| |||||||||||||||
|
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
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.
Most of the criticisms of Wright focus on two key issues--several reviewers think: 1) that Wright is guilty of a "realized eschatology," and reduces Jesus' eschatology to a renewal of a this-worldly order, thereby denying the destruction of this time/space continuum; and, in this same vein, 2) that Wright is guilty of affirming a "physical" resurrection of the body, rather than a new "spiritual" body; and some seem unsure Wright even affirms a real resurrection of Jesus.
Basically, Wright's response to these criticisms is: 1) that he is focusing only on Jesus' view based on the synoptic texts, and against the background of the 1st century Jewish worldview, and that his own view is best captured by the phrase "inaugurated eschatology"; and 2) that he does not deny a "real" resurrection of Jesus, but Jesus does not expound this topic himself; and he will deal with it in the next volume.
I shared Wright's reaction. While a couple of the reviewers specificaly noted they had struggled to see things from within the new perspective offered by Wright, and had changed some of their views, still, most of the criticisms stood firm within the older perspective and really did not offer arguments to refute Wright's position--this is what caused Wright's response to be so sharp.
While there is some good material contained in the book, for the MOST part the reviews were shallow and picky. At times, you wondered whether the reviewer had really read Wright's book, or, at least, really tried to come to grips with it. Most of the responses were obviously emotional reactions to Wright's reading of apocalytic, which was, in turn, read by the "conservative" reviewers as a direct threat to their affirmation of the "Second Coming" of Christ. This in spite of the fact that Wright affirms a future consummation-- only he does not think that many of the passages in Scripture that have traditionally been used to support that fact actually refer to it. In general, there was very little substantive provided by way of "working through" Wright's ideas. This was clearly an opportunity for many of these more "evangelical" scholars to gain respect for their scholarship, but, sadly, they showed just how their dominant theological view can be and how it can inhibit scholarly objective research.
Part of the fault of the book must lie with the format of the book itself. Basically, Wright's book is a historical work with direct relevance to Christological study, which includes a treatment of the synoptic materials. Yet, reviewers covering the full range of N.T. theology (e.g., ethics) were chosen to participate. It seems it would have gone very differently if some of the top scholars had been chosen to review his work (e.g., Sanders, Witherington), and the subject areas limited to those actually dealt with by Wright. Several of the reviewers actually stated that it was a bit unfair of them to review his work when he did not actually deal with the topic of their critique! This project thus began on the wrong foot and hobbled along the entire course. This is why, in his response to his reviewers, Wright had more than a few hard words for them.
|