Block 1 - Borg, Pages 3-50

Borg begins with the assumption that the reader of his book is not acquainted with the Historical Critical Method. But he introduces to reader to this method in a way that he believes will most likely make the reader accepting of the premises of the method. That is, since the average American has entered the modern world in terms of no longer believing the earth is at the center of the universe, so also the religious inquirer should be accepting of newer methods of examining ancient religious texts than those that prevailed before the 20th century.

Borg then recaps the various traditional ways that Jesus has been presented in American Christianity. (Aside: the apocalyptic Jesus [as in the "Left Behind" series] is much more popular in the United States as an interpretation of Christianity than it is in other countries). The "Jesus died for your sins" is a part of all traditional forms of Western Christianity (Aside: in Eastern Orthodox theology this is not the central datum that it is in theology that emerged from Western Europe).

On page 14 Borg introduces the idea of two different paradigms for understanding Jesus. On pages 16-22 he lays out the features of the traditional understanding of Jesus via traditional theological interpretations of the New Testament. You may not think that everything mentioned here is a part of what you would consider traditional "church" thinking about Jesus. But Borg is most intent on indicating all the different pieces that fit into this "earlier" way of thinking so that he can set it up in contrast with the "Emerging Christian Paradigm" that he wishes his reader to embrace as a new and legitimate way of understanding Jesus. I think Borg is fair in the way he describes this. He is not out to lampoon traditional Christianity. He mainly wants to offer what he believes is a better alternative that is more appropriate for people who live and think in a modern world. Whether or not you agree is your decision.

On pages 23-26 Borg sketches what this looks like, both in terms of what the historical critical method is (though he is really too sketchy on this, and you will find much more detailed information in my Blog entries on the Historical Critical Method). The key thing you need to note in these pages is the reference to "metaphorical narrative." This is a relatively new term in New Testament studies, but it serves to identify a way of approaching and making sense of the Gospels from a modern enlightenment viewpoint that also offers the interpreter a way of saying the Gospels contain religious truth, even when they are not necessarily historically accurate. That is, the underlying view is that the Gospels can convey religious truth without the event narrated necessarily having happened in history.

It would be (in my mind) the equivalent of a speaker or writer creating a story that could have happened the way it did, and making it sound like it really happened, all to get across a particular point or message, in which the validity of the point being made does not really depend on it actually having happened. A good example in Christian history would be Roman Catholic stories of the lives of the saints that (in some cases) modern Catholic scholars are sure are legendary, but the story still serves to provide a model of exemplary Christian virtue that is worth being imitated by all Christians. In that sense the story is "true."

If you were to continue to study modern interpretations of Christianity, you would find in 20th century Christian theology that a major topic of debate was (and is) the relationship between history and truth. For many centuries the belief that something happened the way it was recorded in the Bible was seen as confirmation that the historical event held religious truth. However, we will find that seeing and believing do not always neatly coincide. Such as the story of the empty tomb of Jesus on Easter morning. One could argue that the body was stolen. Even the New Testament asserts that Jesus only appeared to people who were inclined to believe he was alive, or wanted to believe it. Therefore, the empty tomb alone proves nothing. The Christian meaning attached to that story depends on believing a lot of other things in addition to the fact that the tomb was empty. On the other hand, Borg might say, the story of the empty tomb conveys a religious truth about the Spirit of Jesus living still, even though the story itself may or may not be historically factual.

In Chapter 2, in the section on "Gospels in Contemporary Scholarship," it is important to note that the summary Borg provides is one that reflects the commonly agreed upon assumptions of modern scholars who employ the historical critical method in their examination of the Gospels. Many conservative scholars would be inclined to believe the traditional understandings of the origins of the Gospels, such as: Mark wrote down the recollections of the Apostle Peter; Luke was written by a companion of the Apostle Paul. Matthew and John were written by the Disciples/Apostles of that name.

(Aside: the Greek word translated disciple means a "learner." The Greek word "Apostolos" means "one who is sent out" as on a mission. Disciple is the term that best applies to the followers of Jesus during his earthly lifetime. Apostle refers to their post-resurrection mission to spread the message of Jesus to others in other places.)

The "Sources for Knowing about Jesus" section is well stated, and fortunately Borg does not place too much emphasis on the Gospel of Thomas. Some modern scholars do, as if it certainly represents an independent source of information about Jesus. Borg takes the more sober approach that most of these sayings in Thomas that parallel the New Testament Gospels either come from the canonical four Gospels or from the same sources as the canonical four. The sayings in Thomas that smack of Gnosticism (see Ehrman pages 71-78) probably have no connection to Jesus. Ehrman is among those who believe that Thomas represents an independent tradition, but I personally do not find that argument convincing. You may catch the drift that Ehrman loves to make comments that are intended to cast doubt on traditional Christian views and at times he does it with relish.

On pages 33-42 Borg continues to lay out what are commonly held views among modern scholars that use the historical critical method. Many conservative scholars do not believe that the Gospels have to be dated as late as what Borg states. They could have been written earlier. But Borg is only repeating what most scholars like him take for granted as being established fact (though in fact it is only a widely accepted theory). When Borg mentions the Gospels as "developing tradition" he is delving into a feature of Gospel criticism that addresses how the words of Jesus developed into the stories that we find in the Gospels. The most important scholar in the development of this line of inquiry was Rudolf Bultmann of Marburg, Germany whose book The History of the Synoptic Tradition (first published in 1921) shaped the development of historical criticism for the next 50 years. Based on his study of the Gospels, Bultmann was convinced that the only Jesus material that went back to Jesus himself (for certain) were some easy to remember pithy sayings, stories and parables. The words of Jesus that were remembered were adapted and modified to fit the needs of the church in the beginning years of Christianity.

For instance, take the story in Mark 2:23-28 about the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath. Bultmann believed that the only part that for certain went back to Jesus was the saying, "The Sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath" (NRSV). The rest of the story (what precedes this saying in Mark) was, Bultmann concludes, developed by Christians in the 40's CE in their debates with the Pharisees about what is acceptable behavior, and defending their actions as followers of the Jewish Jesus whom they believed was the Messiah. This represents an evolutionary model of development for the sayings and stories of Jesus. But I mention Bultmann here as the origin of the ideas that form the basis for the examples (three illustrations) that Borg offers of how this method applies to the Gospels, as found on pages 35-42.

On page 43 we are introduced to the concept of the "layers" of tradition. The common example scholars like to use is peeling off the layers of layers of an onion. The outside layer is the Gospel as we find it in the Bible. Peel that back and you get to some of the sources. Behind the sources are the individual "pericopes" (the individual episodes in the Gospels). Behind the different forms of the pericopes are how the sayings and stories developed through the 40's and 50's. And eventually, if you are lucky you will get back to the "ipsissima verba" (Latin for "actual words") of Jesus. (Aside: using terms like pericope makes me want to mention a good web site for finding the explanation of some common terms used in Biblical scholarship -- http://www.wfu.edu/~horton/r102/ho1.html#definition ).

The section on the "second pillar", pages 44-50 brings, in another aspect of modern historical criticism that most conservative scholars are not so eager to accept. That is the distinction between the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Jesus. Conservative scholars would not see so much of a break as continuity between the two. Modern historical critical scholars are unanimous in their opinion that most of what we know of Jesus in the Gospels is of the post-Easter Jesus. That is, what we find there is really how the early Christians chose to remember Jesus based on their experiences of the of the risen Jesus, and how their faith had changed their lives, which in turn dictated their perception of Jesus, and in so doing projected their Christian experience of the risen Jesus upon the earthly Jesus. What this conclusion means for modern Biblical scholars is that the earthly Jesus must be devoid of all supernatural elements (remember - miracles don't really happen), and all we have left is a very human Jesus. But to find this very human Jesus we must remove all the accretions that the faith of his followers have laid upon him burying him under this supernatural overlayment that is so prevalent in the Gospels. ... To be continued ...