BOOK REVIEWS

97

. T. WRIGHT, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis* Fortress, 2003), pp. x a + 817, SUS. 39 00. ISBN 08006-3615-5. This is the third book of a projected five-volume senes entitled Christum Origins and the Question of God. Readers of the first two volumes, The New Testament and the People of God (1992) ana Jesus and the Victory of God (1996) will have become accus tomed to a high standard of historical, theological and exegetical discussion, which addresses larger worldview questions. They will not be disappointed with this book Wright has accomplished what has been needed for a long time: he has studied the early Christian proclamation that Jesus rose from the dead within the context of beliefs about life after death in second-temple Judaism and the wider sur rounding culture. His conclusion is that when Christians began to speak of the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah this constituted something entirely new. Nothing like it is found in the pagan culture of the time, where death was viewed as a "one way street" (81). Even the second-temple Jewish notion of resurrection held by some (national restoration in a metaphorical sense, or a second stage of post mortem life: "life after life after death") was vague and peripheral by contrast with the Christian proclamation, which was clear and central. Three days after his crucifixion, Jesus had risen bodily from the dead. This was as new as it was un expected. The bodily resurrection of Jesus and of Christians is crucial to Wright's study His survey of both Jewish and Christian texts demonstrates that when the term resurrection was used it meant bodily resurrection: "Resurrection meant embodi ment, that was equally so for pagans, who denied it as it was for Jews, at least some of whom hoped for it." (694). This observation is central to the whole study, the heart of which is a survey of the entire corpus of writing about Jesus and the resurrection in the first two centuries (207-682). Wright's careful exegesis leads to the conclusion that, "The combination of empty tomb and appearances of the liv ing Jesus forms a set of circumstances which is itself both necessary and sufficient for the rise of Christian belief Without these phenomena, we cannot explain why this belief came into existence, and took the shape it did. With them, we can explain it exactly and precisely." (696). Fundamental to the book, indeed to the whole project, is the msistence upon the importance of worldview questions The first section of Volume One must be read carefully to appreciate the arguments, historical, exegecal and epistemologica! in Volume Three What are the underlying story, symbol, praxis and questions of documents considered? Those who would object that alternate forms of early Christianity deserve equal time with the gospels and Paul [The Gospel of Thomas only gets three pages, the canonical gospels two whole sections: 401-449, 616-682) must reckon with the fact that Thomas or other Gnostic documents would use that time to offer a decidedly different worldview, with a consequently different understanding of resurrection Wright acknowledges that the meaning of Thomas 71 is not obvious, but sayings 29, 87 and 112 are clearer, the body is to be rejected. The work is "explicitly anti-creational" (537) Similarly, in the Acts of Thomas 147, "What matters is the soul, not the body. The latter is cheerfully left behind, not wanted for the final voyage." (533) So, too, Epistle to Rhegmos. This late second century work also known as Treatise on the Resurrection, "shares with Valentinians a deep skepticism about the value of the created world." (540). It is the value of creation, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus as "the start of a whole new mode of existence, a new creation," (712) that is at the heart of Wright's argument, and that exposes these "lost Christianities," as they are now being styled, for what they were. It also shows why they deserved to be lost.

Komnklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Also available online - www bnll nl

Novum Testamentum XLVIII, 1

98

BOOK REVIEWS

In my review of the first volume of this series, The New Testament and the People of God, I expressed the hope that in future volumes Wright would give fuller con sideration to textual variations (NovT XXXVI, 3 (1994), 296-297). In this present volume he has given far more attention to text critical questions. He has also shown a greater awareness that N.T textual criticism is closely related to the task of exegesis and theology (eg 670 n. 23). However, Wright ates the 1971 edition of Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary, whereas the second edition (1994) should have been used, since it incorporates recent discoveries and refined methodolo gies. Consider Luke 24*12. UBS3 gave their decision to include the verse a "D" rating, indicating significant disagreement m the committee The "B" rating for this "western non-interpolation" in UBS4 indicates a growing confidence m accept ing the verse as original, thus strengthening the pomt Wright is seeking to make (613). These "western non-interpolations," among other variations are at the cen ter of the debate over the theological motivation behind textual changes m the second and third centimes Here the recent discussions of Mark 1:1 and John 1.34 should have been mentioned, especially smce both relate to the tide "Son of God." Wright does treat the textual problem at John 1.18 (667 n. 13), opting for the reading of UBS4/Nestle 27. But elsewhere (673) he seems to assume the alternate reading . Which reading does Wright pre fer? Would he retain both as original, as I have argued for all the readings at John 1-34? At other places Wright's brief textual comments might well have been expanded, although the book is already long enough. His valuable observation on 2 Cor. 5.3 (367 n. 152) addresses the issue of scribal assumptions and expectations m copying texts. But what of textual issues that relate directly to the Resurrection, for example, 1 Cor. 15:5 What if of 16 ^ at Phil. 4:7 is not a later scribal addition, but as I believe, a further Pauline reference to bodily res urrection in that letter? How would Wright treat the noteworthy omission of m 4 5 etc at John 11*25? Here we find a probable echo of Ezekiel 37, and a two-stage view of resurrection, both of which would be valuable for Wright's discussion. The publication of this book was concurrent with the announcement of . Wright's appointment as Bishop of Durham Contrasts will inevitably be made with a recent mcumbent of that office who made news by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus But comparisons with modern Bishops of Durham suggest themselves even more than contrasts Wright's msistence on rigorous historical methods (throughout, but especially Chapter 18) is reminiscent of J. Iightfoot (Bishop of Durham, 1879-1889). His theological instinct (esp. Chapter 19) reminds one of B. F. Westcott (1890-1901). Wright's declaration, "History matters because human beings matter" shows deep pastoral concern, reminding this reviewer of C. G. Moule (1901-1920) Still other comparisons suggest themselves. Wright's sense of humor throughout invokes the ready wit of Hensley Henson (1920-1939). One example is his playfulness over the assumed horse m Paul's Damascus Road experience But comparisons and contrasts with the past aside, Tom Wright's Resunectwn of the Son of God stands on its own as the definitive study of the resur rection for our own time, and likely for some time to come.
PETER R RODGERS

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.