Comments on: A key point at which N.T. Wright is just plain wrong http://www.lionelwindsor.net/2009/06/15/a-key-point-at-which-n-t-wright-is-just-plain-wrong/ lionelwindsor.net Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:54:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Lionel http://www.lionelwindsor.net/2009/06/15/a-key-point-at-which-n-t-wright-is-just-plain-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-247 Lionel Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:12:59 +0000 http://www.lionelwindsor.net/?p=396#comment-247 Hi David, good to hear from you. It's nice that you're willing to give Wright the benefit of the doubt, and your comment is exactly the way I might have defended Wright until I read this book. But in the context of this quote (in fact, from page 65 onwards), Wright is explicitly and unequivocally making sure his readers realise that he is referring to <em>all</em> of the cognates of "righteousness" - noun, verb, adjective, etc., when he makes this comment. And you'll notice that that is borne out by the quote itself, where he uses the noun, not the verb. Hi David, good to hear from you. It’s nice that you’re willing to give Wright the benefit of the doubt, and your comment is exactly the way I might have defended Wright until I read this book. But in the context of this quote (in fact, from page 65 onwards), Wright is explicitly and unequivocally making sure his readers realise that he is referring to all of the cognates of “righteousness” – noun, verb, adjective, etc., when he makes this comment. And you’ll notice that that is borne out by the quote itself, where he uses the noun, not the verb.

]]> By: David Reimer http://www.lionelwindsor.net/2009/06/15/a-key-point-at-which-n-t-wright-is-just-plain-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-246 David Reimer Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:44:43 +0000 http://www.lionelwindsor.net/?p=396#comment-246 Hi there, Lionel! Just stopping by for another purpose, but noticed this post and read it. You're making an interesting point, but I think Wright would have a "come back" on those passages: the "moral" quality that you're pointing to isn't borne by the verb here, but by the noun. That is, the declaration of innocence (verb, הִצדִּיק) is one thing, the subject (צַּדִּיק) is another. <i>Strictly</i> speaking, I <i>think</i> Wright's point can stand. IIRC, the צּדק article <i>NIDOTTE</i> also touched on this but my memory on that is a bit hazy now. FWIW! Shalom! :) Hi there, Lionel! Just stopping by for another purpose, but noticed this post and read it.

You’re making an interesting point, but I think Wright would have a “come back” on those passages: the “moral” quality that you’re pointing to isn’t borne by the verb here, but by the noun. That is, the declaration of innocence (verb, הִצדִּיק) is one thing, the subject (צַּדִּיק) is another. Strictly speaking, I think Wright’s point can stand.

IIRC, the צּדק article NIDOTTE also touched on this but my memory on that is a bit hazy now.

FWIW! Shalom! :)

]]>