N. T. Wright- Christian Origins & Qn of God

7/30/2019 N. T. Wright- Christian Origins & Qn of God

1/4

166 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 66, 2004

depicted: "Obviously they are not people who are unremittingly hostile to Jesus One

should not too quickly assume that John always and everywhere portrays 'the Jews'

negatively" (p. 224). Such reminders are crucial for theological students and pastors in

training. Indeed, this more nuanced view of the relationship between the Jews and theJohannine community is too often lacking in interpretations of the Gospel.

Smith seems to have the theological student in mind also in his comments on the

Farewell Discourse.He discusses the idea of Spirit-inspiration as the second of two historical-

theological factors that he believes influenced the composition ofthe Gospel (the first factor

is the Pharisaic opposition discussed above). Pointing to both Revelation and 1 John as

evidence for the authoritative role of the Spirit and/or the exalted Christ in addressing the

early Christian community, S. proposes that the same inspiration lies behind the composi

tion ofGospel: "it is reasonable and likelyto surmise that Spirit inspiration and prophetic

speech have deeply affected his presentation of the words of Jesus" (p. 299). For S., Spirit

inspiration provides an alternative to thinking that the author either presents Jesus' words

verbatim or composes them de novo.

Another strength is S.'s clear explanation, throughout the commentary, ofthe nuances

ofthe Greek text and his measured assessment and critique of several English translations,

especially the NRSV and RSV. He reminds readers explicitly, and consistently demon

strates, that "translation is already interpretation" (p. 73). Such close work with the Greek

text and with multiple translations provides a model of exegetical method.

My only criticism of the commentary is that it is perhaps too successful in repre

senting the scholarly mainstream. On the one hand, I appreciate the need for clarity and

coherence, and I understand the restrictions of the commentary format. On the other hand,I miss more explication of alternative views. For example, while S. is sensitive to the

reciprocal nature of first-century hostilities, he does not present the minority position that

is opposed to the Martyn/Brown paradigm. (S. does acknowledge such views in "The

Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding of John," in The Conversation

Continues:Studiesin Pauland John in HonorofJ. LouisMartyn [ed. R. T. Fortna and

B. Gaventa; Nashville: Abingdon, 1990] 274-94.) Furthermore, were I to use the commen

tary in the classroom, I would have to supplement it with work that attends more closely

to the distinctive role of women in the Gospel. Though there is a significant body of

scholarship on the subject, S. gives little attention to this aspect of the Gospel.In sum, Smith contributes a lucid, thorough presentation of mainstream Johannine

scholarship that will be readily accessible to a broad audience. This is no small achieve

ment; but precisely because such an audienceunfortunately, even one made up of theo

logical studentsis not likely to engage more detailed scholarship, there is a need to

expose readers to a diversity of views, even in works of the commentary genre.

Colleen M. Conway, SetonHall University, S. Orange, NJ 07079

. . WRIGHT, Christian Originsand the Question of God: Volume 3, The Resurrection

of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). Pp. xxi + 817. Paper $39.


2/4

BOOK REVIEWS 167

exile). Each has also worked out the implications of the revision for presenting a master

narrative of earliest Christianity, but none has done so as vigorously as W., building upon

the two earlier volumes ofChristianOrigins: The New Testament and the People of God

and Jesus and the Victory of God(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992,1996). W.'s study unpacksthe famous line of C. F. D. Moule to the effect that there is no explanation for the rise of

the church apart from the church's own: the resurrection of Jesus.

Wright's thesis is straightforward: (1) the term "resurrection" was Jewish and meant

reembodiment, or, in his own catchy phrase, "life 'after life after death,' " and it did not

mean "going to heaven" or (present) spiritual existence or the Eternal in Time or exaltation

or immortality (innate or acquired); (2) resurrection as a metaphor for national restoration

(as in Ezekiel 37) was adapted by early Christianity to describe various dimensions of

Christian living (e.g., baptism, holiness, etc.); (3) Paul's famous statements in 1 Corin

thians 15 and 2 Corinthians 4-5 described not a spiritual resurrection but reembodiment;(4) resurrection was about the affirmation of the goodness of God's creation and was,

therefore, always a politically explosive belief; finally, (5) alternative explanations of the

rise of the church and of the unique revision of Jewish beliefs now found embedded in the

NT are not rooted in careful, historical definitions of what "resurrection" meant, nor are

they historically credible.

Wright's lengthy discussion is broken intofiveparts: "Setting the Scene" (methodolog

ical questions, life beyond death in ancient paganism, the OT, and Judaism); "Resurrection

in Paul" (with special emphasis on 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 4-5); "Resurrection

in Early Christianity apart from Paul" ; "The Story of Easter" ; and the exploration of thesignificance of a bodily resurrection in "Belief, Event, and Meaning." W.'s task is ambi

tious (no surprise here); no current book on resurrection engages so many texts or so many

scholars.

The strengths of W.'s treatment are several: (1) Aware as he is of how specific events

take on meaning only in the context of larger worldviews, he consistently places each

author and text in its larger context. While the criticism of his continuing emphasis on the

exile will continue, his historical method of setting texts within a worldview cannot be

faulted. When it comes to Paul, he may overcook this approachthere is a thirty-four page

introduction to the Corinthian evidence!but he claims it is all necessary to demonstrate,

in the face of a crowd of naysayers, that Paul's understanding of the nature of Jesus'

resurrection body is concrete, real, and corporeal.

(2) W. contends that the resurrected body is both continuous with the present body

and discontinuous, and so he invents the neologism "transphysicality." By using this term,

however, W. is not agreeing with the many who think that early Christians thought of the

resurrected body more or less in agreement with The Epistle to Rheginos. Here, W. has an

extensive discussion ofsoma psychikon ("ordinary human life") and soma pneumatikon

("a life indwelt by the Spirit of God"), with suggestions and criticisms for everyone (pp.

347-56). The conclusion that the conception ofJesus' reembodiment was rooted in Judaism

(see pp. 200-206) is a perspective consistently applied through the entire book and isregularly used in surprising ways to denounce arguments that are attractive to some (e.g.,


3/4

168 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 66, 2004

death, found a solid view in the Pharisees' view of resurrection as reembodiment, and it

is out of the Pharisaic viewpoint that earliest Christian thinking developed and made its

two-stage (first Jesus, then the church) modification. W. integrates the entire sweep of early

Christian discussion into a unity around the notion of a bodily resurrection, with variationsbeing late and marginal. He regularly challenges prevailing paradigms and developmental

schemes, and his challenge to postmodern historiography deserves discussion. W.'s method

does not permit simple discussion of texts; he explores their significance along the lines

of praxis, symbol, story, and questions (pp. 578-83). W. does not permit the language of

resurrection to be used, as it conventionally is, to mean "going to heaven" and the like;

instead, resurrection is about theology proper and about national/universal rather than per

sonal eschatology. He argues that it was both the empty tomb and the appearances that,

together, generated the early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus; it was not, as is

so often argued, the appearances only. Finally, W.does not offer cheap and dog-eared argu

ments for the resurrection; his challenge is much richer and seeks to answer this question:

What are the sufficient and necessary conditions to explain the early Christian belief that

Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah? W. extends his understanding of resurrection

just where it was headed among the early Christians: into christology and theology proper.

My criticisms are not substantial, and I must emphasize that none of them undermines

my general agreement with W.'s central thesis about reembodiment: (1) Bibliographically,

W. has chosen for his discussion partners, among others, Peter Carnley, A. J. M. Wedder-

burn, Pheme Perkins, M.-E. Boismard, and (as expected) John Dominic Crossan. He has

avoided serious engagement with others, some of whomwho must go unmentioned

hereI would like to see brought to the table. (2) For some odd reason, W seems not toknow of the resurrection of Job's children in T. Job 39:8-40:3, a source which is both

Jewish and quite at odds with his view; also the experience of Phinehas in LAB 48; that

of Baruch in 2 Bar. 46:7; 48:30; 76:2-5; that of Ezra in 4 Ezra 14:9; or that of Elijah in

Apoc. El. (4:7-19; 5:32). (3) More importantly,W. tends toward "explanation"the taking

up of evidence, say in Paul or 1 Enoch or Jubilees, into an explanatory narrativerather

than "demonstration," which is the use of concrete evidence, terminological studies, etc.

(e.g., pp. 667-75). Good hypotheses are also good explanations; but sometimes what is

needed is a simple demonstration. (4) W concentrates on Paul and has short-changed the

resurrection narratives when it comes to matters of the nature of the resurrected body; norhas he subjected the Easter narratives to a tradition-critical study.

No serious scholar of earliest Christianity can avoid this book, for the simple reason

that the resurrection was fundamental to that faith. W. contends that a constitutive element

of that faith was reembodiment, "life after life after death."

Scot McKnight, North Park University, Chicago, IL 60625


4/4

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according 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 journal

typically 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 covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright 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 previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection 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

N. T. Wright- Christian Origins & Qn of God