[JSNT 69 (1998) 77-94]
THEOLOGICAL HISTORY? N.T. WRIGHT'S
CraigA. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.)
THE FUNCTION OF SCRIPTURE IN EARLY JEWISH
AND CHRISTIAN TRADITION
The studies that make up this book explore in what ways Israel's
sacred tradition developed into canonical scripture and in what
ways this sacred tradition was interpreted in Early Judaism and
Christianity. This collection of essayswill stimulate continuing
investigation into the growth and interpretation of scripture in the
context of the Jewish and Christian communities of faith, and will
serve well as a reader for graduate courses with its focus on early
exegesis and intertextuality.
Craig Evans is Professor and Director of the Graduate Program in
Biblical Studies, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada.
James Sanders is Professor Emeritus of BiblicalStudies at the Claremont
School of Theology and ProfessorEmeritus of Religion at the Claremont
Graduate University.
cl. 55.00/$85.00
ISBN 1 85075 830 1
Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism JSNT Supplement Series, 154
and Christianity, 6 349 pp.
JESUS AND THE VICTORY OF GOD*
Clive Marsh
University College of Ripon and York St John,
and the University of Sheffield
The second volume of Tom Wright's Christian Origins and the Ques
tion of God has been long-awaited.' It has been worth the wait. It does
not disappoint either in scale, readability, rhetorical flourish or bold
ness of thesis. One of the main problems for the author of such a text
as Jesus and the Victory of God, however, is that the comprehensive
ness of the project leaves him open to the critique ofso many scholars
from many disciplines: philosophers and theologians will want their
pound of flesh as well as biblical scholars. For this book is no simple
history, and is possibly not simply historyif by history we mean
anything even vaguely resembling nineteenth-century positivism. In
this review I shall summarize Wright's position briefly (part I), criti
cally examine some of the main features of his undertaking (part II)
before going on (in part III) to note some pluses and minuses of his
approach. In a short, final section, I shall venture a provocative thesis
about the book's intention and value.
* An earlier version of this review was presented to the Jesus Seminar of the
British New Testament Conference, Leeds, 13 September 1997.1 amgrateful to the
respondents, Maurice Casey and Tom Wright, and tothe members of the seminar for
stimulating a most useful discussion. I must also record thanks to Tom Wright for
following up the seminar with a meticulous, written critique of the paper.
1. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996); hereafter yVG.
 78 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998)
I Torah (p. 432) and acts prophetically and symbolically in the Temple
In a nutshell, Wright's position is this: 'Jesus is reconstituting Israel
around himself (p. 131; see also, e.g., pp. 242, 401, 537-38). Jesus
was calling those around him to a 'new way of being Israel' (e.g.
pp. 229, 301, 314, 437, 605) and making a claim for the crucial role
of his own person in Israel's reconstitution in this new way. 'He retold
the story of Israel as his own story' (p. 466). In the parable of the
sower, for example, 'Jesus is implying that his own career and
kingdom-announcement is the moment towards which all Israel's
history has been leading' (p. 235, italics original). Furthermore, Jesus'
own ministry is to be seen as 'the encapsulation, not merely the climax'
of the story of Israel (p. 235, italics original). 'Jesus fully intended his
stories to generate a new form of community' (p. 246). He was not,
then, speaking of Israel as an abstract concept, but very concretely of
the way that people inter-related (p. 276). Jesus created around him
self a 'fictive kinship' (p. 430), which undermined contemporary
assumptions about family ties.
Things had to happen, however, if Israel was to adopt this new way
of being. Jesus needed to call on people to repent (e.g. p. 251). This
call by Jesus for the true people of Israel to seek forgiveness is itself
an eschatological act, a return from exile (e.g. pp. 249, 268).
Jesus was offering the return from exile, the renewed covenant, the escha
tological 'forgiveness of sins'in other words, the kingdom of god (sic).
And he was offering this final eschatological blessing outside the official
structures, to all the wrong people, and on his own authority. That was
his real offence (p. 272).
This call to repentance is much more of a corporate act than contem
porary understanding often permits (p. 256).
Two further requirements of the coming into being of the true
Israel were the defeat of evil (pp. 461, 481 and passim) and the return
of Yhwh to Zion (pp. 463, 481 and passim). All three components
return from exile, the defeat of evil, the return of Yhwh to Zionare
'the three major kingdom-themes' (p. 481) and as such are subsumed
within the main 'kingdom-story' (e.g. pp. 287-88, 364) which it is
Jesus' vocation to re-work in word and deed. Jesus is therefore a fun
damental re-definer, or re-interpreter, of the metanarrative to end all
metanarratives (e.g. pp. 241, 299, 346, 348, 385, 447, 604): the story
Marsh Thelogical History? 79
of Yhwh's being king. In embodying this vocation, Jesus re-defines the
(pp. 423-24, 490). Indeed, he sees himself as the new temple (p. 426)
and accepts, whilst re-defining it, the role of Messiah (pp. 489, 528,
530). More than this: ultimately, Jesus 'would embody in himself the
returning and redeeming action of the covenant God' (p. 653).
Such a self-claim could not but bring trouble. In light of all this,
Jesus' death becomes readily explicable: 'Why did Jesus die? Ulti
mately, because he believed it was his vocation' (p. 593). In order to
carry through what he believed he was called to do, Jesus inevitably
became entangled in the many and messy issues of his day which can
only with difficulty and anachronistically be labelled 'religious' or
'political', some of which now, with hindsight, may seem (wrongly) to
be the primary causes of his death: upsetting the Jewish authorities
(pp. 551-52), and Pilate's need to get out of a tricky situation
(pp. 546-47).
Key to all this, however, is eschatology (pp. 593-94). The true
Israel is the eschatological Israel (p. 563). The messiah is an eschato
logical figure. The return from exile, the defeat of evil and Yhwh's
return to Zion are all eschatological events. This does not, however,
mean that they are future events. Eschatological acts are this-worldly
happenings, in which God acts decisively. Apocalyptic turns of phrase
are 'metaphors with teeth' (p. 321). Stories told by (and for that
matter, about) Jesus may well be called 'speech-acts' (p. 554). But that
is only because we have needed to rediscover something that was self-
evident to first-century Jews: stories are never just stories, but are
more closely connected with praxis than post-idealists can readily see.
Is Jesus a 'religious figure', then? Not in any easily identifiable
contemporary sense. He is an eschatological and therefore political
figure (p. 310). We should not really primarily think of Jesus and his
movement as religious. That would be misleading (pp. 303, 372, 377,
380, 382, 400). Those Jesus sent out, for example (Mt. 10.1-42 etc.;
see p. 303 n. 224), 'will have looked more like what in many ways
they were: enthusiasts for a new and revolutionary movement' (pp.
303-304). 'Jesus was more like a politician on the campaign trail than
a schoolmaster...' (p. 172). But calling him a 'political figure' will
not really do either, because of the way that post-Enlightenment cul
ture has so separated religion from politics.
At the end of the day, 'Jesus fits no known pattern' (p. 144). His
80 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998)
'mindset'which we can to a large degree reconstruct (p. 593)
really does seem to have belonged to 'some greater, more original,
more subtle mind' than we have often allowed (p. 479). He was one of
a kind: 'It is very unlikely that Jesiis belonged to any of the sects of his
day' (p. 164); and 'Modern western culture does not have too many
obvious models for the kind of thing he was doing...' (p. 171). It is
not then surprising, either, that historical research surrounding such a
figure has been rather difficult to do.
II
I shall now sketch some of the main features of Wright's procedure,
and make some comments on each. Four main 'planks' can be discerned.
1. Wright adopts an approach to the Gospel evidence which is
trusting first, placing the burden of proof on those who claim
that material about Jesus' actions and sayings is inauthentic.
This results in a preference for canonical material on the
basis of the textual and historical work conducted.
2. He builds into his enquiry a comprehensive picture of Second
Temple Judaism, within which Jesus is to be 'placed'.
3. Wright offers a re-interpretation of eschatology and apoca
lyptic, built upon the clear statement that 'there is virtually
no evidence that Jews were expecting the end of the space-
time universe'.^
4. He feels able to conclude that Jesus' 'mindset' is largely
identifiable.
The first feature is understandable, given the contemporary climate
of Gospel study in the West. Interpreters of the Gospels who have not
switched tack altogether, and still believe that something called 'his
tory' can be undertaken in relation to the Gospelseven if literary
approaches do have something vital to sayare more confident than,
say, two decades ago about what can be found in the Gospels. We live
in the generation of Witherington and Evans, rather than Nineham.^
2. N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK,
1992), p. 333 (hereafter, NTPG), cited in JVG, p. 321.
3. 'The New Testament Gospels are now viewed as useful, if not essentially
reliable, historical sources. Gone is the extreme skepticism that for so many years
dominated Gospel research'. Craig A. Evans, Jesusand his Contemporaries (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 8-9.
81
Marsh Thelogical History?
Those of us taught by teachers more influenced by Bultmann than the
present generation may however, be permitted a few critical ques
tions. Even if form- and redaction-critics may well have overstated
their case as far as the creativity of the first Christian communities
and their Evangelists is concerned, there are surely limits to the
credibility of the Gospels' historical reliability. It is one thing to keep
an open mind about the Gospels' historical reliability; it is quite
another to conclude, as Wright does, about the Temptation narratives:
As part of astrictly historical hypothesis, we are justified in saying that
something like this, orat least something that would have given nse to a
story like this, almost certainly took place as part of Jesus' mental, emo
tional and spiritual history (p. 459).
This is an interesting procedure. It is such a heavily qualified state
ment as to be innocuous. In the context ofthe short section devoted to
the Temptation narratives we see that it means that: because Jesus was
a religious figure of sorts, he must have had some sort of inner, per
sonal struggle, so it is not surprising to find an account like this in the
Gospels. Indeed; but that by no means enables these Gospel texts to be
drafted in without further ado as a form of evidence for a historical
argument. Despite Wright's own acknowledgment that so much else is
going on in these texts (p. 457), the reader is bound to wonder
whether there are not other cases where the hypothesis being con
structed depends a little too heavily on possible, rather than probable,
scenarios.'*
The second feature of Wright's strategy worthy of comment is the
immense work he has put into the location of Jesus within the Juda-
ism/s of his day. The Jewishness ofJesus is fully recognized and res
pected (p. 592). Wright is dissatisfied with piecemeal approaches and
wants to see the 'big picture'. To a non-expert in Second Temple
Judaism, such as myself, his achievement is nothing short ofdazzling.
The comprehensive way in which Wright draws upon both Hebrew
Bible and later Jewish literature to make sense of Jesus as Jew is
impressive, and renders his picture ofJesus at the very least plausible.
Some reservations can, however, be ventured.
It may well have been 'very unlikely that Jesus belonged to any of
4. For example when creative useof material from the Hebrew Bible vis-a-vis
Jesus' identity is traced back with nagging consistency to Jesus himself: e.g.
pp. 501, 519, 598, 601-604.
 83

82 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998) MARSH

MARSH Thelogical
ineius'-^' History?

f r Ipsus is hard to pinpoint in his

the sects of his day' (p. 164). But the sociological freakishness of Jesus to admit.If a sociological base fo offered is less
begins to become increasingly apparent as the argument develops- account, then it suggests that the p that in the
Collins s point, that ifJesus 'were indistinguishable from other escha- concrete than may be suppose - praxis-oriented than they are in
tological prophets and messianic pretenders, he could scarcely have first century beliefs were much ^^gp^te such statemen
had such an impact on history...' (cited p. 519 n. 146), can be the present. Jesus remains locate ( can be acco
granted.5 What is unclear at the end of Wright's account is just where as found on p. 604') in awor coherently and tidily msue
Jesus fits sociologically speaking.<^ He is, after all, eschatological. not modated. and made sense o , q
religious; he may be political, but not in a modern sense; he has
rejected his family in favour of afictive kinship. Even though WrigW Te Ihifd feamie of
strongly resists an anachronistic. Western, individualistic reading oi
esus bearing in mind the corporate notion of Israel which Jesus is Lr: r::hami:^av:, :e-,eadius.
wv. at IS^^''ntly
construed in much New Te^^^^d apocalyP'-
Hisre-imerpretalion of eschato'oSy . 1. sawy
his Jesus'hissocial
Jesusbase,
seems to be strangely
precisely?^ sociallyappears
Jesus always dislocated-
to be
m^gma to all of the 'cells' or 'communities' that he 'intended to call 317, 321, M6, 365, 390) h^^lis-worldly wi"h me
Wright presenting ',er that ^wilh
'more
seem to end up ending us to grasp P- aboutWright sometimesresuh"
the communities does century history, yet m language and imag y
mg from Jesus impact, than about Jesus himself. In other words, eschatological and trestle- Wright s e^^ pf
interpretations of Jesus j^-g jgsus m . ^ result
of uarfici clearly read' from the perspective of the existence despite Mark 13; in Wrig ^e -accepted as au
witLut ih"' 1"'' (eventually, Christian) communities. Mark 13, and the chapter can be th
rpZ un r 'he coLunit.es thf (pp. 339-43). Because of ^p 342). about God's deal-
of folfowerrr"^vxf"etnte
followers (p. 276) needs much more spellingandoutcontent of the cells not demythologizing ap this wort ' language; each
iug it for what it 'e^'yconffictwi*-^rJ^p^ic 1, says
givenTe''<> -d extends' dre hrst. It is ironicah tngs with it. Apocalypno Ltic' (P- 5'
ism and idf^ar throughout NTPG and JVG against idea requires the other (p- oHmg of apocaiyP , .pd tour de force.
mately be more ^^at Wright's account of Jesus may u^' Wright, a-historical undersW^ undoubtrf m
y beliefs-centred than he may wish, or care Wright's work at this pom persuasive ^^as
He has presented his e" ^ be quUe s" e of
to Wonder whether every ^fil) those space-time
Messiahs of the Dead Se<^ charge with 'crass pj^ysjcal cl ^^ch language as
6- The fact AaS ^ork: Doubleday 1995). p205- man passages in gmatters- The a ^ ^ ^ is
Mediterranean Jewish PeasT!7^ Historical Jesus: The Life of World is surely to over
this is taken literally sti i from irr
^
T- &T. Clark, 19911) has mZ ^'-ancisco: Harper San Francisco; Edinburg_
nomically is to his credit ano^ t attempt to locate Jesus sociologically and e
7- Wright does (p. 53). of 9. On Wright's opposhi<^ t ^^2, 554' in the history of
social-scientific work on the ^scepticism as to the val" n. 22, 94-95. 96. 108. and JVC. PP' belongs " j^iy passion.' This may
necessarily mean that ZZlTl ^T' PP" 53-54. 159). But this does ^ 10. Mesus' personal read-i ^^. ^da. action
reason for the weakness ofhis study\tL^^'^^'^^''^ enquiry is h ideas, as in the history of vocat own
indeed he true of Jesus- But is U about
ensuing volumes {JVG on ,_ P'^^'^niably accept that more will be jo Mainly argues with passion.
order to fill in the gaps in Ufis nr. volumes appear to be needeo
sentation ofJesus, is itself instructive.
84 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998)
sufficient to call such a 'monstrosity' the preserve only of 'funda
mentalists and would-be "critical" scholars' (p. 517). Aside from the
question of how a range of textual material is to be interpreted,
Wright is touching here on the immense difficulty (impossibility!) of
getting a grasp on what people actually believed, as opposed to what
the extant texts enable us to perceive that some people (writers of
texts, religious leaders) may have believed. 1 do not wish to argue
from silence and claim that because some people in the present do
(and they really do!) believe in a literal return of Jesus/the son of man
on literal clouds, therefore first-century Jews must have also. But 1 do
wish to accentuate what is a basic problem of all social history: how
do we account for the 'common people'? The fact that Wright's own
enquiries lead him to conclude that Jesus related especially to those
outside the official structures, to all the wrong people (p. 272),
however weak his precise social locating of Jesus may be, causes
searching questions to be raised about the neatness of his argument at
this point. Easy equations of low intelligence, non-official religion and
'literal' apocalypticismdrawn from the social psychology of reli
giondo not appear to be sustainable (and certainly not easily across
cultures and many centuries). But some attention to enquiry in this
area would be welcome."
The final feature of Wright's approach worthy of mention is his
attention to Jesus' 'mindset' (e.g. pp. 364, 450, 459, 462, 576-77).
Deliberately eschewing the term Jesus' 'self-understanding' (until its
cautious introduction on p. 648), Wright is nevertheless aware that as
a historian he has to deal with what figures in the past thought and
believed, insofar as one can ever conclude anything in this regard
(pp. 100-101, 138-42). Wright is surely correct here, knowing that he
must take risks in his interpretation but that he will hardly be able to
draw conclusions with any degree of finality. This makes a number of
aspects of his enquiry all the more puzzling, however. At a couple of
points (pp. 479-80, 600), Wright denies that he is 'venturing down the
road of psychology'. Yet this is precisely what his exploration of the
mindset of Jesus is, and must be, at least to some extent. His refusal to
travel the psychological road should actually make him less, rather
than more, sure about the substance and coherence of his conclusions.
11. Crossan has received much opposition for the wide-ranging nature of his
interdisciplinary work at this point. Without defending him fully, it is nevertheless
possible to commend the intention behind his method.
Marsh Thelogkal History? 85
He is, however, more than a little convinced that he has successfully
grasped what Jesus thought of himself. In this, he has anotable ally."
So what is going on here? At the inaugural meeting of the SBL s
Psychology and Biblical Studies Group in Washington DC in Novem
ber 1993 (at which Marcus Borg presided), Wayne Rollins drew
attention to the fact that it was Bultmann who taught New Testament
scholars to be sceptical of psychology. Tracing the history ofthe link
between psychology and biblical studies, Rollins observed that, with a
few notable exceptions, an antipathy on the part of biblical scholars
towards psychology existed as late as about 1975. 'Historical-critical
study' of the Bible was, then, a strangely narrow discipline in prac
tice. In JVG, we can see that, with explicit attention to Jesus
'mindset', Wright is opening up a door to stretching the brief of his
torical criticism, which he himself seems unwilling to go through.
But what would 'venturing down the road ofpsychology' entail? At
its most basic level, a level that Wright would support, it means doing
what historians have always done; attempting to grasp historical
figures' intentions, based on conclusions inferred from their actions,
'reading' those figures in the light of worlds of thought which it is
likely they would have inhabited; seeking to put together a picture o
the ideas they would have entertained. At a more developed level, the
value of which Wright would question, it would mean using the in
sights ofa discipline which is but acentury old to try and tease out the
psychological development and temperament of a first-century
tinian male, who ended up being executed in his early thirties. A
crucial issue, however, is whether such a psychological procedure is
only possible when one can actually interview the subject (psychology
being in this sense an empirical discipline)." This being so, the more
developed use ofpsychological insights is simply not possible in Jesus
Research. On the other hand, it can be arguedand I think rightly
that discoveries in psychology cannot be irrelevant to historical study
by more indirect means, so long as allowance is made for the (West
ern, Northern, late-nineteenth- century and twentieth-century) contexts
12. 'We know substantially what Jesus thought of himself.' E.P. Sanders, The
Historical Figure ofJesus (Heirmondsworth: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, 1993),
p. 239.
13. In this regard, John W. Miller, Jesus at Thirty (Minneapolis: Fortress Press
1997) is eagerly awaited.
14. I owe this insight to Larry Hurtado.
 86 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998)
within which the very discipline has emerged. Conclusions about
'thirty-year old males' drawn from twentieth-century Euro-American
enquiries will inevitably have to be used with caution in relation to a
first-century Mediterranean male. But they can still be used.
Whatever the reason for Wright's own suspicions of psychological
approaches, then,'^ there is nevertheless room to suggest that more
speculation in this area would be not only possible but even fruitful.
These four features are, I submit, central to Wright's undertaking.
My critical comments should not be taken as devaluing Wright's
approach. In all four cases he has presented his material brilliantly.
But he has by no means (of course!) had the last word. 1 turn now to
further areas worthy of critical comment.
Ill
I begin this section with two aspects of Wright's undertaking that
deserve particular praise. The first is the extent to which Wright has
been prepared to do his own homework about the Quest itself. All
scholars stand on the shoulders of others, and scholarly debate
depends on critical conversation (in person, in print and, increasingly,
on screen). In the case of the Quest of the Historical Jesus, there is a
clearly defined pathway stretching, at the very least, from Reimarus to
the Third Quest.' It is a rocky road, with lots of side roads (not all of
which are cul-de-sacs), but it is identifiable nevertheless, and its story
is often told. Often, however, contributions are made with insufficient
knowledge, or interaction, with those who have travelled the road (or
even part of it) before. It is to Wright's credit that he reviews not
only the road, but the landscape around it before setting off on his
15. Wright disputes both that the legacy of Buitmann may have more of a hold on
him than he recognizes and that there may be an element of theological reservation
attached to his reluctance to enquire too deeply into Jesus' mindset (for who can
claim to know the mind of God?; cf. Rom. 11.34, 1 Cor. 2.16). Interestingly,
despite Wright's explicit commitment to Christian faith, his willingness to wrestle
with the interplay of history and theology in Jesus research, and despite his bold
ch.13, he does side-step in JVG questions of the so-called 'divinity' of Jesus
('whatever that might be deemed to mean', p. 196; 'whatever we might mean by
that', p. 613).
16. Reimarus depended on the English Deists, as Wright himself notes {JVG.
p. 16; following C. Brown). But there remains, nevertheless, a sense in which
Reimarus is an appropriate starting-point for the so-called 'Quest'.
Marsh Thelogical History? 87
own journey. Despite his own survey (pp. 13-124), he still, in my
view, oversimplifies matters.'^ But be that as it may, he has at least
located his own work within the Quest, stating a clear preference for
Schweitzer over Wrede.
The second point for which Wright deserves particular credit is the
way in which he continues to wrestle with the philosophical and theo
logical aspects of the Quest. Having mapped out the epistemological
strategy being adopted throughout his five-volume study in NTPG
(esp. pp. 32-37), Wright remains open to attending to the complex
debate between history and theology in JVG (esp, pp. 117-21, 660-
62). The interest in and attention to this debate is not, however,
confined merely to a few methodological sections. It can be discerned
throughout the study, at a number of points where Wright actively
fends off lazy assumptions or impositions drafted in from Nicene
Christology (p. 197) trinitarian theology (e.g. pp. 485-86, 653) or
later theories of the atonement (e.g. pp. 541, 592). He thus resists
strongly the notion that his Jesus simply serves up what Christian the
ology wants to hear. Wright thus deserves credit for keeping the his
tory-theology debate alive in the Quest.
His achievement, however, isas 1 have stated elsewhere
'strangely comforting' for Christian believers, and it is at this point
where further critique can begin. The very fact that his conclusions
enable continuity between Jesus of Nazareth and Christian interpreta
tion to be clearly seen enables sighs of relief to be sounded all round
the church. It is not claim of the continuity, but the basis upon which
that claim is grounded, however, that is problematic. Wright s claim
is that this continuity is fully historically legitimate, and for that very
reason theologically significant (pp. 661-62). The Jesus of history/
Christ of faith split is so disastrous, he declares, because it fails to
enable people to draw the necessary theological conclusions from the
historical evidence available. Perhaps; but at this point 1 wonder
whether his own critical realism has not slipped into a form of the
nineteenth-century positivism which he goes to suchlengths to oppose.
However much Wright may claim that he is merely constructing a
17. See also Wright's study in ABD, III, pp. 796-802. I have offered a re
reading of the Quest in 'Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Per
spective' (hereafter 'Quests'), Bibint 5/34 (1997), pp. 403-37. In that article I
interact extensively with Wright's work.
18. 'Quests', p. 424.
 88 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998)
comprehensive hypothesis (on critical-realist lines), one of the driving
forces of his undertaking appears clearly to be to maximize the
historical data available, in the defence of theological assertions (made
in the first century, even if not today) point for point. Even if this is
not historical positivism, it is certainly theological positivism in the
nineteenth-century sense." The theological interest which Wright
maintains and which I am myself most keen to examinedoes not
obtrude, obviously distort, or wholly control Wright's historical pre
sentation. (Perhaps it should be more obtrusive!) And his mapping out
of the historical epistemology he seeks to follow allows him to
acknowledge that theological interest up-front. But his approach sug
gests that a more explicit presentation of the theological world, and
the understanding of religion, out of which he speaks is necessary to
complement the exposition of epistemology he has offered.^
A second critical point relates to the sheer neatness of Wright's
overall conclusion. Wright acknowledges that his conclusions about
Jesus can be equated neither with a set programme within Judaism into
which Jesus can be slotted (p. 591) nor a systematic teaching syllabus
on Jesus part (p. 477). But these statements cannot allay suspicions
that his conclusions tie up too many loose ends. Jesus appeared to have
seen everything so clearly, that his own humanityparticularly its
fraught historicityseems open to question. It is difficult not to con
clude that developments in Judaism and Christianity are necessary in
order for us to be able to agree with Wright about Jesus. However,
that does not of itself give us historical grounds for claiming such
things about Jesus ofNazareth himself. It merely compels us to enter
the quagmire of history and theology (and ideology, politics, sociol
ogy and psychology) through which we understand the past and the
present (including ourselves). Jesus may or may not have seen all the
19. The complication is created, I think, by the extent to which Wright is taking
on those who are prepared to argue in a historically positivist way, as if facts are
more easy to come by than they appear to be, whilst operating with a much more
cautious critically realist approach. Wright confuses the issue, though, by frequent
use throughout JVG ofterms such as 'genuine historical work', 'history in the fullest
sense', 'solid historical ground', 'a real attempt to do history seriously', 'serious
history', 'serious historical method', 'serious historian', 'a more mature approach',
'serious social history' (pp. 22, 23, 71, 84, 86-87, 89, 135; see my comments in
'Quests', pp. 410-12).
20. How, in other words, is the content and significance of NTPG, ch. 5
('Theology, Auhority and the New Testament*) reflected in JVG?
89
MARSH Thelogical History?
things (about himself and his movement) that Wright claims. But pre
cisely because discussions about whether he did are never only^histori-
cal debates it is necessary to extend the discussion yet further.
A third critical point relates to Wright's reading of apocalyptic. 1
still wish to be more positive than negative at this point. Though
Wright is bound to receive criticism for seeking (perhaps, it may be
felt, even on theological grounds) to make seemingly other-worldly
ideas more tangible and usable, he is nevertheless presenting aplausi
ble historical case. But there remain questions worth asking. Much
emphasis is placed by Wright on the reinterpretation of apocalyptic
the more 'historical understanding'^that he offers. As a consequence,
he must fend off the charge of abandoning eschatology altogether. For
eschatology is not the same as apocalyptic, of course. But in what
sense, then, for Wright is Jesus an eschatological figure, within this
redefinition ofapocalyptic? The answer is ostensibly given on pp. 208-
209 of JVG. It is difficult to see, however, what Wright is making
here of the present and future aspects of Jesus actions, in relation to
the terms 'apocalyptic' and 'eschatology'. The terms are clearly not to
be seen as wholly future-oriented. For the time is now, at least in the
sense of decisively dawning. Jesus' reconstitution of Israel around
himself amounts to the announcement and praxis of Yhwh coming as
kingthat is the eschatological moment. The crucial aspect of apoca
lyptic and eschatology for Wright is that the terms relate to events
'within space-time history'. It is not the present or future aspects that
are foregrounded. This is fine as far as it goes. But it is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that Wright's criticisms of the Bultmannian tra
ditionand its preoccupation with the son of man and the present or
future kingdomlead Wright himselfto side-step an important ques
tion (so just what is it that is already here with Jesus, and how much is
yet to come?). If Wright feels that no side-stepping has happened, then
21. This is the line followed in 'Quests', in which I argue for greater attention to
ideological features of the Quest, not less. The supposed removal of philosophical
and theological concerns from the so-called 'ThirdQuest' is, actually, a step back.
What is needed, not simply because we are all 'postmodernists' now, is attention to
the ideological frameworks of all historical enquiry,precisely so that some ideologies
can be shown to be better than others; Wright's Jesus, for example, is demonstrably
preferable to a Nazi Jesus. It is not only on 'historical' (in the sense of historically
positivistic) grounds that this is so. Preferences between other 'historical Jesuses'
are, of course, notoriously less clear-cut.
90 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998)
the overriding impression one gains from his work is that all that is
going to come has already come, within space-time history. If so, then
surely apocalyptic and eschatology have been merged. Andin Bult-
mannian fashion, evenall eschatology is collapsed into the present
moment, even if not in an individualistic manner. But language of
destruction and judgment may be too easily forced into a set pro
gramme for Jesus here. There is yet a future for the present-future
debate.
Wright, of course, is arguing for a 'historical understanding' of
apocalyptic in two senses: the sense that he claims first-century Jews
would have had of apocalyptic language; and the sense that the lan
guage refers to historical, as opposed to meta- or supra-historical,
realities.^^ Though the first has the upper hand in Wright's exposition,
the second is never far behind. It is for this reason that Wright can
stress the political dimension to his reading of Jesus. But how does
apocalyptic relate to religion? At times one gains the impression that
Wright s critics at this point will always be accused of asking the
wrong question or using inappropriate terms (e.g. pp. 143, 310, 372-
73). But ifJesus remained a Jew, and Judaism is a religion, then it is
reasonable to press Wright further as to how religious Jesus was.
Pursuing my fourth critical question takes us into a different, and
difficult, area of enquiry altogether, and 1 can mention it therefore
only in passing: what kind ofbook is Jesus and the Victory of God! Is
it history? Is it theology? The rich rhetoric is evidently that of an able
communicator, orator and preacher. But how is the work to be char
acterized as a whole? As a 'New Testament Theology'?^^ If so, then
this can only be the five-volume work as a whole, for the full theolog
ical evaluation ofthe material presented here has not been undertaken.
As history ? Well, yes, for that is how Wright wants it to be taken, in
order to carry on conversing with the positivists, though its
hermeneutical sophistication leaves the positivists far behind. As 'theo
logical history'? At the end of the day, this is the best description, it
22. This raises the pressing question of what kind of reality god/God is.
23. As anticipated by Stephen E. Fowl, 'The New Testament, Theology, and
Ethics', in Joel B. Green (ed.). Hearing the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), pp. 394-410, here p. 410. Susan Lochrie
Graham has noted the significance in Wright's book of the parable ofthe prodigal
son, raising the question of whether JVG should be seen as a form of narrative
theology.
Marsh Thelogical History? 91
seems to me. We know that there is no non-ideological history. So it is
a matter of doing one's best to identifywith the help of others
what kind of ideological history one is undertaking. Wright's is
unashamedly theological history. He is a theist, and that affects his
historiography. That does not mean he simply imports Christian read
ings. 1 have stressed this point already. But the value of the book is all
the greater precisely because it is theologically interested (though not
doctrinally controlled, at least not overtly) historiography. 1 can see
why Wright would be reluctant to accept this description of his work.
But rather than play the 'history' card in a positivist waywhen he is
a critical realisthe would do better, in my view, to accept more the
ideological interests of his work and use them to the full. Theology is
an interpretative art which can only do its work vis-a-vis history by
going beyond the irrecoverable 'happenings' around which it does its
work, in a way which always says more than the protagonists it
interprets were able to say of themselves. Wright has seen that clearly.
Therein lie the full historical and theological significance of the Quest
of the Historical Jesus, and the value of Wright's work.
There is a revealing section in JVG where Wright makes explicit
the Christian re-appropriation of kingdom language as part of his on
going historical enquiry (pp. 214-20). It is an intriguing section
because it appears to collapse a point meriting much discussion into a
few lines. Is it at all clear that kingdom language was widely used 'as a
kind of shorthand summary for the preaching and apologetic message
of the church' (p. 215). The evidence, despite Wright's Appendix
(pp. 663-70), in which a whole variety of kingdom references are
essentially taken to mean the same thing, is certainly not vast. Of
course, the kingdom as shorthand makes (later) Christian sense and is
worthy of support and re-working on good theological and ethical
grounds. But this invites the suggestion that Wright is makingand
could makemore of his own contemporary context. It will not win
him friends with the guild of positivist historians. But it may enable
his Jesus to have more of the effect that he clearly wants him to have.
IV
My conclusion takes the form of a simple thesis: despite itself,
Wright's book is a work of theological history standing firmly in the
idealist tradition. This is not to devalue it as history or theology. But
92 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998)
it is worth saying more. For Wright is ostensibly opposed to idealism.
And being anti-idealist, he feels the need to call for a 'new ontology'
(NTPG, p. 97; of. 'a new metaphysic', JVG, p. 8). So what is Wright
up to?
Wright thinks that Christianity would receive a good shake-up if it
really was as Christocentric as it professes to be (p. 661). Orthodoxy
has got a bit frightened of Jesus, he says. Wright is presenting us with
a Jesus who had a big vision, who saw the need for his reli-
gious/political/eschatological tradition to undergo major change. Jesus
did not hold reins of power in his religious tradition. But somehow
the leading factions had to be taken on, and the roots of the tradition
had to be freshly watered. It was undoubtedly a crisis point in Juda
ism's history. It did not take a supernatural mind to see that the Jews
would get routed at some stage, and that anyone who caused upset
from within would suffer the same fate. But the moment had to be
seized nevertheless. Political manoeuvring had to happen. The coming
of Yhwh demanded it.
Wright has, then, given us a reading of Jesus the visionary who saw
things clearly and put an 'agenda' into concrete action. Wright's Jesus
is far from concerned only about the material aspects of human living,
however worldly the contemporary understanding of apocalyptic may
have been. Wright speaks of an underlying metanarrative (pp. 225,
316; of., e.g., pp. 227, 228 n. 110, 229, 364) 'the larger whole'
(p. 307) and a 'controlling story' (p. 315). But his position depends on
that controlling story being taken on explicitly and consciously by
Jesus himself. Wright's hypothesis seeks to argue for the plausibility
ofJesus' conscious embodiment of that controlling story. Be that as it
may, the 'big picture' was certainly drawn out by Jesus' followers and
has been re-worked by Christians ever since. The irony of Wright's
undertaking to present us with this 'big picture' is that his opposition
to idealism prevents him from seeing what an idealist undertaking his
own big picture actually is. In short, his very presentation of Jesus
seems to require the kind of approach to the philosophy of history that
his method appears to deny.^"
What, then, of ontology, or metaphysics? Wright has not yet spelt
24. Ofcourse, Wright could argue that Jesus had the big vision, and was there
fore more ofan idealist than we can now be. I would see more ofa necessary con
gruence between the theological views of the interpreter and the figure of Jesus
presented.
Marsh Thelogical History? 93
out fully what ontologyor metaphysics^he believes should accom
pany his critically realist approach to historiography. It will require
of him an articulation of what kind of reality god is. But the current
lacuna in his exposition makes the vehemence of his opposition to
idealism all the more puzzling. Resort to idealism is not going to
provide instant answers. But as a theist, Wright may need to lean
more on idealism than he realizes. So what is being opposed? I suggest
three things: the prioritizing of mind over body, at cost to a concern
for the material dimension of human life; the sense of otherness/the
otherwordly which plays down the circumstances of this present
world; the tradition in New Testament scholarshiprooted in so-
called German Idealismwhich appears to have accompanied the up
rooting of Jesus from Judaism. All these points of opposition are valid
and worth supporting. What is not clear is that they should readily be
subsumed within an opposition to 'idealism'. Nor is it clear that ideal
ism, for all its faults, has little or nothing to contribute to history or
theology. For what it is worth, and without wishing todefend idealism
in all respects,^^ I wish to assert that it is through and beyond idealism
that humanity might best be understood. Western history entangles
profound insight into the human condition with support of the most
horrendous atrocities. It is automatically to be applauded or excused
on neither count. Intriguing, however, is the way in which the Quest
of the Historical Jesus has been interwoven with that history.^^ So-
called 'purely historical' approaches to Jesus of Nazareth may not
wish to be faced with the prospect, but it may be that theological
readings of Jesus are actually necessary not only for ecclesiastical
purposes. Along this line, then, a more subtle reading of the Quest's
own history, and a more fruitful continuation of the current Quest,
moving beyond Wright, may be found. Rather than join Wright in his
campaign against idealism, then, I am more concerned to contribute to
the critical recovery of a refined and chastened idealism, an idealism
that fully respects the immaterial dimensions of human life past and
25. For example I have nodesire to support idealism in itstending towards totali
tarianism, in its being too closely tied to Western rationalism, Eurocentrism and
European colonialism.
26. On which, see especially Dieter Georgi, 'Leben-Jesu-Theologie/Leben-Jesu-
Forschung', TRE, XX, pp. 566-75; idem, 'The Interest in Life of Jesus Theology as
a Paradigm for the Social History of Biblical Criticism', HTR(1992), pp. 51-83; and
my own 'Quests'.
94 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998)
present whilst opposing all the false dualisms it has so often supported.
For it can be argued that the critical recovery of idealismeven in
historiographyis necessary lest all human history be reduced to
social or economic determinism.^'
Like Wright, I believe that the figure of Jesus is ultimately of more
than historical interest. Academic enquiries are never likely to control
what is done with Jesus in the name of religion. Often this is to reli
gion s cost. But religion will not be able to control matters either,
certainly not the Christian church, beyond which the figure of Jesus is
always likely to exert an impact. I do not think that makes me an
agonized phenomenalist (p. 479 n. 8), though I am, by now, more
than happy to take a brisk walk and listen to a Brandenburg Concerto.
27. Itis tempting to suggest that Wright's re-reading ofapocalyptic is a material
ist reading which tends in this direction, whilst his respect for the theology ofJesus,
and his own theological interests, run counter to such a materialist interpretation.
[JSNT 69 (1998) 95-103]
WHERE WRIGHT IS WRONG: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF
N.T.WRIGHT'S JESUS AND THE VICTORYOF GOD*
Maurice Casey
Department of Theology, Nottingham University
University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD.
We must begin by welcoming the publication of the book by our col
league N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God} In the present
state of academia, obsessed with completion dates of any work to the
detriment of work which matters, it is particularly good to see a new,
thorough and vigorous attempt to locate Jesus in his original cultural
context. Together with the recent work of E.P. Sanders, it must rate
as one of the best books we have had on Jesus so far.' At the risk of
seeming to damn it with faint praise, one must add that it is infinitely
better than anything to emerge from the American Jesus Seminar:
good scholarship is sober and vigilant, as well as learned and
ingenious.
As well as the attempt to see Jesus in his original cultural context, a
welcome feature of this book, compared with the majority of older
ones, is the decreased emphasis on christological titles in so doing.
The use of messiahship remains problematical, as we shall see, but
even here genuinely relevant material is carefully gathered together so
that it can easily be used by those of us who are not so convinced that
the term 'messiah' is an appropriate one for describing Jesus during
* This is a written-up version of a contribution to the Jesus Seminar of the
British New Testament Conference on 13 September 1997. I am grateful to col
leagues, especially Dr Wright and Dr C. Marsh, for an interesting debate.
1. London: SPCK, 1996.
2. Cf. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985); The
Historical Figure ofJesus (London: PenguinBooks 1993).