In his Chapter 9, Borg goes into great detail to support a central thesis of his interpretation of the historical Jesus. This thesis is that much of what Jesus taught can only be properly understood in light of the prevailing domination system that the people of Palestine lived under during the time of Jesus. New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders does not accept this line of thought because, within the Roman Empire everyone lived under some sort of autocratic rule, and if it were not the Romans, there would be other rulers who would lord it over their subjects. To a degree I have to agree with Sanders, because Democracy as we know simply did not exist in the ancient world except for a few wonderful decades in Athens, Greece. But I have to disagree with Sanders in that from the time of the Maccabees (about 166 BCE), there was a distinct sub-culture within Palestinian Judaism that was willing to die for self-rule. Of course, in their minds the yearning was for a restoration of the Law of Moses as the law of the land (and the high priests still would have run the country). So then, the concept of self-rule still would have made no sense to them. They were people who were zealous for God's Law and willing to die to make it become a political reality. But the idea that the average person should have a say in the governance s/he lived under would never have occurred to anyone in Palestine in Jesus' time.
Borg makes a good point in his chapter 9 about the various ways that Jews in the time of Jesus responded to the Roman system of domination with various forms of resistance. But, I am not so sure that the teachings of Jesus can be interpreted as forms of resistance or advocating non-violent resistance. In my opinion, there are a number of times that Jesus intentionally avoids the political issue that is thrown at him and turns it into a spiritual question. For instance, in Luke 13:1-5, Jesus is specifically asked about an incident in which non-violent resistance was met with Roman violence, hoping that Jesus would condemn the Roman action. Which he refuses to do. Then Jesus also brings up an occasion in which 18 ordinary people died in the collapse of a tower in the wall of the old city (Jerusalem), but Jesus turns it around to say that not only were all the dead people guilty before God, also even his questioners needed to repent. Now to be fair, I must offer the observation that many historical critical scholars believed either the early Christians or Luke himself made this up (Luke 13:1-5) to push the theme of the need for repentance. But even in the passage about whether or not to pay taxes to Caesar, I believe Jesus is avoiding the main question, which is - will you condemn the Roman occupation? Which Jesus refuses to do. But he does not approve of it either. His questioners were attempting to trap him, but the mere fact that they had the Roman coinage in question in their possession demonstrates that they were sympathetic to Roman rule. My point is, Jesus refuses to take sides, either against the Romans or for accommodation with the Romans. Borg says that Jesus' answer is an implicit criticism of the Roman occupation, and he may well be correct in that regard. But Jesus does not clearly advocate anything that could be understood as resistance against the Roman rule in his statement about giving Caesar his own.
When Borg discusses Jesus' ride into Jerusalem on the Sunday of the last week of his earthly life, I think he pushes it a bit too far to say that this is an "anti-imperial entry" (page 232). Undoubtedly, if Jesus were received by all of Jerusalem in the manner proclaimed by his arrival, there would be serious political implications for the Roman rule. But to see Jesus' arrival as a direct challenge to Roman rule would be beyond Jesus' intentions. In a sense Jesus' entry and the passage from Zechariah that served as the inspiration for this act does imply (as Borg points out) that if Jesus were received in the manner proclaimed by his act, that all coercive rule by any human authority is rendered unacceptable (and unnecessary). I am also certain that Jesus never expected that his arrival would bring about the desired result. But (as Borg correctly points out) Jesus most certainly intended his entry to be a prophetic sign to the people of Jerusalem that God has come to rule his people. (Note: when Jesus entered the city from the east, he would have entered by the gate that opens directly into the outer courtyard of the temple. So, the ride would have terminated in the temple precincts, and the religious connotations would have been inescapable to anyone paying close attention).
Likewise with Jesus' action commonly referred to as the "cleansing of the temple." Jesus most certainly intended this as a prophetic sign, a condemnation of business as usual in the temple. Jesus obviously condemned the commercialization of the sacrificial operation, and the fact that for so many people what was originally intended (in the Law of Moses) as the means by which people get right with God, had become for many simply a job and for the leaders a means to get rich at the expense of the people who come to the temple to offer sacrifices. And considering how many thousands of lambs would be killed on the following Friday, this was a big money making week at the temple (since the animal would almost always be purchased on the temple property so that the lamb was certified already as approved for sacrifice) . To a casual observer Jesus' actions may have appeared to be no more than a trouble maker disrupting the temple business. But to the astute observer, his protest against the commercialization of temple worship might have hit a note that resonated with people.
But I hesitate to agree with Borg that people would have resented the temple leaders because the temple system was "the center of an oppressive system that did not practice justice" (page 235). It seems just as likely that the popular resentment was due to the disproportionate wealth held by the high priestly families, in the same way there is resentment toward Wall Street bankers who make multi-million dollar salaries for little work when many people are just scraping by.
In the section on Jesus as Prophet, Borg focuses on Jesus' condemnation of Jerusalem. But to give the cause of Jesus' statements against the city as arising from an indictment of the domination system misses Jesus' point in my opinion. I think that rather than being overly concerned about peace and justice, Jesus is distraught at Jerusalem's history of rejecting God's messengers and for refusing to heed calls to return to God. So I think Borg is greatly overstating his case when he says that Jesus calls the temple a den of robbers because Jerusalem "had become the center of an oppressive domination system" (page 243 bottom). I suspect Jesus' critique was generated more by observing people not treating the temple as a holy place and knowing most people had no desire to receive the words of the prophets (Jesus and John included) as the Word of the Lord.
Borg's section on Nonviolent Resistance (pages 247-251) I found to be far-fetched. Walter Wink's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is quite ingenious, but not at all convincing. The reason is, that Jesus' statements on non-retaliation most certainly do fit within the larger framework of Jesus' teaching on "love your enemies." But to say that in acting out the "love your enemies" command by turning the other cheek and going the extra mile a person is engaging in non-violent resistance makes no sense. The very idea that loving one's enemies implies the expectation of nonviolent resistance at the same time (as Borg says on page 250 middle) makes no sense. In my mind, if you truly love someone, why would you underhandedly attempt to subvert their efforts? Resistance of any kind (in my mind) is motivated by dislike for someone not love. So, Wink's idea that doing something nice for someone can be a form of resistance against their role as a representative of an oppressive system seems nonsensical to me. And Borg's idea that when Jesus uttered these statements about being helpful to people who are oppressive he was promoting nonviolent resistance is not at all convincing. And the idea that Jesus was motivated by a desire to promote nonviolent resistance against Roman rule seems very unlikely. If Jesus was truly focused on resisting Roman rule, it would seem probable that he would have said so directly, some where, at some time, but I find it no where. And even if Wink is right that Jesus uttered the 5 statements listed at the top of page 248 as a means to promote nonviolent resistance, I am sure most Jewish people would have completely misunderstood Jesus, as apparently Wink believes every Christian interpreter has before Wink. So either Wink has uncovered a long lost subtlety in Jesus' teaching or else Wink is wrong. I suspect Wink is wrong.
On Borg and The Kingdom of God and Eschatology (pages 251-260), I suspect you have read enough on this topic by now that you can figure most of it out for yourself. Borg sets up the eschatology scenario to his benefit when he juxtaposes the imminent eschatology sayings of Jesus with the kingdom-is-present sayings. It has to be one or the other implies Borg. You can't have both, says Borg (in which I believe Borg sets up a false dichotomy). Of course Borg makes it easier for himself when he states that Jesus never uttered an "end is near" statement. Saying that the early church created the imminent eschatology theme so prominent in the New Testament makes it easy for Borg (and Crossan and others) to create a Jesus they can believe in. It makes more sense to me to attempt to devise an understanding of Jesus' views on eschatology that takes into account both the "end is near" statements and the "kingdom is present" statements. However, just like Ehrman discounts the importance of the "kingdom is present" statements, so Borg jettisons the "end is near" statements.
When Borg speaks of Participatory Eschatology (pages 259), he constructs a nice neat package that is not only palatable to modern people who are not expecting the end of the world any time soon, but he also creates a view of eschatology that works for modern Americans who want to be involved in God's work. But this seems to me to fall short of what we actually find in the Gospels. To "proclaim the kingdom" and "follow Jesus" do not necessarily mean people are bringing in the kingdom or even participating in it. To me it seems such actions that Jesus places upon his disciples are more oriented toward helping people prepare for the arrival of the kingdom. It seems to me, contrary to what Borg says, that in most passages that speak of the kingdom it is about what God is doing without human assistance. Just because Jesus might have been participating in the arrival of the kingdom by many of his actions, I doubt the Gospel writers expected the disciples to continue the same program. Contrary to what Borg believes, most early Christians believed Jesus was more than just a human, and that there was something special and unrepeatable in his earthly existence. Another sign that Borg's interpretation of Jesus' eschatology is on shaky ground is when Borg has to have recourse to the Gospel of Thomas to support his focus on the "kingdom is present" (page 256 middle-bottom). He is grasping at straws to float a brick. Very few scholars I know of would take Thomas over the Synoptic Gospels as the basis for reconstructing Jesus' views on the kingdom of God.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Block 6 - Jesus, Teacher of Wisdom, Borg, Pages 191-223
In his Chapter 8, Borg places Jesus within the Jewish wisdom tradition as a way of explaining the proper setting for understanding the teachings of Jesus. New Testament scholarship has always used some version of Jesus as a teacher of wisdom to explain the significance of a good number of Jesus' teachings. Much of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 has often been interpreted as Jesus providing new wisdom teachings. But more recently some scholars have used wisdom as a means to explain the totality of what Jesus was teachings (and Borg and Crossan are the best examples of this). To understand the implications of this designation we must first realize that in the Old Testament the prophetic writings and the wisdom writings constitute two very different ways of understanding Israel's relationship with God.
The wisdom writings are represented by the following Old Testament books: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Job (and in the Jewish apocrypha there are the books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach (also referred to us Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira). The prophetic writings are represented by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 shorter prophetic writings, including Daniel, Hosea, Amos, etc. The basic line of thought in the book of Proverbs is: Live well and you will prosper. This assumes a stable society and a direct line of cause and effect between one's actions and the outcome. Job and Ecclesiastes question some of the basic assumptions in the way of thinking found in Proverbs, but they are still operating very much within that particular way of thinking. The prophetic literature presupposes a dynamic relationship between God and the people of Israel. The prophets question social inequalities. The prophets verbally attack the mindset that allows for worshiping the God of Israel and worshiping pagan idols at the same time. The jealousy of the God of Israel comes to fore in the writings of the prophets and the prospect of punishment for disobeying the law given to Moses is the drastic punishment of the loss of land and even life.
The prophets continually call the people to repentance with the offer of forgiveness being held out to them, but the people stubbornly refuse to return to God. This is a much different way of looking at the religious world compared to what we find in the Wisdom tradition, which assumes that people will have enough common sense to know to obey God's laws. Wisdom teaching tends to be "common sense" ideas offered within a particular world view in which they make sense. The Hebrew prophetic teachings are continually calling the Israelites back to a way of life and worship they have carelessly abandoned.
The point of all this Old Testament information is to demonstrate that Borg clearly intends to place Jesus within the perspective of the Wisdom tradition, and NOT in the prophetic tradition. However, as we have seen, both Ehrman (and many other scholars) views Jesus primarily as a prophet, not a teacher of wisdom. I personally disagree with the focus on Jesus as a wisdom teacher, though many modern critical New Testament scholars are in favor of it. I prefer the emphasis on Jesus as a prophet of the Kingdom. With this in mind, I offer a bit of a critique of Borg's chapter 8.
In the "Dead though Alive" section, I find it strange that he would have recourse to the Gospel of John, since most modern historical critical scholars find little or no historical value in John's Gospel, Borg included. And since this is the Gospel that uses the dead-versus-alive imagery the most, perhaps Borg's emphasis on it does not fit well with his methodology and he is forcing the issue, that is, making the concept a larger part of Jesus' teaching than the evidence warrants according to his methodology.
Secondly, the sections on "Exile" and "Bondage" (pages 200-204) explore concepts that do not strike me as important for understanding Jesus' message. Borg is representative of a move by many New Testament scholars toward the use of sociological categories to explain Jesus and the Jesus movement. However, I am of the (older) opinion that it is purely religious considerations that motivate Jesus. There might be sociological dimensions to Jesus' message, but I seriously doubt he was motivated by purely social concerns, or concerns arising out of the social problems of Palestinian Judaism of his time.
Borg is on much more solid ground in his discussion of the conventions of family relationships and "Wealth" (pages 205-211). These are topics for which there are numerous passages that Jesus certainly spoke that give us a fairly clear picture of Jesus' views on these topics. One of the reasons why the family oriented sayings have such a prominent place in the synoptic gospels (in my opinion) is because they were important to the early Christians because for many (I am sure) their Christian friends became their substitute family. What I mean by this is that for many people in both Jewish and pagan society, adopting the Christian faith probably meant disinheritance from their family and disowning by their family. A good example of this is found in the parable of the Prodigal Son who travels and immerses himself in a pagan society (they have pigs so they cannot be Jewish) and when he returns the father refers to the son as having been dead, which is how Jewish people would think of family members who left the faith to go live like pagans. Becoming a Christian often meant severing one's family ties. Therefore the Christian community would have played the role of a substitute family. And thus we find the reason for the enduring value for the early Christians of Jesus' sayings that advocated a distancing from one's biological family.
With regard to Wealth and possessions Jesus clearly takes a position of this subject that does not fit well with modern western materialism. In fact Jesus' message is very anti-materialism. What Borg has to say on the topic in the last paragraph on page 211 (I think) is an excellent summary of what Jesus taught on this topic.
Borg on "Honor" (page 212) makes an important point. Honor and shame were significant factors in Middle Eastern society (and this is still very true today in the Middle East). One would avoid at all costs doing anything that might being dishonor or shame to one's family. While Jesus rarely addresses this issue directly (Borg give the few places in the Gospels where Jesus directs his comments against this way of thinking), much of what Jesus says clearly implies that he has no concern whatsoever for protecting the honor of his family's or his village. In other words, Jesus does not expect his followers to be at all concerned about protecting their honor, but rather (to the contrary), to give it no thought. The expectation is that the emphasis of concern would be on the needs of others, not family honor.
Borg's section on "Purity" (pages 213-217) is really good and the information is well worth knowing. Now some scholars see the purity debates in the Gospels as reflecting the debates the early Christians had with the Pharisees over what a Jew could or could not do (many early Christians thought of themselves as Jews who believed the Messiah had arrived). But the topic comes up so often in the Gospels, it seems it would have to have originated with Jesus. As Borg says, the key for Jesus is the distinction between outside and inside. The rules of the Pharisees (oral law) focused on one's actions, how a person behaves in certain situations, how a person treats the outside of his body. Jesus was much more interested in the motivation behind a person's behavior than the behavior alone. Jesus' emphasis on motivation behind the action is referred to as what is in a person's heart, that is, the interior life of the individual. In the process Jesus does make statements that demonstrate he has little regard for the rules of ritual purity regarding food and "unclean" people. But Jesus (and all early Christians) continue to accept as valid the rules in the Law of Moses on moral purity. The basic moral teachings of early Christianity (as found in the New Testament) are adapted from Jewish moral codes with some adjustments based on the change in emphasis in Jesus' discussions of moral issues.
Under the heading of the "Narrow Way" Borg mentions repentance. New Testament scholars have historically seen this call to repentance as a central feature of Jesus' teaching. However, highly regarded New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders (interestingly enough) questions this whole emphasis on repentance in New Testament scholarship and suggests that repentance was such an important part of early Christian preaching that it is retrojected back onto Jesus by the gospel writers, and by the author of Luke/Acts in particular. He makes an interesting case for his position, pointing out that most of the references to repentance in the New Testament come from the hand of one writer - Luke. Repentance becomes a significant aspect of the message of early Christianity. But the concept rarely occurs in the any Gospel other than Luke. Which makes Sanders think it may not have been part of Jesus' own teaching and preaching. I am not sure if I am convinced by it, but it is an argument worth considering.
The wisdom writings are represented by the following Old Testament books: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Job (and in the Jewish apocrypha there are the books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach (also referred to us Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira). The prophetic writings are represented by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 shorter prophetic writings, including Daniel, Hosea, Amos, etc. The basic line of thought in the book of Proverbs is: Live well and you will prosper. This assumes a stable society and a direct line of cause and effect between one's actions and the outcome. Job and Ecclesiastes question some of the basic assumptions in the way of thinking found in Proverbs, but they are still operating very much within that particular way of thinking. The prophetic literature presupposes a dynamic relationship between God and the people of Israel. The prophets question social inequalities. The prophets verbally attack the mindset that allows for worshiping the God of Israel and worshiping pagan idols at the same time. The jealousy of the God of Israel comes to fore in the writings of the prophets and the prospect of punishment for disobeying the law given to Moses is the drastic punishment of the loss of land and even life.
The prophets continually call the people to repentance with the offer of forgiveness being held out to them, but the people stubbornly refuse to return to God. This is a much different way of looking at the religious world compared to what we find in the Wisdom tradition, which assumes that people will have enough common sense to know to obey God's laws. Wisdom teaching tends to be "common sense" ideas offered within a particular world view in which they make sense. The Hebrew prophetic teachings are continually calling the Israelites back to a way of life and worship they have carelessly abandoned.
The point of all this Old Testament information is to demonstrate that Borg clearly intends to place Jesus within the perspective of the Wisdom tradition, and NOT in the prophetic tradition. However, as we have seen, both Ehrman (and many other scholars) views Jesus primarily as a prophet, not a teacher of wisdom. I personally disagree with the focus on Jesus as a wisdom teacher, though many modern critical New Testament scholars are in favor of it. I prefer the emphasis on Jesus as a prophet of the Kingdom. With this in mind, I offer a bit of a critique of Borg's chapter 8.
In the "Dead though Alive" section, I find it strange that he would have recourse to the Gospel of John, since most modern historical critical scholars find little or no historical value in John's Gospel, Borg included. And since this is the Gospel that uses the dead-versus-alive imagery the most, perhaps Borg's emphasis on it does not fit well with his methodology and he is forcing the issue, that is, making the concept a larger part of Jesus' teaching than the evidence warrants according to his methodology.
Secondly, the sections on "Exile" and "Bondage" (pages 200-204) explore concepts that do not strike me as important for understanding Jesus' message. Borg is representative of a move by many New Testament scholars toward the use of sociological categories to explain Jesus and the Jesus movement. However, I am of the (older) opinion that it is purely religious considerations that motivate Jesus. There might be sociological dimensions to Jesus' message, but I seriously doubt he was motivated by purely social concerns, or concerns arising out of the social problems of Palestinian Judaism of his time.
Borg is on much more solid ground in his discussion of the conventions of family relationships and "Wealth" (pages 205-211). These are topics for which there are numerous passages that Jesus certainly spoke that give us a fairly clear picture of Jesus' views on these topics. One of the reasons why the family oriented sayings have such a prominent place in the synoptic gospels (in my opinion) is because they were important to the early Christians because for many (I am sure) their Christian friends became their substitute family. What I mean by this is that for many people in both Jewish and pagan society, adopting the Christian faith probably meant disinheritance from their family and disowning by their family. A good example of this is found in the parable of the Prodigal Son who travels and immerses himself in a pagan society (they have pigs so they cannot be Jewish) and when he returns the father refers to the son as having been dead, which is how Jewish people would think of family members who left the faith to go live like pagans. Becoming a Christian often meant severing one's family ties. Therefore the Christian community would have played the role of a substitute family. And thus we find the reason for the enduring value for the early Christians of Jesus' sayings that advocated a distancing from one's biological family.
With regard to Wealth and possessions Jesus clearly takes a position of this subject that does not fit well with modern western materialism. In fact Jesus' message is very anti-materialism. What Borg has to say on the topic in the last paragraph on page 211 (I think) is an excellent summary of what Jesus taught on this topic.
Borg on "Honor" (page 212) makes an important point. Honor and shame were significant factors in Middle Eastern society (and this is still very true today in the Middle East). One would avoid at all costs doing anything that might being dishonor or shame to one's family. While Jesus rarely addresses this issue directly (Borg give the few places in the Gospels where Jesus directs his comments against this way of thinking), much of what Jesus says clearly implies that he has no concern whatsoever for protecting the honor of his family's or his village. In other words, Jesus does not expect his followers to be at all concerned about protecting their honor, but rather (to the contrary), to give it no thought. The expectation is that the emphasis of concern would be on the needs of others, not family honor.
Borg's section on "Purity" (pages 213-217) is really good and the information is well worth knowing. Now some scholars see the purity debates in the Gospels as reflecting the debates the early Christians had with the Pharisees over what a Jew could or could not do (many early Christians thought of themselves as Jews who believed the Messiah had arrived). But the topic comes up so often in the Gospels, it seems it would have to have originated with Jesus. As Borg says, the key for Jesus is the distinction between outside and inside. The rules of the Pharisees (oral law) focused on one's actions, how a person behaves in certain situations, how a person treats the outside of his body. Jesus was much more interested in the motivation behind a person's behavior than the behavior alone. Jesus' emphasis on motivation behind the action is referred to as what is in a person's heart, that is, the interior life of the individual. In the process Jesus does make statements that demonstrate he has little regard for the rules of ritual purity regarding food and "unclean" people. But Jesus (and all early Christians) continue to accept as valid the rules in the Law of Moses on moral purity. The basic moral teachings of early Christianity (as found in the New Testament) are adapted from Jewish moral codes with some adjustments based on the change in emphasis in Jesus' discussions of moral issues.
Under the heading of the "Narrow Way" Borg mentions repentance. New Testament scholars have historically seen this call to repentance as a central feature of Jesus' teaching. However, highly regarded New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders (interestingly enough) questions this whole emphasis on repentance in New Testament scholarship and suggests that repentance was such an important part of early Christian preaching that it is retrojected back onto Jesus by the gospel writers, and by the author of Luke/Acts in particular. He makes an interesting case for his position, pointing out that most of the references to repentance in the New Testament come from the hand of one writer - Luke. Repentance becomes a significant aspect of the message of early Christianity. But the concept rarely occurs in the any Gospel other than Luke. Which makes Sanders think it may not have been part of Jesus' own teaching and preaching. I am not sure if I am convinced by it, but it is an argument worth considering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)