Ari's Blog

As someone who is convinced of the Jewishness of the Jesus movement - as well as the New Testament - I have come to understand the role late Second Temple thought plays in understanding the texts. Historical context is the key to understanding what actually happened in history - and as is important with the Pauline corpus - what was actually meant. That is why I get really saddened to see comments like this:

I sympathize with Bishop Tom as he struggles to contradict Historic Evangelical theology as refined by the Protestant Church since Reformation. He simply is too caught up in his contextualization bias that slants his take on reading Paul. If only he could read Paul (and Jesus and John and Peter and Hebrews and Gospels and Luke's Acts and Old Testament) on a STAND ALONE basis without the baggage of 2nd Temple Judaism lenses colouring everything Bishop Tom reads.
(A review on Amazon of N.T. Wright's book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's vision)

Understanding the context from which the text was produced is unecessary baggage?
But parroting 16th century reformers often incorrect understanding of the context of Paul is not?

Seriously?