From Marcus_Borg@info.harpercollins.comTue Apr 2 11:40:06 1996 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:34:29 -0800 From: "Marcus J. Borg" To: jesus2000@info.harpercollins.com Subject: Week 7 Response (Borg) Before I move to my concluding statement, two comments about Luke's response of last week. 1. First, your charge that my books "contain far more assertion than argument." That is a serious charge, and it will not surprise anybody that I disagree. My most popular level book, Meeting Jesus Again, contains less scholarly argument than my other books; but even that book is well footnoted, and the lines of my argument are clear. I do not understand why you make a dismissive charge like this. It also makes me wonder how much of my writing you have actually read. 2. Your reason for not putting your own list of conclusions about Jesus' death and resurrection "on the board" also strikes me as puzzling: you say there is no particular point in talking about "what Johnson thinks" or "what Borg thinks" (or what Dom thinks, or Jerry Falwell thinks, or Pat Robertson thinks). What other vantage point do you have in mind? You say that you place yourself "squarely within the creed that is recited by my community at every Sunday Eucharist" (so do I), and that "only within that framework do I (you) assume the liberty to begin to define not `what I think' but what the texts are saying . . . ." But as soon as you say anything about "what the texts are saying," we are back to "what Luke thinks." Unless I am missing something here, none of us has a vantage point outside of "This is how I presently understand these texts, given my training, experience, and commitments." And, of course, all of this is subject to review - -by scholars, the reading public, and our communities of faith. But to imply that any of us ever gets to a vantage point beyond "how I see this" makes no sense to me. With regard to this week's messages, I agree with Dom's remarks about the distinction between statements of historical fact and statements of faith, and his remarks about mystery and broken carburetors. I turn now to my own concluding statement. 1. I am a Christian (a member of a sacramental and credal church), and a historian of Jesus and Christian origins. I therefore also think about the relationship between historical scholarship and Christian life/faith/theology. 2. The name "Jesus" has two referents. My customary terminology for speaking about these two referents of the name "Jesus" are "the pre-Easter Jesus" and "the post-Easter Jesus." The pre-Easter Jesus is the historical Jesus. The post-Easter Jesus is the Jesus of Christian tradition and experience. Both nouns - tradition and experience - are important. As the Jesus of Christian tradition, the post-Easter Jesus includes the Jesus of the NT (the canonical Jesus) and the Jesus of the creeds. As the Jesus of Christian experience, the post-Easter Jesus is a figure of the present who continues to be known. This, as I mentioned last week, is the central truth and ground of Easter: Jesus continued to be experienced after his death, both then and now. 3. I affirm a "both-and": both the pre-Easter Jesus and post-Easter Jesus are important for Christian life/faith/theology. I do not subscribe to what Luke attributes to the rest of us collectively, namely a historical reductionism which says that all that we may say about Jesus is what the historian can affirm about the pre-Easter Jesus. This "both-and" affirmation is messy. It would be "cleaner" to affirm that EITHER the historical Jesus is the definitive norm, OR that the canonical/credal Jesus is the definitive norm. But the first overlooks the significance of the community's experience in the post-Easter situation; the second overlooks the significance of the life which Jesus lived. 4. A construction of the pre-Easter Jesus which overlooks Jesus as "Spirit person" has, in my judgment, missed the foundation. The point is not whether a scholar uses that particular phrase, but whether the notion is there. On the basis of our exchanges over the last several weeks, I think that the affirmation is made by Dom. I assume Luke would do so, too. I do not know why he would deny it, unless it were part of a generalized unwillingness to speak of the historical Jesus. And, of course, I think the pre-Easter Jesus was more than a "Spirit person." He was also a healer, teacher of an alternative wisdom, and a social prophet with an alternative social vision (like the great social prophets of the Hebrew Bible). And I think all of this is significant for Christians. 5. I affirm the tradition's central affirmations about the post-Easter Jesus: that he is the light of the world, the bread of life, the true vine, very God of very God, of one substance with God, etc. 6. Finally, to relate all of this to our contemporary situation, let me share a perception. Sometime in the last several decades, an older image of Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity ceased to be persuasive and compelling to large numbers of Christians .By an older image of Jesus, I am not referring to the scholarship of a previous generation, but to a widespread image of Jesus in our churches and culture. This older image (in addition to being grounded in biblical literalism and an understanding of Christianity as the only true religion), took it for granted that the canonical Jesus and the historical Jesus were identical. But the canonical Jesus, when taken as a description of the historical Jesus, has ceased to be persuasive to millions of Christians in North America. What are we to say to such people? Simply "Be loyal to the church, its canon, and its creed"? But that's precisely what ceased to work for them, at least as they came to understand it through their life in the church. (Let me add immediately: I am also aware that for millions of other Christians, the canonical Jesus is not a problem, and remains the object of devotion and faith). For many people in the first category, the distinction between the historical Jesus and the canonical Jesus has made it possible for them to take Jesus seriously once again. They needed to hear that they don't need to believe that the canonical Jesus is literally and historically what Jesus was like (for such a figure had become unreal and incredible to them). In my mail and in my life "on the road," I hear again and again (as does Dom), in words spoken and written with great earnestness, "You've made it possible for me to be a Christian again." In short, rather than being destructive of Christainity and Christian commitment, historical Jesus scholarship of the kind that we practice has enabled many people to return to the church. Thus I freely admit that I do have "a reformist program directed at Christian faith" (and not "against"), a reform necessary for many people because of radical changes in cultural consciousness in our century. I embrace that program because I do not divorce my historical work from my commitment as a Christian. I love this tradition, and I know it can make all the difference in a person's life. And it grieves me when artificial (unnecessary) stumbling blocks get in the way. One such stumbling block is the notion that Christians must see the canonical Jesus as a literal description of the historical Jesus. (By the way, I do not attribute this view to you, Luke; I know that you know that the canonical and historical Jesus are not identical, even though you refer to the former as "the real Jesus"). Thus, for me, and for many Christians I know, the distinction between the historical Jsus and the canonical Jesus (and the ability to appreciate and affirm both) has been central to our Christian journey. Best wishes to you both as we move through this holy week of remembrance and celebration.