I think the difference is that most early Islamic history in the English language is made by academic historians looking at the period from an academic point of view (an extremely interesting period to explain where something came from, in effect, nowhere), but most academic scholarship of the Roman period of Jesus were by western Christian religious scholars. Of course there are tons and tons of writing on it today. I’m really underselling Wright, but that’s true, he’s not writing a history book (despite the title). That also doesn’t mean what he wrote is necessarily wrong or false either.
Now I’m curious to read this for the flip side perspective of what I got in college - I spent a year studying first and second temple period Jewish History - and in that context Jesus is one of a dozen known messianic pretenders that century (and no doubt dozens or hundreds more unrecorded in history) in a turbulent period. And not even the most notable one - as at least one had enough followers to actually bring an army to the Mount of Olives outside the walls of Jerusalem!
Wright more or less explicitly opens his books restating this very point, so I doubt you’d immediately find it all that different. Like I said, I’m extremely picky!
Oh, yeah, it’s not about “true or false,” as such terms have no meaning outside of specific contexts anyhow (admittedly, those contexts can be pretty universal and important sometimes). In this case, the different narratives about the monotheisms bring together different epistemological frameworks, each of which has its own value. It’s just that when people use “history” as a shorthand, they are usually talking about a very specific way of looking at the past (history itself being a narrative construction following the tenets of that particular epistemology), without realizing it. There is this idea, long after we thought we put von Ranke in his grave, that there is a “real” past we can uncover somehow. Well, all the pasts are “real” in some sense; it depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to establish a high degree of likelihood for some physical, tangible event or thing, like say the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE or the existence of some particular person, you can use “history” in that sense and be fairly confident the resulting narrative will be viable.
If, however, you are trying to prove that not only was there a guy named Jesus but that he was divine, or that Moses actually talked to a divine being, “history” is useless. It won’t help, not only because there isn’t any way to work with these topics given the type of evidence we have, but because it’s the wrong question for the epistemology. Academic history can do very well helping us with narratives about how people of an age or place acted or wrote or otherwise did things, perhaps things associated with their own beliefs. It cannot tell us much about belief itself other than its epiphenomena.
OTOH, theology is crap for making narratives about the material or tangible past, about traditional subjects of history, but it is one of the best epistemologies for creating narratives about faith. That’s because the standards of evidence are very, very different, and the audience is often very different too. I love reading theology, but it never has much dramatic impact on me as an atheist. I can appreciate it as a great way to gain insight into the minds of people who believe though. More scientific or evidence-based epistemologies don’t do that very well.
To only say enough to be wrong but still enough hang myself with (a random dude on the 'net whose brain has been rotted playing too many video games), understanding issues of ‘faith’ are paramount to understanding of Rawlsian “overlapping consensus” applicability in modern Democratic societies. I’m pretty convinced that Christian ethics are behind the western world’s moral assumptions - but what those ethics are is not a mere text but an extension of the development of religious theory. So, looping back around, WOF is very helpful in getting an overview of Catholic moral theory alongside the Bible itself. I’m just… never going to let go of “fishers of men” as the preferred line. “I will make you fish for people” just doesn’t have the same ring Mr. NSRV! I can’t ever can’t let go Presbyterian’s “and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”. Trespasses please! ;) Whenever i’m at my uncle’s church i always say it wrong out loud.
Yes, exactly that, though in the case of the USA, the connection between what traditional theologians might call Christian theology and what American Protestants tend to practices is rather, um, tenuous, perhaps. American Protestants seem to view their faith through an incredibly narrow and circumscribed lens that fuels their obsession with sex, drugs, and identity more than anything else. The only thing American Protestants seem to care about is what people do in the dark, what substances they consume, and whether you say “Jesus” enough times a day.
Well, theology is as theology does. As i’ve said before i’ve no real desire to wade into ‘what the text actually says’ sort of debate, although those are certainly fun, and in the modern world, there are thousands of social media, podcasts, and videos made about every variety doing just that.
But the strange mixture of parables and contrasting one-liners that makes up the moral foundation of Christianity, a morality that is sometimes contradictory and always being applied only selectively doesn’t even start without faith to start with - it’s not, not really, the teachings of Jesus that gets followers of Jesus to follow them, explore them, elaborate and annotate them, it is because they believe he’s literally God first, and then all the other stuff comes after. I think it’s that exploration of faith that interests me, as i think capital-letter Faith in some starting or shared foundational principle of value seems necessary for modern societies to properly function. It’s recent studies that have shown that, for ex., American Liberals tend to on the whole, support higher taxes but less personal donation (less in the absolute sense); while American Conservatives (presumably more religious) tend to support lower taxes but tend to donate in larger quantities. But those donations dry up when they exist in ‘purple’ cities or states. They simply don’t want to contribute to the commonweal if everyone doesn’t already share their values. So this feels like a problem worth investigating.
I’m… also in a hardback book buying mood recently. A couple years ago it was tiny books ;). And i’d been getting emails from the organization for a while, and had a moment of weakness. I’d been reading Wright for a while though.
Can’t comment on the book itself; I love stuff like that but don’t buy physical books much any more, and don’t have the bandwidth for a lot of things I used to be able to fit in. But it does sound interesting.
I agree that there is definitely a need for a society to have some sort of shared values. It’s when those values are rooted in superstitious magical beings, backed by belief in things that cannot ever be disproved (and thus are only exportable to people who already have drunk the Kool-Aid, or who are willing to believe first (and act later if at all) that I take issue.
If a person or a group cannot make an argument for how a society should function using arguments based solely on considerations of the common good for all people in the society, they should not IMO have their views taken seriously. In other words, if the basis for your ideals of society trace back ultimately to belief in some deity or the commands of some scripture, I consider that unsuitable for a democratic, equitable society, if not utterly at odds with that sort of society.
Ultimately, in my view at least, no matter how benign the ideas seem at first, eventually every society based on an assumed common religious basis turns into a bloody, repressive, horror show.
I largely agree with that point but would flip the statements. Meaning, I’d say that if your only argument is based solely on your religion then that is not sufficient to build your liberal democratic society around. As a believer in superstitious magical beings I can’t get away from the fact that a whole lot of my core ideals come from that. But I only take the ones that also have more secular arguments backing them as well when trying to decide what of those ideals should extend to society as a whole. One’s personal ideals don’t have to exactly match society’s for the two to be able to get along just fine.
Agreed; your phrasing was much better than my overly complicated posting-too-late-when-I’m-tired version!
I have a copy of this Word on Fire leather bound Bible if anyone would like it.
Just drop me a DM and an address to ship it to and I’ll get it out in a few days!
That’s a neat idea, similar in scope to the Oxford Annotated NRSV I use, but including artwork. The disappointing element is that though it includes passages from early writers like Justin and Clement, it only prints selected quotes.
I think if you’re going to include writings from such authors, print an entire discourse and not just an insert box!
But I’m a weirdo who likes depth, and clearly this is meant for a more ecumenical rather than scholarly purpose.
Yeah, they’re pretty clear that it’s not a study bible or an annotated bible. Word on Fire’s mission is evangelization, so the content they add is there as much to underscore the depth of the Catholic intellectual and artistic tradition as to add scholarly insights (although there are plenty of those). In my opinion, there’s a little too much of that additional material, but it’s nevertheless generally high quality and thoughtfully selected. And the printing and artwork is top-notch. I think it’s a really beautiful book.