The end of The Quest; or what's Wrong with a bit of faith alone?
From Roland Boer:
I hereby announce the official beginning of the first search for the 'historical Wrong'. Who is NT Wrong? In light of an increasing number of conversations, speculation over drinks (I know of at least one in Oslo), and teasing comments, this search is well overdue.
Well, I'm going to go all Bultmann on the quest (Bultmann to Boer's Strauss). Such a quest can be damaging for faith because if we knew who Wrong really was it would be damaging for all the good work done. We don't *need* to know who Wrong is historically speaking. All we need is the text we have: is that not good enough? Why do we *need* to know?
Actually, I'd like Wrong's identity to remain a mystery by SBL because it could be entertaining for Wrong going around and blogging etc with the speculation rife. Assuming the bishop is attenting (are you Wrong?).
Getting almost serious, there is something pretty impressive about someone managing to get such a spectacular reaction from bloggers over the liberal-conservative stuff and to be the topic of so many conversations in a variety of countries, nay continents (I'm pretty sure I was involved in the Oslo one mentioned by Roland, not to mention several others). Great are the mysteries of faith.
To add further, if I had to speculate, I'd say Wrong is an ordinary human being. Remarkable, certainly, but not capable of supernatural things. And just for the record, it isn't me (besides Wrong blogs too regularly and knows infinitely more about the Hebrew Bbile than me). I've been asked numerous times and it is the greatest compliment I've received but, alas, no. Don't get me wrong, I *wish* I'd have thought of the idea...
But ultimately we should praise the Wrong of faith, not the Wrong of history. Wouldn't we want Wrong living forever in our hearts and on our blogs than a mere historical figure doomed to the historical dustbin?