[As explained previously, this represents the first installment in a series of brief articles on N.T. Wright's The Challenge of Jesus.]
Part I: Disappointment
Recently, I have been exploring on the relationship between the synoptic problem and Christian eschatology. After Part II, I decided to take a break, let my thoughts jell, and stop pontificating and start researching. I was surprised by the lack of immediately available information, as far as I could tell, on this specialized topic. So, when Mark Olson challenged non-believers to read Wright's book, I gladly accepted.
Mark's invitation included this statement: "On a personal selfish note, I really do want to hear what a 'differently' biased person might say when reading this." Here's where I qualify. As a former believer, a one-time adherent to the Christian faith, I have a strong affinity for all things Christian; my understanding of Christianity is both from an insider's an an outsider's perspective. So, unlike some "strong atheists" or persons of different faiths, I have no automatic, knee-jerk responses to Christian arguments; to some degree, I can see where Christians are coming from, because I've been there.
That being said, Wright's book is readable, interesting, and surprisingly poignant in parts (which I'll discuss later), and condenses a wealth of information into bite-size chunks. Written for laypersons, and not extensively footnoted, it is perhaps a jumping-off point for scholars. My disappointment relates to its target demographic: Christian believers. The book is a call for recommitment to the quest for the historical Jesus, reconciliation between opposing historical-critical camps, renewal of dialogue among Christians about the true meaning of the Gospels. As an insider-outsider, I can easily navigate through the faith-talk looking for intellectual insight, but I would imagine such language off-putting for a "true" nonbeliever.
Coming soon: Getting the Gist
5 comments:
Why are you disappointed? One of the first things Wright says in his preface is that he's writing for insiders and that he addresses everyone in Jesus and the Victory of God. It doesn't claim to be an apologetic, so why be disappointed that it's not one?
When I initally picked up the book, I did so without reading any summaries or critiques; I wanted to approach it without any extra biases. It ended up being not exactly what I hoped (as I explained above). Don't confuse my personal disappointment with some sort of flaw inherent to the book.
Also remember that Mr. Olson's challenge was to non-believers, which led me to expect a more "non-insiderish" sort of book. I'm guessing that Mr. Olson chose Challenge over Jesus and the Victory of God because of its relative brevity (he can certainly correct me if I'm wrong); I'd be glad to read the other as well, adding it to the stack of ten-odd tomes on the kitchen table.
Don't confuse my personal disappointment with some sort of flaw inherent to the book.I wasn't. It just wasn't clear to me from your post.
I did indeed choose Challenge over Jesus and the Victory of God (and the prequel New Testament and the People of God) because of brevity. I hoped that the Challenge would be enough of a precis/summary of JVG to give a flavor of the large text without asking anyone to plow through 1400 pages (+ another 800 if you add the third volume Ressurection).
Also, I should have written a first post on Awakenings before the end of the weekend.
Post a Comment