Sunday, 29 December 2013

Wrights and Wrongs

A possibly rhetorical question from James McGrath on the apologetic thrust of Evangelical guru/scholar/bishop N. T. Wright in his War & Peace-length Paul and the Faithfulness of God.
Is Wright trying to get as close as he can to traditional Christological language without being thoroughly anachronistic?
I doubt one has to fight one's way through all 1700 pages to reach a simple answer to that question, based on Wright's track record. James, who blogs at Exploring Our Matrix on Patheos, indicates that he will blog his impressions of this two-tome treatise as time permits.


  1. The world is full of treatises and tomes about gods and their followers. The amazing part is these modern gurus with degrees in mythological gods thinking they know something about which no sentient being living on the planet can possibly know anything about since the mythological gods don't exist. But hey, there is an advantage to an "invisible" and "hidden" god don't have to spend any time or money building statues and painting portraits of it...uh, well, maybe they do...

  2. Hoffmann states (skeptically to mythicists who lean on Paul) that Paul had lost credibility by the 2nd century? He must mean the proto-orthodox Gospel-driven drive to literalism?