Steven Carr

No, I'm not.

I was applying it to Wright's own viewpoint that Jesus's sayings about the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem were the centrepiece of the teaching of Jesus.

I did that many times. Suprised you did not spot it.

Steven Carr

And how does red herring that help Wright? I posted Wright's citation of 1 Cor. 15:50 on a thread and asked Wright-defenders to explain how it helped him. None did so.

And now we find it cited again, almost as though it helped Wright's case.

Let me quote, rather than cite the passage.

1 Cor. 15:50 '50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.'

How does that help Wright's case that Jesus preached a forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem and that this would be when Jesus was vindicated?

How does 1 Cor. 15 tie in to Jesus's central message (according to Wright) that the Temple's days were numbered?

Take a passage 1 Cor. 15 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Here God's kingdom will be established at the resurrection, not at the entry of Roman troops.

You say that this is 'the same sort of language Jesus uses'.

Not it is not. It is talking about entirely different events to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which is what Wright's article was about.

Steven Carr

Whose thesis was Wright touching? Nobody's?

And why would repeating or referencing or alluding to the parables of Jesus be 'denying' Jesus?

Please ignore Wright's get-out qualifier of 'parrot-fashion'. Presumably he put that in to make it even more limited in scope so that he could persuade his fans he was dealing with large issues, while still being able to fall back on a 'I was speaking in a limited scope' defense.

As for Wright responding to Pauline issues in another way, how DOES he respond to the fact that Paul never mentions the impending catastrophe to Jerusalem and the Temple? Paul talks about Jerusalem and the Law a lot, but never mentions this huge disaster that Jews still weep about today, 1900 years later.

I keep asking this question, but I get no answer....

Vinnie

how DOES he respond to the fact that Paul never mentions the impending catastrophe to Jerusalem and the Temple?

I have no idea. My point was that Wright's comment do not cover said topics. Wright has also probably read more scholarly tomes on Paul then this entire forum put together. I'd let him answer the question before pronouncing judgment on the basis of him addressing another issue.

Second, I firmly believe Paul thought the end was at hand (see Thessalonians). Whatever vision Paul had of the end he didn't describe it. It is here where Wright presumably fails in my book. Paul used a harvest metaphor (Jesus was the firstfruits) for the general resurrection. 2,000 years is a bit strained for a harvest metaphor. I have no doubt many of Wrights views cannot be substantiated in the long run.

Vinnie

Steven Carr

Yes they did. His entire article was about how Paul stood firmly in the eschatological message of Jesus.

I thought you read his whole book on the subject. Are you saying he never addresses what appears to be the first question anybody would have thought of?

And do feel free to tell us whose position Wright was refuting, if it was not Doherty's (as it appears after all not to be)

Vinnie

I am not going to keep defending this. Many scholars see this very continuation in Paul that you claim is not there. See, for example, this precent x-talk post from Jeffrey Gibson on Paul:

They see these verses (continued from Jesus himself) as stamped in parts in the Pauline corpus. Even the thessalonian believers were shocked some had died before the Lord had returned. They had the background knowledge of an imminent eschatology. There is no need for Paul to go and explain and teach to them what they know. He "corrects" something they said and the scholars like Wright see this continuity as reflected throughout Paul's epistles.

I have no intention of defending this any further. The continuity is accepted by scholars of all persuasions and is formatted differently depending on how one reconstructs Jesus. Whether I accept it or not is irrelevant. I do know know the exact nuance of each formulation and will not defend them for this reason. But I will say they are more meticulous and well researched than the participants in this thread seem to be capable of imagining. If you want to know them consult the secondary literature--of which N.T. Wright has surely done much more on Paul alone than possibly all in this thread put together times 3.

I also have not read a detailed exposition on the Pauline corpus by Wright. His "What Saint Paul Really Said" was a popular work. The footnotes and dialogue with other scholars in there is simply missing in virtually every spot you look to. Its apparent the exact nuance of Wright's position on Paul and his responses to various objections are not known anyone in this thread. If you want to know how scholars actually interpret various aspects of Paul's letters outside the "mythicist no HJ fold" then crack open some books. There arre distinct Pauline schools of interpretation (e.g. the Sanders revolution as Wright puts it). Consult these.

Wright also did not attempt to refute 300 pages of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle with a simple paragraph. Doherty may also be the current champion of the Christ myth but he is by no means the only proponent. Furthermore, nothing in Wrights comments need be read as addressing mythicism which critical scholars tend not to discuss anyway.

For example, even many historical Jesus proponents have noted a lack of continuity in parts between Jesus and Paul. Dom Crossan is one: "You can't start with Jesus and move to Paul or start with Paul and move to Jesus" (paraphrased). Pagels just did it at the link you quoted on the belief.net debate between her and Witherington on Paul and Jesus. This is all very elementary though and should be known by those who study this issue. Here were Pagel's opening comments:

Carr asks: If not Doherty who? Countless HJ proponents who do not see explicit continuity between Jesus and Paul, thats who! Wright may very well be responding to these HJ scholars, not to Early Dohery or the specific, uncritical formulation of Christ mythicism on this forum.

Vinnie

Vinnie

A bunch of stuff by Tom Wright

http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/wrightpage.html

And some information on the new views on Paul:

http://www.thepaulpage.com/

Also. Luke Timothy Johnson offers a review of Wight's WSPRS.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...s/johnson.html

Vinnie

Layman

I don't see any reason to believe that Wright has even heard of Doherty, much less that he responded to him in an online article.

People other than Jesus Mythers have argued that Paul, not Jesus, invented Christianity. That Paul absconded with some of the concepts but ignored his teachings. That Paul would not have made a good Jesus follower.

This is one of your siller anti-Wright screeds.

Vinnie

I just noted Pagels and Dom Crossan as two who see less continuity and Wright also mentions A.N. Wislon and critiques him in that last chapter. Some of his work apparently, was written with the arguments of Wilson types in mind.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I just picked up Wenham on Paul which is supposes to go through and document the continuity between the two. Should be arriving soon.

Vinnie