Just been reading the opening chapter of McKnight’s Jesus and his Death
I seek to follow a method known as critical realism which seeks to avoid the pitfalls of a modernist approach whilst not allowing a full postmodern position such as that espoused by Keith Jenkins.
McKnight offers this summary of the two positions.
“If the postmodernist, someone like Jenkins, wants to usurp the Object with the Subject by contending that history is narrative, history is rhetoric, and history is ideology, the modernist wants to blanket the Subject and find the Object, pure and simple and untouched, and build on the disinterested knowledge for a better world. Let this be said before we go further: what the modernist wants to do cannot be achieved in its pure form’ page 19
I’ve read a few works from McKnight, but have not seen that one so thanks for pointing it out. I’ll be interested to hear what you think of it as you go on.
I think he is on target in that we can not build a truly objective disinterested basis of truth, but at the same time this does not mean truth is reduced to our veiwpoint alone. Wright in NTPG seems to explaine well how one can move closer and closer to the meaning of a text for example by continual study and self critique in what I think he refers to as critical realism.
By: m slater on September 2, 2008
at 1:24 pm
Thanks for the comment.
I have skim read most of McKnights book. I think its good although he does seem to follow a criteria approach which, in my opinion, isn’t the best way to go. He is a good writer and also has a good blog http://www.jesuscreed.org/
I am doing some work on critical realism at the moment. The strengths of Wright’s approach is hypothesis-verification, worldview, holism as opposed to atomistic historiography.
By: jonswales on September 2, 2008
at 6:06 pm
http://www.blogged.com/topic/servant
By: Joel on September 3, 2008
at 10:47 am
thanks, joel
By: jonswales on September 3, 2008
at 10:51 am