Additionally greetings include meeting Don Garlington (Toronto), Steven Walton (LBC) and, Doug Green (WTJ), and Joel Williams (Columbia).
A highlight of the arvo was the NT textual criticism seminar on Biblical Authority that was packed - it had Crossan, Wright, Ehrman and Dale Martin.
There were alot of good one liner's (too many to remember). I felt the weight of Ehrman's case that the diversity of manuscripts and intra-canonical textual diversity makes any notion of authority problematic. I don't agree with him though - I never ceased to be amazed how scholars think that just because Lk and Matt change Mk at times that they must have repudiated his entire work - it just does not follow. Lk and Matt follow Mk's outline, sometimes follow him word for word, they expand his material where his interests meets theirs. They modify, polish, tone down at times, but I don't think they repudiate his work or try to replace it - if they do, they do a poor job of it. Martin's paper was like King David: started well, but ended poorly. Martin sounds like a postmodern neo-Barthian theologian who wants to drive a wedge between history and theology. Crossan was okay, but I don't think he said anything new. Wright set forth a good case for the authority of Scripture being God and God expressing himself a story which carries (in some way) God's authority.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"... a postmodern neo-Barthian theologian who wants to drive a wedge between history and theology" -- he sounds like a loveable guy. ;-)
Wright's comments about the inconsistency of Martin's postmodernism exactly reflected my thoughts on his presentation. The idea that scholarship on matters of history proceed from some "objective" or "scientific" standpoint and should be investigated independently from faith commitments is classically modern.
Post a Comment