James Barr (1) (1924–2006)

One of the odder offshoots of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (at least notionally; it's unclear whether there was any direct influence) was the thesis that Biblical Hebrew represented, grammatically, a different way of thinking (and was, accordingly, intrinsically superior at mediating divine revelation).

Barr demolishes the supposed linguistic bases of this claim handily. After Barr, arguments regarding, for example, the relative superiority or inferiority of argument in a philosophical mode - show more one of the drivers behind the original claims - has to rest on other grounds than claims of "Semitic thought-forms".

Barr's work is of continuing use as a reminder of the risks in dabbling in technical areas when one has more enthusiasm than expertise, when a genuine expert may be waiting in the wings. show less

Great book on the abuses and proper way to use the original languages. It warns against the errors that Scholars and preachers still commit to this day

At the centre of this book is Barr's broadside against Barth's rejection of natural theology. Positively, Barr argues cogently that the Bible itself contains natural theology and therefore any dogmatic rejection of natural theology is a rejection to some extent of Biblical authority.

Barr also rejects the 'fashion' at the time of drawing a strong contrast beween Hebrew and Greek thought. In this he has won the day in serious scholarship, but the idea is still prevelant in sermons and talks show more by those who had their theological education over 20 years ago and have not read much since.

A very imprtant book, and well written too! My only minor gripe is that Barr could have perhaps given some space to theologies that take both natural theology and biblical authority seriously. show less

Too conservative for my tastes but interesting to see a centrist critique of fundamentalists. His arguments are clear and built on deep scholarship and demands the same if to be questioned from the "left"