the Invention of Christian Theology November 15, 2014

Via Mark Goodacre’s NT Blog

"https://uploads.disquscdn.c..."

Jesus’ Female Disciples
"My favorite Jesus meme/cartoon is: How come no one talks about the miracle that Jesus ..."

Jesus’ Female Disciples
"Very timely and important post. I just finished reading "Intersectionality" by Collins and Bilge. Your ..."

Whiteness, Privilege, and Intersectionality
"Yes, Phil, spot on. What I hear you getting at is the essential point that, ..."

Whiteness, Privilege, and Intersectionality

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jaco van Zyl

    I was underwhelmed by Wright’s cherry-picking to push for a “Yahweh himself returning to His temple” as Jesus. Wright is going overboard and his pushing for yet another alternative way to affirm outdated Nicean/Chalcedonian Christology is starting to paint a picture, namely wish-driven theology and scholarship.
    Campbell’s casual assumption of Trinitarianism “right there” in Paul is shocking. A stunning display of theological permafrost taking place.

  • Pär Stenberg

    James, I am curious to know what you think of Wright’s narrative-approach to Paul.

    • Jonathan Bernier

      I know this was addressed to James but please forgive me if I put in my two cents. I experience ambiguities on this, going back to the articulation of his narrative-approach in the first volume of “Christian Origins and the Question of God.” He seems to want to ground this approach in the critical realism of Ben F. Meyer, who in turn is building upon the work of the philosopher-theologian Bernard Lonergan. Yet despite multiple readings of the relevant material in Meyer and Lonergan I really have no idea where he’s getting this narrative approach from in their work. That isn’t to say that it the approach is wrong-headed but that it bears only a passing resemblance to the work of Ben Meyer. As someone who works with the thought of Meyer and Lonergan I would sort of prefer that he not really turn to them as authorities, as I think it can give the wrong impression of what they are all about (actually I can’t remember if he cites Lonergan explicitly, but given that Meyer himself was quite clear that his project was to bring Lonerganian thought into NT studies any invocation of Meyer is an indirect invocation of Lonergan. Not surprising, as he studied under Lonergan at the Gregorian).

    • I have found Wright’s earlier studies related to the new perspective more helpful, personally. But I have yet to make it through the entirety of his lengthy Paul and the Faithfulness of God and so it is possible that the sheer number of pages will have an impact on me, if I ever manage to get through them.