Who Was Jesus?

Let's be clear that in this book evangelical Anglican theologian N.T. Wright exposes the absurd concocted fantasies of three writers who in 1992 published works on Jesus. The common thread in all three writers is their willingness to invent fantastical portraits of Jesus with no basis in history or Scripture. In the process of his devastating critique of these bogus writers, Wright gives us telling theological insights, especially concerning the relation of first century Jewish monotheism and the emerging Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus and concerning the proper perspective with which to approach the question of the virginal conception of Jesus. In addition, Wright provides an initial chapter that gives the general reader an historical overview of Jesus scholarship and a final chapter that ties Wright's insights together. Reading this small book is like being treated to lunch or dinner with an insightful and witty professor who is generously willing to share his best insights.

At first glance, this seems a rather odd book. What is a first-class historian like N. T. Wright doing, refuting the likes of Spong and Thiering? Does one need a bulldozer to squash ants? (Wilson, I personally find more intelligent, and thus perhaps rising to the dignity of being run over.) Yet Wright gives their arguments a fair hearing, then a fair and gentle hanging. But there seems to be method to Wright's mildness. As an alternative to the fumbling and bumbling of his protagonists, he offers a simple and readable description of who he has found the historical Jesus to be. Their errors prove a useful foil for explaining the methods and conclusions of legitimate New Testament scholarship. Wright's critiques of those with whom he disagrees are always a delight -- he shows a sincere appreciation for what is worthwhile, then refutes errors with wit and the gentle precision that comes of great intellectual power matched to thorough knowledge of the subject. The subject here is Jesus, a fox in pursuit of whom academic hounds have banged their heads on many trees. Wright rightly follows him to the cross. "The Christian doctrine is all about a different kind of God -- a God who was so different to normal expectations that he could, completely appropriately, become human . . . To say that Jesus is in some sense God is of course to make a startling statement about Jesus. It is also to make a stupendous claim about God." I think Wright over-emphasizes the genius of Biblical scholarship. He tends to give the impression that nobody knew anything worth knowing about Jesus, until the question was brought to the attention of modern academics. Having read many "Jesus Seminar" books, I think credentialed scholars like Crossan, Borg, Mack, and Pagels, are often as foolish as Wilson -- and less truly knowledgeable about the historical Jesus than the average Pentacostal grandmother. Wright also knocks C. S. Lewis for his "odd" criticism of the "quest for Jesus" as "the work of the devil," in the Screwtape Letters. Aside from the unfairness of ignoring the humor in a satire, I think the substance of Lewis' arguments, made more seriously in Fernseed and Elephants, is entirely sound, and makes an excellent critique of many recent historical Jesus reconstructions. I think Wright's historical reconstruction, and Lewis' literary critique of shoddy skeptical arguments, complement one another nicely.In sum, I recommend this book both for people who have been bamboozled by the particular works it refutes, and also as an antidote to recent works of a similar nature, like the Da Vinci Code, Jesus Mysteries, The Jesus Puzzle, or perhaps Elaine Pagel's new book, Beyond Belief. I am working on a book that will combine Wright and Lewis' approaches, to answer recent attacks on the Gospels. author, Jesus and the Religions of Man / [email protected]

Wright, one of the world's leading biblical scholars, takes a close look at the writings of three popular debunkers of the Gospel image of Christ. The works of Barbara Thiering, A.N. Wilson, and Shelby Spong (Mr. I-am-a-bishop-who-believes-nothing-of-the-Gospel) are reviewed through the lenses of logic and scholarship, with results that should give the Jesus Seminar folks (or at least their readers) pause to think if whether or not the whole enterprise is anything more than a publicity stunt geared at eliminating traditional Christian morality by undercutting its founder, Jesus Christ.The other reviewers have said what needs to be mentioned, but I will just add that this little book is a fantastic introduction to the both sides of the argument. Anyone familiar with Wright's style will at once agree that he is a very fair author when he deals with those who hold views other than his own. Even so, he is also a rather humorous writer and I have found myself laughing aloud when he exposes the idiocy of someone like Thiering who claims, with absolute seriousness and zero textual support even from other scholars, that Jesus was married and had a few kids. Is that what St Luke meant when he said that the Word grew? Uh, I think not. It was like the man who claimed that had Jesus lived just a bit longer his whole view on the God issue would have matured. Nonsense in the guise of reason.You may also want to check out Wright's other books. The thiker volumes are detailed and quite thik to read, but still worth the effort. In connection to the question of the reliability of the Gospels, his work on St Paul is valuable and clear. Luke Timothy Johnson's "The real Jesus" is also a very fun read about the farce known as the Jesus Seminar. Read it all for yourself and you will see that the search for the historical Jesus is little more than a money-making industry set out to come up with new and exciting theories about the REAL and TRUE history of the Church with the ultimate end in mind of changing the ethics of the culture without the guilt (Spong's apparent raison d'etre).

Each year as we approach Christmas and Easter, we are inevitably greeted at magazine racks by news journals trumpeting the "latest scholarship" on the "historic Jesus". The fact that very little of what appears ever has lasting scholarly value seems to of little concern to the journals in question. The attraction of the sensational and the scandalous governs media coverage in our age and any "scholar" who claims things about Jesus Christ that ordinary Christians would find disturbing is enticing to a cynical media looking for a "story" - even if the views promoted lack any credibility with the vast majority of experts in the field. N. T. Wright, one of the world's leading biblical scholars, has provided in Who Was Jesus? a potent antidote to the faddish output of several popular characterizations of Jesus making the rounds in press reports at the time it was written. With clarity and power, he destroys the arguments of popular revisionist arguments with comparative ease. By placing Jesus in the proper historical and cultural setting, the pet theories of various contributors to the radical fringe in studies of the historical Jesus are found to owe more to the temperaments and cultural presuppositions of the writers than anything likely to relate to the true life and times of Jesus. As a leading figure in the study into the historical and cultural settings of the New Testament, Wright could never be accused of putting his head in the sand. However, Wright insists an understanding of the complex interplay of cultures in fist century Judea is essential to grasping the true meaning of the New Testament writings, Wright begins with an overview of the quest among scholars for the historic Jesus. While sympathetic to the goals of many of these investigations, he points out they are often as guided by their own prejudices as many forms of traditional Christian belief. The beliefs of many Christians about Jesus may be distorted at points but they are not without historical basis. Indeed, the beliefs of the Church certainly have a greater correspondence with the historical realities of the time than the pet theories of many revisionists. Wright assures traditional believers that any honest investigation into the Jesus of history should leave them with a more robust faith - not a weaker one. Wright then turns to the particular projects of three major revisionists: Barbara Thiering, A.N. Wilson, and John Shelby Spong. Rather than dismissing them outright, Wright takes the path of considering their ideas seriously and applying the same critical analysis to them given to any serious scholarly hypothesis. In many ways this proves to be even more devastating, as rather than attempting a knockout blow, Wright counters their arguments with surgical precision and leaves their novelties to die of a thousand cuts. Thiering is particularly skewered as both a proper historical understanding of Judaism at the time and archeological discoveries of the perio

Over the course of the last several hundred years a challenge has been once again raised. This challenge is to come to terms with who exactly was this person Jesus of Nazareth. I say again because the early church dealt with these same issues, giving terms such as Ebionism, or Docetism to what were then formidable challenges to the early Christians. Was Jesus just a good teacher, a fine person indeed, but really nothing more? Or maybe he just appeared to be human, taking on the appearance of being a man, but in reality not truly present in the flesh. Having forced the Fathers to take a hard look and respond to these various heresies, the question of Jesus fell to the background as other questions took prominence. Learning itself became the property of the Church, and it harbored no questioning of its basic doctrine. As the Church lost its authoritative influence, however, a renewed inquiry was taken up. Enlightenment thought turned to the Bible for enquiry and scrutiny. Rather than using Greek or Roman rhetoric, or Hellenistic models of philosophy, the new question was pursued using the burgeoning historical-critical methodology. The Bible was itself made an object of scrutiny, and the presuppositions gained over the centuries were taken apart and closely examined. Various ideas were put forth, some constructive, many well thought out, and all gaining some level of acceptance among various scholars. Most were attacks on the traditional understanding of Jesus, son of God, risen on the third day. Having a priori ruled out any supernatural explanations, the various scholars came up with all sorts of proposals and models which would sort out exactly who Jesus really was, and why Christianity came to be what it is in our era. As in earlier times, though, heroes arose, combating the modern heresies with an even greater logic and scholarship. The battles were not won by running away, retreating into hidden enclaves, but rather by facing head on the challenges and repudiating them with their own weapons. Tom Wright helped to document some of these battles and challenges in his update of Bishop Neil's Interpretation of the New Testament. In his book Who Was Jesus?, Dr. Wright engages what can be called popular modern interpretations of the person and work of Jesus. I use the term popular in two ways. The first is that the scholars that Dr. Wright critiques have made quite a name for themselves in the media, both print and broadcast. Their thoughts have been sought as intellectual additions to articles and shows meant for a general audience. I also use the term popular as opposed to academic, for their theories and thoughts are not placed primarily in academic publications for professional perusal, but rather they seek to convince those without very much training. And for good reason. Although fascinating and occasionally original, the thoughts that are being put forth are without much academic merit. And thus, we have Tom Wright respo