Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Paul Baxter · 06-02-2003, 07:17 AM

Hi,

I'm new to these forums (though I've poked around briefly here and there), and I'm curious to know if anyone here has read NT Wright's works. I'd be specifically interested in reviews from atheist folks of his new book _The Resurrection of the Son of God_. I suppose it might take a while, as this is a brand new book. I'll just throw out that Wright, in his concluding section, argues that as far as we can know anything historically, that is, as history as oppose to mathematical proof, we know that Jesus was raised from the dead. He argues this point entirely on historical, rather than theological or other grounds.

Just curious.

paul baxter

Vorkosigan · 06-02-2003, 07:45 AM

You are kidding me, right?

Vorkosigan

Layman · 06-02-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Baxter
Hi,

I'm new to these forums (though I've poked around briefly here and there), and I'm curious to know if anyone here has read NT Wright's works. I'd be specifically interested in reviews from atheist folks of his new book _The Resurrection of the Son of God_. I suppose it might take a while, as this is a brand new book. I'll just throw out that Wright, in his concluding section, argues that as far as we can know anything historically, that is, as history as oppose to mathematical proof, we know that Jesus was raised from the dead. He argues this point entirely on historical, rather than theological or other grounds.

Just curious.

paul baxter

Actually, I think Wright would prefer the term "probable." Perhaps even "highly probable," though I have not finished the book.

Quote:

I use the word 'probable' in the commen-sense historian's way, not in the highly problematic philosophers way; that is to say, as a way of indicating that the historical evidence, while comparatively rearely permitted a conclusion of 'certain', can acknowledge a scale from, say, 'extremely unlikely,' through 'possible', 'plausible' and 'probable', to 'highly probable.'

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, at 687 n. 3.

braces_for_impact · 06-02-2003, 08:53 AM

Well, I would have to read the book, but off hand I see one problem so far. People who die tend to stay that way.

Paul Baxter · 06-02-2003, 09:12 AM

bfi,

indeed, dead people do tend to stay that way. This is, in fact, one of Wright major points in his argument. As I have learned from reading this work, the ancient "pagan" world (Grece, Rome, and Egypt) did not believe the dead could come back to life. There were certainly a variety of views about what would happen after death. People believed in ghosts, communication with spirits of the dead, a netherworld of some sort, etc. But none of these involved dead people coming back to life.

Also, the term "resurrection" would have referred to that event which was considered impossible. Thus it is made clear, he argues, that when Paul or the other NT writers talked about the resurrection of Jesus, they were certainly not talking about him being "present in spirit" or apotheosis or some such thing as many other scholars have argued.

This point does not prove much of anything in particular, just clarifies what is being argued about.

found a relevant quote here: (from p 712):
The fact that dead people do not ordinarily rise is itself part of early Christian belief, not an objection to it

CX · 06-02-2003, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Baxter
Hi,

I'm new to these forums (though I've poked around briefly here and there), and I'm curious to know if anyone here has read NT Wright's works.

Greetings, Paul, and welcome. Vork's extreme incredulity notwithstanding, I think most of the regulars here are familiar with Wright's work. I've not read the new book and am not inclined to. Perhaps you could ask a question that is less broad. Is there anything you find particularly convincing or unconvincing in the referenced work?

Paul Baxter · 06-02-2003, 09:29 AM

Layman,

just to fill out the context of the scetion you quoted a bit: (from page 687)

6. It is therefore historically highly probable [based on points 1-5 not quoted, PB] that Jesus tomb was indeed empty on the third day after his execution, and that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving every appearance of being well and truly alive [footnote 3]

7. This leaves us ith the last and most important question: what explanation can be given for these two phenomena? Is there an alternative to the explanation given by early Christians themselves? [end quote]

I am of course skipping the evidence and argument which led to this point. Just putting out some teasers. I'll also add that Wright, in addition to his other virtues, is skilled as a writer, so slogging through this long book shouldn't be too burdensome.

Layman · 06-02-2003, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Baxter
Layman,

just to fill out the context of the scetion you quoted a bit: (from page 687)

6. It is therefore historically highly probable [based on points 1-5 not quoted, PB] that Jesus tomb was indeed empty on the third day after his execution, and that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving every appearance of being well and truly alive [footnote 3]

7. This leaves us ith the last and most important question: what explanation can be given for these two phenomena? Is there an alternative to the explanation given by early Christians themselves? [end quote]

I am of course skipping the evidence and argument which led to this point. Just putting out some teasers. I'll also add that Wright, in addition to his other virtues, is skilled as a writer, so slogging through this long book shouldn't be too burdensome.

Just wanted to clarify that Wright is aware of, and does not deny, the nature of historical inquiry.

I have about 50 or so pages to go.

Risiko · 06-02-2003, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Baxter
...
As I have learned from reading this work, the ancient "pagan" world (Grece, Rome, and Egypt) did not believe the dead could come back to life.
...

The thought of resurrection doesn't seem to have been foreign to the ancient Greeks.
According to their legends, Persephone, Alkestris and Semele among others returned from Hades, and Euridice almost succeded.

Layman · 06-02-2003, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Risiko
The thought of resurrection doesn't seem to have been foreign to the ancient Greeks.
According to their legends, Persephone, Alkestris and Semele among others returned from Hades, and Euridice almost succeded.

PB may have been somewhat imprecise in his blanket statement. There were a few pagan myths circulating during the time of early Christianity, but they did not represent a belief system of pagans whereby the dead would be raised from the death. Most pagans either adopted the vague, shadowy underworld life-after-death of Homer or Plato's view of the human soul being liberated from its body upon death. This distinction is especially important when it is realized that we are talking about eschatology. Christian's believed in the resurrection (and transformation) of the body as the final, ultimate state of mankind. This is not represented even in these outdated pagan myths.

Quote:

The Alcestis story is facsinating, but scarecely provides evidence of an actual belief in resurrection. Alcestis does indeed return from the dead to bodily life. She will presumably die again, like Lazarus in John's gospel, but even so her return is remarkable enough, being the only such tale we have from the entire ancient world. However, as we have seen, intelligent pagans contemporary with early Christianity knew about such stories, and dismissed them as mythic fictions. Celsus 'knew the old myths of returning from the Underworld, but he was perfectly capable of distinguishing these from the actual resurrection of the body.' A fifth-century Athenian audience would not have thought of the story as in any way realistic. A tale in which Apollo and Death appear on stage as speaking characters, in which Hercules arrives as a guest and displays his extraordinary powers, is hardly good evidence for what ordinary people believed happened in everyday life. One might as well invoke the Ring cycle as evidence of marital and family customs among the nineteenth century German bourgeoisie. No burial customs invoke Alcestis as a patron or model. No prayers are offered that Hercules may do for others what he did for her. No further stories are told which build on or develop the theme; the closest near-parallel seems to be the legend that Hercules had rescused Theseus after the latter (who had modelled himself on Hercules) had beein imprisoned in the underworld during an (unsuccesful) expedition to rescue Persephone. Alcestis may have come back (in the ancient legend) but she was the exception in the light of which the prevailing rule stands out the more clearly.

Thus, though the story, and similar tales of heroes and legendary figures from long ago, continued to be known throughout the classical period, they never became popular reference points as did the great Homeric scenes of Achilles and Odysseus. No tombstones suggest that maybe this corpse will be one of the lucky ones (would they, in any case, have thought coming back such a lucky tying?). One Alcestis, with a small scatter of subsequent allusions, scarecly makes a tradition. It certainly made no dent in the ruling assumption from Homer to Hadrian and beyond. Life after death, yes; various possibilities open to souls in Hades and beyond, yes; actual resurrection, no.

Wright, at 67-68.

In other words, pagans of Jesus' time (much less Jews) who actually took such a story to be an example of reality or a real possibility after death, were about as common as those who think Luke Skywalker really did destroy the death star.

06-02-2003, 07:17 AM	#1
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	Wright anyone? Hi, I'm new to these forums (though I've poked around briefly here and there), and I'm curious to know if anyone here has read NT Wright's works. I'd be specifically interested in reviews from atheist folks of his new book _The Resurrection of the Son of God_. I suppose it might take a while, as this is a brand new book. I'll just throw out that Wright, in his concluding section, argues that as far as we can know anything historically, that is, as history as oppose to mathematical proof, we know that Jesus was raised from the dead. He argues this point entirely on historical, rather than theological or other grounds. Just curious. paul baxter

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-02-2003, 07:45 AM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	You are kidding me, right? Vorkosigan

06-02-2003, 08:53 AM	#4
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	Well, I would have to read the book, but off hand I see one problem so far. People who die tend to stay that way.

06-02-2003, 09:12 AM	#5
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	bfi, indeed, dead people do tend to stay that way. This is, in fact, one of Wright major points in his argument. As I have learned from reading this work, the ancient "pagan" world (Grece, Rome, and Egypt) did not believe the dead could come back to life. There were certainly a variety of views about what would happen after death. People believed in ghosts, communication with spirits of the dead, a netherworld of some sort, etc. But none of these involved dead people coming back to life. Also, the term "resurrection" would have referred to that event which was considered impossible. Thus it is made clear, he argues, that when Paul or the other NT writers talked about the resurrection of Jesus, they were certainly not talking about him being "present in spirit" or apotheosis or some such thing as many other scholars have argued. This point does not prove much of anything in particular, just clarifies what is being argued about. found a relevant quote here: (from p 712): The fact that dead people do not ordinarily rise is itself part of early Christian belief, not an objection to it

06-02-2003, 09:29 AM	#7
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	Layman, just to fill out the context of the scetion you quoted a bit: (from page 687) 6. It is therefore historically highly probable [based on points 1-5 not quoted, PB] that Jesus tomb was indeed empty on the third day after his execution, and that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving every appearance of being well and truly alive [footnote 3] 7. This leaves us ith the last and most important question: what explanation can be given for these two phenomena? Is there an alternative to the explanation given by early Christians themselves? [end quote] I am of course skipping the evidence and argument which led to this point. Just putting out some teasers. I'll also add that Wright, in addition to his other virtues, is skilled as a writer, so slogging through this long book shouldn't be too burdensome.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.