In Which Chris Tilling Writes a Two Part Review of Wright’s ‘Paul and the Faithfulness of God’

pfg

Part ONE is here and Part TWO is here.

Tilling writes:

Wright is prone to say this or that verse is “key”, a “bookend” (834-835), a “rhetorical climax”, and such like. But I suggest that this is done rather arbitrarily, and sometimes only when it suits him.

And

Wright’s regular anti-“apocalyptic reading” invective is one of the least pleasant aspects of PFG, especially given that his criticisms are often misguided.

And

There are misinterpretations of Barth as well (200, 1388, where he misses Barth’s point about the “subject-matter” and the nature of time, 24 1479, etc.), which leads to the claim that a Barthian position makes “human response … hardly necessary” (953), which is highly misleading.

And a lot more.  It’s a very good critique.  The only fault I find with it is that Tilling is a bit too ready to surrender bluntness to politeness.  But he is British, so I forgive him.

2 thoughts on “In Which Chris Tilling Writes a Two Part Review of Wright’s ‘Paul and the Faithfulness of God’

  1. whitefrozen 21 Mar 2015 at 3:22 pm

    ‘Tomist’. I lol’d. He’s got him dead to rights about the ‘controlling narrative’, and the stepping-stone nature of a lot of his exegesis – I would have critiqued Wright further about the ‘national failure’ thesis and the over-identification of Israel/Jesus’ vocation, but that may have taken the review too far afield. I don’t know about the ‘historical contingency’ aspect, though. Good review.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Michael R. Jones 21 Mar 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Reblogged this on Pastor-Theologian.

    Like

Comments are closed.