Last year, my good friend Jason Myers attended the Wheaton Theological Conference. Much to my dismay I could not attend. Thanks to the good folks at IVP and editing commitment of Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays and a host of essayists, I can read what I missed. IVP provided me a review copy of the recently released book Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue , a collection of essays given at the conference. Now others like me who could not attend the conference can participate in the dialogue between Wright and the original conferees in this well-developed collection.

As the title suggests, the book interacts with one of the most prolific NT scholars since Bultmann and Schweitzer: Nicholas Thomas Wright Like the conference, the book is divided into two parts: the first half deals with the historical Jesus and the second the historical Paul, all with an eye toward relating both to the Church. Contributors interacted with aspects of Wright’s Jesus and Pauline studies, with a response from Wright along the way.

The contents are as follows:

Part One: Jesus and the People of God
1.) Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John—MM Thompson
2.) Knowing Jesus: Story, History and the Question of Truth—RB Hays
3.) “Outside of a Small Circle of Friends” Jesus and the Justice of God— SC Keesmaat and BJ Walsh
4.) Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet—N Perrin
5.) Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?—NT Wright

Part Two: Paul and the People of God
6.) Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness and the Beautiful Feet of NT Wright— EM Humphry
7.) The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiology—JS Begbie
8.) Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? M Bockmuehl
9.) Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology—KJ Vanhoozr
10.) When and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church—NT Wright

I must admit I cherry picked a few essays that piqued my interest. In section one Hays’ essay was spot on, along with Wright’s responses and own essay on the direction of Jesus Studies in the Church. In section two Begbie’s was an interesting examination of the Emerging church in relation to Wright’s views on ecclesiology and Vanhoozer’s on the Reformation was spot on. I’ll note two essays below for a taste of what you’ll find in the book.

First, Hay’s essay “Knowing Jesus.” His concerns relate to how we are to understand the relation between story and history. “What roles if any do the church’s scriptural canon and tradition play in NT hermeneutics? Is there a legitimate discipline of historical inquiry that operates outside and apart from that tradition? If so, what claim does such a discipline have on determining the ways in which Christian know Jesus? In what ways might the historical study of Jesus play a role in apologetics or in conversations with non-Christians? And finally, what is the significance of the resurrection of Jesus for our epistemology?” (44)

All excellent questions, one’s I am wrestling with at the moment in my own work as a historical theologian who appreciates the historical nature of the Second Temple/1st century Judaism conversations as well as biblical exegesis. They are also important as I personally believe Wright over plays history at the expense of story (tradition).

One positive point in Hays interaction with Wright is when he addresses Wright’s extensive use of Second temple Jewish material. He points out that for Wright, the important conversations partners in theology and exegesis aren’t the ones who were historically nearest to the Gospels and Epistles (i.e. Irenaeus or the Councils), but the historical material surrounding them (i.e. Josephus, DSS, 4 Ezra, etc). Wrights map is not the Christian creedal tradition or even the NT canon itself, but the Jewish sources of the Second Temple era which allow him to draw the map on which Jesus of the Gospels is located. (47) In so doing, Hays argues we lose the Church’s confessional tradition and clarity about the role of canon of Scripture as authoritative for theology. (57)

He also notes Wrights methodological focus on the Synoptics at the expense of John, removing him from the picture almost entirely. As Hays notes, “Tom explains this methodological decision as a strategic move: since most Gospel scholars tend to regard the Fourth Gospel as later and full of highly theological, unhistorical material, he found it simpler to bracket out John in hopes of making his reconstruction of Jesus more accessible and credible to other scholars.” (48) Hays notes his own puzzlement at this, and later argues that “the individual voices of the Synoptics disappear…[and are] drowned out by Tom’s synthetic renarration of his account of Jesus.” (55) He goes on to argue that we need the “polyphony of the choir of singers, not just a critically extracted unison melody.” (55)

He concludes by saying “The desire for historical validation of Christian claims stands in some tension with a deeply felt desire for the postmodern recovery of canon and tradition as the necessary hermeneutical framework for understanding both Scripture and the world.” (61) In other words, story and history are at tenuous odds, it seems. Wright insists the story if vacuous without historical investigation of the factuality of the Gospels. But as Hays insists, “without the canonical form of the story, we could never get the historical investigation right in the first place.” (61) I agree. Like Hays I’d like to see more appreciation for and perhaps allegiance (right word?) to the Christian tradition, which is ironic as Wright is Anglican! At times it seems as though it is history all the way down, with little concern for how the Church has interpreted the story—I noticed this at this years ETS regarding justification and how the earliest of church fathers would have read and interpreted Paul, especially regarding “justification” and “righteousness of God” language.

The second essay of note is Vanhoozer’s grace-touched essay on the Reformation and Wright. As a systematic theologian he writes he felt a little odd covering the topic on justification in terms of biblical studies. As one NT scholar told him, “you may be right, but you won’t be convincing.” (236) He does insist, though, that in many ways these current debates on justification (the Piper, Wright kind) “is nothing less than the legacy of the Protestant Reformation.” (236) As he says, is Reformation soteriology something we must recover or recover from? In the work of Wright Vanhoozer sees three issues: the voice of St. Paul; the practice of sola scriptura; and preservation of gospel integrity.

Regarding recovering the voice of Paul, Vanhoozer claims we all want to know what Paul meant, even as we know what he said. He states that as an exegete “Wright’s self-stated goal is to think Paul’s thoughts after him…Of course Wright wrote from a context too—twenty-first century Durham—with its own complex set of concerns and interests. We must not despair of our situatedness, yet it is sobering.” (238)

Vanhoozer also maintains Wrights exegesis raises questions about the meaning and function of sola scriptura. He believes Wright’s dogged desire to think Paul’s thoughts leads him to place biblical studies higher than systematic theology, which he believes endangers the balance between Scripture and tradition. He questions whether Wright’s push toward the formal Reformation of biblical authority ins service against his foil, justification by faith, does not bruise and/or crush traditional Protestantism in the process. (241)

Finally, the gospel. Vanhoozer welcomes Wright’s emphasis on understanding Jesus’ person and work in covenantal context, as well as his corporate dimensions of salvation in response/reaction to individualists notions of getting to heaven when dead. (242) He joins Horton and Piper in wondering–if as Wright says the gospel for Paul is not about how one gets saved–how individuals are reconciled to God, especially if canonical Paul was not afraid to speak of individual salvation. (243)

In the end, which Vanhoozer appreciates Wright’s appeal to the big covenantal picture of God’s single plan of rescue for the world, he wonders “do these affirmations require the controversial denials, for example, that justification is not about how one becomes a Christian? He also suggests that even though the Reformers didn’t have a first-century Palestinian context they were still able to “penetrate to the heart of Paul’s concern because they believed that Scripture interprets Scripture, attended to the canonical context, and were illuminated by the Holy Spirit.” (258) Though he also believes both Wright and the Reformers do not have blatant contradictions between their respective positions, but do need to stop denying certain things and soften polemics: “The Reformers need to accept the eccesiological implications of being in Christ; Wright needs to retool his understanding of law court and develop a fuller understanding of our union with Christ. And both sides need to work harder to incorporate Paul’s metaphor of adoption into their respective soteriologies.” (258) Great words to both sides from a great theologian!

From these two short overviews of these two essays I hope you can see the great value in such a great compilation of essays spanning two significant spheres of biblical study: Jesus and Paul. Who better to engage with than NT Wright? What better way than getting some of the best minds in biblical and theological studies together to hash out differences in method and interpretation in dialogue with as prolific of a scholar as Wright?

I would highly recommend this book for any student or pastor who wants to better understand and engage historic Jesus studies or the New Perspective of Paul. A great, valuable tool from great, valuable scholars!