Customer Reviews

The New Testament and the People of God Volume 1 (Christian Origins and the Question of God)

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The first of Wright's projected six books in the series. I do not recommend reading out of sequence as you will find yourself overwhelmed by Wright's material. He is carefully constructing an argument that is complex, but the reader will find it rewarding. NTPG is footnoted extensively in the second book of the series, Jesus And The Victory Of God, so reading this book will save the time required to cross reference.

Wright offers a one stop veiw of previous NT research, and expalnation of methodology (both his and other's), and a comprehensive analysis of first century Palenstine. The material lays the ground work for his belief that current NT scholarship is missing the forest in its focus on the trees.

Wright rebuts the current work of the Jesus Seminar, Form Criticism, and other popular researchers that seek to deconstruct the NT in an effort to make the material easier to digest rationally. Ironically, it is Wright's arguments that offer the most credible explanation for the origin of the NT material.

This book is not an easy read, and may require a refresher course in history, methodology, and some of the social sciences. I found myself dusting of books not read since college to familiarize myself with some of Wright's references. But the whole experience is well worth the effort.

This book calls into question most of the liberal scholarship and much of the "traditional orthodox" research. I believe it will change the focus of NT Studies once the series is complete.

Any attempt to characterize this book is like trying to bottle a whirlwind--it is a massive, heavily documented, and well argued case for a historical understanding of the origin of Christianity. Basically, Wright argues for: 1) a proper historical methodology, 2) a 2nd-temple Jewish background for Jesus & the N.T., and 3) a Jewish Messianic understanding of earliest Christian community.

According to Wright, there is no such thing as a totally "objective" neutral view of reality; and while the N.T. offers an "interpretation" of Jesus, it is precisely the historical Jesus who is presented to us--rather than distorting Jesus, or creating a figure, to express their own private perspective, their witness brings out the "real" significance of the historical Jesus. Thus Wright argues for a "critical realism" methodology. Next Wright argues for a common worldview of 2nd temple Judaism, via an examination of its typical praxis, symbols, and beliefs. Then he argues that we can best understand Jesus, the N.T., and the earliest Christian community against this background. In all of these arguments, Wright draws upon numerous extant Jewish sources and references to other scholarly works.

Wright's treatment is comprehensive, massive, detailed, compelling, and original. His treatment of Jesus, the N.T., and the early Christian community against the Jewish background brings them to life, is believable and convincing; and throughout his book he critiques other scholarly positions and demonstrates how his offers a more probable accurate historical point of view. In the process, he destroys numerous traditional critical theories and sets the direction for all future discussion.

Part of me wants to give N.T. Wright's "The New Testament and the People of God" five stars. Another part is leaning towards three. I'm gonna split the difference and give this monolith of a book four stars.

Wright is one of my favorite authors. This does not mean I agree with him all of the time. His critiques of those he disagrees with theologically are masterful. He lays careful foundations for his own work. His methods are generally quite solid. A lot of his conclusions are insightful. However, there are some things about Wright's work that leave me puzzled. For instance, I cannot understand his insistence that Jesus didn't really "know" know that he was the Son of God.

This notwithstanding, "The New Testament and the People of God" is an excellent first volume in what will no doubt be Wright's magnum opus: "Christian Origins and the Question of God ." This first volume sees Wright laying out the principles he uses while doing his work, discussing the history of much of the work that was done preceding him, and examining the world Jesus was born into.

The length of five hundred pages is deceptive. "The New Testament and the People of God"is a very dense read. It is heavily (though not too heavily) footnoted. Its ideas take adequate time for reflection to digest. I would even go so far as to suggest that reader either unfamiliar with Wright's work or not used to reading theology or books about the historical Jesus start with one of Wright's more popular books in preparation for reading this series. I would recommend starting with a book such as "The Way of the Lord," "The Challenge of Jesus," or "The Crown and the Fire" instead of starting cold on a massive undertaking like "The New Testament and the People of God." Wright is a great writer. You don't want to turn yourself off to him by jumping into the deep waters before you're ready.

I recommend this book highly.

This book is the first volume in N.T. Wright's series of books on "The question of God," and Wright spends the first quarter of the book explaining and defining the methodology he intends to apply to the task. This makes for some tedious reading if one has never studied (or studied and found horribly boring) literary theory or historical method. But it is important to the argument he is making. I went back and read it again once I got into the "good stuff" (the historical background of Second Temple Judaism) just so I wouldn't miss any of the finer points he was making.

Wright's interpretation of Second Temple Judaism is a variation on E.P. Sanders and J.D.G. Dunn's "New Perspective", which denies that the Jews in Jesus' time believed they could earn salvation through acts of covenantal loyalty. Wright parts ways with Sanders at several imporant points, though, including the historicity of Jesus' debates with the Pharisees (which he explores more fully in "Jesus and the Victory of God") and seems to be less interested in doing apologetics for Second Temple Jews than Sanders.

But with Sanders, he argues for a pluriform Judaism. He cites scads of ancient texts which catalogue the debates between the Pharisaical schools of Shammai and Hillel, the separatist Essenes and the Sadducess. These groups all expected the "forgiveness of sin" to involve YHWH moving decisively against those who refused to acknowledge him in the way he deserved, which included not only the Gentiles, but also members of the other sects of Judaism which did not hold to their belief system, and to exalt their particular group as the true children of Israel, returned from exile at last. Most strikingly, Wright says the Pharisees were a revolutionary party, drawing largely on their roots in the Maccabean period.

Wright's historical method is as fine as any I have seen in any history book on any topic in any genre. His command of the ancient and secondary sources is quite impressive. He is a cogent thinker and his work has little touches of ironic humor that endear the reader.

But Wright's eschatology leaves something to be desired. He claims that Second Temple Jews could not have understood the "little apocalypse" in Mark 13 as referring to end of the "space-time universe" and that it refers to destruction of the Temple in AD 70 rather than a scene of judgment at the Parousia. Instead, he recommends reading all apocalyptic language as figuratively referring to actual socio-political events.

Traditional scholars have often underestimated the importance of Jesus' proclamation of judgement on the temple. But it seems that Wright's position, following Dodd and Caird before him, is a response to Bultmann's mockery of Schweitzer's picture of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet. Wright's eschatology gives too much in this area.

I have not yet read the "Resurrection of the Son of God", which presumably will tie in the importance of Christ's life and death to someone who lives millenia after AD 70. The expectation of Christ's return as the eschatological judge of the world has been the signal belief of Christians since the time of the apostles; I am not wiling to give it up because of the opinion of a handful of scholars doing battle against existentialism.

On balance, the book is worth your time and money, but, as always, read critically.

It is difficult to speak of this work without over selling. Serious Bible students and theologians alike must read Wright's work. He does not simply rehash old theories; he steps out with fresh insight and boldly states his positions without apology. He masterfully builds his case.
The first 144 pages are spent on the subject of epistemology. After he has thoroughly introduced you to this subject he then moves on to teach, in a very readable and interesting way, about the history of the Jews from exile to Bar Kochba. He demonstrates his understanding of primary source documents to such a degree that one wonders do they even need to read anyone else on the subject. This book is thorough, but good. Wright presents his material in such a way as to teach and convince, rather than to show off how much he knows. This is not a light read. The subject matter is heavy, but definitely worth the work with what I find to be a great teacher.
Wright moves from Jewish history and thought into Church history and thought and ends with a chapter that bears the title of the book.
After I got past the first 144 pages of the book this book became hard to put down. If you get this book and find the first 144 pages too laborious, skip it and then read the first part later, but make sure you do not quit on this book. The good news is that this is just volume one and afterwards comes Jesus And The Victory of God. I am just starting on it now, but can already tell that it will equal or exceed this book.

This book is one of your better examples of conversative scholarship at its best. In Wright's first volume of his *Christian Origins and the Question of God*, he divides the book into 5 parts. The first part (Introduction), deals with a general overview of what Wright is about to embark upon. In the second part (Tools for the Task), Wright lays out certain epistemic critera he's going to use as he lays out his argument, as well as an enlightening part on the immpossibility of giving an unbiased view of history. It's good to see a scholar admit that, before laying out his argument of what he considers the the evidense to mean. Of course, the problem with bias is solved when you figure out that there is nothing wrong with your particular bias. That is, there is nothing wrong with good bias. Part 3 (First-Century Judaism within the Greco-Roman World), is over exactly what it sounds like. Wright gives an awesome overview of the stories, and views of 2nd-Temple Judaism. Wight shows thier views from both popular scholarly opinions (and gives his own opinion of those), and extensively uses primary sources as well. Part 4 (The First Christian Century) is nicely done as well. Wright shows in Part 4, and then in Part 5 (Conclusion) that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalyptic figure, considering the stories and view of both 1st century Judaism and 1st century Christianity. Wright's arguments are extremely convincing when dealing with the primary sources, and opinions of numerous scholars.

This, and then his second volume *Jesus and Victory of God* from this same series of books, are must reads. You will find his opinions on the subject matters thoroughly done, and will find it hard to disagree with the conclusions he drawls, as I did when I read it.

This series although quite lengthy from THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD, JESUS AND THE VICTORY OF GOD, AND THE RESSURECTION OF THE SON OF GOD. Is a must read for anyone who is interested in the truth. Wright gets into not only the theological but the historic fact of political upheaval in the first centuries as well the hope of the everyday Jew and the messiah they were looking for. Wright fully believes in the resurrection of Christ and that he is the vary presence of God and that in him all the scripture are fulfilled. And that God does not come in and out of the world but is always in control it a lot of reading but well worth it. This series is a refreshing in that it looks into how the bible was understood in the first centuries and not how the twentieth century sees it and Christ. This is the right step to take as Christian

I was introduced to N.T. Wright in a Life of Christ class at my university, and out of my research for greater understanding of who "Christ" was and is, sought to read the great 6 volume work which has yet to be completed. I was taken-back by how large the first volume was, however, in reading the first page or two, you get sucked into this great third contemporary quest for the "historical Jesus." I am shocked that out of all those on board for the third quest, N.T. Wright is one of the only ones to believe that Jesus indeed is the Jewish Messiah. In the New Testament and the People of God, Wright establishes a greater background than people are traditionally willing to accept - that is that Jesus was Jewish. He removed the clouds that people paint over their eyes when focusing upon the greatest figure in history. The idea that Jesus was similar to the image created in our minds in the movie "Jesus of Nazareth"; an Englishman who wears clean clothes, speaks English, had a well-kept modern beard, and looked nothing like how people in the Middle East do look. In this book, I enjoy Wright's scholarly effort to tame the American Evangelical Fundamentalist view on who Jesus was. I encourage all of you who would like to enjoy a deeply complex scholarly work on the historical Jesus and are mildly serious scholars to begin your "quest" by finding out who He was, and taking into account Wright's view on the Jewishness of Christ our Lord.

As a Confessional Lutheran, it might seem odd that I am giving an NT Wright book five stars. Though I disagree with his interpretation of Paul, I must admit that NT Wright is one of the most brilliant scholars of our day. It is refreshing to see a scholar of such high caliber that takes the Biblical material seriously.
The first 144 pages of this book may be hard to get through for some. They describe Wright's methodology, and are much more philosophical than theological, or historical. I urge you to get through this section, because it is essential to understanding NT Wrights understanding of the whole New Testament. Wright rejects two forms of modern epistemology: phenomenalism, and positivism. The categories of objective and subjective are wrong according to Wright, because knowledge involves both the known and the knower. He defines his own epistemology as "critical realism." Wright shows his readers how no document is written apart from the authors preconcieved view of the world. In the same way, one who comes to a text brings his own worldview to it. Thus, to understand a document, one must go inside the worldview of the writer, which Wright sees as primarilly narrative. To understand the New Testament, we must have some knowledge of Jewish thought in the second temple period.
In the second section of the book, Wright overviews the events of the intertestamental period which provide a backdrop for the New Testament. He then analyzes the worldview of second temple Judaism. He recognizes that there are many differences within Judaism, and one should speak of "Judaisms", however, there was still a unifying worldview behind it all. This worldview included the main ideas of monotheism, creation, election, and covenant. Wright explains that it is not right to speak of Systematic Theology is second temple Judaism. It was much more a way of life, and a narrative one was a part of than a set theology. For example, in the second temple period the Shema was not a statement about God's ontological oneness as some Jews defined it after the Christian dogma of the trinity, but it was about Israel's God as the true God against all others. One point I do disagree with Wright on is the idea that Jews believed themselves to still be in exile because they were under Roman oppression. The Jews certainly did hope for a future restoration, where they would triumph over their oppressors, however, that does not mean they were still in exile. Rather, the promise had not yet come to fulfillment, though it had been partially fulfilled.
The third part of this book discusses the Christian narrative as compared to the Jewish. Wright shows that Christianity took the Jewish narrative and reworked it around the death and resurrection of Christ. He shows how the gospels are each in their own ways retellings of the story of Israel through the life of Jesus.
There are a few things I disagree with in this book. I think Wright's focus on narrative may be playing to much into the postmodern mindset of meta-narrative, and can demean propositional truth. I believe his view of Paul is wrong because he forces narrative when there is none. The New Testament can be systematic and deeply theological, yet that does not downplay the necessity of the continuous narrative of Israel fulfilled in Christ. Proposition and narrative are not mutually exclusive. I also disagree with Wright's interpretation of the Son of man in Daniel as being Israel and not a messianic figure (who of course is Christ). However, overall this is a fantastic book, and there is not nearly enough space for me to describe all that this book entails. Any serious student of the New Testament needs this book.

From the great reviews that have been written and that I concur, I add this review only as "consumer alert" that you understand what you might be getting yourself into if you are not somewhat prepared.

Wright's "New Testament and the People of God" has been excellently reviewed here by Amazon readers (excepting the poor reader that gave 1 star and gave up at Ch3!). I had structured a 5-star `comprehensive' review in my mind, but after reading the reviews ... there is nothing to add to the outpouring of spot-on thoughts that have been shared

In consideration of the 1 star reviewer ... and in the hope that there will be only one disappointed reader, I'll provide my 2 cents. The book is indeed dense (and the print too small!), it is scholarship, and it will joyously send even the most lexicon savvy reader to the dictionary from time to time. It is an aggressive God seeker project to consume it ... it is a full meal indeed!

I'm not sure this would be a `first choice' for a reader not already familiar with say 200BC-100AD Judeo-Christian history and society. If you are in that category, I would recommend:

New Testament History: A Narrative Account

and/or

The New Testament Story