{"id":2525,"date":"2019-06-17T07:30:00","date_gmt":"2019-06-17T06:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/?p=2525"},"modified":"2019-06-24T15:56:02","modified_gmt":"2019-06-24T14:56:02","slug":"an-overview-of-anthony-thiselton-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/an-overview-of-anthony-thiselton-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"An Overview of Anthony Thiselton – Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Anthony<\/p>\n

Those of you who read between the lines of some of my blogs, tweets, and statii, will know that I am very interested in Imago Dei\/Theological Anthropology. This interest was, in part, spawned out of engaging with 1 Corinthians and also my longer-existing interest in Systematic Theology. Anthony Thiselton, a well known Anglican evangelical theologian, has published an impressive commentary on 1 Corinthians, as well as numerous important work on Hermeneutics, and elements\/hints of Systematic Theology. So, because of the importance he plays in some of my academic work, I thought it might be interesting to collate an overview of his work…<\/p>\n

This, the first part of my overview, is based on watching this YouTube video<\/a>, from St John’s College’s online ‘Timeline project’, which is part of a larger two-part interview with Anthony Thiselton, which is behind the ‘Timeline’ paywall…<\/p>\n

Thiselton was initially interested in ‘The New Hermeneutics’, coming out of the work of especially Ernst Fuchs and Gerhard Ebeling. He observes that there is here many good things about how to apply the text, especially the notion of \u2018the language event\u2019. There was also a negative side; when they spoke\/wrote of philosophy of language, they didn\u2019t mean this, they meant \u2018Heidegger\u2019s philosophy of language, which was a limited and narrow scope! Hence the observation that Pannenberg notes how absurd that such a narrow basis of language swept the whole continent, resulting in a gulf between Germany+France\/UK+USA. This intial interest in the New Hermeneutic was alongside an interest in Wittgenstein. This prompted Thiselton to consider the need for an awareness of a detailed rather than general look at hermeneutics. After observing that all books at time on Hermeneutics written by radicals, such as Dennis Nineham \u2018The Use and Abuse of the Bible\u2019 (about which John Stott allegedly commented was mostly abuse!(, Thiselton was surprised that no more moderate or conservative scholars had a go. So he had a go! As well as coinciding with his interest in Gadamer in the late 60\u2019s, Thiselton authored his first major work, ‘Two Horizons<\/b>‘. This is a major work, additionally engaging with Schliermacher\/Bultmann as well as his primary interests in the work of Gadamer and Wittgenstein.<\/p>\n

An important element of Thiselton’s theological approach is his commitment to engagement with the Church. He gave a paper at an evangelical Anglican gathering at the University of Nottingham to mixed reception! Some found his comments really interesting, some were a bit wary, but senior evangelical Anglicans were impressed. John Stott asked people to affirm it! David Watson made jokes, but Stott (and Packer) thought it fundamental regarding the authority of the bible (how to use it) and so a vote was taken. The result was interesting: 75% applauded and affirmed it, whilst 25% led by David Watson thought it was a silly fashion that would waste their time. To understand Thiselton’s impact, it is worth being aware of his key book\u00a0The Two Horizons<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\"pastedGraphic.png\"<\/p>\n

‘The Two Horizons – New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description<\/b>‘\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n