It helps me a lot to have the book, even if it’s hard on the eyes.
I think this quote from the intro to Chapter/Lecture 2 helps clarify what Wright is addressing in this chapter, the important of history in natural theology as well as the importance of a good understanding of and understanding of the aims of various types of scholarly work. Wright believes that the British misunderstanding of the German biblical scholars work and aims lead to disastrous ‘conclusions’ about God’s intervention in the world.
From pg. 45 & 46:
“The challenges of Reimarus (that Jesus was a failed Jewish revolutionary) and of Schweitzer (that Jesus was a failed 3nd-of-the-world visionary), though interestingly incompatible, were enough to generate the negative ‘assured result’ that the Gospels had got it wrong. Jesus was not after all what he had been made out to be. Any non-biblical Jesus, ‘reconstructed’ or at least reimagined, would do for this purpose…
…
It was thus assumed, on both sides of the North Sea, that ‘the scholars’, with their rigorous historical study, were siding with the eighteenth-century Deists. Science had proved evolution; scientific economics insisted on laissez-faire; scientific historiography had proved that God doesn’t intervene; scientific study of the four Gospels had shown them to be largely fictitious. Meanwhile the supposedly ‘simple believers’, who took incarnation, miracles, resurrection and all the rest at face value, were still living, it seemed, in the early eighteenth century or even, in the silly polemical usage one now meets all the time, in the ‘mediaeval’ period. These false antitheses are played out to this day, especially in America, in terms of the ‘culture wars’ in which all kinds of other issues, including creation and evolution, get bundled up together in false and damaging polarizations.”
Wright, N. T., History and Eschatology, Baylor University press, 2019.
Emphasis mine
Regarding thinking outside the box of our worldviews, I liked Dr. Wright’s point about the critical thinking about history. I look forward to his further explorations in the next lectures.
Another good piece of advice I’ve taken is C.S. Lewis’ advice to not read only current books. We can easily get trapped into thinking only in a “modern” way – only within our current cultural context. I’ve found it helpful to read books written by authors from other times and places in history. (Of course the Bible is one of them, but the principle applies to other books as well). As has been pointed out many times, there are scholars that can help us to read the Bible through the lens of the time and place in which it was written.
We can often think about modern issues in new ways by reading old books.
I recall reading the Epic of Gilgamesh and feeling my worldview shift; reading from the Egyptian Book of the Dead didn’t have so much of an impact, but Gilgamesh had me going, “These people didn’t think the way we do!”
Just BTW, in grad school when writing papers we got this same advice: don’t assume that more recent books are the only valuable ones – or for that matter that only the ones in our language are the valuable ones.
I think I’ve pulled together Wright’s entire thesis for this chapter from the book (pages 47 and 48).
Thesis of this chapter (pp. 47-48)
“I want in the present chapter to argue in particular that the idea of the literal and imminent ‘end of the world’ as a central belief of the first-century Jews, including Jesus and his early followers, is a modern myth (via Weiss and Schweitzer). The ‘end-of-the-world Jesus’ has become a vital part of the argument for keeping Jesus himself off stage in theological construction,…to this day.”
The modern myth: Jewish ‘apocalyptic’ writings predicted the end of the world; Jesus shared this view; after his disappointed death his followers went on with the same message. This time it was pegged to Jesus’ second coming our parousia, but this was still expected imminently. That hope was disappointed as well.
So long as the ‘delayed parousia‘ modern myth persists, any hope of bringing Jesus back into the question of ‘natural theology’ will be lost.
My questions:
Have I understood Wright’s thesis correctly?
If so, does Wright’s thesis seem to be correct or reasonable, or carry any real explanatory weight?
This reminds me of the nonsense of pushing historical criticism too far: it becomes possible to make up whatever you like and justify it from assumptions made about the scriptures.
I think this is where we will see Wright developing the need for a hermeneutic of love. If I understand what he means by it, he is pressing for a faithful (not faith-filled) reading of the biblical texts. That is to find out on their own terms what they say.
Assuming I understand him, that’s a really big ask. There is a lot to strip away to get to what the texts say, both theologically and culturally, but also in ourselves as readers.
I think your three points do accurately capture - not Wright’s thesis - but Wright’s thesis of the 19th century theological climate as reflected by Bultmann, Schweitzer, and co. (which is what I think you are pointing out - in your 3rd point.
As to your final question of how correct Wright is, I’m in no position to evaluate; other than to note that I’m pretty star-struck with his presentation which seems (to me) to carry all the explanatory weight in Wright’s able hands. What detractors may have to say against it, I’m not sure; or - are there even any detractors of the same scholarly caliber as Wright? I have my vague discomfort still, that I mentioned clumsily a few posts back - but that discomfort isn’t at all attached to some hole or deficiency of his thesis that I would know about. It’s only a philosophical squirming on my own part as I feel my own Epicurean prejudices challenged.
I love how Wright describes the 1st century situation, and the 19th century mis-appraisal of the same, about 29 minutes in … quoted / paraphrased below (definitely capturing some of his perfect turns of phrase!)
One of many reasons that Jews reject Christianity is that Jews believe the world as it is, has got to be transformed by God, while Christians believe in pie-in-the-sky when you die. So … how to help God’s project forward? First century Rabbis were not apocalyptic (by definition). Sadducees collaborated with Rome … Pharisees encouraged more strict obedience to Torah … Essenes said their prayers and waited … the revolutionaries sharpened their swords. There was no evidence anybody was thinking the world would end. Perceptions at the end of the 19th century went to two extremes. “Platonism for the masses” mocked by Nietszche (we’ll fly away…) and on the other hand, the liberal Protestants imagined it all as ancient Jewish priestcraft – blood and soil, and villified it as such. The real ancient Jewish view (and the Christian view that sprang from it) were nowhere in sight.
And finally at 30:30…
Neither side could imagine God’s kingdom coming on earth as it is in Heaven.
Wright’s stated thesis does include the “modern myth” of the 19th C. German theologians – in order to identify what Wright intends to critique and demonstrate as problematic. My understanding of Wright’s thesis, is that as long as this modern myth persists in the cultural and academic imagination, it bars Jesus from being included in the concept of natural theology.
Questions that come to my mind are:
Is Wright’s identification of this myth as damaging or altering to natural theology correct, particularly in wider theological studies?
Are there other factors that affect the conceptualization and study of natural theology (in particular) and Christian theology (in general) that Wright is leaving out?
Does including Jesus and history in natural theology make any real difference, and if so, does it make the one that Wright believes it does?
Like you, Merv, I love Wright’s strong emphasis on a renewed heaven and earth, a kingdom on earth – as real, physical reality.
I may not have much hope of identifying what he’s left out without first having a good handle on just what all he will pack into it. Which I’m still absorbing, even having listened to all eight lectures by now. Right now my only sense is that he’s more about identification and removal of destructive myths than he is about positive and robust construction of some edifice of natural theology.
As relating to natural theology among Christians today, I ran across this passage in fresh light this morning … from Acts 14, just as the fickle crowd is proposing to make sacrifices to their newly discovered benefactors, Barnabas and Paul. The two emissaries chastise the crowd, saying “Men, why are you doing these things? We are human, just like you! We proclaim the Good News to you, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations He allowed all the nations to go their own ways. Yet He did not leave Himself without a witness - He did good by giving you rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with joy and gladness.”
[My own emphasis added to that last sentence.]
Fruitful seasons! Those are regular things that people expect and hope for. Were Barnabas and Paul putting those forward as pointing specifically toward Christ? Or toward a theistic God generally? No doubt, that division would have been considered an artificial one by first century Messianic Jews such as these two. Moderns may try to separate the two out today and insist that “getting to God” does not necessarily bring one specifically to Christ. And they would have the whole pantheon of theistic religions and spiritists to put forward as exhibit. But it just strikes me as a fresh observation that Barnabas and Paul (and Wright?) seem eager to just consider and even put forward the Christ as God’s answer to all such questions and then let such explanation and clarity of result speak for itself in our hearts and minds. It isn’t that they don’t expend energy “proving” the Messiah from the law and the prophets - they do spend that obligatory time arguing in the Jewish synagogues before shaking the dust from their feet. I’m just not sure how much of a centerpiece such ‘natural theology’ always was for these emissaries in their witness. It seems to have made some showing here at least in Lystra. And to mixed results, given that Paul is about to be stoned. One gets the idea, though, that it was more of a fickle and easily manipulated mob than any body of scribes or careful thinkers evaluating arguments.
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.