Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by murfmonkey
The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians by Michael F. Bird, N.T. Wright
4.0
* Caution: Rant begins here*
I'm going to start off with a rant to illustrate a crucial weakness of this book in particular, and I suppose N.T. Wright's writing in general. In this book (and I assume in most of his other books), Mr. Wright doesn't capitalize the words "holy spirit." Now, I am sure that Mr. Wright has a very good explanation for why he doesn't do this and I'm sure it makes sense to him, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah. However, every time I read this expression in his book it felt like fingers grating on a chalkboard. It irked me very much and I'm guessing I'm not the only reader this practice irked. My point is, that Mr. Wright can have excellent scholarly reasons for his choices, but if you're offending most/all of your readers, you're probably making the wrong choice. In other words, sometimes it is wiser to adhere to historical norms rather than sit up on your scholarly high horse.
(If you are too young to know what fingernails on a chalkboard sound like, here you go: https://youtu.be/13d5d6LVEpU )
*Rant over*
What I liked about this book:
1. The print version while weighing enough to break your toe if you drop it, is beautifully illustrated and organized. Kudos to whoever was responsible for that. It's just a joy to flip through and read the sidebars and study the pictures/illustrations/etc.
2. The chapter on "the New Testament as Literature" is very well done and makes for some fascinating reading in terms of how we understand the text, even though I do not agree with all of Mr. Wright's conclusions.
3. The background on the Greco-Roman world is excellent. Probably the best I've read anywhere.
4. The discussions of background/date/author in the New Testament books is very well done and informative, even if, again, I don't always agree with Mr. Wright's conclusions.
5. Mr. Wright has an eclectic, but ultimately fairly orthodox approach to the biblical text and for that I'm grateful.
6. Mr. Wright is a blessedly simple writer (would that every theologian could write this way) and I found myself simply marking some texts with an exclamation point because it is so beautifully done.
Things that I didn't like:
1. Mr. Wright has a tendency to caricaturize other people's positions in a way that isn't helpful. It's easy to knock over a straw man and I'm guessing Mr. Wright wouldn't like it if his own positions were treated this way. Here is one example. While dealing with the canon he refers to those who would simplify the canonical process in this way: "For them, it would only be a slight caricature to say that the church Fathers, like early versions of Indiana Jones, went searching for 'scriptures', finding hidden scrolls in ancient catacombs or sneaking into imperial palaces to steal confiscated copies of the gospels. Then equipped with some kind of magic device for telling which documents were 'inspired', they added their freshly discovered texts to their collection of what became 'Holy Scripture'."
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is a gross exaggeration and not helpful to his argument. He does this sort of thing many times and it makes for fun reading, but not for very graceful handling of one's opponents.
2. Mr. Wright has a tendency to make two positions either/or while seeming to have no conception that they could be both/and. Here is one example of many:
"The disciples were not evangelistic preachers, sent out to save individual souls for some unearthly paradise. They were couriers proclaiming a national emergency and conducting a referendum on a question of national survival."
I would submit that Mr. Wright is wrong here. It is both/and in this case, not either/or.
3. Mr. Wright seems too convinced that his own conclusions are the best and quite obvious. His discussion of the author of John is a good case in point. Is it John the beloved disciples, or John the elder. Mr. Wright: "It's obviously John the elder." No. It isn't that obvious.
I really enjoyed reading this gigantic book and it will definitely stimulate a lot of thought on all things New Testament.
I'm going to start off with a rant to illustrate a crucial weakness of this book in particular, and I suppose N.T. Wright's writing in general. In this book (and I assume in most of his other books), Mr. Wright doesn't capitalize the words "holy spirit." Now, I am sure that Mr. Wright has a very good explanation for why he doesn't do this and I'm sure it makes sense to him, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah. However, every time I read this expression in his book it felt like fingers grating on a chalkboard. It irked me very much and I'm guessing I'm not the only reader this practice irked. My point is, that Mr. Wright can have excellent scholarly reasons for his choices, but if you're offending most/all of your readers, you're probably making the wrong choice. In other words, sometimes it is wiser to adhere to historical norms rather than sit up on your scholarly high horse.
(If you are too young to know what fingernails on a chalkboard sound like, here you go: https://youtu.be/13d5d6LVEpU )
*Rant over*
What I liked about this book:
1. The print version while weighing enough to break your toe if you drop it, is beautifully illustrated and organized. Kudos to whoever was responsible for that. It's just a joy to flip through and read the sidebars and study the pictures/illustrations/etc.
2. The chapter on "the New Testament as Literature" is very well done and makes for some fascinating reading in terms of how we understand the text, even though I do not agree with all of Mr. Wright's conclusions.
3. The background on the Greco-Roman world is excellent. Probably the best I've read anywhere.
4. The discussions of background/date/author in the New Testament books is very well done and informative, even if, again, I don't always agree with Mr. Wright's conclusions.
5. Mr. Wright has an eclectic, but ultimately fairly orthodox approach to the biblical text and for that I'm grateful.
6. Mr. Wright is a blessedly simple writer (would that every theologian could write this way) and I found myself simply marking some texts with an exclamation point because it is so beautifully done.
Things that I didn't like:
1. Mr. Wright has a tendency to caricaturize other people's positions in a way that isn't helpful. It's easy to knock over a straw man and I'm guessing Mr. Wright wouldn't like it if his own positions were treated this way. Here is one example. While dealing with the canon he refers to those who would simplify the canonical process in this way: "For them, it would only be a slight caricature to say that the church Fathers, like early versions of Indiana Jones, went searching for 'scriptures', finding hidden scrolls in ancient catacombs or sneaking into imperial palaces to steal confiscated copies of the gospels. Then equipped with some kind of magic device for telling which documents were 'inspired', they added their freshly discovered texts to their collection of what became 'Holy Scripture'."
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is a gross exaggeration and not helpful to his argument. He does this sort of thing many times and it makes for fun reading, but not for very graceful handling of one's opponents.
2. Mr. Wright has a tendency to make two positions either/or while seeming to have no conception that they could be both/and. Here is one example of many:
"The disciples were not evangelistic preachers, sent out to save individual souls for some unearthly paradise. They were couriers proclaiming a national emergency and conducting a referendum on a question of national survival."
I would submit that Mr. Wright is wrong here. It is both/and in this case, not either/or.
3. Mr. Wright seems too convinced that his own conclusions are the best and quite obvious. His discussion of the author of John is a good case in point. Is it John the beloved disciples, or John the elder. Mr. Wright: "It's obviously John the elder." No. It isn't that obvious.
I really enjoyed reading this gigantic book and it will definitely stimulate a lot of thought on all things New Testament.