[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 3 – The Resurrection of the Son of God. Due to time constraints, I can
no longer do a “chapter by chapter” analysis and instead can only do a “section
by section” analysis. This section, for example, covers 4 chapters.]
N.T. Wright has extended his argument through Paul into the
rest of the New Testament. He argues that the interpretation of resurrection
that we found in Paul – that there was a view developed from the Pharisaic
understanding that was emphasized in a new and different way. His argument is
for essential continuity and argues that other traditions that developed in
early Christianity were due to communities who rejected the ideas of Christ and
were not basing their views on the New Testament. Wright’s greatest merit is
his careful discussion of the various passages with an interest in resurrection
in the New Testament texts. His problem is the way he has forced a kind of
unanimity of thought upon them where it is difficult to see how well this view
can be held – outside of some vague Hegelian ideal – namely the concept that
different phenomena can be boiled down to a single “ideal” which is what is
“most real” about it (which for Hegel then progresses through his famous
thesis/antithesis/synthesis). Why this view is so appealing is that it allows
him to create a kind of unity when, at least in rhetoric, such is not nearly as
clear.
First, Wright argues that the whole of New Testament holds an
idea very similar to Jewish expectation of resurrection, particularly in regard
to the Pharisees. He argues that this is the line of development that early
Christians used, however, they emphasized resurrection in ways, and to an
extent that second temple Jews never did:
We have looked at the different
emphases and passages in the different writers and traditions, but in summary
we can easily put them back together again. When we place the entire gospel
tradition on the map of life-after-death beliefs we sketched in chapters 2-4,
it is obvious that, as we just said about John they belong with the Jewish view
over against the pagan one; and, within the Jewish view, with the Pharisees
(and others who agreed with them) over against the various other options.
However, we not only find a significantly higher incidence of resurrection as a
theme, by comparison even with those second-Temple writers who are enthusiasts
for it. We also find a development and redefinition of it, not too different
(though usually expressing other ways) from what we found in Paul.
‘Resurrection’ still means, in the last analysis, god’s gift of new bodily life
to all his people at the end (and, in the case of John 5, new bodily life even
for those who are raised in order to hear their own doom). But it can also be
used, in a manner cognate with the development of metaphorical uses in Judaism,
to denote the restoration of god’s people in the present time, as for instance
in the dramatic double summary of the prodigal son’s being ‘dead and alive
again’ in Luke 15. This is then dramatically acted out in the ‘raisings’ of
people from death, that of Lazarus being obviously the most striking.[1]
This is very similar to his argument about Paul – that
resurrection was something that was both something in the future and now. The
argument, one will recall, was predicated upon the idea that the real
resurrection was not life “after death” but life during the period after “after death,” meaning, the time
after the already expected kind of shadowy existence that was already expected
after death. Instead, it was some kind of later reality that would be ushered
in as the kingdom of God. Indeed, he argues that discussion of the kingdom of
God nearly always entailed language of resurrection:
Having said all that, it is of
course important to stress also that the main theme of Jesus’ announcement, in
word and deed, was the kingdom of god. Granted that not all kingdom-of-god
movements at the time were necessarily resurrection-movements as well (i.e. it
is perfectly conceivable that some of those who used kingdom-of-god language
about their movements distanced themselves from Pharisaic hope), it is
extremely liked that anyone announcing the kingdom of Israel’s god in the first
half of the first century would be assumed to include resurrection as part of
the overall promise.[2]
He argues that Jesus’ use of kingdom of God language as
discussed by the synoptic gospels puts him firmly on the same ground as that of
Paul and the Pharisees.
The only real difference was the frequency with which the
early Christians discussed resurrection, and the manner of what this future
life would hold. Consider what he has to say in the following passage where he
helpfully lists out his conclusions in a list:
We have now surveyed roughly
two-thirds of the material in the New Testament. We have found, representing
several significant strands of early Christianity, (1) a belief in the future
resurrection which matches that of the Pharisees (and which, like theirs,
implies some kind of intermediate state); (2) a much more frequent reference to
this than in the surrounding Jewish material; (3) two variations on the Jewish
theme, namely the belief that ‘the resurrection’ had been anticipated in the
case of Jesus, and would be completed for all his people, and the belief that
this resurrection was not simply a resuscitation into the same kind of life but
rather a going though death and
out into a new sort of life beyond, into a body that was no longer susceptible
to decay and death; (4) a fresh use of ‘resurrection’ as a metaphor for the
restoration of God’s people, referring now not to the restoration of Israel
after exile, but to the new life, including holiness and worship, which people
could enjoy in the present.[3]
Here, he shows his views – that resurrection was used in a
new way, but was developed from a Pharisaic view.
Wright’s arguments for the Pharisees as an antecedent in the
view of the resurrection makes some sense, particularly for Paul. The problem
is the way he views the unity of thought throughout the entire New Testament.
Consider his note about this:
But the New Testament itself
speaks, if not with one voice, certainly with a cluster of voices singing in
close harmony. All the major books and strands, with the single exception of
Hebrews, make resurrection a central and important topic, and set it within a
framework of Jewish thought about the one god as creator and judge. This
resurrection belief stands firmly over against the entire world of paganism on
the one hand. Its reshaping, around the resurrection of Jesus himself, locates
it as a dramatic modification within Judaism on the other.[4]
He allows that Hebrews is an exception, but nothing else.
That is too much of an overstatement. That resurrection in its eventual form in
the future could be unified is possible, but difficult. The idea of how this
resurrection spills over into the present, however, is far harder. How can one
reasonably put together Mark and Paul which discuss a theology of suffering (or
in Lutheran terms, a “theology of the cross”) with the Gospel of John which
argues for a kind of full participation in the mystical unity of the community
with Jesus in the present?
It seems that Wright has an underlying argument – that all
early Christians thought that the resurrection would be bodily. This, of course, is accurate for our New Testament
documents (though I’m not sure if it is the most interesting question).
However, that the New Testament could be
interpreted differently is quite obvious. Wright has a chapter on the 2nd-3rd
century to explore this challenge. He argues for essential continuity, though
he does have a lengthy discussion of documents he calls “Gnostic” which suggest
a far more spiritual rather than bodily resurrection. He argues that they
developed this by abandoning the traditional views of Jesus and that they have
no sources in tradition:
What it means is that the bulk of
Nag Hammadi and similar documents do not represent a parallel stream, with
similarly early sources, to that which we find in the line from Paul to
Tertullian. They represent a new movement entirely, which has explicitly cut
off the roots of the ‘resurrection’ belief in Judaism, its scriptures, its doctrines
of creation and judgment, and its social situation of facing persecution from
imperial authority. This is a form of spirituality which, while still claiming
the name of Jesus, has left behind the very things that made Jesus who he was,
and that made the early Christians what they were.[5]
The problem, of course, is that it is fine for him to come to
this conclusion in some sense – particularly if the question was whether all of
these views were orthodox or not – of course,
they eventually would not be called orthodox. However, if one goes beyond that
question to the harder one for what it meant for early Christianity that such
views were possible is far harder. What does it tell us about early Christians
that many held such views? Just because Wright does not think that the New
Testament should be read this way does not mean it is so clear that it should not.
In fact, his argument seems predicated upon his idea of a weight of evidence –
that the number of texts, which held a bodily resurrection, so outweigh all
others, this must be the proclamation of the early church. The way he does this
is by addressing this as a unity. The problem, of course, is all these texts
that show some communities disagreed.
I am not arguing that Wright is necessarily wrong. I do
think that most all of the New Testament texts which discussed the matter, did
envision a bodily resurrection. However, I am not sure they have such a unified
vision. Nowhere does he allow a kind of Platonic understanding that has been
Christianized to allow for a physicality in the world of the ideals which is of
course, unknown to Plato – rather than what he calls a “Jewish” view. He allows
this for Hebrews but for nothing else. It is not clear why precisely this would
not be the case for at least major sections of the Gospel of John, for example.
Therefore, if Wright simply drew back his conclusions one step and made more
qualified claims, he would have a stronger argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment