It is a bit ironic that increased attention is being paid to the biblical theme of covenant just at a time
when biblical scholarship is moving on to other constructs for interpretation.
Not exact matches
The Church's Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus by Brevard S. Childs Eerdmans, 288 pages, $ 28 paper
When the history of
biblical scholarship for the twentieth century is written, a prominent spot will be given to Brevard Childs.
Point being, here's the far left fringe of
biblical scholarship — and you regard him as winking at your position (
when he's giving a scathing treatment of it).
That's exactly what I tried to do about two years ago
when, despite some serious trepidation, I decided to learn all I could about the science behind evolutionary theory and the
biblical scholarship surrounding interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.
For example,
when Berger points out that the puzzles of historical
scholarship often lead
Biblical theologians to crises of faith he expresses it this way: «I have sometimes asked myself how a gynecologist could manage to have sexual intercourse; by the same token, one could ask how a New Testament scholar could be a Christian.»
When a man with no
biblical training whatsoever is considered more qualified to teach than a woman with a PhD in theology or a woman whose work in New Testament
scholarship is renowned the world over, we are not seeing complementariaism at work, but patriarchy.
The time has passed
when we could live in the illusion that
biblical scholarship is scientific and hence non-theological.
Perhaps the author is better
when it comes to
biblical scholarship and you should stick to your own area that you're better at, which is something else.