[This is
an ongoing project that is analyzing N.T. Wright’s 5 volume series, Christian Origins
and the Question of God. This series is widely read and bridges the gap between
the academic and devotional world. It is therefore worthy to be carefully
analyzed so that all readers can understand his key points while at the same
time gaining a critical eye to some of his rather bold claims. This series of
posts are concerning volume 2 – Jesus and
the Victory of God.]
This chapter of Wright’s volume on the historical Jesus is
of particular value. Wright spends a chapter to analyze the say that Jesus used
and redefined symbols. He argues that such redefinition of symbols is where Jesus
became in actual conflict with the majority of the population. He argues that
while most do not study advanced theology, most all do understand their key
symbols of identity and a challenge to those would lead to actual dissent. At
at least some level, Wright is certainly accurate here. That Jesus did upset
many Jews’ symbols of identity is accurate. It is not clear that this was as
sweeping as Wright holds (holding that all – both the elites and the laity were
offended for the same reason). However, the approach itself is helpful, and
deserves the attention Wright has given it. The problem is the priority Wright
gives to some symbols (e.g. Temple) and the seeming dismissal of others (e.g.
Torah).
First, it is important to have a brief description of the
importance of symbols and the motivations of people. Wright asserts that Jesus
caused a stir larger than all other Jewish innovators because he readdressed
the symbols of Judaism whereas other reformers used the same symbols in
radically new ways. He makes the argument that it was this challenge of symbols
that caused unrest:
What generates hostility is a clash
of symbols. I shall argue in this chapter that Jesus implicitly and explicitly
attacked what had become the standard of symbols of the second-Temple Jewish
worldview; that the symbols of his own work were deeply provocative; and that
this redrawing of the symbolic world, as part of his kingdom-announcement, was
the cause of actual hostility against him.[1]
The idea behind this is sound. There were many people who
preached a variety of ideas that were unusual. Jesus, however, received more
negative feedback (so far as we know) than others did. If that is so, there
must have been something fundamentally different about Jesus’ message than
these other radical reformers. Wright’s analysis is that the primary difference
was dependent upon symbols. He argues that Jesus, unlike other prophets,
redefined symbols of action. That moves the reform from academic frustration to
actual change in people’s lives. Wright argues that this motivates people in
ways that they would not expect:
The proverbial she-bear robbed of
her cubs is not more prone to violence than an otherwise placid human being
whose deepest worldview-symbols have been overturned.[2]
Wright’s analysis here is at least partly true. It is
certainly the case that a simple legal dispute among Pharisees would make very
few people excited enough to pay attention much less become offended. Further,
symbol discourse is not a bad way to approach such a shift in thinking. The
question, though, becomes one as if this is too reductive or not. Wright makes
the argument that Jesus’ message not only offended the large mass of people
because it challenged their symbols, but that it was this that offended the
religious authorities as well. It seems relatively unlikely that the Pharisees
would have liked much about the way Jesus was expanding the boundaries of the
righteous – whether or not he would have changed any symbols.
As a heuristic tool, however, Wright’s focus on symbols is
worthy of the space he gives it. Jesus surely did challenge many of the symbols of Israel’s identity and those
symbols fulfilled their use – the truly symbolized
an object of identity. Given that, Jesus was arguing for a new type of
identity discourse. Whether he needed to use those symbols or not to get to
this identity discourse, it is precisely that discourse that matters.
Therefore, Wright’s focus is very helpful. Symbols are an excellent way to discuss
easily new identities – this makes it a helpful heuristic tool to understand
Jesus – and ways that Jesus may well have used these themselves as a heuristic
tool for the same reason.
The primary challenge that Jesus presented – according to
Wright – was of identity manifesting itself both politically and religiously.
Wright argues that due to Jesus’ radical message of eschatological boundaries,
it challenged much of what expectation held:
The controversy-stories are highly
like to be historical at the core; but their meaning is not the one
traditionally assigned to them. They were about eschatology and politics, not
religion or morality. Eschatology: Israel’s hope was being realized, but it was
happening in Jesus’ way, and at his initiative. Politics: the kingdom Jesus was
announcing was undermining, rather than underwriting, the revolutionary
anti-pagan zeal that was the target of much of Jesus’ polemic, the cause
(according to him) of Israel’s imminent ruin, and the focal point of much
(Shammaite) Pharisaic teaching and aspiration.[3]
Whether the
Pharisees were particularly “Shammaite” or not can be seriously questioned.
However, his basic message was eschatological and that eschatology caused him
to seriously redefine and reevaluate the symbols of Israel’s identity.
The problem with Wright’s analysis is not so much his
insistence upon which symbols were particularly challenged and which were not.
Consider his discussion that frames his previous point and applies it:
I therefore propose that the clash
between Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries, especially the Pharisees, must be
seen in terms of alternative political
agendas generated by alternative
eschatological beliefs and expectations. Jesus was announcing the kingdom
in a way which did not reinforce, but rather called into question, the agenda
of revolutionary zeal which dominated the horizon of, especially, the dominant
group within Pharisaism. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that he called
into question the great emphases on those symbols which had become the focal
points of that zeal: Sabbath, food taboos, ethnic identity, ancestral land, and
ultimately the temple itself. The symbols had become enacted codes for the
aspirations of his contemporaries. Jesus, in challenging them, was not
‘speaking against the Torah” per se. He was certainly not “speaking against”
the idea of Israel as the chosen people of the one true god. Rather, he was
offering an alternative way of telling Israel’s true story, and alternative to
the piety which expressed itself in nationalistic symbols. He was affirming Israel’s election even as he redefined it, just as other Jewish
groups and parties did. This was, of course, revolutionary; which was why, in
all the stories up to the time of the Temple-incident itself, the message
remained veiled and cryptic.[4]
Here, I actually agree with Wright to a certain degree –
Jesus very much affirmed Israel’s election – what he changed was who could be
included. Most notable for this is the language of “kingdom of God” throughout
the New Testament. One should note that Jesus never has to define this or
defend it. Apparently, all his hearers agreed with him on that front. The
kingdom of God was the enaction of Israel’s election. Where they disagreed was
not that Israel was elect, but who was
truly part of Israel – who was righteous in God’s sight. Here Wright and I are
in complete agreement. Where we disagree is which symbols he feels enacts this
– sabbath, food laws, ethnic identity, land, and temple. What is shockingly
missing here is the larger issue of Torah. Throughout this chapter, he disc
uses several particular issues of Torah, but does not sufficiently discuss it.
Torah, it can be reasonably argued, was the key symbol of
identity for Judaism at the time of Jesus. Wright, weirdly, recognizes this at
one point, with his only paragraph discussing issues of Torah:
Along with Jesus’ redefinition of
nation and family, and quite consistent with it, there went his redefinition of
Torah. This is a huge topic, and yet the main point here can be stated quite
simply. Torah defined Israel: specifically, the works of the Torah functioned
as symbolic praxis, as the set of badges which demonstrated both to observant
Jews and to their neighbors that they were indeed the people of the covenant.
For Jesus, the symbolic praxis that would mark out his followers, and which
therefore can be classified as, in that sense, redefined Torah, is set out in
such places as the Sermon on the Mount, which we have studied elsewhere. In
particular, his returned-from-exile people, who had themselves received ‘mercy’
and ‘forgiveness’ precisely in being Jesus’ people, were now under obligation
to demonstrate the same ‘mercy’ and ‘forgiveness’ in their new-family
relationships. Jesus table fellowships virtually replaced the food laws.
Forgiveness lay at the heart of the symbolic praxis which was to characterize
his redefined Israel.[5]
While there are some questions as to what Wright says about
Torah, here he does seem to affirm the basic position that Jesus’ redefinition
of Torah was tantamount. If that is so, why is it that he does not include this
conversation (what I have quoted is most all he says about Torah as a symbol)?
The answer seems to revolve around the issue of his
relationship of Jerusalem and the Galilee. He argues that in the Galilee, the
Torah was the key identity piece; however, in Jerusalem – where Jesus was
killed – the Temple was far more paramount. Consider Wright’s explanation of
this contrast:
The temple was to Judaea what the
Torah was to Galilee. That is an oversimplification, but perhaps a useful one.
In fact, of course, until AD 70 the Torah remained firmly in second place,
dependent upon the Temple. Nevertheless, in terms of the symbols by which the
life of Jewish people in the two areas was ordered, the aphorism holds true.
Loyalty to Temple in Judaea functioned in parallel to loyalty to Torah in
Galilee.[6]
Here Wright contrasts the two areas of Roman Judaea – the
temple dominated the Torah in Jerusalem. This is a very common view, but these
days most find it unconvincing. However, it is from this view that he finds it
acceptable – seemingly – to avoid discussion of Torah as a symbol of identity
that Jesus challenged.
The problem with the bifurcation between Jerusalem and the
Galilee for religious devotion is that it is not historically supported. Martin
Hengel has shown that there is not clear evidence for nearly as much diversity
between Judaisms as some being very “traditional” and others being very
“Hellenistic” or reformed.[7]
Further, there is little reason to suspect that just because people did not
live near the Temple that they could not make it the centerpiece of their
worship. After all, after the temple was destroyed, there continued to be
devotional Jews who saw the Temple as their primary way of reaching God. By contrast,
it is equally unsure that just because one lived close to the temple did it
mean that the temple guided all worship practice. Rather, we know that there
were divisions among Jews along socio-economic and ideological grounds that
pitted some groups against others, and the temple was one primary thing that
divided people, with some – such as the Qumran community – wanting absolutely
nothing to do with it.
In all, this chapter is a wonderful heuristic approach, the
only major critique I have is that Torah has been seemingly lessened. If this
were simply an omission, that would be less of a serious issue. The concern,
however, is that it is done this way because Jesus’ views about Torah are far
more nuanced and it is far less clear that Jesus was, in fact, refiguring Torah
at all. That makes the entire picture more complex, and at the very least it
would have been very helpful for Wright to clarify that particular aspect.
No comments:
Post a Comment