July 24, 2008
N.T. Wright and Evangelical Theology
Here is a wonderful essay outlining Wright’s general biblical approach and why it makes biblical theologians, both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ nervous:
Wright is serious about historical inquiry into the origins of Christianity. He is both a committed Christian and a committed historian. Wearing both hats at the same time, however, leaves him vulnerable to the criticisms of both his academic colleagues and fellow believers. His counterparts in academia accuse him of a believer’s bias, alleging that he colors the evidence in order to defend traditional Christianity, or what Crossan labels “an elegant fundamentalism.” Wright disputes his critics’ claims to unbiased objectivity and argues that there is no such thing as a “view from nowhere.” Every person thinks, writes and reads from “somewhere”. Such a confession does not mean that we are confined to a hermeneutical morass of radical subjectivity. But neither are we to think that noncommittal, unbelieving secularism is the only legitimate place from which seriously to read the New Testament. At this point, Wright offers a very strong challenge to the methodological assumptions of the scholarly guild.
Evangelical readers will have their own uneasiness with Wright’s historical study. Despite the fact that Christianity is a faith deeply rooted in history, evangelicals have been more than a bit nervous about searching for the historical Jesus. For starters, the church is still living in reaction to the Enlightenment project, which concluded its historical investigation of the New Testament by scrapping the miracles, destroying the integrity of the source documents and distorting Jesus beyond either recognition or worship. In our own day, the project is continued by the Jesus Seminar, a pseudo think-tank that leaves us with a whole lot of seminar and not much Jesus. Partly in reaction to this academic approach, and as a precaution against eroding a vital faith, Christians have ended up with Jesus’ portraits radically divorced from history. It should be noted that Wright is favorable to many of the Enlightenment’s questions, while remaining sharply critical of the movement’s presuppositions and conclusions.
comments
15 Responses to “N.T. Wright and Evangelical Theology”
Leave a Reply
It’s hard to imagine any historical investigation that would end up reinforcing christian belief. Does Wright think it can?
Yes, and I don’t think he’s a crackpot. This doesn’t mean he is right, of course.
I’ll be watching from the sidelines ;).
This is an interesting observation: Wright disputes his critics’ claims to unbiased objectivity and argues that there is no such thing as a “view from nowhere.” Every person thinks, writes and reads from “somewhere”. Such a confession does not mean that we are confined to a hermeneutical morass of radical subjectivity. What’s interesting is that this is, in effect, an argument a postmodernist thinker might use when being raked across the coals by Christians for being–necessarily–an absolute relativist. This though about inescapable bias may be accurate in many ways–but not when it is used as an excuse to stack the deck when examining evidence or formulating operational standards for what will be regarded as credible evidence. Christian “scholarship” is replete with people who have taken degrees in sciences in order to argue that the evidence for evolution is suspect, or that study of the fossil record can’t absolutely rule out the presence of humans among dinosaurs. When they do this, they are damaging the notion of objectivity much more than any postmodernist is likely to. The real test is: Will I submit my beliefs to test, based on new evidence–or will I persist in heeding only that evidence that supports the Truth I know to be true?
You are absolutely right, Daryl. I think it is a difficult thing to balance. How can a person be honestly critical of our views while at the same time recognizing that they are his views. This is the philosophical question.
Incidentally, I finally have a copy of Misquoting Jesus on my bed side. I am looking forward to cracking open it.
Daryl,
You will find in the first section of his book “The New Testament and the People of God” that NT Wright does a good job explaining how post modernism provides a valuable critique to the assumptions of early searches for the “Historical Jesus.” A comment like this is not the place to elaborate on the strengths of Wright’s “critical realist” approach or his elegant “hermeneutic of love” which he applies to his own inquiry, but they are worth investigating.
Thanks Bob. NT Wright is certainly good at provoking new thoughts from all quarters.
You are right when you say that Wright is making Evangelicals nervous. Many Christians are afraid to evaluate their beliefs in the light of historical study despite the fact that Christianity is firmly rooted in history. His work is making steady inroads into our egocentric society. THAT makes reformed theologians in particular nervous and angry. It’s kind of fun to watch because they normally act so arrogantly. Good post.
For me (and perhaps only for me), the most interesting idea here may be that “Christians have ended up with Jesus’ portraits radically divorced from history”. How, of course, can it be otherwise, since the ancient documents paint such different pictures? We can feel relatively secure about what Julius Caesar was like, or Augustus, or even Buddha, since there is a siftable degree of agreement between sources which might disagree at one point, and agree at another. But how exactly is one supposed to come to a “core” depiction of Jesus–son of God, politically motivated Messiah, savior of the Jews only, Gnostic higher being, aphoristic philosopher with Cynic tendencies?
Cooper,
Contrary to your assertion about Julius Caesar, Augustus or Buddha, the historical evidence around who they were is paltry compared to Jesus. The pictures painted by the many sources are, indeed, quite different. This is always going to be the case and is one of the primary questions tackled by NT Wright: How far can the serious historian go in determining the core issues around the historical Jesus?
His work bears reading for yourself to see just how well he answers the question. I find the framework he uses to analyze the questions to be quite useful and his answers to be well reasoned and supported by the source material he works with.
I think Cooper introduces a good point here, as I read his comment, in that the nature of what Christians want to do with the historical evidence they gather is often at odds with broadly accepted principles that guide the gathering and analysis of such evidence. This problem reaches through the process in all directions. What might I say, for instance, if a historian appeared to have done a superior job of his or her research and analysis, only to then say: “By the way, I am from Jupiter.” Hearing this, I know I would be inclined to look again–at my own thoughts as well as the work at hand.
But the issue here is not whether a devoted Christian is capable of doing the same work that an impartial historian might do–it’s the issue of what gets presented, and of what unrecognized influences, engendered by one’s faith, have intruded upon the process of honestly packaging one’s findings.
Was it Benedito Croce who wrote the essay “Where is History?”? I think so, though it has been a while since I read it. But a central point of the essay is the observation that history exists in the minds of those who concern themselves with it–or it is nowhere. It is not still going on “back there” somewhere. As such, its authority is always going to be tied to the quality of. the minds that draw upon its documents and artifacts and assert a testable picture of the past. The quantity and quality of these sources of data are always changing, and thus the pictures generated from them will continue to change. This makes it very difficult to confront tendentious views by appealing to data as that which is cut into stone.
I do disagree strongly with Bob. One might argue about the nature of the evidence for Buddha, but the evidence for Julius Caesar and Augustus is not really arguable unless one questions the very existence of anything like historical record entirely. The evidence for the Caesars likewise varies in the way that political opinions about FDR vary, while presuming a core (or corpus, if you prefer) of reliable data. The evidence for exactly what Jesus intended and who he claimed to be is much more tenuous. Even the Gospels do not agree.
Daryl is right on in pointing to what gets done with evidence. While I might, for example, say the very existence and character of the Roman Empire for the first 200 years CE “proves” the existence of Augustus, many Christians would reply, “Yes. Just as the existence of the Church ‘proves’ the existence of Jesus.” One difference is that the existence of governmental forms/bodies and religious forms/bodies operate from separate impulses. Another is that, just as Christians posit the Church as proof of Jesus’s existence and even of his divinity, Buddhists can posit their religion as proof that Buddha sat under the bodhi tree; Hindus can posit the existence of Krishna; Muslims can posit not only the existence of Muhammad (not a deity, to be sure), but also his revelations from Gabriel. That the Roman Empire in the exact form it developed proves Augustus does not require that one go on to disbelieve in Charlemagne or Hammurabi or George Washington. Religious claims often operate in just such an exclusive realm.
Corpus.
I don’t find it at all difficult to believe that Jesus found himself caught up in a whirlpool of histrical forces, and knew that much would be made of him–regardless of what he might want those views to be. History is mostly screams and a grasping at power; or hopes–of the kind that watches a loved one leave and, already, longs for the return. I believe that Jesus wanted the whole range of humans to participate in what history is, rather then seeing the many settle for the need to accept powerlessness. This great wish doesn’t require divinity–but an ample number of historians, priests, politicians, and suffering people will provide it anyway, for reasons much more certain–in their own minds–than those that Jesus most likely contemplated at the end.