Yesterday I shared some thoughts on hermeneutics, the language of faith when discussing doctrines like the virgin birth, and the historical-critical approach to studying Jesus in “Three hermeneutical paradigms to use when studying the doctrine of the virgin birth.” Later in the day someone posted a video that Greg Boyd put on YouTube on Sunday where he attempts to answer the question, “How can something as important as faith in Christ depend on the accuracy of information about the historical Jesus, when our evaluation of the veracity of historical information can never rise above the level of the more or less probable?” Since it is relevant to yesterday’s post I thought I’d share it here. Let me know your thoughts!
Tag Archives: Historical Jesus
Rembrandt and the Jewish Jesus
Rembrandt, Supper at Emmaus
I just came across an interesting article written by Lloyd Dewitt on the Huffington Post (07.25.2011) about the art of Rembrandt van Rijn. It is titled “Rembrandt and the Jewish Jesus”. The gist of the article is that Rembrandt showed great innovation in painting a Jesus that he thought was more like the Jewish Jesus of history than the “the Christ with the high forehead, shallow feminine features, long nose and narrow mouth familiar from early Christian and Byzantine icons”. It is worth reading if you are interested in art and/or historical Jesus studies?
Why historical Jesus studies?
Well, Dr. Craig A. Evans wrote his first guest post for this blog earlier today (see here) and one of the more prominent points that he made was that the great contribution of the Third Quest was “a recovery of the Jewishness of Jesus and his world.”
What is it about the Jewishness of Jesus that we find so important? Obviously, we regret that the Quest for the Historical Jesus and the New Quest both yanked Jesus away from first century Palestine into a variety of other contexts. I think this is problematic for Christians whose views of Jesus have been shaped as much if not more by places like Alexandria, Rome, Nicaea, Constantinople, Paris, or Moscow than Nazareth, Bethany, or Jerusalem. We are beginning to notice that while the continual evolution of our understanding of Jesus may not be bad, it is incomplete unless we recognize, as the Apostle Paul wrote, that “when the fullness of time had came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law”. (Gal 4.4) Even as we develop a Christology we must remember like the great Apostle that it is based on Jesus of Nazareth who came to us in real humanity, through a real birth, into a real world, at a real point in history. Even if we meditate deeply on Jesus being the Logos of God who has always been with God, and one with God, he is still made known to us first through a kenosis so real that to ignore the historical Jesus seems to be the first misstep in forming any Christology.
As I think about the various gospels that are read today one thing that greatly differentiates Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from “gospels” like Peter, James, Judas, and even Thomas is the Jewishness of the narrative, the interaction with the Jewish Scriptures, and the Jewish earth on which it all takes place.
So whether one is describing Jesus through paint like Rembrandt, or historical research like Evans, one should never make a Jesus who is not a child of Abraham, a child of David, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, preaching in Galilee and Jerusalem, and crucified in the land before his people. This is the Jesus of history and faith. It is the Jesus who was the “word made flesh” who “tabernacles in our midst” who “existed in the form of God” yet who did not “regard equality with God a thing to be grasped”.
See also: Mark Goodacre, NT POD 49: What is the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus?
Wednesdays with Wright: Reading Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: Nicholas Perrin
Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (eds) (2011). Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
This is the fourth part of a series Brian LePort and I are tackling out of this book, which is based off the most recent Wheaton Conference. Scroll to the bottom of this entry and you will be provided with links to previous posts that cover previous chapters and moreover a schedule for future entries.
Nicholas Perrin, “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet.”
Nicholas Perrin’s starts his discussion on Wright’s JVG by first talking about the work The Gospel and the Land by W.D. Davies. In this book, Davies examines the relationship between the land and the Kingdom of God through the lens of Gunther Bornkamm and George B. Caird. As I’m sure many of you know, the work of Bornkamm, to Caird, is as antithetical as Ken Ham’s views on Genesis to Francis Collins’. So, as Perrin says, they are “diametrically opposed thinkers”, “though not internally inconsistent.”
If you aren’t familiar with the work of Caird and Bornkamm, you’ll need a little background in order to understand Perrin’s critique of Wright. Bornkamm’s Jesus is neither “politically laden nor apocalyptically oriented.” For Bornkamm, Jesus wasn’t concerned with the political side of things in the first century milieu. Primarily, according to Bornkamm, Jesus was a wisdom teacher, a sage, your personal ethicist challenging you to change your wrong ways. Thus, the challenge posed by Jesus was a personal one, not a national one. To juxtapose Bornkamm, Caird’s Jesus was the hands in the dirt, rough middle easterner, apocalyptic prophet that has come to pronounce judgment on Israel as a whole for their corrupt aspirations. For Bornkamm, Jesus’ ethic was a personal one. While for Caird, Jesus’ ethic was a sociopolitical one.
Promises
After setting the stage, Perrin discusses “The promise of Wright and Wright’s Jesus.”:
- “Tom’s groundbreaking Methodology.” N.T. Wright’s methodology was thoroughly groundbreaking for the times. The Jesus Seminar when Wright wrote NTPG and JVG were the hot trend of the days. Their methodology was a minimalistic one, but promised accurate results. The unfortunate problem with their employed methodology was that “Jesus” wasn’t really Jesus. He was a middle-eastern man in which we pretty much knew nothing about. Wright on the other hand argues “Instead of examining one piece at a time without reference to their potential interconnectedness, why not get all the pieces on the table, see what fits, and then decide what the box top must have looked like?” Perrin likes Wright’s historical methodology so much that “the critical methodology employed in Jesus and the Victory of God seems to be almost as important as—if not more important than—its critical results.
- The second great contribution is “Jesus as a reader of Israel’s Scriptures.” Though I won’t expound upon this in much detail, Wright’s doing this settled Jesus as a man of the times. So, breaking off from the Bultmannian tradition where Jesus was a type of proto-Marcionite who transcended the Judaism of his days, to the contrary for Wright, Jesus was an actual thoroughbred Jew.
- The third promising point of Wright’s work stated by Perrin is Jesus’ identification with Israel and its royal Messiah. Israel, not as the state of Israel, “but rather the entire historical trajectory leading up to, including and climaxing his ministry.” And “Jesus was claiming to be both the embodiment and fulfillment of storied Israel.” Tied in with this, is Tom’s argument of exile and restoration, and that Jesus is the one who is bringing this restoration from exile (though not in the way expected) as Israel for Israel.
Issue with Wright’s Jesus in JVG
Resuming from where we began in this post: There has been a stressing pull between the eschatalogical ethic of Bornkamm’s Jesus and Caird’s Jesus. Primarily, Wright, in JVG finds himself in the trajectory of Caird’s Jesus who’s raison d’etre was to bring sociopolitical change. Though Perrin agrees with this, he furthermore argues that Jesus didn’t just focus on this, but also focused on the personal change of individuals amongst the body of Israel (MK. 10:17-22).
What’s interesting about Perrin’s criticism of Wright’s work in JVG, is that it’s exactly that. It is a critique of Wright’s work in JVG. He shows that in his later works, Wright actually does espouse a Jesus who wasn’t just sociopolitically minded, but also personally-minded.
Wright’s Response
In a very familial tone, Wright fully accepts Nick’s criticism in relation to JVG. Wright says: “I have been so used to seeing Jesus’ commands and warnings being reduced to the rather trivial moral challenges faced by young people in comfortable Western homes that I was determined, if I could, to draw out the much larger picture. Start with the big picture and you’ll get the details eventually. Start with the details and you may never know where you are on the map.” And “there was clearly plenty of ordinary, boring old sin going on too, and Jesus named and shamed it.”
Conclusion
For me this chapter was “alright.” I enjoyed the cordial discussion. I also agreed with Perrin on his criticism of Wright. But, unfortunately I found Perrin’s speaking style hard to follow. Which later made it even more impossible to understand while reading. Of course this is a personal gripe I have with Perrin, and may only effect me, not others. All in all, it was a good read and I recommend it; this is especially so if you want to grasp general themes in Wright’s work before tackling the beast itself.
———–
Schedule for this series:
06/01: Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John” (Brian LePort)
06/08: Richard B. Hays, “Knowing Jesus: Story, History, and the Question of Truth” (Daniel James Levy)
06/22: Nicholas Perrin, “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet” (Daniel James Levy)
06/29: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Brian LePort)
07/06: Edith M. Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness, and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright” (Daniel James Levy)
07/13: Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” (Brian LePort)
07/20: Markus Bockmuehl, “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? (Daniel James Levy)
07/27: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” (Brian LePort)
08/03: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Daniel James Levy)
Wednesdays with Wright: Reading Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: Richard B. Hays
Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (eds) (2011). Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Last week, Brian started reviewing the above mentioned book on the recent Wheaton Conference. You can see his review of the first chapter here. As I’m sure most of you know, this book deals with N.T. Wright’s scholarly work on Jesus and Paul.
Richard Hays:
Richard Hays begins his critical review of Wright’s JVG by reflecting on the 2008 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting. It was at this meeting, in which:
“Tom delivered a withering attack on my most recent book project. The book was Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage.” To Richard’s surprise, Tom didn’t seem to appreciate Hays’ book whatsoever. He “greeted the book with sharp criticism, chiefly because he saw its approach to seeking Jesus as insufficiently historical. Our ‘pilgrimage,’ he said, was overdetermined by dogmatic conerns and theological traditions, and inattentive to the realities of first century history. Real pilgrims, Tom observed, would get their feet dirty on the dusty roads of ancient Palestine. But this book of essays was instead ‘a pilgrimage by helicopter,’ and its authors and editors were ‘pilgrims with suspiciously clean feet.’”
Wright concludes by saying this recent book was a “pseudo-theological project of non historical retrieval of Jesus.” His scruples were that there is too much church-tradition induction onto the Gospel texts.
The purpose in Hays’ reflection on his encounter with his interlocutor at the SBL, was in large, the tool that revealed major differences between the two scholars. Primarily, where it seems they diverge is in the matter of tradition. Hays comes to the biblical text with the lens of church tradition over his eyes; a seemingly (and confessed as so) top to bottom, a la Barthian approach. Whereas Wright, in the vein of what seems to be Pannenberg, argues from a bottom-up historical approach.
Because Hays doesn’t like Tom’s dismissal of viewing Jesus through the eyes of the church, he poses the following five questions to him:
- “How are we to understand the relation between story and history?”
- “What roles, if any, do the the church’s scriptural canon and tradition play in New Testament hermeneutics?”
- “Is there a legitimate discipline of historical inquiry that operates outside and apart from that tradition? If so, what claim does such a discipline have one determining the ways in which Christians know Jesus?”
- “In what ways might the historical study of Jesus play a role in apologetic or in conversation with non-Christians?”
- “What is the significance of the resurrection of Jesus for our epistemology?”
Though these questions concern the essay in which Hays presented, he clearly couldn’t cover discussing them all. So he settles down to sketch his understanding of Tom’s approach to story and history, reflections on the theological gains and losses caused by Tom’s methodology, and thereafter proposals as to where they ought to go from there.
Hays’ Descriptive Observations of Tom’s Approach:
Some of what Hays mentions will presuppose that you have grappled with Tom’s work in NTPG and JVG. So, if you don’t understand, read those monster sized books. 
And just a note, it seems that Hays doesn’t seem to have many scruples (though some) with Tom until point 5. So my focus will primarily be on points 5-7.
- Critical Realism
- Hypothesis and Verification
- Skepticism in regards to form, redaction, and Synoptic source criticism.
- Extensive use of Second Temple Literature
- The exclusive focus in JVG on the Synoptic Gospels
- Inattentiveness to literary and theological shape of each particular Gospel
- Instead of focusing on each Gospel’s individual shape, he reconstructs a Jesus behind the Gospel tradition
Hays primarily seems to focus his critique of Wright on these last three points.
Point 5: He criticizes Wright for not including a study on the resurrection of Jesus and G. John in JVG. He argues their omissions effect the development of an adequate portrait of the historical Jesus that was presented hitherto. He says, “But I would suggest that the omissions of John and the resurrection from JVG are hermeneutically significant. Clearly it makes a huge difference whether or not one reads the Syntopic Gospels in dialogue with John’s proclamation that Jesus was the incarnation of the logos or in light of the resurrection as the true climax of the story.”
Point 6: Because Tom reconstructs a Jesus behind the Synoptic tradition in JVG, Hays’ complaint is that the “Voices of the writers disappear.” It is because of this, the voices of the authors disappear, and thus, the literary and theological shape to the Gospels are lost.
Point 7: It is because of point 6, that this portrait of Jesus depicted by Tom isn’t a biblical portrait; to the contrary, it’s Tom’s portrait of Jesus. He summarizes Martin Kahler by saying “the critical historian becomes in effect a Fifth Evangelist whose secondary reconstruction becomes the center of authority, perhaps even displacing the very texts it seeks to interpret.” For Hays, because of this, this Wrightian portrait of Jesus isn’t as fruitful as it could be for church theology.
Hays conclusion is that we diverge from the bottom-up approach of Wright, and the narrative theology of Frei, and meet the Jesus that is depicted in the synoptic tradition.
N.T. Wright:
Tom responds to Hays in a very lucid and concise manner. In regards to his exclusivity with the Synoptic tradition in JVG, he states that “I put John to one side for (I imagine) a similar reason to why Richard omits Ephesians and Colossians (not to mention the Pastorals) when writing about Paul. If your opponents insist on playing tennis on a small court you’d better learn how to keep the ball in play.” On top of this, he mentions that up until this time, he barely had anything noteworthy published. Other critical scholars would have disregarded this work if he included G. John off the bat.
In response to Hays’ critique by going behind the evangelists backs to produce a portrait of Jesus, Tom points out that it’s good for readers to “reflect on the presuppositions and intentions of their central characters.” He goes on to point out, that when reading literature, we aren’t being sneaky by going behind their backs and placing aside the story, rather we’re trying to understand it. It is apart of the Gospel tradition that states “he wrestled with questions of vocation and mission, and went off frequently to pray. It is not going behind their backs to inquire what that wrestling was about and what conclusions Jesus came to.”
Tom then points out that church tradition is quite fallible, and that our trust in church tradition needs to be held loosely. He shows that it was by the fourth century the church traded out the heart of the synoptic tradition, the kingdom inauguration, for Christology. For the fourth century church, they saw Jesus do miracles, which meant divinity (to them), but in the first century it meant “the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
My thoughts:
I personally think a lot of Hays’ criticisms are unwarranted. Though, in spite of this, I think Hays did a phenomenal job in presenting his scruples with Wright. It was clear, concise, and followed point by point in a deductive fashion.
Something I did find interesting in this chapter, is Hays’ epistemology. It seems that Hays assumes a reformed epistemology when it comes to interpretation of historical events. By this, I mean he presupposes the resurrection of Jesus, and from this point as his starting location, suggests we as the church interpret history. Though I disagree with the top-bottom approach, I think viewing history through the lens of Jesus’ resurrection might, in a profound way, bring insight into the interpretation of human history. I found this entirely intriguing and think there’s a lot of potential in the development of such an idea.
———–
Schedule for this series:
06/01: Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John” (Brian LePort)
06/08: Richard B. Hays, “Knowing Jesus: Story, History, and the Question of Truth” (Daniel James Levy)
06/15: Sylvia C. Keesmaat and Brian J. Walsh, “Outside of a Small Circle of Friends: Jesus and the Justice of God” (Brian LePort)
06/22: Nicholas Perrin, “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet” (Daniel James Levy)
06/29: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Brian LePort)
07/06: Edith M. Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness, and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright” (Daniel James Levy)
07/13: Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” (Brian LePort)
07/20: Markus Bockmuehl, “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? (Daniel James Levy)
07/27: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” (Brian LePort)
08/03: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Daniel James Levy)
Wednesdays with Wright: Reading Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: Marianne Meye Thompson
Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (eds) (2011). Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Over the next couple of months I will be splitting time with Daniel James Levy as we review the above mentioned book chapter-by-chapter (see the schedule below). The book is split into two parts: one of Wright’s work in historical Jesus studies and one covering his work in Pauline studies. We will begin where the book does in historical Jesus studies.
Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John”
The first chapter was written by Marianne Meye Thompson and it is titled “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John”. In this paper she covers three topics related to Wright’s book Jesus and the Victory of God (henceforth, JVG):
(1) “…the relative absence of the Gospel of John from the pages of JVG“.
(2) Comments by Wright elsewhere that seem to allow for room to discuss the Jesus of the Gospel of John with the Jesus of JVG.
(3) The “noteworthy features of JVG‘s presentation of Jesus” with special emphasis on Jesus seeing himself as “replacing the temple of the temple system.”
Thompson notes that John “is not a source, or not explicitly a source, for JVG” (p .22) making JVG ”a portrait of the Synoptic Jesus; that is, the threefold and not fourfold Gospel canon.” (p. 23) While Wright has acknowledged that John is “at least as much like the Synoptics as unlike” (p. 23) he chose not to use John because ever since Reimarius it has not been kosher to do so. Also, “in JVG the ‘history’ of this ‘historical Jesus’ ends on Good Friday, and his aims are essentially accomplished there.” (p. 25)
For Wright, according to Thompson, John retells Jesus’ life with post-resurrection insight. Obviously the Synoptics do this as well, but it is less blunt. Since Wright tried to reconstruct a historical Jesus in the setting prior to the resurrection it seemed to him that John wasn’t very valuable.
Yet Wright has opened the door to a “Johannine Jesus” elsewhere. When Wright speaks of Jesus as the one who “believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to Scripture only YHWH himself could do and be.” (p. 28) According to Thompson this sounds a lot like the Johannine Jesus.
Similarly, there are many elements of John that seem “to have a ring of historicity about them” (p. 27) that pair well with Wright’s project. Is there one area where it would be safest to build a bridge between the Johannine Jesus and the Wrightian Jesus? Thompson suggest Jesus’ temple actions would be the place to do so.
According to Thompson, “John is the only canonical Gospel to identify Jesus explicitly as a temple.” (p. 33) Since Wright has emphasized Jesus’ temple cleansing as a prophetic declaration that YHWH would destroy the temple, and since both John and Wright tie Jesus’ anti-temple movement with John the Baptist (p. 34), we may have common ground. Yet Thompson sees Wright and John as parting ways on this very point.
Thompson isn’t sure how to reconcile Wright’s statements that Jesus bring the end of exile with Jesus’ sayings that see the temple as doomed, which seem to indicate further exile. After discussing this subject some more Thompson finds that “John and JVG would get along quite well; at times, even better than the Synoptics and JVG.” (p. 37)
Thompson adds that “…the question that John poses to JVG is how Jesus is known.” The “quest for the historical Jesus” has been based on two assumptions: (1) the historical Jesus can be found behind the gospels and (2) that the facts discovered behind the gospels should give us one, singular Jesus. (pp.37-38) Yet Thompson argues that “…to know Jesus, one cannot bypass the memory and witness of those who followed Jesus.” (p. 38) Therefore, she concludes that there may be more to giving the canonical gospels, especially John, the respect they deserve than is often acknowledged in historical Jesus studies and even by Wright himself.
Wright’s response:
Wright says, “…the strangest thing to me in Marianne’s paper: her supposition that John and JVG part company on the temple theme.” Wright points to the Prologue, “the word became flesh, kai eskenosen en hemin, ‘and tabernacled in our midst.’” So for Wright “JVG and John converge when it comes to Jesus-as-temple upstaging the Jerusalem temple. And since I think that is the clue to John’s incarnational Christology, then yes, JVG does arrive–by a quite different route–at something like the Johannine solution.” (p. 39)
Furthermore, Wright sees a place where his own project and the Gospel of John come together in a way that “the Great Tradition” seems to miss: “Reimarus, of course, couldn’t put together the kingdom and the cross, but then nor could the rest of the Great Tradition he was reacting against. John, like the Synoptics, does it effortlessly.” (p.40) For Wright both his project, and the Gospel of John, make some sense of Jesus’ life in a way that the “he was born to die” theology of many Christians misses.
Conclusion:
I was surprised by Thompson’s suggestion that John and JVG part ways over the temple. That did not seem to be the biggest chasm between the two. I think the major difference is perspective. If JVG wants to talk about Jesus from a pre-resurrection perspective then it will share less common ground with John’s gospel which is not content to see Jesus that way. For John it is Jesus as fully understood that informs everything that came before his resurrection. This theological Jesus is the historical Jesus.
Wright’s project is worth engaging, but it must be done with the understanding of what he was trying to accomplish as well as a realization of how the Synoptics may have been more useful at various points. Nevertheless, I think we may find that John contributes more data on the pre-resurrection Jesus than what we have traditionally acknowledged. One area to watch will be the “John, Jesus, and History” group at SBL who is investigating this very subject.
__________
Schedule for this series:
06/01: Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John” (Brian LePort)
06/08: Richard B. Hays, “Knowing Jesus: Story, History, and the Question of Truth” (Daniel James Levy
06/15: Sylvia C. Keesmaat and Brian J. Walsh, “Outside of a Small Circle of Friends: Jesus and the Justice of God” (Brian LePort)
06/22: Nicholas Perrin, “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet” (Daniel James Levy)
06/29: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Brian LePort)
07/06: Edith M. Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness, and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright” (Daniel James Levy)
07/13: Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” (Brian LePort)
07/20: Markus Bockmuehl, “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? (Daniel James Levy)
07/27: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” (Brian LePort)
08/03: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Daniel James Levy)
Wednesdays with Wright: Did Jesus Know He was ‘God’?
In response to whether Jesus of Nazareth would have been aware of his own “deity” N.T. Wright says the following (from Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 653):
“Jesus did not….’know that he was God’ in the same way that one knows one is male or female, hungry or thirsty, or that one ate an orange an hour ago. His ‘knowledge’ was of a more risky, but perhaps more sufficient sort: like knowing one is loved. One cannot ‘prove’ it except by living it. Jesus’ prophetic vocation thus included within it the vocation to enact, symbolically, the return of YHWH to Zion. His messianic vocation included within it the vocation to attempt certain task which, according to scripture, YHWH had reserved for himself. He would take upon himself the role of messianic shepherd, knowing that YHWH had claimed this role as his own. He would perform the saving task which YHWH had said he alone could achieve. He would do what no messenger, no angel, but only the ‘arm of YHWH’, the presence of Israel’s god, could accomplish. As part of his human vocation, grasped in faith, sustained in prayer and doubt, and implemented in action, he believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture, only YHWH himself could do and be. He was Israel’s Messiah; but there would, in the end, be ‘no king but God’.”
In other words, pre-resurrection, the incarnation had to be understood seriously in that Jesus would not have been aware of deity as we understand it now. Rather, he would have seen himself as an ‘embodiment’ of YHWH. This would be that which upon later Christology could build.
Thoughts?
Wednesdays with Wright: Short Book Review of Jesus and the Victory of God
Jesus and the Victory of God by N.T. Wright
N.T. Wright. (1996) Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, V. 2. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. (Amazon.com)
In the summer of 2005 I finished The New Testament and the People of God around the same time that I received an acceptance call from Western Seminary letting me know that I had been admitted into their MA in Biblical Studies program. I was excited because (1) I had found in N.T. Wright a scholar who was making sense of so many of my questions concerning Christianity and (2) I was going to begin my own academic journey. I vowed I would finish the second volume of the series, Jesus and the Victory of God, before classes began. That did not happen.
Over five years later it is finished. I read the last several pages yesterday. I have become familiar with the content of this book over the years via articles and lectures from Wright, but my actual consumption of this book lasted a very long time. In fact, since I began the book I have lived in San Francisco, twice; Napa once; and Portland, OR, once. I have completed a MA degree and began a Th.M. (which is half way finished). I began dating and got engaged to my now wife whom I married over a year ago. I have read thousands upon thousands of pages. So take this review as you will. It is my attempt to remember the longest reading journey of my short life!
The book begins by going back to the older Quest for the Historical Jesus to examine the successes and failures of these programs as well as the current atmosphere surrounding historical Jesus studies. It is from here that Wright elected to explore who Jesus was not simply through words, but by looking at his symbolic actions as related to the symbolism of Second Temple Judaism, his stories and riddles, and his seemingly aware effort of fulfilling a sort of divine vocation.
This leads Wright to examine Jesus as a prophet asking what challenges, invitations, and promises (threats?) he issued on behalf of Israel’s god. What stories did he tell about Israel’s god becoming King of the world. How did Jesus read Scripture and how did he act in that story of exile?
Wright examines what it would mean for Jesus to see himself as a Messiah (reminding us this does not mean, necessarily, a divine figure or the Second Person of the Trinity, but the annointed decedent of King David). Jesus’ sayings and actions indicate that he was a Messianic contender that would have been right at home in the Judaism of his time, yet who redefined almost every expectation of who the Messiah was to be.
Wright then explores why Jesus was crucified and whether or not Jesus seemed driven to die. The answer appears to be “yes”, though maybe not as many Christians today would speak of it. More like the Maccabean martyrs who knew that dying on behalf of the nation may avert the coming judgment of YHWH upon Israel. This section is helpful in understanding how the early church may have developed post-resurrection atonement theories that still find grounding in the pre-resurrection words and actions of Jesus.
The final chapter explores language used to refer to the “return of the king”. Wright postulates that most “return” language is not aimed at Jesus’ second parousia as much as it is Jesus enacting the tradition that YHWH would return to Zion. Jesus saw himself as somehow “embodying” this return of YHWH. While this understanding is no where near the full grown Creedal doctrines of the Trinity and Christ, it does provide a narrative base upon which later Christians had to ponder what it meant for God to be at work in the world through Christ.
Anyone who reads this blog knows that I recommend most anything written by Wright. While there are times where I struggle with his reading of various passages as it relates to what the Evangelist say about Jesus, it should be agreed that Wright provides one of the strongest, conservative reconstructions of the historical Jesus. Of course, this may lead to a critique in itself since Wright seems to be sold of the historical faithfulness of the canonical gospels, though I personally do not have a problem with this presupposition.
