Robert B. Stewart

The full title of the work is "The Quest of the Hermeneutical Jesus: The Impact of hermeneutics on the Jesus Research of John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright," and per the author – Robert B. Stewart – was developed resultant to his doctrinal dissertation and the increasing realization that “historical reconstruction is in fact hermeneutical in nature” (ix). The goal of the work, which is achieved in remarkable fashion, is to examine the hermeneutics of two prominent scholars in the field of New Testament studies and Jesus research, both of which are named in the extended title noted above. The discussion put forth by the author regarding the basic method and hermeneutical underpinning of Cossan and Wright is in depth and well-researched but can be quite esoteric; yet, this is neither unwelcome nor unexpected from Steward at his level of scholarly pursuits. In fact, one is indebted to Stewart for an introduction to several concepts that are typically only approached at a more specialized level of historical, theological, and language considerations that touch on the hermeneutical foundations of Christological research. As to be expected, the bulk of the work is taken up in an examination and discussion of Crossan and Wright’s approach to hermeneutics, upon which Stewart comments, “Crossan represents a poststructuralist hermeneutic while Wright’s hermeneutic is a critical realist, worldview hermeneutic that makes use of narrative structuralism” (2). When discussing each scholar, both chapters follow a similar three-step pattern: an examination of the individual’s underlying hermeneutical approach, a discussion of the effects of that hermeneutical approach on the understanding of the historical Jesus, and then an evaluation section. The selection of these two scholars as the case studies for the thesis of the book is particularly appropriate as each scholar arrives at different conclusions regarding the historical Jesus and his relationship to the writings and traditions that have become central to the Christian religion. By using these two scholars Stewart can highlight the hermeneutical processes of each and the interpretive positions that result. Because of Crossan’s poststructuralist hermeneutic and Wright’s critical realist, worldview hermeneutic starting points, there are obvious differences in their final understanding of several topics. • Where Crossan sees Jesus as “a mid-level Mediterranean peasant, an artisan who was opposed to the brokered society in which he lived … a Cynic philosopher” (48); Wright understands Jesus seeing himself as “an eschatological prophet, Israel’s messiah, YHWH embodied, and divine” (95). • Regarding the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Crossan believes “that Jesus died at the hands of Romans … His body summarily discarded … and the details of his crucifixion, death, and burial are creations of exegetical Christianity” (54-55); Wright “insists that Jesus was literally raised from the dead,” but as a critical realist “deems the resurrection as historically highly probable, not certain … it is the best explanation of the data” (104). • Crossan sees the relationship of Jesus to the Gospels as “the result of later interpretations of the significance of Jesus for the evangelist and his community” and “do not present one with accurate historical information concerning Jesus – but they are meaningful nonetheless” (59); Wright views the Gospels as “both accurate and originate with Jesus; and yes, they do reflect the theology of the early church,” and that “the theology which the gospels reflect has its roots in the teaching and actions of Jesus” (108). These are but three of the observations made by Stewart that reflect the end result of beginning at a particular hermeneutical starting point. Stewart’s evaluation of each scholar’s material is systematic and insightful. As Stewart notes, “Clearly then there is an important relationship between the nature of a text and the role of a reader” (125). Because of this Stewart purposes four prerequisites to a hermeneutic for historical Jesus research: [1] texts regarding Jesus should be approached with an open mind, [2] individual presuppositions should be recognized and open to critique, [3] understanding of the text should precede theological assessment, and [4] a proper hermeneutic should be multidisciplinary (127-128). Stewart follows the brief discussion of these prerequisites with eight crucial hermeneutical concerns for Jesus research. Although Stewart applies these prerequisites and concerns specifically to research regarding the historical Jesus, one purposes that these four prerequisites and eight concerns could be well adapted to the examination of Biblical – and likely – extra-Biblical texts. The work ends with an appendix discussing structuralism, narrative structuralism, and poststructuralism (which in and of itself would make an informative article that any student of New Testament studies and hermeneutics would do well to read). Also included is an extensive biography of the sources used by Stewart, needless to say the list is impressive. One is indebted to Stewart on two counts. First, acknowledgement of Stewart’s application of himself to such a scholarly and rewarding study cannot be understated. This work is remarkable and insightful on numerous levels, and one feels a second read would be as rewarding as the first. Second, if there is any unanswered question left after this work it is, “How does MY basic hermeneutic affect MY understanding of the historical Jesus?” Many thanks to Stewart for reminding every student of the Scriptures that an examination of one’s interpretive method and presuppositions is not only instructive, but mandatory. Quotes from the text: “In summary the quest of the historical Jesus has been impacted not only by various philosophical presupposition but also by different critical methods throughout its history” (21). “Crossan’s method is based upon the conviction that the canonical gospels include sayings of Jesus, and narratives about Jesus, that are in fact the creation of either the evangelists themselves or their communities” (43). “Wright is not asserting that critical realism leads to certainty, only to knowledge. All assertions that critical realists make are provisional in nature, and thus subject to revision” (79). “Two questions must be answered in regard to the relationship between Jesus and the gospels: (1) Are the gospels accurate and originate with Jesus? (2) Do they reveal the theology of the early church within particular contexts?” (106) “Too often theologians come to the gospel texts with a determinative theology in place. They thus fail to read them first as historical narratives, but rather evaluate them as theology, whether as collections of theological propositions or texts that confront one existentially. They cannot get from exegesis to interpretation because they have failed to exegete the text in the first place” (128). “At the end of the day, play is always possible with any text, but play is for children” (144).… (lisätietoja)

When this book first appeared, I purchased it with great anticipation. Crossan and Wright are respected and respectful scholars, both with a reputation for digging deeply. But they sit on opposite sides of the fence.

To set the stage, there is no mention of an empty tomb in Paul’s writings, and the earliest Christian tradition contains no description of the resurrection itself. By the time the Gospels were written, it would have been very hard to certify what the tomb had contained. Tombs in that period were not permanent places of burial but only temporary places where the body decayed, leaving the bones, which were then either pushed to the back of the tomb or collected in ossuaries. In other words, no evidence existed to prove or disprove the claim of bodily resurrection by the time the claims were committed to writing.

Did it happen? How?

Wright believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the empty tomb. He puzzles, as a historian, why anyone would continue to belong to the Christian movement in the first century and regard Jesus as the Messiah, unless the stories were regarded as literally true. Crossan, on the other hand, understands the resurrection as a metaphor for Jesus’ continued presence in the church. Bodily resurrection, to him, means “the embodied life of Jesus,” which continues to be experienced by believers today.

Sound like an interesting discussion? The dialogue between the two lasts all of 18 pages, and is rather uninspiring. The rest of the book contains commentary by other authors, where at least we appear to get a real peek into the minds of Crossan and Wright.

Disappointing.… (lisätietoja)