187. N. T. Wright's Res. of Son of God- Review

7/30/2019 187. N. T. Wright's Res. of Son of God- Review

1/4

184 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

"the existence ofanthropological constants has not been demonstrated andtherefore none will be presupposed here" (18), it would be ofgreat interest

to see how he might reply to the work ofBourguignon and Goodman,among other social scientists, as well as to biblical scholars who have usedtheir insights to great hermeneutical advantage.

A fair judgment of his book would therefore be that in 1991 the book(and a timely translation of it) could have helped frame key questionsabout his principal topic: historical psychology (the actual title of the German book). The translation, appearing in 2003, reduces the original workto an item ofhistorical interest, a witness to scholarly thinking on this topicin 1991. Most, ifnot all ofB.'s observations, insights, and caveats have been

adequately confirmed, sharpened, or refuted by interdisciplinary biblicalscholarship since that time. This is certainly true concerning visions and skyjourneys.

Georgetown University, Washington JOHN J. PILCH

THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GO D . By N. T. Wright. Volume 3 of

Christian Origins and the Question ofGod. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.Pp. xxi + 817. $49; $39.

Presented as a survey ofancient Jewish, Greco-Roman, and early Christian sources, N. T. Wright's massive study is also intended as a response tocurrent scholarship. In his view, an interpretation ofearly Christian resurrection belief based on "all kinds ofmisconceptions about both the keyideas and the key texts" (xvii) has pervaded the scholarly guild to thedetriment both ofthe historical evidence and ofthe guild itself. In fact, W.likens his task to weeding a garden and "sowing . . . the seeds ofwhat . . .is the historically grounded alternative" (xvii).

W.'s argument is a stepwise response to a set ofviews that characterize

the "broadly dominant paradigm for understanding Jesus' resurrection" (7)that he opposes: (a) "resurrection" could mean a variety ofthings in earlyJudaism; (b) Paul's understanding ofresurrection was more spiritual thanbodily; (c) the earliest Christians believed not in Jesus' bodily resurrectionbut in his "exaltation/ascension/glorification," and bodily resurrection language developed afterwards; (d) the resurrection narratives themselves arelater developments; (e) the appearances of the risen Jesus are to be un-derstood as internal visionary experiences analogous to Paul's conversionexperience in Acts; (f) Jesus' body was not resuscitated or raised in the

sense ofbodily resurrection and tomb-emptying.W. begins with a discussion ofhistorical enquiry and how and why it is

appropriate to ask about the Resurrection in such categories answering a


2/4

BOOK REVIEWS 185

ied existence that follows (narratively) an intermediate postmortem disembodied state.

W.'s survey of "ancient paganism" (33-84) covers the variety ofways lifeafter death was imagined in the Greco-Roman world, most of which hadlittle or no concern about the fate of the body. He concludes that "outsideJudaism, nobody believed in resurrection" (35), and he finds that possibleanalogies, such as postmortem translation and apotheosis, "shed no light"(or, had no influence) on early Christian resurrection belief (76-77).Within biblical Judaism, however, W. argues that it was impossible toconceive of a nonbodily resurrection; Daniel 12:2-3 (often used in currentscholarship as a counter-example) is read as referring to bodily resurrec

tion (109). Even when used metaphorically to refer to the restoration ofIsrael, the idea of resurrection did not lose its original, concrete referent(204). W. notes that a critical mutation in Jewish resurrection belief occurred in early Christianity: whereas resurrection was a future corporate/national hope peripheral in Jewish theology, it was particularized in thecase of Jesus, became central, and had new metaphorical associations.

The discussion of resurrection in Paul's writings is thorough and valuable. Interestingly, W. says that the problem of Paul's silence about theempty tomb (e.g., in 1 Cor 15) is "not significant," as the resurrection is

incomprehensible apart from the emptying of a tomb; therefore, the sequence "was buried, then raised" necessarily implies what was universallyaccepted in Jewish discourse on resurrection (321). However, this tersedismissal evades the rhetorical problem of why Paul makes no mention ofthe empty tomb in his argument for "the resurrection of the dead."

After surveying other canonical and noncanonical early Christian writings (to Origen), W. finally comes to the resurrection narratives of theGospels. Here his work seems less thorough than with Paul, largely because he eschews tradition-historical and redaction-critical investigations.In W.'s view the texts demand this: he says the narratives appear not tohave undergone much theological development, and they show little sign ofliterary interdependence (which W. does not sufficiently demonstrate).This means that the narratives of Matthew, Luke, and John go back to"very early oral tradition, representing three different ways in which theoriginal astonished participants told the stories. These traditions have received only minimal development... for the very good reason that storiesas earth-shattering [and] community-forming as this, once told, are noteasily modified. Too much depends on them" (611).

In the final chapters W. does not retreat from building to a conclusionabout what really happened to Jesus. The early Christian reshaping oftraditional Jewish resurrection belief cannot be explained on any other


3/4

186 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

dead, 'explains the aggregate' of the evidence better than ... sophisticatedscepticisms" (717).

The style throughout is direct, colorful, and engaging, and W.'s workwith the primary literature is wide-ranging and judicious. On these groundsalone the book is to be recommended. At times, however, W. is hostile toopposing views. His occasional polemical tone might achieve a positiverhetorical effect in readers predisposed to W.'s position, but it will notencourage others to rethink the issue. These concerns, however, can perhaps be overlooked in the light of W.'s impressive contribution in framingthe question and presenting his readings of the evidence.

Huron University College, London, OntarioDANIEL

A.SMITH

FROM SYMPOSIUM TO EUCHARIST. THE BANQUET IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN

WORLD. By Dennis E. Smith. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Pp. 411. $25.

Dennis Smith, professor of New Testament at Philips Theological Seminary, began the study of ancient banquet traditions and Christian mealswith his 1980 doctoral dissertation at Harvard. This volume makes twodecades of further research available to students of early Christianity.Footnotes and bibliography provide all the details scholars might require.At the same time, S. provides for nonspecialists translations of ancientsources. Senior undergraduate theology majors were able to use individualchapters of this book.

The first five chapters treat banquets as a central institution of Greco-Roman culture. S. argues that there was a common set of rules, behavior,and expectations attached to banquets. He rejects the distinction betweenmeals that occurred in sacred contexts, such as those following animalsacrifice in temple precincts, and those in a secular context such as a tradeassociation or private home. All meals exhibit elements of ritual honor to

the gods, of social bonding among participants, and of pleasurable entertainment. Degrees of emphasis may distinguish one type of meal fromanother. Certainly the pleasures of philosophical conversation on the latestliterary work differ from the drunken riot of sexual and culinary excessdepicted in Roman satire.

Most modern readers think of banquets as large affairs. For an ordinaryhousehold only nine or so guests could be accommodated. A trade guild ofcarpenters in Ostia had a membership list of some 350. Its hall could notaccommodate more than 36 persons. Reclining is the social privilege of

freeborn males. Any slaves, women, or children present would sit or, in avery exceptional case such as a wedding, be together on the "lowest" couch(11 17) S provides drawings of the ancient dining area with its reclining


4/4

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

187. N. T. Wright's Res. of Son of God- Review