Scan barcode
adamrshields's review
3.0
Short Review: I am being a bit hard on Wright. But because I know he has the capacity to write clear prose I am a bit frustrated by this book. It is very lightly edited series of lectures. And while I appreciate the fact that just lightly editing some lectures can produce a book fairly easily, Wright should have spend some more time editing to make it more cohesive. It is not a bad book, on content alone I would rate at 4. I have had this for a while as a hardback but I didn't actually read it until it was on sale for audiobook. Wright's basic thesis is that you can't understand Paul without understanding how he understood the relationship between Israel, the exodus, convenant, eschatology, righteousness, election and justification. Once you understand all of those things you will see that Paul is often misunderstood.
I think there is real value in this book, but it is not the easiest of Wright's books to start with.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/paul-wright/
I think there is real value in this book, but it is not the easiest of Wright's books to start with.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/paul-wright/
mcsnide's review
4.0
After years away from any exploration of Christian theology or New Testament scholarship, I've recently become interested in the topic again. Quite by accident, I stumbled upon the fact that roughly half the New Testament books generally ascribed to Paul are not generally accepted as being written by Paul himself. Interested in the question, I asked a friend who is well versed in modern textual and theological matters for a good overview book. This is the book he suggested.
For someone like myself coming to this world with a largely blank slate, there are definitely positives about starting with this book. Wright gives a good overview of the consensus opinions on Paul and his writings. His explanation of the Jewish and Greek ideas driving Paul, along with his exploration of impact of the Roman Empire on Paul's thoughts and expressions, are thought-provoking. I suspect there's little new there for people with previous knowledge of the topic, but I also suspect the average Christian in the pew would learn a great deal about the context of Paul's writing by reading this book.
His discussion of the topic of justification is exceptionally intriguing to me. The question turns largely on the meaning of the phrase pistis Christou. Does it mean "faith in Christ," as modern translations suggest with near unanimity? Or does it mean "the faithfulness of Christ" as Wright and apparently many other believe? I don't know the answer to that question, nor do I think understanding the phrase as "the faithfulness of Christ" would necessarily negate the traditional Protestant understanding of justification. I do think it would give the idea more nuance and depth than is generally seen among evangelicals. It is frankly astounding to me that this sort of debate on first principles is happening within New Testament scholarship while causing hardly a ripple in the Christian community at large.
Wright's explanation of Paul's thought and ministry as a redefinition of Judaic principles into a more universal approach is an interesting one. It seems to place Paul more holistically into the world in which he lived than some other interpretations of Paul as merely a political radical or, alternatively, some sort of anti-Semitic religious reformer.
Wright spends a good bit of time arguing against views of Paul I've personally never heard expounded. This can be frustrating at times, as it seems to me unlikely that he's actually presenting the strongest of his opponents' arguments. I assume this because he occasionally lapses into straw man arguments when dealing with questions I do understand. For example, regarding the apparent dispute between the teachings of Jesus and Paul regarding the Law, he writes, "I would respectfully suggest that only someone completely divorced from the real life of actual church communities could suppose that once something definitive had been said by a recognized authority there would from that moment on be no further disputes or puzzles on the subject." I would respectfully respond that he's missing the point of those concerned over the conflict. This isn't Satya Nadella steering Microsoft in a new direction after the retirement of the founding generation. This is a religious man (Paul) significantly refining the teachings of a man Wright assures us Paul believed to be God.
And now we begin to get into the parts of the book I found not so particularly helpful. The final chapter, in which Wright unveils his own theological argument, was easily the weakest portion of the book. There wasn't much tying up of loose ends or exegesis, just broad statements, including a hermeneutic principle that for someone familiar with dispensationalism felt uncomfortably close to Scofield or Darby. To be fair, Wright may not recognize the parallel, as he emphatically dismisses modern rapture eschatology and, one supposes, dispensationalism in general in more than one place throughout the book.
For some reason, Wright felt compelled to keep the book short. Coming in under 200 pages, the book is worse off for that choice. His repeated statements of "as I have written elsewhere," followed by footnotes, felt like ads for his other books. In many cases, he could have fleshed out an argument in a few extra pages but chose not to. In an overview book like this, that felt like a huge mistake to me. A meatier 300-350 page book would have been far superior, in my opinion.
My other major complaint with the book is how stilted the language can be at times. This is the first book written in this century that I've read to use the word "anon" repeatedly and without irony. It also suffers from not being sure whether to write for the scholar (repeated references to various "isms" without definition, for instance) or to write for the layman (some of his broad generalizations and theological arguments).
All said, though, I agree with my friend that this is a good introductory book for those interested in placing Paul in his own time and understanding the points he was trying to make as his first century audience would have understood them.
For someone like myself coming to this world with a largely blank slate, there are definitely positives about starting with this book. Wright gives a good overview of the consensus opinions on Paul and his writings. His explanation of the Jewish and Greek ideas driving Paul, along with his exploration of impact of the Roman Empire on Paul's thoughts and expressions, are thought-provoking. I suspect there's little new there for people with previous knowledge of the topic, but I also suspect the average Christian in the pew would learn a great deal about the context of Paul's writing by reading this book.
His discussion of the topic of justification is exceptionally intriguing to me. The question turns largely on the meaning of the phrase pistis Christou. Does it mean "faith in Christ," as modern translations suggest with near unanimity? Or does it mean "the faithfulness of Christ" as Wright and apparently many other believe? I don't know the answer to that question, nor do I think understanding the phrase as "the faithfulness of Christ" would necessarily negate the traditional Protestant understanding of justification. I do think it would give the idea more nuance and depth than is generally seen among evangelicals. It is frankly astounding to me that this sort of debate on first principles is happening within New Testament scholarship while causing hardly a ripple in the Christian community at large.
Wright's explanation of Paul's thought and ministry as a redefinition of Judaic principles into a more universal approach is an interesting one. It seems to place Paul more holistically into the world in which he lived than some other interpretations of Paul as merely a political radical or, alternatively, some sort of anti-Semitic religious reformer.
Wright spends a good bit of time arguing against views of Paul I've personally never heard expounded. This can be frustrating at times, as it seems to me unlikely that he's actually presenting the strongest of his opponents' arguments. I assume this because he occasionally lapses into straw man arguments when dealing with questions I do understand. For example, regarding the apparent dispute between the teachings of Jesus and Paul regarding the Law, he writes, "I would respectfully suggest that only someone completely divorced from the real life of actual church communities could suppose that once something definitive had been said by a recognized authority there would from that moment on be no further disputes or puzzles on the subject." I would respectfully respond that he's missing the point of those concerned over the conflict. This isn't Satya Nadella steering Microsoft in a new direction after the retirement of the founding generation. This is a religious man (Paul) significantly refining the teachings of a man Wright assures us Paul believed to be God.
And now we begin to get into the parts of the book I found not so particularly helpful. The final chapter, in which Wright unveils his own theological argument, was easily the weakest portion of the book. There wasn't much tying up of loose ends or exegesis, just broad statements, including a hermeneutic principle that for someone familiar with dispensationalism felt uncomfortably close to Scofield or Darby. To be fair, Wright may not recognize the parallel, as he emphatically dismisses modern rapture eschatology and, one supposes, dispensationalism in general in more than one place throughout the book.
For some reason, Wright felt compelled to keep the book short. Coming in under 200 pages, the book is worse off for that choice. His repeated statements of "as I have written elsewhere," followed by footnotes, felt like ads for his other books. In many cases, he could have fleshed out an argument in a few extra pages but chose not to. In an overview book like this, that felt like a huge mistake to me. A meatier 300-350 page book would have been far superior, in my opinion.
My other major complaint with the book is how stilted the language can be at times. This is the first book written in this century that I've read to use the word "anon" repeatedly and without irony. It also suffers from not being sure whether to write for the scholar (repeated references to various "isms" without definition, for instance) or to write for the layman (some of his broad generalizations and theological arguments).
All said, though, I agree with my friend that this is a good introductory book for those interested in placing Paul in his own time and understanding the points he was trying to make as his first century audience would have understood them.
jdparker9's review
4.0
I've rated this book four-stars, not because I found myself in four-fifths agreement with Wright, although on some issues it would come close to it, but because this is a mostly clear and articulated version of the "new perspective" on Paul. (However, even Wright sometimes shunned to use that term, wanting to distance himself both from the "old perspective" and the "old new perspective". I recommend this book with reservations: those who are equipped to study this topic in depth and are grounded in systematic theology and historic theology ought to pick this up and broaden their understanding of contemporary theology; those who are not should think very carefully before picking this up, as it is at times hard to read and at other times difficult to swallow, if one does not carefully examine Wright's reasoning.
waynewaynus's review
4.0
Not an earth shaking volume but an enjoyable read that reflects how brilliant the apostle was. I think much of modern Christianity was constructed from Paul's thought. I agree with the writer that he was certainly on a par with people like Plato et al.
More...