194. n. t. wright's res. of son of god- review

8/23/2019 194. N. T. Wright's Res. of Son of God- Review

1/3

BOOK REVIEWS 97

. T. WRIGHT, The Resurrection ofthe Son ofGod(Minneapolis* Fortress, 2003),pp. xa + 817, SUS. 39 00. ISBN 08006-3615-5.

This is the third book of a projected five-volume senes entitled Christum Originsandthe Question ofGod. Readers of the first two volumes, The New Testamentand thePeople ofGod(1992) ana Jesusandthe Victory ofGod (1996) will have become accustomed to a high standard ofhistorical, theological and exegetical discussion, whichaddresses larger worldviewquestions. Theywill not be disappointed with this bookWright has accomplished what has been needed for a long time: he has studiedthe early Christian proclamation that Jesus rose from the dead within the contextof beliefs about life after death in second-temple Judaism and the wider surrounding culture. His conclusion is that when Christians began to speak of theresurrection of Jesus the Messiah this constituted something entirelynew. Nothinglike it is found in the pagan culture of the time, where death was viewed as a"one way street" (81). Even the second-temple Jewish notion of resurrection held

by some (national restoration in a metaphorical sense, or a second stage of postmortem life: "life after life after death") was vague and peripheral by contrast withthe Christian proclamation, which was clear and central. Three days after hiscrucifixion, Jesus had risen bodily from the dead. This was as new as it was unexpected.

The bodily resurrection of Jesus and of Christians is crucial to Wright's studyHis survey of both Jewish and Christian texts demonstrates that when the termresurrection was used it meant bodily resurrection: "Resurrection meant embodiment, that was equally so for pagans, who denied it as it was for Jews, at leastsome ofwhom hoped for it." (694). This observation is central to the whole study,

the heart ofwhich is a survey of the entire corpus ofwriting about Jesus and theresurrection in the first two centuries (207-682). Wright's careful exegesis leads tothe conclusion that, "The combination ofempty tomb and appearances of the liv-ing Jesus forms a set of circumstances which is itself both necessary andsufficient forthe rise ofChristian belief Without these phenomena, we cannot explain why this

beliefcame into existence, and took the shape it did. With them, we can explainit exactly and precisely." (696).

Fundamental to the book, indeed to the whole project, is the msistence uponthe importance ofworldviewquestions The first section of Volume One must beread carefully to appreciate the arguments, historical, exegecal and epistemologica! in Volume Three What are the underlying story, symbol, praxis and ques

tions of documents considered? Those who would object that alternate forms ofearly Christianity deserve equal time with the gospels and Paul [The Gospel ofThomas only gets three pages, the canonical gospels two whole sections: 401-449,616-682) must reckon with the fact that Thomas or other Gnostic documents woulduse that time to offer a decidedly different worldview, with a consequently differentunderstanding of resurrection Wright acknowledges that the meaning of Thomas71 is not obvious, but sayings 29, 87 and 112 are clearer, the body is to berejected. The work is "explicitly anti-creational" (537) Similarly, in the Acts ofThomas 147, "What matters is the soul, not the body. The latter is cheerfully leftbehind, not wanted for the final voyage." (533) So, too, Epistle to Rhegmos. Thislate second century work also known as Treatise on the Resurrection, "shares withValentinians a deep skepticism about the value of the created world." (540). It isthe value of creation, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus as "the start of a wholenew mode of existence, a new creation," (712) that is at the heart of Wright's

d h h "l Ch i i i i " h b i l d


2/3

98 BOOK REVIEWS

In my review of the first volume of this series, The New Testament and the PeopleofGod, I expressed the hope that in future volumes Wright would give fuller consideration to textual variations (NovTXXXVI, 3 (1994), 296-297). In this present

volume he has given far more attention to text critical questions. He has alsoshown a greater awareness that N.T textual criticism is closely related to the taskof exegesis and theology (e g 670 n. 23). However, Wright ates the 1971 editionof Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary, whereas the second edition (1994) shouldhave been used, since it incorporates recent discoveries and refined methodologies. Consider Luke 24*12. UBS3 gave their decision to include the verse a "D"rating, indicating significant disagreement m the committee The "B" rating forthis "western non-interpolation" in UBS4 indicates a growing confidence m accepting the verse as original, thus strengthening the pomt Wright is seeking to make(613). These "western non-interpolations," among other variations are at the center of the debate over the theological motivation behind textual changes m the

second and third centimes Here the recent discussions of Mark 1:1 and John1.34 should have been mentioned, especially smce both relate to the tide "Son ofGod." Wright does treat the textual problem at John 1.18 (667 n. 13), opting forthe reading of UBS4/Nestle 27. But elsewhere (673) he seemsto assume the alternate reading . Which reading does Wright prefer? Would he retain both as original, as I have argued for all the readings atJohn 1-34?

At other places Wright's brieftextual comments might well have been expanded,although the book is already long enough. His valuable observation on 2 Cor.5.3 (367 n. 152) addresses the issue of scribal assumptions and expectations mcopying texts. But what of textual issues that relate directly to the Resurrection,

for example, 1 Cor. 15:5 What if of 16

^ at Phil. 4:7 is nota later scribal addition, but as I believe, a further Pauline reference to bodily resurrection in that letter? How would Wright treat the noteworthy omission of m

45etc at John 11*25? Here we find a probable echo of Ezekiel 37, and

a two-stage view of resurrection, both of which would be valuable for Wright'sdiscussion.

The publication of this book was concurrent with the announcement of. Wright's appointment as Bishop of Durham Contrasts will inevitably be madewith a recent mcumbent of that office who made news by denying the bodilyresurrection ofJesus But comparisons with modern Bishops of Durham suggestthemselves even more than contrasts Wright's msistence on rigorous historicalmethods (throughout, but especially Chapter 18) is reminiscent ofJ. Iightfoot(Bishop of Durham, 1879-1889). His theological instinct (esp. Chapter 19) remindsone ofB. F. Westcott (1890-1901). Wright's declaration, "History matters becausehuman beings matter" shows deep pastoral concern, reminding this reviewer of C. G. Moule (1901-1920) Still other comparisons suggest themselves. Wright'ssense of humor throughout invokes the ready wit of Hensley Henson (1920-1939).One example is his playfulness over the assumed horse m Paul's Damascus Roadexperience But comparisons and contrasts with the past aside, Tom Wright'sResunectwn of the Son of Godstands on its own as the definitive study of the resurrection for our own time, and likely for some time to come.

PETER R RODGERS


3/3

^ 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 permission

from 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 specific

work 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 American

Theological Library Association.

194. n. t. wright's res. of son of god- review

Documents