The Resurrection of the Son of God- Post#3

In chapter 2 of "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright we get a survey class of Greco-Roman philosophy. As seen through the prism of Christian theology.

Now, I would be remiss to allow my alacrity to deny Wright his due. This is a brilliant mind at work. He is obviously intimate with the material. He also shows a profound respect for it's content. Kudos. As I will undoubtedly repeat again and again; in an intellectual death-match this guy would kill me in 1.2 seconds. I am NOT his equal. 

He spends the majority of chapter 2 laying out the Greco-Roman thoughts on death and the afterlife. The bulk of it on Grecian giants such as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. He quotes liberally and contextually from these as yet seldom matched minds and reaches his inevitable conclusion: Resurrection was not an accepted concept and therefore the resurrection of Christ was a unique and exceptional event, heretofore unheard of and unacceptable.

Beyond the evidence, admittedly inconclusive, that resurrection was attributed to others before Christ, it is true that, in general, this was a "novel" concept. Even, as Wright argues, an "unappealing" concept. The more stoic minded philosophers of Greek lineage were rather stark in their views: Death is inevitable; therefore, not to be feared or despised.

However, "Joe the Plumber" (or is it "Joe, Who's Dumber?") has little time for fearless intellectual inquiry. It's terrifying this death thing. We normal mouth-breathers don't really like the notion of "not existing". It flies in the face of what we have known thus far… you know, existing. 

I stand accused and plead VERY GUILTY of this very thing. You do NOT want to sit next to me in coach class during turbulence! (Business Class or First Class I'm fine. Something about free drinks and Wi-Fi access calms me. I guess I'm an Epicurean).

However, fear, the great motivator, is still my enemy.

What I perceived as the over arching point in chapter 2 of this book is as follows, Alan please interject if you find misunderstanding in my interpretation:

Greco-Roman philosophy, the basis of Western culture, was learning to deal with death and the possibility of an after-life. In their philosophies an after-life was allowed, even championed. However, it was not inclusive of a bodily resurrection. In fact, this was looked at as anathema. Death was viewed stoically (to say nothing of Stoically) and as the inevitable birthright of the human being.

Wright, without coming out and saying it, seems to be setting up the veracity of Christ's resurrection as both shocking and historical because of it's "uniqueness". Ostensibly, it flies in the face of all the thought that precedes it and is therefore historically undergirded because of it's singularity.

These are compelling arguments. To a point. But Wright does his argument a disservice by underlining and emphasizing (and correctly so) the metastasis of the Greco-Roman thought train. He points out, quite lucidly, the evolution of thought from Socrates to Plato, from Plato to Aristotle, from the Grecian philosophes to the Roman political predilection for deifying it's heroes and emperors. 

It is hardly a difficult step to see the conflation of Judaism and Hellenistic culture (first and second century Palestine/Israel) conjuring up a newly evolved faith that intermingles the "One True God" with a hero figure; one cut down in his prime, one that serves the "state" (the true believers), and one that triumphs over the last hurdle the philosophers could not defeat; Death.

I have a LOT to say on this chapter, but fear I've become gruesomely tiresome already.

I will conclude with this. N.T. Wright is a brilliant man. The fact that he believes in the New Testament is intriguing. It compels me to reread this text of my youth. I'm concerned that this "book club" could become quite boring to you readers. I hope it doesn't. Theism is more important today than ever. We still kill, die, and live by it's influence. Whatever your reading level (mine atrophied at Dr. Seuss) this is compelling and important stuff. It is VERY important politically, sociologically, and possibly, as my brother Alan would argue, eternally, where you stand on this stuff. So pay attention!

I await your blade, dear sir.

JE

The Resurrection of the Son of God - Post #2

How fondly I remember my first attempts at digesting N.T. Wright. He seemed to be involved in a conversation with lots of other scholars I'd never heard of about issues I had never considered. It was slow going for sure, madening even at times. I felt like a child stepping into the middle of a grownup conversation trying to figure out what it was all about.

I suspect you will get the hang of it quick enough.

I'm especially intrigued that you enjoyed the section on the five senses of which we can speak of "history". His clarification of these distinct senses and the confusion that comes when we aren't precise, when discussing history, about which of these we are presently considering, was very helpful to me too.

Those five senses are (for our readers, if we still have any):
"First, there is history as event. If we say something is ‘historical’ in this sense, it happened, whether or not we can know or prove that it happened."

"Second, there is history as significant event. Not all events are significant; history, it is often assumed, consists of the ones that are."

"Third, there is history as provable event. To say that something is ‘historical’ in this sense is to say not only that it happened but that we can demonstrate that it happened, on the analogy of mathematics or the so-called hard sciences."

"Fourth, and quite different from the previous three, there is history as writing-about-events-in-the-past. To say that something is ‘historical’ in this sense is to say that it was written about, or perhaps could in principle have been written about."

"Fifth and finally, a combination of (3) and (4) is often found precisely in discussions of Jesus: history as what modern historians can say about a topic. By ‘modern’ I mean ‘post-Enlightenment’, the period in which people have imagined some kind of analogy, even correlation, between history and the hard sciences."

The Scope of the Book
This book is  almost 800 pages long, heavily footnoted, and approaches this subject both historically and theologically in unprecedented depth. In the introduction and first chapter N.T. Wright (hereafter NTW) helps set us up for the book's flow of thought.

Part One: Setting the Scene
In this section NTW begins by discussing history in general and setting the stage for his inquiry. He then moves on to an investigation into various views of death, the afterlife and resurrection moving first from the wide spectrum of pagan views during biblical times, then moving on to the Old Testament, and then Post-Biblical Judaism.

Part Two: Resurrection in Paul
Following the previous pattern of moving from the broad to the narrow, in this section NTW begins by discussing what Paul had to say about death, the afterlife, and resurrection in his epistles outside of those to the Corinthians. He then takes two chapters to examing what Paul had to say about these topics within his Corinthian letters, and he finally moves in to examine Paul's own account of experiencing the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus.

Part Three: Resurrection in Early Christianity (Apart from Paul)
This section begins with an examination of content from the gospels outside of the Easter narratives, then looks at other New Testament writings, then moves on to non-canonical early Christian writings about resurrection, and finally ends with a historical/theological construction of Jesus as Messiah, the worldview of early Christians, and their beliefs about resurrection.

Part Four: The Story of Easter
This section begins with a discussion of some of the challenges inherent in studying the gospel Easter narratives and two of the main options for considering these stories historically. In the following four chapters NTW takes us through the various gospel narratives beginning with Mark and then moving on to Matthew, Luke, and John.

Part Five: Belief, Event and Meaning
In this final section NTW begins to draw conclusions, including the various options available for consideration, their various merits, and the overall challenge the resurrection presents historically. In the next and final chapter, he then discusses the theological development of our understanding of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God from within this historical framework.

I'm still currently working through his very early chapter on death, the afterlife, and resurrection within paganism. I'm enjoying it very much. Not in the way one might enjoy a good novel, but enjoying it still.

The Resurrection of the Son of God -Post #1

The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) -N.T. Wright

At Alan's behest I have agreed to read this book he's a fan of and slice and dice our way through it one chapter at a time.

After crawling through the preface I meandered through the first 4 chapters. I took about 4 pages of notes, none of which I will presently share. I must say, this is going to be a slog for me.

Alan, allow me to whine a bit and then I promise to eat my veggies and soldier on.

At first blush, this is a book for Christians. Scratch that, "intellectual" Christians. Which, I must confess, always seems, like "jumbo shrimp", a bit contradictory. But, as N.T. Wright says, perhaps I "give too much away". As I am decidedly not a student of Christian literary criticism (which I believe you folks call Christian Epistemology) I confess to being in, as usual, over my head. In the preface and first two chapters, Wright references Biblical scholars of whom I have no knowledge and alludes to schisms in the modern (post-Enlightenment) Church of which I am only vaguely familiar.

In short, I find it, much like this evenings Irish whiskey; a bit dry. However, the Irish has readily understood medicinal value and a warming quality I find lacking in the text. Thus far.

On the bright side....

I did quite enjoy his breaking down of 5 predilections in historical understanding. Perhaps part of the dryness I've experienced so far is in my heretofore mentioned ignorance. Wright is, obviously, exceedingly well educated and far more cerebral than I can ever aspire to be. I found this bit of the book to be quite compelling.

I'm certainly anxious to see where things go in this epistle. At present it's far too early for me to raise any major objections other than those intrinsic to my own evident prejudice. I feel Wright is being fairly balanced thus far and giving any Christian opposition to his (as yet unknown) point a fair shake at least. I'm curious about what his "evidence" for the resurrection will be.