Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ann D.

The Meaning of Jesus

33 posts in this topic

Wright implies that claiming, or believing implicitly, that one was the Messiah was not as outrageous as it may seem to us today, and that not realising this is the mistake many scholars make when they see material relating to Jesus' claims or beliefs about own identity and significance as being later developments reflecting early church beliefs.

This kind of throws a spanner in the works of the whole "Mad, bad or God" kind of apologetic stance, because the actual fact of Jesus' belief in his own Messiahship is not quite so notable in itself - it becomes "Mad, bad, God (or well-meaning-but-sadly-mistaken-1st-century-Jew)". Which is probably more true to the facts, but less convincing...

Not neccesarily. According to Wright's other works, the people at that time didn't attribute divinity with being the messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, this is one of Wright's more problematic aspects, as there are other points of Jesus' self-attestation in the Gospels that are claims to divinity, such as (most probably) the Son of Man references and much of the Gospel of John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have finished this now. Has anyone ele? Is anyone still reading it? Should I bother posting some thoughts on it tomorrow, or has everyone else lost interest?

Matt

Please do--I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then,

I've read a good deal of Wright's output, I was going to say most and then I remembered that infernal "for everyone series" which knocks me well well down (FWIW Wright is going to publish a one volume NT translation based on these once he's finishe the series - something that will become a must have for me). This was however the first serious piece of Borg, other than his introduction to the book "Q The Lost Gospel". Interspersed with this I also read Crossan's "The Essential Jesus" which I'll get around to blogging soon, and before I read any of those I read Geza Vermes' "Jesus the Jew".

So to be honest I'm pretty immersed in the debate, a bit lost and more than likely to misattribute stuff as it's alla bit of a blur.

Going into this, I'd thought myself as in broad agreement with Wright, generally speaking, and certainly the designation of him as a traditionalist is not the most helpful (although when is that ever acccurate - it's soon going to denote for me "a position which someone is trying to bolster by championing its antiquity, but is really not that old, it just seems it"), but having read it, I'm certainly part way between the two. Perhaps not halfway - I'm still closer to Wright than Borg - but there were times I agreed more with Borg.

Ultimately though I found this frustrating. I think this peaked in the midst of the nativity story section. Basically most of Wright's chapters would go along the lines of him squeezing the data into his working hypothesis, or rather reinterpreting it for more conservative Christians, and challenging more liberal / modernist thinkers about their stances.

Borg on the other hand seemed to generally revolve around what he didn't believe. Whilst his final chapter was very good, it felt like much of his contribution was saying "I don't really believe this, and I'm not really sure about that". On the one hand you have to admire his honesty - he isn't worried about getting a bad name for his disbelief (although gievn the circles he moves in he is perhaps more likely to get a bad name for his belief!) and is happy to say "I don't know" whereas Wright seems under a pressure to convince everyone, and to have all the answers. That's probably because he has a brain the size of a planet, but there you have it.

Being caught in the middle, and perhaps slightly because this wasn't really new ground, I found it all rather frustrating. Take that Nativity chapter. Borg basically says well I can't really believe this., and I'm not really sure about that", but basically never really deals with the fact that people in the first century knew where babies came from, and could certainly be sceptical about a supposed virgin claiming she alone held a unique method of getting pregnant.

Wright on the other hand (and perhaps more frustratingly) starts by saying how the virgin birth doesn't really matter, and isn't crucial to theology, but then seems to adapt the position of "but as I'm here to defend the traditional position I may as well show how even though it doesn't matter there's a bullet proof defence for it. I find this just a little too clver for it's own good. Is CHristianity really the only faith that if you try hard enough you can iron out all the creases, whereas for all the others the harder you iron the more likely you are to crease, spoil, wear out or burn the garment. Theoretically I believe the answer is yes, but I'm sceptical about our ability here and now to present this perfectly smooth garment.

The other problem I have is that ultimately Wright does seem to consider the bible to be pretty much infallible. He never states it in so few words of course - to do so would be to blow his credibility as a historian - but as Borg says in a chapter of a book where a number of theologian's critiqued Wright's work in either NTPG or JVG it might be helpful if he indicated which bits of the gospels he did think were unhistorical. The silence in response to that particular question is deafening. If he says "I think it's all historically sound" his historical opponenets will cry foul, if he givs some examples, evangelical Christians will do likewise.

As for Borg, in the end it just seems so subjective. I don't really believe this, I find it very hard to consider this likely. There just seems to be a lack of data to back up these judgements. Too often, as he is Wrightly criticised for, he seems to make judgements that are very routed oin our own cultures values. Yes, to us it seems very arrogant to claim to be the son of God, and perhaps that is true in all cultures, but the very fact that the author of John (who didn't have to contend with the knowledge that his work would be held as inspired and authoritative) never thought - "someone who reads this might think I'm making Jesus sound dead arrogant" could at least be taken as evidence that it was more accaptable in his culture than in ours.

Putting aside the weaknesses and frustrations of each position, I was surprised that the book wasn't at all like I'd expected. I think I thought there'd be more arguing in it. More A&F style back and forth and picking apart specific points and arguments. Instead the two rarely offer any criticims of the other's position, in anything other than the briefest, most general terms, and in fact they seem far more concerned to explain to their own fans what the others' position is in their own set of terms and language.

It is an excellent idea for a book, and it's sad that in the eight years since it's publication so few have followed suit. Perhaps it's because there is so little respect between liberals and conservatives (I say that one who hasn't really "come out" within his own church community about his non-evangelical theology, and simply doesn't know where to begin - and I go to one of the most tolerant churches in evangelicalism), and so much insistence that our own positions are right. Hopefully though Borg and Wright will do it again, or if not, others will follow suit.

Right this has become the length post that no-one really reads and so I'll probably spend the rest of the week in disappointment that no-one has really picked up on what I've said, but there you go (to be fair this is what I did with Buckeye's post. At least this way this debate will model the nature of the book! (A few short paragraphs produces the greatest yield for discussion in my experience).

Matt

Edited by MattPage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, I hope the briefness of my reply to your lengthy post won't be too disheartening, but I just thought I'd pipe up and say that your response to the book mirrors my own (or rather, it mirrors what I REMEMBER my response being, when I read the book several years ago).

When Borg and Wright spoke at Regent College, back in the '90s, I asked one question of each of them: I believe my question to Borg went along the lines of, "Why would the early Christians have spoken so insistently about Jesus being alive when someone could always point to the dead body," or some such question designed to get around the sharp division Borg makes between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (whatever my question was, I remember Wright getting an excited look on his face as though he REALLY wanted to hear Borg answer this); and my question to Wright was where the Gospel of John fits into his hypothesis (and I believe his answer began with a remark like, "I regard the Gospel of John the way I regard my wife -- I love her but I don't always understand her..." and I forget where he went from there).

I have also always loved this one response that someone had to Wright's The Challenge of Jesus:

My more serious complaint about TJC is that in several places Wright puts quite a few pages of warnings and provisos before getting into a major point, builds up an expectation of hard sayings coming down, but then delivers an innocuous conclusion. I can caricature it like this.

"You poor sheltered American Baptist kids are going to have to accept a major change in your thinking. Get ready for it. Pray for strength."

"The man you think of as 'Jesus' was really 'Yeshua'."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt, I hope the briefness of my reply to your lengthy post won't be too disheartening, but I just thought I'd pipe up and say that your response to the book mirrors my own (or rather, it mirrors what I REMEMBER my response being, when I read the book several years ago).
Ha, no any response is good! I've just learnt that making long posts on a thread about a film that was out in the US six months ago is often fairly fruitless from a discussion PoV.

I'm interested to know actually if your approach to any of this stuff has changed as a result of your switch to Orthodoxy.

"You poor sheltered American Baptist kids are going to have to accept a major change in your thinking. Get ready for it. Pray for strength."

"The man you think of as 'Jesus' was really 'Yeshua'."

This made me laugh out loud and is still tickling me hours after I first read it.

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt... interesting. Very. I need to finish the book now that you've posted all that, so you better give it back pronto.

I'd be interested to see what you make of some of a couple of papers I've read about the limits of the conservative/liberal divide in this area, and possible ways of getting beyond it; one by Henri-Jerome Gagey, one by, yep you guessed, John Milbank. Once you've read these, then we should have a long chat about it, then once we've solved all the problems once and for all we can relax.

Here's how I sometimes think of someone like Wright: his position starts off being that Jesus is who and what Christianity has 'always' said he is. Then he does a lot of research and is pleased and possible relieved to discover that to the very best of his ability to discern, what he has always believed to be true is actually a pretty good explanation of the available information. Or at least, there are no good reasons for suggesting that it is false that aren't as idealogically motivated as the ones that claim it is true.

But the point remains: the belief that Jesus is pretty much what Christianity has always claimed he is preceded all this historical examination. Which means that there is a bit of a problem if the results of the examination are then presented as if they would naturally lead to a belief in Jesus as Son of God and Saviour (or however one is going to phrase it), when the truth is that is not really what happened.

In other words, there is a bit of confusion over what constitutes, in real life, one's reasons for believing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the point remains: the belief that Jesus is pretty much what Christianity has always claimed he is preceded all this historical examination. Which means that there is a bit of a problem if the results of the examination are then presented as if they would naturally lead to a belief in Jesus as Son of God and Saviour (or however one is going to phrase it), when the truth is that is not really what happened.

This is a coin with two sides though, that doesn't do much do advance the conversation. Borg [Funk, et al] is someone who grew disappointed and disenfranchised by the conservative churches of their youth--dancing, drinking, and sex are sins that when send you to hell!. Then their studies, to the surprise to no one but themselves, reveal a historical Jesus who wears his hair long in hippy style and preaches tolerance and love, and was rudely force fit into a fundamentalist mold by the pesky killjoy Paul.

In Wright's defense, I believe he lays his cards on the table in the opening of "The New Testament and the People of God", as well as sundry smaller works, in that he is a believer in the orthodox Christ, without trying to be "objective" about the work as if his analytical mind was separate from his "spiritual" belief. I don't think he's trying the end around you propose above.

Edited by Buckeye Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0