The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Has anyone read any of N T Wrights books in this series:

New Testament and the People of God
Jesus and the Victory of God
The Resurrection and the Son of God?

I'm reading the first one in the series - and wondered if anyone had any feedback or comments on the books?

_________________
http://aworthydiscussion.wordpress.com

Granttheking98,

I read all three of the current Christian Origins books last summer, and plan to re-read Jesus and the Victory of God in the near future. I have used all three an enormous amount in my studies, and I have to say that because of the quality of these books (along with a couple others like Paul in Fresh Perspective) Wright has become far and away my favorite New Testament scholar.

The way that these books root Jesus and the Gospels in their historical context, and the richness this adds to what are often poorly interpreted and watered down stories is incredible. Also, I appreciate the fact that Wright combines a passion for the Scriptures and deep respect for them with a critical mind and the ability to use Second Temple and other historical data to illuminate rather than attack the Gospel narratives.

Enjoy your read (and have patients for the methodology section in book one which is good but not as exciting as the rest). If you want to talk about Wright and related issues look up my blog at link removed

-- Also, a 4th book in the series is due out in the near future, apperently on Paul--

_________________
Avid Reader

“Lord, in my zeal for love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.” - Thomas Aquinas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

Yes, I've read these books and wrote two end-of-year 4,000 word essays from them:

Can a fully ‘historical Jesus’ be acknowledged at the same time as one believes in him as the Incarnate Word of God?

Contemporary Pauline Fresh Perspectives: its covenantal reworking of justification, election, and eschatology contrasted with traditional paradigms

You should also read Wright's Pauline works specifically Paul:In Fresh Perspective as Wright's fourth volume in the series is being developed from these.

Bear in mind the real scholar here, who Wright acknowledges as the giant whose shoulders he is standing on, is Ben F. Meyer. N. T. Wright is a fine scholar but Meyer I truly believe gets it completely right.
Ben F. Meyer's works on Amazon
I particulary recommend Meyer's Christus Faber: The Master-Builder and the House of God and The Aims of Jesus. Wright lacks Meyer's seminal genius and owes everything to him.

If by "Christian Origins" you mean to imply orthodox (esp Reformed) Christian teachings regarding justification apart from works of Law, imputed righteousness, "traditional "definitions of "gospel," the corporate body verses the individual, the purpose and work of the indwelling Spirit, Jesus the Messiah, the " King of the World " as something separate from the eschatological implications of "Savior," the New Heavens and the New Earth -- and on and on; if you mean to imply some or all of these things in the term "Christian Origins," I would suggest, as one who has been a part of New Perspectives discussion (daily) for the past three years that your time is better spent in the study of accepted Trinitarian Theology.

I will not offer more, at this time, in case I am off base as to the subject matter.

I do not see Wright as a heretic, but neither do I see his thinking as a "new perspective."

Well, besides the fact that this is not the NPP thread, so far the Christian Origins series has covered Jesus and the Gospels, not Paul. Not sure where the dig at Wright's series not matching Trinitarian Orthodoxy comes from, but it is unfounded as I expect you know, and he would and does affirm the Trinity as loudly as any other Christian. Just because you dont like some of his veiws does not make him wrong or unorthodox (and since when did 'orthodox' Christian origins have to match the Reformed tradition which was still 1600 years away?).
As to the books, Ben Meyer is quite good also, but I think if you follow theological discussion in the wider Christian community, it is Wright who is revitalising a large swath of Christian thought and attracting the consequent opposition.
Grant, read the series with a critical but open mind, not letting Wright's opponents make you think that everythinh he says is at least on the edge of heretical, and if you do so I really think that you will find you learn a lot from the books, as I did, and that you appresiate the Gospels and more importantly Jesus our Messiah in a much deeper way afterwords.

_________________
“In the Church of Jesus Christ there can and should be no non-theologians"

http://www.newwaystheology.blogspot.com/

mslater, please enlighten me as to the boundaries of this particular thread. Be specific.

Secondly -- I offered no information that was misleading or intentionally misleading.

Wright is not the first theologian to believe that he has fully restored the origins of the Christian Faith. Many such claims have been made over the years. Wright is no different in this regard.

A clearly stated argument for the new perspectives of Second Temply historicity is found in the opening chapter of the book [by Wright] , The Challenge of Jesus. It is in this chapter that he reveals his appreciation for Albert Schweitzer's supposed demand for a "consistent eschatology. It is in this chapter that Wright establishes the notion that the Reformers were COMPLETELY WRONG in their opinions and wrong because they did not or could not appreciate the content and import of Second Temple/inter-testament evidence.

Meyer's writing sets one on the path to the conclusions of new perspectives, and , like it or not, "new perspectives" is the phrase that goes directly to the notion of Christian Origins as presented by Wright, Dunn , Sanders and Meyers. One cannot discuss Christian Origins from a Wrightian perspective without referencing "new perspectives," but, of ocourse, you know that.

In the book reference above, Wright recommends Meyer's, The Aims of Jesus, followed by E.P Sanders' Jesus and Judaism.

It is clear as to the thinking of N.T. Wright, that N.T scripture is not adequate in establishing an accurate view of 1st century Judaism from which Christian origins were borne. In short, we all NEED the research into Second Temple documents before we can understand what Christ was all about.

If we understand Second Temple historicity, then we can know why Wright's view of "gospel " is so different, along with virtually all other acfcepted Chrsitian doctrine.

My suggestion , if you think it necessary to read this material and investigate its conclusion, is to include in your reading opposition materials including John Piper's recently published book, and D.A. Carson's book, Justification and Variegated Nomism,

I have been intimately involved in New Perspectives for nearly four years, now. I have a genuine appreciation for the attempt at honest discovery. But to imply that men like Calvin, Barth, Carl Henry, FF Bruce and so on COMPLETELY missed the point of preChristian writings and their attachment to Christian Origins -- well, that is nothing more than sheer arrogance.

Its not my thread, I was just saying that the topic was apparently intended to be a question as to if one should read three specific books, not the NPP as a movement which has its own thread.



Actually Wright says no such thing, and I think you really have to be grasping for accusations to say that he does (on a side note, why all the caps?). He never says the Reformers opinions were completely wrong, just that their view of Judaism was flawed and that they were imprecise in the meaning of Justification. Really he doesn’t even blame them for that to much, as they did not have nearly the historical information we do now.



Yes, I think as Christians we do need to understand the historical context to better understand the Messiah and his followers. That is not to say these 2nd Temple sources are inspired, which Wright never claims, but rather that they help us get a fuller view. He does not say that the Scriptures are wrong about 1st century Judaism, just that there is a lot they do not address.
I fail to see the issue with this approach, since a fundamental element of Christian faith is that it happened. As in, it happened in the real world at a certain time in a certain place. Christianity is not just abstract beliefs like Platonism as those who deride using other sources imply, it is about events, and if we really believe that than we ought to be thrilled to incorporate any scrap of evidence that will help us understand the setting and meaning of those events.



Yes, I agree one should read both sides (and do you think it is unnecessary to understand the context? How do you justify that?). As such I’ve read both Pipers ‘The Future of Justification’ and Carson’s two ‘Justification and Variegated Nomism’ volumes as well as many other opposition writings. I was terribly disappointed with Piper, who displayed a lot of appealing to percieved authorities to settle the matter in a very pre-Reformation Roman Catholic fashion, and displayed a complete inability to engage on an exegetical level. As for Carson, actually most of the articles were pretty good, but they mostly back up Wright's view of Judaism, its just Carson’s conclusion that seems bent on twisting the evidence.



It would be sheer arrogance, if that was what he was saying, but he is not… he is just saying we can understand Christian origins better now that we have access to more historical evidence.

_________________
“In the Church of Jesus Christ there can and should be no non-theologians"

http://www.newwaystheology.blogspot.com/

with mslater's objections in mind, I off this responce:

1. I put certain words in caps for the purpose of empahesis. HI THERE is not the same as "hi there."

2. Wright, in fact, gives the Refomation very little credit for right thinking. And in the coming days, I will offer quotes from Wright that establish that point. Wright's disagreement with Reformation thinking includes the very consideration that the Jews of the 1st century were works- salvationists bent on seeking approval via their works and not through grace ---- a major departure from Reformed thinking. In short, he believes that the Jews of the 1st century were grace people -- a
rather humorous conclusion. Add to this disagreement with Reformed thought, Wright's redefining of the word and concept of "gospel," his denial that it is the gospel which saves in a personal way, his redefining of "righteousness of God," the redefining of "justification" as a law-court reference having nothing to do with personal salvation, his de-emphasis of the individual and the over-emphasis (I think) of the Collective or the corporate body, his redefining the term and concept of "Messiah" as "King of the World" and "Lord of the Cosmos" to the exclusion of all other Reformed , Trinitarian, Evangelical, Pietistic and/or Charismatic theological traditions , and we have a "new perspectives" that is not only apart from all other "competing" theologies," but sets itself up as the only correct bibilcial/historical approach to the revelation of God as concerns Israel and the World.

3. A new language must be learned, if you are to become a faithful follower of new perspectives. To wit: badge, marker, covenantal nominism to name a few (I am running out of time, this morning.)

What is most startling is his implicit insistence that his new perspectives as relates to the fundamentals of Christian theology (read: origins) is the best, if not the only vital and systematic correction to the supposed failed theologies of the Reformation. He can only come to this conclusion by completely ignoring the contributions of -- the profound contributions of -- Trinitarian Theology as represent and put forth in the works of Karl Barth, Colin Gunton, Bonhoeffer, Eugene Peterson, Thomas Torrance and family, von Balthasar, richard Hays, most of the present-time and accepted lexiographers, Hans Kung (another Catholic theologian - Balthasar being the first on this list,) Dr Ray Anerson, I. Howard Marshall, Daniel Wallace, and . . . . . . I could go on and on.

A huge problem for Wright is his consistent de-emphasis of Trinitarian Theology. He cites Schweitzer (a fully dicounted classic liberal) and Bultmann (as a representative of German theology) with little to no reference to the Trinitarian Theologies of those cited above ------- or of Trinitarian Theology. The fact that he is, in some ways, a "Trinitarian," is by no means a marker of his theology as "trinitarian." In fact, he never uses this term to define his thinking. His view of Christ as "Son of God " is also, something that causes me concern. But more on that later or in a different thread.

It is a historical fact of life that Reformation thinking has been under review from its very beginnings, something that Wright does not acknowledge for reasons that can be discused later, as well.

Very great~!
Keep up the great work~!

jds,

You seem to have proffered a series of rather vague aspersions without substance. What specifically does Wright say that contradicts Scripture?
Please cite source and page number so I can look at the context.

Thanks

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Gideon. Nothing I have said is vague. The complaints or, more accurately stated, the observations presented in my post, are specific in nature but not expanded as one would expect if one were in a debate of said points.

Rather than me giving more and more information, why not be specific in your c omplaint ??!!

I wil l say this ---- the sources for my more resent post are, first, Wright's book What Saint Paul Really Said. That is the primary source, in this case. Secondly, the book by Wright, The Challenge of Jesus. A third source is Wright's , The Resurrection of the Son of God. A fourth source would be a couple of papers written by Wright. And a final source is my 3+ year membership on a New Perspectives discussion forum in which I have been involved in the reading of perhaps 6, 000 posts explaining Wrightian positions and have contributed several hundred posts of my own.

While I wait for a specific reply from you, I will take some time to present actual quotes from Wright. It should be point ed out that very little of what I wrote is argued by the New Perspectives folks -- so why the complaint from you?

They are fully aware that the Orthodox world of modern Christian Theology differs with the New Perspectives on the word and concept of "gospel," "justification," grace and the defining religious concept of the 1st century Jew, the notion that righteousness is not imputed, and many of the other points I have made. Gideon, they are quite proud of these differences.

You will not get to first base in your disagreement if you think to make me out to be a poorly informed contributor on this subject. If you are as concerned for the truth, as I am, let's join in an effort to sort this out. If you have the book, What Did Saint Paul Really Say, read it before going further in your complaint.

Before I end this post, let me deal with the most obvious problem for Wright -- his exclusion of Trinitarian Theology as represented by Karl Barth and the others I mentioned in my post. Turn to the back of each of the books I have listed and see where Barth's name is offered. It ain't there. Now, I am not secretly trying to get Barth into this discussion, but, for an Englishman theologian such as the Bishop of Durham [is], to exclude any reference to Barth is preposterous. He includes Bultmann as a representative of German thought (p 14ff in WDSPRS) and totally ignores Barth. Again, for an European theologian to do such a thing is evidence of Wright's bias to the notion that he, alone, offers a solution to the various problems of Reformation thought. Absolutely ridiculous. And on the pages just before Bultmann's reference, we have Albert Schweitzer. Do you know who A.S. was ? .... and I ask this question just before you google his name !! He is virtually never referenced in anything truly Trinitarian / Evangelical. Why? Because he was a classic liberal, one who defined Christ solely in terms of history. ... no resurrection, no real miracles, etc. Wright speaks of Schweitzer's "consistent exchatology" but fails to mention that A.S. did not beleive in a literal and apocalyptic return of Christ. Why he , Wright, uses such sources as he prepares his foundational comments with regard to Christian Origins is beyond me. You do not need to incorporate anything from an unbeliever into your theology, but Wright does. Read it for yourself. You ahve the reference.

Anyway , what specific ly do you take exception to in my posted remarks?

jds

jds,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Just to let you know where I stand, I am not a defender of Tom Wright (yet). I have only just begun to read what he has written, as opposed to what other people have said about what he has written, but what I have read I find well-reasoned and faithful to the Scriptures. Specifically, I have read his two papers, "Jesus and the Identity of God" and "The Shape of Justification." I don't have What Saint Paul Really Said, but I will get it and read it. Thanks for the suggestion.

You are correct that Wright sees first-century Jews as believing in salvation by grace and not as something earned. Frankly, I've always seen the Abrahamic Covenant as superseding the Covenant of the Law, so it makes perfect sense to me that those first-century Jews who were well grounded in their own theology would also see that. While Wright's perspective on this issue may upset some traditional views, I don't see it as contrary to any doctrine of the Christian faith. Perhaps you see something there that I don't?

The first point you make that I really don't see borne out in what I've read is that Wright has redefined what the gospel is. Would you please elaborate on this? Then, if you don't mind, we can move on to the other points.

Thanks

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Gideon,
I enjoyed your post, and very much agree that his writing are in my eyes well reasoned and Scripturally faithful.

Jds,
I may comment more on this later, but the reason Wright is not interacting with Barth has nothing to do with a disregard for the Trinity or Trinitarian theology (something Wright passionately affirms) but rather because they are engaged in two very different things. Wright’s series is not a systematic theology, but rather a historical, canonical, and theological study of the Historical Jesus, the Gospels, and the early Christian writings. The historical context is not something that is engaged by Barth in the way Wright and others are looking at it. This displays no disregard for Barth as a theologian or the Trinity as a central Christian belief.
Attacking Wright in this way makes as much sense as if I were to say that a study of the Reformation does not take into account the writings of the Emergent church and so it is invalid, or that a study of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts does not reference my favorite commentaries on Romans and so it is denying the teachings of that Epistle.
This line of disagreement with Wright seems to be an adventure in missing the point of what he is saying and what his goal in his writings is to begin with.

_________________
“In the Church of Jesus Christ there can and should be no non-theologians"

http://www.newwaystheology.blogspot.com/

with mslater in mind .....

Barth's purpose for writing had to do with the theological review of Reformation dogma, the 19th century theology of especially Schleiermacher (classic liberalism), the true meaning and impact of the Son of Man - Son of God scenario, and the man Jesus of Narzareth as the incarnate and eternal Son of God, and thus, God Himself.

Last time I looked, Wright is about the dicovery of the true Jesus, as well.

In Barth and the subsequent Trinitarian Theologies he affected, the Messiah/God is sovereign to all considerations. He is a Jew, indeed, and there is to be discovered a meaningful connection to His earthly and Jewish lineage. But, Christ comes to this world with a purpose that is for all of mankind. Christ, as the Living Word of God is at the center of Trinitarian/Evangelical theologies. The implications of Christ (Messiah) as the Living Word of God , in the referenced theologies, cannot and must not be separtated from His person as the incarnate God nor from His place in the Trinity. That claim to deity is the very beginning of any biblical theology.

Wright really does not discuss the Messiah as the Living Word of God and arrives at the conclusion that He is Son of God in a most tiresome manner, first reminding us of the Jewish notion of 'son of god,' then the Roman notion of same and finally, the notion of Son of God as the resulting claim provided by the resurrection (see the closing pages of Resurrection and the Son of God, by Wright, pp 719-738.)

Wright is fond of referencing Schweitzer, incredible as it might sound to some of us. Incredible, I say, because Schweitzer did not believe in a risen Christ of God nor did he believe that "Son of God" was anything other than a title. His quest for the historical Christ was borne out of a bias to present the man, the historical man, Jesus , to present this mere but significant man Jesus, to a first century world badly in need of an eschatological hero. Wright , obviously takes this very idea, includes a literal resurrection , and somehow thinks he has accomplished something of great [in the sense of 'unique'] worth.

When you read What Saint Paul Really Said, you will stumble across the names of Schweitzer and Rudolph Bultmann within a few passages of the beginning of the book. It should be noted that Wright does not agree at all with Schweitzer's pagan notion that Jesus of Nazareth was a monumental failure if not an outright hoax. But why the appeal to Schweitzer at all? Nor does he agree with Bultmann's assertion that the Synoptics were of no serious historic value. but the idea of a historical quest for the Jewish Messiah is a clear fascination with the Bishop and that is what he has in common with Schweitzer and Bultmann. (Barth did not care for Bultmann, by the way nor used him in any way to develop his theology -- and the two were contemporaries).

Wright begins with a quest for the historical Christ while Barth and company (including the Evangelical World) begin with the Messiah as God. While Wright argues that one cannot properly understand the 1st century Messiah apart inter-testament / Second Temple history, Trinitarianism/Evangelicalism would argue that the revealed 1st century Messiah is the Christ of God, the product of a monumental self-revelation, Christ revealing Himself and His Father God to ALL of the world, beginning with the Jew first, and then the Gentile. It is not Second Temple history that is critical to the understanding of the Christ of God, but, rather, the 1st century thematic and biblical content of the Gospels that is the critical historicity. Each of the four Gospels is a narrative commentary regarding the life, work, mission and eternal worth of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God and, hence, God Himself.

Wright talks about the new perspectives of Paul, when , in point of fact, he should be talking about the new persepctives of Jesus the Messiah. Really. Wright puts forth the notion that Paul interprets the Christ in view of his own proud heritage as a Rabbinical Jew (!!) when, conversely, Paul counted all his Jewish accomplishes and supposed worth as 'dung.' Paul was no longer a Rabbinic Jew but a free man in Christ. Paul claims his theology came directly from revelation (Gal 2 and 3) -- Wright completely ignores this claim . . . . completely ignores it. How does all this get lost in the writings of NT Wright?

Barth, Trinitarisn Theology, American Evanglical Theology , all begin the notion that Jesus was/is God. Talk about a new persective !! The 1st century Jew did not see that one coming. And why do these theologies begin with the declaration that Jesus Christ is God? Because it is John's beginning point (. . and the Word was God . .. and the Word became flesh) as well as Matthew's (and the virgin birth,) Mark's declaration (Jesus was the Son of God 1:1 and the Lord of 1:3,) and Luke's (see his use of the Johannian 'Word' to describe Jesus in 1:2, his use of the term translated 'God with us', and the genealogy that traces Christ's lineage beck to the Great God Almight (lk 3).

Wright's beginnings are not 'anti-biblical.' But they certainly are non-biblical and without any serious necessity. Look, Luke addresses his Gospel to a Gentile as does John. Where do these two men begin their accounting of Christ? With the fact of His deity !! Wright doesn't even think that Jesus, himself, begins with this realization !! (How's that for a shocker.)


mslater -- when it is all said and done, what are the applied and practical differences between Barth and the theologies he influenced and Wright's perspectives. What would I preach to a sinner that is different in the two theologies ??

John Smithson