Dear dr. Hart, Once again I have to say that I absolutely love these conversations on literature! Keep it coming! (And I would really like to discuss Roland in Moonlight with you one day!)
Would you consider making the conversations available on Spotify? I'm not sure how to go about that myself but I now that many shows and podcasts you've been on are on it so they might know
I'm saying this here not because it's on topic but because I don't know where else to say it: I'd love to hear you discuss Christian anarchism with Laurie M. Johnson and/or Eugene McCarraher.
As a Finn, it was interesting to hear what you had to say about the Kalevala and Finnish culture. A side note: although Lönnrot had a Swedish name, he was a Finnish speaker (unlike some other key figures of the era, like the poet J.L. Runeberg and the philosopher J.V. Snellman). Lönnrot only learned Swedish when he went to school.
What are you thoughts (if you're read it/ read of it) on Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?" From what I can tell it definitely leans conservative in its arguments, but at a glance it seems to be fairly well-regarded even on more academic circles.
Additionally, do you believe that John the son of Zebedee is the Beloved Disciple? I had assumed that this was a largely conservative position that few scholars held, but apparently Dale Allison believes it, and there are some arguments for it that at a glance I find compelling.
What do you make of sola fide and would you argue against it in any particular way? Also, do you think that apostolic succession and the associated sacramental authority? Is that legitimate and important?
This is wonderful. It's exhilarating to hear DBH rail against modernity by way of an apologia for the gnostic longing for spiritual fullness.
David, can I trouble you with a question? Do you see much value in John of Damascus's defense of the icon? He roots his arguments in the materiality of the Incarnation in a way that makes me wonder if you might see him running afoul of St. Paul's rejection of the flesh.
A delightful conversation I've nearly finished watching. My only disappointment, and it's minor, is with the thread left dangling by Peter's early mention of Guy Davenport; that's one digression I would love to see pursued. Perhaps in a later conversation, or written piece? I can dare to dream...
Very nice of you to put Falkor in the background, Dr. Hart:).
At this stage it is probably redundant to state that the conversation was excellent as this is an invariable trend here, but any great performance, no matter how often it happens, is worthy of applause.
The funny thing about the criticism of Romanticism (and Neo-Romanticism) is that it comes in so many variants, but, fortunately, too late in person’s life to have any lasting effect in most readers. Good luck eradicating those sensibilities from a child who has once tasted Walter Scott and Robert Louis Stevenson; Dumas and Hugo; Pushkin and Lermontov; Brothers Grimm, E. T. A. Hoffmann, and Wilhelm Hauff; Poe and Fenimore Cooper.
Dear dr. Hart, Once again I have to say that I absolutely love these conversations on literature! Keep it coming! (And I would really like to discuss Roland in Moonlight with you one day!)
Would you consider making the conversations available on Spotify? I'm not sure how to go about that myself but I now that many shows and podcasts you've been on are on it so they might know
Wonderful discussion as always.
I'm saying this here not because it's on topic but because I don't know where else to say it: I'd love to hear you discuss Christian anarchism with Laurie M. Johnson and/or Eugene McCarraher.
I love the idea of decorating in the hope that a dragon will take up benign residence in my home.
As a Finn, it was interesting to hear what you had to say about the Kalevala and Finnish culture. A side note: although Lönnrot had a Swedish name, he was a Finnish speaker (unlike some other key figures of the era, like the poet J.L. Runeberg and the philosopher J.V. Snellman). Lönnrot only learned Swedish when he went to school.
Dr. Hart,
What are you thoughts (if you're read it/ read of it) on Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?" From what I can tell it definitely leans conservative in its arguments, but at a glance it seems to be fairly well-regarded even on more academic circles.
Additionally, do you believe that John the son of Zebedee is the Beloved Disciple? I had assumed that this was a largely conservative position that few scholars held, but apparently Dale Allison believes it, and there are some arguments for it that at a glance I find compelling.
What do you make of sola fide and would you argue against it in any particular way? Also, do you think that apostolic succession and the associated sacramental authority? Is that legitimate and important?
I'm curious which English translation of The Kalevala you or Mr. O'Leary prefers. Kirby? Bosley? Friberg?
This is wonderful. It's exhilarating to hear DBH rail against modernity by way of an apologia for the gnostic longing for spiritual fullness.
David, can I trouble you with a question? Do you see much value in John of Damascus's defense of the icon? He roots his arguments in the materiality of the Incarnation in a way that makes me wonder if you might see him running afoul of St. Paul's rejection of the flesh.
Hello David,
Great talk as always,
Could you give some reccommendations when it comes to books about Kashmiri Shaivism?
Hope Roland had a good time in Kyoto
The one easy thing about Finnish: the accent is always on the first syllable.
A delightful conversation I've nearly finished watching. My only disappointment, and it's minor, is with the thread left dangling by Peter's early mention of Guy Davenport; that's one digression I would love to see pursued. Perhaps in a later conversation, or written piece? I can dare to dream...
Very nice of you to put Falkor in the background, Dr. Hart:).
At this stage it is probably redundant to state that the conversation was excellent as this is an invariable trend here, but any great performance, no matter how often it happens, is worthy of applause.
The funny thing about the criticism of Romanticism (and Neo-Romanticism) is that it comes in so many variants, but, fortunately, too late in person’s life to have any lasting effect in most readers. Good luck eradicating those sensibilities from a child who has once tasted Walter Scott and Robert Louis Stevenson; Dumas and Hugo; Pushkin and Lermontov; Brothers Grimm, E. T. A. Hoffmann, and Wilhelm Hauff; Poe and Fenimore Cooper.