Reviewed Book: Wright, November T. (Nicholas Thomas), Bp. Who was Jesus?. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: SPCK, 1992

Bjorndahl, Sterling

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 21Issue 2 Aspects of Ecumenity Article 1111-1-1995Who was Jesus?Sterling BjorndahlFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationBjorndahl, Sterling (1995) "Who was Jesus?," Consensus: Vol. 21 : Iss. 2 , Article 11.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol21/iss2/11Book Reviews 119Admirable, from this reviewer’s perspective are the rich and comprehen-sive studies compassing a volume of modest length. This Bible Handbookis a helpful review for scholars and pastors already acquainted with OldTestament Studies and also a worthwhile project for those engaged in theseefforts for the first time.Ragnar C. TeigenProfessor emeritus,Waterloo Lutheran SeminaryWho Was Jesus?N.T. WrightGrand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992107 pagesThis slender volume is primarily an extended and occasionally ascerbicreview of three recent and controversial books about Jesus. It is roundedout by an introductory chapter which sketches the history of HistoricalJesus research, and a conclusion which sets the frame for Wright’s ownmajor work on Jesus.The first chapter introduces the reader to the problem of the HistoricalJesus and to the scholars who have proposed solutions, from Reimarus overtwo hundred years ago to recent serious monographs. This is a serviceableintroduction to the issues. However, like any attempt to summarize majorworks in a few paragraphs, it loses important nuances. Especially regardingthe more recent works by Crossan and Mack, the reader is advised to con-sult the original volumes and other reviews rather than relying entirely onWright’s summaries. One can easily see that Wright’s well known attemptto divide Historical Jesus research into three “quests”, and to place Crossan,Mack, and the Jesus Seminar into the second of the three, is inaccurate.Chapter two discusses Barbara Thiering’s hypothesis, which has beenpopularized in her book Jesus the Man: A New Interpretation from theDead Sea Scrolls. Thiering claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls give us directinformation about the first generation of Christianity, despite recent unam-biguous carbon dating which places them well before the Christian era. Shealso claims that both the scrolls and the Gospels were written in a kind ofsecret code that she alone has been able to decipher. Among her “findings”are that Jesus was not only married and had children, but divorced andremarried. His death and resurrection were faked. Thiering’s hypothesis isso far into the fringes of the academy that one cannot in good consciencerecommend reading her work, except perhaps as a curiosity. Wright’s re-view of Thiering, though, is worth reading, in case you encounter someonewho might have stumbled across her work and asks you questions about it.Her work does have appeal to those who enjoy conspiracy theories.120 ConsensusChapter three is about A.N. Wilson’s book Jesus. Wilson is not an aca-demic but a popular writer, which is both a strength and a weakness. Heattempts to render established scholarship about Jesus comprehensible andrelevant, but he does so in a way that is sensationalistic and frequently inac-curate. His agenda is to debunk traditional Christianity. Wright correctlyidentifies those portions of Wilson’s book that are sound, and colourfullytakes Wilson to task when he has misused the evidence. As is the casewith many debunking popularizers, Wilson wants to demonstrate that Je-sus could not have been God’s son. This allows Wright to make the pointthat the Christian claim says more about God than it does about Jesus:“This is the really scary thing that writers like A. N. Wilson never cometo grips with. . . that the one true God might actually look like Jesus. . . ashrewd Palestinian Jewish villager who drank wine with his friends, ago-nized over the plight of his people, taught in strange stories and pungentaphorisms, and was executed by the occupying forces” (p. 52).In chapter four Wright discusses Episcopalian Bishop John ShelbySpong’s popular and controversial book Born of a Woman: A Bishop Re-thinks the Birth of Jesus. Spong continues his recent work of “rescuingthe Bible from fundamentalism” by showing the mythological nature of thebirth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Spong wants to show believers howto take the Bible seriously without taking it literally. Wright agrees withSpong’s attempt to debunk a naive supernaturalism, but he departs fromSpong at several methodological points. As with Wilson, Wright criticizesSpong for assuming Platonic or 18th century philosophical ideas about God,rather than starting with the more concrete. Biblical understanding of God.The final chapter paves the way for Wright’s reconstruction of the His-torical Jesus. Wright believes that Jesus saw himself in the style of theancient Hebrew prophets, calling the nation to repentance before God usedthe power of Rome to smash the rebellious Israel. In a departure from mostcurrent scholarship, Wright trusts Mark’s account that Jesus foresaw hisown death and resurrection, and imagined himself as the catalyst for thecoming judgement. In an echo of Pauline theology, Wright even suggeststhat Jesus thought his death could in some way avert the punishment dueto the nation. At this point most scholars on this side of the Atlantic willdemur that Wright has gone far beyond what the historical evidence willsupport.Sterling BjorndahlAugustana University Gollege,Camrose, Alberta

Who was Jesus?

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1671&amp;context=consensus

Who was Jesus?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University