The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, #1) by N.T. Wright

The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, #1) Reviews

• 
  Nick

  N.T. Wright has been somewhat of a hero of mine for a while now. I must admit that I do not agree with him on all points and he tends to be a bit repetitive; however, I could say this of many authors.
  
  Wright is one of my heros because he is cross-disciplinary. He is a historian, theologian, biblical exegete, pastor, and a good writer to boot. NTPG reflects this diversity of roles in the best way.
• 
  Justin Evans

  A very clearly written, well-argued, but sometimes repetitive book. The first methodological section is embarrassing for anyone who has read literary criticism or philosophy of the last forty years--as ever, the other humanistic disciplines take a while to catch up (viz, classics). But Wright's approach is fair. You might even call it common-sensical, except that it's couched in such high-flown concepts: to understand what people meant by their texts, you should try to find out how they saw the world. Very good. Not sure why we need Greimas for that.
  
  His criticisms of other theologians or hermeneuts are good (basically, they all have an agenda, and so does Wright, but his is usually less obtrusive than theirs). His questions are good (e.g., what exactly did these people mean by 'God', anyway?). His answers are interesting ("works" are signs of Jewish identity, not good deeds; the 'kingdom of God' was always an allegorical claim about the end of the present world order, never a factual claim about the end of the world itself; Christians believed, from the start, that Jesus was the Messiah).
  
  I just hope the volumes on Jesus and Paul are less repetitive.
• 
  Corey Hampton

  Late last year I decided that I was going to read through N.T. Wright’s Christian Origins and the Question of God series, as I have benefited so greatly from his other works and found them so helpful theologically and ecclesiologically.
  
  But the reality that I have (surprisingly) run into, is that N.T. Wright is quite a controversial figure within evangelicalism, particularly within my circle of churches. In fact, I have now read this book twice; this, because, after my first reading, I realised that I needed to go back and more fully understand the nuances of his arguments (as I was unaware at how much disagreement I would find on Wright’s scholarship). I have received (or read) numerous negative comment on his ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and his teaching on the historical Jesus (from both evangelical and liberal pastors/church leaders); but I have also found that most of those who think negatively of him have never seriously engaged with the work of Wright himself. And, for me personally, this is quite a grievous reality. I fear that this is reactionary to (their perception of) his threat to the status quo of evangelical scripture reading.
  
  In light of my study, I find Wright’s work to be extremely important for evangelical churches living within a post-christendom reality. Perhaps old (overly conservative) ways of reading scripture are no longer appropriate. And perhaps liberal critiques aren’t appropriate either. Both seem to read the scripture from within a worldview that needs fresh, first century critique; and I believe that Wright provides it in his scholarship.
  
  The New Testament and the People of God is the first volume of the series, which is followed by Jesus and the Victory of God, The Resurrection of the Son of God, and, to this point, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In this volume, Wright attempts to give a coherent understanding of first century Judaism and Christianity through a study of their history, literature, and theology. Central to his methodology is his use (and further development) of Ben F. Meyer’s critical-realist hermeneutic.
  
  He begins by arguing for a critical-realist epistemology that moves beyond both positivist and phenomenalist theories of knowledge to,
  
  a way of describing the process of ‘knowing’ that acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence ‘realism’),while also fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence critical’). This path leads to critical reflection on the products of our enquiry into “reality” so that our assertions about “reality” acknowledge their own provisionality. Knowledge, in other words, although in principle concerning realities in dependant of the knower, is never itself independent of the knower.’
  
  After explicating this epistemology, he then relates it to literature (particularly, though not exclusively, in the N.T.), history (particularly in the first century), and theology (in light of N.T. literature and history). In these sections, Wright provides a methodology and hermeneutic that he will use in all works that follow; they are foundational.
  
  And, also central to his hermeneutic is his argument that texts (‘human writing’) are ‘the articulation of worldview’—or even, ‘the telling of stories which bring worldviews into articulation.’ In light of this hermeneutic, Wright says that ‘Part at least of the task of literary criticism is therefore, I suggest, to lay bare, and explicate, what the writer has achieved at this level of implied narrative, and ultimately implied worldview, and how.’ Therfore, when we read the New Testament, the deepest meaning will lie in the implied narrative—the story of Israel—and the worldview of the author—in Paul’s case, Judaism, Hellenistic culture, Roman impirial ideology, and, most importantly, his membership ‘in Christ’. All of these narratives, rushed together in the New Testament, then birth a new worldview; and ‘by reading it historically, I can detect that it was always intended as a subversive story, undermining a current worldview and attempting to replace it with another. By reading it with my own ears open, I realize that it may subvert my worldview too.’
  
  Wright presents his methodology for explicating a worldview by looking at ones’ aims, intentions, beliefs, hope, stories, questions, symbols, and praxes. He then uses this methodology to work out a detailed assessment of second temple Judaism and first-century Christianity. His basic argument is that God had chosen Israel as his covenant people to undo the sin of Adam and to bring blessing to all the nations of the earth. If they obey the covenant, then they will be blessed; if they disobey, they will deal with the consequences (exile). The story is a continuous reminder of the frailty of Israel; it’s a story of continuous disobedience and pain. And, in the first-century, though Israel is in the promised Land, they are still in exile (under the rule of the Roman empire). Therefore, Israel (in all of its diversity) is waiting in expectation for God to renew his covenant; to bring judgment on the pagan empire, cleanse the land and Temple, and to vindicate his chosen people, through whom he would rule the nations.
  
  This is the reality that Jesus is lived, died, and was resurrection. He, Wright argues, was a prophet who represented Israel as her Messiah. He was God’s chosen King who would renew God’s covenant with his people. Yet, he does so in a deeply subversive way than expected:
  
  The exile came to its cataclysmic end when Jesus, Israel’s representative Messiah, died outside the walls of Jerusalem, bearing the curse, which consisted of exile at the hands of the pagans, to its utmost limit. The return from exile began when Jesus, again as the representative Messiah, emerged from the tomb three days later. As a result, the whole complex of Jewish expectations as to what would happen when the exile finished had come tumbling out in a rush. Israel’s god had poured out his own spirit on all flesh; his word was going out to the nations; he had called into being a new people composed of all races and classes, and both sexes, without distinction. These major features of Paul’s theology only make sense within a large-scale retelling of the essentially Jewish story, seen now from the point of view of one who believes that the climactic moment has already arrived, and that the time to implement that great achievement is already present. Paul fitted his own personal narrative world into this larger framework. His own vocation, to be the apostle to the Gentiles, makes sense within a narrative world according to which Israel’s hopes have already come true.
  
  Clearly, there remained a fulfilment yet to come. Paul, like Luke, believed both that the End had come and that the End was yet to come. 1 Corinthians 15 is the fullest version we have of his retelling of the still-future part of the Jewish story. It is a redrawn apocalypse, which again only makes sense in terms of the story of Israel, the story we studied in chapter 8, now seen in a new light. The same could be said of the ‘apocalyptic’ passage in Romans (8:18–27). The narrative needs an ending, and Paul hints at it in these and other passages: the creation as a whole will be set free from its bondage to decay. The exodus of Israel was a model for the death and resurrection of Jesus, and both of these events point forward to a greater exodus to come, when the whole cosmos will be liberated from its Egypt, its present state of futility.
  
  This book is so detailed and carefully argued that I couldn’t possible give an exhaustive review or summary of all of the details and nuances; but I can’t recommend this work enough. Let me give a few points on the most important points I am taking away after my second reading of the book (I definitely plan on reading it a few more times!):
  
  N.T. authority is something that I’ve been exploring for a bit, and I have found his five-act hermeneutic very helpful. It will take many conversations, and much thinking and praying to work out what this might mean for the local church; but I believe this is a model that will work well hermeneutically and in light of the continuing, creative work of the Spirit in the life of the church.
  Salvation theology needs a serious re-assessment in both liberalism and evangelicalism. We often think of it as the promise of eternal, disembodied heavenly bliss in heaven with God. But that’s not a Jewish hope or a Christian hope; and this is not what the New Testament understands eschatological salvation to be. The reality is much more glorious! We’ll work this out in more detail elsewhere.
  The (seemingly) old Reformed understanding that Judaism as ‘the wrong sort of religion’ (and that Jesus came to bring something completely new) is a bad understanding of covenant theology. Jesus, Wright argues, is the climax of God’s promise! God is faithful to his covenant with Israel through the faithfulness of Jesus; and through Jesus all people are invited to join God’s covenant people and their vocation to bring God’s healing presence into the world.
  The local church has, in light of the Enlightenment, separated ‘religion’ from everyday life of politics, economics, social-justice, etc. But Jesus held them all tightly together; in fact, his message brought judgment on Israel’s practical understanding on all of this. Therefore, we need to hear Jesus afresh, in his context, so that we can change in light of it.
  This book was truly a treasure to read. I plan on going back to it several times in my life.
  
  Now to move to Jesus and the Victory of God.
• 
  Shane Williamson

  2020 reads: 48/52
  
  Rating: 5 stars
  
  How does one review such a book? This first volume of five in a 'NT theology' from Wright is just under 500 (large) pages of articulate and sophisticated historical, theological, literary, and biblical enquiry. Wright presents no assumptions, beginning his enquiry with epistemology. Correctly critiquing post-Enlightenment rationalism, Wright attempts to construct history, theology and literature through a 'critical realism' framework. Fundamental to this proposal is the idea of 'worldview' which provides the context for observing stories and narratives that societies have told. Securing knowledge is finding things that fit within this stories, since it is these stories that give and provide meaning for societies.
  
  From here, Wright constructs the world-view of first-century Judaism(s), particularly by paying attention to story, symbol, and praxis. It is these externals, as perceived historically, that indicate the beliefs. In short, Israel's beliefs center on monotheism, election, and eschatology. There is one creator God, who has chosen Israel to be his people, giving her his Torah and establishing her in his holy Land. He will act for her and through her to re-establish his judgment and justice, his wisdom, and his shalom, throughout the world.
  
  Finally, Wright moves to construct first-century Christianity. The early Christians, Wright argues, looked back at an event in and through which, they claimed, Israel's God had done exactly that. The church thus told the story of God's people as rooted in Israel's past, designed to continue unto the world's future. God has re-established his judgement and justice, not in national liberation, but in the events concerning Jesus.
  
  This dense volume is a master display of historical enquiry, theological reflection, and literary analysis. So much of what's in here is pivotal for much of the scholarship that has taken place since its publication. Wright tackles both liberalism and fundamentalism, seeking to provide a nuanced, cohesive, and captivating account of the new testament people of God. This should be required reading for all those interested in NT scholarship.
• 
  Czarny Pies

  N.T. Wright's "The New Testament and the People of God" is very likely to irritate anyone who has ever taken an introductory course at university on the history of the Roman Empire. Wright insists that the first leaders of the Christian Church were not only Jewish but held a Jewish worldview and wrote using styles that were typically Jewish. I had trouble seeing what Wright thought was so new in this as it had all been explained to me 47 years ago when I was in my first year at university. In fact it was this Jewish quality to early Christianity which had given rise to individuals from the first generation of Gentile converts to write Christian apologetics to defend Christianity to a pagan audience educated in Greek philosophy (notably Plato).
  I gather that Wright's intention was to refute a group of theologians active in the first seventy-five years of the 20th century who had argued that the Christian had been very Hellenist from the beginning. While such a group of theologians may have existed, I still found extremely irritating Wright's hammering away at what I had thought was a very obvious point.
  I was also quite annoyed with Wright for insisting that he was analyzing Christ as an "historian" when he was nothing of the sort. He was rather making the mistake common to theologians when one they either (a) analyze Christ as a human rather a member of the Holy Trinity, or (b) in their consult the work of historians of the era (such as Tacitus or, in the case of Wrigh, Josephus.) True historians shy away from Christ not out of respect for his divine status but because the required primary documents needed to perform an historical analysis are missing.
  I must concede that for the reader with patience, Wright does do a masterful job of presenting the Jewish world that Christ and his apostles came from. He describes the range of theological ideas held by Jews during the era. He stresses that Messianism was prevalent and that the concept that there would be a bodily resurrection for the faithful was very common. Wright also points out that the New Testament authors used stories of a typically Jewish style and that apocalyptic writing was also a distinctly Jewish genre. The big problem is Wright's assertion that he has discovered something new which he has not.
  I also think Wright treads into some very dangerous territory when he proposes that the traditional doctrine that Christ's mission in life was to die on the cross to redeem humanity is incorrect. Wright argues that because Christ held a Jewish worldview, he perceived that his mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom God. His death and resurrection were the means by which Christ accomplished this rather than his objective. To accept this argument one has to first believe that Wright correctly reconstituted the Jewish worldview during Christ's lifetime. The second problem is that worldviews belong to those who are human in nature. Christ being divine nature would not necessarily have had a worldview. To further compound matters, there is a serious lack of data to support the contention that during Christ's lifetime Messianism dominated Jewish thinking. He writes: "Most of the Jewish literature we possess from the period has no reference to a Messiah. .... however the idea of a Messiah was at latent in several varieties of Judaism." (pp. 363-365). In other words, the evidence was missing but it should have been there. Indeed throughout the book, Wright draws conclusions on the bases of suppostions and conjecture.
  Wright makes many interesting points but overall I found both his logic and his research to have been shoddy. His book however is informative in those places where he is not piling hypothesis upn hypothesis.
• 
  John

  Wright's first volume in his "Christian Origins" series is largely an apologetic work, whose thesis is well summarized toward the end of the book. He writes:
  
  "The New Testament writers claim that, though there is only one god, all human beings of themselves cherish wrong ideas about this one god. In worshipping the god thus wrongly conceived, they worship an idol. Pagans worship gods of wood and stone, distorting the creator by worshipping the creature. Jews, Paul argues in parallel with this, have made an idol of their own national identity and security, and so have failed to see what the covenant faithfulness of their god, the god of Abraham, had always entailed.15 Christians, as the addressees of the New Testament writings, are clearly not exempt from the possibility of idolatry, of using the words ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ while in fact worshipping a different god.16 Our study of the history of Judaism and Christianity in the first century leads us inexorably to the conclusion that both cannot be right in their claims about the true god."
  
  While I think Wright's conclusions are correct, I really struggled to follow the logic of his argument since it is so deeply rooted in extra-biblical texts. I suppose this may be more significant to the liberal critics that Wright seems to deal with. But these arguments can be made more persuasively and powerfully from the Bible itself, without resorting to the Apocrypha and other ancient Jewish texts.
  
  Those that have read any of Wright's other long works will rightly expect the book is well padded with passive-voice ramblings which his editor didn't have the courage to slice and dice. I found some value in this, but surprisingly little, considering the book's reputation and length.
  
  I cannot recommend this one. I'm hoping for better in the second volume.
• 
  Karsten Harrison

  N. T. Wright has proven himself, time and time again, as an astute New Testament scholar. This work is the first installment of his renowned “Christian Origins and the Question of God” series, which takes a deeper dive into the story of Second Temple Judaism and first century Christianity. Wright certainly has theological bends that can be unattractive, especially in his beliefs on Paul’s views of justification, which Wright claims should be interpreted with the knowledge that a Second Temple Jewish understanding of forgiveness was national and not individual (thus creating problems for Penal Substitutionary Atonement). Regardless, Wright has sought to unearth the first century narrative and bring readers through the wardrobe—inviting readers into the story of a first century world wrought with Paganism, Hellenism, Jewish nationalism, and a small group of people proclaiming that God came in the flesh, died, and rose again.
  
  Serious students of the New Testament should read this book and ponder its implications for biblical studies. I’m excited to get to work on Wright’s second installment in the series.
• 
  Hunter Smithpeters

  Best book I've read. Punt everything you've ever read in any systematic theology book (jk don't that's silly). By rebuilding the worldview of second-temple Judaism and then studying how the Early-Christian worldview developed from the former worldview, we're able to see with 1st century eyes (instead of 16th or 21st century eyes) what the evangelists and Paul were in fact faced with and writing about. Must read.
• 
  Drake

  There are definitely a good number of areas in this book in which I disagree with Wright (some minor, some major). But it's mostly a brilliant display of epistemology, history, literary study, and theology. Well-written and thought-provoking from start to finish.
• 
  Samuel G. Parkison

  I really enjoyed reading through Wright. I had read a portion of this work for Advanced Biblical Hermeneutics, and it certainly made sense for the class at the time, but we really did miss all the juicy parts then, so I'm glad I got to pick it back up. There's much to commend about Wright's project as a whole in this work, and much to glean from. The mood he strikes when describing his proposal for critical realism is, I think, exactly right. On the one hand, he wants to avoid reductionistic skepticism--we really can know stuff. But on the other hand, we don't have to argue for the objectivity of truly discovering meaning and worldview by having a rigid view of reading that privileges personal interpretation as if it were divine revelation. What he advocates for is a kind of reading that recognizes the ability to get at what's there, but is also humble enough to be able to be corrected. All good stuff. I also really appreciated the next two major sections of the book, where he proposed the worldview of second temple Judaism and the way that Christianity reappropriated almost every aspect of the Jewish worldview (all the stories, symbols, and praxis) with Christ at the center.
  
  With all that said, the one thing that I couldn't quite understand is, why does Wright not see the 2nd temple view of justification not being fundamentally corrected by Jesus and his apostles? He says on pg. 273: "This needs to be emphasized in the strongest possible terms: the most natural meaning of the phrase 'the forgiveness of sins' to a first-century Jew is not in the first instance the remission of individual sins, but the putting away of the whole nation's sins." Ok. Fair enough. But is it so crazy to argue that this too was a Jewish supposition about "forgiveness" and "justification" that Jesus and Paul and the other apostles needed to correct? Even though this book is not Wright's most thorough treatment of justification, he seems leave the reader with the assumption that, of all the parts of the Jewish worldview that needed to be corrected, this understanding of justification is a-ok.
  
  Wright seems to be hedging himself against the onslaught of criticism from lovers of penal substitution when he makes the distinction between "present justification" and "future justification." But this doesn't help much. "Present justification" is pretty much reduced to "presently banking on future justification." Which, it seems to me, is all symptomatic of how Wright answers the questions of "what's wrong?" and "what is the resolution?" on pages 369-370. "Sin" is pretty much stripped of its legal dimensions, and is reduced to a residual component part of the "pagan powers." Which means, the solution to the problem is pretty much reduced to the overthrowing of those powers.
  
  I may be "triggered" already because of my previous exposure to Wright, but I must say, the comparatively short treatment of Hebrews in chapter 13 (he basically says, "the author of Hebrews is pretty much telling the same stories as Paul but with more emphasis on the practices of the Temple cult" to which I say, "Yes, and what do those practices signify if not penal substitution?!?!?!"), and his restriction of dealing only with John's prologue in the same section (which, granted, was brilliant) struck me as conspicuous on the issue of justification.
  
  All that to say, my question is, why does Wright not assume that, since Christians were correcting the 2nd temple Jewish worldview in every other way, they weren't correcting the (alleged) non-judicial, non-personal view of justification? I admire Wright's desire to recapture the genius of the early Christians in retelling the Israel-story with Jesus at the center, but I don't think removing or redefining penal substitution as it has been understood (and as it seems to be argued for by the NT writers themselves) is a necessary step to that end. For that matter, it seems like the NT writers are correcting 2nd temple Jews, not only in the sense that their own stories are being retold in Jesus, but also in the sense that their view of the OT was itself wrong. If that's the case, defining Christian doctrine (including justification) would seem to require not just the NT writer's contrast with 2nd Temple Jews, but also their understanding of the OT.
• 
  Jacob Aitken

  NTPG attempts a constructive methodology for reading Scripture and doing theology in a post-postmodern age. This book sets the stage for the next two, draws heavily from it, and determines later exegesis. If this book is mastered, much of Wright's later writings is fairly simple.
  
  Overview:
  Wright criticizes the Enlightenment's approach to knowledge. He says, in line with Postmodern philosophy, that a tabula rasa is impossible. We do not simply "see" other facts, but recieve those facts pre-interpreted and subconsciously offer our own interpretation.
  
  More controversially, Wright argues we must read Scripture in light of the issues of 2nd Temple Judaism (2TJ). This leads to the content of Wright's method:
  
  Wright argues that the 2TJ period was a story in search of a conclusion. They had returned from exile, but the promises of the post-exilic prophets had gone unfulfilled. Subtly, many of the Jewish themes of covenant and election were redefined. If Israel was the people of God, and if their God was the creator of the world, he would have to act and vindicate his people. The doctrine of election is reworked around the covenant. If we are the people of God, then we are in covenant with God. God in some way will have to fulfill his covenant. Fulfilling the covenant meant defeating Israel's enemies (e.g., Rome) and God becoming King of the world. When the covenant is renewed, Israel would see God as king of the world.
  
  Wright maintains this is how 2TJ read Scripture, and I think he is largely correct. The above theology will be reworked around Christ and his ministry. Wright's theology is remarkably consistent, even when he might overstate his case.
• 
  Mark Sequeira

  Wow! So N.T. Wright rocks my world yet again! Okay, yes, it may be more of the same considering I've already read "Jesus and the Victory of God" (which technically comes after this one I believe) and if I had to, II'd say that one is better but once reading N.T. wright, I want to read more. Big books, slow reading, but boy has it been worth it. Got to be some of the most important reading I have done and I have done a lot of reading from Calvin's Institutes to John Owen to Stanley Grenz to Wesley to Arthur Pink to Eugene Peterson's Spiritual Theology series to...Esp. good on the background to the N.T. and the worldview back then, thought patterns, etc.
  
  Kirk Winslow maybe said it best below, "if you have an interest in the subject, it's first-rate all the way. If historical background to the NT doesn't float your boat, go straight to vol. 2, "Jesus and the Victory of God." That one will change your life - really."
• 
  Mark Barnes

  Wright has been justifiably criticised for his understanding of justification by faith, particularly in Paul. But Wright is a far better historian than he is a theologian, and his insistence (against a great deal of non-evangelical biblical study) that the New Testament is to be taken seriously from a historical perspective is much-needed in the academy. Rather like Karl Barth, Wright unnecessarily challenges vital evangelical doctrines, whilst at the same time driving a nail into the coffin of overly critical or liberal scholarship. And unlike Barth, Wright does so with a vibrant writing-style that belies the academic nature of his arguments. I can’t recommend Wright unequivocally, but for those who understand his weaknesses and read him critically, this is a wonderfully stimulating read.
• 
  Jeremy

  A brilliant introduction to reading Christian scriptures including many of the common distortions. Wright is often considered on the conservative end of things by liberals, but relatively liberal by conservatives and fundamentalists. What we see hear is brilliant scholarships. The method of this book will be useful for anyone reading scriptural texts in other traditions. Part of a series of three, highly recommended.
• 
  Jon Beadle

  If the breadth of scholarship was an ocean, Wright would be walking on the water! This book took me nearly a month to finish and I don't think my perspective of the early church in the world of second-temple Judaism will ever be the same.
• 
  Scriptor Ignotus

  When I picture Jesus of Nazareth, I’m inclined to imagine a man, slender at the waist but tall and broad-shouldered like a college football quarterback, with an immaculately-trimmed beard bristling the contours of a jawline that could shear sheet metal, eyes that slay leviathans and make babies laugh by changes of countenance, and shoulder-length, wavy tresses of such impeccable sheen and lift that women everywhere want to know: is he born with it, or is it Maybelline?
  
  This man strides over the hill country of Galilee, disciples bumbling in tow, alighting in this village and that one, rousing the villagers from their epistemological slumber, healing lepers, casting out demons, speaking kind words, and all the while being pestered by the first-century Judean iteration of the fun police; the Pharisees. Who are they, and why are they being so mean to a guy who’s just trying to help people? But this question begs another: who is Jesus, and what is his significance? And this question, in turn, begs a truly bewildering array of others.
  
  Our understanding of Jesus and the founding of Christianity is hopelessly devoid of context; and context, perhaps more so in the Christian religion than in all others, forms an indispensable part of the total worldview. Christianity, after all, is based on the proposition that the God who created the universe and sustains it in being showed up on Earth at a particular historical moment, with the body of a Jewish day laborer from a backwater town on the fringes of both the Roman Empire itself and the domain of its Jewish client-king. The meaning of Christianity, then, if such a thing can ever be grasped, must be found within a nesting doll of overlaying theological, historical, and biographical narratives.
  
  The life of Jesus is narrated by the evangelists, who construe it as a climactic recapitulation of the story of YHWH and the people of Israel. This story contrasts with those of other Jewish sects, like the Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees, each of whom longed for the liberation of the holy land from the pagans, restoration of the Solomonic temple, and the reinstitution of the true worship of the true God, but who differed on the means and circumstances of this liberation and the role of human agency in fulfilling God’s promise to the progeny of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
  
  These narratives of the Jewish resistance contrasted with those of the collaborators: Herod rebuilt the temple in the hopes that he would be regarded as a messianic figure, while simultaneously benefitting from the sponsorship of the pagan emperor. Josephus told a story according to which the God of Israel had defected to the Romans because of her malfeasances, the speculative world-ruler who would come from Judea turned out to be the emperor Vespasian, who was proclaimed as such by his troops while campaigning in Judea, and the God of Abraham had thrown in his lot with the imperial pretensions of the Roman Empire.
  
  Christianity took shape within this tangled web of stories. The Christian story, articulated in some measure as an oppositional polemic to the others, is, more than any abstract theological axioms could hope to be, what Christianity is about.
  
  First-century Judea was positively on fire with revolutionary fervor and apocalyptic expectation. According to Jewish belief, God had created a fundamentally good world, created mankind to be its stewards, watched mankind become corrupted, and chose the people of Israel to be the means by which He would rectify the human condition. He promised His people a land of their own, a land flowing with milk and honey, His own dwelling place at Mount Zion, from which He would enlighten the world and finally be recognized as the one true God.
  
  This dream was subjected to continual setbacks; the promise of the Davidic kingdom was quashed by captivity in Babylon; the return from exile was dampened by subjection first to the Seleucids and then to the Hasmonean dynasty, which claimed to be their liberator but smacked of Hellenic decadence. The Hasmoneans were succeeded by the Herodians, clients of yet another pagan superpower, and zealous Jews were left groaning in anticipation of the moment at which their God would finally act to cleanse His land of the pagan, restore His law, and take His place as ruler of the world.
  
  Many were the revolutionaries who took up arms to bring about salvation. All of them failed. The Jewish war of 66-70 ended with the destruction of the temple. Simon Bar-Kokhba, the final would-be Messiah, led a revolt that ended in 135 with his own death, the destruction of his prospective Messianic kingdom, and the near-annihilation of the Jewish people. There would be no more whisperings of a Jewish state until 1947. Without the temple, keeping Torah became the marker of Jewish identity. The aspirations of Zionism were pushed out of immediate consideration; consigned to a distant and unforeseeable future.
  
  The Christian writers put an astonishing twist on this story. With a zeal that must have seemed ludicrous, they proclaimed that God had in fact fulfilled His promise. He had defeated paganism; He had become King; He had restored His promised land to His people; He had inaugurated a new age; and He had reconstituted His people. He had done all of these things in a way that was at first surprising, but upon reflection could be discerned as the necessary and inevitable consummation of the long, fissiparous relationship between God and man.
  
  In and through Jesus, God had defeated the powers of death and enthroned himself over the world. He had established a new covenant, based on a new identity; no longer one enforced by ethnic kinship, but by the faith of all seekers of the one true God. He had rounded the final corner of his world-historical mission, whereby the creation of humanity—the true humanity—would finally be accomplished.
  
  How he did this, precisely, is the subject matter of the next book. I’m game.
  
  
  
• 
  Ben Smitthimedhin

  Wright does an excellent job at weaving Judaism and Christianity together while still distinguishing their core beliefs and practices from one another. In The New Testament and the People of God , Wright establishes the message of the New Testament within its first century context, showing how Jesus and Paul cannot be understood apart from their Jewish themes.
  
  I personally found the first couple chapters (on epistemology and literary criticism) to be unnecessary. While I understand that Wright wishes to convince postmodern audiences of their flawed theory of knowledge, I think he should just stick with the history and theology of the New Testament, which are broad enough on their own. Although the book is pretty thorough, it is not a good introduction to those who are unfamiliar with Second Temple Judaism. For those who have been introduced to Wright before though, this book is a treat.
• 
  Frank Peters

  This is an impressive book. The research and study that went into it is rather astounding. The book itself reads as a nearly 500 page introduction to further work. It introduces the background of the New Testament and develops and intellectual rationale for the study of New Testament people and ideas. Much of what the book discusses and works through are concepts that I had not quite imagined needed discussing in the first place. However, after reading I can fully respect what Prof. Wright was seeking to accomplish. Rather than writing to Christians who already believe the bible is inspired by God, Wright starts at a basic secular perspective. Thus, the hundreds of pages were requited to catch up to a viewpoint similar enough to what would be taken for granted by a typical evangelical. So, while I am happy to have read the book, there are very few I could recommend the book to.
• 
  Adam Metz

  A comprehensive introduction into the socio-political situation into which Jesus was born. Wright lays out an engaging and informative journey through Israel's history, the history of the Hellenization of the Jewish people, and he does a marvelous job of helping the Bible come alive by highlighing so much of the backdrop that so often is ignored, misunderstood, and undervalued. A modern classic that will only grow in its importance to theological exploration in the coming decades. It has sat on my shelf for years and I am so glad to have finally made my way through it. It is comprehensive and particular, but still reads easily and is easy to follow. Few contemporary theologians equal the brillance of NT Wright and his accolades are all well deserved. I look forward to continuing the journey into the second volume soon.
• 
  Zach Adams

  It took a long time for me to build up the courage to read this book. But after finally finishing it, i look back on it and say, “that wasn’t nearly as hard as I thought it would be.” Wright is not only brilliant in his content, but also surprisingly fluid and conversational in his academic writing. So for you out there who enjoy Wright (and also have at least some biblical studies training—which is needed to fully appreciate the work), but haven’t read this volume, go for it! Just chip away at it!
• 
  James Nance

  Our book group took a few months to work through this first volume of Wright’s works on the New Testament, and it still felt at times as if we were racing through it. So much to discuss: so many enlightening insights, challenging approaches, solid foundations, powerful refutations. I have now a much clearer and fuller understanding of how first century Jews of different backgrounds and persuasions would view the claims of Jesus and His early followers.
  BTW: Wright provides what I think is the best definition of a metaphor given, appropriately enough, as a metaphor (p. 40).
• 
  Zach Barnhart

  You don't have to agree with NTW on everything (or anyone else for that matter) to benefit from him, or to recognize how insightful of a scholar he is. This is an essential volume for anyone seeking a more historically-informed understanding of the New Testament.
• 
  Ben Franklin

  Whew! Finally done. This book is so dense I could only read a few pages at a time. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. Take your time and it will reap rewards.
• 
  Dawson

  A huge help in understanding the worldview, beliefs, and theology that surrounded the writing of the New Testament. It's reshaped how I read the New Testament. The fascinating argument of the book flows clearly throughout, and continually pushes into the next point. It makes me excited to read the rest of the series (although I'm also intimidated by its size!).
• 
  Daniel Nelms

  Part of my 2021 reading goals is to get through all five volumes of Wright’s Origins. I was able to get through the first volume in a few months… we will see if I can do it.
  Wright’s writing in the Origins is semi-scholarly, yet still accessible for anyone with any sort of academic foundation in biblical study. Such accessibility is rather rare in terms of the scope of Wright’s writing.
  In the first three chapters, Wright lays out the basics of how he approaches literature, giving the necessary foundation for all of the volumes ahead. How does he approach the New Testament? He lays out a basic argument for the treatment of the New Testament as what it claims to be, even if it is used for things that the authors may not have intended, but still remains a valid use (example he gives in the conclusion is that study of Elizabethan English through Shakespeare’s works. Surely he would not have intended his works to be studied for that only, but it remains nevertheless a valid pursuit). We should use the New Testament not only as an authoritative source for the history it claims to be, but also as means to help us construct a worldview for the early Christians, primarily as told through their storytelling. In this way, as he says, we can the triad of history, theology and literature seriously, all allowing them to work together to a cohesive whole, holding them in balance and not allowing too much focus on one to the neglect of the other.
  On pg. 118, he states his overall goal of the series: “We are therefore studying human history, in the recognition that the actors in the drama, and hence in a sense the drama itself, can only be fully understood when we learn to see the world through their eyes.”
  In a way this seems to be one of the more base of hermeneutical principles that any undergraduate is taught in hermeneutics 101. Yet, as he proves in what follows, surprisingly much Christian theology is developed in other worldviews and cultural situations that took place many centuries, or millennia, after the New Testament was written, and thus the reading of say 20th century issues into the New Testament and taking it as the actual meaning of the New Testament misses an important step: is that really what the original authors were addressing? If we allow their works to be what they are, especially inside of their historical circumstances and situation, we draw its original meaning from there, and then we draw conclusions for Christians living in 20th or 21st century say, America, with our unique problems, and so forth.
  He then continues on in Part III to the “setting and the story.” Here is a fascinating section that alone is worth the price of the book.
  He takes great pains to explore all the history of first century Israel, their worldview, and all of the diverse expressions of the Judaism of the day, while here or there tapping on a bit of the Roman worldview here or there. He cites all of the primary sources that can be used for historical analysis of the period (which, outside of the pseudepigrapha, apocrypha and the dead sea scrolls and a few scant others, Josephus remains as king even with his imperfections) to help develop how a first century Jew may have “thought” about their world, their hopes, their theology, and their scriptures.
  I took away much from this section. I had little knowledge of the school at Jamnia, the diversity even with the Pharisaic and Sadducaical schools of thought, and this combined with the Essenes and the Zealots show that there was by far not a single way that a Jew living in the 1st century approached and dealt with their problems.
  
  Yet there would be a few things shared by all, generally speaking, and that is the basics of Creational Monotheism, along with the basics of Torah, Temple and Land as what their hopes encircled about, with the shared reality that they, the family of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were the elect people of God. All them, as well, expected national liberation, for their God to prove himself to the Romans and even to the world that he is indeed God of it all, and that he will lift his people up as the medium of his ruling activity in the world.
  
  Of course the Essenes had a very different approach to Temple and Land, as did the Sadducees and Pharisees with their approach to Torah, and some variations to their desire for liberation. But there are shared elements.
  
  Josephus, of course, provides a history of the Israel of the period, even if he writes with a theological goal that God has shifted his election from Israel to the Romans. Yet throughout his history, combined with the other extrabiblical writings and even midrashic materials it is possible to construct what you may call the various worldviews of the period.
  
  What does this mean for New Testament study? It becomes crucial, as Jesus was born into them all, and he in some way or another (perhaps not directly with the Essenes), he interacted with most of them throughout his ministry, and spoke his message into them.
  
  Wright, of course, has helped champion somewhat of a reworking of historical theology, proving throughout this work that, especially the Pharisees, were not ‘legalists’ as most Christians are trained to think of them in modern times. Rather,
  
  “The works of Torah were not a legalists ladder, up which one climbed to earn the divine favour, but were the badges that one worse as the marks of identity, of belonging to the chosen people in the present, and hence the all-important signs [sabbath, ritual purity etc.], to oneself and to ones neighbours, that one belonging to the company who would be vindicated when the covenant god acted to redeem his people. They were the present signs of future vindication. This was how the woks of Torah function within this belief, and the hope of Jews and particularly of Pharisees” (pg. 238).
  
  In even listening to Michael Horton’s podcast as of recent (The White Horse Inn), even he agrees that this is generally true. In doing so, Wright is proving to be a near Martin Luther sized figure, as nearly the entirety of assumptions beneath Pauline theology has rested on legalism in modern evangelical circles. Now what do we do? Hence, why Wright takes five volumes, clocking in at over 3,000 pages I think, to help us lay some better foundations for New Testament interpretation. This is not, however, the central thesis of the book.
  
  In Part IV, he then moves on to the quest for understanding the church of the first century. I took it upon myself to press pause here and read through Holmes’ recent translation of the Apostolic Fathers, as I had never read through them before, and Wright was continually referencing them throughout this section. I almost got through them all, although the Shepherd of Hermas got, well… tedious. Nevertheless, it was a great aide to better grasping this section.
  
  The summary of the first century church and what their worldview was is… difficult to reconstruct, simply because of the lack of materials. Eusebius, written centuries later, provides us with the only history available of the Christian Church outside of this period, and even he is known to be littered with historical errors and includes apocryphal stories as real history. The task is difficult, but something can be done at minimum.
  
  I found the following question fascinating, the one question that he seems to be working and reworking continually throughout this section: What made Christianity stand out among the many religions of the 1st century? Yes, we can attribute its historical reality and God’s supernatural activity to his preservation, but if one was to do a historical analysis, what made it unique? Yes, there was a new spiritual ‘experience’ available, but many mystery religions of the day claimed such, many even speaking in mystery languages too. Exorcisms and healing were also occurring elsewhere throughout the mystery religions. So what was unique about this early church? Wright concludes,
  
  “The most obvious candidate is the early community itself, which theological and religious experience took their places. There were other religious communities. There were other Jewish sects. But there was nothing quite like this. From our earliest evidence, the Christians regarded themselves as a new family, directly descended from the family of Israel, but now transcended.” (pg. 447).
  
  Of course, and I’ve jumped the gun on an important section, Wright makes the conclusion that Jesus placed himself as the fulfillment of Torah, Temple and Land, in a way ‘becoming’ all three. If one were to now be in the elect people of God, it is no longer marked by the boundaries of Torah, Temple and Land, but Jesus himself. This, theologically speaking, is what made the Christian message as distinct from its Jewish origins. All of the hopes of Israel were now literally embodied in Jesus, the Son of God.
  
  I'll leave you with the final paragraph in this magnificent work:
  
  "How might one decided between these competing claims? First century Jews looked forward to a public event, a great act of liberation for Israel, in and through which their god would reveal to all the world that he was not just a local, tribal deity, but the creator and sovereign of all. YHWH would reveal his salvation for Israel in the eyes of all the nations; the ends of the earth would see that he had vindicated his people. The early Christians, not least in the writings that came to be called the New Testament, emerging from within this strange would-be 'people of god', told the story of that people as a story rooted in Israel's past, and designed to continue into the world's future. It repeated the Jewish claim: this story concerns not just a god but God. it revised the Jewish evidence: the claim is made good, not in national liberation, but in the events concerning Jesus" (pg. 476)
  
  Even in this lengthy review I did not do it all justice. I am excited to dive into the next volume.
  
• 
  Bill Orlandi

  Ótimo livro sobre a cosmovisão do judaísmo do primeiro século e do cristianismo primitivo. Creio que o autor cometeu alguns equívocos de ordem teológica ao longo do livro, mas ainda sim é leitura obrigatória para quem quer entender mais o NT.