Anyone read William Barclay's works?

by eyeslice 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  eyeslice

  I wandered into a "Christian" book store the other day, I was out of town on business, not sure that I would do it in my own town, where I might get spotted and ratted on to the elders.

  I bought a copy of one of William Barclay's book, a study of John's gospel.

  As I read it, I keep thinking how good it is compared with the Watchtower! The Society bangs on about the abundance of spiritual food but I find the Watchtower and most other Society literature shallow and unchallenging. I can speed read a Watchtower in about 5 minutes and still keep abreast with "new light".

  This guy, Barclay, however really knew his stuff and was not afraid to go into detail. What is interesting is that he personally was a Universalist, believing that God's love is so great that all will eventually come to salvation. A little different from the current witness theology.

  Incidently, I also read C S Lewis's Mere Christianity a few years back when I was still an elder but it's the sort the sort of stuff you hide when you have Witness friends round, don't want to stumble anyne!

  Anybody else read any his works or other challenging Christian writings?
• 

  Rational Witness

  eyeslice,

  Actually, it was not uncommon to find Barclay's books among the desk-jockeys at Bethel back in the 60's and 70's. I don't recall discovering C. S. Lewis until after I left there, though. Both fine authors, and Lewis is one of my half dozen favorites. If you enjoy Barclay and Lewis, may I point you in the direction of G. B. Caird and Lesslie Newbigin? Caird was one of the 20th century's foremost Biblical linguists (he was one of the translators of the New English Bible). His The Language and Imagery of the Bible is a fascinating read. Like Lewis, Newbigin led me away from the turgid authoritarianism of The Watchtower to a more personal view of Christianity.

  Cheers,
  Rational
• 

  DocBob

  I bought a copy of one of William Barclay's book, a study of John's gospel.

  As I read it, I keep thinking how good it is compared with the Watchtower! The Society bangs on about the abundance of spiritual food but I find the Watchtower and most other Society literature shallow and unchallenging. I can speed read a Watchtower in about 5 minutes and still keep abreast with "new light".

  This guy, Barclay, however really knew his stuff and was not afraid to go into detail. What is interesting is that he personally was a Universalist, believing that God's love is so great that all will eventually come to salvation. A little different from the current witness theology.

  I read Barclay's "Many Witnesses, One Lord" and I think it was him that wrote "The Lord's Men" about the apostles. Both are great
• 

  Inkie

  Frankly, the Society has quoted many many authors in its publications. Barclay being one of the best. For years I figured if the Society can quote them to prove their point, then I can read them. That's where the beginning of the end for me occurred. Any time any elder or publisher looked at my bookshelves at home and questioned me on them being "Christendom's authors," I just told them plainly that the Society quoted from them and that if they can quote I can read them. That shut them up real quick.

  Inkie
• 

  Utopian_Raindrops

  You GO Inkie!!! I love how you told them! I had been thinking that for years myself!

  I thought how come they can read all these authers and we can't? I said something once to someone and they said that "The Slave" class could not be "Stumbled" but we could Some one explane that to Ray Franz

  I just wanted to that you all for giving me some authers to look up and I plan to go over more WT and Awakes for "Quotes" from other sources then them

  And I know everyone here knows where to find thier WTBTS "Quotes"

  http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/

  well...bye bye 4 now

  agape, Utopian_Raindrops

  Remember at http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/ you get just the facts ....no more...no less....from the mouth of the slave

  I just had to advertise...advertise....ADVERTISE!!
• 

  onacruse

  I find Barclay's comments interesting. Pastoral, but with a good undercurrent of research and technical finesse.

  RF made a comment in COC that makes me laugh every time I read it:

  "[Lloyd Barry] likewise spoke in unfavorable terms of those inclines to use commentaries by writers of Christendom. (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament were possessed by men in the Service Department and kept in open display; this remark prompted them to remove these and put them in drawers.)"

  That's in and of itself a dern good reason to read the commentaries, eh?

  Craig
• 

  whatiloveaboutwater

  Granted, Barclay's books are very readable, but I think that his skepticism towards the veracity of the Bible cannon negates much of the apparent value of his work. He believed in the source theory concerning the books of Moses and did not believe that 2 Peter was written by the apostle.

  To those of you who point out that his writing is of better quality than those of the faithful steward, I would say that I consider it more important that a writer believes unreservedly that the Bible is inspired of God than any ability he has in displaying good stylistic qualities.
• 

  onacruse

  whatiloveaboutwater, granting that every word in the currently "accepted" collection of 66 Biblical books is inspired, then what? If it is all inspired of God, does it make a difference how that collection was developed, ot what particular man was used to do the writing?

  Source theory only attempts to explore how the information contained in various Biblical documents was preserved, gathered and collated. For example, compare Gen 1:1-2:3 with Gen 2:4-25. It's clear that two versions of the creation account are being related. There is absolutely no evidence that Adam, Seth or Enoch wrote anything that was salvaged by Noah, passed on through Shem and eventually made its way to Moses's hands. If, then, Moses was inspired to recount what happened during the prior 2 1/2 millenia, he would apparently have had to rely primarily on oral tradition(s). Does it matter if those traditional sources were Yahwistic, Elohistic, or priestly?

  And as far as 2 Peter is concerned, it is historically clear that there was considerable debate for 2 centuries about both its authorship and canonicity. It wasn't even ascribed to Peter until Origen's time (185-253) and even Eusebius (265-340) placed it among the "questioned" books.

  Barclay did not invent these facts; they are a matter of record.

  The "faithful steward" would do well to do the same---just stick with the facts, and face the truth about their own lack of credibility.

  Craig

  Edited by - onacruse on 5 December 2002 9:38:59
• 

  link

  Can anyone remember an argument that occurred between the WTBTS and William Barclay over the NWT? If I remember rightly the Society mis-quoted Barclay, showing him as a supporter of the translation. meanwhile what he actually said was something like 'the translators were intellectually dishonest'.

  Can anyone else remember this?

  link