What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Origins and the Question of God #1
The New Testament and the People of God
Part of a five-volume project on the theological questions surrounding the origins of Christianity, this book offers a reappraisal of literary, historical and theological readings of the New Testament, arguing for a form of "critical realism" that facilitates different readings of the text.
Provides a historical, theological and literary study of first-century Judaism and Christianity, offering a preliminary discussion of the meaning of the word ‘god’ within those cultures.
Provides a historical, theological and literary study of first-century Judaism and Christianity, offering a preliminary discussion of the meaning of the word ‘god’ within those cultures.
535 pages, Paperback
First published December 15, 1991
560 people are currently reading
5136 people want to read
About the author
N.T. Wright
395 books2,744 followersN. T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England (2003-2010) and one of the world's leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. He has been featured on ABC News, Dateline NBC, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air, and he has taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. Wright is the award-winning author of Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, The Last Word, The Challenge of Jesus, The Meaning of Jesus (coauthored with Marcus Borg), as well as the much heralded series Christian Origins and the Question of God.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 197 reviews
March 15, 2012
As an atheist with an interest in the Bible and its history, I'm afraid to say that I've been put off reading N.T. Wright until now. While most of the best Biblical scholars I've read (Crossan, Borg, Dunn, Brown etc.) have all notionally retained their Christian faith to one degree or another in spite of their rigorous scholarship, I was well aware that Wright is often particularly forthright in his defence of certain Christian claims (the resurrection, virgin birth etc.) that other scholars have treated rather more circumspectly. While I'm scarcely afraid to challenge my beliefs by reading those who disagree with me, I was also a little hesitant to invest the time in reading the work of someone who would (presumably) prioritise the defence of their faith over and above more scholarly concerns. I'm interested in the history of Christianity, and wasn't prepared to submit myself to the work of someone with a different set of priorities. So, was I wrong?
As you can probably tell by my 5 star rating, I'm happy to report that I was, at least to the extent this particular book is concerned. While Wright is often strident in the defence of his beliefs (an unapologetic apologist, as it were) this never overtly interferes with the quality of his scholarship. I can't say I always agreed with him, but his reasoning was always genuinely honest and cogent, which is the most you can ask for in an argument you happen to disagree with.
I'll admit that it took me a while to shrug off my skepticism. In the early pages he asserts that a Christian may be best placed to assess the history of Christianity for the same reason a mathematician may be best placed to assess a mathematical proof, which stands as a bewildering argument but one I don't intend to dwell on here. Suffice to say, the quality of his argument improves as the text progresses, but the underlying message that there is more at stake for Wright here than a mere dispassionate analysis of the forces that led to the emergence of the Christian faith never strays far from the surface of the text.
The first section (probably the weakest, but still eminently thought-provoking) is where Wright lays out his methodology for the rest of this series. In contrast to other authors who have engaged in a similar project (e.g. Dunn in his "Christianity in the Making" series) Wright only perfunctorily addresses the methodology of others, and rather seeks to forge his own methodology seemingly free from prior influence. His message here - and it is indeed a compelling one - is that we should treat the Jewish and Christian texts as a continuous narrative, and that we should let these "stories" speak on their own terms rather than in allowing ourselves to get bogged down in reductive obsessions concerning historical "facts". That is not to say that the historico-critical perspective has no place in Wright's scholarship - as the rest of the book will show, it clearly does - merely that not all aspects of religious tradition can be broken-down into brute "facts" for further empirical analysis. The texts were never composed with such concerns in mind.
The second section concerns the progress of Jewish thought from the Torah up until the late second-Temple period of Jesus, and I can safely say that it is the best treatment of the subject I have ever read. Wright is able to draw in an incredible amount of detail and condense it into an essay that is extraordinarily lucid and readable given the often abstruse subject matter. Wright doesn't fall into the trap of simply scouring these inter-testamental Jewish writings for points of contact (or divergence) with the early Christian faith as so many others have done, but rather - again - is content to let these texts speak on their own terms. Despite the undeniable heterodoxy of the texts from this period, Wright is able to convincingly show that they are unified in their presentation of a continuous (theological) narrative from the time of the Patriarchs to what was for the authors the "present day". The book would be worth reading for this section alone, particularly for its treatment of the apocalyptic literature that had such an important influence on the first Christians.
The final section deals with early Christian literature (most specifically the literature of the NT), though the treatment is obviously rather provisional in anticipation of the subsequent books in the series. As per the title of this volume, this section focusses more on the "People of God" behind the texts, rather than the texts themselves. Here, again, the thrust of Wright's thesis is that the authors of the NT were characteristically Jewish, and they saw themselves as existing at the end (perhaps conclusion?) of a much longer Jewish narrative. Wright here is able to convincingly show that even the more supposedly "gentile" works of the NT (e.g. the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke) were informed by, and constructed upon, an appreciation of the Jewish conception of YHWH and his relationship to Israel. That is to say, it is impossible to understand the NT without a deeper understanding of earlier Jewish narrative theology.
If it is possible to identify a weakness in this volume, it may be its unwillingness to intersect with - or even address - the views of other scholars on matters of great controversy. Indeed, Wright - from the beginning - makes it clear that this work represents his own views on the origins of Christianity, and to that extent is not interested in surveying the attitudes of wider scholarship. For this reason, the text may sometimes assert a confidence in its own conclusions that - in my view at least - is not warranted given the plurality of dissenting views. However, in some ways this is also the book's strength: to again compare with Dunn's project, which is frequently side-tracked with involved and arcane discussions of existing scholarly controversies that can detract from this wider thesis, Wright's project is eminently readable and his train of thought always easy to follow. If only all scholars could write with such clarity!
So, to re-iterate, despite some early misgivings, I found this to be one of the best treatments of the background of the New Testament I've ever read. Whether you are a believer or a skeptic, I think you'll find plenty to chew on here.
As you can probably tell by my 5 star rating, I'm happy to report that I was, at least to the extent this particular book is concerned. While Wright is often strident in the defence of his beliefs (an unapologetic apologist, as it were) this never overtly interferes with the quality of his scholarship. I can't say I always agreed with him, but his reasoning was always genuinely honest and cogent, which is the most you can ask for in an argument you happen to disagree with.
I'll admit that it took me a while to shrug off my skepticism. In the early pages he asserts that a Christian may be best placed to assess the history of Christianity for the same reason a mathematician may be best placed to assess a mathematical proof, which stands as a bewildering argument but one I don't intend to dwell on here. Suffice to say, the quality of his argument improves as the text progresses, but the underlying message that there is more at stake for Wright here than a mere dispassionate analysis of the forces that led to the emergence of the Christian faith never strays far from the surface of the text.
The first section (probably the weakest, but still eminently thought-provoking) is where Wright lays out his methodology for the rest of this series. In contrast to other authors who have engaged in a similar project (e.g. Dunn in his "Christianity in the Making" series) Wright only perfunctorily addresses the methodology of others, and rather seeks to forge his own methodology seemingly free from prior influence. His message here - and it is indeed a compelling one - is that we should treat the Jewish and Christian texts as a continuous narrative, and that we should let these "stories" speak on their own terms rather than in allowing ourselves to get bogged down in reductive obsessions concerning historical "facts". That is not to say that the historico-critical perspective has no place in Wright's scholarship - as the rest of the book will show, it clearly does - merely that not all aspects of religious tradition can be broken-down into brute "facts" for further empirical analysis. The texts were never composed with such concerns in mind.
The second section concerns the progress of Jewish thought from the Torah up until the late second-Temple period of Jesus, and I can safely say that it is the best treatment of the subject I have ever read. Wright is able to draw in an incredible amount of detail and condense it into an essay that is extraordinarily lucid and readable given the often abstruse subject matter. Wright doesn't fall into the trap of simply scouring these inter-testamental Jewish writings for points of contact (or divergence) with the early Christian faith as so many others have done, but rather - again - is content to let these texts speak on their own terms. Despite the undeniable heterodoxy of the texts from this period, Wright is able to convincingly show that they are unified in their presentation of a continuous (theological) narrative from the time of the Patriarchs to what was for the authors the "present day". The book would be worth reading for this section alone, particularly for its treatment of the apocalyptic literature that had such an important influence on the first Christians.
The final section deals with early Christian literature (most specifically the literature of the NT), though the treatment is obviously rather provisional in anticipation of the subsequent books in the series. As per the title of this volume, this section focusses more on the "People of God" behind the texts, rather than the texts themselves. Here, again, the thrust of Wright's thesis is that the authors of the NT were characteristically Jewish, and they saw themselves as existing at the end (perhaps conclusion?) of a much longer Jewish narrative. Wright here is able to convincingly show that even the more supposedly "gentile" works of the NT (e.g. the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke) were informed by, and constructed upon, an appreciation of the Jewish conception of YHWH and his relationship to Israel. That is to say, it is impossible to understand the NT without a deeper understanding of earlier Jewish narrative theology.
If it is possible to identify a weakness in this volume, it may be its unwillingness to intersect with - or even address - the views of other scholars on matters of great controversy. Indeed, Wright - from the beginning - makes it clear that this work represents his own views on the origins of Christianity, and to that extent is not interested in surveying the attitudes of wider scholarship. For this reason, the text may sometimes assert a confidence in its own conclusions that - in my view at least - is not warranted given the plurality of dissenting views. However, in some ways this is also the book's strength: to again compare with Dunn's project, which is frequently side-tracked with involved and arcane discussions of existing scholarly controversies that can detract from this wider thesis, Wright's project is eminently readable and his train of thought always easy to follow. If only all scholars could write with such clarity!
So, to re-iterate, despite some early misgivings, I found this to be one of the best treatments of the background of the New Testament I've ever read. Whether you are a believer or a skeptic, I think you'll find plenty to chew on here.
April 4, 2017
N.T. Wright has been somewhat of a hero of mine for a while now. I must admit that I do not agree with him on all points and he tends to be a bit repetitive; however, I could say this of many authors.
Wright is one of my heros because he is cross-disciplinary. He is a historian, theologian, biblical exegete, pastor, and a good writer to boot. NTPG reflects this diversity of roles in the best way.
Wright is one of my heros because he is cross-disciplinary. He is a historian, theologian, biblical exegete, pastor, and a good writer to boot. NTPG reflects this diversity of roles in the best way.
November 26, 2015
A very clearly written, well-argued, but sometimes repetitive book. The first methodological section is embarrassing for anyone who has read literary criticism or philosophy of the last forty years--as ever, the other humanistic disciplines take a while to catch up (viz, classics). But Wright's approach is fair. You might even call it common-sensical, except that it's couched in such high-flown concepts: to understand what people meant by their texts, you should try to find out how they saw the world. Very good. Not sure why we need Greimas for that.
His criticisms of other theologians or hermeneuts are good (basically, they all have an agenda, and so does Wright, but his is usually less obtrusive than theirs). His questions are good (e.g., what exactly did these people mean by 'God', anyway?). His answers are interesting ("works" are signs of Jewish identity, not good deeds; the 'kingdom of God' was always an allegorical claim about the end of the present world order, never a factual claim about the end of the world itself; Christians believed, from the start, that Jesus was the Messiah).
I just hope the volumes on Jesus and Paul are less repetitive.
His criticisms of other theologians or hermeneuts are good (basically, they all have an agenda, and so does Wright, but his is usually less obtrusive than theirs). His questions are good (e.g., what exactly did these people mean by 'God', anyway?). His answers are interesting ("works" are signs of Jewish identity, not good deeds; the 'kingdom of God' was always an allegorical claim about the end of the present world order, never a factual claim about the end of the world itself; Christians believed, from the start, that Jesus was the Messiah).
I just hope the volumes on Jesus and Paul are less repetitive.
November 15, 2016
Late last year I decided that I was going to read through N.T. Wright’s Christian Origins and the Question of God series, as I have benefited so greatly from his other works and found them so helpful theologically and ecclesiologically.
But the reality that I have (surprisingly) run into, is that N.T. Wright is quite a controversial figure within evangelicalism, particularly within my circle of churches. In fact, I have now read this book twice; this, because, after my first reading, I realised that I needed to go back and more fully understand the nuances of his arguments (as I was unaware at how much disagreement I would find on Wright’s scholarship). I have received (or read) numerous negative comment on his ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and his teaching on the historical Jesus (from both evangelical and liberal pastors/church leaders); but I have also found that most of those who think negatively of him have never seriously engaged with the work of Wright himself. And, for me personally, this is quite a grievous reality. I fear that this is reactionary to (their perception of) his threat to the status quo of evangelical scripture reading.
In light of my study, I find Wright’s work to be extremely important for evangelical churches living within a post-christendom reality. Perhaps old (overly conservative) ways of reading scripture are no longer appropriate. And perhaps liberal critiques aren’t appropriate either. Both seem to read the scripture from within a worldview that needs fresh, first century critique; and I believe that Wright provides it in his scholarship.
The New Testament and the People of God is the first volume of the series, which is followed by Jesus and the Victory of God, The Resurrection of the Son of God, and, to this point, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In this volume, Wright attempts to give a coherent understanding of first century Judaism and Christianity through a study of their history, literature, and theology. Central to his methodology is his use (and further development) of Ben F. Meyer’s critical-realist hermeneutic.
He begins by arguing for a critical-realist epistemology that moves beyond both positivist and phenomenalist theories of knowledge to,
a way of describing the process of ‘knowing’ that acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence ‘realism’),while also fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence critical’). This path leads to critical reflection on the products of our enquiry into “reality” so that our assertions about “reality” acknowledge their own provisionality. Knowledge, in other words, although in principle concerning realities in dependant of the knower, is never itself independent of the knower.’
After explicating this epistemology, he then relates it to literature (particularly, though not exclusively, in the N.T.), history (particularly in the first century), and theology (in light of N.T. literature and history). In these sections, Wright provides a methodology and hermeneutic that he will use in all works that follow; they are foundational.
And, also central to his hermeneutic is his argument that texts (‘human writing’) are ‘the articulation of worldview’—or even, ‘the telling of stories which bring worldviews into articulation.’ In light of this hermeneutic, Wright says that ‘Part at least of the task of literary criticism is therefore, I suggest, to lay bare, and explicate, what the writer has achieved at this level of implied narrative, and ultimately implied worldview, and how.’ Therfore, when we read the New Testament, the deepest meaning will lie in the implied narrative—the story of Israel—and the worldview of the author—in Paul’s case, Judaism, Hellenistic culture, Roman impirial ideology, and, most importantly, his membership ‘in Christ’. All of these narratives, rushed together in the New Testament, then birth a new worldview; and ‘by reading it historically, I can detect that it was always intended as a subversive story, undermining a current worldview and attempting to replace it with another. By reading it with my own ears open, I realize that it may subvert my worldview too.’
Wright presents his methodology for explicating a worldview by looking at ones’ aims, intentions, beliefs, hope, stories, questions, symbols, and praxes. He then uses this methodology to work out a detailed assessment of second temple Judaism and first-century Christianity. His basic argument is that God had chosen Israel as his covenant people to undo the sin of Adam and to bring blessing to all the nations of the earth. If they obey the covenant, then they will be blessed; if they disobey, they will deal with the consequences (exile). The story is a continuous reminder of the frailty of Israel; it’s a story of continuous disobedience and pain. And, in the first-century, though Israel is in the promised Land, they are still in exile (under the rule of the Roman empire). Therefore, Israel (in all of its diversity) is waiting in expectation for God to renew his covenant; to bring judgment on the pagan empire, cleanse the land and Temple, and to vindicate his chosen people, through whom he would rule the nations.
This is the reality that Jesus is lived, died, and was resurrection. He, Wright argues, was a prophet who represented Israel as her Messiah. He was God’s chosen King who would renew God’s covenant with his people. Yet, he does so in a deeply subversive way than expected:
The exile came to its cataclysmic end when Jesus, Israel’s representative Messiah, died outside the walls of Jerusalem, bearing the curse, which consisted of exile at the hands of the pagans, to its utmost limit. The return from exile began when Jesus, again as the representative Messiah, emerged from the tomb three days later. As a result, the whole complex of Jewish expectations as to what would happen when the exile finished had come tumbling out in a rush. Israel’s god had poured out his own spirit on all flesh; his word was going out to the nations; he had called into being a new people composed of all races and classes, and both sexes, without distinction. These major features of Paul’s theology only make sense within a large-scale retelling of the essentially Jewish story, seen now from the point of view of one who believes that the climactic moment has already arrived, and that the time to implement that great achievement is already present. Paul fitted his own personal narrative world into this larger framework. His own vocation, to be the apostle to the Gentiles, makes sense within a narrative world according to which Israel’s hopes have already come true.
Clearly, there remained a fulfilment yet to come. Paul, like Luke, believed both that the End had come and that the End was yet to come. 1 Corinthians 15 is the fullest version we have of his retelling of the still-future part of the Jewish story. It is a redrawn apocalypse, which again only makes sense in terms of the story of Israel, the story we studied in chapter 8, now seen in a new light. The same could be said of the ‘apocalyptic’ passage in Romans (8:18–27). The narrative needs an ending, and Paul hints at it in these and other passages: the creation as a whole will be set free from its bondage to decay. The exodus of Israel was a model for the death and resurrection of Jesus, and both of these events point forward to a greater exodus to come, when the whole cosmos will be liberated from its Egypt, its present state of futility.
This book is so detailed and carefully argued that I couldn’t possible give an exhaustive review or summary of all of the details and nuances; but I can’t recommend this work enough. Let me give a few points on the most important points I am taking away after my second reading of the book (I definitely plan on reading it a few more times!):
N.T. authority is something that I’ve been exploring for a bit, and I have found his five-act hermeneutic very helpful. It will take many conversations, and much thinking and praying to work out what this might mean for the local church; but I believe this is a model that will work well hermeneutically and in light of the continuing, creative work of the Spirit in the life of the church.
Salvation theology needs a serious re-assessment in both liberalism and evangelicalism. We often think of it as the promise of eternal, disembodied heavenly bliss in heaven with God. But that’s not a Jewish hope or a Christian hope; and this is not what the New Testament understands eschatological salvation to be. The reality is much more glorious! We’ll work this out in more detail elsewhere.
The (seemingly) old Reformed understanding that Judaism as ‘the wrong sort of religion’ (and that Jesus came to bring something completely new) is a bad understanding of covenant theology. Jesus, Wright argues, is the climax of God’s promise! God is faithful to his covenant with Israel through the faithfulness of Jesus; and through Jesus all people are invited to join God’s covenant people and their vocation to bring God’s healing presence into the world.
The local church has, in light of the Enlightenment, separated ‘religion’ from everyday life of politics, economics, social-justice, etc. But Jesus held them all tightly together; in fact, his message brought judgment on Israel’s practical understanding on all of this. Therefore, we need to hear Jesus afresh, in his context, so that we can change in light of it.
This book was truly a treasure to read. I plan on going back to it several times in my life.
Now to move to Jesus and the Victory of God.
But the reality that I have (surprisingly) run into, is that N.T. Wright is quite a controversial figure within evangelicalism, particularly within my circle of churches. In fact, I have now read this book twice; this, because, after my first reading, I realised that I needed to go back and more fully understand the nuances of his arguments (as I was unaware at how much disagreement I would find on Wright’s scholarship). I have received (or read) numerous negative comment on his ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and his teaching on the historical Jesus (from both evangelical and liberal pastors/church leaders); but I have also found that most of those who think negatively of him have never seriously engaged with the work of Wright himself. And, for me personally, this is quite a grievous reality. I fear that this is reactionary to (their perception of) his threat to the status quo of evangelical scripture reading.
In light of my study, I find Wright’s work to be extremely important for evangelical churches living within a post-christendom reality. Perhaps old (overly conservative) ways of reading scripture are no longer appropriate. And perhaps liberal critiques aren’t appropriate either. Both seem to read the scripture from within a worldview that needs fresh, first century critique; and I believe that Wright provides it in his scholarship.
The New Testament and the People of God is the first volume of the series, which is followed by Jesus and the Victory of God, The Resurrection of the Son of God, and, to this point, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In this volume, Wright attempts to give a coherent understanding of first century Judaism and Christianity through a study of their history, literature, and theology. Central to his methodology is his use (and further development) of Ben F. Meyer’s critical-realist hermeneutic.
He begins by arguing for a critical-realist epistemology that moves beyond both positivist and phenomenalist theories of knowledge to,
a way of describing the process of ‘knowing’ that acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence ‘realism’),while also fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence critical’). This path leads to critical reflection on the products of our enquiry into “reality” so that our assertions about “reality” acknowledge their own provisionality. Knowledge, in other words, although in principle concerning realities in dependant of the knower, is never itself independent of the knower.’
After explicating this epistemology, he then relates it to literature (particularly, though not exclusively, in the N.T.), history (particularly in the first century), and theology (in light of N.T. literature and history). In these sections, Wright provides a methodology and hermeneutic that he will use in all works that follow; they are foundational.
And, also central to his hermeneutic is his argument that texts (‘human writing’) are ‘the articulation of worldview’—or even, ‘the telling of stories which bring worldviews into articulation.’ In light of this hermeneutic, Wright says that ‘Part at least of the task of literary criticism is therefore, I suggest, to lay bare, and explicate, what the writer has achieved at this level of implied narrative, and ultimately implied worldview, and how.’ Therfore, when we read the New Testament, the deepest meaning will lie in the implied narrative—the story of Israel—and the worldview of the author—in Paul’s case, Judaism, Hellenistic culture, Roman impirial ideology, and, most importantly, his membership ‘in Christ’. All of these narratives, rushed together in the New Testament, then birth a new worldview; and ‘by reading it historically, I can detect that it was always intended as a subversive story, undermining a current worldview and attempting to replace it with another. By reading it with my own ears open, I realize that it may subvert my worldview too.’
Wright presents his methodology for explicating a worldview by looking at ones’ aims, intentions, beliefs, hope, stories, questions, symbols, and praxes. He then uses this methodology to work out a detailed assessment of second temple Judaism and first-century Christianity. His basic argument is that God had chosen Israel as his covenant people to undo the sin of Adam and to bring blessing to all the nations of the earth. If they obey the covenant, then they will be blessed; if they disobey, they will deal with the consequences (exile). The story is a continuous reminder of the frailty of Israel; it’s a story of continuous disobedience and pain. And, in the first-century, though Israel is in the promised Land, they are still in exile (under the rule of the Roman empire). Therefore, Israel (in all of its diversity) is waiting in expectation for God to renew his covenant; to bring judgment on the pagan empire, cleanse the land and Temple, and to vindicate his chosen people, through whom he would rule the nations.
This is the reality that Jesus is lived, died, and was resurrection. He, Wright argues, was a prophet who represented Israel as her Messiah. He was God’s chosen King who would renew God’s covenant with his people. Yet, he does so in a deeply subversive way than expected:
The exile came to its cataclysmic end when Jesus, Israel’s representative Messiah, died outside the walls of Jerusalem, bearing the curse, which consisted of exile at the hands of the pagans, to its utmost limit. The return from exile began when Jesus, again as the representative Messiah, emerged from the tomb three days later. As a result, the whole complex of Jewish expectations as to what would happen when the exile finished had come tumbling out in a rush. Israel’s god had poured out his own spirit on all flesh; his word was going out to the nations; he had called into being a new people composed of all races and classes, and both sexes, without distinction. These major features of Paul’s theology only make sense within a large-scale retelling of the essentially Jewish story, seen now from the point of view of one who believes that the climactic moment has already arrived, and that the time to implement that great achievement is already present. Paul fitted his own personal narrative world into this larger framework. His own vocation, to be the apostle to the Gentiles, makes sense within a narrative world according to which Israel’s hopes have already come true.
Clearly, there remained a fulfilment yet to come. Paul, like Luke, believed both that the End had come and that the End was yet to come. 1 Corinthians 15 is the fullest version we have of his retelling of the still-future part of the Jewish story. It is a redrawn apocalypse, which again only makes sense in terms of the story of Israel, the story we studied in chapter 8, now seen in a new light. The same could be said of the ‘apocalyptic’ passage in Romans (8:18–27). The narrative needs an ending, and Paul hints at it in these and other passages: the creation as a whole will be set free from its bondage to decay. The exodus of Israel was a model for the death and resurrection of Jesus, and both of these events point forward to a greater exodus to come, when the whole cosmos will be liberated from its Egypt, its present state of futility.
This book is so detailed and carefully argued that I couldn’t possible give an exhaustive review or summary of all of the details and nuances; but I can’t recommend this work enough. Let me give a few points on the most important points I am taking away after my second reading of the book (I definitely plan on reading it a few more times!):
N.T. authority is something that I’ve been exploring for a bit, and I have found his five-act hermeneutic very helpful. It will take many conversations, and much thinking and praying to work out what this might mean for the local church; but I believe this is a model that will work well hermeneutically and in light of the continuing, creative work of the Spirit in the life of the church.
Salvation theology needs a serious re-assessment in both liberalism and evangelicalism. We often think of it as the promise of eternal, disembodied heavenly bliss in heaven with God. But that’s not a Jewish hope or a Christian hope; and this is not what the New Testament understands eschatological salvation to be. The reality is much more glorious! We’ll work this out in more detail elsewhere.
The (seemingly) old Reformed understanding that Judaism as ‘the wrong sort of religion’ (and that Jesus came to bring something completely new) is a bad understanding of covenant theology. Jesus, Wright argues, is the climax of God’s promise! God is faithful to his covenant with Israel through the faithfulness of Jesus; and through Jesus all people are invited to join God’s covenant people and their vocation to bring God’s healing presence into the world.
The local church has, in light of the Enlightenment, separated ‘religion’ from everyday life of politics, economics, social-justice, etc. But Jesus held them all tightly together; in fact, his message brought judgment on Israel’s practical understanding on all of this. Therefore, we need to hear Jesus afresh, in his context, so that we can change in light of it.
This book was truly a treasure to read. I plan on going back to it several times in my life.
Now to move to Jesus and the Victory of God.
January 26, 2021
2020 reads: 48/52
Rating: 5 stars
How does one review such a book? This first volume of five in a 'NT theology' from Wright is just under 500 (large) pages of articulate and sophisticated historical, theological, literary, and biblical enquiry. Wright presents no assumptions, beginning his enquiry with epistemology. Correctly critiquing post-Enlightenment rationalism, Wright attempts to construct history, theology and literature through a 'critical realism' framework. Fundamental to this proposal is the idea of 'worldview' which provides the context for observing stories and narratives that societies have told. Securing knowledge is finding things that fit within this stories, since it is these stories that give and provide meaning for societies.
From here, Wright constructs the world-view of first-century Judaism(s), particularly by paying attention to story, symbol, and praxis. It is these externals, as perceived historically, that indicate the beliefs. In short, Israel's beliefs center on monotheism, election, and eschatology. There is one creator God, who has chosen Israel to be his people, giving her his Torah and establishing her in his holy Land. He will act for her and through her to re-establish his judgment and justice, his wisdom, and his shalom, throughout the world.
Finally, Wright moves to construct first-century Christianity. The early Christians, Wright argues, looked back at an event in and through which, they claimed, Israel's God had done exactly that. The church thus told the story of God's people as rooted in Israel's past, designed to continue unto the world's future. God has re-established his judgement and justice, not in national liberation, but in the events concerning Jesus.
This dense volume is a master display of historical enquiry, theological reflection, and literary analysis. So much of what's in here is pivotal for much of the scholarship that has taken place since its publication. Wright tackles both liberalism and fundamentalism, seeking to provide a nuanced, cohesive, and captivating account of the new testament people of God. This should be required reading for all those interested in NT scholarship.
Rating: 5 stars
How does one review such a book? This first volume of five in a 'NT theology' from Wright is just under 500 (large) pages of articulate and sophisticated historical, theological, literary, and biblical enquiry. Wright presents no assumptions, beginning his enquiry with epistemology. Correctly critiquing post-Enlightenment rationalism, Wright attempts to construct history, theology and literature through a 'critical realism' framework. Fundamental to this proposal is the idea of 'worldview' which provides the context for observing stories and narratives that societies have told. Securing knowledge is finding things that fit within this stories, since it is these stories that give and provide meaning for societies.
From here, Wright constructs the world-view of first-century Judaism(s), particularly by paying attention to story, symbol, and praxis. It is these externals, as perceived historically, that indicate the beliefs. In short, Israel's beliefs center on monotheism, election, and eschatology. There is one creator God, who has chosen Israel to be his people, giving her his Torah and establishing her in his holy Land. He will act for her and through her to re-establish his judgment and justice, his wisdom, and his shalom, throughout the world.
Finally, Wright moves to construct first-century Christianity. The early Christians, Wright argues, looked back at an event in and through which, they claimed, Israel's God had done exactly that. The church thus told the story of God's people as rooted in Israel's past, designed to continue unto the world's future. God has re-established his judgement and justice, not in national liberation, but in the events concerning Jesus.
This dense volume is a master display of historical enquiry, theological reflection, and literary analysis. So much of what's in here is pivotal for much of the scholarship that has taken place since its publication. Wright tackles both liberalism and fundamentalism, seeking to provide a nuanced, cohesive, and captivating account of the new testament people of God. This should be required reading for all those interested in NT scholarship.
February 29, 2024
Please excuse the long review. With this book N.T. Wright begins what will amount to be his own attempt at a New Testament Theology, focusing specifically on Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels. This first volume is concerned with laying the presuppositions for such a project. I give it five stars because the book is masterfully researched, written, and argued, even if I don't agree with every point. Before I list some of my criticisms, I will say that overall, this book was a delight to read and offers fresh insights into both the method and content of New Testament studies. The book basically has three parts: Methodological consideration, Second-Temple Judaism, and early Christianity. I will basically organize my praises and criticisms around these sections.
First, regarding method, Wright argues for "critical realism" in approaching the NT which avoids the pitfalls of positivism and postmodernism. This was all wonderful. Wright also argues for studying the NT through the three lenses of history, literature, and theology, which I also think is superb. My only slight complaint presuppositionally is Wright offers no justification for his definition of "the New Testament." In a book that is meant to be so methodologically rigorous and also self-identifies as a sort of NT Theology and seeks to answer the question "what do we do with the NT?" this seems like a large missing piece. Much of the book turns out to be an account of early Christians, and Wright freely draws on other early Christian sources outside of the NT. So why then does he speak of "the New Testament" over against all the other early Christian works such as the Didache, 1 Clement, or the Shepherd of Hermas? The only justification he offers for the canon is that the NT offers us a story that is relevant to us today, and while this may be an argument for the relevance of the NT, it is not an argument for the boundaries of the NT. As Wright points out elsewhere in the book, other Christian texts from the first-century contain an explicit story, why should we treat THESE books any different (I believe Michael Kruger's, "Canon Revisited " is helpful at this point). Overall, Wright's methodology is rigorous and very fruitful.
In the second section, Wright attempts to reconstruct the worldview and theology of Second-Temple Judaism and, by and large in my view, succeeds. This section is very helpful for background to the whole of the NT. My disagreements basically lie in his strong assertion that Judaism was never "legalistic" (a term he never defines) and the way in which Wright appropriates some of the Jewish material for interpreting Christianity. One of Wright's weaknesses is his constant straw-manning of those he deems "fundamentalists" or "the Reformers," all the while never quoting or citing a single person from these groups. It seems to me that the only reason that this is academically acceptable is that everyone already believes these groups to be the boogeyman, thus they can be easily swept under the rug without much hesitation. Wright's argument that because Second-Temple Judaism did not have the exact same theological beliefs about merit and works as Medieval Catholicism that must mean that it wasn't "legalistic" seems shallow to me. If we define "legalism" strictly as "Medieval Catholic Soteriology" then obviously the Jews were not that type of legalist. But if what we mean is that many Jews (Especially Pharisees) believed that their faithfulness to the covenant (which would have been expressed in obedient works) would result in their justification and God's salvation of Israel, then it seems beyond question from the NT and other sources that Second-Temple Judaism was "legalistic." Wright says as much at many points all the while denouncing the simple-minded Reformers for their anachronism. I would argue that Wright's strict separation between "works of the Law" and moral righteousness is itself an anachronism. It seems incredible to me that the Jews would not have believed themselves more morally upstanding than Gentiles. The following are quotes from Wright himself clearly demonstrate the works-oriented beliefs of the Jews:
"The Pharisaic agenda remained, at this point what it had always been: to purify Israel by summoning her to return to the true ancestral traditions" (189)
"Israel must remain faithful to all the requirements of the covenant. Only then will the story which began with Abraham and Isaac reach its proper conclusion" (218)
"God has given Israel his Torah, so that by keeping it she may be his people, may be rescued from her pagan enemies, and confirmed as ruler in her own land" (221)
"Their coming liberation might perhaps be hastened by it [their devotion to Torah and god-given distinctiveness]" (237)
"scripture as Torah, creating the ethic for the present, both undergirded scripture as prophecy, pointing forward to the way in which the story would reach its climax - for those who were faithful to Torah." (242)
Clearly, Jews believed that their fidelity to God's covenantal commands would result in their vindication and speed along the day of salvation. Wright's draining of the covenantal commands of any moral character has no historical or theological basis. Pointing out that Jews acknowledged they were sinful will not change the point, one can acknowledge sin and still rely on their own faithfulness to the covenant for salvation (It would be bizarre for a Jew to not recognize this in the sacrifices of the temple). I should also mention here Wright's appraisal and critique of the idea of apocalyptic thought in Judaism. Wright argues that the cosmic conflagration language of apocalyptic Judaism was never meant to be read literally as indicating the end of the world, but rather symbolically portraying drastic changes of affairs (mostly political). Overall, I found this thesis compelling, but I think Wright overstates his case. While I agree that Jews did not expect the destruction of the world and a disembodied existence, it does seem that extreme upheaval due to judgment on the world is clearly present. It seems that Wright should have better differentiated between apocalyptic literature and apocalyptic thought (he seems to jump back and forth between the ideas). These critiques should not detract from the overwhelming helpfulness of Wright's discussion of Second-Temple Judaism. For those equipped for the arguments, I would commend his reconstruction.
Lastly, Wright offers a preliminary sketch of early Christians, in light of the Jewish context of Christianity. This section was wonderful as well. He explores the symbols and stories that would have been commonplace in the early movement. Wright's discussion of the Gospels is very interesting, although I am not convinced of his characterization of Mark's Gospel as basically apocalyptic literature (although I am convinced by him that there is more there than meets the eye). He basically claims that the parables are apocalyptic but this isn't convincing (all the Gospels must then be largely apocalyptic right? Is Nathan's parable to David apocalyptic?). My main problem in this section is Wright's presentation of the doctrine of justification. Because Wright claims that all justification meant in Judaism was seeing who was truly in the covenant community (He makes this claim with one or two references that MAY be read in this way) he merely imputes (get it) this view to Paul and the early Christians. Even if this is a correct characterization of Judaism, surely this is drowning the text with the context. Should we not primarily let Paul define what he means by justification? I'm sure Wright would say he does, but claiming that justification is only about ecclesiology doesn't do justice to the evidence in my opinion. I believe that this most certainly can be included as an aspect of justification. It seems to me that Jews believed that those who were truly righteous would be vindicated at the end of history as God's true people, and now through Christ, that verdict has already been declared. Thus being forensically righteous before God and being God's true people are two sides of the same coin. The twist of the NT is that this only comes through faith and it is to everyone who believes, not just Jews. My paedobaptist brothers will not like this comment, but It is at this point that I feel that Baptist covenant theology and ecclesiology function as a via media between Reformed Covenantalism and the New Perspective because we acknowledge that justification is about being right before God and that it is those of faith who are the members of God's end-time covenant community. Thus being vindicated is both vertical and horizontal and is by faith alone. There are no unjustified covenant members, only those who are in Christ Jesus (I know much of that is open for debate and discussion). That being said, the historical sketch of early Christianity is very well done and very tightly argued.
The fact that even in light of all of the above disagreements I still give this book five stars should testify to just how much I enjoyed this book. I think Wright is an excellent scholar and this book is an excellent work of scholarship. In a project of this size, I cannot ask to agree with every conclusion of the author, but I can ask that they use solid methodology and make sober, compelling arguments and Wright delivers on every point.
First, regarding method, Wright argues for "critical realism" in approaching the NT which avoids the pitfalls of positivism and postmodernism. This was all wonderful. Wright also argues for studying the NT through the three lenses of history, literature, and theology, which I also think is superb. My only slight complaint presuppositionally is Wright offers no justification for his definition of "the New Testament." In a book that is meant to be so methodologically rigorous and also self-identifies as a sort of NT Theology and seeks to answer the question "what do we do with the NT?" this seems like a large missing piece. Much of the book turns out to be an account of early Christians, and Wright freely draws on other early Christian sources outside of the NT. So why then does he speak of "the New Testament" over against all the other early Christian works such as the Didache, 1 Clement, or the Shepherd of Hermas? The only justification he offers for the canon is that the NT offers us a story that is relevant to us today, and while this may be an argument for the relevance of the NT, it is not an argument for the boundaries of the NT. As Wright points out elsewhere in the book, other Christian texts from the first-century contain an explicit story, why should we treat THESE books any different (I believe Michael Kruger's, "Canon Revisited " is helpful at this point). Overall, Wright's methodology is rigorous and very fruitful.
In the second section, Wright attempts to reconstruct the worldview and theology of Second-Temple Judaism and, by and large in my view, succeeds. This section is very helpful for background to the whole of the NT. My disagreements basically lie in his strong assertion that Judaism was never "legalistic" (a term he never defines) and the way in which Wright appropriates some of the Jewish material for interpreting Christianity. One of Wright's weaknesses is his constant straw-manning of those he deems "fundamentalists" or "the Reformers," all the while never quoting or citing a single person from these groups. It seems to me that the only reason that this is academically acceptable is that everyone already believes these groups to be the boogeyman, thus they can be easily swept under the rug without much hesitation. Wright's argument that because Second-Temple Judaism did not have the exact same theological beliefs about merit and works as Medieval Catholicism that must mean that it wasn't "legalistic" seems shallow to me. If we define "legalism" strictly as "Medieval Catholic Soteriology" then obviously the Jews were not that type of legalist. But if what we mean is that many Jews (Especially Pharisees) believed that their faithfulness to the covenant (which would have been expressed in obedient works) would result in their justification and God's salvation of Israel, then it seems beyond question from the NT and other sources that Second-Temple Judaism was "legalistic." Wright says as much at many points all the while denouncing the simple-minded Reformers for their anachronism. I would argue that Wright's strict separation between "works of the Law" and moral righteousness is itself an anachronism. It seems incredible to me that the Jews would not have believed themselves more morally upstanding than Gentiles. The following are quotes from Wright himself clearly demonstrate the works-oriented beliefs of the Jews:
"The Pharisaic agenda remained, at this point what it had always been: to purify Israel by summoning her to return to the true ancestral traditions" (189)
"Israel must remain faithful to all the requirements of the covenant. Only then will the story which began with Abraham and Isaac reach its proper conclusion" (218)
"God has given Israel his Torah, so that by keeping it she may be his people, may be rescued from her pagan enemies, and confirmed as ruler in her own land" (221)
"Their coming liberation might perhaps be hastened by it [their devotion to Torah and god-given distinctiveness]" (237)
"scripture as Torah, creating the ethic for the present, both undergirded scripture as prophecy, pointing forward to the way in which the story would reach its climax - for those who were faithful to Torah." (242)
Clearly, Jews believed that their fidelity to God's covenantal commands would result in their vindication and speed along the day of salvation. Wright's draining of the covenantal commands of any moral character has no historical or theological basis. Pointing out that Jews acknowledged they were sinful will not change the point, one can acknowledge sin and still rely on their own faithfulness to the covenant for salvation (It would be bizarre for a Jew to not recognize this in the sacrifices of the temple). I should also mention here Wright's appraisal and critique of the idea of apocalyptic thought in Judaism. Wright argues that the cosmic conflagration language of apocalyptic Judaism was never meant to be read literally as indicating the end of the world, but rather symbolically portraying drastic changes of affairs (mostly political). Overall, I found this thesis compelling, but I think Wright overstates his case. While I agree that Jews did not expect the destruction of the world and a disembodied existence, it does seem that extreme upheaval due to judgment on the world is clearly present. It seems that Wright should have better differentiated between apocalyptic literature and apocalyptic thought (he seems to jump back and forth between the ideas). These critiques should not detract from the overwhelming helpfulness of Wright's discussion of Second-Temple Judaism. For those equipped for the arguments, I would commend his reconstruction.
Lastly, Wright offers a preliminary sketch of early Christians, in light of the Jewish context of Christianity. This section was wonderful as well. He explores the symbols and stories that would have been commonplace in the early movement. Wright's discussion of the Gospels is very interesting, although I am not convinced of his characterization of Mark's Gospel as basically apocalyptic literature (although I am convinced by him that there is more there than meets the eye). He basically claims that the parables are apocalyptic but this isn't convincing (all the Gospels must then be largely apocalyptic right? Is Nathan's parable to David apocalyptic?). My main problem in this section is Wright's presentation of the doctrine of justification. Because Wright claims that all justification meant in Judaism was seeing who was truly in the covenant community (He makes this claim with one or two references that MAY be read in this way) he merely imputes (get it) this view to Paul and the early Christians. Even if this is a correct characterization of Judaism, surely this is drowning the text with the context. Should we not primarily let Paul define what he means by justification? I'm sure Wright would say he does, but claiming that justification is only about ecclesiology doesn't do justice to the evidence in my opinion. I believe that this most certainly can be included as an aspect of justification. It seems to me that Jews believed that those who were truly righteous would be vindicated at the end of history as God's true people, and now through Christ, that verdict has already been declared. Thus being forensically righteous before God and being God's true people are two sides of the same coin. The twist of the NT is that this only comes through faith and it is to everyone who believes, not just Jews. My paedobaptist brothers will not like this comment, but It is at this point that I feel that Baptist covenant theology and ecclesiology function as a via media between Reformed Covenantalism and the New Perspective because we acknowledge that justification is about being right before God and that it is those of faith who are the members of God's end-time covenant community. Thus being vindicated is both vertical and horizontal and is by faith alone. There are no unjustified covenant members, only those who are in Christ Jesus (I know much of that is open for debate and discussion). That being said, the historical sketch of early Christianity is very well done and very tightly argued.
The fact that even in light of all of the above disagreements I still give this book five stars should testify to just how much I enjoyed this book. I think Wright is an excellent scholar and this book is an excellent work of scholarship. In a project of this size, I cannot ask to agree with every conclusion of the author, but I can ask that they use solid methodology and make sober, compelling arguments and Wright delivers on every point.
July 18, 2019
I really enjoyed reading through Wright. I had read a portion of this work for Advanced Biblical Hermeneutics, and it certainly made sense for the class at the time, but we really did miss all the juicy parts then, so I'm glad I got to pick it back up. There's much to commend about Wright's project as a whole in this work, and much to glean from. The mood he strikes when describing his proposal for critical realism is, I think, exactly right. On the one hand, he wants to avoid reductionistic skepticism--we really can know stuff. But on the other hand, we don't have to argue for the objectivity of truly discovering meaning and worldview by having a rigid view of reading that privileges personal interpretation as if it were divine revelation. What he advocates for is a kind of reading that recognizes the ability to get at what's there, but is also humble enough to be able to be corrected. All good stuff. I also really appreciated the next two major sections of the book, where he proposed the worldview of second temple Judaism and the way that Christianity reappropriated almost every aspect of the Jewish worldview (all the stories, symbols, and praxis) with Christ at the center.
With all that said, the one thing that I couldn't quite understand is, why does Wright not see the 2nd temple view of justification not being fundamentally corrected by Jesus and his apostles? He says on pg. 273: "This needs to be emphasized in the strongest possible terms: the most natural meaning of the phrase 'the forgiveness of sins' to a first-century Jew is not in the first instance the remission of individual sins, but the putting away of the whole nation's sins." Ok. Fair enough. But is it so crazy to argue that this too was a Jewish supposition about "forgiveness" and "justification" that Jesus and Paul and the other apostles needed to correct? Even though this book is not Wright's most thorough treatment of justification, he seems leave the reader with the assumption that, of all the parts of the Jewish worldview that needed to be corrected, this understanding of justification is a-ok.
Wright seems to be hedging himself against the onslaught of criticism from lovers of penal substitution when he makes the distinction between "present justification" and "future justification." But this doesn't help much. "Present justification" is pretty much reduced to "presently banking on future justification." Which, it seems to me, is all symptomatic of how Wright answers the questions of "what's wrong?" and "what is the resolution?" on pages 369-370. "Sin" is pretty much stripped of its legal dimensions, and is reduced to a residual component part of the "pagan powers." Which means, the solution to the problem is pretty much reduced to the overthrowing of those powers.
I may be "triggered" already because of my previous exposure to Wright, but I must say, the comparatively short treatment of Hebrews in chapter 13 (he basically says, "the author of Hebrews is pretty much telling the same stories as Paul but with more emphasis on the practices of the Temple cult" to which I say, "Yes, and what do those practices signify if not penal substitution?!?!?!"), and his restriction of dealing only with John's prologue in the same section (which, granted, was brilliant) struck me as conspicuous on the issue of justification.
All that to say, my question is, why does Wright not assume that, since Christians were correcting the 2nd temple Jewish worldview in every other way, they weren't correcting the (alleged) non-judicial, non-personal view of justification? I admire Wright's desire to recapture the genius of the early Christians in retelling the Israel-story with Jesus at the center, but I don't think removing or redefining penal substitution as it has been understood (and as it seems to be argued for by the NT writers themselves) is a necessary step to that end. For that matter, it seems like the NT writers are correcting 2nd temple Jews, not only in the sense that their own stories are being retold in Jesus, but also in the sense that their view of the OT was itself wrong. If that's the case, defining Christian doctrine (including justification) would seem to require not just the NT writer's contrast with 2nd Temple Jews, but also their understanding of the OT.
With all that said, the one thing that I couldn't quite understand is, why does Wright not see the 2nd temple view of justification not being fundamentally corrected by Jesus and his apostles? He says on pg. 273: "This needs to be emphasized in the strongest possible terms: the most natural meaning of the phrase 'the forgiveness of sins' to a first-century Jew is not in the first instance the remission of individual sins, but the putting away of the whole nation's sins." Ok. Fair enough. But is it so crazy to argue that this too was a Jewish supposition about "forgiveness" and "justification" that Jesus and Paul and the other apostles needed to correct? Even though this book is not Wright's most thorough treatment of justification, he seems leave the reader with the assumption that, of all the parts of the Jewish worldview that needed to be corrected, this understanding of justification is a-ok.
Wright seems to be hedging himself against the onslaught of criticism from lovers of penal substitution when he makes the distinction between "present justification" and "future justification." But this doesn't help much. "Present justification" is pretty much reduced to "presently banking on future justification." Which, it seems to me, is all symptomatic of how Wright answers the questions of "what's wrong?" and "what is the resolution?" on pages 369-370. "Sin" is pretty much stripped of its legal dimensions, and is reduced to a residual component part of the "pagan powers." Which means, the solution to the problem is pretty much reduced to the overthrowing of those powers.
I may be "triggered" already because of my previous exposure to Wright, but I must say, the comparatively short treatment of Hebrews in chapter 13 (he basically says, "the author of Hebrews is pretty much telling the same stories as Paul but with more emphasis on the practices of the Temple cult" to which I say, "Yes, and what do those practices signify if not penal substitution?!?!?!"), and his restriction of dealing only with John's prologue in the same section (which, granted, was brilliant) struck me as conspicuous on the issue of justification.
All that to say, my question is, why does Wright not assume that, since Christians were correcting the 2nd temple Jewish worldview in every other way, they weren't correcting the (alleged) non-judicial, non-personal view of justification? I admire Wright's desire to recapture the genius of the early Christians in retelling the Israel-story with Jesus at the center, but I don't think removing or redefining penal substitution as it has been understood (and as it seems to be argued for by the NT writers themselves) is a necessary step to that end. For that matter, it seems like the NT writers are correcting 2nd temple Jews, not only in the sense that their own stories are being retold in Jesus, but also in the sense that their view of the OT was itself wrong. If that's the case, defining Christian doctrine (including justification) would seem to require not just the NT writer's contrast with 2nd Temple Jews, but also their understanding of the OT.
June 15, 2020
N.T. Wright's "The New Testament and the People of God" is very likely to irritate anyone who has ever taken an introductory course at university on the history of the Roman Empire. Wright insists that the first leaders of the Christian Church were not only Jewish but held a Jewish worldview and wrote using styles that were typically Jewish. I had trouble seeing what Wright thought was so new in this as it had all been explained to me 47 years ago when I was in my first year at university. In fact it was this Jewish quality to early Christianity which had given rise to individuals from the first generation of Gentile converts to write Christian apologetics to defend Christianity to a pagan audience educated in Greek philosophy (notably Plato).
I gather that Wright's intention was to refute a group of theologians active in the first seventy-five years of the 20th century who had argued that the Christian had been very Hellenist from the beginning. While such a group of theologians may have existed, I still found extremely irritating Wright's hammering away at what I had thought was a very obvious point.
I was also quite annoyed with Wright for insisting that he was analyzing Christ as an "historian" when he was nothing of the sort. He was rather making the mistake common to theologians when one they either (a) analyze Christ as a human rather a member of the Holy Trinity, or (b) in their consult the work of historians of the era (such as Tacitus or, in the case of Wrigh, Josephus.) True historians shy away from Christ not out of respect for his divine status but because the required primary documents needed to perform an historical analysis are missing.
I must concede that for the reader with patience, Wright does do a masterful job of presenting the Jewish world that Christ and his apostles came from. He describes the range of theological ideas held by Jews during the era. He stresses that Messianism was prevalent and that the concept that there would be a bodily resurrection for the faithful was very common. Wright also points out that the New Testament authors used stories of a typically Jewish style and that apocalyptic writing was also a distinctly Jewish genre. The big problem is Wright's assertion that he has discovered something new which he has not.
I also think Wright treads into some very dangerous territory when he proposes that the traditional doctrine that Christ's mission in life was to die on the cross to redeem humanity is incorrect. Wright argues that because Christ held a Jewish worldview, he perceived that his mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom God. His death and resurrection were the means by which Christ accomplished this rather than his objective. To accept this argument one has to first believe that Wright correctly reconstituted the Jewish worldview during Christ's lifetime. The second problem is that worldviews belong to those who are human in nature. Christ being divine nature would not necessarily have had a worldview. To further compound matters, there is a serious lack of data to support the contention that during Christ's lifetime Messianism dominated Jewish thinking. He writes: "Most of the Jewish literature we possess from the period has no reference to a Messiah. .... however the idea of a Messiah was at latent in several varieties of Judaism." (pp. 363-365). In other words, the evidence was missing but it should have been there. Indeed throughout the book, Wright draws conclusions on the bases of suppostions and conjecture.
Wright makes many interesting points but overall I found both his logic and his research to have been shoddy. His book however is informative in those places where he is not piling hypothesis upn hypothesis.
I gather that Wright's intention was to refute a group of theologians active in the first seventy-five years of the 20th century who had argued that the Christian had been very Hellenist from the beginning. While such a group of theologians may have existed, I still found extremely irritating Wright's hammering away at what I had thought was a very obvious point.
I was also quite annoyed with Wright for insisting that he was analyzing Christ as an "historian" when he was nothing of the sort. He was rather making the mistake common to theologians when one they either (a) analyze Christ as a human rather a member of the Holy Trinity, or (b) in their consult the work of historians of the era (such as Tacitus or, in the case of Wrigh, Josephus.) True historians shy away from Christ not out of respect for his divine status but because the required primary documents needed to perform an historical analysis are missing.
I must concede that for the reader with patience, Wright does do a masterful job of presenting the Jewish world that Christ and his apostles came from. He describes the range of theological ideas held by Jews during the era. He stresses that Messianism was prevalent and that the concept that there would be a bodily resurrection for the faithful was very common. Wright also points out that the New Testament authors used stories of a typically Jewish style and that apocalyptic writing was also a distinctly Jewish genre. The big problem is Wright's assertion that he has discovered something new which he has not.
I also think Wright treads into some very dangerous territory when he proposes that the traditional doctrine that Christ's mission in life was to die on the cross to redeem humanity is incorrect. Wright argues that because Christ held a Jewish worldview, he perceived that his mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom God. His death and resurrection were the means by which Christ accomplished this rather than his objective. To accept this argument one has to first believe that Wright correctly reconstituted the Jewish worldview during Christ's lifetime. The second problem is that worldviews belong to those who are human in nature. Christ being divine nature would not necessarily have had a worldview. To further compound matters, there is a serious lack of data to support the contention that during Christ's lifetime Messianism dominated Jewish thinking. He writes: "Most of the Jewish literature we possess from the period has no reference to a Messiah. .... however the idea of a Messiah was at latent in several varieties of Judaism." (pp. 363-365). In other words, the evidence was missing but it should have been there. Indeed throughout the book, Wright draws conclusions on the bases of suppostions and conjecture.
Wright makes many interesting points but overall I found both his logic and his research to have been shoddy. His book however is informative in those places where he is not piling hypothesis upn hypothesis.
March 23, 2018
Wright's first volume in his "Christian Origins" series is largely an apologetic work, whose thesis is well summarized toward the end of the book. He writes:
"The New Testament writers claim that, though there is only one god, all human beings of themselves cherish wrong ideas about this one god. In worshipping the god thus wrongly conceived, they worship an idol. Pagans worship gods of wood and stone, distorting the creator by worshipping the creature. Jews, Paul argues in parallel with this, have made an idol of their own national identity and security, and so have failed to see what the covenant faithfulness of their god, the god of Abraham, had always entailed.15 Christians, as the addressees of the New Testament writings, are clearly not exempt from the possibility of idolatry, of using the words ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ while in fact worshipping a different god.16 Our study of the history of Judaism and Christianity in the first century leads us inexorably to the conclusion that both cannot be right in their claims about the true god."
While I think Wright's conclusions are correct, I really struggled to follow the logic of his argument since it is so deeply rooted in extra-biblical texts. I suppose this may be more significant to the liberal critics that Wright seems to deal with. But these arguments can be made more persuasively and powerfully from the Bible itself, without resorting to the Apocrypha and other ancient Jewish texts.
Those that have read any of Wright's other long works will rightly expect the book is well padded with passive-voice ramblings which his editor didn't have the courage to slice and dice. I found some value in this, but surprisingly little, considering the book's reputation and length.
I cannot recommend this one. I'm hoping for better in the second volume.
"The New Testament writers claim that, though there is only one god, all human beings of themselves cherish wrong ideas about this one god. In worshipping the god thus wrongly conceived, they worship an idol. Pagans worship gods of wood and stone, distorting the creator by worshipping the creature. Jews, Paul argues in parallel with this, have made an idol of their own national identity and security, and so have failed to see what the covenant faithfulness of their god, the god of Abraham, had always entailed.15 Christians, as the addressees of the New Testament writings, are clearly not exempt from the possibility of idolatry, of using the words ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ while in fact worshipping a different god.16 Our study of the history of Judaism and Christianity in the first century leads us inexorably to the conclusion that both cannot be right in their claims about the true god."
While I think Wright's conclusions are correct, I really struggled to follow the logic of his argument since it is so deeply rooted in extra-biblical texts. I suppose this may be more significant to the liberal critics that Wright seems to deal with. But these arguments can be made more persuasively and powerfully from the Bible itself, without resorting to the Apocrypha and other ancient Jewish texts.
Those that have read any of Wright's other long works will rightly expect the book is well padded with passive-voice ramblings which his editor didn't have the courage to slice and dice. I found some value in this, but surprisingly little, considering the book's reputation and length.
I cannot recommend this one. I'm hoping for better in the second volume.
December 19, 2024
How can someone summarize N.T. Wright's work. This book is comprehensive in nature and addresses the background of the New Testament.
N.T. Wright first provides a model for reading and engaging with the Biblical text. He does that with Critical Realism, which is a reading that engages with the text using historical, theological, and literary approaches.
From there, Wright explores the worldviews surrounding the New Testament world using the paradigm Story/Symbol/Praxis as a method to engage with worldview. This is used in perspective to Judaisms. One cannot speak about Judaism but instead must speak about Judaisms. These were diverse groups that did have some overlap.
Finally, Wright again engages with early Christianity using Story/Symbol/Praxis. Wright follows up this by giving us a sketch of early Christianity.
N.T. Wright first provides a model for reading and engaging with the Biblical text. He does that with Critical Realism, which is a reading that engages with the text using historical, theological, and literary approaches.
From there, Wright explores the worldviews surrounding the New Testament world using the paradigm Story/Symbol/Praxis as a method to engage with worldview. This is used in perspective to Judaisms. One cannot speak about Judaism but instead must speak about Judaisms. These were diverse groups that did have some overlap.
Finally, Wright again engages with early Christianity using Story/Symbol/Praxis. Wright follows up this by giving us a sketch of early Christianity.
March 7, 2020
Best book I've read. Punt everything you've ever read in any systematic theology book (jk don't that's silly). By rebuilding the worldview of second-temple Judaism and then studying how the Early-Christian worldview developed from the former worldview, we're able to see with 1st century eyes (instead of 16th or 21st century eyes) what the evangelists and Paul were in fact faced with and writing about. Must read.
September 12, 2020
There are definitely a good number of areas in this book in which I disagree with Wright (some minor, some major). But it's mostly a brilliant display of epistemology, history, literary study, and theology. Well-written and thought-provoking from start to finish.
July 13, 2021
Excellent résumé de la situation historique et théologique juive, dans sa diversité et son unité. Ainsi qu'une préparation très intéressante pour la suite qui s'intéressera plus précisément à Jésus et à Paul.
Excellente lecture, d'autant plus que c'est très bien écrit et facile à lire, Wright étant un excellent conteur/narrateur. On est jamais perdu sous l'avalanche d'informations.
Excellente lecture, d'autant plus que c'est très bien écrit et facile à lire, Wright étant un excellent conteur/narrateur. On est jamais perdu sous l'avalanche d'informations.
August 4, 2011
NTPG attempts a constructive methodology for reading Scripture and doing theology in a post-postmodern age. This book sets the stage for the next two, draws heavily from it, and determines later exegesis. If this book is mastered, much of Wright's later writings is fairly simple.
Overview:
Wright criticizes the Enlightenment's approach to knowledge. He says, in line with Postmodern philosophy, that a tabula rasa is impossible. We do not simply "see" other facts, but recieve those facts pre-interpreted and subconsciously offer our own interpretation.
More controversially, Wright argues we must read Scripture in light of the issues of 2nd Temple Judaism (2TJ). This leads to the content of Wright's method:
Wright argues that the 2TJ period was a story in search of a conclusion. They had returned from exile, but the promises of the post-exilic prophets had gone unfulfilled. Subtly, many of the Jewish themes of covenant and election were redefined. If Israel was the people of God, and if their God was the creator of the world, he would have to act and vindicate his people. The doctrine of election is reworked around the covenant. If we are the people of God, then we are in covenant with God. God in some way will have to fulfill his covenant. Fulfilling the covenant meant defeating Israel's enemies (e.g., Rome) and God becoming King of the world. When the covenant is renewed, Israel would see God as king of the world.
Wright maintains this is how 2TJ read Scripture, and I think he is largely correct. The above theology will be reworked around Christ and his ministry. Wright's theology is remarkably consistent, even when he might overstate his case.
Overview:
Wright criticizes the Enlightenment's approach to knowledge. He says, in line with Postmodern philosophy, that a tabula rasa is impossible. We do not simply "see" other facts, but recieve those facts pre-interpreted and subconsciously offer our own interpretation.
More controversially, Wright argues we must read Scripture in light of the issues of 2nd Temple Judaism (2TJ). This leads to the content of Wright's method:
Wright argues that the 2TJ period was a story in search of a conclusion. They had returned from exile, but the promises of the post-exilic prophets had gone unfulfilled. Subtly, many of the Jewish themes of covenant and election were redefined. If Israel was the people of God, and if their God was the creator of the world, he would have to act and vindicate his people. The doctrine of election is reworked around the covenant. If we are the people of God, then we are in covenant with God. God in some way will have to fulfill his covenant. Fulfilling the covenant meant defeating Israel's enemies (e.g., Rome) and God becoming King of the world. When the covenant is renewed, Israel would see God as king of the world.
Wright maintains this is how 2TJ read Scripture, and I think he is largely correct. The above theology will be reworked around Christ and his ministry. Wright's theology is remarkably consistent, even when he might overstate his case.
Read
August 4, 2011Wow! So N.T. Wright rocks my world yet again! Okay, yes, it may be more of the same considering I've already read "Jesus and the Victory of God" (which technically comes after this one I believe) and if I had to, II'd say that one is better but once reading N.T. wright, I want to read more. Big books, slow reading, but boy has it been worth it. Got to be some of the most important reading I have done and I have done a lot of reading from Calvin's Institutes to John Owen to Stanley Grenz to Wesley to Arthur Pink to Eugene Peterson's Spiritual Theology series to...Esp. good on the background to the N.T. and the worldview back then, thought patterns, etc.
Kirk Winslow maybe said it best below, "if you have an interest in the subject, it's first-rate all the way. If historical background to the NT doesn't float your boat, go straight to vol. 2, "Jesus and the Victory of God." That one will change your life - really."
Kirk Winslow maybe said it best below, "if you have an interest in the subject, it's first-rate all the way. If historical background to the NT doesn't float your boat, go straight to vol. 2, "Jesus and the Victory of God." That one will change your life - really."
November 18, 2017
An (at times excruciating!) detailed account of early Christianity, its close relationship to Israel and the Roman world. There is a lot of information in this massive book and it warrants closer study and rereading than I did this time around (one could have a whole course devoted to it!). The first 140ish pages lays out N.T. Wright's critical realist epistemology (which I wish I had heard of when I took a sociology of knowledge class in undergrad). This book helped provide me with a lot of history I did not know about, especially during the intertestimental period and the Jewish community following the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Wright emphasizes the need for history in interpreting the New Testament and the early Church and he stresses throughout how we are storied peoples and that all worldviews narrate a story through the use of symbols (in Israel's case, Torah, Temple, land and ethnicity). 4/5 stars because it is a little too verbose.
September 18, 2017
Wright has been justifiably criticised for his understanding of justification by faith, particularly in Paul. But Wright is a far better historian than he is a theologian, and his insistence (against a great deal of non-evangelical biblical study) that the New Testament is to be taken seriously from a historical perspective is much-needed in the academy. Rather like Karl Barth, Wright unnecessarily challenges vital evangelical doctrines, whilst at the same time driving a nail into the coffin of overly critical or liberal scholarship. And unlike Barth, Wright does so with a vibrant writing-style that belies the academic nature of his arguments. I can’t recommend Wright unequivocally, but for those who understand his weaknesses and read him critically, this is a wonderfully stimulating read.
January 2, 2010
A brilliant introduction to reading Christian scriptures including many of the common distortions. Wright is often considered on the conservative end of things by liberals, but relatively liberal by conservatives and fundamentalists. What we see hear is brilliant scholarships. The method of this book will be useful for anyone reading scriptural texts in other traditions. Part of a series of three, highly recommended.
January 30, 2016
If the breadth of scholarship was an ocean, Wright would be walking on the water! This book took me nearly a month to finish and I don't think my perspective of the early church in the world of second-temple Judaism will ever be the same.
June 15, 2019
This book is great. Granted this is my first foray into historical/literary study of first century Judaism/Christianity, I learned a ton from this book and enjoyed it a lot as well.
I found Wright's critical realist approach to be really helpful in combating the extremes of either feeling like knowing anything about history is impossible, or that we can through enough study come to some absolute objective account of what happened. I also found his emphasis on narrative interesting; not just narrative as the genre of much of the relevant writing (like the gospels), but narrative as a foundational element of worldview. For me I had always envisioned worldviews as being constituted by a web of logical propositions and their relations. But Wright says that more foundational to that is the story we tell ourselves about what the world is like, who we are, and where we are going, which then gets expressed as clean propositions when drawn out by philosophical or theological discussion. I find this very compelling, since it defines a worldview in terms of what everyone can understand (a story) instead of a more abstract philosophical object.
This idea has a few implications that are made use of in the book. The first is that although our sources do not systematically lay out proposition by proposition the beliefs of the authors, the core of their belief can still be seen indirectly through the story they express and live by. The second is that seeing worldviews fundamentally as stories helps explain why some beliefs are "core" and which are not. Certainly we all change our beliefs on small and sometimes larger things from time to time, and we can do so without feeling like we've lost our footing in the world. But the times we feel most lost are when we start to question if our worldview story is true- when that story has been subverted by some new information, experience, or another story. When dealing with ultimate theological questions and many sects with different worldviews like in the first century, we see this idea of subversion used as a powerful tool to argue for one story or another (including in the New Testament).
As for the historical conclusions that Wright comes to in this book, I don't think I really have any tools to evaluate them currently since I don't have the background. I suppose I will need to read more. I appreciate when Wright mentions which of his conclusions are controversial and which are more in line with other scholars, and I think he does a good job of trying to enumerate the major camps of views before responding to them. Overall I really enjoyed this book!
I found Wright's critical realist approach to be really helpful in combating the extremes of either feeling like knowing anything about history is impossible, or that we can through enough study come to some absolute objective account of what happened. I also found his emphasis on narrative interesting; not just narrative as the genre of much of the relevant writing (like the gospels), but narrative as a foundational element of worldview. For me I had always envisioned worldviews as being constituted by a web of logical propositions and their relations. But Wright says that more foundational to that is the story we tell ourselves about what the world is like, who we are, and where we are going, which then gets expressed as clean propositions when drawn out by philosophical or theological discussion. I find this very compelling, since it defines a worldview in terms of what everyone can understand (a story) instead of a more abstract philosophical object.
This idea has a few implications that are made use of in the book. The first is that although our sources do not systematically lay out proposition by proposition the beliefs of the authors, the core of their belief can still be seen indirectly through the story they express and live by. The second is that seeing worldviews fundamentally as stories helps explain why some beliefs are "core" and which are not. Certainly we all change our beliefs on small and sometimes larger things from time to time, and we can do so without feeling like we've lost our footing in the world. But the times we feel most lost are when we start to question if our worldview story is true- when that story has been subverted by some new information, experience, or another story. When dealing with ultimate theological questions and many sects with different worldviews like in the first century, we see this idea of subversion used as a powerful tool to argue for one story or another (including in the New Testament).
As for the historical conclusions that Wright comes to in this book, I don't think I really have any tools to evaluate them currently since I don't have the background. I suppose I will need to read more. I appreciate when Wright mentions which of his conclusions are controversial and which are more in line with other scholars, and I think he does a good job of trying to enumerate the major camps of views before responding to them. Overall I really enjoyed this book!
January 14, 2018
When I picture Jesus of Nazareth, I’m inclined to imagine a man, slender at the waist but tall and broad-shouldered like a college football quarterback, with an immaculately-trimmed beard bristling the contours of a jawline that could shear sheet metal, eyes that slay leviathans and make babies laugh by changes of countenance, and shoulder-length, wavy tresses of such impeccable sheen and lift that women everywhere want to know: is he born with it, or is it Maybelline?
This man strides over the hill country of Galilee, disciples bumbling in tow, alighting in this village and that one, rousing the villagers from their epistemological slumber, healing lepers, casting out demons, speaking kind words, and all the while being pestered by the first-century Judean iteration of the fun police; the Pharisees. Who are they, and why are they being so mean to a guy who’s just trying to help people? But this question begs another: who is Jesus, and what is his significance? And this question, in turn, begs a truly bewildering array of others.
Our understanding of Jesus and the founding of Christianity is hopelessly devoid of context; and context, perhaps more so in the Christian religion than in all others, forms an indispensable part of the total worldview. Christianity, after all, is based on the proposition that the God who created the universe and sustains it in being showed up on Earth at a particular historical moment, with the body of a Jewish day laborer from a backwater town on the fringes of both the Roman Empire itself and the domain of its Jewish client-king. The meaning of Christianity, then, if such a thing can ever be grasped, must be found within a nesting doll of overlaying theological, historical, and biographical narratives.
The life of Jesus is narrated by the evangelists, who construe it as a climactic recapitulation of the story of YHWH and the people of Israel. This story contrasts with those of other Jewish sects, like the Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees, each of whom longed for the liberation of the holy land from the pagans, restoration of the Solomonic temple, and the reinstitution of the true worship of the true God, but who differed on the means and circumstances of this liberation and the role of human agency in fulfilling God’s promise to the progeny of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
These narratives of the Jewish resistance contrasted with those of the collaborators: Herod rebuilt the temple in the hopes that he would be regarded as a messianic figure, while simultaneously benefitting from the sponsorship of the pagan emperor. Josephus told a story according to which the God of Israel had defected to the Romans because of her malfeasances, the speculative world-ruler who would come from Judea turned out to be the emperor Vespasian, who was proclaimed as such by his troops while campaigning in Judea, and the God of Abraham had thrown in his lot with the imperial pretensions of the Roman Empire.
Christianity took shape within this tangled web of stories. The Christian story, articulated in some measure as an oppositional polemic to the others, is, more than any abstract theological axioms could hope to be, what Christianity is about.
First-century Judea was positively on fire with revolutionary fervor and apocalyptic expectation. According to Jewish belief, God had created a fundamentally good world, created mankind to be its stewards, watched mankind become corrupted, and chose the people of Israel to be the means by which He would rectify the human condition. He promised His people a land of their own, a land flowing with milk and honey, His own dwelling place at Mount Zion, from which He would enlighten the world and finally be recognized as the one true God.
This dream was subjected to continual setbacks; the promise of the Davidic kingdom was quashed by captivity in Babylon; the return from exile was dampened by subjection first to the Seleucids and then to the Hasmonean dynasty, which claimed to be their liberator but smacked of Hellenic decadence. The Hasmoneans were succeeded by the Herodians, clients of yet another pagan superpower, and zealous Jews were left groaning in anticipation of the moment at which their God would finally act to cleanse His land of the pagan, restore His law, and take His place as ruler of the world.
Many were the revolutionaries who took up arms to bring about salvation. All of them failed. The Jewish war of 66-70 ended with the destruction of the temple. Simon Bar-Kokhba, the final would-be Messiah, led a revolt that ended in 135 with his own death, the destruction of his prospective Messianic kingdom, and the near-annihilation of the Jewish people. There would be no more whisperings of a Jewish state until 1947. Without the temple, keeping Torah became the marker of Jewish identity. The aspirations of Zionism were pushed out of immediate consideration; consigned to a distant and unforeseeable future.
The Christian writers put an astonishing twist on this story. With a zeal that must have seemed ludicrous, they proclaimed that God had in fact fulfilled His promise. He had defeated paganism; He had become King; He had restored His promised land to His people; He had inaugurated a new age; and He had reconstituted His people. He had done all of these things in a way that was at first surprising, but upon reflection could be discerned as the necessary and inevitable consummation of the long, fissiparous relationship between God and man.
In and through Jesus, God had defeated the powers of death and enthroned himself over the world. He had established a new covenant, based on a new identity; no longer one enforced by ethnic kinship, but by the faith of all seekers of the one true God. He had rounded the final corner of his world-historical mission, whereby the creation of humanity—the true humanity—would finally be accomplished.
How he did this, precisely, is the subject matter of the next book. I’m game.
This man strides over the hill country of Galilee, disciples bumbling in tow, alighting in this village and that one, rousing the villagers from their epistemological slumber, healing lepers, casting out demons, speaking kind words, and all the while being pestered by the first-century Judean iteration of the fun police; the Pharisees. Who are they, and why are they being so mean to a guy who’s just trying to help people? But this question begs another: who is Jesus, and what is his significance? And this question, in turn, begs a truly bewildering array of others.
Our understanding of Jesus and the founding of Christianity is hopelessly devoid of context; and context, perhaps more so in the Christian religion than in all others, forms an indispensable part of the total worldview. Christianity, after all, is based on the proposition that the God who created the universe and sustains it in being showed up on Earth at a particular historical moment, with the body of a Jewish day laborer from a backwater town on the fringes of both the Roman Empire itself and the domain of its Jewish client-king. The meaning of Christianity, then, if such a thing can ever be grasped, must be found within a nesting doll of overlaying theological, historical, and biographical narratives.
The life of Jesus is narrated by the evangelists, who construe it as a climactic recapitulation of the story of YHWH and the people of Israel. This story contrasts with those of other Jewish sects, like the Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees, each of whom longed for the liberation of the holy land from the pagans, restoration of the Solomonic temple, and the reinstitution of the true worship of the true God, but who differed on the means and circumstances of this liberation and the role of human agency in fulfilling God’s promise to the progeny of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
These narratives of the Jewish resistance contrasted with those of the collaborators: Herod rebuilt the temple in the hopes that he would be regarded as a messianic figure, while simultaneously benefitting from the sponsorship of the pagan emperor. Josephus told a story according to which the God of Israel had defected to the Romans because of her malfeasances, the speculative world-ruler who would come from Judea turned out to be the emperor Vespasian, who was proclaimed as such by his troops while campaigning in Judea, and the God of Abraham had thrown in his lot with the imperial pretensions of the Roman Empire.
Christianity took shape within this tangled web of stories. The Christian story, articulated in some measure as an oppositional polemic to the others, is, more than any abstract theological axioms could hope to be, what Christianity is about.
First-century Judea was positively on fire with revolutionary fervor and apocalyptic expectation. According to Jewish belief, God had created a fundamentally good world, created mankind to be its stewards, watched mankind become corrupted, and chose the people of Israel to be the means by which He would rectify the human condition. He promised His people a land of their own, a land flowing with milk and honey, His own dwelling place at Mount Zion, from which He would enlighten the world and finally be recognized as the one true God.
This dream was subjected to continual setbacks; the promise of the Davidic kingdom was quashed by captivity in Babylon; the return from exile was dampened by subjection first to the Seleucids and then to the Hasmonean dynasty, which claimed to be their liberator but smacked of Hellenic decadence. The Hasmoneans were succeeded by the Herodians, clients of yet another pagan superpower, and zealous Jews were left groaning in anticipation of the moment at which their God would finally act to cleanse His land of the pagan, restore His law, and take His place as ruler of the world.
Many were the revolutionaries who took up arms to bring about salvation. All of them failed. The Jewish war of 66-70 ended with the destruction of the temple. Simon Bar-Kokhba, the final would-be Messiah, led a revolt that ended in 135 with his own death, the destruction of his prospective Messianic kingdom, and the near-annihilation of the Jewish people. There would be no more whisperings of a Jewish state until 1947. Without the temple, keeping Torah became the marker of Jewish identity. The aspirations of Zionism were pushed out of immediate consideration; consigned to a distant and unforeseeable future.
The Christian writers put an astonishing twist on this story. With a zeal that must have seemed ludicrous, they proclaimed that God had in fact fulfilled His promise. He had defeated paganism; He had become King; He had restored His promised land to His people; He had inaugurated a new age; and He had reconstituted His people. He had done all of these things in a way that was at first surprising, but upon reflection could be discerned as the necessary and inevitable consummation of the long, fissiparous relationship between God and man.
In and through Jesus, God had defeated the powers of death and enthroned himself over the world. He had established a new covenant, based on a new identity; no longer one enforced by ethnic kinship, but by the faith of all seekers of the one true God. He had rounded the final corner of his world-historical mission, whereby the creation of humanity—the true humanity—would finally be accomplished.
How he did this, precisely, is the subject matter of the next book. I’m game.
September 9, 2017
Wright does an excellent job at weaving Judaism and Christianity together while still distinguishing their core beliefs and practices from one another. In The New Testament and the People of God , Wright establishes the message of the New Testament within its first century context, showing how Jesus and Paul cannot be understood apart from their Jewish themes.
I personally found the first couple chapters (on epistemology and literary criticism) to be unnecessary. While I understand that Wright wishes to convince postmodern audiences of their flawed theory of knowledge, I think he should just stick with the history and theology of the New Testament, which are broad enough on their own. Although the book is pretty thorough, it is not a good introduction to those who are unfamiliar with Second Temple Judaism. For those who have been introduced to Wright before though, this book is a treat.
I personally found the first couple chapters (on epistemology and literary criticism) to be unnecessary. While I understand that Wright wishes to convince postmodern audiences of their flawed theory of knowledge, I think he should just stick with the history and theology of the New Testament, which are broad enough on their own. Although the book is pretty thorough, it is not a good introduction to those who are unfamiliar with Second Temple Judaism. For those who have been introduced to Wright before though, this book is a treat.
February 8, 2020
This is an impressive book. The research and study that went into it is rather astounding. The book itself reads as a nearly 500 page introduction to further work. It introduces the background of the New Testament and develops and intellectual rationale for the study of New Testament people and ideas. Much of what the book discusses and works through are concepts that I had not quite imagined needed discussing in the first place. However, after reading I can fully respect what Prof. Wright was seeking to accomplish. Rather than writing to Christians who already believe the bible is inspired by God, Wright starts at a basic secular perspective. Thus, the hundreds of pages were requited to catch up to a viewpoint similar enough to what would be taken for granted by a typical evangelical. So, while I am happy to have read the book, there are very few I could recommend the book to.
March 25, 2021
A comprehensive introduction into the socio-political situation into which Jesus was born. Wright lays out an engaging and informative journey through Israel's history, the history of the Hellenization of the Jewish people, and he does a marvelous job of helping the Bible come alive by highlighing so much of the backdrop that so often is ignored, misunderstood, and undervalued. A modern classic that will only grow in its importance to theological exploration in the coming decades. It has sat on my shelf for years and I am so glad to have finally made my way through it. It is comprehensive and particular, but still reads easily and is easy to follow. Few contemporary theologians equal the brillance of NT Wright and his accolades are all well deserved. I look forward to continuing the journey into the second volume soon.
March 23, 2018
It took a long time for me to build up the courage to read this book. But after finally finishing it, i look back on it and say, “that wasn’t nearly as hard as I thought it would be.” Wright is not only brilliant in his content, but also surprisingly fluid and conversational in his academic writing. So for you out there who enjoy Wright (and also have at least some biblical studies training—which is needed to fully appreciate the work), but haven’t read this volume, go for it! Just chip away at it!
January 7, 2023
Our book group took a few months to work through this first volume of Wright’s works on the New Testament, and it still felt at times as if we were racing through it. So much to discuss: so many enlightening insights, challenging approaches, solid foundations, powerful refutations. I have now a much clearer and fuller understanding of how first century Jews of different backgrounds and persuasions would view the claims of Jesus and His early followers.
BTW: Wright provides what I think is the best definition of a metaphor given, appropriately enough, as a metaphor (p. 40).
BTW: Wright provides what I think is the best definition of a metaphor given, appropriately enough, as a metaphor (p. 40).
June 3, 2022
Wright is great when he is presenting theories, discussing evidence, and correcting misconceptions. But there was just so much scholarly jousting in this one that it became exhausting for me. Over half of this book was unnecessary.
Very helpful for establishing a strong view of Jewish messianic/apocalyptic/resurrection expectations during the first century. I found his case for reading several of the gospels as exodus motifs a little overblown.
Very helpful for establishing a strong view of Jewish messianic/apocalyptic/resurrection expectations during the first century. I found his case for reading several of the gospels as exodus motifs a little overblown.
February 28, 2021
You don't have to agree with NTW on everything (or anyone else for that matter) to benefit from him, or to recognize how insightful of a scholar he is. This is an essential volume for anyone seeking a more historically-informed understanding of the New Testament.
February 3, 2021
Whew! Finally done. This book is so dense I could only read a few pages at a time. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. Take your time and it will reap rewards.
August 27, 2021
A huge help in understanding the worldview, beliefs, and theology that surrounded the writing of the New Testament. It's reshaped how I read the New Testament. The fascinating argument of the book flows clearly throughout, and continually pushes into the next point. It makes me excited to read the rest of the series (although I'm also intimidated by its size!).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 197 reviews