Reviews for Our Lady Of Guadalupe And Saint Juan Diego

The average rating for Our Lady Of Guadalupe And Saint Juan Diego based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-05-25 00:00:00 Patrick Lyon Reviewed for SLJ. A universally appealing book of prayers.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-05-28 00:00:00 Miguel Jones It's a strange experience to enjoy reading a book so much that you have so many problems with, but this was my experience here. I'd read McKnight before, and though I had agreed with almost everything he'd written in "The King Jesus Gospel," I found the writing style to be very unclear. Similarly, I found this book to be unclear in some of its finer details, but also found much more to disagree with. On the whole, McKnight seems to be adding his voice to the "New Perspective(s)" on Jesus, and with this, I'm all in. Jesus needs to be understood in his historical, Jewish context, and the Lutheran theological dominance that removed Jesus from, and pitted Jesus against this context has led to some incredibly erroneous ideas regarding the meaning of Jesus' words and actions. However, it is in the nuances of how to work through this that McKnight and I would disagree. Here is a just a sample of issues I found with the book: 1) I think McKnight's insistence on reading Jesus in his Jewish context is right, but he seems to have fallen into the classic problem of reactionary argumentation that leads one to swing the pendulum too far to the opposite direction of those you seek to correct. To read this book, one might think Lutheran theology was wrong about everything regarding Jesus. Yes, Jesus was Jewish, but McKnight writes as though everything Jesus said and did was somehow exactly, and only in line with Jewish expectation - as though almost nothing he did was new or unexpected. This seems to me an over-shift. 2) McKnight fits Jesus into OT shoes, which is great, but he does this at the expense of shifts in Judaism through the second temple period. It seems unlikely that Jesus bore so little relation to his more direct antecedents. One serious example surrounds ideas of "inheritance." McKnight makes reference to "the land," as though Jesus still cared about Israel in terms of its geographic space, despite the fact that Jesus never talks about it. When Jesus discusses inheritance, geography is important, but it is "the earth" that the people stand to inherit (consistent with shifts in second temple literature), not "the land" as it had been promised to Abraham. McKnight never defends his multiple descriptions of "the land" as a part of Jesus' kingdom proclamation. 3) McKnight has an entire section on "abba," but never differentiates between abba and "pater," and even conflates the two in his description of passages relating to God as "Father," but never defends or even recognizes that he has done this. Many linguists would take issue with this conflation. abba only appears one time in the whole of the four gospel accounts, but McKnight cites multiple passages in defense of his description of what this means. More nuance was necessary, even if McKnight believes that abba and pater should be conflated. 4) McKnight describes Matthew's use of "kingdom of heaven" as a simple circumlocution of the use of "God," for reasons of reverence for the name of God. At the time McKnight wrote this book, there had not yet been a strong challenge to this idea, but Pennington has since dispensed with it, in my opinion. If this were a circumlocution, why would Matthew still use the term "God" dozens of times? Pennington's work explains the theological motive for the change in terms. 5) McKnight rejects the idea that the kingdom of God was Christo-centric (pg 78). There have been ample studies showing that Jesus believed himself to be at the center of the kingdom, and he accepted worship (see Dale Allison, for example). I think McKnight is mistaken on this point. 6) As someone who does his scholarly work from within a faith tradition, I am surprised by (and disagree with) how far McKnight seems to remove the teaching of Jesus from the work of Paul. I understand the sentiment, in trying to keep Jesus in historical perspective, but there is ample evidence that the Jesus tradition affected Paul, and that Paul had an affect on at least one, and maybe two of the Gospel accounts (see Joel Marcus' argument that Paul affected Mark). To follow McKnight as far in as he goes would do too much violence to any sense of consistency between Jesus and Paul. 7) McKnight does nothing to explain where Gentiles fit in, and but for a couple of very brief mentions (e.g. pg. 105-106; 151) Gentiles do not feature in McKnight's argument anywhere. If he hadn't stated it briefly on these two occasions one might get the impression that Jesus' mission was only effective for Jews and the Gentiles have no part with him. 8) McKnight writes about Jesus being the hope of the Jewish nation, but never really establishes what their real problem was - the ways in which they had abandoned the covenant - nor does he situate this within the clear shifts within the OT regarding the sorts of things they were hoping for. I get that Jesus was Jewish - completely agree - but there was no monolithic idea of what that meant in Jesus' time, so what exactly was he rejecting about the people (what did they need to repent of), and what was he offering? It couldn't be the land, as McKnight makes reference to (pg 87 and others), as Jesus never clarifies that the kingdom includes "the land." 9) McKnight's treatment leaves very little room for application through the first 2/3 of the book. For example, he frames much of the ethics of Jesus in reference to Judaism and/or Rome only, and rejects the often used general application of much of Jesus' teaching (e.g. "turn the other cheek," which he says refers to non-resistance to Rome specifically, and is not a general instruction). The force of the argument leaves the distinct impression that almost none of Jesus' teaching can be applied by modern faith communities in any way. The impression of his arguments might leave ultra-dispensationalists with a gaping smile, but I found it far too extreme in rejecting any general import. These are some of the main issues. I actually enjoyed the book; I agree with its major tenet, that Jesus' actions and words need to be interpreted through Jewish lenses, but this does not remove their relevance for Gentiles of that time, or for churches today, and one might leave this book so beaten down by the "history-only" approach that we may still miss the more general ramifications of Jesus' teachings. It is helpful to the discerning reader (for example, this book helped me rethink Matthew 10 in some very helpful ways), but it might give too extreme of an impression to the general reader.