Abstract
I looked forward to reading this book, because I am very interested in the history of New Testament interpretation. I was disappointed. The book did not meet my expectations, or even seem to fulfil adequately the aims of the author. As a result, I think that this volume offers both too much and far too little. It is too much because, regardless of the author’s intentions, it is wordy. Numerous pages could be deleted or edited. It is too little because the limitation of the scope to three major contemporary debates in Pauline studies offers less than one expects in a volume such as this (especially one that reflects the title of Albert Schweitzer’s earlier work). In Part 1, after two introductory chapters, with special reference to Schweitzer, Wright discusses the New Perspective on Paul by E. P. Sanders and James D. G. Dunn (supported by Richard Hays), as well as a select few of their opponents. Wright corrects and enhances Sanders and Dunn and dismisses the ‘old’ perspective advocates (chapters 3–5). Part 2 addresses apocalyptic, with discussion of Ernst Käsemann, J. C. Beker, M. C. de Boer, J. Louis Martyn and Douglas Campbell. Here Wright claims that their definition of apocalyptic (compared to his) is woefully deficient, and he thoroughly (and, I would say, appropriately) dismantles Campbell’s major work (chapters 6–9). Part 3 treats social history, including some useful earlier figures before treatment of Wayne Meeks and David Horrell, and then briefly looks at some recent philosophy (Giorgio Agamben) and theology (John Milbank) (chapters 10–12). Wright appears most at home in Parts 1 and 2, especially the first where he has made his own contribution in the wake of Sanders and Dunn. He is less comfortable in Part 3, yet probably most informative here. Unfortunately, the inclusion of Horrell, as well as Agamben and Milbank, does not appear to be of the same type or significance as the other authors (as he admits regarding philosophy). Throughout, Wright is unduly restrained in reference to secondary literature, often referring instead to his own writings, especially his Paul and the Faithfulness of God.
This book presents itself as a history of some recent interpreters of Paul, but comes across as Wright’s personal engagement with a few major trends concentrated upon select figures he thinks that he can improve upon (I initially wondered about the self-portrait of Rembrandt on the cover; perhaps the volume is a self-portrait by Wright?). Besides his frequent (extensive) interactive comments, Wright offers two typical lines of response. In the first, he tries to parse distinctions in history, theology, exegesis and hermeneutics. He claims that his is a historical treatment grounded in exegesis, but I sense that it is primarily a theological one. Several times his exegesis seems more like theology, and he utilizes some questionable exegetical claims (e.g. three tenses of justification, p. 72; ‘“save” in the past tense’, p. 116; dubious views of time, p. 179; perhaps a lexical fallacy or two, e.g. p. 325; cf. p. 330 on lexicography). He also defines hermeneutics as essentially interpretation or application – when hermeneutics is about understanding, his purported concern. Wright’s other line of response is, in many places, to claim that a scholar’s views are deficient in various ways that Wright can remedy or has already addressed, by appealing to his standard tropes, an underlying grand theological narrative (story), covenant, his view of apocalyptic or new creation. (Cf. also the thought that justification is the essence of Romans 1—8: but where is reconciliation?) As a result, there is too much summary of these few scholars, along with Wright’s self-reference to his own publications (‘I’ and ‘my’ are frequent words in this book), rather than useful interaction with the wider field. At a few places, he resorts to appeals to authority or, unfortunately, unnecessary pettiness (pp. 75, 83, 88, 98). Clearly, some of the opponents of the New Perspective are under Wright’s skin, but recommending (even in jest) that Stephen Westerholm ought to consider taxidermy goes too far (p. 128). For Wright (to paraphrase Sanders), the major problem with Wright’s interlocutors is that they are not Wright.
If one shares Wright’s theological presuppositions (and what he calls worldview), then one might find this book interesting, although many such readers will already be familiar with his views on these subjects. Those wanting a broader treatment of Paul and his interpreters – in terms of both topics and figures – will need to look elsewhere.