Rating: 
Summary: Wright paints a brilliant picture of the Synoptic Jesus
Review: N.T. Wright, in this exhaustively documented work, sets the standard for Historical Jesus research. By virtue of his explicit agenda to set forth a portrait of Jesus based on his understanding of a parsimonious hypothesis which situates Jesus between 1st century Judaism and the early church, Wright brilliantly examines every aspect of his model for doing history-praxis,story symbol,questions and beliefs- which makes his Jesus historically credible. The portrait which emerges is a Jesus who is an eschatological prophet/messiah whose mission is to proclaim, implement and embody YHWH's Kingdom program, climaxing in the establishment of a new covenant for the renewed Israel he is forming. What is so impressive about this study is the detailed arguments advanced which make his portrait of Jesus plausible in terms of his fit within his socicultural context and, at the same time, shows how Jesus' work was the root of, yet different from the early church's interpretation of him. Finally, one outstanding,yet underemphasized, aspect of this book is Wright's attempt to ground Christology in the life of Jesus, the 1st century Jew. His novel thesis, that Jesus' prophetic/messianic vocation led him to attempt certain tasks that were ascribed to YHWH in the OT, sets the stage for further fruitful research in both biblical studies and theology, at a time when the Church needs to develop Christologies grounded in the "Jewishness" of Jesus. These aspects of this work, along with a scholarly and theologically insightful survey of previous Historical Jesus research, makes this the premier work of this kind available today. It is a must read for any serious student of Jesus-whether believer, non-believer or agnostic!
Rating:
Summary: The most original treatment of the historical Jesus in years
Review: Reaffirming the traditional view of Jesus while at the same time going beyond it in original and provocative ways Wright has established himself as the foremost Jesus scholar of our times. He provides a point by point demolition of the arguments put forward by the 'Jesus Seminar'. Particuarly original are his treatments of the cleansing of the Temple(It wasn't economics He was protesting) and the 'Little Apocalypse' of Mark 13(It's NOT a reference to the Parousia!).
Rating: 
Summary: Not quite as good as volume 1
Review: This book is Vol II in a projected 5-volume series called "Christian Origins and the Question of God". Building on detailed arguments developed in Vol I ("The New Testament and the People of God"), Wright presents Jesus of Nazareth as an eschatological prophet who believed that he was standing at the cornerstone of Israel's history, and thus -- because of Israel's fundamental calling -- of world history. He believed he was the messiah whose task was to usher in the new age and fulfil the Jewish dream, the dream that Yahweh would act withing history to bring about (1) the real return from exile (the new exodus out of bondage), (2) the final defeat of all evil, and (3) the return of Yahweh to Zion. But unlike the wilderness prophets and royal pretenders who attempted to bring about the Kingdom of God and failed, Jesus attempted this and succeeded. His "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem, his symbolic destruction of the Temple (a foretaste of the year 70 AD), his passover/eucharist meal, and his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection were precisely those things which began to bring about the real return from exile and bondage. Jesus did not simply announce that Yahweh was returning to Zion. He enacted, symbolized, and personified this event. He did not think that the Temple would be rebuilt as predicted in scripture, nor that the Gentile nations would flock to a new, liberated Israel. He believed, stunningly, that HE served as the new Temple, that the primitive church would constitute the new Israel. Wright believes that when orthodox Christians acknowledge that Jesus "suffered, died, and was buried, and on the third day he rose again," they are correct, but they so often forget that their creed is fundamentally Jewish in origin, even if radically revisionist at the same time.Wright is certainly correct to root Jesus in the context of Jewish eschatology, but he forces way too much of the gospel data through this eschatological sieve. The result is a somewhat one-dimensional portrait which screens out other important issues. For instance, even parables like The Prodigal Son and The Talents are read as allegories for "Israel's return from exile" and "Yahweh's return to His people" instead of stories about family, community, and economy. Likewise, Jesus' conflict with purity and sabbath is understood soley in eschatological terms instead of peasant inability to cope with the Torah's demands. But for a conservative believer, he offers a fairly revolutionary Jesus -- at the very least not an image of the scholar himself.
Rating:
Summary: A Startling Work
Review: This is the book by Bishop Wright that you ought to own. His conservative scholarship is unsurpassed and he offers a theology of Jesus that holds great weight. Every believer (conservative and liberal) needs to wrestle with this work. This is the best in Anglican Scholarship being written today. If you like John Stott and J.I. Packer you will love Wright. If you love Marcus Borg you need to read the "other side" that Wright offers. If you want to understand the thinking behind the rift in the Anglican church today, you must consider theology like this.
Rating:
Summary: A Startling Work
Review: This is the book by Bishop Wright that you ought to own. His conservative scholarship is unsurpassed and he offers a theology of Jesus that holds great weight. Every believer (conservative and liberal) needs to wrestle with this work. This is the best in Anglican Scholarship being written today. If you like John Stott and J.I. Packer you will love Wright. If you love Marcus Borg you need to read the "other side" that Wright offers. If you want to understand the thinking behind the rift in the Anglican church today, you must consider theology like this.
Rating:
Summary: THEOLOGY BACK ON THE PATH
Review: This series although quite lengthy from THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD, JESUS AND THE VICTORY OF GOD, AND THE RESSURECTION OF THE SON OF GOD. Is a must read for anyone who is interested in the truth. Wright gets into not only the theological, but the historic facts of the first centuries political upheavals as well the hope of the everyday Jew and the messiah they were looking for.& how this shaped Jesus ministry. Wright fully believes in the resurrection of Christ, and that he is the vary presence of God.That in him all the scriptures are fulfilled.its a lot of reading but well worth it. This series is a refreshing in that it looks into how the bible was understood in the first centuries and not how the twentieth century sees it and Christ.As a christian we are to seek the truth,an i believe this is a fresh start.
Rating:
Summary: The Definitive "Jesus" Study for Our Generation!
Review: Tom Wright has produced the standard study of the historical Jesus with which all others must attempt to engage. With rapier wit and stylish prose, Prof. Wright makes a signal demand of all those who seek to "do" Jesus research in the next decade: Ground Jesus in history! Using a devilishly clever highway analogy, Wright makes a proper distnction between those who are traveling upon the highway of thoroughgoing eschatology (following Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer) and those who clog the lanes of the "on-ramp" to the super-highway of thoroughgoing skepticism (following Wilhelm Wrede and Rudolf Bultmann). Prof. Wright correctly places the so-called Jesus Seminar in the latter group, while locating the so-called Third Quest (an epithet he coined) in the former group. His thesis that Israel still considered herself in the exile during the first century is provocative and worth the price of the book itself. My only caveat lies in the fact that Wright can, on occassion, be a bit redundant and so this very large book could have been a bit lighter. That, however is a minor critique and should not deter potential readers. This book is among a handfull of publications this century that will be required reading throughout the next; do not miss this one!
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent Scope and style
Review: What is so persuasive about N.T. Wright is his magnificent writing style. His arguments are immense in scope, and most convincing, but the magic of the entire enterprise stems from masterly verbal presentation, infused as it is with an undisguised optimism and joy. I don't know how long it will take me to read all his books, or if it's even possible. I find myself surrounded by them. They're an endless source of inspiration and delight. Anne Rice.
Rating: 
Summary: Is There a Historian in the House? Right Here.
Review: When I read A. N. Wilson on Jesus, I closed the book and thought, "That's a pretty good book, about Wilson." When I read Crossan, I thought, "Here is the man who should have written the Book of Mormon." Wright first suggested to me the hope that historical criticism might actually have something of value to say about Jesus. Wright's approach has many virtues. He is intimately familiar with an incredible amount of scholarly literature on the subject, and refers to it in a way that is always thoughtful. He seldom arbitrarily discards evidence merely because it doesn't fit his theory, as many do. His favorite critical device is what he calls the principle of "double similarity, double disimilarity." He shows that, while most of the synoptic material makes sense both within the Jewish community, and as the template for the new Christian religion, it also differs from both traditions in ways that strongly suggest the marks of individuality, that neither ordinary Jews nor Christians would have invented for Jesus. This is a helpful approach, in my opinion, though not so unique as Wright seems to think. Readers with literary or psychological sensitivity have been making similiar, less systematic but sometimes even more insightful, observations for a long time. See, for example, G. K. Chesterton (Everlasting Man), Philip Yancey (The Jesus I Never Knew), M. Scott Peck, Per Beskow (Strange Tales About Jesus) or C. S. Lewis (Fernseeds and Elephants -- an essay Wright scoffs at, but that grows in my estimation the more I read of modern Biblical criticism). I think any reader can discern the unique style of Jesus in the Gospels. To a certain extent, Wright is just approaching the unique character of Jesus' sayings in a more formal, and less intuitive, manner. As a scholar who studies the (often amazing) ways in which Christianity fulfills Asian cultures, I especially appreciated Wright's deep insights into the relationship between the Jewish tradition and the life of Christ. Wright argues that these elements were not retroactively inserted in the narrative, but most probably derive directly from Jesus. I don't recall that Wright places much emphasis on it, but in a sense, much of the argument here could be summarized by Jesus' statement: "Don't think I have come to do away with the Law and the Prophets . . . I have come to fulfill them." I believe that applies to more than Jewish culture, but that is another story. The greatest drawback of this book is that Wright takes himself and his colleagues too seriously, in my opinion. When Wright says, "All agree that Jesus began his public work in the context of John's baptism," he means, "all we scholars." The fact that billions of other readers usually come to the same conclusion, is, to Wright, irrelevent. The same, when he tells us, "It is apparent that the authors of the synoptic gospels intended to write about Jesus, not just their own churches and theologies," (really!) that "one of the chief gains" of the last 20 years of scholarship has been to link the crucifixion of Jesus to his cleansing of the temple, (my grandma could have told them that) and that when Jesus cursed the fig tree, he was acting out a parable against the Jewish religious rulers. Biblical scholars resemble the emperor's fashion experts, who, after decades of involved debate, and several fads in nudity, make the astonishing discovery that the emperor has no clothes. They pat themselves on their backs and complement one another for their brilliance, as the little boy, who first made the observation decades before, rocks in his chair in a retirement home nearby. Chesterton said, one of the ways to get home is to stay there. Wright allows that Biblical criticism is taking a more circuitous route, (he himself uses the metaphor of the Prodigal Son), and he almost makes me think the view along the way might be worth it. But if he choses to lecture about the layout of the family farm when he returns, he ought to acknowledge that some of his hearers have been on that ground for a while already. Wright seems less kind to his conservative Christian "elder brethren" than to younger (separated) brethren still sowing wild oats in the far country of historical speculation. This attitude troubles me. After hundreds of pages of argument, Wright rather abruptly asserts that "Jesus did not know he was God," at least not as one knows one "ate an orange an hour ago." He thinks such self-knowledge would be unbecomingly "supernatural." (Though he doesn't quibble with multiplied loaves or the resurrection.) At this point one gets the feeling that Wright's conclusion (or guess) is based less on historical evidence (which, as another reader points out below, ought to include John, Paul, and other Jewish Christians), but on a desire to keep a souvenir from the far country -- perhaps to show other scholars. Or maybe he just doesn't want to sound too conventional -- publish novelties ("discoveries") or off with your academic head. In any case, one wonders if his own dogmatically expressed opinion about Jesus' sub-divine mode of consciousness itself has a supernatural origin. He offers no other sources, in this case. There seem to be two ways to "see" Jesus. One is the scholar's approach, which is that of blind men touching an elephant -- each connecting with that which communicates, with special vividness, a focused reality. The other method is that of the unwashed masses, who see the whole, though dimly at times, as through a fog. To see Christ as he is, yet without reductionism, has not proven an easy task for anyone. I do not know if it is the holiest, wisest, humblest, or just the most desperate, who come closest. Wright shows that, if a blind man touches the elephant in enough places, and takes scholarly theories for the narrow simplifications that they tend to be, he may begin a fairly recognizable and systematic mapping of the shape before us, which, in the end, may help see the elephant once again. It is a brilliant and insightful work. And, I am beginning to think, one very patient elephant, to put up with modern criticism, and not step on anyone. Pardon the long review. The book is longer. Be warned....
Rating:
Summary: Is There a Historian in the House? Right Here.
Review: When I read A. N. Wilson on Jesus, I closed the book and thought, "That's a pretty good book, about Wilson." When I read Crossan, I thought, "Here is the man who should have written the Book of Mormon." Wright first suggested to me the hope that historical criticism might actually have something of value to say about Jesus. Wright's approach has many virtues. He is intimately familiar with an incredible amount of scholarly literature on the subject, and refers to it in a way that is always thoughtful. He seldom arbitrarily discards evidence merely because it doesn't fit his theory, as many do. His favorite critical device is what he calls the principle of "double similarity, double disimilarity." He shows that, while most of the synoptic material makes sense both within the Jewish community, and as the template for the new Christian religion, it also differs from both traditions in ways that strongly suggest the marks of individuality, that neither ordinary Jews nor Christians would have invented for Jesus. This is a helpful approach, in my opinion, though not so unique as Wright seems to think. Readers with literary or psychological sensitivity have been making similiar, less systematic but sometimes even more insightful, observations for a long time. See, for example, G. K. Chesterton (Everlasting Man), Philip Yancey (The Jesus I Never Knew), M. Scott Peck, Per Beskow (Strange Tales About Jesus) or C. S. Lewis (Fernseeds and Elephants -- an essay Wright scoffs at, but that grows in my estimation the more I read of modern Biblical criticism). I think any reader can discern the unique style of Jesus in the Gospels. To a certain extent, Wright is just approaching the unique character of Jesus' sayings in a more formal, and less intuitive, manner. As a scholar who studies the (often amazing) ways in which Christianity fulfills Asian cultures, I especially appreciated Wright's deep insights into the relationship between the Jewish tradition and the life of Christ. Wright argues that these elements were not retroactively inserted in the narrative, but most probably derive directly from Jesus. I don't recall that Wright places much emphasis on it, but in a sense, much of the argument here could be summarized by Jesus' statement: "Don't think I have come to do away with the Law and the Prophets . . . I have come to fulfill them." I believe that applies to more than Jewish culture, but that is another story. The greatest drawback of this book is that Wright takes himself and his colleagues too seriously, in my opinion. When Wright says, "All agree that Jesus began his public work in the context of John's baptism," he means, "all we scholars." The fact that billions of other readers usually come to the same conclusion, is, to Wright, irrelevent. The same, when he tells us, "It is apparent that the authors of the synoptic gospels intended to write about Jesus, not just their own churches and theologies," (really!) that "one of the chief gains" of the last 20 years of scholarship has been to link the crucifixion of Jesus to his cleansing of the temple, (my grandma could have told them that) and that when Jesus cursed the fig tree, he was acting out a parable against the Jewish religious rulers. Biblical scholars resemble the emperor's fashion experts, who, after decades of involved debate, and several fads in nudity, make the astonishing discovery that the emperor has no clothes. They pat themselves on their backs and complement one another for their brilliance, as the little boy, who first made the observation decades before, rocks in his chair in a retirement home nearby. Chesterton said, one of the ways to get home is to stay there. Wright allows that Biblical criticism is taking a more circuitous route, (he himself uses the metaphor of the Prodigal Son), and he almost makes me think the view along the way might be worth it. But if he choses to lecture about the layout of the family farm when he returns, he ought to acknowledge that some of his hearers have been on that ground for a while already. Wright seems less kind to his conservative Christian "elder brethren" than to younger (separated) brethren still sowing wild oats in the far country of historical speculation. This attitude troubles me. After hundreds of pages of argument, Wright rather abruptly asserts that "Jesus did not know he was God," at least not as one knows one "ate an orange an hour ago." He thinks such self-knowledge would be unbecomingly "supernatural." (Though he doesn't quibble with multiplied loaves or the resurrection.) At this point one gets the feeling that Wright's conclusion (or guess) is based less on historical evidence (which, as another reader points out below, ought to include John, Paul, and other Jewish Christians), but on a desire to keep a souvenir from the far country -- perhaps to show other scholars. Or maybe he just doesn't want to sound too conventional -- publish novelties ("discoveries") or off with your academic head. In any case, one wonders if his own dogmatically expressed opinion about Jesus' sub-divine mode of consciousness itself has a supernatural origin. He offers no other sources, in this case. There seem to be two ways to "see" Jesus. One is the scholar's approach, which is that of blind men touching an elephant -- each connecting with that which communicates, with special vividness, a focused reality. The other method is that of the unwashed masses, who see the whole, though dimly at times, as through a fog. To see Christ as he is, yet without reductionism, has not proven an easy task for anyone. I do not know if it is the holiest, wisest, humblest, or just the most desperate, who come closest. Wright shows that, if a blind man touches the elephant in enough places, and takes scholarly theories for the narrow simplifications that they tend to be, he may begin a fairly recognizable and systematic mapping of the shape before us, which, in the end, may help see the elephant once again. It is a brilliant and insightful work. And, I am beginning to think, one very patient elephant, to put up with modern criticism, and not step on anyone. Pardon the long review. The book is longer. Be warned....
|
