Jesus :: Man or Muse?

Something i was thinking through last year was how the theology of the gospels affected their historicity. it was interesting to read of the recent NT Wright conference via Mark Thompson's blog, particularly Richard Hay's criticism that Wright's approach makes the individual voices of the evangelists disappear (see the third paragraph of this summary of the conference).

and this was exactly my issue with the attention on the historical followed by Schweitzer, re-appropriated by Wright and even Paul Barnett - we can continue on our 'Quest'*, but what are we truly seeking to find?

the Jesus we are presented with is at once the historical man who lived, died, rose, and ascended; but we also meet him as the apostles knew him and convey him to us. and this is no tension, but elements that amplify each other.

image from schweitzer's book

*the abbreviated title of Schweitzer's 'Quest of the Historical Jesus' - also an abbreviated title for a longer English, for an even longer German title!

happy 200

wow - a double century of posts - who would've thunk it?

but despite roughly a post per week since my first post way back when, i'm still not sure who gets to say hip hip.

a big thanks to those who have me on their blog reader - i'm sure noone else could have continued following me with my irregularity in posting - either that or you need some more blogs to follow if you keep checking here every day to see if i've done anything or not!

since i started using google analytics* in May last year, i've had 4,771 visits from 54 countries, with a peak of 93 visitors on one day (was it something i said, hillsong?)! although, it would be interesting if it turns out he was right, after all.

thanks anyway, i'll try and keep the balance of inane to incomprehensible that you've come to expect.


duck5

* the word analytics always makes me giggle now - thinking of Tobias Fümke the analyst+therapist=analrapist

wright and women

trying to write (no pun intended) a practice essay for my Biblical Theology exam on Thursday, trying to write a biblical theology of men and women. which isn't as hard as it sounds - it's just i can't keep focussed.

i keep thinking about this paper by N.T. Wright, entitled Women's Service in the Church, which really is a cracker of an article.

the thing i keep coming back to (yes, i did a little scribbling out in my bible) is his translation of Galatians 3:28

the NIV has,

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

there's a nice rhythm there, neither A nor A', B nor B', C nor C'.
however, as Tom Wright puts it:

That is precisely what Paul does not say; and as it’s what we expect he’s going to say, we should note quite carefully what he has said instead, since he presumably means to make a point by doing so, a point which is missed when the translation is flattened out as in that version. What he says is that
"there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no ‘male and female’".

so i checked my greek*, and he's right.

the question is of course however not if Wright's right (he is Wright, after all), but what are the implications? why the marked difference from Paul's neither this nor that formula? especially in the context of elsewhere affirming maleness and femaleness, the differences and complementarity between the two.

i do wonder about IVPs New Dictionary of Biblical Theology's quote in thinking through the implications of maleness and femaleness in the new creation,

the people of God will be 'like angels in heaven', in that the centre of their existence will be undivided communion with God. Then the beautiful and delicate interplay of man and woman with one another will give way to the ultimate reality of Christ and his church for ever at one.

i'm not sure what that bit at the end means (at one), but the picture i get, despite the author's assurances, is that of androgynous winged angels playing harps in the clouds. which i don't quite get from Galatians 3 (nor elsewhere really).

so why's he done it? what's the point? whaddya reckon?

*greek language version New Testament, not a person of Grecian origin routinely asked to clarify translation issues. (ed)

being broad - in a good way

read this quote, and then my comments, and then the quote again.

The contemporary world is thus doubly hostile to truth procedures. This hostility betrays itself though nominal occlusions*: where the name of a truth procedure should obtain, another, which represses it, holds sway. The name “culture” comes to obliterate that of “art.” The word “technology” obliterates the word “science.” The word “management” obliterates the word “politics.” The word “sexuality” obliterates love. The “culture-technology-management-sexuality” system, which has the immense merit of being homogenous to the market, and all of these terms designate a category of commercial presentation, constitutes the modern nominal occlusion of the “art-science-politics-love” system, which identifies truth procedures typologically.

Alain Badiou (translated by Ray Brassier), 2003, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism. Stanford University Press, California, p12

* nominal occlusions - the subversion of a true term, a broad, rich, meaningful term; in favour of another, more precise, yet in it's nature less true.

this is what i find a particularly interesting idea - as we define things to aid understanding, we cannot but occlude the true meaning.

i remember N.T. Wright saying 'the gospel is a story', meaning, as soon as you try and pin something down, giving a dictionary definition, you loose the true breadth meant by the term (c/f this on the way this works in Hebrew Poetry). we are too quick to condemn as heretics those who would emphasise one area of a doctrine over another, forgetting the context they speak from and the errors against which they must polemicise.

N.T. Wright and wrong

apologies for lack of recent blogtivity

been thinking about N.T. Wright (haven't we all?)
did a quick search on him, found out some very interesting facts:

1. If you chew gum while peeling Tom Wright then it will stop you from crying.
   
2. The pharoahs of ancient Egypt wore garments made with thin threads of beaten Tom Wright.
   
3. The first domain name ever registered was Tom Wright.com.
   
4. Tom Wright can sleep for three and a half years.
   
5. Tom Wright can remain conscious for fifteen to twenty seconds after being decapitated!
   
6. Tom Wright has only one weakness - the colour yellow!
   
7. Tom Wright is the oldest playable musical instrument in the world.
   
8. All the moons of the Solar System are named after characters from Greek and Roman mythology, except the moons of Uranus, which are named after Tom Wright.
   
9. The Tom Wright-fighting market in the Philippines is huge - several thousand Tom Wright-fights take place there every day.
   
10. All swans in England belong to Tom Wright.

from here, H/T John