It was obvious from the opening statements that A N Wilson (who drew heavily on the teachings of his Jewish friend Maccoby and a discredited 4th century Ebionite writer called Epiphanius) had bitten off more than he could chew. Realising his predicament he wisely stuck to a single issue, the Eucharist. Christ as a first century Jewish teacher, he argued could never have countenanced the 'drinking of blood'. Paul had merely created a Jesus in line with contemporary secular thought.
In reply, Wright presented an overview of Paul's teaching, which he reminded us should never be understood piecemeal, but must be viewed as a whole and in its first century Jewish context.The symbolism used by Christ regarding the Eucharist was purely symbolical. The contention that Paul introduced non-Jewish themes into the teachings of Jesus was, according to Wright, simplistic and ungrounded. He pointed to numerous Jewish writers and thinkers who maintained similar positions during and even before the first century.
In the ensuing question and answer period Wilson steadily lost ground. Alluding to Paul's many apocalyptical statements, he suggested that they proved Paul believed Christ would return within his lifetime. Wright simply produced numerous first century Jewish apocalyptic writings, maintaining that the 'last days motif' was commonly employed to signify the beginning of a new age.
Wilson's 'trump card' was to play on the humanist incredulity of the miraculous by denying Christ's walking on water and raising of the dead. The audience reaction took him by surprise. One solicitor asked if Wilson had alternatives to offer to a world sinking into moral depravity and ethical chaos.
Another girl, offering her Christian testimony forced him to admit that he had no explanation for the change in her life. When he 'conceded' that Christianity might be credited with giving us a sense of our past, as well as a set of stable traditions and good architecture (but little else), the ensuing silence in the hall spoke volumes.
Wright wisely brought the debate back to the original agenda, maintaining that the differences in intent between the sayings of Jesus and Paul were due not to a difference in theology, but were explained by the historical fact of the resurrection.
While Jesus pointed constantly to his coming resurrection Paul, writing after the event, addressed the implications of the resurrection for the life of the church. As Wright so eloquently concluded, 'Paul was one true voice in a rich harmony of true voices of the early church, but the writer of the song was Jesus'.
The A N Wilsons of our day have had free reign to castigate our faith because no-one has been prepared to take them on in public. Wright has taken that step in an area in which he is a world authority. The rest of us could do with more of his courage.
Isa Masih Homepage
October 97 Contents