How to read this blog!

These discussions between Alan and Jace need to be read sequentially. You just think they don't make much sense, try reading them out of order! We have named each blog in the following manner:
#1 -Title of Blog
#2- Title of Blog

Etcetera. Once a topic is started by Alan or Jace they will keep that topic as the "Title of Blog" followed by a Post #. The Post # will dictate where, sequentially, a given post belongs in the timeline. For now, it's not an issue. Simply scroll to the bottom and read upwards. Still, we are initiating this library system in the hopes it will one day be necessary!

Enjoy....

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

The Resurrection of the Son of God -Post #1

The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) -N.T. Wright

At Alan's behest I have agreed to read this book he's a fan of and slice and dice our way through it one chapter at a time.

After crawling through the preface I meandered through the first 4 chapters. I took about 4 pages of notes, none of which I will presently share. I must say, this is going to be a slog for me.

Alan, allow me to whine a bit and then I promise to eat my veggies and soldier on.

At first blush, this is a book for Christians. Scratch that, "intellectual" Christians. Which, I must confess, always seems, like "jumbo shrimp", a bit contradictory. But, as N.T. Wright says, perhaps I "give too much away". As I am decidedly not a student of Christian literary criticism (which I believe you folks call Christian Epistemology) I confess to being in, as usual, over my head. In the preface and first two chapters, Wright references Biblical scholars of whom I have no knowledge and alludes to schisms in the modern (post-Enlightenment) Church of which I am only vaguely familiar.

In short, I find it, much like this evenings Irish whiskey; a bit dry. However, the Irish has readily understood medicinal value and a warming quality I find lacking in the text. Thus far.

On the bright side....

I did quite enjoy his breaking down of 5 predilections in historical understanding. Perhaps part of the dryness I've experienced so far is in my heretofore mentioned ignorance. Wright is, obviously, exceedingly well educated and far more cerebral than I can ever aspire to be. I found this bit of the book to be quite compelling.

I'm certainly anxious to see where things go in this epistle. At present it's far too early for me to raise any major objections other than those intrinsic to my own evident prejudice. I feel Wright is being fairly balanced thus far and giving any Christian opposition to his (as yet unknown) point a fair shake at least. I'm curious about what his "evidence" for the resurrection will be.

No comments:

Post a Comment