After coming back to New Testament theology following many years’ absence I have found the work of NT Wright invigorating- I wish I had had something like his conceptiion of the scriptures years ago.
That having been said I find his position on history and critical realism not on a par with the rest of his work. As regards critical realism he attacks the view of knowledge based on sensation but without any apparent grasp of the work of the later Wittgenstein - work which bestrides the modern philosophical world like a colossus. He is also unaware of the work of Michael Dummett. His critical realism, though it is given the trappings of argument is not really argued for but simply asserted. I think he would have been better off saying: I am not going to get into the philosophical debate about knowledge but simply take the plain man’s view, with the caution that in the case of the the scriptures we have to very rigorous in what we assert.
As regards history he argues that there is no such thing as history without selection and that is all that the gospel writers have done. That does not seem to me to allay the suspicion that they have changed the facts to suit their view of who and what Jesus was. Secondly, belief in Jesus calls for a complete change of your life. Does not that demand the most complete possible historical data? And yet the historical data we have about Jesus is only a minute fraction of that we have about JF Kennedy.
Yeah, so?
I think Wright goes into philosophical debate about knowledge in great detail. Perhaps the issue is which philosophical debate about knowledge he feels is relevant to his argument. His main concerns seem to be with a scientism or naturalism that a priori rules out the possibility of a god or a resurrection such as the New Testament describes on the one hand, and with a postmodernism that rules out knowledge at all on the other. It is interesting to me that his conversation partner/opponent Crossan also settles on a form of critical realism as the basis for his work. How would you argue that Wittgenstein needs to be incorporated into New Testament studies?
I hardly think if Wright were to claim that an objective history were possible, and that the New Testament is an example of such a history, that the suspicions you refer to (that the New Testament writers changed the facts to suit their purposes) would be allayed. In denying “objective” history or history without selection, Wright is simply trying to even the playing field a bit. It has been argued for example, that since the gospel writers obviously wrote different histories—that they selected different details to recount or detail—they had editorial, theological, ecclesiological interests, and are therefore not credible or reliable historians. In pointing out that all historians have subjective interests of some sort or another, Wright is saying that if there is any credible, reliable history it must also fail this test, and therefore we must suspend judgment on the credibility and reliability of the New Testament, or at least attack it on different grounds. And this just scratches the surface of Wright’s deep discussion of “history.”
Finally, I think you might reconsider your last point. People make important decisions all the time based on incomplete and distorted historical information. Some such decisions turn out to be good ones, others bad. The amount of information a person needs to make a decision seems to be rather subjective. Certainly, in the case of Christian conversion, historical data about Jesus is just a small part of what goes into people’s decision. (Sociological issues, world view, personal experiences or testimonies of others’ experiences, etc. are some of the other factors involved.)
For some solid methodological criticism of N. T. Wright (though not from an Evangelical Christian perspective), I’d recommend Dom Crossan (liberal) or Burton Mack (secular).
Yeah, interesting
Paul, your comments on Wright’s critical realism are interesting, but I’m broadly with Chris on this. I suspect that problems of this nature arise to some extent because he is trying to address several different readerships - including the ordinary church-going public. My guess is that the ‘crudeness’ of the notion (if that is the case) is the result of a desire to set out an epistemology that will allow more conservative types to shift their ground in the direction of historical reading of Jesus rather than to satisfy the scruples of people familiar with Michael Dummet and the later Wittgenstein. But the point is worth pursuing.
Selecting facts isn’t the same as changing the facts. There is no question that they have selectively told the story and probably they haven’t selected the details that we would be most interested in. But is that really a problem?
On your last point:
I would argue that this is too narrowly conceived. On the one hand, I don’t really understand why life transformation should be so dependent on historical data. On the other, is it really belief in Jesus as such that brings about change? I would rather say that faith in Christ is the means of entry into a community, a lifestyle, a relationship with God, a holy spirituality, a tradition, a wisdom, etc. - all of which is instrumental in bring about change.