November 20, 2010
NT Wright on Exile
Last Wednesday I attended a symposium on exile with NT Wright and several other scholars.
Wright’s big idea (not new in his work) was that Jews of the New Testament period saw themselves as living still in exile. We are probably used to thinking as “the exile” as the period of time that the Jews from Judea were taken captive to Babylon, a period that ended after 70 years with the returns of Nehemiah and Ezra (it is not exactly clear how to count the beginning and ending of the period). But Wright used copious citations from non-biblical Jewish literature to show that the Jews were not really convinced that the exile had ended with that return. It had been a step in the right direction, but not the full meal deal (that’s my own image, and you are welcome). The promises of return were just too glorious to think that they had already been fulfilled.
Wright points to this sense of being in exile as evidence that the Jews of the New Testament period saw themselves as living in a very long and very real story. The source of the story was Deuteronomy 30, where Moses outlined what would happen to the Jews in coming generations. To summarize: they would fall away from God, they would be exiled from the land, and then they would return and be restored. In the centuries leading up to Jesus, Jewish people basically saw themselves in that second stage of the story. Yes, there had been a return from exile of sorts, but it was nothing like the glorious promises of restoration seen the prophets.
Wright’s primary concern was to tie this view of history to the Pharisees because this material is background for his new book on Paul (fourth in the NTPG line) and his contention is that this is the story Paul inhabited. The pay dirt of this background is that, according to Wright, Paul thinks of “the Exile” as a period of time that ended with the coming of the Messiah, and the “those who belong to the Messiah are the returned-from-exile people.”
For Wright the Bible is a rich sprawling “narrative still in search of an ending.” He made a few comments about how this contrasts to the dehistoricized view that many bring to Scripture and in the discussion time after his lecture there was a fairly active exchange about this. It seems clear that Wright is not terribly impressed with theological/philosophical systems that only use the Bible as a source of doctrines. He wants to point us back to the big story and insist that the point of being a Christian is to live in that story. I think he’s on to something.
Wright’s paper, a draft chapter for his new book, is available here, though I don’t know for how long.
Posted In: Bible, Books, Conferences, History, Interpretation, Jesus, Religion, Theologians, Theology
Facebook
RSS
8 Responses to NT Wright on Exile
Would it be fair to say that he doesn’t think we can know what it means to be a Christian from the Bible itself, but rather we need to know the Jewish understanding of history?
One of my big concerns with Wright is he is incessant in taking focus and attention away from Scripture and focusing on historical backgrounds. Or, as Schreiner put it, Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds. In doing this he loses the biblical focus and changes the meaning and intention of Scripture.
Hi Gabe – I can’t speak for him, obviously, but I don’t get the vibe that he is preaching “a new kind of Christianity.” His is a critique to fellow believers, encouraging them to own up more precisely to the biblical testimony as he understand it. At this conference he made a very strong statement in which he challenged those who did not pay attention to Scripture to stop calling themselves evangelicals!
Your second point is very important because we have two competing claims of adding to scripture. On the one hand, as you say, theres is the claim that by interpreting scripture in the light of historical context, we allow that information to change our understanding of scripture. On the other hand, Wright himself makes a counter claim: that the overly theological reading of scripture adds unwarranted information or expectations to our interpretation.
I think the only way to move past this impasse is to talk specific issues. Being the centrist that usually am, I can see some validity in both claims (though I’ll admit that I tend more toward the exegetical/historical emphasis). But I think that much of what Wright points to could actually be seen in scripture itself, and historical context has just been a catalyst that has helped us see that we have missed the boat. This exile material is a great example bc there is a lot of evidence for it in scripture itself as well. For example, this book by my thesis supervisor makes a similar argument just from Mark’s use of Isaiah.
A final point (this should just be another post!). I do think we need to be committed to an interpretation that is informed by historical background. I know that historical background can be misused, but we can’t pretend to pursue an exegetical agenda that is divorced from historical context. It just won’t work. Most evangelicals agree with a “grammatical historical” hermeneutic. Once you say that, you are in with Wright. You may agree or disagree with him on various points, but by definition, you have the same agenda.
Thanks for that clarification. I totally agree that our exegesis must begin with the historical background. However it seems Wright takes this to a whole new level. Sometimes it’s helpful, other times it’s not.
One level of historical background is the immediate historical situation that caused the writing (easy studies with most of Paul’s epistles). Another level is to study the milieu of the day and overlay that onto Scripture. A third level is to build a Jewish mindset that all Jews had (not exactly an objective venture), and apply that to Paul’s mind as he is writing Scripture.
It’s almost like the opposite side of the pendulum. He’s not taking Scripture out of context, instead he is creating a new context (one, by the way, that somehow most everyone in Christian history has missed). Surely many (hundreds? thousands?) have read the same Jewish material Wright has read. Does he ever refer to a previous scholar who has said the same things he is saying? Or is he a lone-ranger who has to go back to pre-Apostolic Fathers to demonstrate his view?
I get what you are driving at, and I’ve had similar thoughts. If the book I’m writing in English gets published, you’ll get an extended defense for a “historical hermeneutic,” which will be fairly “Wrightian.” But I still don’t think you are really saying anything different than he would. If Wright is providing a “new context” then what is the de facto “old” context? where did it come from? How do you defend it? I imagine that by appealing to history in some form or another. I know you are not suggesting that we should neglect extra biblical historical/cultural/lexical information. But where would you draw the line on what is legitimate background and on what basis?
It seems to me that the lines are currently being drawn on the basis of theological disputation. So, when historical exegesis bumps up against a cherished doctrine, the response comes: No, you can’t do that! But why? The only answer I hear is that the tradition has not seen it that way. But my goodness! How un-Protestant! We need a better answer than that. We need an answer that flows out of the nature of Scripture, not in reaction to inconvenient exegesis. (and I do attempt this in my book)
A final question: Do you, as a good Protestant interpreter, really feel comfortable making the “no one else has interpreted it this way” argument?
It’s interesting that this is precisely the discussion that ensued at the end of Wright’s talk. Regent prof Hans Boorsma, who is a big defender of “the grand tradition” (combined witness of the historical church in all its branches), took up this very issue, and Wright came back at him with an insistence on being biblical regardless of the tradition. Wish you could have heard it bc I’m honestly not sure who you would have agreed with more.
I appreciate your thoughts!
Real quick… what created Protestantism was tradition that was untied to Scripture. Of course you know that Luther only wanted to reform the elements of Catholicism that were extra and contra biblical. Also, Luther didn’t come up with anything brand new. Whether he did it or not, we can see Protestant theology clearly developed in the Apostolic Fathers and even men before Luther like John Hus or Wycliffe.
If those closest to the apostles and the culture of the day (the Apostolic Fathers) missed what Wright is telling us, then I don’t think it was the Apostolic Fathers who missed something. There’s nothing new under the sun, therefore I would be interested to find out at some point if Wright has been able to demonstrate that someone (though more than one would be nice) in history has made the connections he has.
Hi Gabe – I’m thinking of Luther’s famous method: Unless you can show me by scripture and reason, etc. Also, there are lots of things the Apostolic fathers seemed to have missed. Things like the Trinity, Justification, the deity of Christ. You find mere hints in their work of the doctrines we affirm. I don’t think we can use them as that sort of guide. In any case, this line is a bit of a rabbit trail. To me the important question is still by what principle to we say “this background may be used in interpretation, but not this one?”
NOTE: I just found this in the spam filter, so it’s being published late!
I agree with what you’re saying Gabriel. From what I’ve read from Wright, I get a feeling he’s trying to “innovate” to be more scholarly. After all, who wants to read something that’s not new? My fear in the theology of Wright is it makes you feel like the Bible can’t be understood by the common man, requiring a knowledge of Jewish culture, etc.
I believe in using a historical context to deepen our understanding of a particular passage, not require it.
This is an article I read that I fully agree with in regards to his concept of justification.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/new-perspective-justification/
[...] The continued exile. I’ve never been sure why so many people argued so vehemently against Wright’s idea that intertestamental and NT data portray Israel as still being in exile even after they’d returned to the land. I’ve always liked this aspect of Wright’s narrative and have long included it in my understanding of the big picture. So, it was very nice to see both Schreiner and Thielman indicate that they were comfortable with this as well. I’d have liked to hear an explanation for why others are critical and what exactly it is that makes them more comfortable with it than others are. But, even without this explanation, it was nice to see consensus on this point. (For more on this and link to a recent paper by Wright on the subject, see this post.) [...]