Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CMarsh - Theological History-NTW's JVG
CMarsh - Theological History-NTW's JVG
Clive Marsh
The studies that make up this book explore in what ways Israel's
sacred tradition developed into canonical scripture and in what
ways this sacred tradition was interpreted in Early Judaism and The second volume of Tom Wright's Christian Origins and the Ques
Christianity. This collection of essayswill stimulate continuing tion of God has been long-awaited.' It has been worth the wait. It does
investigation into the growth and interpretation of scripture in the not disappoint either in scale, readability, rhetorical flourish or bold
context of the Jewish and Christian communities of faith, and will ness of thesis. One of the main problems for the author of such a text
serve well as a reader for graduate courses with its focus on early as Jesus and the Victory of God, however, is that the comprehensive
exegesis and intertextuality.
ness of the project leaves him open to the critique ofso many scholars
Craig Evans is Professor and Director of the Graduate Program in from many disciplines: philosophers and theologians will want their
Biblical Studies, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada. pound of flesh as well as biblical scholars. For this book is no simple
James Sanders is Professor Emeritus of BiblicalStudies at the Claremont history, and is possibly not simply historyif by history we mean
School of Theology and ProfessorEmeritus of Religion at the Claremont anything even vaguely resembling nineteenth-century positivism. In
Graduate University. this review I shall summarize Wright's position briefly (part I), criti
cally examine some of the main features of his undertaking (part II)
cl. 55.00/$85.00
ISBN 1 85075 830 1
before going on (in part III) to note some pluses and minuses of his
approach. In a short, final section, I shall venture a provocative thesis
Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism JSNT Supplement Series, 154 about the book's intention and value.
and Christianity, 6 349 pp.
* An earlier version of this review was presented to the Jesus Seminar of the
British New Testament Conference, Leeds, 13 September 1997.1 amgrateful to the
respondents, Maurice Casey and Tom Wright, and tothe members of the seminar for
stimulating a most useful discussion. I must also record thanks to Tom Wright for
following up the seminar with a meticulous, written critique of the paper.
1. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996); hereafter yVG.
78 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998) Marsh Thelogical History? 79
sufficient to call such a 'monstrosity' the preserve only of 'funda He is, however, more than a little convinced that he has successfully
mentalists and would-be "critical" scholars' (p. 517). Aside from the grasped what Jesus thought of himself. In this, he has anotable ally."
question of how a range of textual material is to be interpreted, So what is going on here? At the inaugural meeting of the SBL s
Wright is touching here on the immense difficulty (impossibility!) of Psychology and Biblical Studies Group in Washington DC in Novem
getting a grasp on what people actually believed, as opposed to what ber 1993 (at which Marcus Borg presided), Wayne Rollins drew
the extant texts enable us to perceive that some people (writers of attention to the fact that it was Bultmann who taught New Testament
texts, religious leaders) may have believed. 1 do not wish to argue scholars to be sceptical of psychology. Tracing the history ofthe link
from silence and claim that because some people in the present do between psychology and biblical studies, Rollins observed that, with a
(and they really do!) believe in a literal return of Jesus/the son of man few notable exceptions, an antipathy on the part of biblical scholars
on literal clouds, therefore first-century Jews must have also. But 1 do towards psychology existed as late as about 1975. 'Historical-critical
wish to accentuate what is a basic problem of all social history: how study' of the Bible was, then, a strangely narrow discipline in prac
do we account for the 'common people'? The fact that Wright's own tice. In JVG, we can see that, with explicit attention to Jesus
enquiries lead him to conclude that Jesus related especially to those 'mindset', Wright is opening up a door to stretching the brief of his
outside the official structures, to all the wrong people (p. 272), torical criticism, which he himself seems unwilling to go through.
however weak his precise social locating of Jesus may be, causes But what would 'venturing down the road ofpsychology' entail? At
searching questions to be raised about the neatness of his argument at its most basic level, a level that Wright would support, it means doing
this point. Easy equations of low intelligence, non-official religion and what historians have always done; attempting to grasp historical
'literal' apocalypticismdrawn from the social psychology of reli figures' intentions, based on conclusions inferred from their actions,
giondo not appear to be sustainable (and certainly not easily across 'reading' those figures in the light of worlds of thought which it is
cultures and many centuries). But some attention to enquiry in this likely they would have inhabited; seeking to put together a picture o
area would be welcome." the ideas they would have entertained. At a more developed level, the
The final feature of Wright's approach worthy of mention is his value of which Wright would question, it would mean using the in
attention to Jesus' 'mindset' (e.g. pp. 364, 450, 459, 462, 576-77). sights ofa discipline which is but acentury old to try and tease out the
Deliberately eschewing the term Jesus' 'self-understanding' (until its psychological development and temperament of a first-century
cautious introduction on p. 648), Wright is nevertheless aware that as tinian male, who ended up being executed in his early thirties. A
a historian he has to deal with what figures in the past thought and crucial issue, however, is whether such a psychological procedure is
believed, insofar as one can ever conclude anything in this regard only possible when one can actually interview the subject (psychology
(pp. 100-101, 138-42). Wright is surely correct here, knowing that he being in this sense an empirical discipline)." This being so, the more
must take risks in his interpretation but that he will hardly be able to developed use ofpsychological insights is simply not possible in Jesus
draw conclusions with any degree of finality. This makes a number of Research. On the other hand, it can be arguedand I think rightly
aspects of his enquiry all the more puzzling, however. At a couple of that discoveries in psychology cannot be irrelevant to historical study
points (pp. 479-80, 600), Wright denies that he is 'venturing down the by more indirect means, so long as allowance is made for the (West
road of psychology'. Yet this is precisely what his exploration of the ern, Northern, late-nineteenth- century and twentieth-century) contexts
mindset of Jesus is, and must be, at least to some extent. His refusal to
travel the psychological road should actually make him less, rather
than more, sure about the substance and coherence of his conclusions.
12. 'We know substantially what Jesus thought of himself.' E.P. Sanders, The
Historical Figure ofJesus (Heirmondsworth: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, 1993),
p. 239.
11. Crossan has received much opposition for the wide-ranging nature of his 13. In this regard, John W. Miller, Jesus at Thirty (Minneapolis: Fortress Press
interdisciplinary work at this point. Without defending him fully, it is nevertheless 1997) is eagerly awaited.
possible to commend the intention behind his method. 14. I owe this insight to Larry Hurtado.
86 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998) Marsh Thelogical History? 87
within which the very discipline has emerged. Conclusions about own journey. Despite his own survey (pp. 13-124), he still, in my
'thirty-year old males' drawn from twentieth-century Euro-American view, oversimplifies matters.'^ But be that as it may, he has at least
enquiries will inevitably have to be used with caution in relation to a located his own work within the Quest, stating a clear preference for
first-century Mediterranean male. But they can still be used. Schweitzer over Wrede.
Whatever the reason for Wright's own suspicions of psychological The second point for which Wright deserves particular credit is the
approaches, then,'^ there is nevertheless room to suggest that more way in which he continues to wrestle with the philosophical and theo
speculation in this area would be not only possible but even fruitful. logical aspects of the Quest. Having mapped out the epistemological
These four features are, I submit, central to Wright's undertaking. strategy being adopted throughout his five-volume study in NTPG
My critical comments should not be taken as devaluing Wright's (esp. pp. 32-37), Wright remains open to attending to the complex
approach. In all four cases he has presented his material brilliantly. debate between history and theology in JVG (esp, pp. 117-21, 660-
But he has by no means (of course!) had the last word. 1 turn now to 62). The interest in and attention to this debate is not, however,
further areas worthy of critical comment. confined merely to a few methodological sections. It can be discerned
throughout the study, at a number of points where Wright actively
Ill
fends off lazy assumptions or impositions drafted in from Nicene
Christology (p. 197) trinitarian theology (e.g. pp. 485-86, 653) or
I begin this section with two aspects of Wright's undertaking that later theories of the atonement (e.g. pp. 541, 592). He thus resists
deserve particular praise. The first is the extent to which Wright has strongly the notion that his Jesus simply serves up what Christian the
been prepared to do his own homework about the Quest itself. All ology wants to hear. Wright thus deserves credit for keeping the his
scholars stand on the shoulders of others, and scholarly debate tory-theology debate alive in the Quest.
depends on critical conversation (in person, in print and, increasingly, His achievement, however, isas 1 have stated elsewhere
on screen). In the case of the Quest of the Historical Jesus, there is a 'strangely comforting' for Christian believers, and it is at this point
clearly defined pathway stretching, at the very least, from Reimarus to where further critique can begin. The very fact that his conclusions
the Third Quest.' It is a rocky road, with lots of side roads (not all of enable continuity between Jesus of Nazareth and Christian interpreta
which are cul-de-sacs), but it is identifiable nevertheless, and its story tion to be clearly seen enables sighs of relief to be sounded all round
is often told. Often, however, contributions are made with insufficient the church. It is not claim of the continuity, but the basis upon which
knowledge, or interaction, with those who have travelled the road (or that claim is grounded, however, that is problematic. Wright s claim
even part of it) before. It is to Wright's credit that he reviews not is that this continuity is fully historically legitimate, and for that very
only the road, but the landscape around it before setting off on his reason theologically significant (pp. 661-62). The Jesus of history/
Christ of faith split is so disastrous, he declares, because it fails to
15. Wright disputes both that the legacy of Buitmann may have more of a hold on enable people to draw the necessary theological conclusions from the
him than he recognizes and that there may be an element of theological reservation historical evidence available. Perhaps; but at this point 1 wonder
attached to his reluctance to enquire too deeply into Jesus' mindset (for who can whether his own critical realism has not slipped into a form of the
claim to know the mind of God?; cf. Rom. 11.34, 1 Cor. 2.16). Interestingly, nineteenth-century positivism which he goes to suchlengths to oppose.
despite Wright's explicit commitment to Christian faith, his willingness to wrestle
with the interplay of history and theology in Jesus research, and despite his bold However much Wright may claim that he is merely constructing a
ch.13, he does side-step in JVG questions of the so-called 'divinity' of Jesus
('whatever that might be deemed to mean', p. 196; 'whatever we might mean by 17. See also Wright's study in ABD, III, pp. 796-802. I have offered a re
that', p. 613). reading of the Quest in 'Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Per
16. Reimarus depended on the English Deists, as Wright himself notes {JVG. spective' (hereafter 'Quests'), Bibint 5/34 (1997), pp. 403-37. In that article I
p. 16; following C. Brown). But there remains, nevertheless, a sense in which interact extensively with Wright's work.
Reimarus is an appropriate starting-point for the so-called 'Quest'. 18. 'Quests', p. 424.
88 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998) 89
MARSH Thelogical History?
comprehensive hypothesis (on critical-realist lines), one of the driving
forces of his undertaking appears clearly to be to maximize the things (about himself and his movement) that Wright claims. But pre
historical data available, in the defence of theological assertions (made
cisely because discussions about whether he did are never only^histori-
cal debates it is necessary to extend the discussion yet further.
in the first century, even if not today) point for point. Even if this is A third critical point relates to Wright's reading of apocalyptic. 1
not historical positivism, it is certainly theological positivism in the still wish to be more positive than negative at this point. Though
nineteenth-century sense." The theological interest which Wright Wright is bound to receive criticism for seeking (perhaps, it may be
maintains and which I am myself most keen to examinedoes not felt, even on theological grounds) to make seemingly other-worldly
obtrude, obviously distort, or wholly control Wright's historical pre ideas more tangible and usable, he is nevertheless presenting aplausi
sentation. (Perhaps it should be more obtrusive!) And his mapping out ble historical case. But there remain questions worth asking. Much
of the historical epistemology he seeks to follow allows him to emphasis is placed by Wright on the reinterpretation of apocalyptic
acknowledge that theological interest up-front. But his approach sug the more 'historical understanding'^that he offers. As a consequence,
gests that a more explicit presentation of the theological world, and he must fend off the charge of abandoning eschatology altogether. For
the understanding of religion, out of which he speaks is necessary to eschatology is not the same as apocalyptic, of course. But in what
complement the exposition of epistemology he has offered.^ sense, then, for Wright is Jesus an eschatological figure, within this
A second critical point relates to the sheer neatness of Wright's redefinition ofapocalyptic? The answer is ostensibly given on pp. 208-
overall conclusion. Wright acknowledges that his conclusions about 209 of JVG. It is difficult to see, however, what Wright is making
Jesus can be equated neither with a set programme within Judaism into here of the present and future aspects of Jesus actions, in relation to
which Jesus can be slotted (p. 591) nor a systematic teaching syllabus the terms 'apocalyptic' and 'eschatology'. The terms are clearly not to
on Jesus part (p. 477). But these statements cannot allay suspicions be seen as wholly future-oriented. For the time is now, at least in the
that his conclusions tie up too many loose ends. Jesus appeared to have sense of decisively dawning. Jesus' reconstitution of Israel around
seen everything so clearly, that his own humanityparticularly its himself amounts to the announcement and praxis of Yhwh coming as
fraught historicityseems open to question. It is difficult not to con kingthat is the eschatological moment. The crucial aspect of apoca
clude that developments in Judaism and Christianity are necessary in lyptic and eschatology for Wright is that the terms relate to events
order for us to be able to agree with Wright about Jesus. However, 'within space-time history'. It is not the present or future aspects that
that does not of itself give us historical grounds for claiming such are foregrounded. This is fine as far as it goes. But it is difficult to
things about Jesus ofNazareth himself. It merely compels us to enter avoid the conclusion that Wright's criticisms of the Bultmannian tra
the quagmire of history and theology (and ideology, politics, sociol ditionand its preoccupation with the son of man and the present or
ogy and psychology) through which we understand the past and the future kingdomlead Wright himselfto side-step an important ques
present (including ourselves). Jesus may or may not have seen all the tion (so just what is it that is already here with Jesus, and how much is
yet to come?). If Wright feels that no side-stepping has happened, then
19. The complication is created, I think, by the extent to which Wright is taking
on those who are prepared to argue in a historically positivist way, as if facts are
more easy to come by than they appear to be, whilst operating with a much more 21. This is the line followed in 'Quests', in which I argue for greater attention to
cautious critically realist approach. Wright confuses the issue, though, by frequent ideological features of the Quest, not less. The supposed removal of philosophical
use throughout JVG ofterms such as 'genuine historical work', 'history in the fullest and theological concerns from the so-called 'ThirdQuest' is, actually, a step back.
sense', 'solid historical ground', 'a real attempt to do history seriously', 'serious What is needed, not simply because we are all 'postmodernists' now, is attention to
history', 'serious historical method', 'serious historian', 'a more mature approach', the ideological frameworks of all historical enquiry,precisely so that some ideologies
'serious social history' (pp. 22, 23, 71, 84, 86-87, 89, 135; see my comments in can be shown to be better than others; Wright's Jesus, for example, is demonstrably
'Quests', pp. 410-12). preferable to a Nazi Jesus. It is not only on 'historical' (in the sense of historically
20. How, in other words, is the content and significance of NTPG, ch. 5 positivistic) grounds that this is so. Preferences between other 'historical Jesuses'
('Theology, Auhority and the New Testament*) reflected in JVG? are, of course, notoriously less clear-cut.
90 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998) Marsh Thelogical History? 91
the overriding impression one gains from his work is that all that is seems to me. We know that there is no non-ideological history. So it is
going to come has already come, within space-time history. If so, then a matter of doing one's best to identifywith the help of others
surely apocalyptic and eschatology have been merged. Andin Bult- what kind of ideological history one is undertaking. Wright's is
mannian fashion, evenall eschatology is collapsed into the present unashamedly theological history. He is a theist, and that affects his
moment, even if not in an individualistic manner. But language of historiography. That does not mean he simply imports Christian read
destruction and judgment may be too easily forced into a set pro ings. 1 have stressed this point already. But the value of the book is all
gramme for Jesus here. There is yet a future for the present-future the greater precisely because it is theologically interested (though not
debate. doctrinally controlled, at least not overtly) historiography. 1 can see
Wright, of course, is arguing for a 'historical understanding' of why Wright would be reluctant to accept this description of his work.
apocalyptic in two senses: the sense that he claims first-century Jews But rather than play the 'history' card in a positivist waywhen he is
would have had of apocalyptic language; and the sense that the lan a critical realisthe would do better, in my view, to accept more the
guage refers to historical, as opposed to meta- or supra-historical, ideological interests of his work and use them to the full. Theology is
realities.^^ Though the first has the upper hand in Wright's exposition, an interpretative art which can only do its work vis-a-vis history by
the second is never far behind. It is for this reason that Wright can going beyond the irrecoverable 'happenings' around which it does its
stress the political dimension to his reading of Jesus. But how does work, in a way which always says more than the protagonists it
apocalyptic relate to religion? At times one gains the impression that interprets were able to say of themselves. Wright has seen that clearly.
Wright s critics at this point will always be accused of asking the Therein lie the full historical and theological significance of the Quest
wrong question or using inappropriate terms (e.g. pp. 143, 310, 372- of the Historical Jesus, and the value of Wright's work.
73). But ifJesus remained a Jew, and Judaism is a religion, then it is There is a revealing section in JVG where Wright makes explicit
reasonable to press Wright further as to how religious Jesus was. the Christian re-appropriation of kingdom language as part of his on
Pursuing my fourth critical question takes us into a different, and going historical enquiry (pp. 214-20). It is an intriguing section
difficult, area of enquiry altogether, and 1 can mention it therefore because it appears to collapse a point meriting much discussion into a
only in passing: what kind ofbook is Jesus and the Victory of God! Is few lines. Is it at all clear that kingdom language was widely used 'as a
it history? Is it theology? The rich rhetoric is evidently that of an able kind of shorthand summary for the preaching and apologetic message
communicator, orator and preacher. But how is the work to be char of the church' (p. 215). The evidence, despite Wright's Appendix
acterized as a whole? As a 'New Testament Theology'?^^ If so, then (pp. 663-70), in which a whole variety of kingdom references are
this can only be the five-volume work as a whole, for the full theolog essentially taken to mean the same thing, is certainly not vast. Of
ical evaluation ofthe material presented here has not been undertaken. course, the kingdom as shorthand makes (later) Christian sense and is
As history ? Well, yes, for that is how Wright wants it to be taken, in worthy of support and re-working on good theological and ethical
order to carry on conversing with the positivists, though its grounds. But this invites the suggestion that Wright is makingand
hermeneutical sophistication leaves the positivists far behind. As 'theo could makemore of his own contemporary context. It will not win
logical history'? At the end of the day, this is the best description, it him friends with the guild of positivist historians. But it may enable
his Jesus to have more of the effect that he clearly wants him to have.
22. This raises the pressing question of what kind of reality god/God is.
23. As anticipated by Stephen E. Fowl, 'The New Testament, Theology, and IV
Ethics', in Joel B. Green (ed.). Hearing the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), pp. 394-410, here p. 410. Susan Lochrie My conclusion takes the form of a simple thesis: despite itself,
Graham has noted the significance in Wright's book of the parable ofthe prodigal Wright's book is a work of theological history standing firmly in the
son, raising the question of whether JVG should be seen as a form of narrative idealist tradition. This is not to devalue it as history or theology. But
theology.
92 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998) Marsh Thelogical History? 93
it is worth saying more. For Wright is ostensibly opposed to idealism. out fully what ontologyor metaphysics^he believes should accom
And being anti-idealist, he feels the need to call for a 'new ontology' pany his critically realist approach to historiography. It will require
(NTPG, p. 97; of. 'a new metaphysic', JVG, p. 8). So what is Wright of him an articulation of what kind of reality god is. But the current
up to? lacuna in his exposition makes the vehemence of his opposition to
Wright thinks that Christianity would receive a good shake-up if it idealism all the more puzzling. Resort to idealism is not going to
really was as Christocentric as it professes to be (p. 661). Orthodoxy provide instant answers. But as a theist, Wright may need to lean
has got a bit frightened of Jesus, he says. Wright is presenting us with more on idealism than he realizes. So what is being opposed? I suggest
a Jesus who had a big vision, who saw the need for his reli- three things: the prioritizing of mind over body, at cost to a concern
gious/political/eschatological tradition to undergo major change. Jesus for the material dimension of human life; the sense of otherness/the
did not hold reins of power in his religious tradition. But somehow otherwordly which plays down the circumstances of this present
the leading factions had to be taken on, and the roots of the tradition world; the tradition in New Testament scholarshiprooted in so-
had to be freshly watered. It was undoubtedly a crisis point in Juda called German Idealismwhich appears to have accompanied the up
ism's history. It did not take a supernatural mind to see that the Jews rooting of Jesus from Judaism. All these points of opposition are valid
would get routed at some stage, and that anyone who caused upset and worth supporting. What is not clear is that they should readily be
from within would suffer the same fate. But the moment had to be subsumed within an opposition to 'idealism'. Nor is it clear that ideal
seized nevertheless. Political manoeuvring had to happen. The coming ism, for all its faults, has little or nothing to contribute to history or
of Yhwh demanded it. theology. For what it is worth, and without wishing todefend idealism
Wright has, then, given us a reading of Jesus the visionary who saw in all respects,^^ I wish to assert that it is through and beyond idealism
things clearly and put an 'agenda' into concrete action. Wright's Jesus that humanity might best be understood. Western history entangles
is far from concerned only about the material aspects of human living, profound insight into the human condition with support of the most
however worldly the contemporary understanding of apocalyptic may horrendous atrocities. It is automatically to be applauded or excused
have been. Wright speaks of an underlying metanarrative (pp. 225, on neither count. Intriguing, however, is the way in which the Quest
316; of., e.g., pp. 227, 228 n. 110, 229, 364) 'the larger whole' of the Historical Jesus has been interwoven with that history.^^ So-
(p. 307) and a 'controlling story' (p. 315). But his position depends on called 'purely historical' approaches to Jesus of Nazareth may not
that controlling story being taken on explicitly and consciously by wish to be faced with the prospect, but it may be that theological
Jesus himself. Wright's hypothesis seeks to argue for the plausibility readings of Jesus are actually necessary not only for ecclesiastical
ofJesus' conscious embodiment of that controlling story. Be that as it purposes. Along this line, then, a more subtle reading of the Quest's
may, the 'big picture' was certainly drawn out by Jesus' followers and own history, and a more fruitful continuation of the current Quest,
has been re-worked by Christians ever since. The irony of Wright's moving beyond Wright, may be found. Rather than join Wright in his
undertaking to present us with this 'big picture' is that his opposition campaign against idealism, then, I am more concerned to contribute to
to idealism prevents him from seeing what an idealist undertaking his the critical recovery of a refined and chastened idealism, an idealism
own big picture actually is. In short, his very presentation of Jesus that fully respects the immaterial dimensions of human life past and
seems to require the kind of approach to the philosophy of history that
his method appears to deny.^"
25. For example I have nodesire to support idealism in itstending towards totali
What, then, of ontology, or metaphysics? Wright has not yet spelt tarianism, in its being too closely tied to Western rationalism, Eurocentrism and
European colonialism.
24. Ofcourse, Wright could argue that Jesus had the big vision, and was there 26. On which, see especially Dieter Georgi, 'Leben-Jesu-Theologie/Leben-Jesu-
fore more ofan idealist than we can now be. I would see more ofa necessary con Forschung', TRE, XX, pp. 566-75; idem, 'The Interest in Life of Jesus Theology as
gruence between the theological views of the interpreter and the figure of Jesus a Paradigm for the Social History of Biblical Criticism', HTR(1992), pp. 51-83; and
presented. my own 'Quests'.
94 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 69 (1998) [JSNT 69 (1998) 95-103]
present whilst opposing all the false dualisms it has so often supported.
For it can be argued that the critical recovery of idealismeven in
historiographyis necessary lest all human history be reduced to
social or economic determinism.^'
Like Wright, I believe that the figure of Jesus is ultimately of more
than historical interest. Academic enquiries are never likely to control WHERE WRIGHT IS WRONG: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF
what is done with Jesus in the name of religion. Often this is to reli N.T.WRIGHT'S JESUS AND THE VICTORYOF GOD*
gion s cost. But religion will not be able to control matters either,
certainly not the Christian church, beyond which the figure of Jesus is Maurice Casey
always likely to exert an impact. I do not think that makes me an Department of Theology, Nottingham University
agonized phenomenalist (p. 479 n. 8), though I am, by now, more University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD.
than happy to take a brisk walk and listen to a Brandenburg Concerto.