Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright

James M. Scott

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780830851836
• eBook ISBN: 9780830890002
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Few New Testament scholars of recent decades have set the pitch for academic discussion and debate in their field like N. T. Wright. His signature contention, that Israel's continuing exile was a pivotal issue in the emergence of Christianity, has found a central place in contemporary New Testament scholarship. Israel had grievously sinned against Yahweh and suffered the judgment of exile from its land. But even though Israel had returned, the majority of Jews of the second temple era regarded themselves in paradoxical exile under Roman rule and still awaiting their full restoration. It was this crisis of exile that reached its climax and resolution in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This, according to N. T. Wright, is the controlling narrative that shaped the thinking of Jesus and Paul. While many find this a compelling key to understanding the New Testament, critical responses also abound. This book engages a variety of scholars in conversation with Wright's thesis. The scene is set in an introduction by James M. Scott, who has made significant contributions to the debate. Then, in a programmatic essay, Wright clearly restates his thesis. Next come eleven essays from scholars such as Walter Brueggemann, Philip Alexander, Jörn Kiefer, Dorothy Peters, and Scot McKnight. They interact with Wright's thesis from various perspectives: Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, early Judaism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the New Testament. Hans Boersma and Ephraim Radner then engage Wright's thesis from theological perspectives. Finally, Wright offers a lively response to his interlocutors. Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright takes our understanding of this critical issue to a new level. It is essential reading for anyone engaged with Wright's work and the Jewish setting of Jesus and Paul.

Chapter One

Wright on Exile

A Response

WALTER BRUEGGEMANN

N. T. WRIGHT’S PROGRAMMATIC essay on exile is a delight to read. As always, Wright brings to his work a combination of erudition and mastery of the critical apparatus and an agile imagination that permits him to make interpretive connections in rich and compelling ways. I find the main claim of his paper—that the narrative of exile and restoration is the key to ongoing Judaism (and derivatively of early Christianity)—to be evocative and rich in possibility. My reflections are inside this affirmation. His claim, however, is so comprehensive and far-reaching that he allows ample room for critical engagement.

There is no doubt much merit in his governing judgment that the theological mindset of Deuteronomy, particularly Deuteronomy 30–31, is definitive, and that Judaism read its historical context not only concerning “exile and restoration” but also “guilt and penitence.” Thus the hoped-for alternative to exile is geographical and concerns return to the security and well-being of the homeland. It is also theological and requires reconciliation with God, whether by ritual acts of atonement or by performance of Torah, or both.

WRIGHT’S DELIBERATE USE OF LANGUAGE

At the outset one may wonder about some of the terms Wright employs to begin his case:

(1) He concedes that his treatment of texts is “selective” and concentrates on “highlights” (here). That might mean that there is too much material to cover and so he must choose the best representative texts. But it may also mean that he has tilted the evidence by the choices he has made, so that other selections might have led to other conclusions. By the time he finishes very strongly with the “victory” of Jesus, in fact the data from the Old Testament to which he appeals is quite limited in making the case for exile and restoration as the dominant narrative of Judaism.

(2) He asserts that a “majority” of “Second Temple Jews saw themselves as living within an ongoing exile” (here). Perhaps; but perhaps not. Perhaps this is a view established by elite opinion makers who created the normative tradition. And while this narrative account may have dominated the world that they managed, it does not necessarily follow that the majority perceived their own lives in this way. Erich Voegelin, and after him Jacob Neusner, have written of a “paradigmatic history,” and paradigms are impositions and interpretive lenses.1 The matter of elite imposition is important in Old Testament study, and I will return to it.

(3) Wright eschews the thought that the “continuing exile” could be an “image” or a “metaphor” (here). He insists that exile was not “just an idea, a type or image,” but an act of hope:

The point is that Jewish eschatology in the Second Temple focused on the hope that that which had happened in the Babylonian exile, the triumph of paganism over Israel because of its sins, was still the dominant state of affairs, but would at last be undone. (here)

But such hope is exactly an act of imagination, even if, as he says, “imagination has to be educated by evidence” (here). I do not quite understand why Wright refuses the notion of “image, metaphor, or idea,” possibly because such terms would indicate an intentional constructivism that would perhaps point to the reality of a deliberate act of interpretation by those who generated the paradigm. After all, the paradigm is not “just there.” It is generated, advocated, and sponsored, and one can imagine (or at least this one can imagine) that such generativity is never completely innocent but reflects certain interests, even if many others have signed on to it against their own interest.2 Thus I am inclined to be more suspicious than is Wright about the emergence and maintenance of the notion of continuing exile, a notion perhaps reflective of a certain claim to the land by those who do not now have land but who fully intend to have the land in time to come. Restoration is aimed at land and city, and such a hope is never disinterested. It is rather an act of quite interested imagination. Clearly the notion of “image” or “metaphor” tends to problematize the dominant narrative.

A FEW CENTRAL TEXTS

I am struck by the fact that the actual texts of the Hebrew Bible to which Wright appeals are relatively few in number. He does, to be sure, fill out the argument with other texts, notably Ben Sira, Judith, the Maccabees, evidence from Qumran, and Josephus. But from the Hebrew Bible itself he moves from Deuteronomy 30–31 (surely a correct beginning point) and then focuses on the three great prayers in Daniel 9; Ezra 9; and Nehemiah 9. His central case is from Daniel 9 with its speculation about “seventy” and all that that may mean for the festival calendar of Judaism. It may be that these prayers merit such a privileged place, but it is to be noted that they reflect a learned historiography that is intensely didactic! The elites who framed such prayers were fully and centrally informed by Deuteronomy, and are occupied with a Deuteronomic theology of sin-punishment-repentance. They take into account a recognition that “we are still slaves in our own land” (Neh 9:36). But the didactic tone of the prayers may suggest a determined effort to invite others into this paradigm; it may be that they required many recruits in order to become “the majority” with the normative narrative. We do not know; but I wonder whether Wright’s focus on these few texts, central as they appear to be, will support the huge claims he makes for his paradigm.

THE TEMPLE ALONGSIDE OTHER REFERENCE POINTS

Wright invests a great deal in the temple and takes it as the single focal point for Judaism. Much of what he claims for the temple is fully reflective of something like a scholarly consensus, thus, the temple as God’s dwelling place, the temple as the offer of a cosmos, the temple as alternative creation as the old creation is so marked by chaos and so the temple as “new creation.”3 I think, however, that his argument runs the risk of being so all-inclusive of the temple that it fails to reckon with claims, practices, and traditions that fall outside the temple. It is evident, for example, that the “name theology” of Deuteronomy does not regard the temple as the dwelling place of God (see Deut 26:15; 1 Kings 8:27). One cannot simply elide the traditions so that they all fit under the single reference point. Thus I suggest that Wright himself is busy, as were the generators of the great paradigm of exile and restoration, offering a paradigm that encourages us as his readers to assess the data according to his temple paradigm. His belated paradigm echoes the force of the ancient paradigm that he is expositing. But it cannot be so all-inclusive.

In Old Testament studies, a very different paradigm is worth considering. Frank Cross has proposed (another paradigm!), in his “history of the priesthood” in ancient Israel (concretely evident in the time of David in the dual priesthood of Abiathar and Zadok), that there was a “Mushite” tradition of priesthood from Moses that focused on the Torah that eventuated in the work of the Levites.4 Conversely Aaron stands at the head of a competing tradition, represented by Zadok, that focused on the temple. One can trace the two trajectories of Levites who interpret Torah and Aaronide priests who champion the temple, a tension voiced in the provision of Ezekiel 44 from an Aaronide perspective. Wright is ready to subsume Torah and all else under the temple, but I wonder whether one has to allow for an unsettled interface whereby the Torah tradition cannot simply be subsumed under the rubric of the temple but stands as a counterpoint and alternative accent to the temple. As a side issue, I am unconvinced that the role of king so readily goes with the temple, a point long ago mapped out by Ben Ollenburger.5

MULTIDIMENSIONAL HOPE

When Wright comes to Paul’s testimony, he is able to identify four notions that are crucial for Paul’s interpretation. The first of these is “creation and new creation.” The second is the story of Israel, with particular reference to Abraham. The third is the story of the Torah, and the fourth is the nature of the human race with an assurance of justification for all (here). I have no special competence about the Pauline tradition, but such a summary seem...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Lead Essay
• Part 1: Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Septuagint
• Part 2: Early Judaism
• Part 3: New Testament
• Part 4: Theology
• Conclusion
• Contributors
• Scripture Index
• Notes
• Praise for Exile
• About the Author
• More Titles from InterVarsity Press
• Copyright