Reading notes on "The NT and People of GOd - NT Wright"

Wright’s hypothesis p. xiv

p. xiv says ‘refer to jesus as ‘jesus’, not simply ‘christ’, as not wanting to offend Jewish friends but also bc Messiahship “is itself in question through the gospel story”

p. 6 - disagreement with how NT ought to “be read” bc what group of people will have a better understanding of its contexts than Christians? A muslim or a Jew will not tell you better what the NT contexts and situations mean vs a learned Christian by which the NT was written and for whom it was to be passed on to. Further, to read “stories as stories” is a vague statement - does he mean that we cannot take the whole of the NT literally and factually?

note - he uses “wicked tenants” analogy. engage with it

- to say one is “pre-critical” and has not thought seriously about historical/theological etc content is to assume much. what if they studied the depths of the matter to the same level as liberal theologians but has simply landed on a different conclusion?

p 19 - it is insane to say that “sola scriptura” is the cause by which conservative Christians remain “a priori” in their unadvanced thinking and labeling it “hermeneutics” is not just unfair, it is misrepresentative perhaps to the same degree that maybe some conservative scholars would strawman a liberal scholar. Scripture must be supreme authority. Thus, if historical findings come out that may be apparently contradictory to it or if they are aimed at diminishing the trustworthiness of scriptural authority, then what must be questioned is the finding, not the Scripture. many times in the last century certain findings (pertaining to archaeology) were supposed proofs against the historicity of the Scriptures, but later on fell on their own face

p 20 - theology does not depend on historical circumstances depicting the ‘real fruit’ of Scripture. history may perhaps inform modern-day scholars of certain customs, social norms, and traditions of ancient civilizations, but they do not dominate the words of what is to be the Inspired and God-Breathed Word

p. 21 how can the gospels be about Christian faith rather than Jesus Himself? (this is a form criticism teaching, not Wright’s position, i think)

p. 22 - “NT Theology project” is nemesis of Protestant ‘sola scriptura’ holders bc it doesn’t have place for authority to be Jesus Himself.

p. 27 - why “must” we do justice to the Scriptures insisted by Bultmann, Wrede, and the like? Nothing proves that we must.

p. 33 - positivism and its inevitable problem. elaborate on this

p. 35 - engage with “critical realism” that Wright proposes

p. 58-59 - good problem he identifies with senus plenum and its lack of control. expand on this

p 60 - he hits the nail on the head with issues stemming from “what bible says to me, now”

p - 79 - were paul’s theological writings REALLY just jewish story redrawn around Jesus?

p. 87 - why must early Christians have been the sort of people who sustain our view of what Christianity is? Why couldn’t it just be the Holy Spirit’s work to supernaturally orchestrate all things together so that we would know by the Same Uniting Spirit and through the course of time what it is He has preserved?

p. 88 - all history is interpreted history… engage with elaboration on p. 89 of mathematician and numbers bit

p -95 - though he may have a point of gospels not being less historical due to theological nature.... engage with this

but does theology really require history in some cases? i find that hard to believe

p. 98 - good quote. respond to it

p - 103 - were Schleiermacher and Bultmann and these guys “appealing to this scheme of thought” that history proceeds by hypothesis and verification?

p. 113 - why is it important to know how “corn” was the reason that Rome was “especially interested in the Middle East? How does this even prove his point that “NT historians write to explain smaller stories they do find on the surface of the texts”? The argument is that Christians select which parts of history to highlight to expand their narrative rather than dig deeper and look at the “why’s” behind historical matters that apparently Christians neglect. How and why would it matter that Rome played a role in Palestine because of corn, supposedly? How does corn prove anything to Christians about their faith in Jesus Christ other than “oh, yeah, the Romans came and took power in Palestine back then”?

p. 115 - again, how does the the example of the 2nd world war and germany have to do with the “story in its completeness” have anything to do for us today? That story impacted the world due to the evil that came about from one man who was brought into power because of a lie he fed the nation. The central focus of that story is sin and an evil man. The center focus of the NT is Christ and in turn, Christian living - how does needing to know all of the climates of politics and social statuses REQUIRE us to look at the future if what is clear in Scripture is what pertains to the Christian? Knowing some of the details that Wright discusses help give us clarity on puzzling issues (such as head coverings), but the “larger story” that head coverings history derived from is not of any valuable worth to Christians today nor the future.

p. 118 - good paragraph on the purpose he is aiming for. And i even agree with his conclusion as to why we need to learn to see the world through their eyes. But, I also think it’s easy to get lost in the weeds of hypotheticals of surrounding ‘little stories’ that lead to certain dynamics in the NT. focusing on the little stories that take away attention or relativity from the main mentions of matters in the NT will not benefit anyone.

p. 123 - 4 things that “worldviews’ characteristically do...

p. 137-138 - biblical studies and theology have a symbiotic relationship

p. 143 - how exactly does the story of Jesus “still require completion”?

p. 203 - engage with section on the Essenes and the Damascus Document a few pages down on p. 205

p. 245 - christianity = faith vs judaism = “way” not entirely factual. both require faith and a lifestyle to model it. Christianity in the book of Acts was known as “The Way,” much to the same effect and expectation that was to stem from one’s beliefs.

p. 333 - how does the present world order coming to an end signify what the Jews’ eschatology would be? how does monotheism and election taken together demand eschatology?

p. 371 - what is the purpose of mentioning Q and the “original forms of the stories” that make up the gospel tradition? He is referring to textual criticism, of course.

p. 373-378 - comparing gospel according to Luke to Josephus. first, look at Lk 24:26, 44 and see how Luke “wish he could have written an antiquities”. Second, how is the death of Jesus paralleled to the fall of the Temple in such a way that is a ‘double climax compared to Josephus’ single one?’ third, even though Josephus and Luke claim that Acts is the true reading of scriptural prophecy, how does Acts serve as an analogue to Josephus? Why ought we to conclude without a doubt that in such a way that Luke would “have had access to Josephus rather than vice versa?”

p. 384 - why ought the synoptic gospels be classified as Hellenistic in style? Seems to be contrary to the

p. 388 - good highlight - beatitudes and woes show Mt’s desire to highlight Christ as new David and new Moses to fulfill the ‘new exodus’ in Christ’s work

p. 390 - but how does this all prove Hellenstic style of Mt and blend of genres? why can’t it simply be literal historical-grammatical hermeneutic and non-Hellensitic? doesn’t make sense

p. 395 - how is mark’s book functioned as an apocalypse?

p. 400 - excellent point on the Resurrection

p. 420 - form-criticism is not ‘both important and dififcult’. elaborate

p. 433 - how is Mk 4:1-20 (parable of soils) an apocalyptic revelation? he supports this view in light of his proposed “revised form criticism” approach, saying ‘fathers taught parabolic stories should be found in jewish writings’ and thus reach a high point in ‘bizarre visions of apocalyptic’. Thus, supposedly Jesus drew on tradition to tell stories designed to break his contemporaries’ worldview like Nathan did with David. But absurdity is he claims this was seen in 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra