David - I appreciate your thoughts on NT Wright's book. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Wright ultimately looses sight when he begins to view Paul's letters as PAULs letters instead of God's. It takes wisdom to gather helpful historical background and context for Biblical study without "falling off the other side of the horse" and importing personal speculation into the text. May God raise up many teachers with wisdom and humility - such as Sproul. Sproul would not talk about being halfway up a mountain looking down at other "scholars" in the mist below. He just does.
Derek | Homepage | 11.20.03 - 10:43 am | #

Why is there any tension between something being Paul's writing from Paul's historical context and experiences and it being God's?

I would think that if we are Calvinists and believe that God providentially directs all of history, then a study of Paul's context, thought-categories, and so on, will tell us all the better what God is saying in the letters of Paul since it was God who put Paul into that context in order bring him to write precisely what he did.

That's not to defend Wright's interpretation of Paul, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem here in talking about "Paul's theology" or whatnot.

I also suspect you may be missing the overall point of Wright's book, which is to answer liberal scholars who think that Paul invented "Christianity" and that it was a serious departure from the teachings of Jesus and its Jewish (i.e., Old Testament) context. Wright's argument is that, when considered in historical context, Paul is simply working out the implications of what Jesus said and did and that no wedge can be driven between them and that Paul believes Jesus to be the fulfillment of OT redemptive history.

When Wright is criticizing "biblical studies" he is criticizing liberal scholars who make very simple philosophical mistakes (e.g., assuming that if one biblical author uses slightly different terminology than another, then their theologies are completely different and irreconcilable) and who seem to have little interest in looking at the Bible as a whole theologically rather than cutting it up into little bits.

Unless you take into account that Wright is answering liberal scholars of Paul--and largely answering them according to their own folly--then I think you will seriously misread him.

His comment about climbing the mountain is to be taken in that context as well: saying that the actual Paul of the Bible is a far more interesting, coherent, and deep theologian than the piecemeal inventor of Christianity that the majority of scholarship leaves us with. Far from arrogance, he is calling upon the scholarly community to take Scripture and Paul more seriously.

Wright may very well be wrong on many points (e.g., he usually botches his understanding of Luther; he oversimplifies some of the complexities of 2nd Temple Judaism), but your review thus far seems to have largely missed the language game he is operating within.
garver | Homepage | 11.20.03 - 11:26 am | #

The problem with interpreting the Bible in terms of Jewish writers is that they were sometimes wrong. They differed among themselves in interpretation. John Gill read the Jewish writers at length and referred to them. His commentary shows that they varied in opinion - you cannot say 1st century Jews thought only one thing. Sometimes they were wrong, as the N.T. writers, especially Paul, interprets the O.T. passage for us in the light of the revelation he received from Christ, and it differs from the Jewish interpretation that, of course, ignores Christ. I also agree with you that the inclusion of philosophy in Biblical interpretation is dangerous. It brought us the Scholastics, the Platonist, and the Aristolians, all who imposed pagan ideas on the Word of God.
Larry | Homepage | 11.20.03 - 11:37 am | #

I haven't read any Wright yet (as a college student, I really have better things to do than read non-required theological books), but I think you make some good points. I would like clarification when you said that the human writers are "actually transcribers" of Scripture. Does this mean you believe in the dictation theory of inspiration? See, I think that divine inspiration and human authorship are not in tension with each other in the least. But as a physicist, you might not be comfortable with that kind of paradox.
Evan Donovan | Homepage | 11.20.03 - 6:57 pm | #

Plenary inspiriation does not necesitate tension betweem inspiration and authorship.



Sola Fide,
Mike Graham | 11.21.03 - 1:50 am | #

As someone who has read Wright in some depth, I must say that your critique is misguided. You must remember the audience that Wright is writing for.

Wright isn't writing to fellow evangelicals as Sproul is. Wright is writing as a historian to a hostile academic audience. Consequently he has to deal with second temple Judaism in some depth if he wants to get a hearing. Unfortunately, evangelicals are not always well known for their high standard of scholarship. Wright makes an encouraging exception.

If you want to hear Wright prove his case exegetically read his commentary on Romans, where he proves his position from the text inch by inch.

There is such a thing as Pauline theology. Many Reformed scholars have rightly recognized this (e.g. Ridderbos). If you deny the existence of a Pauline theology, you can end up with a docetic view of Scripture. The fact that there is such a thing as Pauline theology does not, of course, undermine the fact that it is also Spirit-inspired theology.

Wright is quite able to defend his historical methodology and its relationship to Scripture and he does so on a number of occasions within his works. Take the time to read these and then criticize him.

It is important that you recognize that Wright did not come to his convictions about Paul's theology from a study of first century Judaism. He himself says that he first encountered Sanders' work after he had rejected the traditional Protestant reading of Galatians on the basis of studying the text itself.

Many of us have followed the same course and realize that the common Protestant reading of Romans and Galatians is simply untenable.

Wright's theology is not built upon his view of second temple Judaism by any means. As you rightly point out, the evidence is simply not sufficient, and we should be wary of theories about second temple Judaism determining exegesis. Wright is, of course, well aware of these things.

Studies of second temple Judaism can, however, illuminate the text. For those of us who have already rejected the 'Pelagian hypothesis' reading of Galatians and Romans, recent studies in second temple Judaism have bolstered our case. However, we build on the text and not on these studies.

The textual argument for the New Perspective is where the real strength lies. Read Wright on Romans or Hays on Galatians for a taster.
Al | Homepage | 11.22.03 - 8:52 am | #

Larry: Nobody's denying that 1st century Jews were wrong about many things. The question is, in which WAY were they wrong. What were their wrong beliefs that Paul then addressed.
pduggie | Homepage | 11.24.03 - 11:01 am | #

David: you criticize Wright for depending too much on an historical contruct/understanding of NT times. Could not the same thing be said about Luther's approach to Paul? Luther had assumptions about the nature of 1st century Judaism which colored his interpretive approach.
The Native Tourist | 11.24.03 - 2:22 pm | #

Why is the usual response to anyone criticizing Wright, if not insults, are refrains and variants of "you just don't understand him."

Luther relied much more on a plain reading of Romans, an approach with which I am in agreement.

Wright may have indeed written this book to address those who claim that Paul invented Christianity. However, we all know that is not the issue here--we all are in agreement that Paul did no such thing. What the intent of the book was and how the book was actually received (a rethinking of the historic view on justification) are two different things.

Evan: I do not believe in the "dictation theory". My poor wording gave you that impression. Sorry.
David Heddle | Homepage | 11.25.03 - 2:01 pm | #

As a Calvinist who has severe issues with Wright's take on justification (I say as much in an essay on election available at the Thinklings site), I would just like to say that my general experience with Wright has been favorable. I have profited a lot from his writing. I've never found him arrogant or overly speculative. If anything, perhaps he is too exacting.

I also have issues with his take on Jesus' messianic consciousness, but that didn't stop me from loving his book "The Challenge of Jesus."

I just thought it odd that, even though I have a very similar theology to yours Dr. Heddle, I have had a different reaction in my reading of Wright. (And I'm not saying you just don't understand him -- heck, some of the time, I don't understand him!)
Jared | Homepage | 11.25.03 - 4:31 pm | #

Well, Wright hasn't really in the least tempted me to question the understanding I had of justification before I read him or even heard of him.

And you hadn't said anything about justification in your post on Wright.

Rather, your criticisms were aimed at points that seem, to me at least, thus far to hinge upon misconstruing the intent of the book.
garver | Homepage | 11.26.03 - 11:41 pm | #