His eyes—how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!Rather, since direct descriptions will not work, metaphors become the vehicle for speaking about the divine. Thus metaphors are at the heart of Christian religious language. This will become very evident when we discuss the sayings of Jesus in detail. It is not really a major concern of the New Testament to make statements about God, but rather to describe what God has done and accomplished through Jesus. Some philosophers have problems with even talking about what God has done because it is using anthropomorphic language to speak about the divine, which is beyond human description, even to speak of divine activity. But this was not a concern shared by the writers of the New Testament.
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow
And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;
When Borg speaks of Memory Metaphorized, he is using stories of Jesus in which the underlying religious message being promoted is of much more consequence (in Borg's opinion) than the historical veracity of the narrated event. He makes this point by referring to passages where Borg expects the average Christian reader to resonate with the reference to "following Jesus" as a metaphor for discipleship and "having [one's] eyes opened" as a metaphor for a moment of insightful spiritual discovery. Borg then proceeds to work with two narratives that he is certain have no historical basis, but rather were created to make a religious point: the wedding at Cana and Peter walking on water. In both cases Borg is convinced these stories convey a meaningful religious message regardless of whether they actually happened as narrated or not, because both stories make a theological point about the person and power of Jesus that transcends the time and place in which these events are described as having taken place.
In discussing The Stories of Jesus' Birth (pages 60-69), Borg first mentions why most historical critical scholars consider these stories legends. The historicity of these events has long been questioned by skeptics due to their miraculous nature. Such scholars say the fact that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are strikingly different is proof of their origination long after the time of Jesus' earthly sojourn. Conservative scholars (usually) say that Matthew represents Joseph's version of these events and Luke tells Mary's side of it. A scholar who tends to be a historical skeptic with regard to the miraculous would say the the parallels in the birth narratives to Old Testament prophecies is due to the prophecies giving rise to creation of these stories in the minds of Christians who suppose that Jesus' life of necessity was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and that Christians invented events that narrate how these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus. A conservative scholar would say that the events prove that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah because these events in his life fulfilled messianic prophecies. For the skeptically minded, taking the birth stories at face value is naive.
The reasons Borg gives why the birth stories cannot be taken at face value are commonly used by many scholars. In particular is the theologically loaded language in reference to the coming of Jesus. Of course, the story is being told by Christians, but would people who were on the scene when Jesus was born have really used that kind of language about him? Of course, whether or not you accept this line of reasoning depends on what you are willing to believe about how God operates in the world. Borg mentions four themes that are prevalent in these stories, 1) light, 2) fulfillment, 3) conception by God, and 4) Son of God as evidence that theology takes priority over history in the birth stories.
Also, a favorite subject of scholars who have participated in the Jesus Seminar is the parallel between the accolades of divine favor attributed to the birth of Octavian (Caesar Augustus) by writers of that time and the same kind of accolades given to Jesus in the birth stories. Borg is implying that Luke composed his story of Jesus' birth in the way he did to present Jesus as a better Lord and Savior than Caesar Augustus. Of course, conservative scholars would question whether or not Luke would really use the story of the birth of Octavian as a model for describing Jesus. Also, what is unspoken by Borg in making this connection between a pagan and a Christian birth story is that no modern scholar believes either is historically factual, but rather that the composition of such a story (in both cases) serves to validate the divine origin of the individual in question (whether Octavian or Jesus) to the gullible masses.
Aside: I think John Dominic Crossan may be the source of making a connection between the birth story of Octavian and Jesus. Crossan is a very creative scholar, and many conclusions of people involved in or sympathetic to the Jesus Seminar had their origin in the creative reconstructions of Crossan. I will be making reference to Crossan at numerous points in future blog postings.
Borg then proceeds to discuss (briefly) the issue of method. With little fanfare he dismisses the historical value of the Gospel of John, as do most historical critical scholars. However, I believe that even from a historical critical perspective there are some things in John that cannot be dismissed so easily. But more on that later. On page 70 he mentions of the criteria of multiple attestation and coherence, both of which are commonly accepted by historical critical scholars. Surprisingly, he does not mention at this point the criterion that is at the heart of the historical critical method, dissimilarity. See my Blog entry on the "Criteria of Authenticity" for a better understanding of how this discussion by Borg fits into the larger framework of historical critical scholarship.
Under "further considerations", the section on a demonstrable tendency of the developing tradition, describes a view commonly employed by historical critical scholars. The references to environmental considerations and spectacular events refer to commonly agreed upon assumptions about this enterprise by critical scholars. Sometimes you will find scholars coming up with "criteria" that really do not need a separate category. For instance, on page 72 at the bottom, Borg places Matthew's wadi (a Hebrew word for a creek that always dries up in the summer) and Luke's river under environmental considerations. I personally would place this issue under the category of developing tradition, on the supposition that Luke's change reflects an adaptation of the story to a new audience (outside of Palestine) for whom the original words would be confusing. With regard to spectacular events, I have said enough on modern scholars and the miraculous that you should be able to understand why Borg concludes what he does about many of Jesus' miracles.
Just a note in reference to Borg's comment (top of page 75) that to attribute all these miracles to Jesus is to deny him his full humanity. Until the rise of the historical critical method, no Christian scholar or theologian ever supposed that the miracles in the Gospels in any way compromised the church doctrine of the two natures of Christ (fully human and fully divine), because it was always seen that some events in the life of Jesus proved his full humanity while other events proved his divine origin. The only caveat is that in Jesus' incarnation his divine glory was hidden by his human nature, except when revealed to the disciples in the story of the transfiguration. I see Borg's comments there as being disingenuous, and (in my opinion) intentionally promotes Jesus' humanity at the expense of his divinity.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment