I liked Wright’s summary about ‘myth’ here (33:30)
Bultmann’s three senses of ‘myth’ …
the flat sense – ‘old stories we can’t believe today’
more interesting sense – ‘as stories cultures tell themselves to explain the human predicament’
the cosmic myths in apocalyptic writings which are code for another kind of truth.
… demythologizing does contain an element of truth – nobody is taking these stories literally. Learning to see such things as important myths (in that sense), is simply ‘learning how to read’.
Ancient Jewish apocalypic language was regularly used to address in well-known code what we could call political realities. Dan 2 was not about a statue and a stone Daniel 7 was not about sea monsters and a flying human. They were about actual worldly kingdoms. Seen, to be sure, as instruments of dark powers. And they were about the actual kingdom-establishing victory of God that would overthrow and replace them.
The above is what I continue to wrestle with because I very much react against today’s populist evangelical enthusiasms to twist and pervert God’s kingdom into a kingdom of this world and using this world’s methods. And I’m sure Wright would also not approve with how American evangelicals are attempting to subvert Jesus’ call. So that leaves me with the work yet of reconciling Wright’s recognition of the physical historicity that God’s kingdom will (in its fullest, arrived sense) have with my certain rejection of American evangelicals who commit the original Petrine (nothing short of Satanic, gauging Jesus’ reaction) error of wanting Jesus to throw off Rome now!
As an Anabaptist, my strong leaning is also to keep the two “Kingdoms” very much apart. But I don’t see this as a making a distinction between a “physical/ historical” Kingdom versus an “inner Spiritual abstract” Kingdom, which is the false contrast that Wright seems to be arguing against in these lectures.
Rather, the difference between kingdoms that you may be wary of in your post seems to do do with a methodological approach to the “kingdom-making”. I think that Jesus followers can represent the in-breaking of the New Kingdom in very physical/ historical ways–concrete ways in society from the “bottom-up”–through suffering, self-sacrifice and service (even one’s enemies), i.e., we are to lay down power even political power. In contrast, the methodology of coercive power from the top-down via laws and threats of force for not keeping laws—(i.e. politics and legal systems) are to be tools of “the earthly kingdoms”, which I think Jesus and Paul instructs us Christians to keep out of. It is natural for humans to think that enforcing societal laws over unbelievers is the most expedient way to “get things done” but I think history shows that when the church has attempted to wield political power, it has done a very poor job!
I finally finished my notes on the chapter/lecture today.
I wanted to pull a few things together, before we move on to the next chapter.
@St.Roymond after working through this lecture/chapter, what are our thoughts on your profs’ comments? On the German biblical scholars that Wright mentioned?
I hadn’t paid attention much to my thoughts on this part of the lecture, so I’m glad you brought it up. My impression is that he is interested in yet a different version of this division than each of the views the three of us hold. Someday, I think a discussion on different ways of understanding “two kingdoms” could be very interesting. Just to get a feel for the variety of views, not to establish what the right one is.
And finally, Friday the Lecture 3 discussion begins. I’ll try to get a directional post (pun) put up first thing that morning.
These conclude my remaining notes for the 2nd lecture. (from after about 42 minutes in)
43:37: Second Peter and John 21 are put forward (Bultmann) as passages that … suggest there was a problem with the end not having come as soon as expected. But 2nd century church fathers seem unaware that there’s a problem! It is entirely the projections of the 20th century (Schweitzer end-of-the-world-should-have-come crowd) back onto the earliest followers. Are the 2nd Peter (probably referring to chapter 3) and John 21 passages - are those significant concessions from Wright? Looking over them, I’m guessing that his John 21 mention is just in reference to Jesus’ question put to Peter “…If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” But the 2nd Peter mention may involve more substantially long commentary. Are these problems for Wright’s thesis then?
45:18 Wright suggests that twentieth century people embraced ‘end-of-world’ confusions, which then made Jesus unavailable for our modern appraisals of history, … [So a question I would put to Wright then is …] how does the disappointment with the alleged error of the alleged end-of-world writings lead to reinforcement of our now holding the world at arms-length? Shouldn’t just the opposite have happened?
49: The actual historical task … is still waiting to be addressed. As with all history, the problem is to think into the minds of people who think very differently from ourselves. 20th cent studies of eschatology have mostly failed to grapple with the historical setting of 2nd temple Jewish aspirations and retrievals of key texts which it engenders. The movement which sails under the flag of ‘historical criticism’ has done too much criticism and not enough history.
Our supposed new worldview with its chronological snobbery is really a fiction. It is an ancient world view just dressed up in new garb.
@Mervin_Bitikofer I’m looking forward to how Wright deals with the verses in John and II Peter as well. I expect that his explanation will need to show that Jesus in particular, and the early church as well, were not expecting the apocalyptic end of the world that Schweitzer and the rest were indicating. The early church had expected something – the Lord’s return – but what would accompany that – renewal of the existing world, rather than destruction and replacement – seems to be the thing Wright will focus on. I’m looking forward to how he ties this all together.
I am still curious about his emphasis on Epicurianism. At the end of the chapter (I’ve been working more with the book than the lectures) he wraps up his discussion about the need to enter a 1st C, ME mindset and that this is actually possible.
His reasoning is that, although Moderns claim it is not possible, they: 1) often invoke the ancient when it suits their purposes, and
2) they have adopted an ancient (that is Epicurean) mindset in their view of God/god/gods acting in the world (He/It/They doesn’t/doesn’t/don’t.)
Wright is equating the skepticism, even atheism, of Modernity with the concept of god from Epicureanism. My question is: Are these the same?
I haven’t read about Epicureanism. But it is possible that, while on the surface they may look very similar, the skepticism/atheism of Modernity is quite different in its reasoning.
If this is true, then Wright would be making the same error he accuses the British and Americans making in their reception of the German scholars’ biblical research.
I was reviewing the thread last night and saw that @Jay313 has read up on Epicureanism, and I wonder what he has to say about this.
Thanks everybody!
Tomorrow we start lecture 3 discussion, which means I need to get THAT homework done. Time to cram again!
NAVIGATIONAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
for this thread:
“Discerning the Dawn: History: History, Eschatology and New Creation” by N.T. Wright
Below are the links to sections of this discussion. Please see the OP for more information.
Sorry I’ve fallen behind. I’ll catch up tomorrow (fingers crossed) with a combined post on lectures 2&3. My preliminary thoughts are along these lines:
So the main point of the whole series: Jesus and the gospels. Does God intervene in the world or not? The obvious problem is discerning when God has intervened or when God has not. I’ll skip over the intricacies of that question, which I’ve touched on elsewhere, and focus on the “quest for the historical Jesus” (a misnomer, as Wright says).
Finishing lecture 3, I cannot resist poking a bit at one of Wright’s comparisons. It doesn’t detract from is larger message because He is more careful later in the lecture.
He says we know the Romans destroyed the second temple as surely as we know water is hydrogen plus oxygen. And from this you may take the message that history is as certain as the physical sciences. The problem is that the our knowledge in the physical science is a great more detailed in precise quantities. And in fact his comparison is case in point. We know a great deal more than Wright’s vague description of water as hydrogen plus oxygen. We know water is composed of units combining two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. With history we only know what people bothered to describe in writing. So considerable detail is lacking and will never be known.
But… later on, Wright takes pains to describe history as seeking stable footing on shifting sands. Nobody describes the physical sciences in that way. LOL
So there are more details available in this case than many other historical events. So you could object that the physical science including that of water is more simple even when you include such details as reaction rates under various conditions such as temperature and pressure.
Ok. Ok. Ok, Mitchell. Wright’s comparison is not perfect. You’re right.
I think the shifting sands he refers to are not history itself or the serious study of it, but the various methods of historical (or “historical”) study he is critiquing.
This bit starts about 46:43:
Henry Chadwick admitted if theology is true to itself it can’t simply snatch a few biblical texts to decorate an argument constructed elsewhere. It must grow out of historical exegesis of the text itself.
I understand the resistance many theologians perhaps some of you experienced undergraduate biblical studies as the lifeless rehearsing of Greek roots and reconstructed sources that too was a way of avoiding history, of pretending that digging the soil was the same thing as growing vegetables. When done properly historical exegesis […] ought to be producing the plants themselves […] and letting them bear their own fruit […]. But it will only do this if it’s allowed to be itself, if history can get on with its work without people looking over its shoulder and warning it about the shifting sands or telling it it’s much safer to play the violin without the bow That would take us back to the Petrine temptations again so I plead to the theologians don’t reject history you have nothing to lose but your Platonism.
[Transcript cleaned up a bit by Kendel]
Thanks for copying your earlier post. And then replying.
What do you think of Wright’s description of how one ought to study history and the value of its inclusion in [edit: natural] theology?
Well, I think “Jesus and the gospels” is the start of what he is saying. Something more like this: Jesus and the gospels as part of history and nature are essential components of anything that might call itself “natural theology.”
As a scientist, it was interesting to hear Wright’s description for the methodology of doing history and compare it with the scientific method.
Wright said the historical method involves “abduction” which I looked up in the Standford encyclopedia…it means “inference to the best explanation”. Wright said the methodology of doing (good) history involves constructing hypotheses and then trying to verify (or refute them) by careful study of the data…which in history would be things like old manuscripts or archeology. He admitted that no historian is totally “neutral” (everyone has a worldview that influences how one sees the data), but that one can minimize imposing our ideas onto history (minimize the eisegesis that he is accusing the German theologians wrapped up in apocalypse thinking of) by careful study of the worldviews and motivations of others–by studying the culture of the historical author and his audience. In this way, “historical science” proceeded as a back-and-forth between proposing hypotheses, and testing them, and hopefully that method gradually iterated towards the “truth”, much as science is seen to do.
I assume Wright will argue in the future lectures that he is a rigorous historian–one who has studied first century Jewish culture and thought, and therefore his ideas of a “Historical Jesus” are more accurate than those of enlightment philosophers or German historical-critics who apparently have not done their homework to research original Jewish texts, or contexts.
At the very end, someone in the audience posed an interesting question saying “In science, hypotheses are falsifiable and there is a “killer experiment” that could be designed to refute the hypothesis but that seems not to be the case for history”. Wright responded that there was “killer evidence” possible in history also…for example archeologists could uncover artifacts or information that would refute a historical idea. However, Wright added that history was “fuzzier” than science because historians often had to simply wait around for such new archeological evidence to be exposed before certain ideas could be rigorously tested. In contrast, in science one can design experiments which can quickly test hypotheses “in present time”.
I liked Dr. Wright’s explanation of the meanings of the term “history”. I know he will be teaching the importance of understanding the historical context of Jesus, to understand the depth of Jesus’ teaching. I agree that that is very important.
I know that Dr. Wright has been respectfully critical of C.S. Lewis for neglecting to place Jesus in His historical context. See
One thing that I’ve been thinking more about in recent years is that every culture creates narratives about themselves, often with the motivation to make themselves look good. I think Western peoples are coming to terms with the “colonialism” narrative. It’s painful, but I think it can be a healing process. Here in Canada, we have various narratives about ourselves that came out in the history I learned in school. Since school, I’ve read a fair amount of history, but I will admit that a lot of it was written by historians from the English-speaking Western nations. I am making an effort to read history/stories written by Indigenous peoples, and non-English peoples (translated).
I think I am learning that the discipline of the historian is very demanding. The historian must get facts straight, and they must interpret history in a balanced way, recognizing differing viewpoints. They may make conjectures about the meaning of history, but this must be done carefully, stating the assumptions under which the conclusions are drawn.
Theology? Of course! Natural theology? Not so sure about that. And I hardly think it provides objective evidence for religion. This doesn’t bother me because dealing with the subjective nature of life looks like the whole point of religion to me. But it is even more foolish to ignore history and the subjective necessities of life.
I like his focus on Epicureanism because it really is the greatest and oldest challenge to religion.
It is part of a contrast with science which is all about objective observation. Life is subjective participation. Science is about procedures which give you the same result no matter what you want or believe, but that is not something you can live your life without. Living your life, what you want matters and is even central. To be sure religion advises that not all desires are equally fulfilling. But even when it is love and serving others, that is not something you are pursuing like a machine. If you are not serving others because you want to, then your service is rather hollow.
Yes, I was just copy-pasting my notes. Resuming now, but I thought you would find this interesting. A library of scrolls burned in the Vesuvius eruption was just decoded. The first bits are from an Epicurean philosopher!
One of the videos that @Terry_Sampson shared mentioned this fire and the destruction of Epicurus’s writings. That anything at all remains from the library fire 2 thousand years ago is astonishing. Crazy project indeed!
Assuming Epicurus was wrong, librarians over time and geography weep tears of elation over this wonder!
