NT Wright is kind of a hater on Plato and Platonism in Christianity, saying it takes us away from the true context of the NT and therefore leads to misinterpretation. Is there a way to reconcile this view with the one presented in the book you have reviewed?
Great question, James. I have listened to Dr Markos on podcasts and he is very interesting, but I also agree with NT Wright that platonic thought can be harmful if it becomes a primary lens for the text. I do believe it is important to understand the nuance and influence of platonic thought, especially for the NT. I think this substack review is a good caution to me to take Markos with a grain of salt, I do have his book and hope to read it this fall. Would love to hear an answer to your question, can Markos book be reconciled with NT Wright?
As John Piper has repeatedly said (notwithstanding the juvenile tone), when it comes to many things, NT Wright is NT wrong. And while I agree that many Christians have perhaps distorted doctrine because of an overzealous Platonic worldview, the fact is, the marriage of Hellenism and Christianity has produced a far more rich, harmonious, and coherent faith than anything NT Wright has conjured to date. And I would add, after 2000 years, it is not the job of Christian orthodoxy to reconcile with NT Wright.
Any time I can disagree with someone and also disagree with Piper, odds are I will take that debate. I think the hellenism conflation with true OT hebraic and Pauline/early church thought is the primary issue. We misread Paul when we read him outside of hebraic / judaic thought. Hellenism was certainly coming in, but it was not yet dominant. I would side with NT Wright while acknowledging that he still got a lot wrong. Excited for current scholars like Logan Williams, Carmen Imes, Paul Sloan, Andrew Rillera, Madison Pierece, etc to continue making headways.
Idealism as presented by Plato gives birth to the other idealist including Christian fundamentalism. Without doubt, idealism has impacted the worldview of the western world. The impact has been so significant as to effect language, worldviews, and the translators of English versions of the Bible through redefining Hebrew words and ideas with Platonic definitions. H. Wheeler Robinson's New Testament commentary on Romans rejects the Greek philosophy for a biblical Hebrew one. Significant to the issue is the composition of man as body, soul, and spirit that is immortal as compared to a biblical one of man as a body with the divine breath or life spirit that whose existence is mortal. Man depends on the divine creative act of resurrection into a spiritual body. Seventy souls in Jacob's family went to Egypt. Plato would have had them leaving their bodies behind.
NT Wright is kind of a hater on Plato and Platonism in Christianity, saying it takes us away from the true context of the NT and therefore leads to misinterpretation. Is there a way to reconcile this view with the one presented in the book you have reviewed?
Great question, James. I have listened to Dr Markos on podcasts and he is very interesting, but I also agree with NT Wright that platonic thought can be harmful if it becomes a primary lens for the text. I do believe it is important to understand the nuance and influence of platonic thought, especially for the NT. I think this substack review is a good caution to me to take Markos with a grain of salt, I do have his book and hope to read it this fall. Would love to hear an answer to your question, can Markos book be reconciled with NT Wright?
As John Piper has repeatedly said (notwithstanding the juvenile tone), when it comes to many things, NT Wright is NT wrong. And while I agree that many Christians have perhaps distorted doctrine because of an overzealous Platonic worldview, the fact is, the marriage of Hellenism and Christianity has produced a far more rich, harmonious, and coherent faith than anything NT Wright has conjured to date. And I would add, after 2000 years, it is not the job of Christian orthodoxy to reconcile with NT Wright.
Any time I can disagree with someone and also disagree with Piper, odds are I will take that debate. I think the hellenism conflation with true OT hebraic and Pauline/early church thought is the primary issue. We misread Paul when we read him outside of hebraic / judaic thought. Hellenism was certainly coming in, but it was not yet dominant. I would side with NT Wright while acknowledging that he still got a lot wrong. Excited for current scholars like Logan Williams, Carmen Imes, Paul Sloan, Andrew Rillera, Madison Pierece, etc to continue making headways.
Idealism as presented by Plato gives birth to the other idealist including Christian fundamentalism. Without doubt, idealism has impacted the worldview of the western world. The impact has been so significant as to effect language, worldviews, and the translators of English versions of the Bible through redefining Hebrew words and ideas with Platonic definitions. H. Wheeler Robinson's New Testament commentary on Romans rejects the Greek philosophy for a biblical Hebrew one. Significant to the issue is the composition of man as body, soul, and spirit that is immortal as compared to a biblical one of man as a body with the divine breath or life spirit that whose existence is mortal. Man depends on the divine creative act of resurrection into a spiritual body. Seventy souls in Jacob's family went to Egypt. Plato would have had them leaving their bodies behind.