The Resurrection of the Son of God

Christian Origins and the Question of God #3

by N.T. Wright

This work covers ancient beliefs about life after death from Homer's Hades to ancient Jewish beliefs, from the Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls and beyond. It examines early Christian beliefs about resurrection in general and that of Jesus in particular, beginning with Paul and working through to the start of the third century. It explores the Easter stories of the Gospels and seeks the best historical conclusions about the empty tomb and the belief that Jesus did rise bodily from the dead.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christianity, Christian, History, Biblical Studies, Nonfiction

817 pages, Hardcover

First published March 1, 2003

About the author

N. T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England (2003-2010) and one of the world's leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. He has been featured on ABC News, Dateline NBC, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air, and he has taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. Wright is the award-winning author of Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, The Last Word, The Challenge of Jesus, The Meaning of Jesus (coauthored with Marcus Borg), as well as the much heralded series Christian Origins and the Question of God.

He also publishes under Tom Wright.

Reviews

[Genni · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Resurrection of the Son of God is the scholarship behind Surprised by Hope, and well worth the time it takes to read. In some ways, I am the perfect audience for Wright's work. I grew up under pretty ambiguous teachings on the resurrection. Sure, Jesus rose from the dead, but emphasis was always on the “end times”. I haven't found every answer in Wright's exposition, but I have found ground to stand on, and for that, I am grateful for his work.

Resurrection is highly organized. It is written in outline form and is to the point. This is a bit of a relief after reading SBH. While I appreciate what he had to say there, his conversational style is a bit meandering and frustrating. This one is not so.

The work begins with an overview of the ancient world and beliefs about the dead. This serves two purposes; it provides much needed context, and also addresses objections to the uniqueness of the Christian event. Only recently I was discussing the resurrection with someone and they quickly said, “But, gods in the ancient world rose from the dead all the time. There is nothing new in Jesus's story.” This simply isn't so. There isn't a single story of a god rising PHYSICALLY from the dead. People in the ancient world knew what we know now: dead people do not rise again.

From here he moves to Paul's writings, which may be surprising if you are expecting chronological story-telling, but Wright is interested in the early believers reaction to what happened. And something did happen that caused Scripture-following Jews to completely reorganize themselves around one event, an event they were not expecting. In the OT we find a spectrum of beliefs about the dead and the future, but the emphasis is mostly on Israel and promises to her that concern her life here on earth. Why did a sect of Jews “suddenly” form a “precise, confident, and articulate faith in which resurrection has moved from the circumference to the centre.”?

Not only that, but what exactly does Paul say about the resurrection? What Wright shows Paul to say is nothing like what I was taught. We hear much about “going to heaven”, but if our “souls” go to heaven and the earth (along with our bodies) is destroyed in an apocalyptic, eschatological event, then has not death won? Is that not some sort of compromise where death got our bodies and the earth while our souls were saved and possibly endowed with some other body? What we do see in Paul is a hope in a future resurrection of all believers, a bodily resurrection of which Jesus's is the first fruit, or the sign post. It is a future where death is completely abolished. It does not win anything, not even the earth. Everything we do here is not in vain.

After Paul he moves on the gospel accounts, addressing objections and problems within the gospels. In all of this, he is very straightforward. He never seeks to “prove” that the resurrection happened. He only follows the historical argument, showing that Jesus's bodily resurrection is the only thing that makes the phenomenon of the birth of Christianity make sense. All other proposals fail.

He closes with the meaning of the resurrection, what it meant politically then and what it means now. I could not help but think of this book as if it were in musical form, with Part I of the ancients functioning as a prelude, the Paul segments working as section A, the gospel segment working as B, and the semantical focus at the end as a move back to A since that is the focus of Paul's letters. Anyway, I think this work is important for clearing away some of the confusion surrounding the resurrection and what it means for the kingdom of God and our work here on earth.

[Ryan Manns · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book. 5 stars worth of historical information on the resurrection, 5 stars for making a case for Jesus being the Son of God, 3 stars for length (could have made his argument in half the number of pages), and 3 stars for confusing wording at times. Overall 4 stars and I would recommend this to anyone looking at examining the truth behind the resurrection of Jesus.


Ok so here is my review on this excellent book. As I said initially I thought Wright could have made his case in half the number of pages but at the same time no one can charge him with not being thorough in his research and documentation of the historical views regarding the resurrection. In reality Wright only takes about 200 pages or so to make his case for why Jesus resurrection is the best explanation for what really happened on that Easter morning. The other 500 pages are devoted to examining the various resurrection beliefs across time and culture. We begin by looking at beliefs regarding life after death in paganism, then contrast it with Paul’s view on the resurrection in his New Testament letters first by looking in-depth at the 7 books we know Paul wrote, and then briefly going over the ones that are debatable and may have a different author, but Wright’s point is to show that regardless of the author the early Christian view of the resurrection as both a bodily event and the core of the Christian faith are consistent throughout.

Then we go on to examine early Christian writings and beliefs apart from Paul himself. Again Wright’s point here is to show that despite all the various writers we still get a consistent picture of what believing in Christ’s resurrection meant. Wright demonstrates that despite the similarities in a “god” belief, or a “life after death” belief Christ’s resurrection is completely unique to Christianity and also completely unexpected as in it is not what pagans would expect to happen, and it was certainly not what the Jews were expecting based on their understanding of what the role of the Messiah was to be. In fact the Jews were split on whether or not resurrection happened at all (with Pharisees believing there would be one, and Sadducees believing that after death there would be no resurrection ever). The fact that the early Christian belief on resurrection and Messiah took the form it did and spread as quickly as it did in such a strong Jewish and pagan society was because something radical must have happened. The history that Wright covers is very in-depth in these first 500+ pages and I would recommend it only to those actually interested in the history of life after death beliefs. The next 200 are the real meat of the argument and to anyone who only wants to see why Wright believes Jesus was resurrected and the Messiah should read from page 585-740.

Here Wright focuses on the Gospel Easter narratives and looks in detail at some of the misconceptions historians have about them and how they all taken together paint a clear picture of what happened. Each author having a different personality, he argues, tends to focus on different events and issues and what to put emphasis on (like how many women went to the tomb and who they were, or how many men/angels were in/at the tomb to tell that Jesus was no longer there etc.). Wright reminds us that in studying ancient history a single source needs to be evaluated on its own merits, not (as often happens in gospel critcism by skeptics) dismissed because it lacks corroborating parallels. He also looks at The Gospel of Peter and dispels the notion put forward by historian J.D. Crossan that this book pre-dates the others and is what originally was made up and influenced that author of Mark. This theory can be found today in some Biblical historian circles but it is held only by a very small minority.

Finally, Wright hinges the basis of his case on two historical facts. One, that the tomb was found empty and two, that Jesus appearances happened to followers, skeptics, and complete unbelievers. He makes a case for how either the empty tomb itself or the appearances by themselves would not be enough to start the unique fast growing belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. The empty tomb by itself would be interesting and a mystery but since the disciples were not expecting a resurrection and since grave robbery was common would have done nothing more than to convince them someone must have stolen the body. The appearances themselves without the empty tomb (and therefore a missing body) would have not been unlike many pagan beliefs that spirits can live on after death and make visitations and thus this event would not be considered unique. Plus, claims that Jesus visited them would be just that, visits, as Jewish leaders and skeptics could produce a body and say, “Yes, he appeared to you as a spirit but we still have his body and it is in fact still dead.” Obviously Wright goes in to way more depth about both the empty tomb and the appearances than I did in my one paragraph on them and I would definitely recommend reading these last 200 pages and examining them. While only approximately 75% of Biblical scholars believe the empty tomb is a historical fact Wright does an excellent job of arguing that we can take this as a fact with near 100% certainty. He states that both the empty tomb and appearances, while by themselves are insufficient, together they become not only a sufficient explanation for what happened but also a necessary one. I honestly could write a lot more on both these two historical facts but I don’t think I could argue it as clearly and in-depth as Wright does without just straight up typing out the section of his marathon read.

So take my review for what it’s worth I was planning on writing more and using quotes that I thought were excellent but I think my review is long enough now anyway. So like I said 4 stars because I really liked it.

[Richard S · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible work of clear-thinking Christian scholarship, utterly thorough and honest with its source materials. Wright masterfully walks through the issues involved and his knowledge of classical sources is particularly impressive. I felt that Wright’s main goal was to attack “watered down” versions of the resurrection as wholly inconsistent not only with the documentary evidence but with the behavior of the early Christian church. He is persuasive throughout.

Best was the treatment of the Gospels stories, so bizarrely different, and so different in tone from Paul’s interpretation. To me the biggest issue has always been the unnaturally short ending to Mark. Wright seems to think the rest of the story is missing, and I agree, but what did that story say?

In the end what does the resurrection say? Jesus makes no promises about it. I always felt the best answer was found in the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” and in Jesus’ dying words on the cross. It was the physical evidence to show that Jesus was the Son of God, and all his words were from God. It’s possibly the only necessary belief of Christianity, the rest just being the true meaning of those words. And St. Paul getting in the way.

Strongly recommended for Christians of all kinds and those interested in biblical scholarship. This work is not trying to convert anyone in a general sense (unless this is your one hang-up) and I wouldn’t remotely recommend to anyone not interested in the subject matter.

[Micah Natal · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best resource on the Resurrection! However, it is not for the faint of heart. I’ll be honest wading through Wright’s scholarly deep dive felt like slogging through theological molasses. But it was worth every sticky step. His research builds to a powerful point: the early Christians weren’t rallying around warm fuzzies or ghost stories. They genuinely believed Jesus got up, walked out of the tomb, and grabbed a bite of grilled fish. Additionally, Resurrection didn’t mean floating off to heaven or feeling spiritually close, but it meant a very dead person was now very much alive… and probably hungry.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this book because I was looking for the most robust, academic case I could find about the resurrection of Jesus written by someone who believed it to be true. In general, I was impressed by the depth and thought he put into this book. He definitely takes the long road - you don't get to the gospel accounts of the resurrection until almost the end. A central theme was the need to understand the second-temple Jewish context in order to see and hear the events and words in the same way they were seen and heard when they happened.

As such, he starts with a detailed discussion of different views about the afterlife that prevailed at the time, including both the dominant Greek ideas as contrasted by Homer and Plato, as well as the different Jewish views. This involves an examination of a broad swath of ancient literature and philosophies. He then traces the idea of resurrection through the different sections of the Old Testament and attempts to form a thesis for how the idea emerged. He follows this with an examination of some extra-cannonical books, then the canonical New Testament (excluding the gospel accounts), then other early Christian writings through the Nag Hammadi texts. His core point in all of this is to show that there were plenty of words available to describe different ideas about the afterlife, but the word resurrection was specifically used to describe a bodily life after life after death. People die, there is an intermediate state, then they will be bodily raised in the future. The details on the intermediate state are admittedly the least clearly defined. He did address the idea that resurrection is sometime also used metaphorically, but I didn't really understand his argument.

Up to this point, he is trying to show both the variety of views about the afterlife that existed, and then the surprising emergence of a new understanding of the concept of resurrection among the early Christians. They now believed that someone (Jesus) had already been resurrected, effectively splitting the resurrection into stages - Jesus first ushering in a new era and his followers later in the future resurrection. The question a historian must answer is, How did this new understanding of the word come into existence.

The early Christians were unanimous in their answer: They believed this because Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead. There was an empty tomb and meetings afterwards. He then reviews each gospel account, noting their differences and similarities. His conclusion is that they don't bear the signs of trying to write late-stage theology back into the accounts. Rather, there are signs that they still were not sure what to make of some of it. He coins the term transphysical to describe the resurrected body. Jesus is recognizable as Jesus, but there is something different about him and he has new unexplained abilities.

The last sections move more quickly. He looks at alternative theories which he refutes. Then he makes the case for the empty tomb and meetings being both necessary and sufficient for the emergence of the Christian belief. And finally he examine what it meant. To the early Christians, the resurrection wasn't just an incredibly freakish event. It meant the Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God. He explores the different meanings of that phrase including that he was confirmed as Messiah, the Lord with all authority (if he has conquered death then what is Ceasar?), and finally that he was divine. He spends a little time on each meaning, but I wish he would have spent more time here at the expense of some of the earlier ground work.

He concludes by admitting that this is not a question that lends itself to the certainty of a mathematical proof. We know the beliefs that emerged and he argues that the bodily resurrection of Jesus as evidenced by the empty tomb and appearances explains the emergence of those beliefs better than the alternative theories.

I just summarized a 740 page text in a few paragraphs so there is a huge amount of detail on every point, plus more detail of points I didn't even mention. It would be easy for someone to say he is biased and of course he is, but I was generally impressed that he tried not to push the evidence farther than it would go and that he allowed me to consider a lot of counterpoints. Overall, I learned so much from this book that it is an easy five stars. This book is far too detailed for the casual reader, but if you have a deep interest in understanding how Christianity came into existence, I would recommend it.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read so many N.T. Wright books by now it has become pretty easy to know which beats he is going to hit, like the beats of your favorite song when it comes on the radio. After a while, it can be difficult not to become jaded and think that they cannot do anything that would surprise you. In the case of this book, I couldn't be more happy to be wrong! In this volume, N.T. Wright takes the single, most important event in Christianity (indeed, in world history), the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and puts it under a theological and historical microscope. He examines it from several different angles, from the view of the pagans of the Greco-Roman world, the Jewish world, even examining the writings of the second century A.D. Church Fathers, and comes to one conclusion: that the only explanation for how early Christianity grew so quickly, why it took the form that it did, and why did it carry over into the second century A.D. in relatively the same form is that the the first disciples of Jesus Christ believed that he had been raised bodily from the dead and that they had seen him after his resurrection. The word bodily must be emphasized here, as N.T. Wright points out that Christianity could have formed in the way that it did if it was some sort of spiritual resurrection or some kind of near-death resurrection, as many critics or more liberal biblical scholars have claimed. In approximately 740 pages, Mr. Wright makes an exhaustive case for believing that the Resurrection was an historical event that should be taken seriously both for the historian and for the modern Western Christian, who may have forgotten that Christ's promise of resurrection is a promise of bodily resurrection into the new creation as foretold in Revelations and the prophets, not some spiritual eternity in heaven, which takes much from the pagan beliefs of Greek philosophers like Plato rather than from actual Christian doctrine. In the past, I've had trouble recommending scholarly works on here for people who do not have a narrow interest in the subject. However, even though this book may be a true challenge for any reading level, I cannot recommend this book more highly to everyone who is interested in Christianity and Christian beliefs. This book ha made me reexamine my own faith and beliefs as well as my thoughts on the importance of Jesus Christ's resurrection and I believe it will make you do the same. I'm excited to read Mr. Wright's next book in the series, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, but I'm going to wait until the summer when I will have more time to tackle that 1,700 page behemoth.

[Jana Light · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oof. This is a BOOK. Wright is thorough and detailed in a way that my brain cannot always keep up with, but in a way that makes it very clear both that the early Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead and that resurrection (of Jesus and eventually of all believers) is central to early Christian faith.

I was relieved Wright never set out to *prove* Jesus rose from the dead. Instead, he set out to demonstrate that belief in the resurrection was the foundation of Christian faith, in a way that set it apart from other religions in its history and of its day. Of course, in setting out to demonstrate this he (indirectly?) argues that Jesus actually *did* resurrect, but he never assumes that can be proven. I appreciated Wright's restraint and rationality there.

Me being me, I certainly have some minor quibbles about how Wright interpreted some texts and how he said some phrases imply things I'm not entirely convinced we should argue they imply, but those moments were so few and far between that they, to me, only show Wright's enthusiasm and conviction, rather than do anything to weaken his overall argument.

This is a truly excellent book for anyone interested in the resurrection or anyone who is struggling (like me) with the "aberration from physical laws" that resurrection entails. There is historical peace of mind here, in a way. Or historical challenge. Either side you land on regarding what happened at the end of Jesus' life, this is a powerful book to read and consider.

[Hunter Smithpeters · Rating 5 out of 5]

Took me a lifetime to read because I kept putting it down for months, not to mention it is 700 pages long. But it's a mammoth work.

Wright compares every extant example of resurrection in the pagan world and in the Jewish world to show why the concept of one person rising from the dead, with a "transphysical body" never to die again, is not comparable to anything in the ancient pagan world and a concept Jews didn't have a category for. The idea of one person participating in the resurrection of the dead halfway through time is a stumbling block.

He also examines all the biblical passages on resurrection and why the disciples didn't mean "Yes he is still dead but he has arisen in our hearts" or some other post-enlightenment patronizing nonsense guys like Borg or Crossan come up with. They meant, even if they didn't understand, that he had gotten up from the grave, never to die again.

If a Jewish sect were going to make up a lie for why their dead messiah was actually a successful messiah and the Lord of the cosmos, this is not the lie they'd tell or even come up with.

He does loads more in the book than above. This is probably the best historical defense of the resurrection to be written.

[Byran Smucker · Rating 4 out of 5]

An exhaustive study of resurrection belief in the ancient world, with special focus on how it was viewed in Judaism and early Christianity. As a Christian, I'm biased toward his conclusion that Jesus actually rose bodily from the dead. Still, it's impressive and convincing and even for nonchristians worth reading if you want to give Christianity a fair shot. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead, when combined with the claim's context, is so audacious and important that if it is true everyone in the world should immediately give their allegiance to him as risen king.

[Chauncey Lattimer]

Wow!, again. This was one of the best Christmas presents I have received from my wife. (Especially since I had to go buy and read NTPG and JVG before starting this book.

Wright brought home to me once again the absolute necessity of understanding the 2nd Temple mindset. In that frame of reference, resurrection can ONLY mean getting a new body.. not 'life after death', but life after life-after-death!

Of particular interest was his development of the sufficient and necessary causes in relationship to the empty tomb and the post-resurrection meetings. Further, it was significant to me how he developed that the appearances were not just to believers (i.e., the fulfillment of misplaced hopes), but to those who could not be considered followers during Jesus life - Paul and James.

As a student of history, the historical approach - both in terms of the survey as well as the 'historical proof' - was the icing on the cake. My appreciation for N.T. Wright grows with each work that I read.

[Nate Claiborne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I posted an extensive review series on this book (and Jesus and The Victory of God) on my blog

[Matthew Richey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read; deserves a fuller review later (will try to get to it).

[Brett Vanderzee · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a massive achievement—a scrupulous and beautiful examination of Christianity’s central claim: Christ is risen. And while it is not above critique (see, for example, Rowlands, The Metaphysics of Historical Jesus Research), it is at every moment a work of stunning breadth, depth, acuity, energy, and insight. A follower of Jesus cannot found belief on a work of scholarship, but reading N. T. Wright, one is sometimes tempted to try.

[Ryan Storch · Rating 5 out of 5]

In some ways, this book feels like the gold standard when it comes to the resurrection of Christ. Wright walks through what Greco-Roman and Jewish ideas were regarding resurrection, showing that Christ’s resurrection was profoundly strange in Jesus's world to Greco-Roman culture and in fulfillment with Israel’s scriptures.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wright does more than provide a historical basis for the resurrection of Christ in this book. Thus, this book is incredibly helpful for those seeking to understand the consequences of Jesus’s resurrection from the grave. In this book Wright works through the biblical understanding of the resurrection, what the biblical authors thought it meant about him as Lord and messiah, how philosophical thought in the 1st century would have understood the concept of resurrection, and how the teaching of the resurrection impact the church throughout history. This book is a great resource consisting of the theological and historical aspects of the resurrection of Jesus.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

N.T. Wright has written a masterful work on the views of resurrection in the ancient world and about the resurrection of Jesus. It is a scholarly work that requires some serious chewing. However, these are not junk carbs but significant muscle building proteins.

Wright begins the book addressing various historical questions. Wright believes that historical investigation can lead us to real knowledge of the past. The key to this investigation is to understand not only what the early Christians said, but how the world and culture in which they said it framed their beliefs.

Wright examines pagan beliefs about the afterlife and resurrection. Homer depicted the dead as disembodied spirits that were only semblances of the original self. Plato believed that the soul continued after death but the body did not. These pagan authors and most others understood resurrection to mean returning bodily from the dead but they denied it. Wright concludes, "Christianity was born into a world where it's central claim was known to be false. Many believed the dead were non-existent; outside Judaism, nobody believed in resurrection" (p. 35).

What about Judaism? Resurrection is sparse throughout the old testament but there are several places where it appears. This idea develops further in second temple Judaism (during the time of Jesus). Many Jews believed in a future bodily resurrection, at the end of time, of all the faithful. They did not believe, however, that any one individual would be raised again before that time.
Wright examines the writings of Apostle Paul and shows that he did something unique. He had the Jewish belief about the future resurrection for the faithful but he also advocated that resurrection had already happened to one man, Jesus Christ. What caused such a radical change? Paul, as well as the authors of the gospels, believed they saw the resurrected Jesus.

I found Wright’s arguments and research very stimulating and convincing. He is particularly insightful when he shows how the cultural and theological background of the first Christians influenced their views on resurrection. I also found his examination of the gospel resurrection narratives fascinating. He points out they don’t try to teach lessons to the reader and they have few Old Testament references. They also present Jesus in a strange light. Jesus is physical but also has strange supernatural abilities. These go unexplained. It is almost as if the gospel writers did not have the time yet to reflect on the significance of the resurrection as they did some of the other events such as the crucifixion. This lack of embellishment makes the objection that the resurrection narratives were much later legendary developments less credible.

One weakness of the book is that Wright can make sweeping conclusions that, at times, feel like they need more evidence. Maybe the early Christians were just a special band of super creative people. Is it really impossible that these unique Christian beliefs could not have developed given the cultural and theological background they had? Addressing some more objections could have made this an even stronger book. However, don’t let this deter you from digging into this monumental work.

[Josh Anders · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some books have such an impact that they’re hard to discuss.

Well, this book was so DENSE that it’s hard to take in what I’ve read in the last 2 months, much less discuss. That is not a knock on Wright; he is an extraordinary thinker, one that I’ve come to respect greatly over the last few weeks. Although as a theologian I still find him horrendous, but as a historian and thinker, he’s 2nd to none in terms of what the church has in her arsenal right now.

This book demands your attention, particularly the last half. Why? Because Wright proves that there’s no way the early Christian movement, with all it’s new theological innovation and it’s heavily Jewish roots, could have come about by anything less than the empty tomb and the resurrection of the Son of God. Jim Hamilton has written a superb review on this work if you’re interested in reading it for yourself.

[Henrik van de Ruitenbeek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Naar mijn bescheiden opinie een zeer grondige historische en theologische studie over hoe er in het judaïsme, de grieks-romeinse wereld en het christendom van de eeuwse eeuwen aangekeken tegen het begrip opstanding.

Een belangrijke conclusie is dat het tot een paar eeuwen na Christus nooit een louter-geestelijk, niet-lichamelijk voortleven in de hemel betekende. Daar waren andere termen voor. Het begrip kwam uit het judaisme en verwees naar een eschatologisch, lichamelijk herrijzen, samenhangend met het gegeven dat de schepping (hoewel gevallen) uiteindelijk iets goeds is. Nieuw aan het christendom was dat dit een veel prominentere plek en relatief eenduidige en uitgekristaliseerde betekenis kreeg, en in twee fasen uiteenviel (eerst de messias, dan de zijnen). Tot slot werd het óók metaforisch gebruikt voor het nieuwe leven door de Geest.

Het geloof in deze opstanding kwam voort uit de overtuiging dat het graf op de derde dag leeg was en de volgelingen (en enkele niet-volgelingen) een ontmoeting - geen visioenen! - met Jezus hadden.

Uiteindelijk stelt N.T. Wright de opkomst van dit geloof alleen (!) verklaart kan als dit echt - in een real life wereld - gebeurd is. Dat gaat erg ver en dat beseft Wright ook. Historische wetenschap is tenslotte geen wiskunde.

[Jacob]

I’ve been defeated. When Tim Keller referenced this book by N.T. Wright in The Reason for God, I should’ve known it would be a monster textbook rather than an approachable theology book.

Props to Wright for writing such an enormous book solely on the bodily resurrection. Let me clarify, not just the resurrection, but the bodily resurrection, which is quite a big deal to Wright here!

Would not recommend. Did not finish. But I will count this as a read for the year because I spent the past 3 years reading and skimming it and got halfway.

[Neil Kruger · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 Stars

Immense!

Resurrection does not make a covenant with death, it overthrows it.

A thorough analysis of (bodily) resurrection through the lens of worldviews, history and, most importantly, texts with an eye towards theological implications. Wright has done us all a great service with a fantastic exploration on how new life has broken into the present age.

[Caleb Cochran · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maybe N.T. Wright’s most important work

[Ben Franklin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gold standard in historical enquiry to early Christianity. Third volume down, and worth the effort to work through!!

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here's a reading plan I made for this book. It will take you through the book in 4 months by reading 20-30 minutes a day, Monday-Saturday.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...

Great book, by the way!

[Joy Blea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finally finished this. Took a century. Jesus indeed is the Son of God and resurrected from the grave 🫡

[Piers Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a league of its own, marvellous.

[Shane Hill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wright is never an easy read as he writes in great detail to make his point....but once you get there, it can be very rewarding......

[Bryan Ullrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why should we read the Easter narratives as actual events rather than a late rationalization of early Christian spirituality? Although the length of the book may be intimidating, Dr. N. T. Wright answers this question in a manner that is both scholarly and accessible. If you are interested in the subject matter, this is a valuable resource to add to your library.

In the first part of the book, Wright sets the scene. I enjoyed how he discusses different senses of history, such as “history as event,” “history as significant event,” “history as provable event,” “history as writings-about-events-in-the-past” or “history as speaking-about-events in the past,” and “history as what modern historians can say” (Wright, 2003, pp. 12-13). Wright mentions that what is at stake throughout much of the book is whether the resurrection of Jesus is historical in the first sense and proceeds to address six objections to such historical study of the resurrection of Jesus (pp. 14-28). He first addresses the objections that we have no access, no analogy, and no real evidence, as articulated by those who say that the relevant historical study of the resurrection cannot be undertaken (pp. 14-20). He then addresses the objections that Christians have no other starting point, that resurrection is tied to Christology, and that resurrection is tied to eschatology, as articulated by those who say that the relevant historical study of the resurrection should not be undertaken (pp. 20-28). I also enjoyed how Wright (2003) points out that pagans, Jews, and Christians all understood resurrection to be “new life after a period of being dead” (p. 31). He notes that while pagans denied this possibility, some Jews affirmed it as a long-term future hope, and virtually all Christians claimed that it happened to Jesus and would happen to them in the future (p. 31). Wright then goes on to survey the pagan and Jewish worldviews in terms of what they believed about what happens after death (pp. 32-206).

In the second part of the book, Wright surveys resurrection as mentioned in the Pauline epistles. I enjoyed how Wright (2003) analyzes resurrection as mentioned in the Pauline epistles apart from the Corinthian correspondence, introduces the Corinthian correspondence, and tackles the key passages mentioning resurrection in the Corinthian correspondence (pp. 207-374). I also enjoyed how he discusses Paul’s experience of the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus (pp. 375-398).

In the third part of the book, Wright surveys resurrection as mentioned in early Christianity apart from the Pauline epistles. I enjoyed how Wright (2003) analyzes the Gospel traditions apart from the Easter narratives, analyzes other New Testament writings, and analyzes non-canonical early Christian texts (pp. 399-552). I also enjoyed how he discusses what it means for Jesus to be recognized as Messiah and Lord (pp. 553-583). As Wright notes, the early Christian belief about Jesus is powerful supporting evidence for the early Christian belief about what happened to Him (p. 553).

In the fourth part of the book, Wright discusses the story of Easter. I enjoyed how Wright (2003) brings up the origin of the resurrection narratives and the surprise of the resurrection narratives (pp. 589-608). To touch on the latter, he makes the interesting argument that the strange silence of the Bible in the stories, the strange absence of personal hope in the stories, the strange portrait of Jesus in the stories, and the strange presence of the women in the stories are due to the gospel stories being “chronologically as well as logically prior to the developed discussions of the resurrection which we find in Paul and many subsequent writers” (Wright, 2003, pp. 599-615). I also enjoyed how Wright surveys the Easter narratives found in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (pp. 617-682).

In the fifth part of the book, Wright discusses belief, event, and meaning. I enjoyed how Wright (2003) addresses what caused the early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus by focusing on the empty tomb and the appearances of the living Jesus after His death (pp. 685-696). Wright does a tremendous job dismantling two rival theories to the resurrection theory, namely the theory that the disciples were suffering from cognitive dissonance and the theory that the disciples had a profound religious experience that slowly grew into the misleading language of physical resurrection (pp. 697-706). Wright goes on to argue that the empty tomb and the appearances of the living Jesus after His death do not simply entail a sufficient condition to account for the rise of Christianity and that they instead entail a necessary condition (pp. 706-710). Ultimately, Wright (2003) notes that, “The fact that dead people do not ordinarily rise is itself part of early Christian belief, not an objection to it,” and that in terms of history we should go by “inference to the best explanation” (pp. 710-718). I also enjoyed how Wright addresses the question of what it means if Jesus, the Son of God, was raised from the dead (pp. 719-738).
Read less
Report

Kalita Ono
5.0 out of 5 stars Sensacional
Reviewed in Brazil on September 7, 2023
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Livro maravilhoso
Report
Translate review to English

Erastos Filos
5.0 out of 5 stars Theological Implications from the Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on October 13, 2020
Verified Purchase
What happened on Easter morning? N.T. Wright believes that this question – the central theme of the book – is closely related to the question of why Christianity began, and why it took the shape it did. His intention was to write about the historical beginnings of Christianity and about the question of God – not an easy undertaking, given the amount of historical and theological thinking that has been invested in researching this topic, this is perhaps why the book has turned out to be that voluminous (more than 800 pages). Its purpose, Wright contends, is determined by two sub-questions: what did the early Christians think happened to Jesus, and what can we today say about the plausibility of those beliefs?

Wright is well aware of the two hundred-year fight to keep history and theology at arm’s length. The resurrection accounts in the canonical gospels have almost routinely been treated by post-Enlightenment scholarship as mere back-projections of later Christian belief, with only shaky claims to historical veracity, he claims. This understanding of Jesus’ resurrection is still widely accepted in scholarship and many mainline churches: ‘resurrection’ could mean a variety of different things; Paul, did not believe in bodily resurrection, but held a ‘spiritual’ view; the earliest Christians used ‘resurrection’ language initially to denote such a belief but underwent a kind of fantasy or hallucination; and, finally, whatever happened to Jesus’ body, it was certainly not ‘raised from the dead’ in the sense that the gospel stories seem to require. Wright challenges this by saying that the resurrection of Jesus was just as controversial nineteen hundred years ago as it is today. The discovery that dead people stay dead was not first made by the philosophers of the Enlightenment.

Wright shows that this position, fashionable as it has been, leads to enormous historical problems which disappear when treated as descriptions of what the first Christians believed actually happened. They are not the leaves on the branches of early Christianity. They look very much like the trunk from which the branches themselves sprang.

Is there an alternative explanation for the rise of the early church? Early Christianity was a ‘resurrection’ movement through and through and Wright states precisely what ‘resurrection’ involves (going through death and out into a new kind of bodily existence beyond, happening in two stages, with Jesus first and everyone else later). Early Christianity’s answer was based on a firm belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead, his tomb was empty, and several people, who had not previously been followers of Jesus, claimed to have seen him alive in a way for which the readily available language of ghosts, spirits and the like is inappropriate. If one takes away either of these historical conclusions, the belief of the early church becomes inexplicable, Wright claims.

So, what is the ultimate theological impact of the resurrection? Wright offers some hints in the final chapter: "Death—the unmaking of the Creator’s image-bearing creatures—was not seen as a good thing, but as an enemy to be defeated. ... The early Christians saw Jesus’ resurrection as the act of the covenant god, fulfilling his promises to deal with evil at last" (727). Furthermore, "[c]alling Jesus ‘son of god’ ... constituted a refusal to retreat, a determination to stop Christian discipleship turning into a private cult, a sect, a mystery religion. It launched a claim on the world ... It grew from an essentially positive view of the world, of creation. It refused to relinquish the world to the principalities and powers, but claimed even them for allegiance to the Messiah who was now the lord, the kyrios" (729). And, finally: "The resurrection, in the full Jewish and early Christian sense, is the ultimate affirmation that creation matters, that embodied human beings matter" (730).
These powerful messages, emanating from the historicity of the resurrection, offer the grounds for preaching the message of hope to a distressed and desperate humanity, a message that proves that the resurrection in fact is the reason behind the powerful start of Christianity as a world-changing grassroots movement that it truly has been.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Woop woop! After four whole months I have finally finished this book.

Like with the previous books in this series, N.T. Wright is quite good at presenting a few main points, and then returning to them consistently, with the net result being that even when some of the arguments get into the nitty gritty, or when Wright decides to spend a few pages going off on a particular thinker or camp of thinkers, the reader is always reminded of the main point he's arguing for. This is particularly true in this book. Wright tells you what he's going to argue for up front- that in the first century, the concept of resurrection always referred to bodily resurrection, whether you believed it could actually happen or not. Then in the subsequent chapters he surveys pagan, Jewish, and Christian texts and points out over and over and over and over again their usage of "resurrection" as referring to the resurrection of the body. Only in the gnostic documents, Wright argues, do we start seeing the usage of resurrection to refer to an internal spiritual experience. The pace is methodical, predictable, and sometimes painstaking, but because of this thoroughness the case is strong.

My favorite part of the book is probably Wright's close exegesis of Paul's most important texts on the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 3-4. Reading these sections while following along with my bible open next to the book was a joy.

Though this book is long, there are many ideas in it that are practically helpful for the church. If Wright is correct about the meaning of resurrection among the first century church, then the church today needs to seriously reevaluate its vocabulary and theology with regards to "going to heaven" and the eternal hope of the Christian. We need to correct our imagination about what it means to be "saved," and what will happen after we die. In addition, this book helpfully reminds us that, contrary to an arrogant view of history that views ancient societies as primitive in every way and therefore susceptible to believing such absurd things as someone being raised from the dead, people of all times knew that humans do not come back when they die. Thus it is all the more surprising that people who never expected any sort of resurrection to happen, all of a sudden start proclaiming that Jesus was alive and had risen.

One of the most interesting observations to me about the resurrection is how it kicked off a massive effort on the part of the early church to reinterpret the old testament. The new testament and early Christian literature are full of attempts to find Jesus' resurrection prefigured in scripture, often in ways we as post-enlightenment interpreters would sneer at. But this itself indicates how the early Christians viewed the resurrection- as a fulfillment of the promises and tradition of Israel, but transformative in such a way as to warrant scriptural reinterpretation. The implications for biblical interpretation today are quite interesting.

Finally, I will say that this book was also personally helpful for me as I mourned the loss of a friend who passed away tragically as I was in the middle of reading this book. To be honest, this book both comforted me and somehow made me feel driven to press on. The belief in bodily resurrection that Wright argues for gives me a concrete referent for my future hope, as opposed to an idea of an abstract other-worldly eternal state which is completely discontinuous from our current experience. I am hopeful for a future reunion where I will see my friend recognizably as he was, and indeed more than he was.

Now, onwards to read Paul and the Faithfulness of God for the rest of my life :)

[Ethan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The third volume of Wright's magisterial series on Christian Origins and the Question of God, originally designed to be the end of the second volume, but for understandable reasons became a volume in and of itself.

Wright set out to comprehensively make a historical case for not only the possibility, but the plausibility, of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as established in the New Testament. This large work proves necessary on account of all of the confusion, distortion, and misunderstandings which circulate about the whole concept of resurrection and how it relates to Jesus.

Wright begins with an exploration of what the word "resurrection" meant in Greco-Roman and Second Temple Jewish literature of the era, and does well at showing that everyone understood anastasis as involving the bringing back to (physical) life of the dead; this was agreed upon even when people did not think it was a good idea. He explores the philosophical premises of the Greeks and Jewish people of the day to provide a theoretical framework for understanding views on the afterlife and how resurrection would or would not fit into them, and exactly what was understood by "resurrection."

Having done this Wright then explores the use of resurrection as word and theme throughout the New Testament, beginning with Paul's letters except for portions of 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 4, then returning to those sections, and then the rest of the NT letters. He then turns to early Christian literature until the point at which "resurrection" begins taking on a more purely "spiritual" meaning. Throughout he shows how consistently resurrection is seen as "life after life after death", assumed to involve the physical body, and was proclaimed as such from the beginning. He then returns back to the Gospel accounts, and then makes his conclusions regarding the right historical prism through which to look at these matters, their plausibility in light of all the considered evidence, and what Jesus' resurrection demands out of the faith of Christians.

Yes, it's a massive work, but that's only because of how thoroughly warped and distorted modern thinking has become regarding the concept of resurrection and its meaning. Extremely recommended for all Christians.

[Melody Stout · Rating 4 out of 5]

N.T Wright starts off his book by stating that we can have access to information concerning the life and resurrection of Jesus by understanding that even though we can never have a full knowledge of God, we can work to have a better understanding of God through what he said, did, and accomplished, through his son, Jesus. He then moves on to describe ways that researching the resurrection should be taken, which there is sufficient reliable evidence available. This evidence should be understood to be historical, but not necessarily theological. Historically, resurrection is not understood to have been a life after death, but a reversal of death, which shows that the disciples understood Jesus resurrection to have been a bodily resurrection, not just a spiritual ascent to a life beyond the current life. In the Old Testament, Yahweh is consistently revealing himself through a relationship that cannot even be broken by death, which is confirmed in Jesus’ resurrection in the New Testament, demonstrating the way that God is redeeming all of creation. Paul repeats the theme of resurrection as the reversal of death in both 1 and 2 Corinthians. The life that people live between the present age and the age to come is held in tension with the past resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of all people that will happen in the age to come. The conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus and the lifestyle change that accompanied it, led Paul to believe in a bodily resurrected Jesus who had both a physical and spiritual element to him. The record of Jesus’ resurrection in the canonical gospels shows us that Jesus’ resurrection was fundamentally different from other recorded resurrections because Jesus raised himself with his own power after a longer period of time. Because of this, the early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of the dead that gave them enough confidence to die for what they believed. Additionally, while each of the gospels focus on different aspects of the resurrection narrative, they all collaborate each other to point to the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
I believe that Wright does a good job at looking at different books of the Bible and identifying a common theme or theology that can be deducted from them. He seems to have worked hard to present the information in his book in a well-organized fashion to show the belief that the Jews had about resurrection of the dead, and the way that that belief was ultimately fulfilled by Jesus. I also liked how he worked from so much of Paul’s theology, in particular the book of Romans, to show that the resurrection of Jesus was in God’s plan from the beginning, when Adam and Eve committed the first sin. In addition, Wright was careful to go through each of the gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus and look at the traditions that accompanied, including the document that is labeled Q, which was supposed to have been used by both Matthew and Luke. While I wished he would have gone more into detail about the historical significance of the early source Q, he did a good job at mentioning it for his specific purpose, without going into too much detail for a wider discussion. In addition, Wright does a good job at looking at the culture and context of accounts of a resurrection in both the Old Testament and New Testament to discover what the meaning of the resurrection would have meant for the disciples living in early Palestine. I think that this book is useful for looking at the historical context for the resurrection of Jesus in its proper through the unified story of the disciples.