tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post462810667417793754..comments2024-01-02T13:37:26.563-06:00Comments on גֵּר־וְתוֹשָׁב: John Barclay Righting Wright on Paul and Imperialismd. millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-31713887942287633512021-04-18T20:25:03.783-06:002021-04-18T20:25:03.783-06:00It looks like it is still here, Jamie: http://andy...It looks like it is still here, Jamie: http://andyrowell.net/andy_rowell/2007/11/audio-from-a-fe.html. d. millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-43779053264686293242021-04-18T12:56:19.772-06:002021-04-18T12:56:19.772-06:00Is the recording still available anywhere?Is the recording still available anywhere?Jamiejame911https://www.blogger.com/profile/17308547271169468949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-2133297882466776852008-12-19T18:18:00.000-06:002008-12-19T18:18:00.000-06:00Trackback from sammarsh.net: ... There’s a fantas...Trackback from <A HREF="http://www.sammarsh.net/?p=10" REL="nofollow">sammarsh.net</A>: ... There’s a fantastic mp3 recording online of a debate between NT Wright and John Barclay. This can be found along with some useful discussion at <A HREF="http://gervatoshav.blogspot.com/2007/12/john-barclay-righting-wright-on-paul.html?showComment=1196912340000" REL="nofollow">gervatoshav.blogspot.com</A>, <A HREF="http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2007/11/barclay-wright-and-pauls-anti.html" REL="nofollow">michaelpahl.blogspot.com</A> and <A HREF="http://newtestamentperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-paul-pit-his-gospel-against-caesars.html" REL="nofollow">newtestamentperspectives.blogspot.com</A>...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-12834252314519904732007-12-06T21:35:00.000-06:002007-12-06T21:35:00.000-06:00Thanks for the helpful comment, Michael. The main ...Thanks for the helpful comment, Michael. The main reason I quoted from your post is that I am not convinced Barclay undervalued the evidence in the way you suggest. I am happy to grant that the historical context would shape how Paul's language was heard. It is hard to deny that 1 Thess 5:3 is intentional anti-imperial language, but I don't think Barclay would deny this since he addressed this passage directly in his talk. In any case, your conclusion sounds very much like Barclay's own.<BR/><BR/>Again, I find Barclay's attempt to distinguish between Paul's intention and the reception of his letters unhelpful. It would be better to distinguish between the social context of the Aegean and how Paul addressed issues that arose in that context theologically.d. millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-45946207935053718092007-12-05T21:39:00.000-06:002007-12-05T21:39:00.000-06:00Thanks for this, David. You state:"Like Pahl, Wrig...Thanks for this, David. You state:<BR/>"Like Pahl, Wright makes a big deal of Paul's use of political language also used in imperial propaganda such as Lord, Savior and Gospel. I wonder whether this presses the language too far. After all, we use political language all the time without intending thereby to subvert the state."<BR/><BR/>That would be an appropriately cautious conclusion - if there were no other factors to consider. However, in <A HREF="http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2007/11/barclay-wright-and-pauls-anti.html" REL="nofollow">my blog post</A> I note two or three other factors that also must be considered: 1) Paul uses these specific words to people living in a location surrounded by imperial propaganda and some anti-imperial sentiment; 2) he was specifically remembered as speaking in that region in such a way that he could be charged with treasonous anti-imperialism; 3) in at least one instance Paul uses one of these imperial phrases explicitly as a quotation of what other people in the Thessalonian context are saying ("peace and security"), i.e. it is not simply Paul using the language analogously about Christ but as a quotation of those who are in fact opponents of the Thessalonian Christians facing judgment in the Day of the Lord. Thus it is not simply the use of those words and phrases that makes me see some sort of "anti-imperialism" in 1 Thessalonians - it is those words used in these ways in that context. This is not simply like using the language of "King Jesus" as a helpful metaphor for people living under a monarchy; it is more like using that language for those people in a region with a history of anti-monarchist tendencies, saturated with pro-monarchist propaganda, and then describing those who employ that propaganda as liable to divine destruction at the eschaton.<BR/><BR/>Still, having re-emphasized my points, I should also re-emphasize my conclusion - I do not think that Paul was therefore necessarily anti-Caesar or anti-Empire <I>per se</I>, but rather viewed those as the specific instances of "the powers of the world" in the Thessalonian context, and it's the "powers of the world" (among other forces) that face judgment and defeat in the wake of the crucified and risen Jesus.Michael Pahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06225370303628344885noreply@blogger.com