At the Wheaton Theology Conference on N. T. Wright, Richard Hays gave a critical assessment of Wright’s Jesus, as represented in Jesus and the Victory of God.
I want to respond to this lecture because it brings to the surface the passion behind my next major research project on the humanity of Jesus.
First off, I want to say where I agree with Hays. Jesus and the Victory of God is valuable as a “theology of the synoptic gospels,” and as something that gives us a historically contextualized reading of that sort of Jesus.
But our Jesus is the canonical Jesus, which means that we are not trying to look through the gospels at something that lies behind, but to understand the Jesus whom we meet in the canonical stories. I find JVG valuable as a help toward understanding these stories, not as an approximation of “the historical Jesus.”
Also, I agree with Hays that we are to read the gospels with a “resurrection hermeneutic,” because I believe that the gospels were written with a resurrection hermeneutic.
Without detracting from these base-hits, and in large part because of them, I call foul on a couple of other points. First, 
Hays spoke of “resurrection hermeneutics” in the same breath as “incarnational hermeneutics”. These are fundamentally different for one important reason: whereas all four gospels affirm the resurrection, only John has an incarnation. So, while reading these with a prior understanding of Jesus as resurrected Lord is a good reading of the gospels as written, reading them all as witnesses to the incarnate God is truly bringing in the theology of the church, and requires its own separate argument.
And I want to suggest that Hays has provided the strongest argument against an incarnation hermeneutic in his critique of JVG.
One place at which Hays finds JVG wanting is that it does not give due attention to the unique voices of each of the four Gospels we have in our New Testament canon. It is insufficiently attentive to the particular stories of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Wright’s sources). But this is the very reason why an incarnation hermeneutic is inappropriate for interpreting the same books! Hays is asking for a canonical reading that flattens out the polyvalent witness, the individual voices, of the Gospels.
Resurrection hermeneutic? Sure. Because the resurrection/ascension is Jesus’ enthronement (Matthew, Luke), so when Jesus comes proclaiming the reign of God, he is enacting something that we know more fully once he is enthroned as the one who reigns at God’s right hand.
Why is it that I am so resistant to allowing the church’s tradition to transform the witness of the Synoptic Gospels? Tune in tomorrow.
Hays’ criticism about flattening out the specific gospel writers goals and aims seemed a bit strange to me, in that Wright (presumably?) intends to publish his “The Gospels and the Story of God” sometime within the next 20 years. Can’t we all just be patient?
“Why is it that I am so resistant to allowing the church’s tradition to transform the witness of the Synoptic Gospels?”
yeah! WHY?
Since your so in favor of radical creative reinterpreting of stuff for contextualizing purposes!
Because in my 21st (not 2d, 3d, or 4th) century context, Jesus as a Jew who proclaims the reign of God should no longer be silenced. And Jesus as God is not the defining question of our day.
I understood Hays to be critiquing Wright for doing the flattening, not advocating for it himself. I understood Hays to be arguing that Wright’s attempt to use the Synoptics as windows through which to see the historical Jesus ignores the literary nature of each Gospel and results in this flattening. Did I misunderstand Hays? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Yes, that’s Hays’s critique and I agree with Hays.
Wright’s reply was that when he wrote JVG, he was mainly addressing the Jesus seminar and their approach to history. This is why he left out the gospel of John and even the resurrection.
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up.
I thought Thompson’s point about John rolling together causes, events and theology in the life of Jesus was stunning. I’d never thought of it that way, but clearly John does just that. She put it something like this, “John is saying ‘this is what Jesus was really like we just didn’t know it then.’”
Hays’ critique needs to be heeded, but I want to question his challenge of the gospels as “windows.” Now, I don’t want the Diatessaron or a “5th gospel” in JVG, and I want to hear the chorus of voices but isn’t there a sense in which the gospels are windows? They are windows to both the living Jesus (with a thankful nod to L.T. Johnson) and the Galilean peasant who lived, died and was resurrected in Palestine at the beginning of the first century. Certainly the distinct voices of the gospel writers need to be authoritative even in their distinction, but harmonizing them together to see a the Galilean peasant can be a thoroughly helpful and informative exercise. I loved it when Wright alluded to Kasemann saying “we have to do historical Jesus work even though it’s difficult because if we don’t then we’ll be deceived.” What are your thoughts on the value of approaching the gospels as historical windows? Is that what you’re saying when Hays gives an argument against an incarnation hermeneutic?
What if the canonical gospels themselves (perhaps to different degrees) actually encourage the reader not to read the canonical story as a flat a-chronic narrative (using two pejorative adjectives to make the point stronger) but point to both “something that lies behind” and the storied theology of their narrative construction?
You make a great point, Peter. It could be a “both/and” rather than “either/or”. Someone was pressing me on that yesterday. Not quite ready to concede the point, but perhaps the possibility!
Just listened to Hays’ lecture now (and Wright’s chapel talk). Enjoyed Hays’ points.
I have a general sort of question for you, Daniel, not necessarily closely related to this discussion: how might you approach the question of John being, in some sense, the first commentary on the synoptics?
Since John assumes some familiarity with the story of Jesus’ life, it seems reasonable enough to ask the question, plus it would also seem to have some relevance to your project of coming to grips with the synoptics, particularly if one could make the case that John teaches that his version of Jesus as God’s son was already implicit in the earlier accounts.
Hey. Great thoughts. I read Hays in grad school and loved his stuff because it tied into some stuff i had been working through regarding narrative. I was really intrigued by your statement: “because in my 21st (not 2d, 3d, or 4th) century context, Jesus as a Jew who proclaims the reign of God should no longer be silenced. And Jesus as God is not the defining question of our day.” Could you unpack that for me a bit. I am preaching on the apostles creed at my church and this last Sunday i said that when we say the words “I believe” in a casual, “I believe that God exists” is not enough. But that we believe in a single jewish man from Nazareth. I was trying to convey the particularity of the gospel but was reaching for why this was so important even for me. I think the scandal of particularity is important to underline. I want to expand my thinking and preaching this way. Any suggestions?