Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Crossley is biblioblogger of the month

The witty James Crossley is (biblio)Blogger of the Month for January 2007. The interview is great fun to read, one of the questions being: 'Would you agree with the sentiment cheekily expressed which suggests that "Evangelicals are Fundamentalists with a PhD"?'!

Part of his answer to this question was:

Relating this to your question (sort of), there is something problematic going on when certain scholars can talk of doing good history, accuse opponents of doing bad history, and then tell us that someone’s mother was a virgin, people really did bodily rise from the dead, and that God’s hand is working in history. If you believe those latter points and want to argue for them, fine. But it isn’t what historians would call good history so perhaps it is time, at the very least, to acknowledge that the rhetoric is inconsistent. I can’t imagine too many professionals working in history departments coming up with arguments in favour of the miraculous or the divine hand in history
Thought provoking, as was much else in his answers. It's actually kinda inspired me to read his Why Christianity Happened.

James mentions his respect for Maurice Casey, with whom I interact with in some detail in my thesis. My argument, however, develops in a very different direction, refuting, I think convincingly, Casey's take on Pauline Christology. But then I would say that, I suppose.

I'm particulalry looking forward to the Bird-Crossley debate.

7 Comments:

At 1/03/2007 12:19 AM, Anonymous steph said...

Hi Chris - you say: "refuting ... Casey's take.." Will you provide a preview or do we have to wait?

Happy new year.

 
At 1/03/2007 12:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I prefer Marsden's definition of fundamentalism in terms of evangelicalism: "A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something."

 
At 1/03/2007 1:26 AM, Anonymous rjm said...

I don't know about fundamentalism, but my favorite definition of a fundamentalist has to be Alvin Plantiga's, "Stupid sombitch whose theological convictions are considerably to the right of mine."

 
At 1/03/2007 2:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe it's spelled "sumbitch." And you really need the full explanation of the definition.

 
At 1/03/2007 5:54 PM, Anonymous James Crossley said...

Thanks Chris! Like Steph, I look forward to what happens in Tilling versus Casey, not least as I'm finding Pauline Christology to be of some interest.

Incidentally, as for the losing of the chins on the more recent post, are you telling us that we were previously being misled?
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/happy-birthday-chris-tilling/

 
At 1/03/2007 5:55 PM, Anonymous James Crossley said...

Dunno what happened to that link. Perhaps this:
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2006/
10/19/happy-birthday-chris-tilling/

 
At 1/04/2007 11:39 PM, Anonymous Chris Tilling said...

Hi Steph,
Will have to wait, sorry!

James, I'm sad to say that Jim's words were most definitly misplaced.

Macht and rjm, Plantiga's definition was brilliant!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home