[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.]
Wright’s final two chapters of his book focus completely on
the question of the historical Jesus in regard to his resurrection and the
subsequent import such a view holds for later believers. He argues that the
resurrection is historical and fits well in good historical Jesus scholarship.
He then makes a very reasonable claim for what follows – that it is not nearly
as much of a “trump card” as it is often presented and that belief in
resurrection itself is not necessarily linked inextricably with belief. Wright
cautions this to keep his final two chapters from being too much of an
apologetic; however, these chapters are far more an apologetic for a traditional
stance than a point that tells us much more than he has already presented about
the meaning of the resurrection of Jesus.
First, it is important to look at Wright’s historical logic
for why he believes that the resurrection of Jesus is historical (i.e. it
should be seen as historically logically probable). He summarizes these in a
helpful list form which is easy to follow:
1.
To sum up where we have got so far: the world of
second-Temple Judaism supplied the concept of resurrection, but the striking
and consistent Christian mutations within Jewish resurrection belief rule out
any possibility that the belief could have generated spontaneously form within
its Jewish context. When we ask the early Christians themselves what had
occasioned this belief, their answers home in on two things: stories about
Jesus’ tomb being empty, and stories about him appearing to people, alive
again.
2.
Neither the empty tomb by itself, however, nor
the appearances by themselves, could have generated the early Christian belief.
The empty tomb alone would b ea puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an
apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or
hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world.
3.
However, an empty tomb and appearances of a
living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the
emergence of the belief.
4.
The meaning of resurrection within second-Temple
Judaism makes it impossible to conceive of this reshaped resurrection belief
emerging without it being known that a body had disappeared, and that the
person had been discovered to be thoroughly alive again.
5.
The other explanations offered for the emergence
of the belief do not possess the same explanatory power.
6.
It is therefore historically highly probable
that Jesus’ tomb was indeed empty on the third day after his execution, and
that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving every appearance of being
well and truly alive.[1]
As can be seen in this list, Wright’s argument is that Jesus
was actually raised from the dead and that this actually happening , along with
the empty tomb being a historical reality, is the only way to satisfactorily
explain the belief of the disciples after the event.
The argument is not new. It is an old argument that is
suggesting that the only way for the subsequent movement of Jesus to make sense
is if he really did rise from the dead. What Wright offers here to nuance that
clichéd aphorism, is his view that the disciples needed both the empty tomb and the risen Jesus. He believes that if it
were just one or the other, it would be explained away.
While I don’t disagree with Wright that if one only saw a
figure one thought to be dead, that would usually lead to a different
conclusion than the person was actually dead and then bodily had risen from the
dead. Simultaneously, if all one saw was an empty tomb, the probable
consequence would not be that the person must be bodily alive now. In both of
these things, Wright is convincing. Where he is less convincing is if one saw
both of these things, then the logical conclusion would be that Jesus truly had
died and was risen. It could mean
that, but it could be explained other ways as well.
The far stronger argument is not so much that the community
had these two pieces of data, but that the community itself was so mobilized.
Wright has been, throughout this volume and the previous, made his strongest
case using the subsequent success of the Jesus movement as a major point of
evidence. It is unclear why he did not use that same piece of evidence here.
It still is logically difficult make the resurrection
historically “probable.” To make something historically probable, we have to
look at something and conclude that an event “probably happened” as the most
likely explanation for all the data we have. The problem, of course, with the
resurrection (and of course, all miracles) is that, by definition, they are
things that usually do not happen. They are things that are remarkable and
therefore, are hard to think probably happened. This does not mean that
Christians cannot be confident in believing these events happened – indeed,
that is what makes it belief. The
challenge is Wright’s view that this is the most likely historical probability
– a much more ambitious claim than simply that the first Christians firmly
believed it.
Where Wright’s apologetic should be lauded, however, is in
his view of the significance of the resurrection. He has just completed a
thoroughgoing book (nearly 800 pages) that discusses a wide variety of views on
resurrection. He, however, does not see this as the single “cure all” of
Christian belief in the world. He instead laudably notes that belief in Jesus’
resurrection is not necessarily the only thing one needs to be a Christian:
It has too often been assumed that
if Jesus was raised from the dead this automatically ‘proves’ the entire Christian
worldview – including the belief that he was and is, in the full Christian
sense, not just ‘the son of god,’ but the Son of God.[2]
Here, he argues that belief in the resurrection –
particularly to his earliest followers – would not be sufficient evidence that
Jesus was fully divine in the same way as the father. Indeed, very few think
that Elijah is divine in the way of the father despite his being raised in the
heavens. Too often Christian apologists invert Paul’s statement – that if Jesus
did not rise from the dead, our faith is void. That statement is surely
accurate. Without the belief that Jesus is risen, the rest of the Christian
message is at the very least difficult. However, the converse is not
necessarily true – belief in the resurrection is not the only aspect of belief
that is needed to be a Christian.
Wright’s analysis in these final chapters are a strange way
to end the book. The book, on the whole was about the nature and meaning of
resurrection (both Jesus’ and all people’s) in the early church. In that sense,
this book has been a triumph. While I did not always agree with his
reconstructions, there is no sense in which he did not thoroughly argue his
case. The historical apology at the end of the book, however, is far less
convincing; what’s more, it is not clear how the historical apology helps
readers add to the meaning and nature of resurrection. It is as if at the end
of the book, he simply thought he would throw in a brief apology for those who
liked his book but were skeptical. While that is a nice little aside, it would
have been helpful had he stated that this was an aside. Instead, it sticks out
as an odd conclusion to a book with a rather different goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment