N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God: a Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JETS 44/2 (June 2001) 207–18 N. T. WRIGHT’S JESUS AND THE VICTORY OF GOD: A REVIEW ARTICLE robert h. stein* This work is the second volume of a planned six-volume series entitled “Christian Origins and the Question of God.” The first volume, The New Testament and the People of God, was published in 1992. The present book, published in 1996, is even larger than the first and consists of 662 pages, not counting the appendix, bibliography, and various indices.1 The book is divided into four parts. Part 1 is entitled “Introduction” and consists of four chapters dealing with a succinct and extremely useful survey of research into the life of Jesus. In it Wright talks about the importance of such re- search and divides the history of Jesus research into two main camps. The “Wredebahn” or “Wredestrasse” is typified by a great skepticism as to whether we can know anything about the historical Jesus, because the Gos- pels are seen as reflecting the concerns and situations of the early church rather than the historical Jesus. The second camp is the “Schweitzerbahn” or “Schweitzerstrasse.” It argues that a great deal can be known about the historical Jesus and that one must understand Jesus in the context of apocalyptic Judaism, that is, from an eschatological perspective. Wright clearly sides with Schweitzer. He believes that “first-century Judaism . can be understood only within a climate of intense eschatological expecta- tion” (96). However, he believes that the apocalyptic language used by Jesus and first-century Judaism should not be interpreted “in a crudely lit- eralistic sense” (24) but as metaphorical language to describe this-worldly events. Wright argues that the original quest for the historical Jesus was “an explicitly anti-theological, anti-Christian, anti-dogmatic movement” (17). After a period of the “no quest,” dating roughly between the two World Wars, a new quest for the historical Jesus arose in the 1950s initiated by Ernst Käsemann. Wright divides this new search into two camps, the “New Quest” and the “Third Quest.” The “New Quest” is a continuation of the skepticism of the “Wredestrasse” and is represented by the Jesus Seminar. In his analysis of the “New Quest,” Wright gives a brilliant and devastating critique of the Jesus Seminar. The non-Jewish cynic philosopher of proverbs and aphorisms of the Jesus Seminar is “(w)rightly” criticized and its absur- dity “(w)rightly” pointed out. The non-Jewish Jesus of the Jesus Seminar is * Robert Stein is professor of New Testament interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theologi- cal Seminary, 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280. 1 A review of this work has been published in JETS 42 (1999) 143–44. 208 journal of the evangelical theological society ludicrous. The Jesus Seminar “has radically and consistently underplayed the specifically Jewish dimension both of [Jesus’] culture itself and of [his] agenda for it” (58). Wright even raises the question if such a view is essen- tially anti-Jewish and cites the analogy of the Nazi scholars in the 1920s and 1930s who sought to eliminate the Jewishness of Jesus (79 n. 233). In his critique of the “New Quest” Wright also examines the views of Burton Mack, J. Dominic Crossan, and Marcus J. Borg. In contrast to the “New Quest,” Wright sides with the “Third Quest” which, he argues, takes seri- ously Jesus’ Jewish background and lacks the theological and political agenda of the New Questers. This “Third Quest” seeks to answer such ques- tions as: “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? (90). Wright then concludes this first part by positing a criterion that he calls the criterion of “double similarity and double dissimilarity” (131–33). Dou- ble similarity seeks to discover how Jesus fit within first-century Judaism and how such a Jewish Jesus could explain the rise of early Christianity. Double dissimilarity seeks to explain why Jesus was rejected by Judaism and how the Gospel traditions, because of their dissimilarity, could not have originated within the early church. Thus his main tool is far more comprehensive than the much more limited “criterion of dissimilarity.” Part 2 is entitled “Profile of a Prophet.” It consists of six chapters. In Chapter 5, entitled “The Praxis of a Prophet,” Wright argues that the best category for classifying Jesus is that of an “Oracular and Leadership Prophet” (162–68). Chapters 6, 7, and 8 are titled “Stories of the Kingdom” and are subtitled “Announcement”; “Invitation, Welcome, Challenge and Summons”; and “Judgment and Vindication.” Chapter 9 is entitled “Symbol and Controversy” and discusses Jesus’ actions and teachings concerning the symbols of Jewish identity, that is, Sabbath, Food, Nation, Land, and Temple. Wright then discusses Jesus’ own symbols concerning the kingdom which involve the return from exile. These are: a restored land and people; a redefined family; a redefined Torah; and a rebuilt temple. Part 3 is entitled “The Aims and Beliefs of Jesus” and consists of three chapters: “Jesus and Israel: the Meaning of Messiahship”; “The Reasons for Jesus’ Crucifixion”; and “The Return of the King.” In “Jesus and Israel” Wright argues that Jesus had a clear “messianic self-consciousness” and that his cleansing of the Temple was an overt messianic act. In “The Reasons for Jesus’ Crucifixion” he argues that the cause of Jesus’ death is complex. A different answer is forthcoming according to whether one is dealing with the Jewish leadership, Rome, or Jesus’ own self-understanding. He was cru- cified by Rome, because, even though Pilate knew that Jesus was not guilty of any charge worthy of death, he felt he dare not resist the pressure of the Jewish leadership. The Jewish leadership is responsible in the sense that it saw Jesus as a dangerous political liability who defied, minimized, and spoke against such Jewish identifying symbols as the law, food, Sabbath, and temple. Jesus is the source of his death in the sense that he saw himself as fulfilling the role of suffering as a righteous prophet who through his death would take upon himself the judgment due to the nation and thus long wright’s jesus and the victory of god 209 redeem Israel from her exilic oppression. In Chapter 13, “The Return of the King,” Wright argues that Jesus saw himself as Yahweh’s special agent and that his going to Jerusalem was in reality Yahweh’s coming to Zion. Here Wright’s realized eschatology comes out clearly. Jesus “saw his jour- ney to Jerusalem as the symbol and embodiment of YHWH’s return to Zion” (639; Wright’s italics). There is no “consistent eschatological” dimension left unfulfilled. All the promises concerning the “return from exile” are com- pleted in Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and in the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70. It should be noted that in his discussion of the aims and beliefs of Jesus, Wright is not interested in the esoteric, inner goals and thinking of Jesus. Rather, he is seeking to uncover from Jesus’ public deeds and teaching what he reveals concerning his aims and goals. The book ends with Chapter 14, Wright’s conclusion, which is entitled “Results.” Such a simplistic overview, as I have given, cannot do justice to this work. I did want, however, to share at least something of an overview of Wright’s work for those who have not read it. This is a massive work, and a discussion of any of a score of issues Wright raises would require a book in itself. i. a word of appreciation for wright’s jesus and the victory of god There are many things that I appreciate and admire about Wright’s book. For one, I am amazed at Wright’s mastery of both the primary and secondary materials involved in the search for the historical Jesus. Wright is truly a giant among giants. One cannot read this work and not marvel over his comprehensive understanding of the Biblical and extra-Biblical materials as well as the past and current discussions concerning historical Jesus research. Second, I appreciate the clarity and style of his writing. Wright writes with wit and perception, and one seldom, if ever, asks, “What does he mean here?” My only criticism is that I think he tends to be verbose and repeti- tive. Nevertheless, the reading of his book is never tedious, even if his con- stant repetition of the terms “subversive” and “revolutionary” to describe Jesus’ actions and teachings becomes tiring. Third, as already mentioned, his critique of the New Questers, and es- pecially those associated with the Jesus Seminar, is both succinct and pen- etrating. Some quotations: “. the evidence for a Cynic presence in Galilee is slight to the point of invisibility . .” (40); “The existence of Q Christians, like that of Thomas Christians, may well turn out to be a modern myth: a story told, without basis in real history, to support a particular way of con- struing reality” (64); concerning what the Jesus Seminar considered and voted for as authentic: “The main reason why these sayings are considered ‘authentic’ is clearly not that each one has been tested individually against some abstract criteria, but that they have been judged to fit into the picture of Jesus which has already been chosen” (33; Wright’s italics). Fourth, I appreciate Wright’s and the Third Questers’ insistence that Jesus must be understood in the light of first-century Judaism and within 210 journal of the evangelical theological society the framework of Jewish apocalyptic.