Talk:William Barclay (theologian)

[Quote]
There are two great days in a person's life: the day we were born and the day we discover why. William Barclay

bogus web link
The "Official site of the William Barclay Trust" link takes readers to the Billy Graham website. No offense to BG, but this is an inappropriate link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.112.142 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am deleting this link now. Please do not put it back without discussing it here, first.  Thank you. Hazratio (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Only commentaries?
The article contains the statement "They are the only commentaries on the entire New Testament that have been written by one person." This is too general and is either not true or no longer true. There are other Bible commentaries (on NT or OT or the whole Bible) written by individuals, eg Warren W. Wiersbe, John F. MacArthur (just to name two I am aware of). And this is only counting the English language. Therefore I have deleted this statement from the main article.

VicHp (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Theologian?
Barclay was not a theologian, but a biblical scholar. This would be a better label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.80.6 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the above anonymous contribution may be correct, although most would see the distinction between biblical scholar and theologian to be a technical one. Does anyone know exactly what degrees he completed as Glasgow? And exactly what he studied whilst at Marburg University? Research17 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Scepticism about purported scepticism
I am a little cautious about the assertion that Barclay is sceptical about the Trinity, on the basis that he purportedly wrote that nowhere does the NT identity Jesus with God. It all depends on what is meant by "Nowhere does the NT identify Jesus with God". On the surface that is an accurate statement, in that I don't think there is anywhere that the NT uses the words "Jesus is God". There are, of course, the numerous "I am" statements, which to Jewish ears would mean that the person saying this claiming divine status. That's why in the Gospels, one reads about such an extreme reaction to the "I am" statements. Similarly one can point to the logos Christology in the Fourth Gospel or to Paul's statement in Col. 2:9 about the Godhead dwelling fully in Jesus. I think that it is conventional theology that the divinity of Jesus is implicit in the NT, and that the formal articulation of this comes later in various the statements of church councils. Bottom line is that I am not sure if it is fair to say that Barclay was sceptical about the doctrine of the Trinity, based on his assertion that nowhere does the NT identify Jesus with God. Any thoughts from other editors on this? Research17 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just made some changes to the Section entitled 'Religious Views', although I am still a little uneasy about this. I haven't read a huge amount of Barclay, and am really only familiar with a few of his commentaries, plus the book Ethics in a Permissive Society, based I recall on a radio broadcast. Barclay, however, is demonstrably a prolific religious author, and thus obviously he held views on a range of religious and theological topics. If we stand back from this Section, what we do see (I think) is an attempt to identify those of his views which conservatives might find questionable. As such, I think the treatment is quite selective. A more neutral approach might be to include a more complete summary of his views, and not just those views which conservatives might find problematic. For instance, even from the quotation, and if I cast my mind back this is also reflected in his writings generally, God's love is an important religious theme for Barclay. Why not include this the importance of the God's love as one of his religious views? I am sure there are also other religious views which conservative not find problematic which he did hold. In other words, as part of a neutral approach, the Section should not merely concentrate upon those religious views with which conservatives might take issue. Research17 (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * (I will avoid commenting about the evidence in the Bible per WP:NOTFORUM.) I don't have access to the cited source other than the searchable bits here.  Searching for part of the quote there or for Trinity, trinitarian, trinitarism, etc, does not match material to verify the claim.  I've found a few other biographies and could also not find material about nontrinitarian views.  I support your edit.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotation from James D. Douglas
As a matter of transparency, I've included "conservative" to describe James D. Douglas. Douglas was for a time editor of Christianity Today, linked with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Many of the publications of Douglas were through the conservative (some would say fundamentalist) Inter-varsity Fellowship. I'm still, however, a little uneasy about why this quotation is included at all. Reasons? a) Douglas is a journalist, and thus not really qualified to make scholarly evaluations about Barclay, and b) he is working from a particular conservative point of view, and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Anyways, will be interested to read thoughts of other Editors. Research17 (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's fine to include as attribution. The label "journalist" is probably fine, but not "conservative".  There's nothing to support the conservative label without citing such from a secondary source.  It's merely a matter of opinion otherwise.
 * he is working from a particular conservative point of view, and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Don't misunderstand the neutral point of view. The NPOV policy applies to editorial bias, not bias of sources.  Nearly every source has some level of bias, and there is no requirement that biased sources be avoided.  (Likewise, a "biased source" should not be equated with "not reliable" - there are reliable sources that are certainly biased, and these are mutually exclusive terms.)  See WP:BIASED for the guideline on this.   Butler Blog   (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the previous Editor makes a good point when he/she states state that "(n)early every source has some level of bias". Agree entirely. Or to put it more bluntly, we all have an axe to grind! In this case, I think, as a matter of transparency, which is important for Wikipedia, we should indicate that Douglas is coming from a conservative theological viewpoint. I think the previous Editor also makes a good point when he/she says we cannot describe someone as conservative without citing from sources to support this. As it happens, I believe there are a range of excellent sources to support this, such as an obit by David Wright published in Christianity Today in 2003 and a reference to Douglas by Billy Graham in his 1997 autobiography Just as I am. I am happy to include these sources, if others are agreeable to this. BTW, I still do have concerns about the Section itself, in that it does take snippets out of context, and it can be argued to be a form of polemic against Barclay, someone who is widely respected by all theological persuasions. However, that said, I think in this instance, there is a strong case, that, at the very least and as a matter of transparency, we should indicate that J.D.Douglas is coming from a conservative perspective, which is factually correct. Again, I would be interested to hear what other Editors think on this. Research17 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)