Scan barcode
kylepotter's review against another edition
4.0
While readers who are new to "Historical Jesus" studies might find the first chapter (which summarizes the so-called First, Second and Third Quests) to be a bit off-putting, this is an excellent work that engages honestly with historical criticism of the Gospel traditions and both encourages and challenges "traditional" Christian conceptions.
utalan's review against another edition
4.0
I love his writing, though this wasn't my favorite. More of a compilation of ideas than a single thesis (though that is exactly what it is, converted from oral messages he gave). Very good, just not my favorite.
gbdill's review against another edition
2.0
Good insight, but nothing deeply profound. I didn't think Wright offered anything new and fresh in this book. Learning more about the historicity of Jesus and understanding Him within the context of 1st century Judaism is certainly not a new concept. Hermeneutics has applied this method to all aspects of Scripture for many years. Wright claims we now have more resources at our disposal than ever before to help us better understand who Jesus is. But, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which Wright often alludes to) we have had these "new resources" for over 50 years. The Dead Sea Scrolls have only verified and confirmed what we already know about a messiah, Judaism, and Jewish culture.
Wright suggests that Jesus' proclamation about the kingdom of God was not about a future heavenly abode where believers will eternally dwell, but a charge for 1st century Jews to enter into a new covenant and fulfill the Abrahamic promise that Israel will become a great nation. This is certainly one aspect of the kingdom of God, but there are several more components as well. Confining Jesus only to the context of 1st century Judaism is I believe a grave mistake. Jesus' messages transcends all ages and time and should never be limited to the hearers of 1st century Palestine. Proper hermeneutics certainly allows for this to some extent, but should not be solely limited to it. If the message is applicable to our time and culture, then we must certainly apply it to our lives today. And, the kingdom of God is a kingdom that exists on earth today with the presence of the church and the Holy Spirit, and will someday be fully consummated upon Christ's return when He establishes His kingdom on earth.
I heard great things about N.T. Wright and I've always enjoyed many of his articles and podcasts online. I agree in most part with his theology. But overall, I wasn't that impressed with what was my first N.T. Wright book. I didn't find anything new and fresh, but found it to be full of presuppositions and speculations. Nothing scholarly nor life-changing. Wright certainly had some interesting perspectives and good insight, but nothing profound. However, I haven't given up on Wright and look forward to reading some of his other works.
Wright suggests that Jesus' proclamation about the kingdom of God was not about a future heavenly abode where believers will eternally dwell, but a charge for 1st century Jews to enter into a new covenant and fulfill the Abrahamic promise that Israel will become a great nation. This is certainly one aspect of the kingdom of God, but there are several more components as well. Confining Jesus only to the context of 1st century Judaism is I believe a grave mistake. Jesus' messages transcends all ages and time and should never be limited to the hearers of 1st century Palestine. Proper hermeneutics certainly allows for this to some extent, but should not be solely limited to it. If the message is applicable to our time and culture, then we must certainly apply it to our lives today. And, the kingdom of God is a kingdom that exists on earth today with the presence of the church and the Holy Spirit, and will someday be fully consummated upon Christ's return when He establishes His kingdom on earth.
I heard great things about N.T. Wright and I've always enjoyed many of his articles and podcasts online. I agree in most part with his theology. But overall, I wasn't that impressed with what was my first N.T. Wright book. I didn't find anything new and fresh, but found it to be full of presuppositions and speculations. Nothing scholarly nor life-changing. Wright certainly had some interesting perspectives and good insight, but nothing profound. However, I haven't given up on Wright and look forward to reading some of his other works.
paigewetzel's review against another edition
2.0
Y'know, I just might not be a huge fan of N. T. Wright. And that's okay. Hope you're okay with it too. I'll confess that I read this book because I think it represents what a great deal of the average church-goer and clergy-person believes about Jesus. After finishing a master's level theological education at a fairly liberal institute, I figured I should expose myself to something a bit different and a bit more mainstream. I want to know more about the general timbre of the theological moment and I think Wright is a common voice in that sphere.
I appreciate what Wright offers to the theological community, especially coming out of a time of intense focus on the historical Jesus. Personally, I'm not sure this is a huge concern of mine at the moment and is perhaps why Wright's book was less revolutionary for me than it might be for others. I did appreciate his discussion of Jesus' resurrection in the later chapters and how he expounded upon the fact that various biblical characters are resurrected but that Jesus' resurrection is unique. I agree with Wright that interpretations of the gospels and Jesus should be couched in an understanding of 1st century Judaism, but I think we differ on what this looks like. Perhaps it's because of my time reading and listening to A. J. Levine. All in all, this book was helpful but not super enlightening to me. Wright is clearly an intelligent man, we just don't agree on everything. And that's okay.
I appreciate what Wright offers to the theological community, especially coming out of a time of intense focus on the historical Jesus. Personally, I'm not sure this is a huge concern of mine at the moment and is perhaps why Wright's book was less revolutionary for me than it might be for others. I did appreciate his discussion of Jesus' resurrection in the later chapters and how he expounded upon the fact that various biblical characters are resurrected but that Jesus' resurrection is unique. I agree with Wright that interpretations of the gospels and Jesus should be couched in an understanding of 1st century Judaism, but I think we differ on what this looks like. Perhaps it's because of my time reading and listening to A. J. Levine. All in all, this book was helpful but not super enlightening to me. Wright is clearly an intelligent man, we just don't agree on everything. And that's okay.
hakunamottatta's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
4.0
Such a good encouragement to understand Jesus deeper and more fully!
eunicedlt's review against another edition
3.0
Good book. A little difficult to follow though. The concepts were interesting but I had a hard time following the book and keeping up because quite frankly... it just got boring! This isn't a book to read all at once, but digest in small pieces.
leelulah's review against another edition
2.0
Read for the PopSugar Challenge 2019
10.A book with pop, sugar, or challenge in the title:
I knew N.T. Wright is Anglican, so I expected divergence at some points. This book is designed to be more accessible, so a lot of the time he says he has no space left for a specific controversy. While recognizing some errors of Protestant interpretation, he holds what he calls "Romanism" at a distance for its "unbiblical" character.
There are still good bits of truth in here, but I think there are better Catholic oriented books to read on the historical Jesus. Much of what he says, sweeping Fathers' interpretation of specific events under the rug doesn't seem to be right. He says that Protestants accused Catholicism of being isolated of history, yet this is the error of Protestants by supposing that Church Fathers haven't, time and time again, established scripturally rooted developments of doctrine to what they reject.
Another good warning if anyone, as a Catholic reads this, would be here .
There are a few troubling bits about Jesus' awareness of his divinity that would seem to contradict the Third Council of Constantinople.
Okay, but with major reservations. On to Meier and Brown for historical Jesus questions from a Catholic perspective, or even Taylor Marshall's The Crucified Rabbi
10.A book with pop, sugar, or challenge in the title:
I knew N.T. Wright is Anglican, so I expected divergence at some points. This book is designed to be more accessible, so a lot of the time he says he has no space left for a specific controversy. While recognizing some errors of Protestant interpretation, he holds what he calls "Romanism" at a distance for its "unbiblical" character.
There are still good bits of truth in here, but I think there are better Catholic oriented books to read on the historical Jesus. Much of what he says, sweeping Fathers' interpretation of specific events under the rug doesn't seem to be right. He says that Protestants accused Catholicism of being isolated of history, yet this is the error of Protestants by supposing that Church Fathers haven't, time and time again, established scripturally rooted developments of doctrine to what they reject.
Another good warning if anyone, as a Catholic reads this, would be here .
There are a few troubling bits about Jesus' awareness of his divinity that would seem to contradict the Third Council of Constantinople.
Okay, but with major reservations. On to Meier and Brown for historical Jesus questions from a Catholic perspective, or even Taylor Marshall's The Crucified Rabbi
lcehanle's review against another edition
4.0
The middle section of this book made my brain tired, and I had to read incredibly slow to try to understand it...
That being said, it was a fascinating, challenging, and in an odd way, encouraging read. I think NT Wright is a brilliant theologian, and whether you agree with him entirely or not, whether you're a seminary student or not, he's worth a read. His call to look at Jesus through a historically-accurate lens is one we need to consider, whether you arrive at the same conclusions as Wright or not; it's great food for thought either way!
That being said, it was a fascinating, challenging, and in an odd way, encouraging read. I think NT Wright is a brilliant theologian, and whether you agree with him entirely or not, whether you're a seminary student or not, he's worth a read. His call to look at Jesus through a historically-accurate lens is one we need to consider, whether you arrive at the same conclusions as Wright or not; it's great food for thought either way!