Rating: 
Summary: AMAZING!
Review: What a wonderful book! This book brought me billions of new ingights and actually changed the way I read the Bible. Wright makes Jesus not only come alive as the Bible did origionaly, but reminds the reader that the Bible is an entire book, and not just a New and Old Testament!
Rating: 
Summary: Warning: this could change the way you read your Bible!
Review: Why all this fuss about the quest for the historical Jesus? Don't we have the historical Jesus presented to us in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Why do we need to take a fresh look at Jesus when we (speaking of Christian evangelicals) know who he is already? Ah, but is the Jesus we think we know the real Jesus that walked this earth nearly 2000 years ago? N.T. Wright brings new perspectives in this discussion about Jesus, while remaining thoroughly biblical in this approach. Indeed, he is more rigorously biblical than most, as he recognizes the ministry and message of Jesus as being specific to the first-century Jew. What did the words "Messiah", "Son of Man", "Son of God" and "Kingdom of God" mean to the Jews of that era? What was the central theme of Jesus' ministry? How did he use not only words but symbolic actions to get his message across? What does it mean to say that Jesus is God? Given the specificity of his message, what does that mean for the church and the world today? Wright addresses all these questions and, whether you agree with all he says or not, it makes for provocative reading. As both a scholar and a churchman, Wright makes cutting-edge biblical scholarship understandable and relevant to the average churchgoer, and that is worthy of commendation.
Rating:
Summary: HISTORY AND FAITH BECOME ONE
Review: Wright urges the reader to immerse in 1st century Judaism as a must to understanding Jesus' words, teachings and deeds. This book summarizes Wright's argument stated on his other book: "Jesus and the Victory of God", and thus functions as an introduction to his hole argument developed on his ambitious project: "Christian Origins and the question of God", from which the book cited above constitutes the second volume of the series.
The author's efforts pursue to see Jesus through the eyes of a Third Quest historian. His perspective is quite refreshing, motivating, and challenging to the picture of Jesus which both modernism, postmodernism and orthodox Christianity have portrayed; but never it compromises the role of the Jewish Messiah which, as Wright convincingly argues, was clearly fulfilled by Jesus himself.
The argument flows as following: 1st century Jews were expecting the kingdom of God to be established through a period of intense suffering; suffering which was intrinsically bound to Israel. As Wright explains, Jesus found himself called to accomplish Israel's vocation... alone. He himself took upon Israel's fate and made his the task to bring about what Israel was never be able to bring: the kingdom, the end of exile, the time when YHWH finally lived (o should I say, indwelt) among his people
In summary, if you what a serious, captivating and at the same time short and easily digestible account of the historical Jesus, go for this book. It's introductory to Wright's scholarly respected thought. One last note, it's a book written for Christians; skeptical and fundamentalists alike. Enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: An unsettling view of Jesus
Review: Wright's book will challenge all you have thought about Jesus, whether you are an evangelical or a diehard liberal. He is, in my opinion, wrongly thought of as "conservative" in his assessment of the historical Jesus. Be prepared to have your ideas about the resurrection, about Jesus's divinity, and about the apocalyptic passages in the gospels turned upside down. By doggedly placing Jesus within first-century Judaism, Wright makes us grasp how little we know about that time. While he offers a spirited reinterpretation of the resurrection, along the lines argued for by the Pharisees of the time, the total effect (at least for me) is further to undermine the belief in bodily revival and life after death still so prized by many Christians. I am not quite sure that Jesus' own resurrection is essential to Wright's thesis, although he strongly affirms that it is. Clearly, Wright does believe that the resurrection, where this means the restoration of Israel and the re-embodiment of the dead and the living, is still central to any conception of Christianity. At the end of the book you are left with a very human Jesus who likely never thought of himself as God, at least not as we use that term. He likely thought of himself as Yahweh's representative acting in Israel, as the herald of the end of Israel's exile, and as the human embodiment of the Temple, or the place where God dwells. If Wright is right, this changes everything. I have read everything that Crossan has written; this book shook me up far more.
Rating:
Summary: An unsettling view of Jesus
Review: Wright's book will challenge all you have thought about Jesus, whether you are an evangelical or a diehard liberal. He is, in my opinion, wrongly thought of as "conservative" in his assessment of the historical Jesus. Be prepared to have your ideas about the resurrection, about Jesus's divinity, and about the apocalyptic passages in the gospels turned upside down. By doggedly placing Jesus within first-century Judaism, Wright makes us grasp how little we know about that time. While he offers a spirited reinterpretation of the resurrection, along the lines argued for by the Pharisees of the time, the total effect (at least for me) is further to undermine the belief in bodily revival and life after death still so prized by many Christians. I am not quite sure that Jesus' own resurrection is essential to Wright's thesis, although he strongly affirms that it is. Clearly, Wright does believe that the resurrection, where this means the restoration of Israel and the re-embodiment of the dead and the living, is still central to any conception of Christianity. At the end of the book you are left with a very human Jesus who likely never thought of himself as God, at least not as we use that term. He likely thought of himself as Yahweh's representative acting in Israel, as the herald of the end of Israel's exile, and as the human embodiment of the Temple, or the place where God dwells. If Wright is right, this changes everything. I have read everything that Crossan has written; this book shook me up far more.
|
