April 05, 2012
Why do you look for the living among the dead?
Tom Wright, retired Bishop of Durham, now a professor of New Testament studies at St Andrews University, has written over fifty books, nearly all of them concerned with Jesus and most with the question of reconstructing the first-century Palestinian Judaism from which Christianity perhaps sprang. His latest book, with a title which in itself begs many questions, can be seen either as a devotional manual, or as a distillation of a lifetime’s scholarly work, or both. Readers are urgently encouraged to see the world as a first-century Jew would have seen it. Whether Wright succeeds in his task will depend, in part, on the reader’s tolerance of the hectoring tone. “I was trying to explain all this” – no less a matter than God’s overlordship of the world, which surely cannot be explained – “earlier this morning and back came the reply, ‘But I thought God was supposed to be in charge already, all the time?’ Ah, now we’re talking.” Chilling in its clumsiness is the metaphor Wright uses to define the post-Easter world: “Under new management”. Whereas the New Testament speaks of the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven, this author writes of “the vital part of the way in which Jesus operates right now, today, as part of his kingdom-project”.more from A.N. Wilson at the TLS here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 04:50 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Sorry, 1st century "Palestinian" Judaism is terribly anachronistic. That term would only be acceptable to other Hellenist Romans after 135CE.
netzarim.co.il
Posted by: Eliyahu Konn | Apr 5, 2012 11:11:06 AM
RE: Eliyahu Konn
How exactly is 'first-century Palestinian Judaism' anachronistic?
The word "Palestinian" here is almost certainly referring to the land of Palestine.
Besides, that's not even the main point of the article.
Posted by: Alex Yuen | Apr 5, 2012 4:34:06 PM
W have accounts of both Roman and "Palestinian" historians at the time of "Christ".
He is not present in the historical record.
But, rather bloody magical books mention him often.
So, should we go with the myth, or with the historical record?
Posted by: Dave Ranningd | Apr 6, 2012 3:09:17 PM
I'd go with the uniform testimony of eyewitnesses, who stuck to their story to the point of death.
Maybe it's Buddha you are thinking of, who suddenly appears, hundreds of years after he died?
Posted by: Carlos | Apr 6, 2012 3:29:56 PM
I'd go with the uniform testimony of eyewitnesses, who stuck to their story to the point of death.
Hopeless.
Iron Age Fiction.
Posted by: Dave Ranningd | Apr 6, 2012 10:29:19 PM
Documented by the Iron Age historians you insist on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
By this time, of course, Nero had been trying to stamp out Christians for decades.
Otherwise intelligent people are free to reject, dispute or even mock claims of Jesus' divinity, but to deny that he existed as a man, and was the center of a sea change in religion and society is an unsupportable position.
In fact, it would be easy to imagine a group of people who held to the belief in the non-existence of Jesus, furiously denying the evidence, closed off from the unimpeachable consensus of experts from multiple disciplines, as a cult.
Posted by: Carlos | Apr 7, 2012 7:59:07 AM
Post a comment