Josh: A few questions prompted by your post.

1) On dating James before Galatians. Yes, there is a case for an early dating of James, but it is not a case that has persuaded the vast majority of NT scholars of whatever kind. Commonly, James is dated 70-ish, while Thessalonians/Galatians are very early 50’s. I’m just curious why you felt the early date of James is such a settled matter that it can be a major premise in your response? (I know the case btw. I also know it is a minority report.)

2) Also, keep in mind that Wright is essentially a Barthian on inspiration and as such reads the Bible through the lens of higher criticism. While he certainly comes up with many useful insights, he is prone to dismissing large portions of biblical data and over-humanizing the text…

Wright, by contrast, since he sets the development of Christian doctrine in historical-critical parameters…

All this may be quite true, but you are arguing from a particular set of suppositions there. For example, “higher criticism” is generally a perjorative some conservatives use when they don’t like what some scholarship comes up with. Reading the Bible through the lens of scholarship is not unusual or wrong. Academic bookstores have shelves of people reading the Bible through the lenses of various kinds of scholarship. Such lenses need examination, but they are there with all of us.

Overly “humanizing the text” also confuses me a bit. On one level, the text is 100% human. Inspiration doesn’t DE-humanize the text does it?

Same with saying he sees doctrine developing in historical sequence. Don’t we recognize that with say, the Trinity? Yes, we believe scripture teaches the Trinity, but the development of the doctrine happened along historical lines, doesn’t it?

I can see objections of Wright’s conclusions, historical methodology, exegesis. But saying he uses “higher criticism” sounds like the fundamentalist church I grew up in, where they warned me not to listen to anything those professors had to say. Differing with an academician is one thing. Seeing academic methodology as suspect seems another matter. I disagree with Wright’s strong advocacy of realized eschatology (though he has changed his views as well I think) but I can’t fault the fact that he uses the same tools others use that come to different conclusions.

3) I sense in your post this idea that we presuppose the Reformers were right and shouldn’t be called wrong. Isn’t this an anti-reformation principle? Maybe Wright reads Luther, etc totally wrongly, but it seems to me obvious that Luther COULD be wrong, and to say Luther is wrong isn’t a betrayal of anything vital. Now if what we disagree on amounts to the plain teaching of scripture, then the quarrel is with scripture. But I think we have to be able to say, as Wright and many others do on many subjects, “The Reformers were wrong or inadequate, etc.” For instance, I find the Refomers totally inadequate on the subject of missions.