N. T. Wright, Paul: A Biography (HarperOne, 2018), 480 pages
Noted scholar N. T. Wright attempts to present a unified portrait of the apostle Paul in this new biography. Drawing heavily on the New Testament letters of Paul and book of Acts, Wright argues that Paul was passionate and consistent in his life-long faith in God. Further, he argues that Paul's missionary teaching forms the backbone of all subsequent theology.
Wright's central thesis is that Paul had a consistent overall theology throughout his life, from before his famous encounter on the road to Damascus until his death. Repeatedly, he suggests that Paul's "conversion" did not offer any new insight into God except that the promised Messiah had come and was Jesus of Nazareth.
The great benefit of this approach is that it strives to see unity in Paul's theology, linking his rabbinical education to his subsequent thought. One could argue that Paul himself alludes to this unity in his letter to the Romans. This book also avoids an unfortunate trap of most Pauline studies: cherry-picking things from the letters that the author agrees with and identifying them with "the true Paul" and dismissing other elements. Painstakingly, with occasional mental acrobatics, Wright insists that all of it -- even the uncomfortable pieces -- are true to the historical Paul.
This approach yields fruit in the ways that it grounds Paul's teaching in his Jewish heritage. Even something like Paul's insistence that God, through Jesus, reaches out to the Gentiles, and that these faithful Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to demonstrate their Christian faith, is not seen as new teaching; instead, the person of Jesus offers a lens to focus on particular parts of the Jewish prophets.
Still, this is a rather odd book. In contrast to many recent scholars, Wright finds historical consistency between Acts and the 11 letters that he believes Paul personally dictated that are preserved in the New Testament. (Most scholars identify 7 or 8 to be written by Paul, with others written later by others in his name.) While I recognize the reasoning that the burden of proof should be on people to show that Paul didn't write certain letters, I found some of Wright's logic unsatisfying and incomplete, particularly his presentation of the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians.
Even more, the tone is baffling. In general, Wright recognizes that his argument is circumstantial, and he frequently suggests certain things are more possibilities rather than concrete facts and interpretations. However, a significant amount of conjecture, particularly Wright's constructed timeline of Paul's ministry and writings, is presented with hardly any discussion. So I frequently found that Wright offered too much or too little analysis to support his conclusions.
Further, I am torn by whether Wright's approach to Paul's dramatic conversion experience on the road to Damascus is handled well or poorly. This obvious turning point in Paul's life should be the crux of any biography. On the one hand, Wright refuses to characterize the event in terms of much later understandings of conversion, particularly those encouraged by Protestant tradition of the past 500 years. On the other, Wright almost suggests that there was hardly any change at all, given his insistence on Paul's overall consistency.
Ultimately, this is a good book in the ways that it can challenge preconceived ideas about Paul. Even more, it demonstrates an appreciation for the Jewish tradition that is rarely appreciated by most Christians. However, it is less satisfying as a basic biography of the apostle Paul.
Noted scholar N. T. Wright attempts to present a unified portrait of the apostle Paul in this new biography. Drawing heavily on the New Testament letters of Paul and book of Acts, Wright argues that Paul was passionate and consistent in his life-long faith in God. Further, he argues that Paul's missionary teaching forms the backbone of all subsequent theology.
Wright's central thesis is that Paul had a consistent overall theology throughout his life, from before his famous encounter on the road to Damascus until his death. Repeatedly, he suggests that Paul's "conversion" did not offer any new insight into God except that the promised Messiah had come and was Jesus of Nazareth.
The great benefit of this approach is that it strives to see unity in Paul's theology, linking his rabbinical education to his subsequent thought. One could argue that Paul himself alludes to this unity in his letter to the Romans. This book also avoids an unfortunate trap of most Pauline studies: cherry-picking things from the letters that the author agrees with and identifying them with "the true Paul" and dismissing other elements. Painstakingly, with occasional mental acrobatics, Wright insists that all of it -- even the uncomfortable pieces -- are true to the historical Paul.
This approach yields fruit in the ways that it grounds Paul's teaching in his Jewish heritage. Even something like Paul's insistence that God, through Jesus, reaches out to the Gentiles, and that these faithful Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to demonstrate their Christian faith, is not seen as new teaching; instead, the person of Jesus offers a lens to focus on particular parts of the Jewish prophets.
Still, this is a rather odd book. In contrast to many recent scholars, Wright finds historical consistency between Acts and the 11 letters that he believes Paul personally dictated that are preserved in the New Testament. (Most scholars identify 7 or 8 to be written by Paul, with others written later by others in his name.) While I recognize the reasoning that the burden of proof should be on people to show that Paul didn't write certain letters, I found some of Wright's logic unsatisfying and incomplete, particularly his presentation of the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians.
Even more, the tone is baffling. In general, Wright recognizes that his argument is circumstantial, and he frequently suggests certain things are more possibilities rather than concrete facts and interpretations. However, a significant amount of conjecture, particularly Wright's constructed timeline of Paul's ministry and writings, is presented with hardly any discussion. So I frequently found that Wright offered too much or too little analysis to support his conclusions.
Further, I am torn by whether Wright's approach to Paul's dramatic conversion experience on the road to Damascus is handled well or poorly. This obvious turning point in Paul's life should be the crux of any biography. On the one hand, Wright refuses to characterize the event in terms of much later understandings of conversion, particularly those encouraged by Protestant tradition of the past 500 years. On the other, Wright almost suggests that there was hardly any change at all, given his insistence on Paul's overall consistency.
Ultimately, this is a good book in the ways that it can challenge preconceived ideas about Paul. Even more, it demonstrates an appreciation for the Jewish tradition that is rarely appreciated by most Christians. However, it is less satisfying as a basic biography of the apostle Paul.
Comments
Post a Comment