Borg’s Jesus is a Jewish mystic not God incarnate. It seemed as though God were something out there that could be accessed through mystical experiences but not a God who comes to us as affirmed by orthodox Christiantity. His perception of history is also questionable in certain parts. I believe he betrays his own assumptions.
I was challenged that following the way of Jesus is more important than who we believe Jesus was and is. If many of my Christian brethren would understand this there would be more dialog and less name calling. All-in-all I would recommend this book.
2 responses so far ↓
adam // August 19, 2008 at 7:07 pm |
I agree with your characterization of Borg’s position, although mystic is only part of the picture according to him (add also: healer/exorcist, moral teacher, prophet, unique expression of the character of God, etc).
Also, a lot depends on one’s definition of “orthodox Christianity.” Borg, for example, affirms the traditional Christian creeds as being valid expressions of faith for Christians in the first few centuries of the common era. Unless I’m misreading him, I think he would say that just like we attempt to understand scripture by placing it in its cultural and historical context and, to the greatest extent possible, examine it through the eyes of its original audience, so too should we examine the creeds in their own context.
One last point, establishing the historicity of an event can be difficult 20 or 200 years after the fact, not to mention 2000 years later. Not to suggest anything ridiculous (i.e. that all historical claims are equally valid) but just to observe that attempting to do so is an extremely complex process, and one can often find compelling arguments on both sides of an issue.
joshuaserrano // August 20, 2008 at 12:34 am |
Yes, Borg does use other descriptions of what Jesus did, but I don’t think that I am misreading him but placing all those other descriptions under the banner of Jewish Mystic. I think he does that himself. Thank you though for expanding what else was in the book.
Sure Borg affirms the traditional creeds as expressions of a later tradition that developed around Jesus. But he is essentially saying through this book that the creedal formulations is not the real Jesus. He does not internalize the creeds as a true expression of who God is and what God has done through Jesus. Earlier interpreters (i.e the creeds) have. I think there is a big difference between saying “that’s what I believe” and “I affirm that this is what Christians have developed through the centuries to describe Jesus.”
On your last point. I agree that it is difficult to establish historical events and the like. That is why I get nervous when writers such as Borg (and also Crossan) make statements like, “this was the development of a later tradition in the text.” Because it is so hard to date and there are both sides of the issue I can’t see how such statements can be made with certainty. I guess I am more mad at Crossan for doing it than Borg. Borg, in my opinion, gives better justification. I also realize that the task of history is to wrestle with such issues.
Thanks for bringing these points up.