NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

[ittarter]

MISHPOT HATORAH looks like poorly transliterated Hebrew to my eye. The poorly transliterated Greek equivalent would be erga nomou.

Whoops! You're absolutely right. My bad.

I think the point is made irrespective of the root language I am using to guide my transliteration. I could have used Farsi or Gaelic -- the point is that once we cease to assume we know what certain words mean, then we see how important it is to do the legwork required in order to really understand them.

What kind of legwork? Geez, the mind reels....... Good thing none of us is alone in this venture, or we'd never understand any ancient writ.

 

[ebia]

In my understanding of what he said, he only briefly wrestles with the text of James 2:14-26, never reconciling faith without works is dead, or that faith and works are like a body and spirit. Instead he simply says faith is the crux and works later "fulfill" faith. It is unclear what he means by "fulfill" in this article, but in context, it seems he places faith primary and works secondary. Wright says works are only "necessary" to make faith "not to appear a sham." Works are thus rendered essential to justification only for the sake of "appearances."

You can't say everything all of the time. It's a brief dictionary article on Justification, not the full picture of where he sees works in the scheme of things. That said I don't think your summary of the phrase you've part-quoted is an accurate reflection of what he is trying to say at all. Rather, his idea of justification by faith is quite specific so that it doesn't include everything that needs to be said about salvation more generally. But you would need to read elsewhere to follow that up and I can't point to a specific article off the top of my head.

 

[Frogster]

I have already mentioned a number of words whose meanings are controversial. I have tried to demonstrate the difficulty of interpretation when the meanings of those words are uncertain, by translating a verse but leaving the key terminology in basterized Greek.

I don't understand why you are so opposed to me "evaluating" your posts. After all, I am discussing matters with you, not Paul or N. T. Wright or anyone else. I am entitled to critique your responses to the best of my ability.

I don't believe you are treating my responses fairly or thoroughly. If you are unwilling to substantiate your "traditional" interpretation or critique my own reading, then this conversation will come to a stand-still.

Really anyone can read or paste the Greek,it is online,with all the definitions,no big deal really.I am not that impressed.

 

[Frogster]

You can't say everything all of the time. It's a brief dictionary article on Justification, not the full picture of where he sees works in the scheme of things. That said I don't think your summary of the phrase you've part-quoted is an accurate reflection of what he is trying to say at all. Rather, his idea of justification by faith is quite specific so that it doesn't include everything that needs to be said about salvation more generally. But you would need to read elsewhere to follow that up and I can't point to a specific article off the top of my head.

Really,it is quite easy.The Spirit will quicken the scriptures.

Acts 4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

 

[Frogster]

Whoops! You're absolutely right. My bad.

I think the point is made irrespective of the root language I am using to guide my transliteration. I could have used Farsi or Gaelic -- the point is that once we cease to assume we know what certain words mean, then we see how important it is to do the legwork required in order to really understand them.

What kind of legwork? Geez, the mind reels....... Good thing none of us is alone in this venture, or we'd never understand any ancient writ.

It is ok,we all make mistakes.

 

[ittarter]

Really anyone can read or paste the Greek,it is online,with all the definitions,no big deal really.I am not that impressed.

The online "definitions" are the very things we are questioning! Yes, many scholars in the Protestant tradition have written books of "definitions" for Greek words and phrases. The point of my transliterating was to VISUALLY demonstrate the critical nature of these definitions, and how questioning their validity brings the meaning of the whole verse, passage, book back to square ONE.

So, start being impressed, because it is a very big deal.

 

[Frogster]

The online "definitions" are the very things we are questioning! Yes, many scholars in the Protestant tradition have written books of "definitions" for Greek words and phrases. The point of my transliterating was to VISUALLY demonstrate the critical nature of these definitions, and how questioning their validity brings the meaning of the whole verse, passage, book back to square ONE.

So, start being impressed, because it is a very big deal.

Well to each his own,I remain unimpressed,and understand justification quite well.Like I said,prostitutes and drunkards,were entering faster than the scholars!

 

[Frogster]

Most translations are pretty similar anyway.They may put a comma in a different place,(Rom 9:5)of talk about the good things 'to come" or "have come" in Hebrews 9:11.But really there is not all that much difference.

 

[MrPolo]

You can't say everything all of the time. It's a brief dictionary article on Justification, not the full picture of where he sees works in the scheme of things. That said I don't think your summary of the phrase you've part-quoted is an accurate reflection of what he is trying to say at all. Rather, his idea of justification by faith is quite specific so that it doesn't include everything that needs to be said about salvation more generally. But you would need to read elsewhere to follow that up and I can't point to a specific article off the top of my head.

Fair enough.

 

[TheGMan]

I think the point is made irrespective of the root language I am using to guide my transliteration. I could have used Farsi or Gaelic -- the point is that once we cease to assume we know what certain words mean, then we see how important it is to do the legwork required in order to really understand them.

I don't agree. I think it is very clear that erga nomou means "works of the law". It is not a difficult translation. A knowledge of Greek vocabulary and grammar doesn't tell you anything more about how to translate these words.

The problem is not what the Greek means, but what it signifies. The significance of the phrase is not in the words themselves, but in the wider culture. And that is what Wright is trying address (although I'm not sure I agree with how he does so). It's not a problem of translation but of culture. This is why I don't think transliterating the Greek (or guessed at Hebrew) is particularly persuasive.

 

[Frogster]

I don't agree. I think it is very clear that erga nomou means "works of the law". It is not a difficult translation. A knowledge of Greek vocabulary and grammar doesn't tell you anything more about how to translate these words.

The problem is not what the Greek means, but what it signifies. The significance of the phrase is not in the words themselves, but in the wider culture. And that is what Wright is trying address (although I'm not sure I agree with how he does so). It's not a problem of translation but of culture. This is why I don't think transliterating the Greek (or guessed at Hebrew) is particularly persuasive.

Hi.You seem to be a fair minded guy.
What my point is about is this.The translators translated alredy,and most bibles are pretty similar.The youngs Literal,reads like the king James.The ESV,is not that different from the NASB,etc..
Why do some seem so dependant on others views,when really the law was very easy to understand.

Paul said it worked wrath,powered sin,and was until the seed,then he died to the law,and found the law of faith.(That was a Romans Galatians combo).Anyway,point being,I think all these NT Wright,and Greek worship is overrated.

Example.Two will be debating.One will say.."I sat on a chair!" The other will say.."No,the Greek says you sat on a four legged padded object to rest your body on!"

 

[Frogster]

One more point.I have been blessed studying the Greek,and enjoy it,and have learned.My point it,that usually,it seems to not be that far off from how the translators have presented it to us in English.

 

[ebia]

Really,it is quite easy.The Spirit will quicken the scriptures.

Acts 4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

Look, if you aren't interested in a reasoned discussion, and you aren't willing to read what someone has written to find out what they believe and why, what exactly is the point of this thread? If you are sure that the Spirit has infallibly inspired you and nobody else then it stand to reason that the rest of us are heretics, now lets stop wasting time.

 

[ebia]

Anyway,point being,I think all these NT Write, ...is overrated. (sic)

What you think about Tom Wright's work is pretty irrelevant until such time as you read some and find out what it is he says.

Giving an opinion on something you admit to knowing nothing about is essentially bearing false witness.

 

[ebia]

Well to each his own,I remain unimpressed,and understand justification quite well.

Of course you think you do. And by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" you can make sure that any misconceptions you may have will never be revealed to you and corrected.

Like I said,prostitutes and drunkards,were entering faster than the scholars!

And yet God chose two scholars - Paul and Luke - to be two of the primary teachers of his faith, writing over half the New Testament between them. If you aren't willing to listen to scholars, why are you reading them?

To automatically reject something because it's based on scholarship is at least as absurd, and unbiblical, as automatically accepting it because it's based on scholarship.

God spoke through Jerimiah and through Amos. Anti-intellectualism rejects Gods work as much as its opposite.

 

[ebia]

Frogster: answer this question for me please.

Do you reject the reformation because Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Vermigli, etc were scholars?

 

[Frogster]

Of course you think you do. And by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" you can make sure that any misconceptions you may have will never be revealed to you and corrected.


And yet God chose two scholars - Paul and Luke - to be two of the primary teachers of his faith, writing over half the New Testament between them. If you aren't willing to listen to scholars, why are you reading them?

To automatically reject something because it's based on scholarship is at least as absurd, and unbiblical, as automatically accepting it because it's based on scholarship.

God spoke through Jerimiah and through Amos. Anti-intellectualism rejects Gods work as much as its opposite.

Oh give me a break!

With all Paul's scholarly intelligence,he was killing Chrisitians,until he had a revelation,not head,revelation!

Galatians 1:11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

And read this quote again.Common men.

Acts 4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.


Paul knew the scriptures backwards and fowards,but without revelation,head knowledge is nothing.Paul was not even a good speaker.But it was a reliance on the Spirit,not intellect.

1 Cor 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.

You need to understand the power of the Spirit,and not lean on the intellect of other men!


1 Cor 2:4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God

 

[MamaZ]

Oh give me a break!

With all Paul's scholarly intelligence,he was killing Chrisitians,until he had a revelation,not head,revelation!

Galatians 1:11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

And read this quote again.Common men.

Acts 4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.


Paul knew the scriptures backwards and fowards,but without revelation,head knowledge is nothing.Paul was not even a good speaker.But it was a reliance on the Spirit,not intellect.

1 Cor 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.

You need to understand the power of the Spirit,and not lean on the intellect of other men!


1 Cor 2:4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God

 

[ebia]

Oh give me a break!

Can you answer my question please...

Do you reject the reformation because Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Vermigli, etc were scholars and their reforming work depended upon that scholarship?

 

[ittarter]

The problem is not what the Greek means, but what it signifies. The significance of the phrase is not in the words themselves, but in the wider culture. And that is what Wright is trying address (although I'm not sure I agree with how he does so). It's not a problem of translation but of culture. This is why I don't think transliterating the Greek (or guessed at Hebrew) is particularly persuasive.

Hmm. I agree with your analysis but not your diagnosis.

The part you're not addressing is that when people read "the works of the law" they immediately assume the significance that has been passed down by Protestant tradition.