I’m finally done reading the Great Book. No, not the Bible. I’m talking about N. T. Wright’s book “The Resurrection of the Son of God”. Several people suggested that this was the book to read regarding the resurrection. So I ordered the book, and when the semi truck came to drop it off (joke about the size) I was taken aback with how big this book was. I knew that it was a big book, but until I lifted it, looked at the small print, saw all the footnotes and reference, I didn’t know what was in store. I quickly learned that I couldn’t read in my soft leather chair, because I would quickly fall asleep. I also needed bright lights and lots of caffeine (diet coke variety). But trudging through it, I began. And now after 4 long months I’m finally done (yes, I am a slow reader with not much time).
I have mixed feelings about the book. Some parts were very thick. Sometimes I didn’t know where he was going with the very large background that he was building for hundreds of pages. And sometimes I felt I was undergoing some sort of torture until I would just say, “Ok, ok, I believe, just let me stop reading!” I think a beginner like me can quickly drown with all the information presented. Then trying to look up the opposing view point made it almost an impossible task.
The other side of me was just amazed at all the research and reading N. T. Wright has done in presenting this information. Wright goes into much detail on each topic and fully develops the background of his arguments. He also addresses many of the current objections to the historicity of the resurrection. This book will definitely become for me a reference book regarding the resurrection.
In the end I would recommend the book. However, if I had to do it over again, I wouldn’t have read it page by page. I would have just read the nice conclusions at the end of most chapters and then dive more into chapters that I found more interesting. Over the next several weeks (or months) I’ll try to discuss some of the topics presented. I’ll also try to compile some of my notes here.
Did you find it encouraging?
Yeah, there are deinitely quite a few books on both sides.
I wouldn’t say it was encouraging. There were definitely times where I wanted to stop reading, because it wasn’t really helping with my doubt. It also felt at times to be a burden, that’s why I would encourage reading just the conclusions and maybe Part V in more detail. I feel more informed in reading it, and its always good to read the experts in the field. I also feel more humbled in seeing the wealth of information out there and realizing the short rants on the web don’t do the topic justice.
I was just looking this book up on Amazon since I’ve seen it recommended by others regarding the NT doubt issues I’ve been having. When I noticed it was 800 pages I was definitely discouraged. Although I’d be more than willing to read it (which is a testament to the degree of doubt I’m having), I question whether Christianity is even worth pursing if I have to read an 800 page text…surely, if God was real, He wouldn’t want me wasting my precious time with this and spend it with my children. It just seems so selfish to be so self-absorbed with so much suffering in the world. Are there any better resources for a skeptic – something more concise!
I also saw this book being recommended by many in my questions regarding the resurrection, and the 800 pages was also discouraging for me. If you do end up wanting to read it, I would recommend just reading the conclusions at the end of each chapter. You will get the main ideas, with a lot less details which are not necessary for you at this time. This book is more like a text book, where you might want every detail. I have also wondered a lot whether Christianity is worth pursing if I have to work so hard at it, but maybe it is about the process too?
Hi Mark,
I am making my way through this book for the second time (I know, I must be everyone’s “hero”!)
I actually enjoy reading it, but it may be because I like reading rich researched topics (my enjoyable reading at the moment are Plato’s Republic, the Allan Bloom edition; Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell [another thick book]; Jonathan Glover’s Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century). But your brief review was interesting and left me wanting to ask a few questions.
One, did you have any DOUBTS changed because of the book? Was there anything that bothered you about the issue that have been put to rest?
Two, what is one of the major doubts you still have that he didn’t quite answer for you?
Thanks for your reply. God bless you and may He help your healthy skepticism.
Wow, a second time. You are my hero! Do you know of any good notes on the book out there? I would like to summarize the main points for those out there struggling with unbelief. I don’t have my notes in front of me right now but I’ll try to go off my memory, even though it is not so good.
I can’t remember if there were specific doubts that changed for the better because of the book, except in a general sense in that the wealth of information and research indicated that Wright is a very knowledgeable man who still believes in a physical resurrection. The thing that the book didn’t help with was that the book showed how Jewish beliefs changed over time, which better supports the belief that religion is a product of societies. I know that the book was already pretty large, but I found it curious why he didn’t go into Egyptian beliefs of the resurrection. Here is a religion that believes in resurrections and has close ties to Jewish culture, yet Wright just brushed it off.
I’d say one of the major doubts that I still have that Wright could have addressed is: Religion changes all the time and sometimes this change is drastic other times it is gradual. Why is the change in Jewish beliefs attributed to supernatural events, and others such as Jehovah Witnesses not? I’m sure someone has or could do some scientific/statistical analysis comparing change and degree of change over time, and look at what are the influences that cause those changes.
I have started to try to go through my notes that I have amassed over the last few years and organize them here. At some point I plan to bring in my notes on Wright’s book.
OK, that makes sense. I haven’t found a good summary of the book by anyone either by the way (I actually haven’t searched it out as much as it seems you have however). But even in your recollections you make some fair points (the Egyptian absence is a good one).
One question I would like to pose to you if you don’t mind. You say that Judaism “changed” or we could say “evolved” quite a bit. Can you name some of the MAJOR changes? Wright was dealing more with the “afterlife” scenario which would be more of a secondary issue I would think (at least for Jews; it became more prominent during times of challenge for the people). But in the major beliefs, would you think there can be seen major changes there? (examples of major beliefs would be their doctrine of God; their view of the law; their sacrificial system; ect.). Now, just to let you know, I don’t mean modern Judaism either, but just what we know about ancient Judaism.
Thanks for the give and take.
Sid,
Wright does go over some minor changes of the early Christians (baptism, Eucharist, martyrdom, ossuary, The Lord’s Day, and new symbolic usage). Some major changes would be changing from a hard monotheistic belief to that of the trinity and importance of OT laws. However, this is based off of what the highly religious Jews believed. I don’t know what the spectrum of belief in Judaism was at that time. We get some glimpse in the difference in belief of the resurrection, but what about the Jew who might have felt left out of the mainstream Jewish society (the poor, the ostracized, the Roman citizens, etc.). Would they have different beliefs? Would they be sympathetic to beliefs closer to beliefs of their surrounding neighbors? Would they be attracted to a belief that didn’t have so many “out dated” rules? In a way it’s kind of like the increase popularity of the emergent church compared to fundamentalism. They have many different beliefs, and some would even say they are “a different” belief.
Thanks for the comment again Mark. I was thinking with your original comment of the change in Judaism that you meant that before Christ, and before Christianity. There is no doubt that the Christian change was quite radical, but I think did not necessarily contradict or violate the primary doctrines of Jewish beliefs from the dawn of Judaism until Christ. It simply opened the door on some of those beliefs (on their mysterious aspect) despite the fact that Jews reject those new revelations. (this is, by the way, quite different from Islam; Islam claims to be another new revelation of Judaism and Christianity, with Muhammad being the final prophet. The problem with this is that much of the Quran comes into conflict with the former revelation, such as making the heir Ishmael instead of Issac, or denying the Christ died on the cross)
Let me give you a couple of examples: The Trinity, as you mentioned, is really believed by all Christians to simply be ONE God in three persons. Yes, there is much confusion concerning that (and much mystery) but the fact of the matter is that the Christian community never added another God, only opened the door to a new view of the one God. Another one is the whole traditional set up of the Jewish belief system (the tabernacle, sacrifices, and feasts). Christians did not eliminate those ordinances, but simply saw them FULFILLED in the person of Christ. And when looking at Christ and His revelation, and how it intricately fits well within the former traditions but simply brings a reality to the shadows therein, we don’t see contradiction but we see a nice flow from symbolism to substance.
Does that make some sense? So I don’t see it so much as radical change but as necessary fulfillment.
I would say that like Islam, Christianity claims to be a new revelation of Judaism. It claims to fulfill OT prophecy and changed or got rid of many Jewish laws and practices, which was in conflict with Judaism. I agree that Christians believe the Trinity is still one God, however they have had to do a lot of back bending and pleas to the mysteries of God to make it work. I also find it hard to distinguish between what is fulfillment of prophecy and what is writing in ones interpretation of events to make sense of it. I would also say that NT Wright would say there was a radical change because for him that is evidence for the resurrection.
Hi Mark,
Thanks again for your insight and response. You are helping me think through these things more carefully.
You said concerning Christianity:
“It claims to fulfill OT prophecy and changed or got rid of many Jewish laws and practices, which was in conflict with Judaism.”
This is a good point to why Judaism was so against this new “sect” as it came on the scene. But again, the primary difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam’s new revelation CHANGED many of the old Jewish and Christian revelation straight out, contradicting them, suggesting later in the Quran that the prophecy of Muhammad is more superior than the previous revelations. My contention is that Christianity did not do this in the same way. We are not talking about outright contradictions, but of the different ceremonies showing COMPLETION in Christ as a person. There is no contradiction, simply hard to understand shadows showing their obvious intentions in the person for Christ (as the writer of Hebrews contends well, see Hebrews 8:1-6; 9:1-12; 10:1-4, etc.). I mean, it is similar Mark to seeing coming from your hallway this shadow of something coming toward the living room and out comes the house cat. The shadow gave an imperfect, but needed, anticipation of what was to come at the “fulness of times” (Galatians 4:4). So though the ordinances were REPLACED with a better spiritual fulfilment of it, it didn’t contradict it, just made it be seen in a higher way (I don’t know if you would agree on that, but that is how I see it from a Biblical perspective).
Now, one interesting thing to point out is that Jewish Christians, like Paul, never stopped participating in the Jewish ceremonies, for Paul still observed many of them (for example, see Acts 21:15-26). So, this demonstrates that although the ceremonies were not to be pressed upon the Gentiles as requirements, he as a Jew still participated in them because it wasn’t WRONG to do so. He understood that he could still see them with the blessing of what they presented, but knew at the same time that they were fulfilled in Christ (see his word to the Gentiles of Colossai in Colossians 2:16-23 on the dangers of the regulations in Judaism).
So, I just wanted to bring some clarification on that from my perspective. What do you think?