Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God: v. 1 (Christian Origins & the Question of God) [Taschenbuch]

Wright is certainly correct to root Jesus in the context of Jewish eschatology, and he makes a strong case for the resurrection as a factual, literal event (Vol III, to be published sometime this year, will explore the resurrection in more detail). But he forces too much of the gospel data through this eschatological sieve. The result is a somewhat one-dimensional portrait which screens out other important issues. For instance, even parables like The Prodigal Son and The Talents are read as allegories for "Israel's return from exile" and "Yahweh's return to His people" instead of the social justice stories they really are. Likewise, Jesus' conflict with purity and sabbath is understood soley in eschatological terms instead of peasant inability to cope with the Torah's demands. But Wright can be excused for wielding the eschatological battle-axe a bit heavily, because, on the whole, he has given us a landmark contribution to historical-Jesus studies. Be sure to read it...but also be sure to supplement it with William Herzog's two magisterial books, "Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God" (1999) and "Parables as Subversive Speech" (1994).

In the last chapter of his book, in the section which deals with the aims and beliefs of Jesus, Wright's argument becomes a bit more confusing than his previous chapters, which is to be expected since here he attempts to draw his points together and indicate the Christological implications of his treatment. It follows, therefore, that this is the place where many of the key issues will emerge.

Wright maintains that certain key O.T. texts (e.g., Psalm 110 & Daniel 7) came together in Jesus' mind and, in their combination, constitute a claim to share the throne of God. He also argues this is the basic reason why he is charged with blasphemy at his trial. Wright seems to want to use this claim to support a view that Jesus was "more than" a prophet or the Messiah. While this might well prove to be the case, since even Wright himself points out that there were strands of Jewish thought which also held such belief, more will be needed to justify the claim itself that Jesus was "more than" these.

Throughout his book, Wright has insisted that we should not, and cannot, conclude the "divinity" of Jesus based on certain historical claims (e.g., that he was the "Messiah," "one like a son of man," etc.). He rightly points out that such claims in their various historical contexts do not (at least necessarily) carry this meaning. This raises the question, if such phrases cannot be used as a stepping stone to derive the divinity of Jesus, then how can we ever conclude his being divine?

Wright's main point is that when you put these various strands of thought (stories) together, particularly the underlying narrative that Jesus thereby intends to evoke, symbolize, and actually embody the coming of YHWH to Zion, this implies that he is "more than" simply a prophet or the Messiah. Is this where we must finally admit entrance of divinity into our concept of Jesus? Or, in view of the sharing of the throne, is the distinction between Jesus and God maintained? In many of his works, Wright (to use his own word) "teases" out the meaning, but seems to leave us asking, as Jesus' disciples, "tell us plainly."

At one point in his book, he says about another theologian that his treatment of the materials does not justify, at the end, his suddenly concluding the traditional Christological formula. I simply raise the question, not whether Wright is justified, but what is the conclusion he draws? It is my own opinion that his treatment can be used as support for either view of Jesus (i.e. he was only a man, or, both God and man). I suggest that he intends neither--that he is working within a completely new model for which either of these options remains a parody.

Traditional scholarly criteria for determining the authenticity of Jesus material primarily utilizes the criterion of similarity (if it was the same or similar to his environment it was not authentic) and dissimilarity (if it was not something found in his environment it was authentic). Wright, as many other scholars finds these to be insufficient and arbitrary. The probability is that Jesus was both like and unlike contemporary Judiasm and the early Christian community, which is to say that there must be both continuity and discontinuity between Jesus and Judaism and the the early community.

In his first volume to the series, The New Testament and the People of God, Wright has laid out the worldview of 2nd temple Judaism, as well as that of the earliest Christian community. In the present volune, Wright sets the Jesus material in this context.

C.K. Barrett once stated that after years of study he was now reluctant to claim that the synoptics portrayed Jesus as Messiah. Wright, by setting Jesus in the context of the Judaism of his day, finds such a claim on virtually every page. Instead of focusing, as traditional scholarship has done, on individual words, phrases, forms, etc., or on explicit testimony, he shows that the symbols and stories everywhere portray Jesus as the eschatological prophet and Messiah of Israel, who speaks and acts for YHWH and embodies the coming of YHWH as King.

According to Wright's standards for determining which portrayal is the best historical picture (e.g., simplicity, coherence of all data, explains other facts), discussed in his first volume, and the fact that his portrayal meets the criterion of double similarity and double dissimilarity with Judaism and the early Christian community, Wright urges that his historical reconstruction is most probable among all other views on offer.

Several considerations make Wright's portrayal so convincing: 1) He thoroughly and carefully lays out the 2nd temple Jewish worldview via an extended treatment of its praxis, symbols, stories and beliefs. 2) The synoptic materials naturally fit into this framework and come alive. 3) His portrayal best meets the numerous and various critical standards and criteria for historical reconstruction. In short, Wright does not just argue points, he offers a massive reconstruction that allows us to see a real historical human being coming to meet us, as the actual embodiment of YHWH.