The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions
Reviewed by Henry E. Neufeld
By Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright; Publisher: Harper SanFrancisco; (April 2000) ISBN: 0060608765
Buy The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions at Amazon.com
I often present short seminars introducing people to the debate about the historical Jesus. Because these are so short, I try to provide a good, selected bibliography so that people can follow up on the things they have learned and the questions that have been raised. I often recommend that a layperson read at least two books to get some perspective, Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and Tom Wright's The Original Jesus. These two works give a liberal and a conservative Christian perspective in language understandable to a layperson.
Now these two men have combined to present a single book designed to present their visions of Jesus side by side and to explore the differences in methodology which produce their rather different conclusions. I found this book challenging and exciting. Challenging because these two scholars are both within the Christian camp, and yet come to some strikingly different answers to very basic questions. Exciting because in this book we see none of the acrimony which often characterizes debates about the historical Jesus. The authors have managed to discuss their diverse views in a positive and constructive way. Jesus is, or should be, central to Christianity, so I can understand that people get excited about the topic. But the importance of the subject should make us even more determined to discuss it in a way that sheds more light than heat. Borg and Wright are to be commended for contributing to that process.
In their introduction they state that they hope to model "a way of conducting public Christian disagreement over serious and central issues that will inspire others to try the same sort of thing." (x) They also add: "Though we have not, or course, reached agreement, we are satisfied that we have eliminated misunderstandings, that is, that neither of us has misrepresented the other." (xi)
Contents:
Following the joint introduction, the book is divided into eight parts, and each part consists of two chapters, one by each author. Due to the way the book is arranged, Borg both opens and closes the discussion. The sections are as follows:
- HOW DO WE KNOW ABOUT JESUS?
- WHAT DID JESUS DO AND TEACH?
- THE DEATH OF JESUS
- "GOD RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD"
- WAS JESUS GOD?
- THE BIRTH OF JESUS
- "HE WILL COME AGAIN IN GLORY"
- JESUS AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
Without summarizing all of the arguments I would like to focus on a few key controversies.
First, Wright and Borg disagree sharply on methodology. This methodological difference underlies many of their further differences. Borg founds his work on source criticism and especially on the dominant answer to the dating of the gospels, placing Mark first, then Matthew and then Luke. As is required by Markan priority, Borg also places some weight on the hypothetical 'Q' document. He seeks independent sources and tends to regard earlier sources as more likely to reflect the real historical Jesus. The gospel of John thus plays a quite small role in his reconstruction of the historical Jesus, while Mark and Q play a much stronger role. He also gives greater weight to the Gospel of Thomas than does Wright. Borg describes two key steps: Discerning what is early and Historical context. The latter leads him to strongly favor an interdisciplinary approach.
Wright, on the other hand, does not consider Markan priority established, and does not consider current source analysis to be an adequate foundation. He comments: "If all this worked, and if most scholars agreed about it, it would be fine. But it doesn't, and they don't, and it isn't. Despite frequent claims, a century of research has failed to reach anything like consensus on a single one of the stages in question, let alone on the hypothetical developments in between." (p. 21) What he uses is a method of hypothesis and verification. He looks for coherence in the data, simplicity in the resulting picture (p. 23) and he also looks for incorporation of a maximum amount of the data possible in the picture.
In reading the discussion of what Jesus did and taught I was surprised at the level of agreement. The largest area of difference is over Jesus self-knowledge as Messiah. Borg places all claims to be "messiah" or "Son of God" with the community and not with Jesus. He believes it would be inappropriate and possibly even counterproductive in Jesus' mouth. Wright, however, holds that with all the other things the Jesus appears to be and to claim, it would not be surprising at all for him to claim that role. He also sees the understanding of "messiah" within first century Jewish culture to be somewhat different from later Christian understandings and thus sees it as a much easier claim for Jesus to make.
I find myself marginally uncomfortable with the extent to which Wright hears the "Son of God" language from Jesus within his lifetime and I see some blurring of the meaning of the term "Son of God" in first century Jewish thought and the way it is understood after the Nicene creed. Borg makes a very sharp distinction between the pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesus. I like the distinction in the sense that it tends to help people see the very human side of Jesus. Yet at the same time the transition between the two seems a little difficult. I fear that I may fall afoul of some methodological problems, but I'd like to mix some of Wright's work into Borgs and vice-versa in understanding the community's journey through Easter. Such a journey is often part of a personal experience with the post-Easter Jesus, whether it is understood in those terms as well.
The same theme carries through section III, discussing the death of Jesus and the reason for that death, with the pre-Easter and post-Easter understandings much more joined in Wright's thought, though I think that may be somewhat at the expense of the humanity of the pre-Easter Jesus. (Note that pre-Easter and post-Easter are Borg's terminology rather than Wright's. I'm using them here for convenience.)
In section IV, discussing the resurrection, we have an additional factor, and that is the extent to which one believes miracles to be possible. I suggest reading this section very carefully, because it would be easy to misunderstand the difference between Borg's and Wright's view of God. Borg allows for spiritual healing and for certain events which are out of the ordinary, while Wright will argue for the possibility of direct supernatural intervention in the physical world. He states it thus: "Grasping the nettle-proposing, as a historical statement, that the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth was empty because his body had been transformed into a new mode of physicality-will of course evoke howls of protest from those for whom the closed world of Enlightenment theory renders any such thing impossible from the start." (124) A little further in the same paragraph he continues: "Once you allow that something remarkable happened to his body that morning, all the other data fall into place with astonishing ease. Once you insist that nothing so outlandish happened, you are driven to ever more complex and fantastic hypotheses to explain the data. For the historian, as for the scientist, the answer should be clear." (124)
Borg, in his discussion, states: "For me, it is irrelevant whether or not the tomb was empty. Whether Easter involved something remarkable happening to the physical body of Jesus is irrelevant. My argument is not that we know the tomb was not empty or that nothing happened to his body, but simply that it doesn't matter." (131)
After this rather clear disagreement, it is amazing to see how similar their understanding of the resurrection actually is!
Regarding section V I would simply comment that the same argument about the pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesus applies and is logically carried out by both authors. In section VI, some of the argument is rather similar to the argument about the resurrection, though Wright does acknowledge that the virgin birth is somewhat less important to his understanding of Christianity and of Jesus than is the resurrection. He nonetheless leaves the door open to the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, whereas again Borg considers this irrelevant to the meaning of the birth stories.
In section VII there is again some disagreement, but I think that many American Christians, especially from the conservative communions will find much that both men say disturbing. While conservative Christians may have been cheering Tom Wright on through earlier chapters, his view of the second coming of Christ is likely not to resonate with much of the literal, detailed interpretation of Revelation and other apocalyptic material in American Chrsitianity. Borg's view may be summed up in his own words: "And the second coming occurs each year at Christmas, with the birth of Christ within us, the coming of Christ into our lives. Christ comes again and again and again, and in many ways." (196) Wright divides much of the material into predictions of the fall of Jerusalem, and then sees a final, singular intervention of God at the end of the current world in which people will be transformed, and the full reign of Jesus Christ will take place on earth. One could, perhaps, call him an atribulationist, amillenialist without being too unfair. He does not, in fact, appear to believe that the apocalypse chapters in the gospels (Mark 13, Luke 21 and Matthew 24) refer to the end of the world as such, but rather to the destruction of Jerusalem. As such, he suggests that the concept of "delay of the parousia" be given a decent burial. (204)
I find some of the best material in the discussion of Jesus and the Christian Life in section VIII. Neither writer will give much comfort the rather American notion that Christianity and right-wing American politics are somehow one and the same program. I hesitate to summarize all of the material here, but both Borg and Wright call for Christians to take the message of Jesus seriously in how they live their lives. Wright includes a call to allow an impact also on our philosophical underpinnings, an impact which would grow from his blurring (at least) the distinction between the pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesus.
Concluding Notes:
I came away from reading this book with a very positive feel for the quality of the debate. If more of the debate on the historical Jesus were conducted in this tone, much more light would be generated.
While there are substantial differences between these two men, it should be noted that both are anchored within the Christian tradition, and both are acquainted with very similar scholarly methods. The debate will likely be much more difficult when it goes beyond those limits. Nonetheless, I believe this has made a good start.
One of the challenges for me was seeing how often I felt an affinity for some conclusion of Wright's whilst agreeing more closely with Borg's methodology. There is an obvious logical problem in there with which I will have to deal.
I strongly recommend this book for anyone interested in the historical Jesus debate. It would also not be a bad starting point if you are just starting to look at these issues.
Buy The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions
Related Pages
| 
