Wright, Wittgenstein, and the Wresurrection.
I mean resurrection. But I wanted the alliterative effect.
I don’t often follow Scot McKnight’s blog. I ought to. I feel like it is the right thing to do. But usually I am just bored by it and I click it all as read. But I like what he had to say yesterday in his summary of chapter three of the new Tom Wright book about resurrection.
Scot says that Wright compares the historical reconstruction of Easter Sunday to the historical reconstruction about about what really happened between Wittgenstein and Popper on that famous night with the poker at Oxford. I picked up the monograph on the poker incident by Edmonds and Eidinow last year for a buck. It was really a good read. They argue that something happened and try to account for the various divergences in the telling of the story. In Poper’s version, he is the hero and makes Wittgenstein look foolish. In everybody else’s version the cause-and-effect relationships are not quite so clear. The book gives an interesting look at Wittgenstein (and also, I suppose, at Popper, though no one I know really cares about him).
Anyway, it sounds like Wright is saying we have basically the same sort of situation with Jesus’ Resurrection. (Of course no one is saying that Wittgenstein shaking a hot poker at Popper had supernatural implications.) I really would like to get this book. Now if only I can find some money somewhere.
Confession: Okay, I don’t really know anything about Wittgenstein’s philosophy other than from a couple of excerpts in a couple of anthologies. I just know you can impress people if you drop names like, “Wittgenstein.” So really I’m just trying to feel smart because of my dollar book find last year. But I’m sure it will come as no shock to my readers that I’m not really as smart as I like to pretend I am.