Reading Wright, NTPG Chapter 2

This week continues The New Testament and the People of God in chapter 2 (pp 31-46), on knowledge, specifically, the basis for knowledge and how one knows, or, my dad's favorite word, epistemology. Wright attempts to navigate the reader through the quagmire of objective v. subjective, positivist v. phenomenalist, to arrive at his position of critical realism.

My first time through this chapter was a real eye-opener, as I had been classically trained to assume an objective (positivist) view of knowledge--that such knowledge was possible. To put it differently, there are certain kinds of knowledge that can be known for certain, without question, an 'objective' knowledge in which there is no doubt. Apparently this has been rejected by most philosophers for quite some time (p 33). On the opposite side is the denial of any certainty and one is left with only the phenomenon, the subjective experience and interpretation that is unique to the person. This latter one certainly describes some of the current cultural moment. And I don't think Wright would deny 'objective' knowledge when it comes to mathematical proofs. He does start off the chapter emphasizing his discussion of knowledge will narrow into the areas of literature, history, and theology (areas essential to the study of the New Testament). In this area, you have wide polarity: from one can know with absolute certainty to one cannot know anything with any level of confidence. To use his illustration, how confident can I be that Caesar crossed the Rubicon (p 34)?

Critical realism is Wright's attempt at navigating these extremes while not trying to rescue either position. Rather, he proposes that critical realism "sees knowledge of particulars as taking place within the larger framework of the story or worldview which forms the basis of the observer's way of being in relation to the world... knowledge takes place, within this model, when people find things that fit with the particular story or (more likely) stories to which they are accustomed to give allegiance." (p 37, emphasis original) In other words, stories are how we make sense of the world, and stories are one of the essential components that make up one's worldview. I actually think this is a contribution that post-modernism has given us, a helpful emphasis on narrative. Human beings live far more as story-telling-beings versus data-driven-logicians.

Wright then wraps the chapter up by suggesting that questions arise when one's stories are insufficient to answer questions that arise from current events (p 40ff). But we do so from within the context of these stories! In other words, worldview and story are preconditions to hypothesis and interpretation. The stories I believe may conflict with yours. And importantly, if your story fits better with the event (more explanatory), I may come to believe that is the better story--and perhaps change parts of my worldview in the process. Not all stories go down to the level of worldview. But we are dealing with the New Testament and the claim that God has come in the flesh in Jesus the Messiah. This story is covered with all kinds of worldview questions!

I found his discussion helpful in the area of New Testament study because I have (regretfully) used the phrase "it is true because the Bible says it" as a primary argument. I considered the Bible to be a source of objective truth and my interpretation of it to be objective and therefore my statement was objective. I no longer think this. It is not helpful in discussing Biblical interpretation. Wright, and the position I now hold, suggests using far greater nuance in discussions of history and theology. What is my worldview? What are the stories I tell myself (or that I have received from others) and believe to be true? How might these stories influence my reading of the text? And--this is one of the reasons why I think Wright is focused on this so early--thinking through these things helps us view first century Judaism and the stories it told itself--and therefore what the New Testament is doing with the stories it tells! I think you will see as the discussion continues what a powerful lens this view provides.

Previous | Next

Reading Wright, NTPG Chapter 1

Since my introduction to N.T. Wright's magnificent series of books on Christian Origins, I have wanted to blog my way through them. At the present, there are four volumes in five books. The series begins with The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992) [Hereafter NTPG]. I was first exposed to this series taking a class from Dr. Darrell Bock on the subject of Historical Jesus. I can genuinely say that class changed me in a significant way, in large part because of reading Dr. Wright. It is my hope you will find my observations and comments as I reread this series helpful in your Christian walk.

Chapter 1, pp 3-28, introduces the reader to the task that Wright has set out: writing about Jesus in his historical context and on Paul in his. Much ink has been spilled over the last couple of centuries on the question of Historical Jesus--is the presentation of Jesus in the Gospels historical? Theological? Myth? Did Paul invent Christianity? The answers vary widely. Unfortunately, within the variety of answers have come quite opposite reactions to the answers, such as fundamentalism in response to the very liberal versions of Christianity in the late 19th and early 20th century. One was allowed a narrow range of interpretation before an accusation of liberal was cast one's way and one was 'driven out of the temple'. Sadly, there are wonderful contributions on all sides of New Testament study, whether form criticism, rhetorical, source, literary, or others. Much can be gleaned. And much is lost with a narrow focus on just one. Wright wants the New Testament to be read so that it can be heard in all its glory. This means understanding first century Jewish, Roman, and Greek culture. It means realizing that Jesus is doing his ministry in the latter part of Second Temple Judaism (roughly 4th century BC to 1st century AD). Jesus is speaking to a thoroughly first century Jewish people. Paul writes to a first century Roman-Greek people, primarily Gentile. It means we are in for a bit of culture shock. It also means we might just have to ask some tough questions. And we may not like some of the answers! But we must ask. We must seek. We must knock.

We must also recognize the time in which we live. Christianity was birthed in what we might call the pre-modern era; we find ourselves in the post-modern era. Thus, we must also learn from what each era brought to New Testament study: reading it as authoritative (pre-modern), reading it critically (modern), and reading phenomenologically (post-modern; p 27). Each has its contributions; each has its limitations. Wright will take us on a journey that navigates us through each, attempting to sift the wheat from the chaff. One that this reader has found to be very fruitful, and I hope you will too.

Next