Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God

Rating:
Summary: Invigorating and Vital Debate
Review: Jesus and the Victory of God (JVG) is Wright's brilliant treatment of Jesus (pre-Easter). In his critique of Crossan he writes that it is difficult to disengage from the superb rhetoric in which Crossan expresses himself. The same may be said of Wright. For this reason it is helpful to have a collection of responses to Wright's work (which is still in progress).

A number of other reviewers have expressed impatience with the essayists. Typical is the comment that they seem to be operating within "the old paradigm". In my view this is unfair for two reasons.

The first is the fact that it is not wholly accurate. For example, Craig Evans staunchly defends Wright's controversial view that Jews of the Second Temple period thought of themselves as still in exile. Marcus Borg certainly does not fit within the stereotype of conservative scholarship feeling threatened that some woul like to paint, nor does Luke Timothy Johnson (for whom Wright reserves his most damning criticism).

Moreover, however convincing I have found Wright (and I most definitely found his reading of the evidence persuasive) it simply will not do to consider the whole thing settled. That sounds more like an older generation speaking of "the assured results of historical criticism". That is uncritical thinking (something of which Wright is appropriately damning).

I do think at times that Wright's impatience with his reviewers was justified. That, however, must be qualified: there were times Wright could have been clearer. This is most so on the crucial issue of the continuing exile. It was not until I had reread JVG several times that I grasped the point Wright makes in response to McGrath: namely that the return from exile is not a "pattern" or a motif, but an understanding of the course of salvation history. I remember writing an essay in which I myself made the same error as McGrath, thinking that this was an image that was overplayed.

However, in contrast to some of the other reviewers, I do think that there were issues raised to which Wright has yet to respond properly. In this category there falls, unsuprisingly, the issue of Jesus' eschatology. Wright is absolutely correct in arguing that, for example, Mark 13 is not about the second coming but the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus' use of Daniel 7 refers to his vindication and exaltaion. Yet there are portions of the Jesus tradition that do not seem to fit with this. Under this heading we might list talk of the (general) resurrection.

Another reviewer has said that it would have been good to have had responses from other scholars such as Witherington. Certainly. It might also have been good to have had responses from those who are operating within the same paradign as Wright yet disagree with him on some important issues. Crispin Fletcher-Louis would be an example. That said it is important not to expect too much from one book.

Rating:
Summary: Great overview of an interesting view of Jesus
Review: This book is a perfect introduction to N.T. Wright's view of Jesus. It's essays are written by some of the brightest scholars and respresent a variety of takes on Wright's work.

On the whole this work relects positively on Wright. Evenso, Borg's response is not dismissed but rather given the penultimate position in the book.

Rating:
Summary: Helpful analysis
Review: This collection of reviews will be helpful to anyone with a thorough working knowledge of Wright points as illustrated in JVG. The assembledge of critics are primarily focused on Wright's treatment of Mark little apocalypse and the coming of the Son of Man not referring to Christ's awaited second coming. Wright continues to maintain, skillfully, that Mark's passage refers to the impending doom surrounding the events of 66-70 AD. He responds to his critics here, not by offering anything in the way of additional evidence, but by clarifying points already made in JVG.
The summaries of Wright's arguments are extremely helpful in offering different perspectives, but readers will not come away feeling that Wright's views have been refuted.