Archive for the ‘pseudo-scholarship’ Category
There are several problems with this absurd claim. First, Jesus explained what he was demonstrating at the Supper. It’s not as though the disciples all sat around staring at each other and just automatically knowing what it all meant. Second, this ridiculous statement ignores the numerous remarks by Jesus about his coming death. And third, the notion that the Supper is self-explanatory is insane. And finally, even the meal didn’t ‘fully explain what his forthcoming death was all about’. The early Church reflected on the meaning of his death from the moment it occurred forward. We’re still reflecting on it. Accordingly, the suggestion that it was ‘fully explained’ is, on its face, wrong.
The Bishop is wrong. And his bumper sticker theology is equally wrong.
It hasn’t been for a few years and it’s getting in the business of publishing more and more bizarre stuff (apparently the more bizarre the better they like it). If Tyndale and Zondervan publish the rubbish of the far right, WJK has taken on the task of publishing the rubbish of the far left.
I used to love thumbing through the WJK catalog, but anymore I just can’t stomach their questing for obscurity and irrelevance.
I saw this on facebook and swiped it because the comments at the top of the post are right on the mark. The ick factor is off the scale-
Some People Need to Learn to Distinguish Between the Words of Jesus and the Words of His Interpreters
Like Leithart who, without justification or reason, has read John’s rendition of the prayer of Jesus in Chapter 17 of his Gospel as a roadmap of Jesus himself for the future of his Church.
Some ‘theologians’ are genuinely awful at biblical scholarship and vice versa. This is the primary failing of academic theology today: the severing of biblical and theological learning.
At any rate, one needn’t even read the volume to know Leithart is wrong, for two reasons:
- It’s by Leithart.
- It suggests a priori an unsubstantiated notion about the Historical Jesus that cannot be sustained by research.
So here’s something else I won’t be reading.
Don’t you hate it when modern American journalists take an attitude of superiority towards ancient cultures and peoples and accuse them of ‘strangeness’ only because they neither live in ancient times nor understand ancient cultures but instead want to superimpose modern views onto ancient peoples?
There wouldn’t have been anyone in ancient Israel that would have seen their attitudes towards sexual matters as ‘strange’. They would, though, see as strange the flood of pornography, beastiality, pedophilia, homosexuality, and various other sexual behaviors and deviancies presently lapping at our culture’s shores.
Here’s an idea: hows about not impugning the long dead with anachronistic evaluations. How about we try that for a while, journalists.
And rather than admit that he doesn’t know Bonhoeffer at all, he instead provides little fake Bonhoeffer ‘quotes’ for those who ask him about his misrepresentations.
Boundless ignorance. I’m glad he blocked me on twitter.