[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.]
Wright in his second chapter that aims to map the field of
Ne Testament studies, presents an analysis of the “Third Quest.” In his
analysis, however, he readly admits that he agrees with this framework and
rightly does not simply map it but uses the discussion as a way of introducing
his scheme that he will use throughout the book. This is a far superior chapter
to the previous because he does not even try to map out “objectively” the
field, but instead uses that field in order to present his own work. The value,
then, is less in his discussion of the third quest in itself (in which some
people might find his analysis helpful or not), but rather is very helpful as a
heuristic model to introduce his basic scheme. Therefore, this analysis will be
about the enquiry he agrees with rather than the more general discussion of the
“Third Quest” itself.
First, Wright lauds the third quest because he sees it as
taking history far more seriously than the “New Quest” from the previous
chapter. He feels it places the figure of Jesus in a Jewish context and as such
should be prioritized over any other analysis that does not do the same:
There is now a real attempt to do
history seriously. Josephus, so long inexplicably ignored, is suddenly and
happily in vogue. There is a real willingness to be guided by first-century
sources, and to see the Judaism of that period in all its complex pluriformity,
with the help now available from modern studies of the history and literature
of the period….Certain basic questions emerge: Jesus’ message is evaluated, not
for its timeless significance, but for meaning it must have had for the
audience of its own day, who had their minds full of poverty and politics, and
would have had little time for theological abstraction of timeless verities.
The crucifixion, long recognized as an absolute bedrock in history, is now
regularly mad the centre of understanding: what must Jesus have been like if he
ended up on a Roman cross?[1]
Wright appreciates the perspective precisely because it
focuses on the aspect of the first century that he finds most helpful – its
Jewish worldview. The crucifixion is further understood in its political
context of an occupied Roman Palestine. This, he sees to be helpful because it
emphasizes the sources we have rather than hypothesizing sources we do not
have. In this sense, the “Third Quest” can rightly be analyzed as more
productive than the New Quest simply in terms of sources. However, we should be
careful not to dismiss the New Quest on those grounds alone – just because we
happen to have these sources does not necessarily mean that they are the best
sources to understand Jesus and his message.
Wright makes what he considers a bold statement about the
study of the historical Jesus – that it is less a study of evaluating sources
and more a study of the structural premises. Here, not only do I agree with
Wright, but I don’t think it is all that bold of a statement at all – it is
apparent that one’s theory of history will define one’s sources. Wright
explains:
Within the Third Quest, which is
where I locate this present book, the task before the serious historian of
Jesus is not in the first instance conceived as the reconstruction of
traditions about Jesus, according to their place within the history of the
early church, but the advancement of serious historical hypotheses – that is,
the telling of large-scale narratives – about Jesus himself, and the examination
of the prima facie relevant data to
see how they fit.[2]
This is clearly accurate and a helpful admission. The study
of the historical Jesus is firmly grounded in one’s theoretical position. The
sources are such that one’s position will necessitate one’s conclusion.
The position then of Wright is found within a framework of 5
key questions that he argues ought to be asked of the text. These questions fit
within a larger framework of squaring a Jewish Jesus with a movement that
developed into a “world religion” (if such a term means anything) by less than
100 years after his death:
The five questions are all
subdivisions of the larger question, which, I submit, all historians of the
first century, no matter what their background, are bound to ask, namely: how
do we account for the fact that, by AD 110, there was a large and vigorous
international movement, already showing considerable diversity, whose founding
myth (in a quite ‘neutral’ sense) was a story about one Jesus of Nazareth, a
figure of the recent past?[3]
Wright is certainly correct that there are a few key events
that we can know about Jesus’ life (crucifixion, baptism, parables, etc.); but
we can know with absolute certainly what the movement became in the generations
after his death. Any good historian must deal with that particular issue.
Wright then sharpens this initial observation into five key questions:
So, sharpening up these issues into
our five main questions: How does Jesus fit into the Judaism of his day? What
were his aims? Why did he die? How did the early church come into being, and
why did it take the shape it did? And Why are the gospels what they are?[4]
Here Wright squares several questions which he later
elaborates. Note the two main foci – the Jewish Jesus dying on the Roman cross
and the sources for his life – the later movement that followed.
Wright then discusses what he sees as the real problem –
answering all of the questions. He
finds it not as difficult to answer questions relating to the early church or
questions relating to Judaism – the challenge is addressing both things:
It should be noted once more that
the five questions fit together very closely, so that answers to any of them
have repercussions elsewhere. It is comparatively easy to find an answer to one
of them, but fitting it with answers to the rest is not. Together they form the
jigsaw of Jesus himself, which is itself a piece in the larger jigsaw of the
rise of Christianity as a whole. The five questions can, in fact, be drawn
together under two headings; Jesus’ relation to Judaism on the one hand and to
the early church on the other.[5]
Here Wright presents the two poles of a good historical
analysis – Jesus’ life in Judaism and the early Church’s development which is
not under the heading of Judaism once it becomes a worldwide phenomenon.
Wright’s analysis is helpful and appreciated. However, many
scholars of Jesus would challenge his conversation. Wright seems to suggest
that something about Jesus allowed his message to be adapted to become a
worldwide phenomenon. However, many Jesus scholars would question this assertion.
Many would argue that the message of Jesus was adapted in ways he did not
intend. At one level, Wright has to be correct – Jesus’ message certainly could be adapted to fit later
Christianity. What is less sure is if Jesus intended
it be adapted in that manner. As much as Christians would like the latter to be the case in
addition to the former, if Wright intends to do true historical analysis, then
he is forced to be more objective than this. He has to allow the data to
suggest that Jesus’ message could include Paul’s and by extension the
development beyond Paul in works such as 1 Peter which could see “Christians”
as a completely separate entity beyond Jews or Greeks as a new race.[6]
No comments:
Post a Comment