Professor Luedemann just sent me a copy of his excellent review article of the Pope's book. He gave me a link to his own website where you can read the review from Free Inquiry. He tells me that he will soon be publishing a full length book in English on this same subject. I will post information about it as he sends it to me.
There is sincere concern among a few scholars like Luedemann that the Pope's book is and will continue to be widely read. It calls for a serious critical response, which is what Luedemann has put together. I welcome Luedemann's critique and support him wholeheartedly in this endeavor. I hope that more scholars who work on the historical Jesus will step forward and add their own critical voice to this debate.
I find it disconcerting that no panel was assembled at the upcoming SBL to discuss Ratzinger's Jesus. Why this oversight?
6 comments:
I find it disconcerting that no panel was assembled at the upcoming SBL to discuss Ratzinger's Jesus. Why this oversight?
At the risk of sounding snide, I don't think Ratzinger's Jesus really merits this sort of attention.
Agree. It's a waste of time. Let him blow all the smoke he wants to. He is irrelevant to a meaningful dialog.
I don't think we can - with the wave of a hand - dismiss the Pope. Whether what he says is academically or exegetically correct, he is listened to by a LOT of people. It's the job of scholars to debunk inaccuracy, even if it flows from the pontifical pen. The ostrich approach (pretend it's not there and it will go away) just won't work.
And its the job of anyone with an interested brain who can think independently, which unfortunately many so-called scholars cannot.
The solution of treating the Pope's book to a critique like we would review any other book is the wrong approach, and, at the same time, we should NOT ignore it. Instead, we should treat it much in the same way we treat other popular phenomena that deal with antiquity; we should approach it in the way we have treated things like the Passion or the da Vinci Code, discussing how it reflects its own historical context and the agenda of a particularly conservative pope. Make it just the most recent of a long line of interpretations of Jesus in the Catholic tradition rather than about reconstructing Jesus, per se.
Who are 'we'? Are 'we' the same as JW's 'we'? I really can't stand this condescending talk.
Post a Comment