• Westminster Bookstore

    Amazon Wish List
  • BibleWorks
  • Advertisements

Trying to Keep My HANDS to Myself

My book review yesterday seems to have started a small debate over at Exploring Our Matrix. From what I can tell, it’s over the need to engage second temple period materials in writing a book such as Putting Jesus in His Place. I’ll be the first to say that I am uneducated in that regard (but I’m working on it). In any case, feel free to head over and dialogue with the people there.

The only thing I want to add to the conversation over there is this. I did not say that Jesus’ name means that he is equal to Jehovah. What I said was that “Bowman and Komoszewski then explain that the implication in the context of the passage is that Jesus is Jehovah” (emphasis added). I probably should have elaborated on that a little bit. I was not trying to misrepresent Bowman and Komoszewski with that point. I just want to make that clear.

Anyway, feel free to talk here or there on the matter (I’d suggest there since the conversation has already begun) and add your two cents.



4 Responses

  1. I won’t waste my time over there but I’ll just say that detractors always point to this or that figure in Jewish literature as performing this or that function of God, or bearing this or that name of God, or occupying this or that position of God, etc. What they fail to do is account for how ALL of these lines of evidence apply uniquely to Jesus. It’s not just one or two things; it’s ALL of them! Hurtado points this out in One God, One Lord and Bowman & Komoszewski state from the beginning of PJIHP that theirs is a cumulative case.

    To fault this book for not being the book that others would have written or that others wished was written is ridiculous. The authors state clearly in their introduction: “In this book, then, we will be examining what the New Testament writings say about Jesus’ identity as God. . . .Our aim is to provide a comprehensive case from the New Testament for the deity of Jesus Christ.” (p. 21) It’s an investigation of what the NT says about Jesus! Imagine me criticizing the book I’m about to review on The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews for not interacting with the use of allegedly parallel Mesopotamian law codes in the Old Testament.

    And McGrath’s nonsensical scholarship vs. apologetics dichotomy is thoroughly annoying. Everyone has a position to defend; everyone! McGrath defended his understanding of what was going on in his book yet for some reason his is allegedly a work of scholarship and theirs is not? Well, I’ve read both his book on the subject and theirs, and they boast the better bibliography. They also interact with way more positions that are contrary to their own. Of course James hasn’t read the book and is judging it based on your review, but then that’s just a reason to stay silent about it, isn’t it?

    • Wow. That was a mouthful. I agree that PJIHP forms a cumulative argument that must be taken altogether. Past that, I think I’ll stick with your advice for James in the last sentence and stay silent.

  2. Boy, Matt, you know how to cause a stink! 😉

    • Oh, I could do much more, but I learned a long time ago to keep quiet when I don’t know as much as the other debaters. Speaking past my intelligence only gets me into trouble.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: