Secondly, and likely more significantly, Wright will release the next volume in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series in November. The two book Paul and the Faithfulness of God is the fourth volume in this series and will surely be a cause for some great discussion from Biblical scholars, pastors, and bloggers. Here is a short description:
"This highly anticipated two-book fourth volume in N. T. Wright's magisterial series, Christian Origins and the Question of God, is destined to become the standard reference point on the subject for all serious students of the Bible and theology. The mature summation of a lifetime's study, this landmark book pays a rich tribute to the breadth and depth of the apostle's vision, and offers an unparalleled wealth of detailed insights into his life, times, and enduring impact. Wright carefully explores the whole context of Paul's thought and activity— Jewish, Greek and Roman, cultural, philosophical, religious, and imperial— and shows how the apostle's worldview and theology enabled him to engage with the many-sided complexities of first-century life that his churches were facing. Wright also provides close and illuminating readings of the letters and other primary sources, along with critical insights into the major twists and turns of exegetical and theological debate in the vast secondary literature. The result is a rounded and profoundly compelling account of the man who became the world's first, and greatest, Christian theologian."
So, if you are a fan of N.T. Wright's work, 2013 will certainly not be a disappointment.
My understanding is that Wright is simultaneously releasing a four volume set in his Christian Origins series:
ReplyDelete* Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 volumes
* Paul and His Recent Interpreters
* Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 1978-2013.
Notice that Logos will be releasing these as a unit.
Why, as Catholics, should we be looking forward to these books? Doesn't N.T. Wright interpret the Bible himself and come up with his own doctrines?
ReplyDeleteRead the man's writings, be enriched by that which might help you advance in holiness or understanding, and at the same time be well-grounded enough in your own Catholic faith to recognize the places where you have doctrinal differences with NT Wright (or any other non Catholic author).
ReplyDeleteI like NT Wright. With that said, what would Paul's tolerance be of "doctrinal differences"? What would he say?
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for St. Paul. I think that a writer can be wrong about something without being wrong about everything.
ReplyDeleteWell, in 1st Thessalonians the man himself wrote, "Test everything, retain what is good." I can almost hear him saying, "Read everything..."
ReplyDeleteWhether NT Wright's works are any good depends on the subject he's dealing with. He's really good on the subject of Christian apologetics, Christian origins and historical foundations and whatnot....he's not a bad commentator on Paul because he's a part of the whole 'New Perspective' which argues that Luther, Calvin and the early Protestants were completely wrong, and that they just their own controversies/issues into Paul and completely missed the point of what Paul was trying to say.....but he's very bad on many other topics. You have to be selective about his work.
ReplyDeletelosabio said...
ReplyDeleteRead the man's writings, be enriched by that which might help you advance in holiness or understanding, and at the same time be well-grounded enough in your own Catholic faith to recognize the places where you have doctrinal differences with NT Wright (or any other non Catholic author).
Eh...I'll pass. The Truth will suffice.
I'm a fan of Wright, and even find a lot of the New Perspective (along with Sanders and JDG Dunn) enlightening and thought-provoking, and, if I were to be a gambling man, I'd say it's a sure thing I'm the most fundamentalist and Traditionalist on here.
ReplyDeleteI even find a thought or two worthwhile in the "post-New Perspective" and/or "Radical New Perspective" stuff, such as Nanos.
Unless you read nothing else - in which case it's not reading, it's self-brainwashing or auto-suggestion - reading material that contains dubious or heretical ideas doesn't make one a heretic, and isn't even truly a "near occasion to heresy" unless one is blown about by every wind of doctrine. (I'd imagine few of those people - blown-about types, the stereotypical New Ager and semi-stereotypical habitual "spiritual seeker", and the Christian of the sort that is proselytized by Watchtowerists and Mormons - have little enough insight to be able to say, "This book will blow me along on a new wind of doctrine and vain philosophy according to the first principles of the secular and not according to Christ; therefore I shan't read it". As with insanity, asking the question, is itself evidence of sanity [or orthodoxy].)
In heresy, it's belief and preaching that matter.