Some comments on N. T. Wright's “Paul and the Faithfulness of God”

The preface and first chapter of Paul and the Faithfulness of God (now available on the Fortress Press website prior to the release of the book on Nov 1) provide a helpful glimpse at the scope and approach of N. T. Wright’s impressive new volume. While we await the full volume, here is a brief assessment of the preface and introductory chapter.

Those familiar with the approach and style of N. T. Wright will find few surprises, as this work is the culmination of years of research and writing on the letters of Paul. Wright continues working with the concept of worldview and mindset, maintains the critical-realist approach of the earlier volumes in the series, and seeks to situate Paul firmly within his Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts. Those new to his work will find in these pages a helpful introduction to the larger field of Pauline studies, particularly in his overview of the history of scholarship on Paul (pp. 37-43), which is condensed from his forthcoming companion volume on the history of interpretation of Paul.

Using a familiar analogy, Wright lays out the “puzzle pieces” with which any reconstruction of Paul’s thought-world and theology must deal. Among the pieces of the puzzle: being in Christ; the cross; justification; christology; apocalyptic; salvation history; the spirit; covenant; the law; monotheism; and resurrection. (41)

In each of these areas, in order to assess their importance for Paul, we will need to have some sense of their significance within the broader world of early Judaism, as well as how Paul may have adapted or developed his own new perspectives on these topics in light of his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Given the complexity of first-century Judaism, as well as the limitations of our sources, this kind of work requires a good deal of caution to avoid imaginary constructs and generalizations against which Paul might be compared. Whether Wright’s picture is ultimately persuasive will require some significant engagement with the evidence he provides through the texts he exegetes throughout the remainder of the volume.

Wright, who is of course aware of these challenges, offers the following:

The main proposal of this book, then, which is advanced in Part III, is that there is indeed a way of analyzing and understanding Paul in which these several multi-layered dichotomies can be resolved, not indeed in a flat or simplistic way, but in that kind of harmony which often characterizes profound thinkers whose work not only touches on different topics but does so in different contexts and a variety of styles and tones of voice. (45)

The hypothesis I offer in this book is that we can find just such a vantage point when we begin by assuming that Paul remained a deeply Jewish theologian who had rethought and reworked every aspect of his native Jewish theology in the light of the Messiah and the spirit, resulting in his own vocational self-understanding as the apostle to the pagans. (46)

Using Paul's letter to Philemon as an example and a test case, Wright argues that messianic reconciliation across national, ethnic, social, and cultural lines is central to Paul:

The heart of it all, as already suggested, is koinōnia, a ‘partnership’ or ‘fellowship’ which is not static, but which enables the community of those who believe to grow together into a unity across the traditional divisions of the human race. This is a unity which is nothing other than the unity of Jesus Christ and his people – the unity, indeed, which Jesus Christ has won for his people precisely by his identifying with them and so, through his death and resurrection, effecting reconciliation between them and God. (16)

At this point one can readily applaud Wright for his efforts to situate Paul firmly within his Jewish context, as well as to consider how his location and mission within the context of the Roman Empire is significant for the development of his thought. The worldview/mindset approach allows for consideration of both of these facets in what I expect will be a deep and compelling way. Further, Wright’s concern to bring to the fore the challenging interrelationship between history and theology is to be affirmed as well.

While we should hesitate to offer any substantive critique of this volume based only on the first chapter, some of Wright’s comments cause me to wonder if he may underestimate the contribution that postmodern approaches to the study of Paul can make. I expect that Wright would agree that the kinds of questions raised by postcolonial, rhetorical, and feminist-critical methodologies can be useful tools even for those pursuing a more historical-critical and/or theological approach to Paul. Even so, it remains to be seen the extent to which Wright does or does not engage with the findings of newer critical methodologies as he examines Paul’s writings more closely in the chapters that follow.

In any event, readers can expect a challenging and rewarding experience looking at Paul through the lens of N. T. Wright’s massive volume.

How did Jesus come to be acclaimed as "LORD"?

Wilhelm Bousset’s influential and groundbreaking book on the origins of Christianity, Kyrios Christos, which was originally published in 1913 and translated into English in 1970, has now been reprinted with a new preface by Larry Hurtado (Emeritus Professor; New Testament Language, Literature & Theology at the University of Edinburgh). Hurtado, whose own major work, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Early Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003) is in close dialogue with Bousset (though he comes to rather different conclusions), has made his 19-page introduction available here at his blog.

For those new to the question of how and when it came about that Jesus was first called “Lord” and was worshipped alongside the Father by his early followers, Hurtado's introduction provides a fascinating historical perspective. While affirming Bousset’s impulse to set earliest Christianity within its historical context, Hurtado identifies a number of problems with Bousset’s conclusions:

• The problem of positing two theologically and culturally distinct early Christian groupings: “Palestinian-Jewish” and “Hellenistic-Gentile” (14). Even widening that to three divergent groups is problematic since the inter-relationships between early Jewish and Gentile Christian communities were much more complicated than such a framework allows.
• The failure to recognize the appropriate background of the title “Son of Man” (15)
• Bousset’s problematic suggestion that the Aramaic mara natha of 1 Cor 16:22 was later than, and influenced by, the Greek attribution kyrios (15-16)

In addition to the historical critique is the identification of the extent to which Bousset was writing in the context of a German intellectual framework which sought to minimize any connection between Christianity and Judaism. Hurtado cites two recent studies which have documented this troubling aspect of German biblical scholarship of the early 20^th century.

For its concise review of the impact of this volume and its attention to these critical points of ongoing relevance, Hurtado’s preface is well worth reading.