Joel Green points out that the TEXT of Luke actually displays the table practices of Jesus. In Luke 14, the scene is a meal in the home of a leading Pharisee, yet several people show up that we don’t expect to be at the home of a leading Pharisee: Jesus, and the man with dropsy (who would be . . . . Continue Reading »
In his splendid Beauty of the Infinite (about which more later), David Hart says something to the effect that “the church has no argument deeper or more basic than Jesus.” That is a remarkably concise way of undercutting a certain kind of theology, one that attempts to establish some . . . . Continue Reading »
Sermon outline, January 11: Table Talk, Luke 14:1-35 INTRODUCTION Meals were central to Jesus’ ministry. He comes “eating and drinking” (Luke 7:34). His meals are not just for refreshment, but are opportunities for teaching and one of Jesus’ key “methods” for . . . . Continue Reading »
In the midst of saying some very odd and wacky things, Jack Miles does have some insights to offer in his God: A Biography . Most especially, there’s his notion that the unity of the Bible (he’s dealing with the OT) lies in the fact that it has a single main character, God. God is the . . . . Continue Reading »
Further thoughts from Steiner, and also inspired by Steiner: 1) The dilemma of tragic drama in the modern world, he claims, was that the two main “ideologies” available (at the time of writing, 1961) are Marxism and Christianity, both of which are “anti-tragic.” 2) Steiner . . . . Continue Reading »
Ibsen, Steiner argues, did not write tragedies. Ibsen wrote “dramatic rhetoric” calling society to reform. For real tragedy, there is no such “solution” to be found, there is no remedy, except destructive sacrifice and perhaps a deus ex machina. From this angle, tragedy is . . . . Continue Reading »
Some more quotations from Steiner’s Death of Tragedy : “We cannot understand the romantic movement if we do not perceive at the heart of it the impulse toward drama . . . . The romantic mode is neither an ordering nor a criticism of life; it is a dramatization. And at the origins of the . . . . Continue Reading »
Some thoughts on NT Wright’s Rutherford House Lecture, August 2003. I have little disagreement with much of the lecture, and it clarified a number of things for me. Wright’s views on justification, however, continue to puzzle me at a number of points. Here’s an attempt to clarify . . . . Continue Reading »
Steiner notes that, following the Renaissance, European drama operated under the shadows of neo-classical and Elizabethan dramatic practice, the former “closed” and rigidly adhering to Aristotelian criteria, the other open and experimental. He discusses the theory of Thomas Rymer (a . . . . Continue Reading »
George Steiner in his Death of Tragedy describes the “Shakespearean difference” as mainly due to Shakespeare’s avoidance of fascination with Hellenic models: “The neo-classic view [which rigidified Aristotelian conceptions of tragedy] expresses a growing perception of the . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
