Tom Wright’s History and Eschatology– Part Five

Last updated on: November 5, 2019 at 1:57 am by Ben Witherington

Tom Wright’s History and Eschatology– Part Five 2019-09-11T16:37:46-04:00 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.

“Genuinely historical study of the relevant Jewish and early Christian material produces a narrative about beliefs that were actually held and that, through the consequent human motivations, generated actual events, in the light of which we can and should construct a mature, genuinely grounded picture of Jesus and his first followers within their historical and cultural settings… The Gospel narratives do what Paul did in his travels; they displayed the Jesus-story as public truth, the truth of events which were told in coherent historical narratives by people who believed themselves called to the task of researching, editing, and arranging them so as to display (their view of) the meaning which these events carried.” (p. 107). The meaning was to be found in the events themselves. “In fact, they insist that God’s decisive saving self-revelation has taken place precisely not primarily in their writing but in the events to which they bear witness.”

Both in German Idealism, and in Marxist materialism it is assume there is a ‘ghost in the machine’, an inner guiding force, hidden laws, so that one can not only study what has happened but what will and must happen ‘according to the laws of historical development’. This approach to history that is sort of pantheistic in character has been called historicism– by looking at the past and present one could figure out ‘where history is going’ and how ‘to be on the right side of history’. Wright relies on the detailed critique of such historicism by Karl Popper not least because Popper does not see history as deterministic in character. But interestingly, this whole line of thinking leads to relativism ‘they believed X in that time and place because of factors A,B,C, but of course other times and places wouldn’t believe it.” (p. 109). Quoting F.M. Turner’s volume on European History, Wright notes that this line of historicist thinking leads to the conclusion “If all things are a product of a particular time and place and a particular culture or a particular stage of Absolute Spirit coming to understand itself, then the Bible as a document must also be similarly time bound.” (p. 111). Needless to say, early Christians, and Christians today beg to differ. Just because something is culturally conditioned does not mean it is culturally bound, or that its meanings can’t be faithfully conveyed in other cultures and times. “The early Christians lived within an ongoing history and looked for God to act within their world. But with the important exception of the fall of Jerusalem, they never claimed to read God’s actions off the surface of events.” (p. 116).

Wright is on target when he says that we continue to find new sources of information about the first century Jewish world (think Qumran scrolls) and therefore the task of producing a thick description of the context in which Jesus and others operated is constantly in process. “The task of history is not to substitute a new construct for the texts we possess but to understand better what those texts were saying all along.” (p. 119). Ongoing historical research is particularly good at defeating the defeaters and nay sayers. To give one example, Conzelmann argued that Luke’s narratives in Acts 19-21 reflected a later perspective, not least because ‘there were no Asiarchs in Paul’s day in Ephesus or Miletus’. Unfortunately for this view, I found and others have found stones with inscriptions about Asiarches in those very places, dating to the first century A.D. Conzelmann’s theories about Luke’s time of writing and his mistakes were wrong. A convenient fictional theory was disassembled by an inconvenient fact and truth.

On p. 121 Tom lays some of his most important historical cards on the table “Jesus’ resurrection precipitated a radical mutation within Jewish understanding of history and eschatology which then formed a new interpretative grid: Jesus’ rising was interpreted simultaneously as a very strange event within the present world AND the foundational and paradigmatic event within God’s new creation. This points to the fundamental argument I am making throughout this book. The idea of new creation operating from within the womb of the old, perhaps we should say within the tomb of the old— makes sense, albeit new sense within that Jewish world in which God’s space, time and matter and human space time and matter were designed to overlap and interlock.” Avoiding history when we do our theology is the first step to Gnosticism. Wright then says that later traditions, dogmas, and piety have introduced distortions and mistakes in our interpretation of the key Biblical texts. “That is why it simply will not do to appeal to tradition, whether dogmatic or pious. Dogma and piety alike need to submit, as the Reformers would insist, but even Aquinas might agree–to the original meaning of Scripture itself.” (p. 122). One cannot do history from above, as in ‘since God is sovereign then such and such must have happened in this way.’ No, the theology must arise out of the analysis of what actually did happen.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 4, 2019

Tom Wright's History and Eschatology-- Part Four

Next Post

November 6, 2019 Tom Wright's History and Eschatology--- Part Six

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