Tom Wright’s History and Eschatology– Part Four

Last updated on: November 4, 2019 at 1:07 am by Ben Witherington

Tom Wright’s History and Eschatology– Part Four 2019-09-11T15:54:06-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In some ways, chapter 3, entitled Shifting Sands, is the most important chapter in the book. It presents us with Tom Wright’s definition of what history is and what it does, and why it is important for theology, including natural theology. Wright stresses that history is a necessary, though often absent, ingredient in natural theology. Doing history requires: “humility to understand the thoughts of people who thought differently from ourselves; patience to go one working with the data and resist premature conclusions; penitence, to acknowledge our traditions may have distorted original meanings and that we have preferred the distortions to the originals; and love, in that genuine history like all genuine knowledge, involves the delighted affirmations of realities and events outside ourselves, and thoughts different from our own.” (p.77).

History can refer to events in the past, or the written record about events in the past, and history writing as a task means researching and writing about things that actually happened, and it can also involve the comparative task of looking at various past events and trying to discern a pattern or principle of meaning in the things that happened. This involves studying the evidence and proposing a hypothesis to explain it. ‘Person X murdered Person Y because……’ The search for motive or meaning is always crucial to good history writing. Wright also notes that history can mean a meaningful sequence of events or a narrative about that sequence…. How has this pursuit affected modern Biblical studies? Here Wright says the following:

“Much of the early historical investigation was done in Germany between the late 18th and the early 20th century, just when the German Enlightenment with Kant as its patriarch, Hegel as its Moses, and a line of prophets from Goethe to Feuerbach and beyond was eager to challenge traditional Christianity, and cut it down to size. The aim was precisely not to find ‘what actually happened’ in some supposedly neutral fashion, but to discover what ought to have happened if the ideals of the Enlightenment and with them the great new European culture project was to be valid. Hence the pressure to epistemological caution, if not downright skepticism, was powerfully reinforced by the social , cultural and political pressure towards forms of radical Protestantism.” (p. 88). There follows a detailed critique of Bultmann well worth reading, but we move on to his discussion of critical realism and the proper approach to history.

Critical realism, while recognizing we are all active readers of texts and not purely objective in our reading, nevertheless affirms that the past is knowable if there is sufficient actual evidence, and the compiling of evidence is not enough. The evidence must be critically sifted, especially to determine what is really of historic importance and what is not. You form a thesis or hypothesis about the data, and then compose a narrative about what you’ve discovered. History, of course does not repeat, unlike chemical processes, so when we talk about the science of doing history we mean something rather different than the science of doing a lab experiment on a set of chemical, an experiment that is repeatable. With history you proceed by hypothesis about the data, and seek verification or falsification from the data. The data must be studied with an awareness of the original contexts and with sympathetic imagination. It is here (p. 97) that Wright begins to speak about ‘the epistemology of love’ in earnest. Each culture has its own scale of values, its own cultural norms and it should be evaluated on the basis of its own rules of thought and action not some later and foreign ones. “each has its own vocabulary, [which can be grasped only with the passion of] a friend, an intimate, a lover” (here he is partially quoting J.G. Hamann. So the epistemology of love requires entering into the mind and world of the ancients sympathetically. Done right, this sort of historical work produces real knowledge so Wright stresses “If history is real knowledge about the real world, it must take its place near the heart of any theological investigation which seeks to bring that real world into engagement with the question of God.” (p. 101). The Christian Gospel is public truth, available for public inquiry. There is more to say, but we will save it for the next post.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 3, 2019

Tom Wright's History and Eschatology-- Part Three

Next Post

November 5, 2019 Tom Wright's History and Eschatology-- Part Five

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz