Who Was Jesus?

by N.T. Wright, Tom Wright

Did the historical person Jesus really regard himself as the Son of God? What did Jesus actually stand for? And what are we to make of the early Christian conviction that, following his execution by the Romans, Jesus physically rose from the dead? N. T. Wright's Who Was Jesus? considers these and many other questions thrown up by the latest wave of controversial books about Jesus, including * Barbara Thiering's Jesus the Man: A New Interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls, * A. N. Wilson's Jesus, * John Shelby Spong's Born of a Woman, and * John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. Each of these books portrays a different Jesus, and each portrait is markedly different from the traditional, orthodox Christian view of Jesus. While Wright agrees with these "Jesus" authors that the real, historical Jesus has many surprises in store for institutional Christianity, he also argues that they "fail to reach anything like the right answer" as to who Jesus was. Who Was Jesus? examines the recent Jesus publications in the context of the many modern Jesus books, dominated by Albert Schweitzer's masterful portrait, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906). As Wright shows, the modern "quest" displays many variations on the same themes, so that the latest portraits of Jesus are not nearly as novel as they are made out to be. Wright also outlines the arguments made specifically by Thiering, Wilson, and Spong, and he presents solid reasons for discounting their arguments. Written from the standpoint of professional biblical scholarship yet assuming no prior knowledge of the subject, Wright's Who Was Jesus? shows convincingly that much can be gained from a rigorous historical assessment of what the Gospels say about Jesus. This is a book to engage skeptic and believer alike.

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

107 pages, Paperback

First published December 10, 1992

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

[Bill Kupersmith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent defence of the historicity of the gospel narratives, but a bit dated now.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an excellent read.

A great analysis on who Jesus was and some additional details on his life.

It also featured some great counter arguments against common myths and disbelief of Jesus.

A particularly important read today, as today is Good Friday, the date of Jesus' death.

I recommend this to learn more about our true saviour.

4.6/5

[Kells Next Read · Rating 3 out of 5]

Actual 3.25

[Jared Naidoo · Rating 4 out of 5]

“But there I shall of course take as my conversation partners, not the recent maverick popularisers, but the serious scholarly writers in the field, particularly Vermes, Meyer, Harvey, Borg, Sanders, Horsley, Crossan and Meier.”

These ‘maverick popularisers’ like Thiering and Spong certainly present Wright with some easy target practice. Yet, the bias Wright so openly admits, does not excuse him from his own, just because he admits it. I have not read Schweitzer in great detail, yet I find Wright positioning himself as the middle man, holding the ’flag of truth’ as he takes aim at Thiering, Spong and Wilson. Thiering and Spong’s investigation (more so, Spong) can be upheld by his willingness to let go of Christian tradition, where Wright seeks to bring into agreement tradition and the historical Jesus. In my view, Wright’s unwillingness to take Spong seriously is based on his credentials and rejection of Christian orthodoxy. Furthermore, his defence of tradition is worrying.

Having read Bart Ehrman’s ‘How Jesus became God’ and Spong’s ‘Jesus for the non-religious’, I find there to be consistencies in both Ehrman and Spong’s views surrounding the myths of the virgin birth, explaining the miraculous and the resurrection, to name a few. The details of which shall not be discussed here.

Thiering’s arguments sound like more of an apologetic debate according to Wright, and could safely be discarded as her rationale appears quite shallow and Dan-Brown-like. I am more interested in how Wright would respond to Spong now.

In ‘Who is Jesus?’, Wright categorically works his way through the firing line, sparing his colleagues and chastising those popularisers. I thoroughly enjoyed Wright’s piety as it pushed me more towards Sanders and Crossan.

[Stephen Bedard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a good book, limited only in its age. The age part is because Wright is responding to authors who were writing before the early 1990s and are not as relevant for today. But what Wright says about Jesus is timeless and this book is a good example of how to respond to radical theories about Jesus.

[Noah · Rating 3 out of 5]

He focused primarily on refuting arguments in other books. It wasn't what I was expecting but is pretty interesting.

Chapter 5 though is what I really wanted: a summary of how Jesus saw himself, why he was significant to the Jews. This chapter alone is gold.

[Thomas Unitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Feels very much like a dated read, with a very specific goal. To respond to three books about the historical Jesus. Regardless Wright does so intellectually and with a modicum of grace. It’s worth a read, just know what you’re getting into.

[Jeremy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Will take me likely a decade to get through Jesus studies stuff to the point where I feel comfortable with understanding the general conversations. But this short text was helpful

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good response to a few of the "historical Jesuses" but not as interesting to me as his more proactive approaches

[Longfellow · Rating 3 out of 5]

I heard an interview with Reza Aslan recently regarding his new book, Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. The interview piqued my interest because many things Aslan said were exactly contrary to what I have most often been told about Jesus. As an example, I’ve been told Jesus was not trying to lead a Jewish rebellion against Roman rule. Aslan says this was in fact his very purpose, to stir up a revolt.

Apparently the search for the “historical Jesus” has been on for quite some time, at various levels of intensity depending on the milieu of the time, and Aslan’s interview led me to search out a few sources for additional opinions, starting with a couple books on my shelves, Why Christianity Must Change or Die by John Selby Spong, and this one, Who was Jesus? by N.T. Wright.

Wright’s introduction and conclusion provide some basic context for the debate. In between, Wright’s goal is to refute the arguments of three different authors who have published books which, according to Wright, inaccurately portray the historical Jesus. The book is a bit dated. Wright is addressing the ongoing debate as of 1992. Scholarship on this topic has since continued (though apparently the term “scholarship” is a debatable adjective in some cases) and Aslan’s book is the most recent example.

In my Composition II classes, to provoke discussion regarding gender roles and stereotypes, I show a clip from a documentary titled Mickey Mouse Monopoly. In it, apparent experts dissect various Disney films, using specific scenes to demonstrate how Disney promotes harmful stereotypes of the ideal female. The conclusions that seem most offensive to students are indictments that Disney’s females overlook abuse from men to “see the prince inside [their abuser]” (The Beauty and the Beast) and that female characters in Disney set the example of using their bodies to get what they want from men (The Little Mermaid and Aladdin are used as examples).

Without fail, some of the students respond that of course you can “prove” those things when you zoom in on every little detail that supports your theory and ignore those that don’t. You are correct, I tell them, and this is in large part what the skill of analysis is about, breaking a thing down into its bits and pieces to serve your purposes.

Regarding the quest for the historical Jesus, a friend of mine said that, in his estimation, those who have done research or pursued scholarship within this topic generally find that for which they go looking.

This sounds about right to me. There is limited information available. That which is can be pieced together about any way one chooses; an innumerable number of theories can be created and supported from the arrangement and interpretation of some pieces and the creation of others. So yes, I suspect almost everyone who pursues this topic does indeed end up finding evidence for whatever picture it is they’ve gone in search of. Wright certainly can’t be considered an exception here. While he has no trouble poking holes in the theories of the writers he critiques, his limited explanation in spots and his assumptions and logical reasoning at other times come with gaps which leave his own conclusions open to critique.

Despite claims of relative objectivity from various parties, my sense is that this debate is a fairly impassioned one. What then is at stake? For some, it is faith itself, for others, it is long-standing church doctrines. I'm sure there are other possibilities as well. All involved at least seem to agree that a picture of the historical Jesus is worth discussing.

[Silvia Iskandar · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've been in denial.

No more.

I'm NOT going to finish this book.

It was such a tempting title and in the beginning was quite OK, listing the history of archeological search for the real Jesus. But it went on criticising this author, that author. If I have read the works by the other author, that would be nice, but I haven't! It's so frustrating, like when I picked up a used UK gossip magazine in a motel laundry room. It doesn't feel nice at all to read about something you have no knowledge of.

This book feels like a letter from one scholar to another that was given a cover. That's it for me.

[Chris Hilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly informative and balanced critique of 3 works that arose in the 1980s/1990s which contested a biblical account of the life of Jesus. Classic NT Wright fashion ... structured, scholarly, and defending of biblical orthodoxy. He is generous in saying that in a marketplace of ideas, all ideas are welcome. But he demonstrates that not all ideas can be true and support the evidence. A compact and helpful read.

[Dayo Adewoye · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant examination of three popular books championing inaccurate and distorted pictures of Jesus Christ. With his profound scholarship and characteristic wit, Wright demolishes these portraits and shows them all to be distorted, in light of both historically a Biblical data. But he does not leave it at that. He offers us a sound guideline for faithfully recovering the historical Jesus for today and all time.

[Brekke · Rating 1 out of 5]

This might be one of the most pointless books I have ever come across. It is basically a dissection of three authors from the 1990s and why they’re wrong. This really should have been several blog post, and certainly did not warrant a full book. If I had had anything else downloaded for my road trip I would’ve listened to that instead. A complete waste of time.

[Chris Gill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wright is defending orthodox beliefs of Jesus over and against modern, popular books on the life of Christ. Much different than I was hoping, but filled with hidden gems!

[Shane Wagoner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well executed but I am surprised that Wright would spend 100 pages refuting the likes of Theiring and Spong... Not to mention Crossan emerged unscathed.

[Marina · Rating 4 out of 5]

The majority of this is scholarly rebuttal to other writers, but the last chapter is one I wish everyone could read.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLAR CRITIQUES THREE BOOKS ON JESUS

Nicholas Thomas Wright (born 1948) is an Anglican bishop (Bishop of Durham from 2003-2010), and is currently Research Professor at St Mary's College in Scotland; he has written many other books such as 'The New Testament and the People of God Vol. 1,' 'Jesus and the Victory of God Vol. 2,' 'The Resurrection of the Son of God Vol. 3,' 'The Original Jesus,' 'The Contemporary Quest for Jesus,' etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1992 book, "In the late summer of 1992, the news media were flooded with ... stories about stories about Jesus. Amidst a storm of publicity, three books in particular stood out... Jesus the Man... Jesus: A Life... Born of a Woman... I wish to reply to these three books. They address the right issue, namely who Jesus really was---as opposed to who the church has imagined him to be. But I believe they fail to reach anything like the right answer." (Pg. viii)

He asserts, "It is my judgment that this 'New Quest' has in fact produced little of lasting value. It got European scholarship going again on the trail of Jesus. However, it remained stuck in post-Bultmannian anguish about whether we could really find out anything about Jesus, and even about whether we ought to try. For myself, I think the future lies elsewhere, in what I have called the 'Third Quest'... One of the most obvious features of this 'Third Quest' has been the bold attempt to set Jesus firmly into his Jewish context." (Pg. 12-13)

He argues, "'Jesus' is either the flesh-and-blood individual who walked and talked, and lived and died, in first-century Palestine, or he is merely a creature of our own imagination, able to be manipulated this way or that. To this extent, I totally agree with the proposals of the sceptical 'questers,' from Reimarus ['Fragments'] right down to A.N. Wilson. It is not only possible, but actually highly likely, that the church has distorted the real Jesus, and needs to repent of this and rediscover who its Lord actually it. But this does not mean that the church has been wrong in everything it has said about Jesus. Only real no-holds barred history can tell us whether that is so." (Pg. 18)

He observes, "[C.S. Lewis], In his best-selling book 'The Screwtape Letters,' he made out that the quest for Jesus was really the work of the devil... and that any right-minded Christian should back off from it. This, frankly, is odd; in his own professional sphere, that of English literature, Lewis did more than most to help people understand old writings in their proper historical context. Why should he not want them to do the same with Jesus?" (Pg. 93)

This book will be of some interest to those looking for a critique of those three books, and others; but persons wanting to know more of Wright's own mature ideas would do better to read his books such as 'Jesus and the Victory of God.'

[Vincent Waldron · Rating 4 out of 5]

I will confess up front that (a) I believe that Jesus is as portrayed in the Gospels and (b) that I generally enjoy Tom Wright's books and writing. This particular book takes on a number of older authors' descriptions of Jesus as well as honing in on a couple of more recent semi-scholarly (some would say not scholarly) works.

I suppose that these books published in the 90s seemed liked an easy target, as they were based on a lot of confabulation and staring at the Dead Sea Scrolls long enough that random things were portrayed as relating to Jesus. Maybe it is a little like how the da Vinci Code inspired a bunch of books to counter the supposed history that was underlying that (fictional) best seller.

Wright seems to make it clear that the virgin birth isn't that big a deal to him -- that Christianity isn't based on it, that miracles are actually signs and wonders, and that the resurrection is THE theme on which the whole things hangs. The Apostle Paul spoke of it as real and described in his letter having met numerous people who had visualized a risen Christ -- and Paul was writing 25-ish years after the events transpired. Clearly the early church believed in a literal resurrection and were motivated by it.

If there is a negative in this book, it is that Wright spends most of us his time refuting these inaccurate pictures of who Jesus was and takes little time to flesh out a picture of who he believes the Gospels shows Jesus was. The book might have been better titled, "Who Jesus Wasn't..." rather than the current title.

Wright is a deep thinker and even here, in this relatively superficial response to some books, he manages to capture the attention, but I wish that he had spent more time describing the Jesus of the Bible.

[Joel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wright’s first chapter presents a brief overview of the historical Jesus quests. This is very helpful for anyone wanting to know more about the topic, as Wright has done well to summarise a large sweep of scholarship.

As for the rest of this short book, it is quite dated. This is due largely to the fact that chapters 2 - 4 are critical responses to three unfortunate authors, intersected with Wright’s own interpretations of relevant materials.
These works that he is responding to have not aged well and I have not seen them mentioned in any of the more current works on Jesus.

Wright’s approach is quite polemical, and his tone appears to be somewhat irate.
As for his theological responses they remain consistent with what he - and others like him - are still saying today.

All in all, it was a tidy and brief book with some pearls and gems scattered throughout - although, to use a musical analogy, it is more of a collection of B-Sides, rather than a full length album.
A reader is better off diving into “Jesus and Victory of God” (the “full length album”), and only visiting this work if they want to watch Wright deliver chapters that are equivalent to scholarly “diss-tracks.”

[Travious Mitchell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Discovering the authentic Jesus has become a quest taken on by skeptics and adherents of his teachings alike. The authentic Jesus has been lost to time, history, retelling, interpretation, and ideals, but the authentic Jesus still speaks through the muddied waters of human systems and organizations.

Wright critiques and responds to different views on the authentic Jesus and their claims of discovering who he truly was: according to three different authors, Jesus was a complex and complicated man, whose story has been mythologicalized and invented to cope with defeat, despair, and shattered dreams. Meeting Jesus at face value— and in a deeper sense— has to be done with integrity and authenticity, but there are many who fail to do so, which contributes to even messier and confusing conclusions to who Jesus really was.

We are all guilty of creating caricatures of Jesus of Nazareth and what the Gospels have to say about him,— is he God? Is he the Son of God? Was he just a great teacher? Was he a prophet? Did he exist? Could he perform miracles? The conclusion I reach is that Jesus, as presented in Scripture, speaks for himself on who he truly was.

[Gary · Rating 3 out of 5]

To channel Wilson, Wright has his rights and his wrongs. Apparently they are mixed in almost everything he says. There are some great insights here (though I suspect in Church history much of this can be found in purer form). I like how he academically dismantles most of the modern Historical Jesus advocates, and how he shows up their fantasizes as anything but historical scholarship.

However, I feel much of what he says that is good is really another layer to add to our more creedal understanding of Jesus and his work. But Wright too often makes it sound like older ideas are to be cast aside in favour of some of these insights. He is also not always as clear of such subjects as the Divinity of the Christ as one would hope. The frautration I feel reading him is somewhat similar to that thorough conservatives feel reading Lewis on Scripture, for example. A little more fundamentalism would do the good bishop some good.

Still, good and useful and interesting . Liked it.

[Rob Sumrall · Rating 3 out of 5]

This short work delves into the question of the historical Jesus. Who is he? What did he accomplish? Was he the Messiah?

One of the strengths of this academic-minded little book is that it gives a good summary of the thinking over the last 100 years that has investigated the historical Jesus. This academic investigation is, perhaps, also one of the weaknesses of the book if one is looking for a practical investigation into the historical Jesus. Wright chooses, instead, to engage with academicians - and not just any old run-of-the-mill academics. He engages with some extreme fringe thinkers like John Shelby Spong, Barbara Thiering, and A.N. Wilson. For the interested student, this overview will be helpful. For the earnestly seeking layperson, this treatment will be frustrating and unproductive.

[Pam · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting little read. N.T. Wright responds to three authors who have questioned what we can know of the historical Jesus via the Christian scriptures - Barbara Thiering, A.N. Wilson and John Spong. I've read Spong and found his thinking on this quite compelling. The other two I
have not read. I've also looked to N.T. Wright in the past for guidance on interpreting scripture. So I wanted to see how Wright and Spong might duke it out. Wright didn't completely win me over but he does make some interesting points counter to these authors. At the end of the day, can we ever really know the historical Jesus? I think it best to keep an open mind and keep searching though.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short and powerful

Be prepared to think and be challenged. Be prepared with an open mind to ponder the historical Jesus. As always I am impressed with Mr. Wright's work. The way he gives insight into both historical and theological context so often helps illuminate my own thoughts and believes. I so often come away understanding things better or differently than I did before. I strongly encourage any Christian to read his book "How God Became King". So far my favorite book by him.

[Thomas Peters · Rating 4 out of 5]

Title is misleading. (I didn't read the description about the book.)
was disappointed in reading this book, in that, when I picked this book up. I thought that it was going to be talking who Jesus is and what he did. but instead it felt like a large collection of short essays on the points that the author agrees on and disagrees on, with different authors. it doesn't feel like he is talking about Jesus and what he did until the last chapter.

[Andy Dollahite · Rating 2 out of 5]

Basically not relevant to today's controversies over the identity of Jesus. Wright keeps an even keel throughout this rebuttal. That is, he does an admirable job not showering the three alternative proposals with scorn and belly laughter. It's frankly absurd how seriously modern society will take hypotheses that diverge so wildly from the Scriptures and received tradition simply because they fly under the banner of "scholarly."

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wright gives a historical and Scriotural defense of Jesus, against modern detractors who either deny His divinity and simply submit that Christ was nothing more than a historical figure, as well as those who ignorantly claim He never existed to begin with. At the same time, this is not an apologetics book so much as it is a "So-you-too-live-like-the-detractors" book where Wright gives a few well-placed gut punches.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to this as Audible was soon going to remove it from the free catalog for members.

This is well done scholarly research on the historicity of Jesus, as it dissects other scholars arguments. Echoing other reviews, it is a bit dated, mostly early '90s and even late '80s, but some of the books that he referenced are either still quoted or have been regurgitated in some form by newer authors. Would recommend for those that enjoy apologetics.

[Niel Knoblauch · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is written as a response to a few other people's takes on the Historical Jesus. I read it dry, without familiarity with those other takes, and so I might not completely have been Tom's target audience.
Nevertheless a good book, which invites me into his more comprehensive books on the topic 🙂