<!DOCTYPE html><HTML lang="en"> <head><meta charset="utf-8"> <title>Wright (N.T.) - The Target and the Arrows (Theo Todman's Book Collection - Paper Abstracts) </title> <link href="../../TheosStyle.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../../TT_ICO.png" /></head> <BODY> <CENTER> <div id="header"><HR><h1>Theo Todman's Web Page - Paper Abstracts</h1><HR></div><A name="Top"></A> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_19/PaperSummary_19120.htm">The Target and the Arrows</A></th></tr> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../Authors/W/Author_Wright (N.T.).htm">Wright (N.T.)</a></th></tr> <tr><th>Source: Wright (N.T.) - The Resurrection of the Son of God</th></tr> <tr><th>Paper - Abstract</th></tr> </TABLE> </CENTER> <P><CENTER><TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=800><tr><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_19/PaperSummary_19120.htm">Paper Summary</A></td><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_19/PaperCitings_19120.htm">Books / Papers Citing this Paper</A></td><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_19/PapersToNotes_19120.htm">Notes Citing this Paper</A></td><td><A HREF="#ColourConventions">Text Colour-Conventions</a></td></tr></TABLE></CENTER></P> <hr><P><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><U>Sections</U><FONT COLOR = "800080"><ol type="1"><li>Introduction: The Target</li><li>The Arrows <ol type="i"><li>Shooting at the Sun</li><li>Resurrection and History <ol type="a"><li>The Senses of  History'</li><li>No Access?</li><li>No Analogy?</li><li>No Real Evidence? </ol></li><li>Resurrection in History and Theology <ol type="a"><li>No Other Starting-Point?</li><li>Resurrection and Christology</li><li>Resurrection and Eschatology </ol></ol></li><li>The Historical Starting-Point </li></ol> </FONT><BR><BR><U>Notes</U><ol type="1"><li><b>Introduction: The Target</b>: <ul type="disc"><li>Doubts about the historicity of the  evocative Church of Holy Sepulchre as the site of Golgotha and the Garden Tomb</li><li>Analogy with the Resurrection  which of the gaggle of historians has the correct account?; how do the  tantalizing narratives of the Gospels fit together? What precisely happened  did Jesus really rise from the dead on the third day after his execution, as billions of Christians affirm?</li><li>This question is similar to the <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_1">fourth</A></U><SUB>1</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_1"></A> of five questions raised in <a name="5"></a>"<A HREF = "../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_03/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_3982.htm">Wright (N.T.) - Jesus and the Victory of God</A>"  why did Christianity begin and take the shape it did?</li><li>This book will focus more on the primary sources than is usual, and is not a history of interpretation. Space limits the number of interlocutors Wright can interact with. </li><li>Wright will mingle together questions about the historical beginnings of Christianity with questions about God more than is currently popular, despite the acknowledged different methodologies of History and Theology. To do otherwise is to side with a Deism in which God keeps out of history. The opposite position is a  rank supernaturalist one wherein a miracle-working god routinely violates historical <a name="1"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_39.htm">causation</A><SUP>2</SUP>. In between are positions (pantheism, panentheism and process theology) in which god is part of the space-time world and the historical process itself. Wright just notes the many-sidedness of the topic. </li><li>He takes issue with Archbishop Peter Carnley (<a name="W2775W"></a><A HREF = "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Carnley" TARGET = "_top">Link</A>). I couldn t quite make out what the objection was, exactly, but it seems that Carnley is happy with historical investigation provided it comes up with sceptical results, as this is good for faith, which should not rest on the mundane. Wright insists that historical investigation is important, and can be made without theological presuppositions. It looks like he agrees that there s a balance to be struck  neither just pillaging history for apologetic purposes, nor writing off history for theological purposes, nor adopting a merely factual interest in Jesus. What actually happened has always been important, and interest in it isn t a vote for liberal Protestantism. Demonstrably spurious reconstructions should be resisted. He notes in a footnote that early Christian writers made a distinction between the encounters with Jesus immediately post-resurrection and subsequent Christian experience of  the risen Jesus . </li><li>Wright will focus first of all on what the early Christians believed about God themselves and Jesus. Only in part V will he move on to the historian, being careful not to acquiesce to the historian s own worldview, usually that of post-Enlightenment scepticism. </li><li>The book divides into two questions:- <ol type="i"><li>What did the early Christians think had happened to Jesus, and</li><li>How plausible are those beliefs? </ol></li><li>The two questions overlap  and Wright thinks that it s difficult to account for the  striking beliefs uncovered in Parts II  IV unless they were true. Hence, his conclusion in Part V will be positive. Even so, it is a priori possible that the early Christians believed Jesus had been raised bodily, but were wrong. Wright thinks the onus is on those who take this view to explain the early Christian beliefs, and notes (but doesn t here detail) the <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_3">variety</A></U><SUB>3</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_3"></A> of reasons given. </li><li>He wants to challenge a  dominant paradigm :- <ol type="i"><li>Resurrection was a fuzzy concept in contemporary Judaism.</li><li>Paul held to a  spiritual rather than bodily resurrection.</li><li>The initial Christian belief was in Jesus heavenly exaltation; belief in the empty tomb came later. </li><li>The resurrection stories are later inventions to bolster the latter. </li><li>These experiences  like Paul s  were  religious experiences internal to the individual  effectively <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_4">fantasy</A></U><SUB>4</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_4"></A> or hallucination. </li><li>Whatever happened to Jesus body  and some doubt it was even buried  it was not  resuscitated , let alone  raised from the dead as a face-value reading of the Gospels requires. </ol>Wright claims that there are  excellent, well-founded and secure historical arguments against each of these positions . </li><li>Positively, Wright will try to establish:- <ol type="i"><li>A new Jewish context</li><li>A different view of Paul</li><li>& and of all other early Christians </li><li>A new account of the Gospel stories</li><li>That the only explanation for the establishment of Christianity is that the tomb really was empty and people really did meet Jesus alive again.</li><li>The best historical explanation for these phenomena is that Jesus really did rise bodily from the dead. </ol>(i)  (iv) correspond to Parts I-IV of the book, with (v) and (vi) corresponding to Chapters 18 and 19 in Part V. </li><li>It is important to survey the whole terrain, not just a few hot spots. Hence the length of the book. </li><li>Wright will address two controversial preliminary topics:- <ol type="i"><li>What sort of historical task is an investigation of the resurrection? Answering this question is essential to avoid accusation of begging the question whether the investigation is possible at all. </li><li>How did the Jews and gentiles of Jesus day think of the destiny of the dead? Chapters 2 & 3-4 will address this question. </ol></li><li>While the early Christians remained within the Jewish spectrum of opinion on the topic of resurrection, their ideas were clarified to a unique degree  and Wright puts this down to their belief that Jesus had been raised bodily. The historian needs to account for this  sudden and dramatic mutation from within the Jewish worldview . </li><li>Wright will reverse the usual treatment by leaving the Gospel accounts until last, as they are both amongst the most difficult passages, and were written last. All the earlier witnesses took the affirmation that Jesus had been raised literally, and this evidence should be taken when approaching the Gospels. </li><li>So, what can historians say about Easter? Wright thinks that the best explanation for the  Christian mutation was that:- <ol type="i"><li>The tomb was found empty, and</li><li>Several people  including at least one who had not previously been a follower of Jesus  claimed to have seen him alive in a way for which they were unprepared by their previous ideas about <a name="2"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_9/Notes_978.htm">life after death</A><SUP>5</SUP> (including about resurrection) and for which the language of ghosts, spirits, etc. was inappropriate. </ol></li><li>Wright will argue that the best historical explanation is that the tomb was indeed empty, and Jesus was indeed seen alive because he had truly been raised from the dead. . </li><li>That the dead remain dead wasn t a belief invented by Enlightenment scepticism or  the scientific worldview , but was as much common-sense in NT times as today. So, to justify challenging this  basic and fundamental assumption , Wright will advance historical arguments  but also the theological <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_6">argument</A></U><SUB>6</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_6"></A> that arose from early Christian reflection on Jesus as God s Son, and that God is to be known as Jesus father. </li><li>So, is the project even possible & ?</li></ul> </li><li><b>The Arrows</b>: <ol type="i"><li><b>Shooting at the Sun</b>: Folk-tale analogy between the sun and its water-reflection and God and pantheistic explanation. Invocation of passages from Deuteronomy & Romans 6 on divine immanence, but suspicion of quasi-historical  proofs along the lines of <a name="3"></a><A HREF = "../../Authors/M/Author_McDowell (Josh).htm">Josh McDowell</A>. </li><li><b>Resurrection and History</b>: <ol type="a"><li><b>The Senses of  History'</b>: <ul type="disc"><li>Wright gives five senses used in this context:- <ol type="I"><li><em>Events</em> that really happened, whether or not anyone was there to witness. </li><li><em>Significant</em> events in the first sense.  Historic events. Bultmann s distinction between <em>geschichte</em> and <em>historie</em>.</li><li><em>Provable events</em> -  by analogy with mathematics and the hard sciences . </li><li><em>Writing</em> about events in the past as well as <em>oral tradition</em> (once considered as the more reliable). </li><li><em>What  modern  ie post-Enlightenment  historians can say</em> about (the past) that fits into the post-Enlightenment <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_7">worldview</A></U><SUB>7</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_7"></A>. </ol></li><li>So, when we consider the resurrection of Jesus, which sense are we considering it in? The book will be taken up mostly in sense (I), but sense (V) will cause the most trouble, though sense (III) is also difficult. No-one takes the other two senses to be problematical in the context of Jesus resurrection. </li><li>So, the focus will be on whether the resurrection was something that happeed  and just what <em>did</em> happen?</li><li>Wright quotes the  rightly famous <a name="6"></a>"<A HREF = "../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_03/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_3587.htm">Crossan (John Dominic) - The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant</A>" as saying  of the Quest for Jesus  that some scholars said it <u>couldn t</u> be done, which others said it <u>shouldn t</u> be done, and that some who said the former intended the latter; he suggests this is even more true of the resurrection. </li><li>Wright says there are six <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_8">objections</A></U><SUB>8</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_8"></A>, and he will divide them into those raised by the  couldn t camp and those from the  shouldn t camp.</li><li>He returns (unhelpfully, in my <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_9">view</A></U><SUB>9</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_9"></A>) to the  arrows and the sun analogy. <ol type="I"><li>The  couldn t camp thinks there s either nothing to find, or it s invisible. </li><li>The  shouldn t camp thinks the quest is doomed and a kind of hubris  it is out of our range. <BR> </ol></li></ul></li><li><b>No Access? </b> <ul type="disc"><li>Marxsen: no ancient source  bar the fabulous Gospel of Peter  purports to describe Jesus exit from the tomb, and even this text doesn t describe the resurrection itself. The target may exist, but it is out of sight. </li><li>While this appears cautious and scientific, Wright claims it is neither: it says both too little and too <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_10">much</A></U><SUB>10</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_10"></A>. <ol type="I"><li><em>Too little</em>: a positivistic demand of direct access   first-hand witness accounts  is not how historians work. They deduce that certain inaccessible events took place because they follow from others to which we do have access. Otherwise there would be silence and no  history at all. In a footnote he quotes the analogous methodology of scientists and textual critics, citing <a name="7"></a>"<A HREF = "../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_06/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_6375.htm">Polkinghorne (John) - Science and Christian Belief: Theological Reflections of a Bottom-up Thinker</A>" for the former. </li><li><em>Too much</em>: All we have are texts, so we don t even have direct access to the disciples faith. Again, if we apply the same  relentless suspicion in  regular <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_11">postmodernist</A></U><SUB>11</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_11"></A> fashion we have  a long and stony road ahead . </ol></li><li>Wright says that Marxsen persistently <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_12">mixes</A></U><SUB>12</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_12"></A> up the senses of  history that Wright has distinguished. So  with respect to  Jesus transition from death to life  no-one wrote about it (IV), so nothing can be proved (III), so  we modern historians can say nothing about it (V)  whatever  it is (I)  though it is certainly significant (II). </li></ul></li><li><b>No Analogy? </b> <ul type="disc"><li>Ernst Troeltsch: Historians can only write about things that have some analogy with their own experience; we ve not come across a resurrection before, so nothing can be said  though the Resurrection might be historical for all that. </li><li>So, the Resurrection satisfies senses (I) and (IV) but not (III) or (V).</li><li>A footnote refers to Hume s general point about the <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_13">miraculous</A></U><SUB>13</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_13"></A>:  No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that it s falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which is endeavours to establish. , but Wright thinks Troeltsch s point is  more nuanced , in that it s not rejecting the historicity of the Resurrection, only saying we can say nothing about it. </li><li>Pannenberg claims the analogy will only arise when we are resurrected at Christ s return, but Wright (correctly) thinks this gives too much away. </li><li>Historians can talk of one-offs  such as the first space flight (prior to the second one). While this might be countered by reference to analogous  flights , Wright thinks there were at least <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_14">partial</A></U><SUB>14</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_14"></A> analogies to Christ s resurrection in the Jewish tradition. </li><li>Wright claims that taking Troeltsch s point seriously would leave us with nothing to say about the <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_15">rise of the early church</A></U><SUB>15</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_15"></A>, which was also unprecedented and no analogous event has since occurred. </li><li>So  if we accept the above point about the early Church  then Troeltsch s argument tells us that the events after the crucifixion require explanation, <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P19120_16">analogy or no analogy</A></U><SUB>16</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P19120_16"></A>. </li></ul></li><li><b>No Real Evidence? </b> <ul type="disc"><li>It seems that  recent research has resulted in the evidence from the Gospels and Paul being  explained away in several ways:- <ol type="I"><li>Form criticism: <a name="8"></a>"<A HREF = "../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_04/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_4312.htm">Ludemann (Gerd) - The Resurrection of Jesus</A>"</li><li>Politics: <a name="9"></a>"<A HREF = "../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_03/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_3587.htm">Crossan (John Dominic) - The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant</A>". </ol></li><li> </li></ul></ol></li><li><b>Resurrection in History and Theology</b>: <ol type="a"><li><b>No Other Starting-Point?</b></li><li><b>Resurrection and Christology</b>:</li><li><b>Resurrection and Eschatology</b>: </ol></ol></li><li><b>The Historical Starting-Point</b>: </li></ol><hr><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><B>Comment: </B><BR><BR>PART I: Setting the Scene - Chapter 1<BR><BR><HR><BR><U><B>In-Page Footnotes</U></B><a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_1"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_1"><B>Footnote 1</B></A></U>: The first three are fascinating: <ol type="i"><li>Where does Jesus fit in to Judaism? </li><li>What were his aims? and </li><li>Why did he die? </li></ol><a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_3"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_3"><B>Footnote 3</B></A></U>: <ul type="disc"><li><a name="4"></a><A HREF = "../../Authors/E/Author_Ehrman (Bart D.).htm">Bart D. Ehrman</A> disagrees with this, though I can t remember where. </li><li>Ehrman s view is that all sorts of things might have happened, and it s not possible to know which. Each individual hypothesis might be objectionable, but it s not up to the critic to select one to nail his colours to. </li><li>Wright makes no mention of Ehrman in his extensive bibliography. </li></ul> <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_4"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_4"><B>Footnote 4</B></A></U>: Presumably there are other causes for  internal experiences than these two options.  Visions are  presumably  internal as not everyone can see them, but not thereby  fantasy . <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_6"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_6"><B>Footnote 6</B></A></U>: We ll have to wait and see what this comes to. I m suspicious. <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_7"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_7"><B>Footnote 7</B></A></U>: This can t just be dismissed, as maybe Wright wants to do. <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_8"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_8"><B>Footnote 8</B></A></U>: <ul type="disc"><li>Wright doesn t seem to say at this point either what these objections are, or what they are objections to.</li><li>But one may presume that the three subsequent sub-sections (b) to (d) in this section and the three (a) to (c) in the next are the six, and correspond to the division between the camps. </li></ul> <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_9"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_9"><B>Footnote 9</B></A></U>: <ul type="disc"><li>It doesn t really matter how the objections are forced into these categories.</li><li>The divide amongst the  objectors seems to be between the  hard headed who think the problem is a  this world one that we just can t solve for lack of evidence and the  spirituals who think it impious even to look. </li></ul> <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_10"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_10"><B>Footnote 10</B></A></U>: As usual, I don t understand this turn of phrase, but it doesn t really matter. <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_11"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_11"><B>Footnote 11</B></A></U>: <ul type="disc"><li>This seems a bit random. Can one be both a positivist and a postmodernist or are these just used as terms of abuse?</li><li>I agree that you can set the bar too high, and be excessively sceptical, but not all historians who adopt a  healthy scepticism to outlandish claims are positivists or postmodernists. </li><li>It just is the case that the bar has to be set higher in evaluating the miraculous, and the gaps left by absent or inaccessible evidence can filled in in different ways. </li><li>Of course, the resurrection of Jesus is such a pivotal event (if it was one) that it deserves special treatment. </li><li>But, even so, we can t say how it occurred  which is why people are so keen to believe that the Shroud of Turin is genuine and was created by  resurrection radiation .</li><li>Finally, I m not impressed by the choice of an extreme sceptic as the only opponent in this regard. Presumably many moderate historians would adopt a  no access stance. </li></ul><a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_12"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_12"><B>Footnote 12</B></A></U>: <ul type="disc"><li>Wright says  fails to distinguish the senses . </li><li>Without reading Marxsen, who can say, but the sentence I ve compressed out of Wright s text seems reasonable enough, and not a muddle. </li><li>If we re strictly talking about the  transition then we strictly have to remain silent as we really are cut off from the event. </li></ul> <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_13"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_13"><B>Footnote 13</B></A></U>: <ul type="disc"><li>I think Hume s point is entirely right, and think that all right-thinking people should share this view. </li><li>The issue then  of course  is whether Hume s stricture is ever satisfied (as Hume denied, but which Wright thinks happened in this case  the rise of the Church being inexplicable without the Resurrection, he claims). </li></ul> <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_14"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_14"><B>Footnote 14</B></A></U>: <ul type="disc"><li>We re referred to resuscitations & healings. </li><li>But I d have thought that these are also equally  if not more  doubtful. </li></ul> <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_15"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_15"><B>Footnote 15</B></A></U>: <ul type="disc"><li>Wright gives a long  and to my mind unconvincing  paragraph in support of this claim. </li><li>The point is that the rise of the early Church is (to a naturalist) entirely natural and (as Wright admits) can be explained in terms of a portfolio of partially analogous events  even if there is no exact parallel (and this might be debated). </li><li>But in the case of the Resurrection we re talking about a supernatural event, so finding an analogy  without begging the question  is difficult. </li></ul> <a name="On-Page_Link_P19120_16"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P19120_16"><B>Footnote 16</B></A></U>: I think I agree that the  no analogy argument isn t that important, but don t accept Wright s rejection of it. <BR><BR><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><HR></P><a name="ColourConventions"></a><p><b>Text Colour Conventions (see <A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1025.htm">disclaimer</a>)</b></p><OL TYPE="1"><LI><FONT COLOR = "0000FF">Blue</FONT>: Text by me; &copy; Theo Todman, 2018</li><LI><FONT COLOR = "800080">Mauve</FONT>: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); &copy; the author(s)</li></OL> <BR><HR><BR><CENTER> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <TR><TD WIDTH="30%">&copy; Theo Todman, June 2007 - August 2018.</TD> <TD WIDTH="40%">Please address any comments on this page to <A HREF="mailto:theo@theotodman.com">theo@theotodman.com</A>.</TD> <TD WIDTH="30%">File output: <time datetime="2018-08-02T09:01" pubdate>02/08/2018 09:01:43</time> <br><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1010.htm">Website Maintenance Dashboard</A></TD></TR> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="#Top">Return to Top of this Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="40%"><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1140.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="../../index.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Home Page</A></TD> </TR></TABLE></CENTER><HR> </BODY> </HTML>