N.T. Wright: Panel Discussion on Pauline Theology with Faculty
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 พ.ย. 2014
- On Nov. 10, 2014, leading New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a retired Anglican bishop, joined members of the Divinity School faculty for a panel discussion. The faculty panel members were Douglas Campbell, professor of New Testament; Susan Eastman, associate research professor of New Testament; and J. Ross Wagner, associate professor of New Testament.
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 4 // 100T vs GEN | G2 vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UkTGSxdCUQw/mqdefault.jpg)
I do not understand why Campbell is being labeled as rude or dogmatic. I thought this was a great debate, given the time restraints. I love Wright, he is my favorite theologian and I was edified to see others challenge him and they did it in a entertaining style. Thank you all. God Bless
I think it would be more respectful if he would like people finish before cutting them off. Its hard to follow when he kept interrupting Dr. Wright's response to his point of view.
Because he was rude and try to show off
Campbell was sarcastic, snide, and condescending. What as ass.
FYI: Up till 7:15 seems to be introductions & preview.
Atheist here. Spare me the theological arguments. The invective against Campbell in the comments makes no sense to me. After reading them I watched the video expecting him to turn the table over and start yelling at people. But this was just good conversation and disagreement. I didn't find Campbell to be abusive, out of line, or even in the least bit rude. The whole discussion would've been a sleepfest without his mild confrontations with Wright.
+Christopher Cunningham Well, a simple case is where Campbell asks, "is there a text where you see this new exodus in Romans 8?" And, when Wright notes that there are echoes and cumulative evidence, Campbell interrupts and says, "Ah the answer is no!" - Really trying to win style points. It does come across as more debate oriented rather than a friendly discussion.
Then, he goes on and continually interrupts Wright; go back and listen to minutes 18-19. It's quite rude. Imagine cutting off your sentences above before you got through - someone kept jumping in and erasing thoughts you started. That would not at all be gracious.
Tom deals with these kinds of folks all the time and so I'm sure has a fairly thick skin. I'm sure he wasn't offended.
It is interesting to me the number of questions that the panel brings up to Wright as if for the first time that he had already mentioned in his original statement.
Douglas Campbell is feisty and fun. Ross Wagner is irenic and constructive. Love it.
Honestly y'all keep criticizing Campbell, but Wright took up all the space so Campbell had to come in seemingly more abruptly
I have listened and enjoyed many theological debates . I am saddened that Prof Campbell felt so threatened by Tom Wright , a giant, passionate and most humble theologian. Prof Campbell mentioned with sarcasm how eloquently Tom spoke on more than one occasion, which suggest to me (as a curious Christian Psychotherapist) that the Prof sees Tom Wright as someone of English class privilege to be derided. How sad . As others have said , though charismatic , his rudeness and contempt for Tom, a tired guest who had just stepped off a plane from the UK, derailed his own arguments .
Sad to see a theologian behave in such an ungracious way ☹️
For what it's worth to anyone who might watch this video and find Campbell's attitude disappointing or problematic, you may take some heart in knowing two things: (1) the day after this event he apologized to, at least, one of the classes he was teaching on Paul; (2) at church the following Sunday, he confessed that he did not represent Christ well during the panel. He cares deeply about speaking rightly about Gospel and, importantly, he has the wherewithal to publicly admit when he comes up short of representing the Gospel with his own life and words.
Did he apologize to Wright?
Thank you for sharing that. It takes great humility to acknowledge when one is perhaps in the wrong or did not represent Christ in a good light. Blessings!
You gotta love Ross Wagner.
Continuity and discontinuity meets in Paul. We are trying to keep these apart or put them together. In Paul we should keep continuity and discontinuity
Even if Campbell was right, which he is not, he is so arrogant that his points are lost. Grow up. Learn how to have academic discourse.
I have to say that I have listened to this video now more than 10 times, because I want to understand. And one observation that I come away with strongly is that Doug Campbell has a very difficult time listening. His boldness in response is usually in direct correspondence with his misunderstanding of what was said. If this gives me a taste of Campbell as a thinker, I think I will pass on investigating further. I am not talking about whether ir not he was nice or whether or not apocalypse is important. I think that apocalypse is important, but his ability to understand is in doubt from the way he responded to what Wright said.
Mark, Campbell and Wright had been in dialogue long before this evening. I would highly recommend reading Campbell. He has some fascinating proposals about Paul's life and letters, along with their implications for the gospel, that both the church and academy need to consider. I highly recommend his newest work "Paul: An Apostles Journey" as an accessible overview of the totality of his work.
As an old student I think I understand the issue. It is like a debate one side has worked with it for years and you have to listen, understand, raise useful points ... it is an unfair match of minds. I like the one about Qm interpretation where you had 3 interpretations from 3 different schools. Each present his and then argue against the others. We are not in debate society to get a trophy, but to get insight and work on it further. But it is hard if agenda set.
thank you for sharing! the latin heresy is very stubborn indeed
I thought this was just a lively debate. Wright was just as forceful in his positions as Campbell. If toes are stepped on, so be it. Much better than a mild and mediocre exchange of thoughts that goes nowhere. My knowledge of Campbell is he has received a lot of flack from the scholarly community for his maverick book "The Deliverance of God". Maybe he is just passing the critical heat onto the much more well known Wright.
Campbell was nothing short of being an ass.
So the sticking point is whether the Trinity doctrine is valid premise/ starting point.
Duke Divinity School? Oh that's the place where the doctors of Divinity teach. I had a friend who went to Duke where he lost his faith and blew his head off against his bedroom wall with a 45. These are the teachers who failed my generation with their vacuous theology that adds up to zero. I can only imagine how mind numbing it must have been to sit and listen to a lecture like this for hours! I might have blown my brains out too!
Is early Christian christology possible from the Hebrew Bible? Or is it possible only by an apocalyptic Christ revelation?
It seems to me that Campbell denied continuity in Romans 8, he also denied continuity in his discussion on apocalypse, and also denied continuity in his claim that Jews have integrity as a people outside the Messiah. This seems to be setting a two-people idea of some kind, which is contrary to the whole point of the one gospel of the one God, fulfilling his promises to Abraham about one family and one new creation.
On one of the disagreements between Campbell and Wright, Campbell wants to make the point that diversity in the church involves brining in cultural practices, and Paul wants to make space for this within the church, without making it a requirement. There is initially much confusion, and Campbell is responded to as if he is making a point about salvation, when they finally get back on track Wright responds by pointing out that unvirtuous and flatly immoral behavior in the Corinthian church and the Scythians was "part of their culture" but Paul made no room for it. But who is talking about immoral behavior? Were Jewish cultural practices akin to sexual immorality? Hot-temperedness? Are all cultural practices cases of immoral behavior? If not, what are the grounds for excluding retaining cultural practices that aren't inherently immoral?
I love to listen to Dr. Wright, and I enjoyed reading some of his books, especially The Resurrection of the Son of God and The Biography of Paul. However, it appears most of his fresh views/rethinking are based on how first century Judaism interpreted scripture. I think we need to be reminded of the fact that not every scriptural view of first century Judaism was correct. If they would have interpreted their scriptures correctly they would have discerned Jesus was their promised Messiah, but the majority missed it. I am also not sure we can understand the the mind of Paul by speculating that he was thinking strictly as an Orthodox Jew as he penned his letters. We must stick to the grammar and context of the text in order to arrive at the interpretive formula which states “this is what Paul said, this is what Paul means, and this is the application to the church at large and individual Christians. I think we also need to be reminded that Paul’s letters were not specifically written for scholarly debate, but for practical Christian thinking and living.
I think the point is not how first century Jews interpreted the Old Testament but how they read Paul’s letters . Like how did they understand legalism ? The world is very different now than it was back then . For example , I think we debate the problem of evil way more than did first century Jews did .
Also I don’t think it’s just grammar + context . I think it’s grammar + context + cultural context . Just look at our political situation now and the language involved . If you just read something that Trump said , and take it at face value , you would get the wrong idea . Also consider our analogies . For example, Obama won by a landslide. We all know what this means . But a person outside our current world may that understand it that way. I think same with Paul’s world . There were many analogies that were used that when I first read , I took it at face value . Understanding their context of pagan worship is a cultural custom /expectation is so crucial. We really don’t have that kind of life here so we have to put ourselves in their world as much as possible . I used to be against this , but last year or so my mind has slowly changed . Just my two cents . I’m rambling here .
In the temple was the glory,the presence of YHWH and Jesus Himself is the temple the presence of YHWH among us.
Reconfiguration is
apocalyptic revelation, but reconfiguration has progressive revelation aspect too
It must be terrible for Duke to have a Douglas Campbell. From the beginning to the end of the video, and at every point in between, Douglas portrayed himself as the true image of a Christian theological bigot. He doggedly made it a point that his ideas are the standards for right and wrong. His closing statement is poignant of his person: Paul, he says, got Christianity right. Which can only mean that for him Paul saw Christianity the way Douglas Campbell wants Paul to see Christianity. Which is what is wrong with too many Christian theologians. They want Christianity to fall in line with their theology, the way Douglas Campbell wants Paul to be right by Douglas Campbell.
He had done a lot of research on Paul, he said at one point, as his proof that he is right. Well, he did produce a book on Paul almost as voluminous as that of the guest, as the moderator said. Perhaps Douglas's manner throughout the discussion is due to his book being as voluminous in pages as the guest's, but is as starved in sales and impact as the guest's is full.
Douglas Campbell should understand that in discussions like this, people are interested to see Jesus, not the greatness of Douglas Campbell. Until he realizes this, he will continue to show the world how pathetic he is. He will also continue to show that an institution that houses him is not worthy of academic respect.
The format of the conversation, as stated by Richard Hays, was for the scholars to speak as if they were around a dinner table eating a meal and sharing a bottle of wine. Perhaps the guest played to the audience and those who on TH-cam confess to interest in seeing Jesus. But Douglas Campbell played to the stated format and for that I am grateful. My congregation needs me to ask hard questions as to what exactly the Apostle Paul testifies to in his letters. They cannot afford for me to have theological hero-worship. And therefore a frank discussion regarding matters of Pauline theology by Pauline scholars is something that gives tremendous gifts. Personally, I don't need them to play soft with each other.
azkdurham
It was rather Douglas who repeatedly played to the audience. How many times in the video did he look at particular members of the audience while speaking? My problem is not softness or hardness; it is depth of argument and scholarship. Douglas, by not explaining his points but just saying, for instance, "I wrote a lot on this topic," did not contribute to clarifying matters. For one, what if he wrote much about it? That's neither here nor there. That did not give me any clue at all as to his contribution to Pauline theology or to the quality of his scholarship or to his contribution in the panel discussion. But on one thing I think I agree with you, when you speak of theological hero-worship. We should have none of it. But the best way to combat theological hero-worship is to get into a clash of ideas, which Douglas miserably failed to do. What Douglas showed himself to be was not a scholar, but a bigoted boor who only thought he knew something but really did not contribute anything. Seems like Douglas was against, not so much theological hero-worship, but Wright-worship. And his objection is really that it should instead be Douglas-worship.
N. Bacquia I was there that night and I saw five Pauline scholars talking about Pauline theology and spoke in a way that they could understand one another. This may or may not have translated to the wider audience, but as one who has read pretty much everything that three of the five scholars on the panel have written (Wright, Hays and Campbell) I heard considerable clash of ideas. Central to being a Pauline scholar is method, and I heard all four of the Duke representatives pretty much saying aloud that they wondered if Wright fully understands the implications of the revelation of Jesus Christ for understanding and interpreting Paul. I heard differing opinions on where there are echoes of scripture in Paul, and what scriptures are being echoed. In short, I saw scholars being scholars, having a scholarly conversation.
azkdurham
Are you then saying that the video of the discussion is different from the live one you witnessed? For there is no arguing that in the video Campbell is a bigoted boor, snorting or otherwise making animal-like sounds more often than he was speaking. Or were those sounds his version of glossolalia? And why does he have to make those sounds while other discussants start to talk and then ever so often as others are speaking? He looked to me more like Thrasymachus in another table-talk, wanting everyone else to shut up if they were not about to applaud his ideas. And what about his restlessness in his seat, so annoying because it was so distracting, and communicated the violence in him? There was clash, indeed, but not so much of ideas, because Campbell's boorish ("Thrasymachian" would be too noble of him, the more I think of it) personality prevented the ideas from coming out and truly clashing.
N. Bacquia I'm not sure what to say. Perhaps you and Campbell are more alike than you may recognize, given the way you have gone after him.
If you ask me anytime God charges into the narrative of the Bible Himself, it's pretty apocalyptic. 💁♀️
I found this interesting. They mentioned the return of the divine presence to the temple. Remember in revelations where the when John says there was no temple, because the lamb was the temple? this is in Rev 21:22, in context of the first few verses the new heaven and earth.
there is an ongoing debate about this. are these new heavens and earth the current ones made new? or are they totally new where the previous no longer exist?
there is no longer a sea on these new heavens and earth, which would suggest there was a sea in this future new H and E. It would seem that revelations is suggesting a renewal of this H and E.
Perhaps the return of YHVH to the temple, and, as wright puts it, is the return of christ. It would seem such a suggestion would help close the gap and question of "where does the Tanach/Old Testament prophecy two comings of messiah. If YHVH left his temple and is returning to it, and Messiah is YHVH, then the Messiah is going to be here, and then leave.
As for the piece where YHVH does not dwell in a temple of human hands, in Acts 7:48, read the verse after. His point is not that YHVH does not need to be in the temple because he really lives in heaven, and puts his feet in the temple. His point is that ultimately, YHVH built the temple, not man, because he made that which the temple is made of. He does not need the temple, he does not need Humans, and therefore can judge and condemned, where he goes on to say "you received the law from angels and didn't keep it". Stephens point is that YHVH can judge and that he doesn't need man.
Douglas Campbell is most unpleasant.
Doug was absolutely rude considering Wright was the invited guest to Duke; You don't treat a guest like that!
What's with Douglas Campbell? He's fidgety, rude, condescending; was he dragged to this discussion against his will? It sure looks like it. And if Everything about Paul should be read and understand with the a priori assumption that the Trinity is just there, then what's he doing on the panel? In his mind it's closed case. Don't punish the man like this, and spare us the inconvenience.
Nathan Brasfield His behavior I thought was disgraceful. Look at him even during the introductions. That guy is prof. of new testament studies?
He cannot be a good professor. He sees one point and denies everything else from Bible. For example, he said the relationship between God and people should be Philia. But that’s not the only point the Bible tells us. Did he really read John 21:15-17?
It seems to have been a clash between two opposing ideologies. Protestant fundamentalist "end times" speculation versus classic British Anglican theology based on the Church Fathers. So rude, D.C. upset the good Profesor Wright. God bless N.T. Wright.
sounds to me like they are really arguing doctrine.
is God a God of Love? portrayed in Christ, or
or a God of wrath? as portrayed in Exodus.
Paul argues with everybody. But to me, his conclusion is always Christ. the best end of every argument.
YHWH reconfigured Himself in Yesu Christou in order to reconfigure the people of God
Paul's gospel is hidden from the beginning of the world until Christ revealed it to him. (Rom. 16:25).
Prophecy and mystery are separate.
Israel and the Body of Christ are separate.
Law and grace are separate.
I don't know where these folk are headed.
Campbell's behavior makes the discussion unpleasant to watch.
+Pär Stenberg I like the discussion, and it just tells me what kind of person is Campbell.
I really don't understand all the criticism of Douglas Campbell's manner. He's just trying to pin down Wright, who has a habit of droning on in "both/ands" so that he often seems to be trying to incorporate all opposing viewpoints as subpoints to his own preferred thesis, rather than engaging head on. Campbell keeps it interesting.
Exactly. Wright disagrees with Church Fathers and with Reformed folks and disagrees with all people here, for he knows best how to interpret Scriptures. It is probably hard being a professor at St.Andrews and admit that you are wrong and others are right on anything. I mean on anything. But would anyone read his books if he would agree with Church Fathers, Reformed folks and modern theologians on everything? I was glad to hear that not only I don't see Exodus narrative in Romans 8. I thought I need to change my glasses already. :-)
That’s exactly why you guys can tolerate the bad behavior of Campbell during the discussion.
No. He was sarcastic and condescending.
Campbell is out of line.
Dr. Campbell is awesome. He kept the conversation lively.
Paul was not given the authority to give baptism. He didnt preach for receiving baptism. Paul was given the authority to protect from the power of Satan.Can these experts say why?
Campbell is rude and annoying in one sense but I am glad sometimes for someone to stop Tom rattling without getting to the nitty gritty and not letting him go unchallenged. I am mainly with Tom but I do sometimes wonder if he is just creative and sees Paul as his drinking buddy
It amazes me how "God as revealed in and through Christ" is so spontaneously alternated with the Trinitarian concept of Yahweh revealing Himself AS Christ (or Christ showing Himself to be Yahweh). Either one or the other, but not both. And without choosing one over the other, this kind of endless conundrum-solving will continue indefinitely (unless you have actually done the choosing already and moved along...)
False dichotomy.
Mark McDonnel, it is axiomatic that agency ("in" and "through") precludes numerical identity. So no, it's not a false dichotomy.
Jaco van Zyl Jesus Christ had a physical body, which something that God the trinity did not have before. "In and through Christ" can be a way of talking about God being revealed through the human existence of the physical man Jesus. At any rate, feel free to hold to your endless conundrum. I and most Christians don't see it that way.
Mark McDonnel
No, your proposal can only work if what God chose to reveal himself was a substance, so that flesh is not God, but the medium through which God revealed himself. But then identity cannot be the term used to express the means in which this self-revelation took place, simply because a distinct identity exists between Jesus and the One revealing himself through Jesus. The biblical data shows that the Father revealed himself through the one faithfully reflecting him, namely the Son who is Jesus. No evidence exists of a trinity revealing itself (themselves?) through the man Jesus, nor that the Son revealed himself through Jesus. Mine is not the conundrum, but yours. You and most Christians can be wrong, you know (argumentum ad populum). If it’s about what the majority believe, you should change your religion anyway.
***** I'm afraid not. The singular unity of God is consistently the revealed pattern. No Trinity anywhere.
I think I will just stick with the folks who actually knew Paul and travelled and Preached with him... and also with common sense.. Unless you have met the Lord and were sent on a mission you would quit pretty quick after the first few whippings and beatings, the long hot dusty road endless cold nights, being thrown into prisons and the shipwrecks.. and folks throwing stones at you, if you were a fake would you keep going until they actually killed you...Paul did.. no you would have quit after the first whipping and returned to your life. And second ..the fact that Luke travelled and preached with Paul and did not call him a fake.. and Timothy travelled with him... and Peter took to the road with Paul and they preached the message Jesus gave them and Peter did not call Paul a fake.. Peter said of Paul.. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
Campbell was rude and confrontational, attempted to grandstand in front of the audience. His body language was dismissive of his guest, seldom looking at Wright while he spoke and often looked bored by it all. He spoke to a Wright as if he were a Johnny-come-lately or a student ..."Let me explain how it works"....often treating Wright as if he were under cross examination. At one point (about 43 minutes) Wright asked him if he was trained as a lawyer. Campbell said no, a new restaurant scholar and Wright says, you're a systematic theologian actually...😂
Douglas Campbell was poorly behaved. No table manners.
Poor NT Wright. No one ever listens to him.
It’s not a good testimony for those who are teaching students
Paul thone in his side was he was gay the Gospel of Pauline and he created christianty he did not do what JC supposed to have said to do exable J C said go not to the gentiles Paul went right to them .
I find it interesting that there was this theme going around that Paul "invented" Christianity. They always use that word like political talking points. I think it's from the Devil. Think about that word. It implies intrinsically that Paul's teachings were fraudulent.
@in777sight That makes no sense that the high priest got Paul to do anything. Look at the opposition the Rabbis have today toward him. Would any high priest want that?
@in777sight That's so messed up, I don't know how to respond. File that in the religious fiction category is all.
@in777sight I did not find any references to Paul throwing a widow or orphan out of their own homes. Give a reference if you have one. The part I saw addressing the subject of widows had to do with enrolling them. I figure that's like a nunnery. He wanted young widows to first be taken care of by family. I'm sure young widows of the church would be looked after individually. Paul wrote in Romans 15 that he was taking aid for the poor in Jerusalem. You misunderstand him. He was no Pharasee after Jesus saved him.
They should debate whether Paul was an antichrist. Everything he taught is in contradiction to Jesus teachings. Jesus was a reformer of Judaism. He never intended to do away with the law or create a new religion. Read Matthew closely. Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law was he here to change. So what does Paul do? Tells us to disregard everything Jesus taught. Jesus said beware the pharisees and Paul was a pharisee and persecutor of Jesus followers Paul never met Jesus and yet made himself his Chief apostle. So this is who Christians decide to base their religion on?
Oh dear, is this what Christians do in their spare time ? Sheer waste of time and money, and nothing came out of the whole discussion. Go back to living a simple life and being being spiritual, and stop all this mental gymnastics, which only increases the ego.
And there are duke divinity students paying to “learn” also how to do the same.