Christ and Culture Revisited
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 64, No. 2 – Spring 2022
Editor: David S. Dockery
By N. T. Wright. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020, 368pp., $52.99
N. T. Wright is a popular speaker, respected New Testament scholar, engaging writer, and prolific author having written over eighty books—an almost impossible combination. Equally rare are his voluminous contributions to two major fields: Pauline Studies and Gospel Studies. Having served as an Anglican bishop, he is currently senior research professor at Wycliffe Hall at the University of Oxford.
Interpreting Jesus: Essays on the Gospels is the second volume of a three-volume set, The Collected Essays of N. T. Wright. The other two volumes are Interpreting Scripture: Essays on the Bible and Hermeneutics and Interpreting Paul: Essays on the Apostle and His Letters. Each book contains journal articles and book essays that span almost forty years in Wright’s impressive writing career.
The seventeen articles in this volume appear in chronological order from 1982–2020, and each essay has a short introduction providing helpful background and contextual information. The introductions show: (1) helpful connections leading up to some of Wright’s major books, such as Jesus and the Victory of God (pp. 66, 81) and The Resurrection of the Son of God (p. 116); (2) interactions with writings of other major scholars (e.g., B. F. Meyer, p. 128, Richard Hays, pp. 188, 221, 243); and (3) important links with various lecture series Wright has delivered (p. 280).
There is much to like in these essays which are vintage Wright. First, his engaging writing style is a pleasure to read. Second, he is erudite without being unclear—an intelligible intellectual. These two points are likely related to his extensive experience as a pastor (pp. 154–58, 161). Third, Wright usually deals kindly with scholars with whom he disagrees, such as Bultmann (p. 151). Fourth, some of his criticisms are particularly memorable. Referring to the Jesus Seminar’s unwarranted anti-historical bias, he said “criticizing ‘history’ because of the Jesus Seminar is like warning against air-travel because of Icarus (p. 81).” Sometimes his comparisons are enjoyably naughty: “Ben F. Meyer, who has more understanding of how ancient texts work in his little finger than many of the Jesus Seminar seem to have in their entire word-processors (p. 85).” Fifth, Wright consistently affirms the historical content of the Gospels (pp. 31–32, 154, 160). Sixth, he gives good reasons for rejecting additional “gospels” and accepting only the four canonical Gospels (pp. 174, 198). Seventh, he is thought provoking and willing to go against the grain of NT scholarship, such as interpreting “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31) as being both “the satan and Caesar”1 (p. 218; emphasis in the original). Eighth, he continually pushes scholarship forward to new, potentially fruitful areas of study (pp. 180–87).
Even with the helpful explanations prior to each essay, it is still sometimes unclear when they were written. That information is found in the “Acknowledgements” (pp. 329–30), but it would be more helpful were they found in the introductions at the beginning of each chapter. Additionally, a subject index would be helpful. Other points of criticisms are of a theological nature and aimed at information found in the articles. First, calling Genesis 1–2 “mythological” is problematic regardless how one defines the word and has problematic connotations (p. 23). Second, criticizing fundamentalism and the religious right is fashionable in scholarly writings but too often is painted with a broad brush (pp. 144–45) and deserves a more nuanced approach. Third, although the call for balance between a theology of cross and kingdom has merit, downplaying the use of the cross and resurrection to prove Jesus’ divinity is problematic (pp. 160, 182, 186). Fourth, Wright’s emphasis on the Jewishness of the Gospels is well founded, but the claim that Jesus summed up Israel in himself (pp. 34–36, 167) seems a bridge too far. Fifth, Wright interprets passages about Jesus’ parousia (Mark 13:26; 14:62) as referring to Jesus’ vindication as Israel’s representative (p. 29). Yet, Jesus’ second coming is the more likely interpretation. Maranatha!
Students and scholars alike will find Interpreting Jesus an enlightening read of some thought-provoking essays. Wright’s contribution to NT scholarship is impressive and his impact is undeniable.
- Wright prefers to use the term “the satan” (212, 218); whereas this reviewer prefers to use the name “Satan” in reference to God’s enemy (John 13:27). ↩︎
