Comments on: Near Perfect Agreement: Tom Yoder Neufeld http://patmccullough.com/2009/04/17/yoder-neufeld/ a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:53:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: My Five Burning Scrolls (the five books meme thingy) « kata ta biblia http://patmccullough.com/2009/04/17/yoder-neufeld/comment-page-1/#comment-793 My Five Burning Scrolls (the five books meme thingy) « kata ta biblia Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:56:49 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/?p=781#comment-793 [...] Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition by Stuart Murray. In line with my interest with the history of interpretation, Murray’s book offers a glance into the way 16th century Anabaptists read the Bible. With its chapter on “congregational hermeneutics,” I am encouraged to struggle with the “elitism” of biblical scholarship in a congregational context (on congregational hermeneutics, check out Chris Spinks’ dissertation). With Murray’s account of the “hermeneutic of obedience,” I am reminded of the importance of the biblical texts intended to transform the daily lives of obedient followers. In other words, I suppose this book contributes to my desire to “stay grounded” as a biblical scholar. For more on this topic, see an early post of mine: The Baptism Hermeneutic. See a survey of the book here. All of this said, I seek to have balanced and solid scholarship grounded in the historical facts before considering an “Anabaptist perspective” on a particular text–though I may begin that scholarship with a kind of “Anabaptist question,” I suppose. Thomas Yoder Neufeld is my idea of a solid Anabaptist scholar of the Bible. [...] [...] Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition by Stuart Murray. In line with my interest with the history of interpretation, Murray’s book offers a glance into the way 16th century Anabaptists read the Bible. With its chapter on “congregational hermeneutics,” I am encouraged to struggle with the “elitism” of biblical scholarship in a congregational context (on congregational hermeneutics, check out Chris Spinks’ dissertation). With Murray’s account of the “hermeneutic of obedience,” I am reminded of the importance of the biblical texts intended to transform the daily lives of obedient followers. In other words, I suppose this book contributes to my desire to “stay grounded” as a biblical scholar. For more on this topic, see an early post of mine: The Baptism Hermeneutic. See a survey of the book here. All of this said, I seek to have balanced and solid scholarship grounded in the historical facts before considering an “Anabaptist perspective” on a particular text–though I may begin that scholarship with a kind of “Anabaptist question,” I suppose. Thomas Yoder Neufeld is my idea of a solid Anabaptist scholar of the Bible. [...]

]]> By: slaveofone http://patmccullough.com/2009/04/17/yoder-neufeld/comment-page-1/#comment-792 slaveofone Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:41:27 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/?p=781#comment-792 Do you have to get to a place where you have a lot of *answers* before you can qualify for agreement with someone? What if your agreements are essentially negative--i.e., your disagreements are the same as another's? I'm not read enough to have formed many thought companions... But I'd have to say that in terms of philosophy, I'm a Francis Schaefferite. I consider his trilogy (The God Who Is There, He Is There And He Is Not Silent, Escape From Reason) to be among the most important things I have read in my life. When it comes to the NT (again, I have to say I am not very well read), I have found the greatest point of contact thus far with Tom Wright (particularly his Christian Origins and the Question of God series). In the field of HB which I am far more familiar with, I have unfortunately rarely read the same author more than once. But I've found John Barton's methodological and presuppositional investigations most stimulating, Phyllis Trible's feminist investigations incredibly illuminating, Thomas Overholt's cultural anthropology vital, Dennis Pardee's Ugaritic/Hebraic studies necessary, Umberto Cassuto's commentaries on Genesis and Exodus incredible, and Scott Noegel's ancient Near Eastern background to the HB essential. Do you have to get to a place where you have a lot of *answers* before you can qualify for agreement with someone? What if your agreements are essentially negative–i.e., your disagreements are the same as another’s?

I’m not read enough to have formed many thought companions… But I’d have to say that in terms of philosophy, I’m a Francis Schaefferite. I consider his trilogy (The God Who Is There, He Is There And He Is Not Silent, Escape From Reason) to be among the most important things I have read in my life.

When it comes to the NT (again, I have to say I am not very well read), I have found the greatest point of contact thus far with Tom Wright (particularly his Christian Origins and the Question of God series).

In the field of HB which I am far more familiar with, I have unfortunately rarely read the same author more than once. But I’ve found John Barton’s methodological and presuppositional investigations most stimulating, Phyllis Trible’s feminist investigations incredibly illuminating, Thomas Overholt’s cultural anthropology vital, Dennis Pardee’s Ugaritic/Hebraic studies necessary, Umberto Cassuto’s commentaries on Genesis and Exodus incredible, and Scott Noegel’s ancient Near Eastern background to the HB essential.

]]>