Over the last two or three decades, there has been an explosion of books, articles, college courses, and websites devoted to the "search for the historical Jesus." Jesus scholarship has become a big business, and there is far more out there than anyone could ever read or watch let alone master. It is, furthermore, a, tumultuous and highly contested field with scholars arguing (sometimes vehemently) almost every perspective one could imagine. There are liberal Jesus scholars and conservative ones, secular Jesus scholars and faithful ones—all pushing their version of the historical Jesus.Borg & Wright's The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions is different. Representing distinct strands in the larger debate, the authors have written a friendly book intended to describe and explore their differences. They see themselves as being in dialogue, valuing each other's views and disagreeing about them "without being disagreeable." They transcend thus the usual "my interpretation is the right one" approach of many Jesus scholars and, instead, affirm the fact that there are numerous ways to understand the historical Jesus, all of them incomplete.
The book starts out somewhat slowly with one chapter by each author describing their historical methodology. The prose is a tad ponderous, especially in Wright's chapter, but even so readers immediately begins to see the distinction between the two. Both consider themselves faithful Christians and affirm the authority and importance of the Bible. The issue that divides them is the historical reliability of the four gospels. For Borg, the gospels are "metaphorized" accounts that reveal more about what the earliest Christians believed about Jesus than factual information concerning Jesus himself. Wright contends that the gap between the historical Jesus and the gospels is much narrower, and we can largely bridge it by immersing ourselves in the historical context of first century Judaism. The rest of the book reveals how this central difference between Borg and Wright plays out across a number of key issues.
The Meaning of Jesus is divided into eight parts beginning with methodology and then going on to cover Jesus' teachings and actions, death, resurrection, divinity, birth, second coming, and relationship to the Christian life. Borg and Wright contribute a chapter to each section, carefully alternating who presents the first chapter. Borg went first in Part I, so Wright begins Part II, and so it goes: Borg, Wright; Wright, Borg; Borg, Wright; and so forth. As it works out, Borg gets the first and the last word.
 |
| N. T. Wright |
Wright tends to be more of the historian, immersed in details and less apt to reach large theological conclusions. It often feels as if he "beats around the bush," considering the minutiae of the data and making careful limited judgments based on it. The result is that he seems indecisive, even obscure at points. In his chapter on the divinity of Jesus (Chapter 10), for example, he never quite brings himself to say, "yes," or "no," or even "maybe." It is clear from all he has written that he does think Jesus was/is divine, but the best he can bring himself to write is that if we start with the Old Testament, "and ask what God might look like were he to become human, you will find that he might look very much like Jesus of Nazareth..." (p. 167). Similarly, when it comes to the virginal conception of Jesus, Wright never does state whether or not Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. He somewhat lamely concludes that if the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew never existed it wouldn't make much difference to the church's faith or to his. He says, "I hold open my historical judgment and say: if that's what God deemed appropriate, who am I to object?" He does not say whether or not God did deem a virginal concept "appropriate" or not.
To be fair, in his concluding chapter (Chapter 15) Wright states directly that the events described in the Gospels did happen, otherwise they would not be meaningful. He uses the example of the Emmaus Road story (Luke 24:13-35). If it didn't take place, then it isn't true. For Wright, then, the truth of Jesus is tied to the factual truth of the gospels.
 |
| Marcus J. Borg |
In one telling exchange, Borg insists that the "pre-Easter" Jesus would not have thought of himself as being the messiah, let alone divine. He did not have the mind of God or the power of God as such. The pre-easter Jesus was an incarnation of God but did not think of himself that way. To do so would have betrayed in him a mental illness. Healthy individuals just do not think of themselves as God. The "post-Easter" Jesus, however, is a divine reality, and is "one with God." Wright, of course, disagrees and believes that it would have been natural for Jesus to understand himself as the messiah. Other Jewish figures before him had thought of themselves that way. We cannot, Wright argues, rely on modern psychology to understand Jesus' frame of mind or self-understanding in the first century. Where Borg thinks the gospel writers read the whole idea of Jesus being the messiah back into his life afterward, Wright sees no evidence it happened that way. They wrote that Jesus was the messiah because he had said as much to them.
So it goes through each subject. For Wright, the gospels largely reflect Jesus' self-understanding and events that actually took place. For Borg, they reflect the early church's metaphorical interpretations of Jesus, which had relatively little to do with actual events. On the whole, Borg seems to make his case more clearly and in less ponderous prose.
The Meaning of Jesus provides a useful introduction to the contemporary scholarly quest for the historical Jesus. It is not for the faint-hearted, and most lay readers will find that they need a dictionary to get through especially the early chapters. For those who make the effort, however, there are important rewards. One key thing this book and the larger quest for the historical Jesus does is to make us think more concretely about the humanity of Jesus—and to discover that the humanity of Jesus matters as much as his divinity. The book also helps readers to think more concretely about the relationship of the gospels to Jesus. It becomes clear that the gospels are faith documents, not historical biographies, and that they are not infallible and untouchable.
Finally, the friendly but intense dialogue between Borg and Wright, close personal friends, offers readers the opportunity to take less seriously what they believe about the Bible and various biblical doctrines. What the two authors share is a faith in the living Christ, and The Meaning of Jesus is an invitation to share in that common faith in the face of different beliefs. For those open to the possibility of dialogue across theological differences, Borg and Wright have given us a useful, encouraging model for how that dialogue can work. And that alone is worth the price of admission.
Links for Marcus J. Borg:
Borg's Official Website
Wikipedia article
A Portrait of Jesus website
Spirituality & Practice website
Links for N. T. Wright:
N. T. Wright Page website
Wikipedia article
Open Evangelicalism Wikipedia entry
Links for the Study of the Historical Jesus:
"Historical Jesus Theories" webpage
Wikipedia article
