My Continuing Debt to +N.T. Wright
April 26, 2011
While it was William Barclay who first got me excited about the Scriptures, his commentaries generally stay shelved (though I still make recourse to those lovely gems). Rather, I am quick to grab something of +Wright’s anytime I have an itch. Be it the Christian Origins Series (the Paul book cannot come fast enough), his incredibly dense but rewarding The Climax of the Covenant or his own Barclay’esque New Testament for Everyone commentaries (there used to be a page where you could subscribe to the series and get a book or two a month, but I can’t find it). I have yet to procure his commentary on Romans and I’ve hesitated to get his “little” Paul books with his larger one pending.
My debt becomes especially clear when Easter rolls around. Reading his Resurrection book was no easy task, his middle section on Paul was at times laborious, but that and Surprised by Hope first suggested that perhaps Easter is the single most important celebration of the Christian year and the key to the Gospel – as opposed to a single-minded focus on the Crucifixion. As the last few years have come and gone, tired and stressed though I always am from school, I find myself anticipating the Easter celebrations and welling up with overwhelming joy at the first Alleluias after Lent and at the proclamation that ”Alleluia. Christ is risen! - The Lord is risen indeed. Alleluia!”
So this is sort of a fluff post, but I was compelled merely to note that I find myself extremely grateful to the good bishop every Easter.
Eschatology and the American Lawn: A Parallel History, Part II
September 11, 2009
|
SEEDS
You can own, love, and take care of a lawn without knowing all the historical and cultural circumstances which contributed to your desire to own, love and take care of a lawn. Many of the under-pinning desires of our consumer choices are left unexamined. Similarly, you can believe in something without knowing all its historical and cultural circumstances, precedents, antecedents, dependencies, and implications. Many times its easier that way. As Ecclesiastes tells us, with great knowledge comes great sorrow. As another author puts it, “Sorrow is knowledge: they who know the most must morn the deepest o’er the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of Life.” Many times we avoid knowledge that we intuitively know will cause us pain. On the other hand, being the conflicted and paradoxical beings that we are, all of us humans to some degree have a drive to get to the bottom of things, to look for the truth, to expose the lies that we are fed, and (less often to be sure) to expose the lies we feed ourselves.
Growing up I never questioned the legitimacy of grass as a landscaping feature. I never wondered why everyone either had grass or wanted to have grass in their yard. I would have been an unusual child indeed if I had gone around questioning the reasons behind cultural norms, but I think that as a young adult questioning cultural norms I am engaging in an activity very common among people of my age group. 20-somethings always question things, it’s what we do, especially since the fall of modernism as a way of seeing the world.
The flaw of conservative evangelicalism is that it denies the cultural and historical foundations for its theology and claims Scripture as its only basis. This is a comforting idea, one that causes very little internal pain, but it also an idea that possibly more than any other has driven more young people away. I’m sorry but peer pressure and pot are not the reasons why 50% of those who grow up in conservative evangelical churches lose their faith in college; it is (at least in part) their awakening to the cultural and historical currents which have shaped conservative evangelical theology. This necessarily undermines the authority of a hermeneutic which makes the foundational claim of independence from the shifting sands of culture and history.
Beatus Commentary on Revelation from the Morgan Library, NYC
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
A theology of End Things, or more accurately a theology of Christian Hope for the Future has always been with the Church. Since an examination of early church eschatology is not the main focus of these posts, but rather background, I will briefly outline three hallmarks of Early Church Eschatology, understanding that despite a hegemony of belief even within “orthodox” teaching on the End Times, there were several points of remarkable agreement. In what follows I am, of course (it almost goes without saying), seriously indebted to NT Wright’s sizable corpus of work on this subject. [1]
First, the focus of early church eschatology was on the Resurrection. In a sense it was a very simple Eschatology: Christ is resurrected, therefore we too with be resurrected. Christ’s body is absent from the tomb, therefore, so will our bodies one day rise from the grave.
Second, heaven was not thought of as the final destination, but an intermediary step. Jesus told the thief on the cross that they would see each other in Paradise, but this is certainly not where Christ stayed, and neither is it where early Christians believed they would stay after their Resurrection. They thought of it rather as a place of rest (whether literally or metaphorically), a holding area where one’s spirit awaits the Resurrection, and the eternal life to come.
Third, they believed that the hope of the Resurrection was not passive but active. In the words of Wright: “Because the early Christians believed that resurrection had begun with Jesus and would be completed in the great final resurrection on the last day, they believed that God had called them to work with him, in the power of the Spirit, to implement the achievement of Jesus and thereby to anticipate the final resurrection, in personal and political life, in mission and holiness. It was not merely that God had inaugurated the ‘end’; if Jesus, the Messiah, was the End in person, God’s-future-arrived-in-the-present, then those who belonged to Jesus and followed him and were empowered by his Spirit were charged with transforming the present, as far as they were able, in the light of that future.”
And then Constantine happened. Starting in the mid-4th century, the Church found itself with considerable political and cultural power. This changed its eschatology. No longer was the Church looking for the final judgment where Christ would return to set everything straight, but rather the Imperial Church saw itself as presiding over the Millennial Reign; the Kingdom of God was the Roman Empire. After the slow decline of that empire, the kingdom of God became, in the eyes of the theologians, the “Christendom” of western Europe. There was no need for Future Hope, because the between the Church and the emperors, and later between the popes and the kings, everything was under control. So it was that in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, the Eschatology of the church was impacted by the cultural and political events of its day. And it was this Imperial Eschatology that made possible on the intellectual level the first Church sanctioned murder, and subsequently the travesties that were the Crusades, the inquisitions, et al.
Beatus Commentary on Revelation from the Morgan Library, NYC
It should be noted that there were other strains of eschatological belief at work during the Medieval period. Many popular eschatologies (then as it is now) devolved into nothing but base superstition. Y1K, for instance, was every bit as dramatic and trauma-filled as Y2k. extant commentaries on Revelation were filled with Jack VanImpe style doom-and-gloom-messages concerning plagues and wars and predictions about which angels were blowing what trumpets when.[2] There was also a lot of sane eschatology that more or less continued the emphases of the early church (the Resurrection, etc), which were strong especially in the monastic reforms in places like England and Ireland. The point I am making, however, is that the official eschatology was an Imperial one; the Church saw itself as the eschatologically proper political ruler of the world; the pope was Christ’s stand-in for the millennial reign (seen,even then, not as a literal 1000 year period, but a more or less eternal period of time); the emperor was Christ’s vicegerent; the hand of God whose job it was to subjugate the heathens and bring about God’s Kingdom with whatever force and violence necessary. The church’s mission of working toward the Kingdom of God with love, compassion and justice was twisted into a mission of bringing about the kingdom of God through war, extortion, and torture. Political power and material greed warped the eschatology of the Church.
In was also during this time (the early Medieval period) that the lawn was born. The first lawns were created by noblemen and kings as places to hold tournaments and fairs. The lawn became a symbol of nobility and of the monumentally asinine pissing contests that made up much of western European sport during the middle ages. When one thinks about, then, it is really not surprising that the common ancestor of both lawns and football fields is the mock battlefield of the tournament.
Go to Part III
————————–
1.For a more cogent and detailed explanation of all of this and more besides, see Wright’s Surprised by Hope pp. 31-51; in the endnotes he gives references to even more detailed and academic discussions of these points in his tome, The Resurrection of the Son of God.
2. This is not to say that all the crazy stuff Jack VanImpe believes was invented in the Middle Ages, only that there were people running around commenting on the events of the day and trying to predict when Christ would return, etc. Rather than go into details now, I intend to devote a post to the book of Revelation and the history of its interpretation. But if the gentle reader is curious, she or he should look into the Beatus Commentary on the Apocalypse illustrations of which I have included in this post; fascinating stuff.
Some Authors That Were There for Me
June 23, 2009
Up until the time I was 19 I was a resolved anti-intellectual. I thought that those who “thought too hard” about things just muddied the clear waters of the Christian life. But then a kind professor at North Central University recommended that I give C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity a stab. Well, everything went downhill from there. Here are a couple that sealed the deal.
I - C. S. Lewis – Mere Christianity was the first book of his that I read, and it sent me into a Lewis frenzy. I ravenously read up anything of his that I could get my hands on. Perhaps this was the seed that eventually precipitated my drifting into Anglican arms. Whatever it was I had never felt more terrified. I really thought that I was losing my faith, and getting it back again in an alien form. Perhaps this seems extreme to some, but that is how it was. From there I especially was influenced by The Great Divorce . . . how terrifying that we should find gracious and open arms on the other side of grace and be so blind as to turn it down. And how splendid to think of not being obsessed with hellish pictures of real fire and worms. The Problem of Pain was the final in a trifecta of Lewis books that cemented my love of this “simple layman of the Church of England.”
II – William Barclay – Some might be surprised to find out that I have never taken an introductory class to the New Testament. What happened is that not too long after I read my first Lewis book, as a sort of “graduation (from Master’s Commision) present” from my father gave me a complete, blue leather, hardcover set of William Barclay’s “Daily Bible Study Series” commentaries. I started with Vol. I of St. John’s Gospel and I very quickly read through every one. Barclay is often scorned at Bible Colleges and Seminaries, and I understand why; but Barclay is no wuss. He defininitely knew his Greek and was abreast of all major scholarly winds then available. And if not for his pastoral touch and his manly encouragement to holiness, I’m not sure I would have survived the encounter with the academic community. As with Lewis, I began to read any available book I could get my hands on.
But probably the greater gift was that William Barclay blew open all my quaint assumptions as to who could “be a Christian” and who couldn’t. Here was a man who so enlivened the Scriptures to me, whose love of Jesus was so powerfuly greater than my own, but he generally dismisses the miracles of the NT, who has problems with certain aspects of traditional belief, and who is a self professed Universalist! It made me very uncomfortable; and I still don’t know why so many Evangelicals love this guy; or rather I do, but it is strange. Barclay opened up the Church for me to include so many that I thought were certainly out, and for that if nothing else is something that I am eternally greatful for.
III – N. T. Wright – He hardly needs to be talked up these days. Everybody has an opinion on him, but his Christian Origins Series has absolutely transformed my reading of the New Testament. His open Evangelicalism is inspiring, his scholarship is exacting, and more so than any other NT scholar I have ever met, is fully informed in the latest philosophy – when you hear more “liberal” scholars call his work apologetic, it is just them feeling ashamed that they cannot match his potent critiques – Wright interacts with ALL the liberal works, whereas Crossan barely even touches anybody that doesn’t agree with him, both in his Historical Jesus work, and his work on Paul. I am practically wetting myself with anticipation for the rest of his Series.
IV – Walter Brueggemann – If Wright is the NT scholar informed by modern philosophy, Brueggemann is the OT one, there is not a “post-modern” work that he hasn’t conversed with. After having interacted with the scholarly work in NT, I needed someone brave for the OT. Obviously there are a plethora more critical problems for understanding the OT, and overcoming them and getting the OT to speak for the Church is a daunting task. His Old Testament Theology is powerful and unsettled my tepid reflection on the relavence of the OT; his Introduction is also very helpful in this regard. Add to that his award winning Prophetic Imagination, his books on preaching, and many others as well; and we’ve got one of our great treasures in the Church.
Ten Books That Were “There” For Me
April 14, 2009
I’ve been busy with another project recently (something I hope to post about on theophiliacs eventually) so I apologize for my absence.
I struggled with how to title this book list. I knew the types of books to put on it but not exactly what they all had in common. This is not a “Ten Books I Agree With” list (though there is certainly some of that going on). Nor is it a “Ten Books That Have Shaped Me Theologically” list (though this has probably occurred to some extent as well). It is most certainly not “The Only Ten Books That Were There For Me” nor even “The Top Ten Books That Were There For Me” either.
It is merely a “Ten Books I Read When I Needed To” list or perhaps a “Ten Books That I Can Tell You Exactly Where I Was And What I Was Going Through When I Read Them” list. I can’t (wont?) explain it any better than that. Thus, in no particular order:
1. The New Testament and The People of God by N. T. Wright
This is one of the books that helped me realize I enjoyed studying. I started reading it the last semester of my undergrad. It was dense, thick and academic. I didn’t understand every idea, I still don’t, but I wanted to.
2. The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
My first exposure to the Brothers was reading the Grand Inquisitor in my intro to philosophy course and I was fascinated by the fusion of narrative/theology/philosophy. It took me another year to pick up the Russian again, while I was travelling in England. This book launched me into the rest of Dostoevsky’s works and really, into Russian Literature in general. It’s still the best novel I’ve ever read.
3. The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg
I’ve always felt an affinity with Marcus Borg (as do probably most of his readers). He’s from the Midwest, went to school in MN and entered theological education with certain expectations only to find them change dramatically by the time he was finished. Many of his books carry a certain memoir quality which give him a touch of humanity in the sea of salty scholarship where many of us sail. This particular book is his approach to Christian spirituality after skeptical theological education. The book came to me during a time of great frustration. I didn’t agree with everything I read in Borg, but I found much more resonating in me than I thought I might.
4. Walden by Henry David Thoreau
I’m still taking this book apart. The first time I read it, I listened to it on audiobook. Then I realized I had to read a physical copy. It’s a book that called me to simplicity, and had a direct influence on many decisions I made about my lifestyle last summer.
5. The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard B. Hays
An Introduction to Christian Ethics, a field I’m slowly discovering fascinates me. This book has given me permission to experiment with hermeneutics and triggered many posts on this blog.
6. In Our Time by Ernest Hemingway
I read this book in high school and promptly read everything of Hemingway’s that I could get my hands on. I learned what a story could be from Ernest Hemingway. Doestoevsky and Hemingway are all I need. That’s not true, but sometimes I wish it was.
7. On The Road by Jack Kerouac
I recieved a tattered copy of this book from a friend who got it from someone else. I was instructed to read it, in one or two sittings if at all possible, then pass the book on to someone else who I thought should read it. This is really the only way a person should read this book. If you’re familiar with Kerouac, you’ll understand.
8. Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller
“Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality” was what I needed when I read this book a few years ago. It gave me permission to have a few of my own. The book never flirted with unorthodoxy (though I later would) but instead engaged the experience of growing up Christian in this culture. For me, one led to the other.
9. The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis
Really it was all about Lewis in general for me in high school. What young, pseudo-intellectual Evangelical wasn’t into Lewis? Little did I know (or care) that the man was an Anglican.
10. The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger
I read this book in one sitting on a transatlantic flight from Minneapolis to Amsterdam. I was embarking on a journey and it was all too appropriate. A year later I read the book again on my flight home after the journey on a transatlantic flight from Amsterdam to Minneapolis. It was an enlightening second reading.
CURRENTLY: The Gospel in a Pluralist Society by Lesslie Newbigin
Not finished yet but it’s fantastic so far. That is all.
What Is It Good For? Nonviolence In A Violent World: Part V
January 19, 2009
|
V: Children of Light, Children of Day
She was the only thing that could convince my seventeen-year-old self to actually wake up early on a Saturday just to watch the dawn. It was sweater-weather when I met my young crush at 4am on a grassy hill a short walk from my house. Cuddling under a wool blanket and sharing coffee from a thermos, we watched the horizon change from black to blue to purple to everything and finally to a heart-pumping, Monet-inspired sunrise.
The richness of that dawn wasn’t just in its beauty but in our readiness to embrace all that it promised. Young love primed us for a hope of a future life that was not here yet but would soon indeed come. From the moment I held her hand in the dark, I lived for the sunrise—as if the sunrise had already occurred, a lover in the light.
That picture (a true story that perhaps my nostalgia has enhanced) is an image for Christian existence that I often reflect on. I first encountered the image when reading N. T. Wright exegeting I Thessalonians 5:1-11. He wrote:
[...]Paul states boldly that Christians are already ‘children of light, of the day’. When he speaks of not falling asleep, but of staying awake, he is not envisaging someone staying up later and later into the night, but of someone getting up very early, while it is still dark before dawn. This, he insists, is the present condition of Christian believers. When the day dawns [...] those who are already up and awake will not be startled by it. [...] This has strong ethical implication: it is important to be conducting oneself as though it were already daytime.
N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg. 216-7
It is from this poetic image, that I believe the Christian derives his ethics. We have already slept, woke up early, and are eagerly anticipating the coming dawn. In other words, just as the Messiah died and defeated death by coming out the other side, so have we taken up our cross, died to ourselves, and been reborn in Christ. In yet still more other words, the Kingdom of God is coming, and since we’re already hoping for it anyway, let’s live as if it’s already here.
Bad Reasons To Follow A Nonviolent Ethic
By picturing who we will be in the Kingdom of God and living accordingly, we forever change our rationale for obedience. Put in terms of the Nonviolent Ethic, we should realize that:
1. The Church should not follow a nonviolent Ethic because God says so and we’d better obey if we want to get into heaven.
As Paul Stewart observed in an eloquent comment he wrote on this post on our blog: “So the goal of the church is not to produce moral people. Following Christ is about relationship not about rules and regulations. It is not about adhering to lists or following certain formulas or simply trying to convince people to stop drinking, smoking or gambling. However, we are called [to] proclaim and live out a radically counter-cultural ethic that involves living and dying like Christ, modeling our lives so closely after his that we have the mind of Christ and live life together in such a way that we are literally divine representatives to our world.” I might clarify that we are divine representatives to our world, of the coming world.2. The Church should not follow a nonviolent Ethic merely because we believe it will inevitably result in peace.
I touched on this in my comments in Part IV of this series. According to Matt. 5, nonviolent disciples of Jesus SHOULD EXPECT persecution precisely because they are following the way of Christ. While nonviolent resistance can sometimes result in change, we are not nonviolent because it is the best method to create peace but because we live in anticipation of the future peace of the Kingdom.3. The Church should not follow a nonviolent Ethic because we want to be like the secular liberals and bash all those barbarian, onward Christian soldier-types.
Throughout these posts, I’ve done my best to avoid using the word “pacifism,” (though I think I’ve slipped up once or twice). This is not because I think the word is misleading but because I feel it carries too much baggage. Perhaps for some it evokes the image of a kind of hippie, anti-establishment, druggie, “peace, dude” spirituality. I believe I’ve shown in these posts that Christian nonviolence is undeniably rooted in both Scripture and Tradition. While it’s true that at times the Christian’s aim for nonviolence might occasionally match up with those of the political “pacifists”; I believe they arrive at their conclusions through natural reason, whereas the Christian arrives at his or her reasons through the Spirit. While this is certainly not a good excuse to avoid cooperation with pro-peace political entities, it is a good reason to use discernment.
Practical Observations for the Typical, Western Christian
As the world globalizes, it gets harder and harder to preach firm, unmoving ethics when we constantly encounter so many outlandish and unheard of circumstances. Unfortunately, I don’t have the space to explore what this Christian Ethic of nonviolence might mean to a potential victim of genocide or a twelve-year-old who must decide to fight or be executed. (I’m afraid at this time in my life, I wouldn’t know how to begin). Still, I suspect most of the readers of this blog are fortunate enough to fit into a context where war is a far more distant and puzzling thing. For you, I offer a few brief observations:
1. The Christian Has No Place In The Military
For those of us in the USA where military service is voluntary, I see no reason why a Christian would ever put his or herself into a position where they would be required to use violence. This is not to say that soldiers cannot be Christians or that a soldier who also happens to be a Christian should be isolated from Christian community. To me this is the same tension we live with every day in the Church—we are broken people who live in a broken world.2. The Majority Christian Opinion on this Issue from the time of Constantine Onward is Wrong
I realize that I stand in opposition to the bulk of Christian tradition on this issue. Empirical Christianity left an ugly stain on Christian Tradition which has been a devil to get out. However, do not think that Church History is without its champions for nonviolence. Beginning with the New Testament writers themselves and extending to the author of the Epistle of Diognetus, Tertullian, St. Francis of Assisi, the Anabaptists, the Quakers, Dorothy Day, and today’s man, Martin Luther King Jr. we find a strain of historic figures deploring violence. I would even argue that these meager numbers of the nonviolent have had influence beyond their small representation because their message resonated so deeply with the message of Jesus.3. The Church Must Liberate Itself From the Agenda of the State
I wrote a bit about this in my two post series on the separation of Church and State last month. It is perhaps too large for a little note at the end of this post. However, I’ll just briefly add that the Empirical Church did its damage from making the state’s issues, its issues. One need only review previous elections in the United States from recent years to see that this problem is far from resolved. While it may serve a Government’s interest to go to war, it will never serve the Church’s. We must especially beware of Christian language and ideals that might be used to convince us otherwise.
I fear that the world will never fully hear the Gospel until the Church can commit itself to an ethic of nonviolence. If we hope to share our hope for the coming sunrise, we must learn how to live in anticipation of it.
In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I’ll end this series on Nonviolence with his words:
Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Martin Luther King Jr. from his Noble Prize Acceptance Speech, December 10, 1964
Best I Volume New Testament Introductions?
December 14, 2008
I thought, just for the heck of it, I would tell everyone what, in my opinion, are the best one volume NT introductions; and since I know more than one intellectual who reads this blog, I would ask for your feedback. We will start with the honorable mentions.
Now I have a rule when it comes to NT studies: “Always trust Bruce Metzger” I still get a rush when I read his introduction to NT Textual Criticism and when we discuss a larger NT library he will get his place; but his New Testament introduction is a bit too dry for my taste and it is a bit out of date. He was an ivy league don after all. So here I break this rule. Though if someone was gonna give it to you, I wouldn’t turn it down.
Technically, Helmut Koester’s Introduction is a two parter, and so is disqualified from this post; but the first volume is easily the best crash course in Hellenistic politics, culture, history and religion (hence the title) out there. The second volume is valuable because of the inclusion of a broader range of early Christian thought and works, but it is incredibly idiocyncratic and skeptical – add to it that it is an “introduction,” and therefore does not interact with much secondary literature in it’s body, but rather speaks “matter of factly” when in fact his proposals are not mainstream – and I would recommend his second volume provided it is not the only one that a person has.
Likewise, N.T. Wright’s “New Testament and the People of God” is not a traditional NT introduction; but there is no other book which gives a better and more comprehensive understanding of Second Temple Judaism and how that relates to the NT. It also gives a great intro to the first 100 years of Christianity. So, go get it.
One of the newest intro’s of significance is put out by three great scholars. I am here speaking of Paul Achtemeier, Joel B Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson’s “Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology” This book attempts to be pedagogically sound as well as versed in the wide range of current NT trends. I especially like the fact that it favors the so-called “New Perspective on Paul.” This really is a great intro, but in the end, I find it to be a bit uneven at parts, and not informed by the Catholic traditions; so it makes it to first place in the honorable mentions of traditional NT introductions.
Which brings us to our winners………It is a tie between two very different intro’s.
Bart Erhman, the author of the famous “Misquoting Jesus” has written, quite simply, the single most accessible introduction – much to the chagrin of Evangelicals – for bible college students and undergrads (even young seminarians). This book looks at everything from textual criticism and historical Jesus, feminism and minority readings; all in a simple and uncluttered prose. The pictures are great, as are the boxes for fun “extra’s” to contemplate. Erhman has made his spiritual journey open for everyone in several of his books. He went from a fundamentalist to an agnostic. He is not anti-Christian, in fact he is much more gentle to traditional readings than some liberal Protestants. Nonetheless, Erhman does often speak as if “historical” is the same thing as “objective,” and as a result he sometimes comes across as if his “historical” reading is the only reasonable one to take. His suggested readings at the end of the chapters present many different views, including leading Evangelical scholars. All in all, though not helpful for spiritual formation, this is a valuable book and I recommend it only with minor reservations.
As a balance, our overall winner is the famous Catholic scholar Raymond E Brown’s Introduction, in the Anchor (Yale) Bible Reference Series. It is a rather weighty book, and it is not lacking in the brain power. This is a thoroughly more academic book than the others mentioned hitherto (Koester’s reads poor because it is a translation from the German…ick) and covers the standard topics – the Synoptic Problem, pseudonymous books, uniqueness of John’s Gospel, etc… – but it also devotes a chapter to the “sensus plenior” understanding of Scripture which he has dedicated a book to, and to spiritual formation questions throughout. He is a priest after all. At the end of each section/book there is a rather large bibliography including commentaries and monographs, and he spends some time for every book on issues and problems for reflection. Fr Brown approaches the text from a position of faith, which makes it an ideal way to introduce uneducated Christians and students to the critical issues without making them feel threatened.
Another benefit is his Catholic perspective. The book did receive the “Imprimatur” from the Roman Catholic Church, meaning it is doctrinally sound from their perspective. It is this perspective which sometimes challenges traditional Protestant interpretations of certain passages and adds a depth to the overall feel.
The one downside is that the book is now a bit out of date. But not so much as one might think; it is late enough to include 3rd generation Historical Jesus work by the now standard names: Crossan, Borg, Wright, Witherington, Meier. Nonetheless, I would love it if another Catholic scholar, perhaps Meier or Fitzmeyer, would update the last 15 years or so.
But in the end, that does not make the book worth less. It is thoroughly academic, it has an eye to spiritual formation, and it is ecumenical…What more could you want from an Introduction?
The Greatest Books Ever?
October 30, 2008
For at least three of us, the series of books by the Anglican Bishop of Durham, Nicholas Thomas Wright, called “Christian Origins and the Question of God” have been absolutely foundational to our understanding of the world behind the New Testament, as well as to how we understand Jesus and his relation to the Gospels. It has also considerably helped us understand where Paul is coming from (his next book in the Series will be on Paul).
So far the Series includes, in order: “The New Testament and the People of God (NTPG),” “Jesus and the Victory of God (JVG),” and “The Resurrection of the Son of God (RSG).”
In NTPG, N T Wright sketches the world of Judaism at the time of Jesus and Paul. He quotes extensively from original sources which include heavy doses of Josephus, Philo, and the many pseudographs from the period.
In JVG, he provides a picture of the so-called “Historical Jesus.” In incredibly creative ways Wright weaves together his picture from NTPG and the Gospels, revealing a Jesus that is both strange and more alive.
In RSG, he takes 800 pages to speak to the understanding of “resurrection” in the OT, the larger Greek/Roman world, intertestimental Judaism, and in the NT and other early Christian writings such as the Apostolic Fathers.
I would hardily recommend all of these books for serious study by anybody who wants to get in touch with the foundations of the New Testament. If you would rather try out a more accessible version of two of these books first, Wrights “The Challenge of Jesus” is based on JVG, and “Surprised by Hope” is an elaboration built off of RSG. Both worthwhile reads for the non-scholar. At first they are a rather daunting read, each book gets longer and more detailed, yet I cannot overexagerate how profoundly these books have shaped my (our) understanding of Jesus and the NT.
Here is a link to a site where a young scholar, Andrew Perriman gives a rather fantastic synopsis of each of the chapters for all three books. If you feel that you do not have the time or ability to read the originals, or you just want to brush up on the ones that you have read, this site is invaluable.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
