I’ve looked for a readable version … unsuccessfully so far. Kendel would be aware of such things or how to find them if anybody could. Of course there is Wright’s book - which Kendel linked in the OP above, but that is probably overkill for what you’re asking for. You can also turn on youtube captioning for the online lectures, if that helps. As I recall, the captioning did a decent job - not like the hilariously bad ‘auto-captioning’ systems one sometimes encounters.
@Vinnie There’s the book version that I reference in the OP, but it’s expensive. I have requested a copy through ILL, but it seems to be perpetually “in transit.” Which very well could mean “lost.”
Unfortunately, I can’t even get YouTube to generate an auto transcript.
I would prefer to have the text as well. But I haven’t been able to get it yet. Sorry. I’ll keep you posted if there are any changes.
I managed to get my hands on a pdf. I skimmed a little but will give chapter 2 a solid go. Seems bloaty at first glance. I like it when authors get right to the point.
1 Like
Do you have a link?
I listened to Wright’s Giffords lectures when they were first put online. A bit later I read the book. The chapters are not quite identical to the lectures, but are substantially the same. And I just listened to the first lecture again and took some notes so I could participate in the discussion when it gets started.
BTW I had some oral discussions with Tom Wright at his home in St. Andrews back in April 2017, when he was preparing the lectures. Mostly about temple and sabbath theology.
6 Likes
Maybe you can help anticipate how he might answer questions and challenges that come up! Anybody that’s read the book would (I think) be hyper-prepared for this. I’ve listened (and by now re-listened) to many of his lectures multiple times, but that wouldn’t be like having read his book I’m sure. It will be good to have you around. I can’t wait for this to get started!
-Merv
3 Likes
Lecture 1 discussion opens tomorrow.
Still have to finish my notes, and I know I’m missing lots.
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.
Opening Post (OP)
You are here: Jan 5, 2024: Lecture 1 - The Fallen Shrine: Lisbon 1755 and the Triumph of Epicureanism
Jan 19, 2024: Lecture 2 - The Questioned Book: Critical Scholarship and the Gospels
Feb 2, 2024: Lecture 3 - The Shifting Sand: The Meanings of ‘History’
Feb 16, 2024: Lecture 4 - The End of the World? Eschatology and Apocalyptic in Historical Perspective
Mar 1, 2024: Lecture 5 - The Stone the Builders Rejected: Jesus, the Temple and the Kingdom
Mar 15, 2024: Lecture 6 - A New Creation: Resurrection and Epistemology
March 29, 2024: Lecture 7 - Broken Signposts? New Answers for the Right Questions
April 12, 2024: Lecture 8 - The Waiting Chalice: Natural Theology and the Missio Dei
2 Likes
I hope I’m not jumping the gun in kicking this off … but I’ll just put a few things out here already that have been percolating for me lately related to Wright’s lectures - this first comment is, I think, an underlying theme of all the lectures - not just the first one and for me is at the heart of what his whole series is about.
Where is our real home? Is it away from this world with Christ in some other place as seems to be the case in a passage like the opening to John chapter 13? Jesus departing from this world to be with the Father there? Or is it in our resurrected state as part of the transformed and redeemed creation here as described in the heart of Romans 8? Wright works hard over the course of all these lectures to show that the early Hebrew listeners and apostles of the time all presumed the latter of those two options. While Wright’s first lecture only sets the stage for this question - it will be the question (I think, - at least what I took from it all anyway) that underlies the whole project, and is already hinted at in this first lecture where he establishes the ancient and enduring context of Epicureanism through the ages even into our present times. I probably shouldn’t have even brought this up now, because I don’t want to derail from the outset our specific discussion of the first lecture, when it is really probably later lectures when this question will really come to the foreground and be better discussed there. But for any who haven’t listened to them all yet, it may be helpful to have these things in mind - and indeed Wright does in this first lecture lay out his plan for all the lectures. So he isn’t trying to spring surprises on people and does a good job of pointing out his intentions.
One notable line from lecture number 1 (about 38 minutes in):
“The nineteenth century had many virtues. Modesty was not one of them.”
I really liked that! (Maybe it’s true that ‘modesty’ has probably never been much of a virtue of any recent age?) Though - in terms of our collective arrogance taking major hits; Wright speaks of the Lisbon earthquake as being a turning point for the theological / escatalogical optimisms of that age. No longer could they, with complete sobriety, just easily think that “this was the best of all possible worlds” and that God’s kingdom was just gloriously becoming more and more apparent here in the world.
I wonder if it would be a fair comparison to think that the pair of world wars and genocidal atrocities were to our scientific arrogance of the 20th century what the Lisbon earthquake was to the theological optimisms of that century? Has our scientific arrogance been checked in the same ways? Thoughts?
I have a lot more specific lecture 1 notes, but I’ll just start with the above.
5 Likes
Brave man, @Mervin_Bitikofer; starting the discussion. And you are one of those folks in a far western time zone!
I have listening, reading and notes to finish this morning, before I can get very far, but I like the way you point out overarching themes and threads that go through the entire series. I think that is helpful. I will add a few more:
-
He confronts the effect of specific underlying assumptions (Epicureanism, deism, Platonism, etc.) on the way we understand everything related to God and his action in the world, including the way Christians understand Christianity.
-
In relation to 1. Wright resists the understanding that there is a strict separation between the natural world and God’s action in it.
-
He critiques the traditional notions of Natural Theology, among which is (what I take to be the most commonly held) “signs of God’s existence within creation,” and redefines it to include “things that happened”, ie. History, specifically history including Jesus as recorded in the New Testament.
-
He places the existence of evil squarely within his discussion.
-
He develops the concept of an “Epistemology of Love,” explaining in the book: “overcomes the false polarization between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’, between the Idealist and the Empiricist. Love jumps the gap – or rather, love insists that there was never really that kind of gap in the first place.”
Of tangential interest to me in this first lecture (they could be their own threads, and I’ll try not to make much of them, in order to avoid derailing the more important topics to cover): his (wrong) assessement of the sharp division of church and state in the U.S., and his digs at Postmodernism (PoMo) and Multiculturalism.
To MY homework. I look forward to the thoughts other people bring to this discussion!
3 Likes
As I understand it, in the nineteenth century, the overwhelming interpretation was that of post-millennialism, where Christ would return after a golden age, but was rather turned on its head by events like the Lisbon earthquake and WWI in the early 20th century. It is interesting how events like that can affect whole segments of theological thought.
2 Likes
I’m neither a historian nor a philosopher so I enjoyed seeing how Wright linked various worldviews across the centuries in this first lecture. It seemed he was more-or-less equating ancient Epicureanism with modern atheism, saying “atheism is the end of the epicurean road”. It seemed he was also linking Enlightenment thought with Epicureanism–the idea that “I am master of my own fate”, and the the importance of human rationalism (as opposed to God) in creating a good world. Something that has morphed into the optimistic “scientism” and the idea of inevitable progress of the modern age.
This brought to mind Steven Pinker’s book “The better angels of our nature” which was published in 2011. I was always skeptical of the variables and statistics used in that book to argue that the world was the best it has ever been and only getting better. I think Wright referred briefly to Pinker in this lecture, as one of those “optimistic enlightenment” thinkers. I wonder if Pinker would have changed his mind if he was interviewed today? As @Mervin_Bitikofer implied above, maybe we in the West are having another “Lisbon moment” now?
I didn’t pick up on much commentary about post-modern thought, I’d be interested if @Kendel sees it mapping onto any of this epicureanism/enlightment/athiesm/. Maybe post-modern thinking just stresses more individualism? I don’t know if postmodernism is generally thought to be an “optimistic” or a “pessimistic” world view? Do post-modernists have a sense of human-driven progress to a goal as did the modern enlightenment thinkers?
I look forward to hearing others’ insights during this lecture series.
6 Likes
Thanks for that reminder - yeah; They were busy trying “usher in” that golden age by working to make things better and prepare the way for that kingdom. Did Wright actually mention that in this first lecture? I’m not remembering if he did, but it would seem to fly in the face of his overall-thesis as I see it.
I watched a video recently of a preacher (Assemblies of God) whose repeated emphasis was that they need to “reach all the nations” because this is the guaranteed way to bring Christ’s return. Whether good works or getting the map covered with the message - either way seems like the way to ‘force God’s hand’.
Not too long ago I read “Factfulness” by Hans Rosling - and he makes a pretty compelling (well-researched) case for general improvements (over all) in the world. He didn’t say things were better everywhere of course. But I do remember one thing he said that with the exception of only a small handful of currently wartorn countries, life is better now in virtually every nation in the world than it was in that same nation 50 years ago - across all income strata, I believe. There is less poverty, less violence, etc. (impressions given by our news diet regimens notwithstanding.)
3 Likes
At about 41 minutes in, Wright suggests that …
… postmodernism hasn’t actually made much headway against the tide of modernism that still sweeps forward.
So it seems to me that Wright still sees Modernism (as the latest manifestation of Epicurianism) to be the still-quite-healthy behemoth not much bothered by a few pesky postmodern challenges or nuissances buzzing around its periphery. (my words - not his).
In other contexts (Catholic Bishop Baron coming to mind - and he isn’t alone) there is some celebration of postmodernism, even, for helping Christians to finally break up the whole modernist log-jam of the last centuries. Sounds to me like Wright thinks any funeral plans for modernism are all premature.
3 Likes
I recall that some of my skepticism surrounding Pinkers optimistic claims such as “slavery has been eliminated now in modern times” is that it does not recognize the thousands of women and children in “3rd world” countries working in sweat-shops to produce cheap goods for the West. Essentially, it seems like we have just outsourced “slavery” in a way that it is just less easily observed in modern times. And I don’t doubt that the “average wealth” of countries has risen, if one measures it simply as GDP. Considering that such wealth often is derived from increasingly sophisticated technologies which are able to extract resources (at greater cost to the environment and probably the bottom 90% of the population)… As to there being less violence and war…hmmmm?
I guess one thing to take from Wright’s history lesson is that worldviews are often cyclic, or repeated across the centuries. Anyways, personally, I’m not very convinced of a linear “progress” in the human condition generally, although I do agree that modern technology has improved lifespans and health to some extent…at least for those fortunate enough to be able to access such care.
6 Likes
I am also not convinced of Pinker’s thesis that the world is less violent now than it has ever been. According to my church bulletin, currently there are more than 110 armed conflicts in the world. Middle East and North Africa: more than 45 ; Africa: more than 35 ; Asia: 21; Europe 7 ; Latin America: 6. Many of these conflicts are not in the news feeds of people in the West.
I did see the first N.T. Wright lecture, and found it edifying. I do have some familiarity of Dr. Wright’s theological insights from reading his book “Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church”, which is targeted more to a layperson like me than to academia.
3 Likes
Yes, those comparisons are outstanding. World War I was devastating not only in its toll on lives, economies, resources and infrastructure, but on the Western psyche. Then the Second came along and disproved the notion of a War to End All Wars. (At least in the U.S. we have managed to glorify the second a bit and forget what it tells us about human nature in general.) Wars have not stopped coming ever since. Wealthy nations may have better infrastructure in place now to help maintain power balances, but this could hardly be considered a result of Human Progress. Maybe Human Shrewdness.
I haven’t read Pinker’s book, @klw, but I think you’re right to be skeptical of his use of figures.
Another dubious example of C. 19 progress appears in Kierkegaard and the New Nationalism which I read recently. The author, Millay, described the Danish Golden Age as having arisen from Denmark’s relatively small yet very lucratively successful participation in colonialism, the slave trade and financial benefits of political neutrality that allowed them to sell to both sides in a number of European wars. The wealth came a great cost to others, AND benefitted only a few, the bourgeoisie of Copenhagen. Danish peasants as well as the Danish servant class saw no real benefit.
@klw asked about how Postmodernism (PoMo) might relate to Wright’s discussion. First (always first when PoMo comes up), in spite of the work I have done with some of it, I have a lot to learn about Postmodernism. As do most people who mention it. Don’t trust anyone who mentions it to know what they’re talking about. Follow up.
The connection with PoMo and Wright’s lecture is neatly stated in a Cliff’s Notes post, (vindicating student (ab)use of Cliff’s Notes even at the college level):
The post-modernists criticized ‘Enlightenment’ philosophers: their optimism, faith in progress and science, reliance on abstract rationality, and lack of historical self-awareness did little to prevent atrocity. It was science and ‘bureaucratic’ rationality that made it possible to build weapons of mass destruction and organize genocide, they claim: “The Fully Enlightened Earth Radiates Disaster Triumphant,” Adorno wrote. Are they right? Has the ‘long peace’ since WWII shown the post-modern critique wrong? Or are we headed towards worst disasters yet, such as climate change, which ‘modern’ scientific rationality cannot solve?
From: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/tutors-problems/Philosophy/47147759-The-post-modernists-criticized-Enlightenment-philosophers-their/#:~:text=The%20post-modern%20critique%20of,destructive%20nature%20of%20human%20beings.
A rather more academic nutshell intro is available here in an article on postmodernism and rationality.
In the lecture (00:40:20), Wright really says little about PoMo: “Postmodernism directly challenges the narrative of progress. Wisdom does not advance chronologically. But even with the horrors or the 20th Century, the postmodern protest hasn’t actually made much headway.” On page 28 of the book, History and Eschatology he corrects a bit and says: “The protests of postcolonialism have often been shrill, simplistic and merely pragmatic.”
One of the great strengths of PoMo, IMO, is its disclosure of and exploration of power relationships as well as the political nature of all sorts of relationships. This is actually carried out even more in postcolonial studies. Anyone who thinks that postcolonialism is not making a difference is unaware of DEI work in the U.S. and blossoming success in telling Comprehensive (“Revisionist” if you don’t like it) History, for example.
Based on the very few things I’ve read by Wright, I am in danger of adoring him uncritically. I want to be fair and as demanding of intellectual honesty and accuracy of him as anyone, but also to acknowledge and value it when I see it. So far I’ve enjoyed Wright’s mapping of western philosophy and popular thought. I hope he isn’t cherry picking – so easy to do with such a body of material to choose from. However, he is certainly highlighting enormously influential thinkers, whose influence we can see today. I think his assessment of the overall view of human progress is also accurate.
I am curious about where he is going with his concern about the “removal” of God from the 5 areas he mentioned: Politics, Science, Economics, History and Jesus. I get the last one or two. I’m curious if he sees a need to incorporate notions God into our understanding of Politics, Science, Economics and History (in addition to New Testament history). And if so, how? Or does he have a different purpose for developing this list? I’ll be watching for this.
I am looking forward to the development of his reconceptualization of Natural Theology. I’ve not found the common understanding of Natural Theology (working one’s way logically, rationally from nature to God) to be very effective. Wright’s insistence on the inclusion of history – things that really happened in the world – in a new concept of natural theology seems like it could be fruitful.
I am also anxious to see how he incorporates love into epistemology. Does he mean by this simply giving the benefit of the doubt? If so, then many additional questions follow.
5 Likes
Wow! …so much there! One simple little ‘like’ seemed insufficient. Maybe I’ll have some lucid response tomorrow with morning brain.
I do hear what you’re saying about being in danger of adoring all things Wright.
I’ll only say for now that while I also wouldn’t be inclined to trust Pinker’s optimism (though I’ve not read his book myself) but I have read Rosling’s. And even if Factfulness is 6 years out of date by now, I’ll never again just glibly trust our anecdotal impressions about ‘how bad the world is’ again either. Because Rosling compellingly killed off the facil notion that our media crafted impressions of the actual state of the world are at all reliable in this. (Not in a climate change denialist kind of way, he wasn’t denying there are serious problems facing us). But instead of our anecdotal impressions, Rosling instead just goes for actual statistics - which (at that time - and at many times in our recent history) often overturns our concerned perceptions about the global states of things.
3 Likes
Not directly, but it was an outgrowth of the optimism of the time he referenced.
Yet one more ‘PoMo’ mention of his that I think I put in pithy quotes somewhere before, but bears repetition here… (from about 42 minutes in the lecture)
“We live in an Epicurean paradise. It comes at a cost, often born by others.”
…following on that…
Our progress in housing, health, on so many fronts is very real, but our arrogant notion that our latest western cultural or moral fads are also then superior to all the ancients is laughable. No wonder we are in such a mess with multiculturalism and postmodern identity politics and such.
The above sentiment might be a bit more of an echo of the criticism you and @klw were expressing? Wright does see a mess and PoMo is among the influences at whose feet he lays our current ‘mess’.
As I recall - in one of the later lectures, he will give a nicely concise summary of his response to this very question.
It will be fun to be on the lookout for the answer to this. Even if that answer turns out to be … “you can’t get there from here” … or at least, not from there unaided by the historical revelation of Christ. That might be one of his possible responses to natural theology, but I’m probably oversimplifying or outright forgetting some nuance or important things that could yet be filled in.
Here is a question of mine - provoked from about 44:30.
Wright takes issue with the view that the Bible is supposed to be about detached truths that somehow stand above or apart from history. The Bible is a book grounded in history – about historical things. ‘If history is part of the natural world, then why can’t we use it (i.e. - the Bible) in natural theology?’, Wright asks.
This provokes a question for me relevant to our context here on this place: Even though Wright doesn’t take it this direction, does the above nonetheless challenge an evolutionary creationist approach to how scriptures are used? As in, (would it be fair to say) we tend to spiritualize the scriptures? Our detractors certainly accuse us of doing that a lot (say … over matters of death and the entry of sin in the world.) I know Wright is nowhere close to being anything like YEC, but still … can’t one imagine various fundamentalists getting at least a little excited to hear Wright speaking this way?
3 Likes
Here’s the fuller quote from the video (44:19-45:06):
There’s something missing – history in general and the history of Jesus in particular. History has to do with things that happen in the natural world. Here is a paradox. Our historical evidence for Jesus is mostly found in the New Testament, so you might that, “Oh! That wouldn’t count. That’s part of the special revelation we’re not supposed to be using.” But that’s muddled that imagines that the Bible consists of abstract supernatural truths revealed from above. In fact much of the Bible, especially the Gospels, purports to be about stuff that happened in the world. History about things that actually went on. The more we follow Hume and Gibbon and Reimarus, the more we find Jesus as a man of his time as part of the flow of history, part of the natural world order.
I think your question is an important one that a number of participants hammer away on regularly. In particular I have @adamjedgar and @RichardG in mind. It’s also part of the reason I refuse to adopt any particular group identifier, such as evolutionary creationist, connecting my faith and my understanding of the natural world. If one does adopt the name, what does it really mean? There is no official doctrinal statement, catechesis or systematic theology, is there? If there were, what would it be like?
Adam and Richard (others I’m sure, sorry to leave anyone out) regularly point out the holes. People like @Vinnie and @mitchellmckain (and others) have worked hard to incorporate what they understand of the natural world and Scripture, yet have come to very different conclusions from each other and from “the orthodox.” Answering your question, @Mervin_Bitikofer will take serious thought and work.
To be clear, Wright is talking about sections of scripture that are historical in nature, and he singles out the Gospels in particular, pointing out that they claim to be about “stuff that happened in the world.” I think even those who do call themselves Evolutionary Creationists would say that the entire Bible is not solely a spiritual message. But when specifically considering evolution in light of Scripture, which is unaware of it, we come quickly to large hermeneutical questions and decisions.
4 Likes