Scan barcode
adamrshields's review against another edition
4.0
Short Review: This was really helpful to understanding the epistles and the early church. The change in format (biography instead of theological look at New Testament) gives a very different perspective in understanding Wright.
Two main features that I really appreciated. The first was understanding the early church as a group that crossed three lines (lines of national identity, class and ethnicity) in a world where no other group was crossing all three.
The second was looking at Paul's history and helping us to understand the epistles. The broad view of Paul and the message of the different epistles makes sense of the differences between the epistles in a way that I have not really understood previously.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/paul/
Two main features that I really appreciated. The first was understanding the early church as a group that crossed three lines (lines of national identity, class and ethnicity) in a world where no other group was crossing all three.
The second was looking at Paul's history and helping us to understand the epistles. The broad view of Paul and the message of the different epistles makes sense of the differences between the epistles in a way that I have not really understood previously.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/paul/
ddejong's review against another edition
4.0
3.5 stars- mainly for being unnecessarily repetitive. I encountered this with the other NT Wright book I read a couple years ago. He is a brilliant mind and I greatly respect him, but I can sometimes feel like I’m slogging through his books because of the repetition. There is no special revelatory biographical material on Paul outside of Scripture so NT Wright has more or less taken the details available to us in Acts and in his letters, spread them out chronologically, teased out the major themes of Paul’s mission and theology, and incorporated relevant ancient history/culture/politics. He is focused on trying to draw out what made Paul tick and what made his influence so tremendous. Some of the major themes Wright emphasizes throughout:
- Paul never stopped being a Jew or “converted” to Christianity. He saw Jesus as the fulfillment of everything the law and the prophets were pointing toward, and his lifelong Jewish identity is critical for understand him.
- He was intensely focused on teaching young church communities how to think— how to have the mind of Christ. He could never teach them everything he wanted to but if they learned to have the mind of the Messiah, the rest would follow.
- Paul was not concerned with “how to get to heaven.” This is an anachronistic concept that was not top of mind for him and his contemporaries. Heaven was not “up there” but rather another sphere of existence; in Jesus, God was fulfilling his promises to bring the heavenly realm to earth and unite them.
- He was very focused on unity because of the dangerous fault lines between Jewish and Gentile believers. There were constant efforts to erase the Jewish foundations of the gospel and, on the other side, to insist that Gentiles who were not following the Torah or getting circumcised could not be part of the family of faith. Paul was vehemently against both of these reactions and opposed them throughout his ministry.
- Paul never stopped being a Jew or “converted” to Christianity. He saw Jesus as the fulfillment of everything the law and the prophets were pointing toward, and his lifelong Jewish identity is critical for understand him.
- He was intensely focused on teaching young church communities how to think— how to have the mind of Christ. He could never teach them everything he wanted to but if they learned to have the mind of the Messiah, the rest would follow.
- Paul was not concerned with “how to get to heaven.” This is an anachronistic concept that was not top of mind for him and his contemporaries. Heaven was not “up there” but rather another sphere of existence; in Jesus, God was fulfilling his promises to bring the heavenly realm to earth and unite them.
- He was very focused on unity because of the dangerous fault lines between Jewish and Gentile believers. There were constant efforts to erase the Jewish foundations of the gospel and, on the other side, to insist that Gentiles who were not following the Torah or getting circumcised could not be part of the family of faith. Paul was vehemently against both of these reactions and opposed them throughout his ministry.
cdbaker's review against another edition
4.0
It was both interesting and sometimes annoying to read a biography of Paul written by someone who is so much of a believer. I like that Wright didn't try to hide his own perspective, but at times his assessment of Paul seemed just a little too reverent. Overall though, I enjoyed this book and I learned a lot.
drbobcornwall's review against another edition
4.0
As the title of one book puts it, Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul?: A Narrative Approach to the Problem of Pauline Christianity. There are many who believe that Jesus had a great set of ideas, but Paul messed everything up. That Paul's writings appeared twenty years or more before the first canonical Gospel was written doesn't seem to shake the sense that Christianity would be better off without Paul. It is true that Paul can be frustrating and even infuriating at times, while at other times he inspires us to spiritual heights. So, who is Paul?
N. T. Wright is one of the leading Pauline scholars of our day, and is deeply engaged in recent attempts to rethink the history of the early church and Paul's role in it (following his earlier work on Jesus). He is the author of the massive Paul and the Faithfulness of God, a two volume work on Paul written for biblical scholars, and a set that I have not touched. In the aftermath of that work, he has written a volume for the rest of us. It is rooted in the earlier scholarship, but written in a format that is much more accessible.
Wright, who is Professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and the former Bishop of Durham, chose the form of the biography to convey his vision of Paul's life and ministry. While his earlier scholarship undergirds the book, he lays out Paul's life along the lines presented in the Book of Acts and his letters. He takes clues from those documents and digs deeper, helping us understand his upbringing in Tarsus, a Roman colony in Asia Minor, and then his further education in Jerusalem. He makes note of Paul's early zealotry for his faith, which leads to his persecution of the church and then the later post-conversion zeal for the Gospel, a zeal that over time gets tempered.
In order to put his scholarship in biographical form, Wright has to make some creative moves, as he envisions conversations that are not recorded, but which make sense of the overarching vision of Paul's life. This requires trying to get into Paul's head, something not easily accomplished with the dearth of primary sources. In addition, there is the challenge of language and terminology. We talk about the Damascus Road experience, but in what way was it a conversion? After all, while Paul chose to be a follower of Jesus, it doesn't appear that he left Judaism for a new religion.
One of the challenges posed by a work like this concerns the issue of history and historical context. Wright seeks to approach the subject as a historian, and yet he also affirms that Acts and Paul's letters are Holy Scripture. Therefore, he makes some interpretive judgments about their contemporary use that we might not make of other historical documents. For this book to work, however, we must see Paul in his historical context. He is a Jew born into a world ruled by the Roman Empire. He is the product of his Jewish faith and practice, but he is also the product of the Greco-Roman world. As a Jew, it appears that he was a Pharisee, and thus a strict observant of the faith. He was also a businessman -- likely taking up the family business as a worker with leather. He was multi-lingual, and could navigate both the Jewish and the Roman worlds, especially since he was a citizen of Rome.
Wright divides the book into three parts. Part One moves us from his early life in Judaism, and his zeal for his faith. This leads to the Damascus Road experience, followed by his sojourn in Arabia and then Tarsus. Wright envisions Paul spending a decade in Tarsus, where he likely engaged in his trade while studying scripture. It was only then that Barnabas retrieved him from this time of exile, bringing him to Antioch, where he shared in the ministry of the church and preparing for his journeys that would come.
Part Two forms the bulk of the book. In these nine chapters, we follow Paul has he moves out into his missionary journeys, first with Baranabas and later with Silas. We follow the script laid out by Acts to Cyprus and Galatia, with a return to Antioch and Jerusalem. This first journey leads to the planting of churches in Galatia, and the first letter, the Galatian letter, which Wright suggests was written around 48 CE (some scholars believe that 1 Thessalonians was written prior to Galatians, but what is important is that the first piece of canonical New Testament likely was penned around 48 CE).
After the return to Antioch, the Jerusalem Council, and the break with Barnabas, we follow him on his next journeys, that take him back to Asia Minor and then into Europe. Having a sense of the dating of the various letters, he intersperses them with the account in Acts to move us to Philippi, Thessaloniki, Berea, Athens and the Corinth. Chapters nine through twelve focus on his ministries in Corinth and Ephesus. Wright does believe that Paul wrote the Ephesian letter, along with Colossians (prior to 2 Corinthians). This leads us back to Jerusalem, where he engages with the apostles, including James, and then is arrested. All of this is told with great details, helping us connect the letters with a vision of Paul's ministry. We are invited into Paul's mindset as he plants churches, and then writes letters to them, trying to help them make sense of their newfound faith.
Part three takes us from Caesarea, where he had been taken to appear before the Roman Governor. Now, having appealed to Rome, he begins his final journey, as a prisoner, aboard ship. One of the questions that I don't feel Wright answers concerns why, if the governor and the Agrippa don't believe Paul to be guilty of anything worth prosecuting, his appeal to Rome needs to be affirmed. Why send him to Rome, if they could easily let him go. Of course, that would wreck out story, which needs to get Paul to Rome, where we can envision him appearing before Nero, trying to make a case for Jesus. Whether Paul got that audience is unknown. Acts doesn't record it, neither do any Roman histories. In other words, we have to fill in the gaps with tradition, and historical accounts of others who made an appeal to Caesar.
As I read the book, I found it to be an intriguing way of sharing good scholarship. I don't feel as if Wright has revealed anything that new. So, its not the underlying information but the format that is most important. I can imagine sharing this with someone who wants to get to know Paul at a deeper level. It is not a difficult read, but it is lengthy (over 400 pages). So, its not for everyone. As for vantage point, Wright gives great credibility to both the Acts account and Paul's letters. As noted above, he believes Ephesians is authentic (and he makes his case for that, which is compelling). He also posits the possibility that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles--at the very least 2 Timothy. The labels conservative and liberal are problematic, as is the label evangelical when applied to a person like Wright. I would say that he is evangelical, but not in the American sense. When there are questions of authenticity, he is willing to give traditional views the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately, he wants to be perceived as a historian who seeks to set out the story of one of history's most important and elusive figures. So, yes, I recommend the book.
N. T. Wright is one of the leading Pauline scholars of our day, and is deeply engaged in recent attempts to rethink the history of the early church and Paul's role in it (following his earlier work on Jesus). He is the author of the massive Paul and the Faithfulness of God, a two volume work on Paul written for biblical scholars, and a set that I have not touched. In the aftermath of that work, he has written a volume for the rest of us. It is rooted in the earlier scholarship, but written in a format that is much more accessible.
Wright, who is Professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and the former Bishop of Durham, chose the form of the biography to convey his vision of Paul's life and ministry. While his earlier scholarship undergirds the book, he lays out Paul's life along the lines presented in the Book of Acts and his letters. He takes clues from those documents and digs deeper, helping us understand his upbringing in Tarsus, a Roman colony in Asia Minor, and then his further education in Jerusalem. He makes note of Paul's early zealotry for his faith, which leads to his persecution of the church and then the later post-conversion zeal for the Gospel, a zeal that over time gets tempered.
In order to put his scholarship in biographical form, Wright has to make some creative moves, as he envisions conversations that are not recorded, but which make sense of the overarching vision of Paul's life. This requires trying to get into Paul's head, something not easily accomplished with the dearth of primary sources. In addition, there is the challenge of language and terminology. We talk about the Damascus Road experience, but in what way was it a conversion? After all, while Paul chose to be a follower of Jesus, it doesn't appear that he left Judaism for a new religion.
One of the challenges posed by a work like this concerns the issue of history and historical context. Wright seeks to approach the subject as a historian, and yet he also affirms that Acts and Paul's letters are Holy Scripture. Therefore, he makes some interpretive judgments about their contemporary use that we might not make of other historical documents. For this book to work, however, we must see Paul in his historical context. He is a Jew born into a world ruled by the Roman Empire. He is the product of his Jewish faith and practice, but he is also the product of the Greco-Roman world. As a Jew, it appears that he was a Pharisee, and thus a strict observant of the faith. He was also a businessman -- likely taking up the family business as a worker with leather. He was multi-lingual, and could navigate both the Jewish and the Roman worlds, especially since he was a citizen of Rome.
Wright divides the book into three parts. Part One moves us from his early life in Judaism, and his zeal for his faith. This leads to the Damascus Road experience, followed by his sojourn in Arabia and then Tarsus. Wright envisions Paul spending a decade in Tarsus, where he likely engaged in his trade while studying scripture. It was only then that Barnabas retrieved him from this time of exile, bringing him to Antioch, where he shared in the ministry of the church and preparing for his journeys that would come.
Part Two forms the bulk of the book. In these nine chapters, we follow Paul has he moves out into his missionary journeys, first with Baranabas and later with Silas. We follow the script laid out by Acts to Cyprus and Galatia, with a return to Antioch and Jerusalem. This first journey leads to the planting of churches in Galatia, and the first letter, the Galatian letter, which Wright suggests was written around 48 CE (some scholars believe that 1 Thessalonians was written prior to Galatians, but what is important is that the first piece of canonical New Testament likely was penned around 48 CE).
After the return to Antioch, the Jerusalem Council, and the break with Barnabas, we follow him on his next journeys, that take him back to Asia Minor and then into Europe. Having a sense of the dating of the various letters, he intersperses them with the account in Acts to move us to Philippi, Thessaloniki, Berea, Athens and the Corinth. Chapters nine through twelve focus on his ministries in Corinth and Ephesus. Wright does believe that Paul wrote the Ephesian letter, along with Colossians (prior to 2 Corinthians). This leads us back to Jerusalem, where he engages with the apostles, including James, and then is arrested. All of this is told with great details, helping us connect the letters with a vision of Paul's ministry. We are invited into Paul's mindset as he plants churches, and then writes letters to them, trying to help them make sense of their newfound faith.
Part three takes us from Caesarea, where he had been taken to appear before the Roman Governor. Now, having appealed to Rome, he begins his final journey, as a prisoner, aboard ship. One of the questions that I don't feel Wright answers concerns why, if the governor and the Agrippa don't believe Paul to be guilty of anything worth prosecuting, his appeal to Rome needs to be affirmed. Why send him to Rome, if they could easily let him go. Of course, that would wreck out story, which needs to get Paul to Rome, where we can envision him appearing before Nero, trying to make a case for Jesus. Whether Paul got that audience is unknown. Acts doesn't record it, neither do any Roman histories. In other words, we have to fill in the gaps with tradition, and historical accounts of others who made an appeal to Caesar.
As I read the book, I found it to be an intriguing way of sharing good scholarship. I don't feel as if Wright has revealed anything that new. So, its not the underlying information but the format that is most important. I can imagine sharing this with someone who wants to get to know Paul at a deeper level. It is not a difficult read, but it is lengthy (over 400 pages). So, its not for everyone. As for vantage point, Wright gives great credibility to both the Acts account and Paul's letters. As noted above, he believes Ephesians is authentic (and he makes his case for that, which is compelling). He also posits the possibility that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles--at the very least 2 Timothy. The labels conservative and liberal are problematic, as is the label evangelical when applied to a person like Wright. I would say that he is evangelical, but not in the American sense. When there are questions of authenticity, he is willing to give traditional views the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately, he wants to be perceived as a historian who seeks to set out the story of one of history's most important and elusive figures. So, yes, I recommend the book.
betarayblake's review against another edition
The author believes in women pastors and therefore cannot be trusted.
catronky's review against another edition
4.0
A fantastic companion to the scriptures. N.T. Wright is the world's expert on Paul, but there's still so much about Paul we don't know. Wright does his best to interpret Paul's thoughts and actions and they are beautiful.
I went to hear another Pauline scholar and he had very different opinions and interpretations of Paul's actions and character. I asked him what he thought of the difference and he basically said: there's so much room for interpretation, NT Wright is incredible, but also that Wright's religion relies heavily on Paul's teachings, so he's more likely to view his actions as authoritative and preparitory, where this scholars religion doesn't rely so much on Paul's teachings, so he is more comfortable seeing him as amazing but flawed. As far as we know, either, neither, or both views could be right.
I went to hear another Pauline scholar and he had very different opinions and interpretations of Paul's actions and character. I asked him what he thought of the difference and he basically said: there's so much room for interpretation, NT Wright is incredible, but also that Wright's religion relies heavily on Paul's teachings, so he's more likely to view his actions as authoritative and preparitory, where this scholars religion doesn't rely so much on Paul's teachings, so he is more comfortable seeing him as amazing but flawed. As far as we know, either, neither, or both views could be right.