  Lately I've been reading (among other things) urlLink N. T. Wright's ( urlLink another Wright link ) landmark work on the resurrection, urlLink The Resurrection of the Son of God .
I'm still working through this book (hoping to finish it before the semester starts), but already I can see why Wright is a significant cut above the rest of scholarship. First, he writes with clarity. Moreover, he brings clarity to a large sampling of data. For example, he distinguishes five meanings of the word "history," so when he critiques others or uses the word himself, there is no doubt what he is getting at. Wright is generous to contemporary scholarship, but quick to point out how his peers are imprecise with their analysis. Another real strength in Wright's work is his prolific background in other disciplines. He goes between the worlds of Homer, Plato, Virgil, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Antiochus, Jesus, and Paul demonstrating expertise. Once again, he regularly brings clarity to these gargantuan and clouded issues. A final word of praise I will mention in this post is that the apparent impetus behind his work is getting to the primary sources. Wright is concerned with answering questions that address the origins of these beliefs. Why did Christianity continue powerfully despite the death of its leader?
Why did the earliest Christians believe what they did? Wright skillfully shows how many modern scholars present intriguing insights, but fail to answer significant questions like these. Moreover, by focusing on primary sources, Wright regularly shows that scholarship goes awry when it disregards a wealth of information that sheds precious light on the people and world from which these ideas originated. For those unfamiliar with N. T. Wright, I urge you consider making yourself acquainted with his work. 
